Proposed Rule2022-23200
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Ocean Wind 1 Wind Energy Facility Offshore of New Jersey
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
October 26, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
NMFS has received a request for Incidental Take Regulation (ITR) and associated Letter of Authorization (LOA) from Ocean Wind, LLC (Ocean Wind), a subsidiary of Orsted Wind Power North America, LLC's (Orsted) and a joint venture partner of the Public Service Enterprise Group Renewable Generation, LLC (PSEG), for the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals during the construction of an offshore wind energy facility (Ocean Wind 1) in a designated lease area on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A-0498) offshore of New Jersey. The requested ITR would govern the authorization of take, by both Level A and Level B harassment, of small numbers of marine mammals over a 5- year period incidental to construction-related pile driving activities (impact and vibratory), potential unexploded ordnances or munitions and explosives of concern (UXOs/MECs) detonation, and high-resolution geophysical (HRG) site characterization surveys conducted by Ocean Wind in Federal and State waters off of New Jersey for the Ocean Wind 1 offshore wind energy facility. A final ITR would allow for the issuance of a LOA to Ocean Wind for a 5-year period. As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS requests comments on its proposed rule. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the promulgation of the requested ITR and issuance of the LOA; agency responses to public comments will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64868-65009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23200]
[[Page 64867]]
Vol. 87
Wednesday,
No. 206
October 26, 2022
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 217
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking
Marine Mammals Incidental to the Ocean Wind 1 Wind Energy Facility
Offshore of New Jersey; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 64868]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 217
[Docket No. 221020-0223]
RIN 0648-BL36
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Ocean Wind 1 Wind Energy
Facility Offshore of New Jersey
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed incidental take regulations; proposed
Letter of Authorization; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request for Incidental Take Regulation
(ITR) and associated Letter of Authorization (LOA) from Ocean Wind, LLC
(Ocean Wind), a subsidiary of Orsted Wind Power North America, LLC's
(Orsted) and a joint venture partner of the Public Service Enterprise
Group Renewable Generation, LLC (PSEG), for the incidental take of
small numbers of marine mammals during the construction of an offshore
wind energy facility (Ocean Wind 1) in a designated lease area on the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A-0498) offshore of New Jersey. The
requested ITR would govern the authorization of take, by both Level A
and Level B harassment, of small numbers of marine mammals over a 5-
year period incidental to construction-related pile driving activities
(impact and vibratory), potential unexploded ordnances or munitions and
explosives of concern (UXOs/MECs) detonation, and high-resolution
geophysical (HRG) site characterization surveys conducted by Ocean Wind
in Federal and State waters off of New Jersey for the Ocean Wind 1
offshore wind energy facility. A final ITR would allow for the issuance
of a LOA to Ocean Wind for a 5-year period. As required by the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS requests comments on its proposed
rule. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final
decision on the promulgation of the requested ITR and issuance of the
LOA; agency responses to public comments will be summarized in the
final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than November
25, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-
Rulemaking Portal. Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and enter NOAA-NMFS-2022-
0109 in the Search box. Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the
required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information,
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word,
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelsey Potlock, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
A copy of Ocean Wind's Incidental Take Authorization (ITA)
application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the
references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable</a>. In case of
problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed
above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Purpose and Need for Regulatory Action
This proposed rule would establish a framework under the authority
of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) to allow for the authorization of
take of marine mammals incidental to the construction activities within
the mid-Atlantic (New Jersey) region of the U.S. East Coast,
specifically in and around lease area OCS-A-0498. We received a
petition from Orsted's subsidiary, Ocean Wind requesting the 5-year
regulations to construct the Ocean Wind 1 offshore wind energy
facility. During the construction of Ocean Wind 1, some activities may
cause the harassment (``take'') of marine mammals. Take would occur by
Level A and/or Level B harassment incidental to construction
activities. Please see the Legal Authority for the Proposed Action
section below for definitions of harassment.
Legal Authority for the Proposed Action
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made, regulations are
promulgated, and notice is provided to the public.
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, the availability of the species or stocks for taking for
certain subsistence uses (referred to as ``mitigation''), and
requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of
the takings are set forth. The definitions of all applicable MMPA
statutory terms cited above are included below.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations
at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for proposing
and, if appropriate, issuing this rule containing 5-year regulations
and associated LOA. As directed by this legal authority, this proposed
rule contains mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
Summary of Major Provisions Within the Proposed Rule
The following is a summary of the major provisions found within
this proposed rule regarding Ocean Wind's construction activities.
These measures include:
<bullet> Establishing a seasonal moratorium on impact pile driving
during the months of highest North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena
glacialis) presence in the project area (January 1-April 30);
<bullet> Establishing a seasonal moratorium on any unexploded
ordnances or munitions and explosives of concern (UXOs/MECs)
detonations, that are determined to be necessary, during the months of
highest North Atlantic right whale present in the project area (January
1-April 30);
[[Page 64869]]
<bullet> Requiring UXO/MEC detonations to only occur during hours
of daylight and not during hours of darkness or nighttime;
<bullet> Conducting both visual and passive acoustic monitoring by
trained, NOAA Fisheries-approved Protected Species Observers (PSOs) and
Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) operators before, during, and after
the in-water construction activities;
<bullet> Establishing harassment zones that correspond to
underwater noise levels that could cause injury and behavioral
disturbances;
<bullet> Establishing clearance and shut down zones for all in-
water construction activities to prevent or reduce Level A harassment
and minimize Level B harassment;
<bullet> Requiring the use of sound attenuation device(s) during
all impact pile driving and UXO/MEC detonations to reduce noise levels;
<bullet> Delaying the start of pile driving if a North Atlantic
right whale is observed at any distance by the PSO on the pile driving
or dedicated PSO vessels;
<bullet> Delaying the start of pile driving if other marine mammals
are observed entering or within their respective clearance zones;
<bullet> Shutting down pile driving (if feasible) if a North
Atlantic right whale is observed or if other marine mammals enter their
respective shut down zones;
<bullet> Implementing soft starts for impact pile driving and using
the least hammer energy possible;
<bullet> Implementing ramp-up for high-resolution geophysical (HRG)
site characterization survey equipment;
<bullet> Requiring PSOs to continue to monitor for 30 minutes after
any impact pile driving occur and for any and all UXO detonations;
<bullet> Increasing awareness of North Atlantic right whale
presence through monitoring of the appropriate networks and Channel 16,
as well as reporting any sightings to the sighting network;
<bullet> Implementing numerous vessel strike avoidance measures;
<bullet> A requirement to implement noise attenuation system(s)
during all impact pile driving and UXO/MEC detonations;
<bullet> Sound field verification requirements during impact pile
driving and UXO/MEC detonation to measure in situ noise levels for
comparison against the model results; and
<bullet> Removing gear from the water during fisheries monitoring
research surveys if marine mammals are considered at-risk or are
interacting with gear.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must evaluate the proposed action (i.e., promulgation of
regulations and subsequent issuance of a 5-year LOA) and alternatives
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
Accordingly, NMFS proposes to adopt the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management's (BOEM) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), provided our
independent evaluation of the document finds that it includes adequate
information analyzing the effects of authoring the proposed take of
marine mammals on the human environment. NMFS is a cooperating agency
on BOEM's EIS. BOEM's draft EIS (Ocean Wind 1 Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) for Commercial Wind Lease OCS-A 0498) was made
available for public comment on June 24, 2022 at <a href="https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/ocean-wind-1">https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/ocean-wind-1</a>. The DEIS had a 45-day
public comment period (87 FR 37883, June 24, 2022), plus a 15-day
extension (87 FR 48038, August 5, 2022) for a total of 60-days; the
comment period was open from June 24, 2022 to August 23, 2022.
Additionally, BOEM held three virtual public hearings on July 14, 2022,
July 20, 2022, and July 26, 2022.
Information contained within Ocean Wind's ITA application and this
Federal Register document collectively provide the environmental
information related to these proposed regulations and associated 5-year
LOA for public review and comment. NMFS will review all comments
submitted in response to this document prior to concluding our NEPA
process or making a final decision on the requested 5-year LOA.
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41)
This project is covered under Title 41 of the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act, or ``FAST-41.'' FAST-41 includes a suite of
provisions designed to expedite the environmental review for covered
infrastructure projects, including enhanced interagency coordination as
well as milestone tracking on the public-facing Permitting Dashboard.
FAST-41 also places a 2-year limitations period on any judicial claim
that challenges the validity of a Federal agency decision to issue or
deny an authorization for a FAST-41 covered project (42 U.S.C. 4370m-
6(a)(1)(A)).
Ocean Wind's proposed project is listed on the Permitting Dashboard
(<a href="https://www.permits.performance.gov/">https://www.permits.performance.gov/</a> gov/). Milestones and schedules
related to the environmental review and permitting associated with the
Ocean Wind 1 project can be found at <a href="https://www.permits.performance.gov/permitting-projects/ocean-wind-project">https://www.permits.performance.gov/permitting-projects/ocean-wind-project</a>.
Summary of Request
On October 1, 2021, NMFS received a request from Ocean Wind for the
promulgation of a 5-year ITR and issuance of an associated LOA to take
marine mammals incidental to the construction activities associated
with the Ocean Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy Facility off of New Jersey
in the BOEM Lease Area Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)-A-0498 Commercial
Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer
Continental Shelf.
Ocean Wind's request is for the incidental, but not intentional,
take of a small number of 17 marine mammal species (comprising 18
stocks) by Level B harassment (for all 18 marine mammal species and
stocks) and by Level A harassment (for 10 marine mammal species or
stock). Neither Ocean Wind nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality
to result from the specified activities.
We received subsequent applications and supplementary materials on
November 12, 2021, December 3, 2021, December 28, 2021, January 5,
2022, January 20, 2022, and February 8, 2022 in response to questions
and comments submitted about various aspects of the previously received
iterations. The final version of the application was deemed adequate
and complete on February 11, 2022 and is available on NMFS' website at
<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-ocean-wind-lcc-construction-ocean-wind-1-wind-energy-facility">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-ocean-wind-lcc-construction-ocean-wind-1-wind-energy-facility</a>.
A Notice of Receipt (NOR) for the application was published on
March 7, 2022 in the Federal Register (87 FR 12666) for a 30-day public
comment period. This public comment period closed on April 6, 2022.
During the NOR public comment period, NMFS received two letters from
environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs): Clean Ocean
Action (COA) and the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC), on behalf
of several other ENGOs. NMFS has reviewed all submitted material and
has taken these into consideration during the drafting of this proposed
rulemaking.
NMFS has previously issued three Incidental Harassment
Authorizations (IHAs), including a renewed IHA, to
[[Page 64870]]
Ocean Wind for related work regarding high resolution site
characterization surveys (see 82 FR 31562, July 7, 2017; 86 FR 26465,
May 14, 2021; and 87 FR 29289, May 13, 2022 (renewal)). To date, Ocean
Wind has complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHAs and information
regarding their monitoring results may be found in the Estimated Take
section. These monitoring reports can be found on NMFS' website:
<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>.
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 ITR (or any other
MMPA incidental take authorization), the authorization holder would be
required to comply with any and all applicable requirements contained
within the final rule. Specifically, where measures in any final vessel
speed rule are more protective or restrictive than those in this or any
other MMPA authorization, authorization holders would be required to
comply with the requirements of the rule. Alternatively, where measures
in this or any other MMPA authorization are more restrictive or
protective than those in any final vessel speed rule, the measures in
the MMPA authorization would remain in place. The responsibility to
comply with the applicable requirements of any vessel speed rule would
become effective immediately upon the effective date of any final
vessel speed rule and, when notice is published of the effective date,
NMFS would also notify Ocean Wind if the measures in the speed rule
were to supersede any of the measures in the MMPA authorization such
that they were no longer applicable.
Description of the Specified Activities
Overview
Ocean Wind has proposed to construct and operate a 1,100 megawatt
(MW) wind energy facility (known as Ocean Wind 1) in State and Federal
waters found in the Atlantic Ocean in lease area OCS-A-0498. The Ocean
Wind 1 project would allow the State of New Jersey to meet its
renewable energy goals under the New Jersey Offshore Wind Economic
Development Act (OWEDA). OWEDA was signed into law in August 2010 and
required the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to establish a
program to incentivize the development of offshore wind facilities and
structures. On January 31, 2018, Governor Phil Murphy signed Executive
Order #8 which further directed all New Jersey State Agencies with
described responsibilities under OWEDA to work to meet a goal of 3,500
MW of energy from offshore wind by 2030 (<a href="https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/EO-8.pdf">https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/EO-8.pdf</a>). Then, in November 19, 2019, Executive Order
#92 was signed and increased New Jersey's offshore wind goal of 3,500
MW by 2030 to 7,500 MW by 2035 (<a href="https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/EO-92.pdf">https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/EO-92.pdf</a>). More information on New Jersey's offshore wind goals
can be found at: <a href="https://www.nj.gov/dep/offshorewind/about.html">https://www.nj.gov/dep/offshorewind/about.html</a>.
Ocean Wind's project would consist of several different types of
permanent offshore infrastructure, including wind turbine generators
(WTGs; e.g., the GE Haliade-X 12 MW) and associated foundations,
offshore substations (OSS), offshore substation array cables, and
substation interconnector cables. Overall, Ocean Wind plans to install
98 WTGs and 3 offshore substations (OSS) via impact pile driving; the
temporary installation and removal of cofferdams to assist in the
installation of the export cable route by vibratory pile driving;
several types of fishery and ecological monitoring surveys; the
placement of scour protection; trenching, laying, and burial activities
associated with the installation of the export cable route from OSSs to
shore-based converter stations and inter-array cables between turbines;
HRG vessel-based site characterization surveys using active acoustic
sources with frequencies of less than 180 kHz; and the potential
detonation of up to ten UXOs/MECs of different charge weights, as
necessary. Vessels would transit within the project area, and between
ports and the wind farm to transport crew, supplies, and materials to
support pile installation. All offshore cables will connect to onshore
export cables, substations, and grid connections, which would be
located in Ocean County and Cape May County found in New Jersey.
Marine mammals exposed to elevated noise levels during impact and
vibratory pile driving, potential detonations of UXOs, or site
characterization surveys, may be taken, by Level A harassment and/or
Level B harassment, depending on the specified activity. At the time of
writing this proposed notice, Ocean Wind 1 had not finalized design
plans; however, they have indicated the project would consist of either
all monopile foundations (a total of 101 8/11-m tapered piles to
support all WTGs and the 3 OSSs) or monopiles to support the WTGs
(n=98) and jacket foundations with pin piles to support the three OSSs
using a total of 48 pin piles (16 pin piles per OSS).
Dates and Duration
Ocean Wind anticipates activities resulting in harassment to marine
mammals occurring throughout all five years of the proposed rulemaking.
Project activities are expected to begin in August 2023 and continue
through July 2028. Ocean Wind anticipates the following construction
schedule over the five year period (Figure 1). Ocean Wind has noted
that these are the best and conservative estimates for activity
durations (solid arrows), but that the schedule may shift due to
weather, mechanical, or other related delays (dashed arrows). If
promulgated, the proposed rule and subsequently issued 5-year LOA would
be effective from 2023-2028.
[[Page 64871]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26OC22.013
WTG and OSS Pile Installation (Impact Pile Driving)
The installation of monopiles and pin piles related to the
construction of up to 98 tapered 8/11-m diameter WTGs (monopile
foundations) and 3 OSSs (either consisting of up to 3 monopile or 3
jacket foundations using 48 pin piles total) would occur from May
through December and only in Years 1 and 2, depending on local and
environmental conditions.
Ocean Wind's present uncertainty with which construction scenario
would be employed for OSS installation has resulted in two possible
timelines of either 52 or 116 days of installation for all foundation
piles related to WTGs and OSSs (monopiles or pin piles). In the 52-day
scenario, the schedule assumes a full monopile build-out with the
installation of two monopiles per day for WTGs (49 days total) and one
monopile per day for each OSS (3 days total). In the 116-day scenario,
the schedule assumes a joint monopile-jacket foundation build-out, with
the installation of up to one monopile per day for WTGs (98 days total)
and up to three pin piles being installed per day over 6 days per OSS
(18 days total). Ocean Wind notes in their application that technical
problems, such as pile refusal, are not anticipated but could result in
additional pile driving days.
Each monopile is expected to require four hours of impact pile
driving to install, with a maximum of two monopiles being installed per
day. However, in some cases, only one monopile may be installed on some
days. Each pin pile is expected to require four hours of impact pile
driving, with a maximum of three pin piles being installed per day.
During the installation of monopile foundations, Ocean Wind has
requested 24-hour pile driving, which would consist of intermittent
impact pile driving that could occur anytime within a 24-hour timeframe
and would occur for a total 8 hours of active pile driving plus 1 hour
of equipment mobilization (9 hours total). However, only the maximum
estimated number of piles per day (two monopiles) would be installed in
any 24-hour period. Furthermore, no concurrent impact pile driving (of
either monopiles or pin piles) is anticipated to occur during this
proposed project.
Ocean Wind anticipates that the first WTG would become operational
in 2024 as each turbine would be powered on after installation is
completed and all necessary components, such as array cables, OSSs,
export cable routes, and onshore substations are installed.
Temporary Cofferdam Installation and Removal (Vibratory Pile Driving)
The installation and removal of up to seven temporary cofferdams at
various transition points for the export cable routes, as needed, would
primarily occur between October through March, although Ocean Wind does
indicate that some removal of cofferdams may occur during the months of
April or May.
Installation of each cofferdam would require a maximum of 12 hours
via vibratory driving while removal using a vibratory extractor would
require 18 hours. All seven cofferdams would necessitate 2 days for
installation and 2 days for removal (4 days total) with only 12 hours
of vibratory removal occurring per day. This equates to a total of 28
days for all installation and removal. NMFS notes that these 28 days
may not be consecutive but would be the total number expected during
the entire construction period.
High-Resolution Geophysical Site Characterization Surveys
High-resolution geophysical site characterization surveys would
occur annually, with durations dependent on the activities occurring in
that year (i.e., construction year versus a non-construction year).
Specifically, Ocean Wind estimates a maximum of 88 days of surveys to
occur annually in Years 1, 4, and 5 (the pre- and post-construction
years); and 180 days annually during Years 2 and 3 (the during-
construction years). This estimates approximately 624 days total over
the 5-year period. More specifically, in Years 1, 4, and 5, up to 47.5
survey days are expected in the offshore Wind Farm area and 40.5 survey
days would occur in the export cable route areas. During Years 2 and 3,
up to 180 days are planned with variable survey effort expected, but
Ocean Wind anticipates approximately 78 days annually would take place
within the export cable route areas and 102 days of survey effort
during both of these years would occur in the offshore Wind Farm area.
These HRG survey schedules, as proposed by Ocean Wind, do account for
periods of down-time
[[Page 64872]]
due to inclement weather or technical malfunctions.
Ocean Wind anticipates site characterization surveys occurring in
the project area and along the two potential export cable routes to the
landfall locations (Oyster Creek, Island Beach State Park in Barnegat
Bay, Farm Property, and BL England) specified in the ITA application
(see Figure 1-3 in the ITA application; Ocean Wind, 2022b). HRG surveys
would utilize up to three vessels working concurrently across the
project area over a 24-hour period. Up to three vessels would also
perform nearshore surveys; however, these vessels would operate for 12-
hours and during daylight only. At any time, all three of the 24-hour
vessels may work across different parts of the project area or within
the same geographic area. In calculating the HRG vessel effort for the
purposes of estimating marine mammal take, it was determined that each
day that any given survey vessel is operating would count as a single
survey day. For example, if all three vessels are operating in the two
export cable routes and Lease Area concurrently, this would count as 3
survey days, regardless of the locations that are being surveyed.
Unexploded Ordnances or Munitions and Explosives of Concern (UXOs/MECs)
Ocean Wind anticipates the potential presence of UXOs/MECs in and
around the project area during the 5 years of the proposed rule. These
UXOs/MECs are defined as explosive munitions (e.g., shells, mines,
bombs, torpedoes, etc.) that did not explode or detonate when they were
originally deployed or that were intentionally discarded to avoid
detonations on land. Typically, these munitions could be left behind
following Navy military training, testing, or operations. Ocean Wind
primarily plans for avoidance or relocation of any UXOs/MECs found
within the project area, when possible. In some cases, it may also be
possible that the UXO/MEC could be cut up to extract the explosive
components. However, Ocean Wind notes this may not be possible in all
cases and in situ disposal may be required. If in situ disposal is
required, all disposals will be performed using low-order methods
(deflagration), which are considered less impactful to marine mammals,
first and then would be elevated up to high-order removal (detonation),
if this approach is determined to be necessary. In the event that high-
order removal is needed, all detonations would only occur during
daylight hours.
Based on preliminary survey data, Ocean Wind conservatively
estimates a maximum of 10 days of UXO/MEC detonation may occur, with up
to one UXO/MEC being detonated per day and a maximum of 10 UXOs/MECs
being detonated over the entire 5-year period. NMFS notes that UXOs/
MECs may be detonated at any point in any year as they are found by
project developers; however, no UXOs/MECs would be detonated in Federal
waters between November 1st and April 30th of any year during the
rulemaking.
Specific Geographic Region
Ocean Wind's specified activities would occur in the Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (NES LME), an area of
approximately 260,000 km\2\ (64,247,399.2 acres) from Cape Hatteras in
the south to the Gulf of Maine in the north. Specifically, the lease
area and cable corridor are located within the Mid-Atlantic Bight
subarea of the NE LME which extends between Cape Hatteras, North
Carolina, and Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, extending westward into
the Atlantic to the 100 m isobath. In the Middle Atlantic Bight, the
pattern of sediment distribution is relatively simple. The continental
shelf south of New England is broad and flat, dominated by fine grained
sediments. Most of the surficial sediments on the continental shelf are
sands and gravels. Silts and clays predominate at and beyond the shelf
edge, with most of the slope being 70-100 percent mud. Fine sediments
are also common in the shelf valleys leading to the submarine canyons.
There are some larger materials, left by retreating glaciers, along the
coast of Long Island and to the north and east.
Primary productivity is highest in the nearshore and estuarine
regions, with coastal phytoplankton blooms initiating in the winter and
summer, although the timing and spatial extent of blooms varies from
year to year. The relatively productive continental shelf supports a
wide variety of fauna and flora.
Ocean Wind 1's proposed activities would occur in the Ocean Wind
Lease Area OCS-A 0498 (see Figure 2 in this proposed rule and see
Figures 1-1 in the ITA application for more detail; Ocean Wind, 2022b),
within the New Jersey WEA of BOEM's Mid-Atlantic Planning Area. Ocean
Wind's 277 square kilometer (km\2\; 68,450 acres) Wind Farm Area is
found within the larger 306 km\2\ (75,525 acre) New Jersey Wind Energy
Area (WEA). The Ocean Wind Wind Farm Area (WFA) is located
approximately 13 nautical miles (nm; 24.08 km) southeast of Atlantic
City, New Jersey. Noise from the specified activities will extend into
the surrounding areas and is included in the specified geographic
region. For consistency throughout this proposed rulemaking, NMFS will
be referring to the Wind Farm Area and export cable corridors where
development of the Ocean Wind 1 offshore wind facility would occur as
the ``project area''. At its nearest point, Ocean Wind 1 would be just
over 13 nm (15 miles (mi)) southeast of Atlantic City, New Jersey. The
water depths range from 15-36 meters (m; 49-118 feet (ft)) in the
Offshore Wind Farm Area and approximately 40 m (131.23 ft) in the
export cable route areas. The seabed has a slope of less than 1 degree
towards the southeast. The sedimentation in the area is predominantly
sandy with some thin clay layers. Ocean Wind has noted that the average
temperature of the water column (the upper 10-15 m) is higher in June
to September, which increases the sound speeds and creates a downward
refracting environment that propagates sounds more directly to the
seafloor. However, from December to March, an increase in wind mixing
and a reduction in solar energy creates a sound speed profile that is
more uniform with depth.
As part of the construction activities, up to seven temporary
cofferdams may be constructed where the two potential export cable
routes exit the seabed. The onshore landing locations for Ocean Wind
1's export cable routes would be Oyster Creek, Island Beach State Park
Barnegat Bay, Farm Property, and BL England, with grid connections
being made in BL England and Oyster Creek (Figure 2). Up to 98 wind
turbines would be constructed alongside three offshore-substations
(OSSs). Inter-array cables would connect all WTGs to OSSs with the
export cables connecting the wind facility to the cofferdam locations
nearshore (see Figure 3 in this proposed ITA and see Figures 1-2 in the
rulemaking application for more detail).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 64873]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26OC22.014
[[Page 64874]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26OC22.015
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Detailed Description of Specified Activities
Below, we provide detailed descriptions of Ocean Wind's activities,
explicitly noting those that are anticipated to result in the take of
marine mammals and for which incidental take authorization is
requested. Additionally, a brief explanation is provided for those
activities that are not expected to result in the take of marine
mammals.
Impact Pile Driving--WTGs
Impact pile driving, which is expected to result in the take of
marine mammals, is planned for both WTGs (monopiles) and OSS
installation (monopiles or pin piles) and will be
[[Page 64875]]
used to support the installation of both permanent and temporary
structures.
Ocean Wind plans to use a monopile with transition piece (or
alternatively a one-piece foundation where the transition piece is part
of the monopile) design for all of the WTG locations. This reflects the
planned type of foundation based on the preliminary site data obtained
for the Project and was selected as it is the most economical solution,
the simplest and quickest to install, and requires the least seabed
disturbance. Pile driving is only planned to occur from May through
December (Years 1 and 2) to reduce North Atlantic right whale
interactions, further discussion of this may be found in the Proposed
Mitigation section. The monopile will be 11-meters (m; 36-ft) in
diameter at the seafloor with a 6-m (20-ft) diameter flange, and will
taper to a top diameter of 8 m. Since drafting the Ocean Wind COP (Vol.
I, Table 6.1.1-3; Ocean Wind, 2021), project development has continued
and for design development of the monopile foundations, a monopile
foundation with maximum outer diameter at seabed of 11-m (36-ft) is
being carried forward.
The monopile foundations will be installed by one or two heavy lift
or jack-up vessels. The main installation vessel(s) will likely remain
at the Offshore Wind Farm during the installation phase and transport
vessels, tugs, and/or feeder barges will provide a continuous supply of
foundations to the Offshore Wind Farm. If appropriate vessels are
available, the foundation components could be picked up directly in the
marshaling port by the main installation vessel(s).
Each vertical monopile foundation will consist of a single hollow
steel cylinder pile, up to 11-m (36-ft) in diameter with a 10.3-
centimeter (4-inch) wall thickness. As mentioned above, the monopiles
are tapered piles with 8-m top diameter, 11-m bottom diameter, and a
tapered section near the water line (referred to as an 8/11 monopile
throughout this proposed notice). The installation of all 98 WTGs would
only utilize tapered monopile foundations with one monopile being used
per WTG.
The monopiles will be installed using an impact hammer, an IHC-4000
or IHC S2500 kilojoule (kJ) hammer, or similar, with a power pack
capacity of 6,000 kilowatts (kW), to a maximum expected penetration
depth of 50-m (164-ft). Up to two monopiles will be installed per day
(estimated at 4 hours of active pile driving per monopile) for an
estimated total of 8 hours per day (assuming active pile driving of two
monopiles). A total of 98 monopiles will be installed for WTGs. Three
additional monopiles may be installed as foundations for the OSSs.
Concurrent monopile installation at more than one location is not
planned by Ocean Wind and was not analyzed in the ITA application.
Pile installation would occur during daylight hours and could, if
Ocean Wind meets NMFS requirements (see Proposed Mitigation section),
potentially occur during nighttime hours when, (1) a pile installation
is started during daylight and, due to unforeseen circumstances, would
need to be finished after dark and (2) for new piles, after dark
initiation of pile driving is necessary to meet schedule requirements
due to unforeseen delays. To be able to install WTG and OSS monopile
foundations, impact pile driving 24-hours per day is deemed necessary
when considering the amount of time required to install the foundations
in comparison to the time available for installation when factoring in
various limitations. Based on similar projects under ideal conditions
and consistent with the assumption that up to two foundations could be
installed in a single day, installation of a single pile at a minimum
would involve a 1-hour pre-clearance period, 4 hours of piling, and 4
hours to move to the next piling location where the process would begin
again. This results in an estimated 9 hours of installation time per
monopile for the Ocean Wind project, or 909 total hours for 98 WTG
foundations and three OSS foundations, assuming ideal conditions for
all installations. Once construction begins, Ocean Wind would proceed
as rapidly as possible to reduce the total duration of construction,
limiting crew transfers and vessel trips by condensing the work as much
as possible. Particularly in low North Atlantic right whale abundance
months, completing more work in the summer means less overlap with
higher density time periods.
Impact Pile Driving--OSSs
A piled jacket foundation, being considered for the OSSs only, is
formed of a steel lattice construction (comprising tubular steel
members and welded joints) secured to the seabed by hollow steel pin
piles attached to the jacket feet. Unlike monopiles, there is no
separate transition piece. The transition piece and ancillary
components are fabricated as an integrated part of the jacket. Each OSS
will have either a single 8/11-m diameter monopile foundation (as used
for WTG foundations) or a jacket foundation consisting of 16 2.44-m
diameter vertical pin piles installed with an impact hammer, IHC S-2500
kJ hammer, or similar. Each of the piled jacket foundations will
consist of four pin piles per leg (16 pin piles total) per OSS. Up to
three vertical pin piles will be installed each day during construction
of the OSSs, and it is expected to take 4 hours per piling. Six days of
installation per OSS foundation is anticipated. The pin piles will be
driven to a maximum expected depth of 70 m (230 ft). A total of 48 pin
piles (16 pin piles x 3 OSSs) or three monopiles could be installed for
the OSSs.
Vibratory Pile Driving--Temporary Cofferdams
The in-water use of vibratory pile driving is expected to result in
the take of marine mammals. Unlike impact pile driving, vibratory pile
driving is planned to exclusively occur during the potential
installation and removal of temporary cofferdams. A temporary cofferdam
may need to be installed seaward of the horizontal directional drilling
(HDD) landfall locations where the export cable exits from the seabed.
The cofferdam, if required, may be installed as either a sheet-piled
structure into the seafloor or a gravity cell structure placed on the
seafloor using ballast weight. A vibratory hammer will be used to drive
sheet pile sidewalls and end walls into the seabed. Installation of a
cofferdam is estimated to take up to 18 hours over 2 days, with
vibratory driving taking place for no longer than 12 hours each day
over the installation period. Removal of the cofferdam will be
accomplished using a vibratory extractor and is expected to take up to
18 hours over 2 days, with no more than 12 hours of vibratory removal
each day. Cofferdam installation/removal will take place only during
daylight hours.
Cofferdams are planned at the following sites: two cofferdams at
Oyster Creek (Atlantic Ocean to Island Beach State Parks a sea-to-shore
connection point), two cofferdams at Island Beach State Park Barnegat
Bay (Barnegat Bay onshore as a bay-to-shore connection point), two
cofferdams at Farm Property (bayside of Oyster Creek as a shore-to-bay
connection point), and one cofferdam at BL England (as a sea-to-shore
connection point). Cofferdams will necessitate minimal water to be
temporarily pumped out for construction activities, and then
subsequently re-flooded upon the completion of activities. Dewatering
activities will be temporary and water drawdown will be minimal to
prevent any permanent impacts to groundwater quality.
Ocean Wind considered two scenarios for the cofferdams: a sheet
pile installation and removal scenario and a
[[Page 64876]]
gravity-cell structure ballasted to the seafloor. In moving forward
with the sheet pile scenario, Ocean Wind anticipates that impacts
relating to cofferdam installation and removal using sheet piles would
exceed any potential impacts for the use of alternative methods (i.e.,
gravity-cells), and therefore the cofferdam estimates using the sheet
pile approach ensures that the most conservative values are carried
forward in this proposed action.
In addition to the sound produced in-water from the vibratory
driving activities, it is possible that in-air noises from the
vibratory hammer could be produced during temporary cofferdam
installation and removal. In-air noise is not considered a concern for
cetaceans and in-water pinniped species, but could pose a risk to
hauled-out seals in the area, specifically harbor seals. However, based
on the analysis conducted in Section 1.5.4 of Ocean Wind's ITA
application (Figure 1-8), neither Ocean Wind nor NMFS expect the in-air
sounds produced to cause take of hauled-out pinnipeds at distances
greater than 541 m from the cofferdam installation/removal location
(Ocean Wind, 2022b). As all documented pinniped haul-outs are located
further than 541 m from each of the seven cofferdam locations, no take
of marine mammals is expected from any in-air noise component of
vibratory pile driving. Furthermore, any additional discussion relating
to vibratory pile driving of temporary cofferdams will refer to in-
water noise effects, unless otherwise noted.
High-Resolution Site Characterization Surveys
Ocean Wind plans to conduct HRG surveys operating at frequencies
less than 180 kHz in and around the Offshore Wind Farm and along
potential export cable routes to landfall locations in New Jersey
throughout construction and operation. Survey activities, which include
the potential to result in the take of marine mammals, will include
multibeam depth sounding, seafloor imaging, and shallow- and medium-
penetration sub-bottom profiling within the Offshore Wind Farm and
export cable route area, using non-parametric equipment, including
boomers, sparkers, and Compressed High-Intensity Radiated Pulse
(CHIRPs).
While the final survey plans will not be completed until
construction contracting commences, Ocean Wind anticipates that HRG
survey operations would be conducted 24 hours per day and up to three
vessels may be working concurrently within this 24-hour period at a
transit speed of approximately 4 knots. Based on Ocean Wind's past
survey experience (i.e., knowledge of typical daily downtime due to
weather, system malfunctions, etc.), Ocean Wind assumes 70 km average
daily distance. On this basis, an annual total of 88 survey days
(approximately 47.5 survey days in the Offshore Wind Farm and 40.5
survey days in the export cable route area) is expected during Years 1,
4, and 5. Some inter-year variance in survey locations may be expected,
however, 88 survey days annually is anticipated regardless of location.
During Years 2 and 3, Ocean wind anticipates up to 78 days annually of
survey effort within the export cable route areas and up to 102 days of
survey effort during both Years 2 and 3 to occur in the Wind Farm Area.
Ocean Wind estimates that a total of 6,110 linear kilometers (km)
will be needed within the Offshore Wind Farm and export cable route
area. Survey effort will be split between the two areas: 3,000 km for
the array cable, 2,300 km for the Oyster Creek export cable, 510 km for
the BL England export cable, and 300 km for the OSS interconnector
cable. During WTG and OSS construction and operation, it is anticipated
that up to 180 survey days per year will be required, which includes up
to 11,000 km of export cable surveys, 10,500 km of array cable surveys,
1,065 km of foundation surveys, 250 km of WTG surveys, and up to 2,450
km of monitoring and verification surveys. In certain shallow-water
areas, vessels may conduct surveys during daylight hours only, with a
corresponding assumption that the daily survey distance would be halved
(35 km). Although, for purposes of analysis, a single vessel survey day
is assumed to cover the maximum 70 km.
The following acoustic sources planned for use during Ocean Wind's
HRG survey activities that have the potential to result in incidental
take of marine mammals:
<bullet> Shallow-penetration non-impulsive, non-Parametric SBPs
(compressed high-intensity radiated pulses (CHIRP SBPs)) are used to
map the near-surface stratigraphy (top 0 to 5 m (0 to 16 ft)) of
sediment below the seabed. A CHIRP system emits sonar pulses that
increase in frequency sweep from approximately 2 to 20 kHz over time.
The pulse length frequency range can be adjusted to meet Project
variables. These shallow penetration SPBs are typically mounted on a
pole, rather than towed, either over the side of the vessel or through
a moon pool in the bottom of the hull, reducing the likelihood that an
animal would be exposed to the signal.
<bullet> Medium-penetration impulsive 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.
<bullet> Medium-penetration impulsive sparkers are used to map
deeper subsurface stratigraphy as needed. Sparkers create acoustic
pulses from 50 Hz to 4 kHz omnidirectionally from the source that can
penetrate several hundred meters into the seafloor. Sparkers are
typically towed behind the vessel with adjacent hydrophone arrays to
receive the return signals.
Table 1 identifies all the representative survey equipment that
operate below 180 kilohertz (kHz) (i.e., at frequencies that are
audible and have the potential to disturb marine mammals) that may be
used in support of planned geophysical survey activities, and are
likely to be detected by marine mammals given the source level,
frequency, and beamwidth of the equipment. Equipment with operating
frequencies above 180 kHz (e.g., SSS, MBES) and equipment that does not
have an acoustic output (e.g., magnetometers) will also be used but are
not discussed further because they are outside the general hearing
range of marine mammals likely to occur in the project area. No
harassment exposures can be reasonably expected from the operation of
these sources; therefore, they are not considered further in this
proposed action.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 64877]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26OC22.016
[[Page 64878]]
Potential UXO/MEC Detonations
There is the potential that Ocean Wind could encounter UXOs/MECs.
These include explosive munitions such as bombs, shells, mines,
torpedoes, etc. that did not explode when they were originally deployed
or were intentionally discarded to avoid land-based detonations. There
are several varieties of ordnance and net explosive weights can vary
according to type. All bombs are inert but simulate the same ballistic
properties.
The risk of incidental detonation associated with conducting
seabed-altering activities such as cable laying and foundation
installation in proximity to UXOs/MECs jeopardizes the health and
safety of project participants. Ocean Wind follows an industry standard
As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) process that minimizes the
number of potential detonations (Appendix C; Ocean Wind, 2021).
While avoidance is the preferred approach for UXO/MEC mitigation,
there may be instances when confirmed UXO/MEC avoidance is not possible
due to layout restrictions, presence of archaeological resources, or
other factors that preclude micro-siting. In such situations, confirmed
UXO/MEC may be removed through physical relocation or in situ disposal,
the latter of which may result in the take of marine mammals. Physical
relocation will be the preferred method but is not an option in every
case. Selection of a removal method will depend on the location, size,
and condition of the confirmed UXO/MEC, and will be made in
consultation with a UXO/MEC specialist and in coordination with the
agencies with regulatory oversight of UXO/MECs. For UXO/MECs that will
require in situ disposal, it will be done with low-order methods
(deflagration), high-order (detonation) of the UXO/MEC, or by cutting
the UXO/MEC up to extract the explosive components.
To better assess the potential UXO/MEC encounter risk, geophysical
surveys have been and continue to be conducted to identify potential
UXOs/MECs that have not been previously mapped. As these surveys and
analysis of data from them are still underway, the exact number and
type of UXOs/MECs in the project area are not yet known. As a
conservative approach for the purposes of the impact analysis, it is
currently assumed that up to 10 UXOs/MECs 454-kg (1000 pounds; lbs)
charges, which is the largest charge that is reasonably expected to be
present, may have to be detonated in place. Although it is highly
unlikely that all ten charges would consist of this 454 kg charge, as
the Navy uses many different sizes of smaller charges (even down to a
few kilograms), it was determined to be the most conservative during
analysis when analyzing the potential effects of the activity. If
necessary, these detonations would occur on up to 10 different days
(i.e., only one detonation would occur per day) over the 5-year
project. In the event that high-order removal (detonation) is
determined to be the preferred and safest method of disposal, all
detonations would occur during daylight hours. It is expected that
impacts from detonation would occur within the current limits defined
for the Project Offshore Envelope, but are dependent on the soil
conditions, burial depth, and type of UXO/MEC found.
Construction-Related Vessel Activities and Transit
During construction of the project, Ocean Wind anticipates that an
average of approximately 18 project-related vessels will operate during
a typical workday in the Wind Farm Area and along the export cable
routes. As multiple vessels may be operating concurrently, each day
that a survey vessel is operating counts as a single survey day. For
example, if a total of three vessels are operating with one in each of
the two ECRs (two total) and one in the Lease Area (one total)
concurrently, this counts as three survey days. Many of these vessels
will remain in the Wind Farm Area or export cable route for days or
weeks at a time, potentially making only infrequent trips to port for
bunkering and provisioning, as needed. The actual number of vessels
involved in the project at one time is highly dependent on the
project's final schedule, the final design of the project's components,
and the logistics needed to ensure compliance with the Jones Act, a
Federal law that regulates maritime commerce in the United States.
Table 2 below shows the number of vessels and the number of vessel
trips anticipated during construction activities related to Ocean Wind
1.
[[Page 64879]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26OC22.017
[[Page 64880]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26OC22.018
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
While marine mammals are known to respond to vessel noise and the
presence of vessels in different ways, we do not expect Ocean Wind 1's
vessel operations to result in the take of marine mammals. As existing
vessel traffic in the vicinity of the project area off of New Jersey is
relatively high, we expect that marine mammals in the area are likely
somewhat habituated to vessel noise. In addition, any construction
vessels would be stationary for significant periods of time when on-
site and any large vessels would travel to and from the site at
relatively low speeds. Project-related vessels would be required to
adhere to several mitigation measures designed to reduce the potential
for marine mammals to be struck by vessels associated with the project;
these measures are described further below (see the Proposed Mitigation
section) and vessel strikes are neither anticipated nor authorized. As
part of various construction related activities, including cable laying
and construction material delivery, dynamic positioning thrusters may
be utilized to hold vessels in position or move slowly. Sound produced
through use of dynamic positioning thrusters is similar to that
produced by transiting vessels, in that dynamic positioning thrusters
are typically operated either in a similarly predictable manner or used
for short durations around stationary activities. Sound produced by
dynamic positioning thrusters would be preceded by, and associated
with, sound from ongoing vessel noise and would be similar in nature;
thus, any marine mammals in the vicinity of the activity would be aware
of the vessel's presence, further reducing the potential for startle or
flight responses on the part of marine mammals. Accordingly, noise from
construction-related vessel activity, including the use of dynamic
positioning thrusters, is not expected to result in take of marine
mammals and Ocean Wind did not request, and NMFS does not propose to
authorize any takes associated with construction related vessel
activity. However, NMFS acknowledges the aggregate impacts of Ocean
Wind 1's vessel operations on the acoustic habitat of marine mammals
and has considered it in the analysis.
Fisheries Monitoring Surveys
Ocean Wind plans to undertake various fisheries monitoring surveys
in collaboration with several academic partners throughout the period
of effectiveness for this rule. As described in Section 1.3.4 of the
ITA application, Ocean Wind has developed a Fisheries Monitoring Plan
(FMP) in consultation with BOEM's ``Guidelines for Providing
Information on Fisheries for Renewable Energy Development on the
Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf'' (BOEM, 2019). Ocean Wind plans to
conduct various types of surveys, including surveys using gear similar
to that used in commercial fisheries (e.g., trawl nets, hook and line
gear, gillnets, pot/trap), acoustic telemetry surveys, environmental
DNA (eDNA) sampling, clam surveys, oceanographic glider surveys, and
pelagic fish surveys (Ocean
[[Page 64881]]
Wind, 2022b). The Plan also includes structured habitat surveys
involving use of chevron traps and a pelagic and benthic baited remote
underwater video (BRUV) device connected to the surface by vertical
lines.
Gear and activities that NMFS does not expect to have the potential
to cause impacts to marine mammals include: use of autonomous gliders,
clam surveys using a slow moving hydraulic dredge, non-extractive
surveys specifically for pelagic fish (through use of baited and towed
camera traps and autonomous glider equipment with echosounders), and
non-extractive eDNA collection from water samples taken while in the
field, and acoustic telemetry surveys of pelagic fish. These
activities, or use of these gear types, are unlikely to have any
potential to impact marine mammals as the gear types do not involve use
of components that marine mammals are likely to interact with (e.g.,
become entangled in, be hooked by) or the surveys involve passive
interaction with the environment.
Planned fishery survey activities including use of gear that could
have potential to result in marine mammal interaction (e.g., trawl
surveys, hook and line activities, gillnet use, pot/trap deployment,
and chevron trap and BRUV use) are required to implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that would minimize this risk to the point
that take is not reasonably anticipated to occur. Because of the BMPs
stated in the Proposed Mitigation section, neither NMFS nor Ocean Wind
anticipates any incidental take of marine mammals to occur from the
fisheries-specific activities described herein and in the ITA
application (Ocean Wind, 2022b). Accordingly, Ocean Wind has not
requested any take of marine mammals incidental to these fisheries
surveys, nor does NMFS propose to authorize any given the nature of the
activities and, for certain gear types, the mitigation measures planned
for use by Ocean Wind. Therefore, fishery monitoring survey activities
are not analyzed further in this document.
Dredging Activities
Dredging typically consists of the removal and sometimes
transportation of underwater sediment to deepen a specific area. This
is typically performed in navigational channels for vessel traffic. The
ITA application notes that dredging may be required prior to cable
laying in the event sandwaves are present and that dredging may need to
occur across the lifetime of the project (Ocean Wind, 2022b).
NMFS does not expect dredging to generate noise levels that would
cause take of marine mammals. Most of the energy falls below 1 kHz,
which indicates that it is highly unlikely to cause damage to marine
mammal hearing (Todd et al., 2015). For example, a study by Reine and
Clarke (2014) found that, using a propagation loss coefficient of
15LogR, source levels of dredging operations in the shallow waters
(less than 15 m depth) in New York Harbor were measured at and did not
exceed 151 dB re 1 mPa, which is not expected to cause hearing shifts
in marine mammals. A more recent analysis by McQueen et al. (2020)
found that, using a maximum sound level of 192 dB re 1 mPa, the
resulting isopleths for representative marine mammals (i.e., the harbor
seal and the harbor porpoise), the resulting isopleths for temporary
shifts in hearing would occur less than 20 m and less than 74 m,
respectively. Isopleths for permanent shifts were noted as less than 1
m for both marine mammal species.
In Section 3.15 (Marine Mammals) of the Ocean Wind 1 draft EIS
(<a href="https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/ocean-wind-1">https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/ocean-wind-1</a>),
BOEM states that ``Based on the available source level information
presented in Section 3.15.5, dredging by mechanical or hydraulic
dredges is unlikely to exceed marine mammal permanent threshold shifts
(PTS; injury) thresholds, but if dredging occurs in one area for
relatively long periods temporary threshold shifts (TTS) and behavioral
thresholds could be exceed as well as masking of marine mammal
communications (Todd et al., 2015; NMFS, 2018).'' While NMFS
acknowledges the potential of short-duration masking or slight
behavioral changes (Todd et al., 2015) to occur during dredging
activities, any effects on marine mammals are expected to be short-
term, low intensity, and unlikely to qualify as take. Given the size of
the area that dredging operations would be occurring in, as well as the
coastal nature of some of these activities for the nearshore sea-to-
shore connection points related to temporary cofferdam installation/
removal, NMFS expects that any marine mammals would not be exposed at
levels or durations likely to disrupt normal life activities (i.e.,
migrating, foraging, calving, etc.). Therefore, the potential for take
of marine mammals to result from these activities is so low as to be
discountable and Ocean Wind did not request, and NMFS does not propose
to authorize, any takes associated with dredging and dredging
activities are not analyzed further in this document.
Cable Laying and Installation
Cable burial operations will occur both in Ocean Wind 1 Wind Farm
Area for the inter-array cables connecting the WTGs to the OSS and in
the Ocean Wind 1 export cable route for the cables carrying power from
the OSS to land. Inter-array cables will connect the 98 WTGs to the
OSS. A single offshore export cable will connect the OSSs to the New
Jersey sea-to-shore transition point. The offshore export and inter-
array cables will be buried in the seabed at a target depth of 1.2 to
2.8 m (4 to 6 ft). All cable burial operations will follow installation
of the monopile foundations, as the foundations must be in place to
provide connection points for the export cable and inter-array cables.
All cables will be buried below the seabed, when possible, and
buried onshore up to the transition joint bays. The targeted burial
depths will be determined later by Ocean Wind, following a detailed
design and Cable Burial Risk Assessment. This Assessment will note
where burial cannot occur, where sufficient depths cannot be achieved,
and/or where additional protection is required due to the export cable
crossing other cables or pipelines (either related to the Ocean Wind 1
project or not). Burial of cables will be performed by specific
vessels, which are described in Tables 6.1.2-5, 6.1.2-6, 6.1.2-7,
6.1.2-8, and 6.1.2-9 in the Ocean Wind 1 COP (<a href="https://www.boem.gov/ocean-wind-1-construction-and-operations-plan">https://www.boem.gov/ocean-wind-1-construction-and-operations-plan</a>).
Cable laying, cable installation, and cable burial activities
planned to occur during the construction of Ocean Wind 1 may include
the following:
<bullet> Jetting;
<bullet> Vertical injection;
<bullet> Leveling;
<bullet> Mechanical cutting;
<bullet> Plowing (with or without jet-assistance);
<bullet> Pre-trenching; and,
<bullet> Controlled flow excavation.
Ocean Wind notes that installation days are not continuous and do
not include equipment preparation or downtime that may result from
weather or maintenance.
Some dredging may be required prior to cable laying due to the
presence of sandwaves. Sandwave clearance may be undertaken where cable
exposure is predicted over the lifetime of the Project due to seabed
mobility. Alternatively, sandwave clearance may be undertaken where
slopes become greater than approximately 10 degrees (17.6 percent),
which could cause instability to the burial tool. The work could be
[[Page 64882]]
undertaken by traditional dredging methods such as a trailing suction
hopper. Alternatively, controlled flow excavation or a sandwave removal
plough could be used. In some cases, multiple passes may be required.
The method of sandwave clearance Ocean Wind chooses will be based on
the results from the site investigation surveys and cable design. More
information on cable laying associated with the proposed project is
provided in Ocean Wind's COP (Ocean Wind, 2022a) and NMFS further
references the reader to the Ocean Wind 1 COP found on BOEM's website
(<a href="https://www.boem.gov/ocean-wind-1-construction-and-operations-plan">https://www.boem.gov/ocean-wind-1-construction-and-operations-plan</a>).
As the noise levels generated from this activity are low, the potential
for take of marine mammals to result is discountable (86 FR 8490,
February 5, 2021) and Ocean Wind does not request marine mammal take
associated with cable laying. Therefore, cable laying activities are
not analyzed further in this document.
Offshore Wind Farm Operational Noise
Although this proposed rulemaking primarily covers the noise
produced from construction activities relevant to the Ocean Wind 1
offshore wind facility, operational noise was a consideration in NMFS'
analysis of the project, as all 98 turbines would become operational
within the effective dates of the rule, beginning no sooner than 2024.
It is expected that a minimum of 68 turbines would be operational in
2024 with the rest installed and operational in either late 2024 or
2025. Once operational, offshore wind turbines are known to produce
continuous, non-impulsive underwater noise, primarily in the lower-
frequency bands (below 8 kHz).
In both newer, quieter, direct-drive systems (such as what has been
proposed for Ocean Wind 1) and older generation, geared turbine
designs, recent scientific studies indicate that operational noise from
turbines is on the order of 110 to 125 dB re 1 mPa, root-mean-square
sound pressure level (SPL<INF>rms</INF>) at an approximate distance of
50 m (Tougaard et al., 2020). Tougaard et al. (2020) further noted that
sound levels could reach as high as 128 dB re 1 mPa, SPL<INF>rms</INF>
in the 10 Hz to 8 kHz range. However, BOEM notes that the Tougaard et
al. (2020) study assumed that the largest monopile-specific WTG was 3.6
MW, which is much smaller than those being considered for the Ocean
Wind 1 project (Ocean Wind 1 DEIS, Section 3.13 Finfish, Invertebrates,
and Essential Fish Habitat; BOEM, 2022). Tougaard further stated that
the operational noise produced from WTGs is static in nature and is
lower than noise produced from passing ships. This is a level that
marine mammals in this region are likely already habituated to.
Furthermore, operational noise levels are likely lower than those
ambient levels already present in active shipping lanes, meaning that
any operational noise levels would likely only be detected at a very
close proximity to the WTG (Thomsen et al., 2006; Tougaard et al.,
2020). Furthermore, the noise from operational wind turbines has been
previously found to be much lower in intensity than the noises present
during construction, although this was based on a single turbine with a
maximum power of 2 MW (Madsen et al., 2006). Other studies by Jansen
and de Jong (2016) and Tougaard et al. (2009b) determined that while
marine mammals would be able to detect operational noise from offshore
wind farms (older 2 MW models) for several thousand kilometers, the
effects produced from this should have no significant impacts on the
individual survival, population viability, marine mammal distribution,
or the behavior of the animals. However, these studies are, again,
based on older models and not newer generation turbines with more
modernized and quieter technology.
More recently, a study by St[ouml]ber and Thomsen (2021) was
published where the authors were looking to estimate the operational
noise from the larger, more recent generation of direct-drive WTGs.
Their findings demonstrated that more modern turbine designs could
generate higher operational noise levels (170 to 177 dB re 1 mPa
SPL<INF>rms</INF> for a 10 MW WTG) than those previously reported for
older models. These results are similar to the results presented by
Tougaard et al. (2020). However, the results of this study haven't been
validated yet as they were based on a small sample size (Ocean Wind 1
DEIS, section 3.15 Marine Mammals; BOEM, 2022).
Specifically related to the proposed Ocean Wind 1 project, BOEM
included operational noise throughout the DEIS. As described in Ocean
Wind 1's DEIS (in COP Volume II, Appendix R-2; BOEM, 2022), BOEM states
that the operational noises would primarily consist of low-frequency
sounds (60 to 300 Hz) and consist of relatively low SPLs. It further
concludes that, ``It is unlikely that WTG operations will cause injury
or behavioral responses to marine fauna [including marine mammals], so
the risk of impact is expected to be low.'' While exceptions have been
previously noted in the scientific literature where some lower-
frequency sounds produced by some marine mammal species (i.e.,
odontocete burst-pulsed sounds (Richardson et al., 1995) and bottlenose
dolphin bray-calls (Janik, 2000)), may fall within similar ranges of
operational wind turbine noise, these assumptions were previously
attributed based upon the older generation turbines not using the more
recent and modern drive shafts. Furthermore, based on the modern type
of turbine planned for use in Ocean Wind 1, BOEM has preliminarily
determined that no physiological effects on fish would result from WTG
operation, which would indicate that no marine mammal prey impacts are
likely to occur (Ocean Wind 1 DEIS, Section 3.13 Finfish,
Invertebrates, and Essential Fish Habitat; BOEM, 2022). Furthermore, as
many offshore permanent structures, including offshore wind farms, are
known to attract fish species and other invertebrates after
construction in an artificial reef effect (Wilson and Elliott, 2009;
Lindeboom et al., 2011; Langhamer, 2012; Glarou et al., 2020), BOEM and
Ocean Wind consider adverse impacts to marine mammal prey are unlikely.
Neither BOEM nor Ocean Wind currently expect take of marine mammals to
result from WTG operation, and Ocean Wind did not request take
authorization from this activity. NMFS acknowledges that more research
on the impacts of operational noise on marine mammals and their prey is
needed, as currently available information on modern turbine models is
limited. However, based on the information above, including the small
numbers of turbines and short duration of operation that would be
covered under this rule, NMFS is preliminarily not proposing to
authorize take of marine mammals from operational noise from WTGs and
it is not discussed or analyzed further in this proposed Federal
Register notice.
In consideration of all activities in which the proposed harassment
and subsequent take of marine mammals is considered a possibility, NMFS
further addresses conservative approaches for the proposed mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting measures, which are described in detail later
in this document (see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and
Reporting sections).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Several marine mammal species occur within the project area.
Sections 3 and 4 of Ocean Wind's ITA application summarize available
information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat
preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially
[[Page 64883]]
affected species (Ocean Wind, 2022b). Additional information regarding
population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment
Reports (SARs; <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>) and more general
information about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral
descriptions) may be found on NMFS' 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 this action, and summarizes information
related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under
the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological
removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum
number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be
removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS'
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR 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. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs. All values presented in
Table 3 are the most recent available data at the time of publication
which can be found in NMFS' SARs (Hayes et al., 2022), available online
at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports</a>.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 64884]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26OC22.019
[[Page 64885]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26OC22.020
[[Page 64886]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26OC22.021
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
All 38 species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey
areas are included in Table 3-1 of the Ocean Wind 1 ITA application and
discussed therein (Ocean Wind, 2022b). While the majority of these
species have been documented or sighted off the New Jersey coast in the
past, for the species and stocks not listed in Table 3, NMFS considers
it unlikely that their occurrence would overlap the activity in a
manner that would result in harassment, either because of their spatial
occurrence (i.e., more northern or southern ranges) and/or with the
geomorphological characteristics of the underwater environment (i.e.,
water
[[Page 64887]]
depth in the development area). Because of this, these species are not
discussed further.
In addition, the Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus; a sub-
species of the West Indian manatee) has been previously documented as
an occasional visitor to the Northeast region during summer months
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2019). However, manatees are
managed by the USFWS and are not considered further in this document.
As indicated above, all 17 species (with 18 managed stocks) in
Table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. Five of the marine
mammal species for which take is requested have been designated as ESA-
listed, including North Atlantic right, blue, fin, sei, and sperm
whales. In addition to what is included in Sections 3 and 4 of Ocean
Wind's ITA application (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-ocean-wind-lcc-construction-ocean-wind-1-wind-energy-facility">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-ocean-wind-lcc-construction-ocean-wind-1-wind-energy-facility</a>), the SARs (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>), and
NMFS' website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species-directory/marine-mammals">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species-directory/marine-mammals</a>) provide further general information regarding life history,
threats, and status of the impacted species and stocks. Below, we
provide additional information, where available and applicable, to
inform our impact analyses including designated Unusual Mortality
Events, or ESA Critical Habitat, or information regarding other known
areas of known biological importance.
Two specific areas have been designated as Critical Habitat for
North Atlantic right whales. The calving ground is located in the
southern Atlantic coast and extends from Georgia to Florida. The
foraging ground extends from Maine to Massachusetts and includes the
Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank region. With regards to Ocean Wind 1,
both of these specific Critical Habitat locations are found several
hundreds of miles from the project area and should not be impacted by
this proposed project. Furthermore, no Critical Habitat for other
species is close enough to be impacted by Ocean Wind's activities.
Under the MMPA, an unusual mortality event (UME) is defined as ``a
stranding that is unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any
marine mammal population; and demands immediate response'' (16 U.S.C.
1421h(6)). As of September 2022, seven UMEs are considered active, with
five of these occurring along the Atlantic coast for several marine
mammal species. Currently the most relevant to this proposed action are
the UMEs related to the minke whale, the North Atlantic right whale,
and the humpback whale. The Florida manatee UME is not discussed
further as manatees are not one of NMFS' trust species. This species is
managed by the USFWS and more information can be found on their website
(<a href="https://myfwc.com/research/manatee/rescue-mortality-response/ume/">https://myfwc.com/research/manatee/rescue-mortality-response/ume/</a>).
The recent 2022 Northeast Pinniped UME is not discussed further as
impacts of this UME have only been recorded along the southern and
central coast of Maine (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along-maine-coast">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along-maine-coast</a>). Given that these areas are
found several hundreds of miles away from the Ocean Wind 1 project
area, and are only presently known to these areas off of Maine, the
pinniped UME is not discussed further in this proposed notice. More
information on UMEs, including all active, closed, or pending, can be
found on NMFS' website at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/active-and-closed-unusual-mortality-events">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/active-and-closed-unusual-mortality-events</a>.
Below, we include additional information for the subset of species
that presently have an active or recently closed UME occurring along
the Atlantic coast, or for which there is information available related
to areas of specific biological significance. For the majority of
species potentially present in the specific geographic region, NMFS has
designated only a single generic stock (e.g., ``western North
Atlantic'') for management purposes. This includes the ``Canadian east
coast'' stock of minke whales, which includes all minke whales found in
U.S. waters and is also a generic stock for management purposes. For
humpback and sei whales, NMFS defines stocks on the basis of feeding
locations, i.e., Gulf of Maine and Nova Scotia, respectively. However,
references to humpback whales and sei whales in this document refer to
any individuals of the species that are found in the specific
geographic region. Any areas of known biological importance (including
the Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) identified in Van Parijs et
al., 2015) that overlap spatially with the project area are addressed
in the species sections below.
North Atlantic Right Whale
The North Atlantic right whale is considered one of the most
critically endangered populations of large whales in the world and has
been listed as a federally endangered species since 1970. The Western
Atlantic stock is considered depleted under the MMPA (Hayes et al.,
2022). North Atlantic right whales are currently threatened by low
population abundance, higher than normal mortality rates and lower than
normal reproductive rates. In 2021, Pace et al. released an update of a
North Atlantic right whale abundance model. From 1990-2014, the female
apparent survival rate fluctuated around 0.96. In 2014, survival
decreased to approximately 0.93 and hit an all-time low of 0.89 in
2017. However, in 2018, survival increased dramatically back to around
0.95. The average survival rate, based on the Pace et al. (2021) regime
model from 2014-2018, is approximately 0.93, slightly lower than the
average long-term rate from 1990-2014 (0.96). Since 1990, the estimated
number of new entrants (which can be used as a proxy for recruitment
rates) has widely fluctuated between 0 and 39 (Pace et al., 2021, NMFS
2021). In the last 12 years (2010-2022), the average number of calves
born into the population is approximately 13 (as of September 14,
2022).
However, the most recent information on the status of North
Atlantic right whales can be found in NMFS' 2022 SAR (Hayes et al.,
2022). Although NMFS relies on the most up-to-date SARs, we also
acknowledge that the population estimate has been updated to below 350
animals, as reflected on our website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale</a>). We noted that this change in
abundance estimate would not change the estimated take or the take NMFS
has proposed for authorization of North Atlantic right whales. As a
result, this information does not change our ability to make the
preliminary required findings under the MMPA for Ocean Wind's proposed
construction activities.
The North Atlantic right whale calving season begins around mid-
November and ends after mid-April. Female North Atlantic right whales
give birth to a single calf after a gestation period of 12 months, and
typically repeat this in 3-year intervals. However, per NMFS' website
(<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/north-atlantic-right-whale-calving-season-2022">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/north-atlantic-right-whale-calving-season-2022</a>) and likely
due to stress (e.g., entanglements in fishing gear and vessel
collisions), North Atlantic right whale mothers have begun having
calves every 7 to 10 years, on average (van der Hoop et al., 2017;
Pettis et al., 2022) with mean annual calving intervals increasing
significantly over the last
[[Page 64888]]
three decades (Kraus et al., 2020). Further compounding this issue is
that not all calves born into the population survive to adulthood or to
a viable age for reproduction. For example, on December 22, 2020, a
newborn calf was sighted off El Hierro, an island in the Canary
Islands, but has not been subsequently detected with its mother,
suggesting it did not survive. More recently, a dead North Atlantic
right whale calf was reported stranded on February 13, 2021, along the
Florida coast. These impacts all further challenge any potential of
recovery for the North Atlantic right whale. As previously stated by
Greene and Pershing (2004) and Meyer-Gutbrod et al. (2021), the effects
on changes in calving rates and further effects from climate
variability, may continue to make this a vulnerable species and hinder
recovery if present trends continue.
As described above, the project area is present in part of an
important migratory corridor for North Atlantic right whales, which
make annual migrations up and down the Atlantic coast. There is a
recovery plan (NOAA Fisheries, 2017) for the North Atlantic right
whale, and relatively recently there was a five-year review of the
species (NOAA Fisheries, 2017). The North Atlantic right whale only had
a 2.8 percent recovery rate between 1990 and 2011 (Hayes et al., 2022).
NMFS' website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale</a>) notes fewer than 350 North Atlantic right whales are
remaining.
As described above, North Atlantic right whale presence in the
project area is seasonal. As a result of several years of aerial
surveys and PAM deployments in the area we have confidence that right
whales are expected in the project area during certain times of year,
while at other times of year right whales are not expected to occur in
the project area. LeBreque et al. (2015) identify a seasonally active
migratory corridor BIA for North Atlantic right whales that overlaps
the project area in March-April (northbound route) and November-
December southbound. Due to the current status of North Atlantic right
whales, and the spatial overlap of the proposed project with an area
they are known to seasonally occur in, the potential impacts of the
proposed project on right whales warrant particular attention.
Elevated right whale mortalities have occurred since June 7, 2017,
along the U.S. and Canadian coast, with the leading category for the
cause of death for this UME determined to be ``human interaction,''
specifically from entanglements or vessel strikes. As of early October
2022, there have been 34 confirmed mortalities (dead stranded or
floaters; 21 in Canada; 13 in the United States) and 21 seriously
injured free-swimming whales for a total of 55 whales. As of October
14, 2022, the UME also considers animals with sublethal injury or
illness bringing the total number of whales in the UME to 91.
Approximately 42 percent of the population is known to be in reduced
health (Hamilton et al., 2021), likely contributing to the smaller body
sizes at maturation (Stewart et al., 2022) and making them more
susceptible to threats. More information about the North Atlantic right
whale UME is available online at: <a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event</a>.
NMFS' regulations at 50 CFR 224.105 designated nearshore waters of
the Mid-Atlantic Bight as Mid-Atlantic U.S. Seasonal Management Areas
(SMAs) for North Atlantic right whales in 2008 (73 FR 60173, October
10, 2008). SMAs were developed to reduce the threat of collisions
between ships and North Atlantic right whales around their migratory
route and calving grounds. While the project area does not overlap with
any SMAs, transiting vessels in the Mid-Atlantic Migratory region,
specifically out of Delaware Bay (38[deg]52'27.4'' N-075[deg]01'32.1''
W; active between November 1 and April 30) or the New York/New Jersey
ports (40[deg]29'42.2'' N-073[deg]55'57.6'' W; active between November
1 and April 30), could travel through these SMAs. NMFS notes that
Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs), triggered based on visual sightings
documented during the presence of three or more right whales within a
specific area, may be established at any time. More information on SMAs
and DMAs can be found on NMFS' website at <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>.
There are no areas where North Atlantic right whales are
specifically known to aggregate for foraging activities that overlap
the project area.
Humpback Whale
On September 8, 2016, NMFS divided the once single humpback whale
species into 14 distinct population segments (DPS) \1\ removed the
species-level listing, and in its place listed four DPSs as endangered
and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62260, 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 are
expected to occur in the Survey Area. Bettridge et al. (2015) estimated
the size of this population at 12,312 (95 percent Confidence Interval
(CI) 8,688-15,954) whales in 2004-05, which is consistent with previous
population estimates of approximately 10,000-11,000 whales (Smith et
al., 1999; Stevick et al., 2003) and the increasing trend for the West
Indies DPS (Bettridge et al., 2015). Whales occurring in the project
area are considered to be from the West Indies DPS but are not
necessarily from the Gulf of Maine feeding population managed as a
stock by NMFS. Given the current data, we expect humpback whales
migrating or foraging off the United States East Coast in the North
Atlantic Ocean are non-ESA-listed animals (West Indies DPS) that
originate from the western North Atlantic Ocean feeding areas (i.e.,
Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Saint Lawrence, Newfoundland/Labrador, Western
Greenland, Iceland, Norwegian Sea, and Northern Norway). Barco et al.,
2002 estimated that, based on photo-identification, only 39 percent of
individual humpback whales observed along the mid- and south Atlantic
U.S. coast are from the Gulf of Maine stock. Bettridge et al. (2015)
estimated the size of the West Indies DPS is 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). Humpback whales utilize the mid-
Atlantic as a migration pathway between calving/mating grounds to the
south and feeding grounds in the north (Waring et al., 2007a; Waring et
al., 2007b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the Endangered Species Act, in 16 U.S.C. 1532(16), a
distinct population segment (or DPS) is a vertebrate population or
group of populations that is discrete from other populations of the
species and significant in relation to the entire species. NOAA
Fisheries and the US Fish and Wildlife Service released a joint
statement on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722) that defines the criteria
for identifying a population as a DPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sighting of humpback whales used to be uncommon off of New Jersey;
however, four decades ago, humpback whales were infrequently sighted
off the US mid-Atlantic states (USMA, New York, New Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina; CeTAP, 1982), but they are now
common to coastal Virginia in winter when most humpback whales are on
their breeding
[[Page 64889]]
grounds (Swingle et al., 1993, Barco et al., 2002, Aschettino et al.,
2022). This shift is also supported by passive acoustic monitoring data
(e.g., Davis et al., 2020). Recently, Brown et al. (2022) investigated
site fidelity, population composition and demographics of individual
whales in the New York Bight apex (which includes New Jersey waters and
found that although mean occurrence was low (2.5 days), mean occupancy
was 37.6 days, and 31.3 percent of whales returned from one year to the
next. The majority of whales were seen during summer (July-September,
62.5 percent), followed by autumn (October-December, 23.5 percent) and
spring (April-June, 13.9 percent). They also found sightings of mother-
calf pairs were rare. When data were available to evaluate age, most
individuals were either confirmed or suspected juveniles, including
four whales known to be 2-4 years old based on known birth year, and 13
whales with sighting histories of 2 years or less on primary feeding
grounds. Three individuals were considered adults based on North
Atlantic sighting records. The young age structure in the nearshore
waters of the New York Bight apex is consistent with other literature
(Stepanuk et al., 2021; Swingle et al., 1993; Barco et al., 2022). It
remains to be determined whether humpback whales in the New York Bight
apex represent a northern expansion of individuals that had wintered
off Virginia, a southern expansion of individuals from the adjacent
Gulf of Maine, or is the result of another phenomenon.
Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have
occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida. Partial or
full necropsy examinations have been conducted on approximately half of
the 161 known cases (as of October 2022). Of the whales examined, about
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. NOAA is consulting with
researchers that are conducting studies on the humpback whale
populations, and these efforts may provide information on changes in
whale distribution and habitat use that could provide additional
insight into how these vessel interactions occurred. More information
regarding this declared UME 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>.
A humpback whale feeding BIA extends throughout the Gulf of Maine,
Stellwagen Bank, and Great South Channel from May through December,
annually (LeBrecque et al., 2015). However, this BIA is located further
north and does not overlap with any part of the project area.
Minke Whale
Since January 2017, a UME has been declared based on elevated minke
whale mortalities that have occurred along the Atlantic coast from
Maine through South Carolina, with a total of 123 strandings (as of
October 2022). Full or partial necropsy examinations were conducted on
more than 60 percent of the whales. Preliminary necropsy findings show
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>.
There are two minke whale feeding BIAs identified in the southern
and southwestern section of the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank,
the Great South Channel, Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay, Stellwagen
Bank, Cape Anne, and Jeffreys Ledge from March through November,
annually (LeBrecque et al., 2015). However, these BIAs are located
further north and do not overlap with any part of the project area.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data,
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques,
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 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.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 64890]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26OC22.022
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Seventeen marine mammal species (15 cetacean species (6 mysticetes and
9 odontocetes) and 2 pinniped species (both phocid)) have the
reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities.
Please refer back to Table 3. NMFS notes that in 2019, Southall et al.
recommended new names for hearing groups that are widely recognized.
However, this new hearing group classification does not change the
weighting functions or acoustic thresholds (i.e., the weighting
functions and thresholds in Southall et al. (2019) are identical to
NMFS 2018 Revised Technical Guidance). When NMFS updates our Technical
Guidance, we will be adopting the updated Southall et al. (2019)
hearing group classification.
Potential Effects to Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The Estimated Take section later in this document
includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are
expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the content of this section, the
Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those
impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or
stocks. General background information on marine mammal hearing was
provided previously (see the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area
of Specified Activities section). Here, the potential effects of sound
on marine mammals are discussed.
Ocean Wind has requested authorization for the take of marine
mammals that may occur incidental to construction activities in the
Ocean Wind 1 project area. Ocean Wind 1 analyzed potential impacts to
marine mammals from acoustic and explosive sources in its ITA
application. NMFS carefully reviewed the information provided by Ocean
Wind, along with independently reviewing applicable scientific research
and literature and
[[Page 64891]]
other information to evaluate the potential effects of Ocean Wind's
activities on marine mammals, which are presented in this section.
The proposed activities would result in the placement of up to 101
permanent structures (i.e., the monopiles and associated scour
protection supporting the WTGs and OSS, depending on the foundation
scenario carried forward for the OSSs) and seven temporary cofferdams
in the marine environment. Up to ten UXO/MEC detonations may occur
intermittently, and only as necessary. A variety of effects on marine
mammals, habitat, and prey species could occur.
Description of Sound Sources
This section contains a brief technical background on sound, on the
characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this
proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified
activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified
activity on marine mammals found later in this document. For general
information on sound and its interaction with the marine environment,
please see, e.g., Au and Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. (1995);
Urick (1983).
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and
is measured in Hz or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance
between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave (length of
one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths than lower
frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more rapidly,
except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of
the sound pressure wave or the ``loudness'' of a sound and is typically
described using the relative unit of the dB. A sound pressure level
(SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a measured pressure and a
reference pressure (for underwater sound, this is 1 microPascal (mPa)),
and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in
amplitude; therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to
large changes in sound pressure. The source level (SL) represents the
SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1
mPa), while the received level is the SPL at the listener's position
(referenced to 1 mPa).
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over
the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring
all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the
square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for
both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all
values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of
pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often
used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because
behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be
better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 micropascal-
squared second (mPa2-s)) represents the total energy in a stated
frequency band over a stated time interval or event, and considers both
intensity and duration of exposure. The per-pulse SEL is calculated
over the time window containing the entire pulse (i.e., 100 percent of
the acoustic energy). SEL is a cumulative metric; it can be accumulated
over a single pulse, or calculated over periods containing multiple
pulses. Cumulative SEL represents the total energy accumulated by a
receiver over a defined time window or during an event. Peak sound
pressure (also referred to as zero-to-peak sound pressure or 0-pk) is
the maximum instantaneous sound pressure measurable in the water at a
specified distance from the source, and is represented in the same
units as the rms sound pressure.
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a
manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either
directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions
(omnidirectional sources), as is the case for sound produced by the
pile driving activity considered here. The compressions and
decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in
pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as
hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound, which is
defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single
source or point (Richardson et al., 1995). The sound level of a region
is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and
unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., wind and
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds
produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic
(e.g., vessels, dredging, construction) sound. A number of sources
contribute to ambient sound, including wind and waves, which are a main
source of naturally occurring ambient sound for frequencies between 200
Hz and 50 kHz (ICES, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to
increase with increasing wind speed and wave height. Precipitation can
become an important component of total sound at frequencies above 500
Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet times. Marine mammals can
contribute significantly to ambient sound levels, as can some fish and
snapping shrimp. The frequency band for biological contributions is
from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz. Sources of ambient sound
related to human activity include transportation (surface vessels),
dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production,
geophysical surveys, sonar, and explosions. Vessel noise typically
dominates the total ambient sound for frequencies between 20 and 300
Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 2 kHz
and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate
rapidly.
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources that
comprise ambient sound at any given location and time depends not only
on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and
levels of biological and human activity) but also on the ability of
sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation
is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the
water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of
the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound
levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can
vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result
is that, depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals. Underwater ambient sound in the Atlantic Ocean southeast of
Rhode Island is composed of sounds produced by a number of natural and
anthropogenic sources. Human-generated sound is a significant
contributor to the ambient acoustic environment in the project
location.
[[Page 64892]]
Details of source types are described in the following text.
Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types:
Impulsive and non-impulsive (defined in the following). The distinction
between these two sound types is important because they have differing
potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to
hearing. Please see Southall et al. (2019) and NMFS (2018) for an in-
depth discussion of these concepts. The distinction between these two
sound types is not always obvious, as certain signals share properties
of both impulsive and non-impulsive sounds. A signal near a source
could be categorized as impulsive, but due to propagation effects as it
moves farther from the source, the signal duration becomes longer
(e.g., Greene and Richardson, 1988).
Impulsive sound sources (e.g., airguns, explosions, gunshots, sonic
booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients
(ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and occur
either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Impulsive
sounds are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient
pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period
that may include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and
minimal pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce
physical injury as compared with sounds that lack these features. Non-
impulsive sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995;
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-impulsive sounds can be transient
signals of short duration but without the essential properties of
pulses (e.g., rapid rise time). Examples of non-impulsive sounds
include those produced by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such
as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar
systems. The duration of such sounds can be greatly extended in a
highly reverberant environment.
Potential Effects of Underwater Sound on Marine Mammals
Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range of frequencies and sound
levels and can have a range of highly variable impacts on marine life,
from none or minor to potentially severe responses, depending on
received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and various
other factors. Broadly, underwater sound from active acoustic sources
can potentially result in one or more of the following: Temporary or
permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological
effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson et
al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al.,
2007; G[ouml]tz et al., 2009). The degree of effect is intrinsically
related to the signal characteristics, received level, distance from
the source, and duration of the sound exposure in addition to the
contextual factors of the receiver (e.g., behavioral state at time of
exposure, age class, etc.) (Southall et al., 2017; Southall et al.,
2019). In general, sudden, high level sounds can cause hearing loss, as
can longer exposures to lower level sounds. Temporary or permanent loss
of hearing will occur almost exclusively for noise within an animal's
hearing range. We describe below the specific manifestations of
acoustic effects that may occur based on the activities proposed by
Ocean Wind.
Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of
effect that might be expected to occur, in relation to distance from a
source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing
range. First (at the greatest distance) is the area within which the
acoustic signal would be audible (potentially perceived) to the animal
but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral or physiological
response. The next zone (closer to the receiving animal) corresponds
with the area where the signal is audible to the animal and of
sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral or physiological
responsiveness. The third is a smaller zone around the receiving
animals within which, for signals of high intensity, the received level
is sufficient to potentially cause discomfort or tissue damage to
auditory or other systems. Overlaying these zones to a certain extent
is the area within which masking (i.e., when a sound interferes with or
masks the ability of an animal to detect a signal of interest that is
above the absolute hearing threshold) may occur; the masking zone may
be highly variable in size.
Potential effects from explosive sound sources can range in
severity from effects such as behavioral disturbance or tactile
perception to physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs
and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973). Non-
auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might
occur in marine mammals exposed to high level underwater sound or as a
secondary effect of extreme behavioral reactions (e.g., change in dive
profile as a result of an avoidance reaction) caused by exposure to
sound include neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance
effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006;
Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007; Tal et al., 2015).
Below, we provide additional detail regarding potential impacts on
marine mammals and their habitat from noise in general, as well as from
the specific activities Ocean Wind plans to conduct, to the degree it
is available (noting that there is limited information regarding the
impacts of offshore wind construction on cetaceans).
Threshold Shift
Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound, or to lower-
intensity sound for prolonged periods, can experience hearing threshold
shift (TS), which NMFS defines as a change, usually an increase, in the
threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an
individual's hearing range above a previously established reference
level, expressed in decibels (NMFS, 2018). Threshold shifts can be
permanent, in which case there is an irreversible increase in the
threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an
individual's hearing range, or temporary, in which there is reversible
increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual's hearing range and the animal's hearing
threshold would fully recover over time (Southall et al., 2019).
Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS.
When PTS occurs, there can be physical damage to the sound
receptors in the ear (i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS represents
primarily tissue fatigue and is reversible (Henderson et al., 2008). In
addition, other investigators have suggested that TTS is within the
normal bounds of physiological variability and tolerance and does not
represent physical injury (e.g., Ward, 1997; Southall et al., 2019).
Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to constitute auditory injury.
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied
in marine mammals, and there is no PTS data for cetaceans, but such
relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other
terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least
several decibels above (a 40 dB threshold shift approximates a PTS
onset; e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Henderson et al.,
2008). This can also induce mild TTS (a 6 dB threshold shift
approximates a TTS onset; e.g., Southall et al., 2019). Based on data
from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the
[[Page 64893]]
PTS thresholds, expressed in the unweighted peak sound pressure level
metric (PK), for impulsive sounds (such as impact pile driving pulses)
are at least 6 dB higher than the TTS thresholds and the weighted PTS
cumulative sound exposure level thresholds are 15 (impulsive sound) to
20 (non-impulsive sounds) dB higher than TTS cumulative sound exposure
level thresholds (Southall et al., 20019). Given the higher level of
sound or longer exposure duration necessary to cause PTS as compared
with TTS, PTS is less likely to occur as a result of these activities,
but it is possible and a small amount has been proposed for
authorization for several species.
TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during
exposure to sound, with a TTS of 6 dB considered the minimum threshold
shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session
variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et al., 2000;
Finneran et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002).
While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound
must be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and
marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of
strong TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after
exposure to the sound ends. There are data on sound levels and
durations necessary to elicit mild TTS for marine mammals but recovery
is complicated to predict and dependent on multiple factors.
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to
serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate
for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency
range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there
are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could
have more serious impacts.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans
(bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor
porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena asiaeorientalis))
and six species of pinnipeds (northern elephant seal (Mirounga
angustirostris), harbor seal, ring seal, spotted seal, bearded seal,
and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus)) that were exposed to
a limited number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band
noise with limited number of exposure to impulsive sources such as
seismic airguns or impact pile driving) in laboratory settings
(Southall et al., 2019). There is currently no data available on noise-
induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS or
PTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS or PTS onset
thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2019), and NMFS (2018).
Recent studies with captive odontocete species (bottlenose dolphin,
harbor porpoise, beluga, and false killer whale) have observed
increases in hearing threshold levels when individuals received a
warning sound prior to exposure to a relatively loud sound (Nachtigall
and Supin, 2013, 2015, Nachtigall et al., 2016a,b,c, Finneran, 2018,
Nachtigall et al., 2018). These studies suggest that captive animals
have a mechanism to reduce hearing sensitivity prior to impending loud
sounds. Hearing change was observed to be frequency dependent and
Finneran (2018) suggests hearing attenuation occurs within the cochlea
or auditory nerve. Based on these observations on captive odontocetes,
the authors suggest that wild animals may have a mechanism to self-
mitigate the impacts of noise exposure by dampening their hearing
during prolonged exposures of loud sound, or if conditioned to
anticipate intense sounds (Finneran, 2018, Nachtigall et al., 2018).
Behavioral Disturbance
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-
specific. Many different variables can influence an animal's perception
of and response to (nature and magnitude) an acoustic event. An
animal's prior experience with a sound or sound source affects whether
it is less likely (habituation) or more likely (sensitization) to
respond to certain sounds in the future (animals can also be innately
predisposed to respond to certain sounds in certain ways) (Southall et
al., 2019). Related to the sound itself, the perceived nearness of the
sound, bearing of the sound (approaching vs. retreating), the
similarity of a sound to biologically relevant sounds in the animal's
environment (i.e., calls of predators, prey, or conspecifics), and
familiarity of the sound may affect the way an animal responds to the
sound (Southall et al., 2007, DeRuiter et al., 2013). Individuals (of
different age, gender, reproductive status, etc.) among most
populations will have variable hearing capabilities, and differing
behavioral sensitivities to sounds that will be affected by prior
conditioning, experience, and current activities of those individuals.
Often, specific acoustic features of the sound and contextual variables
(i.e., proximity, duration, or recurrence of the sound or the current
behavior that the marine mammal is engaged in or its prior experience),
as well as entirely separate factors such as the physical presence of a
nearby vessel, may be more relevant to the animal's response than the
received level alone. For example, Goldbogen et al. (2013) demonstrated
that individual behavioral state was critically important in
determining response of blue whales to sonar, noting that some
individuals engaged in deep (greater than 50 m) feeding behavior had
greater dive responses than those in shallow feeding or non-feeding
conditions. Some blue whales in the Goldbogen et al. (2013) study that
were engaged in shallow feeding behavior demonstrated no clear changes
in diving or movement even when received levels were high (~160 dB re
1mPa) for exposures to 3-4 kHz sonar signals, while others showed a
clear response at exposures at lower received levels of sonar and
pseudorandom noise.
Studies by DeRuiter et al. (2012) indicate that variability of
responses to acoustic stimuli depends not only on the species receiving
the sound and the sound source, but also on the social, behavioral, or
environmental contexts of exposure. Another study by DeRuiter et al.
(2013) examined behavioral responses of Cuvier's beaked whales to MF
sonar and found that whales responded strongly at low received levels
(89-127 dB re 1mPa) by ceasing normal fluking and echolocation,
swimming rapidly away, and extending both dive duration and subsequent
non-foraging intervals when the sound source was 3.4-9.5 km away.
Importantly, this study also showed that whales exposed to a similar
range of received levels (78-106 dB re 1mPa) from distant sonar
exercises (118 km away) did not elicit such responses, suggesting that
context may moderate reactions. Thus, it is known that distance from
the source can have an effect on behavioral response that is
independent of the effect of received levels (e.g., DeRuiter et al.,
2013; Dunlop et al., 2017a; Dunlop et al., 2017b; Falcone et al., 2017;
Dunlop et al., 2018; Southall et al., 2019a).
Ellison et al. (2012) outlined an approach to assessing the effects
of
[[Page 64894]]
sound on marine mammals that incorporates contextual-based factors. The
authors recommend considering not just the received level of sound, but
also the activity the animal is engaged in at the time the sound is
received, the nature and novelty of the sound (i.e., is this a new
sound from the animal's perspective), and the distance between the
sound source and the animal. They submit that this ``exposure
context,'' as described, greatly influences the type of behavioral
response exhibited by the animal. Forney et al. (2017) also point out
that an apparent lack of response (e.g., no displacement or avoidance
of a sound source) may not necessarily mean there is no cost to the
individual or population, as some resources or habitats may be of such
high value that animals may choose to stay, even when experiencing
stress or hearing loss. Forney et al. (2017) recommend considering both
the costs of remaining in an area of noise exposure such as TTS, PTS,
or masking, which could lead to an increased risk of predation or other
threats or a decreased capability to forage, and the costs of
displacement, including potential increased risk of vessel strike,
increased risks of predation or competition for resources, or decreased
habitat suitable for foraging, resting, or socializing. This sort of
contextual information is challenging to predict with accuracy for
ongoing activities that occur over large spatial and temporal expanses.
However, distance is one contextual factor for which data exist to
quantitatively inform a take estimate, and the method for predicting
Level B harassment in this rule does consider distance to the source.
Other factors are often considered qualitatively in the analysis of the
likely consequences of sound exposure, where supporting information is
available.
Friedlaender et al. (2016) provided the first integration of direct
measures of prey distribution and density variables incorporated into
across-individual analyses of behavior responses of blue whales to
sonar, and demonstrated a five-fold increase in the ability to quantify
variability in blue whale diving behavior. These results illustrate
that responses evaluated without such measurements for foraging animals
may be misleading, which again illustrates the context-dependent nature
of the probability of response. Exposure of marine mammals to sound
sources can result in, but is not limited to, no response or any of the
following observable responses: Increased alertness; orientation or
attraction to a sound source; vocal modifications; cessation of
feeding; cessation of social interaction; alteration of movement or
diving behavior; habitat abandonment (temporary or permanent); and, in
severe cases, panic, flight, stampede, or stranding, potentially
resulting in death (Southall et al., 2007). A review of marine mammal
responses to anthropogenic sound was first conducted by Richardson
(1995). More recent reviews (Nowacek et al., 2007; DeRuiter et al.,
2012 and 2013; Ellison et al., 2012; Gomez et al., 2016) address
studies conducted since 1995 and focused on observations where the
received sound level of the exposed marine mammal(s) was known or could
be estimated. Gomez et al. (2016) conducted a review of the literature
considering the contextual information of exposure in addition to
received level and found that higher received levels were not always
associated with more severe behavioral responses and vice versa.
Southall et al. (2021) states that results demonstrate that some
individuals of different species display clear yet varied responses,
some of which have negative implications, while others appear to
tolerate high levels, and that responses may not be fully predictable
with simple acoustic exposure metrics (e.g., received sound level).
Rather, the authors state that differences among species and
individuals along with contextual aspects of exposure (e.g., behavioral
state) appear to affect response probability. 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.
Avoidance and Displacement
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other
stressors and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales
or humpback whales are known to change direction--deflecting from
customary migratory paths--in order to avoid noise from airgun surveys
(Malme et al., 1984; Dunlop et al., 2018). Avoidance is qualitatively
different from the flight response, but also differs in the magnitude
of the response (i.e., directed movement, rate of travel, etc.).
Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area once
the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et
al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007; D[auml]hne et
al., 2013; Russel et al., 2016; Malme et al., 1984). Longer-term
displacement is possible, however, which may lead to changes in
abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species in the
affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does not
occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et
al., 2006; Forney et al., 2017). Avoidance of marine mammals during the
construction of offshore wind facilities (specifically, impact pile
driving) has been previously noted in the literature, with some
significant variation in the effects and with most studies focused on
harbor porpoises as one of the most common marine mammals in European
waters (e.g., Tougaard et al., 2009; D[auml]hne et al., 2013; Thompson
et al., 2013; Russell et al., 2016; Brandt et al., 2018).
Available information on impacts to marine mammals from pile
driving associated with offshore wind is limited to information on
harbor porpoises and seals, as the vast majority of this research has
occurred at European offshore wind projects where large whales and
other odontocete species are uncommon. Harbor porpoises and harbor
seals are considered to be behaviorally sensitive species (e.g.,
Southall et al., 2007) and the effects of wind farm construction in
Europe on these species has been well documented. These species have
received particular attention in European waters due to their abundance
in the North Sea (Hammond et al., 2002; Nachtsheim et al., 2021). A
summary of the literature on documented effects of wind farm
construction on harbor porpoise and harbor seals is described below.
Brandt et al. (2016) summarized the effects of the construction of
eight offshore wind projects within the German North Sea (i.e., Alpha
Ventus, BARD Offshore I, Borkum West II, DanTysk, Global Tech I,
Meerwind S[uuml]d/Ost, Nordsee Ost, and Riffgat) between 2009 and 2013
on harbor porpoises, combining PAM data from 2010-2013 and aerial
surveys from 2009-2013 with data on noise levels associated with pile
driving. Results of the analysis revealed significant declines in
porpoise detections during pile driving when compared to 25-48 hours
before pile driving began, with the magnitude of
[[Page 64895]]
decline during pile driving clearly decreasing with increasing
distances to the construction site. During the majority of projects,
significant declines in detections (by at least 20 percent) were found
within at least 5-10 km of the pile driving site, with declines at up
to 20-30 km of the pile driving site documented in some cases. Similar
results demonstrating the long-distance displacement of harbor
porpoises (18-25 km) and harbor seals (up to 40 km) during impact pile
driving have also been observed during the construction at multiple
other European wind farms (Haleters et al., 2015; Lucke et al., 2012;
D[auml]hne et al., 2013; Tougaard et al., 2009; Haelters et al., 2015;
Bailey et al., 2010).
While harbor porpoises and seals tend to move several kilometers
away from wind farm construction activities, the duration of
displacement has been documented to be relatively temporary. In two
studies at Horns Rev II using impact pile driving, harbor porpoise
returned within 1-2 days following cessation of pile driving (Tougaard
et al., 2009; Brandt et al., 2011). Similar recovery periods have been
noted for harbor seals off of England during the construction of four
wind farms (Carroll et al., 2010; Hamre et al., 2011; Hastie et al.,
2015; Russell et al., 2016; Brasseur et al., 2010). In some cases, an
increase in harbor porpoise activity has been documented inside wind
farm areas following construction (e.g., Lindeboom et al., 2011). Other
studies have noted longer term impacts after impact pile driving. Near
Dogger Bank in Germany, harbor porpoises continued to avoid the area
for over 2 years after construction began (Gilles et al., 2009).
Approximately 10 years after construction of the Nysted wind farm,
harbor porpoise abundance had not recovered to the original levels
previously seen, although the echolocation activity was noted to have
been increasing when compared to the previous monitoring period
(Teilmann and Carstensen, 2012). However, overall, there are no
indications for a population decline of harbor porpoises in European
waters (e.g., Brandt et al., 2016) Notably, where significant
differences in displacement and return rates have been identified for
these species, the occurrence of secondary project-specific influences
such as use of mitigation measures (e.g., bubble curtains, acoustic
deterrent devices (ADDs)) or the manner in which species use the
habitat in the project area are likely the driving factors of this
variation.
NMFS notes the aforementioned studies from Europe involve pile
driving much smaller piles than Ocean Wind proposes to install and
therefore we anticipate noise levels from impact pile driving to be
louder. For this reason, we anticipate that the greater distances of
displacement observed in harbor porpoise and harbor seals documented in
Europe are likely to occur off of New Jersey. However, we do not
anticipate any greater severity of response due to harbor porpoise and
harbor seal habitat use off of New Jersey or population level
consequences, similar to European findings. In many cases, harbor
porpoises and harbor seals are resident to the areas where European
wind farms have been constructed. However, off of New Jersey, harbor
porpoises are transient (in winter when impact pile driving would not
occur) and a very small percentage of the large harbor seal population
are only seasonally present with no rookeries established. In summary,
we anticipate that harbor porpoise and harbor seals will likely respond
to pile driving by moving several kilometers away from the source;
however, this impact would be temporary and, based on habitat use, not
impact any critical behaviors such as foraging or calving/pupping.
It should also be noted that the only studies available on marine
mammal responses to offshore wind-related pile driving have focused on
species which are known to be more behaviorally sensitive to auditory
stimuli than the other species that occur in the project area.
Therefore, the documented behavioral responses of harbor porpoises and
harbor seals to pile driving in Europe should be considered as a worst-
case scenario in terms of the potential responses among all marine
mammals to offshore pile driving, and these responses cannot reliably
predict the responses that will occur in other marine mammal species.
Longer term or repetitive/chronic displacement for some dolphin
groups and for manatees has been suggested to be due to the presence of
chronic vessel noise (Haviland-Howell et al., 2007; Miksis-Olds et al.,
2007). The context of the noise exposure has been shown to play an
important role in the response. In the 2007-2008 Bahamas study,
playback sounds of a potential predator--a killer whale--resulted in a
similar but more pronounced reaction, which included longer inter-dive
intervals and a sustained straight-line departure of more than 20 km
from the area (Boyd et al., 2008; Southall et al., 2009; Tyack et al.,
2011). Southall et al. (2011) found that blue whales had a different
response to sonar exposure depending on behavioral state, more
pronounced when deep feeding/travel modes than when engaged in surface
feeding.
Forney et al. (2017) detailed the potential effects of noise on
marine mammal populations with high site fidelity, including
displacement and auditory masking, noting that a lack of observed
response does not imply absence of fitness costs and that apparent
tolerance of disturbance may have population-level impacts that are
less obvious and difficult to document. Avoidance of overlap between
disturbing noise and areas and/or times of particular importance for
sensitive species may be critical to avoiding population-level impacts
because (particularly for animals with high site fidelity) there may be
a strong motivation to remain in the area despite negative impacts.
Forney et al. (2017) stated that, for these animals, remaining in a
disturbed area may reflect a lack of alternatives rather than a lack of
effects. Forney et al. discusses several case studies, including
western Pacific gray whales, which are a small population of mysticetes
believed to be adversely affected by oil and gas development off
Sakhalin Island, Russia (Weller et al., 2002; Reeves et al., 2005).
Western gray whales display a high degree of inter-annual site fidelity
to the area for foraging purposes, and observations in the area during
air gun surveys has shown the potential for harm caused by displacement
from such an important area (Weller et al., 2006; Johnson et al.,
2007). Forney et al. (2017) also discuss beaked whales, noting that
anthropogenic effects in areas where they are resident could cause
severe biological consequences, in part because displacement may
adversely affect foraging rates, reproduction, or health, while an
overriding instinct to remain could lead to more severe acute effects.
Tyack and Clark (1983) conducted playback studies of SURTASS low
frequency active (LFA) sonar in a gray whale migratory corridor off
California. Similar to North Atlantic right whales, gray whales migrate
close to shore (approximately +2 kms) and are low frequency hearing
specialists. The LFA sonar source was placed within the gray whale
migratory corridor (approximately 2 km offshore) and offshore of most,
but not all, migrating whales (approximately 4 km offshore). These
locations influenced received levels and distance to the source. For
the inshore playbacks, not unexpectedly, the louder the source level of
the playback (i.e., the louder the received level), whale avoided the
source at greater distances. Specifically, when the source level was
170 dB rms and 178 dB rms, whales avoided the
[[Page 64896]]
inshore source at ranges of several hundred meters, similar to
avoidance responses reported by Malme et al. (1983, 1984). Whales
exposed to source levels of 185 dB rms demonstrated avoidance levels at
larger ranges of +1 km. Responses to the offshore source broadcasting
at source levels of 185 and 200 dB, avoidance responses were greatly
reduced. While there was observed deflection from course, in no case
did a whale abandon its migratory behavior.
Flight Response
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, rate of
travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine
mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight
responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and
Heithaus, 1996; Frid and Dill, 2002). The result of a flight response
could range from brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the
area where the signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, beaked
whale strandings (Cox et al., 2006; D'Amico et al., 2009). However, it
should be noted that response to a perceived predator does not
necessarily invoke flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and whether
individuals are solitary or in groups may influence the response.
Flight responses of marine mammals have been documented in response to
mobile high intensity active sonar (e.g., Tyack et al., 2011; DeRuiter
et al., 2013; Wensveen et al., 2019), and more severe responses have
been documented when sources are moving towards an animal or when they
are surprised by unpredictable exposures (Watkins, 1986; Falcone et
al., 2017). Generally speaking, however, marine mammals would be
expected to be less likely to respond with a flight response to either
stationery pile driving (which they can sense is stationery and
predictable) or significantly lower-level HRG surveys, unless they are
within the area ensonified above behavioral harassment thresholds at
the moment the source is turned on (Watkins, 1986; Falcone et al.,
2017).
Alteration of Diving or Movement
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely. They may consist of
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel
and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et
al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a, 2013b). Variations in dive behavior
may reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g.,
foraging) or they may be of little biological significance. Variations
in dive behavior may also expose an animal to potentially harmful
conditions (e.g., increasing the chance of ship-strike) or may serve as
an avoidance response that enhances survivorship. The impact of a
variation in diving resulting from an acoustic exposure depends on what
the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the type and
magnitude of the response.
Nowacek et al. (2004) reported disruptions of dive behaviors in
foraging North Atlantic right whales when exposed to an alerting
stimulus, an action, they noted, that could lead to an increased
likelihood of ship strike. However, the whales did not respond to
playbacks of either right whale social sounds or vessel noise,
highlighting the importance of the sound characteristics in producing a
behavioral reaction. Conversely, Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins have
been observed to dive for longer periods of time in areas where vessels
were present and/or approaching (Ng and Leung, 2003). In both of these
studies, the influence of the sound exposure cannot be decoupled from
the physical presence of a surface vessel, thus complicating
interpretations of the relative contribution of each stimulus to the
response. Indeed, the presence of surface vessels, their approach, and
speed of approach, seemed to be significant factors in the response of
the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng and Leung, 2003). Low frequency
signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) sound
source were not found to affect dive times of humpback whales in
Hawaiian waters (Frankel and Clark, 2000) or to overtly affect elephant
seal dives (Costa et al., 2003). They did, however, produce subtle
effects that varied in direction and degree among the individual seals,
illustrating the equivocal nature of behavioral effects and consequent
difficulty in defining and predicting them. Lastly, as noted
previously, DeRuiter et al. (2013) noted that distance from a sound
source may moderate marine mammal reactions in their study of Cuvier's
beaked whales, which showed the whales swimming rapidly and silently
away when a sonar signal was 3.4-9.5 km away while showing no such
reaction to the same signal when the signal was 118 km away even though
the received levels were similar.
Foraging
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., 2006a; Yazvenko et al.,
2007; Southall et al., 2019b). An understanding of the energetic
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history
stage of the animal can facilitate the assessment of whether foraging
disruptions are likely to incur fitness consequences (Goldbogen et al.,
2013; Farmer et al., 2018; Pirotta et al., 2018; Southall et al., 2019;
Pirotta et al., 2021).
Impacts on marine mammal foraging rates from noise exposure have
been extensively documented, though there is little data regarding the
impacts of offshore turbine construction specifically. Several broader
examples follow, and it is reasonable to expect that exposure to noise
produced during the 5-years the proposed rule would be effective could
have similar impacts.
Visual tracking, passive acoustic monitoring, and movement
recording tags were used to quantify sperm whale behavior prior to,
during, and following exposure to air gun arrays at received levels in
the range 140-160 dB at distances of 7-13 km, following a phase-in of
sound intensity and full array exposures at 1-13 km (Madsen et al.,
2006a; Miller et al., 2009). Sperm whales did not exhibit horizontal
avoidance behavior at the surface. However, foraging behavior may have
been affected. The sperm whales exhibited 19 percent less vocal (buzz)
rate during full exposure relative to post exposure, and the whale that
was approached most closely had an extended resting period and did not
resume foraging until the air guns had ceased firing. The remaining
whales continued to execute foraging dives throughout exposure;
however, swimming movements during foraging dives were 6 percent lower
during exposure than control periods (Miller et al., 2009). Miller et
al. (2009) noted that
[[Page 64897]]
more data are required to understand whether the differences were due
to exposure or natural variation in sperm whale behavior.
Balaenopterid whales exposed to moderate low-frequency signals
similar to the ATOC sound source demonstrated no variation in foraging
activity (Croll et al., 2001), whereas five out of six North Atlantic
right whales exposed to an acoustic alarm interrupted their foraging
dives (Nowacek et al., 2004). Although the received SPLs were similar
in the latter two studies, the frequency, duration, and temporal
pattern of signal presentation were different. These factors, as well
as differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors
to the differential response. Blue whales exposed to mid-frequency
sonar in the Southern California Bight were less likely to produce low
frequency calls usually associated with feeding behavior (Melc[oacute]n
et al., 2012). However, Melc[oacute]n et al. (2012) were unable to
determine if suppression of low frequency calls reflected a change in
their feeding performance or abandonment of foraging behavior and
indicated that implications of the documented responses are unknown.
Further, it is not known whether the lower rates of calling actually
indicated a reduction in feeding behavior or social contact since the
study used data from remotely deployed, passive acoustic monitoring
buoys. In contrast, blue whales increased their likelihood of calling
when ship noise was present, and decreased their likelihood of calling
in the presence of explosive noise, although this result was not
statistically significant (Melc[oacute]n et al., 2012). Additionally,
the likelihood of an animal calling decreased with the increased
received level of mid-frequency sonar, beginning at a SPL of
approximately 110-120 dB referenced to a pressure of 1 microPascal (re
1 [micro]Pa) (Melc[oacute]n et al., 2012). Results from the 2010-2011
field season of a behavioral response study in Southern California
waters indicated that, in some cases and at low received levels, tagged
blue whales responded to mid-frequency sonar but that those responses
were mild and there was a quick return to their baseline activity
(Southall et al., 2011; Southall et al., 2012b; Southall et al.,
2019b). 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. Surface feeding blue whales did not show a
change in behavior in response to mid-frequency simulated and real
sonar sources with received levels between 90 and 179 dB re 1
[micro]Pa, but deep feeding and non-feeding whales showed temporary
reactions including cessation of feeding, reduced initiation of deep
foraging dives, generalized avoidance responses, and changes to dive
behavior (DeRuiter et al., 2017; Goldbogen et al., 2013b; Sivle et al.,
2015). Goldbogen et al. (2013b) indicate that disruption of feeding and
displacement could impact individual fitness and health. However, for
this to be true, we would have to assume that an individual whale could
not compensate for this lost feeding opportunity by either immediately
feeding at another location, by feeding shortly after cessation of
acoustic exposure, or by feeding at a later time. There is no
indication 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.
Similarly, while the rates of foraging lunges decrease in humpback
whales due to sonar exposure, there was variability in the response
across individuals, with one animal ceasing to forage completely and
another animal starting to forage during the exposure (Sivle et al.,
2016). In addition, almost half of the animals that demonstrated
avoidance were foraging before the exposure but the others were not;
the animals that avoided while not feeding responded at a slightly
lower received level and greater distance than those that were feeding
(Wensveen et al., 2017). These findings indicate that the behavioral
state of the animal plays a role in the type and severity of a
behavioral response. In fact, when the prey field was mapped and used
as a covariate in similar models looking for a response in the same
blue whales, the response in deep-feeding behavior by blue whales was
even more apparent, reinforcing the need for contextual variables to be
included when assessing behavioral responses (Friedlaender et al.,
2016).
Breathing
Respiration naturally varies with different behaviors and
variations in respiration rate as a function of acoustic exposure can
be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute
stress response. Mean exhalation rates of gray whales at rest and while
diving were found to be unaffected by seismic surveys conducted
adjacent to the whale feeding grounds (Gailey et al., 2007). Studies
with captive harbor porpoises showed increased respiration rates upon
introduction of acoustic alarms (Kastelein et al., 2001; Kastelein et
al., 2006a) and emissions for underwater data transmission (Kastelein
et al., 2005). However, exposure of the same acoustic alarm to a
striped dolphin under the same conditions did not elicit a response
(Kastelein et al., 2006a), again highlighting the importance in
understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise
when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic
sound exposure.
Vocalizations (Also See the Auditory Masking Section)
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 directly from
increased vigilance (also see the Potential Effects of Behavioral
Disturbance on Marine Mammal Fitness section) or a startle response, or
from a need to compete with an increase in background noise (see Erbe
et al., 2016 review on communication masking), the latter of which is
described more in the Auditory Masking section below.
For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals,
humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the
length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; Fristrup et al., 2003;
Foote et al., 2004) and blue increased song production (Di Iorio and
Clark, 2010), while North Atlantic right whales have been observed to
shift the frequency content of their calls upward while reducing the
rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic noise (Parks et
al., 2007). In some cases, animals may cease or reduce sound production
during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994; Thode et
al., 2020; Cerchio et al., (2014); McDonald et al., (1995)). Blackwell
et al. (2015) showed that whales increased calling rates as soon as air
gun signals were detectable before ultimately decreasing calling rates
at higher received levels.
Orientation
A shift in an animal's resting state or an attentional change via
an orienting response represent behaviors that would be considered mild
disruptions if occurring alone. As previously
[[Page 64898]]
mentioned, the responses may co-occur with other behaviors; for
instance, an animal may initially orient toward a sound source, and
then move away from it. Thus, any orienting response should be
considered in context of other reactions that may occur.
Habituation and Sensitization
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 having a neutral or positive outcome (Bejder et al.,
2009). The opposite process is sensitization, when an unpleasant
experience leads to subsequent responses, often in the form of
avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. Both habituation and
sensitization require an ongoing learning process. As noted, behavioral
state may affect the type of response. For example, animals that are
resting may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing
sound levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an
area for feeding (Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al.,
2003; Southall et al., 2019b). Controlled experiments with captive
marine mammals have shown pronounced behavioral reactions, including
avoidance of loud sound sources (e.g., Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran
et al., 2003; Houser et al., 2013a,b; Kastelein et al., 2018). Observed
responses of wild marine mammals to loud impulsive sound sources
(typically airguns or acoustic harassment devices) have been varied but
often include avoidance behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting
discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995;
Nowacek et al., 2007; Tougaard et al., 2009; Brandt et al., 2011,
Brandt et al., 2012, D[auml]hne et al., 2013; Brandt et al., 2014;
Russell et al., 2016; Brandt et al., 2018). However, many delphinids
approach low-frequency airgun source vessels with no apparent
discomfort or obvious behavioral change (e.g., Barkaszi et al., 2012),
indicating the importance of frequency output in relation to the
species' hearing sensitivity.
Stress Response
An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger
stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral
responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine
responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; Moberg, 2000). In
many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms
of energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential
stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress typically
involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal
activity. These responses have a relatively short duration and may or
may not have a significant long-term effect on an animal's fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction,
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha,
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response,
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves
sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well studied through
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003;
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000;
Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations
(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found
that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003, 2017).
Auditory Masking
Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering with, an
animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between acoustic
signals of interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific communication
and social interactions, prey detection, predator avoidance, or
navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Tyack,
2000; Erbe et al., 2016). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is
interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and
at similar or higher intensity, and may occur whether the sound is
natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or
anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin.
The ability of a noise source to mask biologically important sounds
depends on the characteristics of both the noise source and the signal
of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability,
direction), in relation to each other and to an animal's hearing
abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios,
frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, age, or TTS
hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions.
Masking these acoustic signals can disturb the behavior of individual
animals, groups of animals, or entire populations. Masking can lead to
behavioral changes including vocal changes (e.g., Lombard effect,
increasing amplitude, or changing frequency), cessation of foraging or
lost foraging opportunities, and leaving an area, to both signalers and
receivers, in an attempt to compensate for noise levels (Erbe et al.,
2016) or because sounds that would typically have triggered a behavior
were not detected. In humans, significant masking of tonal signals
occurs as a result of exposure to noise in a narrow band of similar
frequencies. As the sound level increases, though, the detection of
frequencies above those of
[[Page 64899]]
the masking stimulus decreases also. This principle is expected to
apply to marine mammals as well because of common biomechanical
cochlear properties across taxa.
Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is man-made, it may
be considered harassment when disrupting or altering critical
behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist
after the sound exposure, from masking, which only occurs during the
sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in threshold shift)
is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not
considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral
effect.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important
in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-
frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation
sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection
of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important
natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species.
The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be
considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (e.g.,
Clark et al., 2009; Matthews et al., 2016) and may result in energetic
or other costs as animals change their vocalization behavior (e.g.,
Miller et al., 2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio
and Clark, 2009; Holt et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in
situations where the signal and noise come from different directions
(Richardson et al., 1995), through amplitude modulation of the signal,
or through other compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014).
Masking can be tested directly in captive species (e.g., Erbe, 2008),
but in wild populations it must be either modeled or inferred from
evidence of masking compensation. There are few studies addressing
real-world masking sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in
the wild (e.g., Branstetter et al., 2013; Cholewiak et al., 2018).
The echolocation calls of toothed whales are subject to masking by
high-frequency sound. Human data indicate low-frequency sound can mask
high-frequency sounds (i.e., upward masking). Studies on captive
odontocetes by Au et al. (1974, 1985, 1993) indicate that some species
may use various processes to reduce masking effects (e.g., adjustments
in echolocation call intensity or frequency as a function of background
noise conditions). There is also evidence that the directional hearing
abilities of odontocetes are useful in reducing masking at the high-
frequencies these cetaceans use to echolocate, but not at the low-to-
moderate frequencies they use to communicate (Zaitseva et al., 1980). A
study by Nachtigall and Supin (2008) showed that false killer whales
adjust their hearing to compensate for ambient sounds and the intensity
of returning echolocation signals.
Impacts on signal detection, measured by masked detection
thresholds, are not the only important factors to address when
considering the potential effects of masking. As marine mammals use
sound to recognize conspecifics, prey, predators, or other biologically
significant sources (Branstetter et al., 2016), it is also important to
understand the impacts of masked recognition thresholds (often called
``informational masking''). Branstetter et al. (2016) measured masked
recognition thresholds for whistle-like sounds of bottlenose dolphins
and observed that they are approximately 4 dB above detection
thresholds (energetic masking) for the same signals. Reduced ability to
recognize a conspecific call or the acoustic signature of a predator
could have severe negative impacts. Branstetter et al. (2016) observed
that if ``quality communication'' is set at 90 percent recognition the
output of communication space models (which are based on 50 percent
detection) would likely result in a significant decrease in
communication range.
As marine mammals use sound to recognize predators (Allen et al.,
2014; Cummings and Thompson, 1971; Cur[eacute] et al., 2015; Fish and
Vania, 1971), the presence of masking noise may also prevent marine
mammals from responding to acoustic cues produced by their predators,
particularly if it occurs in the same frequency band. For example,
harbor seals that reside in the coastal waters off British Columbia are
frequently targeted by mammal-eating killer whales. The seals
acoustically discriminate between the calls of mammal-eating and fish-
eating killer whales (Deecke et al., 2002), a capability that should
increase survivorship while reducing the energy required to attend to
all killer whale calls. Similarly, sperm whales (Cur[eacute] et al.,
2016; Isojunno et al., 2016), long-finned pilot whales (Visser et al.,
2016), and humpback whales (Cur[eacute] et al., 2015) changed their
behavior in response to killer whale vocalization playbacks; these
findings indicate that some recognition of predator cues could be
missed if the killer whale vocalizations were masked. The potential
effects of masked predator acoustic cues depends on the duration of the
masking noise and the likelihood of a marine mammal encountering a
predator during the time that detection and recognition of predator
cues are impeded.
Redundancy and context can also facilitate detection of weak
signals. These phenomena may help marine mammals detect weak sounds in
the presence of natural or manmade noise. Most masking studies in
marine mammals present the test signal and the masking noise from the
same direction. The dominant background noise may be highly directional
if it comes from a particular anthropogenic source such as a ship or
industrial site. Directional hearing may significantly reduce the
masking effects of these sounds by improving the effective signal-to-
noise ratio.
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and,
at higher levels and longer duration, can potentially have long-term
chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at
the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased
by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the
world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase
from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand, 2009; Cholewiak et al.,
2018). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and
lower-frequency signals (e.g., from commercial vessel traffic),
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
In addition to making it more difficult for animals to perceive and
recognize acoustic cues in their environment, anthropogenic sound
presents separate challenges for animals that are vocalizing. When they
vocalize, animals are aware of environmental conditions that affect the
``active space'' (or communication space) of their vocalizations, which
is the maximum area within which their vocalizations can be detected
before it drops to the level of ambient noise (Brenowitz, 2004; Brumm
et al., 2004; Lohr et al., 2003). Animals are also aware of
environmental conditions that affect whether listeners can discriminate
and recognize their vocalizations from other sounds, which is more
important than simply detecting that a vocalization is occurring
(Brenowitz, 1982; Brumm et al., 2004; Dooling, 2004, Marten and Marler,
1977; Patricelli et al., 2006). Most species that vocalize have evolved
with an ability to make adjustments to their vocalizations to increase
the signal-to-noise ratio, active space, and recognizability/
distinguishability of their vocalizations in the face of
[[Page 64900]]
temporary changes in background noise (Brumm et al., 2004; Patricelli
et al., 2006). Vocalizing animals can make adjustments to vocalization
characteristics such as the frequency structure, amplitude, temporal
structure, and temporal delivery (repetition rate), or ceasing to
vocalize.
Many animals will combine several of these strategies to compensate
for high levels of background noise. Anthropogenic sounds that reduce
the signal-to-noise ratio of animal vocalizations, increase the masked
auditory thresholds of animals listening for such vocalizations, or
reduce the active space of an animal's vocalizations impair
communication between animals. Most animals that vocalize have evolved
strategies to compensate for the effects of short-term or temporary
increases in background or ambient noise on their songs or calls.
Although the fitness consequences of these vocal adjustments are not
directly known in all instances, like most other trade-offs animals
must make, some of these strategies probably come at a cost (Patricelli
et al., 2006; Noren et al., 2017; Noren et al., 2020). Shifting songs
and calls to higher frequencies may also impose energetic costs
(Lambrechts, 1996).
Marine mammals are also known to make vocal changes in response to
anthropogenic noise. In cetaceans, vocalization changes have been
reported from exposure to anthropogenic noise sources such as sonar,
vessel noise, and seismic surveying (see the following for examples:
Gordon et al., 2003; Di Iorio and Clark, 2010; Hatch et al., 2012; Holt
et al., 2008; Holt et al., 2011; Lesage et al., 1999; McDonald et al.,
2009; Parks et al., 2007, Risch et al., 2012, Rolland et al., 2012), as
well as changes in the natural acoustic environment (Dunlop et al.,
2014). Vocal changes can be temporary, or can be persistent. For
example, model simulation suggests that the increase in starting
frequency for the North Atlantic right whale upcall over the last 50
years resulted in increased detection ranges between right whales. The
frequency shift, coupled with an increase in call intensity by 20 dB,
led to a call detectability range of less than 3 km to over 9 km
(Tennessen and Parks, 2016). Holt et al. (2008) measured killer whale
call source levels and background noise levels in the one to 40 kHz
band and reported that the whales increased their call source levels by
one dB SPL for every one dB SPL increase in background noise level.
Similarly, another study on St. Lawrence River belugas reported a
similar rate of increase in vocalization activity in response to
passing vessels (Scheifele et al., 2005). Di Iorio and Clark (2010)
showed that blue whale calling rates vary in association with seismic
sparker survey activity, with whales calling more on days with surveys
than on days without surveys. They suggested that the whales called
more during seismic survey periods as a way to compensate for the
elevated noise conditions.
In some cases, these vocal changes may have fitness consequences,
such as an increase in metabolic rates and oxygen consumption, as
observed in bottlenose dolphins when increasing their call amplitude
(Holt et al., 2015). A switch from vocal communication to physical,
surface-generated sounds such as pectoral fin slapping or breaching was
observed for humpback whales in the presence of increasing natural
background noise levels, indicating that adaptations to masking may
also move beyond vocal modifications (Dunlop et al., 2010).
While these changes all represent possible tactics by the sound-
producing animal to reduce the impact of masking, the receiving animal
can also reduce masking by using active listening strategies such as
orienting to the sound source, moving to a quieter location, or
reducing self-noise from hydrodynamic flow by remaining still. The
temporal structure of noise (e.g., amplitude modulation) may also
provide a considerable release from masking through comodulation
masking release (a reduction of masking that occurs when broadband
noise, with a frequency spectrum wider than an animal's auditory filter
bandwidth at the frequency of interest, is amplitude modulated)
(Branstetter and Finneran, 2008; Branstetter et al., 2013). Signal type
(e.g., whistles, burst-pulse, sonar clicks) and spectral
characteristics (e.g., frequency modulated with harmonics) may further
influence masked detection thresholds (Branstetter et al., 2016;
Cunningham et al., 2014).
Masking is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband,
relatively continuous noise sources such as vessels. Several studies
have shown decreases in marine mammal communication space and changes
in behavior as a result of the presence of vessel noise. For example,
right whales were observed to shift the frequency content of their
calls upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased
anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007) as well as increasing the
amplitude (intensity) of their calls (Parks, 2009; Parks et al., 2011).
Clark et al. (2009) also observed that right whales' communication
space decreased by up to 84 percent in the presence of vessels.
Cholewiak et al. (2018) also observed loss in communication space in
Stellwagen National Marine Sanctuary for North Atlantic right whales,
fin whales, and humpback whales with increased ambient noise and
shipping noise. Although humpback whales off Australia did not change
the frequency or duration of their vocalizations in the presence of
ship noise, their source levels were lower than expected based on
source level changes to wind noise, potentially indicating some signal
masking (Dunlop, 2016). Multiple delphinid species have also been shown
to increase the minimum or maximum frequencies of their whistles in the
presence of anthropogenic noise and reduced communication space (for
examples see: Holt et al., 2008; Holt et al., 2011; Gervaise et al.,
2012; Williams et al., 2013; Hermannsen et al., 2014; Papale et al.,
2015; Liu et al., 2017). While masking impacts are not a concern from
lower intensity, higher frequency HRG surveys, some degree of masking
would be expected in the vicinity of turbine pile driving and
concentrated support vessel operation.
Explosive Sources
Underwater explosive detonations send a shock wave and sound energy
through the water and can release gaseous by-products, create an
oscillating bubble, or cause a plume of water to shoot up from the
water surface. The shock wave and accompanying noise are of most
concern to marine animals. Depending on the intensity of the shock wave
and size, location, and depth of the animal, an animal can be injured,
killed, suffer non-lethal physical effects, experience hearing related
effects with or without behavioral responses, or exhibit temporary
behavioral responses or tolerance from hearing the blast sound.
Generally, exposures to higher levels of impulse and pressure levels
would result in greater impacts to an individual animal.
Injuries resulting from a shock wave take place at boundaries
between tissues of different densities. Different velocities are
imparted to tissues of different densities, and this can lead to their
physical disruption. Blast effects are greatest at the gas-liquid
interface (Landsberg, 2000). Gas-containing organs, particularly the
lungs and gastrointestinal tract, are especially susceptible (Goertner,
1982; Hill, 1978; Yelverton et al., 1973). Intestinal walls can bruise
or rupture, with subsequent hemorrhage and escape of gut contents into
the body cavity. Less severe gastrointestinal tract injuries include
contusions, petechiae (small red or
[[Page 64901]]
purple spots caused by bleeding in the skin), and slight hemorrhaging
(Yelverton et al., 1973).
Because the ears are the most sensitive to pressure, they are the
organs most sensitive to injury (Ketten, 2000). Sound-related damage
associated with sound energy from detonations can be theoretically
distinct from injury from the shock wave, particularly farther from the
explosion. If a noise is audible to an animal, it has the potential to
damage the animal's hearing by causing decreased sensitivity (Ketten,
1995). Lethal impacts are those that result in immediate death or
serious debilitation in or near an intense source and are not,
technically, pure acoustic trauma (Ketten, 1995). Sublethal impacts
include hearing loss, which is caused by exposures to perceptible
sounds. Severe damage (from the shock wave) to the ears includes
tympanic membrane rupture, fracture of the ossicles, and damage to the
cochlea, hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage into the middle
ear. Moderate injury implies partial hearing loss due to tympanic
membrane rupture and blood in the middle ear. Permanent hearing loss
also can occur when the hair cells are damaged by one very loud event,
as well as by prolonged exposure to a loud noise or chronic exposure to
noise. The level of impact from blasts depends on both an animal's
location and, at outer zones, on its sensitivity to the residual noise
(Ketten, 1995).
Given the mitigation measures proposed, and the small number of
detonations proposed, it is unlikely that any of the more serious
injuries or mortality discussed above are likely to result from any
UXO/MEC detonation that Ocean Wind might need to undertake. TTS and
brief startle reactions are the most likely impacts to result from this
activity.
Potential Effects of Behavioral Disturbance on Marine Mammal Fitness
The different ways that marine mammals respond to sound are
sometimes indicators of the ultimate effect that exposure to a given
stimulus will have on the well-being (survival, reproduction, etc.) of
an animal. There is little quantitative marine mammal data relating the
exposure of marine mammals from sound to effects on reproduction or
survival, though data exists for terrestrial species to which we can
draw comparisons for marine mammals. Several authors have reported that
disturbance stimuli may cause animals to abandon nesting and foraging
sites (Sutherland and Crockford, 1993); may cause animals to increase
their activity levels and suffer premature deaths or reduced
reproductive success when their energy expenditures exceed their energy
budgets (Daan et al., 1996; Feare, 1976; Mullner et al., 2004); or may
cause animals to experience higher predation rates when they adopt
risk-prone foraging or migratory strategies (Frid and Dill, 2002). Each
of these studies addressed the consequences of animals shifting from
one behavioral state (e.g., resting or foraging) to another behavioral
state (e.g., avoidance or escape behavior) because of human disturbance
or disturbance stimuli.
One consequence of behavioral avoidance results in the altered
energetic expenditure of marine mammals because energy is required to
move and avoid surface vessels or the sound field associated with
active sonar (Frid and Dill, 2002). Most animals can avoid that
energetic cost by swimming away at slow speeds or speeds that minimize
the cost of transport (Miksis-Olds, 2006), as has been demonstrated in
Florida manatees (Miksis-Olds, 2006).
Those energetic costs increase, however, when animals shift from a
resting state, which is designed to conserve an animal's energy, to an
active state that consumes energy the animal would have conserved had
it not been disturbed. Marine mammals that have been disturbed by
anthropogenic noise and vessel approaches are commonly reported to
shift from resting to active behavioral states, which would imply that
they incur an energy cost.
Morete et al., (2007) reported that undisturbed humpback whale cows
that were accompanied by their calves were frequently observed resting
while their calves circled them (milling). When vessels approached, the
amount of time cows and calves spent resting and milling, respectively,
declined significantly. These results are similar to those reported by
Scheidat et al. (2004) for the humpback whales they observed off the
coast of Ecuador.
Constantine and Brunton (2001) reported that bottlenose dolphins in
the Bay of Islands, New Zealand engaged in resting behavior just 5
percent of the time when vessels were within 300 m, compared with 83
percent of the time when vessels were not present. However, Heenehan et
al. (2016) report that results of a study of the response of Hawaiian
spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) to human disturbance suggest
that the key factor is not the sheer presence or magnitude of human
activities, but rather the directed interactions and dolphin-focused
activities that elicit responses from dolphins at rest. This
information again illustrates the importance of context in regard to
whether an animal will respond to a stimulus. Miksis-Olds (2006) and
Miksis-Olds et al. (2005) reported that Florida manatees in Sarasota
Bay, Florida, reduced the amount of time they spent milling and
increased the amount of time they spent feeding when background noise
levels increased. Although the acute costs of these changes in behavior
are not likely to exceed an animal's ability to compensate, the chronic
costs of these behavioral shifts are uncertain.
Attention is the cognitive process of selectively concentrating on
one aspect of an animal's environment while ignoring other things
(Posner, 1994). Because animals (including humans) have limited
cognitive resources, there is a limit to how much sensory information
they can process at any time. The phenomenon called ``attentional
capture'' occurs when a stimulus (usually a stimulus that an animal is
not concentrating on or attending to) ``captures'' an animal's
attention. This shift in attention can occur consciously or
subconsciously (for example, when an animal hears sounds that it
associates with the approach of a predator) and the shift in attention
can be sudden (Dukas, 2002; van Rij, 2007). Once a stimulus has
captured an animal's attention, the animal can respond by ignoring the
stimulus, assuming a ``watch and wait'' posture, or treat the stimulus
as a disturbance and respond accordingly, which includes scanning for
the source of the stimulus or ``vigilance'' (Cowlishaw et al., 2004).
Vigilance is an adaptive behavior that helps animals determine the
presence or absence of predators, assess their distance from
conspecifics, or to attend cues from prey (Bednekoff and Lima, 1998;
Treves, 2000). Despite those benefits, however, vigilance has a cost of
time; when animals focus their attention on specific environmental
cues, they are not attending to other activities such as foraging or
resting. These effects have generally not been demonstrated for marine
mammals, but studies involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown
that increased vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (Saino,
1994; Beauchamp and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and
Radford, 2011). Animals will spend more time being vigilant, which may
translate to less time foraging or resting, when disturbance stimuli
approach them more directly, remain at closer distances, have a greater
group size (e.g., multiple surface vessels), or when they co-occur with
times that an animal perceives increased risk (e.g., when they are
giving birth or
[[Page 64902]]
accompanied by a calf). Most of the published literature, however,
suggests that direct approaches will increase the amount of time
animals will dedicate to being vigilant. An example of this concept
with terrestrial species involved bighorn sheep and Dall's sheep, which
dedicated more time being vigilant, and less time resting or foraging,
when aircraft made direct approaches over them (Frid, 2001; Stockwell
et al., 1991). Vigilance has also been documented in pinnipeds at haul
out sites where resting may be disturbed when seals become alerted and/
or flush into the water due to a variety of disturbances, which may be
anthropogenic (noise and/or visual stimuli) or due to other natural
causes such as other pinnipeds (Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et
al., 2007; VanBlaricom, 2010; and Lozano and Hente, 2014).
Chronic disturbance can cause population declines through reduction
of fitness (e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent reduction
in reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington and
Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). For example,
Madsen (1994) reported that pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus) in
undisturbed habitat gained body mass and had about a 46 percent
reproductive success rate compared with geese in disturbed habitat
(being consistently scared off the fields on which they were foraging)
which did not gain mass and had a 17 percent reproductive success rate.
Similar reductions in reproductive success have been reported for mule
deer (Odocoileus hemionus) disturbed by all-terrain vehicles (Yarmoloy
et al., 1988), caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) disturbed by seismic
exploration blasts (Bradshaw et al., 1998), and caribou disturbed by
low-elevation military jet fights (Luick et al., 1996, Harrington and
Veitch, 1992). Similarly, a study of elk (Cervus elaphus) that were
disturbed experimentally by pedestrians concluded that the ratio of
young to mothers was inversely related to disturbance rate (Phillips
and Alldredge, 2000). However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that
increased vigilance in bottlenose dolphins exposed to sound over a 5-
day period in open-air, open-water enclosures in San Diego Bay did not
cause any sleep deprivation or stress effects such as changes in
cortisol or epinephrine levels.
The primary mechanism by which increased vigilance and disturbance
appear to affect the fitness of individual animals is by disrupting an
animal's time budget and, as a result, reducing the time they might
spend foraging and resting (which increases an animal's activity rate
and energy demand while decreasing their caloric intake/energy). An
example of this concept with terrestrial species involved a study of
grizzly bears (Ursus horribilis) that reported that bears disturbed by
hikers reduced their energy intake by an average of 12 kilocalories/min
(50.2 x 103 kiloJoules/min), and spent energy fleeing or acting
aggressively toward hikers (White et al., 1999).
Lusseau and Bejder (2007) present data from three long-term studies
illustrating the connections between disturbance from whale-watching
boats and population-level effects in cetaceans. In Shark Bay,
Australia, the abundance of bottlenose dolphins was compared within
adjacent control and tourism sites over three consecutive 4.5-year
periods of increasing tourism levels. Between the second and third time
periods, in which tourism doubled, dolphin abundance decreased by 15
percent in the tourism area and did not change significantly in the
control area. In Fiordland, New Zealand, two populations (Milford and
Doubtful Sounds) of bottlenose dolphins with tourism levels that
differed by a factor of seven were observed and significant increases
in traveling time and decreases in resting time were documented for
both. Consistent short-term avoidance strategies were observed in
response to tour boats until a threshold of disturbance was reached
(average 68 minutes between interactions), after which the response
switched to a longer-term habitat displacement strategy. For one
population, tourism only occurred in a part of the home range. However,
tourism occurred throughout the home range of the Doubtful Sound
population and once boat traffic increased beyond the 68-minute
threshold (resulting in abandonment of their home range/preferred
habitat), reproductive success drastically decreased (increased
stillbirths) and abundance decreased significantly (from 67 to 56
individuals in a short period). Last, in a study of northern resident
killer whales off Vancouver Island, exposure to boat traffic was shown
to reduce foraging opportunities and increase traveling time. A simple
bioenergetics model was applied to show that the reduced foraging
opportunities equated to a decreased energy intake of 18 percent, while
the increased traveling incurred an increased energy output of 3-4
percent, which suggests that a management action based on avoiding
interference with foraging might be particularly effective.
On a related note, many animals perform vital functions, such as
feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hr
cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise exposure (such as disruption of
critical life functions, displacement, or avoidance of important
habitat) are more likely to be significant for fitness if they last
more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al.,
2007). Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than 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). It is important to note the difference between
behavioral reactions lasting or recurring over multiple days and
anthropogenic activities lasting or recurring over multiple days. For
example, just because certain activities last for multiple days does
not necessarily mean that individual animals will be either exposed to
those activity-related stressors (i.e., sonar) for multiple days or
further, exposed in a manner that would result in sustained multi-day
substantive behavioral responses; however, special attention is
warranted where longer-duration activities overlay areas in which
animals are known to congregate for longer durations for biologically
important behaviors.
Stone (2015a) reported data from at-sea observations during 1,196
airgun surveys from 1994 to 2010. When large arrays of airguns
(considered to be 500 in 3 or more) were firing, lateral displacement,
more localized avoidance, or other changes in behavior were evident for
most odontocetes. However, significant responses to large arrays were
found only for the minke whale and fin whale. Behavioral responses
observed included changes in swimming or surfacing behavior, with
indications that cetaceans remained near the water surface at these
times. Cetaceans were recorded as feeding less often when large arrays
were active. Behavioral observations of gray whales during an air gun
survey monitored whale movements and respirations pre-, during-, and
post-seismic survey (Gailey et al., 2016). Behavioral state and water
depth were the best `natural' predictors of whale movements and
respiration and, after considering natural variation, none of the
response variables were significantly associated with survey or vessel
sounds.
In order to understand how the effects of activities may or may not
impact species and stocks of marine mammals, it is necessary to
understand not only
[[Page 64903]]
what the likely disturbances are going to be, but how those
disturbances may affect the reproductive success and survivorship of
individuals, and then how those impacts to individuals translate to
population-level effects. Following on the earlier work of a committee
of the U.S. National Research Council (NRC, 2005), New et al. (2014),
in an effort termed the Potential Consequences of Disturbance (PCoD),
outline an updated conceptual model of the relationships linking
disturbance to changes in behavior and physiology, health, vital rates,
and population dynamics. In this framework, behavioral and
physiological changes can have direct (acute) effects on vital rates,
such as when changes in habitat use or increased stress levels raise
the probability of mother-calf separation or predation; they can have
indirect and long-term (chronic) effects on vital rates, such as when
changes in time/energy budgets or increased disease susceptibility
affect health, which then affects vital rates; or they can have no
effect to vital rates (New et al., 2014). In addition to outlining this
general framework and compiling the relevant literature that supports
it, the authors chose four example species for which extensive long-
term monitoring data exist (southern elephant seals, North Atlantic
right whales, Ziphiidae beaked whales, and bottlenose dolphins) and
developed state-space energetic models that can be used to effectively
forecast longer-term, population-level impacts from behavioral changes.
While these are very specific models with very specific data
requirements that cannot yet be applied broadly to project-specific
risk assessments for the majority of species, they are a critical first
step towards being able to quantify the likelihood of a population
level effect.
Since New et al. (2014), several publications have described models
developed to examine the long-term effects of environmental or
anthropogenic disturbance of foraging on various life stages of
selected species (sperm whale, Farmer et al., (2018); California sea
lion, McHuron et al., (2018); blue whale, Pirotta et al., (2018a)).
These models continue to add to refinement of the approaches to the
Population Consequences of Disturbance (PCOD) framework. Such models
also help identify what data inputs require further investigation.
Pirotta et al. (2018b) provides a review of the PCOD framework with
details on each step of the process and approaches to applying real
data or simulations to achieve each step.
New et al. (2020) found that closed populations of dolphins could
not withstand a higher probability of disturbance, compared to open
populations with no limitation on food. Two bottlenose dolphin
populations in Australia were also modeled over 5 years against a
number of disturbances, (Reed et al., 2020) and results indicated that
habitat/noise disturbance had little overall impact on population
abundances in either location, even in the most extreme impact
scenarios modeled. By integrating different sources of data (e.g.,
controlled exposure data, activity monitoring, telemetry tracking, and
prey sampling) into a theoretical model to predict effects from sonar
on a blue whale's daily energy intake, Pirotta et al. (2021) found that
tagged blue whales' activity budgets, lunging rates, and ranging
patterns caused variability in their predicted cost of disturbance.
Dunlop et al. (2021) modeled migrating humpback whale mother-calf pairs
in response to seismic surveys using both a forwards and backwards
approach. While a typical forwards approach can determine if a stressor
would have population-level consequences, Dunlop et al. demonstrated
that working backwards through a PCoD model can be used to assess the
``worst case'' scenario for an interaction of a target species and
stressor. This method may be useful for future management goals when
appropriate data becomes available to fully support the model. Harbor
porpoise movement and foraging were modeled for baseline periods and
then for periods with seismic surveys as well; the models demonstrated
that the seasonality of the seismic activity was an important predictor
of impact (Gallagher et al., 2021).
Nearly all PCoD studies and experts agree that infrequent exposures
of a single day or less are unlikely to impact individual fitness, let
alone lead to population level effects (Booth et al., 2016; Booth et
al., 2017; Christiansen and Lusseau 2015; Farmer et al., 2018; Wilson
et al., 2020; Harwood and Booth 2016; King et al., 2015; McHuron et
al., 2018; NAS 2017; New et al., 2014; Pirotta et al., 2018; Southall
et al., 2007; Villegas-Amtmann et al., 2015). Since NMFS expects that
any exposures would be very brief, and repeat exposures to the same
individuals are unlikely, any behavioral responses that would occur due
to animals being exposed to construction activity are expected to be
temporary, with behavior returning to a baseline state shortly after
the acoustic stimuli ceases. Given this, and NMFS' evaluation of the
available PCoD studies, any such behavioral responses are not expected
to impact individual animals' health or have effects on individual
animals' survival or reproduction, thus no detrimental impacts at the
population level are anticipated. North Atlantic right whales may
temporarily avoid the immediate area but are not expected to
permanently abandon the area or their migratory behavior. Impacts to
breeding, feeding, sheltering, resting, or migration are not expected,
nor are shifts in habitat use, distribution, or foraging success. NMFS
does not anticipate North Atlantic right whale takes that would result
from the proposed project would impact annual rates of recruitment or
survival. Thus, any takes that occur would not result in population
level impacts.
Potential Effects of Vessel Strike
Vessel collisions with marine mammals, also referred to as vessel
strikes or ship strikes, can result in death or serious injury of the
animal. Wounds resulting from ship strike may include massive trauma,
hemorrhaging, broken bones, or propeller lacerations (Knowlton and
Kraus, 2001). An animal at the surface could be struck directly by a
vessel, a surfacing animal could hit the bottom of a vessel, or an
animal just below the surface could be cut by a vessel's propeller.
Superficial strikes may not kill or result in the death of the animal.
Lethal interactions are typically associated with large whales, which
are occasionally found draped across the bulbous bow of large
commercial ships upon arrival in port. Although smaller cetaceans are
more maneuverable in relation to large vessels than are large whales,
they may also be susceptible to strike. The severity of injuries
typically depends on the size and speed of the vessel (Knowlton and
Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; Conn and
Silber, 2013). Impact forces increase with speed, as does the
probability of a strike at a given distance (Silber et al., 2010; Gende
et al., 2011).
The most vulnerable marine mammals are those that spend extended
periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within
their tissues after deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In addition,
some baleen whales seem generally unresponsive to vessel sound, making
them more susceptible to vessel collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004).
These species are primarily large, slow moving whales. Marine mammal
responses to vessels may include avoidance and changes in dive pattern
(NRC, 2003).
An examination of all known ship strikes from all shipping sources
(civilian and military) indicates vessel
[[Page 64904]]
speed is a principal factor in whether a vessel strike occurs and, if
so, whether it results in injury, serious injury, or mortality
(Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; Jensen and Silber, 2003;
Pace and Silber, 2005; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; Conn and Silber
2013). In assessing records in which vessel speed was known, Laist et
al. (2001) found a direct relationship between the occurrence of a
whale strike and the speed of the
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on October 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.