[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36539-36560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16200]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XF926
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Site Characterization Surveys Off
the Coast of Massachusetts
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to
take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to high-resolution
geophysical (HRG) survey investigations associated with marine site
characterization activities off the coast of Massachusetts in the area
of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy
Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0500) and along cable
routes to the coast of Massachusettes (the Study Area).
DATES: This Authorization is valid for one year from the date of
issuance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale Youngkin, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In case of problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers
of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth.
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt,
capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine
mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to,
[[Page 36540]]
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level
B harassment).
Summary of Request
On October 20, 2017 NMFS received an application from Bay State
Wind for the taking of marine mammals incidental to site
characterization investigations off the coast of Massachusetts in the
OCS-A 0500 Study Area, designated and offered by the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM), to support the development of an offshore
wind project. Bay State Wind's request was for take, by Level A and
Level B harassment, of a small number of 10 species or stocks of marine
mammals. As there were changes to the proposed project activities and
equipment proposed for use after this initial application submittal, a
complete application was received in April, 2018. In addition, some
species not originally considered for take have been authorized based
on further consideration and coordination, so incidental take of 13
species/stocks have now been authorized. Neither the applicant nor NMFS
expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and,
therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
Bay State Wind proposes to conduct HRG surveys in the Study Area to
support the characterization of the existing seabed and subsurface
geological conditions in the Study Area. This information is necessary
to support the final siting, design, and installation of offshore
project facilities, turbines and subsea cables within the project area
as well as to collect the data necessary to support the review
requirements associated with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Underwater sound resulting from
Bay State Wind's proposed site characterization surveys has the
potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals. This take of
marine mammals is anticipated to be in the form of harassment and no
serious injury or mortality is anticipated, nor is any authorized in
this IHA.
Dates and Duration
HRG surveys of the wind turbine generator (WTG) and offshore
substation (OSS) areas are anticipated to commence upon issuance of the
IHA and will last for approximately 60 days, including estimated
weather down time. Likewise, the Export Cable Route HRG surveys are
anticipated to commence upon issuance of the IHA and will last
approximately 40 days (including estimated weather down time). Offshore
and near coastal shallow water regions of the HRG survey will occur
within the same 40-day timeframe.
Specified Geographic Region
Bay State Wind's survey activities will occur in the approximately
187,532-acre Lease Area designated and offered by BOEM, located
approximately 14 miles (mi) south of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts
at its closest point, as well as within 2 potential export cable routes
to Somerset, MA and to Falmouth, MA (see Figure 1-1 of the IHA
application). The Lease Area falls within the Massachusetts Wind Energy
Area (MA WEA).
A detailed description of the planned survey activities, including
types of survey equipment planned for use, is provided in the Federal
Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 22443; May 15, 2018). Since
that time, no changes have been made to the planned activities.
Therefore, a detailed description is not repeated here. Please refer to
that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific
activity.
Comments and Responses
NMFS published a notice of proposed IHA in the Federal Register on
May 15, 2018 (83 FR 22443). During the 30-day public comment period,
NMFS received comment letters from the Marine Mammal Commission
(Commission) and a group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
including Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife
Federation, the Conservation Law Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife,
Southern Environmental Law Center, Surfrider Foundation, Sierra Club,
and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. No other public comments
were received. NMFS has posted the comment letters received online at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) New England Field Office reviewed our
proposal and had no comment. The following is a summary of the
Commission comments received and NMFS's responses.
Comment 1: The Commission notes that impulsive thresholds, rather
than non-impulsive thresholds, were incorrectly used to model Level A
harassment zones for the ultra-short baseline positioning system (UBPS)
and sub-bottom profiler (SBP) sources, which resulted in overly
conservative Level A harassment zones. The Commission stated that the
correct threshold should have been used, regardless of whether the
incorrect threshold was more conservative, and NMFS should prohibit
applicants from using impulsive thresholds for non-impulsive sources.
NMFS Response: NMFS appreciates the input from the Commission. We
acknowledge the error, and have corrected it in this final notice
(refer to Table 3) and IHA. Take by Level A harassment is not likely,
even based on the larger (more conservative) isopleth associated with
the impulsive threshold. The use of the non-impulsive threshold does
not change our findings or determinations under the MMPA. NMFS does not
allow applicants to arbitrarily choose which thresholds to use.
Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS refrain from
authorizing Level A harassment takes of harbor porpoises.
NMFS Response: Take by Level A harassment is not being authorized
in this IHA.
Comment 3: The Commission recommended that, until behavioral
thresholds are updated, NMFS require applicants to use the 120-decibel
(dB) re 1 micropascal ([mu]Pa), rather than 160- dB re 1[mu]Pa,
threshold for acoustic, non-impulsive sources (e.g., sub-bottom
profilers/chirps, echosounders, and other sonars including side-scan
and fish-finding).
NMFS Response: Certain sub-bottom profiling systems are
appropriately considered to be impulsive sources (e.g., boomers,
sparkers); therefore, the threshold of 160 dB re 1[mu]Pa will continue
to be used for those sources. Other source types referenced by the
Commission (e.g., chirp sub-bottom profilers, echosounders, and other
sonars including side-scan and fish-finding) produce signals that are
not necessarily strictly impulsive; however, NMFS finds that the 160-dB
root mean square (rms) threshold is most appropriate for use in
evaluating potential behavioral impacts to marine mammals because the
temporal characteristics (i.e., intermittency) of these sources are
better captured by this threshold. The 120-dB threshold is associated
with continuous sources and was derived based on studies examining
behavioral responses to drilling and dredging. Continuous sounds are
those whose sound pressure level remains above that of the ambient
sound, with negligibly small fluctuations in level (NIOSH, 1998; ANSI,
2005). Examples of sounds that NMFS would categorize
[[Page 36541]]
as continuous are those associated with drilling or vibratory pile
driving activities. Intermittent sounds are defined as sounds with
interrupted levels of low or no sound (NIOSH, 1998). Thus, signals
produced by these source types are not continuous but rather
intermittent sounds. With regard to behavioral thresholds, we consider
the temporal and spectral characteristics of signals produced by these
source types to more closely resemble those of an impulse sound rather
than a continuous sound. The threshold of 160 dB re 1[mu]Pa is
typically associated with impulsive sources, which are inherently
intermittent. Therefore, the 160 dB threshold (typically associated
with impulsive sources) is more appropriate than the 120 dB threshold
(typically associated with continuous sources) for estimating takes by
behavioral harassment incidental to use of such sources.
Comment 4: The Commission noted during informal consultation that
NMFS informed the Commission that Orsted (BSW) conducted sound source
verification (SSV) on the triple plate boom plate, which resulted in a
greatly reduced Level B harassment zone for that sound source. The
Commission recommended that NMFS provide the SSV report to its
technical experts for review prior to allowing the Level B harassment
zone to be reduced based on these findings.
NMFS Response: NMFS has not revised the Level B harassment zone to
support a recalculation of take based on this SSV report and does not
intend to use the report to support different Level B harassment zones
until and unless we are able to validate its findings based on
technical review. NMFS has only recently received the SSV report from
BSW and is currently reviewing it for potential use in future IHAs.
Based on preliminary review of the report, it appears as though the
actual Level B harassment isopleth for the Triple Plate Boomer would be
no more than 100 m (and could be significantly less), which would
equate to reduction in the ensonified area of at least 94%, as compared
to the area associated with the 400-m Level B harassment zone that was
modelled and presented in the notice of the proposed IHA (83 FR 22443,
May 15, 2018).
Comment 5: The Commission noted that Risso's dolphins were observed
during an HRG survey conducted by a different company (Deepwater Wind,
LLC) in 2017 in the same general area (Rhode Island-Massachusetts Wind
Energy Area, located east of Long Island, New York and south of Rhode
Island and Massachusetts). The Commission recommended that NMFS
authorize at least 20 Level B harassment takes of this species based on
encountering a group twice during the 60 days of the proposed
activities.
NMFS Response: NMFS has added Level B harassment takes for Risso's
dolphin. Out of an abundance of caution, authorized takes assume a
group of 15 individuals encountered twice during the survey activities
for a total of 30 authorized takes by Level B harassment.
Comment 6: The Commission states recommended that NMFS include
takes of sei whales, Atlantic spotted dolphin, and long-finned pilot
whales, ensuring that the number of takes authorized for each species
is at least equal to the average group size of each species.
NMFS Response: NMFS' decision not to authorize take for sei whales
is based on very low calculated takes (low expectation that take is
likely to occur based on very conservative take estimates) coupled with
the fact that these species are not expected to occur based on past
monitoring reports from the area. Calculated takes (which take into
account the duration of the survey activities as well as the low
densities for this species) did not round up to one take for sei
whales. If any species for which take is not authorized are
encountered, Bay State Wind are required to implement measures to avoid
take of these species and NMFS believes that, in the unlikely event
that a sei whale is encountered, Bay State Wind will be able to
effectively mitigate to avoid take of this large cetacean species.
However, as Atlantic spotted dolphins and long-finned pilot whales are
much smaller cetaceans (hence, potentially harder to see to avoid take
in certain conditions), may occur in much larger groups, and
calculations resulted in at least a small amount of take for pilot
whales, NMFS has modified the IHA to authorize a small number of takes
by Level B harassment for these species to avoid requiring the
applicant to shut down operations for avoidance of take in the unlikely
event they are encountered.
Comment 7: The Commission expressed concern that the method used to
estimate the numbers of takes, which summed fractions of takes for each
species across project days, does not account for and negates the
intent of NMFS' 24-hour reset policy. The Commission recommended that
NMFS share their rounding criteria guidance with the Commission in an
expeditious manner.
NMFS Response: NMFS appreciates the Commission's ongoing concern in
this matter. Calculating predicted takes is not an exact science and
there are arguments for taking different mathematical approaches in
different situations, and for making qualitative adjustments in other
situations. We believe, however, that the methodology used for take
calculation in this IHA remains appropriate and is not at odds with the
24-hour reset policy the Commission references. NMFS recently completed
internal guidance on rounding and consideration of qualitative factors
in the estimation of instances of take. NMFS' internal guidance on
rounding and the consideration of qualitative factors in take
estimation has been provided to the Commission.
Comment 8: The Commission recommended that NMFS better evaluate the
number of Level A and B harassment takes it plans to propose by
considering both ecological/biological information and results from
previous monitoring reports for all proposed authorizations prior to
submitting them for publication in the Federal Register.
NMFS Response: NMFS' reasoning takes into account past practice;
what estimated take calculations yield; and what the applicant
proposes, as well as a suite of situational and context factors such as
the size of the zone; the likely effectiveness of the mitigation; and
the behavior of the species in question when evaluating Level A and
Level B harassment takes it proposes to authorize. NMFS also considers
ecological/biological information and results from previous monitoring
reports. The purpose of publishing the notice in the Federal Register
is to obtain feedback on the proposed IHA and, when warranted based on
feedback received, we may determine it is appropriate to revise our
proposed authorizations. More information regarding how NMFS estimates
instances of take, including consideration of qualitative factors, was
provided to the Commission on June 27, 2018.
Comment 9: The Commission recommended that NMFS require a standard
30-minute pre- and post- monitoring clearance monitoring period and 15-
minute clearance times for small cetaceans and pinnipeds and a 30-
minute clearance time for larger cetaceans after a delay or shut down.
NMFS Response: NMFS has revised the monitoring and clearance times
as recommended by the Commission.
Comment 10: The Commission requested clarification regarding
certain issues associated with NMFS' notice that one-year renewals
could be issued in certain limited circumstances and expressed concern
that the process
[[Page 36542]]
would bypass the public notice and comment requirements. The Commission
also suggested that NMFS should discuss the possibility of renewals
through a more general route, such as a rulemaking, instead of notice
in a specific authorization. The Commission further recommended that if
NMFS did not pursue a more general route, that the agency provide the
Commission and the public with a legal analysis supporting our
conclusion that this process is consistent with the requirements of
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. The Commission also noted that NMFS
had recently begun utilizing abbreviated notices, referencing relevant
documents, to solicit public input and suggested that NMFS use these
notices and solicit review in lieu of the currently proposed renewal
process.
NMFS Response: The process of issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass
the public notice and comment requirements of the MMPA. The notice of
the proposed IHA expressly notifies the public that under certain,
limited conditions an applicant could seek a renewal IHA for an
additional year. The notice describes the conditions under which such a
renewal request could be considered and expressly seeks public comment
in the event such a renewal is sought. Additional reference to this
solicitation of public comment has recently been added at the beginning
of the FR notices that consider renewals, requesting input specifically
on the possible renewal itself. NMFS appreciates the streamlining
achieved by the use of abbreviated FR notices and intends to continue
using them for proposed IHAs that include minor changes from previously
issued IHAs, but which do not satisfy the renewal requirements.
However, we believe our proposed method for issuing renewals meets
statutory requirements and maximizes efficiency.
Importantly, such renewals would be limited to circumstances where:
the activities are identical or nearly identical to those analyzed in
the proposed IHA; monitoring does not indicate impacts that were not
previously analyzed and authorized; and, the mitigation and monitoring
requirements remain the same, all of which allow the public to comment
on the appropriateness and effects of a renewal at the same time the
public provides comments on the initial IHA. NMFS has, however,
modified the language for future proposed IHAs to clarify that all
IHAs, including renewal IHAs, are valid for no more than one year and
that the agency would consider only one renewal for a project at this
time. In addition, notice of issuance or denial of a renewal IHA would
be published in the Federal Register, as they are for all IHAs. The
option for issuing renewal IHAs has been in NMFS's incidental take
regulations since 1996. We will provide any additional information to
the Commission and consider posting a description of the renewal
process on our website before any renewal is issued utilizing this
process.
Comment 11: The Commission noted that in this instance, the public
comment period closed on 14 June, 2018 which was two weeks after
activities were scheduled to begin, as the final version of the
application was not submitted until 5 April, 2018. The Commission
recommended that NMFS take all steps necessary to ensure that it
publishes and finalizes proposed IHAs far enough in advance of the
planned start date to ensure full consideration is given to all
comments received, noting this can only be accomplished if applicants
provide their complete applications at the outset and respond to
inquiries from NMFS in a timely manner.
NMFS Response: The delay in issuance of this IHA was specifically
to allow for the needed public review and comment period and to allow
NMFS time to fully consider the comments received. We have thoroughly
reviewed the comments received and discussed many of these comments
with the Commission during informal consultation. Where appropriate, we
have revised the proposed authorization. In instances where we disagree
with the proposed revision, we have explained why we have not revised
the authorization. More generally, NMFS publishes FR notices for
proposed IHAs as quickly as possible once the application is received,
but we cannot control either short processing times driven by the date
the activity is supposed to start or later publication of proposed IHAs
resulting from back and forth with the applicants to ensure we have the
necessary information.
Comment 12: The NGOs noted concern for the unusual mortality events
(UME) that have been declared for humpback whales, minke whales, and
North Atlantic right whales and expressed concern that the estimates
derived from models presented in Roberts et al. (2016) may
underrepresent density and seasonal presence of large whales in the
survey area. The NGOs noted NMFS is required to use the best available
science for species presence and densities, and recommended that NMFS
consider additional data sources in density modeling in future analyses
of estimated take, including initial data from state monitoring
efforts, existing passive acoustic monitoring data, opportunistic
marine mammal sightings data, and other data sources.
NMFS Response: NMFS acknowledges the UMEs for minke whales since
January 2017; north Atlantic right whales since June 2017; and humpback
whales since January 2016. Please refer to the discussion of these UMEs
in the Negligible Impact Determination section of this notice.
NMFS has determined that the data provided by Roberts et al. (2016)
represents the best available information concerning marine mammal
density in the survey area and has used it accordingly. NMFS has
considered other available information, including that cited by the
commenters, and determined that it does not contradict the information
provided by Roberts et al. (2016). The sources suggested by the
commenters do not provide data in a format that is directly usable in
an acoustic exposure analysis. We will continue to review data sources,
including those recommended by commenters for consideration for their
suitability for inclusion in future analyses to ensure the use of best
available science in our analyses.
In addition to considering the density estimates, NMFS has reviewed
past monitoring reports from the survey area. In 2016, one fin and two
minke whales were observed during surveys at distances ranging from
1,000 to 2,000 m from the source. In 2017 there were 5 minke whales and
13 fin whales observed while on survey with only one of these being
close enough to be considered a take by Level B harassment. Review of
past monitoring reports confirm that large whales are not as common in
the survey area as small delphinoid species and at no point has the
amount of take authorized been exceeded or even approached so as to
cause concern that the amount would be met or exceeded. As presented in
the proposed IHA notice (83 FR 22443, May 15, 2018), where warranted,
estimated take calculations were adjusted based on average group size
and sightings from the survey area and are not solely based on
calculations based on density data.
Comment 13: Regarding mitigation measures, the NGOs recommended
NMFS impose a restriction on site assessment and characterization
activities that have the potential to harass the North Atlantic right
whale from November 1st to May 14th.
NMFS Response: In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be
appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species
or
[[Page 36543]]
stocks and their habitat, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat; and
(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation,
which may consider such things as relative cost and impact on
operations.
No take of North Atlantic right whales is anticipated, nor are any
takes authorized. In addition, although the IHA covers Bay State Wind's
activities should they occur at any point during the year, as stated in
the notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 83 FR 22443, May 15, 2018), Bay
State Wind's activities are anticipated to begin as soon as they
receive their authorization and last for approximately 60 days (60 days
for the offshore sections and 40 days for the inshore sections that may
occur concurrently). In addition, again although the analysis covers
activities conducted in any months, Bay State Wind's HRG survey
activities are anticipated to be complete prior to the recommended
restriction (November 1-May 14).
Bay State Wind determined the planned duration of the survey based
on their data acquisition needs, which are largely driven by the BOEM's
data acquisition requirements prior to required submission of a
construction and operations plan (COP). Any effort on the part of NMFS
to restrict the months during which the survey could operate could have
the effect of forcing the applicant to conduct additional months of
surveys the following year, resulting in increased costs incurred by
the applicant and extending the amount of time need to complete the
surveys with associated additional production of underwater noise which
could have further potential impacts to marine mammals. Thus, the time
and area restrictions recommended by the commenters would not be
practicable for the applicant to implement and would to some degree
offset the benefit of the recommended measure. In addition, our
analysis of the potential impacts of the survey on right whales does
not indicate that such closures are warranted, as there are no takes of
North Atlantic right whales anticipated or authorized and no marine
mammal injury is expected as a result of the survey, nor is injury
authorized in the IHA. Thus, in consideration of the limited potential
benefits of time and area restrictions, in concert with the
impracticability and increased cost on the part of the applicant that
would result from such restrictions, NMFS has determined that time and
area restrictions are not warranted in this case. Existing mitigation
measures, including exclusion zones, ramp-up of survey equipment, and
vessel strike avoidance measures, are sufficiently protective to ensure
the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their
habitat.
Comment 14: Regarding mitigation measures, the NGOs recommended
that NMFS require that geophysical surveys commence, with ramp-up,
during daylight hours only to maximize the probability that North
Atlantic right whales are detected and confirmed clear of the exclusion
zone, and that, if a right whale were detected in the exclusion zone
during nighttime hours and the survey is shut down, developers should
be required to wait until daylight hours for ramp-up to commence.
NMFS Response: We acknowledge the limitations inherent in detection
of marine mammals at night. However, as described above, no takes of
North Atlantic right whales have been authorized and potential impacts
to other marine mammals from the survey activities would be limited to
short-term behavioral responses. Restricting surveys in the manner
suggested by the commenters may reduce marine mammal exposures by some
degree in the short term, but would not result in any significant
reduction in either intensity or duration of noise exposure. No injury
is expected to result even in the absence of mitigation, given the very
small estimated Level A harassment zones. In the event that NMFS
imposed the restriction suggested by the commenters, potentially
resulting in a second season of surveys required for the applicant,
vessels would be on the water introducing noise into the marine
environment for an extended period of time. Therefore, in addition to
practicability concerns for the applicant, the restrictions recommended
by the commenters could result in the surveys spending increased time
on the water, which may result in greater overall exposure to sound for
marine mammals; thus the commenters have failed to demonstrate that
such a requirement would result in a net benefit for affected marine
mammals. Further, we note that past monitoring reports indicate the
ability to detect marine mammals at night, including smaller cetaceans,
with use of the infrared and night vision technologies in combination
with passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) employed during nighttime
activities. Therefore, in consideration of potential effectiveness of
the recommended measure and its practicability for the applicant, NMFS
has determined that restricting survey start-ups to daylight hours is
not warranted in this case.
We note that the proposed IHA Federal Register notice included a
mitigation requirement that shutdown of geophysical survey equipment
would be required upon confirmed PAM detection of a North Atlantic
right whale at night, even in the absence of visual confirmation,
except in cases where the acoustic detection can be localized and the
right whale can be confirmed as being beyond the 500 meter (m)
exclusion zone (EZ); equipment may be re-started no sooner than 30
minutes after the last confirmed acoustic detection. This mitigation
measure was retained and has been included as part of the issued IHA.
Comment 15: The NGOs recommended that NMFS require a 500 m EZ for
marine mammals (with the exception of dolphins that voluntarily
approach the vessel). Additionally, the NGOs recommended that protected
species observers (PSO) monitor to an extended 1,000 m EZ for North
Atlantic right whales, and stated that NMFS has been inconsistent in
its EZ requirements for different lease areas without explanation or
justification.
NMFS Response: NMFS' mitigation measures, including establishment
of EZs, are based on consideration of a variety of factors including
consideration of two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) would
be expected to reduce impacts (which considers the nature of the
potential adverse impact being mitigated and likelihood that the
measure will be effective if implemented along with the likelihood of
effective implementation), and (2) the practicability of the measure
for the applicant (which may consider such things as cost and impact on
operations among other things for activities not applicable to this
authorization). These considerations may at times result in different
outcomes and requirements between differing areas. Regarding the
specific recommendation for a 1,000 m EZ specifically for North
Atlantic right whales, we have determined that the 500 m EZ, as
required in the IHA, is sufficiently protective. We note that the 500 m
EZ exceeds the modeled distance to the conservatively modeled Level B
harassment isopleth (400 m), thus for North Atlantic right whales
detected by PSOs this EZ would effectively minimize potential instances
of injury and harassment.
Regarding the commenters' recommendation to require a 500 m EZ for
all marine mammals (except dolphins that approach the vessel) we
[[Page 36544]]
have determined the EZs as currently required in the IHA (described in
Mitigation Measures, below) are sufficient to ensure the least
practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat. The
EZs would prevent all potential instances of marine mammal injury. In
this instance, injury would not be an expected outcome even in the
absence of mitigation due to very small predicted isopleths
corresponding to the Level A harassment threshold (Note that the 75 m
Level A harassment threshold for harbor porpoises as discussed in the
proposed IHA was based on the more conservative impulsive threshold and
has since been updated with the correct non-impulsive threshold, which
means the isopleth is actually < 5 m, as opposed to the previously
considered 75 m) and would further prevent some instances of behavioral
harassment, as well as limiting the intensity and/or duration of
behavioral harassment that does occur. As NMFS has determined the EZs
currently required in the IHA to be sufficiently protective, we do not
think expanded EZs, beyond what is required in the IHA are warranted.
Comment 16: The NGOs recommended that a combination of visual
monitoring by PSOs and PAM should be required 24 hours per day.
NMFS Response: As stated in the notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR
22443, May 15, 2018) and below in the Mitigation section, when
evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the
least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals species or stocks
and their habitats, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS
considers two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the degree
to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) would be
expected to reduce impacts (which considers the nature of the potential
adverse impact being mitigated and likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented along with the likelihood of effective
implementation), and (2) The practicability of the measure for the
applicant (which may consider such things as cost and impact on
operations among other things for activities not applicable to this
authorization). The PAM requirement has been included in the IHA
because PAM was proposed by the applicant, and PAM is required in BOEM
lease stipulations. We do not think the use of PAM is necessarily
warranted for surveys using the sound sources proposed for use by the
applicant, due to relatively small areas that are expected to be
ensonified to the Level A harassment threshold making it unlikely that
injury or more serious effects would result from the activities. As
such, this is an example of a mitigation measure that NMFS would not
require, but is implementing due to consideration of other factors. As
we are not convinced that PAM is necessarily warranted for this type of
survey, we do not think a requirement to expand the use of PAM to 24
hours a day during the survey is warranted. Expanding the PAM
requirement to 24 hours a day may also result in increased costs on the
part of the applicant. When the potential benefits of a 24 hour PAM
requirement are considered in concert with the potential increased
costs on the part of the applicant that would result from such a
requirement, we determined a requirement for 24 hour PAM operation is
not warranted in this case. Given the lower level of effects to marine
mammals from the types of surveys authorized in this IHA are expected
to be limited to behavioral harassment even in the absence of
mitigation, we have determined the current requirements for visual and
acoustic monitoring are sufficient to ensure the EZs and Watch Zone are
adequately monitored for this particular activity.
Comment 17: The NGOs recommended that NMFS require a 10 knot speed
restriction on all project-related vessels transiting to/from the
survey area from February 1 to May 14, and that all project vessels
operating within the survey area should be required to maintain a speed
of 10 knots or less during the entire survey period. It was also noted
that vessels less than 65 ft. in length are exempt from NMFS'
regulations (presumably this is in reference to mandatory speed
restrictions of 10 knots or less, in effect for the following seasonal
management areas (SMA): Cape Cod Bay from January 1 through May 15 and/
or Block Island from November 1 through April 30 and/or the voluntary
speeds in the voluntary DMAs, which includes the area south of
Nantucket July 2, 2018 through July 15, 2018. We note here that the
survey area is not within any of these areas, but that DMAs may be
developed and Bay State Wind will be required to monitor for the
creation of DMAs and abide by the requirements of any DMA created) and
that the proposed IHA provided no speed restrictions for the Autonomous
Surface Vessels (ASV) or other support vessels that may be operating
during the survey months.
NMFS Response: NMFS has analyzed the potential for ship strike
resulting from Bay State Wind's activity and has determined that the
mitigation measures specific to ship strike avoidance are sufficient to
minimize the potential for ship strike such that we have determined
this is discountable. These measures include: A requirement that all
vessel operators comply with 10 knot (18.5 kilometer (km)/hour) or less
speed restrictions in any SMA or Dynamic Management Area (DMA); a
requirement that all vessel operators reduce vessel speed to 10 knots
(18.5 km/hour) or less when any large whale, any mother/calf pairs,
pods, or large assemblages of non-delphinoid cetaceans are observed
within 100 m of an underway vessel; a requirement that all survey
vessels maintain a separation distance of 500 m or greater from any
sighted North Atlantic right whale; a requirement that, if underway,
vessels must steer a course away from any sighted North Atlantic right
whale at 10 knots or less until the 500 m minimum separation distance
has been established; and a requirement that, if a North Atlantic right
whale is sighted in a vessel's path, or within 500 m of an underway
vessel, the underway vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to
neutral. Additional measures to prevent the potential for ship strike
are discussed in more detail below (see the Mitigation section). We
have determined that the ship strike avoidance measures are sufficient
to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat. We also note that vessel strike during surveys is
extremely unlikely based on the low vessel speed; the survey vessel
would maintain a speed of approximately 4 knots (7.4 km/hour) while
transiting survey lines. The stated speed restrictions would apply to
all vessels including the ASVs and support vessels. Further, given that
the ASVs must be within a maximum of 800 m from the mother ship, the
speed of the ASV vessels could not exceed that of the mother vessel.
Comment 18: The NGOs recommended that NMFS analyses account for the
potential for indirect ship strike risk resulting from habitat
displacement.
NMFS Response: NMFS determined that habitat displacement was not an
expected outcome of the specified activity. As discussed in the notice
for the proposed IHA (83 FR 22443, May 15, 2018) we anticipate marine
mammals may avoid the area of disturbing noise, but this would be a
relatively small area, as the Level B harassment zone was
conservatively estimated to be 400 m, and would be short-term in nature
such that habitat displacement is not anticipated. As discussed above,
since publication of the proposed IHA notice, NMFS has received a sound
source verification study from Bay State Wind for the Triple Plate
Boomer and based on
[[Page 36545]]
preliminary review, the actual Level B harassment isopleth would be no
more than 100 m, as compared to the 400-m modelled zone, so the area of
disturbance would be significantly less than originally reported.
Therefore, habitat displacement is not reasonably likely to occur an
analysis of potential impacts to marine mammals from habitat
displacement is not warranted in this case.
Comment 19: The NGOs stated that NMFS should not adjust take
numbers for North Atlantic right whales based on mitigation measures
and stated that they do not share NMFS' level of confidence that it is
possible to mitigate all potential for Level B harassment. This lack of
confidence is based on (1) an assertion that the 160 dB threshold for
behavioral harassment is not supported by best available science
(citing to footnote 11 of the comment letter), and (2) an assertion
that the monitoring protocols prescribed for the EZs are under-
protective (referring to Section III.D of the comment letter for
further discussion).
NMFS Response: Regarding the comment addressing the appropriateness
of the 160-db behavioral harassment threshold, NMFS assumes that the
reference to footnote 11 (Kraus, et al., 2016) in the comment is in
error, and the correct reference was meant to be footnote 16, which
references Nowacek et al., 2004 and Kastelein et al., 2012 and 2015 as
sources for the assertion that take would occur with near certainty at
exposure levels well below the 160 dB threshold for behavioral
harassment. Regardless, NMFS notes that the potential for behavioral
response to an anthropogenic source is highly variable and context-
specific and acknowledges the potential for Level B harassment at
exposures to received levels below 160 dB rms. Alternatively, NMFS
acknowledges the potential that animals exposed to received levels
above 160 dB rms will not respond in ways constituting behavioral
harassment. There are a variety of studies indicating that contextual
variables play a very important role in response to anthropogenic
noise, and the severity of effects are not necessarily linear when
compared to a received level (RL). The studies cited in the comment
(Nowacek et al., 2004 and Kastelein et al., 2012 and 2015) showed there
were behavioral responses to sources below the 160 dB threshold, but
also acknowledge the importance of context in these responses. For
example, Nowacek et al., 2004 reported the behavior of five out of six
North Atlantic right whales was disrupted at RLs of only 133-148 dB re
1 [micro]Pa (returning to normal behavior within minutes) when exposed
to an alert signal. However, the authors also reported that none of the
whales responded to noise from transiting vessels or playbacks of ship
noise even though the RLs were at least as strong, and contained
similar frequencies, to those of the alert signal. The authors state
that a possible explanation for whales responded to the alert signal
and did not respond to vessel noise is due to the whales having been
habituated to vessel noise, while the alert signal was a novel sound.
In addition, the authors noted differences between the characteristics
of the vessel noise and alert signal which may also have played a part
in the differences in responses to the two noise types. Therefore, it
was concluded that the signal itself, as opposed to the RL, was
responsible for the response. DeRuiter et al. (2012) also 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. Finally,
Gong et al. (2014) highlighted that behavioral responses depend on many
contextual factors, including range to source, RL above background
noise, novelty of the signal, and differences in behavioral state.
Similarly, Kastelein et al., 2015 (cited in the comment) examined
behavioral responses of a harbor porpoise to sonar signals in a quiet
pool, but stated behavioral responses of harbor porpoises at sea would
vary with context such as social situation, sound propagation, and
background noise levels.
NMFS uses 160 dB (rms) as the exposure level for estimating Level B
harassment takes and is currently considered the best available
science, while acknowledging that the 160 db rms step-function approach
is a simplistic approach. However, there appears to be a misconception
regarding the concept of the 160 dB threshold. While it is correct that
in practice it works as a step-function, i.e., animals exposed to
received levels above the threshold are considered to be ``taken'' and
those exposed to levels below the threshold are not, it is in fact
intended as a sort of mid-point of likely behavioral responses (which
are extremely complex depending on many factors including species,
noise source, individual experience, and behavioral context). What this
means is that, conceptually, the function recognizes that some animals
exposed to levels below the threshold will in fact react in ways that
are appropriately considered take, while others that are exposed to
levels above the threshold will not. Use of the 160-dB threshold allows
for a simplistic quantitative estimate of take, while we can
qualitatively address the variation in responses across different
received levels in our discussion and analysis.
Overall, we reiterate the lack of scientific consensus regarding
what might criteria might be more appropriate. Defining sound levels
that disrupt behavioral patterns is difficult because responses depend
on the context in which the animal receives the sound, including an
animal's behavioral mode when it hears sounds (e.g., feeding, resting,
or migrating), prior experience, and biological factors (e.g., age and
sex). Other contextual factors, such as signal characteristics,
distance from the source, and signal to noise ratio, may also help
determine response to a given received level of sound. Therefore,
levels at which responses occur are not necessarily consistent and can
be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007; Ellison et al., 2012;
Bain and Williams, 2006).
There is currently no agreement on these complex issues, and NMFS
followed the practice at the time of submission and review of this
application in assessing the likelihood of disruption of behavioral
patterns by using the 160 dB threshold. This threshold has remained in
use in part because of the practical need to use a relatively simple
threshold based on available information that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities. We note that the seminal review
presented by Southall et al. (2007) did not suggest any specific new
criteria due to lack of convergence in the data. NMFS is currently
evaluating available information towards development of guidance for
assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammal behavior.
However, undertaking a process to derive defensible exposure-response
relationships is complex (e.g., NMFS previously attempted such an
approach, but is currently re-evaluating the approach based on input
collected during peer review of NMFS (2016)). A recent systematic
review by Gomez et al. (2016) was unable to derive criteria expressing
these types of exposure-response relationships based on currently
available data.
NMFS acknowledges that there may be methods of assessing likely
behavioral response to acoustic stimuli that better capture the
variation and context-dependency of those responses than the simple 160
dB step-function used here, there is no agreement on
[[Page 36546]]
what that method should be or how more complicated methods may be
implemented by applicants. NMFS is committed to continuing its work in
developing updated guidance with regard to acoustic thresholds, but
pending additional consideration and process is reliant upon an
established threshold that is reasonably reflective of available
science.
Regarding the assertion that that monitoring protocols prescribed
for the EZs are under-protective, the comment refers to Section III.D
of the comment letter for further discussion. The responses to Comments
13-18 addresses the recommendation for additional mitigation measures
in Section III.D of the comment letter. Please refer to these responses
for NMFS' reasoning for why these additional measures are not warranted
and why NMFS has determined that the monitoring protocols prescribes
are sufficiently protective of marine mammals. Specifically, the
required 500-m shutdown for North Atlantic right whales is adequate to
effectively ensure that no takes occur for this species, given the
large size (visibility) of the animals, the visual and PAM monitoring,
and results of past reports regarding right whales in the area (please
also refer to the Estimated Take section of this notice).
Further, since publication of the notice of the proposed IHA (83 FR
22443, May 15, 2018), NMFS received a sound source verification (SSV)
study for the sound source with the largest Level B harassment isopleth
(Applied Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate Boomer). The Level B harassment
isopleth was modelled to be 400 m, which was presented in the proposed
IHA. Preliminary analysis of the new SSV study indicates that the
actual Level B harassment isopleth for this source is no larger than
100 m (and may be significantly smaller), which means that the
associated area ensonified above the Level B harassment zone is at
least 94% smaller as compared to that associated with the 400-m
isopleth and discussed in the proposed notice. This new information
further strengthens the NMFS' determination that the required 500-m
shut down for North Atlantic right whales will successfully avoid take
of this species.
Comment 20: The NGOs recommended that NMFS encourage offshore wind
developers to partner with scientists to collect data that would
increase the understanding of the effectiveness of night vision and
infra-red technologies off Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and the broader
region, with a view towards greater reliance on these technologies to
commence surveys during nighttime hours in the future.
NMFS Response: NMFS agrees with the NGOs that improved data on
relative effectiveness of night vision and infra-red technologies would
be beneficial and could help to inform future efforts at detection of
marine mammals during nighttime activities. The commenters have not
provided us with any specific recommendations to evaluate beyond a
broad recommendation. However, we agree that coordination and
communication between offshore wind developers and researchers on
effectiveness of night vision and infra-red technologies should be
encouraged to the extent possible. NMFS also notes that a requirement
for the final report submitted to NMFS to include an assessment of the
effectiveness of night vision equipment used during nighttime surveys,
including comparisons of relative effectiveness among the different
types of night vision equipment used, is included in the IHA. The IHA
issued in 2016 (81 FR 56589, August 22, 2016) also included this
requirement, so information gained from this IHA furthers this
commitment.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
Sections 3 and 4 of Bay State Wind's IHA application summarize
available information regarding the status and trends, distribution and
habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially
affected species. Additional information regarding population trends
and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm) and more general
information about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral
descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/).
Table 1 lists all marine mammal species with expected occurrence in
the Northwest Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and summarizes
information related to the population or stock, including regulatory
status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) as well as
potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we
follow the Committee on Taxonomy (2016). 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
comprise 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 Ocean SARs (e.g., Hayes et al., 2017). All values
presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of
publication and are available in the 2016 SARs (Hayes et al., 2017) and
draft 2017 SARs (available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm).
Table 1--Marine Mammals Known To Occur in the Waters of Southern New England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance
Common name Scientific name ESA/MMPA status \1\ (CV; Nmin) \2\ Stock PBR Annual M/SI3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toothed Whales (Odontoceti)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic white-sided dolphin..... Lagenorhynchus N/A................ 48,819 (0.61; W. North Atlantic.. 304............ 74.
acutus. 30,403).
Atlantic spotted dolphin......... Stenella frontalis.. N/A................ 44,715 (0.43; W. North Atlantic.. 316............ 0.
31,610).
Bottlenose dolphin............... Tursiops truncatus.. Northern coastal 11,548 (0.36; W. North Atlantic, 86............. 1-
stock is Strategic. 8,620). Northern Migratory 7.5.
Coastal.
Clymene dolphin.................. Stenella clymene.... N/A................ Unknown............ W. North Atlantic.. Unknown........ 0.
Fraser's dolphin................. Lagenodelphis hosei. N/A................ Unknown............ W. North Atlantic.. Unknown........ 0.
Pan-tropical spotted dolphin..... Stenella attenuata.. N/A................ 3,333 (0.91; 1,733) W. North Atlantic.. 17............. 0.
Risso's dolphin.................. Grampus griseus..... N/A................ 18,250 (0.46; W. North Atlantic.. 126............ 53.6.
12,619).
[[Page 36547]]
Rough-toothed dolphin............ Steno bredanensis... N/A................ 271 (1.0; 134)..... W. North Atlantic.. 1.3............ 0.
Short-beaked common dolphin...... Delphinus delphis... N/A................ 70,184 (0.28; W. North Atlantic.. 557............ 409.
55,690).
Striped dolphin.................. Stenella N/A................ 54,807 (0.3; W. North Atlantic.. 428............ 0.
coeruleoalba. 42,804).
Spinner dolphin.................. Stenella N/A................ Unknown............ W. North Atlantic.. Unknown........ 0.
longirostris.
White-beaked dolphin............. Lagenorhynchus N/A................ 2,003 (0.94; 1,023) W. North Atlantic.. 10............. 0.
albirostris.
Harbor porpoise.................. Phocoena phocoena... N/A................ 79,833 (0.32; Gulf of Maine/Bay 706............ 437.
61,415). of Fundy.
Killer whale..................... Orcinus orca........ N/A................ Unknown............ W. North Atlantic.. Unknown........ 0.
Pygmy killer whale............... Feresa attenuata.... N/A................ Unknown............ W. North Atlantic.. Unknown........ 0.
False killer whale............... Pseudorca crassidens Strategic.......... 442 (1.06; 212).... W. North Atlantic.. 2.1............ Unknown.
Long-finned pilot whale.......... Globicephala melas.. N/A................ 5,636 (0.63; 3,464) W. North Atlantic.. 35............. 38.
Short-finned pilot whale......... Globicephala N/A................ 21,515 (0.37; W. North Atlantic.. 159............ 192.
macrorhynchus. 15,913).
Sperm whale...................... Physeter Endangered......... 2,288 (0.28; 1,815) North Atlantic..... 3.6............ 0.8.
macrocephalus.
Pigmy sperm whale................ Kogia breviceps..... N/A................ 3,785 \4\ (0.47; W. North Atlantic.. 21............. 3.5.
2,598).
Dwarf sperm whale................ Kogia sima.......... N/A................ 3,785 \4\ (0.47; W. North Atlantic.. 21............. 3.5.
2,598).
Cuvier's beaked whale............ Ziphius cavirostris. N/A................ 6,532 (0.32; 5,021) W. North Atlantic.. 50............. 0.4.
Blainville's beaked whale........ Mesoplodon N/A................ 7,092 \5\ (0.54; W. North Atlantic.. 46............. 0.2.
densirostris. 4,632).
Gervais' beaked whale............ Mesoplodon europaeus N/A................ 7,092 \5\ (0.54; W. North Atlantic.. 46............. 0.
4,632).
True's beaked whale.............. Mesoplodon mirus.... N/A................ 7,092 \5\ (0.54; W. North Atlantic.. 46............. 0.
4,632).
Sowerby's beaked whale........... Mesoplodon bidens... N/A................ 7,092 \5\ (0.54; W. North Atlantic.. 46............. 0.
4,632).
Northern bottlenose whale........ Hyperoodon N/A................ Unknown............ W. North Atlantic.. Unknown........ 0.
ampullatus.
Melon-headed whale............... Peponocephala N/A................ Unknown............ W. North Atlantic.. Unknown........ 0.
electra.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baleen Whales (Mysticeti)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minke whale...................... Balaenoptera N/A................ 2,591 (0.81; 1,425) Canadian East Coast 14............. 8.25.
acutorostrata.
Blue whale....................... Balaenoptera Endangered......... Unknown (Unknown; W. North Atlantic.. 0.9............ Unknown.
musculus. 440).
Fin whale........................ Balaenoptera Endangered......... 1,618 (0.33; 1,234) W. North Atlantic.. 2.5............ 3.8.
physalus.
Humpback whale................... Megaptera N/A................ 823 (0; 823)....... Gulf of Maine...... 13............. 9.05.
novaeangliae.
North Atlantic right whale....... Eubalaena glacialis. Endangered......... 440 (0; 440)....... W. North Atlantic.. 1.............. 5.66.
Sei whale........................ Balaenoptera Endangered......... 357 (0.52; 236).... Nova Scotia........ 0.5............ 0.8.
borealis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earless Seals (Phocidae)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray seals....................... Halichoerus grypus.. N/A................ 424,300 (0.16; W. North Atlantic.. Unknown........ 4,937.
371,444).
Harbor seals..................... Phoca vitulina...... N/A................ 75,834 (0.15; W. North Atlantic.. 2,006.......... 389.
66,884).
Hooded seals..................... Cystophora cristata. N/A................ Unknown............ W. North Atlantic.. Unknown........ Unknown.
Harp seal........................ Phoca groenlandica.. N/A................ 8,300,000 (Unknown) W. North Atlantic.. Unknown........ Unknown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Species information in bold italics are species expected to be taken and are authorized for take in our IHA; others are not expected or authorized
to be taken.
\1\ A strategic stock is defined as any marine mammal stock: (1) For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological
removal (PBR) level; (2) which is declining and likely to be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); or (3) which is listed as
threatened or endangered under the ESA or as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
\2\ NMFS stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars. CV = coefficient of variarion; Nmin = minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury (M/SI) from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike, etc.). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range.
A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ This estimate may include both the dwarf and pygmy sperm whales.
\5\ This estimate includes Gervais' and Blainville's beaked whales and undifferentiated Mesoplodon spp. beaked whales.
Sources: Hayes et al., 2016, Waring et al., 2015; Waring et al., 2013; Waring et al., 2011; Warring et al., 2010; RI SAMP, 2011; Kenney and Vigness-
Raposa, 2009; NMFS, 2012.
All species that could potentially occur in the survey area are
included in Table 1. However, the proposed IHA (83 FR 22443, May 15,
2018) noted that the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of all but 10
species listed in Table 1 is such that take of these species is not
expected to occur, and they were not discussed further. Take of the
remaining species was not anticipated either because they have very low
densities in the project area, are known to occur further offshore than
the project area, or are considered very unlikely to occur in the
project area during the survey due to the species' seasonal occurrence
in the area. However, based on review of public comments received and
consideration of updated sighting information, takes of Risso's
dolphins, Atlantic spotted dolphins, and long-finned pilot whales have
been added even though they were not included in the proposed IHA. This
brings the total to 13 species/stocks of marine mammals authorized for
incidental take in this IHA.
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by Bay
State Wind's survey, including brief introductions to the species and
relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population
trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR
22443; May 15, 2018); since that time, we are not aware of any changes
in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed
descriptions are not repeated here. As Risso's dolphins, Atlantic
spotted dolphins, and long-finned pilot whales were not included in the
proposed IHA, descriptions of these species are included below. Please
refer to the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA for
descriptions of other species. Please also refer to NMFS' website
(www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species-directory) for generalized species
accounts.
Risso's Dolphin
Risso's dolphin is typically an offshore dolphin that is uncommon
to see inshore (Reeves et al., 2002). Risso's dolphin prefers temperate
to tropical waters along the continental shelf edge and can range from
Cape Hatteras to Georges Bank from spring through fall,
[[Page 36548]]
and throughout the mid-Atlantic Bight out to oceanic waters during
winter (Payne et al., 1984). Risso's dolphins are usually seen in
groups of 12 to 40, but loose aggregations of 100 to 200 or more are
seen occasionally (Reeves et al., 2002).
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
Atlantic spotted dolphins are found in tropical and warm temperate
waters ranging from southern New England, south to Gulf of Mexico and
the Caribbean to Venezuela (Waring et al., 2014). This stock regularly
occurs in continental shelf waters south of Cape Hatteras and in
continental shelf edge and continental slope waters north of this
region (Waring et al., 2014). There are two forms of this species, with
the larger ecotype inhabiting the continental shelf and usually found
inside or near the 200 m isobaths (Waring et al., 2014). Atlantic
spotted dolphins are not listed under the ESA and the stock is not
considered depleted or strategic under the MMPA.
Long-Finned Pilot Whale
Long-finned pilot whales are found from North Carolina and north to
Iceland, Greenland and the Barents Sea (Waring et al., 2016). In U.S.
Atlantic waters the species is distributed principally along the
continental shelf edge off the northeastern U.S. coast in winter and
early spring and in late spring, pilot whales move onto Georges Bank
and into the Gulf of Maine and more northern waters and remain in these
areas through late autumn (Waring et al., 2016). Long-finned pilot
whales are not listed under the ESA. The Western North Atlantic stock
is considered strategic under the MMPA.
Information concerning marine mammal hearing, including marine
mammal functional hearing groups, was provided in the Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 22443; May 15, 2018), and that
information is not repeated here; please refer to that Federal Register
notice for this information. For further information about marine
mammal functional hearing groups and associated frequency ranges,
please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. Fourteen
marine mammal species (twelve cetacean and two pinniped (both phocid)
species) have the potential to co-occur with the survey activities. Of
the cetacean species that may be present, four are classified as low-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale,
fin whale, and minke whale), six are classified as mid-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., sperm whale, bottlenose dolphin, common dolphin.
Atlantic white sided dolphin, Risso's dolphin, and long-finned pilot
whale), and one is classified as a high-frequency cetacean (i.e.,
harbor porpoise).
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from Bay State Wind's survey
activities have the potential to result in take of marine mammals by
harassment in the vicinity of the survey area. The Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 22443; May 15, 2018) included a
discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and
their habitat, and that information is not repeated here. No instances
of serious injury or mortality are expected as a result of the planned
activities.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through this IHA, which informed both NMFS' consideration of
``small numbers'' and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of pursuit, torment,
or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment, as use of the HRG
equipment (i.e., USBL&GAPS systems, sub-bottom profilers, sparkers, and
boomers) has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral
patterns for individual marine mammals. However, the potential for
auditory injury (Level A harassment), primarily for high frequency
species (i.e., harbor porpoise) was discussed in the proposed IHA (83
FR 22443, May 15, 2018). While it was noted that auditory injury was
unlikely, NMFS proposed to authorize a small number of takes by Level A
harassment for harbor porpoises because the applicant requested this
out of an abundance of caution. However, after further discussion and
consideration of the public comments received, the applicant has
withdrawn the request for authorization for Level A harassment takes
and none is being authorized in this IHA. Due to the physical
properties of the sound sources and the nature of the activities in
combination with the hearing capabilities of marine mammals in the
Study Area, Level A harassment is so unlikely as to be discountable.
Project activities that have the potential to cause Level B
harassment include underwater noise from operation of the HRG survey
sub-bottom profilers, boomers, sparkers, and equipment positioning
systems. No take by Level A harassment (including injury or serious
injury), or mortality is authorized. NMFS does not anticipate take
resulting from the movement of vessels associated with construction
because there will be a limited number of vessels moving at slow speeds
and the BOEM lease agreement requires measures to ensure vessel strike
avoidance.
As described below, we estimate take by estimating: (1) Acoustic
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4)
the number of days of activities. Below we describe these components in
more detail and present the take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, and behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2011). Based on what the available science indicates
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine
[[Page 36549]]
mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider
Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g.
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. Bay State Wind's proposed activity
includes the use of intermittent impulsive (HRG Equipment) sources, and
therefore the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) threshold is applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
These thresholds are provided in Table 2 below. The references,
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.
Table 2--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB Cell 4: LE,MF,24h 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB;.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American
National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as
incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript
``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the
generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates
the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could
be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible,
it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds.
When NMFS' Acoustic Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in
recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more
technically challenging to predict because of the duration component of
the new thresholds, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet that
includes tools to help predict takes. We note that because of some of
the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we
anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be
overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of
overestimate of Level A harassment takes. However, these tools offer
the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated
3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop
ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively
address the output where appropriate. For mobile sources such as the
HRG survey equipment proposed for use in Bay State Wind's activity, the
User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which a stationary
animal would not incur PTS if the sound source traveled by the animal
in a straight line at a constant speed. Inputs used in the User
Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths for the various HRG equipment
types are reported in Appendix A of Bay State Wind's IHA application,
and distances to the acoustic exposure criteria discussed above are
shown in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3--Distances to Thresholds for Level A Harassment (PTS onset)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine mammal level a
Generalized hearing group harassment (PTS Onset) Distance (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USBL/GAPS Positioning Systems 1 *
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
LF cetaceans................... 219 dBpeak/............ --
183 dB SELcum.......... --
MF cetaceans................... 230 dBpeak/............ --
185 dB SELcum.......... --
HF cetaceans................... 202 dBpeak/............ --
155 dB SELcum.......... --
Phocid pinnipeds............... 218 dBpeak/............ --
185 dB SELcum.......... --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36550]]
Sub-bottom Profiler \1\
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
LF cetaceans................... 219 dBpeak/............ --
183 dB SELcum.......... --
MF cetaceans................... 230 dBpeak/............ --
185 dB SELcum.......... --
HF cetaceans................... 202 dBpeak/............ --
155 dB SELcum.......... --
Phocid pinnipeds............... 218 dBpeak/............ --
185 dB SELcum.......... --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innomar SES-2000 Medium Sub-Bottom Profiler **
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
LF cetaceans................... 199 dB SELcum.......... N/A
MF cetaceans................... 198 dB SELcum.......... --
HF cetaceans................... 173 dB SELcum.......... < 5
Phocid pinnipeds............... 201 dB SELcum.......... N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sparker \1\
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
LF cetaceans................... 219 dBpeak/............ --
183 dB SELcum.......... --
MF cetaceans................... 230 dBpeak/............ --
185 dB SELcum.......... --
HF cetaceans................... 202 dBpeak/............ < 3
155 dB SELcum.......... --
Phocid pinnipeds............... 218 dBpeak/............ --
185 dB SELcum.......... --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boomer
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
LF cetaceans................... 219 dBpeak/............ < 2
183 dB SELcum.......... <15
MF cetaceans................... 230 dBpeak/............ --
185 dB SELcum.......... --
HF cetaceans................... 202 dBpeak/............ < 10
155 dB SELcum.......... <1
Phocid pinnipeds............... 218 dBpeak/............ < 2
185 dB SELcum.......... <1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Peak SPL criterion is unweighted, whereas the cumulative SEL criterion
is M-weighted for the given marine mammal hearing group;
Calculated sound levels and results are based on NMFS Acoustic Technical
Guidance companion User Spreadsheet except as indicated (refer to
Appendix A of the IHA application, which includes all spreadsheets);
\1\ Indicates distances for this equipment type have been field
verified;
-- Indicates not expected
* Indicates that while calculated with the incorrect threshold
(impulsive instead of non-impulsive), due to the fact that impulsive
threshold would be larger and still not anticipated to be measureable,
this was not recalculated here.
** Indicates a change from the proposed IHA. In proposed IHA, these
distances were calculated with the impulsive threshold, which resulted
in larger isopleths. The values presented her are calculated with
corrected, non-impulsive, threshold.
Table 4--Distances to Level B Harassment Thresholds (160 dBRMS 90%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine mammal level B
Survey equipment harassment 160 dBRMS re 1
[micro]Pa (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USBL & GAPS Positioning Systems
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Sonardyne Ranger 2 USBL HPT 5/7000........ 6
Sonardyne Ranger 2 USBL HPT 3000.......... 1
Easytrak Nexus 2 USBL..................... 2
IxSea GAPS System......................... 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sidescan Sonar
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
EdgeTech 4200 dual frequency Side Scan N/A
Sonar....................................
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Multibeam Sonar
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
R2 Sonic 2024 Multibeam Echosounder....... N/A
[[Page 36551]]
Kongsberg EM2040C Dual Band Head.......... N/A
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Shallow Sub-Bottom Profilers
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Edgetech 3200 XS 216...................... 9
Innomar SES-2000 Sub Bottom Profiler...... \1\ 135
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Sparkers
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
GeoMarine Geo-Source 400tip............... 54
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Boomers
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Applied Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate \1\ 400
Boomer...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ These sources modeled with RAM/BELLHOP
The Level B harassment criterion is unweighted.
N/A indicates the operating frequencies are above all relevant marine
mammal hearing thresholds and these systems were not directly assessed
in this IHA.
Bay State Wind completed an underwater noise monitoring program for
field verification at the project site prior to commencement of the HRG
survey that took place in 2016. One of the main objectives of this
program was to determine the apparent sound source levels of HRG
activities. Results from field verification studies during previously
authorized activities were used where applicable and manufacturer
source levels were adjusted to reflect the field verified levels.
However, not all equipment proposed for use in the 2018 season was used
in the 2016 activities. As no field data currently exists for the
Innomar sub-bottom profiler, acoustic modeling was completed using a
version of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory's Range-dependent
Acoustic Model (RAM) and BELLHOP Gaussian beam ray-trace propagation
model (Porter and Liu 1994). The proposed IHA notice noted that this
was done for the Applied Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate Boomer as well,
but since publication of that notice (83 FR 22443, May 15, 2018), NMFS
has received a sound source verification study which calculated the
Level B harassment isopleth for this source. Preliminary analysis
indicates that actual distance to the Level B harassment threshold is
no more than 100 m, and could be significantly smaller, which would
result in no less than a 94% decrease in the size of the associated
area ensonified above the Level B harassment threshold for this source,
as compared to the 400-m isopleth. However, because review of the SSV
report has not been completed and because the report was not available
until after the proposed IHA was noticed to the public, the take
estimates have not been modified to reflect this new information, which
would result in a significant reduction.
Further, calculations of the ensonified area are conservative due
to the directionality of the sound sources. For the various HRG
transducers Bay State Wind proposes to use for these activities, the
beamwidth varies from 200[deg] (almost omnidirectional) to 1[deg]. The
modeled directional sound levels were then used as the input for the
acoustic propagation models, which do not take the directionality of
the source into account. Therefore, the volume of area affected would
be much lower than modeled in cases with narrow beamwidths such as the
Innomar SES-2000 sub-bottom profiler, which has a 1[deg] beamwidth.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take
calculations.
The data used as the basis for estimating species density (``D'')
for the Study Area are derived from data provided by Duke University's
Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab and the Marine Life Data and Analysis
Team. This data set is a compilation of the best available marine
mammal data (1994-2014) and was prepared in a collaboration between
Duke University, Northeast Regional Planning Body, University of
Carolina, the Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center, and NOAA
(Roberts et al., 2016; MDAT 2016).
Northeast Navy Operations Area (OPAREA) Density Estimates (DoN,
2007) were used in support for estimating take for seals, which
represents the only available comprehensive data for seal abundance.
Navy Oparea Density Estimates (NODEs) utilized vessel-based and aerial
survey data collected by NMFS from 1998-2005 during broad-scale
abundance studies. Modeling methodology is detailed in DoN (2007).
Therefore, for the purposes of the take calculations, NODEs Density
Estimates (DoN, 2007) as reported for the summer and fall seasons were
used to estimate harbor seal and gray seal densities.
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce an initial quantitative take estimate. In order to
estimate the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound
levels that would result in harassment, radial distances to predicted
isopleths corresponding to harassment thresholds are calculated, as
described above. Those distances are then used to calculate the area(s)
around the HRG survey equipment predicted to be ensonified to sound
levels that exceed harassment thresholds. The area estimated to be
ensonified to relevant thresholds in a single day of the survey is then
calculated, based on areas predicted to be ensonified around the HRG
survey equipment and the estimated trackline distance traveled per day
by the survey vessel.
The estimated distance of the daily vessel trackline was determined
using the estimated average speed of the vessel and the 24-hour or
daylight-only
[[Page 36552]]
operational period within each of the corresponding survey segments.
All noise producing survey equipment are assumed to be operating
concurrently and the entire duration of the survey. Using the distance
of 400 m (1,312 ft) to the Level B harassment isopleth and the
estimated daily vessel track of approximately 177.8 km (110.5 miles)
for 24-hour operations and 43 km (26.7 miles) for daylight-only
operations, areas of ensonification (zone of influence, or ZOI) were
calculated and used as a basis for calculating takes of marine mammals.
The ZOI is based on the worst case (since it assumes the equipment with
the larger ZOI will be operating all the time), and are presented in
Table 5. Take calculations were based on the highest seasonal species
density as derived from Duke University density data (Roberts et al.,
2016) for cetaceans and seasonal OPAREA density estimates (DoN, 2007)
for pinnipeds. The resulting take calculations and number of authorized
takes (rounded to the nearest whole number) are presented in Table 6.
Table 5--Survey Segment Distances and Zones of Influence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculated
Total track Number active Estimated level B
Survey segment line (km) survey days distance/ day harassment ZOI
(km) (km \2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lot 3 (WSG/OSS Location-Offshore)............... 2,845 60 177.8 142.74
Lot 1 (nearshore)............................... 1,091 18 43.0 34.88
Lot 2 (offshore)................................ 563 15 177.8 142.74
Lot 4 (offshore)................................ 2,253 37 177.8 142.74
Lot 5 (nearshore)............................... 108 5 43.0 34.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Estimated B Harassment Takes for HRG Survey Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lot 3 (WSG/OSS Lot 2 (Somerset Lot 1 (Somerset Lot 4 (Falmouth Lot 5 (Falmouth Totals
location-offshore) export-offshore) export--nearshore) export-offshore) export--nearshore) -----------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest Highest Highest Highest Highest
Seasonal Seasonal Seasonal Seasonal Seasonal
Species Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.
Density Calc. Density Calc. Density Calc. Density Calc. Density Calc. Authorized % of
\a\ take \a\ take \a\ take \a\ take \a\ take take population
(Number/ (Number/ (Number/ (Number/ (Number/
100 100 100 100 100
km\2\) km\2\) km\2\) km\2\) km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale *................................... 0.96 82.22 1.25 26.76 ......... ........ 0.79 41.72 ......... ........ \b\ 0.00 0.00
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Humpback whale................................................. 0.15 12.44 0.12 2.46 ......... ........ 0.04 2.30 ......... ........ 17 2.07
Fin whale...................................................... 0.27 23.24 0.19 4.15 ......... ........ 0.07 3.64 ......... ........ 31 1.92
Sei whale...................................................... 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.38 ......... ........ 0.01 0.00 ......... ........ 0.00 0.00
Sperm whale.................................................... 0.01 0.71 0.01 0.15 ......... ........ 0.00 0.22 ......... ........ \c\ 5 0.22
Minke whale.................................................... 0.08 7.00 0.05 1.14 ......... ........ 0.03 1.82 ......... ........ \d\ 20 0.77
Bottlenose dolphin............................................. 1.72 147.34 0.46 9.85 ......... ........ 9.00 475.06 ......... ........ \c\ 1,000 8.66
Risso's dolphin \e\............................................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ......... ........ 0.00 0.00 ......... ........ 30 0.16
Atlantic spotted dolphin \e\................................... 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.29 ......... ........ 0.46 0.00 ......... ........ 50 0.11
Long-finned pilot whale \e\.................................... 0.26 0.00 0.13 2.88 ......... ........ 0.01 0.00 ......... ........ 3 0.05
Common dolphin................................................. 6.26 535.71 2.74 58.67 ......... ........ 0.46 24.34 ......... ........ \d\ 2,000 2.85
Atlantic white-sided dolphin................................... 1.90 162.75 1.07 22.98 ......... ........ 0.21 10.85 ......... ........ \c\ 500 1.02
Harbor porpoise................................................ 6.67 677.69 4.89 124.17 ......... ........ 1.11 69.52 ......... ........ 871 1.09
Harbor seal \f\................................................ 9.74 834.41 9.74 208.60 9.74 61.15 9.74 514.55 9.74 16.99 1,636 2.16
Gray seal \f\.................................................. 14.12 1,209.26 14.12 302.32 14.12 88.65 14.12 745.71 14.12 24.62 2,371 0.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
* Calculated takes based on the overly conservative 400 m Level B harassment isopleth originally reported. Since publication of the proposed IHA, a sound source verification has been received,
which indicates that the Level B harassment zone would be greatly reduced.
\a\ Density values from Duke University (Roberts et al., 2016) except for pinnipeds
\b\ Exclusion zone exceeds Level B harassment isopleth; take adjusted to 0 given mitigation to prevent take
\c\ Value not based on calculated takes, but estimates from applicant based on recent sightings information
\d\ Adjusted to account for actual take sighting data in the Survey Area to date (Smultea Environmental Sciences, 2016; Gardline, 2016)
\e\ The number of authorized takes (Level B harassment only) for these species has been increased from the estimated take to mean group size. Source for long-finned pilot whale group size
estimate is: Augusto et al. (2017). Source for Atlantic spotted dolphin group size estimate is: Jefferson et al. (2008). Source for Risso's dolphin group size estimate is: Baird and Stacey
(1991).
\f\ Density from NODEs (DoN, 2007)
As noted in Table 6, requested take estimates were adjusted to
account for typical group size and were also adjusted to account for
recent sightings data (Smultea Environmental Sciences, 2016; Gardline,
2016) for certain species. In addition, requested Level A harassment
take numbers for harbor porpoise were included in the proposed IHA
Federal Register notice (83 FR 22443, May 15, 2018). In that notice,
NMFS stated that due to a variety of reasons, Level A harassment take
was not a likely occurrence (short pulse duration and highly
directional sound pulse transmission of these mobile sources in
addition to the propensity of harbor porpoises to avoid such sound
sources and the unlikely probability that they would remain within the
narrow beam long enough to accumulate energy to experience PTS), but a
small number of Level A harassment take was proposed at the request of
Bay State
[[Page 36553]]
Wind out of an abundance of caution. However, since publication of the
proposed IHA, and consideration of public comments received, NMFS has
determined that Level A harassment take is so unlikely as to be
discountable. Bay State Wind has agreed and withdrew the request for
authorization of Level A harassment take. Therefore, no Level A
harassment take for harbor porpoises has been authorized. The requested
take numbers remain adjusted for north Atlantic right whales due to the
implementation of a 500 m shutdown zone, which is greater than the
conservatively modeled 400 m Level B behavioral harassment zone, to
avoid Level B harassment takes of this species consistent with the
Proposed IHA. As discussed previously, preliminary analysis of a sound
source verification study of the Triple Plate Boomer indicates that the
Level B harassment isopleth is actually no more than 100 m, which
further supports our determination that implementation of the 500 m
shutdown zone for North Atlantic right whales would successfully avoid
any take for this species. Finally, the proposed IHA did not include
proposed take of Risso's dolphins, Atlantic spotted dolphins, or long-
finned pilot whales. After consideration of public comments received as
well as review of monitoring reports and IHAs for other activities in
the same general area, NMFS has added authorized Level B harassment
takes of these species.
Bay State Wind's calculations do not take into account whether a
single animal is harassed multiple times or whether each exposure is a
different animal. Therefore, the numbers in Tables 6 are the maximum
number of animals that may be harassed during the HRG surveys (i.e.,
Bay State Wind assumes that each exposure event is a different animal).
With the exception of north Atlantic right whales, these estimates do
not account for prescribed mitigation measures that Bay State Wind
would implement during the specified activities and the fact that other
mitigation measures may be imposed as part of other agreements that Bay
State Wind must adhere to, such as their lease agreement with BOEM.
No take of North Atlantic right whale is requested, nor is any take
of this species authorized. The conservatively modeled Level B
behavioral harassment (400 m) is well within the 500 m mitigation shut
down zone for this species and, based on the described monitoring
measures, information from previous monitoring reports, and in
consideration of the size and visibility of this species, and
consideration of a recently-received sound source verification study
for the Applied Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate Boomer (which indicates
the Level B harassment zone is substantially less than modelled) it is
reasonable to expect that North Atlantic right whales will be able to
be observed such that shut down would occur well beyond the threshold
for potential behavioral harassment.
There are several reasons why the 400-m Level B harassment
threshold is considered conservative. First, calculation of the
ensonified area does not take directionality of the sound source into
account and this results in a conservative estimate for the ZOI. The
Applied Acoustics S-Boom triple plate boomer resulted in the largest
isopleth for Level B harassment, so the ZOI was calculated using this
400 m isopleth and, as described above, this equipment has a beamwidth
of 25[deg]-35[deg] (is not omnidirectional) so the actual ensonified
volume would be less than the calculated area. Further, the equipment
with the largest radial distance to Level B harassment thresholds was
used to calculate the ZOI under the assumption that this equipment
would be in use for the entirety of the survey activities. The
calculated takes are conservative because these HRG sound sources have
very short pulse durations that are also not taken into account in
calculations of take, but would lessen the potential for marine mammals
to be exposed to the sound source for long enough periods to result in
the potential for take as described above. Last, although the
information has not been used to modify the ensonified area and inform
the take estimates, because it has not been fully reviewed and
verified, we note our recent receipt (since the proposed FRN for this
IHA was published) of the results of a sound source verification study
for the Applied Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate Boomer, which suggest a
notably smaller Level B harassment zone (see the Comment Response
section for more detail).
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned) and the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Bay State Wind must implement the following mitigation measures
during site characterization surveys utilizing HRG survey equipment.
The mitigation measures outlined in this section are based on protocols
and procedures that have been successfully implemented and resulted in
no observed take of marine mammals for similar offshore projects and
previously approved by NMFS (DONG Energy, 2016, ESS, 2013; Dominion,
2013 and 2014), as well as results of sound source verification (SSV)
studies implemented by Bay State Wind during past activities in the
proposed project area.
Marine Mammal Exclusion and Monitoring Zones
Protected species observers (PSOs) must monitor the following
exclusion/monitoring zones for the presence of marine mammals:
A 1,640 feet (ft) (500-m) exclusion zone for North
Atlantic right whales, which encompasses the largest Level B harassment
isopleth of 400 m for the
[[Page 36554]]
Applied Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate Boomer;
A 328-ft (100-m) exclusion zone for non-delphinoid large
cetacean and ESA-listed marine mammals, which is consistent with vessel
strike avoidance measures stipulated in the BOEM lease; and
A 1,312-ft (400-m) Level B harassment monitoring zone for
all marine mammals except for North Atlantic right whales, which is the
extent of the largest Level B harassment isopleth for the Applied
Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate Boomer. We note that the actual area
monitored (watch zone) will be much larger than this and must include
the largest area visible. All marine mammals observed within the watch
zone must be reported in the monitoring reports, but only marine
mammals within the Level B harassment zone will be counted as Level B
harassment takes in the monitoring reports.
The distances from the sound sources for these exclusion/monitoring
zones are based on distances to NMFS Level B harassment threshold or
requirements of the BOEM lease stipulations for vessel strike avoidance
(discussed below). The representative area ensonified to the MMPA Level
B harassment threshold for each of the pieces of HRG survey equipment
represents the zone within which take of a marine mammal could occur.
The distances to the harassment criteria were used to support the
estimate of take as well as the development of the monitoring and/or
mitigation measures. Radial distance to NMFS' Level A and Level B
harassment thresholds are summarized in Table 5 above.
Visual monitoring of the established exclusion and monitoring
zone(s) for the HRG surveys must be performed by qualified and NMFS-
approved PSOs. Observer qualifications must include direct field
experience on a marine mammal observation vessel and/or aerial surveys
in the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico. An observer team comprising a
minimum of four NMFS-approved PSOs and two certified PAM operators (PAM
operators shall not function as PSOs), operating in shifts, must be
stationed aboard either the survey vessel or a dedicated PSO-vessel.
PSOs and PAM operators must work in shifts such that no one monitor
must work more than 4 consecutive hours without a 2-hour break or
longer than 12 hours during any 24-hour period. During daylight hours
the PSOs must rotate in shifts of 1 on and 3 off, while during
nighttime operations PSOs must work in pairs. The PAM operators must
also be on call as necessary during daytime operations should visual
observations become impaired. Each PSO must monitor 360 degrees of the
field of vision.
PSOs are responsible for visually monitoring and identifying marine
mammals approaching or within the established exclusion zone(s) during
survey activities. It is the responsibility of the Lead PSO on duty to
communicate the presence of marine mammals as well as to communicate
and ensure the action(s) that are necessary to ensure mitigation and
monitoring requirements are implemented as appropriate. PAM operators
must communicate detected vocalizations to the Lead PSO on duty, who is
then be responsible for implementing the necessary mitigation
procedures. A mitigation and monitoring communications flow diagram has
been included as Appendix A in the IHA application.
PSOs must be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to
estimate distances to marine mammals located in proximity to the vessel
and/or exclusion zone using range finders. Reticulated binoculars must
also be available to PSOs for use as appropriate based on conditions
and visibility to support the sighting and monitoring of marine
species. Digital single-lens reflex camera equipment must be used to
record sightings and verify species identification. During night
operations, PAM (see Passive Acoustic Monitoring requirements below)
and night-vision equipment in combination with infrared video
monitoring must be used (Additional details and specifications of the
night-vision devices and infrared video monitoring technology will be
provided under separate cover by the Bay State Wind Survey Contractor
once selected.). Position data must be recorded using hand-held or
vessel global positioning system (GPS) units for each sighting.
For monitoring around the ASV, a dual thermal/high definition (HD)
camera must be installed on the mother vessel, facing forward, angled
in a direction so as to provide a field of view ahead of the vessel and
around the ASV. The ASV must be kept in sight of the mother vessel at
all times (within 2,625 ft (800 m)). PSOs must be able to monitor the
real time output of the camera on hand-held devices. Images from the
cameras must be captured for review and to assist in verifying species
identification. A monitor must also be installed on the bridge
displaying the real-time picture from the thermal/HD camera installed
on the front of the ASV itself, providing a further forward field of
view of the craft. In addition, night-vision goggles with thermal clip-
ons, as mentioned above, and a hand-held spotlight must be provided
such that PSOs can focus observations in any direction, around the
mother vessel and/or the ASV. PSOs must also monitor the data as it is
acquired by the ASV utilizing a real time IP radio link. For each 12
hour shift, an ASV technician must be assigned to manage the vessel and
monitor the array of cameras, radars, and thermal equipment during
their shift to ensure the vehicle is operating properly and to take
over control of the vessel should the need arise. Additionally, there
must be 2 survey technicians per shift assigned to acquire the ASV
survey data.
The PSOs must begin observation of the exclusion zone(s) at least
30 minutes prior to ramp-up of HRG survey equipment. Use of noise-
producing equipment must not begin until the exclusion zone is clear of
all marine mammals for at least 30 minutes.
If a marine mammal is detected approaching or entering the
exclusion zones during the HRG survey, the vessel operator must adhere
to the shutdown procedures described below to minimize noise impacts on
the animals.
At all times, the vessel operator must maintain a separation
distance of 500 m from any sighted North Atlantic right whale as
stipulated in the Vessel Strike Avoidance procedures described below.
These stated requirements must be included in the site-specific
training to be provided to the survey team.
Vessel Strike Avoidance
The Applicant must ensure that vessel operators and crew maintain a
vigilant watch for cetaceans and pinnipeds and slow down or stop their
vessels to avoid striking these species. Survey vessel crew members
responsible for navigation duties must receive site-specific training
on marine mammal and sea turtle sighting/reporting and vessel strike
avoidance measures. Vessel strike avoidance measures must include the
following, except under extraordinary circumstances, when complying
with these requirements would put the safety of the vessel or crew at
risk:
All vessel operators must comply with 10 knot (<18.5 km
per hour (km/h)) speed restrictions in any DMA. In addition, all
vessels operating from November 1 through July 31 must operate at
speeds of 10 knots (<18.5 km/h) or less;
All vessel operators must reduce vessel speed to 10 knots
or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or larger assemblages of non-
delphinoid cetaceans are observed near an underway vessel;
[[Page 36555]]
All survey vessels must maintain a separation distance of
1,640 ft (500 m) or greater from any sighted North Atlantic right
whale;
If underway, vessels must steer a course away from any
sighted North Atlantic right whale at 10 knots (<18.5 km/h) or less
until the 1,640 ft (500 m) minimum separation distance has been
established. If a North Atlantic right whale is sighted in a vessel's
path, or within 330 ft (100 m) to an underway vessel, the underway
vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral. Engines shall
not be engaged until the North Atlantic right whale has moved outside
of the vessel's path and beyond 330 ft (100 m). If stationary, the
vessel must not engage engines until the North Atlantic right whale has
moved beyond 330 ft (100 m);
All vessels must maintain a separation distance of 330 ft
(100 m) or greater from any sighted non-delphinoid (i.e., mysticetes
and sperm whales) cetaceans. If sighted, the vessel underway must
reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral, and must not engage the
engines until the non-delphinoid cetacean has moved outside of the
vessel's path and beyond 330 ft (100 m). If a survey vessel is
stationary, the vessel must not engage engines until the non-delphinoid
cetacean has moved out of the vessel's path and beyond 330 ft (100 m);
All underway vessels must avoid excessive speed or abrupt
changes in direction to avoid injury to any sighted delphinoid cetacean
or pinniped; and
All vessels must maintain a separation distance of 164 ft
(50 m) or greater from any sighted pinniped.
The training program must be provided to NMFS for review and
approval prior to the start of surveys. Confirmation of the training
and understanding of the requirements must be documented on a training
course log sheet. Signing the log sheet certifies that the crew members
understand and must comply with the necessary requirements throughout
the survey event.
Seasonal Operating Requirements
Between watch shifts, members of the monitoring team shall consult
the NMFS North Atlantic right whale reporting systems for the presence
of North Atlantic right whales throughout survey operations. However,
the proposed survey activities will occur outside of the seasonal
management area (SMA) located off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode
Island. The proposed survey activities are also scheduled to occur
outside of the seasonal mandatory speed restriction period for this SMA
(November 1 through April 30); however, survey vessels will operate at
or below the speed restrictions due to the nature of the survey
activities.
Throughout all survey operations, the Applicant shall monitor the
NMFS North Atlantic right whale reporting systems for the establishment
of a DMA. If NMFS should establish a DMA in the Study Area under
survey, within 24 hours of the establishment of the DMA the Applicant
shall work with NMFS to shut down and/or alter the survey activities to
avoid the DMA.
Passive Acoustic Monitoring
As per the BOEM Lease, alternative monitoring technologies (e.g.,
active or passive acoustic monitoring) are required if a Lessee intends
to conduct geophysical surveys at night or when visual observation is
otherwise impaired. To support 24-hour HRG survey operations, Bay State
Wind shall use certified PAM operators with experience reviewing and
identifying recorded marine mammal vocalizations, as part of the
project monitoring during nighttime operations to provide for optimal
acquisition of species detections at night, or as needed during periods
when visual observations may be impaired. In addition, PAM systems
shall be employed during daylight hours to support system calibration
and PSO and PAM team coordination, as well as in support of efforts to
evaluate the effectiveness of the various mitigation techniques (i.e.,
visual observations during day and night, compared to the PAM
detections/operations).
Given the range of species that could occur in the Study Area, the
PAM system shall consist of an array of hydrophones with both broadband
(sampling mid-range frequencies of 2 kHz to 200 kHz) and at least one
low-frequency hydrophone (sampling range frequencies of 10 Hz to 30
kHz). Monitoring of the PAM system shall be conducted from a customized
processing station aboard the HRG survey vessel. The on-board
processing station provides the interface between the PAM system and
the operator. The PAM operator(s) shall monitor the hydrophone signals
in real time both aurally (using headphones) and visually (via the
monitor screen displays). Bay State Wind proposes the use of PAMGuard
software for `target motion analysis' to support localization in
relation to the identified exclusion zone. PAMGuard is an open source
software/hardware interface to enable flexibility in the configuration
of in-sea equipment (number of hydrophones, sensitivities, spacing, and
geometry). PAM operators shall immediately communicate detections/
vocalizations to the Lead PSO on duty who will ensure the
implementation of the appropriate mitigation measure (e.g., shutdown)
even if visual observations by PSOs have not been made.
Ramp-Up
As per the BOEM Lease, a ramp-up procedure shall be used for HRG
survey equipment capable of adjusting energy levels at the start or re-
start of HRG survey activities. A ramp-up procedure shall be used at
the beginning of HRG survey activities in order to provide additional
protection to marine mammals near the Study Area by allowing them to
vacate the area prior to the commencement of survey equipment use. The
ramp-up procedure shall not be initiated during daytime, night time, or
periods of inclement weather if the exclusion zone cannot be adequately
monitored by the PSOs using the appropriate visual technology (e.g.,
reticulated binoculars, night vision equipment) and/or PAM for a 30-
minute period. A ramp-up shall begin with the power of the smallest
acoustic HRG equipment at its lowest practical power output appropriate
for the survey. The power shall then be gradually turned up and other
acoustic sources added such that the source level would increase in
steps not exceeding 6 dB per 5-minute period. If marine mammals are
detected within the HRG survey exclusion zone prior to or during the
ramp-up, activities shall be delayed until the animal(s) has moved
outside the monitoring zone and no marine mammals are detected for a
period of 30 minutes.
Shutdown Procedures
The EZ around the HRG survey equipment shall be monitored, as
previously described, by PSOs and at night by PAM operators for the
presence of marine mammals before, during, and after HRG surveys. The
vessel operator must comply immediately with any call for shutdown by
the Lead PSO. Any disagreement should be discussed only after shutdown.
As per the BOEM Lease, if a non-delphinoid (i.e., mysticetes and
sperm whales) cetacean is detected at or within the established Level A
harassment exclusion zone, an immediate shutdown of the HRG survey
equipment is required. Subsequent restart of the electromechanical
survey equipment must use the ramp-up procedures described above and
may only occur following clearance of the exclusion zone for 30 minutes
for large cetaceans or 15 minutes for small cetaceans and pinnipeds.
Subsequent power up of the survey equipment must use the ramp-up
[[Page 36556]]
procedures described above and may occur after the exclusion zone is
clear of small cetaceans and/or pinniped for 15 minutes and large
cetaceans for 30 minutes.
If the HRG sound source (including the sub-bottom profiler) shuts
down for reasons other than encroachment into the exclusion zone by a
marine mammal including but not limited to a mechanical or electronic
failure, resulting in in the cessation of sound source for a period
greater than 20 minutes, a restart for the HRG survey equipment
(including the sub-bottom profiler) is required using the full ramp-up
procedures and clearance of the exclusion zone of all cetaceans for 30
minutes, or 15 minutes for pinnipeds. If the pause is less than 20
minutes, the equipment may be restarted as soon as practicable at its
operational level as long as visual surveys were continued diligently
throughout the silent period and the exclusion zone remained clear of
cetaceans and pinnipeds. If the visual surveys were not continued
diligently during the pause of 20 minutes or less, a restart of the HRG
survey equipment (including the sub-bottom profiler) is required using
the full ramp-up procedures and clearance of the exclusion zone for all
cetaceans and pinnipeds for 30 minutes.
The required mitigation measures are designed to avoid the already
low potential for injury (Level A harassment) and minimize Level B
harassment, as well as to minimize the potential for vessel strikes.
There are no known marine mammal rookeries or mating grounds in the
survey area that would otherwise potentially warrant increased
mitigation measures for marine mammals or their habitat (or both). The
proposed survey would occur in an area that has been identified as a
biologically important area (BIA) for migration for North Atlantic
right whales. However, given the small spatial extent of the survey
area relative to the substantially larger spatial extent of the right
whale migratory area, the survey is not expected to appreciably reduce
migratory habitat nor to negatively impact the migration of North
Atlantic right whales. In addition, the timing of importance for
migration in this biologically important area BIA is March-April and
November-December, and Bay State Wind's proposed activities are
anticipated to occur outside of the timing of importance. Thus,
mitigation to address the proposed survey's occurrence in North
Atlantic right whale migratory habitat is not warranted. The proposed
survey area would partially overlap spatially with a biologically
important feeding area for fin whales. However, the fin whale feeding
area is sufficiently large (2,933 km\2\), and the acoustic footprint of
the proposed survey is sufficiently small that the survey is not
expected to appreciably reduce fin whale feeding habitat nor to
negatively impact the feeding of fin whales, thus mitigation to address
the proposed survey's occurrence in fin whale feeding habitat is not
warranted. Further, we believe the required mitigation measures are
practicable for the applicant to implement
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the
mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least
practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Monitoring Measures
Visual Monitoring--Visual monitoring shall be performed by
qualified and NMFS-approved PSOs (see discussion of PSO qualifications
and requirements in Marine Mammal Exclusion Zones above).
The PSOs shall begin observation of the monitoring zone during all
HRG survey activities, which will encompass the maximum sight distance
possible, including harassment zones and exclusion zones. Observations
of the monitoring zone shall continue throughout the survey activity.
PSOs shall be responsible for visually monitoring and identifying
marine mammals approaching or entering the established monitoring zone
during survey activities.
Observations shall take place from the highest available vantage
point on the survey vessel. General 360-degree scanning shall occur
during the monitoring periods, and target scanning by the PSO shall
occur when alerted of a marine mammal presence. For monitoring around
the autonomous surface vessel (ASV), a dual thermal/HD camera shall be
installed on the mother vessel facing forward and angled in a direction
so as to provide a field of view ahead of the vessel and around the
ASV. PSOs shall be able to monitor the real-time output of the camera
on hand-held computer tablets. Images from the cameras shall be able to
be captured and reviewed to assist in verifying species identification.
A monitor shall also be installed in the bridge displaying the real-
time images from the thermal/HD camera installed on the front of the
ASV itself, providing a further forward view of the craft. In addition,
night-vision goggles with thermal clip-ons and a hand-held spotlight
shall be provided and used such that PSOs can focus observations in any
direction around the mother vessel and/or the ASV.
Data on all PSO observations shall be recorded based on standard
PSO collection requirements. This shall include dates and locations of
construction operations; time of observation, location and weather;
details of the sightings (e.g., species, age
[[Page 36557]]
classification [if known], numbers, behavior, distance from the
source); and details of any observed behavioral disturbances, injury or
mortality). The data sheet shall be provided to both NMFS and BOEM for
review and approval prior to the start of survey activities. In
addition, prior to initiation of survey work, all crew members will
undergo environmental training, a component of which shall focus on the
procedures for sighting and protection of marine mammals. A briefing
shall also be conducted between the survey supervisors and crews, the
PSOs, and the Applicant. The purpose of the briefing shall be to
establish responsibilities of each party, define the chains of command,
discuss communication procedures, provide an overview of monitoring
purposes, and review operational procedures.
Reporting Measures
The Applicant shall provide the following reports as necessary
during survey activities:
Any observed significant behavioral reactions (e.g., animals
departing the area) or injury or mortality to any marine mammals must
be reported to NMFS and BOEM within 24 hours of observation. Dead or
injured protected species are reported to the NMFS Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office Stranding Hotline (800-900-3622) within 24
hours of sighting, regardless of whether the injury is caused by a
vessel. In addition, if the injury or death was caused by a collision
with a project related vessel, the Applicant must ensure that NMFS and
BOEM are notified of the strike within 24 hours. The Applicant must use
the form included as Appendix A to Addendum C of the Lease to report
the sighting or incident. If the Applicant is responsible for the
injury or death, the vessel must assist with any salvage effort as
requested by NMFS. Additional reporting requirements for injured or
dead animals are described below (Notification of Injured or Dead
Marine Mammals).
Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
In the unanticipated event that the specified activities lead to an
unauthorized injury of a marine mammal or mortality (e.g., ship-strike,
gear interaction, and/or entanglement), Bay State Wind must immediately
cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Chief of
the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources
and the NOAA Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO)
Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the following
information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
Name and type of vessel involved;
Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
Description of the incident;
Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
Water depth;
Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24
hours preceding the incident;
Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the event. NMFS will work with Bay State Wind to
minimize reoccurrence of such an event in the future. Bay State Wind
shall not resume activities until notified by NMFS.
In the event that Bay State Wind discovers an injured or dead
marine mammal and determines that the cause of the injury or death is
unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a
moderate state of decomposition), Bay State Wind shall immediately
report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources and the GARFO Stranding
Coordinator. The report shall include the same information identified
in the paragraph above. Activities shall be allowed to continue while
NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with the
Applicant to determine if modifications in the activities are
appropriate.
In the event that Bay State Wind discovers an injured or dead
marine mammal and determines that the injury or death is not associated
with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g.,
previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), Bay State Wind shall report the
incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office
of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office Regional Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours of the
discovery. Bay State Wind shall provide photographs or video footage
(if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting
to NMFS. Bay State Wind can continue its operations in such a case.
Within 90 days after completion of the marine site characterization
survey activities, a technical report shall be provided to NMFS and
BOEM that fully documents the methods and monitoring protocols,
summarizes the data recorded during monitoring, estimates the number of
marine mammals that may have been taken during survey activities, and
provides an interpretation of the results and effectiveness of all
monitoring tasks. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in
the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS.
In addition to the Applicant's reporting requirements outlined
above, the Applicant shall provide an assessment report of the
effectiveness of the various mitigation techniques, i.e. visual
observations during day and night, compared to the PAM detections/
operations. This shall be submitted as a draft to NMFS and BOEM 30 days
after the completion of the HRG surveys and as a final version 60 days
after completion of the surveys.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing
[[Page 36558]]
sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, the majority of our analyses applies to all of
the species listed in Table 6, given that the anticipated effects of
the HRG surveys on different marine mammal species or stocks are
expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful
differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in
anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of the expected
take on the population due to differences in population status, or
impacts on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis
below.
As discussed in the ``Potential Effects of the Specified Activity
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat'' section of the proposed IHA
notice and referenced above, masking, non-auditory physical effects,
and vessel strike are not expected to occur. Animals in the area would
likely incur no more than brief hearing impairment (i.e., TTS) due to
generally low SPLs--and in the case of the HRG survey equipment use,
directional beam pattern, transient signals, and moving sound sources--
and the fact that most marine mammals would more likely avoid a loud
sound source rather than swim in such close proximity for an amount of
time as to result in TTS. Further, once an area has been surveyed, it
is not likely that it will be surveyed again, therefore reducing the
likelihood of repeated impacts within the project area.
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed
previously in the Proposed IHA document (83 FR 22443, May 15, 2018; see
the ``Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and
their Habitat'' section). Marine mammal habitat may be impacted by
elevated sound levels and some sediment disturbance, but these impacts
would be temporary and relatively short term. Feeding behavior is not
likely to be significantly impacted, as marine mammals appear to be
less likely to exhibit behavioral reactions or avoidance responses
while engaged in feeding activities (Richardson et al., 1995). Prey
species are mobile, and are broadly distributed throughout the Study
Area; therefore, marine mammals that may be temporarily displaced
during survey activities are expected to be able to resume foraging
once they have moved away from areas with disturbing levels of
underwater noise. Because of the temporary nature of the disturbance,
the availability of similar habitat and resources in the surrounding
area, and the lack of important or unique marine mammal habitat, the
impacts to marine mammals and the food sources that they utilize are
not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for
individual marine mammals or their populations.
ESA-Listed Marine Mammal Species
The North Atlantic right whale population demonstrated overall
growth of 2.8 percent per year between 1990 to 2010, despite a decline
in 1993 and no growth between 1997 and 2000 (Pace et al., 2017).
However, since 2010 the population has been in decline, with a 99.99
percent probability of a decline of just under one percent per year
(Pace et al., 2017). In the western North Atlantic, there were
estimated to be 458 whales in November 2015 (as reported in NMFS's
draft 2017 SARs and Table 2) based on a Bayesian mark-recapture open
population model, which accounts for individual differences in the
probability of being photographed (95 percent credible intervals 444-
471, Pace et al., 2017). While photographic data for 2016 are still
being processed, using this same Bayesian methodology with the
available data as of September 1, 2017, gave an estimate of 451
individuals for 2016 (Pettis et al., 2017a). While data are not yet
available to statistically estimate the population's trend beyond 2015,
three lines of evidence indicate the population is still in decline.
First, calving rates in 2016 and 2017 were low, with only five new
calves being documented in 2017 (Pettis et al., 2017a), well below the
number needed to compensate for expected mortalities (Pace et al.,
2017). In 2018, no new North Atlantic right whale calves were
documented in their calving grounds; this represented the first time
since annual NOAA aerial surveys began in 1989 that no new right whale
calves were observed. Long-term photographic identification data
indicate new calves rarely go undetected, so these years likely
represent a continuation of the low calving rates that began in 2012
(Kraus et al., 2007; Pace et al., 2017). Second, as noted above, the
preliminary abundance estimate for 2016 is 451 individuals, down
approximately 1.5 percent from 458 in 2015. Third, since June 2017, at
least 18 North Atlantic right whales have died in what has been
declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME; see additional discussion of
the UME below), and at least one calf died prior to this in April 2017
(NMFS, 2017). Currently, no identified right whale recovery goals have
been met (for more information on these goals, see the 2005 recovery
plan; NMFS, 2005, 2017). With whaling now prohibited, the two major
known human causes of mortality are vessel strikes and entanglement in
fishing gear. Some progress has been made in mitigating vessel strikes
by regulating vessel speeds in certain areas (78 FR 73726; December 9,
2013) (Conn and Silber, 2013), but entanglement in fishing gear remains
a major threat (Kraus et al., 2016).
There are currently insufficient data to determine population
trends for fin whale (Waring et al., 2015). There is also no exact
accounting of the total number of sperm whales worldwide, but the best
estimate is between 300,000 to 450,000 individuals. There is no
designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals within
the Study Area, and none of the stocks for non-listed species
authorized to be taken are considered ``depleted'' or ``strategic'' by
NMFS under the MMPA.
ESA-listed species for which takes are authorized are sperm whales
and fin whales, and these effects are anticipated to be limited to
lower level behavioral effects. No take has been authorized for North
Atlantic right whales.
Biologically Important Areas (BIA)
A small portion of a BIA for fin whale feeding is within the survey
area. However, the portion of the fin whale feeding BIA within the HRG
survey area is a very small portion of the overall BIA, and HRG
activities would ensonify such a small area that fin whale foraging is
not anticipated to be substantially impacted. In addition, as stated
above, authorized takes are limited to Level B harassment and are
anticipated to be mainly short-term and temporary behavioral harassment
and it is anticipated that normal foraging activity would commence
shortly after any behavioral disturbance if any were to occur.
The survey area is within a BIA for North Atlantic right whale
migration with timing of importance being March-April (northward
migration) and November-December (southward migration). Pregnant North
Atlantic right whales migrate south, through the mid-Atlantic region of
the United States, to low latitudes during late fall where they
overwinter and give birth in shallow, coastal waters (Kenney, 2009).
During spring, these females migrate back north with their new calves
to high latitude foraging grounds where they feed on large
concentrations of copepods, primarily Calanus finmarchicus (NMFS,
2017). Some non-reproductive North Atlantic right whales (males,
juveniles, non-reproducing females) also migrate south through the mid-
Atlantic region, although at more variable times throughout the winter,
while others
[[Page 36559]]
appear to not migrate south, and instead remain in the northern feeding
grounds year round or go elsewhere (Bort et al., 2015; Morano et al.,
2012; NMFS, 2017). Bay State Wind's HRG survey activity is scheduled to
begin as soon as the IHA is issued and continue for approximately 60
days, so it is anticipated that HRG survey activities would be
completed prior to the months when highest densities are expected to be
present, though the possibility that the survey would occur in this
time period was still analyzed and no take of North Atlantic right
whales has been authorized in the IHA issued to Bay State Wind, as HRG
survey operations are required to shut down at 500 m to avoid any
potential for behavioral harassment of this species.
Unusual Mortality Events (UME)
A UME is defined under the MMPA as ``a stranding that is
unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal
population; and demands immediate response.'' Three UMEs are ongoing
and under investigation relevant to HRG survey area. These involve
humpback whales, North Atlantic right whales, and minke whales.
Specific information for each ongoing UME is provided below. There is
currently no direct connection between the three UMEs, as there is no
evident cause of stranding or death that is common across the three
species involved in the different UMEs. Additionally, strandings across
the three species are not clustering in space or time.
Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have
occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida. As of
June 2018, partial or full necropsy examinations have been conducted on
approximately half of the 76 known cases. Of the cases examined,
approximately half had evidence of human interaction (ship strike or
entanglement). Fourteen of these investigated mortalities showed blunt
force trauma or pre-mortem propeller wounds indicative of vessel
strike, which is above the annual long-term average; however, these
findings of pre-mortem vessel strike are not consistent across all of
the 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. Three previous
UMEs involving humpback whales have occurred since 2000, in 2003, 2005,
and 2006. More information is available at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2018-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast (accessed July 2, 2018).
Since January 2017, elevated minke whale strandings have occurred
along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina, with
highest numbers in Massachusetts, Maine, and New York. As of June 2018,
partial or full necropsy examinations have been conducted on 18 of the
33 known cases. Preliminary findings in several of the whales have
shown evidence of human interactions or infectious disease. These
findings are not consistent across all of the whales examined, so more
research is needed. As part of the UME investigation process, NOAA is
assembling an independent team of scientists to coordinate with the
Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events to review the
data collected, sample stranded whales, and determine the next steps
for the investigation. More information is available at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2018-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast (accessed March 19,
2018).
Elevated North Atlantic right whale mortalities began in June 2017,
primarily in Canada. To date, there are a total of 18 confirmed dead
stranded whales and 1 suspected dead (12 in Canada; 6 in the United
States; 1 suspected dead in the United States), and 5 live whale
entanglements in Canada have been documented. Full necropsy
examinations have been conducted on eleven of the cases, with results
currently available for seven of these that occurred in Canada (Daoust
et al., 2017). Results indicate that two whales died from entanglement
in fishing gear and, for four whales, necropsy findings were compatible
with acute death due to trauma (although it is uncertain whether they
were struck pre- or post-mortem) (Daoust et al., 2017). Several
investigated cases are undetermined due to advanced decomposition.
Overall, findings to date confirm that vessel strikes and fishing gear
entanglement continue to be the key threats to recovery of North
Atlantic right whales. In response, the Canadian government has enacted
fishery closures to help reduce future entanglements and has modified
fixed gear fisheries, as well as implementing temporary mandatory
vessel speed restrictions in a portion of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
NOAA is cooperating with Canadian government officials as they
investigate the incidents in Canadian waters. A previous UME involving
right whales occurred in 1996. More information is available at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2018-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event (accessed March 19, 2018).
The required mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number
and/or severity of takes by giving animals the opportunity to move away
from the sound source before HRG survey equipment reaches full energy
and preventing animals from being exposed to sound levels that have the
potential to cause injury (Level A harassment) and more severe Level B
harassment during HRG survey activities. Additional vessel strike
avoidance requirements will further mitigate potential impacts to
marine mammals during vessel transit to and within the Study Area.
Bay State Wind did not request, and NMFS is not authorizing, take
of marine mammals by serious injury, or mortality. NMFS expects that
most takes would primarily be in the form of short-term Level B
behavioral harassment in the form of brief startling reaction and/or
temporary vacating of the area, or decreased foraging (if such activity
were occurring)--reactions that are considered to be of low severity
and with no lasting biological consequences (e.g., Southall et al.,
2007). This is largely due to the short time scale of the proposed
activities, the low source levels and intermittent nature of many of
the technologies proposed to be used, as well as the required
mitigation.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No mortality, serious injury or injury is anticipated or
authorized;
Take is anticipated to be limited to Level B behavioral
harassment consisting of brief startling reactions and/or temporary
avoidance of the survey area due to the intermittent and short term
nature of the activities as well as the directionality of the sound
sources;
While the survey area is within areas noted as
biologically important for north Atlantic right whale migration
mitigation measures to shut down at 500 m are expected to avoid any
take of the species. Further, although our analysis considers the
potential for the activities to occur at any point during the year,
they are anticipated to take place outside of the timeframe of noted
[[Page 36560]]
importance for migration for the North Atlantic right whale BIA
Similarly, due to the small overlap of the survey
activities with the biologically important area for fin whales, along
with the size of the required shutdown, which should avoid the majority
of impacts, the survey activities are not expected to affect foraging
behavior of this species.
For all species, the percentage of stocks affected are
less than 9 percent of the stock. This represents the total instances
of take and does not consider that there are likely repeat exposures of
the same individuals, which would mean that the percentage of
individuals are likely lower. In addition, these takes are anticipated
to be Level B harassment takes in the form of short-term startle or
avoidance reactions that would not affect the species or stock.
NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks
due to Bay State Wind's HRG survey activities would result in only
short-term (temporary and short in duration) and relatively infrequent
effects to individuals exposed, and not of the type or severity that
would be expected to be additive for the very small portion of the
stocks and species likely to be exposed. Animals may temporarily avoid
the immediate area, but are not expected to permanently abandon the
area. Major shifts in habitat use, distribution, or foraging success,
are not expected. For the reasons described herein, NMFS does not
anticipate the authorized take to impact annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the required monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from
Bay State Wind's proposed HRG survey activities will have a negligible
impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
The takes authorized for the HRG survey represent 2.07 percent of
the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whale (West Indies Distinct
Population Segment); 1.92 percent of the WNA stock of fin whale; 0.77
percent of the Canadian East Coast stock of minke whale; 0.22 percent
of the North Atlantic stock of sperm whales; 8.66 percent of the
Western North Atlantic stock of bottlenose dolphins; 0.16 percent of
the WNA stock of Risso's dolphins; 0.11 percent of the WNA stock of
Atlantic spotted dolphins; 0.05 percent of the WNA stock of long-finned
pilot whales; 2.85 percent of the WNA stock of common dolphin; 1.02
percent of the WNA stock of Atlantic white-sided dolphin; 1.09 percent
of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise; 2.16
percent of the WNA stock of harbor seal; and 0.56 percent of the North
Atlantic stock of gray seal. These take estimates represent the
percentage of each species or stock that could be taken and are small
numbers relative to the affected species or stock sizes. Further, the
authorized take numbers are the maximum numbers of animals that are
expected to be harassed during the project; it is possible that some of
these exposures may occur to the same individual, which would mean the
percentage of stock taken would be smaller as it would not take into
account these multiple exposures of the same individual(s). Therefore,
NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative
to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated
by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of
affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to evaluate the issuance of wind
energy leases covering the entirety of the Massachusetts Wind Energy
Area (including the OCS-A 0500 Study Area), and the approval of site
assessment activities within those leases (BOEM, 2014). NMFS previously
adopted BOEM's EA and issued a Finding of No Significant Effect (FONSI)
for similar work in 2016 (81 FR 56589, August 22, 2016).
NMFS has reviewed the BOEM EA and our previous FONSI and has
determined that this action is consistent with categories of activities
identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative
Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the
potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human
environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary
circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion.
Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies
to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. We have reviewed
all comments submitted in response to the proposed IHA notice prior to
concluding our NEPA process and making a final decision on the IHA
request.
Endangered Species Act
The NMFS Office of Protected Resources is authorizing the
incidental take fin whales, which are listed under the ESA. BOEM
consulted with NMFS GARFO under section 7 of the ESA on commercial wind
lease issuance and site assessment activities on the Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and New
Jersey Wind Energy Areas. The NMFS GARFO issued a Biological Opinion
concluding that these activities may adversely affect but are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the North Atlantic
right, fin, and sperm whale. The Biological Opinion can be found online
at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable. Upon
request from the NMFS Office of Protected Resources, the NMFS GARFO
will issue an amended incidental take statement associated with this
Biological Opinion to include the takes of the ESA-listed fin whale
authorized through this IHA.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to Bay State Wind for conducting marine site
characterization surveys offshore of Massachusetts and along potential
submarine cable routes for a period of one year, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated.
Dated: July 24, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-16200 Filed 7-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P