Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11239 

SUMMARY: The FWS and NOAA 

announce the availability of a draft 

monument management plan (MMP) for 

the Marianas Trench Marine National 

Monument (Monument). The draft MMP 

describes proposed goals, objectives, 

and strategies for managing the 

Monument over a 15-year period. 

DATES: We must receive comments by 

May 25, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2021–0003, by either of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

NOAA-NMFS-2021-0003, click the 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Send written comments to

Superintendent, Marianas Trench 

Marine National Monument, P.O. Box 

8134, MOU–3, Dededo, GU 96912. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

The draft MMP includes an 

environmental assessment (EA) of the 

potential impacts of the MMP on the 

human environment. You may review 

the draft MMP and EA at 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tammy Summers, FWS, (671) 355– 

5096, or Heidi Hirsh, NOAA, (808) 725– 

5016. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Monument was established by 

Presidential Proclamation 8335 (January 

12, 2009, 74 FR 1557). The Secretaries 

of the Interior and Commerce share 

responsibility for managing the 

Monument, and the Proclamation 

requires the Secretaries of the Interior 

and Commerce to prepare management 

plans and promulgate implementing 

regulations that address specific actions 

necessary for the proper care and 

management of the Monument. 

This draft MMP includes elements 

similar to a National Wildlife Refuge 

System Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP), and we are conducting the 

planning process for those elements in 

a manner similar to the CCP planning 

and public involvement process. The 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (Refuge 

Administration Act, 16 U.S.C. 668dd– 

668ee), as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997, requires the FWS to 

develop a CCP for each national wildlife 

refuge. This draft MMP would 

incorporate CCP requirements and 

would define each agency’s 

management roles and responsibilities. 

The draft MMP lays out the goals, 

objectives, and proposed management 

activities for the next 15 years, 

consistent with sound principles of fish 

and wildlife management, conservation, 

legal mandates, and consistent with 

FWS and NOAA policies. The draft 

MMP includes an environmental 

assessment to evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts of implementing 

the MMP. The FWS and NOAA would 

review and update the MMP at least 

every 15 years, in accordance with the 

Refuge Administration Act. 

More information about the 

Monument’s history, wildlife, and 

habitats is available in a Notice of Intent 

published on April 5, 2011 (76 FR 

18773). 

The FWS and NOAA seek comments 

on the draft MMP and EA. We will 

consider comments received when 

deciding whether to approve or modify 

the MMP. 

Dated: February 18, 2021. 

Jennifer M. Wallace, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03642 Filed 2–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XA852] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Marine Site 

Characterization Surveys Off of 

Delaware 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from Skipjack Offshore Energy, LLC 

(Skipjack) for authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to marine 

site characterization surveys offshore of 

Delaware in the area of the Commercial 

Lease of Submerged Lands for 

Renewable Energy Development on the 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS–A 0519) 

and along potential submarine cable 

routes to a landfall location in Delaware. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS is also requesting 

comments on a possible one-year 

renewal that could be issued under 

certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met, as described in 

Request for Public Comments at the end 

of this notice. NMFS will consider 

public comments prior to making any 

final decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than March 26, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Written 

comments should be submitted via 

email to ITP.Pauline@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Pauline, 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: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11240 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) 

of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 

direct the Secretary of Commerce (as 

delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which NMFS have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

NMFS will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On August 12, 2020, NMFS received 

a request from Skipjack for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to 

marine site characterization surveys 

offshore of Delaware in the area of the 

Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands 

for Renewable Energy Development on 

the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS–A 

0519) and along potential submarine 

cable routes to a landfall location in 

Delaware. Revised versions of the 

application were received on September 

21, 2020 and November 5, 2020. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on December 12, 2020. 

Skipjack’s request is for take of a small 

number of 16 species of marine 

mammals by Level B harassment only. 

Neither Skipjack nor NMFS expects 

serious injury or mortality to result from 

this activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

NMFS previously issued an IHA to 

Skipjack for similar work in the same 

geographic area on December 3, 2019 

(84 FR 66156) with effectives dates from 

November 26, 2019 through November 

25, 2020. Skipjack complied with all the 

requirements (e.g., mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting) of the 

previous IHA and given the similarity in 

activities and location, relevant 

information regarding their previous 

marine mammal monitoring results may 

be found in the Estimated Take section. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

As part of its overall marine site 

characterization survey operations, 

Skipjack proposes to conduct highresolution geophysical (HRG) surveys, 

in the area of Commercial Lease of 

Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy 

Development on the Outer Continental 

Shelf #OCS–A 0519 (Lease Area) and 

along potential submarine cable routes 

to landfall locations in Delaware. 

The purpose of the marine site 

characterization surveys are to obtain a 

baseline assessment of seabed 

(geophysical, geotechnical, and 

geohazard), ecological, and 

archeological conditions within the 

footprint of offshore wind facility 

development. Surveys are also 

conducted to support engineering 

design and to map Unexploded 

Ordinances (UXO survey). Underwater 

sound resulting from Skipjack’s 

proposed site characterization survey 

activities, specifically HRG surveys have 

the potential to result in incidental take 

of marine mammals in the form of 

behavioral harassment. 

Dates and Duration 

The estimated duration of HRG survey 

activity is expected to be up to 200 

survey days over the course of a single 

year. Skipjack proposes to start survey 

activity in April 2021. The IHA would 

be effective for one year from the date 

of issuance. This schedule is based on 

24-hour operations and includes 

potential down time due to inclement 

weather. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The proposed survey activities will 

occur within the Project Area which 

includes the Lease Area and along 

potential submarine cable routes to 

landfall locations in the state of 

Delaware, as shown in Figure 1. The 

Lease Area is approximately 284 square 

kilometers (km2) and is within the 

Delaware Wind Energy Area (WEA) of 

the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) Mid-Atlantic 

planning area. Water depths in the 

Lease Area range from 15 meters (m) to 

40 m. Water depths in the submarine 

cable area extend from the shoreline to 

approximately 40 m. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11241 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

Skipjack has proposed that survey 

operations, including HRG survey 

activities operations would be 

conducted continuously 24 hours per 

day. Based on 24-hour operations, the 

estimated duration of the HRG survey 

activities would be approximately 200 

days (including estimated weather 

down time). As many as four vessels 

may be engaged in HRG surveying 

activities during Skipjack’s overall site 

characterization efforts with up to two 

working concurrently in the Lease Area 

or along the submarine cable route (e.g., 

two vessels in the Lease Area; one 

vessel in the general area and one vessel 

on the portion of the submarine cable 

route within the area; two vessels on the 

submarine cable route outside of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN24FE21.006</GPH>
11242 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

area). Vessels working in shallow or 

very shallow waters would only operate 

during daylight hours. Vessels would be 

at least one kilometer (km) apart at all 

times. Vessels would maintain a speed 

of approximately 4 knots (kn) while 

transiting survey lines and cover 

approximately 70 km per day. The daily 

distance surveyed could be more or less 

than this based on weather and other 

factors, but an average of 70 km per day 

is assumed in estimating the total 

number of survey days and in 

estimating the daily ensonified area (see 

Estimated Take). Impulsive sources 

(e.g., sparker systems) would be utilized 

for 50 survey days while the nonimpulsive sources (e.g., sub-bottom 

profilers (SBPs)) would be used for the 

remaining 150 days. See following 

discussion and Table 1. The survey 

activities proposed by Skipjack with 

acoustic source types that could result 

in take of marine mammals include the 

following: 

• Shallow penetration, nonimpulsive, non-parametric sub-bottom 

profilers (SBPs, also known as CHIRPs) 

are used to map the near-surface 

stratigraphy (top 0 to 10 m) of sediment 

below seabed. A CHIRP system emits 

signals covering a frequency sweep from 

approximately 2 to 20 kHz over time. 

The frequency range can be adjusted to 

meet project variables. 

• Medium penetration, impulsive 

sources (boomers, sparkers) are used to 

map deeper subsurface stratigraphy as 

needed. A boomer is a broad-band 

sound source operating in the 3.5 Hz to 

10 kHz frequency range. Sparkers are 

used to map deeper subsurface 

stratigraphy as needed. Sparkers create 

acoustic pulses from 50 Hz to 4 kHz 

omni-directionally from the source. 

Operation of the following survey 

equipment types is not reasonably 

expected to result in take of marine 

mammals and will not be carried 

forward in the application analysis 

beyond the brief summaries provided 

below. 

• Non-impulsive, parametric SBPs are 

used for providing high data density in 

sub-bottom profiles that are typically 

required for cable routes, very shallow 

water, and archaeological surveys. The 

narrow beamwidth (1° to 3.5°) 

significantly reduces the impact range of 

the source while the high frequencies of 

the source are rapidly attenuated in sea 

water. Because of the high frequency of 

the source and narrow bandwidth, 

parametric SBPs do not produce Level 

B harassment isopleths beyond 4 m. No 

Level B harassment exposures can be 

reasonably expected from the operation 

of these sources. 

• Acoustic corers, unlike the other 

mobile geophysical sources, are 

stationary and made up of three distinct 

sound sources comprised of a HF 

parametric sonar (which will not be 

included in this assessment), a HF 

CHIRP sonar, and a LF CHIRP sonar 

with each source having its own 

transducer. The corer is seabedmounted; therefore, propagation for 

similar towed equipment is unlikely to 

be fully comparable. The beam width of 

the parametric sonar is narrow (3.5° to 

8°) and the sonar is operated roughly 3.5 

m above the seabed with the transducer 

pointed directly downward. No take is 

expected to result from use of these 

highly directional, seabed-mounted 

sources. 

• Ultra-short baseline (USBL) 

positioning systems are used to provide 

high accuracy ranges by measuring the 

time between the acoustic pulses 

transmitted by the vessel transceiver 

and a transponder (or beacon) necessary 

to produce the acoustic profile. USBLs 

have been shown to produce extremely 

small acoustic propagation distances in 

their typical operating configuration. 

Based on this information, no Level B 

harassment exposures can be reasonably 

expected from the operation of these 

sources. 

• Multibeam echosounders (MBESs) 

are used to determine water depths and 

general bottom topography. The 

proposed MBESs all have operating 

frequencies >180 kHz, they are outside 

the general hearing range of marine 

mammals likely to occur in the Project 

Area and are not likely to affect these 

species. 

• Side scan sonars (SSS) are used for 

seabed sediment classification purposes 

and to identify natural and man-made 

acoustic targets on the seafloor. The 

proposed SSSs all have operating 

frequencies >180 kHz, they are outside 

the general hearing range of marine 

mammals likely to occur in the Project 

Area and are not likely to affect these 

species. 

Table 1 identifies all the 

representative survey equipment that 

operate below 180 kHz (i.e., at 

frequencies that are audible to and 

therefore may be detected by marine 

mammals) that may be used in support 

of planned HRG survey activities, some 

of which have the expected potential to 

result in exposure of marine mammals. 

The make and model of the listed 

geophysical equipment may vary 

depending on availability and the final 

equipment choices will vary depending 

upon the final survey design, vessel 

availability, and survey contractor 

selection. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE HRG EQUIPMENT

Equipment Acoustic source 

type 

Operating 

frequency 

(kHz) 

SLrms

(dB re 1 

μPa m) 

SL0-pk

(dB re 1 

μPa m) 

Pulse 

duration 

(width) 

(millisecond) 

Repetition 

rate 

(Hz) 

Beamwidth 

(degrees) 

CF = Crocker and 

Fratantonio (2016) 

MAN = Manufacturer 

Non-Impulsive, Non-Parametric, Shallow Sub-Bottom Profilers (CHIRP Sonars) 

ET 216 (2000DS or 3200 top 

unit).

Non-impulsive, 

mobile, intermittent.

2–16 

2–8 

195 .................... 20 6 24 MAN. 

ET 424 .................................. Non-impulsive, 

mobile, intermittent.

4–24 176 .................... 3.4 2 71 CF. 

ET 512 .................................. Non-impulsive, 

mobile, intermittent.

0.7–12 179 .................... 9 8 80 CF. 

GeoPulse 5430A .................. Non-impulsive, 

mobile, intermittent.

2–17 196 .................... 50 10 55 MAN. 

Teledyne Benthos Chirp III— 

TTV 170.

Non-impulsive, 

mobile, intermittent.

2–7 197 .................... 60 15 100 MAN. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11243 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE HRG EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Equipment Acoustic source 

type 

Operating 

frequency 

(kHz) 

SLrms

(dB re 1 

μPa m) 

SL0-pk

(dB re 1 

μPa m) 

Pulse 

duration 

(width) 

(millisecond) 

Repetition 

rate 

(Hz) 

Beamwidth 

(degrees) 

CF = Crocker and 

Fratantonio (2016) 

MAN = Manufacturer 

Impulsive, Medium Sub-Bottom Profilers (Sparkers & Boomers) 

AA, Dura-spark UHD (400 

tips, 500 J) 2.

Impulsive, mobile 0.3–1.2 203 211 1.1 4 Omni CF. 

AA, Dura-spark UHD 

(400+400) 2.

Impulsive, mobile 0.3–1.2 203 211 1.1 4 Omni CF (AA Dura-spark 

UHD Proxy). 

GeoMarine, Geo-Source dual 

400 tip sparker (800 J) 2.

Impulsive, mobile 0.4–5 203 211 1.1 2 Omni CF (AA Dura-spark 

UHD Proxy). 

GeoMarine Geo-Source 200 

tip sparker (400 J) 2.

Impulsive, mobile 0.3–1.2 203 211 1.1 4 Omni CF (AA Dura-spark 

UHD Proxy). 

GeoMarine Geo-Source 200– 

400 tip sparker (400 J) 2.

Impulsive, mobile 0.3–1.2 203 211 1.1 4 Omni CF (AA Dura-spark 

UHD Proxy). 

AA, triple plate S-Boom 

(700–1,000 J) 3.

Impulsive, mobile 0.1–5 205 211 0.6 4 80 CF. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this action, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. For taxonomy, NMFS 

follows the Committee on Taxonomy 

(2020). PBR is defined by the MMPA as 

the maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’s 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico SARs. All values presented in 

Table 2 are the most recent available at 

the time of publication and are available 

in the 2020 SARs (Hayes et al., 2020) 

and draft 2021 SARS available at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR NEAR THE PROJECT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY

SKIPJACK’S ACTIVITY

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenidae: 

North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis .............. Western North Atlantic ......... E/D; Y 412 (0; 408; 2018) ............... 0.8 18.6 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback whale ............ Megaptera novaeangliae ...... Gulf of Maine ........................ -/-; Y 1,393 (0; 1,375; 2016) ......... 22 58 

Fin whale ........................ Balaenoptera physalus ......... Western North Atlantic ......... E/D; Y 6,802 (0.24; 5,573; 2016) .... 11 2.35 

Sei whale ........................ Balaenoptera borealis .......... Nova Scotia .......................... E/D; Y 6,292 (1.015; 3,098; see 

SAR).

6.2 1.2 

Minke whale ................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata .. Canadian East Coast ........... -/-; N 21,968 (0.31; 17,002; 2016) 170 10.6 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae: 

Sperm whale .................. Physeter macrocephalus ...... NA ........................................ E; Y 4,349 (0.28;3,451; See SAR) 3.9 0 

Family Delphinidae: 

Long-finned pilot whale .. Globicephala melas .............. Western North Atlantic ......... -/-; N 39,215 (0.30; 30,627; See 

SAR).

306 21 

Short finned pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus Western North Atlantic ......... -/-;Y 28,924 (0.24; 23,637; See 

SAR).

236 160 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11244 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR NEAR THE PROJECT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY

SKIPJACK’S ACTIVITY—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Bottlenose dolphin .......... Tursiops truncatus ................ Western North Atlantic Offshore.-/-; N 62,851 (0.23; 51,914; See 

SAR).

519 28 

W.N.A. Northern Migratory 

Coastal.

-/-;Y 6,639 (0.41,4 ,759, 2016) .... 48 12.2–21.5 

Common dolphin ............ Delphinus delphis ................. Western North Atlantic ......... -/-; N 172,897 (0.21; 145,216; 

2016).

1,452 399 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin.Lagenorhynchus acutus ....... Western North Atlantic ......... -/-; N 93,233 (0.71; 54,443; See 

SAR).

544 26 

Atlantic spotted dolphin .. Stenella frontalis ................... Western North Atlantic ......... -/-; N 39,921 (0.27; 32,032; 2012) 320 0 

Risso’s dolphin ............... Grampus griseus .................. Western North Atlantic ......... -/-; N 35,493 (0.19; 30,289; See 

SAR).

303 54.3 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise ............. Phocoena phocoena ............ Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy -/-; N 95,543 (0.31; 74,034; See 

SAR).

851 217 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Gray seal 4 ...................... Halichoerus grypus .............. Western North Atlantic ......... -/-; N 27,131 (0.19; 23,158, 2016) 1,389 5,410 

Harbor seal ..................... Phoca vitulina ....................... Western North Atlantic ......... -/-; N 75,834 (0.15; 66,884, 2018) 2,006 350 

1ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be 

declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA 

as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). 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. 4The NMFS stock abundance estimate applies to U.S. population only, however the actual stock abundance is approximately 451,431.

As indicated above, all 16 species 

(with 17 managed stocks) in Table 2 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur, and NMFS 

has proposed authorizing it. 

North Atlantic Right Whale 

The North Atlantic right whale ranges 

from calving grounds in the 

southeastern United States to feeding 

grounds in New England waters and 

into Canadian waters (Hayes et al., 

2020). NMFS et al. 2020 identified 

seven areas where Western North 

Atlantic right whale aggregate 

seasonally: The coastal waters of the 

southeastern United States, the Great 

South Channel, Jordan Basin, Georges 

Basin along the northeastern edge of 

Georges Bank, Cape Cod and 

Massachusetts Bays, the Bay of Fundy, 

and the Roseway Basin on the Scotian 

Shelf (Brown et al., 2001; Cole et al., 

2013). Several of these congregation 

areas correlate with seasonally high 

copepod concentrations (Pendleton et 

al., 2009). New England waters are a 

primary feeding habitat for North 

Atlantic right whales during late winter 

through spring, with feeding moving 

into deeper and more northerly waters 

during summer and fall. Less is known 

regarding winter distributions; however, 

it is understood that calving takes place 

during this time in coastal waters of the 

Southeastern United States. 

Passive acoustic studies of North 

Atlantic right whales have demonstrated 

their year-round presence in the Gulf of 

Maine (Morano et al., 2012; Bort et al., 

2015), New Jersey (Whitt et al., 2013), 

and Virginia (Salisbury et al., 2016). 

Additionally, North Atlantic right 

whales were acoustically detected off 

Georgia and North Carolina during 7 of 

the 11 months monitored (Hodge et al., 

2015). All of this work further 

demonstrates the highly mobile nature 

of North Atlantic right whales. 

Movements within and between habitats 

are extensive and the area off the MidAtlantic states is an important migratory 

corridor. While no critical habitat is 

listed within the Project Area, 11 North 

Atlantic right whales were identified in 

the Mid-Atlantic Baseline Studies 

(MABS) surveys conducted between 

2012 and 2014 with a total of nine 

sightings occurring in February (n=5) 

and March (n=4) (Williams et al., 2015a, 

b). Davis et al. (2017) recently examined 

detections from passive acoustic 

monitoring devices and documented a 

broad-scale use of much more of the 

U.S. eastern seaboard than was 

previously believed, and an apparent 

shift in habitat use patterns to the south 

of traditionally identified North Atlantic 

right whale congregations. Increased use 

of Cape Cod Bay and decreased use of 

the Great South Channel were also 

observed (Davis et al., 2017). 

Off the coast of New Jersey, North 

Atlantic right whales were acoustically 

detected in all seasons and visually 

observed in winter, spring, and summer 

during an environment baseline study 

(EBS) conducted by the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(NJDEP, 2010). The greatest number of 

acoustic detections occurred during 

April and May (Whitt et al., 2013). 

Reports from the RWSAS for the MidAtlantic Region (New Jersey through 

Virginia) show 24 records off the coast 

of New Jersey since 2015: January (7), 

March (1), April (4), October (1) and 

December (11) (NOAA, 2019). 

Elevated North Atlantic right whale 

mortalities have occurred since June 7, 

2017 along the U.S. and Canadian coast. 

As of January 2021, a preliminary 

cumulative total number of animals in 

the North Atlantic right whale UME has 

been updated to 46 individuals to 

include both the confirmed mortalities 

(dead stranded or floaters) (n=32) and 

seriously injured free-swimming whales 

(n=14) to better reflect the confirmed 

number of whales likely removed from 

the population during the UME and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11245 

more accurately reflect the population 

impacts. A total of 32 confirmed dead 

stranded whales (21 in Canada; 11 in 

the United States) have been 

documented. This event has been 

declared an Unusual Mortality Event 

(UME), with human interactions, 

including entanglement in fixed fishing 

gear and vessel strikes, implicated in at 

least 15 of the mortalities thus far. More 

information is available online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2017-2021-northatlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortalityevent. 

The proposed survey area is part of a 

migratory corridor Biologically 

Important Area (BIA) for North Atlantic 

right whales (effective March–April and 

November–December) that extends from 

Massachusetts to Florida (LeBrecque et 

al., 2015). Off the coast of Delaware, 

migratory BIA extends from the coast to 

beyond the shelf break. This important 

migratory area is approximately 269,488 

km2 in size and is comprised of the 

waters of the continental shelf offshore 

the East Coast of the United States and 

extends from Florida through 

Massachusetts. For comparative 

purposes, the size of the Lease Area is 

284 km2. NMFS’ regulations at 50 CFR 

part 224.105 designated nearshore 

waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight as MidAtlantic U.S. Seasonal Management 

Areas (SMA) for right whales in 2008. 

SMAs were developed to reduce the 

threat of collisions between ships and 

right whales around their migratory 

route and calving grounds. A portion of 

one SMA, which occurs off the mouth 

of Delaware Bay, overlaps spatially with 

a section of the proposed survey area. 

The SMA which occurs off the mouth of 

Delaware Bay is active from November 

1 through April 30 of each year. 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales are found 

worldwide in all oceans. Humpback 

whales were listed as endangered under 

the Endangered Species Conservation 

Act (ESCA) in June 1970. In 1973, the 

ESA replaced the ESCA, and 

humpbacks continued to be listed as 

endangered. NMFS recently evaluated 

the status of the species, and on 

September 8, 2016, NMFS divided the 

species into 14 distinct population 

segments (DPS), removed the current 

species-level listing, and in its place 

listed four DPSs as endangered and one 

DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259; 

September 8, 2016). The remaining nine 

DPSs were not listed. The West Indies 

DPS, which is not listed under the ESA, 

is the only DPS of humpback whale that 

is expected to occur in the Project Area. 

Humpback whales have a global 

distribution and follow a migratory 

pattern of feeding in the high latitudes 

during summers and spending winters 

in the lower latitudes for calving and 

mating. The Gulf of Maine stock follows 

this pattern with winters spent in the 

Caribbean and West Indies, although 

acoustic recordings show a small 

number of males persisting in 

Stellwagen Bank throughout the year 

(Vu et al., 2012). Barco et al. (2002) 

suggested that the mid-Atlantic region 

primarily represents a supplemental 

winter feeding ground used by 

humpbacks. However, with populations 

recovering, additional surveys that 

include photo identification and genetic 

sampling need to be conducted to 

determine which stocks are currently 

using the mid-Atlantic region. 

Sightings of humpback whales in the 

Mid-Atlantic are common (Barco et al., 

2002), as are strandings (Wiley et al., 

1995). Barco et al. (2002) suggested that 

the Mid-Atlantic region primarily 

represents a supplemental winter 

feeding ground used by humpbacks. 

During the MABS surveys, a total of 13 

humpback whales were recorded 

between 2012 and 2014: Eight during 

the winter, one during the summer, and 

four during the fall (Williams et al., 

2015a, b). There was a total of 17 groups 

sighted during the NJDEP EBS, nine of 

which occurred during winter months 

(Whitt et al., 2015). 

Since January 2016, elevated 

humpback whale mortalities have 

occurred along the Atlantic coast from 

Maine to Florida. Partial or full 

necropsy examinations have been 

conducted on approximately half of the 

145 known cases. Of the whales 

examined, about 50 percent had 

evidence of human interaction, either 

ship strike or entanglement. While a 

portion of the whales have shown 

evidence of pre-mortem vessel strike, 

this finding is not consistent across all 

whales examined and more research is 

needed. NOAA is consulting with 

researchers that are conducting studies 

on the humpback whale populations, 

and these efforts may provide 

information on changes in whale 

distribution and habitat use that could 

provide additional insight into how 

these vessel interactions occurred. 

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/2016-2021- 

humpback-whale-unusual-mortalityevent-along-atlantic-coast. 

Fin Whale 

Fin whales are common in waters of 

the U. S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ), principally from Cape 

Hatteras northward (Hayes et al., 2020). 

Fin whales are present north of 35- 

degree latitude in every season and are 

broadly distributed throughout the 

western North Atlantic for most of the 

year, though densities vary seasonally 

(Hayes et al., 2020). Fin whales 

accounted for 46 percent of the large 

whales sighted during aerial surveys 

along the continental shelf (CETAP, 

1982) between Cape Hatteras and Nova 

Scotia from 1978 to 1982. Fin whales 

were also the most frequently sighted 

large whale species during the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection (NJDEP) Ecological Baseline 

Studies (EBS) with 37 groups sighted 

throughout all seasons (Whitt et al., 

2015). The MABS surveys (Williams et 

al., 2015a, b) reported two fin whales 

during the winter and two during the 

spring. 

Fin whales are found in small groups 

of up to five individuals (Brueggeman et 

al., 1987). The main threats to fin 

whales are fishery interactions and 

vessel collisions (Hayes et al., 2020). 

Sei Whale 

The Nova Scotia stock of sei whales 

can be found in deeper waters of the 

continental shelf edge waters of the 

northeastern United States and 

northeastward to south of 

Newfoundland. Two subspecies of sei 

whales are currently recognized 

(Committee on Taxonomy, 2018) and 

the Northern sei whale (B. b. borealis) 

is known to occur within the Project 

Area. Sei whales are most common in 

deeper waters along the continental 

shelf edge (Hayes et al., 2020) but will 

forage occasionally in shallower, 

inshore waters. The southern portion of 

the stock’s range during spring and 

summer includes the Gulf of Maine and 

Georges Bank. Spring is the period of 

greatest abundance in U.S. waters, with 

sightings concentrated along the eastern 

margin of Georges Bank and into the 

Northeast Channel area, and along the 

southwestern edge of Georges Bank in 

the area of Hydrographer Canyon (Hayes 

et al., 2020). Sei whales occur in 

shallower waters to feed. Sei whales are 

listed as engendered under the ESA, and 

the Nova Scotia stock is considered 

strategic and depleted under the MMPA. 

The main threats to this stock are 

interactions with fisheries and vessel 

collisions (Hayes et al., 2020). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11246 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales can be found in 

temperate, tropical, and high-latitude 

waters. The Canadian East Coast stock 

can be found in the area from the 

western half of the Davis Strait (45ß W) 

to the Gulf of Mexico (Hayes et al., 

2020). This species generally occupies 

waters less than 100 m deep on the 

continental shelf. Little is known about 

minke whales’ specific movements 

through the mid-Atlantic region; 

however, there appears to be a strong 

seasonal component to minke whale 

distribution, with acoustic detections 

indicating that they migrate south in 

mid-October to early November, and 

return from wintering grounds starting 

in March through early April (Hayes et 

al., 2020). Northward migration appears 

to track the warmer waters of the Gulf 

Stream along the continental shelf, 

while southward migration is made 

farther offshore (Risch et al., 2014). 

Since January 2017, elevated minke 

whale mortalities have occurred along 

the Atlantic coast from Maine through 

South Carolina, with a total of 103 

strandings recorded through January 

2021 This event has been declared a 

UME. Full or partial necropsy 

examinations were conducted on more 

than 60 percent of the whales. 

Preliminary findings in several of the 

whales have shown evidence of human 

interactions or infectious disease, but 

these findings are not consistent across 

all of the whales examined, so more 

research is needed. More information is 

available at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021- 

minke-whale-unusual-mortality-eventalong-atlantic-coast. 

Sperm Whale 

The distribution of the sperm whale 

in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ) occurs on the continental shelf 

edge, over the continental slope, and 

into mid-ocean regions (Hayes et al. 

2020). The basic social unit of the sperm 

whale appears to be the mixed school of 

adult females plus their calves and some 

juveniles of both sexes, normally 

numbering 20–40 animals in all. There 

is evidence that some social bonds 

persist for many years (Christal et al., 

1998). This species forms stable social 

groups, site fidelity, and latitudinal 

range limitations in groups of females 

and juveniles (Whitehead, 2002). In 

winter, sperm whales concentrate east 

and northeast of Cape Hatteras. In 

spring, distribution shifts northward to 

east of Delaware and Virginia, and is 

widespread throughout the central MidAtlantic Bight and the southern part of 

Georges Bank. In the fall, sperm whale 

occurrence on the continental shelf 

south of New England reaches peak 

levels, and there remains a continental 

shelf edge occurrence in the MidAtlantic Bight (Hayes et al., 2020). 

No sperm whales were recorded 

during the MABS surveys or the NJDEP 

EBS. CETAP and NMFS Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center sightings in 

shelf edge and off-shelf waters included 

many social groups with calves/ 

juveniles (CETAP, 1982). Sperm whales 

were usually seen at the tops of 

seamounts and rises and did not 

generally occur over slopes. Sperm 

whales were recorded at depths varying 

from 800 to 3,500 m. Although the 

likelihood of occurrence within the 

Project Area remains very low, the 

sperm whale was included as an 

affected species due to its high seasonal 

densities east of the Project Area. 

Long-Finned Pilot Whale 

Long-finned pilot whales are found 

from North Carolina and north to 

Iceland, Greenland and the Barents Sea 

(Hayes et al., 2020). 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 (Hayes 

et al., 2020). Long-finned and shortfinned pilot whales overlap spatially 

along the mid-Atlantic shelf break 

between Delaware and the southern 

flank of Georges Bank. Long-finned pilot 

whales have occasionally been observed 

stranded as far south as South Carolina, 

but sightings of long-finned pilot whales 

south of Cape Hatteras would be 

considered unusual (Hayes et al., 

2020).The main threats to this species 

include interactions with fisheries and 

habitat issues including exposure to 

high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls 

and chlorinated pesticides, and toxic 

metals including mercury, lead, 

cadmium, and selenium (Hayes et al., 

2020). 

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 

As described above, long-finned and 

short-finned pilot whales overlap 

spatially along the mid-Atlantic shelf 

break between Delaware and the 

southern flank of Georges Bank. There is 

limited information on the distribution 

of short-finned pilot whales; they prefer 

warmer or tropical waters and deeper 

waters offshore, and in the northeast 

United States, they are often sighted 

near the Gulf Stream (Hayes et al., 

2020). Short-finned pilot whales have 

occasionally been observed stranded as 

far north as Massachusetts but north of 

∼42° N short-finned pilot whale 

sightings would be considered unusual 

while south of Cape Hatteras most pilot 

whales would be expected to be shortfinned pilot whales (Hayes et al., 2020). 

In addition, short-finned pilot whales 

are documented along the continental 

shelf and continental slope in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico (Mullin and 

Fulling 2003), and they are also known 

from the wider Caribbean. As with longfinned pilot whales, the main threats to 

this species include interactions with 

fisheries and habitat issues including 

exposure to high levels of 

polychlorinated biphenyls and 

chlorinated pesticides, and toxic metals 

including mercury, lead, cadmium, and 

selenium (Hayes et al., 2020). 

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin 

White-sided dolphins are found in 

temperate and sub-polar waters of the 

North Atlantic, primarily in continental 

shelf waters to the 100-m depth contour 

from central West Greenland to North 

Carolina (Hayes et al., 2020). The Gulf 

of Maine stock is most common in 

continental shelf waters from Hudson 

Canyon to Georges Bank, and in the Gulf 

of Maine and lower Bay of Fundy. 

Sighting data indicate seasonal shifts in 

distribution (Northridge et al., 1997). 

During January to May, low numbers of 

white-sided dolphins are found from 

Georges Bank to Jeffreys Ledge (off New 

Hampshire), with even lower numbers 

south of Georges Bank, as documented 

by a few strandings collected on beaches 

of Virginia to South Carolina. The 

Virginia and North Carolina 

observations appear to represent the 

southern extent of the species range. 

From June through September, large 

numbers of white-sided dolphins are 

found from Georges Bank to the lower 

Bay of Fundy. From October to 

December, white-sided dolphins occur 

at intermediate densities from southern 

Georges Bank to southern Gulf of Maine 

(Payne and Heinemann 1990). Sightings 

south of Georges Bank, particularly 

around Hudson Canyon, occur year 

round but at low densities. 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 

Atlantic spotted dolphins are found in 

tropical and warm temperate waters 

ranging from southern New England, 

south to Gulf of Mexico and the 

Caribbean to Venezuela (Hayes et al., 

2020). 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 (Hayes et al., 2020). Atlantic 

spotted dolphins regularly occur in the 

inshore waters south of Chesapeake Bay, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11247 

and near the continental shelf edge and 

continental slope waters north of this 

region (Payne et al., 1984; Mullin and 

Fulling, 2003). Atlantic spotted 

dolphins north of Cape Hatteras also 

associate with the north wall of the Gulf 

Stream and warm-core rings (Hayes et 

al., 2020). Four sightings of Atlantic 

spotted dolphins were recorded 

between 2012 and 2014 during the 

summer MABS surveys (Williams et al., 

2015a,b). There are 2 forms of this 

species, with the larger ecotype 

inhabiting the continental shelf and is 

usually found inside or near the 200 m 

isobaths (Hayes et al., 2020). 

Common Dolphin 

The common dolphin is found worldwide in temperate to subtropical seas. In 

the North Atlantic, common dolphins 

are commonly found over the 

continental shelf between the 100-m 

and 2,000-m isobaths and over 

prominent underwater topography and 

east to the mid-Atlantic Ridge (Hayes et 

al., 2020). Common dolphins are 

distributed in waters off the eastern U.S. 

coast from Cape Hatteras northeast to 

Georges Bank (35° to 42° N) during midJanuary to May and move as far north 

as the Scotian Shelf from mid-summer 

to autumn (CETAP, 1982; Hayes et al., 

2020; Hamazaki, 2002; Selzer and 

Payne, 1988). 

The Western North Atlantic offshore 

stock expected to occur in the Project 

Area. The offshore stock is distributed 

primarily along the outer continental 

shelf and slope, from Georges Bank to 

Cape Hatteras during the spring and 

summer (CETAP, 1982; Kenney, 1990). 

Spatial distribution data and genetic 

studies indicate the coastal morphotype 

comprises multiple stocks distributed 

throughout coastal and estuarine waters 

of the U.S. East Coast. One such stock, 

the northern migratory coastal stock, 

ranges from North Carolina to New York 

and is likely to occur in the Project Area 

(Hayes et al., 2020). There is likely some 

interaction between the northern and 

southern migratory stocks, but the 

bottlenose dolphins in the Project Area 

are expected to be from the northern 

migratory stock (Hayes et al., 2020). All 

coastal stocks are listed as depleted 

(Hayes et al., 2020). The best abundance 

estimates for the northern migratory 

coastal stock of common bottlenose 

dolphin is 6,639 individuals (Hayes et 

al. 2020). 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

There are two distinct bottlenose 

dolphin morphotypes in the western 

North Atlantic: The coastal and offshore 

forms (Hayes et al., 2020). The offshore 

form is distributed primarily along the 

outer continental shelf and continental 

slope in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean 

from Georges Bank to the Florida Keys. 

The coastal morphotype is 

morphologically and genetically distinct 

from the larger, more robust 

morphotype that occupies habitats 

further offshore. Spatial distribution 

data, tag-telemetry studies, photo-ID 

studies and genetic studies demonstrate 

the existence of a distinct Northern 

Migratory coastal stock of coastal 

bottlenose dolphins (Hayes et al., 2020). 

North of Cape Hatteras, there is 

separation of the offshore and coastal 

morphotypes across bathymetric 

contours during summer months. Aerial 

surveys flown from 1979 through 1981 

indicated a concentration of common 

bottlenose dolphins in waters <25 m 

deep that corresponded with the coastal 

morphotype, and an area of high 

abundance along the shelf break that 

corresponded with the offshore stock 

(Hayes et al., 2020). Torres et al. (2003) 

found a statistically significant break in 

the distribution of the morphotypes; 

almost all dolphins found in waters >34 

m depth and >34 km from shore were 

of the offshore morphotype. The coastal 

stock is best defined by its summer 

distribution, when it occupies coastal 

waters from the shoreline to the 20-m 

isobath between Virginia and New York 

(Hayes et al., 2020). This stock migrates 

south during late summer and fall, and 

during colder months it occupies waters 

off Virginia and North Carolina (Hayes 

et al., 2020). Therefore, during the 

summer, dolphins found inside the 20- 

m isobath in the Project Area are likely 

to belong to the coastal stock, while 

those found in deeper waters or 

observed during cooler months belong 

to the offshore stock. 

Risso’s Dolphin 

Risso’s dolphins are large dolphins 

with a characteristic blunt head and 

light coloration, often with extensive 

scarring. They are widely distributed in 

tropical and temperate seas. In the 

Western North Atlantic they occur from 

Florida to eastern Newfoundland 

(Leatherwood et al., 1976; Baird and 

Stacey, 1991). Off the U.S. Northeast 

Coast, Risso’s dolphins are primarily 

distributed along the continental shelf, 

but can also be found swimming in 

shallower waters to the mid-shelf 

(Hayes et al., 2020). 

Risso’s dolphins occur along the 

continental shelf edge from Cape 

Hatteras to Georges Bank during spring, 

summer, and autumn. In winter, they 

are distributed in the Mid-Atlantic from 

the continental shelf edge outward 

(Hayes et al., 2020). The majority of 

sightings during the 2011 surveys 

occurred along the continental shelf 

break with generally lower sighting rates 

over the continental slope (Palka, 2012). 

Risso’s dolphins can be found in MidAtlantic waters year-round and are more 

likely to be encountered offshore given 

their preference for deeper waters along 

the shelf edge. However, previous 

surveys have commonly observed this 

species in shallower waters, making it 

possible this species could be 

encountered in the Project Area, 

particularly in summer when they are 

more abundant in this region (Curtice et 

al., 2019; Williams et al., 2015a, b; 

Hayes et al., 2020). 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises commonly occur 

throughout Massachusetts Bay from 

September through April. During the 

fall and spring, harbor porpoises are 

widely distributed along the east coast 

from New Jersey to Maine. During the 

summer, the porpoises are concentrated 

in the Northern Gulf of Maine and 

Southern Bay of Fundy in water depths 

<150 m. In winter, densities increase in 

the waters off New Jersey to North 

Carolina and decrease in the waters 

from New York to New Brunswick; 

however, specific migratory timing or 

routes are not apparent. Although still 

considered uncommon, harbor 

porpoises were regularly detected 

offshore of Maryland during winter and 

spring surveys (Wingfield et al., 2017). 

They were the second most frequently 

sighted cetacean during the NJDEP EBS, 

with 90 percent of the sightings during 

the winter, three during the spring, and 

one during the summer (Whitt et al., 

2015). The lack of sightings during the 

fall was attributed to low visibility 

conditions during those months, but 

available data indicate this species is 

likely present offshore New Jersey 

during fall and winter (Whitt et al., 

2015). 

In the Lease Area, only the Gulf of 

Maine/Bay of Fundy stock may be 

present. This stock is found in U.S. and 

Canadian Atlantic waters and is 

concentrated in the northern Gulf of 

Maine and southern Bay of Fundy 

region, generally in waters less than 150 

m deep (Hayes et al., 2020). They are 

seen from the coastline to deep waters 

(≤1,800 m; Westgate et al. 1998), 

although the majority of the population 

is found over the continental shelf 

(Hayes et al., 2020). 

The main threat to the species is 

interactions with fisheries, with 

documented take in the U.S. northeast 

sink gillnet, mid-Atlantic gillnet, and 

northeast bottom trawl fisheries and in 

the Canadian herring weir fisheries 

(Hayes et al. 2020). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11248 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

Harbor Seal 

The harbor seal is found in all 

nearshore waters of the North Atlantic 

and North Pacific Oceans and adjoining 

seas above about 30° N (Burns, 2009). In 

the western North Atlantic, harbor seals 

are distributed from the eastern 

Canadian Arctic and Greenland south to 

southern New England and New York, 

and occasionally to the Carolinas (Hayes 

et al., 2020). The harbor seals within the 

Project Area are part of the single 

Western North Atlantic stock. Between 

September and May they undergo 

seasonal migrations into southern New 

England and the Mid-Atlantic (Hayes et 

al., 2020). The NJDEP EBS reported one 

harbor seal offshore New Jersey in June 

2008 in approximately 18 m of water 

(Whitt et al., 2015). Three other 

pinnipeds were observed during this 

study, however, they could not be 

identified to species level. 

Since July 2018, elevated numbers of 

harbor seal and gray seal mortalities 

have occurred across Maine, New 

Hampshire and Massachusetts. This 

event has been declared a UME. 

Additionally, stranded seals have 

shown clinical signs as far south as 

Virginia, although not in elevated 

numbers, therefore the UME 

investigation now encompasses all seal 

strandings from Maine to Virginia. A 

total of 1,593 reported strandings (of all 

species) had occurred as of the writing 

of this document. Full or partial 

necropsy examinations have been 

conducted on some of the seals and 

samples have been collected for testing. 

Based on tests conducted thus far, the 

main pathogen found in the seals is 

phocine distemper virus. NMFS is 

performing additional testing to identify 

any other factors that may be involved 

in this UME. Information on this UME 

is available online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-englandmid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018– 

2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-eventalong. 

Gray Seal 

There are three major populations of 

gray seals found in the world; eastern 

Canada (western North Atlantic stock), 

northwestern Europe and the Baltic Sea. 

Gray seals in the survey area belong to 

the western North Atlantic stock. The 

range for this stock is thought to be from 

New Jersey to Labrador. Though gray 

seals are not regularly sighted offshore 

of Delaware their range has been 

expanding southward in recent years, 

and they have been observed recently as 

far south as the barrier islands of 

Virginia. Current population trends 

show that gray seal abundance is likely 

increasing in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ 

(Hayes et al., 2020). Although the rate of 

increase is unknown, surveys conducted 

since their arrival in the 1980s indicate 

a steady increase in abundance in both 

Maine and Massachusetts (Hayes et al., 

2020). It is believed that recolonization 

by Canadian gray seals is the source of 

the U.S. population (Hayes et al., 2020). 

As described above, elevated seal 

mortalities, including gray seals, have 

occurred from Maine to Virginia since 

July 2018. This event has been declared 

a UME, with phocine distemper virus 

identified as the main pathogen found 

in the seals. NMFS is performing 

additional testing to identify any other 

factors that may be involved in this 

UME. Information on this UME is 

available online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-englandmid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018– 

2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-eventalong. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 3. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ................................................................................................................. 7 Hz to 35 kHz. 

Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ...................................... 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L. 

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) .............................................................................................................. 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .......................................................................................... 60 Hz to 39 kHz. 

* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ 

hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, 

with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Sixteen marine 

mammal species (14 cetacean and 2 

pinniped (both phocid) species) have 

the reasonable potential to co-occur 

with the proposed survey activities. 

Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11249 

species that may be present, five are 

classified as low-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., all mysticete species), eight are 

classified as mid-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., all delphinid species and the sperm 

whale), and one is classified as a highfrequency cetacean (i.e., harbor 

porpoise). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 

and Determination section considers the 

content of this section, the Estimated 

Take section, and the Proposed 

Mitigation section, to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of these 

activities on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and how 

those impacts on individuals are likely 

to impact marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Background on Sound 

Sound is a physical phenomenon 

consisting of minute vibrations that 

travel through a medium, such as air or 

water, and is generally characterized by 

several variables. Frequency describes 

the sound’s pitch and is measured in Hz 

or kHz, while sound level describes the 

sound’s intensity and is measured in 

dB. Sound level increases or decreases 

exponentially with each dB of change. 

The logarithmic nature of the scale 

means that each 10-dB increase is a 10- 

fold increase in acoustic power (and a 

20-dB increase is then a 100-fold 

increase in power). A 10-fold increase in 

acoustic power does not mean that the 

sound is perceived as being 10 times 

louder, however. Sound levels are 

compared to a reference sound pressure 

(micro-Pascal) to identify the medium. 

For air and water, these reference 

pressures are ‘‘re: 20 micro Pascals 

(mPa)’’ and ‘‘re: 1 mPa,’’ respectively. 

Root mean square (RMS) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. RMS is 

calculated by squaring all the sound 

amplitudes, averaging the squares, and 

then taking the square root of the 

average (Urick 1975). RMS accounts for 

both positive and negative values; 

squaring the pressures makes all values 

positive so that they may be accounted 

for in the summation of pressure levels. 

This measurement is often used in the 

context of discussing behavioral effects, 

in part because behavioral effects, 

which often result from auditory cues, 

may be better expressed through 

averaged units rather than by peak 

pressures. 

When sound travels (propagates) from 

its source, its loudness decreases as the 

distance traveled by the sound 

increases. Thus, the loudness of a sound 

at its source is higher than the loudness 

of that same sound one km away. 

Acousticians often refer to the loudness 

of a sound at its source (typically 

referenced to one meter from the source) 

as the source level and the loudness of 

sound elsewhere as the received level 

(i.e., typically the receiver). For 

example, a humpback whale 3 km from 

a device that has a source level of 230 

dB may only be exposed to sound that 

is 160 dB loud, depending on how the 

sound travels through water (e.g., 

spherical spreading (6 dB reduction 

with doubling of distance) was used in 

this example). As a result, it is 

important to understand the difference 

between source levels and received 

levels when discussing the loudness of 

sound in the ocean or its impacts on the 

marine environment. 

As sound travels from a source, its 

propagation in water is influenced by 

various physical characteristics, 

including water temperature, depth, 

salinity, and surface and bottom 

properties that cause refraction, 

reflection, absorption, and scattering of 

sound waves. Oceans are not 

homogeneous and the contribution of 

each of these individual factors is 

extremely complex and interrelated. 

The physical characteristics that 

determine the sound’s speed through 

the water will change with depth, 

season, geographic location, and with 

time of day (as a result, in actual active 

sonar operations, crews will measure 

oceanic conditions, such as sea water 

temperature and depth, to calibrate 

models that determine the path the 

sonar signal will take as it travels 

through the ocean and how strong the 

sound signal will be at a given range 

along a particular transmission path). As 

sound travels through the ocean, the 

intensity associated with the wavefront 

diminishes, or attenuates. This decrease 

in intensity is referred to as propagation 

loss, also commonly called transmission 

loss. 

Acoustic Impacts 

Geophysical surveys may temporarily 

impact marine mammals in the area due 

to elevated in-water sound levels. 

Marine mammals are continually 

exposed to many sources of sound. 

Naturally occurring sounds such as 

lightning, rain, sub-sea earthquakes, and 

biological sounds (e.g., snapping 

shrimp, whale songs) are widespread 

throughout the world’s oceans. Marine 

mammals produce sounds in various 

contexts and use sound for various 

biological functions including, but not 

limited to: (1) Social interactions, (2) 

foraging, (3) orientation, and (4) 

predator detection. Interference with 

producing or receiving these sounds 

may result in adverse impacts. Audible 

distance, or received levels, of sound 

depends on the nature of the sound 

source, ambient noise conditions, and 

the sensitivity of the receptor to the 

sound (Richardson et al., 1995). Type 

and significance of marine mammal 

reactions to sound are likely dependent 

on a variety of factors including, but not 

limited to: (1) The behavioral state of 

the animal (e.g., feeding, traveling, etc.), 

(2) frequency of the sound, (3) distance 

between the animal and the source, and 

(4) the level of the sound relative to 

ambient conditions (Southall et al., 

2007). 

When considering the influence of 

various kinds of sound on the marine 

environment, it is necessary to 

understand that different kinds of 

marine life are sensitive to different 

frequencies of sound. Current data 

indicate that not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

(Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

Animals are less sensitive to sounds at 

the outer edges of their functional 

hearing range and are more sensitive to 

a range of frequencies within the middle 

of their functional hearing range. 

Hearing Impairment 

Marine mammals may experience 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment when exposed to loud 

sounds. Hearing impairment is 

classified by temporary threshold shift 

(TTS) and permanent threshold shift 

(PTS). PTS is considered auditory injury 

(Southall et al., 2007) and occurs in a 

specific frequency range and amount. 

Irreparable damage to the inner or outer 

cochlear hair cells may cause PTS; 

however, other mechanisms are also 

involved, such as exceeding the elastic 

limits of certain tissues and membranes 

in the middle and inner ears and 

resultant changes in the chemical 

composition of the inner ear fluids 

(Southall et al., 2007). There are no 

empirical data for onset of PTS in any 

marine mammal; therefore, PTS-onset 

must be estimated from TTS-onset 

measurements and from the rate of TTS 

growth with increasing exposure levels 

above the level eliciting TTS-onset. PTS 

is presumed to be likely if the hearing 

threshold is reduced by ≥40 dB (that is, 

40 dB of TTS). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11250 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) 

TTS is the mildest form of hearing 

impairment that can occur during 

exposure to a loud sound (Kryter 1985). 

While experiencing TTS, the hearing 

threshold rises, and a sound must be 

louder in order to be heard. At least in 

terrestrial mammals, TTS can last from 

minutes or hours to (in cases of strong 

TTS) days, can be limited to a particular 

frequency range, and can occur to 

varying degrees (i.e., a loss of a certain 

number of dBs of sensitivity). For sound 

exposures at or somewhat above the 

TTS threshold, hearing sensitivities in 

both terrestrial and marine mammals 

recover rapidly after exposure to the 

noise ends. 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics and in interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery 

time), and frequency range of TTS and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious. For example, a marine mammal 

may be able to readily compensate for 

a brief, relatively small amount of TTS 

in a non-critical frequency range that 

takes place during a time when the 

animal is traveling through the open 

ocean, where ambient noise is lower 

and there are not as many competing 

sounds present. Alternatively, a larger 

amount and longer duration of TTS 

sustained during a time when 

communication is critical for successful 

mother/calf interactions could have 

more serious impacts if it were in the 

same frequency band as the necessary 

vocalizations and of a severity that it 

impeded communication. The fact that 

animals exposed to levels and durations 

of sound that would be expected to 

result in this physiological response 

would also be expected to have 

behavioral responses of a comparatively 

more severe or sustained nature is also 

notable and potentially of more 

importance than the simple existence of 

a TTS. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus 

leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze 

finless porpoise (Neophocaena 

phocaenoides)) and three species of 

pinnipeds (northern elephant seal 

(Mirounga angustirostris), harbor seal, 

and California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus)) exposed to a limited 

number of sound sources (i.e., mostly 

tones and octave-band noise) in 

laboratory settings (e.g., Finneran et al., 

2002 and 2010; Nachtigall et al., 2004; 

Kastak et al., 2005; Lucke et al., 2009; 

Mooney et al., 2009a,b; Popov et al., 

2011; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010). In 

general, harbor seals (Kastak et al., 2005; 

Kastelein et al., 2012a) and harbor 

porpoises (Lucke et al., 2009; Kastelein 

et al., 2012b) have a lower TTS onset 

than other measured pinniped or 

cetacean species. However, even for 

these animals, which are better able to 

hear higher frequencies and may be 

more sensitive to higher frequencies, 

exposures on the order of approximately 

170 dBrms or higher for brief transient 

signals are likely required for even 

temporary (recoverable) changes in 

hearing sensitivity that would likely not 

be categorized as physiologically 

damaging (Lucke et al., 2009). 

Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

species. There are no data available on 

noise-induced hearing loss for 

mysticetes. For summaries of data on 

TTS in marine mammals or for further 

discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 

please see Finneran (2015). 

Scientific literature highlights the 

inherent complexity of predicting TTS 

onset in marine mammals, as well as the 

importance of considering exposure 

duration when assessing potential 

impacts (Mooney et al., 2009a, 2009b; 

Kastak et al., 2007). Generally, with 

sound exposures of equal energy, 

quieter sounds (lower sound pressure 

levels (SPL)) of longer duration were 

found to induce TTS onset more than 

louder sounds (higher SPL) of shorter 

duration (more similar to sub-bottom 

profilers). For intermittent sounds, less 

threshold shift will occur than from a 

continuous exposure with the same 

energy (some recovery will occur 

between intermittent exposures) (Kryter 

et al., 1966; Ward 1997). For sound 

exposures at or somewhat above the 

TTS-onset threshold, hearing sensitivity 

recovers rapidly after exposure to the 

sound ends; intermittent exposures 

recover faster in comparison with 

continuous exposures of the same 

duration (Finneran et al., 2010). NMFS 

considers TTS as Level B harassment 

that is mediated by physiological effects 

on the auditory system. 

Animals in the survey area during the 

HRG survey are unlikely to incur TTS 

hearing impairment due to the 

characteristics of the sound sources, 

which include relatively low source 

levels (176 to 205 dB re 1 mPa-m) and 

generally very short pulses and duration 

of the sound. Even for high-frequency 

cetacean species (e.g., harbor porpoises), 

which may have increased sensitivity to 

TTS (Lucke et al., 2009; Kastelein et al., 

2012b), individuals would have to make 

a very close approach and also remain 

very close to vessels operating these 

sources in order to receive multiple 

exposures at relatively high levels, as 

would be necessary to cause TTS. 

Intermittent exposures—as would occur 

due to the brief, transient signals 

produced by these sources—require a 

higher cumulative SEL to induce TTS 

than would continuous exposures of the 

same duration (i.e., intermittent 

exposure results in lower levels of TTS) 

(Mooney et al., 2009a; Finneran et al., 

2010). Moreover, most marine mammals 

would more likely avoid a loud sound 

source rather than swim in such close 

proximity as to result in TTS. Kremser 

et al. (2005) noted that the probability 

of a cetacean swimming through the 

area of exposure when a sub-bottom 

profiler emits a pulse is small—because 

if the animal was in the area, it would 

have to pass the transducer at close 

range in order to be subjected to sound 

levels that could cause TTS and would 

likely exhibit avoidance behavior to the 

area near the transducer rather than 

swim through at such a close range. 

Further, the restricted beam shape of 

many of HRG survey devices planned 

for use (Table 1) makes it unlikely that 

an animal would be exposed more than 

briefly during the passage of the vessel. 

Masking 

Masking is the obscuring of sounds of 

interest to an animal by other sounds, 

typically at similar frequencies. Marine 

mammals are highly dependent on 

sound, and their ability to recognize 

sound signals amid other sound is 

important in communication and 

detection of both predators and prey 

(Tyack 2000). Background ambient 

sound may interfere with or mask the 

ability of an animal to detect a sound 

signal even when that signal is above its 

absolute hearing threshold. Even in the 

absence of anthropogenic sound, the 

marine environment is often loud. 

Natural ambient sound includes 

contributions from wind, waves, 

precipitation, other animals, and (at 

frequencies above 30 kHz) thermal 

sound resulting from molecular 

agitation (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Background sound may also include 

anthropogenic sound, and masking of 

natural sounds can result when human 

activities produce high levels of 

background sound. Conversely, if the 

background level of underwater sound 

is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind 

and high waves), an anthropogenic 

sound source would not be detectable as 

far away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and would itself be 

masked. Ambient sound is highly 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11251 

variable on continental shelves 

(Myrberg 1978; Desharnais et al., 1999). 

This results in a high degree of 

variability in the range at which marine 

mammals can detect anthropogenic 

sounds. 

Although masking is a phenomenon 

which may occur naturally, the 

introduction of loud anthropogenic 

sounds into the marine environment at 

frequencies important to marine 

mammals increases the severity and 

frequency of occurrence of masking. For 

example, if a baleen whale is exposed to 

continuous low-frequency sound from 

an industrial source, this would reduce 

the size of the area around that whale 

within which it can hear the calls of 

another whale. The components of 

background noise that are similar in 

frequency to the signal in question 

primarily determine the degree of 

masking of that signal. In general, little 

is known about the degree to which 

marine mammals rely upon detection of 

sounds from conspecifics, predators, 

prey, or other natural sources. In the 

absence of specific information about 

the importance of detecting these 

natural sounds, it is not possible to 

predict the impact of masking on marine 

mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). In 

general, masking effects are expected to 

be less severe when sounds are transient 

than when they are continuous. 

Masking is typically of greater concern 

for those marine mammals that utilize 

low-frequency communications, such as 

baleen whales, because of how far lowfrequency sounds propagate. 

Marine mammal communications 

would not likely be masked appreciably 

by the sub-bottom profiler signals given 

the directionality of the signals for most 

HRG survey equipment types planned 

for use (Table 1) and the brief period 

when an individual mammal is likely to 

be within its beam. 

Non-Auditory Physical Effects (Stress) 

Classic stress responses begin when 

an animal’s central nervous system 

perceives a potential threat to its 

homeostasis. That perception triggers 

stress responses regardless of whether a 

stimulus actually threatens the animal; 

the mere perception of a threat is 

sufficient to trigger a stress response 

(Moberg 2000; Seyle 1950). Once an 

animal’s central nervous system 

perceives a threat, it mounts a biological 

response or defense that consists of a 

combination of the four general 

biological defense responses: behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses. 

In the case of many stressors, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of biotic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor or avoidance of 

continued exposure to a stressor. An 

animal’s second line of defense to 

stressors involves the sympathetic part 

of the autonomic nervous system and 

the classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response 

which includes the cardiovascular 

system, the gastrointestinal system, the 

exocrine glands, and the adrenal 

medulla to produce changes in heart 

rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal 

activity that humans commonly 

associate with ‘‘stress.’’ These responses 

have a relatively short duration and may 

or may not have significant long-term 

effect on an animal’s welfare. 

An animal’s third line of defense to 

stressors involves its neuroendocrine 

systems; the system that has received 

the most study has been the 

hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system 

(also known as the HPA axis in 

mammals). Unlike stress responses 

associated with the autonomic nervous 

system, virtually all neuro-endocrine 

functions that are affected by stress— 

including immune competence, 

reproduction, metabolism, and 

behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction 

(Moberg 1987; Rivier 1995), reduced 

immune competence (Blecha 2000), and 

behavioral disturbance. Increases in the 

circulation of glucocorticosteroids 

(cortisol, corticosterone, and 

aldosterone in marine mammals; see 

Romano et al., 2004) have been long 

been equated with stress. 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

distress is the biotic cost of the 

response. During a stress response, an 

animal uses glycogen stores that can be 

quickly replenished once the stress is 

alleviated. In such circumstances, the 

cost of the stress response would not 

pose a risk to the animal’s welfare. 

However, when an animal does not have 

sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the 

energetic costs of a stress response, 

energy resources must be diverted from 

other biotic functions, which impairs 

those functions that experience the 

diversion. For example, when mounting 

a stress response diverts energy away 

from growth in young animals, those 

animals may experience stunted growth. 

When mounting a stress response 

diverts energy from a fetus, an animal’s 

reproductive success and its fitness will 

suffer. In these cases, the animals will 

have entered a pre-pathological or 

pathological state which is called 

‘‘distress’’ (Seyle 1950) or ‘‘allostatic 

loading’’ (McEwen and Wingfield 2003). 

This pathological state will last until the 

animal replenishes its biotic reserves 

sufficient to restore normal function. 

Note that these examples involved a 

long-term (days or weeks) stress 

response exposure to stimuli. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses have also been documented 

fairly well through controlled 

experiments; because this physiology 

exists in every vertebrate that has been 

studied, it is not surprising that stress 

responses and their costs have been 

documented in both laboratory and freeliving animals (for examples see, 

Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; 

Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 

2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens 

et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, 

2000). Information has also been 

collected on the physiological responses 

of marine mammals to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds (Fair and Becker 

2000; Romano et al., 2004). For 

example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. 

Studies of other marine animals and 

terrestrial animals would also lead us to 

expect some marine mammals to 

experience physiological stress 

responses and, perhaps, physiological 

responses that would be classified as 

‘‘distress’’ upon exposure to highfrequency, mid-frequency, and lowfrequency sounds. Trimper et al. (1998) 

reported on the physiological stress 

responses of osprey to low-level aircraft 

noise while Krausman et al. (2004) 

reported on the auditory and physiology 

stress responses of endangered Sonoran 

pronghorn to military overflights. Smith 

et al. (2004a, 2004b), for example, 

identified noise-induced physiological 

transient stress responses in hearingspecialist fish (i.e., goldfish) that 

accompanied short- and long-term 

hearing losses. Welch and Welch (1970) 

reported physiological and behavioral 

stress responses that accompanied 

damage to the inner ears of fish and 

several mammals. 

Hearing is one of the primary senses 

marine mammals use to gather 

information about their environment 

and to communicate with conspecifics. 

Although empirical information on the 

relationship between sensory 

impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic 

masking) on marine mammals remains 

limited, it seems reasonable to assume 

that reducing an animal’s ability to 

gather information about its 

environment and to communicate with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11252 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

other members of its species would be 

stressful for animals that use hearing as 

their primary sensory mechanism. 

Therefore, NMFS assumes that acoustic 

exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS 

or TTS would be accompanied by 

physiological stress responses because 

terrestrial animals exhibit those 

responses under similar conditions 

(NRC 2003). More importantly, marine 

mammals might experience stress 

responses at received levels lower than 

those necessary to trigger onset TTS. 

Based on empirical studies of the time 

required to recover from stress 

responses (Moberg 2000), NMF also 

assumes that stress responses are likely 

to persist beyond the time interval 

required for animals to recover from 

TTS and might result in pathological 

and pre-pathological states that would 

be as significant as behavioral responses 

to TTS. 

In general, there are few data on the 

potential for strong, anthropogenic 

underwater sounds to cause nonauditory physical effects in marine 

mammals. The available data do not 

allow identification of a specific 

exposure level above which nonauditory effects can be expected 

(Southall et al., 2007). There is currently 

no definitive evidence that any of these 

effects occur even for marine mammals 

in close proximity to an anthropogenic 

sound source. In addition, marine 

mammals that show behavioral 

avoidance of survey vessels and related 

sound sources are unlikely to incur nonauditory impairment or other physical 

effects. NMFS does not expect that the 

generally short-term, intermittent, and 

transitory HRG and geotechnical 

activities would create conditions of 

long-term, continuous noise and chronic 

acoustic exposure leading to long-term 

physiological stress responses in marine 

mammals. 

Behavioral Disturbance 

Behavioral disturbance may include a 

variety of effects, including subtle 

changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief 

avoidance of an area or changes in 

vocalizations), more conspicuous 

changes in similar behavioral activities, 

and more sustained and/or potentially 

severe reactions, such as displacement 

from or abandonment of high-quality 

habitat. Behavioral responses to sound 

are highly variable and context-specific 

and any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et 

al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart 

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary 

depending on characteristics associated 

with the sound source (e.g., whether it 

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). 

Please see Appendices B–C of Southall 

et al. (2007) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most 

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. It is 

important to note that habituation is 

appropriately considered as a 

‘‘progressive reduction in response to 

stimuli that are perceived as neither 

aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, 

more generally, moderation in response 

to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 

2009). The opposite process is 

sensitization, when an unpleasant 

experience leads to subsequent 

responses, often in the form of 

avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. 

As noted, behavioral state may affect the 

type of response. For example, animals 

that are resting may show greater 

behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 

1995; NRC 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have shown 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran 

et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud, pulsed sound 

sources (typically seismic airguns or 

acoustic harassment devices) have been 

varied but often consist of avoidance 

behavior or other behavioral changes 

suggesting discomfort (Morton and 

Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et 

al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007). 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005). 

However, there are broad categories of 

potential response, which NMFS 

describes in greater detail here, that 

include alteration of dive behavior, 

alteration of foraging behavior, effects to 

breathing, interference with or alteration 

of vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely and may consist of increased or 

decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., 

Frankel and Clark 2000; Costa et al., 

2003; Ng and Leung 2003; Nowacek et 

al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a,b). 

Variations in dive behavior may reflect 

interruptions in biologically significant 

activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be 

of little biological significance. The 

impact of an alteration to dive behavior 

resulting from an acoustic exposure 

depends on what the animal is doing at 

the time of the exposure and the type 

and magnitude of the response. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.; 

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Variations in respiration naturally 

vary with different behaviors and 

alterations to breathing rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Various studies have shown that 

respiration rates may either be 

unaffected or could increase, depending 

on the species and signal characteristics, 

again highlighting the importance in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11253 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 

2005b, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007). 

Marine mammals vocalize for 

different purposes and across multiple 

modes, such as whistling, echolocation 

click production, calling, and singing. 

Changes in vocalization behavior in 

response to anthropogenic noise can 

occur for any of these modes and may 

result from a need to compete with an 

increase in background noise or may 

reflect increased vigilance or a startle 

response. For example, in the presence 

of potentially masking signals, 

humpback whales and killer whales 

have been observed to increase the 

length of their vocalizations (Miller et 

al., 2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et 

al., 2004), while North Atlantic right 

whales have been observed to shift the 

frequency content of their calls upward 

while reducing the rate of calling in 

areas of increased anthropogenic noise 

(Parks et al., 2007). In some cases, 

animals may cease sound production 

during production of aversive signals 

(Bowles et al., 1994). 

Avoidance is the displacement of an 

individual from an area or migration 

path as a result of the presence of a 

sound or other stressor and is one of the 

most obvious manifestations of 

disturbance in marine mammals 

(Richardson et al., 1995). For example, 

gray whales are known to change 

direction—deflecting from customary 

migratory paths—in order to avoid noise 

from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 

1984). Avoidance may be short-term, 

with animals returning to the area once 

the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 

1994; Goold 1996; Stone et al., 2000; 

Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et 

al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is 

possible, however, which may lead to 

changes in abundance or distribution 

patterns of the affected species in the 

affected region if habituation to the 

presence of the sound does not occur 

(e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 

2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). 

A flight response is a dramatic change 

in normal movement to a directed and 

rapid movement away from the 

perceived location of a sound source. 

The flight response differs from other 

avoidance responses in the intensity of 

the response (e.g., directed movement, 

rate of travel). Relatively little 

information on flight responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

signals exist, although observations of 

flight responses to the presence of 

predators have occurred (Connor and 

Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight 

response could range from brief, 

temporary exertion and displacement 

from the area where the signal provokes 

flight to, in extreme cases, marine 

mammal strandings (Evans and 

England, 2001). However, it should be 

noted that response to a perceived 

predator does not necessarily invoke 

flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008) and 

whether individuals are solitary or in 

groups may influence the response. 

Behavioral disturbance can also 

impact marine mammals in more subtle 

ways. Increased vigilance may result in 

costs related to diversion of focus and 

attention (i.e., when a response consists 

of increased vigilance, it may come at 

the cost of decreased attention to other 

critical behaviors such as foraging or 

resting). These effects have generally not 

been demonstrated for marine 

mammals, but studies involving fish 

and terrestrial animals have shown that 

increased vigilance may substantially 

reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp 

and Livoreil 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; 

Purser and Radford 2011). In addition, 

chronic disturbance can cause 

population declines through reduction 

of fitness (e.g., decline in body 

condition) and subsequent reduction in 

reproductive success, survival, or both 

(e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan 

et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). 

However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported 

that increased vigilance in bottlenose 

dolphins exposed to sound over a fiveday period did not cause any sleep 

deprivation or stress effects. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour 

cycle). Disruptions of such functions 

resulting from reactions to stressors 

such as sound exposure are more likely 

to be significant if they last more than 

one diel cycle or recur on subsequent 

days (Southall et al., 2007). 

Consequently, a behavioral response 

lasting less than one day and not 

recurring on subsequent days is not 

considered particularly severe unless it 

could directly affect reproduction or 

survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that 

there is a difference between multi-day 

substantive behavioral reactions and 

multi-day anthropogenic activities. For 

example, just because an activity lasts 

for multiple days does not necessarily 

mean that individual animals are either 

exposed to activity-related stressors for 

multiple days or, further, exposed in a 

manner resulting in sustained multi-day 

substantive behavioral responses. 

Marine mammals are likely to avoid 

the HRG survey activity, especially the 

naturally shy harbor porpoise, while 

harbor seals might be attracted to survey 

vessels out of curiosity. However, 

because the sub-bottom profilers and 

other HRG survey equipment operate 

from a moving vessel, and the maximum 

radius to the Level B harassment 

threshold is relatively small, the area 

and time that this equipment would be 

affecting a given location is very small. 

Further, once an area has been 

surveyed, it is not likely that it will be 

surveyed again, thereby reducing the 

likelihood of repeated HRG-related 

impacts within the survey area. 

NMFS has also considered the 

potential for severe behavioral 

responses such as stranding and 

associated indirect injury or mortality 

from Skipjack’s use of HRG survey 

equipment, on the basis of a 2008 mass 

stranding of approximately 100 melonheaded whales in a Madagascar lagoon 

system. An investigation of the event 

indicated that use of a high-frequency 

mapping system (12-kHz multibeam 

echosounder) was the most plausible 

and likely initial behavioral trigger of 

the event, while providing the caveat 

that there is no unequivocal and easily 

identifiable single cause (Southall et al., 

2013). The investigatory panel’s 

conclusion was based on: (1) Very close 

temporal and spatial association and 

directed movement of the survey with 

the stranding event. (2) the unusual 

nature of such an event coupled with 

previously documented apparent 

behavioral sensitivity of the species to 

other sound types (Southall et al., 2006; 

Brownell et al., 2009), and (3) the fact 

that all other possible factors considered 

were determined to be unlikely causes. 

Specifically, regarding survey patterns 

prior to the event and in relation to 

bathymetry, the vessel transited in a 

north-south direction on the shelf break 

parallel to the shore, ensonifying large 

areas of deep-water habitat prior to 

operating intermittently in a 

concentrated area offshore from the 

stranding site; this may have trapped 

the animals between the sound source 

and the shore, thus driving them 

towards the lagoon system. The 

investigatory panel systematically 

excluded or deemed highly unlikely 

nearly all other potential reasons for 

these animals leaving their typical 

pelagic habitat for an area extremely 

atypical for the species (i.e., a shallow 

lagoon system). Notably, this was the 

first time that such a system has been 

associated with a stranding event. The 

panel also noted several site- and 

situation-specific secondary factors that 

may have contributed to the avoidance 

responses that led to the eventual 

entrapment and mortality of the whales. 

Specifically, shoreward-directed surface 

currents and elevated chlorophyll levels 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11254 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

in the area preceding the event may 

have played a role (Southall et al., 

2013). The report also notes that prior 

use of a similar system in the general 

area may have sensitized the animals 

and also concluded that, for odontocete 

cetaceans that hear well in higher 

frequency ranges where ambient noise is 

typically quite low, high-power active 

sonars operating in this range may be 

more easily audible and have potential 

effects over larger areas than low 

frequency systems that have more 

typically been considered in terms of 

anthropogenic noise impacts. It is, 

however, important to note that the 

relatively lower output frequency, 

higher output power, and complex 

nature of the system implicated in this 

event, in context of the other factors 

noted here, likely produced a fairly 

unusual set of circumstances that 

indicate that such events would likely 

remain rare and are not necessarily 

relevant to use of lower-power, higherfrequency systems more commonly used 

for HRG survey applications. The risk of 

similar events recurring may be very 

low, given the extensive use of active 

acoustic systems used for scientific and 

navigational purposes worldwide on a 

daily basis and the lack of direct 

evidence of such responses previously 

reported. 

Tolerance 

Numerous studies have shown that 

underwater sounds from industrial 

activities are often readily detectable by 

marine mammals in the water at 

distances of many km. However, other 

studies have shown that marine 

mammals at distances more than a few 

km away often show no apparent 

response to industrial activities of 

various types (Miller et al., 2005). This 

is often true even in cases when the 

sounds must be readily audible to the 

animals based on measured received 

levels and the hearing sensitivity of that 

mammal group. Although various 

baleen whales, toothed whales, and (less 

frequently) pinnipeds have been shown 

to react behaviorally to underwater 

sound from sources such as airgun 

pulses or vessels under some 

conditions, at other times, mammals of 

all three types have shown no overt 

reactions (e.g., Malme et al., 1986; 

Richardson et al., 1995; Madsen and 

Mohl 2000; Croll et al., 2001; Jacobs and 

Terhune 2002; Madsen et al., 2002; 

Miller et al., 2005). In general, 

pinnipeds seem to be more tolerant of 

exposure to some types of underwater 

sound than are baleen whales. 

Richardson et al. (1995) found that 

vessel sound does not seem to affect 

pinnipeds that are already in the water. 

Richardson et al. (1995) went on to 

explain that seals on haul-outs 

sometimes respond strongly to the 

presence of vessels and at other times 

appear to show considerable tolerance 

of vessels, and Brueggeman et al. (1992) 

observed ringed seals (Pusa hispida) 

hauled out on ice pans displaying shortterm escape reactions when a ship 

approached within 0.16–0.31 miles 

(0.25–0.5 km). Due to the relatively high 

vessel traffic in the survey area it is 

possible that marine mammals are 

habituated to noise (e.g., DP thrusters) 

from vessels in the area. 

Vessel Strike 

Ship strikes of marine mammals can 

cause major wounds, which may lead to 

the death of the animal. An animal at 

the surface could be struck directly by 

a vessel, a surfacing animal could hit 

the bottom of a vessel, or a vessel’s 

propeller could injure an animal just 

below the surface. The severity of 

injuries typically depends on the size 

and speed of the vessel (Knowlton and 

Kraus 2001; Laist et al., 2001; 

Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007). 

The most vulnerable marine mammals 

are those that spend extended periods of 

time at the surface in order to restore 

oxygen levels within their tissues after 

deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In 

addition, some baleen whales, such as 

the North Atlantic right whale, seem 

generally unresponsive to vessel sound, 

making them more susceptible to vessel 

collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These 

species are primarily large, slow moving 

whales. Smaller marine mammals (e.g., 

bottlenose dolphin) move quickly 

through the water column and are often 

seen riding the bow wave of large ships. 

Marine mammal responses to vessels 

may include avoidance and changes in 

dive pattern (NRC 2003). 

An examination of all known ship 

strikes from all shipping sources 

(civilian and military) indicates vessel 

speed is a principal factor in whether a 

vessel strike results in death (Knowlton 

and Kraus 2001; Laist et al., 2001; 

Jensen and Silber 2003; Vanderlaan and 

Taggart 2007). In assessing records with 

known vessel speeds, Laist et al. (2001) 

found a direct relationship between the 

occurrence of a whale strike and the 

speed of the vessel involved in the 

collision. The authors concluded that 

most deaths occurred when a vessel was 

traveling in excess of 24.1 km/h (14.9 

mph; 13 kn). Given the slow vessel 

speeds and predictable course necessary 

for data acquisition, ship strike is 

unlikely to occur during Skipjack’s 

proposed survey activities. Marine 

mammals would be able to easily avoid 

the survey vessel due to the slow vessel 

speed. Further, Skipjack would 

implement measures (e.g., protected 

species monitoring, vessel speed 

restrictions and separation distances; 

see Proposed Mitigation) set forth in the 

BOEM lease to reduce the risk of a 

vessel strike to marine mammal species 

in the survey area. 

Marine Mammal Habitat 

The HRG survey equipment will not 

contact the seafloor and does not 

represent a source of pollution. NMFS is 

not aware of any available literature on 

impacts to marine mammal prey from 

sound produced by HRG survey 

equipment. However, as the HRG survey 

equipment introduces noise to the 

marine environment, there is the 

potential for it to result in avoidance of 

the area around the HRG survey 

activities on the part of marine mammal 

prey. Any avoidance of the area on the 

part of marine mammal prey would be 

expected to be short term and 

temporary. 

Because of the temporary nature of 

the disturbance, and the availability of 

similar habitat and resources (e.g., prey 

species) in the surrounding area, the 

impacts to marine mammals and the 

food sources that they utilize are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm consequences for individual 

marine mammals or their populations. 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that impacts on marine mammal habitat 

from the proposed activities will be 

temporary, insignificant, and 

discountable. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to noise from certain 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11255 

HRG sources. Based on the nature of the 

activity and the anticipated 

effectiveness of the mitigation measures 

(i.e., exclusion zones and shutdown 

measures), discussed in detail below in 

Proposed Mitigation section, Level A 

harassment or and/or mortality is 

neither anticipated, even absent 

mitigation, nor proposed to be 

authorized. Below NMFS describes how 

the take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, NMFS estimates 

take by considering: (1) Acoustic 

thresholds above which NMFS believes 

the best available science indicates 

marine mammals will be behaviorally 

harassed or incur some degree of 

permanent hearing impairment; (2) the 

area or volume of water that will be 

ensonified above these levels in a day; 

(3) the density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. NMFS notes that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, 

NMFS describes the factors considered 

here in more detail and present the 

proposed take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment 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, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner NMFS considers 

Level B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. 

Skipjack’s proposed activity includes 

the use of intermittent sources (HRG 

equipment) and therefore the 160 dB re 

1 mPa (rms) is applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). Skipjack’s proposed activity 

includes the use of impulsive (e.g., 

sparkers and boomers) and nonimpulsive (e.g., CHIRP) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 4 below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS Onset acoustic thresholds*

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ....................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) .............................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) .............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 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 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

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, NMFS describes operational 

and environmental parameters of the 

activity that will feed into identifying 

the area ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

NMFS has developed a user-friendly 

methodology for determining the rms 

sound pressure level (SPLrms) at the 160- 

dB isopleth for the purposes of 

estimating the extent of Level B 

harassment isopleths associated with 

HRG survey equipment (NMFS, 2020). 

This methodology incorporates 

frequency and some directionality to 

refine estimated ensonified zones. For 

sources that operate with different beam 

widths, the maximum beam width was 

used (see Table 1). The lowest frequency 

of the source was used when calculating 

the absorption coefficient (Table 1). 

NMFS considers the data provided by 

Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) to 

represent the best available information 

on source levels associated with HRG 

equipment and, therefore, recommends 

that source levels provided by Crocker 

and Fratantonio (2016) be incorporated 

in the method described above to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11256 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

estimate isopleth distances to the Level 

A and Level B harassment thresholds. In 

cases when the source level for a 

specific type of HRG equipment is not 

provided in Crocker and Fratantonio 

(2016), NMFS recommends that either 

the source levels provided by the 

manufacturer be used, or, in instances 

where source levels provided by the 

manufacturer are unavailable or 

unreliable, a proxy from Crocker and 

Fratantonio (2016) be used instead. 

Table 1 shows the HRG equipment types 

that may be used during the proposed 

surveys and the sound levels associated 

with those HRG equipment types. 

Results of modeling using the 

methodology described above indicated 

that, of the HRG survey equipment 

planned for use by Skipjack that has the 

potential to result in Level B harassment 

of marine mammals, sound produced by 

the Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark UHD 

sparkers and GeoMarine Geo-Source 

sparker would propagate furthest to the 

Level B harassment threshold (141 m; 

Table 5). As described above, only a 

portion of Skipjack’s survey activity 

days will employ sparkers or boomers; 

therefore, for the purposes of the 

exposure analysis, it was assumed that 

sparkers would be the dominant 

acoustic source for 50 of the total 200 

survey activity days. For the remaining 

150 survey days, the TB Chirp III (48 m) 

was assumed to be the dominant source. 

Thus, the distances to the isopleths 

corresponding to the threshold for Level 

B harassment for sparkers (141 m) and 

the TB Chirp III (48 m) were used as the 

basis of the take calculation for all 

marine mammals 25 percent and 75 

percent of survey activity days, 

respectively. This is a conservative 

approach, as the actual sources used on 

individual survey days may produce 

smaller harassment distances. 

When the NMFS Technical Guidance 

was first published in 2016, in 

recognition of the fact that ensonified 

area/volume could be more technically 

challenging to predict because of the 

duration component in the new 

thresholds, NMFS developed a User 

Spreadsheet that includes tools to help 

predict a simple isopleth that can be 

used in conjunction with marine 

mammal density or occurrence to help 

predict takes. NMFS notes that because 

of some of the assumptions included in 

the methods used for these tools, it is 

anticipated that isopleths produced are 

typically going to be overestimates of 

some degree, which may result in some 

degree of overestimate of Level A 

harassment take. 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 HRG equipment, 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 are shown in Table 5 

and Table 6 and the resulting isopleths 

are reported in Table 7. 

TABLE 5—USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS FOR NON-IMPULSIVE, NON-PARAMETRIC, SHALLOW SUB-BOTTOM PROFILERS

[CHIRP sonars] 

Device EdgeTech 216 Edgetech 424 Edgetech 512 GeoPulse 5430 Teledyne Chirp III 

Spreadsheet tab used 

(D1) Mobile source; 

non-impulsive, 

intermittent 

(D1) Mobile source; 

non-impulsive, 

intermittent 

(D1) Mobile source; 

non-impulsive, 

intermittent 

(D1) Mobile source; 

non-impulsive, 

intermittent 

(D1) Mobile source; 

non-impulsive, 

intermittent 

Frequency used for Weighting Factor Adjustment 

(kHz) 1 2.

2; 16; 16; 6.2 ................... 4; 24; 24; 6.2 ................... 1.7; 12; 12; 6.2 ................ 2; 17; 17; 6.2 ................... 2; 7; 7; 6.2 

Source Level (RMS SPL) ........................................ 195 ................................... 176 ................................... 179 ................................... 196 ................................... 197 

Source Velocity (m/sec) .......................................... 2.057 ................................ 2.057 ................................ 2.057 ................................ 2.057 ................................ 2.057 

Pulse Duration (sec) ................................................ 0.02 .................................. 0.0034 .............................. 0.009 ................................ 0.05 .................................. 0.06 

1/Repetition rate (sec) ............................................. 0.17 .................................. 0.5 .................................... 0.125 ................................ 0.1 .................................... 0.07 

1Values for WFA represented = (LFC; MFC; HFC; PPW). 

2WFAs were selected in the User Spreadsheet for each marine mammal hearing group based on estimated hearing sensitivities of each group and the operational frequency of the source. 

TABLE 6—USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS FOR IMPULSIVE, MEDIUM SUB-BOTTOM PROFILERS

[Sparkers & Boomers] 

Device AA, Dura-spark UHD 

(400 tips, 500 J) 1

AA, Dura-spark UHD 

(400+400) 1

GeoMarine, Geo-Source 

dual 400 tip sparker (800 

J) 1

GeoMarine Geo-Source 

200 tip sparker (400 J) 1

GeoMarine Geo-Source 

200–400 tip sparker (400 

J) 1

AA, triple plate S Boom 

(700–1,000 J) 2

Spreadsheet tab used (F1) Mobile source: 

impulsive, 

intermittent 

(F1) Mobile source: 

impulsive, 

intermittent 

(F1) Mobile source: 

impulsive, 

intermittent 

(F1) Mobile source: 

impulsive, 

intermittent 

(F1) Mobile source: 

impulsive, 

intermittent 

(F1) Mobile source: 

impulsive, 

intermittent 

Frequency used for 

Weighting Factor 

Adjustment (kHz) *.

1 ....................................... 1 ....................................... 1.5 .................................... 1 ....................................... 1 ....................................... 3.4 

Source Level (RMS 

SPL; PK SPL).

203; 211 .......................... 203; 211 .......................... 203; 211 .......................... 203; 211 .......................... 203; 211 .......................... 205; 211 

Source Velocity (m/ 

sec).

2.057 ................................ 2.057 ................................ 2.057 ................................ 2.057 ................................ 2.057 ................................ 2.057 

Pulse Duration (sec) .. 0.0011 .............................. 0.0011 .............................. 0.0011 .............................. 0.0011 .............................. 0.0011 .............................. 0.0006 

1/Repetition rate (sec) 0.25 .................................. 0.25 .................................. 0.25 .................................. 0.25 .................................. 0.25 .................................. 0.25 

1The Dura-spark measurements and specifications provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) were used for all sparker systems proposed for the survey. The data provided in Crocker and 

Fratantonio (2016) represent the most applicable data for similar sparker systems with comparable operating methods and settings when manufacturer or other reliable measurements are not 

available. 2 Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) provide S-Boom measurements using two different power sources (CSP–D700 and CSP–N). The CSP–D700 power source was used in the 700 J measurements but not in the 1,000 J measurements. The CSP–N source was measured for both 700 J and 1,000 J operations but resulted in a lower SL; therefore, the single maximum SL value was 

used for both operational levels of the S Boom. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11257 

TABLE 7—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES FROM HRG SURVEY EQUIPMENT TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

Source 

Distance to Level B 

harassment 

threshold 

(m) 

(SPLrms threshold) 

Non-impulsive, Non-parametric, Shallow SBPs: 

ET 216 CHIRP ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

ET 424 CHIRP ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 

ET 512i CHIRP ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 

GeoPulse 5430 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 

TB CHIRP III ......................................................................................................................................................................... 48 

Impulsive, Medium SBPs: 

AA Triple plate S-Boom (700/1,000 J) ................................................................................................................................. 34 

AA, Dura-spark UHD (500 J/400 tip) ................................................................................................................................... 141 

AA, Dura-spark UHD 400+400 ............................................................................................................................................. 141 

GeoMarine, Geo-Source dual 400 tip sparker ..................................................................................................................... 141 

GeoMarine, Geo-Source 200 tip sparker ............................................................................................................................. 141 

GeoMarine, Geo-Source 200–400 tip sparker ..................................................................................................................... 141 

Isopleth distances to Level A 

harassment thresholds for all types of 

HRG equipment and all marine mammal 

functional hearing groups were modeled 

using the NMFS User Spreadsheet and 

NMFS Technical Guidance (2018). The 

dual criteria (peak SPL and SELcum) 

were applied to all HRG sources using 

the modeling methodology as described 

above, and the isopleth distances for 

each functional hearing group were then 

carried forward in the exposure 

analysis. Distances to the Level A 

harassment threshold based on the 

larger of the dual criteria (peak SPL and 

SELcum) are shown in Table 7. Modeled 

distances to isopleths corresponding to 

the Level A harassment thresholds are 

very small for all marine mammals and 

stocks (<5 m) with the exception of HF 

cetaceans (36.5 m from GeoPulse 5430). 

Note that the modeled distances to 

isopleths corresponding to the Level A 

harassment threshold are also assumed 

to be conservative. Level A harassment 

would also be more likely to occur at 

close approach to the sound source or 

as a result of longer duration exposure 

to the sound source, and mitigation 

measures—including a 100 m exclusion 

zone for harbor porpoises—are expected 

to minimize the potential for close 

approach or longer duration exposure to 

active HRG sources. In addition, harbor 

porpoises are a notoriously shy species 

which is known to avoid vessels. Harbor 

porpoise would also be expected to 

avoid a sound source prior to that 

source reaching a level that would result 

in injury (Level A harassment). 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the potential for take by Level A 

harassment of harbor porpoises is so 

low as to be discountable. 

Given the information described 

above regarding porpoises and based on 

the very small Level A harassment 

zones for all marine mammal species 

and stocks that may be impacted by the 

proposed activities, the potential for any 

marine mammals to be taken by Level 

A harassment is considered so low as to 

be discountable. Therefore, Skipjack did 

not request and NMFS does not propose 

to authorize the take by Level A 

harassment of any marine mammals. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section NMFS provides 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

The habitat-based density models 

produced by the Duke University 

Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory 

(Roberts et al., 2016a,b, 2017, 2018, 

2020) represent the best available 

information regarding marine mammal 

densities in the proposed survey area. 

The density data presented by Roberts et 

al. (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020) incorporates 

aerial and shipboard line-transect 

survey data from NMFS and other 

organizations and incorporates data 

from 8 physiographic and 16 dynamic 

oceanographic and biological covariates, 

and controls for the influence of sea 

state, group size, availability bias, and 

perception bias on the probability of 

making a sighting. These density models 

were originally developed for all 

cetacean taxa in the U.S. Atlantic 

(Roberts et al., 2016). In subsequent 

years, certain models have been updated 

based on additional data as well as 

certain methodological improvements. 

More information is available online at 

seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke-EC– 

GOM–2015/. Marine mammal density 

estimates in the survey area (animals/ 

km2) were obtained using the most 

recent model results for all taxa (Roberts 

et al., 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020). The 

updated models incorporate additional 

sighting data, including sightings from 

the NOAA Atlantic Marine Assessment 

Program for Protected Species 

(AMAPPS) surveys (e.g., NEFSC & 

SEFSC, 2011, 2012, 2014a, 2014b, 2015, 

2016). 

For the exposure analysis, density 

data from Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 

2018, 2020) were mapped using a 

geographic information system (GIS). 

Density grid cells that included any 

portion of the proposed survey area 

were selected for all survey months. 

Densities from each of the selected 

density blocks were averaged for each 

month available to provide monthly 

density estimates for each species (when 

available based on the temporal 

resolution of the model products), along 

with the average annual density (Table 

8). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11258 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 8—ESTIMATED MONTHLY AND AVERAGE ANNUAL DENSITY (ANIMALS/km2) OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED MARINE

MAMMALS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA BASED ON MONTHLY HABITAT DENSITY MODELS

[Roberts et al. 2016; Roberts, 2018, 2020] 

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Average 

annual 

density 

(km¥2) 

Low-Frequency Cetaceans: 

Fin whale ............................................................................. 0.0010 0.0008 0.0015 0.0020 0.0017 0.0012 0.0005 0.0004 0.0011 0.0014 0.0010 0.0009 0.0011 

Sei whale ............................................................................. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Minke whale ......................................................................... 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0009 0.0010 0.0005 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 

Humpback whale ................................................................. 0.0013 0.0006 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0004 0.0004 0.0014 0.0005 

North Atlantic right whale .................................................... 0.0037 0.0042 0.0043 0.0028 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0020 0.0015 

Mid-Frequency Cetaceans: 

Sperm whale ........................................................................ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ................................................. 0.0017 0.0009 0.0012 0.0028 0.0035 0.0022 0.0006 0.0003 0.0008 0.0026 0.0036 0.0034 0.0020 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ....................................................... 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 

Common bottlenose dolphin (Offshore) 1 ............................ 0.0134 0.0088 0.0125 0.0193 0.1224 0.1138 0.1361 0.1663 0.0800 0.0713 0.0524 0.0201 0.0680 

Common bottlenose dolphin (Migratory) 1 ........................... 0.0317 0.0271 0.0444 0.0910 0.5921 0.4623 0.5903 0.6439 0.2388 0.2015 0.1335 0.0459 0.2585 

Short-finned pilot whale 2 ..................................................... 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 

Long-finned pilot whale 2 ..................................................... 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 

Risso’s dolphin ..................................................................... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Common dolphin .................................................................. 0.0071 0.0035 0.0040 0.0092 0.0167 0.0110 0.0125 0.0143 0.0109 0.0109 0.0200 0.0152 0.0113 

High-Frequency Cetaceans: 

Harbor porpoise ................................................................... 0.0261 0.0247 0.0225 0.0095 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0153 0.0535 0.0129 

Pinnipeds 3: 

Gray seal ............................................................................. 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0004 

Harbor seal .......................................................................... 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0004 

1Bottlenose dolphin stocks were delineated based on the 20-m isobath as identified in NMFS 2017 Stock Assessment Report; all density blocks falling inland of the 20-m depth contour were 

assumed to belong to the migratory coastal stock, and those beyond this depth were assumed to belong to the offshore stock. 2 Roberts (2018) only provides density estimates for ‘‘generic’’ pilot whales. It is assumed that each species has density levels that are equivalent to the generic pilot whale Density levels. 

3Seal densities are not given by individual months or species, instead, seasons are divided as summer (June, July, August) and Winter (September–May) and applied to ‘‘generic’’ seals; as a 

result, reported seasonal densities for spring and fall are the same and are not provided for each species (Roberts 2018). Densities were evenly split between both species. 

Level B harassment exposures were 

estimated by multiplying the average 

annual density of each species (Table 8) 

by the daily ZOI that was estimated to 

be ensonified to an SPLrms exceeding 

160 dB re 1 mPa (Table 9), times the 

number of operating days expected for 

the survey in each area assessed. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here NMFS describes how the 

information provided above is brought 

together to produce a quantitative take 

estimate. In order to estimate the 

number of marine mammals predicted 

to be exposed to sound levels that 

would result in harassment, radial 

distances to predicted isopleths 

corresponding to Level B 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 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 daily area is multiplied by 

the mean annual density of a given 

marine mammal species. This value is 

then multiplied by the number of 

proposed vessel days. 

The estimated potential daily active 

survey distance of 70 km was used as 

the estimated areal coverage over a 24- 

hour period. This distance accounts for 

the vessel traveling at roughly 4 knots 

and only for periods during which 

equipment <180 kHz is in operation. A 

vessel traveling 4 knots can cover 

approximately 110 km per day; 

however, based on data from 2017, 

2018, and 2019 surveys, survey coverage 

over a 24-hour period is closer to 70 km 

per day. For daylight only vessels, the 

distance is reduced to 35 km per day. 

To maintain the potential for 24-hour 

surveys, the Level B harassment ZOIs 

provided in Table 9 were calculated for 

each source based on the Level B 

harassment threshold distances in Table 

7 with a 24-hour (70 km) operational 

period. 

TABLE 9—CALCULATED ZONE OF INFLUENCE (ZOI) ENCOMPASSING LEVEL B THRESHOLDS FOR EACH SOUND SOURCE OR

COMPARABLE SOUND SOURCE CATEGORY

Source Level B ZOI 

(km2) 

Hearing group All 

ET 216 CHIRP ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.3 

ET 424 CHIRP ................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.6 

ET 512i CHIRP .................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.8 

GeoPulse 5430 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2.9 

TB CHIRP III ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6.7 

AA Triple plate S-Boom (700–1,000 J) ............................................................................................................................................. 4.8 

AA, Dura-spark UHD ......................................................................................................................................................................... 19.8 

AA, Dura-spark UHD 400+400 .......................................................................................................................................................... 19.8 

GeoMarine, Geo-Source dual 400 tip Sparker .................................................................................................................................. 19.8 

AA = Applied Acoustics; CHIRP = Compressed High-Intensity Radiated Pulse; ET = EdgeTech; HF = high-frequency; J = joules; LF = low-frequency; MF = mid-frequency; PW = phocid pinnipeds in water; SBP = sub-bottom profiler; TB = Teledyne Benthos; UHD = ultra-high definition. 

Level B exposures were estimated by 

multiplying the average annual density 

of each species (Table 7) (Roberts et al., 

2016; Roberts, 2018) by the daily ZOI 

that was estimated to be ensonified to 

an SPLrms exceeding 160 dB re 1 mPa 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11259 

(Table 9), times the number of operating 

days expected for the survey in each 

area assessed. As described previously, 

it was assumed that that sparker systems 

with 141-m Level B harassment 

isopleths would operate for 50 survey 

days and the non-sparker TB CHIRP III 

with 48-m Level B harassment isopleth 

would operate for the remaining 150 

survey days. The results of these 

calculations are shown in Table 10. 

TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF TAKE NUMBERS PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION

Species Abundance Level B 

takes 1

Max % 

population 

Low-Frequency Cetaceans: 

Fin whale .............................................................................................................................. 7,418 2 0.03 

Sei whale .............................................................................................................................. 6,292 0 (1) 0.02 

Minke whale .......................................................................................................................... 24,202 0 (2) 0.01 

Humpback whale .................................................................................................................. 1,396 2 0.14 

North Atlantic right whale ..................................................................................................... 428 3 0.70 

Mid-Frequency Cetaceans: 

Sperm whale 3 ...................................................................................................................... 4,349 0 (3) 0.07 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin .................................................................................................. 93,233 4 0.00 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ........................................................................................................ 39,921 4 (2,000) 5.00 

Common bottlenose dolphin 2: 

Offshore Stock ............................................................................................................... 62,851 135 0.21 

Migratory Stock ............................................................................................................. 6,639 516 7.77 

Pilot Whales 3: 

Short-finned pilot whale ................................................................................................. 28,924 0 (10) 0.03 

Long-finned pilot whale ................................................................................................. 39,215 0 (10) 0.03 

Risso’s dolphin ..................................................................................................................... 35,493 0 (30) 0.08 

Common dolphin .................................................................................................................. 178,825 24 (70) 0.04 

High-Frequency Cetaceans: 

Harbor porpoise .................................................................................................................... 95,543 22 0.03 

Pinnipeds: 

Seals 4: 

Gray seal ....................................................................................................................... 27,131 0 (10) 0.04 

Harbor seal .................................................................................................................... 75,834 0 (10) 0.01 

1Parenthesis denote changes from calculated take estimates. 

2 Roberts et al. (2016) does not provide density estimates for individual stocks of common bottlenose dolphins; therefore, stock densities were 

delineated using the 20-m isobath. 3 Roberts (2018) only provides density estimates for ‘‘generic’’ pilot whales and seals; therefore, an equal potential for takes has been assumed either for species or stocks within the larger group. 4 Roberts (2018) only provides density estimates for ‘‘generic’’ seals; therefore, densities were split evenly between the two species. 

No takes were calculated for the sei 

whale, minke whale, sperm whale, 

short- and long-finned pilot whale, or 

Risso’s dolphin. However, based on 

anticipated species distributions and 

data from previous surveys conducted 

in the DE WEA, it is possible that these 

species could be encountered. 

Therefore, Skipjack based its take 

requests on estimated group sizes for 

these species (1 for sei whales, 2 for 

minke whales, 3 for sperm whales, 10 

for short- and long-finned pilot whales, 

and 30 for Risso’s dolphins). For species 

with no modeled exposures, requested 

takes for HRG surveys are based on 

mean group sizes derived from the 

following references: 

• Sei whale: Kenney and VignessRaposa, 2010; 

• Minke whale: Kenney and VignessRaposa, 2020; 

• Sperm whale: Barkaszi and Kelly, 

2018; 

• Short- and long-finned pilot whales: 

Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010; 

and 

• Risso’s dolphin: Barkaszi and Kelly, 

2018. 

NMFS concurred with this approach 

and based its proposed authorization for 

takes of these species on Skipjack’s 

requests. Additionally, the number of 

takes proposed in Table 10 for Atlantic 

white-sided dolphin, bottlenose 

dolphin, harbor porpoise are equivalent 

to the numbers requested by Skipjack. 

Roberts et al. (2018) produced density 

models for all seals and did not 

differentiate by seal species. The take 

calculation methodology as described 

above resulted in close to zero takes. 

The marine mammal monitoring report 

associated with the previous IHA issued 

to Skipjack in this survey area (84 FR 

66156; December 3, 2019) did not record 

any takes of seals. However, the 

proposed survey area for this proposed 

IHA includes a portion of Delaware Bay 

which is not covered by Roberts et al. 

(2018) and was not included as part of 

the previous IHA. Therefore, Skipjack 

did not request take of any harbor or 

gray seals. However, since seals are 

known to occur in the Bay, mostly 

during winter months, NMFS is 

conservatively proposing to authorize 

10 takes of each species by Level B 

harassment of both harbor and gray 

seals. 

Skipjack had requested 4 takes of 

spotted dolphin and 24 takes of 

common dolphin by Level B 

harassment. However, recent HRG 

surveys in the Mid-Atlantic area off the 

coast of Virginia have recorded 

unexpectedly large numbers of both 

Atlantic spotted dolphin and common 

dolphin. These events have led NMFS 

to modify another offshore wind energy 

company’s existing IHA (85 FR 81879; 

December 17, 2020) in order to 

accommodate larger take numbers. The 

spotted dolphins had been recorded at 

a rate of up 15 per day while common 

dolphins were recorded at a rate of 62 

animals in a single week. Note that there 

were many days in which there were no 

sightings of spotted dolphins and that 

all of the 62 common dolphin sightings 

occurred during a single week. The 

previous Skipjack marine mammal 

monitoring report from this area 

recorded up to 8 common dolphins over 

23 days of active surveying (0.35 

animals/day). Given this data, NMFS 

will assume that 0.35 common dolphins 

could be exposed within the Level B 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11260 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

harassment zone per day over 200 days 

resulting in the 70 proposed takes of 

common dolphin by Level B 

harassment. NMFS will also assume that 

there could be up to 10 exposures of 

spotted dolphin per day resulting in the 

proposed 2000 takes by Level B 

harassment. 

Note that Skipjack submitted a marine 

mammal monitoring report under the 

previous IHA covering the period of 

June 4, 2020 through June 26, 2020. 

Over the 23-day monitoring period there 

were 110 sightings consisting of 112 

individual animals. Only three 

bottlenose dolphins were recorded as 

occurring within estimated Level B 

harassment zones which is well below 

the 1,465 takes that were authorized. 

However, due to a range of factors only 

23 actual survey days occurred out of 

200 that were anticipated. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS carefully considers 

two primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

NMFS proposes the following 

mitigation measures be implemented 

during Skipjack’s proposed marine site 

characterization surveys. 

Marine Mammal Exclusion Zones and 

Harassment Zones 

Marine mammal exclusion zones (EZ) 

would be established around the HRG 

survey equipment and monitored by 

protected species observers (PSOs): 

• 500 m EZ for North Atlantic right 

whales during use of all acoustic 

sources; 

• 100 m EZ for all marine mammals, 

with certain exceptions specified below, 

during operation of impulsive acoustic 

sources (boomer and/or sparker). 

If a marine mammal is detected 

approaching or entering the EZs during 

the HRG survey, the vessel operator 

would adhere to the shutdown 

procedures described below to 

minimize noise impacts on the animals. 

These stated requirements will be 

included in the site-specific training to 

be provided to the survey team. 

Pre-Clearance of the Exclusion Zones 

Skipjack would implement a 30- 

minute pre-clearance period of the 

exclusion zones prior to the initiation of 

ramp-up of HRG equipment. During this 

period, the exclusion zone will be 

monitored by the PSOs, using the 

appropriate visual technology. Ramp-up 

may not be initiated if any marine 

mammal(s) is within its respective 

exclusion zone. If a marine mammal is 

observed within an exclusion zone 

during the pre-clearance period, rampup may not begin until the animal(s) has 

been observed exiting its respective 

exclusion zone or until an additional 

time period has elapsed with no further 

sighting (i.e., 15 minutes for small 

odontocetes and seals, and 30 minutes 

for all other species). 

Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment 

When technically feasible, a ramp-up 

procedure would be used for HRG 

survey equipment capable of adjusting 

energy levels at the start or restart of 

survey activities. The ramp-up 

procedure would be used at the 

beginning of HRG survey activities in 

order to provide additional protection to 

marine mammals near the survey area 

by allowing them to vacate the area 

prior to the commencement of survey 

equipment operation at full power. 

A ramp-up would begin with the 

powering up of the smallest acoustic 

HRG equipment at its lowest practical 

power output appropriate for the 

survey. When technically feasible, the 

power would then be gradually turned 

up and other acoustic sources would be 

added. 

Ramp-up activities will be delayed if 

a marine mammal(s) enters its 

respective exclusion zone. Ramp-up 

will continue if the animal has been 

observed exiting its respective exclusion 

zone or until an additional time period 

has elapsed with no further sighting 

(i.e., 15 minutes for small odontocetes 

and seals and 30 minutes for all other 

species). 

Activation of survey equipment 

through ramp-up procedures may not 

occur when visual observation of the 

pre-clearance zone is not expected to be 

effective (i.e., during inclement 

conditions such as heavy rain or fog). 

Shutdown Procedures 

An immediate shutdown of the 

impulsive HRG survey equipment 

would be required if a marine mammal 

is sighted entering or within its 

respective exclusion zone. The vessel 

operator must comply immediately with 

any call for shutdown by the Lead PSO. 

Any disagreement between the Lead 

PSO and vessel operator should be 

discussed only after shutdown has 

occurred. Subsequent restart of the 

survey equipment can be initiated if the 

animal has been observed exiting its 

respective exclusion zone or until an 

additional time period has elapsed (i.e., 

30 minutes for all other species). 

If a species for which authorization 

has not been granted, or, a species for 

which authorization has been granted 

but the authorized number of takes have 

been met, approaches or is observed 

within the Level B harassment zone (48 

m, non-impulsive; 141 m impulsive), 

shutdown would occur. 

If the acoustic source is shut down for 

reasons other than mitigation (e.g., 

mechanical difficulty) for less than 30 

minutes, it may be activated again 

without ramp-up if PSOs have 

maintained constant observation and no 

detections of any marine mammal have 

occurred within the respective 

exclusion zones. If the acoustic source 

is shut down for a period longer than 30 

minutes and PSOs have maintained 

constant observation, then pre-clearance 

and ramp-up procedures will be 

initiated as described in the previous 

section. 

The shutdown requirement would be 

waived for small delphinids of the 

following genera: Delphinus, 

Lagenorhynchus, Stenella, and Tursiops 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11261 

and seals. Specifically, if a delphinid 

from the specified genera or a pinniped 

is visually detected approaching the 

vessel (i.e., to bow ride) or towed 

equipment, shutdown is not required. 

Furthermore, if there is uncertainty 

regarding identification of a marine 

mammal species (i.e., whether the 

observed marine mammal(s) belongs to 

one of the delphinid genera for which 

shutdown is waived), PSOs must use 

best professional judgement in making 

the decision to call for a shutdown. 

Additionally, shutdown is required if a 

delphinid or pinniped detected in the 

exclusion zone and belongs to a genus 

other than those specified. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

Skipjack will ensure that vessel 

operators and crew maintain a vigilant 

watch for cetaceans and pinnipeds and 

slow down or stop their vessels to avoid 

striking these species. Survey vessel 

crew members responsible for 

navigation duties will receive sitespecific training on marine mammals 

sighting/reporting and vessel strike 

avoidance measures. Vessel strike 

avoidance measures would include the 

following, except under circumstances 

when complying with these 

requirements would put the safety of the 

vessel or crew at risk: 

• Vessel operators and crews must 

maintain a vigilant watch for all 

protected species and slow down, stop 

their vessel, or alter course, as 

appropriate and regardless of vessel 

size, to avoid striking any protected 

species. A visual observer aboard the 

vessel must monitor a vessel strike 

avoidance zone based on the 

appropriate separation distance around 

the vessel (distances stated below). 

Visual observers monitoring the vessel 

strike avoidance zone may be thirdparty observers (i.e., PSOs) or crew 

members, but crew members 

responsible for these duties must be 

provided sufficient training to (1) 

distinguish protected species from other 

phenomena and (2) broadly to identify 

a marine mammal as a right whale, 

other whale (defined in this context as 

sperm whales or baleen whales other 

than right whales), or other marine 

mammal. 

• All vessels (e.g., source vessels, 

chase vessels, supply vessels), 

regardless of size, must observe a 10- 

knot speed restriction in specific areas 

designated by NMFS for the protection 

of North Atlantic right whales from 

vessel strikes including seasonal 

management areas (SMAs) and dynamic 

management areas (DMAs) when in 

effect; 

• All vessels greater than or equal to 

19.8 m in overall length operating from 

November 1 through April 30 will 

operate at speeds of 10 knots or less 

while transiting to and from Project 

Area; 

• All vessels must reduce their speed 

to 10 knots or less when mother/calf 

pairs, pods, or large assemblages of 

cetaceans are observed near a vessel. 

• All vessels must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 500 m 

from right whales. If a whale is observed 

but cannot be confirmed as a species 

other than a right whale, the vessel 

operator must assume that it is a right 

whale and take appropriate action. 

• All vessels must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 100 m 

from sperm whales and all other baleen 

whales. 

• All vessels must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, attempt to maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 50 m 

from all other marine mammals, with an 

understanding that at times this may not 

be possible (e.g., for animals that 

approach the vessel). 

• When marine mammals are sighted 

while a vessel is underway, the vessel 

shall take action as necessary to avoid 

violating the relevant separation 

distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel 

to the animal’s course, avoid excessive 

speed or abrupt changes in direction 

until the animal has left the area). If 

marine mammals are sighted within the 

relevant separation distance, the vessel 

must reduce speed and shift the engine 

to neutral, not engaging the engines 

until animals are clear of the area. This 

does not apply to any vessel towing gear 

or any vessel that is navigationally 

constrained. 

• These requirements do not apply in 

any case where compliance would 

create an imminent and serious threat to 

a person or vessel or to the extent that 

a vessel is restricted in its ability to 

maneuver and, because of the 

restriction, cannot comply. 

Seasonal Operating Requirements 

Members of the monitoring team will 

consult NMFS North Atlantic right 

whale reporting system and Whale 

Alert, as able, for the presence of North 

Atlantic right whales throughout survey 

operations, and for the establishment of 

a DMA. If NMFS should establish a 

DMA in the Lease Areas during the 

survey, the vessels will abide by speed 

restrictions in the DMA. 

Project-specific training will be 

conducted for all vessel crew prior to 

the start of a survey and during any 

changes in crew such that all survey 

personnel are fully aware and 

understand the mitigation, monitoring, 

and reporting requirements. Prior to 

implementation with vessel crews, the 

training program will be provided to 

NMFS for review and approval. 

Confirmation of the training and 

understanding of the requirements will 

be documented on a training course log 

sheet. Signing the log sheet will certify 

that the crew member understands and 

will comply with the necessary 

requirements throughout the survey 

activities. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on marine mammal 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11262 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

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. 

Proposed Monitoring Measures 

Visual monitoring will be performed 

by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, the 

resumes of whom will be provided to 

NMFS for review and approval prior to 

the start of survey activities. Skipjack 

would employ independent, dedicated, 

trained PSOs, meaning that the PSOs 

must (1) be employed by a third-party 

observer provider, (2) have no tasks 

other than to conduct observational 

effort, collect data, and communicate 

with and instruct relevant vessel crew 

with regard to the presence of marine 

mammals and mitigation requirements 

(including brief alerts regarding 

maritime hazards), and (3) have 

successfully completed an approved 

PSO training course appropriate for 

their designated task. On a case-by-case 

basis, non-independent observers may 

be approved by NMFS for limited, 

specific duties in support of approved, 

independent PSOs on smaller vessels 

with limited crew capacity operating in 

nearshore waters. 

The PSOs will be responsible for 

monitoring the waters surrounding each 

survey vessel to the farthest extent 

permitted by sighting conditions, 

including exclusion zones, during all 

HRG survey operations. PSOs will 

visually monitor and identify marine 

mammals, including those approaching 

or entering the established exclusion 

zones during survey activities. It will be 

the responsibility of the Lead PSO on 

duty to communicate the presence of 

marine mammals as well as to 

communicate the action(s) that are 

necessary to ensure mitigation and 

monitoring requirements are 

implemented as appropriate. 

During all HRG survey operations 

(e.g., any day on which use of an HRG 

source is planned to occur), a minimum 

of one PSO must be on duty during 

daylight operations on each survey 

vessel, conducting visual observations 

at all times on all active survey vessels 

during daylight hours (i.e., from 30 

minutes prior to sunrise through 30 

minutes following sunset). Two PSOs 

will be on watch during nighttime 

operations. The PSO(s) would ensure 

360° visual coverage around the vessel 

from the most appropriate observation 

posts and would conduct visual 

observations using binoculars and/or 

night vision goggles and the naked eye 

while free from distractions and in a 

consistent, systematic, and diligent 

manner. PSOs may be on watch for a 

maximum of four consecutive hours 

followed by a break of at least two hours 

between watches and may conduct a 

maximum of 12 hours of observation per 

24-hour period. In cases where multiple 

vessels are surveying concurrently, any 

observations of marine mammals would 

be communicated to PSOs on all nearby 

survey vessels. 

PSOs must be equipped with 

binoculars and have the ability to 

estimate distance and bearing to detect 

marine mammals, particularly in 

proximity to exclusion zones. 

Reticulated binoculars must also be 

available to PSOs for use as appropriate 

based on conditions and visibility to 

support the sighting and monitoring of 

marine mammals. During nighttime 

operations, night-vision goggles with 

thermal clip-ons and infrared 

technology would be used. Position data 

would be recorded using hand-held or 

vessel GPS units for each sighting. 

During good conditions (e.g., daylight 

hours; Beaufort sea state (BSS) 3 or less), 

to the maximum extent practicable, 

PSOs would also conduct observations 

when the acoustic source is not 

operating for comparison of sighting 

rates and behavior with and without use 

of the active acoustic sources. Any 

observations of marine mammals by 

crew members aboard any vessel 

associated with the survey would be 

relayed to the PSO team. 

Data on all PSO observations would 

be recorded based on standard PSO 

collection requirements. This would 

include dates, times, and locations of 

survey operations; dates and times of 

observations, location and weather; 

details of marine mammal sightings 

(e.g., species, numbers, behavior); and 

details of any observed marine mammal 

behavior that occurs (e.g., noted 

behavioral disturbances). 

Proposed Reporting Measures 

Within 90 days after completion of 

survey activities or expiration of this 

IHA, whichever comes sooner, a final 

technical report will be provided to 

NMFS that fully documents the 

methods and monitoring protocols, 

summarizes the data recorded during 

monitoring, summarizes the number of 

marine mammals observed during 

survey activities (by species, when 

known), summarizes the mitigation 

actions taken during surveys (including 

what type of mitigation and the species 

and number of animals that prompted 

the mitigation action, when known), 

and provides an interpretation of the 

results and effectiveness of all 

mitigation and monitoring. Any 

recommendations made by NMFS must 

be addressed in the final report prior to 

acceptance by NMFS. All draft and final 

marine mammal and acoustic 

monitoring reports must be submitted to 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and ITP.Pauline@noaa.gov. The report 

must contain at minimum, the 

following: 

• PSO names and affiliations 

• Dates of departures and returns to 

port with port name 

• Dates and times (Greenwich Mean 

Time) of survey effort and times 

corresponding with PSO effort 

• Vessel location (latitude/longitude) 

when survey effort begins and ends; 

vessel location at beginning and end 

of visual PSO duty shifts 

• Vessel heading and speed at 

beginning and end of visual PSO duty 

shifts and upon any line change 

• Environmental conditions while on 

visual survey (at beginning and end of 

PSO shift and whenever conditions 

change significantly), including wind 

speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, Beaufort wind force, swell 

height, weather conditions, cloud 

cover, sun glare, and overall visibility 

to the horizon 

• Factors that may be contributing to 

impaired observations during each 

PSO shift change or as needed as 

environmental conditions change 

(e.g., vessel traffic, equipment 

malfunctions) 

• Survey activity information, such as 

type of survey equipment in 

operation, acoustic source power 

output while in operation, and any 

other notes of significance (i.e., preclearance survey, ramp-up, shutdown, 

end of operations, etc.) 

If a marine mammal is sighted, the 

following information should be 

recorded: 

• Watch status (sighting made by PSO 

on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, 

alternate vessel/platform); 

• PSO who sighted the animal; 

• Time of sighting; 

• Vessel location at time of sighting; 

• Water depth; 

• Direction of vessel’s travel (compass 

direction); 

• Direction of animal’s travel relative 

to the vessel; 

• Pace of the animal; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11263 

• Estimated distance to the animal 

and its heading relative to vessel at 

initial sighting; 

• Identification of the animal (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified); also 

note the composition of the group if 

there is a mix of species; 

• Estimated number of animals (high/ 

low/best); 

• Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, 

calves, group composition, etc.); 

• Description (as many distinguishing 

features as possible of each individual 

seen, including length, shape, color, 

pattern, scars or markings, shape and 

size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and 

blow characteristics); 

• Detailed behavior observations (e.g., 

number of blows, number of surfaces, 

breaching, spyhopping, diving, feeding, 

traveling; as explicit and detailed as 

possible; note any observed changes in 

behavior); 

• Animal’s closest point of approach 

and/or closest distance from the center 

point of the acoustic source; 

• Platform activity at time of sighting 

(e.g., deploying, recovering, testing, data 

acquisition, other); 

• Description of any actions 

implemented in response to the sighting 

(e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up, speed 

or course alteration, etc.) and time and 

location of the action. 

If a North Atlantic right whale is 

observed at any time by PSOs or 

personnel on any project vessels, during 

surveys or during vessel transit, 

Skipjack must immediately report 

sighting information to the NMFS North 

Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory 

System: (866) 755–6622. North Atlantic 

right whale sightings in any location 

may also be reported to the U.S. Coast 

Guard via channel 16. 

In the event that Skipjack personnel 

discover an injured or dead marine 

mammal, Skipjack would report the 

incident to the NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR) and the 

NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. The report would include the 

following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

In the unanticipated event of a ship 

strike of a marine mammal by any vessel 

involved in the activities covered by the 

IHA, Skipjack would report the incident 

to the NMFS OPR and the NMFS New 

England/Mid-Atlantic Stranding 

Coordinator as soon as feasible. The 

report would include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Vessel’s course/heading and what 

operations were being conducted (if 

applicable); 

• Status of all sound sources in use; 

• Description of avoidance measures/ 

requirements that were in place at the 

time of the strike and what additional 

measures were taken, if any, to avoid 

strike; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, visibility) 

immediately preceding the strike; 

• Estimated size and length of animal 

that was struck; 

• Description of the behavior of the 

marine mammal immediately preceding 

and following the strike; 

• If available, description of the 

presence and behavior of any other 

marine mammals immediately 

preceding the strike; 

• Estimated fate of the animal (e.g., 

dead, injured but alive, injured and 

moving, blood or tissue observed in the 

water, status unknown, disappeared); 

and 

• To the extent practicable, 

photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel 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. NMFS also assesses 

the number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, our analysis 

applies to all the species listed in Table 

10, given that NMFS expects the 

anticipated effects of the proposed 

survey to be similar in nature. Where 

there are meaningful differences 

between species or stocks—as is the 

case of the North Atlantic right whale— 

they are included as separate 

subsections below. NMFS does not 

anticipate that serious injury or 

mortality would occur as a result from 

HRG surveys, even in the absence of 

mitigation, and no serious injury or 

mortality is proposed to be authorized. 

As discussed in the Potential Effects 

section, non-auditory physical effects 

and vessel strike are not expected to 

occur. NMFS expects that all potential 

takes would be in the form of short-term 

Level B behavioral harassment in the 

form of temporary avoidance of the area 

or decreased foraging (if such activity 

was occurring), reactions that are 

considered to be of low severity and 

with no lasting biological consequences 

(e.g., Southall et al., 2007). Even 

repeated Level B harassment of some 

small subset of an overall stock is 

unlikely to result in any significant 

realized decrease in viability for the 

affected individuals, and thus would 

not result in any adverse impact to the 

stock as a whole. As described above, 

Level A harassment is not expected to 

occur given the nature of the operations, 

the estimated size of the Level A 

harassment zones, and the required 

shutdown zones for certain activities. 

In addition to being temporary, the 

maximum expected harassment zone 

around a survey vessel is 141 m; 75 

percent of survey days would include 

activity with a reduced acoustic 

harassment zone of 48 m per vessel, 

producing expected effects of 

particularly low severity. Therefore, the 

ensonified area surrounding each vessel 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11264 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

is relatively small compared to the 

overall distribution of the animals in the 

area and their use of the habitat. 

Feeding behavior is not likely to be 

significantly impacted as prey species 

are mobile and are broadly distributed 

throughout the survey area; therefore, 

marine mammals that may be 

temporarily displaced during survey 

activities are expected to be able to 

resume foraging once they have moved 

away from areas with disturbing levels 

of underwater noise. Because of the 

temporary nature of the disturbance and 

the availability of similar habitat and 

resources in the surrounding area, the 

impacts to marine mammals and the 

food sources that they utilize are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm consequences for individual 

marine mammals or their populations. 

There are no rookeries, mating or 

calving grounds known to be 

biologically important to marine 

mammals within the proposed survey 

area and there are no feeding areas 

known to be biologically important to 

marine mammals within the proposed 

survey area. There is no designated 

critical habitat for any ESA-listed 

marine mammals in the proposed 

survey area. 

North Atlantic Right Whales 

The status of the North Atlantic right 

whale population is of heightened 

concern and, therefore, merits 

additional analysis. As noted 

previously, elevated North Atlantic right 

whale mortalities began in June 2017 

and there is an active UME. Overall, 

preliminary findings support human 

interactions, specifically vessel strikes 

and entanglements, as the cause of 

death for the majority of right whales. 

The proposed survey area overlaps a 

migratory corridor Biologically 

Important Area (BIA) for North Atlantic 

right whales (effective March–April and 

November–December) that extends from 

Massachusetts to Florida (LeBrecque et 

al., 2015). Off the coast of Delaware, this 

migratory BIA extends from the coast to 

beyond the shelf break. Due to the fact 

that that the proposed survey activities 

are temporary and the spatial extent of 

sound produced by the survey would be 

very small relative to the spatial extent 

of the available migratory habitat in the 

BIA, right whale migration is not 

expected to be impacted by the 

proposed survey. Given the relatively 

small size of the ensonified area, it is 

unlikely that prey availability would be 

adversely affected by HRG survey 

operations. Required vessel strike 

avoidance measures will also decrease 

risk of ship strike during migration; no 

ship strike is expected to occur during 

Skipjack’s proposed activities. 

Additionally, only very limited take by 

Level B harassment of North Atlantic 

right whales has been requested and is 

being proposed by NMFS as HRG survey 

operations are required to maintain a 

500 m EZ and shutdown if a North 

Atlantic right whale is sighted at or 

within the EZ. The 500 m shutdown 

zone for right whales is conservative, 

considering the Level B harassment 

isopleth for the most impactful acoustic 

source (i.e., GeoMarine Geo-Source 400 

tip sparker) is estimated to be 141 m, 

and thereby minimizes the potential for 

behavioral harassment of this species. 

As noted previously, Level A 

harassment is not expected due to the 

small PTS zones associated with HRG 

equipment types proposed for use. 

NMFS does not anticipate North 

Atlantic right whales takes that would 

result from Skipjack’s proposed 

activities would impact annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. Thus, any takes 

that occur would not result in 

population level impacts. 

Other Marine Mammal Species With 

Active UMEs 

As noted previously, there are several 

active UMEs occurring in the vicinity of 

Skipjack’s proposed survey area. 

Elevated humpback whale mortalities 

have occurred along the Atlantic coast 

from Maine through Florida since 

January 2016. Of the cases examined, 

approximately half had evidence of 

human interaction (ship strike or 

entanglement). The UME does not yet 

provide cause for concern regarding 

population-level impacts. Despite the 

UME, the relevant population of 

humpback whales (the West Indies 

breeding population, or distinct 

population segment (DPS)) remains 

stable at approximately 12,000 

individuals. 

Beginning in January 2017, elevated 

minke whale strandings have occurred 

along the Atlantic coast from Maine 

through South Carolina, with highest 

numbers in Massachusetts, Maine, and 

New York. This event does not provide 

cause for concern regarding population 

level impacts, as the likely population 

abundance is greater than 20,000 

whales. 

Elevated numbers of harbor seal and 

gray seal mortalities were first observed 

in July 2018 and have occurred across 

Maine, New Hampshire, and 

Massachusetts. Based on tests 

conducted so far, the main pathogen 

found in the seals is phocine distemper 

virus, although additional testing to 

identify other factors that may be 

involved in this UME are underway. 

The UME does not yet provide cause for 

concern regarding population-level 

impacts to any of these stocks. For 

harbor seals, the population abundance 

is over 75,000 and annual M/SI (350) is 

well below PBR (2,006) (Hayes et al., 

2020). The population abundance for 

gray seals in the United States is over 

27,000, with an estimated abundance, 

including seals in Canada, of 

approximately 505,000. In addition, the 

abundance of gray seals is likely 

increasing in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ as 

well as in Canada (Hayes et al., 2020). 

The required mitigation measures are 

expected to reduce the number and/or 

severity of proposed takes for all species 

listed in Table 10, including those with 

active UME’s to the level of least 

practicable adverse impact. In particular 

they would provide animals the 

opportunity to move away from the 

sound source throughout the survey 

area before HRG survey equipment 

reaches full energy, thus preventing 

them from being exposed to sound 

levels that have the potential to cause 

injury (Level A harassment) or more 

severe Level B harassment. No Level A 

harassment is anticipated, even in the 

absence of mitigation measures, or 

authorized. 

NMFS expects that takes would be in 

the form of short-term Level B 

behavioral harassment by way of brief 

startling reactions and/or temporary 

vacating of the area, or decreased 

foraging (if such activity was 

occurring)—reactions that (at the scale 

and intensity anticipated here) are 

considered to be of low severity, with 

no lasting biological consequences. 

Since both the sources and marine 

mammals are mobile, animals would 

only be exposed briefly to a small 

ensonified area that might result in take. 

Additionally, required mitigation 

measures would further reduce 

exposure to sound that could result in 

more severe behavioral harassment. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or proposed for 

authorization; 

• No Level A harassment (PTS) is 

anticipated, even in the absence of 

mitigation measures, or proposed for 

authorization; 

• Foraging success is not likely to be 

significantly impacted as effects on 

species that serve as prey species for 

marine mammals from the survey are 

expected to be minimal; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11265 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the planned survey 

to avoid exposure to sounds from the 

activity; 

• Take is anticipated to be primarily 

Level B behavioral harassment 

consisting of brief startling reactions 

and/or temporary avoidance of the 

survey area; 

• While the survey area is within 

areas noted as a migratory BIA for North 

Atlantic right whales, the activities 

would occur in such a comparatively 

small area such that any avoidance of 

the survey area due to activities would 

not affect migration. In addition, 

mitigation measures to shutdown at 500 

m to minimize potential for Level B 

behavioral harassment would limit any 

take of the species. 

• The proposed mitigation measures, 

including visual monitoring and 

shutdowns, are expected to minimize 

potential impacts to marine mammals. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of 

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

NMFS proposes to authorize 

incidental take of 16 marine mammal 

species (with 17 managed stocks.) The 

total amount of takes proposed for 

authorization is less than eight percent 

for one stock (bottlenose dolphin 

northern coastal migratory stock) and 

less than one percent of all other species 

and stocks, which NMFS preliminarily 

finds are small numbers of marine 

mammals relative to the estimated 

overall population abundances for those 

stocks. See Table 10. Based on the 

analysis contained herein of the 

proposed activity (including the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures) and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily 

finds that small numbers of marine 

mammals will be taken relative to the 

population size of the affected species 

or stocks. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever NMFS proposes to authorize 

take for endangered or threatened 

species, in this case with NMFS Greater 

Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office 

(GARFO). 

The NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources Permits and Conservation 

Division is proposing to authorize the 

incidental take of four species of marine 

mammals which are listed under the 

ESA: The North Atlantic right, fin, sei, 

and sperm whales. The Permits and 

Conservation Division has requested 

initiation of Section 7 consultation with 

NMFS GARFO for the issuance of this 

IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA 

section 7 consultation prior to reaching 

a determination regarding the proposed 

issuance of the authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to Skipjack for conducting 

marine site characterization surveys off 

the coast of Delaware for one year from 

the date of issuance, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. A draft of the 

proposed IHA can be found at https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed marine site 

characterization surveys. We also 

request at this time comment on the 

potential Renewal of this proposed IHA 

as described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform decisions on the request for 

this IHA or a subsequent Renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, one-year Renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical, or nearly 

identical, activities as described in the 

Description of Proposed Activities 

section of this notice is planned or (2) 

the activities as described in the 

Description of Proposed Activities 

section of this notice would not be 

completed by the time the IHA expires 

and a Renewal would allow for 

completion of the activities beyond that 

described in the Dates and Duration 

section of this notice, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the Renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond one year from 

expiration of the initial IHA). 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

Renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take). 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11266 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

Upon review of the request for 

Renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: February 19, 2021. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03821 Filed 2–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

Procurement List; Additions 

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled. 

ACTION: Additions to the Procurement 

List. 

SUMMARY: This action adds service(s) to 

the Procurement List that will be 

furnished by nonprofit agencies 

employing persons who are blind or 

have other severe disabilities. 

DATES: Dates added the Procurement 

List: March 1, 2021 and March 8, 2021, 

as prescribed below. 

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, 

Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 

603–2117, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email 

CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Additions 

On 10/23/2020, 11/6/2020 and 11/20/ 

2020, the Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled published notice of proposed 

additions to the Procurement List. This 

notice is published pursuant to 41 

U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. 

After consideration of the material 

presented to it concerning capability of 

qualified nonprofit agencies to provide 

the service(s) and impact of the 

additions on the current or most recent 

contractors, the Committee has 

determined that the service(s) listed 

below are suitable for procurement by 

the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 

8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

I certify that the following action will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The major factors considered for this 

certification were: 

1. The action will not result in any 

additional reporting, recordkeeping or 

other compliance requirements for small 

entities other than the small 

organizations that will furnish the 

service(s) to the Government. 

2. The action will result in 

authorizing small entities to furnish the 

service(s) to the Government. 

3. There are no known regulatory 

alternatives which would accomplish 

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in 

connection with the service(s) proposed 

for addition to the Procurement List. 

End of Certification 

Accordingly, the following service(s) 

are added to the Procurement List: 

Service(s) 

Service Type: Custodial Service. 

Mandatory for: U.S. Air Force, Robins 

North Complex, Macon, GA. 

Designated Source of Supply: Good 

Vocations, Inc., Macon, GA. 

Contracting Activity: The Dept. of the Air 

Force, FA8571 AFSC PZIO MXW. 

The Committee finds good cause to 

dispense with the 30-day delay in the 

effective date normally required by the 

Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 

553(d). This addition to the Committee’s 

Procurement List is effectuated because of 

the expiration of the U.S. Air Force custodial 

service at Robins AFB North Complex, 

Macon, GA contract. The Federal customer 

contacted, and has worked diligently with 

the AbilityOne Program to fulfill this service 

need under the AbilityOne Program. To 

avoid performance disruption, and the 

possibility that the U.S. Air Force will refer 

its business elsewhere, this addition must be 

effective on March 1, 2021, ensuring timely 

execution for a March 1, 2021, start date 

while still allowing five (5) days for 

comment. The Committee also published a 

notice of proposed Procurement List addition 

in the Federal Register on October 23, 2020, 

and did not receive any comments from any 

interested persons, including from the 

incumbent contractor. This addition will not 

create a public hardship and has limited 

effect on the public at large, but, rather, will 

create new jobs for other affected parties— 

people with significant disabilities in the 

AbilityOne program who otherwise face 

challenges locating employment. Moreover, 

this addition will enable Federal customer 

operations to continue without interruption. 

Service Type: Filter Maintenance Service. 

Mandatory for: U.S. Navy, NAVFAC Mid 

Atlantic Division, Naval Station Great Lakes, 

IL. 

Designated Source of Supply: Ada S. 

McKinley Community Services, Inc., 

Chicago, IL. 

Contracting Activity: The Dept. of the 

Navy, Naval FAC Engineering CMD MID 

LANT. 

The Committee finds good cause to 

dispense with the 30-day delay in the 

effective date normally required by the 

Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 

553(d). This addition to the Committee’s 

Procurement List is effectuated because of 

the expiration of the U.S. Navy’s Filter 

Maintenance, NAVFAC, Naval Station Great 

Lakes, IL contract. The Federal customer 

contacted, and has worked diligently with 

the AbilityOne Program to fulfill this service 

need under the AbilityOne Program. To 

avoid performance disruption, and the 

possibility that the U.S. Navy will refer its 

business elsewhere, this addition must be 

effective on March 1, 2021, ensuring timely 

execution for a March 1, 2021, start date 

while still allowing five (5) days for 

comment. Pursuant to its own regulation 41 

CFR 51–2.4, the Committee has been in 

contact with one of the affected parties, the 

incumbent of the expiring contract, since 

March 2020 and determined that no severe 

adverse impact exists. The Committee also 

published a notice of proposed Procurement 

List addition in the Federal Register on 

November 6, 2020, and did not receive any 

comments from any interested persons, 

including from the incumbent contractor. 

This addition will not create a public 

hardship and has limited effect on the public 

at large, but, rather, will create new jobs for 

other affected parties—people with 

significant disabilities in the AbilityOne 

program who otherwise face challenges 

locating employment. Moreover, this 

addition will enable Federal customer 

operations to continue without interruption. 

Service Type: Grounds Maintenance 

Service. 

Mandatory for: U.S. Army, U.S. Army 

Communications-Electronics Command 

Headquarters, Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

MD. 

Designated Source of Supply: Chimes 

District of Columbia, Baltimore, MD. 

Contracting Activity: The Dept. of the 

Army, W6QK ACC–APG DIR. 

The Committee finds good cause to 

dispense with the 30-day delay in the 

effective date normally required by the 

Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 

553(d). This addition to the Committee’s 

Procurement List is effectuated because of 

the expiration of the U.S. Army’s ground 

maintenance contract at the 

Communications-Electronics Command HQ, 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. The Federal 

customer contacted, and has worked 

diligently with the AbilityOne Program to 

fulfill this service need under the AbilityOne 

Program. To avoid performance disruption, 

and the possibility that the U.S. Army will 

refer its business elsewhere, this addition 

must be effective on March 7, 2021, ensuring 

timely execution for a March 8, 2021, start 

date while still allowing 12 days for 

comment. Pursuant to its own regulation 41 

CFR 51–2.4, the Committee that the 

incumbent of the expiring contract would not 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES