Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36539 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG372 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a public meeting of its 

Scientific & Statistical Committee to 

consider actions affecting New England 

fisheries in the exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ). Recommendations from this 

group will be brought to the full Council 

for formal consideration and action, if 

appropriate. 

DATES: This meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, August 15, 2018 beginning 

at 9:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Hilton Garden Inn, Boston Logan, 

100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 

02128; phone: (617) 567–6789. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

The committee will review recent 

stock assessment information from the 

U.S/Canada Transboundary Resource 

Assessment Committee and information 

provided by the Council’s Groundfish 

Plan Development Team (PDT) and 

recommend the overfishing level (OFL) 

and acceptable biological catch (ABC) 

for Georges Bank yellowtail flounder for 

the 2019 and 2020 fishing years. The 

committee will also review the 2017 

assessments of ocean pout, Georges 

Bank winter flounder, witch flounder, 

Northern windowpane flounder, and 

Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic 

yellowtail flounder and comment on the 

rebuilding alternatives under 

development to advise on the technical 

basis for the range of alternative 

rebuilding strategies developed by the 

PDT. These stocks are managed under 

the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) 

Fishery Management Plan. Other 

business will be discussed as necessary. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during these meetings. Action 

will be restricted to those issues 

specifically listed in this notice and any 

issues arising after publication of this 

notice that require emergency action 

under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided the public has 

been notified of the Council’s intent to 

take final action to address the 

emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at 

978–465–0492, at least 5 days prior to 

the meeting date. This meeting will be 

recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 

1852, a copy of the recording is 

available upon request. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: July 25, 2018. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16217 Filed 7–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF926 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Site 

Characterization Surveys Off the Coast 

of Massachusetts 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take 

marine mammals, by harassment, 

incidental to high-resolution 

geophysical (HRG) survey investigations 

associated with marine site 

characterization activities off the coast 

of Massachusetts in the area of the 

Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands 

for Renewable Energy Development on 

the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS–A 

0500) and along cable routes to the coast 

of Massachusettes (the Study Area). 

DATES: This Authorization is valid for 

one year from the date of issuance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale 

Youngkin, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing 

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36540 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

Summary of Request 

On October 20, 2017 NMFS received 

an application from Bay State Wind for 

the taking of marine mammals 

incidental to site characterization 

investigations off the coast of 

Massachusetts in the OCS–A 0500 

Study Area, designated and offered by 

the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM), to support the 

development of an offshore wind 

project. Bay State Wind’s request was 

for take, by Level A and Level B 

harassment, of a small number of 10 

species or stocks of marine mammals. 

As there were changes to the proposed 

project activities and equipment 

proposed for use after this initial 

application submittal, a complete 

application was received in April, 2018. 

In addition, some species not originally 

considered for take have been 

authorized based on further 

consideration and coordination, so 

incidental take of 13 species/stocks have 

now been authorized. Neither the 

applicant nor NMFS expects serious 

injury or mortality to result from this 

activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

Bay State Wind proposes to conduct 

HRG surveys in the Study Area to 

support the characterization of the 

existing seabed and subsurface 

geological conditions in the Study Area. 

This information is necessary to support 

the final siting, design, and installation 

of offshore project facilities, turbines 

and subsea cables within the project 

area as well as to collect the data 

necessary to support the review 

requirements associated with Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 

Underwater sound resulting from Bay 

State Wind’s proposed site 

characterization surveys has the 

potential to result in incidental take of 

marine mammals. This take of marine 

mammals is anticipated to be in the 

form of harassment and no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated, nor is 

any authorized in this IHA. 

Dates and Duration 

HRG surveys of the wind turbine 

generator (WTG) and offshore substation 

(OSS) areas are anticipated to 

commence upon issuance of the IHA 

and will last for approximately 60 days, 

including estimated weather down time. 

Likewise, the Export Cable Route HRG 

surveys are anticipated to commence 

upon issuance of the IHA and will last 

approximately 40 days (including 

estimated weather down time). Offshore 

and near coastal shallow water regions 

of the HRG survey will occur within the 

same 40-day timeframe. 

Specified Geographic Region 

Bay State Wind’s survey activities 

will occur in the approximately 

187,532-acre Lease Area designated and 

offered by BOEM, located 

approximately 14 miles (mi) south of 

Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts at its 

closest point, as well as within 2 

potential export cable routes to 

Somerset, MA and to Falmouth, MA 

(see Figure 1–1 of the IHA application). 

The Lease Area falls within the 

Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (MA 

WEA). 

A detailed description of the planned 

survey activities, including types of 

survey equipment planned for use, is 

provided in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (83 FR 22443; May 

15, 2018). Since that time, no changes 

have been made to the planned 

activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not repeated here. Please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

the description of the specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS published a notice of proposed 

IHA in the Federal Register on May 15, 

2018 (83 FR 22443). During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

comment letters from the Marine 

Mammal Commission (Commission) 

and a group of non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs) including Natural 

Resources Defense Council, the National 

Wildlife Federation, the Conservation 

Law Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, 

Southern Environmental Law Center, 

Surfrider Foundation, Sierra Club, and 

the International Fund for Animal 

Welfare. No other public comments 

were received. NMFS has posted the 

comment letters received online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) New England 

Field Office reviewed our proposal and 

had no comment. The following is a 

summary of the Commission comments 

received and NMFS’s responses. 

Comment 1: The Commission notes 

that impulsive thresholds, rather than 

non-impulsive thresholds, were 

incorrectly used to model Level A 

harassment zones for the ultra-short 

baseline positioning system (UBPS) and 

sub-bottom profiler (SBP) sources, 

which resulted in overly conservative 

Level A harassment zones. The 

Commission stated that the correct 

threshold should have been used, 

regardless of whether the incorrect 

threshold was more conservative, and 

NMFS should prohibit applicants from 

using impulsive thresholds for nonimpulsive sources. 

NMFS Response: NMFS appreciates 

the input from the Commission. We 

acknowledge the error, and have 

corrected it in this final notice (refer to 

Table 3) and IHA. Take by Level A 

harassment is not likely, even based on 

the larger (more conservative) isopleth 

associated with the impulsive threshold. 

The use of the non-impulsive threshold 

does not change our findings or 

determinations under the MMPA. 

NMFS does not allow applicants to 

arbitrarily choose which thresholds to 

use. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS refrain from 

authorizing Level A harassment takes of 

harbor porpoises. 

NMFS Response: Take by Level A 

harassment is not being authorized in 

this IHA. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

recommended that, until behavioral 

thresholds are updated, NMFS require 

applicants to use the 120-decibel (dB) re 

1 micropascal (mPa), rather than 160- dB 

re 1mPa, threshold for acoustic, nonimpulsive sources (e.g., sub-bottom 

profilers/chirps, echosounders, and 

other sonars including side-scan and 

fish-finding). 

NMFS Response: Certain sub-bottom 

profiling systems are appropriately 

considered to be impulsive sources (e.g., 

boomers, sparkers); therefore, the 

threshold of 160 dB re 1mPa will 

continue to be used for those sources. 

Other source types referenced by the 

Commission (e.g., chirp sub-bottom 

profilers, echosounders, and other 

sonars including side-scan and fishfinding) produce signals that are not 

necessarily strictly impulsive; however, 

NMFS finds that the 160-dB root mean 

square (rms) threshold is most 

appropriate for use in evaluating 

potential behavioral impacts to marine 

mammals because the temporal 

characteristics (i.e., intermittency) of 

these sources are better captured by this 

threshold. The 120-dB threshold is 

associated with continuous sources and 

was derived based on studies examining 

behavioral responses to drilling and 

dredging. Continuous sounds are those 

whose sound pressure level remains 

above that of the ambient sound, with 

negligibly small fluctuations in level 

(NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005). Examples 

of sounds that NMFS would categorize 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36541 

as continuous are those associated with 

drilling or vibratory pile driving 

activities. Intermittent sounds are 

defined as sounds with interrupted 

levels of low or no sound (NIOSH, 

1998). Thus, signals produced by these 

source types are not continuous but 

rather intermittent sounds. With regard 

to behavioral thresholds, we consider 

the temporal and spectral characteristics 

of signals produced by these source 

types to more closely resemble those of 

an impulse sound rather than a 

continuous sound. The threshold of 160 

dB re 1mPa is typically associated with 

impulsive sources, which are inherently 

intermittent. Therefore, the 160 dB 

threshold (typically associated with 

impulsive sources) is more appropriate 

than the 120 dB threshold (typically 

associated with continuous sources) for 

estimating takes by behavioral 

harassment incidental to use of such 

sources. 

Comment 4: The Commission noted 

during informal consultation that NMFS 

informed the Commission that Orsted 

(BSW) conducted sound source 

verification (SSV) on the triple plate 

boom plate, which resulted in a greatly 

reduced Level B harassment zone for 

that sound source. The Commission 

recommended that NMFS provide the 

SSV report to its technical experts for 

review prior to allowing the Level B 

harassment zone to be reduced based on 

these findings. 

NMFS Response: NMFS has not 

revised the Level B harassment zone to 

support a recalculation of take based on 

this SSV report and does not intend to 

use the report to support different Level 

B harassment zones until and unless we 

are able to validate its findings based on 

technical review. NMFS has only 

recently received the SSV report from 

BSW and is currently reviewing it for 

potential use in future IHAs. Based on 

preliminary review of the report, it 

appears as though the actual Level B 

harassment isopleth for the Triple Plate 

Boomer would be no more than 100 m 

(and could be significantly less), which 

would equate to reduction in the 

ensonified area of at least 94%, as 

compared to the area associated with 

the 400-m Level B harassment zone that 

was modelled and presented in the 

notice of the proposed IHA (83 FR 

22443, May 15, 2018). 

Comment 5: The Commission noted 

that Risso’s dolphins were observed 

during an HRG survey conducted by a 

different company (Deepwater Wind, 

LLC) in 2017 in the same general area 

(Rhode Island-Massachusetts Wind 

Energy Area, located east of Long Island, 

New York and south of Rhode Island 

and Massachusetts). The Commission 

recommended that NMFS authorize at 

least 20 Level B harassment takes of this 

species based on encountering a group 

twice during the 60 days of the 

proposed activities. 

NMFS Response: NMFS has added 

Level B harassment takes for Risso’s 

dolphin. Out of an abundance of 

caution, authorized takes assume a 

group of 15 individuals encountered 

twice during the survey activities for a 

total of 30 authorized takes by Level B 

harassment. 

Comment 6: The Commission states 

recommended that NMFS include takes 

of sei whales, Atlantic spotted dolphin, 

and long-finned pilot whales, ensuring 

that the number of takes authorized for 

each species is at least equal to the 

average group size of each species. 

NMFS Response: NMFS’ decision not 

to authorize take for sei whales is based 

on very low calculated takes (low 

expectation that take is likely to occur 

based on very conservative take 

estimates) coupled with the fact that 

these species are not expected to occur 

based on past monitoring reports from 

the area. Calculated takes (which take 

into account the duration of the survey 

activities as well as the low densities for 

this species) did not round up to one 

take for sei whales. If any species for 

which take is not authorized are 

encountered, Bay State Wind are 

required to implement measures to 

avoid take of these species and NMFS 

believes that, in the unlikely event that 

a sei whale is encountered, Bay State 

Wind will be able to effectively mitigate 

to avoid take of this large cetacean 

species. However, as Atlantic spotted 

dolphins and long-finned pilot whales 

are much smaller cetaceans (hence, 

potentially harder to see to avoid take in 

certain conditions), may occur in much 

larger groups, and calculations resulted 

in at least a small amount of take for 

pilot whales, NMFS has modified the 

IHA to authorize a small number of 

takes by Level B harassment for these 

species to avoid requiring the applicant 

to shut down operations for avoidance 

of take in the unlikely event they are 

encountered. 

Comment 7: The Commission 

expressed concern that the method used 

to estimate the numbers of takes, which 

summed fractions of takes for each 

species across project days, does not 

account for and negates the intent of 

NMFS’ 24-hour reset policy. The 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

share their rounding criteria guidance 

with the Commission in an expeditious 

manner. 

NMFS Response: NMFS appreciates 

the Commission’s ongoing concern in 

this matter. Calculating predicted takes 

is not an exact science and there are 

arguments for taking different 

mathematical approaches in different 

situations, and for making qualitative 

adjustments in other situations. We 

believe, however, that the methodology 

used for take calculation in this IHA 

remains appropriate and is not at odds 

with the 24-hour reset policy the 

Commission references. NMFS recently 

completed internal guidance on 

rounding and consideration of 

qualitative factors in the estimation of 

instances of take. NMFS’ internal 

guidance on rounding and the 

consideration of qualitative factors in 

take estimation has been provided to the 

Commission. 

Comment 8: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS better 

evaluate the number of Level A and B 

harassment takes it plans to propose by 

considering both ecological/biological 

information and results from previous 

monitoring reports for all proposed 

authorizations prior to submitting them 

for publication in the Federal Register. 

NMFS Response: NMFS’ reasoning 

takes into account past practice; what 

estimated take calculations yield; and 

what the applicant proposes, as well as 

a suite of situational and context factors 

such as the size of the zone; the likely 

effectiveness of the mitigation; and the 

behavior of the species in question 

when evaluating Level A and Level B 

harassment takes it proposes to 

authorize. NMFS also considers 

ecological/biological information and 

results from previous monitoring 

reports. The purpose of publishing the 

notice in the Federal Register is to 

obtain feedback on the proposed IHA 

and, when warranted based on feedback 

received, we may determine it is 

appropriate to revise our proposed 

authorizations. More information 

regarding how NMFS estimates 

instances of take, including 

consideration of qualitative factors, was 

provided to the Commission on June 27, 

2018. 

Comment 9: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS require a 

standard 30-minute pre- and postmonitoring clearance monitoring period 

and 15-minute clearance times for small 

cetaceans and pinnipeds and a 30- 

minute clearance time for larger 

cetaceans after a delay or shut down. 

NMFS Response: NMFS has revised 

the monitoring and clearance times as 

recommended by the Commission. 

Comment 10: The Commission 

requested clarification regarding certain 

issues associated with NMFS’ notice 

that one-year renewals could be issued 

in certain limited circumstances and 

expressed concern that the process 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36542 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

would bypass the public notice and 

comment requirements. The 

Commission also suggested that NMFS 

should discuss the possibility of 

renewals through a more general route, 

such as a rulemaking, instead of notice 

in a specific authorization. The 

Commission further recommended that 

if NMFS did not pursue a more general 

route, that the agency provide the 

Commission and the public with a legal 

analysis supporting our conclusion that 

this process is consistent with the 

requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of 

the MMPA. The Commission also noted 

that NMFS had recently begun utilizing 

abbreviated notices, referencing relevant 

documents, to solicit public input and 

suggested that NMFS use these notices 

and solicit review in lieu of the 

currently proposed renewal process. 

NMFS Response: The process of 

issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass 

the public notice and comment 

requirements of the MMPA. The notice 

of the proposed IHA expressly notifies 

the public that under certain, limited 

conditions an applicant could seek a 

renewal IHA for an additional year. The 

notice describes the conditions under 

which such a renewal request could be 

considered and expressly seeks public 

comment in the event such a renewal is 

sought. Additional reference to this 

solicitation of public comment has 

recently been added at the beginning of 

the FR notices that consider renewals, 

requesting input specifically on the 

possible renewal itself. NMFS 

appreciates the streamlining achieved 

by the use of abbreviated FR notices and 

intends to continue using them for 

proposed IHAs that include minor 

changes from previously issued IHAs, 

but which do not satisfy the renewal 

requirements. However, we believe our 

proposed method for issuing renewals 

meets statutory requirements and 

maximizes efficiency. 

Importantly, such renewals would be 

limited to circumstances where: the 

activities are identical or nearly 

identical to those analyzed in the 

proposed IHA; monitoring does not 

indicate impacts that were not 

previously analyzed and authorized; 

and, the mitigation and monitoring 

requirements remain the same, all of 

which allow the public to comment on 

the appropriateness and effects of a 

renewal at the same time the public 

provides comments on the initial IHA. 

NMFS has, however, modified the 

language for future proposed IHAs to 

clarify that all IHAs, including renewal 

IHAs, are valid for no more than one 

year and that the agency would consider 

only one renewal for a project at this 

time. In addition, notice of issuance or 

denial of a renewal IHA would be 

published in the Federal Register, as 

they are for all IHAs. The option for 

issuing renewal IHAs has been in 

NMFS’s incidental take regulations 

since 1996. We will provide any 

additional information to the 

Commission and consider posting a 

description of the renewal process on 

our website before any renewal is issued 

utilizing this process. 

Comment 11: The Commission noted 

that in this instance, the public 

comment period closed on 14 June, 

2018 which was two weeks after 

activities were scheduled to begin, as 

the final version of the application was 

not submitted until 5 April, 2018. The 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

take all steps necessary to ensure that it 

publishes and finalizes proposed IHAs 

far enough in advance of the planned 

start date to ensure full consideration is 

given to all comments received, noting 

this can only be accomplished if 

applicants provide their complete 

applications at the outset and respond 

to inquiries from NMFS in a timely 

manner. 

NMFS Response: The delay in 

issuance of this IHA was specifically to 

allow for the needed public review and 

comment period and to allow NMFS 

time to fully consider the comments 

received. We have thoroughly reviewed 

the comments received and discussed 

many of these comments with the 

Commission during informal 

consultation. Where appropriate, we 

have revised the proposed 

authorization. In instances where we 

disagree with the proposed revision, we 

have explained why we have not 

revised the authorization. More 

generally, NMFS publishes FR notices 

for proposed IHAs as quickly as possible 

once the application is received, but we 

cannot control either short processing 

times driven by the date the activity is 

supposed to start or later publication of 

proposed IHAs resulting from back and 

forth with the applicants to ensure we 

have the necessary information. 

Comment 12: The NGOs noted 

concern for the unusual mortality events 

(UME) that have been declared for 

humpback whales, minke whales, and 

North Atlantic right whales and 

expressed concern that the estimates 

derived from models presented in 

Roberts et al. (2016) may underrepresent 

density and seasonal presence of large 

whales in the survey area. The NGOs 

noted NMFS is required to use the best 

available science for species presence 

and densities, and recommended that 

NMFS consider additional data sources 

in density modeling in future analyses 

of estimated take, including initial data 

from state monitoring efforts, existing 

passive acoustic monitoring data, 

opportunistic marine mammal sightings 

data, and other data sources. 

NMFS Response: NMFS 

acknowledges the UMEs for minke 

whales since January 2017; north 

Atlantic right whales since June 2017; 

and humpback whales since January 

2016. Please refer to the discussion of 

these UMEs in the Negligible Impact 

Determination section of this notice. 

NMFS has determined that the data 

provided by Roberts et al. (2016) 

represents the best available information 

concerning marine mammal density in 

the survey area and has used it 

accordingly. NMFS has considered 

other available information, including 

that cited by the commenters, and 

determined that it does not contradict 

the information provided by Roberts et 

al. (2016). The sources suggested by the 

commenters do not provide data in a 

format that is directly usable in an 

acoustic exposure analysis. We will 

continue to review data sources, 

including those recommended by 

commenters for consideration for their 

suitability for inclusion in future 

analyses to ensure the use of best 

available science in our analyses. 

In addition to considering the density 

estimates, NMFS has reviewed past 

monitoring reports from the survey area. 

In 2016, one fin and two minke whales 

were observed during surveys at 

distances ranging from 1,000 to 2,000 m 

from the source. In 2017 there were 5 

minke whales and 13 fin whales 

observed while on survey with only one 

of these being close enough to be 

considered a take by Level B 

harassment. Review of past monitoring 

reports confirm that large whales are not 

as common in the survey area as small 

delphinoid species and at no point has 

the amount of take authorized been 

exceeded or even approached so as to 

cause concern that the amount would be 

met or exceeded. As presented in the 

proposed IHA notice (83 FR 22443, May 

15, 2018), where warranted, estimated 

take calculations were adjusted based 

on average group size and sightings 

from the survey area and are not solely 

based on calculations based on density 

data. 

Comment 13: Regarding mitigation 

measures, the NGOs recommended 

NMFS impose a restriction on site 

assessment and characterization 

activities that have the potential to 

harass the North Atlantic right whale 

from November 1st to May 14th. 

NMFS Response: In evaluating how 

mitigation may or may not be 

appropriate to ensure the least 

practicable adverse impact on species or 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36543 

stocks and their habitat, we carefully 

consider two primary factors: (1) The 

manner in which, and the degree to 

which, the successful implementation of 

the measure(s) is expected to reduce 

impacts to marine mammals, marine 

mammal species or stocks, and their 

habitat; and (2) the practicability of the 

measures for applicant implementation, 

which may consider such things as 

relative cost and impact on operations. 

No take of North Atlantic right whales 

is anticipated, nor are any takes 

authorized. In addition, although the 

IHA covers Bay State Wind’s activities 

should they occur at any point during 

the year, as stated in the notice for the 

proposed IHA (83 FR 83 FR 22443, May 

15, 2018), Bay State Wind’s activities 

are anticipated to begin as soon as they 

receive their authorization and last for 

approximately 60 days (60 days for the 

offshore sections and 40 days for the 

inshore sections that may occur 

concurrently). In addition, again 

although the analysis covers activities 

conducted in any months, Bay State 

Wind’s HRG survey activities are 

anticipated to be complete prior to the 

recommended restriction (November 1– 

May 14). 

Bay State Wind determined the 

planned duration of the survey based on 

their data acquisition needs, which are 

largely driven by the BOEM’s data 

acquisition requirements prior to 

required submission of a construction 

and operations plan (COP). Any effort 

on the part of NMFS to restrict the 

months during which the survey could 

operate could have the effect of forcing 

the applicant to conduct additional 

months of surveys the following year, 

resulting in increased costs incurred by 

the applicant and extending the amount 

of time need to complete the surveys 

with associated additional production of 

underwater noise which could have 

further potential impacts to marine 

mammals. Thus, the time and area 

restrictions recommended by the 

commenters would not be practicable 

for the applicant to implement and 

would to some degree offset the benefit 

of the recommended measure. In 

addition, our analysis of the potential 

impacts of the survey on right whales 

does not indicate that such closures are 

warranted, as there are no takes of North 

Atlantic right whales anticipated or 

authorized and no marine mammal 

injury is expected as a result of the 

survey, nor is injury authorized in the 

IHA. Thus, in consideration of the 

limited potential benefits of time and 

area restrictions, in concert with the 

impracticability and increased cost on 

the part of the applicant that would 

result from such restrictions, NMFS has 

determined that time and area 

restrictions are not warranted in this 

case. Existing mitigation measures, 

including exclusion zones, ramp-up of 

survey equipment, and vessel strike 

avoidance measures, are sufficiently 

protective to ensure the least practicable 

adverse impact on species or stocks and 

their habitat. 

Comment 14: Regarding mitigation 

measures, the NGOs recommended that 

NMFS require that geophysical surveys 

commence, with ramp-up, during 

daylight hours only to maximize the 

probability that North Atlantic right 

whales are detected and confirmed clear 

of the exclusion zone, and that, if a right 

whale were detected in the exclusion 

zone during nighttime hours and the 

survey is shut down, developers should 

be required to wait until daylight hours 

for ramp-up to commence. 

NMFS Response: We acknowledge the 

limitations inherent in detection of 

marine mammals at night. However, as 

described above, no takes of North 

Atlantic right whales have been 

authorized and potential impacts to 

other marine mammals from the survey 

activities would be limited to short-term 

behavioral responses. Restricting 

surveys in the manner suggested by the 

commenters may reduce marine 

mammal exposures by some degree in 

the short term, but would not result in 

any significant reduction in either 

intensity or duration of noise exposure. 

No injury is expected to result even in 

the absence of mitigation, given the very 

small estimated Level A harassment 

zones. In the event that NMFS imposed 

the restriction suggested by the 

commenters, potentially resulting in a 

second season of surveys required for 

the applicant, vessels would be on the 

water introducing noise into the marine 

environment for an extended period of 

time. Therefore, in addition to 

practicability concerns for the applicant, 

the restrictions recommended by the 

commenters could result in the surveys 

spending increased time on the water, 

which may result in greater overall 

exposure to sound for marine mammals; 

thus the commenters have failed to 

demonstrate that such a requirement 

would result in a net benefit for affected 

marine mammals. Further, we note that 

past monitoring reports indicate the 

ability to detect marine mammals at 

night, including smaller cetaceans, with 

use of the infrared and night vision 

technologies in combination with 

passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) 

employed during nighttime activities. 

Therefore, in consideration of potential 

effectiveness of the recommended 

measure and its practicability for the 

applicant, NMFS has determined that 

restricting survey start-ups to daylight 

hours is not warranted in this case. 

We note that the proposed IHA 

Federal Register notice included a 

mitigation requirement that shutdown 

of geophysical survey equipment would 

be required upon confirmed PAM 

detection of a North Atlantic right whale 

at night, even in the absence of visual 

confirmation, except in cases where the 

acoustic detection can be localized and 

the right whale can be confirmed as 

being beyond the 500 meter (m) 

exclusion zone (EZ); equipment may be 

re-started no sooner than 30 minutes 

after the last confirmed acoustic 

detection. This mitigation measure was 

retained and has been included as part 

of the issued IHA. 

Comment 15: The NGOs 

recommended that NMFS require a 500 

m EZ for marine mammals (with the 

exception of dolphins that voluntarily 

approach the vessel). Additionally, the 

NGOs recommended that protected 

species observers (PSO) monitor to an 

extended 1,000 m EZ for North Atlantic 

right whales, and stated that NMFS has 

been inconsistent in its EZ requirements 

for different lease areas without 

explanation or justification. 

NMFS Response: NMFS’ mitigation 

measures, including establishment of 

EZs, are based on consideration of a 

variety of factors including 

consideration of two primary factors: (1) 

The manner in which, and the degree to 

which, the successful implementation of 

the measure(s) would be expected to 

reduce impacts (which considers the 

nature of the potential adverse impact 

being mitigated and likelihood that the 

measure will be effective if 

implemented along with the likelihood 

of effective implementation), and (2) the 

practicability of the measure for the 

applicant (which may consider such 

things as cost and impact on operations 

among other things for activities not 

applicable to this authorization). These 

considerations may at times result in 

different outcomes and requirements 

between differing areas. Regarding the 

specific recommendation for a 1,000 m 

EZ specifically for North Atlantic right 

whales, we have determined that the 

500 m EZ, as required in the IHA, is 

sufficiently protective. We note that the 

500 m EZ exceeds the modeled distance 

to the conservatively modeled Level B 

harassment isopleth (400 m), thus for 

North Atlantic right whales detected by 

PSOs this EZ would effectively 

minimize potential instances of injury 

and harassment. 

Regarding the commenters’ 

recommendation to require a 500 m EZ 

for all marine mammals (except 

dolphins that approach the vessel) we 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36544 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

have determined the EZs as currently 

required in the IHA (described in 

Mitigation Measures, below) are 

sufficient to ensure the least practicable 

adverse impact on species or stocks and 

their habitat. The EZs would prevent all 

potential instances of marine mammal 

injury. In this instance, injury would 

not be an expected outcome even in the 

absence of mitigation due to very small 

predicted isopleths corresponding to the 

Level A harassment threshold (Note that 

the 75 m Level A harassment threshold 

for harbor porpoises as discussed in the 

proposed IHA was based on the more 

conservative impulsive threshold and 

has since been updated with the correct 

non-impulsive threshold, which means 

the isopleth is actually < 5 m, as 

opposed to the previously considered 75 

m) and would further prevent some 

instances of behavioral harassment, as 

well as limiting the intensity and/or 

duration of behavioral harassment that 

does occur. As NMFS has determined 

the EZs currently required in the IHA to 

be sufficiently protective, we do not 

think expanded EZs, beyond what is 

required in the IHA are warranted. 

Comment 16: The NGOs 

recommended that a combination of 

visual monitoring by PSOs and PAM 

should be required 24 hours per day. 

NMFS Response: As stated in the 

notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 

22443, May 15, 2018) and below in the 

Mitigation section, when evaluating 

how mitigation may or may not be 

appropriate to ensure the least 

practicable adverse impact on marine 

mammals species or stocks and their 

habitats, as well as subsistence uses 

where applicable, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: (1) The manner in 

which, and the degree to which, the 

successful implementation of the 

measure(s) would be expected to reduce 

impacts (which considers the nature of 

the potential adverse impact being 

mitigated and likelihood that the 

measure will be effective if 

implemented along with the likelihood 

of effective implementation), and (2) 

The practicability of the measure for the 

applicant (which may consider such 

things as cost and impact on operations 

among other things for activities not 

applicable to this authorization). The 

PAM requirement has been included in 

the IHA because PAM was proposed by 

the applicant, and PAM is required in 

BOEM lease stipulations. We do not 

think the use of PAM is necessarily 

warranted for surveys using the sound 

sources proposed for use by the 

applicant, due to relatively small areas 

that are expected to be ensonified to the 

Level A harassment threshold making it 

unlikely that injury or more serious 

effects would result from the activities. 

As such, this is an example of a 

mitigation measure that NMFS would 

not require, but is implementing due to 

consideration of other factors. As we are 

not convinced that PAM is necessarily 

warranted for this type of survey, we do 

not think a requirement to expand the 

use of PAM to 24 hours a day during the 

survey is warranted. Expanding the 

PAM requirement to 24 hours a day may 

also result in increased costs on the part 

of the applicant. When the potential 

benefits of a 24 hour PAM requirement 

are considered in concert with the 

potential increased costs on the part of 

the applicant that would result from 

such a requirement, we determined a 

requirement for 24 hour PAM operation 

is not warranted in this case. Given the 

lower level of effects to marine 

mammals from the types of surveys 

authorized in this IHA are expected to 

be limited to behavioral harassment 

even in the absence of mitigation, we 

have determined the current 

requirements for visual and acoustic 

monitoring are sufficient to ensure the 

EZs and Watch Zone are adequately 

monitored for this particular activity. 

Comment 17: The NGOs 

recommended that NMFS require a 10 

knot speed restriction on all projectrelated vessels transiting to/from the 

survey area from February 1 to May 14, 

and that all project vessels operating 

within the survey area should be 

required to maintain a speed of 10 knots 

or less during the entire survey period. 

It was also noted that vessels less than 

65 ft. in length are exempt from NMFS’ 

regulations (presumably this is in 

reference to mandatory speed 

restrictions of 10 knots or less, in effect 

for the following seasonal management 

areas (SMA): Cape Cod Bay from 

January 1 through May 15 and/or Block 

Island from November 1 through April 

30 and/or the voluntary speeds in the 

voluntary DMAs, which includes the 

area south of Nantucket July 2, 2018 

through July 15, 2018. We note here that 

the survey area is not within any of 

these areas, but that DMAs may be 

developed and Bay State Wind will be 

required to monitor for the creation of 

DMAs and abide by the requirements of 

any DMA created) and that the proposed 

IHA provided no speed restrictions for 

the Autonomous Surface Vessels (ASV) 

or other support vessels that may be 

operating during the survey months. 

NMFS Response: NMFS has analyzed 

the potential for ship strike resulting 

from Bay State Wind’s activity and has 

determined that the mitigation measures 

specific to ship strike avoidance are 

sufficient to minimize the potential for 

ship strike such that we have 

determined this is discountable. These 

measures include: A requirement that 

all vessel operators comply with 10 knot 

(18.5 kilometer (km)/hour) or less speed 

restrictions in any SMA or Dynamic 

Management Area (DMA); a requirement 

that all vessel operators reduce vessel 

speed to 10 knots (18.5 km/hour) or less 

when any large whale, any mother/calf 

pairs, pods, or large assemblages of nondelphinoid cetaceans are observed 

within 100 m of an underway vessel; a 

requirement that all survey vessels 

maintain a separation distance of 500 m 

or greater from any sighted North 

Atlantic right whale; a requirement that, 

if underway, vessels must steer a course 

away from any sighted North Atlantic 

right whale at 10 knots or less until the 

500 m minimum separation distance has 

been established; and a requirement 

that, if a North Atlantic right whale is 

sighted in a vessel’s path, or within 500 

m of an underway vessel, the underway 

vessel must reduce speed and shift the 

engine to neutral. Additional measures 

to prevent the potential for ship strike 

are discussed in more detail below (see 

the Mitigation section). We have 

determined that the ship strike 

avoidance measures are sufficient to 

ensure the least practicable adverse 

impact on species or stocks and their 

habitat. We also note that vessel strike 

during surveys is extremely unlikely 

based on the low vessel speed; the 

survey vessel would maintain a speed of 

approximately 4 knots (7.4 km/hour) 

while transiting survey lines. The stated 

speed restrictions would apply to all 

vessels including the ASVs and support 

vessels. Further, given that the ASVs 

must be within a maximum of 800 m 

from the mother ship, the speed of the 

ASV vessels could not exceed that of the 

mother vessel. 

Comment 18: The NGOs 

recommended that NMFS analyses 

account for the potential for indirect 

ship strike risk resulting from habitat 

displacement. 

NMFS Response: NMFS determined 

that habitat displacement was not an 

expected outcome of the specified 

activity. As discussed in the notice for 

the proposed IHA (83 FR 22443, May 

15, 2018) we anticipate marine 

mammals may avoid the area of 

disturbing noise, but this would be a 

relatively small area, as the Level B 

harassment zone was conservatively 

estimated to be 400 m, and would be 

short-term in nature such that habitat 

displacement is not anticipated. As 

discussed above, since publication of 

the proposed IHA notice, NMFS has 

received a sound source verification 

study from Bay State Wind for the 

Triple Plate Boomer and based on 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36545 

preliminary review, the actual Level B 

harassment isopleth would be no more 

than 100 m, as compared to the 400-m 

modelled zone, so the area of 

disturbance would be significantly less 

than originally reported. Therefore, 

habitat displacement is not reasonably 

likely to occur an analysis of potential 

impacts to marine mammals from 

habitat displacement is not warranted in 

this case. 

Comment 19: The NGOs stated that 

NMFS should not adjust take numbers 

for North Atlantic right whales based on 

mitigation measures and stated that they 

do not share NMFS’ level of confidence 

that it is possible to mitigate all 

potential for Level B harassment. This 

lack of confidence is based on (1) an 

assertion that the 160 dB threshold for 

behavioral harassment is not supported 

by best available science (citing to 

footnote 11 of the comment letter), and 

(2) an assertion that the monitoring 

protocols prescribed for the EZs are 

under-protective (referring to Section 

III.D of the comment letter for further 

discussion). 

NMFS Response: Regarding the 

comment addressing the 

appropriateness of the 160-db 

behavioral harassment threshold, NMFS 

assumes that the reference to footnote 

11 (Kraus, et al., 2016) in the comment 

is in error, and the correct reference was 

meant to be footnote 16, which 

references Nowacek et al., 2004 and 

Kastelein et al., 2012 and 2015 as 

sources for the assertion that take would 

occur with near certainty at exposure 

levels well below the 160 dB threshold 

for behavioral harassment. Regardless, 

NMFS notes that the potential for 

behavioral response to an anthropogenic 

source is highly variable and contextspecific and acknowledges the potential 

for Level B harassment at exposures to 

received levels below 160 dB rms. 

Alternatively, NMFS acknowledges the 

potential that animals exposed to 

received levels above 160 dB rms will 

not respond in ways constituting 

behavioral harassment. There are a 

variety of studies indicating that 

contextual variables play a very 

important role in response to 

anthropogenic noise, and the severity of 

effects are not necessarily linear when 

compared to a received level (RL). The 

studies cited in the comment (Nowacek 

et al., 2004 and Kastelein et al., 2012 

and 2015) showed there were behavioral 

responses to sources below the 160 dB 

threshold, but also acknowledge the 

importance of context in these 

responses. For example, Nowacek et al., 

2004 reported the behavior of five out of 

six North Atlantic right whales was 

disrupted at RLs of only 133–148 dB re 

1 mPa (returning to normal behavior 

within minutes) when exposed to an 

alert signal. However, the authors also 

reported that none of the whales 

responded to noise from transiting 

vessels or playbacks of ship noise even 

though the RLs were at least as strong, 

and contained similar frequencies, to 

those of the alert signal. The authors 

state that a possible explanation for 

whales responded to the alert signal and 

did not respond to vessel noise is due 

to the whales having been habituated to 

vessel noise, while the alert signal was 

a novel sound. In addition, the authors 

noted differences between the 

characteristics of the vessel noise and 

alert signal which may also have played 

a part in the differences in responses to 

the two noise types. Therefore, it was 

concluded that the signal itself, as 

opposed to the RL, was responsible for 

the response. DeRuiter et al. (2012) also 

indicate that variability of responses to 

acoustic stimuli depends not only on 

the species receiving the sound and the 

sound source, but also on the social, 

behavioral, or environmental contexts of 

exposure. Finally, Gong et al. (2014) 

highlighted that behavioral responses 

depend on many contextual factors, 

including range to source, RL above 

background noise, novelty of the signal, 

and differences in behavioral state. 

Similarly, Kastelein et al., 2015 (cited in 

the comment) examined behavioral 

responses of a harbor porpoise to sonar 

signals in a quiet pool, but stated 

behavioral responses of harbor 

porpoises at sea would vary with 

context such as social situation, sound 

propagation, and background noise 

levels. 

NMFS uses 160 dB (rms) as the 

exposure level for estimating Level B 

harassment takes and is currently 

considered the best available science, 

while acknowledging that the 160 db 

rms step-function approach is a 

simplistic approach. However, there 

appears to be a misconception regarding 

the concept of the 160 dB threshold. 

While it is correct that in practice it 

works as a step-function, i.e., animals 

exposed to received levels above the 

threshold are considered to be ‘‘taken’’ 

and those exposed to levels below the 

threshold are not, it is in fact intended 

as a sort of mid-point of likely 

behavioral responses (which are 

extremely complex depending on many 

factors including species, noise source, 

individual experience, and behavioral 

context). What this means is that, 

conceptually, the function recognizes 

that some animals exposed to levels 

below the threshold will in fact react in 

ways that are appropriately considered 

take, while others that are exposed to 

levels above the threshold will not. Use 

of the 160-dB threshold allows for a 

simplistic quantitative estimate of take, 

while we can qualitatively address the 

variation in responses across different 

received levels in our discussion and 

analysis. 

Overall, we reiterate the lack of 

scientific consensus regarding what 

might criteria might be more 

appropriate. Defining sound levels that 

disrupt behavioral patterns is difficult 

because responses depend on the 

context in which the animal receives the 

sound, including an animal’s behavioral 

mode when it hears sounds (e.g., 

feeding, resting, or migrating), prior 

experience, and biological factors (e.g., 

age and sex). Other contextual factors, 

such as signal characteristics, distance 

from the source, and signal to noise 

ratio, may also help determine response 

to a given received level of sound. 

Therefore, levels at which responses 

occur are not necessarily consistent and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007; Ellison et al., 2012; Bain and 

Williams, 2006). 

There is currently no agreement on 

these complex issues, and NMFS 

followed the practice at the time of 

submission and review of this 

application in assessing the likelihood 

of disruption of behavioral patterns by 

using the 160 dB threshold. This 

threshold has remained in use in part 

because of the practical need to use a 

relatively simple threshold based on 

available information that is both 

predictable and measurable for most 

activities. We note that the seminal 

review presented by Southall et al. 

(2007) did not suggest any specific new 

criteria due to lack of convergence in 

the data. NMFS is currently evaluating 

available information towards 

development of guidance for assessing 

the effects of anthropogenic sound on 

marine mammal behavior. However, 

undertaking a process to derive 

defensible exposure-response 

relationships is complex (e.g., NMFS 

previously attempted such an approach, 

but is currently re-evaluating the 

approach based on input collected 

during peer review of NMFS (2016)). A 

recent systematic review by Gomez et 

al. (2016) was unable to derive criteria 

expressing these types of exposureresponse relationships based on 

currently available data. 

NMFS acknowledges that there may 

be methods of assessing likely 

behavioral response to acoustic stimuli 

that better capture the variation and 

context-dependency of those responses 

than the simple 160 dB step-function 

used here, there is no agreement on 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36546 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

what that method should be or how 

more complicated methods may be 

implemented by applicants. NMFS is 

committed to continuing its work in 

developing updated guidance with 

regard to acoustic thresholds, but 

pending additional consideration and 

process is reliant upon an established 

threshold that is reasonably reflective of 

available science. 

Regarding the assertion that that 

monitoring protocols prescribed for the 

EZs are under-protective, the comment 

refers to Section III.D of the comment 

letter for further discussion. The 

responses to Comments 13–18 addresses 

the recommendation for additional 

mitigation measures in Section III.D of 

the comment letter. Please refer to these 

responses for NMFS’ reasoning for why 

these additional measures are not 

warranted and why NMFS has 

determined that the monitoring 

protocols prescribes are sufficiently 

protective of marine mammals. 

Specifically, the required 500-m 

shutdown for North Atlantic right 

whales is adequate to effectively ensure 

that no takes occur for this species, 

given the large size (visibility) of the 

animals, the visual and PAM 

monitoring, and results of past reports 

regarding right whales in the area 

(please also refer to the Estimated Take 

section of this notice). 

Further, since publication of the 

notice of the proposed IHA (83 FR 

22443, May 15, 2018), NMFS received a 

sound source verification (SSV) study 

for the sound source with the largest 

Level B harassment isopleth (Applied 

Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate Boomer). 

The Level B harassment isopleth was 

modelled to be 400 m, which was 

presented in the proposed IHA. 

Preliminary analysis of the new SSV 

study indicates that the actual Level B 

harassment isopleth for this source is no 

larger than 100 m (and may be 

significantly smaller), which means that 

the associated area ensonified above the 

Level B harassment zone is at least 94% 

smaller as compared to that associated 

with the 400-m isopleth and discussed 

in the proposed notice. This new 

information further strengthens the 

NMFS’ determination that the required 

500-m shut down for North Atlantic 

right whales will successfully avoid take 

of this species. 

Comment 20: The NGOs 

recommended that NMFS encourage 

offshore wind developers to partner 

with scientists to collect data that would 

increase the understanding of the 

effectiveness of night vision and infrared technologies off Rhode Island, 

Massachusetts, and the broader region, 

with a view towards greater reliance on 

these technologies to commence surveys 

during nighttime hours in the future. 

NMFS Response: NMFS agrees with 

the NGOs that improved data on relative 

effectiveness of night vision and infrared technologies would be beneficial 

and could help to inform future efforts 

at detection of marine mammals during 

nighttime activities. The commenters 

have not provided us with any specific 

recommendations to evaluate beyond a 

broad recommendation. However, we 

agree that coordination and 

communication between offshore wind 

developers and researchers on 

effectiveness of night vision and infrared technologies should be encouraged 

to the extent possible. NMFS also notes 

that a requirement for the final report 

submitted to NMFS to include an 

assessment of the effectiveness of night 

vision equipment used during nighttime 

surveys, including comparisons of 

relative effectiveness among the 

different types of night vision 

equipment used, is included in the IHA. 

The IHA issued in 2016 (81 FR 56589, 

August 22, 2016) also included this 

requirement, so information gained from 

this IHA furthers this commitment. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

Sections 3 and 4 of Bay State Wind’s 

IHA application summarize available 

information regarding the status and 

trends, distribution and habitat 

preferences, and behavior and life 

history of the potentially affected 

species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR; http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/ 

species.htm) and more general 

information about these species (e.g., 

physical and behavioral descriptions) 

may be found on NMFS’ website (http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ 

mammals/). 

Table 1 lists all marine mammal 

species with expected occurrence in the 

Northwest Atlantic Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS) and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) as well as potential biological 

removal (PBR), where known. For 

taxonomy, we follow the Committee on 

Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprise that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. Atlantic Ocean SARs (e.g., 

Hayes et al., 2017). All values presented 

in Table 1 are the most recent available 

at the time of publication and are 

available in the 2016 SARs (Hayes et al., 

2017) and draft 2017 SARs (available 

online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

sars/draft.htm). 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE WATERS OF SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND

Common name Scientific name ESA/MMPA status 1 Stock abundance 

(CV; Nmin) 2 Stock PBR Annual M/SI3 

Toothed Whales (Odontoceti) 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus ... N/A ........................... 48,819 (0.61; 30,403) ....... W. North Atlantic .............. 304 ........... 74. 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ..... Stenella frontalis ............... N/A ........................... 44,715 (0.43; 31,610) ....... W. North Atlantic .............. 316 ........... 0. 

Bottlenose dolphin ............. Tursiops truncatus ............ Northern coastal 

stock is Strategic.

11,548 (0.36; 8,620) ......... W. North Atlantic, Northern Migratory Coastal.86 ............. 1– 

7.5. 

Clymene dolphin ............... Stenella clymene .............. N/A ........................... Unknown ........................... W. North Atlantic .............. Unknown .. 0. 

Fraser’s dolphin ................. Lagenodelphis hosei ......... N/A ........................... Unknown ........................... W. North Atlantic .............. Unknown .. 0. 

Pan-tropical spotted dolphin.Stenella attenuata ............. N/A ........................... 3,333 (0.91; 1,733) ........... W. North Atlantic .............. 17 ............. 0. 

Risso’s dolphin .................. Grampus griseus .............. N/A ........................... 18,250 (0.46; 12,619) ....... W. North Atlantic .............. 126 ........... 53.6. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36547 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE WATERS OF SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND—Continued 

Common name Scientific name ESA/MMPA status 1 Stock abundance 

(CV; Nmin) 2 Stock PBR Annual 

M/SI3 

Rough-toothed dolphin ...... Steno bredanensis ............ N/A ........................... 271 (1.0; 134) ................... W. North Atlantic .............. 1.3 ............ 0. 

Short-beaked common dolphin.Delphinus delphis ............. N/A ........................... 70,184 (0.28; 55,690) ....... W. North Atlantic .............. 557 ........... 409. 

Striped dolphin .................. Stenella coeruleoalba ....... N/A ........................... 54,807 (0.3; 42,804) ......... W. North Atlantic .............. 428 ........... 0. 

Spinner dolphin ................. Stenella longirostris .......... N/A ........................... Unknown ........................... W. North Atlantic .............. Unknown .. 0. 

White-beaked dolphin ....... Lagenorhynchus albirostris N/A ........................... 2,003 (0.94; 1,023) ........... W. North Atlantic .............. 10 ............. 0. 

Harbor porpoise ................ Phocoena phocoena ......... N/A ........................... 79,833 (0.32; 61,415) ....... Gulf of Maine/Bay of 

Fundy.

706 ........... 437. 

Killer whale ........................ Orcinus orca ..................... N/A ........................... Unknown ........................... W. North Atlantic .............. Unknown .. 0.

Pygmy killer whale ............ Feresa attenuata .............. N/A ........................... Unknown ........................... W. North Atlantic .............. Unknown .. 0. 

False killer whale .............. Pseudorca crassidens ...... Strategic ................... 442 (1.06; 212) ................. W. North Atlantic .............. 2.1 ............ Unknown. 

Long-finned pilot whale ..... Globicephala melas .......... N/A ........................... 5,636 (0.63; 3,464) ........... W. North Atlantic .............. 35 ............. 38. 

Short-finned pilot whale .... Globicephala 

macrorhynchus.

N/A ........................... 21,515 (0.37; 15,913) ....... W. North Atlantic .............. 159 ........... 192. 

Sperm whale ..................... Physeter macrocephalus .. Endangered ............. 2,288 (0.28; 1,815) ........... North Atlantic .................... 3.6 ............ 0.8. 

Pigmy sperm whale ........... Kogia breviceps ................ N/A ........................... 3,785 4 (0.47; 2,598) ......... W. North Atlantic .............. 21 ............. 3.5. 

Dwarf sperm whale ........... Kogia sima ........................ N/A ........................... 3,785 4 (0.47; 2,598) ......... W. North Atlantic .............. 21 ............. 3.5. 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... Ziphius cavirostris ............. N/A ........................... 6,532 (0.32; 5,021) ........... W. North Atlantic .............. 50 ............. 0.4. 

Blainville’s beaked whale .. Mesoplodon densirostris ... N/A ........................... 7,092 5 (0.54; 4,632) ......... W. North Atlantic .............. 46 ............. 0.2. 

Gervais’ beaked whale ...... Mesoplodon europaeus .... N/A ........................... 7,092 5 (0.54; 4,632) ......... W. North Atlantic .............. 46 ............. 0. 

True’s beaked whale ......... Mesoplodon mirus ............ N/A ........................... 7,092 5 (0.54; 4,632) ......... W. North Atlantic .............. 46 ............. 0. 

Sowerby’s beaked whale .. Mesoplodon bidens .......... N/A ........................... 7,092 5 (0.54; 4,632) ......... W. North Atlantic .............. 46 ............. 0. 

Northern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon ampullatus .... N/A ........................... Unknown ........................... W. North Atlantic .............. Unknown .. 0. 

Melon-headed whale ......... Peponocephala electra ..... N/A ........................... Unknown ........................... W. North Atlantic .............. Unknown .. 0. 

Baleen Whales (Mysticeti) 

Minke whale ...................... Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata.

N/A ........................... 2,591 (0.81; 1,425) ........... Canadian East Coast ....... 14 ............. 8.25. 

Blue whale ......................... Balaenoptera musculus .... Endangered ............. Unknown (Unknown; 440) W. North Atlantic .............. 0.9 ............ Unknown. 

Fin whale ........................... Balaenoptera physalus ..... Endangered ............. 1,618 (0.33; 1,234) ........... W. North Atlantic .............. 2.5 ............ 3.8. 

Humpback whale ............... Megaptera novaeangliae .. N/A ........................... 823 (0; 823) ...................... Gulf of Maine .................... 13 ............. 9.05. 

North Atlantic right whale .. Eubalaena glacialis ........... Endangered ............. 440 (0; 440) ...................... W. North Atlantic .............. 1 ............... 5.66. 

Sei whale ........................... Balaenoptera borealis ....... Endangered ............. 357 (0.52; 236) ................. Nova Scotia ...................... 0.5 ............ 0.8. 

Earless Seals (Phocidae) 

Gray seals ......................... Halichoerus grypus ........... N/A ........................... 424,300 (0.16; 371,444) ... W. North Atlantic .............. Unknown .. 4,937. 

Harbor seals ...................... Phoca vitulina ................... N/A ........................... 75,834 (0.15; 66,884) ....... W. North Atlantic .............. 2,006 ........ 389. 

Hooded seals .................... Cystophora cristata ........... N/A ........................... Unknown ........................... W. North Atlantic .............. Unknown .. Unknown. 

Harp seal ........................... Phoca groenlandica .......... N/A ........................... 8,300,000 (Unknown) ....... W. North Atlantic .............. Unknown .. Unknown. 

Note: Species information in bold italics are species expected to be taken and are authorized for take in our IHA; others are not expected or authorized to be 

taken. 1A strategic stock is defined as any marine mammal stock: (1) For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal (PBR) 

level; (2) which is declining and likely to be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); or (3) which is listed as threatened or endangered under 

the ESA or as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 2 NMFS stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars. CV = coefficient of variarion; Nmin = minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury (M/SI) from all sources combined (e.g., commercial 

fisheries, ship strike, etc.). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4This estimate may include both the dwarf and pygmy sperm whales. 

5This estimate includes Gervais’ and Blainville’s beaked whales and undifferentiated Mesoplodon spp. beaked whales. 

Sources: Hayes et al., 2016, Waring et al., 2015; Waring et al., 2013; Waring et al., 2011; Warring et al., 2010; RI SAMP, 2011; Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 

2009; NMFS, 2012. 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the survey area are included in 

Table 1. However, the proposed IHA (83 

FR 22443, May 15, 2018) noted that the 

temporal and/or spatial occurrence of 

all but 10 species listed in Table 1 is 

such that take of these species is not 

expected to occur, and they were not 

discussed further. Take of the remaining 

species was not anticipated either 

because they have very low densities in 

the project area, are known to occur 

further offshore than the project area, or 

are considered very unlikely to occur in 

the project area during the survey due 

to the species’ seasonal occurrence in 

the area. However, based on review of 

public comments received and 

consideration of updated sighting 

information, takes of Risso’s dolphins, 

Atlantic spotted dolphins, and longfinned pilot whales have been added 

even though they were not included in 

the proposed IHA. This brings the total 

to 13 species/stocks of marine mammals 

authorized for incidental take in this 

IHA. 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by Bay State Wind’s 

survey, including brief introductions to 

the species and relevant stocks as well 

as available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

were provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 

22443; May 15, 2018); since that time, 

we are not aware of any changes in the 

status of these species and stocks; 

therefore, detailed descriptions are not 

repeated here. As Risso’s dolphins, 

Atlantic spotted dolphins, and longfinned pilot whales were not included 

in the proposed IHA, descriptions of 

these species are included below. Please 

refer to the Federal Register notice for 

the proposed IHA for descriptions of 

other species. Please also refer to NMFS’ 

website (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

species-directory) for generalized 

species accounts. 

Risso’s Dolphin 

Risso’s dolphin is typically an 

offshore dolphin that is uncommon to 

see inshore (Reeves et al., 2002). Risso’s 

dolphin prefers temperate to tropical 

waters along the continental shelf edge 

and can range from Cape Hatteras to 

Georges Bank from spring through fall, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36548 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

and throughout the mid-Atlantic Bight 

out to oceanic waters during winter 

(Payne et al., 1984). Risso’s dolphins are 

usually seen in groups of 12 to 40, but 

loose aggregations of 100 to 200 or more 

are seen occasionally (Reeves et al., 

2002). 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 

Atlantic spotted dolphins are found in 

tropical and warm temperate waters 

ranging from southern New England, 

south to Gulf of Mexico and the 

Caribbean to Venezuela (Waring et al., 

2014). This stock regularly occurs in 

continental shelf waters south of Cape 

Hatteras and in continental shelf edge 

and continental slope waters north of 

this region (Waring et al., 2014). There 

are two forms of this species, with the 

larger ecotype inhabiting the continental 

shelf and usually found inside or near 

the 200 m isobaths (Waring et al., 2014). 

Atlantic spotted dolphins are not listed 

under the ESA and the stock is not 

considered depleted or strategic under 

the MMPA. 

Long-Finned Pilot Whale 

Long-finned pilot whales are found 

from North Carolina and north to 

Iceland, Greenland and the Barents Sea 

(Waring et al., 2016). In U.S. Atlantic 

waters the species is distributed 

principally along the continental shelf 

edge off the northeastern U.S. coast in 

winter and early spring and in late 

spring, pilot whales move onto Georges 

Bank and into the Gulf of Maine and 

more northern waters and remain in 

these areas through late autumn (Waring 

et al., 2016). Long-finned pilot whales 

are not listed under the ESA. The 

Western North Atlantic stock is 

considered strategic under the MMPA. 

Information concerning marine 

mammal hearing, including marine 

mammal functional hearing groups, was 

provided in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (83 FR 22443; May 

15, 2018), and that information is not 

repeated here; please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for this 

information. For further information 

about marine mammal functional 

hearing groups and associated frequency 

ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a 

review of available information. 

Fourteen marine mammal species 

(twelve cetacean and two pinniped 

(both phocid) species) have the 

potential to co-occur with the survey 

activities. Of the cetacean species that 

may be present, four are classified as 

low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., North 

Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, 

fin whale, and minke whale), six are 

classified as mid-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., sperm whale, bottlenose dolphin, 

common dolphin. Atlantic white sided 

dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, and longfinned pilot whale), and one is 

classified as a high-frequency cetacean 

(i.e., harbor porpoise). 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 

Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

Bay State Wind’s survey activities have 

the potential to result in take of marine 

mammals by harassment in the vicinity 

of the survey area. The Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 

22443; May 15, 2018) included a 

discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and their habitat, and that 

information is not repeated here. No 

instances of serious injury or mortality 

are expected as a result of the planned 

activities. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which 

informed both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, the MMPA defines 

‘‘harassment’’ as any act of pursuit, 

torment, or annoyance which (i) has the 

potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild (Level 

A harassment); or (ii) has the potential 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, 

including, but not limited to, migration, 

breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering (Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment, as use of the HRG 

equipment (i.e., USBL&GAPS systems, 

sub-bottom profilers, sparkers, and 

boomers) has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. However, 

the potential for auditory injury (Level 

A harassment), primarily for high 

frequency species (i.e., harbor porpoise) 

was discussed in the proposed IHA (83 

FR 22443, May 15, 2018). While it was 

noted that auditory injury was unlikely, 

NMFS proposed to authorize a small 

number of takes by Level A harassment 

for harbor porpoises because the 

applicant requested this out of an 

abundance of caution. However, after 

further discussion and consideration of 

the public comments received, the 

applicant has withdrawn the request for 

authorization for Level A harassment 

takes and none is being authorized in 

this IHA. Due to the physical properties 

of the sound sources and the nature of 

the activities in combination with the 

hearing capabilities of marine mammals 

in the Study Area, Level A harassment 

is so unlikely as to be discountable. 

Project activities that have the 

potential to cause Level B harassment 

include underwater noise from 

operation of the HRG survey sub-bottom 

profilers, boomers, sparkers, and 

equipment positioning systems. No take 

by Level A harassment (including injury 

or serious injury), or mortality is 

authorized. NMFS does not anticipate 

take resulting from the movement of 

vessels associated with construction 

because there will be a limited number 

of vessels moving at slow speeds and 

the BOEM lease agreement requires 

measures to ensure vessel strike 

avoidance. 

As described below, we estimate take 

by estimating: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) the number of days of activities. 

Below we describe these components in 

more detail and present the take 

estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, and behavioral context) 

and can be difficult to predict (Southall 

et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). Based 

on what the available science indicates 

and the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36549 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 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. Bay State 

Wind’s proposed activity includes the 

use of intermittent impulsive (HRG 

Equipment) sources, and therefore the 

160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) threshold is 

applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 

2016) identifies dual criteria to assess 

auditory injury (Level A harassment) to 

five different marine mammal groups 

(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result 

of exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 2 below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2016 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ 

guidelines.htm. 

TABLE 2—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

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, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

When NMFS’ Acoustic Technical 

Guidance (2016) was published, in 

recognition of the fact that ensonified 

area/volume could be more technically 

challenging to predict because of the 

duration component of the new 

thresholds, NMFS developed an 

optional User Spreadsheet that includes 

tools to help predict takes. We note that 

because of some of the assumptions 

included in the methods used for these 

tools, we anticipate that isopleths 

produced are typically going to be 

overestimates of some degree, which 

will result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A harassment 

takes. However, these tools offer the best 

way to predict appropriate isopleths 

when more sophisticated 3D modeling 

methods are not available, and NMFS 

continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For mobile sources 

such as the HRG survey equipment 

proposed for use in Bay State Wind’s 

activity, the User Spreadsheet predicts 

the closest distance at which a 

stationary animal would not incur PTS 

if the sound source traveled by the 

animal in a straight line at a constant 

speed. Inputs used in the User 

Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths 

for the various HRG equipment types 

are reported in Appendix A of Bay State 

Wind’s IHA application, and distances 

to the acoustic exposure criteria 

discussed above are shown in Tables 3 

and 4. 

TABLE 3—DISTANCES TO THRESHOLDS FOR LEVEL A HARASSMENT (PTS ONSET) 

Generalized hearing group Marine mammal level a harassment 

(PTS Onset) Distance (m) 

USBL/GAPS Positioning Systems 1 *

LF cetaceans .............................................................................. 219 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

183 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

— 

— 

MF cetaceans ............................................................................. 230 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

185 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

— 

— 

HF cetaceans .............................................................................. 202 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

155 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

— 

— 

Phocid pinnipeds ......................................................................... 218 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

185 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

— 

— 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36550 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 3—DISTANCES TO THRESHOLDS FOR LEVEL A HARASSMENT (PTS ONSET)—Continued 

Generalized hearing group Marine mammal level a harassment 

(PTS Onset) Distance (m) 

Sub-bottom Profiler 1

LF cetaceans .............................................................................. 219 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

183 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

— 

— 

MF cetaceans ............................................................................. 230 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

185 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

— 

— 

HF cetaceans .............................................................................. 202 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

155 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

— 

— 

Phocid pinnipeds ......................................................................... 218 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

185 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

— 

— 

Innomar SES–2000 Medium Sub-Bottom Profiler** 

LF cetaceans .............................................................................. 199 dB SELcum .......................................................................... N/A 

MF cetaceans ............................................................................. 198 dB SELcum .......................................................................... — 

HF cetaceans .............................................................................. 173 dB SELcum .......................................................................... < 5 

Phocid pinnipeds ......................................................................... 201 dB SELcum .......................................................................... N/A 

Sparker 1

LF cetaceans .............................................................................. 219 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

183 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

— 

— 

MF cetaceans ............................................................................. 230 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

185 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

— 

— 

HF cetaceans .............................................................................. 202 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

155 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

< 3 

— 

Phocid pinnipeds ......................................................................... 218 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

185 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

— 

— 

Boomer 

LF cetaceans .............................................................................. 219 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

183 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

< 2 

<15 

MF cetaceans ............................................................................. 230 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

185 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

— 

— 

HF cetaceans .............................................................................. 202 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

155 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

< 10 

<1 

Phocid pinnipeds ......................................................................... 218 dBpeak/ ..................................................................................

185 dB SELcum ..........................................................................

< 2 

<1 

Notes: 

Peak SPL criterion is unweighted, whereas the cumulative SEL criterion is M-weighted for the given marine mammal hearing group;

Calculated sound levels and results are based on NMFS Acoustic Technical Guidance companion User Spreadsheet except as indicated (refer 

to Appendix A of the IHA application, which includes all spreadsheets); 1 Indicates distances for this equipment type have been field verified; 

— Indicates not expected 

* Indicates that while calculated with the incorrect threshold (impulsive instead of non-impulsive), due to the fact that impulsive threshold would 

be larger and still not anticipated to be measureable, this was not recalculated here. 

** Indicates a change from the proposed IHA. In proposed IHA, these distances were calculated with the impulsive threshold, which resulted in 

larger isopleths. The values presented her are calculated with corrected, non-impulsive, threshold. 

TABLE 4—DISTANCES TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS (160 dBRMS 90%) 

Survey equipment 

Marine mammal level B 

harassment 

160 dBRMS re 1 μPa 

(m) 

USBL & GAPS Positioning Systems 

Sonardyne Ranger 2 USBL HPT 5/7000 .................................................................................................................. 6 

Sonardyne Ranger 2 USBL HPT 3000 ..................................................................................................................... 1 

Easytrak Nexus 2 USBL ............................................................................................................................................ 2 

IxSea GAPS System ................................................................................................................................................. 1 

Sidescan Sonar 

EdgeTech 4200 dual frequency Side Scan Sonar .................................................................................................... N/A 

Multibeam Sonar 

R2 Sonic 2024 Multibeam Echosounder ................................................................................................................... N/A 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36551 

TABLE 4—DISTANCES TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS (160 dBRMS 90%)—Continued 

Survey equipment 

Marine mammal level B 

harassment 

160 dBRMS re 1 μPa 

(m) 

Kongsberg EM2040C Dual Band Head .................................................................................................................... N/A 

Shallow Sub-Bottom Profilers 

Edgetech 3200 XS 216 ............................................................................................................................................. 9 

Innomar SES–2000 Sub Bottom Profiler ................................................................................................................... 1 135 

Sparkers 

GeoMarine Geo-Source 400tip .................................................................................................................................. 54 

Boomers 

Applied Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate Boomer ....................................................................................................... 1 400 

Notes: 

1These sources modeled with RAM/BELLHOP 

The Level B harassment criterion is unweighted. 

N/A indicates the operating frequencies are above all relevant marine mammal hearing thresholds and these systems were not directly assessed in this IHA. 

Bay State Wind completed an 

underwater noise monitoring program 

for field verification at the project site 

prior to commencement of the HRG 

survey that took place in 2016. One of 

the main objectives of this program was 

to determine the apparent sound source 

levels of HRG activities. Results from 

field verification studies during 

previously authorized activities were 

used where applicable and 

manufacturer source levels were 

adjusted to reflect the field verified 

levels. However, not all equipment 

proposed for use in the 2018 season was 

used in the 2016 activities. As no field 

data currently exists for the Innomar 

sub-bottom profiler, acoustic modeling 

was completed using a version of the 

U.S. Naval Research Laboratory’s Rangedependent Acoustic Model (RAM) and 

BELLHOP Gaussian beam ray-trace 

propagation model (Porter and Liu 

1994). The proposed IHA notice noted 

that this was done for the Applied 

Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate Boomer 

as well, but since publication of that 

notice (83 FR 22443, May 15, 2018), 

NMFS has received a sound source 

verification study which calculated the 

Level B harassment isopleth for this 

source. Preliminary analysis indicates 

that actual distance to the Level B 

harassment threshold is no more than 

100 m, and could be significantly 

smaller, which would result in no less 

than a 94% decrease in the size of the 

associated area ensonified above the 

Level B harassment threshold for this 

source, as compared to the 400-m 

isopleth. However, because review of 

the SSV report has not been completed 

and because the report was not available 

until after the proposed IHA was 

noticed to the public, the take estimates 

have not been modified to reflect this 

new information, which would result in 

a significant reduction. 

Further, calculations of the ensonified 

area are conservative due to the 

directionality of the sound sources. For 

the various HRG transducers Bay State 

Wind proposes to use for these 

activities, the beamwidth varies from 

200° (almost omnidirectional) to 1°. The 

modeled directional sound levels were 

then used as the input for the acoustic 

propagation models, which do not take 

the directionality of the source into 

account. Therefore, the volume of area 

affected would be much lower than 

modeled in cases with narrow 

beamwidths such as the Innomar SES– 

2000 sub-bottom profiler, which has a 1° 

beamwidth. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

The data used as the basis for 

estimating species density (‘‘D’’) for the 

Study Area are derived from data 

provided by Duke University’s Marine 

Geospatial Ecology Lab and the Marine 

Life Data and Analysis Team. This data 

set is a compilation of the best available 

marine mammal data (1994–2014) and 

was prepared in a collaboration between 

Duke University, Northeast Regional 

Planning Body, University of Carolina, 

the Virginia Aquarium and Marine 

Science Center, and NOAA (Roberts et 

al., 2016; MDAT 2016). 

Northeast Navy Operations Area 

(OPAREA) Density Estimates (DoN, 

2007) were used in support for 

estimating take for seals, which 

represents the only available 

comprehensive data for seal abundance. 

Navy Oparea Density Estimates (NODEs) 

utilized vessel-based and aerial survey 

data collected by NMFS from 1998– 

2005 during broad-scale abundance 

studies. Modeling methodology is 

detailed in DoN (2007). Therefore, for 

the purposes of the take calculations, 

NODEs Density Estimates (DoN, 2007) 

as reported for the summer and fall 

seasons were used to estimate harbor 

seal and gray seal densities. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce an initial quantitative take 

estimate. In order to estimate the 

number of marine mammals predicted 

to be exposed to sound levels that 

would result in harassment, radial 

distances to predicted isopleths 

corresponding to harassment thresholds 

are calculated, as described above. 

Those distances are then used to 

calculate the area(s) around the HRG 

survey equipment predicted to be 

ensonified to sound levels that exceed 

harassment thresholds. The area 

estimated to be ensonified to relevant 

thresholds in a single day of the survey 

is then calculated, based on areas 

predicted to be ensonified around the 

HRG survey equipment and the 

estimated trackline distance traveled per 

day by the survey vessel. 

The estimated distance of the daily 

vessel trackline was determined using 

the estimated average speed of the 

vessel and the 24-hour or daylight-only 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36552 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

operational period within each of the 

corresponding survey segments. All 

noise producing survey equipment are 

assumed to be operating concurrently 

and the entire duration of the survey. 

Using the distance of 400 m (1,312 ft) 

to the Level B harassment isopleth and 

the estimated daily vessel track of 

approximately 177.8 km (110.5 miles) 

for 24-hour operations and 43 km (26.7 

miles) for daylight-only operations, 

areas of ensonification (zone of 

influence, or ZOI) were calculated and 

used as a basis for calculating takes of 

marine mammals. The ZOI is based on 

the worst case (since it assumes the 

equipment with the larger ZOI will be 

operating all the time), and are 

presented in Table 5. Take calculations 

were based on the highest seasonal 

species density as derived from Duke 

University density data (Roberts et al., 

2016) for cetaceans and seasonal 

OPAREA density estimates (DoN, 2007) 

for pinnipeds. The resulting take 

calculations and number of authorized 

takes (rounded to the nearest whole 

number) are presented in Table 6. 

TABLE 5—SURVEY SEGMENT DISTANCES AND ZONES OF INFLUENCE

Survey 

segment 

Total 

track line 

(km) 

Number active 

survey days 

Estimated 

distance/ 

day 

(km) 

Calculated 

level B 

harassment 

ZOI 

(km 2) 

Lot 3 (WSG/OSS Location-Offshore) .............................................................. 2,845 60 177.8 142.74 

Lot 1 (nearshore) ............................................................................................. 1,091 18 43.0 34.88 

Lot 2 (offshore) ................................................................................................ 563 15 177.8 142.74 

Lot 4 (offshore) ................................................................................................ 2,253 37 177.8 142.74 

Lot 5 (nearshore) ............................................................................................. 108 5 43.0 34.88 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED B HARASSMENT TAKES FOR HRG SURVEY ACTIVITIES

Species 

Lot 3 

(WSG/OSS 

location-offshore) 

Lot 2 

(Somerset 

export-offshore) 

Lot 1 

(Somerset 

export—nearshore) 

Lot 4 

(Falmouth 

export-offshore) 

Lot 5 

(Falmouth 

export—nearshore) 

Totals 

Highest 

Seasonal 

Avg. 

Density a

(Number/ 

100 

km2) 

Calc. 

take 

Highest 

Seasonal 

Avg. 

Density a

(Number/ 

100 

km2) 

Calc. 

take 

Highest 

Seasonal 

Avg. 

Density a

(Number/ 

100 

km2) 

Calc. 

take 

Highest 

Seasonal 

Avg. 

Density a

(Number/ 

100 

km2) 

Calc. 

take 

Highest 

Seasonal 

Avg. 

Density a

(Number/ 

100 

km2) 

Calc. 

take 

Authorized 

take 

% of 

population 

North Atlantic right 

whale * ................. 0.96 82.22 

(0.00) 

1.25 26.76 

(0.00) 

................ .............. 0.79 41.72 

(0.00) 

................ .............. b 0.00 0.00 

Humpback whale ..... 0.15 12.44 0.12 2.46 ................ .............. 0.04 2.30 ................ .............. 17 2.07 

Fin whale ................. 0.27 23.24 0.19 4.15 ................ .............. 0.07 3.64 ................ .............. 31 1.92 

Sei whale ................. 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.38 ................ .............. 0.01 0.00 ................ .............. 0.00 0.00 

Sperm whale ........... 0.01 0.71 0.01 0.15 ................ .............. 0.00 0.22 ................ .............. c 5 0.22 

Minke whale ............ 0.08 7.00 0.05 1.14 ................ .............. 0.03 1.82 ................ .............. d 20 0.77 

Bottlenose dolphin ... 1.72 147.34 0.46 9.85 ................ .............. 9.00 475.06 ................ .............. c 1,000 8.66 

Risso’s dolphin e ...... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ................ .............. 0.00 0.00 ................ .............. 30 0.16 

Atlantic spotted dolphin e .................... 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.29 ................ .............. 0.46 0.00 ................ .............. 50 0.11 

Long-finned pilot 

whale e ................. 0.26 0.00 0.13 2.88 ................ .............. 0.01 0.00 ................ .............. 3 0.05 

Common dolphin ..... 6.26 535.71 2.74 58.67 ................ .............. 0.46 24.34 ................ .............. d 2,000 2.85 

Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin ................. 1.90 162.75 1.07 22.98 ................ .............. 0.21 10.85 ................ .............. c 500 1.02 

Harbor porpoise ...... 6.67 677.69 4.89 124.17 ................ .............. 1.11 69.52 ................ .............. 871 1.09 

Harbor seal f ............ 9.74 834.41 9.74 208.60 9.74 61.15 9.74 514.55 9.74 16.99 1,636 2.16 

Gray seal f ............... 14.12 1,209.26 14.12 302.32 14.12 88.65 14.12 745.71 14.12 24.62 2,371 0.56 

Notes: 

* Calculated takes based on the overly conservative 400 m Level B harassment isopleth originally reported. Since publication of the proposed IHA, a sound source 

verification has been received, which indicates that the Level B harassment zone would be greatly reduced. a Density values from Duke University (Roberts et al., 2016) except for pinnipeds bExclusion zone exceeds Level B harassment isopleth; take adjusted to 0 given mitigation to prevent take 

cValue not based on calculated takes, but estimates from applicant based on recent sightings information 

dAdjusted to account for actual take sighting data in the Survey Area to date (Smultea Environmental Sciences, 2016; Gardline, 2016) eThe number of authorized takes (Level B harassment only) for these species has been increased from the estimated take to mean group size. Source for longfinned pilot whale group size estimate is: Augusto et al. (2017). Source for Atlantic spotted dolphin group size estimate is: Jefferson et al. (2008). Source for Risso’s 

dolphin group size estimate is: Baird and Stacey (1991). f Density from NODEs (DoN, 2007) 

As noted in Table 6, requested take 

estimates were adjusted to account for 

typical group size and were also 

adjusted to account for recent sightings 

data (Smultea Environmental Sciences, 

2016; Gardline, 2016) for certain 

species. In addition, requested Level A 

harassment take numbers for harbor 

porpoise were included in the proposed 

IHA Federal Register notice (83 FR 

22443, May 15, 2018). In that notice, 

NMFS stated that due to a variety of 

reasons, Level A harassment take was 

not a likely occurrence (short pulse 

duration and highly directional sound 

pulse transmission of these mobile 

sources in addition to the propensity of 

harbor porpoises to avoid such sound 

sources and the unlikely probability that 

they would remain within the narrow 

beam long enough to accumulate energy 

to experience PTS), but a small number 

of Level A harassment take was 

proposed at the request of Bay State 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36553 

Wind out of an abundance of caution. 

However, since publication of the 

proposed IHA, and consideration of 

public comments received, NMFS has 

determined that Level A harassment 

take is so unlikely as to be discountable. 

Bay State Wind has agreed and 

withdrew the request for authorization 

of Level A harassment take. Therefore, 

no Level A harassment take for harbor 

porpoises has been authorized. The 

requested take numbers remain adjusted 

for north Atlantic right whales due to 

the implementation of a 500 m 

shutdown zone, which is greater than 

the conservatively modeled 400 m Level 

B behavioral harassment zone, to avoid 

Level B harassment takes of this species 

consistent with the Proposed IHA. As 

discussed previously, preliminary 

analysis of a sound source verification 

study of the Triple Plate Boomer 

indicates that the Level B harassment 

isopleth is actually no more than 100 m, 

which further supports our 

determination that implementation of 

the 500 m shutdown zone for North 

Atlantic right whales would 

successfully avoid any take for this 

species. Finally, the proposed IHA did 

not include proposed take of Risso’s 

dolphins, Atlantic spotted dolphins, or 

long-finned pilot whales. After 

consideration of public comments 

received as well as review of monitoring 

reports and IHAs for other activities in 

the same general area, NMFS has added 

authorized Level B harassment takes of 

these species. 

Bay State Wind’s calculations do not 

take into account whether a single 

animal is harassed multiple times or 

whether each exposure is a different 

animal. Therefore, the numbers in 

Tables 6 are the maximum number of 

animals that may be harassed during the 

HRG surveys (i.e., Bay State Wind 

assumes that each exposure event is a 

different animal). With the exception of 

north Atlantic right whales, these 

estimates do not account for prescribed 

mitigation measures that Bay State 

Wind would implement during the 

specified activities and the fact that 

other mitigation measures may be 

imposed as part of other agreements that 

Bay State Wind must adhere to, such as 

their lease agreement with BOEM. 

No take of North Atlantic right whale 

is requested, nor is any take of this 

species authorized. The conservatively 

modeled Level B behavioral harassment 

(400 m) is well within the 500 m 

mitigation shut down zone for this 

species and, based on the described 

monitoring measures, information from 

previous monitoring reports, and in 

consideration of the size and visibility 

of this species, and consideration of a 

recently-received sound source 

verification study for the Applied 

Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate Boomer 

(which indicates the Level B harassment 

zone is substantially less than modelled) 

it is reasonable to expect that North 

Atlantic right whales will be able to be 

observed such that shut down would 

occur well beyond the threshold for 

potential behavioral harassment. 

There are several reasons why the 

400-m Level B harassment threshold is 

considered conservative. First, 

calculation of the ensonified area does 

not take directionality of the sound 

source into account and this results in 

a conservative estimate for the ZOI. The 

Applied Acoustics S-Boom triple plate 

boomer resulted in the largest isopleth 

for Level B harassment, so the ZOI was 

calculated using this 400 m isopleth 

and, as described above, this equipment 

has a beamwidth of 25°–35° (is not 

omnidirectional) so the actual 

ensonified volume would be less than 

the calculated area. Further, the 

equipment with the largest radial 

distance to Level B harassment 

thresholds was used to calculate the ZOI 

under the assumption that this 

equipment would be in use for the 

entirety of the survey activities. The 

calculated takes are conservative 

because these HRG sound sources have 

very short pulse durations that are also 

not taken into account in calculations of 

take, but would lessen the potential for 

marine mammals to be exposed to the 

sound source for long enough periods to 

result in the potential for take as 

described above. Last, although the 

information has not been used to modify 

the ensonified area and inform the take 

estimates, because it has not been fully 

reviewed and verified, we note our 

recent receipt (since the proposed FRN 

for this IHA was published) of the 

results of a sound source verification 

study for the Applied Acoustics S-Boom 

Triple Plate Boomer, which suggest a 

notably smaller Level B harassment 

zone (see the Comment Response 

section for more detail). 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses (latter not 

applicable for this action). NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) and the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned); 

and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

Bay State Wind must implement the 

following mitigation measures during 

site characterization surveys utilizing 

HRG survey equipment. The mitigation 

measures outlined in this section are 

based on protocols and procedures that 

have been successfully implemented 

and resulted in no observed take of 

marine mammals for similar offshore 

projects and previously approved by 

NMFS (DONG Energy, 2016, ESS, 2013; 

Dominion, 2013 and 2014), as well as 

results of sound source verification 

(SSV) studies implemented by Bay State 

Wind during past activities in the 

proposed project area. 

Marine Mammal Exclusion and 

Monitoring Zones 

Protected species observers (PSOs) 

must monitor the following exclusion/ 

monitoring zones for the presence of 

marine mammals: 

• A 1,640 feet (ft) (500-m) exclusion 

zone for North Atlantic right whales, 

which encompasses the largest Level B 

harassment isopleth of 400 m for the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36554 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

Applied Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate 

Boomer; 

• A 328-ft (100-m) exclusion zone for 

non-delphinoid large cetacean and ESAlisted marine mammals, which is 

consistent with vessel strike avoidance 

measures stipulated in the BOEM lease; 

and 

• A 1,312-ft (400-m) Level B 

harassment monitoring zone for all 

marine mammals except for North 

Atlantic right whales, which is the 

extent of the largest Level B harassment 

isopleth for the Applied Acoustics SBoom Triple Plate Boomer. We note that 

the actual area monitored (watch zone) 

will be much larger than this and must 

include the largest area visible. All 

marine mammals observed within the 

watch zone must be reported in the 

monitoring reports, but only marine 

mammals within the Level B 

harassment zone will be counted as 

Level B harassment takes in the 

monitoring reports. 

The distances from the sound sources 

for these exclusion/monitoring zones 

are based on distances to NMFS Level 

B harassment threshold or requirements 

of the BOEM lease stipulations for 

vessel strike avoidance (discussed 

below). The representative area 

ensonified to the MMPA Level B 

harassment threshold for each of the 

pieces of HRG survey equipment 

represents the zone within which take 

of a marine mammal could occur. The 

distances to the harassment criteria 

were used to support the estimate of 

take as well as the development of the 

monitoring and/or mitigation measures. 

Radial distance to NMFS’ Level A and 

Level B harassment thresholds are 

summarized in Table 5 above. 

Visual monitoring of the established 

exclusion and monitoring zone(s) for the 

HRG surveys must be performed by 

qualified and NMFS-approved PSOs. 

Observer qualifications must include 

direct field experience on a marine 

mammal observation vessel and/or 

aerial surveys in the Atlantic Ocean/ 

Gulf of Mexico. An observer team 

comprising a minimum of four NMFSapproved PSOs and two certified PAM 

operators (PAM operators shall not 

function as PSOs), operating in shifts, 

must be stationed aboard either the 

survey vessel or a dedicated PSO-vessel. 

PSOs and PAM operators must work in 

shifts such that no one monitor must 

work more than 4 consecutive hours 

without a 2-hour break or longer than 12 

hours during any 24-hour period. 

During daylight hours the PSOs must 

rotate in shifts of 1 on and 3 off, while 

during nighttime operations PSOs must 

work in pairs. The PAM operators must 

also be on call as necessary during 

daytime operations should visual 

observations become impaired. Each 

PSO must monitor 360 degrees of the 

field of vision. 

PSOs are responsible for visually 

monitoring and identifying marine 

mammals approaching or within the 

established exclusion zone(s) during 

survey activities. It is the responsibility 

of the Lead PSO on duty to 

communicate the presence of marine 

mammals as well as to communicate 

and ensure the action(s) that are 

necessary to ensure mitigation and 

monitoring requirements are 

implemented as appropriate. PAM 

operators must communicate detected 

vocalizations to the Lead PSO on duty, 

who is then be responsible for 

implementing the necessary mitigation 

procedures. A mitigation and 

monitoring communications flow 

diagram has been included as Appendix 

A in the IHA application. 

PSOs must be equipped with 

binoculars and have the ability to 

estimate distances to marine mammals 

located in proximity to the vessel and/ 

or exclusion zone using range finders. 

Reticulated binoculars must also be 

available to PSOs for use as appropriate 

based on conditions and visibility to 

support the sighting and monitoring of 

marine species. Digital single-lens reflex 

camera equipment must be used to 

record sightings and verify species 

identification. During night operations, 

PAM (see Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

requirements below) and night-vision 

equipment in combination with infrared 

video monitoring must be used 

(Additional details and specifications of 

the night-vision devices and infrared 

video monitoring technology will be 

provided under separate cover by the 

Bay State Wind Survey Contractor once 

selected.). Position data must be 

recorded using hand-held or vessel 

global positioning system (GPS) units 

for each sighting. 

For monitoring around the ASV, a 

dual thermal/high definition (HD) 

camera must be installed on the mother 

vessel, facing forward, angled in a 

direction so as to provide a field of view 

ahead of the vessel and around the ASV. 

The ASV must be kept in sight of the 

mother vessel at all times (within 2,625 

ft (800 m)). PSOs must be able to 

monitor the real time output of the 

camera on hand-held devices. Images 

from the cameras must be captured for 

review and to assist in verifying species 

identification. A monitor must also be 

installed on the bridge displaying the 

real-time picture from the thermal/HD 

camera installed on the front of the ASV 

itself, providing a further forward field 

of view of the craft. In addition, nightvision goggles with thermal clip-ons, as 

mentioned above, and a hand-held 

spotlight must be provided such that 

PSOs can focus observations in any 

direction, around the mother vessel 

and/or the ASV. PSOs must also 

monitor the data as it is acquired by the 

ASV utilizing a real time IP radio link. 

For each 12 hour shift, an ASV 

technician must be assigned to manage 

the vessel and monitor the array of 

cameras, radars, and thermal equipment 

during their shift to ensure the vehicle 

is operating properly and to take over 

control of the vessel should the need 

arise. Additionally, there must be 2 

survey technicians per shift assigned to 

acquire the ASV survey data. 

The PSOs must begin observation of 

the exclusion zone(s) at least 30 minutes 

prior to ramp-up of HRG survey 

equipment. Use of noise-producing 

equipment must not begin until the 

exclusion zone is clear of all marine 

mammals for at least 30 minutes. 

If a marine mammal is detected 

approaching or entering the exclusion 

zones during the HRG survey, the vessel 

operator must adhere to the shutdown 

procedures described below to 

minimize noise impacts on the animals. 

At all times, the vessel operator must 

maintain a separation distance of 500 m 

from any sighted North Atlantic right 

whale as stipulated in the Vessel Strike 

Avoidance procedures described below. 

These stated requirements must be 

included in the site-specific training to 

be provided to the survey team. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

The Applicant must ensure that vessel 

operators and crew maintain a vigilant 

watch for cetaceans and pinnipeds and 

slow down or stop their vessels to avoid 

striking these species. Survey vessel 

crew members responsible for 

navigation duties must receive sitespecific training on marine mammal and 

sea turtle sighting/reporting and vessel 

strike avoidance measures. Vessel strike 

avoidance measures must include the 

following, except under extraordinary 

circumstances, when complying with 

these requirements would put the safety 

of the vessel or crew at risk: 

• All vessel operators must comply 

with 10 knot (<18.5 km per hour (km/ 

h)) speed restrictions in any DMA. In 

addition, all vessels operating from 

November 1 through July 31 must 

operate at speeds of 10 knots (<18.5 km/ 

h) or less; 

• All vessel operators must reduce 

vessel speed to 10 knots or less when 

mother/calf pairs, pods, or larger 

assemblages of non-delphinoid 

cetaceans are observed near an 

underway vessel; 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36555 

• All survey vessels must maintain a 

separation distance of 1,640 ft (500 m) 

or greater from any sighted North 

Atlantic right whale; 

• If underway, vessels must steer a 

course away from any sighted North 

Atlantic right whale at 10 knots (<18.5 

km/h) or less until the 1,640 ft (500 m) 

minimum separation distance has been 

established. If a North Atlantic right 

whale is sighted in a vessel’s path, or 

within 330 ft (100 m) to an underway 

vessel, the underway vessel must reduce 

speed and shift the engine to neutral. 

Engines shall not be engaged until the 

North Atlantic right whale has moved 

outside of the vessel’s path and beyond 

330 ft (100 m). If stationary, the vessel 

must not engage engines until the North 

Atlantic right whale has moved beyond 

330 ft (100 m); 

• All vessels must maintain a 

separation distance of 330 ft (100 m) or 

greater from any sighted non-delphinoid 

(i.e., mysticetes and sperm whales) 

cetaceans. If sighted, the vessel 

underway must reduce speed and shift 

the engine to neutral, and must not 

engage the engines until the nondelphinoid cetacean has moved outside 

of the vessel’s path and beyond 330 ft 

(100 m). If a survey vessel is stationary, 

the vessel must not engage engines until 

the non-delphinoid cetacean has moved 

out of the vessel’s path and beyond 330 

ft (100 m); 

• All underway vessels must avoid 

excessive speed or abrupt changes in 

direction to avoid injury to any sighted 

delphinoid cetacean or pinniped; and 

• All vessels must maintain a 

separation distance of 164 ft (50 m) or 

greater from any sighted pinniped. 

The training program must be 

provided to NMFS for review and 

approval prior to the start of surveys. 

Confirmation of the training and 

understanding of the requirements must 

be documented on a training course log 

sheet. Signing the log sheet certifies that 

the crew members understand and must 

comply with the necessary requirements 

throughout the survey event. 

Seasonal Operating Requirements 

Between watch shifts, members of the 

monitoring team shall consult the 

NMFS North Atlantic right whale 

reporting systems for the presence of 

North Atlantic right whales throughout 

survey operations. However, the 

proposed survey activities will occur 

outside of the seasonal management 

area (SMA) located off the coast of 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The 

proposed survey activities are also 

scheduled to occur outside of the 

seasonal mandatory speed restriction 

period for this SMA (November 1 

through April 30); however, survey 

vessels will operate at or below the 

speed restrictions due to the nature of 

the survey activities. 

Throughout all survey operations, the 

Applicant shall monitor the NMFS 

North Atlantic right whale reporting 

systems for the establishment of a DMA. 

If NMFS should establish a DMA in the 

Study Area under survey, within 24 

hours of the establishment of the DMA 

the Applicant shall work with NMFS to 

shut down and/or alter the survey 

activities to avoid the DMA. 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

As per the BOEM Lease, alternative 

monitoring technologies (e.g., active or 

passive acoustic monitoring) are 

required if a Lessee intends to conduct 

geophysical surveys at night or when 

visual observation is otherwise 

impaired. To support 24-hour HRG 

survey operations, Bay State Wind shall 

use certified PAM operators with 

experience reviewing and identifying 

recorded marine mammal vocalizations, 

as part of the project monitoring during 

nighttime operations to provide for 

optimal acquisition of species 

detections at night, or as needed during 

periods when visual observations may 

be impaired. In addition, PAM systems 

shall be employed during daylight hours 

to support system calibration and PSO 

and PAM team coordination, as well as 

in support of efforts to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the various mitigation 

techniques (i.e., visual observations 

during day and night, compared to the 

PAM detections/operations). 

Given the range of species that could 

occur in the Study Area, the PAM 

system shall consist of an array of 

hydrophones with both broadband 

(sampling mid-range frequencies of 2 

kHz to 200 kHz) and at least one lowfrequency hydrophone (sampling range 

frequencies of 10 Hz to 30 kHz). 

Monitoring of the PAM system shall be 

conducted from a customized 

processing station aboard the HRG 

survey vessel. The on-board processing 

station provides the interface between 

the PAM system and the operator. The 

PAM operator(s) shall monitor the 

hydrophone signals in real time both 

aurally (using headphones) and visually 

(via the monitor screen displays). Bay 

State Wind proposes the use of 

PAMGuard software for ‘target motion 

analysis’ to support localization in 

relation to the identified exclusion zone. 

PAMGuard is an open source software/ 

hardware interface to enable flexibility 

in the configuration of in-sea equipment 

(number of hydrophones, sensitivities, 

spacing, and geometry). PAM operators 

shall immediately communicate 

detections/vocalizations to the Lead 

PSO on duty who will ensure the 

implementation of the appropriate 

mitigation measure (e.g., shutdown) 

even if visual observations by PSOs 

have not been made. 

Ramp-Up 

As per the BOEM Lease, a ramp-up 

procedure shall be used for HRG survey 

equipment capable of adjusting energy 

levels at the start or re-start of HRG 

survey activities. A ramp-up procedure 

shall be used at the beginning of HRG 

survey activities in order to provide 

additional protection to marine 

mammals near the Study Area by 

allowing them to vacate the area prior 

to the commencement of survey 

equipment use. The ramp-up procedure 

shall not be initiated during daytime, 

night time, or periods of inclement 

weather if the exclusion zone cannot be 

adequately monitored by the PSOs using 

the appropriate visual technology (e.g., 

reticulated binoculars, night vision 

equipment) and/or PAM for a 30-minute 

period. A ramp-up shall begin with the 

power of the smallest acoustic HRG 

equipment at its lowest practical power 

output appropriate for the survey. The 

power shall then be gradually turned up 

and other acoustic sources added such 

that the source level would increase in 

steps not exceeding 6 dB per 5-minute 

period. If marine mammals are detected 

within the HRG survey exclusion zone 

prior to or during the ramp-up, activities 

shall be delayed until the animal(s) has 

moved outside the monitoring zone and 

no marine mammals are detected for a 

period of 30 minutes. 

Shutdown Procedures 

The EZ around the HRG survey 

equipment shall be monitored, as 

previously described, by PSOs and at 

night by PAM operators for the presence 

of marine mammals before, during, and 

after HRG surveys. The vessel operator 

must comply immediately with any call 

for shutdown by the Lead PSO. Any 

disagreement should be discussed only 

after shutdown. 

As per the BOEM Lease, if a nondelphinoid (i.e., mysticetes and sperm 

whales) cetacean is detected at or within 

the established Level A harassment 

exclusion zone, an immediate shutdown 

of the HRG survey equipment is 

required. Subsequent restart of the 

electromechanical survey equipment 

must use the ramp-up procedures 

described above and may only occur 

following clearance of the exclusion 

zone for 30 minutes for large cetaceans 

or 15 minutes for small cetaceans and 

pinnipeds. Subsequent power up of the 

survey equipment must use the ramp-up 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36556 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

procedures described above and may 

occur after the exclusion zone is clear of 

small cetaceans and/or pinniped for 15 

minutes and large cetaceans for 30 

minutes. 

If the HRG sound source (including 

the sub-bottom profiler) shuts down for 

reasons other than encroachment into 

the exclusion zone by a marine mammal 

including but not limited to a 

mechanical or electronic failure, 

resulting in in the cessation of sound 

source for a period greater than 20 

minutes, a restart for the HRG survey 

equipment (including the sub-bottom 

profiler) is required using the full rampup procedures and clearance of the 

exclusion zone of all cetaceans for 30 

minutes, or 15 minutes for pinnipeds. If 

the pause is less than 20 minutes, the 

equipment may be restarted as soon as 

practicable at its operational level as 

long as visual surveys were continued 

diligently throughout the silent period 

and the exclusion zone remained clear 

of cetaceans and pinnipeds. If the visual 

surveys were not continued diligently 

during the pause of 20 minutes or less, 

a restart of the HRG survey equipment 

(including the sub-bottom profiler) is 

required using the full ramp-up 

procedures and clearance of the 

exclusion zone for all cetaceans and 

pinnipeds for 30 minutes. 

The required mitigation measures are 

designed to avoid the already low 

potential for injury (Level A 

harassment) and minimize Level B 

harassment, as well as to minimize the 

potential for vessel strikes. There are no 

known marine mammal rookeries or 

mating grounds in the survey area that 

would otherwise potentially warrant 

increased mitigation measures for 

marine mammals or their habitat (or 

both). The proposed survey would occur 

in an area that has been identified as a 

biologically important area (BIA) for 

migration for North Atlantic right 

whales. However, given the small 

spatial extent of the survey area relative 

to the substantially larger spatial extent 

of the right whale migratory area, the 

survey is not expected to appreciably 

reduce migratory habitat nor to 

negatively impact the migration of 

North Atlantic right whales. In addition, 

the timing of importance for migration 

in this biologically important area BIA 

is March-April and NovemberDecember, and Bay State Wind’s 

proposed activities are anticipated to 

occur outside of the timing of 

importance. Thus, mitigation to address 

the proposed survey’s occurrence in 

North Atlantic right whale migratory 

habitat is not warranted. The proposed 

survey area would partially overlap 

spatially with a biologically important 

feeding area for fin whales. However, 

the fin whale feeding area is sufficiently 

large (2,933 km2), and the acoustic 

footprint of the proposed survey is 

sufficiently small that the survey is not 

expected to appreciably reduce fin 

whale feeding habitat nor to negatively 

impact the feeding of fin whales, thus 

mitigation to address the proposed 

survey’s occurrence in fin whale feeding 

habitat is not warranted. Further, we 

believe the required mitigation 

measures are practicable for the 

applicant to implement 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has determined that the 

mitigation measures provide the means 

of effecting the least practicable impact 

on marine mammals species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for ITAs must include the 

suggested means of accomplishing the 

necessary monitoring and reporting that 

will result in increased knowledge of 

the species and of the level of taking or 

impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed action area. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Monitoring Measures 

Visual Monitoring—Visual monitoring 

shall be performed by qualified and 

NMFS-approved PSOs (see discussion 

of PSO qualifications and requirements 

in Marine Mammal Exclusion Zones 

above). 

The PSOs shall begin observation of 

the monitoring zone during all HRG 

survey activities, which will encompass 

the maximum sight distance possible, 

including harassment zones and 

exclusion zones. Observations of the 

monitoring zone shall continue 

throughout the survey activity. PSOs 

shall be responsible for visually 

monitoring and identifying marine 

mammals approaching or entering the 

established monitoring zone during 

survey activities. 

Observations shall take place from the 

highest available vantage point on the 

survey vessel. General 360-degree 

scanning shall occur during the 

monitoring periods, and target scanning 

by the PSO shall occur when alerted of 

a marine mammal presence. For 

monitoring around the autonomous 

surface vessel (ASV), a dual thermal/HD 

camera shall be installed on the mother 

vessel facing forward and angled in a 

direction so as to provide a field of view 

ahead of the vessel and around the ASV. 

PSOs shall be able to monitor the realtime output of the camera on hand-held 

computer tablets. Images from the 

cameras shall be able to be captured and 

reviewed to assist in verifying species 

identification. A monitor shall also be 

installed in the bridge displaying the 

real-time images from the thermal/HD 

camera installed on the front of the ASV 

itself, providing a further forward view 

of the craft. In addition, night-vision 

goggles with thermal clip-ons and a 

hand-held spotlight shall be provided 

and used such that PSOs can focus 

observations in any direction around the 

mother vessel and/or the ASV. 

Data on all PSO observations shall be 

recorded based on standard PSO 

collection requirements. This shall 

include dates and locations of 

construction operations; time of 

observation, location and weather; 

details of the sightings (e.g., species, age 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36557 

classification [if known], numbers, 

behavior, distance from the source); and 

details of any observed behavioral 

disturbances, injury or mortality). The 

data sheet shall be provided to both 

NMFS and BOEM for review and 

approval prior to the start of survey 

activities. In addition, prior to initiation 

of survey work, all crew members will 

undergo environmental training, a 

component of which shall focus on the 

procedures for sighting and protection 

of marine mammals. A briefing shall 

also be conducted between the survey 

supervisors and crews, the PSOs, and 

the Applicant. The purpose of the 

briefing shall be to establish 

responsibilities of each party, define the 

chains of command, discuss 

communication procedures, provide an 

overview of monitoring purposes, and 

review operational procedures. 

Reporting Measures 

The Applicant shall provide the 

following reports as necessary during 

survey activities: 

Any observed significant behavioral 

reactions (e.g., animals departing the 

area) or injury or mortality to any 

marine mammals must be reported to 

NMFS and BOEM within 24 hours of 

observation. Dead or injured protected 

species are reported to the NMFS 

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 

Office Stranding Hotline (800–900– 

3622) within 24 hours of sighting, 

regardless of whether the injury is 

caused by a vessel. In addition, if the 

injury or death was caused by a 

collision with a project related vessel, 

the Applicant must ensure that NMFS 

and BOEM are notified of the strike 

within 24 hours. The Applicant must 

use the form included as Appendix A to 

Addendum C of the Lease to report the 

sighting or incident. If the Applicant is 

responsible for the injury or death, the 

vessel must assist with any salvage 

effort as requested by NMFS. Additional 

reporting requirements for injured or 

dead animals are described below 

(Notification of Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals). 

Notification of Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activities lead to an 

unauthorized injury of a marine 

mammal or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, 

gear interaction, and/or entanglement), 

Bay State Wind must immediately cease 

the specified activities and report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources and the NOAA 

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 

Office (GARFO) Stranding Coordinator. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hours preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the event. NMFS will 

work with Bay State Wind to minimize 

reoccurrence of such an event in the 

future. Bay State Wind shall not resume 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

In the event that Bay State Wind 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal and determines that the cause 

of the injury or death is unknown and 

the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less 

than a moderate state of decomposition), 

Bay State Wind shall immediately 

report the incident to the Chief of the 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources and the 

GARFO Stranding Coordinator. The 

report shall include the same 

information identified in the paragraph 

above. Activities shall be allowed to 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

will work with the Applicant to 

determine if modifications in the 

activities are appropriate. 

In the event that Bay State Wind 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal and determines that the injury 

or death is not associated with or related 

to the activities authorized in the IHA 

(e.g., previously wounded animal, 

carcass with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

Bay State Wind shall report the incident 

to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional 

Fisheries Office Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, within 24 hours of the 

discovery. Bay State Wind shall provide 

photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS. Bay 

State Wind can continue its operations 

in such a case. 

Within 90 days after completion of 

the marine site characterization survey 

activities, a technical report shall be 

provided to NMFS and BOEM that fully 

documents the methods and monitoring 

protocols, summarizes the data recorded 

during monitoring, estimates the 

number of marine mammals that may 

have been taken during survey 

activities, and provides an 

interpretation of the results and 

effectiveness of all monitoring tasks. 

Any recommendations made by NMFS 

must be addressed in the final report 

prior to acceptance by NMFS. 

In addition to the Applicant’s 

reporting requirements outlined above, 

the Applicant shall provide an 

assessment report of the effectiveness of 

the various mitigation techniques, i.e. 

visual observations during day and 

night, compared to the PAM detections/ 

operations. This shall be submitted as a 

draft to NMFS and BOEM 30 days after 

the completion of the HRG surveys and 

as a final version 60 days after 

completion of the surveys. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., 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. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36558 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, the majority of 

our analyses applies to all of the species 

listed in Table 6, given that the 

anticipated effects of the HRG surveys 

on different marine mammal species or 

stocks are expected to be relatively 

similar in nature. Where there are 

meaningful differences between species 

or stocks, or groups of species, in 

anticipated individual responses to 

activities, impact of the expected take 

on the population due to differences in 

population status, or impacts on habitat, 

they are described independently in the 

analysis below. 

As discussed in the ‘‘Potential Effects 

of the Specified Activity on Marine 

Mammals and Their Habitat’’ section of 

the proposed IHA notice and referenced 

above, masking, non-auditory physical 

effects, and vessel strike are not 

expected to occur. Animals in the area 

would likely incur no more than brief 

hearing impairment (i.e., TTS) due to 

generally low SPLs—and in the case of 

the HRG survey equipment use, 

directional beam pattern, transient 

signals, and moving sound sources— 

and the fact that most marine mammals 

would more likely avoid a loud sound 

source rather than swim in such close 

proximity for an amount of time as to 

result in TTS. Further, once an area has 

been surveyed, it is not likely that it will 

be surveyed again, therefore reducing 

the likelihood of repeated impacts 

within the project area. 

Potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat were discussed previously in the 

Proposed IHA document (83 FR 22443, 

May 15, 2018; see the ‘‘Potential Effects 

of the Specified Activity on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat’’ section). 

Marine mammal habitat may be 

impacted by elevated sound levels and 

some sediment disturbance, but these 

impacts would be temporary and 

relatively short term. Feeding behavior 

is not likely to be significantly 

impacted, as marine mammals appear to 

be less likely to exhibit behavioral 

reactions or avoidance responses while 

engaged in feeding activities 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Prey species 

are mobile, and are broadly distributed 

throughout the Study Area; therefore, 

marine mammals that may be 

temporarily displaced during survey 

activities are expected to be able to 

resume foraging once they have moved 

away from areas with disturbing levels 

of underwater noise. Because of the 

temporary nature of the disturbance, the 

availability of similar habitat and 

resources in the surrounding area, and 

the lack of important or unique marine 

mammal habitat, the impacts to marine 

mammals and the food sources that they 

utilize are not expected to cause 

significant or long-term consequences 

for individual marine mammals or their 

populations. 

ESA-Listed Marine Mammal Species 

The North Atlantic right whale 

population demonstrated overall growth 

of 2.8 percent per year between 1990 to 

2010, despite a decline in 1993 and no 

growth between 1997 and 2000 (Pace et 

al., 2017). However, since 2010 the 

population has been in decline, with a 

99.99 percent probability of a decline of 

just under one percent per year (Pace et 

al., 2017). In the western North Atlantic, 

there were estimated to be 458 whales 

in November 2015 (as reported in 

NMFS’s draft 2017 SARs and Table 2) 

based on a Bayesian mark-recapture 

open population model, which accounts 

for individual differences in the 

probability of being photographed (95 

percent credible intervals 444–471, Pace 

et al., 2017). While photographic data 

for 2016 are still being processed, using 

this same Bayesian methodology with 

the available data as of September 1, 

2017, gave an estimate of 451 

individuals for 2016 (Pettis et al., 

2017a). While data are not yet available 

to statistically estimate the population’s 

trend beyond 2015, three lines of 

evidence indicate the population is still 

in decline. First, calving rates in 2016 

and 2017 were low, with only five new 

calves being documented in 2017 (Pettis 

et al., 2017a), well below the number 

needed to compensate for expected 

mortalities (Pace et al., 2017). In 2018, 

no new North Atlantic right whale 

calves were documented in their calving 

grounds; this represented the first time 

since annual NOAA aerial surveys 

began in 1989 that no new right whale 

calves were observed. Long-term 

photographic identification data 

indicate new calves rarely go 

undetected, so these years likely 

represent a continuation of the low 

calving rates that began in 2012 (Kraus 

et al., 2007; Pace et al., 2017). Second, 

as noted above, the preliminary 

abundance estimate for 2016 is 451 

individuals, down approximately 1.5 

percent from 458 in 2015. Third, since 

June 2017, at least 18 North Atlantic 

right whales have died in what has been 

declared an Unusual Mortality Event 

(UME; see additional discussion of the 

UME below), and at least one calf died 

prior to this in April 2017 (NMFS, 

2017). Currently, no identified right 

whale recovery goals have been met (for 

more information on these goals, see the 

2005 recovery plan; NMFS, 2005, 2017). 

With whaling now prohibited, the two 

major known human causes of mortality 

are vessel strikes and entanglement in 

fishing gear. Some progress has been 

made in mitigating vessel strikes by 

regulating vessel speeds in certain areas 

(78 FR 73726; December 9, 2013) (Conn 

and Silber, 2013), but entanglement in 

fishing gear remains a major threat 

(Kraus et al., 2016). 

There are currently insufficient data 

to determine population trends for fin 

whale (Waring et al., 2015). There is 

also no exact accounting of the total 

number of sperm whales worldwide, but 

the best estimate is between 300,000 to 

450,000 individuals. There is no 

designated critical habitat for any ESAlisted marine mammals within the 

Study Area, and none of the stocks for 

non-listed species authorized to be 

taken are considered ‘‘depleted’’ or 

‘‘strategic’’ by NMFS under the MMPA. 

ESA-listed species for which takes are 

authorized are sperm whales and fin 

whales, and these effects are anticipated 

to be limited to lower level behavioral 

effects. No take has been authorized for 

North Atlantic right whales. 

Biologically Important Areas (BIA) 

A small portion of a BIA for fin whale 

feeding is within the survey area. 

However, the portion of the fin whale 

feeding BIA within the HRG survey area 

is a very small portion of the overall 

BIA, and HRG activities would ensonify 

such a small area that fin whale foraging 

is not anticipated to be substantially 

impacted. In addition, as stated above, 

authorized takes are limited to Level B 

harassment and are anticipated to be 

mainly short-term and temporary 

behavioral harassment and it is 

anticipated that normal foraging activity 

would commence shortly after any 

behavioral disturbance if any were to 

occur. 

The survey area is within a BIA for 

North Atlantic right whale migration 

with timing of importance being March– 

April (northward migration) and 

November–December (southward 

migration). Pregnant North Atlantic 

right whales migrate south, through the 

mid-Atlantic region of the United States, 

to low latitudes during late fall where 

they overwinter and give birth in 

shallow, coastal waters (Kenney, 2009). 

During spring, these females migrate 

back north with their new calves to high 

latitude foraging grounds where they 

feed on large concentrations of 

copepods, primarily Calanus 

finmarchicus (NMFS, 2017). Some nonreproductive North Atlantic right 

whales (males, juveniles, nonreproducing females) also migrate south 

through the mid-Atlantic region, 

although at more variable times 

throughout the winter, while others 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36559 

appear to not migrate south, and instead 

remain in the northern feeding grounds 

year round or go elsewhere (Bort et al., 

2015; Morano et al., 2012; NMFS, 2017). 

Bay State Wind’s HRG survey activity is 

scheduled to begin as soon as the IHA 

is issued and continue for 

approximately 60 days, so it is 

anticipated that HRG survey activities 

would be completed prior to the months 

when highest densities are expected to 

be present, though the possibility that 

the survey would occur in this time 

period was still analyzed and no take of 

North Atlantic right whales has been 

authorized in the IHA issued to Bay 

State Wind, as HRG survey operations 

are required to shut down at 500 m to 

avoid any potential for behavioral 

harassment of this species. 

Unusual Mortality Events (UME) 

A UME is defined under the MMPA 

as ‘‘a stranding that is unexpected; 

involves a significant die-off of any 

marine mammal population; and 

demands immediate response.’’ Three 

UMEs are ongoing and under 

investigation relevant to HRG survey 

area. These involve humpback whales, 

North Atlantic right whales, and minke 

whales. Specific information for each 

ongoing UME is provided below. There 

is currently no direct connection 

between the three UMEs, as there is no 

evident cause of stranding or death that 

is common across the three species 

involved in the different UMEs. 

Additionally, strandings across the three 

species are not clustering in space or 

time. 

Since January 2016, elevated 

humpback whale mortalities have 

occurred along the Atlantic coast from 

Maine through Florida. As of June 2018, 

partial or full necropsy examinations 

have been conducted on approximately 

half of the 76 known cases. Of the cases 

examined, approximately half had 

evidence of human interaction (ship 

strike or entanglement). Fourteen of 

these investigated mortalities showed 

blunt force trauma or pre-mortem 

propeller wounds indicative of vessel 

strike, which is above the annual longterm average; however, these findings of 

pre-mortem vessel strike are not 

consistent across all of the whales 

examined and more research is needed. 

NOAA is consulting with researchers 

that are conducting studies on the 

humpback whale populations, and these 

efforts may provide information on 

changes in whale distribution and 

habitat use that could provide 

additional insight into how these vessel 

interactions occurred. Three previous 

UMEs involving humpback whales have 

occurred since 2000, in 2003, 2005, and 

2006. More information is available at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2016-2018- 

humpback-whale-unusual-mortalityevent-along-atlantic-coast (accessed July 

2, 2018). 

Since January 2017, elevated minke 

whale strandings have occurred along 

the Atlantic coast from Maine through 

South Carolina, with highest numbers in 

Massachusetts, Maine, and New York. 

As of June 2018, partial or full necropsy 

examinations have been conducted on 

18 of the 33 known cases. Preliminary 

findings in several of the whales have 

shown evidence of human interactions 

or infectious disease. These findings are 

not consistent across all of the whales 

examined, so more research is needed. 

As part of the UME investigation 

process, NOAA is assembling an 

independent team of scientists to 

coordinate with the Working Group on 

Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality 

Events to review the data collected, 

sample stranded whales, and determine 

the next steps for the investigation. 

More information is available at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2017-2018-minkewhale-unusual-mortality-event-alongatlantic-coast (accessed March 19, 

2018). 

Elevated North Atlantic right whale 

mortalities began in June 2017, 

primarily in Canada. To date, there are 

a total of 18 confirmed dead stranded 

whales and 1 suspected dead (12 in 

Canada; 6 in the United States; 1 

suspected dead in the United States), 

and 5 live whale entanglements in 

Canada have been documented. Full 

necropsy examinations have been 

conducted on eleven of the cases, with 

results currently available for seven of 

these that occurred in Canada (Daoust et 

al., 2017). Results indicate that two 

whales died from entanglement in 

fishing gear and, for four whales, 

necropsy findings were compatible with 

acute death due to trauma (although it 

is uncertain whether they were struck 

pre- or post-mortem) (Daoust et al., 

2017). Several investigated cases are 

undetermined due to advanced 

decomposition. Overall, findings to date 

confirm that vessel strikes and fishing 

gear entanglement continue to be the 

key threats to recovery of North Atlantic 

right whales. In response, the Canadian 

government has enacted fishery closures 

to help reduce future entanglements and 

has modified fixed gear fisheries, as 

well as implementing temporary 

mandatory vessel speed restrictions in a 

portion of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 

NOAA is cooperating with Canadian 

government officials as they investigate 

the incidents in Canadian waters. A 

previous UME involving right whales 

occurred in 1996. More information is 

available at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-life-distress/2017-2018- 

north-atlantic-right-whale-unusualmortality-event (accessed March 19, 

2018). 

The required mitigation measures are 

expected to reduce the number and/or 

severity of takes by giving animals the 

opportunity to move away from the 

sound source before HRG survey 

equipment reaches full energy and 

preventing animals from being exposed 

to sound levels that have the potential 

to cause injury (Level A harassment) 

and more severe Level B harassment 

during HRG survey activities. 

Additional vessel strike avoidance 

requirements will further mitigate 

potential impacts to marine mammals 

during vessel transit to and within the 

Study Area. 

Bay State Wind did not request, and 

NMFS is not authorizing, take of marine 

mammals by serious injury, or 

mortality. NMFS expects that most takes 

would primarily be in the form of shortterm Level B behavioral harassment in 

the form of brief startling reaction and/ 

or temporary vacating of the area, or 

decreased foraging (if such activity were 

occurring)—reactions that are 

considered to be of low severity and 

with no lasting biological consequences 

(e.g., Southall et al., 2007). This is 

largely due to the short time scale of the 

proposed activities, the low source 

levels and intermittent nature of many 

of the technologies proposed to be used, 

as well as the required mitigation. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality, serious injury or 

injury is anticipated or authorized; 

• Take is anticipated to be limited to 

Level B behavioral harassment 

consisting of brief startling reactions 

and/or temporary avoidance of the 

survey area due to the intermittent and 

short term nature of the activities as 

well as the directionality of the sound 

sources; 

• While the survey area is within 

areas noted as biologically important for 

north Atlantic right whale migration 

mitigation measures to shut down at 500 

m are expected to avoid any take of the 

species. Further, although our analysis 

considers the potential for the activities 

to occur at any point during the year, 

they are anticipated to take place 

outside of the timeframe of noted 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36560 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

importance for migration for the North 

Atlantic right whale BIA 

• Similarly, due to the small overlap 

of the survey activities with the 

biologically important area for fin 

whales, along with the size of the 

required shutdown, which should avoid 

the majority of impacts, the survey 

activities are not expected to affect 

foraging behavior of this species. 

• For all species, the percentage of 

stocks affected are less than 9 percent of 

the stock. This represents the total 

instances of take and does not consider 

that there are likely repeat exposures of 

the same individuals, which would 

mean that the percentage of individuals 

are likely lower. In addition, these takes 

are anticipated to be Level B harassment 

takes in the form of short-term startle or 

avoidance reactions that would not 

affect the species or stock. 

NMFS concludes that exposures to 

marine mammal species and stocks due 

to Bay State Wind’s HRG survey 

activities would result in only shortterm (temporary and short in duration) 

and relatively infrequent effects to 

individuals exposed, and not of the type 

or severity that would be expected to be 

additive for the very small portion of the 

stocks and species likely to be exposed. 

Animals may temporarily avoid the 

immediate area, but are not expected to 

permanently abandon the area. Major 

shifts in habitat use, distribution, or 

foraging success, are not expected. For 

the reasons described herein, NMFS 

does not anticipate the authorized take 

to impact annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from Bay State 

Wind’s proposed HRG survey activities 

will have a negligible impact on the 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

The takes authorized for the HRG 

survey represent 2.07 percent of the 

Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whale 

(West Indies Distinct Population 

Segment); 1.92 percent of the WNA 

stock of fin whale; 0.77 percent of the 

Canadian East Coast stock of minke 

whale; 0.22 percent of the North 

Atlantic stock of sperm whales; 8.66 

percent of the Western North Atlantic 

stock of bottlenose dolphins; 0.16 

percent of the WNA stock of Risso’s 

dolphins; 0.11 percent of the WNA 

stock of Atlantic spotted dolphins; 0.05 

percent of the WNA stock of long-finned 

pilot whales; 2.85 percent of the WNA 

stock of common dolphin; 1.02 percent 

of the WNA stock of Atlantic whitesided dolphin; 1.09 percent of the Gulf 

of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor 

porpoise; 2.16 percent of the WNA stock 

of harbor seal; and 0.56 percent of the 

North Atlantic stock of gray seal. These 

take estimates represent the percentage 

of each species or stock that could be 

taken and are small numbers relative to 

the affected species or stock sizes. 

Further, the authorized take numbers 

are the maximum numbers of animals 

that are expected to be harassed during 

the project; it is possible that some of 

these exposures may occur to the same 

individual, which would mean the 

percentage of stock taken would be 

smaller as it would not take into 

account these multiple exposures of the 

same individual(s). Therefore, NMFS 

finds that small numbers of marine 

mammals will be taken relative to the 

populations of the affected species or 

stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals implicated by this 

action. Therefore, NMFS has 

determined that the total taking of 

affected species or stocks would not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of such species or stocks 

for taking for subsistence purposes. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to 

evaluate the issuance of wind energy 

leases covering the entirety of the 

Massachusetts Wind Energy Area 

(including the OCS–A 0500 Study 

Area), and the approval of site 

assessment activities within those leases 

(BOEM, 2014). NMFS previously 

adopted BOEM’s EA and issued a 

Finding of No Significant Effect (FONSI) 

for similar work in 2016 (81 FR 56589, 

August 22, 2016). 

NMFS has reviewed the BOEM EA 

and our previous FONSI and has 

determined that this action is consistent 

with categories of activities identified in 

CE B4 of the Companion Manual for 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6A, 

which do not individually or 

cumulatively have the potential for 

significant impacts on the quality of the 

human environment and for which we 

have not identified any extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude this 

categorical exclusion. Accordingly, 

NMFS has determined that the issuance 

of the IHA qualifies to be categorically 

excluded from further NEPA review. We 

have reviewed all comments submitted 

in response to the proposed IHA notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

and making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Endangered Species Act 

The NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources is authorizing the incidental 

take fin whales, which are listed under 

the ESA. BOEM consulted with NMFS 

GARFO under section 7 of the ESA on 

commercial wind lease issuance and 

site assessment activities on the Atlantic 

Outer Continental Shelf in 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York 

and New Jersey Wind Energy Areas. The 

NMFS GARFO issued a Biological 

Opinion concluding that these activities 

may adversely affect but are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the North Atlantic right, fin, and sperm 

whale. The Biological Opinion can be 

found online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable. Upon request from 

the NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 

the NMFS GARFO will issue an 

amended incidental take statement 

associated with this Biological Opinion 

to include the takes of the ESA-listed fin 

whale authorized through this IHA. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to Bay State 

Wind for conducting marine site 

characterization surveys offshore of 

Massachusetts and along potential 

submarine cable routes for a period of 

one year, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: July 24, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16200 Filed 7–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

Virginia Broadband Summit 

AGENCY: National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES