75654 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD935] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Phase 2 

Construction of the Vineyard Wind 1 

Offshore Wind Project off 

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 

Vineyard Wind 1 LLC (Vineyard Wind 

1) to incidentally harass marine 

mammals during the completion of 

construction activities associated with 

the Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind 

Project in the northern portion of Lease 

Area OCS–A 0501 offshore of 

Massachusetts. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from October 1, 2024 through 

September 30, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

application and supporting documents, 

as well as a list of the references cited 

in this document, may be obtained 

online at: https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/incidental-takeauthorizations-other-energy-activitiesrenewable. In case of problems 

accessing these documents, please call 

the contact listed below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jessica Taylor, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either an authorized is 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA 

is provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of the takings. The definitions 

of all applicable MMPA statutory terms 

cited above are included in the relevant 

sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On December 15, 2023, NMFS 

received a request from Vineyard Wind 

1 for an IHA to take marine mammals 

incidental to Phase 2 construction of the 

Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Project 

off Massachusetts, specifically wind 

turbine generator (WTG) monopile 

foundation installation, in the northern 

portion of Lease Area OCS–A 0501. 

Vineyard Wind 1 completed installation 

of 47 WTG monopiles and one electrical 

service platform (ESP) jacket foundation 

in 2023 under an IHA issued by NMFS 

on June 25, 2021 (86 FR 33810) with 

effective dates from May 1, 2023 

through April 30, 2024. Due to 

unexpected delays, Vineyard Wind 1 

was not able to complete pile driving 

activities before the expiration date of 

the current IHA (April 30, 2024); thus, 

Vineyard Wind 1 requested take of 

marine mammals incidental to installing 

the remaining 15 monopiles to complete 

foundation installation for the Project. 

In total, the Project will consist of 62 

WTG monopiles and 1 offshore 

substation. 

Following NMFS’ review of the 

December 2023 application, Vineyard 

Wind 1 submitted multiple revised 

versions of the application, and it was 

deemed adequate and complete on 

March 13, 2024. The Vineyard Wind 1 

request was for take of 14 species of 

marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment and, for 6 of these species, 

Level A harassment. Neither Vineyard 

Wind 1 nor NMFS expect serious injury 

or mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Vineyard Wind 1 previously 

conducted high resolution geophysical 

(HRG) site characterization surveys 

within the Lease Area and associated 

export cable corridor in 2016, 2018– 

2021, and during the 2023 construction 

season from June–December (ESS Group 

Inc., 2016; Vineyard Wind, 2018, 2019; 

EPI Group, 2021; RPS, 2022; Vineyard 

Wind, 2023a–f). During the 2023 

construction season, NMFS coordinated 

closely with Vineyard Wind 1 to ensure 

compliance with their IHA. In a few 

instances, NMFS raised concerns with 

Vineyard Wind 1 regarding their 

implementation of certain required 

measures. NMFS worked closely with 

Vineyard Wind 1 throughout the 

construction season to course correct, 

where needed, and ensure compliance 

with the requirements (e.g., mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting) of the 

previous IHA. Information regarding 

their monitoring results may be found in 

the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

section. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

Vineyard Wind 1 plans to construct 

and operate an 800-megawatt (MW) 

wind energy facility, the Project, in the 

Atlantic Ocean in Lease area OCS–A 

0501, offshore of Massachusetts. 

Altogether, the project will consist of up 

to 62 offshore WTGs, 1 ESP, an onshore 

substation, offshore and onshore 

cabling, and onshore operations and 

maintenance facilities. The onshore 

substation and ESP are now complete. 

Installation of 47 monopile foundations 

was completed under the previous IHA 

(86 FR 33810, June 25, 2021), effective 

from May 1, 2023 through April 30, 

2024. However, due to unexpected 

delays, Vineyard Wind 1 was not able 

to complete pile driving activities before 

the expiration date of the IHA (April 30, 

2024). Take of marine mammals, in the 

form of behavioral harassment and 

limited instances of auditory injury, 

may occur incidental to the installation 

of the remaining 15 WTG monopile 

foundations due to in-water noise 

exposure resulting from impact pile 

driving. The remaining 15 monopile 

foundations will be installed within a 

Limited Installation Area (LIA) (64.3 

square kilometers (km2; 15,888.9 acres)) 

within the Lease Area (264.4 km2

(65,322.4 acres)). Installation of the 

remaining 15 monopile foundations is 

expected to occur in 2024, but could 

also occur in 2025. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The 15 remaining piles will be 

installed within a Limited Installation 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75655 

Area (LIA) occupying a portion of the 

Wind Development Area (WDA) within 

the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) lease area located 

in Federal waters off Massachusetts 

(figure 1). At its nearest point, the LIA 

is approximately 29 kilometers (km; 

18.1 miles (mi)) from the southeast 

corner of Martha’s Vineyard and a 

similar distance from Nantucket. Water 

depths in the WDA range from 

approximately 37–49.5 meters (m; 121– 

162 feet (ft)). Water depth and bottom 

habitat are similar throughout the Lease 

Area (Pyc et al., 2018). Figure 1 shows 

the LIA and planned locations for the 

remaining 15 monopiles to be installed. 

A detailed description of the specific 

geographic region and planned 

construction activities is provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (89 FR 31008, April 23, 2024). 

Since that time, no changes have been 

made to the planned activities. 

Therefore, a detailed description is not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for the 

description of the specific activities. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75656 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA to Vineyard Wind 1 was 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 23, 2024 (89 FR 31008). That 

notice described, in detail, Vineyard 

Wind’s activities, the marine mammal 

species that may be affected by the 

activities, and the anticipated effects on 

marine mammals. In that notice, we 

requested public input on the request 

for authorization described therein, our 

analyses, the proposed authorization, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2EN16SE24.000</GPH>

70036'W 70°30'W 10•24-w 

Figure 1 - Vineyard Wind 1 Limited Installation Area 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75657 

and any other aspect of the notice of the 

proposed IHA, and requested that 

interested persons submit relevant 

information, suggestions, and 

comments. 

During the 30-day public comment 

period, NMFS received 87 total 

comment letters, including letters from 

various non-governmental organizations 

(Seafreeze, Ltd., Rand Acoustics, LLC., 

Long Island Commercial Fishing 

Association (LICFA), Save Right Whales 

Coalition (SRWC), Rand Acoustics, Inc., 

ACK Residents Against Turbines) and 

members of the general public. We note 

that approximately 11 comment letters 

followed one of 2 different generic 

template formats, in which respondents 

provided comments that were identical 

or substantively the same. NMFS has 

reviewed all public comments received 

on the proposed issuance of the 

Vineyard Wind 1 Phase 2 IHA. All 

relevant substantive comments and 

NMFS’ responses are provided below. 

Comments that are out of scope to 

NMFS’ action of issuing the requested 

IHA (e.g., comments regarding how 

unusual mortality events (UMEs) are 

determined to be closed or requests for 

necropsy reports; declarations on the 

adequacy of the previously issued IHA 

to Vineyard Wind) and comments 

indicating general support for or 

opposition to offshore wind 

construction are not relevant to the 

proposed action and therefore were not 

considered or addressed here. We also 

provide no response to species or 

statutes not relevant to our proposed 

action under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA. The public comments and 

recommendations are available online 

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

action/incidental-take-authorizationvineyard-wind-1-llc-constructionvineyard-wind-offshore-wind. Please see 

the comment submissions for full 

details regarding the recommendations 

and supporting rationale. 

Modeling and Take Estimates 

Comment 1: A commenter suggested 

that NMFS and Vineyard Wind 1 should 

not operate under the assumption that 

Level B takes do not result in injury or 

death. The commenter suggests that the 

IHA analysis is deficient as behavioral 

disturbance resulting from the proposed 

activities could result in auditory 

masking, disruption to navigational 

ability and spatial orientation, splitting 

of mother calf pairs, and increased 

stress and cortisol responses could lead 

to secondary deaths due to 

entanglements, vessel strikes, and 

strandings. Another commenter 

suggested that NMFS was authorizing 

take in the form of mortality and, 

further, stated that North Atlantic right 

whales are on the brink of extinction 

and a single additional death from 

construction activities could be 

catastrophic. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with 

commenters that the planned pile 

driving activities would cause mortality 

or serious injury of marine mammals, 

and this final IHA does not authorize 

mortality or serious injury. The best 

scientific evidence available indicates 

that the anticipated impacts from the 

specified activities potentially include 

avoidance, cessation of foraging or 

communication, temporary threshold 

shift (TTS) and permanent threshold 

shift (PTS), stress, masking, etc. (as 

described in the Potential Effects of 

Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and Their Habitat section in 

the proposed IHA Federal Register 

notice (89 FR 31008, April 23, 2024). 

Further, as described in the NID section, 

there is no evidence to suggest that 

these authorized impacts (characterized 

as harassment), at the magnitude and 

severity anticipated to result from these 

activities, would lead to impacts on 

reproduction or survival of any 

individual North Atlantic right whale 

(NARW) or other marine mammals, 

much less mortality. 

In addition, NMFS emphasizes that 

there is no evidence that noise resulting 

from offshore wind development-related 

specified activities would cause 

increased risk of marine vessel strikes, 

entanglements, or mammal strandings. 

NMFS acknowledges that whales may 

temporarily avoid the area where the 

specified activities occur. However, 

NMFS does not anticipate, based on the 

best available science, that whales will 

abandon their habitat or be displaced in 

a manner that would result in a higher 

risk of vessel strike or entanglement, as 

suggested by a commenter, and the 

commenter does not provide evidence 

that either of these effects should be a 

reasonably anticipated outcome of the 

specified activity. The primary activity 

that is anticipated to result in temporary 

avoidance of the otherwise used habitat 

is foundation installation pile driving. 

Not only would this activity be limited 

to times of year when North Atlantic 

right whale presence is lower, pile 

driving would be intermittent, and only 

occur for a limited time over the course 

of 1 year. Together, these factors further 

reduce the likelihood that this species 

would be in close enough proximity to 

the activity to engage in avoidance 

behavior to the degree it would move 

into an area of risk (which would be 

closer to shore) that it could be struck 

by another vessel or experience 

entanglement. 

Comment 2: Multiple commenters 

have expressed general concern for 

impacts to marine mammals, 

specifically to North Atlantic right 

whales, indicating that there are too 

many takes proposed for authorization 

and the IHA should be put on hold until 

more is known about impacts of 

offshore wind construction activities to 

North Atlantic right whales. A 

commenter suggests that estimated take 

by Level A harassment for North 

Atlantic right whales should be 

analyzed as modeled exposure estimates 

were greater than zero. Another 

commenter indicates that every attempt 

must be made to protect North Atlantic 

right whale calves from the risk of TTS 

and that pile driving should shut down 

for the remainder of a day if a mother 

and calf were to enter a clearance or 

shutdown zone. 

Response: NMFS appreciates the 

commenters’ general concern for marine 

mammals and specifically for North 

Atlantic right whales and, in general, 

acknowledges the need for additional 

data regarding the impacts of offshore 

wind construction activities on North 

Atlantic right whales; but disagrees that 

Level A harassment of NARW will 

result from the activity or that the IHA 

should be put on hold until more is 

known. NMFS is required to consider 

the best available science when 

assessing potential impacts and cannot 

delay authorization of an IHA until 

additional data is available. While there 

was a very small amount of Level A 

harassment modeled, the model is 

conservative for both Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment, as 

it does not take into account that 

Vineyard Wind 1 will be required to 

monitor and delay or shut down pile 

driving activities if a North Atlantic 

right whale is visually sighted at any 

distance by the pile driving protected 

species observers (PSOs) or acoustically 

detected within the 10 km passive 

acoustic monitoring (PAM) clearance 

and shutdown zone. As described in the 

proposed IHA, from November 1 

through December 31 (when Vineyard 

Wind 1 would be installing piles), if a 

North Atlantic right whale (not just a 

mother/calf pair) is detected either via 

real-time PAM or vessel-based surveys 

at any distance from the pile driving 

location, pile driving must be delayed 

until the ‘‘follow-up vessel-based 

survey’’ described in their Pile Driving 

Monitoring Plan has been completed. 

Moreover, if three or more North 

Atlantic right whales are observed, pile 

driving will be delayed until the 

following day. These conservative 

measures were included in the proposed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75658 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

IHA in recognition that North Atlantic 

right whales are more likely to be 

foraging in the area during November 

and December and that aggregations of 

North Atlantic right whales are more 

likely to remain in an area. The 

commenters’ suggestion to delay pile 

driving until the next day if a mother 

and calf pair is observed is not 

warranted in November and December 

given the other extensive mitigation 

measures in place and the fact that data 

do not suggest mother and calf pairs 

remain in the area (Quintana-Rizzo et 

al., 2021). Delaying pile driving would 

extend the project later into December 

which could result in more impacts as 

whale density increases throughout the 

winter (i.e., the later in December, the 

more whales are likely to be present). 

Moreover, delaying the project is not 

practicable as Vineyard Wind is 

installing the 15 remaining piles in 2024 

but must cease pile driving after 

December 31. Given these mitigation 

measures and the extensive related 

monitoring efforts designed to detect 

North Atlantic right whales for 

mitigation, NMFS does not anticipate 

and has not authorized any take by 

Level A harassment for North Atlantic 

right whales. The required measures 

reduce the risk of TTS for any North 

Atlantic right whale. Accordingly, as 

described in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (89 FR 31008, 

April 23, 2024), the final IHA assumes 

that the mitigation efforts will be 

effective at reducing the potential for 

Level A harassment calculated in the 

density-based models as, specifically, 

the small number of instances in which 

a North Atlantic right whale was 

modeled to approach pile driving at a 

distance associated with exposure above 

the Level A harassment threshold, 

would not be expected to occur given 

the anticipated effectiveness of 

clearance and shutdowns in preventing 

exposure at notably greater distances 

and lower levels. We also note that 

while the scientific literature documents 

marine mammals are likely to avoid 

loud noises such as pile driving (e.g., 

Brandt et al., 2016; Nowacek et al., 

2004), avoidance was not quantitatively 

considered in the take estimates 

(although NMFS reasonably predicts 

this natural behavior will further reduce 

the potential for Level A harassment). 

NMFS recognizes that the key to 

effective mitigation is effective 

monitoring and the ability to detect 

marine mammals so that mitigation 

measures, such as delay to 

commencement of pile driving and 

shutdown should pile driving be 

occurring, may be implemented. 

Vineyard Wind 1 is required to 

undertake extensive monitoring to 

maximize the ability to detect marine 

mammals with at least 9 PSOs 

monitoring for marine mammals before, 

during, and after pile driving. The 

reduction to the Level A harassment 

density-based take estimate 

appropriately reflects and acknowledges 

the monitoring and mitigation efforts, 

including the placement of three PSOs 

on the pile driving platform and 

dedicated PSOs vessel(s) and PAM. 

Comment 3: A commenter indicates 

that estimated take by Level B 

harassment for common dolphins 

should not be adjusted per the AMAPPS 

average group size (30 dolphins), but 

rather per the PSO data collected by 

Vineyard Wind 1 during HRG surveys 

(10 dolphins) as this PSO data is more 

appropriate. The commenter further 

notes that there is no information 

indicating that Vineyard Wind 1 had 

difficulty staying within the take limits 

for common dolphins for the 2023 IHA. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that an 

average group size estimate of 10 for 

common dolphins, based upon local 

PSO data, is more appropriate for 

adjusting the estimated take by Level B 

harassment for common dolphins than 

the AMAPPS group size of 30. The 

commenter references PSO data 

collected by Vineyard Wind 1 during 

HRG surveys, yet does not provide 

detail on the PSO report(s) upon which 

this data is based upon. The most recent 

Vineyard Wind 1 PSO report describes 

sighting 29 groups and a total of 717 

common dolphins during the 2023 

construction period, with an average 

group size of 24.7 dolphins (RPS, 2024). 

This estimate closely aligns with the 

average group size of 30 common 

dolphins from the AMAPPS dataset 

(Palka et al., 2017; 2021), which NMFS 

has determined to be the best available 

data and most robust dataset for 

adjusting take estimates due to the 

standardized consistent effort and large 

dataset sample size. The large sample 

size contained in the AMAPPS dataset 

accounts for any variability in group 

size that may occur between observed 

common dolphin groups. Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that the 

AMAPPS average group size of 30 is 

most appropriate for adjusting take by 

Level B harassment for common 

dolphins in this analysis. 

Comment 4: Multiple commenters 

suggest that NMFS should consider 

exposure to noise from vessel 

propulsion, thrusters, and jet trenching 

with scour protection as constituting 

behavioral harassment or that NMFS 

should undertake an analysis 

identifying the potential for take by 

Level B harassment from operating 

offshore wind construction vessels, 

including the use of dynamic 

positioning (DP) thrusters, and jet 

trenching, and scour protection. 

Response: NMFS analyzed the 

potential for various sources of noise to 

result in take of marine mammals and 

concludes that take from vessel 

propulsion, DP thrusters and jet 

trenching during Vineyard Wind 1’s 

activities is not likely. Further, as noted 

below in Comment 5, mitigation 

requirements to further lessen any 

potential for impacts are included. On 

July 29, 2024, Vineyard Wind 1 

confirmed to NMFS that scour 

protection activities are complete for the 

project and therefore this activity is not 

discussed further. 

On a typical foundation, WTG, and 

inter-array cable installation day, Project 

vessels within and around the Lease 

Area may include a heavy lift pile 

installation vessel (the Orion), two Big 

Bubble Curtain (BBC) support vessels, 

two safety vessels, two crew transfer 

vessels, two accommodation vessels, 

one jack-up vessel installing monopile 

foundations, one pipe-burying vessel 

installing array cables, and one service 

operating vessel supporting foundation 

installation. During pile driving 

operations with favorable weather 

conditions, the Orion thrusters typically 

operate at approximately 25 percent 

capacity with a maximum capacity 

(1100 kW/4,500 kW). Thrusters may 

operate at higher capacity during higher 

wind speeds, waves, and currents. 

In general, the Orion would be 

positioned at each pile driving location 

until after the pile is installed, after 

which time it would slowly transit at 10 

kn (11.5 mph) or less (per the 

Construction and Operations Plan (COP) 

condition that vessels within the wind 

development area must travel at 10 kn 

(11.5 mph) or less at all times) to the 

next site. Because operating thrusters is 

inefficient with respect to cost due to 

fuel usage, the thrusters are typically 

engaged only when necessary to 

maintain position at the pile site or for 

safety reasons (e.g., during rough 

weather). 

Inter-array cables would be buried 

using a jet trencher. Noise emitted by jet 

trenching activities is broadband and 

generally consistent with that produced 

from routine vessel operations (Nedwell 

et al., 2003). 

NMFS’ generalized 120–dB acoustic 

threshold for exposures to continuous 

noise is guidance to help predict when 

marine mammals will likely respond in 

a manner that constitutes Level B 

harassment and estimate how many 

marine mammals are likely to respond 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75659 

in that manner; contrary to the 

suggestion of the commenter, it is not 

something that NMFS needs to 

‘‘enforce.’’ As described in the proposed 

IHA notice, NMFS generally predicts 

that marine mammals are likely to be 

affected in a manner considered to be 

Level B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

120 dB (RMS SPL) for continuous 

sources (e.g., vessel noise considered 

here). However, contextual factors and 

qualitative parameters play an 

important role in determining the 

potential for take and should be 

considered as well when determining 

the likelihood of incidental take. As 

described in the proposed IHA notice, 

the potential for behavioral response to 

an anthropogenic source can be highly 

variable and context-specific (Ellison et 

al., 2012). In addition to received sound 

level, factors such as activity state, the 

novelty of a sound, and distance 

between the sound source and the 

receiver may influence whether an 

animal exhibits a behavioral response 

(Ellison et al., 2012). As NMFS has 

previously articulated, there are 

situations in which other contextual 

factors may appropriately support a 

determination that take is unlikely, even 

if an animal is exposed to levels above 

the behavioral harassment threshold. 

NMFS acknowledges that, in limited 

cases, take of marine mammals by Level 

B harassment has been authorized 

incidental to vessel-related activities 

such as tugging and positioning 

activities that emit continuous noise 

into the underwater environment for 

extended periods of time (e.g., 87 FR 

62364, October 14, 2022). However, in 

recent cases where NMFS authorized 

take for these activities, the take was 

requested by an applicant and NMFS 

made a case-specific decision based on 

the specific circumstances, explaining 

the conservative nature of the analysis 

and/or discussing specific factors other 

than the received level alone that 

contributed to the decision. In the cited 

case, for example, NMFS considered the 

potential for Level B harassment from 

tugging and positioning activities in a 

concentrated area for an extended 

period of time, in an area inhabited by 

a small resident stock of marine 

mammals in a fairly enclosed body of 

water (Cook Inlet), and authorized take, 

by Level B harassment, for tugging and 

positioning activities. 

While NMFS recognizes elevated 

noise levels from vessels, the 

determination of whether harassment 

occurs in response to exposure to 

activities other than pile driving is 

based on several factors. Monitoring 

reports received under earlier take 

authorizations show few, if any, 

behavioral responses during activities 

involving thruster use and other 

broadband or continuous construction 

noises similar to noise levels at or below 

typical vessel levels. For example, 

during the Neptune Liquefied Natural 

Gas (LNG) pipeline operations project in 

Massachusetts Bay from July 1, 2009, 

through June 30, 2010, twenty-six 

marine mammals were sighted, and 

twenty of these marine mammals 

entered the Level B harassment zone 

while construction activities, including 

thruster use, were taking place. None of 

the marine mammals observed within 

the Level B harassment zone exhibited 

‘‘any modifications to their behavior 

that could be directly and definitively 

related to the construction activities’’ 

(ECOES Consulting, Inc., 2010). In 2015, 

Northeast Gateway L.P., (Northeast 

Gateway) requested take by Level B 

harassment incidental to Deepwater port 

repair activities occurring in 

Massachusetts Bay, including active use 

of DP thrusters. NMFS authorized the 

requested take incidental to the 

specified activities. The only two 

marine mammal sightings that occurred 

during the effective period of the 

authorization took place while vessels 

were actively using thrusters, and no 

behaviors that would suggest 

harassment were observed (TetraTech, 

2017). 

NMFS acknowledges that noise 

emitted by Vineyard Wind projectrelated vessels and their DP thrusters, as 

well as jet trenching activities, may 

sometimes result in marine mammals 

being exposed to received levels above 

120 dB and that vessel noise impacts the 

soundscape. However, as described in 

the Behavioral Effects section of the 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and their Habitat 

of the proposed IHA notice, the 

likelihood of Level B harassment is not 

based upon received level alone. There 

are a variety of studies (Nowacek et al., 

2004; Kastelein et al., 2012 and 2015) 

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). 

Nowacek et al. (2004) found that North 

Atlantic right whales exposed to alert 

signals and approaching vessel sounds 

exhibited a variety of responses. While 

5 of the 6 whales altered their behavior 

in response to the alert signal, the 

whales did not exhibit a response to a 

vessel noise recording which simulated 

a 120 m container ship passing within 

100 meters (m), equating to 

approximately 135 dB received level, or 

the noise of transiting vessels passing 

within 1 nautical mile (nm) from the 

whales (Nowacek et al., 2004). During 

Vineyard Wind 1’s 2023 construction 

activities (RPS, 2024), PSOs observed 

more baleen whales, engaged in various 

activity states, in the Project Area while 

the impact hammer was off (77 

detection events) than when it was on 

(22 detection events), although multiple 

vessels and DP thrusters were present 

and likely engaged while the impact 

hammer was off. These observations 

suggest that noise emitted from vessels, 

including those operating DP thrusters 

and jet trenching activities, is notably 

less likely to elicit avoidance and other 

behavioral responses from marine 

mammals that constitute Level B 

harassment. Given marine mammal 

exposure to extensive vessel traffic in 

the Atlantic Ocean, including from 

major ports and major shipping lanes 

near the project site, habituation to 

similar noise from vessels, thrusters, 

and trenching may be expected. As 

described in the proposed IHA notice, 

habituation can occur when an animal’s 

response to a stimulus wanes with 

repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2003) as is typically 

considered the case with exposure to 

noise from vessel propulsion, noting 

that the typical predictable movement 

and operation of vessels also influences 

the lower likelihood of behavioral 

disturbance. In the case of the Vineyard 

Wind 1 Project, the marine mammal 

species potentially affected by the 

project inhabit areas subject to very 

high, consistent ship traffic (Hatch et al., 

2008; Van Parijs et al., 2023). 

Based on the available data, projectrelated vessels, including those 

operating thrusters, are not significantly 

louder than large cargo vessels marine 

mammals in the project area are 

accustomed to encountering. The 

median rms sound pressure level (SPL) 

measured at a range of 750 m from the 

piling (the Orion), and support vessels 

prior to pile driving of the first 13 piles 

from the Vineyard Wind 1 2023 

construction activities measured 

approximately 134 dB (Ku ̈ sel et al., 

2024 Nedwell et al. (2003) 

backcalculated SPL source levels for jet 

trenching activities to be 178 dB, 

assuming a propagation loss of 22logR 

and recording 160 m from trenching 

activity. A reasonable estimate for 

source level of a container ship, 

estimated from the bulk data of 

MacGillivray and de Jong (2021), is 

approximately 180 dB. Using practical 

spreading, this source level yields 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75660 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

approximately 137 dB at a range of 750 

m. 

Although lack of detected behavioral 

disruption during previous monitoring 

described above does not prove there 

are no undetected responses that may 

qualify as Level B harassment, these 

findings clearly suggest that marine 

mammals continue their regular 

behavior patterns in the presence of 

vessels, including those operating DP 

thrusters for the project. In 

consideration of the discussion above, 

we conclude that exposure to vessel 

noise for this Project, including from DP 

thrusters and trenching activities, is not 

likely to result in Level B harassment 

simply based on exposure above the 120 

dB threshold. 

Comment 5: Commenters suggest the 

NMFS should mitigate for behavioral 

take that may occur incidental to 

exposure to noise from vessels, 

thrusters, and trenching that exceed 

NMFS’ behavioral harassment threshold 

for continuous noise (120 dB rms). 

Response: As described in Comment 

4, NMFS disagrees that exposure to 

vessel noise from the Project, including 

from DP thrusters and trenching 

activities, is likely to result in take 

under the MMPA (see response to 

Comment 4 above). However, NMFS 

does agree that vessel quieting, in 

general, is an important tool for 

protecting marine species and acoustic 

habitat. Vineyard Wind has committed 

to minimally use DP thrusters such that 

unnecessary use of thrusters and 

emission of continuous noise into the 

underwater environment is avoided. In 

addition, Vineyard Wind is required to 

abide by any existing vessel speed 

regulations as well as vessel strike 

avoidance measures in the IHA. When 

vessels are required to maintain a 10 

knot (kn) (11.5 mph) speed restriction 

(see Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures 

in the Mitigation section), continuous 

noise released into the environment 

from the vessels is also reduced. The 

relationship between vessel speed and 

its associated underwater radiated noise 

is well established and it is generally 

assumed that noise levels depend on 

vessel speed as 60 log10(V) 

(MacGillivray and de Jong, 2021), where 

V is the vessel speed. Further, speed 

limitations have been shown to be an 

effective tool in mitigation, as even 

small speed reductions of many vessels 

are capable of substantially reducing 

noise impacts to marine mammals 

(Findlay et al., 2023). 

Comment 6: Commenters note that it 

is inappropriate for Vineyard Wind 1 to 

estimate its own impacts, analyze its 

own impacts, and then restrict IHA 

public document estimates to what it 

has determined to be appropriate. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that the 

process of Vineyard Wind 1 estimating 

and analyzing impacts of the proposed 

construction activity is inappropriate. 

NMFS’ implementing regulations 

require applicants to include in their 

request a detailed description of the 

specified activity or class of activities 

that can be expected to result in 

incidental taking of marine mammals, 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(1), as well as an 

analysis of the impacts of the activity on 

marine mammal species or stocks and 

their habitat. Thus, the ‘‘specified 

activity’’ for which incidental take 

coverage is being sought under section 

101(a)(5)(D) is generally defined and 

described by the applicant. NMFS 

evaluates the applicant’s analysis using 

the best available information and 

makes the necessary findings and 

determinations on how the proposed 

activities may impact marine mammals, 

their habitats, and availability of marine 

mammals for subsistence uses, if 

relevant. As indicated in the proposed 

IHA, based on our independent 

evaluation, NMFS concurred with the 

analysis methods and results presented 

by Vineyard Wind 1 and carried them 

forward in the proposed IHA. NMFS is 

required to post proposed IHAs for 

public comment in addition to 

supporting information. NMFS also 

posts all monitoring reports (including 

any past monitoring reports for past 

authorizations) on our website: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable. As the required 

documentation mentioned above has 

been posted for the Vineyard Wind IHA 

request, NMFS disagrees that ‘‘IHA 

public documents’’ have been restricted. 

Comment 7: Commenters request that 

the pile driving noise model, with all 

assumptions, be made public along with 

any technical information relevant to 

the initial noise exceedances during pile 

driving in 2023. 

Response: Relevant information on 

how the pile driving noise model works, 

assumptions, and technical information 

related to sound field verification (SFV) 

results were publicly available. Of note, 

only the modeled distances to the Level 

A harassment thresholds were applied 

to this IHA; the distance to the Level B 

harassment threshold is based on in situ 

data collected during foundation 

installation in 2023. A description of the 

pile driving source and propagation 

models used to estimate distances to 

PTS thresholds was made publicly 

available as an appendix within the 

Vineyard Wind 1 Construction and 

Operations Plan (COP), in the form of an 

acoustic modeling report (Pyc et al., 

2018) and is available online as 

Appendix III in the COP at: https://

www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/ 

renewable-energy-program/StateActivities/MA/Vineyard-Wind/ 

Vineyard-Wind-COP-Volume-IIIAppendix-III-M.pdf. While source and 

propagation models are proprietary 

(most developed by JASCO) and not 

available to the public, Appendix A of 

Pyc et al. (2018) includes references 

describing their theory of calculation. 

Technical information and results 

related to SFV conducted during pile 

driving in 2023, upon which the Level 

B threshold analysis for the current IHA 

is based, are also publicly available on 

NMFS’ website. 

Comment 8: Commenters indicate that 

NMFS and Vineyard Wind 1 have 

underestimated both impulsive and 

continuous noise levels and suggest that 

the actual exposure to noise levels from 

pile driving is greater than NMFS 

acknowledges in its existing protective 

measures. Commenters request that 

NMFS conduct a reassessment of RMS 

computation methods. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

commenters that noise levels are 

underestimated and a reassessment of 

RMS computation methods is necessary. 

NMFS continuously assesses its analysis 

based on new science, including 

acceptable and ideal methods for 

calculating underwater sound metrics. 

Our current methodology is to use a 90 

percent energy window for computing 

RMS sound pressure levels for 

impulsive sources (Madsen, 2005). The 

90 percent energy envelope used by 

NMFS is a commonly used convention 

(Merchant et al., 2015), and is even 

stated as the recommended energy 

window in the ISO standard 

‘Underwater acoustics—Measurement of 

radiated underwater sound from 

percussive pile driving’ (ISO 18406, 

2017). Importantly, the distance to the 

Level B threshold is based upon in situ 

SFV measurements, and not modeling. 

Finally, there is no take expected or 

authorized from continuous sources. 

Comment 9: A commenter notes that 

condition 3(b) of the proposed IHA 

indicates that no take by Level A 

harassment is authorized, however, 

proposed take by Level A harassment is 

listed for species in table 1. 

Response: NMFS appreciates the 

commenter’s recognition that take by 

Level A harassment was included in 

table 1 yet not described in condition 

3(b) of the IHA. This inconsistency has 

been corrected in the final IHA. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75661 

Mitigation 

Comment 10: Multiple commenters 

stated that bubble curtains are not an 

efficient mitigation measure as bubble 

curtains do not attenuate sounds at 

lower frequencies and therefore are not 

effective in preventing take by Level A 

harassment of North Atlantic right 

whales. A commenter further indicated 

that this lack of mitigation should be 

incorporated into take calculations. 

Commenters also cite seabed refraction 

as a mechanism for sound to circumvent 

bubble curtains and impact marine 

mammals, thus resulting in the use of 

bubble curtains being insufficient as a 

mitigation measure. Commenters further 

note that since bubble curtains will be 

used as a mitigative measure yet are not 

effective for mitigation, NMFS will not 

be able to measure impacts to ESAlisted baleen whale species. 

Response: In the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (89 FR 

31008, April 23, 2024), NMFS described 

the best available science, which 

supports the assumption that 

attenuation can be reliably achieved 

using noise attenuation systems such as 

a double bubble curtain. The 

commenters indicated that sound may 

circumvent bubble curtains (such as 

through seabed refraction), citing Rand 

(2023). NMFS agrees that attenuation 

levels vary by frequency band and that 

bubble curtains attenuate higher 

frequency sounds more effectively; 

however, NMFS disagrees that lower 

frequency bands, which are important to 

consider when evaluating impacts, are 

not attenuated at all. The data from 

Bellmann (2021) shows that for both 

single and double bubble curtains, more 

than 10 dB of attenuation was achieved 

for bands as low as 32 Hz. While it is 

true that performance diminishes 

significantly at lower frequencies (<32 

Hz), those bands also contain 

significantly less pile driving sound and 

are 16+ dB outside the most susceptible 

frequency range for low-frequency 

cetaceans. NMFS agrees that a fraction 

of the sound does travel through the 

sediment and rejoin the water column 

beyond the extent of the bubble curtain, 

and therefore is not attenuated by the 

bubble curtain. NMFS is not aware of 

any noise mitigation system available 

which directly deals with sedimentborne noise. Despite this limitation, 

bubble curtains have been shown to be 

highly effective in mitigating sound in 

the water column (Bellmann, 2021; 

Caltrans, 2020). 

Comment 11: One commenter notes 

that while the proposed IHA includes 

language about soft starts as a mitigation 

measure, there is no evidence for the 

efficacy of this measure. The commenter 

further notes that the Vineyard Wind 1 

Biological Opinion states that there is 

insufficient evidence that the soft start 

measure would alter take estimates. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

commenter that there is no evidence for 

the efficacy of soft start as a mitigation 

measure, and also notes that the soft 

start measure was not used as a basis for 

altering take estimates. A soft start, in 

which an initial set of hammer strikes 

is performed at a reduced energy level, 

is designed to provide a warning to 

marine mammals and a chance to leave 

the pile driving area before the hammer 

begins operating at full capacity. The 

soft start method has been found to 

reduce the cumulative sound exposure 

of animals in an area (Ainslie and von 

Benda-Beckmann, 2012). Ainslie and 

von Benda-Beckmann (2012) modeled 

the efficacy of the soft start method and 

found that soft start can be an effective 

mitigation measure when the animals 

respond to the sound source by 

swimming away. Various species of 

marine mammals have been observed to 

behaviorally respond to soft starts (also 

called ramp-ups) such that the risk of 

PTS and TTS is decreased (e.g., Stone et 

al., 2017) and modeling studies have 

demonstrated similar effectiveness (von 

Benda Beckmann, et al., 2013). As 

described in the Potential Effects of 

Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat in the 

Federal Register notice of the proposed 

IHA, marine mammals may avoid areas 

of impact pile driving (e.g., Tougaard et 

al., 2009; Da ̈hne et al., 2013; Thompson 

et al., 2013; Russell et al., 2016; Brandt 

et al., 2018). 

Also, the Biological Opinion specifies 

that while NMFS is ‘‘not able to predict 

the extent to which the soft start will 

reduce the number of whales exposed to 

pile driving noise or the extent to which 

it will reduce the duration of exposure. 

Therefore, while the soft start is 

expected to reduce effects of pile 

driving, we are not able to modify the 

estimated take numbers to account for 

any benefit provided by the soft start.’’ 

This language appropriately expresses 

the expected benefits of soft start, while 

acknowledging that they are difficult to 

quantify, which is why there are no 

adjustments to take numbers based on 

the fact that soft start is required. 

Comment 12: Multiple commenters 

cite the Rand Acoustics report (Rand, 

2024) as calculating acoustic impacts 

greater than estimated by Vineyard 

Wind 1 and indicating the need for 

larger clearance zones. Rand Inc., (2024) 

asserts that pile driving noise rivals the 

loudness and frequency range of seismic 

air gun arrays. Commenters claim that 

the proposed clearance and shutdown 

zones are insufficient to effectively 

reduce impacts to marine mammals 

because sound exposure, in terms of 

impulsive and continuous noise levels, 

is underestimated. Commenters indicate 

that more research on marine mammal 

avoidance of impulsive sound should be 

incorporated into the analysis to 

determine how to expand mitigation 

zones, and that the current mitigation 

zones for endangered species are not 

large enough. One commenter further 

notes without justification that all 

mitigation zones, as well as clearance 

and shutdown procedures, proposed for 

North Atlantic right whales should be 

applicable to all endangered marine 

mammal species, specifically the sperm 

whale, fin whale, and sei whale. 

Response: NMFS reviewed the Rand 

Inc. (2024) report and found that the 

initial modeling done for Vineyard 

Wind 1 considered source levels 

reasonably consistent with both Rand’s 

results and the Vineyard Wind 1 2023 

SFV report. The extensive 

measurements performed during the 

2023 IHA for Vineyard Wind 1 

construction allowed NMFS an 

opportunity to review data collected at 

several distances from the source. Based 

on those data, NMFS has determined 

that the distances to the Level A and 

Level B harassment thresholds (and any 

associated mitigation zones) during the 

2024 Phase 2 pile installation activities 

are reasonable estimates based on the 

best available science. The results show 

that for Level A harassment, the model 

predicted acoustic ranges were on 

average conservative. Therefore, 

considerations related to Level A take 

based on the initial modeling were 

validated by the 2023 SFV campaign. 

For Level B, the IHA analysis here was 

based directly on applicable 

measurements from the 2023 campaign. 

Thus, with regard to impact pile 

driving, NMFS’s acoustic ranges and 

take estimates are well supported by 

extensive field measurements, are 

consistent with the data presented in 

Rand (2024), and therefore do not 

warrant revisions. 

NMFS disagrees that expanded 

shutdown and clearance zones are 

necessary under the least practicable 

adverse impact standard for marine 

mammal species or stocks, including 

those listed under the ESA. As 

described in the Proposed Mitigation 

section in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA and the Mitigation 

section of this notice, there is a required 

shutdown if a North Atlantic right 

whale is visually observed at any 

distance or acoustically detected within 

the 10 km PAM monitoring zone. In 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75662 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

addition, impact pile driving may not 

begin if a North Atlantic right whale is 

visually sighted or acoustically detected 

within the pre-start clearance zone at 

any distance during the 30-minute 

clearance period. NMFS neither 

anticipates nor authorizes any take by 

Level A harassment of North Atlantic 

right whales. 

Some mitigation measures in the IHA 

are centered around North Atlantic right 

whales because of the species status and 

general fitness of individuals. NMFS 

acknowledges that seasonal closures are 

based on North Atlantic right whale 

densities and that the maximum density 

months for other ESA-listed species may 

occur outside of the seasonal closures. 

Other enhanced mitigation for North 

Atlantic right whales includes delaying 

or shutting down pile driving should a 

North Atlantic right whale be observed 

at any distance by a foundation 

installation PSO or acoustically detected 

within the PAM monitoring zone. If 

clearance and shutdown zones were 

increased for other ESA-listed species, it 

would result in longer construction time 

frames, prolonging the time periods over 

which marine mammals may be 

exposed to construction-related 

stressors, as well as creating 

impracticable operational scenarios for 

the applicant. It has been modeled and 

is logical that projects should be 

constructed as quickly as possible 

during times when the potential for a 

species of concern to be present is 

lowest (Southall et al. 2021). 

Accordingly, NMFS has determined that 

the current clearance and shutdown 

zones together with other mitigation 

measures effect the least practicable 

adverse impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals. 

Comment 13: A commenter states that 

the proposed shutdown procedures are 

not strict enough and should be more 

comparable to oil/gas authorizations 

that require shutdown for live marine 

mammal strandings and ‘‘millings 

within 50 km of survey operations.’’ 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

addition of the measure the commenter 

recommended is appropriate and has 

added a measure to the IHA for 

Vineyard Wind 1 to cease pile driving 

in the event of a live cetacean stranding 

(or near-shore atypical milling) event 

within 50 km of the pile driving 

operations, where the NMFS Marine 

Mammal Stranding Network is engaged 

in herding or other interventions to 

return animals to the water. 

Comment 14: While commenters 

acknowledge that time of year 

restrictions on pile driving are effective 

mitigation measures, multiple 

commenters suggested that the proposed 

seasonal restrictions are insufficient as 

the restriction period does not account 

for North Atlantic right whales, sperm 

whales, and fin whales in the Project 

Area outside of those months. 

Commenters further note that 

endangered marine mammal species are 

present in the Project Area year-round, 

especially North Atlantic right whales 

during the late summer. 

Response: NMFS has restricted 

foundation installation pile driving from 

January through May, which represents 

the period when North Atlantic right 

whales are most likely to be in the 

Project Area in higher numbers and 

engaged in foraging behavior. A 

commenter indicated that the seasonal 

restriction period of January through 

May does not account for the 

heightened presence of North Atlantic 

right whales in southern New England 

during the late summer (Quintana-Rizzo 

et al., 2021). However, North Atlantic 

right whale presence during the summer 

is typically closer to Nantucket Shoals 

(Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021; Van Parijs 

et al., 2023) and not concentrated 

within the lease area or the LIA. In 

addition, North Atlantic right whale 

densities are highest in the lease area 

and LIA from January through May 

(Roberts et al., 2023), further supporting 

that period as an appropriate time frame 

for implementing seasonal restrictions 

for North Atlantic right whales. NMFS 

acknowledges that seasonal closures are 

based on North Atlantic right whale 

densities and the maximum density 

months for other ESA-listed species, 

such as fin whales and sperm whales, 

and stocks experiencing UMEs, such as 

minke whales, may occur outside of the 

seasonal closures (table 9). However, no 

UMEs are active for ESA-listed marine 

mammals other than the North Atlantic 

right whale and there is other mitigation 

for those species. See Comment 12 for 

additional detail on implementing 

additional mitigation measures for 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed 

and species and stocks experiencing 

UMEs. 

Seasonal restrictions are not in place 

from June through December because 

North Atlantic right whale densities are 

lower. During those months pile driving 

may take place, Vineyard Wind 1 is 

required to implement mitigation 

measures during pile driving to reduce 

impacts to marine mammals. These 

mitigation measures include clearance 

and shutdown zones, visual and 

acoustic monitoring of zones by PSOs 

and PAM operators, and use of noise 

attenuation devices to reduce impacts to 

marine mammals. These measures are 

consistent with those required and 

successfully implemented under 

previous incidental take authorizations, 

as described in the Mitigation section. 

Furthermore, VW1 is required to 

establish stronger mitigation measures 

for endangered species, such as fin 

whales and sperm whales; for example 

those species have larger clearance and 

shutdown distances than other marine 

mammals. 

During November and December, 

Vineyard Wind 1 will be required to 

follow enhanced mitigation measures if 

impact pile driving occurs. From 

November 1–December 31, if pile 

driving has been shut down or delayed 

due to the presence of 3 or more North 

Atlantic right whales, pile driving will 

be postponed until the next day. As 

December represents the highest density 

month for North Atlantic right whale 

outside of the January through May 

restriction, Vineyard Wind 1 will be 

required to follow additional enhanced 

measures beyond those required in 

November. In December, Vineyard Wind 

1 must conduct, in addition to PAM, 

extended surveys using the dedicated 

PSOs vessels prior to starting or 

resuming pile driving as described in 

their Pile Driving Monitoring Plan. With 

the application of these enhanced 

mitigation and monitoring measures in 

November and December, impacts to 

NARW will be further reduced. 

Accordingly, NMFS has determined that 

the seasonal restrictions, together with 

other mitigation measures, effect the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

marine mammals. 

Comment 15: One commenter claims 

that as more research is needed on 

marine mammal hearing, the 

precautionary principle should be 

employed by expanding mitigation 

zones, increasing accountability of 

vessel operators to offshore wind 

vessels, applying more checks and 

balances to those conducting 

construction activities, and reviewing 

vessel transcripts. The commenter 

specifically states that limited data on 

PTS onset thresholds as a result of data 

coming from the same species and/or 

same captive animals results in 

dependent data sets, and requests that 6 

month moratorium be placed on all east 

coast wind projects until detailed study 

can be conducted by independent 

researchers. 

Response: MMPA and its 

implementing regulations require that 

IHAs be issued based on the best 

scientific evidence available, if the 

required findings can be made. NMFS 

agrees with the commenter that 

additional research will continue to 

improve our understanding of the 

impacts of anthropogenic noise on 

marine mammal hearing, yet disagrees 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75663 

that expanded mitigation and 

monitoring measures or a moratorium 

on east coast wind projects are 

necessary under the least practicable 

adverse impact standard. See Comment 

26 for details on data related to PTS 

onset thresholds. The IHA includes 

general conditions to hold Vineyard 

Wind 1 and its designees (including 

vessel operators and other personnel) 

accountable while performing 

operations under this IHA. In addition 

to requiring Vineyard Wind 1 to abide 

by vessel strike avoidance measures and 

a NMFS-approved marine mammal 

vessel strike avoidance plan, Vineyard 

Wind 1 is also required to equip all 

vessels with properly installed, 

operational Automatic Identification 

System (AIS) device and report all 

Maritime Mobile Service Identity 

(MMSI) numbers to NMFS. See 

Comment 12 for additional detail on 

expanding mitigation zones. The 

required mitigation and monitoring 

measures described in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA 

and this notice were designed based 

upon the best available science. In terms 

of a moratorium on east coast wind 

projects, it is beyond the scope of 

NMFS’ authority to place a moratorium 

on these projects as NMFS only 

authorizes marine mammal take 

incidental to an activity (provided we 

make the necessary findings) and not 

the activity itself. 

Comment 16: One commenter notes 

that the vessel speed restriction of 

traveling a maximum of 10 kn (11.5 

mph) does not apply to crew transfer 

vessels. The commenter suggests that 

these restrictions should apply to crew 

transfer vessels as these vessels 

undertake the majority of project trips. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

commenter that the vessel speed 

restriction of traveling a maximum of 10 

kn (11.5 mph) should apply to all 

project vessels in a transit corridor if 

PAM is not used to monitor the transit 

corridor. NMFS included this measure 

in the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed IHA as well as the final IHA. 

Comment 17: A commenter notes that 

the IHA should be more specific in 

defining the vessel transit corridor. 

Response: NMFS appreciates the 

commenter’s request to define the vessel 

transit corridor. The transit corridor is 

defined as the route a vessel takes from 

a port to the lease area and return. This 

definition is provided in the Vessel 

Strike Avoidance Measures section of 

this Federal Register notice as well as 

condition 5(b)(viii) of the IHA. 

Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive 

Management 

Comment 18: Multiple commenters 

claim that NMFS should require 100 

percent on board agency enforcement 

coverage during the proposed Vineyard 

Wind 1 construction activities instead of 

allowing self-reporting and selfverification of acoustic impacts by 

Vineyard Wind 1, specifically regarding 

critically endangered species. The 

commenters further note that NMFS 

should require enforcement personnel 

on board project vessels or camera 

coverage of all offshore wind activity 

with camera footage that is reviewed by 

NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement 

(OLE). In order to verify that Vineyard 

Wind 1 adheres to all sound attenuation 

measures, a commenter further 

recommends that NMFS place an Office 

of Protected Resource ‘‘observer’’ on the 

vessel to confirm sound attenuation for 

each monopile. A commenter also 

suggests that NMFS hire a third-party 

safety officer to observe pile driving, 

confirm pile refusal or use of lower 

hammer energies, and create a safety 

plan for PSOs and PAM operators in the 

event of pile refusal. 

Response: The IHA requires multiple 

mitigation and monitoring measures to 

effect the least practicable adverse 

impact on affected species or stocks of 

marine mammals, as well as extensive 

reporting requirements that document 

compliance and observed marine 

mammal responses to the activities by 

independent NMFS-approved PSOs. In 

terms of vessel strike avoidance 

measures, NMFS maintains an 

Enforcement Hotline for members of the 

public to report violations of vessel 

speed restrictions. While it is beyond 

the scope of 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

to include requirements of NMFS OLE 

personnel, the IHA includes two 

provisions related to the commenters 

recommendation: one states that by 

accepting the issued IHA, Vineyard 

Wind 1 consents to on-site observation 

and inspections by Federal agency 

personnel (including NOAA personnel) 

during activities this IHA covers, for the 

purposes of evaluating the 

implementation and effectiveness of 

measures contained within the IHA; the 

other states that it is prohibited to 

assault, harm, harass (including 

sexually harass), oppose, impede, 

intimidate, impair, or in any way 

influence or interfere with a PSO, PAM 

Operator, or vessel crew member acting 

as an observer, or attempt the same. 

This prohibition includes, but is not 

limited to, any action that interferes 

with an observer’s responsibilities, or 

that creates an intimidating, hostile, or 

offensive environment and indicates 

that personnel may report any violations 

to the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement. 

NMFS is also not requiring additional 

observers to ‘‘confirm sound 

attenuation’’ for each monopile. As 

described in both the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA and this 

notice, NMFS has included 

requirements for sound attenuation 

methods that were previously evaluated 

in SFV measurements conducted during 

Vineyard Wind 1 construction activities 

in 2023. Further, additional in situ SFV 

measurements will be conducted to 

ensure that sound levels are at or below 

those modeled (assuming 6 dB 

attenuation for Level A harassment) or 

those measured and expected (for Level 

B harassment) in 2023. In addition, 

Vineyard Wind 1 will be required to 

follow specific protocol when 

conducting SFV measurements, as 

described in conditions 5(a)(xvi–xxi) in 

the IHA, and report SFV measurements 

to NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

within 48 hours of each foundation 

installation as well as on a weekly, 

monthly, and annual basis. Frequent 

reporting will ensure that NMFS is 

aware of any threshold exceedances and 

the measures Vineyard Wind 1 would 

be implementing to ensure the Level A 

and Level B harassment isopleths do not 

exceed those modeled or expected for 

foundation installation. 

Comment 19: One commenter 

expressed concern that NMFS should 

hold Vineyard Wind 1 accountable for 

maintaining sound levels during 

construction activities. The commenter 

further noted that submitting final SFV 

measurements within 90 days of 

completing SFV is not acceptable and 

removes accountability from Vineyard 

Wind1. The commenter suggested that 

NMFS should require Vineyard Wind 1 

to complete the final results of SFV 

measurements within 48 hours of pile 

driving completion for each pile, 

instead of 90 days, and future piles 

should be dependent upon completion, 

review, and NMFS acceptance of daily 

SFV reports. Another commenter 

suggested that each monopile should be 

required to have its own SFV 

measurements registered throughout 

pile driving with a NMFS observer who 

can monitor and stop by pile driving, if 

necessary, until attenuation is achieved. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

commenters that Vineyard Wind 1 

should be held accountable for 

maintaining agrees with the commenters 

that Vineyard Wind 1 should be held 

accountable for maintaining the sound 

levels analyzed for the IHA during 

construction activities, though, as 

described above in Comment 18, while 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75664 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

it is possible to measure the overall 

sound levels that include the NAS, there 

is no way to specifically confirm a 6-dB 

sound reduction as compared to an 

unattenuated pile. In situ measurements 

will continue to be conducted to verify 

sound levels are at or below those 

modeled or measured, as specified. 

Although NMFS requires a SFV report 

to be submitted within 90 days of 

activity completion, NMFS also requires 

Vineyard Wind 1 to review SFV results 

within 24 hours and submit weekly, 

monthly, annual, and situational 

reports. As described in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA 

and this notice, Vineyard Wind 1 is 

required to provide the initial results of 

the SFV measurements to NMFS in an 

interim report after each foundation 

installation event as soon as they are 

available and prior to a subsequent 

foundation installation, but no later 

than 48 hours after each completed 

foundation installation event. In 

addition, each monopile must be 

acoustically monitored either using 

thorough SFV or abbreviated SFV. 

Again, it is not known if attenuation is 

achieved until results are reviewed 

within 24 hours, however, if SFV 

measurements exceed those distances 

that are modeled (Level A harassment) 

or measured (Level B harassment), 

Vineyard Wind 1 must notify NMFS and 

implement mitigative measures, as 

described in condition 5(a)(xxi) of the 

IHA. 

Comment 20: A commenter claims 

that it is insufficient to visually and 

acoustically monitor for marine 

mammals for only 1 hour prior to 

beginning construction activities. 

Another commenter further indicates 

that NMFS should require two active 

PAM operators (instead of one) to 

increase situational awareness and 

active monitoring of hydrophones 

during the 60 minute pre-start clearance 

period. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

commenter that monitoring more than 

one hour prior to beginning 

construction is appropriate. In addition 

to a 60 minute pre-start clearance period 

for visual observation and the 

requirement for PAM operator(s) to 

actively monitor hydrophones for 60 

minutes prior to commencement of 

construction activities, both the 

proposed and final IHA include a 

requirement that Vineyard Wind 1 must 

also review PAM data collected for at 

least 24 hours in advance of pile driving 

activity to increase situational 

awareness of marine mammals in the 

area. Davis et al. (2023) found that by 

increasing pre-construction acoustic 

monitoring from 1 hour to 18 hours 

increased the likelihood of detecting a 

North Atlantic right whale from 4 

percent to 74 percent. 

At least one PAM operator is required 

to actively monitor and review PAM 

data from at least the past 24 hours to 

increase situational awareness. 

However, the number of active on-duty 

PAM operators must be sufficient to 

meet the requirements of the IHA. 

Vineyard Wind 1 is required to submit 

a PAM Plan for NMFS approval, which 

will specify the planned number of 

PAM operators that would be active to 

meet the IHA requirements. 

Comment 21: Commenters claim that 

PSOs have poor detection capabilities 

and should not be relied upon for 

monitoring, most notably in low 

visibility conditions. A commenter cited 

the Williams et al. (2016) study, 

specifically noting that in the ‘‘worst 

visibility conditions’’ PSO detection 

probability was near zero at 1,000 m and 

did not exceed 50 percent until the 

distance is less than about 500 meters. 

The same commenter also indicated that 

the ‘‘overall efficacy of PSOs is 

approximately 9 percent in detection’’ 

and the ‘‘overall efficacy’’ of PAM ‘‘is 

approximately 25 percent.’’ A 

commenter further claims that PAM and 

low visibility equipment (i.e., night 

vision goggles, infrared devices) 

proposed for monitoring are not 

effective and offer unreliable rates of 

detection, citing that PAM as a 

monitoring tool includes numerous 

limitations such as detecting marine 

mammals when they are not actively 

vocalizing and vocalizations of 

sufficient magnitude. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that 

monitoring using a combination of PSOs 

and PAM will not be effective at 

detecting marine mammals. As 

described in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA, NMFS is 

requiring that Vineyard Wind 1 employ 

both visual and PAM methods for 

monitoring. Visual and PAM 

approaches are well understood to 

provide best results when combined 

together (e.g., Barlow and Taylor, 2005; 

Clark et al., 2010; Gerrodette et al., 

2011; Van Parijs et al., 2021). The use 

of PAM will augment visual detections 

for foundation pile driving, especially 

for activities with the largest zones. 

NMFS is requiring the use of PAM to 

monitor 10 km zones around the piles 

and that the systems be capable of 

detecting marine mammals during pile 

driving within this zone. For these 

reasons, NMFS finds that the suite of 

visual and acoustic monitoring 

measures in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA and carried 

forward in the IHA are based on the best 

available scientific information and are 

effective at detecting marine mammals. 

We recognize that the distances at 

which marine mammals may be 

observed are both species and weather 

dependent. The commenter relies on 

Williams et al. (2016), in claiming that 

PSO detection probability was near zero 

at 1,000 m, however, this detection 

probability was based upon monitoring 

during poor visibility conditions. As 

visibility conditions improved during 

the study, PSO detection probability 

increased. Under this IHA, Vineyard 

Wind 1 is required to conduct 

monitoring in a manner such that PSOs 

can visually monitor an area no smaller 

than the minimum visibility zone (4,000 

m; 13,123 ft). Pile driving may not occur 

in any conditions (including poor 

visibility conditions such as fog, rain, or 

darkness) if PSOs are not able to sight 

marine mammals in this minimum 

visibility zone out to this distance. 

During construction of Vineyard Wind 1 

in 2023 and South Fork Wind, PSOs 

observed baleen whales at ranges as 

distant as 4 km (13, 123 ft) and 23 km 

(75,459 ft), respectively (RPS, 2024; 

South Fork Wind, 2024). The 

commenter did not provide evidence to 

support claims the minimum visibility 

zone could not be effectively monitored 

during good weather conditions, and 

NMFS disagrees with the commenters 

that, during good weather conditions, 

Vineyard Wind 1 would not be able to 

effectively monitor the minimum 

visibility zone. 

NMFS recognizes that visual 

detection may not be 100 percent 

effective. Animals may be missed 

because they are underwater (i.e., 

availability bias) or because they are 

available to be seen but are missed by 

observers (i.e., perception and detection 

biases) (e.g., Marsh and Sinclair, 1989). 

However, visual observation remains 

one of the best available methods for 

marine mammal detection. 

The commenter indicates that PAM is 

limited to only detecting animals that 

are vocalizing, and vocalizations must 

be of ‘‘sufficient magnitude to surmount 

background noise’’ and be detected at 

the receiving station. NMFS 

acknowledges these limitations, 

however, there are a wide variety of 

PAM systems available on the market 

(van Parijs et al., 2021), ranging from 

omnidirectional independent acoustic 

buoys to multi-channel hydrophone 

arrays that are capable of detecting 

marine mammals in real-time. Real-time 

(or near real-time) stationary and mobile 

PAM systems are currently being used 

to inform management decisions and 

literature supports the effectiveness of 

real-time PAM at detecting marine 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75665 

mammals, including North Atlantic 

right whales (Ceballos et al., 2022; 

Murray et al., 2022; Baumgartner et al., 

2020; Baumgarnter et al., 2019). In 2023, 

Vineyard Wind documented 253 

acoustic detections of protected species 

during the project (with and in the 

absence of pile driving). Of the 

detections, 206 detections were 

unidentified dolphin, 45 detections of 

fin whales, and two detections of 

unidentified baleen whales (RPS, 2024). 

Vineyard Wind 1 is required to submit 

a PAM Plan to NMFS that demonstrates 

the system will be able to detect North 

Atlantic right whales at ranges up to 10 

km (32,808.4 ft). To date, offshore wind 

developers have used bottom-mounted 

PAM systems located at distance from 

piles being installed. The final IHA 

requires the PAM system be placed no 

closer than 1 km (3,280.8 ft) from the 

pile being installed to minimize 

masking of North Atlantic right whale 

calls by construction noise. 

Comment 22: A commenter indicates 

that all reports of endangered species 

should be logged and reported to NMFS 

within 24 hours. 

Response: As described in the 

proposed IHA, Vineyard Wind 1 is 

required to report North Atlantic right 

whale sightings and acoustic detections 

to NMFS within 24 hours. As 

mentioned above in Comment 12 above, 

some mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are focused on North 

Atlantic right whales due to the species 

status and general fitness of individuals. 

It is not practicable or necessary to 

require Vineyard Wind 1 to report all 

sightings of endangered species to 

NMFS within 24 hours, unless a 

detection is of an injured, entangled, or 

dead marine mammal (see Reporting 

section of Monitoring and Reporting), 

and the commenter does not provide a 

rationale for the recommended change. 

However, all whale sightings must be 

reported to vessel captains and PSOs. In 

addition, NMFS is requiring all acoustic 

and visual detections of marine 

mammals to be submitted in weekly, 

monthly, and annual reports. NMFS 

disagrees that more frequent reporting of 

all ESA-listed marine mammal species 

is necessary and considers the required 

monitoring and reporting requirements 

in the IHA to be robust and appropriate. 

Effects Assessment 

Comment 23: Multiple commenters 

have expressed concern for impacts of 

offshore wind construction activities on 

marine mammal prey. One commenter 

expressed concern specifically regarding 

impacts to North Atlantic right whale 

prey, such as copepods, due to heat 

emanating from electric cables 

associated with offshore wind farm 

development. In addition, commenters 

express concern for operational impacts 

on North Atlantic right whale prey. One 

commenter indicates that based upon 

the size of the turbines, impacts to 

North Atlantic right whale prey could 

occur up to 60 miles outside of the 

Lease Area. Another commenter notes 

that the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed IHA also does not address 

potential operational impacts to water 

circulation patterns that produce 

zooplankton aggregations near 

Nantucket Shoals. The commenter 

claims that due to the overlap between 

a NOAA conservation buffer near 

Nantucket Shoals and the Project Area, 

NMFS should not issue the IHA to 

Vineyard Wind 1. 

Response: In the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA, NMFS 

considered the potential impacts of 

structures and operational noise on 

marine mammals and their habitat, 

including prey, based on the best 

available science (see the Potential 

Effects to Marine Mammal Habitat and 

Potential Effects from Offshore Wind 

Farm Operational Noise in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA). 

NMFS provides further analysis of the 

impacts of turbine operation on marine 

mammal habitat and prey in the Impact 

on Habitat and Prey section of the 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination section of this Federal 

Register notice as well as in the 

reinitiated Biological Opinion. The 

commenter did not provide scientific 

evidence that suggests the analysis 

within the Federal Register notice for 

the proposed IHA was unsupported. 

NMFS has fully evaluated the potential 

impacts of both issuing this IHA over 

the one-year effective period and the 

potential impacts from long-term 

operations via the Biological Opinion 

(BiOp). We refer the reader to the 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activities on Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat section and the Negligible 

Impact Determination section in the 

proposed and final IHA notice for 

further details. 

NMFS is evaluating the effects of 

authorizing the take of marine mammals 

incidental to pile driving 15 monopile 

foundations. Vineyard Wind operations 

commenced in 2023 and would be 

ongoing without installation of the 

remaining piles. BOEM is the agency 

responsible for approving construction 

and operations of offshore wind farms. 

Impacts to the environment for other 

project related activities such as sending 

power to shore through buried electric 

cables was analyzed in BOEM’s 

Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for 

the Project and are outside the scope of 

the NMFS’ MMPA decision. 

Comment 24: Commenters claim that 

due to impacts to the North Atlantic 

right whales, the proposed IHA violates 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

reinitiation of consultation indicates 

that Vineyard Wind 1 was not 

compliant with the 2021 IHA. In 

addition, one commenter suggests that 

all reasons and information 

necessitating the reinitiation of the 

Vineyard Wind 1 Biological Opinion be 

made available for public comment 

including an extension to the public 

comment period. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with 

commenters that the proposed IHA 

violates the ESA or that the reinitiation 

of the consultation indicates that 

Vineyard Wind was not compliant with 

the 2023 IHA. On May 23, 2024, NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources reinitiated 

its ESA section 7 consultation due to 

consideration of updated marine 

mammal density data which have 

become available since issuance of the 

2023 IHA and analysis of SFV data 

collected by Vineyard Wind 1 during 

the 2023 construction campaign in the 

analysis for this IHA. NMFS also 

considered modified mitigation and 

monitoring measures in this analysis. 

NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional 

Fisheries Office (GARFO) completed its 

consultation on August 23, 2024 and 

concluded that the proposed actions 

were likely to adversely affect but were 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the North Atlantic right 

whale, fin whale, sei whale, or sperm 

whale. The reasons and information 

necessitating the reinitiation of the 

Vineyard Wind 1 Biological Opinion are 

described in the Endangered Species 

Act section of this Federal Register 

notice. The Federal Register notice for 

the proposed IHA also described the 

request for reinitiation of consultation. 

NMFS did not deem extension of the 

public comment period for the proposed 

IHA necessary or appropriate. 

Comment 25: Multiple commenters 

claim that NMFS did not evaluate the 

cumulative effects of all projects (e.g., 

the offshore wind projects of other 

companies) on marine mammals. One 

commenter claims that NMFS should 

conduct a cumulative impact 

assessment of all offshore wind surveys 

and construction projects on marine 

mammals. Another commenter further 

notes that ‘‘dividing and segmenting the 

estimated take analysis for Vineyard 

Wind 1 across two years provides an 

inaccurate picture of total and 

cumulative effects’’ on North Atlantic 

right whales. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75666 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

Response: NMFS is required to 

authorize the requested incidental take 

of small numbers of marine mammals of 

a species or stock by U.S. citizens if it 

finds the total take ‘‘while engaging in 

that (specified) activity’’ within a 

specified geographical region will have 

a negligible impact on such species or 

stock and, where applicable, will not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for subsistence uses (16 U.S.C. 

1371(a)(5)(A)). Negligible impact is 

defined 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 effect on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ 

(50 CFR 216.103). Consistent with the 

preamble of NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

factored into the baseline, which is used 

in the negligible impact analysis. Here, 

NMFS has factored into its negligible 

impact analysis the impacts of other 

past and ongoing anthropogenic 

activities via their impacts on the 

baseline (e.g., as reflected in the 

density/distribution and status of the 

species, population size and growth 

rate, and other relevant stressors). 

The preamble of NMFS’ 

implementing regulations also addresses 

cumulative effects from future, 

unrelated activities. Such effects are not 

considered in making the negligible 

impact determination under MMPA 

section 101(a)(5). NMFS considers: (1) 

cumulative effects that are reasonably 

foreseeable when preparing a National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analysis; and (2) reasonably foreseeable 

cumulative effects under section 7 of the 

ESA for ESA-listed species, as 

appropriate. Accordingly, NMFS has 

reviewed BOEM’s 2021 EIS as part of its 

inter-agency coordination and 

determined that the analysis in the 2021 

EIS for the Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore 

Wind Project is sufficient to cover the 

more limited scope of the remaining 

construction activities for this project. 

The EIS addresses cumulative impacts 

related to the Project and substantially 

similar activities in similar locations. 

Cumulative impacts regarding the 

issuance of an IHA for construction 

activities planned by Vineyard Wind 1 

have been adequately addressed in the 

adopted EIS that supports NMFS’ 

determination that this action has been 

appropriately analyzed under NEPA. 

Separately, the cumulative effects of the 

Project on ESA-listed species, including 

the North Atlantic right whale, were 

analyzed in NMFS’ biological opinion 

issued under section 7 of the ESA 

following formal inter-agency 

consultation with the NOAA Greater 

Atlantic Regional Field Office (GARFO). 

Following reinitiated consultation on 

May 23, 2024, GARFO issued a new 

BiOp that determined that NMFS’ 

issuance of an IHA for construction 

activities, individually and 

cumulatively, are likely to adversely 

affect, but not jeopardize, listed marine 

mammals. 

NMFS disagrees that dividing 

estimated take analysis for Vineyard 

Wind 1 across two years provides an 

inaccurate picture of cumulative effects 

on North Atlantic right whales. The take 

authorized in this IHA represents a 

subset of the take authorized under the 

2023 IHA and is based upon the 

reduced scope of work remaining for the 

project. As NMFS has determined the 

2021 EIS remains appropriate for this 

analysis, cumulative effects on marine 

mammal species, including North 

Atlantic right whales, are taken into 

account. 

Comment 26: Citing to new data in 

Finneran et al. (2023), commenters raise 

questions about the validity of NMFS’ 

current noise exposure guidelines for 

dolphins at frequencies below ∼1kHz 

and how to accurately estimate received 

noise levels from free-swimming 

animals, Commenters recommend 

NMFS conduct a new analysis and 

enlarge the exclusion and clearance 

zones for marine mammals, particularly 

bottlenose dolphins and long finned 

pilot whales. Commenters also criticize 

specific facets of the methodology in 

NMFS 2018 Revised Technical 

Guidance, suggest the need for 

additional research, and suggested 

ongoing construction at Vineyard Wind 

cease or the IHA be withdrawn until 

NMFS updated its PTS/TTS thresholds 

for mid-frequency cetaceans. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that the 

analysis or mitigation zones for marine 

mammals (and MF species specifically) 

require adjustments and that the IHA 

process be paused (or withdrawn) until 

more information is known on whether 

animals will move out of the area or 

NMFS finalizes updates to the 2018 

Technical Guidance. Under section 

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

required to issue the IHA if the taking 

will be for small numbers of the affected 

species or stocks and if NMFS is able to 

make the statutorily required negligible 

impact finding. Among other things, the 

IHA must prescribe the means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat. All of these standards 

are based on the best available 

information. 

Our analyses for predicting auditory 

impacts on marine mammals are based 

primarily on our 2018 Technical 

Guidance for Assessing the Impacts of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2018). NMFS 

is currently in the process of updating 

that Technical Guidance, following a 

rigorous process involving external peer 

review, Federal agency review, and 

public comment (89 FR 36762, May 3, 

2024). As the commenter notes, 

Finneran et al. (2023) suggests that highfrequency cetaceans (formerly classified 

as mid-frequency cetaceans in our 2018 

Revised Technical Guidance) are more 

susceptible to noise-induced hearing 

loss below 1 kHz that previously 

thought, which will likely result in a 

change in the Technical Guidance. 

However, given the rigorous review 

process to update the Technical 

Guidance is not complete, the future 

updates are not quantitatively applied to 

this project. We note, however, potential 

anticipated changes to the Technical 

Guidance would not be expected to 

change the findings that support the 

issuance of this IHA. 

Regarding some of the specific 

methodological concerns raised by 

commenters, NMFS disagrees that the 

use of means and medians is 

inappropriate or that the methodology 

should be compared to that used in the 

calculation of potential biological 

removal (PBR). The Technical 

Guidance’s methodology is designed to 

predict the mostly likely (realistic) 

outcome using the central tendencies 

(means/median) associated with the best 

available science. The intent is not to 

predict the worst-case-scenario by 

relying on the lowest limits for every 

possible step in the methodology (i.e., 

Technical Guidance is for accurately 

predicting exposures and not for 

establishing ‘‘safe limits,’’ where there is 

limited to no risk). Further, within the 

development of the criteria, several 

assumptions were made to address 

uncertainty, including the amount of 

threshold shift defining TTS onset (e.g,. 

6 dB threshold shift, which is the 

minimum threshold shift clearly larger 

than any day-to-day or session-tosession variation) and PTS onset (40 dB 

shift, where there have been no reports 

of PTS in a marine mammal whose 

initial behavioral threshold shift was 40 

dB or less) and that there is no recovery 

between intermittent exposures. 

Regarding the observation that the data 

upon which the Technical Guidance is 

based are limited in some ways, we do 

not disagree, but are nonetheless 

charged with basing our analyses on the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75667 

best available information and have 

described a reasonable methodology 

that does so. 

Contrary to the commenters’ 

assertions, NMFS has not drawn any 

conclusions about TTS based on PSO 

observations and a commenter 

incorrectly implies that the clearance 

and shutdown zones in the proposed 

IHA, including the 160-m zone for 

dolphins, are intended to avoid TTS. As 

described in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA, NMFS does not 

quantitatively distinguish Level B 

harassment in the form of direct 

behavioral disturbance from a 

disruption of behavioral patterns 

resulting indirectly from TTS, but, 

rather, notes that the predicted takes by 

Level B harassment could include 

either. Moreover, the distances at which 

TTS onset is likely are smaller relative 

to those where behavioral disruption 

without any TTS is expected. Regarding 

the comment related to auditory 

brainstem response (ABR), NMFS 

disagrees that conclusions in Finneran 

et al. 2023 cast doubt on the NMFS TTS 

threshold methodology generally for all 

species. The results of Finneran et al. 

2023 show that hearing and TTS data, 

relying on behavioral methodology, 

cannot be directly compared to 

measurements using ABR methods. 

Finneran et al. 2023 indicate 

‘‘Correlation between TTS measured 

behaviorally and with ABRs was weak 

(figure 13) and ABR-measured TTS was 

typically lower and more variable than 

that measured behaviorally for the same 

exposure’’ and later that ‘‘In practice, 

however, ABR measurements in the 

present study provided only limited 

value.’’ While we acknowledge the 

differences in these two methods in 

predicting TTS onset, especially at 

lower frequencies, the information does 

not support the commenters assertion 

that NMFS analysis needs to change or 

that mitigation zones must be enlarged, 

since, as noted above, the analysis 

already acknowledges that the potential 

for TTS in the quantified takes by Level 

B harassment and the mitigation zones 

are intended to avoid or minimize PTS, 

not TTS. Finally, the relationship 

between ABR and behavioral hearing 

measurements is not relevant to PSO 

observations of behavior. 

Finally, regarding our mitigation 

under the applicable least practicable 

adverse impact standard, our proposed 

IHA notice explains clearance and 

shutdown zones are intended to avoid 

or minimize the likelihood of Level A 

harassment and reduce the severity or 

likelihood of Level B harassment. 

Importantly, the size of the clearance 

and shutdown zones for all marine 

mammals s larger than the modeled 

Level A harassment (PTS) distances 

which, based on SFV data from the 2023 

pile driving season, is an overestimate. 

Specifically for mid frequency 

cetaceans, the estimated distance to PTS 

is 43 m; however, the clearance and 

shutdown zone is set at 160 m due to 

presence of the bubble curtain. For the 

North Atlantic right whale, the distance 

to the clearance and shutdown zone is 

independent of both PTS and TTS in 

that they are any distance by PSOs or 

within 10 km if acoustically detected. 

Comment 27: Multiple commenters 

urged NMFS to deny the proposed 

project and/or postpone any offshore 

wind activities until NMFS determines 

effects of all offshore wind activities on 

marine mammals in the region and 

determines that the recent whale deaths 

are not related to OSW activities. 

Similarly, some commenters provided 

general concerns regarding recent whale 

stranding events on the Atlantic Coast, 

including speculation that the 

strandings may be related to wind 

energy development-related activities. A 

commenter further states that offshore 

wind construction activities have been 

linked to marine mammal injury and 

deafness. 

Response: While NMFS acknowledges 

that offshore wind development 

activities, including HRG survey effort, 

have increased in the Atlantic Ocean 

during the time period of increased 

whale strandings, there is no scientific 

evidence that these development 

activities, such as HRG survey effort and 

turbine construction, are contributing 

factors to the strandings. Further, HRG 

surveys are not part of the specified 

activity. NMFS does not agree that 

mortality is an anticipated outcome of 

these specified activities, and there is no 

evidence to suggest otherwise, as 

described below. Further, the proposed 

IHA (89 FR 31008, April 23, 2024) 

clearly states that no serious injury and/ 

or mortality was requested by Vineyard 

Wind 1, is expected, or was proposed to 

be authorized. 

The best available science indicates 

that the anticipated impacts from pile 

driving of turbines potentially include 

temporary avoidance of localized areas, 

cessation of foraging or communication, 

TTS, stress, masking, etc., (as described 

in the Effects of the Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and their Habitat 

section in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA). NMFS 

emphasizes that there is no evidence 

that noise resulting from offshore wind 

development would cause marine 

mammal strandings, and there is no 

evidence linking recent large whale 

mortalities and currently ongoing 

offshore wind activities (e.g., HRG 

surveys or construction). The 

commenters offer no such evidence or 

other scientific information to 

substantiate their claim. This point has 

been well supported by other agencies, 

including the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Marine Mammal 

Commission Newsletter, Spring 2023). 

Additionally, a recent paper by Thorne 

and Wiley (2024) reviewed 

spatiotemporal patterns of strandings, 

mortalities, and serious injuries of 

humpback whales along the U.S. East 

Coast from 2016–2022. Humpback 

whales were chosen as a case study for 

this analysis as they are currently 

undergoing a UME and strand more 

often than other large whale species. 

Thorne and Wiley (2024) found vessel 

strikes to be a major driver in the 

increase of humpback whale strandings, 

mortalities, and serious injury along the 

east coast. The potential for vessel strike 

increased during the study period due 

to increased vessel traffic in new 

foraging areas, the increased presence of 

juvenile humpback whales, and 

humpback whale foraging in shallow 

areas that overlap with vessel traffic. 

Based upon the spatiotemporal analysis, 

no evidence was found that offshore 

wind development played a role in the 

increased number of strandings over 

time. Future studies should focus on 

gaining a greater understanding of 

spatial and seasonal habitat use patterns 

of large whales, spatiotemporal changes 

in prey abundance and distribution, and 

how habitat use and foraging behavior 

affect the risk of vessel strike. While 

several species of delphinids and 

beaked whales have also stranded off 

New Jersey since 2011 (per data 

provided from the National Marine 

Stranding Network), there is no 

evidence that the acoustic sources used 

during HRG surveys contributed to 

these events. NMFS will continue to 

gather data to help us determine the 

cause of death for these stranded 

whales. 

Recently, NMFS was made aware of a 

media article wherein a member of the 

public conducted a statistical analysis 

on the correlation between offshore 

wind vessel use and whale deaths along 

the U.S. east coast (Climate Change 

Dispatch, 2024). The parameters 

considered in the analysis were limited 

to offshore wind vessel movement and 

whale deaths. NMFS has long 

recognized that marine mammals 

strandings have increased over the 

years, including increases in strandings 

of three large whale species resulting in 

the declaration of Unusual Mortality 

Events for minke, humpback, and North 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75668 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

Atlantic right whales in 2018, 2017, and 

2017 respectively. Offshore wind 

development has increased over the 

same time period, so the correlation was 

not surprising. However, the analysis 

presented in the article was not peerreviewed, was limited, not fully 

described, does not appear to separate 

out vessel movement from survey 

activities, did not consider other known 

factors that are increasing ship strike 

risk in general (e.g., Thorne and Wiley, 

2024) or other factors leading to 

increased strandings (e.g., entanglement, 

climate change), and did not 

demonstrate that offshore wind vessel 

traffic or HRG surveys are the cause of 

strandings. Overall, while NMFS 

considered this information, it did not 

provide new information that links 

whale strandings to offshore wind 

vessel movement or surveys. 

There is an ongoing UME for 

humpback whales along the Atlantic 

coast from Maine to Florida, which 

includes animals stranded since 2016, 

and we provide further information on 

the humpback whale and North Atlantic 

right whale UMEs in the Description of 

Marine Mammals in the Area of 

Specified Activities section of this 

notice. For humpback whales, partial or 

full necropsy examinations were 

conducted on approximately half of the 

whales that were recently stranded 

along the U.S. East Coast. Necropsies 

were not conducted on other carcasses 

because they were too decomposed, not 

brought to land, or stranded on 

protected lands (e.g., national and state 

parks) with limited or no access. Of the 

whales examined (roughly 90), about 40 

percent had evidence of human 

interaction, either ship strike or 

entanglement. Vessel strikes and 

entanglement in fishing gear are the 

greatest human threats to large whales. 

The remaining 50 necropsied whales 

either had an undetermined cause of 

death (due to a limited examination or 

decomposition of the carcass) or had 

other causes of death including parasitecaused organ damage and starvation. 

For North Atlantic right whales, starting 

in 2017, evaluated mortalities were 

documented in both Canada and the 

United States, with the whales 

documented for this UME as being dead, 

injured, and/or sick to the extent that 

more than 20 percent of the population 

has been affected. The preliminary 

cause of mortality, serious injury, and 

morbidity (sublethal injury and illness) 

in most of these whales is from 

entanglements or vessel strikes and 

human impacts continue to threaten the 

survival of this species. See NMFS’ 

websites (https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/ 

2016-2024-humpback-whale-unusualmortality-event-along-atlantic-coast and 

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

national/marine-life-distress/2017-2024- 

north-atlantic-right-whale-unusualmortality-event) for more information on 

the ongoing humpback whale and North 

Atlantic right whale UMEs. More 

information about interactions between 

offshore wind energy projects and 

whales can be found at https://

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

frequent-questions-offshore-wind-andwhales. 

Comment 28: A commenter indicates 

that NMFS has not taken new 

information into account for the 

presence and behaviors of sperm whales 

in the proposed Project Area. The 

commenter further notes that due to 

high sperm whale presence in the 

Project Area, as described by Farmer et 

al. (2018) and Westell et al. (2024), 

NMFS should strengthen mitigation 

measures for sperm whales. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that new 

information to account for the presence 

and behaviors of sperms whales in the 

Project Area have not been taken into 

account. Although Westell et al. (2024) 

acoustically identified sperm whale 

presence in the lease area during June 

and July 2020–2021, Vineyard Wind 1 

PSO data collected during the 2023 

construction campaign during June 

through December 2023 did not 

document any sightings of sperm 

whales in the Lease Area (RPS, 2024). In 

addition, there is no designated critical 

habitat or biologically important areas 

(BIAs) for this species in the vicinity of 

the LIA. The commenter also references 

the Farmer et al. (2018) study of 

disturbances to sperm whales, however, 

that study discusses the Gulf of Mexico 

stock of sperm whales specifically in the 

Gulf of Mexico. NMFS has included a 

robust suite of mitigation measures 

specific to sperm whales in the IHA, 

including a 500 m visual pre-start 

clearance zone, 500 m visual shutdown 

zone, a 500 m PAM clearance zone, and 

a 500 m PAM monitoring zone in 

addition to general mitigation measures 

regarding soft start, noise attenuation, 

and seasonal and daily pile driving 

restrictions. Due to limited documented 

occurrence during Vineyard Wind 1 

activities in the lease area, NMFS does 

not agree that it is appropriate or 

warranted to extend mitigation 

measures for sperm whales. 

Comment 29: One commenter claims 

that the NEPA process for the Vineyard 

Wind 1 IHA is segmented and that a 

cumulative EIS should be developed for 

the RI–MA WEA. The commenter 

further indicates that a cumulative EIS 

should include nine lease areas, 

including the proposed Vineyard Wind 

1 Project Area within the WEA. 

Response: NMFS’ proposed action to 

issue an IHA to Vineyard Wind 

constitutes a major Federal action under 

NEPA. In 2021, after independent 

review, with specific attention given to 

its evaluation of effects to marine 

mammals and their habitat, NMFS 

adopted BOEM’s Vineyard Wind 1 Final 

Environmental Impact Study (FEIS) to 

satisfy NMFS’ independent NEPA 

obligations related to its decision under 

the MMPA of whether or not to issue an 

IHA to the Vineyard Wind and signed 

a Record of Decision on May 10, 2021. 

The FEIS evaluated the direct and 

indirect impacts of the project as well as 

the cumulative impacts of all past, 

present and foreseeable future actions, 

including full offshore wind build-out 

of the OCS. Therefore, the cumulative 

impacts from constructing wind farms 

in all proposed lease areas, including 

those in southern New England, is 

included in the FEIS. BOEM’s Vineyard 

Wind 1 FEIS was challenged and 

upheld by a court. For these reasons, 

NMFS disagrees that a separate EIS that 

considers the nine lease areas in the RI– 

MA WEA alone is necessary to comply 

with NEPA for issuance of the IHA. 

Comment 30: Commenters suggest 

that supplemental NEPA is necessary 

for the proposed action and the 

Vineyard Wind 1 EIS should be 

reopened to incorporate this analysis. 

One commenter recommends that the 

Vineyard Wind 1 Record of Decision 

(ROD) and project construction be 

suspended until a new FEIS is 

completed. Another commenter claims 

that the Vineyard Wind 1 ROD is in 

violation of NEPA as it was completed 

and approved before the reinitiated 

Biological Opinion in 2021 and also 

supported halting construction of the 

project. An additional commenter 

claims that supplemental NEPA would 

be necessary if any larger piles or a 

greater number (than 15) pile were to be 

installed and this NEPA should 

consider any changes to hammer type, 

hammer size, effects to the substrate, 

and effects on marine mammals. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with 

commenters that a supplemental NEPA 

document is necessary for this action or 

that the FEIS is deficient. The planned 

completion of pile installation, 

including reduced scope of work, 

inclusion of in situ SFV data into the 

analysis, additional mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting measures, 

and updated marine mammal density 

data, have been reviewed by NMFS to 

determine if supplementation is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75669 

warranted. Vineyard Wind 1 has 

proposed to install the same size of the 

remaining 15 piles using the same 

hammer type. Supplementation of the 

Vineyard Wind 1 EIS is not required 

because this proposed action does not 

represent a substantial change to the 

Project and the proposed changes do not 

change the impact determinations. 

Therefore, the changes referenced here 

do not present significant new 

circumstances or information relevant to 

environmental concerns pertaining to 

the proposed action or its impacts (see 

40 CFR 1502.9(d)(1)). NMFS has 

determined that the Vineyard Wind 1 

FEIS is sufficient and a supplemental 

NEPA document is not necessary. 

As the Vineyard Wind 1 FEIS is 

sufficient for the proposed action and a 

new FEIS does not need to be prepared, 

it is not necessary to suspend the ROD 

or project construction. In addition, the 

original Biological Opinion was 

finalized on September 11, 2020, in 

advance of the Vineyard Wind 1 ROD, 

finalized on May 10, 2021. 

Changes From the Proposed IHA to the 

Final IHA 

The text of several measures in the 

draft IHA was revised to improve the 

clarity and consistency of the measures. 

In addition, reporting requirements on 

marine mammals have been updated in 

accordance with Greater Atlantic 

Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), 

Southeast Regional Office (SERO), and 

the Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

(NEFSC) most recent guidance. Several 

other measures were changes from the 

proposed IHA to the final IHA in 

consideration of public comments or 

other information. Changes are 

summarized here, with additional 

explanation provided later in the notice, 

as necessary: 

• The requirement for NMFS 

approval for pile driving in December 

was removed as a mitigation 

requirement from the IHA. After the 30- 

day public comment period on the 

proposed IHA, Vineyard Wind 1 

notified NMFS that pile driving would 

likely commence in November and 

continue into December. Therefore, 

NMFS removed the requirement for 

Vineyard Wind 1 to obtain prior 

approval from NMFS to pile drive in 

December; 

• Pilot whales and Risso’s dolphins 

were moved from the 500 m clearance 

and shutdown zone category to the 160 

m clearance and shutdown zone 

category in the IHA. The distance to the 

Level A harassment zone for other midfrequency cetaceans is 43 m, and a 160 

m clearance and shutdown zone is 

sufficient to encompass this zone. In 

addition, the clearance and shutdown 

distance for other mid-frequency 

delphinids is 160 m. This change was 

also made to align with the Vineyard 

Wind 1 original request in the 

application; 

• The timeframe for the use of vesselbased surveys to confirm the clearance 

zone is clear of North Atlantic right 

whales prior to pile driving has been 

extended from the original period of 

December 1–December 31, described in 

the proposed IHA notice to the period 

of November 1–December 31. This 

change was made to align with the 

Vineyard Wind 1 original request in the 

application and to provide increased 

mitigation during the month of 

November as well when North Atlantic 

right whale density begins to increase in 

the Project area; 

• In response to a public comment, 

NMFS has added a measure to require 

Vineyard Wind 1 to cease pile driving 

if there is a live cetacean stranding 

within 50 km of pile driving activities 

and the NMFS Marine Mammal 

Stranding Network is attempting to herd 

or return animals to the water; 

• The IHA measure describing the 

procedures for Vineyard Wind 1 to 

implement if any of the SFV 

measurements exceed the distance 

expected or modeled to any isopleth of 

concern was revised in the final IHA for 

clarity. The examples for a pile being 

installed with a single bubble curtain 

and near field sound attenuation device 

and the example for a double bubble 

curtain without a near field sound 

attenuation device were removed as 

Vineyard Wind 1 would be required to 

use both a double bubble curtain and 

near field sound attenuation device. In 

addition, the requirement for Vineyard 

Wind 1 to request concurrence from 

NMFS to proceed with pile driving after 

providing a written explanation of 

isopleth exceedance was removed. If 

any isopleth of concern is exceeded, 

Vineyard Wind 1 would be required to 

provide written explanation to NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources 

supporting their determination that 

adjustments to mitigation measures 

would be sufficient in reducing pile 

driving noise below the isopleth of 

concern and implement those measures; 

• NMFS updated the SFV 

requirements in the IHA to align with 

the Biological Opinion Terms and 

Conditions; 

• The educational requirement for 

PSOs and PAM operators to receive a 

bachelor’s degree ‘‘from an accredited 

college or university’’ have been 

removed, although PSOs and PAM 

operators are still required to hold a 

bachelor’s degree; and 

• The requirement for full PAM 

detection data to be submitted with 

monthly reports has been updated due 

to a change in Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center reporting requirements. 

Vineyard Wind 1 must submit full PAM 

detection data within 90 days after 

foundation installation ceases and every 

90 calendar days for transit lane PAM. 

In addition, the following measure 

was added to the IHA section 5(a) to 

describe Vineyard Wind 1’s obligation if 

SFV measurements show exceedance of 

expected Level A harassment or Level B 

harassment thresholds, including while 

implementing additional mitigation 

measures: 

• If, after all practicable measures that 

could be taken to reduce noise levels 

have been successfully implemented 

and exhausted, Thorough SFV 

measurements continue to indicate that 

the distances to marine mammal Level 

A harassment thresholds are greater 

than those modeled assuming 6 dB 

attenuation and the Level B harassment 

thresholds based on SFV during the 

2023 campaign, Vineyard Wind 1 must 

meet with NMFS within 3 three 

business days to discuss: the results of 

SFV monitoring, the severity of 

exceedance of distances to identified 

isopleths of concern, the species 

affected, modeling assumptions, and 

whether the SFV results demonstrate 

the magnitude and degree of impacts 

from the Project are greater than those 

considered in this final IHA. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Thirty-eight marine mammal species, 

comprising 39 stocks, under NMFS’ 

jurisdiction have geographic ranges 

overlapping the western North Atlantic 

OCS (Hayes et al., 2023). However, for 

reasons described below, Vineyard 

Wind 1 has requested, and NMFS has 

authorized, take of only 14 species 

(comprising 14 stocks) of marine 

mammals. Sections 3 and 4 of the 

application summarize available 

information regarding status and trends, 

distribution and habitat preferences, 

and behavior and life history of the 

potentially affected species. NMFS fully 

considered all of this information, and 

we refer the reader to these descriptions, 

instead of reprinting the information. 

See ADDRESSES. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’ Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75670 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

website (https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/find-species). 

Table 1 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and authorized 

for this activity and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and ESA and PBR, where 

known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as 

the maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’ 

SARs; 16 U.S.C. 1362(20)). While no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or authorized, PBR and annual serious 

injury and mortality from anthropogenic 

sources are included here as gross 

indicators of the status of the species or 

stocks and other threats. Four of the 

marine mammal species for which take 

is authorized are listed as endangered 

under the ESA, including the North 

Atlantic right whale, fin whale, sei 

whale, and sperm whale. 

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. 2023 draft SARs and NMFS’ 

U.S. 2022 SARs. For the majority of 

species potentially present in the 

specific geographic region, NMFS has 

designated only a single generic stock 

(e.g., ‘‘western North Atlantic’’) for 

management purposes. This includes 

the ‘‘Canadian east coast’’ stock of 

minke whales, which includes all minke 

whales found in U.S. waters and is also 

a generic stock for management 

purposes. For humpback and sei 

whales, NMFS defines stocks on the 

basis of feeding locations (i.e., Gulf of 

Maine and Nova Scotia, respectively). 

However, references to humpback 

whales and sei whales in this document 

refer to any individuals of the species 

that are found in the specific geographic 

region. All values presented in table 1 

are the most recent available at the time 

of publication and are available online 

at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments. 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE LIA AND BE TAKEN BY HARASSMENT

Common name a Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) b

Stock 

abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance 

survey) c

PBR Annual 

M/SI d

Order Artiodactyla—Cetacea—Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenidae: 

North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis ................ Western Atlantic ..................... E, D, Y 340 (0; 337; 2021) e ............... 0.7 f 27.2 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Fin whale .......................... Balaenoptera physalus ........... Western North Atlantic ........... E, D, Y 6,802 (0.24, 5,573, 2021) ...... 11 2.05 

Sei whale ......................... Balaenoptera borealis ............ Nova Scotia ............................ E, D, Y 6,292 (1.02, 3098, 2021) ....... 6.2 0.6 

Minke whale ..................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata .... Canadian Eastern Coastal ..... -, -, N 21,968 (0.31, 17,002, 2021) .. 170 9.4 

Humpback whale .............. Megaptera novaeangliae ........ Gulf of Maine .......................... -, -, Y 1,396 (0, 1,380, 2016) ........... 22 12.15 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae: 

Sperm whale .................... Physeter macrocephalus ........ North Atlantic .......................... E, D, Y 5,895 (0.29, 4,639, 2021) ...... 9.28 0.2 

Family Delphinidae: 

Long-finned pilot whale .... Globicephala melas ................ Western North Atlantic ........... -, -, N 39,215 (0.3, 30,627, 2021) .... 306 5.7 

Bottlenose dolphin ........... Tursiops truncatus .................. Western North Atlantic Offshore.-, -, N 64,587 (0.24, 52,801, 2021) g 507 28 

Common dolphin .............. Delphinus delphis ................... Western North Atlantic ........... -, -, N 93,100 (0.56, 59,897, 2021) .. 1,452 414 

Risso’s dolphin ................. Grampus griseus .................... Western North Atlantic ........... -, -, N 44,067 (0.19, 30,662, 2021) .. 307 18 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin.Lagenorhynchus acutus ......... Western North Atlantic ........... -, -, N 93,233 (0.71, 54,443, 2021) .. 544 28 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena .............. Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ... -, -, N 85,765 (0.53, 56,420, 2021) .. 649 145 

Order Carnivora—Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harbor seal ....................... Phoca vitulina ......................... Western North Atlantic ........... -, -, N 61,336 (0.08, 57,637, 2018) .. 1,729 339 

Gray seal h ........................ Halichoerus grypus ................ Western North Atlantic ........... -, -, N 27,911 (0.20, 23,924, 2021) .. 1,512 4,570 

a Information on the classification of marine mammal species can be found on the web page for The Society for Marine Mammalogy’s Committee on Taxonomy 

(https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/; Committee on Taxonomy (2023)). bESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR, or which is determined to be 

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

as depleted and as a strategic stock. c NMFS 2022 marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is the coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. dThese values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). eThe draft 2023 SAR includes an estimated population (Nbest 340) based on sighting history through December 2021 (89 FR 5495, January 29, 2024). In October 

2023, NMFS released a technical report identifying that the North Atlantic right whale population size based on sighting history through 2022 was 356 whales, with a 

95 percent credible interval ranging from 346 to 363 (Linden, 2023). fTotal annual average observed North Atlantic right whale mortality during the period 2017–2021 was 7.1 animals and annual average observed fishery mortality 

was 4.6 animals. Numbers presented in this table (27.2 total mortality and 17.6 fishery mortality) are 2016–2020 estimated annual means, accounting for undetected 

mortality and serious injury. gAs noted in the draft 2023 SAR (89 FR 5495, January 29, 2024), abundance estimates may include sightings of the coastal form. 

h NMFS’ stock abundance estimate (and associated PBR value) applies to the U.S. population only. Total stock abundance (including animals in Canada) is approximately 394,311. The annual M/SI value given is for the total stock. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75671 

As indicated above, all 14 species 

(with 14 managed stocks) in table 1 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

expected to occur. The following 

species are not expected to occur in the 

LIA due to their known distributions, 

preferred habitats, and/or known 

temporal and spatial occurrences: the 

blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), 

northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon 

ampullatus), false killer whale 

(Pseudorca crassidens), pygmy killer 

whale (Feresa attenuata), melon-headed 

whale (Peponocephala electra), dwarf 

and pygmy sperm whales (Kogia spp.), 

killer whale (Orcinus orca), Cuvier’s 

beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), four 

species of Mesoplodont whale 

(Mesoplodon densitostris, M. europaeus, 

M. mirus, and M. bidens), Fraser’s 

dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei), Clymene 

dolphin (Stenella clymene), spinner 

dolphin (Stenella longirostris), roughtoothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis), 

Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella 

frontalis), pantropical spotted dolphin 

(Stenella attenuata), short-finned pilot 

whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus), 

striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), 

white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus 

albirostris), and hooded seal 

(Crysophora cristata). None of these 

species were observed during the 2023 

construction season or during previous 

site assessment/characterization surveys 

(Vineyard Wind 2018, 2019, 2023a–f). 

Due to the lack of sightings of these 

species in the MA WEA (Kenney and 

Vigness-Raposa, 2010; ESS Group Inc., 

2016; Kraus et al., 2016; Vineyard Wind, 

2018; 2019; O’Brien et al., 2020; 2021; 

2022; 2023; EPI Group, 2021; Palka et 

al., 2017; 2021; RPS, 2022; Vineyard 

Wind, 2023a–f; Hayes et al., 2023) as 

well as documented habitat preferences 

and distributions, we have determined 

that each of these species will not be 

considered further. Furthermore, the 

northern limit of the northern migratory 

coastal stock of the common bottlenose 

dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) does not 

extend as far north as the LIA. Thus, 

take is only authorized for the offshore 

stock which may occur within the LIA. 

Although harp seals (Pagophilus 

groenlandicus) are expected to occur 

within the WDA, no harp seals were 

observed by PSOs during the Vineyard 

Wind 1 site characterization surveys 

(2016, 2018–2021; ESS Group Inc., 

2016; Vineyard Wind 2018; 2019) nor 

during the 2023 construction campaign 

(Vineyard Wind, 2023a–f). Thus, 

Vineyard Wind 1 did not request, and 

NMFS is not authorizing, take for this 

species. 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by the Project, 

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 proposed IHA 

notice (89 FR 31008, April 23, 2024). 

Other than UME updates, we are not 

aware of any changes in the status of the 

species and stocks listed in table 1; 

therefore, detailed descriptions are not 

provided here. Please refer to the 

proposed IHA notice for these 

descriptions (89 FR 31008, April 23, 

2024). Please also refer to NMFS’ 

website (https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/find-species) for generalized 

species accounts. 

Since the publication of the proposed 

IHA, the following updates have 

occurred to the below species in regards 

to general information or their active 

UMEs. 

North Atlantic Right Whale 

As described in the proposed IHA 

notice, elevated North Atlantic right 

whale mortalities have occurred since 

June 7, 2017, along the U.S. and 

Canadian coast, with the leading 

category for the cause of death for this 

UME determined to be ‘‘human 

interaction,’’ specifically from 

entanglements or vessel strikes. Since 

publication of the proposed IHA, the 

number of animals considered part of 

the UME has increased. As of September 

5, 2024, there have been 40 confirmed 

mortalities (dead, stranded, or floaters), 

1 pending mortalities, and 35 seriously 

injured free-swimming whales for a total 

of 76 whales. The UME also considers 

animals with sublethal injury or illness 

(called ‘‘morbidity’’; n=66) bringing the 

total number of whales in the UME to 

142. More information about the North 

Atlantic right whale UME is available 

online at: https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/ 

active-and-closed-unusual-mortalityevents. 

Humpback Whale 

Since January 2016, elevated 

humpback whale mortalities have 

occurred along the Atlantic coast from 

Maine to Florida. This event was 

declared a UME in April 2017. Partial or 

full necropsy examinations have been 

conducted on approximately half of the 

known cases. Since publication of the 

proposed IHA, the number of animals 

considered part of the UME has 

increased to 227 total mortalities (as of 

September 5, 2024). More information is 

available at: https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/ 

active-and-closed-unusual-mortalityevents. 

Minke Whale 

Since January 2017, a UME has been 

declared based on elevated minke whale 

mortalities detected along the Atlantic 

coast from Maine through South 

Carolina. As of September 5, 2024, a 

total of 174 minke whales have stranded 

during this UME. Full or partial 

necropsy examinations were conducted 

on more than 60 percent of the whales. 

Preliminary findings have shown 

evidence of human interactions or 

infectious disease in several of the 

whales, but these findings are not 

consistent across all of the whales 

examined, so more research is needed. 

More information is available at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2017-2024-minkewhale-unusual-mortality-event-alongatlantic-coast. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

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

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007, 2019a) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into hearing 

groups based on directly measured 

(behavioral or auditory evoked potential 

techniques) or estimated hearing ranges 

(behavioral response data, anatomical 

modeling, etc.). Subsequently, NMFS 

(2018) described generalized hearing 

ranges for these marine mammal hearing 

groups. Generalized hearing ranges were 

chosen based on the approximately 65 

dB threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in table 2. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75672 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized 

hearing range * 

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

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

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus 

cruciger & L. australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

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

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

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

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

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

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth et al., 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

Exposure to underwater noise from 

the specified activities has the potential 

to result in Level A harassment or Level 

B harassment of marine mammals in the 

specific geographic region, but no 

serious injury or mortality. The 

proposed IHA Federal Register notice 

(89 FR 31008, April 23, 2024) included 

a discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from the Project’s 

specified activities on marine mammals 

and their habitat. While some new 

literature regarding marine mammal 

distribution and habitat use has been 

published since publication of the 

proposed IHA (e.g., Bellman et al., 2023; 

Holdman et al., 2023, Meyer-Gutbrod et 

al., 2023; Roberts et al., 2024; Thorne 

and Wiley, 2024), there is no new 

information that NMFS is aware of that 

changes the analysis in the proposed 

IHA notice. We provide a summary of 

these papers below. 

Bellmann et al. (2023) collected 27 

operational noise measurements across 

24 offshore wind farms consisting of 16 

different WTG types of powers ranging 

from 2.3 to 8 mega watts (MW). It 

should be noted that the results from 

Holme et al. (2023) are based on a subset 

of these data. Similar to Holme et al. 

(2023), Bellmann et al. (2023) note that 

no relationship between nominal WTG 

power and operational noise was 

observed, in contrast with the linear 

models used by Tougaard et al. (2020) 

and Sto ̈ber and Thomsen (2021). It is 

theorized that this is related to gearless 

and more modern WTGs measured as 

well as increased size and weight 

reducing transmission of vibrations. 

With regard to the extent of operational 

noise levels, Bellmann et al. (2023) 

concluded that tonal components of the 

operational noise are clearly observable 

at a range of 100 meters, but typically 

are not resolvable within the prevailing 

ambient noise at a range of 5 km. 

However, Bellmann et al. (2023) also 

comment that these measurements were 

taken within the first year of operation, 

and that previous experience indicates 

noise levels will change significantly 

over time, likely due to wear and tear in 

gearbox WTGs, but that it is not clear at 

this time if these changes will also be 

present in direct-drive systems. 

Holdman et al. (2023) studied harbor 

porpoise habitats in the Gulf of Maine 

(GOM) and Southern New England 

waters providing baseline data on the 

occurrence and foraging activity of 

porpoises from 2020 to 2022. Harbor 

porpoises were present year-round in 

the GOM with peak detections in the 

summer and fall. The observed seasonal 

pattern of harbor porpoise occurrence in 

this study is consistent with prior 

information on the general distribution 

of the GOM/Bay of Fundy stock 

(Wingfield et al., 2017; Hayes et al., 

2022). In line with previously reported 

distribution patterns, harbor porpoise 

occurrence in Southern New England 

was high in fall, winter and spring, but 

porpoises were largely absent in the 

summer. Results from generalized 

additive models suggest that time of 

year, hour of day, lunar illumination, 

and temperature are significant 

contributors to harbor porpoise presence 

(detection mainly through echolocation 

clicks) and/or foraging effort. This study 

emphasized the importance of early 

identification of important harbor 

porpoise habitat to mitigate impacts and 

monitor change in the event of overlap 

between these habitats and areas 

proposed for offshore wind 

development. 

Meyer-Gutbrod et al. (2023) studied 

North Atlantic right whale sightings 

from 1990–2018 to examine patterns in 

monthly habitat use in 12 high-use areas 

to broadly characterize new seasonal 

habitat-use patterns across the core 

North Atlantic right whale range. As 

North Atlantic right whale foraging 

habitat selection is driven by complex 

spatial and temporal patterns (e.g., prey 

abundance), abundances of Calanus 

finmarchicus (a species of copepod and 

a component of the zooplankton found 

in the northern Atlantic Ocean) and 

Calanus hyperboreus (species of 

copepod found in the Arctic Ocean and 

northern Atlantic Ocean) were also 

analyzed for decadal variations in the 

North Atlantic right whale foraging 

habitats. The research found that in 

comparison to the 2000s, the 1990s and 

the 2010s were similar in that North 

Atlantic right whale sightings (i.e., 

Sightings Per Unit Effort (SPUE)) 

declined in the foraging habitats of the 

Gulf of Maine and Scotian Shelf during 

the seasons when abundance of C. 

finmarchicus was relatively low (spring, 

summer, fall). The drop in sightings is 

associated with extended duration of 

habitat use by North Atlantic right 

whales in Cape Cod Bay into the late 

spring and increased use of Southern 

New England waters and the Gulf of St. 

Lawrence in the spring and summer in 

the 2010s. Summertime declines in the 

2010s for copepod abundances in the 

traditional foraging habitat (e.g., Gulf of 

Maine) indicate that the increased use of 

the Gulf of St. Lawrence in more recent 

years is driven by a decline in prey in 

traditional foraging habitats rather than 

by an increase in prey in the new 

foraging habitat. Overall, while some 

patterns in seasonal habitat use 

remained consistent across all three 

decades, including the winter migration 

to the Southeast U.S. calving ground 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75673 

and early spring foraging in Cape Cod 

Bay, there were notable differences in 

the seasonality and persistence of North 

Atlantic right whales in some foraging 

habitats across the study period which 

indicate that the North Atlantic right 

whale distribution patterns are shifting. 

In 2022, the Duke University Marine 

Geospatial Ecology Laboratory provided 

updated habitat-based marine mammal 

density models for the U.S. Atlantic 

(Roberts et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 

2023). The take estimate analysis for the 

Vineyard Wind 1 IHA incorporates 

these density models into methodology 

for estimating take from foundation 

installation (89 FR 504, January 4, 

2024). Recently, North Atlantic right 

whale density model results were 

evaluated using independently collected 

passive acoustic monitoring (PAM data) 

(Roberts et al., 2024). Positive 

correlations between North Atlantic 

right whale densities and acoustic 

detection rates indicated concurrence 

between visual and acoustic 

observations of North Atlantic right 

whales. Results of this study also further 

quantify the North Atlantic right whale 

distribution shifts that occurred in 2010. 

Moreover, new data also supports our 

inclusion of certain mitigation measures 

in the proposed and this final IHA. For 

example, Crowe et al. (2023) discussed 

the use and importance of real-time data 

for detecting North Atlantic right 

whales. The shift in North Atlantic right 

whale habitat use motivated the 

integration of additional ways to detect 

the presence of North Atlantic right 

whales, and passive acoustic detections 

of right whale vocalizations reported in 

near real-time became an increasingly 

important tool to supplement visual 

sightings. The proposed IHA included 

real-time and daily awareness measures 

and sighting communication protocols, 

NMFS evaluated these measures and 

added details for clarity or updated the 

reporting mechanisms, such as in the 

case of sighting an injured North 

Atlantic right whale. Davis et al. (2023) 

analyzed North Atlantic right whale 

individual upcalls from 2 years of 

acoustic recordings in southern New 

England, which showed that North 

Atlantic right whales were detected at 

least 1 day every week throughout both 

years, with highest North Atlantic right 

whale presence from October to April. 

Within Southern New England (SNE), 

on average, 95 percent of the time North 

Atlantic right whales persisted for 10 

days, and recurred again within 11 days. 

An evaluation of the time period over 

which it is most effective to monitor 

prior to commencing pile driving 

activities showed that with 1 hour of 

pre-construction monitoring there was 

only 4 percent likelihood of hearing a 

North Atlantic right whale, compared to 

a 74 percent likelihood at 18 hours. 

Therefore, monitoring for at least 24 h 

prior to activity will increase the 

likelihood of detecting an up-calling 

North Atlantic right whale. 

Overall, there is no new scientific 

information regarding the general 

anticipated effects of offshore wind 

construction on marine mammals and 

their habitat that was not discussed in 

the proposed IHA. The information and 

analysis regarding the potential effects 

on marine mammals and their habitat 

included in the proposed IHA Federal 

Register notice is referenced and used 

for this final IHA notice and is not 

repeated here; please refer to the 

proposed IHA Federal Register notice 

(89 FR 31008, April 23, 2024). 

Globally, there are more than 341,000 

operating WTGs (Global Wind Energy 

Council). Turbine failures are known to 

occur but are considered rare events 

(Katsaprakakis et al., 2021, DOE, 2024a). 

For example, fewer than 40 incidents 

were identified in the modern fleet of 

more than 40,000 onshore turbines 

installed in the United States as of 2014 

(DOE, 2024b). In 2022, the total global 

capacity of offshore wind reached 

59,009 MW from 292 operating projects 

and over 11,900 operating wind turbines 

in 2022 (DOE, 2023), and a review of the 

relevant literature and media reports 

indicate blade failure among this cohort 

of turbines continues to be rare, 

consistent with industry performance in 

onshore wind turbines. On July 13, 

2024, however, a blade on one of the 

WTGs at Vineyard Wind 1 was damaged 

during the ‘‘warm up’’ phase of 

operations, causing a portion of the 

blade, primarily composed of fiberglass, 

to fall into the water. In cooperation 

with Vineyard Wind 1, GE Vernova, the 

blade manufacturer, initiated debris 

recovery efforts and an investigation. 

Following this blade failure incident, 

the Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement (BSEE), Department of 

Interior, issued a Suspension Order on 

July 17, 2024 (https://www.bsee.gov/ 

newsroom/latest-news/statements-andreleases/press-releases/bsee-statementon-vineyard-wind) and an additional 

Order for clarification on July 26, 2024 

(https://www.bsee.gov/newsroom/latestnews/statements-and-releases/pressreleases/bsee-issues-new-order-tovineyard-wind), which suspends power 

production and any further wind 

turbine generator construction until the 

suspension is lifted. GE Vernova has 

preliminarily identified a defect in the 

manufacturing process, specifically 

insufficient bonding, of this particular 

blade that the quality assurance program 

should have identified. On August 9, 

2024, Vineyard Wind and GE Vernova 

released an action plan that outlines the 

steps necessary to remove the remainder 

of the damaged blade, continue debris 

cleanup response efforts, and resume 

turbine installation and operations of 

the project. The plan specifies that no 

blades will be installed or used in 

operation until each is inspected. In 

addition, GE has developed and will 

implement real-time monitoring 

technology to monitor blades during 

operations to avoid this type of incident 

from occurring in the future. 

As noted above, wind turbine failure 

is considered rare, and NMFS still 

considers the likelihood that blade 

failure would occur pursuant to 

Vineyard Wind 1’s specified activity 

during the effective period of the IHA so 

low as to be discountable. Furthermore, 

GE Vernova’s quality assurance program 

will complete thorough inspections on 

the remaining blades to be installed to 

ensure additional blade malfunction 

incidents do not occur. Vineyard Wind 

1 did not request, NMFS does not 

anticipate, and NMFS has not 

authorized, take of marine mammals 

incidental to a turbine blade failure and, 

therefore the topic is not discussed 

further. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which will 

inform NMFS’ consideration of ‘‘small 

numbers’’ and the negligible impact 

determinations (impacts on subsistence 

uses is not relevant here). 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as noise from 

pile driving has the potential to result 

in disruption of marine mammal 

behavioral patterns. Impacts such as 

masking and TTS can contribute to the 

disruption of behavioral patterns and 

are accounted for within those 

authorized takes. There is also some 

potential for high frequency species 

(harbor porpoise) and phocids (harbor 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75674 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

seal and gray seal) to experience a 

limited amount of auditory injury (PTS; 

Level A harassment) primarily because 

predicted auditory injury zones are large 

enough and these species are cryptic 

enough that the potential for PTS cannot 

be fully discounted or mitigated. For 

mysticetes, the Level A harassment 

ER95percent ranges are also large (0.043 

km to 3.191 km); however, the extensive 

marine mammal mitigation and 

monitoring planned by Vineyard Wind 

1 and required by NMFS, as well as 

natural avoidance behaviors is expected 

to reduce the potential for PTS to 

discountable levels. Nevertheless, 

Vineyard Wind 1 has requested, and 

NMFS has authorized a small amount of 

Level A harassment incidental to 

installing piles (table 11). Auditory 

injury is unlikely to occur for midfrequency species as thresholds are 

higher and PTS zones are very close to 

the pile, such that PTS is unlikely to 

occur. While NMFS has authorized 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment, the planned mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

avoid or minimize overall the taking to 

the extent practicable (see Mitigation 

and Monitoring and Reporting). 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

authorized incidental to the specified 

activity. Even without mitigation, pile 

driving activities are unlikely to directly 

cause marine mammal mortality or 

serious injury. There is no documented 

case wherein pile driving resulted in 

marine mammal mortality or stranding 

and the scientific literature 

demonstrates that the most likely 

behavioral response to pile driving (or 

similar stimulus source) is avoidance 

and temporary cessation of behaviors 

such as foraging or socialization (see 

Avoidance and Displacement in 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

section of the proposed IHA Federal 

Register notice (89 FR 31008, April 23, 

2024). While in general there is a low 

probability that mortality or serious 

injury of marine mammals could occur 

from vessel strikes, the mitigation and 

monitoring measures contained within 

this IHA are expected to avoid vessel 

strikes (see Mitigation section). No other 

activities have the potential to result in 

mortality or serious injury. 

For acoustic impacts, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and (4) the number of days of activities. 

We note that while these factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of potential 

takes, additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the authorized take estimates. 

As described below, there are 

multiple methods available to estimate 

the density or number of a given species 

in the area appropriate to inform the 

take estimate. For each species and 

activity, the largest value resulting from 

the three take estimation methods 

described below (i.e., density-based, 

PSO-based, or mean group size) was 

carried forward as the amount of take 

authorized by Level B harassment. The 

amount of take authorized by Level A 

harassment reflects the density-based 

exposure estimates and, for some 

species and activities, consideration of 

other data such as mean group size. 

Below, we describe NMFS’ acoustic 

thresholds, acoustic and exposure 

modeling methodologies, marine 

mammal density calculation 

methodology, occurrence information, 

and the modeling and methodologies 

applied to estimate take for the Project’s 

planned construction activities. NMFS 

considered all information and analysis 

presented by Vineyard Wind, as well as 

all other applicable information and, 

based on the best available science, 

concurs that the estimates of the types 

and amounts of take for each species 

and stock are reasonable, and has 

authorized the amount requested. NMFS 

notes the take estimates described 

herein for foundation installation can be 

considered conservative because the 

estimates do not reflect the 

implementation of clearance and 

shutdown zones for any marine 

mammal species or stock. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

are likely to be behaviorally harassed 

(Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of 

some degree (Level A harassment). A 

summary of all NMFS’ thresholds can 

be found at https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/marine-mammal-acoustictechnical-guidance. 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source or exposure 

context (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle, duration of the exposure, 

signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the 

source, ambient noise, and the receiving 

animal’s hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography, behavior at 

time of exposure, life stage, depth) and 

can be difficult to predict (e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007, 2021, Ellison et al., 2012). 

Based on what the available science 

indicates and the practical need to use 

a threshold based on a metric that is 

both predictable and measurable for 

most activities, NMFS typically uses a 

generalized acoustic threshold based on 

received level to estimate the onset of 

behavioral harassment. 

NMFS generally predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be taken in a 

manner considered to be Level B 

harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

RMS SPL of 120 dB (referenced to 1 

micropascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous 

(e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and 

above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 mPa for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. Generally speaking, 

Level B harassment take estimates based 

on these thresholds are expected to 

include any likely takes by TTS as, in 

most cases the likelihood of TTS occurs 

at closer distances from the source. TTS 

of a sufficient degree can manifest as 

behavioral harassment, as reduced 

hearing sensitivity and the potential 

reduced opportunities to detect 

important signals (conspecific 

communication, predators, prey) may 

result in changes in behavior patterns 

that would not otherwise occur. 

The Project’s planned construction 

activities include the use of impulsive 

sources (e.g., impact pile driving), and 

therefore the 160-dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

threshold is applicable to our analysis. 

Level A Harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0, 

Technical Guidance) (NMFS, 2018) 

identifies dual criteria to assess auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) to five 

different marine mammal groups (based 

on hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). As dual metrics, NMFS 

considers onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment) to have occurred when 

either one of the two metrics is 

exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the 

largest isopleth). As described above, 

the Vineyard Wind 1 planned activities 

include the use of impulsive sources. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75675 

NMFS’ thresholds identifying the onset 

of PTS are provided in table 3. The 

references, analysis, and methodology 

used in the development of the 

thresholds are described in NMFS’ 2018 

Technical Guidance, which may be 

accessed at: https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/marine-mammal-acoustictechnical-guidance. 

TABLE 3—PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT (PTS) ONSET THRESHOLDS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Lp,0-pk,flat: 219 dB; LE,p,LF,24h: 183 dB ............................. LE,p,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Lp,0-pk,flat: 230 dB; LE,p,MF,24h: 185 dB ............................ LE,p MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Lp,0-pk,flat: 202 dB; LE,p,HF,24h: 155 dB ............................. LE,p,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Lp,0-pk,flat: 218 dB; LE,p,PW,24h: 185 dB ............................ LE,p,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Lp,0-pk,flat: 232 dB; LE,p,OW,24h: 203 dB ............................ LE,p,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

* Dual metric thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound 

has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds are recommended 

for consideration. 

Note: Peak sound pressure level (Lp,0-pk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and weighted cumulative sound exposure level (LE,p) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to be more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO, 2017). The subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized 

hearing range of marine mammals (i.e., 7 Hz to 160 kHz). The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates 

the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended 

accumulation period is 24 hours. The weighted cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these 

thresholds will be exceeded. 

Below, we describe the assumptions 

and methodologies used to estimate 

take, in consideration of acoustic 

thresholds and appropriate marine 

mammals density and occurrence 

information, for WTG monopile 

installation. Resulting distances to 

thresholds, densities and occurrence 

(i.e., PSO sightings, group size) data 

used, exposure estimates (as relevant to 

the analysis), and activity-specific take 

estimates can be found below. 

Acoustic and Exposure Modeling 

During the 2023 Vineyard Wind 1 pile 

installation activities, Vineyard Wind 1 

conducted a SFV study to compare with 

model results of the 2018 modeling 

(Ku ̈ sel et al., 2024). The SFV study 

included acoustic monitoring of the 

impact installation of 12 monopile 

foundations from June 6 through 

September 7, 2023. Five of the 12 

acoustically monitored monopiles were 

determined to be representative of the 

noise attenuation system (NAS) 

configuration and maintenance 

schedule that would be proposed for the 

remaining 15 monopiles to be installed 

in 2024. These five representative 

monopiles (piles 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 in 

the Vineyard Wind 1 SFV Monitoring 

Report) were monitored using a DBBC 

and Hydrosound Damper System (HSD), 

which Vineyard Wind 1 will be required 

to use for use as the noise attenuation 

system setup for the remaining 15 

monopiles. Vineyard Wind 1 also 

followed an enhanced bubble curtain 

maintenance schedule for these 5 

monopiles; this maintenance schedule 

will be used for the remaining 15 

monopiles to be installed under this 

IHA (see the Vineyard Wind 1 Enhanced 

Big Bubble Curtain (BBC) Technical 

Memo). Peak (pk), SEL, and RMS SPL 

received distances for each acoustically 

monitored pile are reported in the VW1 

SFV Final Report Appendix A (Ku ̈ sel et 

al., 2024) For additional details on how 

acoustic ranges were derived from SFV 

measurements, see the VW1 SFV Final 

Report sections 2.3 and 3.3 (Ku ̈ sel et al., 

2024). JASCO modeled a maximum 

range to the Level A harassment 

threshold of 3.191 km (1.99 mi) with 6 

dB attenuation (for low-frequency 

cetaceans) (Ku ̈ sel et al., 2024). 

In addition to the 15 piles being 

installed under the same noise 

attenuation scenario as the 5 

aforementioned representative piles, 

they are also anticipated to be installed 

under similar pile driving specifications 

and in a similar acoustic environment. 

Table 4 describes the key piling 

assumptions and planned impact pile 

driving schedule for 2024. These 

assumptions and schedule are based 

upon the 2023 piling and hammer 

energy schedule for installing 

monopiles. Vineyard Wind 1 expects 

installation of the 15 remaining piles 

will necessitate similar operations. 

Further, as described in detail in section 

6.1 of the Vineyard Wind 1 application, 

the water depth and bottom type are 

similar throughout the Lease Area and 

therefore sound propagation in the LIA 

is not expected to differ from where the 

SFV data were collected in 2023. 

TABLE 4—KEY PILING ASSUMPTIONS AND HAMMER ENERGY SCHEDULE FOR MONOPILE INSTALLATION

Pile type Project 

component 

Max hammer 

energy rating 

(kJ) 

Number of 

hammer strikes 

Max piling time 

duration per pile 

(min) 

Number 

piles/day 

9.6-m monopile ................................. WTG .............. 4,000 2,884–4,329 (average 3,463) a ........ 117 1 

aThe number of hammer strikes represents the range of strikes needed to install the 12 monopiles for which SFV was conducted in 2023. 

Vineyard Wind 1 compared the 

acoustic ranges to the Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

thresholds derived from the 2018 

acoustic modeling (Pyc ́ et al., 2018) to 

the maximum ranges with absorption 

for the five representative monopiles 

acoustically monitored in 2023. They 

applied the greater results to the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75676 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

analysis in their application and NMFS 

has included that approach in this IHA. 

The maximum measured range to PTS 

thresholds of the five representative 

monopiles was less than the maximum 

2018 modeled ranges for all hearing 

groups assuming 6 dB attenuation (table 

5) (with the exception of high-frequency 

cetaceans, although Vineyard Wind 1 

attributes this extended range to nonpiling noise (Vineyard Wind 1, 2023)). 

Therefore, Vineyard Wind 1 based the 

expected distance to the Level A 

harassment threshold and associated 

estimated take analysis on the 2018 

modeled data. 

TABLE 5—MODELED AND MEASURED RANGES TO SELcum PTS THRESHOLDS FOR MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

Marine mammal hearing group 

Modeled range to 

SELcum PTS threshold 

(km) a

Measured maximum 

range to SELcum PTS 

threshold 

(km) b

Low-frequency cetaceans ........................................................................................................ 3.191 2.370 

Mid-frequency cetaceans ......................................................................................................... 0.043 0.010 

High-frequency cetaceans ....................................................................................................... 0.071 0.200 

Phocid pinnipeds ..................................................................................................................... 0.153 0.100 

aBased upon modeling conducted for the 2023 IHA (Pyc ́ et al., 2018). bBased upon the five representative monopiles from the Vineyard Wind 1 2023 construction campaign (Ku ̈sel et al., 2024). 

The maximum range with absorption 

to the Level B harassment threshold for 

acoustically monitored piles was 5.72 

km (3.6 mi) (pile 13, AU–38; Ku ̈ sel et 

al., 2024), which was greater than the 

2018 modeled distance to the Level B 

harassment threshold of 4.1 km (2.5 mi) 

(Pyc ́ et al. 2018). Therefore, Vineyard 

Wind 1 based the expected distance to 

the Level B harassment threshold for 

this IHA and associated estimated take 

analysis on the 5.72 km acoustically 

monitored distance. 

In 2018, Vineyard Wind 1 conducted 

animat modeling to estimate take, by 

Level A harassment (PTS), incidental to 

the project. In order to best evaluate the 

SELcum harassment thresholds for PTS, 

it is necessary to consider animal 

movement, as the results are based on 

how sound moves through the 

environment between the source and 

the receiver. Applying animal 

movement and behavior within the 

modeled noise fields provides the 

exposure range, which allows for a more 

realistic indication of the distances at 

which PTS acoustic thresholds are 

reached that considers the accumulation 

of sound over different durations (note 

that in all cases the distance to the peak 

threshold is less than the SEL-based 

threshold). As described above, 

Vineyard Wind 1 based the Level A 

harassment estimated take analysis on 

the modeled Level A harassment 

acoustic ranges and therefore 

appropriately used the results of the 

JASCO’s Animal Simulation Model 

Including Noise Exposure (JASMINE) 

animal movement modeling conducted 

for the 2023 IHA (86 FR 33810, June 25, 

2021). Sound exposure models like 

JASMINE use simulated animals (also 

known as ‘‘animats’’) to forecast 

behaviors of animals in new situations 

and locations based upon previously 

documented behaviors of those animals. 

The predicted 3D sound fields (i.e., the 

output of the acoustic modeling process 

described earlier) are sampled by 

animats using movement rules derived 

from animal observations. The output of 

the simulation is the exposure history 

for each animat within the simulation. 

The precise locations of animats and 

their pathways are not known prior to 

a project; therefore, a repeated random 

sampling technique (i.e., Monte Carlo) is 

used to estimate exposure probability 

with many animats and randomized 

starting positions. The combined 

exposure history of all animats gives a 

probability density function of exposure 

during the Project. 

Since the time that the JASMINE 

animal movement modeling was 

conducted for the 2023 IHA (86 FR 

33810, June 25, 2021), no new behavior 

data is available that would have 

changed how animats move in time and 

space in that model and, therefore, 

NMFS has determined that the 

JASMINE outputs from the 2018 

modeling effort are reasonable for 

application here. However, the post 

processing calculations used more 

recent density data (table 6). The mean 

number of modeled animats exposed 

per day with installation of one 9.6–m 

monopile were scaled by the maximum 

monthly density for the LIA (Roberts et 

al., 2023) for each species (table 6) to 

estimate the real-world number of 

animats of each species that could be 

exposed per day in the LIA. This realworld number of animals was 

multiplied by the expected number of 

days of pile installation (15 days) to 

derive a total take estimate by Level A 

harassment for each species. The 

number of potential exposures by Level 

A harassment was estimated for each 

species using the following equation: 

Density-based exposure estimate Level A

harassment = number of animats 

exposed above the Level A 

harassment threshold × ((mean 

maximum monthly density 

(animals/km2)/modeled 2018 

density (animats/km2)) × number of 

days (15). 

To estimate the amount of take by 

Level B harassment incidental to 

installing the remaining 15 piles, 

Vineyard Wind 1 applied a static 

method (i.e., did not conduct animal 

movement modeling). Vineyard Wind 1 

calculated the Level B harassment 

ensonified area using the following 

equation: 

A = x r2, 

where A is equal to the ensonified area 

and r is equal to the radial distance to 

the Level B harassment threshold from 

the pile driving source (rLevel B harassment

= 5.72 km). 

The ensonified area (102.7 km2) was 

multiplied by the mean maximum 

monthly density estimate (table 8) and 

expected number of days of pile driving 

(15 days) to determine a density-based 

take estimate for each species. The 

number of potential exposures by Level 

B harassment was estimated for each 

species using the following equation: 

Density-based exposure estimate Level B

harassment = ensonified area (km2) × 

maximum mean monthly density 

estimate (animals/km2) × number of 

days (15). 

Density and Occurrence and Take 

Estimation 

In this section we provide information 

about marine mammal density, 

presence, and group dynamics that 

informed the take calculations for the 

planned activities. Vineyard Wind 

applied the 2022 Duke University 

Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory 

Habitat-based Marine Mammal Density 

Models for the U.S. Atlantic (Duke 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75677 

Model-Roberts et al., 2016; Roberts et 

al., 2023) to estimate take from 

foundation installation. The models 

estimate absolute density (individuals/ 

km2) by statistically correlating 

sightings reported on shipboard and 

aerial surveys with oceanographic 

conditions. For most marine mammal 

species, densities are provided on a 

monthly basis. Where monthly densities 

are not available (e.g., pilot whales), 

annual densities are provided. 

Moreover, some species are represented 

as guilds (e.g., seals (representing 

Phocidae spp., primarily harbor and 

gray seals and pilot whales 

(representing short-finned and longfinned pilot whales))). 

The Duke habitat-based density 

models delineate species’ density into 

5 * 5 km (3.1 * 3.1 mi) grid cells. 

Vineyard Wind 1 calculated mean 

monthly densities by using a 10-km 

buffered polygon around the remaining 

WTG foundations to be installed and 

overlaying this buffered polygon on the 

density maps. The 10-km buffer defines 

the area around the LIA used to 

calculate mean species density. Mean 

monthly density for each species was 

determined by calculating the 

unweighted mean of all 5x5 km grid 

cells (partially or fully) within the 

buffered polygon. The unweighted mean 

refers to using the entire 5 km x 5 km 

(3.1 mi x 3.1 mi) grid cell for each cell 

used in the analysis, and was not 

weighted by the proportion of the cell 

overlapping with the density perimeter 

if the entire grid cell was not entirely 

within the buffer zone polygon. 

Vineyard Wind 1 calculated densities 

for each month, except for species for 

which annual density data only was 

available (e.g., long-finned pilot whale). 

Vineyard Wind 1 used maximum 

monthly density from June to December 

for density-based calculations. 

The density models (Roberts et al., 

2023) provided density for pilot whales 

and seals as guilds. Based upon habitat 

and ranging patterns (Hayes et al., 

2023), all pilot whales occurring in the 

LIA are expected to be long-finned pilot 

whales. Therefore, all pilot whale 

density estimates are assumed to 

represent long-finned pilot whales. Seal 

guild density was divided into speciesspecific densities based upon the 

proportions of each species observed by 

PSOs during 2016 and 2018–2021 site 

characterizations surveys within SNE 

(ESS Group, 2016; Vineyard Wind 2018, 

2019, 2023a–f). Of the 181 seals 

identified to species and sighted within 

the WDA, 162 were gray seals and 19 

were harbor seals. The equation below 

shows how the proportion of each seal 

species sighted was calculated to 

compute density for seals. 

Pseal species = Nseal species/Numbertotal seals

identified

where P represents density and N 

represents number of seals. 

These calculations resulted in 

proportions of 0.895 for gray seals and 

0.105 for harbor seals. The proportion 

for each species was then multiplied by 

the maximum monthly density for the 

seal guild (table 6) to determine the 

species-specific densities used in take 

calculations. 

The density models (Roberts et al., 

2023) also do not distinguish between 

bottlenose dolphin stocks and only 

provide densities for bottlenose 

dolphins as a species. However, as 

described above, based upon ranging 

patterns (Hayes et al., 2023), only the 

Western North Atlantic offshore stock of 

bottlenose dolphins is expected to occur 

in the LIA. Therefore, it is expected that 

the bottlenose dolphin density estimate 

is entirely representative of this stock. 

Maximum mean monthly density 

estimates and month of the maximum 

estimate are provided in table 6 below. 

TABLE 6—MAXIMUM MEAN MONTHLY MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY ESTIMATES (ANIMALS per km2) CONSIDERING A 10-km 

BUFFER AROUND THE LIMITED INSTALLATION AREA

Species Maximum mean density Maximum density month 

North Atlantic right whale * ...................................................................................................... 0.0043 December. 

Fin whale * ............................................................................................................................... 0.0036 July. 

Humpback whale ..................................................................................................................... 0.0022 June. 

Minke whale ............................................................................................................................ 0.0180 June. 

Sei whale * ............................................................................................................................... 0.0008 November. 

Sperm whale * ......................................................................................................................... 0.0008 September. 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ..................................................................................................... 0.0204 June. 

Bottlenose dolphin a ................................................................................................................. 0.008 August. 

Common dolphin ..................................................................................................................... 0.1467 September. 

Long-finned pilot whale b ......................................................................................................... 0.001 N/A. 

Risso’s dolphin ........................................................................................................................ 0.0013 December. 

Harbor porpoise ....................................................................................................................... 0.0713 December. 

Seals (gray and harbor) c ........................................................................................................ 0.1745 May. 

Note: * denotes species listed under the Endangered Species Act. a Density estimate represents the Northwestern Atlantic offshore stock of bottlenose dolphins. 

bOnly annual densities were available for the pilot whale guild. 

cGray and harbor seals represented as a guild. 

For some species, PSO survey and 

construction data for SNE (ESS Group, 

2016; Vineyard Wind, 2018, 2019, 

2023a–f) and mean group size data 

compiled from the AMAPPS (Palka et 

al., 2017; 2021) indicate that the 

density-based exposure estimates may 

be insufficient to account for the 

number of individuals of a species that 

may be encountered during the planned 

activities. Hence, local PSO and 

AMAPPS data were considered to 

ensure the potential for take is 

adequately assessed. 

In cases where the density-based 

Level B harassment exposure estimate 

for a species was less than the mean 

group size-based exposure estimate, the 

take request was increased to the mean 

group size (in some cases multiple 

groups were assumed) and rounded to 

the nearest integer (table 7). For all 

cetaceans, with the exception of North 

Atlantic right whales, Vineyard Wind 1 

used the mean of the spring, summer, 

and fall AMAPPS group sizes for each 

species for the Rhode Island/ 

Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (RI/ 

MA WEA) as shown in tables 2–2, 2–3, 

and 2–4 in Palka et al. (2021) appendix 

III. These seasons were selected as they 

would represent the time period in 

which pile driving activities would take 

place. Mean group sizes for cetacean 

species derived from RI/WEA AMAPPS 

data is shown below in table 7. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75678 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

However, North Atlantic right whale 

seasonal group sizes for the RI/MA WEA 

were not available through the AMAPPS 

dataset (Palka et al., 2021). Vineyard 

Wind 1 calculated mean group size for 

North Atlantic right whales using data 

from the northeast (NE) shipboard 

surveys as provided in table 6–5 of 

Palka et al. (2021). Vineyard Wind 1 

calculated mean group size by dividing 

the number of individual right whales 

sighted (four) by the number of right 

whale groups (two) (Palka et al., 2021). 

The NE shipboard surveys were 

conducted during summer (June 1 

through August 31) and fall (September 

1 through November 30) seasons (Palka 

et al., 2021). 

For seals, mean group size data was 

also not available for the RI/MA WEA 

through AMAPPS (Palka et al., 2021). 

Vineyard Wind 1 used 2010–2013 

AMAPPS NE shipboard and aerial 

survey at-sea seal sightings for gray and 

harbor seals, as well as unidentified seal 

sightings from spring, summer, and fall 

to calculate mean group size for gray 

and harbor seals (table 19–1, Palka et al., 

2017). To calculate mean group size for 

seals, Vineyard Wind 1 divided the total 

number of animals sighted by the total 

number of sightings. As the majority of 

the sightings were not identified to 

species, Vineyard Wind 1 calculated a 

single group size for all seal species 

(table 7). 

Additional detail regarding the 

density and occurrence as well as the 

assumptions and methodology used to 

estimate take is included below and in 

section 6.2 of the incidental take 

authorization (ITA) application. Mean 

group sizes used in take estimates, 

where applicable, for all activities are 

provided in table 7. 

TABLE 7—MEAN MARINE MAMMAL GROUP SIZES USED IN TAKE ESTIMATE CALCULATIONS

Species Mean group size Source 

North Atlantic right whale * .................................................................................................. 2 Table 6–5 of Palka et al. 2021. 

Fin whale * ........................................................................................................................... 1.2 Palka et al. 2021. 

Humpback whale ................................................................................................................. 1.2 Palka et al. 2021. 

Minke whale ......................................................................................................................... 1.4 Palka et al. 2021. 

Sei whale * ........................................................................................................................... 1 Palka et al. 2021. 

Sperm whale * ...................................................................................................................... 2 Palka et al. 2021. 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ................................................................................................. 21.7 Palka et al. 2021. 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................................................... 11.7 Palka et al. 2021. 

Common dolphin .................................................................................................................. 30.8 Palka et al. 2021. 

Long-finned pilot whale ........................................................................................................ 12.3 Palka et al. 2021. 

Risso’s dolphin ..................................................................................................................... 1.8 Palka et al. 2021. 

Harbor porpoise ................................................................................................................... 2.9 Palka et al. 2021. 

Seals (gray and harbor) ....................................................................................................... 1.4 Table 19–1 of Palka et al. 2017. 

Note: * denotes species listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

Vineyard Wind 1 also looked at PSO 

survey data (June through October 2023) 

in the LIA collected during Vineyard 

Wind 1 construction activities and 

calculated a daily sighting rate for 

species to compare with density-based 

take estimates and average group size 

estimates from AMAPPS (table 7). The 

number of animals of each species 

sighted from all survey vessels with 

active PSOs was divided by the sum of 

all PSO monitoring days (77 days) to 

calculate the mean number of animals of 

each species sighted (see table 11 in the 

ITA application). However, for each 

species, the PSO data-based exposure 

estimate was less than the density-based 

exposure estimate (see table 14 in the 

ITA application) and, therefore, densitybased exposure estimates were not 

adjusted according to PSO data-based 

exposure estimates. 

Here we present the amount of take 

requested by Vineyard Wind 1 and 

authorized by NMFS. To estimate take, 

Vineyard Wind 1 used the pile 

installation construction schedule 

shown in table 4, assuming 15 total days 

of monopile installation. NMFS has 

reviewed these methods to estimate take 

and agrees with this approach. The 

authorized take numbers in table 9 

appropriately consider SFV 

measurements collected in 2023 and 

represent the maximum amount of take 

that is reasonably expected to occur. 

TABLE 8—MODELED LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE ESTIMATES

Species 

Density-based exposure estimate 

Level A harassment Level B harassment 

North Atlantic right whale * a .................................................................................................... 0.503 6.6 

Fin whale * ............................................................................................................................... 0.598 5.5 

Humpback whale ..................................................................................................................... 1.11 3.4 

Minke whale ............................................................................................................................. 0.372 27.7 

Sei whale * ............................................................................................................................... 0.144 1.2 

Sperm whale * .......................................................................................................................... 0 1.2 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ..................................................................................................... 0 31.4 

Bottlenose dolphin ................................................................................................................... 0 12.3 

Common dolphin ...................................................................................................................... 0 226.0 

Long-finned pilot whale ............................................................................................................ 0 1.5 

Risso’s dolphin ......................................................................................................................... 0 2.00 

Harbor porpoise ....................................................................................................................... 2.758 109.8 

Gray Seal ................................................................................................................................. 0 240.8 

Harbor seal .............................................................................................................................. 0.028 28.2 

Note: * denotes species listed under the Endangered Species Act. aAlthough modeling shows a very low but non-zero exposure estimate for take by Level A harassment, mitigation measures will be applied to 

ensure there is no take by Level A harassment of this species. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75679 

TABLE 9—AUTHORIZED TAKES (BY LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT) 

Species NMFS stock 

abundance 

Authorized take 

by Level A 

harassment 

Authorized take 

by Level B 

harassment 

Total 

authorized 

take 

Percent of 

stock 

abundance 

North Atlantic right whale * a ........................................ 338 0 7 7 2.07 

Fin whale * .................................................................... 6,802 1 6 7 0.10 

Humpback whale ......................................................... 1,396 2 4 6 0.43 

Minke whale ................................................................. 21,968 1 28 29 0.13 

Sei whale * ................................................................... 6,292 1 2 3 0.05 

Sperm whale * .............................................................. 4,349 0 2 2 0.05 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ......................................... 93,233 0 32 32 0.03 

Bottlenose dolphin ....................................................... 62,851 0 13 13 0.02 

Common dolphin b c ...................................................... 172,974 0 462 462 0.27 

Long-finned pilot whale b .............................................. 39,215 0 13 13 0.03 

Risso’s dolphin ............................................................. 35,215 0 2 2 0.001 

Harbor porpoise ........................................................... 95,543 3 110 113 0.19 

Gray Seal ..................................................................... 27,300 0 241 241 0.88 

Harbor seal .................................................................. 61,336 1 29 30 0.05 

Note: * denotes species listed under the Endangered Species Act. aAlthough modeling shows a very low but non-zero exposure estimate for take by Level A harassment, mitigation measures will be applied to 

ensure there is no take by Level A harassment of this species. bAuthorized take by Level B harassment adjusted according to mean group size. 

cAuthorized take by Level B harassment is based upon the assumption that one group of common dolphins (30.8 dolphins; see table 7) would 

be encountered per each of the 15 days of pile driving. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to effect the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned); 

and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost and 

impact on operations. 

For a fuller discussion of the least 

practicable adverse impact standard, see 

89 FR 31488, 31517 (April 24, 2024; 

NMFS’ final rule for Taking and 

Importing Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Geophysical Surveys in the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

The mitigation strategies described 

below are consistent with those required 

and successfully implemented under 

previous incidental take authorizations 

issued in association with in-water 

construction activities (e.g., soft-start, 

establishing shutdown zones). 

Additional measures have also been 

incorporated to account for the fact that 

the planned construction activities 

would occur offshore. In addition, 

several measures in this IHA (i.e., 

seasonal restrictions, vessel strike 

avoidance, and clearance and shutdown 

zones) are more rigorous than measures 

previously incorporated into the 2023 

IHA. 

Generally speaking, the mitigation 

measures considered and required here 

fall into three categories: temporal 

(seasonal and daily) work restrictions, 

real-time measures (shutdown, 

clearance, and vessel strike avoidance), 

and noise attenuation/reduction 

measures. Seasonal work restrictions are 

designed to avoid or minimize 

operations when marine mammals are 

concentrated or engaged in behaviors 

that make them more susceptible or 

make impacts more likely, in order to 

reduce both the number and severity of 

potential takes, and are effective in 

reducing both chronic (longer-term) and 

acute effects. Real-time measures, such 

as implementation of shutdown and 

clearance zones, as well as vessel strike 

avoidance measures, are intended to 

reduce the probability or severity of 

harassment by taking steps in real time 

once a higher-risk scenario is identified 

(e.g., once animals are detected within 

an impact zone). Noise attenuation 

measures, such as bubble curtains, are 

intended to reduce the noise at the 

source, which reduces both acute 

impacts as well as the contribution to 

aggregate and cumulative noise that may 

result in longer-term chronic impacts. 

Below, we also describe the required 

training, coordination, and vessel strike 

avoidance measures that apply to 

foundation installation and vessel use. 

Training and Coordination 

NMFS requires all Vineyard Wind’s 

employees and contractors conducting 

activities on the water, including, but 

not limited to, all vessel captains and 

crew, to be trained in marine mammal 

detection and identification, 

communication protocols, and all 

required measures to minimize impacts 

on marine mammals and support 

Vineyard Wind 1 compliance with the 

IHA. Additionally, all relevant 

personnel and the marine mammal 

species monitoring team(s) are required 

to participate in joint, onboard briefings 

prior to the beginning of project 

activities. The briefing must be repeated 

whenever new relevant personnel (e.g., 

new PSOs, construction contractors, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75680 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

relevant crew) join the project before 

work commences. During this training, 

Vineyard Wind 1 is required to instruct 

all project personnel regarding the 

authority of the marine mammal 

monitoring team(s). For example, pile 

driving personnel are required to 

immediately comply with any call for a 

delay or shut down by the Lead PSO. 

Any disagreement between the Lead 

PSO and the project personnel must 

only be discussed after delay or 

shutdown has occurred. In particular, 

all captains and vessel crew must be 

trained in marine mammal detection 

and vessel strike avoidance measures to 

ensure marine mammals are not struck 

by any project or project-related vessel. 

Prior to the start of in-water 

construction activities, Vineyard Wind 1 

will conduct training for construction 

and vessel personnel and the marine 

mammal monitoring team (PSO and 

PAM operators) to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal detection 

and identification, mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements, 

safety and operational procedures, and 

authorities of the marine mammal 

monitoring team(s). A description of the 

training program must be provided to 

NMFS at least 60 days prior to the 

initial training before in-water activities 

begin. Vineyard Wind 1 will provide 

confirmation of all required training 

documented on a training course log 

sheet and reported to NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources prior to initiating 

project activities. 

North Atlantic Right Whale Awareness 

Monitoring 

Vineyard Wind must use available 

sources of information on North 

Atlantic right whale presence, including 

daily monitoring of the Right Whale 

Sightings Advisory System, U.S. Coast 

Guard very high-frequency (VHF) 

Channel 16, WhaleAlert, and the PAM 

system throughout each day to receive 

notifications of any sightings, and 

information associated with any 

regulatory management actions (e.g., 

establishment of zones identifying the 

need to reduce vessel speeds). 

Maintaining daily awareness and 

coordination affords increased 

protection of North Atlantic right 

whales by understanding North Atlantic 

right whale presence in the area through 

ongoing visual and PAM efforts and 

opportunities (outside of Vineyard 

Wind 1 efforts), and allows for planning 

of construction activities, when 

practicable, to minimize potential 

impacts on North Atlantic right whales. 

The vessel strike avoidance measures 

apply to all vessels associated with the 

Project within U.S. waters and on the 

high seas. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures 

This final IHA contains numerous 

vessel strike avoidance measures that 

reduce the risk that a vessel and marine 

mammal could collide. While the 

likelihood of a vessel strike is generally 

low, it is one of the most common ways 

that marine mammals are seriously 

injured or killed by human activities. 

Therefore, the IHA contains enhanced 

mitigation and monitoring measures to 

avoid vessel strikes, to the extent 

practicable. While many of these 

measures are proactive, intending to 

avoid the heavy use of vessels during 

times when marine mammals of 

particular concern may be in the area, 

several are reactive and occur when a 

project personnel sights a marine 

mammal. Vineyard Wind 1 is required 

to comply with these measures except 

under circumstances when doing so 

would create an imminent and serious 

threat to a person or vessel or to the 

extent that a vessel is unable to 

maneuver and, because of the inability 

to maneuver, the vessel cannot comply. 

While underway, Vineyard Wind 1 is 

required to monitor for and maintain a 

safe distance from marine mammals, 

and operate vessels in a manner that 

reduces the potential for vessel strike. 

Regardless of the vessel’s size, all vessel 

operators, crews, and dedicated visual 

observers (i.e., PSO or trained crew 

member) must maintain a vigilant watch 

for all marine mammals and slow down, 

stop their vessel, or alter course as 

appropriate to avoid striking any marine 

mammal. The dedicated visual observer, 

equipped with suitable monitoring 

technology (e.g., binoculars, night vision 

devices), must be located at an 

appropriate vantage point for ensuring 

vessels are maintaining required vessel 

separation distances from marine 

mammals (e.g., 500 m from North 

Atlantic right whales). 

For all project-related vessels, 

regardless of size, the vessel operator is 

required to immediately reduce speeds 

to 10 kn (11.5 mph) or less if any large 

whale, mother/calf pair, or large 

assemblage of non-delphinid cetaceans 

are observed within 500 m of the vessel. 

Additionally, all project vessels, 

regardless of size, must maintain a 500- 

m minimum separation zone from North 

Atlantic right whales, and a 100-m 

minimum separation zone from sperm 

whales and non-North Atlantic right 

whale baleen species. Vessels are also 

required to keep a minimum separation 

distance of 50 m from all delphinid 

cetaceans and pinnipeds, with an 

exception made for those species that 

approach the vessel (i.e., bow-riding 

dolphins) (table 10). All reasonable 

steps must be taken to not violate 

minimum separation distances. If any of 

these species are sighted within their 

respective minimum separation zone, 

the underway vessel must shift its 

engine to neutral (if it is safe to do so) 

and turn away from the animal(s). The 

engines must not be engaged until the 

animal(s) have been observed to be 

outside of the vessel’s path and beyond 

100 m (for sperm whales and non-North 

Atlantic right whale large whales) or 50 

m (for delphinids and pinnipeds). 

If any North Atlantic right whales are 

sighted at any distance by any project 

personnel or acoustically detected, 

project vessels must reduce speeds to 10 

kn (11.5 mph) and turn away from the 

animal. Additionally, if any large whale 

(other than a North Atlantic right whale) 

is sighted within 500 m of an underway 

vessel by project personnel, the vessel is 

required to immediately reduce speeds 

to 10 kn (11.5 mph) or less and turn 

away from the animal. 

All of the Project-related vessels are 

required to comply with the measures 

within this IHA for operating vessels 

around North Atlantic right whales and 

other marine mammals, as well as any 

existing NMFS vessel speed restrictions 

in effect for North Atlantic right whales 

(see 50 CFR 224.105). When NMFS 

vessel speed restrictions are not in effect 

and a vessel is traveling at greater than 

10 kn (11.5 mph), in addition to the 

required dedicated visual observer, 

Vineyard Wind 1 is required to monitor 

the transit corridor, defined as from a 

port to the lease area or return, in realtime with PAM prior to and during 

transits. To maintain awareness of North 

Atlantic right whale presence in the 

Project Area, vessel operators, crew 

members, and the marine mammal 

monitoring team will monitor U.S. Coast 

Guard VHF Channel 16, WhaleAlert, the 

Right Whale Sighting Advisory System 

(RWSAS), and the PAM system. Any 

North Atlantic right whale or large 

whale detection will be immediately 

communicated to PSOs, PAM operators, 

and all vessel captains. All vessels will 

be equipped with a properly installed, 

operational AIS and Vineyard Wind 1 

must report all MMSI numbers to NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources prior to 

initiating in-water activities. Vineyard 

Wind 1 must submit a Marine Mammal 

Vessel Strike Avoidance Plan that must 

be approved by NMFS prior to 

commencement of vessel use, and 

Vineyard Wind 1 must abide by this 

plan. 

Compliance with these measures will 

reduce the likelihood of vessel strike to 

the extent practicable. These measures 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75681 

increase awareness of marine mammals 

in the vicinity of project vessels and 

require project vessels to reduce speed 

when marine mammals are detected (by 

PSOs, PAM, and/or through another 

source, e.g., RWSAS) and maintain 

separation distances when marine 

mammals are encountered. While visual 

monitoring is useful, reducing vessel 

speed is one of the most effective, 

feasible options available to reduce the 

likelihood of and effects from a vessel 

strike. Numerous studies have indicated 

that slowing the speed of vessels 

reduces the risk of lethal vessel 

collisions, particularly in areas where 

right whales are abundant and vessel 

traffic is common and otherwise 

traveling at high speeds (Vanderlaan 

and Taggart, 2007; Conn and Silber, 

2013; Van der Hoop et al., 2014; Martin 

et al., 2015; Crum et al., 2019). 

Given the inherent low probability of 

vessel strike, combined with the vessel 

strike avoidance measures included 

herein, NMFS considers the potential 

for vessel strike to be unlikely and does 

not authorize take from this activity 

under this IHA. 

TABLE 10—VESSEL STRIKE AVOIDANCE SEPARATION ZONES

Marine mammal species Vessel separation zone 

(m) 

North Atlantic right whale .................................................................................................................................................... 500 

Other ESA-listed species and non-North Atlantic right whale large whales ....................................................................... 100 

Other marine mammals a ..................................................................................................................................................... 50 

aWith the exception of seals and delphinid(s) from the genera Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, Stenella, or Tursiops, as described below. 

Seasonal and Daily Restrictions 

Temporal restrictions in places where 

marine mammals are concentrated, 

engaged in biologically important 

behaviors, and/or present in sensitive 

life stages are effective measures for 

reducing the magnitude and severity of 

human impacts. The temporal 

restrictions described here are built 

around North Atlantic right whale 

protection. Based upon the best 

scientific information available (Roberts 

et al., 2023), the highest densities of 

North Atlantic right whales in the 

specific geographic region are expected 

during the months of January through 

May, with an increase in density 

starting in December. However, North 

Atlantic right whales may be present in 

the LIA throughout the year. 

NMFS is requiring seasonal work 

restrictions to minimize risk of noise 

exposure to the North Atlantic right 

whales incidental to pile driving 

activities to the extent practicable. 

These seasonal work restrictions are 

expected to reduce the number of takes 

of North Atlantic right whales and 

further reduce vessel strike risk. These 

seasonal restrictions also afford 

protection to other marine mammals 

that are known to use the LIA with 

greater frequency during winter months, 

including other baleen whales. 

As described previously, no impact 

pile driving activities may occur January 

1 through May 31st. Vineyard Wind 

plans to install no more than 1 pile per 

day and only initiate impact pile driving 

during daylight hours. Foundation 

installation will not be initiated later 

than 1.5 hours before civil sunset. 

Generally, foundation installation may 

continue after dark when the 

installation of the same pile began 

during daylight (1.5 hours before civil 

sunset), when clearance zones were 

fully visible for at least 30 minutes and 

must proceed for human safety or 

installation feasibility reasons. 

Monopiles must be no larger than 9.6 

m in diameter. The impact hammer 

operator must not exert more than 4,000 

kJ on the pile being installed. No more 

than one pile may be installed at a given 

time (i.e., concurrent/simultaneous pile 

driving may not occur). 

Noise Attenuation Systems 

Vineyard Wind 1 is required to 

employ noise abatement systems 

(NASs), also known as noise attenuation 

systems, during all foundation 

installation activities to reduce the 

sound pressure levels that are 

transmitted through the water. This will 

reduce acoustic ranges to the Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

acoustic thresholds and minimize, to 

the extent practicable, any acoustic 

impacts resulting from these activities. 

Vineyard Wind is required to use a 

double big bubble curtain (DBBC) and 

HSD in addition to an enhanced BBC 

maintenance schedule. The refined NAS 

design (DBBC + HSD + enhanced BBC 

maintenance schedule) used during the 

2023 construction activities will be used 

on the 15 remaining piles to minimize 

noise levels. A single bubble curtain, 

alone or in combination with another 

NAS device, may not be used for pile 

driving, as received SFV data reveals 

this approach was unlikely to attenuate 

sound sufficiently to be consistent with 

the target sound reduction of 6 dB. 

Moreover, the Level B harassment take 

estimates and impact analysis, as well 

as the associated findings, are based 

upon the assumption that the refined 

NAS design (DBBC + HSD + enhanced 

BC maintenance schedule) will be used 

and that the ensonification distances 

measured in the 2023 SFVs under the 

same conditions will occur for the 15 

remaining piles. The DBC and HSD 

must reduce noise levels to those not 

exceeding expected ranges to Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

isopleths corresponding to those 

modeled assuming 6-dB sound 

attenuation, pending results of SFV (see 

Sound Field Verification section below). 

Noise abatement systems, such as 

bubble curtains, are used to decrease the 

sound levels radiated from a source. 

Bubbles create a local impedance 

change that acts as a barrier to sound 

transmission. The size of the bubbles 

determines their effective frequency 

band, with larger bubbles needed for 

lower frequencies. There are a variety of 

bubble curtain systems, confined or 

unconfined bubbles, and some with 

encapsulated bubbles or panels. 

Attenuation levels also vary by type of 

system, frequency band, and location. 

Small bubble curtains have been 

measured to reduce sound levels, but 

effective attenuation is highly 

dependent on depth of water, current, 

and configuration and operation of the 

curtain (Austin et al., 2016; Koschinski 

and Lu ̈demann, 2013). Bubble curtains 

vary in terms of the sizes of the bubbles; 

those with larger bubbles tend to 

perform a bit better and more reliably, 

particularly when deployed with two 

separate rings (Bellmann, 2014; 

Koschinski and Lu ̈demann, 2013; Nehls 

et al., 2016). Encapsulated bubble 

systems (i.e., HSDs) can be effective 

within their targeted frequency ranges 

(e.g., 100–800 Hz) and when used in 

conjunction with a bubble curtain 

appear to create the greatest attenuation. 

The literature presents a wide array of 

observed attenuation results for bubble 

curtains. The variability in attenuation 

levels is the result of variation in design 

as well as differences in site conditions 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75682 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

and difficulty in properly installing and 

operating in-water attenuation devices. 

Da ̈hne et al. (2017) found that single 

bubble curtains that reduce sound levels 

by 7 to 10 dB reduced the overall sound 

level by approximately 12 dB when 

combined as a double bubble curtain for 

6-m steel monopiles in the North Sea. 

During installation of monopiles 

(consisting of approximately 8-m in 

diameter) for more than 150 WTGs in 

comparable water depths (≤25 m) and 

conditions in Europe indicate that 

attenuation of 10 dB is readily achieved 

(Bellmann, 2019; Bellmann et al., 2020) 

using single BBCs for noise attenuation. 

When a double big bubble curtain is 

used, Vineyard Wind 1 will be required 

to maintain numerous operational 

performance standards, including the 

enhanced BBC maintenance protocol 

(Vineyard Wind 1 Enhanced BBC 

Technical Memo, 2023). These 

standards are defined in the IHA and 

include, but are not limited to, a 

requirement that construction 

contractors train personnel in the 

proposed balancing of airflow to the 

bubble ring; and a requirement that 

Vineyard Wind 1 submit a performance 

test and maintenance report to NMFS 

within 72 hours following the 

performance test. Corrections to the 

attenuation device to meet regulatory 

requirements must occur prior to use 

during foundation installation activities. 

In addition, a full maintenance check 

(e.g., manually clearing holes) must 

occur prior to each pile being installed. 

The HSD system Vineyard Wind 1 plans 

to use would be employed, in 

coordination with the DBBC, as a nearfield attenuation device close to the 

monopiles (Ku ̈ sel et al., 2024). Vineyard 

Wind 1 also plans to follow a DBBC 

enhanced maintenance protocol, which 

was used during the 2023 Vineyard 

Wind 1 pile installation activities. The 

DBBC enhanced maintenance protocol 

includes an adjustment from typical 

bubble curtain operations to drill hoses 

after every deployment to maximize 

performance in siltier sediments which 

are present in the Lease Area. The DBBC 

enhanced maintenance protocol also 

includes DBBC hose inspection and 

clearance, pressure testing of DBBC 

hoses, visual inspection of DBBC 

performance, and minimizing 

disturbance of the DBBC hoses on the 

seafloor. 

Vineyard Wind 1 is required to 

submit an updated SFV plan to NMFS 

for approval prior to installing 

foundations, and must abide by this 

plan. Vineyard Wind 1 is also required 

to submit interim and final SFV data 

results to NMFS and make corrections 

to the NASs in the case that any SFV 

measurements demonstrate noise levels 

are above those expected. These 

frequent and immediate reports allow 

NMFS to better understand the sound 

fields to which marine mammals are 

being exposed and require immediate 

corrective action should they be 

misaligned with anticipated noise levels 

within our analysis. 

Clearance and Shutdown Zones 

NMFS requires the establishment of 

both clearance and shutdown zones 

during impact pile driving. The purpose 

of ‘‘clearance’’ of a particular zone is to 

minimize potential instances of auditory 

injury and more severe behavioral 

disturbances by delaying the 

commencement of an activity if marine 

mammals are near the activity. The 

purpose of a ‘‘shutdown’’ is to prevent 

a specific acute impact, such as auditory 

injury or severe behavioral disturbance 

of sensitive species, by halting the 

activity. Due to the increased density of 

North Atlantic right whales during the 

months of November and December, as 

compared to densities in June through 

October, more stringent clearance and 

shutdown mitigation measures are 

planned for these months. 

All relevant clearance and shutdown 

zones during project activities will be 

monitored by NMFS-approved PSOs 

and PAM operators. PAM would be 

conducted at least 24 hours in advance 

of any pile driving activities. At least 

one PAM operator would review data 

from at least 24 hours prior to 

foundation installation (to increase 

situational awareness) and actively 

monitor hydrophones for 60 minutes 

prior to commencement of these 

activities. Any North Atlantic right 

whale sighting at any distance by visual 

PSOs, or acoustically detected within 

the PAM monitoring zone (10 km), 

triggers a delay to commencing pile 

driving or a shutdown. Any large whale 

sighted by a PSO or acoustically 

detected by a PAM operator that cannot 

be identified as a non-North Atlantic 

right whale must be treated as if it were 

a North Atlantic right whale. 

Prior to the start of pile driving 

activities, Vineyard Wind must ensure 

designated areas (i.e., clearance zones, 

table 11) are clear of marine mammals 

before commencing activities to 

minimize the potential for and degree of 

harassment. PSOs must visually monitor 

clearance zones for marine mammals for 

a minimum of 60 minutes prior to 

commencing foundation installation 

activities. During this period, the 

clearance zones will be monitored 

acoustically by a PAM operator as well. 

All clearance zones (table 11) must be 

confirmed to be free of marine mammals 

for 30 minutes immediately prior to 

commencing foundation installation 

activities. The minimum visibility zone, 

defined as the area over which PSOs 

must be able to visually detect marine 

mammals, would extend 4,000 m for 

monopile installation from the pile 

being driven (table 11) and must be 

visible for 60 minutes. The minimum 

visibility zone corresponds to the 

modeled Level A harassment distance 

for low-frequency cetaceans plus twenty 

percent, and rounded up to the nearest 

0.5 km. The minimum visibility zone 

must be visually cleared of marine 

mammals. If this zone is obscured to the 

degree that effective monitoring cannot 

occur, pile driving must be delayed. 

Minimum visibility zone and clearance 

zones are defined and provided in table 

11 for all species. 

From November 1 to December 31, 

vessel-based surveys will be used to 

confirm the clearance zone (10 km PAM 

clearance zone (6.2 mi); table 11) is clear 

of North Atlantic right whales prior to 

pile driving. The survey will be 

supported by a team of nine PSOs 

coordinating visual monitoring across 

two PSO support vessels and the pile 

driving platform. The two PSO support 

vessels, each with three active on-duty 

PSOs, will be positioned at the same 

distance on either side of the pile 

driving vessel. Each PSO support vessel 

would transit along a steady course 

along parallel track lines in opposite 

directions. Each transect line will be 

surveyed at a similar speed, not to 

exceed 10 kn (11.5 mph) and would last 

for approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour. 

If a North Atlantic right whale is sighted 

at any distance during the vessel-based 

survey, pile driving must be delayed 

until the following day unless an 

additional vessel-based survey with 

additional transects is conducted to 

determine the clearance zone is clear of 

North Atlantic right whales. Further 

details on PSO support vessel 

monitoring efforts are described in the 

Vineyard Wind 1 application section 11, 

table 17. 

Once pile driving activity begins, any 

marine mammal entering their 

respective shutdown zone will trigger 

the activity to cease. In the case of pile 

driving, the shutdown requirement may 

be waived if is not practicable due to 

imminent risk of injury or loss of life to 

an individual or risk of damage to a 

vessel that creates risk of injury or loss 

of life for individuals, or if the lead 

engineer determines there is pile refusal 

or pile instability. 

In situations when shutdown is called 

for, but Vineyard Wind 1 determines 

shutdown is not practicable due to 

aforementioned emergency reasons, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75683 

reduced hammer energy must be 

implemented when the lead engineer 

determines it is practicable. 

Specifically, pile refusal or pile 

instability could result in the inability 

to shut down pile driving immediately. 

Pile refusal occurs when the pile driving 

sensors indicate the pile is approaching 

refusal, and a shut-down would lead to 

a stuck pile which then poses an 

imminent risk of injury or loss of life to 

an individual, or risk of damage to a 

vessel that creates risk for individuals. 

Pile instability occurs when the pile is 

unstable and unable to stay standing if 

the piling vessel were to ‘‘let go.’’ 

During these periods of instability, the 

lead engineer may determine a shutdown is not feasible because the shutdown combined with impending 

weather conditions may require the 

piling vessel to ‘‘let go’’ which then 

poses an imminent risk of injury or loss 

of life to an individual, or risk of 

damage to a vessel that creates risk for 

individuals. Vineyard Wind 1 must 

document and report to NMFS all cases 

where the emergency exemption is 

taken. 

After shutdown, impact pile driving 

may be reinitiated once all clearance 

zones are clear of marine mammals for 

the minimum species-specific periods, 

or, if required to maintain pile stability, 

impact pile driving may be reinitiated 

but must be used to maintain stability. 

From June 1–October 31, if pile driving 

has been shut down due to the presence 

of a North Atlantic right whale, pile 

driving must not restart until the North 

Atlantic right whale has not been 

visually or acoustically detected for 30 

minutes. Upon re-starting pile driving, 

soft-start protocols must be followed if 

pile driving has ceased for 30 minutes 

or longer. From November 1–December 

31, if a North Atlantic right whale is 

detected either via real-time PAM or 

vessel-based surveys at any distance 

from the pile driving location, pile 

driving must be delayed and must not 

commence until the following day 

unless a follow-up vessel-based survey 

confirms the clearance zone is clear of 

North Atlantic right whales upon 

completion of the survey, as determined 

by the lead PSO. During November 1– 

December 31, if pile driving has been 

shut down or delayed due to the 

presence of 3 or more North Atlantic 

right whales, pile driving will be 

postponed until the next day. Shutdown 

zones vary by species and are shown in 

table 11 below. 

TABLE 11—MINIMUM VISIBILITY, CLEARANCE, SHUTDOWN, AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES, IN METERS (m), DURING

IMPACT PILE DRIVING

Monitoring zones North Atlantic right whales a

Other 

mysticetes/sperm 

whales 

(m) b

Pilot Whales, 

harbor porpoises, 

and delphinids 

(m) b

Pinnipeds 

(m) b

Minimum Visibility Zone c ............................ 4,000 

Visual Clearance Zone ............................... Any distance from pile driving PSOs ......... 500 160 160 

PAM Clearance and Shutdown Zone d ...... 10,000 ......................................................... 500 160 160 

Visual Shutdown Zone ............................... Any distance from pile driving PSOs ......... 500 160 160 

Distance to Level B Harassment Threshold 5,720 

aFrom December 1–December 31, vessel based surveys using two PSO support vessels would confirm the 10 km (6.2 mi) PAM clearance 

zone is clear of North Atlantic right whales. If three or more North Atlantic right whales are sighted in November or December, pile driving will be 

delayed for 24 hours. bPile driving may commence when either the marine mammal has voluntarily left the respective clearance zone and has been visually confirmed beyond that clearance zone, or when 30 minutes (North Atlantic right whales (June–October), other non-North Atlantic right whale 

mysticetes, sperm whales, pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins) or 15 minutes (all other delphinids and pinnipeds) have elapsed without re-detection . c Minimum visibility zone is the minimum distance that must be visible prior to initiating pile driving, as determined by the lead PSO. The minimum visibility zone corresponds to the Level A harassment distance for low-frequency cetaceans plus twenty percent, and rounded up to the 

nearest 0.5 km. dThe PAM system must be capable of detecting North Atlantic right whales at 10 km during pile driving. The system should also be designed 

to detect other marine mammals to the maximum extent practicable; however, it is not required these other species be detected out to 10 km 

given higher frequency calls and echolocation clicks are not typically detectable at large distances. 

For any other in-water construction 

heavy machinery activities (e.g., 

trenching, cable laying, etc.), if a marine 

mammal is on a path towards or comes 

within 10 m (32.8 ft) of equipment, 

Vineyard Wind 1 would be required to 

delay or cease operations until the 

marine mammal has moved more than 

10 m on a path away from the activity 

to avoid direct interaction with 

equipment. 

In consideration of a public comment, 

NMFS has included a requirement for 

Vineyard Wind 1 to shutdown pile 

driving in the event of a live cetacean 

stranding where the NMFS Marine 

Mammal Stranding Network is engaged 

in herding or other interventions to 

return animals to the water. Marine 

mammals involved in live stranding 

events (or near-shore atypical milling) 

are considered especially susceptible to 

the effects of additional stressors. These 

shutdown procedures are not related to 

the investigation of the cause of any 

such stranding and their 

implementation is not intended to 

imply that the activity of the authorized 

entity is the cause of the stranding. 

Rather, shutdown procedures are 

intended to protect marine mammals 

exhibiting indicators of distress by 

minimizing their exposure to possible 

additional stressors, regardless of the 

factors that contributed to the stranding. 

Vineyard Wind 1 will be required to 

shut down pile driving activities 

according to the measure described in 

the IHA. 

Soft-Start 

The use of a soft-start procedure is 

believed to provide additional 

protection to marine mammals by 

warning them or providing them with a 

chance to leave the area prior to the 

hammer operating at full capacity. Softstart typically involves initiating 

hammer operation at a reduced energy 

level (relative to full operating capacity) 

followed by a waiting period. Vineyard 

Wind 1 is be required to utilize a softstart protocol for impact pile driving of 

monopiles by performing 4–6 single 

hammer strikes at less than 40 percent 

of the maximum hammer energy 

followed by at least 1 minute delay 

before the subsequent hammer strikes. 

This process shall be conducted at least 

three times (e.g., 4–6 single strikes, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75684 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

delay, 4–6 single strikes, delay, 4–6 

single strikes, delay) for a minimum of 

20 minutes. NMFS notes that it is 

difficult to specify a reduction in energy 

for any given hammer because of 

variation across drivers and installation 

conditions. Vineyard Wind will reduce 

energy based on consideration of sitespecific soil properties and other 

relevant operational considerations. 

Soft start would be required at the 

beginning of each day’s activity and at 

any time following a cessation of 

activity of 30 minutes or longer. Prior to 

soft-start, the operator must receive 

confirmation from the PSO that the 

clearance zone is clear of any marine 

mammals. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s 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 the 

affected 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. 

NMFS’ MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for authorization 

must include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present while conducting 

the activities. Effective reporting is 

critical both to compliance as well as 

ensuring that the most value is obtained 

from the required monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• 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 

activity; 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. 

Separately, monitoring is also 

regularly used to support mitigation 

implementation, which is referred to as 

mitigation monitoring, and monitoring 

plans typically include measures that 

both support mitigation implementation 

and increase our understanding of the 

impacts of the activity on marine 

mammals. 

Protected Species Observer and PAM 

Operator Requirements 

PSOs are trained professionals who 

are tasked with visual monitoring for 

marine mammals during pile driving 

activities. The primary purpose of a PSO 

is to carry out the monitoring, collect 

data, and, when appropriate, call for the 

implementation of mitigation measures. 

Visual monitoring by NMFS-approved 

PSOs will be conducted at a minimum 

of 60 minutes before, during, and 30 

minutes after all planned impact pile 

driving activities. In addition to visual 

observations, NMFS requires Vineyard 

Wind 1 to conduct PAM using NMFSapproved PAM operators during impact 

pile driving and vessel transit. PAM 

must also be conducted for 24 hours in 

advance and during impact pile driving 

activities. Visual observations and 

acoustic detections will be used to 

support the mitigation measures (e.g., 

clearance zones). To increase 

understanding of the impacts of the 

activity on marine mammals, PSOs must 

record all incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence at any distance from the 

piling locations. PSOs would document 

all behaviors and behavioral changes, in 

concert with distance from an acoustic 

source. 

NMFS will require PAM conducted 

by NMFS-approved PAM operators, 

following standardized measurement, 

processing methods, reporting metrics, 

and metadata standards for offshore 

wind. PAM alongside visual data 

monitoring is valuable to provide the 

most accurate record of species presence 

as possible, and these two monitoring 

methods are well understood to provide 

best results when combined together 

(e.g., Barlow and Taylor, 2005; Clark et 

al., 2010; Gerrodette et al., 2011; Van 

Parijs et al., 2021). Acoustic monitoring 

(in addition to visual monitoring) 

increases the likelihood of detecting 

marine mammals within the shutdown 

and clearance zones of project activities, 

which when applied in combination 

with required shutdowns helps to 

further reduce the risk of marine 

mammals being exposed to sound levels 

that could otherwise result in acoustic 

injury or more intense behavioral 

harassment. 

The exact configuration and number 

of PAM systems depends on the size of 

the zone(s) being monitored, the amount 

of noise expected in the area, and the 

characteristics of the signals being 

monitored. More closely spaced 

hydrophones would allow for more 

directionality and perhaps range to the 

vocalizing marine mammals; however, 

this approach would add additional 

costs and greater levels of complexity to 

the project. Larger baleen cetacean 

species (i.e., mysticetes), which produce 

loud and lower-frequency vocalizations, 

may be able to be heard with fewer 

hydrophones spaced at greater 

distances. However, smaller cetaceans 

(such as mid-frequency delphinids or 

odontocetes) may necessitate more 

hydrophones and to be spaced closer 

together given the shorter range of the 

shorter, mid-frequency acoustic signals 

(e.g., whistles and echolocation clicks). 

The configuration for collecting the 

required marine mammal data will be 

based upon the acoustic data acquisition 

methods used during the 2023 Vineyard 

Wind construction campaign (Ku ̈ sel et 

al., 2024). 

NMFS does not formally administer 

any PSO or PAM operator training 

program or endorse specific providers 

but will approve PSOs and PAM 

operators that have successfully 

completed courses that meet the 

curriculum and trainer requirements. 

All PSOs and PAM operators must have 

successfully attained a bachelor’s degree 

with a major in one of the natural 

sciences. The educational requirements 

may be waived if the PSO or PAM 

operator has acquired the relevant skills 

through alternate experience. Requests 

for such a waiver shall be submitted to 

NMFS and must include written 

justification. Alternate experience that 

may be considered includes, but is not 

limited to (1) secondary education and/ 

or experience comparable to PSO and/ 

or PAM operator duties; (2) previous 

work experience conducting academic, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75685 

commercial, or government-sponsored 

marine mammal surveys; and (3) 

previous work experience as a PSO/ 

PAM operator (PSOs/PAM operators 

must be in good standing and 

demonstrate good performance of PSO/ 

PAM operator duties). All PSOs and 

PAM operators must have successfully 

completed a relevant training course 

within the last 5 years, including 

obtaining a certificate of course 

completion that would be submitted to 

NMFS. All PSOs and PAM operators 

must demonstrate good standing and 

consistently good performance of all 

assigned duties. 

For prospective PSOs and PAM 

operators not previously approved, or 

for PSOs and PAM operators whose 

approval is not current, NMFS must 

review and approve PSO and PAM 

operator qualifications. Vineyard Wind 

1 will be required to submit PSO and 

PAM operator resumes for approval at 

least 60 days prior to PSO and PAM 

operator use. Resumes must include 

information related to relevant 

education, experience, and training, 

including dates, duration, location, and 

description of prior PSO and/or PAM 

experience, and be accompanied by 

relevant documentation of successful 

completion of necessary training. 

Should Vineyard Wind 1 require 

additional PSOs or PAM operators 

throughout the project, Vineyard Wind 

1 must submit a subsequent list of preapproved PSOs and PAM operators to 

NMFS at least 15 days prior to planned 

use of that PSO or PAM operator. PSOs 

and PAM operators must have previous 

experience observing marine mammals 

and must have the ability to work with 

all required and relevant software and 

equipment. 

PAM operators are responsible for 

obtaining NMFS approval. To be 

approved as a PAM operator, the person 

must meet the following qualifications: 

The PAM operator must have completed 

a PAM operator training course and 

demonstrate that they have prior 

experience with PAM software, 

equipment, and real-time acoustic 

detection systems. They must have prior 

experience independently analyzing 

archived and/or real-time PAM data to 

identify and classify baleen whale and 

other marine mammal vocalizations by 

species, including North Atlantic right 

whale and humpback whale 

vocalizations, and experience with 

deconflicting multiple species’ 

vocalizations that are similar and/or 

received concurrently. The PAM 

operator must be able to identify and 

classify marine mammal acoustic 

detections by species in real-time 

(prioritizing North Atlantic right whales 

and noting other marine mammal 

vocalizations, when detected). At a 

minimum, for each acoustic detection, 

the PAM operator must be able to 

categorically determine whether a North 

Atlantic right whale is detected, 

possibly detected, or not detected, and 

notify the Lead PSO of any confirmed or 

possible detections, including baleen 

whale detections that cannot be 

identified to species. If the PAM 

software is capable of localization of 

sounds or deriving bearings and 

distance, the PAM operator must 

demonstrate experience using this 

technique. PAM operators must be 

independent observers (i.e., not 

construction personnel), and must 

demonstrate experience with relevant 

acoustic software and equipment. A 

Lead PAM operator must meet all of 

these requirements and have a 

minimum of 90 days at-sea experience 

in the specified role or sufficient 

alternative experience. 

NMFS may approve PSOs as 

conditional or unconditional. An 

unconditional PSO is one who has 

completed training within the last 5 

years and attained the necessary 

experience (e.g.., demonstrate 

experience with monitoring for marine 

mammals at clearance and shutdown 

zone sizes similar to those expected to 

be produced during the respective 

activity). A conditional PSO may be one 

who has completed training in the last 

5 years but has not yet attained the 

requisite field experience. 

Unconditionally approved PSOs are 

required for impact pile driving 

activities. 

Additionally, impact pile driving 

activities require PSOs and/or PAM 

operator monitoring to have a lead on 

duty. The visual PSO field team, in 

conjunction with the PAM team (i.e., 

marine mammal monitoring team) will 

have a lead member (designated as the 

‘‘Lead PSO’’ or ‘‘Lead PAM operator’’) 

who will be required to meet the 

unconditional standard. Lead PSO or 

PAM operators must also have a 

minimum of 90 days at sea in the 

specified role, with the conclusion of 

the most recent relevant experience not 

more than 18 months previous and must 

also have experience specifically 

monitoring baleen whale species. A PSO 

may be trained and/or experienced as 

both a PSO and PAM operator and may 

perform either duty, pursuant to 

scheduling requirements (and vice 

versa). 

PSOs must have visual acuity in both 

eyes (with correction of vision being 

permissible) sufficient enough to 

discern moving targets on the water’s 

surface with the ability to estimate the 

target size and distance (binocular use is 

allowable), ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to the assigned protocols, and the ability 

to communicate orally, by radio, or inperson, with project personnel to 

provide real-time information on marine 

mammals observed in the area. All PSOs 

must be trained in northwestern 

Atlantic Ocean marine mammal 

identification and behaviors and must 

be able to conduct field observations 

and collect data according to assigned 

protocols. Additionally, PSOs must 

have the ability to work with all 

required and relevant software and 

equipment necessary during 

observations. 

Vineyard Wind must work with the 

selected third-party PSO and PAM 

operator provider to ensure PSOs and 

PAM operators have all equipment 

(including backup equipment) needed 

to adequately perform necessary tasks. 

For PSOs, this includes, but is not 

limited to, accurate determination of 

distance and bearing to observed marine 

mammals, and to ensure that PSOs are 

capable of calibrating equipment as 

necessary for accurate distance 

estimates and species identification. 

PSO equipment, at a minimum, shall 

include: 

• At least one thermal (infrared) 

imaging device suited for the marine 

environment; 

• Reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 × 50) of 

appropriate quality (at least one per 

PSO, plus backups); 

• Global positioning units (GPS) (at 

least one plus backups); 

• Digital cameras with a telephoto 

lens that is at least 300-mm or 

equivalent on a full-frame single lens 

reflex (SLR) (at least one plus backups). 

The camera or lens should also have an 

image stabilization system; 

• Equipment necessary for accurate 

measurement of distances to marine 

mammal; 

• Compasses (at least one plus 

backups); 

• Means of communication among 

vessel crew and PSOs; and, 

• Any other tools deemed necessary 

to adequately and effectively perform 

PSO tasks. 

At least two PSOs on the pile driving 

vessel must be equipped with functional 

Big Eye binoculars (e.g., 25*150; 2.7 

view angle; individual ocular focus; 

height control), Big Eye binocular would 

be pedestal mounted on the deck at the 

best vantage point that provides for 

optimal sea surface observation and 

PSO safety. PAM operators must have 

the appropriate equipment (i.e., a 

computer station equipped with a data 

collection software system available 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75686 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

wherever they are stationed) and use a 

NMFS-approved PAM system to 

conduct monitoring. During periods of 

low visibility (i.e., fog, precipitation, 

darkness, poor weather conditions), 

PSOs must use alternative monitoring 

technology (e.g., infrared or thermal 

cameras) to monitor mitigation zones. 

PSOs aboard the pile driving vessel 

must have access to two FLIR cameras 

with two screens, thermal clip-ons, 

hand-held night vision devices, and 

thermal monoculars. PSOs aboard the 

PSO support vessels must have access to 

one FLIR camera with a single screen, 

thermal clip-ons, hand-held night vision 

devices, and thermal monoculars. The 

equipment specified above may be 

provided by an individual PSO, the 

third-party PSO provider, or the 

operator, but Vineyard Wind 1 is 

responsible for ensuring PSOs have the 

proper equipment required to perform 

the duties specified in the IHA. 

Reference materials must be available 

aboard all project vessels for 

identification of protected species. 

PSOs and PAM operators are not be 

permitted to exceed 4 consecutive 

watch hours on duty at any time, must 

have a 2-hour (minimum) break between 

watches, and must not exceed a 

combined watch schedule of more than 

12 hours in a 24-hour period. If the 

schedule includes PSOs and PAM 

operators on-duty for 2-hour shifts, a 

minimum 1-hour break between 

watches is allowed. 

The PSOs are responsible for 

monitoring the waters surrounding the 

pile driving site to the farthest extent 

permitted by sighting conditions, 

including pre-start clearance and 

shutdown zones, prior to, during, and 

following foundation installation 

activities. Monitoring must be done 

while free from distractions and in a 

consistent, systematic, and diligent 

manner. If PSOs cannot visually 

monitor the minimum visibility zone of 

4 km (2.5 mi) prior to foundation pile 

driving at all times using the required 

equipment, pile driving operations must 

not commence or must shutdown if they 

are currently active. All PSOs must be 

located at the best vantage point(s) on 

any platform, as determined by the Lead 

PSO, in order to obtain 360-degree 

visual coverage of the entire clearance 

and shutdown zones, and as much of 

the Level B harassment zone as possible. 

PAM operators may be located on a 

vessel or remotely on-shore, and must 

assist PSOs in ensuring full coverage of 

the clearance and shutdown zones. The 

PAM operator must monitor to and past 

the clearance zones for large whales as 

far as possible. 

All on-duty PSOs must remain in realtime contact with the on-duty PAM 

operator(s). PAM operators must 

immediately communicate all acoustic 

detections of marine mammals to PSOs, 

including any determination regarding 

species identification, distance, and 

bearing (where relevant) relative to the 

pile being driven and the degree of 

confidence (e.g., possible, probable 

detection) in the determination. The 

PAM operator must inform the Lead 

PSO(s) on duty of animal detections 

approaching or within applicable ranges 

of interest to the activity occurring via 

the data collection software system (i.e., 

Mysticetus or similar system) who must 

be responsible for requesting that the 

designated crewmember implement the 

necessary mitigation procedures (i.e., 

delay). All on-duty PSOs and PAM 

operator(s) must remain in contact with 

the on-duty construction personnel 

responsible for implementing 

mitigations (e.g., delay to pile driving) 

to ensure communication on marine 

mammal observations can easily, 

quickly, and consistently occur between 

all on-duty PSOs, PAM operator(s), and 

on-water Project personnel. It is the 

responsibility of the PSO(s) on duty to 

communicate the presence of marine 

mammals as well as to communicate the 

action(s) that are necessary to ensure 

mitigation and monitoring requirements 

are implemented as appropriate. 

At least three PSOs (on the pile 

driving vessel) and one PAM operator 

must be on-duty and actively 

monitoring for marine mammals 60 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after foundation installation in 

accordance with a NMFS-approved 

PAM Plan. PAM must also be conducted 

for at least 24 hours prior to foundation 

pile driving activities, and the PAM 

operator must review all detections from 

the previous 24-hour period prior to pile 

driving activities to increase situational 

awareness. Throughout the year (June 

through December), at least three PSOs 

must also be on-duty and actively 

monitoring from PSO support vessels. 

There must be at least two PSO support 

vessels with on-duty PSOs during any 

pile driving activities from June through 

December. 

In addition to monitoring duties, 

PSOs and PAM operators are 

responsible for data collection. The data 

collected by PSO and PAM operators 

and subsequent analysis provide the 

necessary information to inform an 

estimate of the amount of take that 

occurred during the project, better 

understand the impacts of the project on 

marine mammals, address the 

effectiveness of monitoring and 

mitigation measures, and to adaptively 

manage activities and mitigation in the 

future. Data reported includes 

information on marine mammal 

sightings, activity occurring at time of 

sighting, monitoring conditions, and if 

mitigative actions were taken. 

For all visual monitoring efforts and 

marine mammal sightings, the following 

information must be collected and 

reported to NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources: the date and time that 

monitored activity begins or ends, the 

construction activities occurring during 

each observation period, the watch 

status (i.e., sighting made by PSO on/off 

effort, opportunistic, crew, alternate 

vessel/platform), the PSO who sighted 

the animal, the time of sighting; the 

weather parameters (e.g., wind speed, 

percent cloud cover, visibility), the 

water conditions (e.g., Beaufort sea 

state, tide state, water depth); all marine 

mammal sightings, regardless of 

distance from the construction activity; 

species (or lowest possible taxonomic 

level possible), the pace of the 

animal(s), the estimated number of 

animals (minimum/maximum/high/ 

low/best), the estimated number of 

animals by cohort (e.g., adults, 

yearlings, juveniles, calves, group 

composition, etc.), the description (i.e., 

as many distinguishing features as 

possible of each individual seen, 

including length, shape, color, pattern, 

scars or markings, shape and size of 

dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow 

characteristics), the description of any 

marine mammal behavioral observations 

(e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding 

or traveling) and observed changes in 

behavior, including an assessment of 

behavioral responses thought to have 

resulted from the specific activity, the 

animal’s closest distance and bearing 

from the pile being driven and 

estimated time entered or spent within 

the Level A harassment and/or Level B 

harassment zone(s), use of noise 

attenuation device(s), and specific phase 

of activity (e.g., soft-start for pile 

driving, active pile driving, etc.), the 

marine mammal occurrence in Level A 

harassment or Level B harassment 

zones, the description of any mitigationrelated action implemented, or 

mitigation-related actions called for but 

not implemented, in response to the 

sighting (e.g., delay, shutdown, etc.) and 

time and location of the action, and 

other human activity in the area. 

On May 19, 2023, Vineyard Wind 

submitted a Pile Driving Monitoring 

Plan for the 2023 IHA, including an 

Alternative Monitoring Plan, which was 

approved by NMFS. The Plan included 

details regarding PSO and PAM 

monitoring protocols and equipment 

planned for use. More specifically, the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75687 

PAM portion of the plan included a 

description of all PAM equipment, 

addressed how the passive acoustic 

monitoring must follow standardized 

measurement, processing methods, 

reporting metrics, and metadata 

standards for offshore wind as described 

in NOAA and BOEM Minimum 

Recommendations for Use of Passive 

Acoustic Listening Systems in Offshore 

Wind Energy Development Monitoring 

and Mitigation Programs (Van Parijs et 

al., 2021). This plan also identified the 

efficacy of the technology at detecting 

marine mammals in the clearance and 

shutdown zones under all of the various 

conditions anticipated during 

construction, including varying weather 

conditions, sea states, and in 

consideration of the use of artificial 

lighting. On May 15, 2024, Vineyard 

Wind 1 submitted an updated Pile 

Driving Marine Mammal Monitoring 

Plan to NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources for review. The Plan must be 

approved by NMFS prior to the start of 

foundation pile driving, and Vineyard 

Wind 1 must abide by this plan. 

Sound Field Verification 

Vineyard Wind 1 is required to 

conduct Thorough SFV measurements 

during impact pile driving activity 

associated with the installation of, at 

minimum, the first monopile foundation 

and Abbreviated SFV measurements 

during impact installation of the 

remaining monopiles to demonstrate 

noise levels are at or below those 

measured during the 2023 Vineyard 

Wind construction campaign (Ku ̈ sel et 

al., 2024) and considered as maximum 

distances in this IHA. NMFS recognizes 

that the SFV data collected in 2023 

occurred in warmer weather months 

and that water temperature can affect 

the sound speed profile and thus 

propagation rates. Therefore, if impact 

pile driving takes place in December, 

comprehensive SFV measurements must 

be conducted during impact pile driving 

activity associated with the installation 

of, at minimum, the first monopile 

foundation. Subsequent Thorough SFV 

measurements will also be required 

should larger piles be installed or if 

additional piles are driven that are 

anticipated to produce louder sound 

fields than those previously measured 

(e.g., higher hammer energy, greater 

number of strikes, etc.). The required 

measurements and reporting associated 

with SFV can be found in the IHA. 

These requirements are extensive to 

ensure monitoring is conducted 

appropriately and the reporting 

frequency is such that Vineyard Wind 1 

would be required to make adjustments 

quickly (e.g., add additional sound 

attenuation) to ensure marine mammals 

are not experiencing noise levels above 

those considered in this analysis. For 

recommended SFV protocols for impact 

pile driving, please consult 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) 18406 

Underwater acoustics—Measurement of 

radiated underwater sound from 

percussive pile driving (2017). On May 

15, 2024, Vineyard Wind 1 submitted an 

updated SFV plan to NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources for review. The 

Plan must be approved by NMFS prior 

to the start of foundation pile driving, 

and Vineyard Wind 1 must abide by this 

plan. 

For any pile driving activities, 

Vineyard Wind 1 is also be required to 

submit interim and final SFV data 

results to NMFS and make corrections 

to the noise attenuation systems in the 

case that any SFV measurements 

demonstrate noise levels are above those 

measured during the 2023 Vineyard 

Wind construction campaign (Ku ̈ sel et 

al., 2024) and considered as maximum 

distances in this IHA. These frequent 

and immediate reports will allow NMFS 

to better understand the sound fields to 

which marine mammals are being 

exposed and require immediate 

corrective action should they be 

misaligned with anticipated noise levels 

within our analysis. 

Reporting 

Prior to any construction activities 

occurring, Vineyard Wind 1 must 

provide a report to NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources that demonstrates 

that all Vineyard Wind 1 personnel, 

which includes the vessel crews, vessel 

captains, PSOs, and PAM operators 

have completed all required training. 

NMFS requires standardized and 

frequent reporting from Vineyard Wind 

1 during the active period of the IHA. 

All data collected relating to the Project 

will be recorded using industrystandard software (e.g., Mysticetus or a 

similar software) installed on field 

laptops and/or tablets. Vineyard Wind 1 

is required to submit weekly, monthly, 

annual, and situational reports. 

Vineyard Wind 1 must review SFV 

results within 24 hours to determine 

whether measurements exceeded 

modeled (Level A harassment) and 

expected (Level B harassment) 

thresholds. 

Vineyard Wind 1 must provide the 

initial results of the SFV measurements 

to NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

in an interim report after each 

foundation installation event as soon as 

they are available and prior to a 

subsequent foundation installation, but 

no later than 48 hours after each 

completed foundation installation 

event. The report must include, at 

minimum: hammer energies/schedule 

used during pile driving, including the 

total number of strikes and the 

maximum hammer energy; peak sound 

pressure level (SPLpk); root-mean-square 

sound pressure level that contains 90 

percent of the acoustic energy (SPLrms); 

and sound exposure level (SEL, in 

single strike for pile driving, SELss,); for 

each hydrophone, including at least the 

maximum, arithmetic mean, minimum, 

median (L50) and L5 (95 percent 

exceedance) statistics for each metric; 

estimated marine mammal Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

isopleths; calculated using the 

maximum-over-depth L5 (95 percent 

exceedance level, maximum of both 

hydrophones) of the associated sound 

metric; comparison of 2023 measured 

results against the measured marine 

mammal Level A harassment and Level 

B harassment acoustic isopleths; 

estimated transmission loss coefficients, 

pile identifier name, location of the pile 

and each hydrophone array in latitude/ 

longitude; depths of each hydrophone; 

one-third-octave band single strike SEL 

spectra; if filtering is applied, full filter 

characteristics; and hydrophone 

specifications including the type, 

model, and sensitivity. Vineyard Wind 

1 is also required to report any 

immediate observations which are 

suspected to have a significant impact 

on the results including but not limited 

to: observed noise mitigation system 

issues, obstructions along the 

measurement transect, and technical 

issues with hydrophones or recording 

devices. If any in-situ calibration checks 

for hydrophones reveal a calibration 

drift greater than 0.75 dB, pistonphone 

calibration checks are inconclusive, or 

calibration checks are otherwise not 

effectively performed, Vineyard Wind 1 

will be required to indicate full details 

of the calibration procedure, results, and 

any associated issues in the 48-hour 

interim reports. 

Vineyard Wind must review 

Abbreviated SFV results for each pile 

within 24 hours of completion of the 

foundation installation (inclusive of pile 

driving and any drilling), and, assuming 

measured levels at 750 m did not exceed 

the thresholds defined during Thorough 

SFV, does not need to take any 

additional action. Results of 

Abbreviated SFV must be submitted 

with the weekly pile driving report. 

The final results of SFV 

measurements from each foundation 

installation must be submitted as soon 

as possible, but no later than 90 days 

following completion of all annual SFV 

measurements. The final report must 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75688 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

include all details prescribed above for 

the interim report as well as, at 

minimum, the following: the peak 

sound pressure level (SPLpk); the rootmean-square sound pressure level that 

contains 90 percent of the acoustic 

energy (SPLrms); the single strike sound 

exposure level (SELss); the integration 

time for SPLrms, the spectrum, and the 

24-hour cumulative SEL extrapolated 

from measurements at all hydrophones. 

The final report must also include at 

least the maximum, mean, minimum, 

median (L50) and L5 (95 percent 

exceedance) statistics for each metric; 

the SEL and SPL power spectral density 

and/or one-third octave band levels 

(usually calculated as decidecade band 

levels) at the receiver locations should 

be reported; the sound levels reported 

must be in median, arithmetic mean, 

and L5 (95 percent exceedance) (i.e., 

average in linear space), and in dB, 

range of transmission loss coefficients; 

the local environmental conditions, 

such as wind speed, transmission loss 

data collected on-site (or the sound 

velocity profile); baseline pre- and postactivity ambient sound levels 

(broadband and/or within frequencies of 

concern); a description of depth and 

sediment type, as documented in the 

Construction and Operation Plan (COP), 

at the recording and foundation 

installation locations; the extents of the 

measured Level A harassment and Level 

B harassment zone(s); hammer energies 

required for pile installation and the 

number of strikes per pile; the 

hydrophone equipment and methods 

(i.e., recording device, bandwidth/ 

sampling rate; distance from the pile 

where recordings were made; the depth 

of recording device(s)); a description of 

the SFV measurement hardware and 

software, including software version 

used, calibration data, bandwidth 

capability and sensitivity of 

hydrophone(s); any filters used in 

hardware or software; any limitations 

with the equipment; and other relevant 

information; the spatial configuration of 

the noise attenuation device(s) relative 

to the pile, a description of the noise 

abatement system and operational 

parameters (e.g., bubble flow rate, 

distance deployed from the pile, etc.), 

and any action taken to adjust the noise 

abatement system. A discussion which 

includes any observations which are 

suspected to have a significant impact 

on the results including but not limited 

to: observed noise mitigation system 

issues, obstructions along the 

measurement transect, and technical 

issues with hydrophones or recording 

devices. 

If at any time during the project 

Vineyard Wind 1 becomes aware of any 

issue(s) that may (to any reasonable 

subject-matter expert, including the 

persons performing the measurements 

and analysis) call into question the 

validity of any measured Level A 

harassment or Level B harassment 

isopleths to a significant degree, which 

were previously transmitted or 

communicated to NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources, Vineyard Wind 1 

must inform NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources within 1 business day of 

becoming aware of this issue or before 

the next pile is driven, whichever comes 

first. 

Weekly Report—During foundation 

installation activities, Vineyard Wind 1 

must compile and submit weekly 

marine mammal monitoring reports for 

foundation installation pile driving to 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

that document the daily start and stop 

of all pile driving activities; the start 

and stop of associated observation 

periods by PSOs; details on the 

deployment of PSOs; a record of all 

detections of marine mammals (acoustic 

and visual); any mitigation actions (or if 

mitigation actions could not be taken, 

provide reasons why); and details on the 

noise abatement system(s) (e.g., system 

type, distance deployed from the pile, 

bubble rate, etc.). Weekly reports will be 

due on Wednesday for the previous 

week (Sunday to Saturday). The weekly 

reports are also required to identify 

which turbines become operational and 

when (a map must be provided). 

Monthly Report—Vineyard Wind 1 is 

required to compile and submit monthly 

reports to NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources that include a summary of all 

information in the weekly reports, 

including project activities carried out 

in the previous month, vessel transits 

(number, type of vessel, and route); 

number of piles installed; all detections 

of marine mammals; and any mitigative 

actions taken. Monthly reports would be 

due on the 15th of the month for the 

previous month. The monthly report 

would also identify which turbines 

become operational and when (a map 

must be provided). 

Final Annual Reporting—Vineyard 

Wind 1 is required to submit its draft 

annual report to NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources on all visual and 

acoustic monitoring conducted under 

the IHA within 90 calendar days of the 

completion of activities occurring under 

the IHA. A final annual report must be 

prepared and submitted within 60 

calendar days following receipt of any 

NMFS comments on the draft report. 

Information contained within this report 

is described at the beginning of this 

section. Full PAM detection data, 

metadata, and location of recorders 

must be submitted within 90 days 

following completion of impact pile 

driving foundations and every 90 

calendar days for transit lane PAM 

using the International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) standard 

metadata forms and instructions 

available on the NMFS Passive Acoustic 

Reporting System website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/ 

document/passive-acoustic-reportingsystem-templates). Concurrently, the 

full acoustic recordings from real-time 

systems must also be sent to the 

National Centers for Environmental 

Information (NCEI, https://www.ncei.

noaa.gov/products/passive-acousticdata) for archiving. 

Situational Reporting—Specific 

situations encountered during the 

Project require immediate reporting. For 

instance, if a North Atlantic right whale 

is sighted with no visible injuries or 

entanglement at any time by project 

PSOs or project personnel, Vineyard 

Wind 1 must immediately report the 

sighting to NMFS as soon as possible or 

within 24 hours after the initial sighting. 

All North Atlantic right whale acoustic 

detections within a 24-hour period 

should be collated into one spreadsheet 

and reported to NMFS as soon as 

possible but must be reported within 24 

hours. Vineyard Wind 1 should report 

sightings and acoustic detections by 

downloading and completing the RealTime North Atlantic Right Whale 

Reporting Template spreadsheet found 

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

resource/document/template-datasheetreal-time-north-atlantic-right-whaleacoustic-and-visual. Vineyard Wind 1 

must save the completed spreadsheet as 

a .csv file and email it to NMFS 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center— 

Protected Resources Division (NEFSC– 

PRD) (ne.rw.survey@noaa.gov), NMFS 

GARFO–PRD (nmfs.gar.incidentaltake@noaa.gov), and NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR) 

(pr.itp.monitoringreports@noaa.gov). If 

the sighting is in the Southeast (North 

Carolina through Florida), sightings will 

be reported via the template and to the 

Southeast Stranding Hotline 877– 

WHALE–HELP (877–942–5343) with the 

observation information provided below 

(PAM detections are not reported to the 

Hotline). If Vineyard Wind 1 is unable 

to report a sighting through the 

spreadsheet within 24 hours, Vineyard 

Wind 1 will call the relevant regional 

hotline (Greater Atlantic Region [Maine 

through Virginia] Hotline 866–755– 

6622; Southeast Stranding Hotline 877– 

WHALE–HELP) with the observation 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75689 

information provided below. 

Observation information will include: 

the time (note time format), date (MM/ 

DD/YYYY), location (latitude/longitude 

in decimal degrees; coordinate system 

used) of the observation, number of 

whales, animal description/certainty of 

observation (follow up with photos/ 

video if taken), reporter’s contact 

information, and lease area number/ 

project name, PSO/personnel name who 

made the observation, and PSO provider 

company (if applicable). If Vineyard 

Wind 1 is unable to report via the 

template or the regional hotline, 

Vineyard Wind 1 will enter the sighting 

via the WhaleAlert app (http://

www.whalealert.org/). If this is not 

possible, the sighting will be reported to 

the U.S. Coast Guard via channel 16. 

The report to the Coast Guard must 

include the same information as would 

be reported to the Hotline (see above). 

PAM detections would not be reported 

to WhaleAlert or the U.S. Coast Guard. 

If a non-North Atlantic right whale large 

whale is observed, Vineyard Wind 1 

will be required to report the sighting 

via WhaleAlert app (http://

www.whalealert.org/) as soon as 

possible but within 24 hours. 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the Project discover a stranded, 

entangled, injured, or dead marine 

mammal, Vineyard Wind 1 must 

immediately report the observation to 

NMFS. If in the Greater Atlantic Region 

(Maine through Virginia), call the NMFS 

Greater Atlantic Stranding Hotline (866– 

755–6622), and if in the Southeast 

Region (North Carolina through Florida) 

call the NMFS Southeast Stranding 

Hotline (877–WHALE–HELP (877–942– 

5343)). Separately, Vineyard Wind must 

report the incident within 24 hours to 

NMFS OPR (PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@

noaa.gov) and, if in the Greater Atlantic 

Region to the NMFS GARFO 

(nmfs.gar.incidental-take@noaa.gov) or 

if in the Southeast Region, to the NMFS 

Southeast Regional Office (SERO; 

secmammalreports@noaa.gov). Note, 

the stranding hotline may request the 

report be sent to the local stranding 

network response team. The report must 

include contact information (e.g., name, 

phone number, etc.), time, date, and 

location (i.e., specify coordinate system) 

of the first discovery (and updated 

location information, if known and 

applicable), species identification (if 

known) or description of the animal(s) 

involved, condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead), observed behaviors of 

the animal(s) (if alive), photographs or 

video footage of the animal(s) (if 

available), and general circumstances 

under which the animal was discovered. 

If the injury, entanglement, or death 

was caused by a project activity, 

Vineyard Wind 1 will be required to 

immediately cease all activities until 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources is 

able to review the circumstances of the 

incident and determine what, if any, 

additional measures are appropriate to 

ensure compliance with the terms of the 

IHA. NMFS OPR may impose additional 

measures to minimize the likelihood of 

further prohibited take and ensure 

MMPA compliance consistent with the 

adaptive management provisions. 

Vineyard Wind 1 would not resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources. 

In the event of a suspected or 

confirmed vessel strike of a marine 

mammal by any vessel associated with 

the Project or other means by which 

Project activities caused a non-auditory 

injury or death of a marine mammal, 

Vineyard Wind 1 must immediately 

report the incident to NMFS. If in the 

Greater Atlantic Region (Maine through 

Virginia), call the NMFS Greater 

Atlantic Stranding Hotline (866–755– 

6622), and if in the Southeast Region 

(North Carolina through Florida) call the 

NMFS Southeast Stranding Hotline 

(877–WHALE–HELP (877–942–5343)). 

Separately, Vineyard Wind must 

immediately report the incident to 

NMFS OPR (PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@

noaa.gov) and, if in the Greater Atlantic 

Region to the NMFS GARFO 

(nmfs.gar.incidental-take@noaa.gov) or 

if in the Southeast Region, to the NMFS 

SERO (secmammalreports@noaa.gov). 

The report must include time, date, and 

location (i.e., specify coordinate 

system)) of the incident; species 

identification (if known) or description 

of the animal(s) involved (i.e., 

identifiable features including animal 

color, presence of dorsal fin, body shape 

and size, etc.); vessel strike reporter 

information (name, affiliation, email for 

person completing the report); vessel 

strike witness (if different than reporter) 

information (e.g., name, affiliation, 

phone number, platform for person 

witnessing the event, etc.); vessel name 

and/or MMSI number; vessel size and 

motor configuration (inboard, outboard, 

jet propulsion); vessel’s speed leading 

up to and during the incident; vessel’s 

course/heading and what operations 

were being conducted (if applicable); 

part of vessel that struck marine 

mammal (if known); vessel damage 

notes; status of all sound sources in use 

at the time of the strike; if the marine 

mammal was seen before the strike 

event; description of behavior of the 

marine mammal before the strike event 

(if seen) and behavior immediately 

following the strike; description of 

avoidance measures/requirements that 

were in place at the time of the strike 

and what additional measures were 

taken, if any, to avoid strike; 

environmental conditions (e.g., wind 

speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, 

cloud cover, visibility, etc.) immediately 

preceding the strike; estimated (or 

actual, if known) size and length of 

marine mammal that was struck, if 

available; description of the presence 

and behavior of any other marine 

mammals immediately preceding the 

strike, other animal-specific details if 

known (e.g., length, sex, age class); 

behavior or estimated fate of the marine 

mammal post-strike (e.g., dead, injured 

but alive, injured and moving, external 

visible wounds (linear wounds, 

propeller wounds, non-cutting bluntforce trauma wounds); blood or tissue 

observed in the water, status unknown, 

disappeared), to the extent practicable; 

any photographs or video footage of the 

marine mammal(s); and, any additional 

notes the witness may have from the 

interaction. For any numerical values 

provided (i.e., location, animal length, 

vessel length, etc.), please provide if 

values are actual or estimated. If there 

is a suspected or confirmed vessel strike 

of a marine mammal by any vessel 

associated with the Project or other 

means by which Project activities 

caused a non-auditory injury or death of 

a marine mammal, Vineyard Wind 1 

will be required to immediately cease 

activities until the NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources is able to review 

the circumstances of the incident and 

determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the terms of the IHA. 

NMFS OPR may impose additional 

measures to minimize the likelihood of 

further prohibited take and ensure 

MMPA compliance. Vineyard Wind 1 

may not resume their activities until 

notified by NMFS OPR. 

Sound Field Verification—Vineyard 

Wind 1 will be required to submit 

interim SFV reports after each 

foundation installation within 48 hours. 

A final SFV report for all monopile 

foundation installation monitoring will 

be required within 90 days following 

completion of acoustic monitoring. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75690 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

(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 impacts or responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

impacts or responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, foraging 

impacts affecting energetics), as well as 

effects on habitat, and the likely 

effectiveness of the mitigation. We also 

assess the number, intensity, and 

context of estimated takes by evaluating 

this information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known, ongoing sources of 

human-caused mortality, or ambient 

noise levels). 

In the Estimated Take of Marine 

Mammals section, we estimated the 

maximum number of takes by Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment that 

could occur from Vineyard Wind’s 

specified activities based on the 

methods described. The impact that any 

given take would have is dependent on 

many case-specific factors that need to 

be considered in the negligible impact 

analysis (e.g., the context of behavioral 

exposures such as duration or intensity 

of a disturbance, the health of impacted 

animals, the status of a species that 

incurs fitness-level impacts to 

individuals, etc.). In this notice of the 

final IHA, we evaluate the likely 

impacts of the harassment takes that are 

authorized in the context of the specific 

circumstances surrounding these 

predicted takes. We also collectively 

evaluate this information, as well as 

other more taxa-specific information 

and mitigation measure effectiveness, in 

group-specific discussions that support 

our negligible impact conclusions for 

each stock. As described above, no 

serious injury or mortality is expected 

or authorized for any species or stock. 

We base our analysis and negligible 

impact determination on the number of 

takes that are authorized, and extensive 

qualitative consideration of other 

contextual factors that influence the 

degree of impact of the takes on the 

affected individuals and the number 

and context of the individuals affected. 

To avoid repetition, we provide some 

general analysis in this Negligible 

Impact Analysis and Determination 

section that applies to all the species 

listed in table 1 given that some of the 

anticipated effects of the Vineyard Wind 

1 construction activities on marine 

mammals are expected to be relatively 

similar in nature. Where there are 

meaningful differences between species 

or stocks—as is the case of the North 

Atlantic right whale—they are included 

as separate subsections below. 

Last, we provide a negligible impact 

determination for each species or stock, 

providing species or stock-specific 

information or analysis where 

appropriate, for example for North 

Atlantic right whales given the 

population status. Organizing our 

analysis by grouping species or stocks 

that share common traits or that would 

respond similarly to effects of Vineyard 

Wind’s activities, and then providing 

species- or stock-specific information 

allows us to avoid duplication while 

ensuring that we have analyzed the 

effects of the specified activities on each 

affected species or stock. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

authorized in this IHA. Any Level A 

harassment authorized would be in the 

form of auditory injury (i.e., PTS). For 

all species, the amount of take 

authorized represents the maximum 

amount of Level A harassment and 

Level B harassment that is reasonably 

expected to occur. 

Behavioral Disturbance 

In general, NMFS anticipates that 

impacts on an individual that has been 

harassed are likely to be more intense 

when exposed to higher received levels 

and for a longer duration (though this is 

in no way a strictly linear relationship 

for behavioral effects across species, 

individuals, or circumstances) and less 

severe impacts result when exposed to 

lower received levels and for a brief 

duration. However, there is also growing 

evidence of the importance of 

contextual factors such as distance from 

a source in predicting marine mammal 

behavioral response to sound—i.e., 

sounds of a similar received level 

emanating from a more distant source 

have been shown to be less likely to 

evoke a response of equal magnitude 

relative to a closer sound source 

(DeRuiter and Doukara, 2012; Falcone et 

al., 2017). As described in the Potential 

Effects of Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat section, the 

intensity and duration of any impact 

resulting from exposure to the Vineyard 

Wind 1 activities is dependent upon a 

number of contextual factors including, 

but not limited to, sound source 

frequencies, whether the sound source 

is moving towards the animal, hearing 

ranges of marine mammals, behavioral 

state at time of exposure, status of 

individual exposed (e.g., reproductive 

status, age class, health) and an 

individual’s experience with similar 

sound sources. Southall et al. (2021), 

Ellison et al. (2012) and Moore and 

Barlow (2013), among others, emphasize 

the importance of context (e.g., 

behavioral state of the animals, distance 

from the sound source) in evaluating 

behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to acoustic sources. Level B 

harassment of marine mammals may 

consist of behavioral modifications (e.g., 

avoidance, temporary cessation of 

foraging or communicating, changes in 

respiration or group dynamics, masking) 

and may include auditory impacts in 

the form of temporary hearing loss. In 

addition, some of the lower-level 

physiological stress responses (e.g., 

change in respiration, change in heart 

rate) discussed previously would likely 

co-occur with the behavioral 

modifications, although these 

physiological responses are more 

difficult to detect, and fewer data exist 

relating these responses to specific 

received levels of sound. Take by Level 

B harassment, then, may have a stressrelated physiological component as 

well; however, we would not expect the 

Vineyard Wind 1 pile driving activities 

to produce conditions of long-term and 

continuous exposure to noise leading to 

long-term physiological stress responses 

in marine mammals that could affect 

reproduction or survival. 

In the range of behavioral effects that 

might be expected to be part of a 

response that qualifies as an instance of 

Level B harassment (which by nature of 

the way it is modeled/counted, occurs 

within 1 day), the less severe end might 

include exposure to comparatively 

lower levels of a sound, at a greater 

distance from the animal, for a few or 

several minutes. A less severe exposure 

of this nature could result in a 

behavioral response such as avoiding an 

area that an animal would otherwise 

have chosen to move through or feed in 

for some amount of time or breaking off 

one or a few feeding bouts. More severe 

effects could occur if an animal is close 

enough to the source to receive a 

comparatively higher level, is exposed 

continuously to one source for a longer 

time or is exposed intermittently to 

different sources throughout a day. Such 

effects might result in an animal having 

a more severe flight response and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75691 

leaving a larger area for a day or more 

or potentially losing feeding 

opportunities for a day. However, such 

severe behavioral effects that result in 

potentially lost feeding opportunities for 

animals are not considered a likely 

outcome of this activity. 

Many species perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing on a diel cycle (24-hour 

cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise 

exposure, when taking place in a 

biologically important context, such as 

disruption of critical life functions, 

displacement, or avoidance of important 

habitat, are more likely to be significant 

if they last more than 1 day or recur on 

subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007) 

due to diel and lunar patterns in diving 

and foraging behaviors observed in 

many cetaceans (Baird et al., 2008; 

Barlow et al., 2020; Henderson et al., 

2016; Schorr et al., 2014). It is important 

to note the water depth in the Limited 

Installation Area is shallow (ranging up 

to 37 to 49.5 m), so deep diving species 

such as sperm whales are not expected 

to be engaging in deep foraging dives 

when exposed to noise above NMFS 

harassment thresholds during the 

specified activities. Therefore, we do 

not anticipate impacts to deep foraging 

behavior to be impacted by the specified 

activities. 

It is also important to note that the 

estimated number of takes does not 

necessarily equate to the number of 

individual animals Vineyard Wind 1 

expects to harass (which is lower), but 

rather to the instances of take (i.e., 

exposures above the Level B harassment 

thresholds) that may occur. Some 

individuals of a species may experience 

recurring instances of take over multiple 

days throughout the year while some 

members of a species or stock may 

experience one instance of take 

exposure as they move through an area, 

which means that the number of 

individuals taken may be smaller than 

the total estimated takes for a species or 

stock. In short, for species that are more 

likely to be migrating through the area 

and/or for which only a comparatively 

smaller number of takes are predicted 

(e.g., some of the mysticetes), it is more 

likely that each take represents a 

different individual whereas for nonmigrating species with larger amounts of 

predicted take, we expect that the total 

anticipated takes represent exposures of 

a smaller number of individuals of 

which some would be taken across 

multiple days. 

Impacts from pile driving will be 

minimized through implementation of 

mitigation measures, including use of a 

sound attenuation system, soft-starts, 

the implementation of clearance zones 

that would facilitate a delay to pile 

driving commencement, and 

implementation of shutdown zones. All 

these measures are designed to avoid or 

minimize harassment. For example, 

given sufficient notice through the use 

of soft-start, marine mammals are 

expected to move away from a sound 

source that is disturbing prior to 

becoming exposed to very loud noise 

levels. The requirement to couple visual 

monitoring and PAM before and during 

all foundation installation will increase 

the overall capability to detect marine 

mammals compared to one method 

alone. 

Occasional, milder behavioral 

reactions are unlikely to cause long-term 

consequences for individual animals or 

populations, and even if some smaller 

subset of the takes is in the form of a 

longer (several hours or a day) and more 

severe response, if they are not expected 

to be repeated over numerous or 

sequential days, impacts to individual 

fitness are not anticipated. Also, the 

effect of disturbance is strongly 

influenced by whether it overlaps with 

biologically important habitats when 

individuals are present—avoiding 

biologically important habitats will 

provide opportunities to compensate for 

reduced or lost foraging (Keen et al., 

2021). Nearly all studies and experts 

agree that infrequent exposures of a 

single day or less are unlikely to impact 

an individual’s overall energy budget 

(Farmer et al., 2018; Harris et al., 2017; 

King et al., 2015; National Academy of 

Science, 2017; New et al., 2014; 

Southall et al., 2007; Villegas-Amtmann 

et al., 2015). 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) 

TTS is one form of Level B 

harassment that marine mammals may 

incur through exposure to the Vineyard 

Wind 1 activities and, as described 

earlier, the authorized takes by Level B 

harassment may represent takes in the 

form of direct behavioral disturbance, 

TTS, or both. As discussed in the 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and their Habitat 

section of the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (89 FR 31008, 

April 23, 2024), in general, TTS can last 

from a few minutes to days, be of 

varying degree, and occur across 

different frequency bandwidths, all of 

which determine the severity of the 

impacts on the affected individual, 

which can range from minor to more 

severe. Impact pile driving is a 

broadband noise sources but generates 

sounds in the lower frequency ranges 

(with most of the energy below 1–2 kHz, 

but with a small amount energy ranging 

up to 20 kHz); therefore, in general and 

all else being equal, the potential for 

TTS is higher in low-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., mysticetes) than in other 

marine mammal hearing groups and 

would be more likely to occur in 

frequency bands in which they 

communicate. However, we would not 

expect the TTS to span the entire 

communication or hearing range of any 

species given that the frequencies 

produced by these activities do not span 

entire hearing ranges for any particular 

species. Additionally, though the 

frequency range of TTS that marine 

mammals might sustain would overlap 

with some of the frequency ranges of 

their vocalizations, the frequency range 

of TTS from the Vineyard Wind 1 pile 

driving activities would not typically 

span the entire frequency range of one 

vocalization type, much less span all 

types of vocalizations or other critical 

auditory cues for any given species. In 

addition, the required mitigation 

measures further reduce the potential 

for TTS in mysticetes. 

Generally, both the degree and the 

duration of TTS would be greater if the 

marine mammal is exposed to a higher 

level of energy (which would occur 

when the peak dB level is higher or the 

duration is longer). The threshold for 

the onset of TTS was discussed 

previously (see Estimated Take). An 

animal would have to approach closer 

to the source or remain in the vicinity 

of the sound source appreciably longer 

to increase the received SEL, which 

would be unlikely considering the 

required mitigation and the nominal 

speed of the receiving animal relative to 

the stationary sources such as impact 

pile driving. The recovery time of TTS 

is also of importance when considering 

the potential impacts from TTS. In TTS 

laboratory studies (as discussed in 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat), 

some using exposures of almost an hour 

in duration or up to 217 SEL, almost all 

individuals recovered within 1 day (or 

less, often in minutes). While the pile 

driving activities last for hours a day, it 

is unlikely that most marine mammals 

would stay in the close vicinity of the 

source long enough to incur more severe 

TTS. Overall, given the few instances in 

which any individual might incur TTS, 

the low degree of TTS and the short 

anticipated duration, and the unlikely 

scenario that any TTS would overlap 

the entirety of an individual’s critical 

hearing range, it is unlikely that TTS (of 

the nature expected to result from the 

project’s activities) would result in 

behavioral changes or other impacts that 

would impact any individual’s (of any 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75692 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

hearing sensitivity) reproduction or 

survival. 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) 

NMFS proposed to authorize a very 

small amount of take by PTS of some 

individual marine mammals of some 

species. The numbers of proposed takes 

by Level A harassment are relatively 

low for all marine mammal stocks and 

species (table 11). We anticipate that 

PTS may occur from exposure to impact 

pile driving, which produces sounds 

that are both impulsive and primarily 

concentrated in the lower frequency 

ranges (below 1 kHz) (David, 2006; 

Krumpel et al., 2021). 

There are no PTS data on cetaceans 

and only one instance of PTS being 

induced in older harbor seals 

(Reichmuth et al., 2019). However, 

available TTS data (of mid-frequency 

hearing specialists exposed to mid- or 

high-frequency sounds (Southall et al., 

2007; NMFS, 2018; Southall et al., 

2019a)) suggest that most threshold 

shifts occur in the frequency range of 

the source up to one octave higher than 

the source. We would anticipate a 

similar result for PTS. Further, no more 

than a small degree of PTS is expected 

to be associated with any of the incurred 

Level A harassment, given it is unlikely 

that animals would stay in the close 

vicinity of a source for a duration long 

enough to produce more than a small 

degree of PTS. 

PTS would consist of minor 

degradation of hearing capabilities 

occurring predominantly at frequencies 

one-half to one octave above the 

frequency of the energy produced by 

pile driving (i.e., the low-frequency 

region below 2 kHz) (Cody and 

Johnstone, 1981; McFadden, 1986; 

Finneran, 2015), not severe hearing 

impairment. If hearing impairment 

occurs from impact pile driving, it is 

most likely that the affected animal 

would lose a few decibels in its hearing 

sensitivity, which in most cases is not 

likely to meaningfully affect its ability 

to forage and communicate with 

conspecifics. In addition, during impact 

pile driving, given sufficient notice 

through use of required soft-start prior 

to implementation of full hammer 

energy during impact pile driving, 

marine mammals are expected to move 

away from a sound source that is 

disturbing prior to it resulting in severe 

PTS. 

Auditory Masking or Communication 

Impairment 

The potential impacts of masking on 

an individual are similar to those 

discussed for TTS (e.g., decreased 

ability to communicate, forage 

effectively, or detect predators), but an 

important difference is that masking 

only occurs during the period of the 

signal, versus TTS, which continues 

beyond the duration of the signal. Also, 

though masking can result from the sum 

of exposure to multiple signals, none of 

these signals might individually cause 

TTS. Fundamentally, masking is 

considered more often in the context of 

chronic effects because masking is of 

more concern when an animal 

experiences masking for longer 

durations, which would typically 

happen as a result of exposure to 

multiple activities (e.g., in more heavily 

industrialized areas or near shipping 

lanes). Specifically, reduced ability to 

hear or interpret critical cues becomes 

much more likely to cause a problem for 

an animal the longer it is occurring. 

Also, inherent in the concept of masking 

is the fact that it is only present during 

the times that the animal and the source 

are in close enough proximity for the 

effect to occur (and further, when the 

animal was utilizing sounds at the 

masked frequency). 

As our analysis has indicated, we 

expect that impact pile driving may 

occur intermittently for several hours 

per day, for multiple days. Masking is 

fundamentally more of a concern at 

lower frequencies (which are pile 

driving dominant frequencies), because 

low-frequency signals propagate 

significantly further than higher 

frequencies and because they are more 

likely to overlap both the narrower lowfrequency calls of mysticetes, as well as 

many non-communication cues related 

to fish and invertebrate prey, and 

geologic sounds that inform navigation. 

As mentioned above (see Description of 

Marine Mammals in the Area of 

Specified Activities), the LIA does not 

overlap critical habitat or BIAs for any 

species, and temporary avoidance of the 

pile driving area by marine mammals 

would likely displace animals to areas 

of sufficient habitat. In summary, the 

nature of the Vineyard Wind 1 

activities, paired with habitat use 

patterns by marine mammals, does not 

support the likelihood of take due to 

masking effects or that masking would 

have the potential to affect reproductive 

success or survival, and we are not 

authorizing such take. 

Impact on Habitat and Prey 

Construction activities may result in 

fish and invertebrate mortality or injury 

very close to the source, and the 

Vineyard Wind 1 activities may cause 

some fish to leave the area of 

disturbance. It is anticipated that any 

mortality or injury would be limited to 

a very small subset of available prey, 

and the implementation of mitigation 

measures such as the use of a noise 

attenuation system and soft start during 

impact pile driving would further limit 

the degree of impact. Behavioral 

changes in prey in response to 

construction activities could 

temporarily impact marine mammals’ 

foraging opportunities in a limited 

portion of the foraging range but, 

because of the relatively small area of 

the habitat that may be affected at any 

given time (e.g., around a pile being 

driven) and the temporary nature of the 

disturbance on prey species, the impacts 

to marine mammal habitat are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm negative consequences. There is no 

indication that displacement of prey 

would impact individual fitness and 

health, particularly since suitable prey 

would likely still be available in the 

environment in most cases following the 

cessation of acoustic exposure. 

Cable presence is not anticipated to 

impact marine mammal habitat, as these 

would be buried, and any 

electromagnetic fields emanating from 

the cables are not anticipated to result 

in consequences that would impact 

marine mammal prey to the extent they 

would be unavailable for consumption. 

Although many species of marine 

mammal prey can detect 

electromagnetic fields, previous studies 

have shown little impacts on habitat use 

(Hutchinson et al., 2018). Burying the 

cables and the inclusion of protective 

shielding on cables will also minimize 

any impacts of electromagnetic fields on 

marine mammal prey. 

As discussed in the Description of the 

Specified Activity section, this IHA 

addresses the take incidental to the 

installation of 15 foundations, which 

will gradually become operational 

following construction completion. 

Turbines may also become operational 

during the period of the IHA. While 

there are likely to be oceanographic 

impacts from the presence of operating 

turbines, meaningful oceanographic 

impacts relative to stratification and 

mixing that would significantly affect 

marine mammal foraging and prey over 

large areas in key foraging habitats, 

resulting in impacts to the reproduction 

or survival of any individual marine 

mammals, are not anticipated from the 

Vineyard Wind activities covered under 

this IHA, yet are likely to be minor if 

impacts do occur. 

The presence of wind turbines within 

the Lease Area could have longer-term 

impacts on marine mammal habitat, as 

the project would result in the 

persistence of the structures within 

marine mammal habitat for more than 

30 years. For piscivorous marine 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75693 

mammal species, the presence of 

structures could result in a beneficial 

reef effect which may lead to increases 

in the availability of prey. However, 

turbine presence and operation is 

generally likely to result in certain 

oceanographic effects in the marine 

environment, and may adversely alter 

aggregations and distribution of marine 

mammal zooplankton prey through 

changing the strength of tidal currents 

and associated fronts, changes in 

stratification, primary production, the 

degree of mixing, and stratification in 

the water column (Chen et al., 2021; 

Johnson et al., 2021; Christiansen et al., 

2022; Dorrell et al., 2022). In the 

recently released BOEM and NOAA 

Fisheries North Atlantic Right Whale 

Strategy (BOEM et al., 2024), the 

agencies identify the conceptual 

pathway by which changes to ocean 

circulation could potentially lead to 

fitness reduction of North Atlantic right 

whales, who primarily forage on 

copepods (see figure 2 in the Strategy). 

As described in the Potential Effects to 

Marine Mammal Habitat section of the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA, there is uncertainty regarding the 

intensity (or magnitude) and spatial 

extent of turbine operation impacts on 

marine mammals habitat, including 

planktonic prey. Recently, a National 

Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine panel of independent experts 

concluded that the impacts of offshore 

wind operations on North Atlantic right 

whales and their habitat in the 

Nantucket Shoals region is uncertain 

due to the limited data available at this 

time and recognized what data is 

available is largely based on models 

from the North Sea that have not been 

validated by observations (NAS, 2023). 

The report also identifies that major 

oceanographic changes have occurred to 

the Nantucket Shoals region over the 

past 25 years and it will be difficult to 

isolate from the much larger variability 

introduced by natural and other 

anthropogenic sources (including 

climate change). Also, specific to this 

activity, the LIA is located outside of the 

higher North Atlantic right whale 

density areas in Southern New England 

and more than 20 km west of Nantucket 

Shoals, which is known to be a critical 

feeding area for North Atlantic right 

whales. 

Mitigation To Reduce Impacts on All 

Species 

The IHA includes a variety of 

mitigation measures designed to 

minimize impacts on all marine 

mammals, with a focus on North 

Atlantic right whales (the latter is 

described in more detail below). For 

impact pile driving of foundation piles, 

ten overarching mitigation measures are 

required, which are intended to reduce 

both the number and intensity of marine 

mammal takes: (1) seasonal/time of day 

work restrictions; (2) use of multiple 

PSOs to visually observe for marine 

mammals (with any detection within 

specifically designated zones triggering 

a delay or shutdown); (3) use of PAM to 

acoustically detect marine mammals, 

with a focus on detecting baleen whales 

(with any detection within designated 

zones triggering delay or shutdown); (4) 

implementation of clearance zones; (5) 

implementation of shutdown zones; (6) 

use of soft-start; (7) use of noise 

attenuation technology; (8) maintaining 

situational awareness of marine 

mammal presence through the 

requirement that any marine mammal 

sighting(s) by Vineyard Wind 1 

personnel must be reported to PSOs; (9) 

sound field verification monitoring; and 

(10) Vessel Strike Avoidance measures 

to reduce the risk of a collision with a 

marine mammal and vessel. 

The Mitigation section discusses the 

manner in which the required 

mitigation measures reduce the 

magnitude and/or severity of the take of 

marine mammals, including the 

following. For activities with large 

harassment isopleths, Vineyard Wind 1 

will be required to reduce the noise 

levels generated to the lowest levels 

practicable. Use of a soft-start during 

impact pile driving will allow animals 

to move away from (i.e., avoid) the 

sound source prior to applying higher 

hammer energy levels needed to install 

the pile (Vineyard Wind 1 will not use 

a hammer with an energy rating greater 

than necessary to install piles). 

Clearance zone and shutdown zone 

implementation, which are required 

when marine mammals are within given 

distances associated with certain impact 

thresholds for all activities, will reduce 

the magnitude and severity of marine 

mammal take. Additionally, the use of 

multiple PSOs, PAM, and maintaining 

awareness of marine mammal sightings 

reported in the region will aid in 

detecting marine mammals that would 

trigger the implementation of the 

mitigation measures. For North Atlantic 

right whales specifically, by far the most 

effective mitigation is the avoidance of 

pile driving January through May in the 

months with the highest densities of 

whales, and when they are expected to 

be engaged in foraging and other 

important behaviors (e.g., social, 

mating), as disruption of behavioral 

patterns during these month would be 

more likely to impact reproductive 

success or survival. 

Mysticetes 

Five mysticete species (comprising 

five stocks) of cetaceans (North Atlantic 

right whale, humpback whale, fin 

whale, sei whale, and minke whale) 

may be taken by harassment. These 

species, to varying extents, utilize the 

specific geographic region, including 

the LIA, for the purposes of migration, 

foraging, and socializing. Mysticetes are 

in the low-frequency hearing group. 

Behavioral data on mysticete 

reactions to pile driving noise are scant. 

Kraus et al. (2019) predicted that the 

three main impacts of offshore wind 

farms on marine mammals would 

consist of displacement, behavioral 

disruptions, and stress. Broadly, we can 

look to studies that have focused on 

other noise sources such as seismic 

surveys and military training exercises, 

which suggest that exposure to loud 

signals can result in avoidance of the 

sound source (or displacement if the 

activity continues for a longer duration 

in a place where individuals would 

otherwise have been staying, which is 

less likely for mysticetes in this area), 

disruption of foraging activities (if they 

are occurring in the area), local masking 

around the source, associated stress 

responses, and impacts to prey, as well 

as TTS or PTS in some cases. 

NMFS reviewed recent PSO 

observational data from offshore wind 

projects in southern New England (i.e., 

South Fork at OCS–A–0517 and 

Vineyard Wind 1 at OCS–A–0501) 

where pile driving construction 

activities occurred. During pile-driving 

construction activities for Vineyard 

Wind 1, in 2023 from early June through 

December (RPS, 2023), there were 36 

whale observations consisting of 4 

unidentified non-North Atlantic right 

whales, 17 detections of humpback 

whales, eight detections of fin whales, 

six detections of minke whales, and one 

unidentified baleen whale (RPS, 2023). 

Three of these observations of 

mysticetes (one humpback whale 

sighting, one fin whale sighting, and one 

group of three fin whales) occurred 

while the hammer was engaged (which 

was operating at full power). Behaviors 

noted included surfacing, blowing, 

fluking, and feeding. At South Fork, a 

total of 39 hours 32 minutes of active 

impact pile driving was conducted 

across installation of the 13 monopiles 

on 15 different days. The most PSO 

visual watch effort occurred aboard the 

Bokalift 2 (908 hours), and PSO effort 

from the four dedicated monitoring 

vessels ranged from 426 to 757 hours. In 

total (with and without pile driving) 

foundation installation PSOs observed 

348 mysticete groups comprising 552 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75694 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

individuals; 29 of these detections, 

totaling 51 individuals, occurred during 

pile driving (table 14 in South Fork 

Wind (2023)). None of the observed 

behaviors of mysticetes noted by either 

the Vineyard Wind 1 or South Fork 

PSOs were indicative of distress, alarm, 

or other adverse reactions (RPS, 2023; 

South Fork Wind, 2023). 

Mysticetes encountered in the LIA are 

expected to be migrating through and/or 

engaged in foraging behavior. The extent 

to which an animal engages in these 

behaviors in the area is species-specific 

and varies seasonally. Many mysticetes 

are expected to predominantly be 

migrating through the LIA towards or 

from primary feeding habitats (e.g., Cape 

Cod Bay, Great South Channel, and Gulf 

of St. Lawrence). While we have 

acknowledged in the Potential Effects to 

Marine Mammal Habitat section of the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (89 FR 31008, April 23, 2024) that 

mortality, hearing impairment, or 

displacement of mysticete prey species 

may result locally from impact pile 

driving, given the very short duration of 

and broad availability of prey species in 

the area and the availability of 

alternative suitable foraging habitat for 

the mysticete species most likely to be 

affected, any impacts on mysticete 

foraging are expected to be minor. 

Whales temporarily displaced from the 

LIA are expected to have sufficient 

remaining feeding habitat available to 

them, and would not be prevented from 

feeding in other areas within the 

biologically important feeding habitats, 

including to the east near Nantucket 

Shoals. In addition, any displacement of 

whales or interruption of foraging bouts 

would be expected to be relatively 

temporary in nature. 

The potential for repeated exposures 

of individuals is dependent upon their 

residency time, with migratory animals 

unlikely to be exposed on repeated 

occasions and animals remaining in the 

area more likely to be exposed more 

than once. For mysticetes, where 

relatively low numbers of speciesspecific take by Level B harassment are 

predicted (compared to the abundance 

of each mysticete species or stock; see 

table 11) and movement patterns suggest 

that individuals would not necessarily 

linger in a particular area for multiple 

days, each predicted take likely 

represents an exposure of a different 

individual; with perhaps a subset of 

takes for a few species potentially 

representing a few repeated Level B 

harassment takes of a limited number of 

individuals across multiple days. In 

other words, the behavioral disturbance 

to any individual mysticete would, 

therefore, be expected to most likely 

occur within a single day, or potentially 

across a few days, and would not be 

expected to impact the animal’s fitness 

for reproduction or survival. 

In general, the total duration of 

exposure would not be continuous 

throughout any given day and pile 

driving would not occur on all 

consecutive days due to weather delays 

or any number of logistical constraints 

Vineyard Wind 1 has identified, 

including the fact that the pile 

installation vessel must return to port 

after every 6 monopile foundations are 

installed to pick up additional 

monopiles. As mentioned in the 

Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activity section of the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA, upon 

completion of installation of a batch of 

monopiles, the pile installation vessel 

would return to a Canadian port in 

Halifax to load an additional batch of 

monopiles. Species-specific analysis 

regarding potential for repeated 

exposures and impacts is provided 

below. 

Humpback whales, minke whales, fin 

whales and sei whales are the mysticete 

species for which PTS is anticipated 

and authorized. As described 

previously, PTS for mysticetes from 

some project activities may overlap 

frequencies used for communication, 

navigation, or detecting prey. However, 

given the nature and duration of the 

activity, the mitigation measures, and 

likely avoidance behavior, any PTS is 

expected to be of a small degree, would 

be limited to frequencies where pile 

driving noise is concentrated (i.e., only 

a small subset of their expected hearing 

range) and would not be expected to 

impact individuals’ fitness for 

reproductive success or survival. 

North Atlantic Right Whales 

North Atlantic right whales are listed 

as endangered under the ESA and as 

both depleted and strategic under the 

MMPA. As described in the Potential 

Effects of Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and Their Habitat section of 

the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed IHA, North Atlantic right 

whales are threatened by a low 

population abundance, higher than 

average mortality rates, and lower than 

average reproductive rates. Recent 

studies have reported individuals 

showing high stress levels (e.g., 

Corkeron et al., 2017) and poor health, 

which has further implications on 

reproductive success and calf survival 

(Christiansen et al., 2020; Stewart et al., 

2021; Stewart et al., 2022). As described 

below, a UME has been designated for 

North Atlantic right whales. Given this, 

the status of the North Atlantic right 

whale population is of heightened 

concern and, therefore, merits 

additional analysis and consideration. 

This IHA authorizes 7 takes of North 

Atlantic right whale by Level B 

harassment only, which equates to 

approximately 2.1 percent of the stock 

abundance, if each take were considered 

to be of a different individual. No Level 

A harassment, serious injury, or 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

for this species. 

As described in the Description of 

Marine Mammals in the Area of 

Specified Activities section, North 

Atlantic right whales are presently 

experiencing an ongoing UME 

(beginning in June 2017). Preliminary 

findings support human interactions, 

specifically vessel strikes and 

entanglements, as the cause of death for 

the majority of North Atlantic right 

whales. Given the current status of the 

North Atlantic right whale, the loss of 

even one individual could significantly 

impact the population. Level B 

harassment of North Atlantic right 

whales resulting from the project’s 

activities is expected to primarily be in 

the form of temporary avoidance of the 

immediate area of construction. 

Required mitigation measures will effect 

the least practicable adverse impact and 

the authorized number of takes of North 

Atlantic right whales would not 

exacerbate or compound the effects of 

the ongoing UME. 

In general, North Atlantic right 

whales in the LIA are expected to be 

engaging in migratory, feeding, and/or 

social behavior. Migrating North 

Atlantic right whales would typically be 

moving through the LIA, rather than 

lingering for extended periods of time 

(thereby limiting the potential for repeat 

exposures); however, foraging whales 

may remain in the LIA, with an average 

residence time of 13 days between 

December and May (Quintana-Rizzo et 

al., 2021). Southern New England, 

including the LIA, is part of a known 

migratory corridor for North Atlantic 

right whales and may be a stopover site 

for migrating North Atlantic right 

whales moving to or from southeastern 

calving grounds and northern foraging 

grounds. North Atlantic right whales are 

primarily concentrated in the 

northeastern and southeastern sections 

of the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area 

(MA WEA) (i.e., east of the LIA) during 

the summer (June-August) and winter 

(December-February) while distribution 

likely shifts to the west, closer to the 

LIA, into the RI/MA WEA in the spring 

(March-May) (Quintana-Rizzo et al., 

2021). However, North Atlantic right 

whales range outside of the LIA for their 

main feeding, breeding, and calving 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75695 

activities. It is important to note that the 

IHA prohibits impact pile driving 

activities from January through May. 

Foundation installation pile driving 

will only occur during times when, 

based on the best available scientific 

data, North Atlantic right whales are 

less frequently encountered and less 

likely to be engaged in critical foraging 

behavior (although NMFS recognizes 

North Atlantic right whales may forage 

year-round in SNE). The potential types, 

severity, and magnitude of impacts are 

also anticipated to mirror that described 

in the general Mysticetes section above, 

including avoidance (the most likely 

outcome), changes in foraging or 

vocalization behavior, masking, a small 

amount of TTS, and temporary 

physiological impacts (e.g., change in 

respiration, change in heart rate). 

Importantly, the effects of the activities 

are expected to be sufficiently low-level 

and localized to specific areas as to not 

meaningfully impact important 

behaviors such as migration and 

foraging for North Atlantic right whales. 

As noted above, for North Atlantic right 

whales, this IHA would authorize up to 

7 takes, by Level B harassment. These 

takes are expected to be in the form of 

temporary behavioral disturbance, such 

as slight displacement (but not 

abandonment) of migratory habitat or 

temporary cessation of feeding. Further, 

given many of these takes are generally 

expected to occur to different individual 

right whales migrating through (i.e., 

most individuals would not be impacted 

on more than one day in a year), with 

some subset potentially being exposed 

on no more than a few days within the 

year, they are unlikely to result in 

energetic consequences that could affect 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals. 

Overall, NMFS expects that any 

behavioral harassment of North Atlantic 

right whales incidental to the specified 

activities would not result in changes to 

their migration patterns or foraging 

success, as only temporary avoidance of 

an area during construction is expected 

to occur. As described previously, North 

Atlantic right whales migrate, forage, or 

socialize in the LIA but are not expected 

to remain in this habitat for extensive 

durations relative to core foraging 

habitats to the east, south of Nantucket 

and Martha’s Vineyard, Cape Cod Bay, 

or the Great South Channel (QuintanaRizzo et al., 2021). Any temporarily 

displaced animals would be able to 

return to or continue to travel through 

the LIA and subsequently utilize this 

habitat once activities have ceased. 

Although acoustic masking may occur 

in the vicinity of the foundation 

installation activities, based on the 

acoustic characteristics of noise 

associated with pile driving (e.g., 

frequency spectra, short duration of 

exposure), NMFS expects masking 

effects to be minimal during impact pile 

driving. In addition, masking would 

likely only occur during the period of 

time that a North Atlantic right whale is 

in the relatively close vicinity of pile 

driving, which is expected to be 

intermittent within a day and confined 

to the months in which North Atlantic 

right whales are at lower densities and 

primarily moving through the area. TTS 

could also occur in some of the exposed 

animals, making it more difficult for 

those individuals to hear or interpret 

acoustic cues within the frequency 

range (and slightly above) of sound 

produced during impact pile driving; 

however, any TTS would likely be of 

low amount, limited duration, and 

limited to frequencies where most 

construction noise is centered (below 2 

kHz). NMFS expects that right whale 

hearing sensitivity would return to preexposure levels shortly after migrating 

through the area or moving away from 

the sound source. 

As described in the Potential Effects 

of Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and Their Habitat section of 

the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed IHA, the distance of the 

receiver from the source influences the 

severity of response, with greater 

distances typically eliciting less severe 

responses. NMFS recognizes North 

Atlantic right whales migrating could be 

pregnant females (in the fall) and cows 

with older calves (in spring) and that 

these animals may slightly alter their 

migration course in response to any 

foundation pile driving; however, we 

anticipate that course diversion would 

be of small magnitude. Hence, while 

some avoidance of the pile-driving 

activities may occur, we anticipate any 

avoidance behavior of migratory North 

Atlantic right whales would be similar 

to that of gray whales (Tyack et al., 

1983), on the order of hundreds of 

meters up to 1 to 2 km. This diversion 

from a migratory path otherwise 

uninterrupted by the project’s activities 

is not expected to result in meaningful 

energetic costs that would impact 

annual rates of recruitment of survival. 

NMFS expects that North Atlantic right 

whales would be able to avoid areas 

during periods of active noise 

production while not being forced out of 

tStarhis portion of their habitat. 

North Atlantic right whale presence 

in the LIA is year-round. However, 

abundance during summer months is 

lower compared to the winter months, 

with spring and fall serving as 

‘‘shoulder seasons’’ wherein abundance 

waxes (fall) or wanes (spring). Even in 

consideration of recent habitat-use and 

distribution shifts, Vineyard Wind 1 

would still be installing monopile 

foundations when the presence of North 

Atlantic right whales is expected to be 

relatively lower. 

Given this year-round habitat usage, 

and recognizing that where and when 

whales may actually occur during 

project activities is unknown as it 

depends on the annual migratory 

behaviors, NMFS is requiring a suite of 

mitigation measures designed to reduce 

impacts to North Atlantic right whales 

to the maximum extent practicable. 

These mitigation measures (e.g., 

seasonal/daily work restrictions, vessel 

separation distances, reduced vessel 

speed) would not only avoid the 

likelihood of vessel strikes but also 

would minimize the severity of 

behavioral disruptions, e.g., through 

sound reduction using attenuation 

systems and reduced temporal overlap 

of project activities and North Atlantic 

right whales. This would help further 

ensure that the takes by Level B 

harassment that are estimated to occur 

would not affect reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals through 

detrimental impacts to energy intake or 

cow/calf interactions during migratory 

transit. 

As described in the Description of 

Marine Mammals in the Area of 

Specified Activities section, the 

Vineyard Wind Offshore Wind Project is 

being constructed within the North 

Atlantic right whale migratory corridor 

BIA, which represents areas and months 

within which a substantial portion of a 

species or population is known to 

migrate. The area over which North 

Atlantic right whales may be harassed is 

relatively small compared to the width 

of the migratory corridor. The width of 

the migratory corridor in this area is 

approximately 210.0 km (while the 

width of the Lease Area, at the longest 

point at which it crosses the BIA, is 

approximately 14.5 km). North Atlantic 

right whales may be displaced from 

their normal path and preferred habitat 

in the immediate activity area (primarily 

from pile driving activities), however, 

we do not anticipate displacement to be 

of high magnitude (e.g., beyond a few 

kilometers); therefore, any associated 

bio-energetic expenditure is anticipated 

to be small. Although North Atlantic 

right whales may forage in the LIA, 

there are no known breeding or calving 

areas within the LIA. Prey species are 

mobile (e.g., calanoid copepods can 

initiate rapid and directed escape 

responses) and are broadly distributed 

throughout the LIA. Therefore, any 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75696 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

impacts to prey that may occur are also 

unlikely to impact marine mammals. 

The most significant measure to 

minimize impacts to individual North 

Atlantic right whales is the seasonal 

moratorium on all foundation 

installation activities from January 1 

through May 31 when North Atlantic 

right whale abundance in the LIA is 

expected to be highest and individuals 

are more likely to be engaged in foraging 

behaviors. NMFS also expects this 

measure to greatly reduce the potential 

for mother-calf pairs to be exposed to 

impact pile driving noise above the 

Level B harassment threshold during 

their annual spring migration through 

SNE from calving grounds to primary 

foraging grounds (e.g., Cape Cod Bay). 

Moreover, NMFS expects that the 

severity of any take of North Atlantic 

right whales would be reduced due to 

the other mitigation measures that 

would ensure that any exposures above 

the Level B harassment threshold would 

result in only short-term effects to 

individuals exposed. Foundation 

installation may only begin in the 

absence of North Atlantic right whales 

(based on visual and passive acoustic 

monitoring). Once foundation 

installation activities have commenced, 

NMFS anticipates North Atlantic right 

whales would avoid the area, utilizing 

nearby waters to carry on pre-exposure 

behaviors. However, foundation 

installation activities must be shut 

down if a North Atlantic right whale is 

sighted at any distance or acoustically 

detected at any distance within the 

PAM monitoring zone, unless a 

shutdown is not feasible due to risk of 

injury or loss of life. Shutdown would 

be required anywhere if North Atlantic 

right whales are detected within or 

beyond the Level B harassment zone, 

further minimizing the duration and 

intensity of exposure. These measures 

are designed to avoid PTS and also 

reduce the severity of Level B 

harassment, including the potential for 

TTS. While some TTS could occur, 

given the mitigation measures (e.g., 

delay pile driving upon a sighting or 

acoustic detection and shutting down 

upon a sighting or acoustic detection), 

the potential for TTS to occur is low. 

NMFS anticipates that if North Atlantic 

right whales go undetected and they are 

exposed to foundation installation 

noise, it is unlikely a North Atlantic 

right whale would approach the sound 

source locations to the degree that they 

would expose themselves to very high 

noise levels. This is because typical 

observed whale behavior demonstrates 

likely avoidance of harassing levels of 

sound where possible (Richardson et al., 

1985). 

The clearance and shutdown 

measures are most effective when 

detection efficiency is maximized, as 

the measures for North Atlantic right 

whales are triggered by a sighting or 

acoustic detection. To maximize 

detection efficiency, NMFS requires the 

combination of PAM and visual 

observers. NMFS also requires 

communication protocols with other 

project vessels and other heightened 

awareness efforts (e.g., daily monitoring 

of North Atlantic right whale sighting 

databases) such that as a North Atlantic 

right whale approaches the source (and 

thereby could be exposed to higher 

noise energy levels), PSO detection 

efficacy will increase, the whale would 

be detected, and a delay to commencing 

foundation installation or shutdown (if 

feasible) would occur. In addition, the 

implementation of a soft-start for impact 

pile driving will provide an opportunity 

for whales to move away from the 

source if they are undetected, reducing 

received levels. 

As described above, no serious injury 

or mortality, or Level A harassment of 

North Atlantic right whales is 

anticipated or authorized. Extensive 

North Atlantic right whale-specific 

mitigation measures (beyond the robust 

suite required for all species) are 

expected to further minimize the 

amount and severity of Level B 

harassment. 

Given the documented habitat use 

within the LIA, the seven instances of 

take by Level B harassment could 

include seven individual whales 

disturbed on 1 day each within the year, 

or it could represent a smaller number 

of whales impacted on 2 or 3 days, 

should North Atlantic right whales 

briefly use the LIA as a ‘‘stopover’’ site 

and stay or swim in and out of the LIA 

for more than day. At any rate, any 

impacts to North Atlantic right whales 

are expected to be in the form of lower 

level behavioral disturbance, given the 

extensive mitigation measures. 

Given the magnitude and severity of 

the impacts discussed above, and in 

consideration of the required mitigation 

and other information presented, 

Vineyard Wind 1 activities are not 

expected to result in impacts on the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals, much less affect annual 

rates of recruitment or survival. For 

these reasons, we have determined that 

the take (by Level B harassment) 

anticipated and authorized would have 

a negligible impact on the North 

Atlantic right whale. 

Fin Whale 

The fin whale is listed as endangered 

under the ESA, and the western North 

Atlantic stock is considered both 

depleted and strategic under the MMPA. 

No UME has been designated for this 

species or stock. No serious injury or 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

for this species. 

This IHA authorizes up to 7 takes, by 

harassment only, over the 1 year period. 

The maximum allowable take by Level 

A harassment and Level B harassment, 

is 1 and 6, respectively (which equates 

to approximately 0.10 percent of the 

stock abundance, if each take were 

considered to be of a different 

individual). Given the close proximity 

of a fin whale feeding BIA (2,933 km2) 

from March through October, and that 

southern New England is generally 

considered a feeding area, it is likely 

that the seven takes could represent a 

few whales taken 2–3 times during the 

specified activity under this IHA. 

Level B harassment is expected to be 

primarily avoidance of the LIA where 

foundation installation is occurring and 

some low-level TTS and masking that 

may limit the detection of acoustic cues 

for relatively brief periods of time. We 

anticipate any potential PTS would be 

minor (limited to a few dB), and any 

PTS or TTS would be concentrated at 

half or one octave above the frequency 

band of pile driving noise (most sound 

is below 2 kHz), which does not include 

the full predicted hearing range of fin 

whales. If TTS is incurred, hearing 

sensitivity would likely return to preexposure levels relatively shortly after 

exposure ends. Any masking or 

physiological responses would also be 

of low magnitude and severity for 

reasons described above. 

Fin whales are present in the waters 

off of New England year-round and are 

one of the most frequently observed 

large whales and cetaceans in 

continental shelf waters, principally 

from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina in 

the Mid-Atlantic northward to Nova 

Scotia, Canada (Sergeant, 1977; Sutcliffe 

and Brodie, 1977; CETAP, 1982; Hain et 

al., 1992; Geo-Marine, 2010; BOEM 

2012; Edwards et al., 2015; Hayes et al., 

2023). In SNE, fin whales densities are 

highest in the spring and summer 

months (Kraus et al., 2016; Roberts et 

al., 2023) though detections do occur in 

spring and fall (Watkins et al., 1987; 

Clark and Gagnon, 2002; Geo-Marine, 

2010; Morano et al., 2012; Van Parijs et 

al., 2023). However, fin whales feed 

more extensively in waters in the Great 

South Channel north to the Gulf Maine 

into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, areas 

north and east of the LIA (Hayes et al., 

2023). 

As described previously, the LIA is in 

close proximity (approximately 8.0 km; 

5.0 mi) to a small fin whale feeding BIA 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75697 

(2,933 km2) east of Montauk Point, New 

York (figure 2.3 in LaBrecque et al., 

2015) that is active from March to 

October. Foundation installations have 

seasonal work restrictions (i.e., spatial 

and temporal) such that the temporal 

overlap between the specified activities 

and the active BIA timeframe would 

exclude the months of March, April, 

and May. A separate larger year-round 

feeding BIA (18,015 km2) located to the 

east in the southern Gulf of Maine does 

not overlap with the LIA and is located 

substantially further away 

(approximately 76.4 km (47.5 mi)), and 

would thus not be impacted by project 

activities. We anticipate that if foraging 

is occurring in the LIA and foraging 

whales are exposed to noise levels of 

sufficient strength, they would avoid the 

LIA and move into the remaining area 

of the feeding BIA that would be 

unaffected to continue foraging without 

substantial energy expenditure or, 

depending on the time of year, travel to 

the larger year-round feeding BIA. 

Given the documented habitat use 

within the area, some of the individuals 

taken would likely be exposed on 

multiple days. However, low level 

impacts are generally expected from any 

fin whale exposure. Given the 

magnitude and severity of the impacts 

discussed above (including no more 

than seven takes over the course of the 

IHA, and a maximum allowable take by 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment of one and six, respectively) 

and in consideration of the required 

mitigation and other information 

presented, Vineyard Wind’s activities 

are not expected to result in impacts on 

the reproduction or survival of any 

individuals, much less affect annual 

rates of recruitment or survival. For 

these reasons, we have determined that 

the take by harassment anticipated and 

authorized will have a negligible impact 

on the western North Atlantic stock of 

fin whales. 

Humpback Whale 

The West Indies Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS) of humpback whales is 

not listed as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA but the Gulf of Maine 

stock, which includes individuals from 

the West Indies DPS, is considered 

strategic under the MMPA. However, as 

described in the Description of Marine 

Mammals in the Area of Specified 

Activities section, humpback whales 

along the Atlantic Coast have been 

experiencing an active UME as elevated 

humpback whale mortalities have 

occurred along the Atlantic coast from 

Maine through Florida since January 

2016. Of the cases examined, 

approximately 40 percent had evidence 

of human interaction (vessel strike or 

entanglement). Despite the UME, the 

relevant population of humpback 

whales (the West Indies breeding 

population, or DPS of which the Gulf of 

Maine stock is a part) remains stable at 

approximately 12,000 individuals and 

the takes of humpback whales by Level 

B harassment authorized would not 

exacerbate or compound the effects of 

the ongoing UME. 

This IHA authorizes up to six takes by 

harassment only, over the 1 year period. 

The maximum allowable take by Level 

A harassment and Level B harassment is 

two and four, respectively (this equates 

to approximately 0.43 percent of the 

stock abundance, if each take were 

considered to be of a different 

individual). Given that feeding is 

considered the principal activity of 

humpback whales in southern New 

England waters, these takes could 

represent a few whales exposed two or 

three times during the year. 

In the western North Atlantic, 

humpback whales feed during spring, 

summer, and fall over a geographic 

range encompassing the eastern coast of 

the U.S. Feeding is generally considered 

to be focused in areas north of the LIA, 

including in a feeding BIA in the Gulf 

of Maine/Stellwagen Bank/Great South 

Channel, but has been documented off 

the coast of southern New England and 

as far south as Virginia (Swingle et al., 

1993). Foraging animals tend to remain 

in the area for extended durations to 

capitalize on the food sources. 

Assuming humpback whales who are 

feeding in waters within or surrounding 

the LIA behave similarly, we expect that 

the predicted instances of disturbance 

could consist of some individuals that 

may be exposed on multiple days if they 

are utilizing the area as foraging habitat. 

As with other baleen whales, if 

migrating, such individuals would 

likely be exposed to noise levels from 

the project above the harassment 

thresholds only once during migration 

through the LIA. 

For all the reasons described in the 

Mysticetes section above, we anticipate 

any potential PTS and TTS would be 

concentrated at half or one octave above 

the frequency band of pile driving noise 

(most sound is below 2 kHz), which 

does not include the full predicted 

hearing range of baleen whales. If TTS 

is incurred, hearing sensitivity would 

likely return to pre-exposure levels 

relatively shortly after exposure ends. 

Any masking or physiological responses 

would also be of low magnitude and 

severity for reasons described above. 

Given the magnitude and severity of 

the impacts discussed above (including 

no more than 6 takes over the course of 

the 1-year IHA, and a maximum 

allowable take by Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment of two and four, 

respectively), and in consideration of 

the required mitigation measures and 

other information presented, Vineyard 

Wind 1 activities are not expected to 

result in impacts on the reproduction or 

survival of any individuals, much less 

affect annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. For these reasons, we have 

determined that the take by harassment 

anticipated and authorized will have a 

negligible impact on the Gulf of Maine 

stock of humpback whales. 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales are not listed under the 

ESA, and the Canadian East Coast stock 

is neither depleted nor strategic under 

the MMPA. There are no known areas 

of specific biological importance in or 

adjacent to the LIA. As described in the 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities section, a 

UME has been designated for this 

species but is pending closure. No 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or authorized for this species. 

This IHA authorizes up to 1 take by 

Level A harassment and 28 takes by 

Level B harassment over the 1-year 

period (equating to approximately 0.13 

percent of the stock abundance, if each 

take were considered to be of a different 

individual). As described in the 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities section, 

minke whales inhabit coastal waters 

during much of the year and are 

common offshore the U.S. Eastern 

Seaboard with a strong seasonal 

component in the continental shelf and 

in deeper, off-shelf waters (CETAP, 

1982; Hayes et al., 2022; Hayes et al., 

2023). Spring through fall are times of 

relatively widespread and common 

acoustic occurrence on the continental 

shelf. From September through April, 

minke whales are frequently detected in 

deep-ocean waters throughout most of 

the western North Atlantic (Clark and 

Gagnon, 2002; Risch et al., 2014; Hayes 

et al., 2023). Because minke whales are 

migratory and their known feeding areas 

are north and east of the LIA, including 

a feeding BIA in the southwestern Gulf 

of Maine and George’s Bank, they would 

be more likely to be transiting through 

(with each take representing a separate 

individual), though it is possible that 

some subset of individual whales 

exposed could be taken up to a few 

times during the effective period of the 

IHA. 

As previously detailed in the 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities section, 

there is a UME for minke whales along 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75698 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

the Atlantic coast, from Maine through 

South Carolina, with the highest 

number of deaths in Massachusetts, 

Maine, and New York. Preliminary 

findings in several of the whales have 

shown evidence of human interactions 

or infectious diseases. However, we note 

that the population abundance is greater 

than 21,000, and the take by harassment 

authorized through this action is not 

expected to exacerbate the UME. 

We anticipate the impacts of this 

harassment to follow those described in 

the general Mysticetes section above. 

Any potential PTS would be minor 

(limited to a few dB) and any PTS or 

TTS would be of short duration and 

concentrated at half or one octave above 

the frequency band of pile driving noise 

(most sound is below 2 kHz) which does 

not include the full predicted hearing 

range of minke whales. If TTS is 

incurred, hearing sensitivity would 

likely return to pre-exposure levels 

relatively shortly after exposure ends. 

Level B harassment would be 

temporary, with primary impacts being 

temporary displacement from the LIA 

but not abandonment of any migratory 

or foraging behavior. 

Given the magnitude and severity of 

the impacts discussed above (including 

no more than 29 takes of the course of 

the 1-year IHA, and a maximum 

allowable take by Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment of 1 and 28, 

respectively), and in consideration of 

the required mitigation and other 

information presented, Vineyard Wind’s 

activities are not expected to result in 

impacts on the reproduction or survival 

of any individuals, much less affect 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

For these reasons, we have determined 

that the take by harassment anticipated 

and authorized will have a negligible 

impact on the Canadian Eastern Coastal 

stock of minke whales. 

Sei Whale 

Sei whales are listed as endangered 

under the ESA, and the Nova Scotia 

stock is considered both depleted and 

strategic under the MMPA. There are no 

known areas of specific biological 

importance in or adjacent to the LIA, 

and no UME has been designated for 

this species or stock. No serious injury 

or mortality is anticipated or authorized 

for this species. 

The IHA authorizes up to three takes 

by harassment over the 1-year period. 

The maximum allowable take by Level 

A harassment and Level B harassment is 

one and two, respectively (combined, 

this annual take (n=3) equates to 

approximately 0.05 percent of the stock 

abundance, if each take were considered 

to be of a different individual). As 

described in the Description of Marine 

Mammals in the Area of Specified 

Activities section, most of the sei whale 

distribution is concentrated in Canadian 

waters and seasonally in northerly U.S. 

waters, although they can occur yearround in SNE. Because sei whales are 

migratory and their known feeding areas 

are east and north of the LIA (e.g., there 

is a feeding BIA in the Gulf of Maine), 

they would be more likely to be moving 

through (i.e., not foraging), and 

considering this and the very low 

number of total takes, it is unlikely that 

any individual would be exposed more 

than once within the IHA period. 

With respect to the severity of those 

individual takes by Level B harassment, 

we anticipate impacts to be limited to 

low-level, temporary behavioral 

responses with avoidance and potential 

masking impacts in the vicinity of the 

WTG installation to be the most likely 

type of response. Any potential PTS and 

TTS would likely be concentrated at 

half or one octave above the frequency 

band of pile driving noise (most sound 

is below 2 kHz), which does not include 

the full predicted hearing range of sei 

whales. Moreover, any TTS would be of 

a small degree. Any avoidance of the 

LIA due to the Project’s activities would 

be expected to be temporary. 

Given the magnitude and severity of 

the impacts discussed above (including 

no more than three takes of the course 

of the 1-year IHA, and a maximum 

allowable take by Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment, of one and two, 

respectively), and in consideration of 

the required mitigation and other 

information presented, Vineyard Wind 1 

activities are not expected to result in 

impacts on the reproduction or survival 

of any individuals, much less affect 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

For these reasons, we have determined 

that the take by harassment anticipated 

and proposed to be authorized will have 

a negligible impact on the Nova Scotia 

stock of sei whales. 

Odontocetes 

In this section, we include 

information here that applies to all of 

the odontocete species and stocks 

addressed below. Odontocetes include 

dolphins, porpoises, and all other 

whales possessing teeth and we further 

divide them into the following 

subsections: sperm whales, dolphins 

and small whales, and harbor porpoises. 

These sub-sections include more 

specific information, as well as 

conclusions for each stock represented. 

No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized. We anticipate 

that, given ranges of individuals (i.e., 

that some individuals remain within a 

small area for some period of time) and 

non-migratory nature of some 

odontocetes in general (especially as 

compared to mysticetes), a larger subset 

of these takes are more likely to 

represent multiple exposures of some 

number of individuals than is the case 

for mysticetes, though some takes may 

also represent one-time exposures of an 

individual. While we expect animals to 

avoid the area during foundation 

installation, their habitat range is 

extensive compared to the area 

ensonified during these activities. As 

such, NMFS expects any avoidance 

behavior to be limited to the area near 

the sound source. 

As described earlier, Level B 

harassment may include direct 

disruptions in behavioral patterns (e.g., 

avoidance, changes in feeding or 

vocalizations), as well as those 

associated with stress responses or TTS. 

While masking could also occur during 

foundation installation, it would only 

occur in the vicinity of and during the 

duration of the activity, and would not 

generally occur in a frequency range 

that overlaps most odontocete 

communication or any echolocation 

signals. The required mitigation 

measures (e.g., use of sound attenuation 

systems, implementation of clearance 

and shutdown zones) would also 

minimize received levels such that the 

expected severity of any behavioral 

response would be less than exposure to 

unmitigated noise exposure. 

Any masking or TTS effects are 

anticipated to be of low severity. First, 

while the frequency range of pile 

driving falls within a portion of the 

frequency range of most odontocete 

vocalizations, odontocete vocalizations 

span a much wider range than the low 

frequency construction activities 

planned for the project. Also, as 

described above, recent studies suggest 

odontocetes have a mechanism to selfmitigate the impacts of noise exposure 

(i.e., reduce hearing sensitivity), which 

could potentially reduce TTS impacts. 

Any masking, TTS, or PTS is 

anticipated to be limited and would 

typically only interfere with 

communication within a portion of an 

odontocete’s range and as discussed 

earlier, the effects would only be 

expected to be of a short duration for 

TTS and masking, and for TTS and PTS, 

a relatively small degree. Furthermore, 

odontocete echolocation occurs 

predominantly at frequencies 

significantly higher than low frequency 

construction activities. Therefore, there 

is little likelihood that threshold shift 

would interfere with feeding behaviors. 

The waters off the coast of 

Massachusetts are used by several 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75699 

odontocete species. However, none 

except the sperm whale are listed under 

the ESA and there are no known 

habitats of particular importance. In 

general, odontocete habitat ranges are 

far-reaching along the Atlantic coast of 

the U.S. and the waters off of New 

England, including the LIA, do not 

contain any particularly unique 

odontocete habitat features. 

Sperm Whale 

Sperm whales are listed as 

endangered under the ESA, and the 

North Atlantic stock is considered both 

depleted and strategic under the MMPA. 

The North Atlantic stock spans the East 

Coast out into oceanic waters well 

beyond the U.S. EEZ. Although listed as 

endangered, the primary threat faced by 

the sperm whale across its range (i.e., 

commercial whaling) has been 

eliminated. Current potential threats to 

the species globally include vessel 

strikes, entanglement in fishing gear, 

anthropogenic noise, exposure to 

contaminants, climate change, and 

marine debris. There is no currently 

reported trend for the stock and 

although the species is listed as 

endangered under the ESA, there are no 

current related issues or events 

associated with the status of the stock 

that cause particular concern (e.g., no 

UMEs). There are no known areas of 

biological importance (e.g., critical 

habitat or BIAs) in or near the LIA, 

although Westell et al. (2024) found a 

high number of acoustic detections of 

sperm whales off the northeastern 

corner of the Lease Area. No mortality 

or serious injury is anticipated or 

authorized for this species. 

The IHA authorizes up to two takes by 

Level B harassment over the 1-year 

period, which equates to approximately 

0.05 percent of the stock abundance. If 

sperm whales are present in the LIA 

during any Project activities, they will 

likely be only transient visitors, 

although foraging and social behavior 

may occur in the shallow waters off SNE 

(Westell et al., 2024). However, the 

potential for TTS is low for reasons 

described in the general Odontocete 

section. If it does occur, any hearing 

shift would be small and of a short 

duration. Because foraging is expected 

to be rare in the LIA, TTS is not 

expected to interfere with foraging 

behavior. 

Given the magnitude and severity of 

the impacts discussed above (including 

no more than two takes by Level B 

harassment over the course of the 1-year 

IHA, and in consideration of the 

required mitigation and other 

information presented, Vineyard Wind’s 

activities are not expected to result in 

impacts on the reproduction or survival 

of any individuals, much less affect 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

For these reasons, we have determined 

that the take by Level B harassment 

anticipated and authorized will have a 

negligible impact on the North Atlantic 

stock of sperm whales. 

Dolphins and Small Whales (Including 

Delphinids) 

The five species and stocks included 

in this group (which are indicated in 

table 3 in the Delphinidae family) are 

not listed under the ESA, and nor are 

they listed as depleted or strategic under 

the MMPA. There are no known areas 

of specific biological importance in or 

around the LIA. As described above for 

any of these species and no UMEs have 

been designated for any of these species. 

No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized for these 

species. 

The five delphinid species 

(constituting five stocks) with takes 

authorized under the IHA are Atlantic 

white-sided dolphin, bottlenose 

dolphin, long-finned pilot whale, 

Risso’s dolphin, and common dolphin. 

The IHA allows for the total 

authorization of 3 to 462 takes 

(depending on species) by Level B 

harassment, over the 1-year period. 

Overall, this annual take equates to 

approximately 0.01 (Risso’s dolphin) up 

to 0.27 (common dolphin) percent of the 

stock abundance (if each take were 

considered to be of a different 

individual, which is not likely the case), 

depending on the species. 

The number of takes, likely movement 

patterns of the affected species, and the 

intensity of any Level B harassment, 

combined with the availability of 

alternate nearby foraging habitat 

suggests that the likely impacts would 

not impact the reproduction or survival 

of any individuals. While delphinids 

may be taken on several occasions, none 

of these species are known to have small 

home ranges within the LIA or known 

to be particularly sensitive to 

anthropogenic noise. Some TTS can 

occur, but it would be limited to the 

frequency ranges of the activity and any 

loss of hearing sensitivity is anticipated 

to return to pre-exposure conditions 

shortly after the animals move away 

from the source or the source ceases. 

Across these species, the maximum 

number of incidental takes, by Level B 

harassment (no Level A harassment is 

anticipated or authorized), authorized 

ranges between 3 (Risso’s dolphin) to 

462 (common dolphin). Though the 

estimated numbers of take are 

comparatively higher than the numbers 

for mysticetes, we note that for all 

species they are low relative to the 

population abundance. 

As described above for odontocetes 

broadly, given the number of estimated 

takes for some species and the 

behavioral patterns of odontocetes, we 

anticipate that some of these instances 

of take in a day represent multiple 

exposures of a smaller number of 

individuals, meaning the actual number 

of individuals taken is lower. Although 

some amount of repeated exposure to 

some individuals across a few days 

within the year is likely, the intensity of 

any Level B harassment combined with 

the availability of alternate nearby 

foraging habitat suggests that the likely 

impacts would not impact the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals. 

Overall, the populations of all 

delphinid and small whale species and 

stocks authorized for take are stable (no 

declining population trends). None of 

these stocks are experiencing existing 

UMEs. No mortality, serious injury, or 

Level A harassment is anticipated or 

authorized for any of these species. 

Given the magnitude and severity of the 

impacts discussed above and in 

consideration of the required mitigation 

and other information presented, as well 

as the status of these stocks, the 

specified activities are not expected to 

result in impacts on the reproduction or 

survival of any individuals, much less 

affect annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. For these reasons, we have 

determined that the take by harassment 

anticipated and authorized will have a 

negligible impact on all of the following 

species and stocks: Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, longfinned pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins, 

and common dolphins. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises are not listed as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA, and the Gulf of Maine/Bay of 

Fundy stock is neither depleted nor 

strategic under the MMPA. The stock is 

found predominantly in northern U.S. 

coastal waters (less than 150 m depth) 

and up into Canada’s Bay of Fundy 

(between New Brunswick and Nova 

Scotia). Although the population trend 

is not known, there are no UMEs or 

other factors that cause particular 

concern for this stock. No mortality or 

non-auditory injury are anticipated or 

authorized for this stock. 

The IHA authorizes up to 113 takes, 

by harassment only. The maximum 

allowable take by Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment is 3 and 110, 

respectively (combined, this annual take 

(n=113), which equates to 

approximately 0.19 percent of the stock 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75700 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

abundance, if each take were considered 

to be of a different individual). Given 

the number of takes, while many of the 

takes likely represent exposures of 

different individuals on 1 day a year, 

some subset of the individuals exposed 

could be taken up to a few times 

annually. 

Regarding the severity of takes by 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment, because harbor porpoises 

are particularly sensitive to noise, it is 

likely that a fair number of the 

responses to foundation installation 

could be of a moderate nature. In 

response to foundation installation, 

harbor porpoises are likely to avoid the 

area during construction, as previously 

demonstrated in Tougaard et al. (2009) 

in Denmark, in Dahne et al. (2013) in 

Germany, and in Vallejo et al. (2017) in 

the United Kingdom, although a study 

by Graham et al. (2019) may indicate 

that the avoidance distance could 

decrease over time. However, 

foundation installation is scheduled to 

occur off the coast of Massachusetts and 

given alternative foraging areas, any 

avoidance of the area by individuals is 

not likely to impact the reproduction or 

survival of any individuals. 

With respect to PTS and TTS, the 

effects on an individual are likely 

relatively low, given the frequency 

bands of pile driving (most energy 

below 2 kHz) compared to harbor 

porpoise hearing (150 Hz to 160 kHz 

peaking around 40 kHz). Specifically, 

TTS is unlikely to impact hearing ability 

in their more sensitive hearing ranges or 

the frequencies in which they 

communicate and echolocate. We 

expect any PTS that may occur to be 

within the very low end of their hearing 

range where harbor porpoises are not 

particularly sensitive and any PTS 

would be of small magnitude. As such, 

any PTS would not interfere with key 

foraging or reproductive strategies 

necessary for reproduction or survival. 

As discussed in Hayes et al. (2022), 

harbor porpoises are seasonally 

distributed. During fall (October through 

November) and spring (April through 

June), harbor porpoises are widely 

dispersed from New Jersey to Maine 

with lower densities farther north and 

south. During winter (January to March), 

intermediate densities of harbor 

porpoises can be found in waters off 

New Jersey to North Carolina and lower 

densities are found in waters off New 

York to New Brunswick, Canada. In 

non-summer months they have been 

seen from the coastline to deep waters 

(<1800 m; Westgate et al., 1998), 

although the majority are found over the 

continental shelf. While harbor 

porpoises are likely to avoid the area 

during any of the project’s construction 

activities, as demonstrated during 

European wind farm construction, the 

time of year in which most work would 

occur is when harbor porpoises are not 

in highest abundance, and any work 

that does occur would not result in the 

species’ abandonment of the waters off 

of Massachusetts. 

Given the magnitude and severity of 

the impacts discussed above, and in 

consideration of the required mitigation 

and other information presented, the 

specified activities are not expected to 

result in impacts on the reproduction or 

survival of any individuals, much less 

affect annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. For these reasons, we have 

determined that the take by harassment 

anticipated or authorized will have a 

negligible impact on the Gulf of Maine/ 

Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoises. 

Phocids (Harbor Seals and Gray Seals) 

The harbor seal and gray seal are not 

listed under the ESA, and neither the 

western North Atlantic stock of gray seal 

nor the western North Atlantic stock of 

harbor seal are considered depleted or 

strategic under the MMPA. There are no 

known areas of specific biological 

importance in or around the LIA. As 

described in the Description of Marine 

Mammals in the Area of Specified 

Activities section, a UME has been 

designated for harbor seals and gray 

seals and is described further below. No 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or authorized for this species. 

For the 2 seal species, the IHA 

authorizes up to between 30 (harbor 

seals) and 241 (gray seals) takes, by 

harassment only. The maximum 

allowable take for harbor seals by Level 

A harassment and Level B harassment is 

1 and 29, respectively (combined, this 

take (n=30) equates to approximately 

0.05 percent of the stock abundance, if 

each take were considered to be of a 

different individual). No takes by Level 

A harassment are anticipated or 

authorized for gray seals. The maximum 

allowable take for gray seals by Level B 

harassment (241) equates to 

approximately 0.88 percent of the stock 

abundance, if each take were considered 

to be of a different individual). Though 

gray seals and harbor seals are 

considered migratory and no specific 

feeding areas have been defined for the 

area, while some of the takes likely 

represent exposures of different 

individuals on 1 day a year, it is likely 

that some subset of the individuals 

exposed could be taken a few times 

annually. 

Harbor and gray seals occur in 

southern New England waters most 

often from December through April. 

Seals are more likely to be close to 

shore, such that exposure to foundation 

installation would be expected to be at 

low levels. Known haulouts for seals 

occur along the shores of Massachusetts. 

As described in the Potential Effects 

to Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

section, construction of wind farms in 

Europe resulted in pinnipeds 

temporarily avoiding construction areas 

but returning within short time frames 

after construction was complete (Carroll 

et al., 2010; Hamre et al., 2011; Hastie 

et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2016; 

Brasseur et al., 2012). Effects on 

pinnipeds that are taken by Level B 

harassment in the LIA would likely be 

limited to avoidance of the area 

reactions such as increased swimming 

speeds, increased surfacing time, or 

decreased foraging (if such activity were 

occurring). Most likely, individuals 

would simply move away from the 

sound source and be temporarily 

displaced from those areas (Lucke et al., 

2006; Edren et al., 2010; Skeate et al., 

2012; Russell et al., 2016). Given the 

low anticipated magnitude of impacts 

from any given exposure (e.g., 

temporary avoidance), even repeated 

Level B harassment across a few days of 

some small subset of individuals, which 

could occur, is unlikely to result in 

impacts on the reproduction or survival 

of any individuals. Moreover, pinnipeds 

would benefit from the mitigation 

measures described in the Mitigation 

section. 

As described above, noise from pile 

driving is mainly low frequency, and 

while any PTS and TTS that does occur 

would fall within the lower end of 

pinniped hearing ranges (50 Hz to 86 

kHz), PTS and TTS would not occur at 

frequencies around 5 kHz where 

pinniped hearing is most susceptible to 

noise-induced hearing loss (Kastelein et 

al., 2018). In summary, any PTS and 

TTS would be of small degree and not 

occur across the entire, or even most 

sensitive, hearing range. Hence, any 

impacts from PTS and TTS are likely to 

be of low severity and not interfere with 

behaviors critical to reproduction or 

survival. 

Regarding the previously mentioned 

UMEs, elevated numbers of harbor seal 

and gray seal mortalities were first 

observed in July 2018 and occurred 

across Maine, New Hampshire, and 

Massachusetts until 2020. Based on tests 

conducted so far, the main pathogen 

found in the seals belonging to that 

UME was phocine distemper virus, 

although additional testing to identify 

other factors that may be involved in 

this UME are underway. In 2022, a 

pinniped UME occurred in Maine with 

some harbor and gray seals testing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75701 

positive for highly pathogenic avian 

influenza (HPAI) H5N1. Neither UME 

(alone or in combination) provides 

cause for concern regarding populationlevel impacts to any of these stocks. For 

harbor seals, the population abundance 

is over 61,000 and annual mortality/ 

serious injury (M/SI) (n=339) is well 

below PBR (1,729) (Hayes et al., 2023). 

The population abundance for gray seals 

in the United States is over 27,000, with 

an estimated overall abundance, 

including seals in Canada, of 

approximately 366,400 (Hayes et al., 

2023). In addition, the abundance of 

gray seals is likely increasing in the U.S. 

Atlantic, as well as in Canada (Hayes et 

al., 2023). Takes by harassment 

authorized incidental to Vineyard Wind 

1’s activities would not be expected to 

exacerbate or compound the effects of 

any UME. 

Given the magnitude and severity of 

the impacts of the Vineyard Wind 1 

Project discussed above, and in 

consideration of the required mitigation 

and other information presented, 

Vineyard Wind’s activities are not 

expected to result in impacts on the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals, much less affect annual 

rates of recruitment or survival. For 

these reasons, we have determined that 

the take by harassment anticipated and 

authorized will have a negligible impact 

on harbor and gray seals. 

Negligible Impact Determination 

No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated to occur or authorized. As 

described in the analysis above, the 

impacts resulting from the project’s 

activities cannot be reasonably expected 

to, and are not reasonably likely to, 

adversely affect any of the species or 

stocks through effects on 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 mitigation and 

monitoring measures, NMFS 

preliminarily finds that the marine 

mammal take from the planned 

activities would have a negligible 

impact on all affected marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted previously, only incidental 

take of small numbers of marine 

mammals may be authorized under 

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

MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one-third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers (86 

FR 5322, January 19, 2021). 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

NMFS is authorizing incidental take 

by Level A harassment and/or Level B 

harassment of 14 species of marine 

mammals (with 14 managed stocks). 

The estimated number of instances of 

takes by combined Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment relative to the 

best available population abundance is 

less than one-third for all affected 

species and stocks (table 1). For 13 

stocks, 1 percent or less of the stock 

abundance is authorized for take by 

harassment. Specific to the North 

Atlantic right whale, the estimated 

amount of take, which is by Level B 

harassment only (no Level A harassment 

is anticipated or authorized), is seven, 

or 2.07 percent of the stock abundance, 

assuming that each instance of take 

represents a different individual. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the planned activity (including 

the mitigation and monitoring 

measures) and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals 

would be taken relative to the 

population size of the affected species 

or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with NOAA GARFO. 

There are four marine mammal 

species under NMFS jurisdiction that 

are listed as endangered or threatened 

under the ESA that may taken, by 

harassment, incidental to construction 

of the project: the North Atlantic right, 

sei, fin, and sperm whale. NMFS issued 

a Biological Opinion on September 11, 

2020 and reissued the Biological 

Opinion on October 18, 2021, 

concluding that the issuance of the 2023 

Vineyard Wind IHA is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

threatened and endangered species 

under NMFS’ jurisdiction and is not 

likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated or 

proposed critical habitat. The Biological 

Opinion is available at https://

repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/ 

37556. 

The Permit and Conservation Division 

requested re-initiation of section 7 

consultation with GARFO on the 

issuance of the Vineyard Wind 1 

proposed IHA for Phase 2 of the 

Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Project 

on May 23, 2024. Reinitiation of 

consultation was triggered due to 

consideration of updated marine 

mammal density data which have 

become available since the 2023 IHA, 

analysis of SFV data collected during 

the Vineyard Wind 1 2023 construction 

campaign, and modified mitigation and 

monitoring measures. On August 2, 

2024, NMFS GARFO issued a Biological 

Opinion that considered the effects of 

the remaining activities for the Vineyard 

Wind 1 Offshore Wind Project, 

including NMFS Permit and 

Conservation Division’s proposed 

issuance of an IHA authorizing 

incidental take of four species of ESAlisted marine mammals, taking into 

account the reinitiation triggers listed 

above. NMFS GARFO concluded that 

the proposed actions were likely to 

adversely affect but were not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the North Atlantic right whale, fin 

whale, sei whale, or sperm whale. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

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

and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review its 

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

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

to marine mammals in the human 

environment. Consistent with the 

regulations published by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
75702 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

1506.3(b)), NMFS as a cooperating 

agency, independently reviewed 

BOEM’s 2021 Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore 

Wind Energy Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

and determined it to be sufficient to 

support the 2023 IHA. The Final EIS 

and Record of Decision are available at 

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

incidental-take-authorization-vineyardwind-1-llc-construction-vineyard-windoffshore-wind. 

NMFS evaluated the subject IHA to 

Vineyard Wind 1, for completion of the 

foundation installation that was unable 

to be completed during the previous 

IHA (May 1, 2023 through April 30, 

2024), to determine whether 

supplementation of the Final EIS was 

required. NMFS determined that 

changes reflected in this IHA are not 

substantial relevant to environmental 

concerns; and there are no substantial 

new circumstances or information about 

the significance of adverse effects that 

bear on the analysis in BOEM’s 2021 

Final EIS. Therefore, supplementation 

of the Vineyard Wind 1 Final EIS is not 

required for this subsequent IHA (40 

CFR 1502.9(d)(1)). 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to Vineyard 

Wind 1 for harassment of small numbers 

of 14 marine mammal species incidental 

to impact pile driving of monopiles 

during the construction of the Vineyard 

Wind 1 Offshore Wind Farm Phase 2 

offshore of Massachusetts, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: September 6, 2024. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20541 Filed 9–13–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2