806 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB435] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Construction of 

the South Fork Offshore Wind Project 

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 South 

Fork Wind, LLC (South Fork Wind) to 

take, by Level A harassment and Level 

B harassment, marine mammals during 

construction of a commercial wind 

energy project offshore New York, 

Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. 

DATES: This IHA is valid from November 

15, 2022 through November 14, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carter Esch, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8421. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

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

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization (ITA) may 

be provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On March 15, 2019, NMFS received a 

request from South Fork Wind for an 

IHA to take marine mammals incidental 

to construction of an wind energy 

project offshore of New York, Rhode 

Island, and Massachusetts. Following a 

delay of the project, South Fork Wind 

submitted an updated version of the 

application on June 3, 2020, and then a 

revised version September 14, 2020. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on September 15, 2020. 

However, on December 15, 2020, South 

Fork Wind submitted a subsequent 

application due to changes to the project 

scope. NMFS deemed the application 

adequate and complete on December 16, 

2020. A notice of the proposed IHA was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 5, 2021 (86 FR 8490). In 

response to South Fork Wind’s request 

and in consideration of public 

comments, NMFS has authorized the 

taking of 15 species of marine mammals 

by harassment. Neither South Fork 

Wind nor NMFS expects serious injury 

or mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of Activity 

South Fork Wind plans to construct a 

90–180 megawatt (MW) commercial 

offshore wind energy project in the 

South Fork Wind Farm (SFWF) Lease 

Area OCS–A 0517 (SFWF; Figure 1 here, 

and see Figure 1 in the IHA application 

for more detail), southeast of Rhode 

Island within the Rhode IslandMassachusetts Wind Energy Area (RI/ 

MA WEA), including an export cable 

corridor connecting the SFWF to one of 

two landing locations on Long Island, 

New York. The project would consist of 

the installation of up to 15 offshore 

wind turbine generators (WTGs) and 

one offshore substation (OSS), an 

onshore substation, offshore and 

onshore cabling, and onshore operations 

and maintenance facilities (Figure 1). 

Each WTG would interconnect with the 

OSS via an inter-array submarine cable 

system. The offshore export cable 

transmission system would connect the 

OSS to an existing mainland electric 

grid in East Hampton, New York. A 

temporary sheet pile cofferdam may be 

installed where the offshore export 

cable conduit exits from the seabed to 

contain drilling returns and prevent the 

excavated sediments from silting back 

into the Horizontal Directional Drill 

(HDD) exit pit. The final location of the 

cofferdam will be dependent upon the 

selected cable landing site. 

Alternatively, a temporary casing pipe 

may be used in place of the cofferdam 

at the same location. 

Take of marine mammals may occur 

incidental to the construction of the 

project due to in-water noise exposure 

resulting from (1) impact pile-driving 

activities associated with installation of 

WTG and OSS foundations, (2) vibratory 

pile driving associated with the 

installation and removal of a temporary 

cofferdam nearshore, or impact 

hammering and vibratory pile driving 

associated with installation of a casing 

pipe, and (3) surveys, using highresolution geophysical (HRG) 

equipment, of the inter-array cable and 

export cable construction area 

(construction surveys). 

South Fork Wind plans to install the 

WTGs and OSS in the 55.4 square 

kilometer (km2) (13,700 acre) Lease Area 

(Figure 1). At its nearest point, the 

SFWF would be approximately 30 

kilometers (km) (19 miles (mi)) 

southeast of Block Island, Rhode Island, 

and 56 km (35 mi) east of Montauk 

Point, New York. The South Fork Wind 

export cable routes (SFEC) would 

connect SFWF to one of two landing 

locations on Long Island, New York, 

where a temporary cofferdam or casing 

pipe may be installed where the SFEC 

exits the seabed. Water depths in the 

SFWF and SFEC range from 

approximately 33–90 meters (m) (108– 

295 feet (ft)). 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 807 

Since publication of the proposed 

IHA, South Fork Wind communicated to 

NMFS that construction of the project, 

beginning with the nearshore cofferdam 

or casing pipe, is now planned to 

commence in November 2022, rather 

than between April and May 2022 (as 

indicated in the proposed IHA). Either 

the temporary cofferdam or casing pile 

and support piles may be installed for 

the sea-to-shore cable connection and, if 

required, would likely be installed 

between November 2022 and May 2023 

(removal could occur anytime through 

the expiration of the IHA). If used, 

installation and removal of the 

cofferdam are each expected to take 18 

hours of vibratory pile driving. 

Alternatively, installation and removal 

of the casing pipe and support piles are 

each expected to take approximately 

four hours. 

Up to 16 days of impact pile driving 

to install the WTGs and OSS may occur 

on any day between May 1, 2023 and 

November 14, 2023. The monopiles 

supporting the WTGs and OSS (the 

maximum number would be 16 to 

correspond to 1 OSS and the maximum 

of 15 WTGs) will be installed between 

May 1, 2023, and November 14, 2023. 

For monopile installation, a typical piledriving operation is expected to take 

approximately 2–4 hours to achieve the 

target penetration depth. No more than 

one monopile could potentially be 

driven into the seabed per day. 

Accordingly, concurrent driving (i.e., 

the driving of more than one pile at the 

same time) would not occur. Up to 60 

days of construction surveys may be 

conducted throughout the 12-month 

period of effectiveness of the IHA. 

Cable Laying 

Cable burial operations will occur 

both in the SFWF for the inter-array 

cables connecting the WTGs to the OSS 

and in the SFEC for the cables carrying 

power from the OSS to land. Inter-array 

cables will connect the 15 WTGs to the 

OSS. A single offshore export cable will 

connect the OSS to the shore. The 

offshore export and inter-array cables 

will be buried in the seabed at a target 

depth of up to 1.2–2.8 m (4–6 ft). 

Installation of the offshore export cable 

is anticipated to take approximately 2 

months. The estimated installation time 

for the inter-array cables is 

approximately 4 months. All cable 

burial operations will follow installation 

of the monopile foundations, as the 

foundations must be in place to provide 

connection points for the export cable 

and inter-array cables. Installation days 

are not continuous and do not include 

equipment preparation or downtime 

that may result from weather or 

maintenance. Equipment preparation is 

not considered a source of marine 

mammal disturbance or harassment. 

Some dredging may be required prior 

to cable laying due to the presence of 

sand waves. The upper portions of sand 

waves may be removed via mechanical 

or hydraulic means in order to achieve 

the proper burial depth below the stable 

sea bottom. The majority of the export 

and inter-array cable is expected to be 

installed using simultaneous lay and 

bury via jet plowing. Jet plowing entails 

the use of an adjustable blade, or plow, 

which rests on the seafloor and is towed 

by a surface vessel. The plow creates a 

narrow trench at the desired depth, 

while water jets fluidize the sediment 

within the trench. The cable is then fed 

through the plow and is laid into the 

trench as it moves forward. The 

fluidized sediments then settle back 

down into the trench and bury the 

cable. The majority of the inter-array 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2EN06JA22.002</GPH>

....,.. 

.... •:~:. »liitilallMiltl:'Stiile~·~: 

;~--~~ 

....... ~"'1(1Mt14."'"'1\~ffll'l. t:::I .,....,;,...,.,._(OCS'Aiiol~ ............ l)ij;~~"'!! * ~~ ·.-~••<~:..~=:.~,~~ ·•;. Sl'V\!F·WfG 

♦; ·SPV\,fwtG. ~.J.btfttbij 

·-#;~·::.~¢f.~1~.~ 

~~~~'·:··~~·~~~' iii!': ~!'l!C:' ....... ~•"""Y· * ~iSFS<>-i!a!illlo 

~~it1!!e:s~1~. 

~~~.f~lr~ot~:~·)~~:; 

Figure 1. Location of Lease Area OSC-A 0517, South Fork Wind Farm (SFWF), and 

Potential Export Cable Routes (SFEC) 

J 
808 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

cable is also expected to be installed via 

jet plowing. Other methods, such as 

mechanical plowing or trenching, may 

be needed in areas of coarser or more 

consolidated sediment, rocky bottom, or 

other difficult conditions in order to 

ensure a proper burial depth. The jet 

plowing tool may be based from a 

seafloor tractor or a sled deployed from 

a vessel. A mechanical plow may also 

deployed from a vessel. More 

information on cable laying associated 

with the project is provided in South 

Fork Wind’s Construction and 

Operations Plan (SFWF COP; South 

Fork Wind, 2020). As the only potential 

impacts from these activities are 

sediment suspension and very low noise 

emissions, the potential for take of 

marine mammals to result from these 

activities is so low as to be discountable 

and South Fork Wind did not request, 

and NMFS does not authorize, any take 

associated with cable laying. Therefore, 

cable laying activities are not discussed 

further in this document. 

Construction-Related Vessel Activity 

During construction of the project, 

South Fork Wind anticipates that an 

average of approximately 5–10 vessels 

will operate during a typical work day 

in the SFWF and along the SFEC. Many 

of these vessels will remain in the 

SFWF or SFEC for days or weeks at a 

time, potentially making only infrequent 

trips to port for bunkering and 

provisioning, as needed. Although 

South Fork Wind estimates that 20 oneway transits between the SFWF and 

port(s) will be required per month, the 

actual number of vessels involved in the 

project at one time will be highly 

dependent on the project’s final 

schedule, the final design of the 

project’s components, and the logistics 

needed to ensure compliance with the 

Jones Act, a Federal law that regulates 

maritime commerce in the United 

States. 

Existing vessel traffic in the vicinity 

of the project area southeast of Rhode 

Island is relatively high and marine 

mammals in the area are expected to be 

somewhat habituated to vessel noise. In 

addition, construction vessels would be 

stationary on site for significant periods 

and the large vessels would travel to 

and from the site at relatively low 

speeds. Project-related vessels would be 

required to adhere to several mitigation 

measures designed to reduce the 

potential for marine mammals to be 

struck by vessels associated with the 

project; these measures are described 

further below (see Mitigation). As part 

of various construction-related 

activities, including cable laying and 

construction material delivery, dynamic 

positioning thrusters may be utilized to 

hold vessels in position or move slowly. 

Sound produced through use of 

dynamic positioning thrusters is similar 

to that produced by transiting vessels, 

and dynamic positioning thrusters are 

typically operated either in a similarly 

predictable manner or used for short 

durations around stationary activities. 

Sound produced by dynamic 

positioning thrusters would be preceded 

by, and associated with, sound from 

ongoing vessel noise and would be 

similar in nature; thus, any marine 

mammals in the vicinity of the activity 

would be aware of the vessel’s presence, 

further reducing the potential for startle 

or flight responses on the part of marine 

mammals. Construction-related vessel 

activity, including the use of dynamic 

positioning thrusters, is not expected to 

result in take of marine mammals and 

South Fork Wind did not request, and 

NMFS does not authorize, any takes 

associated with construction-related 

vessel activity. Accordingly, these 

activities are not discussed further in 

this document. 

Installation of WTGs and OSS 

A monopile, the only type of 

foundation that will be installed, is a 

single, hollow cylinder fabricated from 

steel that is secured in the seabed. The 

monopiles installed would support up 

to 15 WTGs and single OSS, and would 

be 11 m (36 ft) in diameter, up to 95 m 

(312 ft) in length and driven to a 

maximum penetration depth of 50 m 

(164 ft). A schematic diagram showing 

potential heights and dimensions of the 

various components of a monopile 

foundation are shown in Figure 3.1–2 of 

the SFWF COP (South Fork Wind, 

2020), available online at: https://

www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/stateactivities/south-fork. 

All monopiles would be installed 

with a hydraulic impact hammer. 

Impact pile driving entails the use of a 

hammer that utilizes a rising and falling 

piston to repeatedly strike a pile and 

drive it into the ground. Using a crane, 

the installation vessel would upend the 

monopile, place it in the gripper frame, 

and then lower the monopile to the 

seafloor. The gripper frame would 

stabilize the monopile’s vertical 

alignment before and during piling. 

Once the monopile is lowered to the 

seafloor, the crane hook would be 

released and the hydraulic hammer 

would be picked up and placed on top 

of the monopile. A temporary steel cap 

called a helmet would be placed on top 

of the pile to minimize damage to the 

head during impact driving. The largest 

hammer South Fork Wind expects to 

use for driving monopiles produces up 

to 4,000 kilojoules (kJ) of energy 

(however, required energy may 

ultimately be far less than 4,000 kJ). As 

described in the Mitigation section 

below, South Fork Wind would utilize 

a single big bubble curtain (BBC) paired 

with an additional noise mitigation 

device, or a double big bubble curtain 

(dBBC) during all impact pile driving of 

monopiles. 

The intensity (i.e., hammer energy 

level) of impact pile driving of 

monopiles would be gradually increased 

based on the resistance from the 

sediments that is experienced. The 

strike rate for the monopile foundations 

is estimated to be 36 strikes per minute. 

Two impact pile-driving scenarios for 

monopile installation were considered 

for SFWF (Table 1). The standard 

impact pile-driving scenario would 

require an estimated 4,500 strikes for 

the pile to reach the target penetration 

depth, with an average installation time 

of 140 minutes for one pile. In the event 

that a pile location presents denser 

substrate conditions and requires more 

strikes to reach the target penetration 

depth, a difficult-to-drive pile scenario 

was considered, for which 8,000 strikes 

and approximately 250 minutes would 

be required to install one pile. 

Installation and Removal of Temporary 

Cofferdam 

Before cable-laying HDD begins, a 

temporary cofferdam could be installed 

at the endpoint of the HDD starting 

point, where the SFEC conduit exits 

from the seabed. The cofferdam would 

be less than 600 m (1,969 ft) offshore 

from the mean high water line (MHWL), 

in 7.6 to 12.2 m (25 to 40 ft) water 

depth, depending on the final siting 

point. The cofferdam, up to 22.9 m (75 

ft) by 7.7 m (25 ft), would serve as 

containment for the drilling returns 

during the HDD installation to keep the 

excavation free of debris and silt. The 

cofferdam may be installed as either a 

sheet pile structure driven into the 

seabed or a gravity cell structure placed 

on the seafloor using ballast weight. 

Installation of a gravity cell cofferdam 

would not result in incidental take of 

marine mammals and is not analyzed 

further in this document. Installation of 

the 19.5 m (64 ft) long, 0.95 centimeters 

(cm) (0.375 inches (in)) thick Z-type 

sheet pile cofferdam, and drilling 

support, would be conducted from an 

offshore barge anchored near the 

cofferdam. 

If the potential cofferdam is installed 

(using sheet piles), a vibratory hammer 

would be used to drive the sidewalls 

and endwalls into the seabed to a depth 

of approximately 1.8 m (6 ft); sections 

of the shoreside endwall would be 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 809 

driven to a depth of up to 9 m (30 ft) 

to facilitate the HDD entering 

underneath the endwall. Cofferdam 

removal would consist of pile removal 

using a vibratory hammer, after HDD 

operations are complete and the conduit 

is installed (see Table 1 for a summary 

of potential vibratory pile-driving 

activity). 

Vibratory hammering is accomplished 

by rapidly alternating (∼250 Hertz (Hz)) 

forces to the pile. A system of counterrotating eccentric weights powered by 

hydraulic motors is designed such that 

horizontal vibrations cancel out, while 

vertical vibrations are transmitted into 

the pile. The vibrations produced cause 

liquefaction of the substrate 

surrounding the pile, enabling the pile 

to be driven into the ground using the 

weight of the pile plus the impact 

hammer. If the gravity cell installation 

technique is not practicable, South Fork 

Wind anticipates that any vibratory pile 

driving of sheet piles would occur for a 

total of 36 hours (18 hours for 

installation, 18 hours for removal). 

The source levels and source 

characteristics associated with vibratory 

pile driving would generally be similar 

to those produced through other 

concurrent use of South Fork Wind’s 

vessels and related construction 

equipment. Any elevated noise levels 

produced through vibratory pile driving 

are expected to be of relatively short 

duration, and with low source level 

values. However, it is possible that if 

marine mammals are exposed to sound 

from vibratory pile driving, they may 

alert to the sound and potentially 

exhibit a behavioral response that rises 

to the level of take. 

Installation of Casing Pipe 

The temporary casing pipe could be 

installed at the currently planned exit 

pit location. The casing pipe would be 

driven into the seabed at the approach 

angle of the HDD, and would extend 

from the seabed up through the water 

column to the sea surface where a work 

vessel would be able to access the open 

end of the pipe. The casing pipe may 

require that temporary support piles be 

installed to ensure pipe stability. 

Temporary support piles would consist 

of up to 8 steel sheet piles temporarily 

driven into the seabed using a vibratory 

pile driver. It is anticipated that the 

casing pipe would consist of a steel pipe 

pile, approximately 48- to 60-inch 

diameter and approximately 300 feet in 

length; installation would likely be 

accomplished using a small pneumatic 

impact hammer (e.g., Grundoram 

Taurus or similar), to drive the pipe in 

the seabed. It is estimated that the 

hammer operates at up to 18.6 kJ and 

that impact hammering of the casing 

pipe would take approximately two 

hours complete. Installation of the steel 

sheet support piles would take an 

additional two hours. Once the HDD 

operation has been completed, the 

casing pipe and support piles would be 

removed over a similar timeframe and 

using a similar methodology to that 

used for installation. As mentioned 

previously, acoustic impacts associated 

with installation of the casing pipe (and 

support piles, if needed) are expected to 

be less than or equal to, and over a 

much shorter duration than, impacts 

from installation of a cofferdam. South 

Fork Wind will determine whether a 

cofferdam or casing pipe will be 

installed, if required. However, 

installation of a cofferdam was carried 

forward in the analyses here, given the 

large size of the Level B harassment 

zone and the longer duration of the 

activity. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PILE-DRIVING ACTIVITIES FOR SFWF AND SFEC 

Pile-driving method Pile size Number of 

piles Strikes/pile Duration/pile Number of piling days 

Impact ........................................... 11 m monopile ............................ 16 Standard pile: 

4,500.

Standard pile: 

140 minutes.

Standard scenario: 30. 

Difficult pile: 

8,000.

Difficult pile: 250 

minutes.

Maximum scenario: 20. 

Vibratory 1 ..................................... 19.5 m long/0.95 cm thick sheet 

pile.

2 80 ........................... 18 hours ...........

18 hours ...........

Installation: 1–3. 

Removal: 1–3. 

1South Fork Wind would install either the sheet pile cofferdam or casing pipe, not both. Because vibratory pile driving associated with 

cofferdam installation/removal results in the largest harassment zones and requires the most amount of time, this activity was carried forward in 

our analysis (see Estimated Take section). 2Approximation; the actual number will be based on final engineering design. 

Construction Surveys 

The construction surveys would be 

supported by up to four vessels working 

concurrently throughout the project 

area. Construction surveys would occur 

throughout the 12-month period of 

effectiveness for the IHA. HRG survey 

equipment would either be deployed 

from remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) 

or mounted to or towed behind the 

survey vessel at a typical survey speed 

of approximately 4.0 knots (kts) (7.4 km) 

per hour. 

Table 2 identifies all the 

representative HRG survey equipment 

that operates below 180 kilohertz (kHz) 

(i.e., at frequencies that are audible and 

have the potential to disturb marine 

mammals) that may be used in support 

of planned construction survey 

activities, and are likely to be detected 

by marine mammals given the source 

level, frequency, and beamwidth of the 

equipment. For discussion of acoustic 

terminology, please see the Potential 

Effects of Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat and 

Estimated Take sections in the notice of 

the proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; February 

5, 2021). 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE HRG SURVEY EQUIPMENT

HRG equipment 

category 

Specific HRG 

equipment 

Operating 

frequency 

range (kHz) 

Source level 

(dB rms) 

Source level 

(dB 0-peak) 

Beamwidth 

(degrees) 

Typical 

pulse duration 

(ms) 

Pulse 

repetition rate 

Shallow Sub-bottom Profilers.ET 216 (2000DS 

or 3200 top unit).

2–16; 2–8 195 - 24 20 6 

ET 424 .................. 4–24 176 - 71 3.4 2 

ET 512 .................. 0.7–12 179 - 80 9 8 

GeoPulse 5430A .. 2–17 196 - 55 50 10 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
810 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE HRG SURVEY EQUIPMENT—Continued 

HRG equipment 

category 

Specific HRG 

equipment 

Operating 

frequency 

range (kHz) 

Source level 

(dB rms) 

Source level 

(dB 0-peak) 

Beamwidth 

(degrees) 

Typical 

pulse duration 

(ms) 

Pulse 

repetition rate 

TB Chirp III—TTV 

170.

2–7 197 - 100 60 15 

Medium Sub-bottom Profilers.AA, Dura-spark 

UHD (400 tips, 

500 J).1

0.3–1.2 203 211 Omni 1.1 4 

AA, Dura-spark 

UHD (400 + 

400).1

0.3–1.2 203 211 Omni 1.1 4 

GeoMarine, GeoSource or similar 

dual 400 tip 

sparker (≤800 

J).1

0.4–5 203 211 Omni 1.1 2 

GeoMarine GeoSource 200 tip 

light weight 

sparker (400 J).1

0.3–1.2 203 211 Omni 1.1 4 

GeoMarine GeoSource 200–400 

tip freshwater 

sparker (400 J).1

0.3–1.2 203 211 Omni 1.1 4 

AA, triple plate 

S-Boom (700– 

1,000 J).2

0.1–5 205 211 80 0.6 4 

- = not applicable; NR = not reported; AA = Applied Acoustics; dB = decibel; ET = EdgeTech; J = joule; Omni = omnidirectional source. 1The Dura-spark measurements and specifications provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) were used for all sparker systems proposed for 

the survey. The data provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) represent the most applicable data for similar sparker systems with comparable 

operating methods and settings when manufacturer or other reliable measurements are not available. 2 Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) provide S–Boom measurements using two different power sources (CSP–D700 and CSP–N). The CSP–D700

power source was used in the 700 J measurements but not in the 1,000 J measurements. The CSP–N source was measured for both 700 J and 

1,000 J operations but resulted in a lower SL; therefore, the single maximum SL value was used for both operational levels of the S–Boom. 

A detailed description of South Fork 

Wind’s planned construction activities 

is provided in the notice of the 

proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5, 

2021). Since that time, South Fork Wind 

has not proposed any changes to its 

construction activities through the IHA 

process, other than the casing pipe 

alternative to installation of a temporary 

cofferdam at the exit pit location of the 

export cable (as described above and 

below). Therefore, a detailed description 

is not provided here. Please refer to that 

notice for the detailed description of the 

specified activity. Mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting measures are 

described in detail later in this 

document (please see Mitigation and 

Monitoring and Reporting below). 

Modifications and additions to the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

have occurred since the proposed IHA 

was published. All changes since the 

proposed IHA have been summarized in 

the Changes from Proposed IHA to Final 

IHA section and described in detail in 

their respective sections and/or the 

comment responses below. 

Comments and Responses 

Comment 1: The Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission) claims that 

ranges to the Level B harassment 

isopleth for impact pile driving of 11-m 

monopiles are underestimated by 

JASCO (the source of the modeling used 

for NMFS’ analysis) for the South Fork 

Wind project because, primarily, 

Lippert et al. (2016) indicated that 

JASCO’s time-domain finite difference 

pile-driving source model (TDFD 

PDSM) predicted lower sound exposure 

levels (SELs) in the far-field region than 

various finite-element (FE) models. The 

Commission notes that while the exact 

source level difference between the 

TDFD PDSM and FE models was not 

reported, Lippert et al. (2016) indicated 

that the SELs predicted by JASCO’s 

TDFD PDSM were approximately 2.5 dB 

lower than the SELs predicted by the FE 

models at 750-m distance from the 

source. To help resolve this issue, the 

Commission suggests that JASCO could 

add 3 dB to the SEL predictions from 

the TDFD PDSM to be consistent with 

differences identified in Lippert et al. 

(2016). In addition, the Commission 

suggests that NMFS could use the 

dampened cylindrical spreading model 

(DCSM; Lippert et al., 2018) to 

substantiate the Level B harassment 

zones. Finally, the Commission seeks 

clarity regarding the models that JASCO 

used, and how JASCO’s model(s) would 

compare to the model used for the 

COMPILE workshop benchmark case in 

Lippert et al. (2016). 

Response: The Commission (1) 

recommends adding 3 dB based on the 

COMPILE workshop comparison 

(Lippert et al. 2016), (2) recommends 

that NMFS use the DCSM to 

substantiate Level B harassment zones, 

and (3) seeks an explanation of the 

models JASCO used and how JASCO’s 

model(s) would compare to the model 

used in the COMPILE workshop 

benchmark case. Adding 3 dB (or 2.5 

dB, the value from which the 

Commission apparently rounded up to 3 

dB) to the JASCO SEL predictions at 750 

m may bring JASCO’s predictions using 

the TDFD PDSM into line with the FE 

predictions for the COMPILE scenario, 

but it is not clear that this would be 

more accurate. This approach assumes 

that the FE models are correct, but 

Lippert et al. (2016) also state ‘‘a 

drawback of [the FE] approach is that it 

simulates the energy loss due to friction 

in an indirect and rather nonphysical 

way.’’ Therefore, NMFS has concluded 

that adding 3 dB to the SEL predictions 

from JASCO’s TDFD PDSM is not 

warranted. 

NMFS agrees that there can generally 

be utility in comparing the results of 

analogous models, but the 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 811 

Commission’s suggestion to use the 

DCSM (Lippert et al., 2016) as a way to 

verify the range to the Level B 

harassment isopleth predictions 

estimated by JASCO is problematic. The 

DCSM is a modified geometric model of 

propagation that applies a general 

correction for the interaction of sound 

with the environmental parameters (e.g., 

absorption, and the assumption of 

cylindrical spreading), whereas the fullwave parabolic-equation based 

propagation model (FWRAM (<2kHz)), 

and Gaussian beam ray-trace model 

(BELLHOP (>2kHz)) JASCO used take 

into account environmental interactions 

(e.g., bathymetry, sound velocity profile, 

geoacoustic properties of the seabed) as 

the sound propagates. BELLHOP was 

inadvertently excluded from the 

acoustic modeling report (Denes et al., 

2020a), but is run along with FWRAM 

as part of the acoustic modeling. The 

DCSM assumes an apparent source level 

for different pile sizes and then uses a 

simple model of propagation. While 

NMFS agrees that DCSM is a valuable 

tool for some applications, JASCO’s 

well-tested, range-dependent 

propagation models based on solutions 

to the wave equation represent the 

preferred alternative to the simpler 

DCSM. 

The Commission seeks clarity 

regarding the models used by JASCO. 

The force at the top of each monopile, 

associated with the typical hammers, 

was computed using the GRLWEAP 

2010 wave equation model (GRLWEAP, 

Pile Dynamics 2010), which produced 

forcing functions. The source signatures 

of each monopile were predicted using 

the TDFD PDSM to compute the 

monopile vibrations caused by hammer 

impact. To accurately calculate 

propagation metrics of an impulsive 

sound, a time-domain representation of 

the pressure wave in the water was 

used. To model the sound waves 

associated with the monopile vibration 

in an acoustic propagation model, the 

monopiles are represented as vertical 

arrays of discrete point sources. The 

discrete sources are distributed 

throughout the length of the monopile 

below the sea surface and into the 

sediment with vertical separation of 3 

m. The length of the acoustic source is 

adjusted for the site-specific water 

depth and penetration at each energy 

level, and the section length of the 

monopile within the sediment is based 

on the monopile hammering schedule 

(Table 6). Pressure signatures for the 

point sources are computed from the 

particle velocity at the monopile wall 

up to a maximum frequency of 2,048 

Hz. This frequency range is suitable 

because most of the sound energy 

generated by impact hammering of the 

monopiles is below 1 kHz. 

As mentioned above, to calculate 

predicted propagation of sounds 

produced during impact pile driving of 

monopiles below 2 kHz, JASCO used it’s 

FWRAM, which is an acoustic model 

based on the wide-angle parabolic 

equation (PE) algorithm (Collins 1993). 

FWRAM computes synthetic pressure 

waveforms versus range and depth for 

range-varying marine acoustic 

environments. It takes environmental 

inputs (e.g., bathymetry, sound velocity 

profile, and seabed geoacoustic profile) 

and computes pressure waveforms at 

grid points of range and depth. Because 

the monopile is represented as a linear 

array and FWRAM employs the array 

starter method to accurately model 

sound propagation from a spatially 

distributed source (MacGillivray and 

Chapman 2012), using FWRAM ensures 

accurate characterization of vertical 

directivity effects in the near-field zone. 

JASCO used BELLHOP, a Gaussian 

beam ray-trace model that also 

incorporates environmental inputs, to 

model propagation of sound produced 

above 2 kHz during monopile 

installation. The beam-tracing model is 

basically described as an approximation 

of a given source by a fan of beams 

through the medium. Then, the 

quantities of interest (e.g., acoustic 

pressure at different ranges) are 

computed at a specified location by 

summing the contribution of each of the 

individual beams. 

The acoustic source signature of 

vibratory driving of sheet piles was 

modeled following the same steps used 

to model impact pile driving of 

monopiles. The forcing function was 

modeled for a single cycle of the 

vibrating hammer using the GRLWEAP 

2010 wave equation model (Pile 

Dynamics 2010). The TDFD PDSM 

model was used to compute the 

resulting sheet pile vibrations from the 

stress wave that propagates down the 

sheet pile. The radiated sound waves 

were modeled as discrete point sources 

over the 18 m (60 ft) of the sheet pile 

in the water and sediment (9 m [30 ft] 

water depth, 9 m [30 ft] penetration) 

with a vertical separation of 10 cm. 

Sound propagation of the discrete point 

sources was predicted with JASCO’s 

Marine Operations Noise Model 

(MONM). MONM computes received 

sound energy, the SEL, for directional 

sources. MONM uses a wide-angle 

parabolic equation solution to the 

acoustic wave equation (Collins 1993) 

based on a version of the U.S. Naval 

Research Laboratory’s Range-dependent 

Acoustic Model (RAM). Similar to 

FWRAM and BELLHOP, MONM 

incorporates site-specific environmental 

properties. MONM treats frequency 

dependence by computing acoustic 

transmission loss at the center 

frequencies of 1/3-octave-bands. At each 

center frequency, the transmission loss 

is modeled as a function of depth and 

range from the source. Composite 

broadband received SELs are then 

computed by summing the received 

1/3-octave-band levels across the 

modeled frequency range. 

The accuracy of JASCO’s TDFD PDSM 

has been verified by comparing its 

output against benchmark scenarios 

(Lippert et al., 2016). In addition, 

JASCO compared the TDFD PDSM 

predictions to an empirical model 

prediction in the Institute of Technology 

and Applied Physics (ITAP) report 

(Bellmann 2020). The empirical model 

is based on a large data set of piledriving sounds, measured at 750 m from 

the source, collected during installation 

of various diameter piles (up to 8 m) 

during wind farm installation in the 

North Sea (ITAP, Bellmann 2020). As no 

noise monitoring results exist for 11-m 

monopiles (yet to be installed offshore), 

the ITAP prediction facilitates a way of 

validating the source levels of the 

numerical FD model. The ITAP data are 

averaged across different scenarios— 

pile sizes, different hammers, water 

depths, depths of penetration, and 

environmental conditions—and the 95th 

percentile level is reported, whereas the 

aim of JASCO’s modeling is to estimate 

the median value. While the ITAP 

forecast and the FD source predictions 

were comparable, there is variance in 

the underlying ITAP data and there are 

parametric choices for the FD model in 

the different environments, so an exact 

match is not expected. As part of the 

comparison, it was found that different 

(but reasonable) parametric input 

choices in the TDFD modeling can 

result in output differences on the order 

of the variance in the ITAP data, so it 

was concluded that the TDFD modeling 

approach performed as well as can be 

discernible given the available data. 

Comment 2: The Commission claims 

that in situ measurements collected 

during the installation of Dominion’s 

Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) 

project’s 7.8-m monopiles suggest that 

the range to the Level B harassment 

isopleth for installation of 11-m 

monopiles presented here has been 

underestimated. Specifically, the 

Commission notes that JASCO estimated 

the Level B harassment zone for South 

Fork Wind’s impact driving of 11-m 

piles to be 4,684 m, assuming a 10-dB 

sound attenuation, based on the use of 

a single BBC and up to 4,000 kJ of 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
812 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

hammer energy (see Tables 12 and 13; 

Denes et al. 2020a), while in situ 

measurements made during the CVOW 

project for impact driving of a 7.8-m pile 

with a measured 9–12 dB sound 

attenuation during use of a dBBC for a 

hammer operating at a maximum of 550 

kJ estimated the Level B harassment 

zone to be 3,891 m (WaterProof 2020). 

The Commission suggests that South 

Fork Wind’s use of an impact hammer 

with 7.3 times more energy intensity 

than the impact hammer used for 

CVOW (4,000 kJ versus 550 kJ) spread 

over a 1.4 times larger circumference 

than the pile size used in CVOW, would 

result in approximately five-fold (or 7 

dB) higher sound energy level than was 

determined for CVOW. Based on DCSM, 

a 7-dB difference in source levels, the 

measured Level B harassment zone of 

more than 3,800 m at Dominion, and 

environmental conditions for Dominion, 

the Commission claims that the 

measured Level B harassment zone 

would increase by 81 percent, resulting 

in a Level B harassment zone of 

approximately 6,890 m based on the 

increased hammer energies and pile 

size. Further, the Commission suggests 

using DCSM to relate this range to the 

Level B harassment isopleth to the 

acoustic propagation conditions in the 

South Fork Wind project area, which 

the Commission states would result in 

a Level B harassment zone of more than 

9,600 m for the South Fork Wind 

project. 

Response: Recent acoustic 

measurements associated with the 

installation of two 7.8-m-diameter piles, 

with the hammer operating at 550 kJ, 

driven as part of the CVOW project 

found the range to the Level B 

harassment isopleth (160 dB rms) to be 

3,891 m, while JASCO’s prediction for 

11-m piles with hammer energy of 4000 

kJ was 4,684 m. Both efforts employed 

comparable mitigation—JASCO 

assumed broadband attenuation of 10- 

dB for acoustic modeling, while 9–12 

dB of attenuation was measured at 

CVOW using a dBBC situated around 

the pile to attenuate noise produced by 

impact hammering of the pile. The 

Commission reasons that because the 

hammer energy used in JASCO’s 

acoustic propagation modeling is 

approximately 7.3 times the energy of 

the hammer employed for CVOW, 

JASCO’s predicted range to the Level B 

harassment isopleth should be more 

than double that measured at CVOW 

instead of being approximately 20- 

percent larger. The 3,891-m range to the 

Level B harassment isopleth reported for 

CVOW was obtained by choosing the 

maximum measured SPL value 

produced during impact pile driving of 

the monopile. JASCO’s predictive 

modeling produces median (expected or 

50th percentile) SPL values. The 50th 

percentile SPL values in CVOW 

(Waterproof 2020; Table 4.1) are 5–6 dB 

lower than the maximum. Using the 

CVOW 50th percentile SPL values and 

the acoustic propagation equations in 

the CVOW report results in a range to 

Level B harassment isopleth of 

approximately 2,000 m, which is less 

than half of the 4,684-m range predicted 

by JASCO for installation of monopiles 

by South Fork Wind. JASCO uses the 

sound fields predicted during acoustic 

modeling in subsequent animal 

movement modeling to estimate 

probabilities of exposure. In the 

exposure analysis, the median 

(equivalently, 50th percentile) sound 

level values are preferred so that the 

probabilities represent likely 

occurrence. Using maximum or 95th 

percentile sound field values would 

systematically bias the marine mammal 

exposure probabilities. 

Regarding the Commission’s estimates 

of zone sizes using the DCSM, these are 

approximations but, in general, NMFS 

agrees with the logic presented by the 

Commission, if one were to use that 

model. However, as described above, 

JASCO’s predictions are for the 

expected (median) SPL, while the 

predictions for CVOW use the 

maximum measured SPL values. If a 7- 

dB difference in source level is expected 

with the larger hammer and larger pile 

(compared to CVOW) South Fork Wind 

plans to use, it should be noted that 

there is an approximately 5-dB 

difference between the measured 

maximum SPL and the 50th percentile 

SPL for the CVOW project, so JASCO’s 

approximately 20-percent increase in 

the range to the Level B harassment 

isopleth (relative to the range measured 

for the CVOW project) seems reasonable 

for a source level difference of 2 dB. It 

should also be noted that there is greater 

than 5-dB difference in the levels 

measured at closest location to the pile 

reported for the CVOW projects, 

indicating that concepts like source 

level do not really apply to distributed 

sources and that propagation may not be 

captured well with simple models like 

DCSM. 

Comment 3: The Commission seeks 

clarity regarding the type and 

configuration of the bubble curtain 

South Fork Wind will utilize during 

impact pile driving. In addition, the 

Commission references Bellmann et al. 

(2020), in which the authors report an 

average of 9-dB sound attenuation 

utilizing a BBC as a noise mitigation 

device for installation of 8-m monopiles 

in 40 m of water. The authors indicated 

diminishing efficacy of the BBC with 

increasing water depth, suggesting that 

additional noise mitigation devices 

should be used for pile diameters 

greater than or equal to 6 m installed in 

water depths greater than 25 m. 

Response: The Commission is correct 

that Bellmann (2020) reported an 

average of 9-dB (7 < 9 < 11dB) 

attenuation using a BBC for a water 

depth of 40 m, but this was for an air 

flow rate of 0.3m3/(min*m). South Fork 

Wind will use an air flow rate of at least 

0.5m3/(min*m) for BBC deployments. 

As increased air flow results in a 

stronger BBC, this will effectively result 

in more attenuation than reported in 

Bellmann et al. (2020). Further, the final 

IHA requires that South Fork Wind not 

use a single BBC as the only means of 

noise mitigation, meaning they must 

pair a single BBC with an additional 

noise mitigation device; alternatively, 

they may use a dBBC. South Fork Wind 

is committed to reducing noise levels 

generated by pile driving to the lowest 

levels practicable such that they do not 

exceed a noise footprint modeled, 

assuming a 10-dB attenuation. South 

Fork Wind is required to prepare and 

submit a Pile Driving Plan to NMFS for 

review and approval 90 days before the 

start of pile driving. As part of this plan, 

South Fork Wind must include 

specifications of the bubble curtain(s) 

and additional noise mitigation 

device(s) that will be used during 

impact pile driving, as well details on 

how the bubble curtain(s) and 

additional noise mitigation device(s) 

will be deployed to reduce noise levels 

to the maximum extent practicable. 

Comment 4: The Commission states 

that estimated ranges to the Level B 

harassment isopleth in JASCO’s 

underwater acoustic modeling report 

(Denes et al. 2020a) are smaller than 

those used in its animal exposure 

modeling report (Denes et al., 2020b), 

and indicated that it is not clear which 

zones are correct. 

Response: The acoustic range 

estimates in the animal exposure 

modeling report (Denes et al., 2020b; 

Tables 12 and 13) are approximately 100 

m longer than those shown in the 

acoustic modeling report (Denes et al., 

2020a; Tables E13 and E14). Tables 12 

and 13 in the animal exposure report 

show the acoustic ranges to the Level B 

harassment isopleth for the most 

conservative case—the impact hammer 

with greater range and at the highest 

hammer energy level for summer and 

winter, respectively. Tables E–13 and 

E14 of the acoustic modeling report 

show the SPL ranges to various 

isopleths, assuming 10-dB attenuation, 

for the IHC S–4000 hammer and Menck 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 813 

3500S hammer, respectively, at two 

modeling locations (P1 and P2). The 

Menck 3500S operating at 3500 kJ 

produced slightly longer ranges (Table 

14) than the IHC S–4000 operating at 

4000 kJ (Table 13). Using the Menck 

3500S data (Table 14), the ranges to the 

Level B harassment isopleth in winter 

are 4,769 (P1) and 4,718 (P2), for an 

average of 4,744 m. Likewise, the ranges 

to the Level B harassment isopleth in 

summer are 4,443 (P1) and 4,403 (P2), 

for an average of 4,423 m. The 

corresponding ranges to the Level B 

harassment isopleth, assuming 10-dB 

attenuation, in the animal movement 

modeling report are: 4,535 m (summer; 

Table 12) and 4,832 m (winter; Table 

13). There is an approximately 10-m 

difference when comparing the summer 

values (4,423 m vs 4,535 m) and winter 

values (4,744 m vs 4,832 m). Zones are 

not used in animal movement modeling 

(3D sound fields are) so animal 

exposure estimates are not affected by 

the apparent small difference of zone 

radius. Zones are shown in the animal 

exposure modeling for reference 

purposes only. 

Comment 5: The Commission seeks 

clarity regarding (1) how sound field 

verification (SFV) will be conducted 

should lesser hammer energies be 

required for installation of the first 

monopile(s), which might not be 

representative of the required hammer 

energies and associated acoustic 

impacts for later piles, and (2) the 

required mitigation and monitoring 

should the measured range to the Level 

B harassment isopleth exceed the range 

produced by acoustic propagation 

modeling, assuming 10-dB attenuation 

(4,684 m). 

Response: South Fork Wind will be 

required to conduct SFV on multiple 

piles to capture the spectrum of hammer 

energies required to install monopiles in 

varying substrates throughout the 

project area. Specifically, they will 

monitor the first 3 piles and, if a 

subsequent piling location is selected 

that was not represented by the previous 

locations (i.e., substrate composition, 

water depth), additional SFV will be 

required. South Fork Wind has 

committed to mitigating noise produced 

by impact pile driving, such that the 

ranges to harassment isopleths align 

with those modeled, assuming 10-dB 

attenuation. If the ranges measured for 

the first pile are larger than those 

modeled, South Fork Wind will be 

required to make a series of adjustments 

to the sound attenuation measures, 

including (and in the following order): 

(1) A reduction in the hammer schedule 

(the number of strikes at a given energy 

level), (2) modifications to the bubble 

curtain(s), and 3) implementation of an 

additional noise mitigation device to 

further refine noise mitigation. In the 

interim between SFV of the first 

evaluated pile and the next, South Fork 

Wind must conduct both visual and 

acoustic monitoring of the zones 

associated with the measured ranges to 

the Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment isopleths for the first pile. 

Should additional SFV demonstrate that 

the ranges to the Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment isopleths are 

still greater than those modeled 

assuming 10-dB attenuation, the IHA 

(see condition 5(f)(iv)) states that NMFS 

may adjust the Level A harassment and 

Level B harassment zones, and the 

associated mitigation and monitoring 

zones accordingly, for the installation of 

the remaining monopiles. In this case, 

visual monitoring would be adjusted 

accordingly by shifting the location of 

the secondary PSO vessel to 

approximately half the measured range 

to the Level B harassment isopleth. 

Clearance and shutdown zones would 

be adjusted according to condition 

5(f)(iv) of the final IHA. In all cases, 

passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) will 

supplement visual observations. South 

Fork Wind is required to establish a 

PAM system designed to facilitate 

localization of baleen whale calls within 

a 5-km radius of the impact pile-driving 

vessel; however, the PAM system will 

likely have a detection range of 10 km 

or more, thus providing ample acoustic 

monitoring coverage should the Level B 

harassment zone be increased in size. 

Depending on the extent to which Level 

A harassment and Level B harassment 

zones are expanded, reinitiation of 

consultation under Section 7 of the ESA 

with NMFS GARFO may be required. 

Comment 6: The Commission (1) 

claims that JASCO’s assumptions used 

to seed its animat modeling were not 

appropriate, (2) questions whether the 

7-day simulations used in JASCO’s 

exposure modeling appropriately 

accounted for the 16 days of proposed 

pile driving, and (3) suggests that 

animal exposure modeling could have 

been accomplished using 100 Monte 

Carlo simulations for the 140 and 250 

minutes of activities for installation of 

standard and difficult-to-drive piles, 

respectively, producing density scaled 

estimates for each activity that could 

then be multiplied by the number of 

days of activities. 

Response: It is unclear what the 

Commission means when claiming that 

JASCO’s seeding for animat modeling 

was not appropriate. However, the use 

of 7-day simulations can be addressed. 

Representative 7-day periods of project 

construction were simulated (e.g., piling 

every day, or every other day). NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (NMFS 2018) 

recommends a 24-hour accumulation 

period, so 24-hour sliding windows 

(with 4-hour advancements) within the 

7-day simulations were used to find the 

average exposure expected in a 24-hour 

period that includes pile driving. This 

provides a more robust probability 

calculation of 24-hour exposure 

estimates compared to a single-day 

simulation. The average 24-hour 

estimate is then scaled by the number of 

days of pile driving (i.e., 15 days of 

standard pile installations plus 1 day of 

a difficult-to-drive pile installation). It is 

unclear why the Commission suggests 

conducting 100 Monte Carlo 

simulations (or to what that comment is 

referring); however, multiple 

simulations were run. For example, the 

piling-every-day simulations consisted 

of approximately 140 minutes of pile 

driving in each day of the simulation. 

JASCO simulated tens of thousands of 

animats and determined the average 

exposure probability in a 24-hour 

period. That probability was then scaled 

using the real-world density of different 

species to estimate the number of 

individuals expected to exceed a 

threshold. Note, if the Commission’s 

suggested use of 100 Monte Carlo 

simulations is referring to a Monte Carlo 

approach to sampling from the different 

predictions in a 24-hour period, this 

could be done but would arrive at the 

same mean estimate as scaling the 

averaged estimates by the number of 

pile-driving days, and thus NMFS 

determined the use of Monte Carlo 

simulations is not warranted. 

Comment 7: The Commission notes 

that NMFS did not increase the 

proposed numbers of take resulting from 

impact pile driving to at least the 

average group size (based on DoN 

(2017)) for Level B harassment take of 

sperm whales, long-finned pilot whales, 

and Atlantic spotted dolphins, and 

Level A harassment take of blue whales. 

In addition, the Commission claims that 

NMFS did not propose to authorize an 

appropriate number of Level A 

harassment takes of fin whales, Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

takes of humpback whales, and Level B 

harassment takes for common dolphins 

and bottlenose dolphins during impact 

pile driving, given the frequency of 

occurrence and group sizes observed in 

the South Fork Wind project area during 

previous monitoring efforts (A.I.S., Inc. 

2017, Smultea Sciences, 2020). 

Response: Animal movement 

modeling that accounts for exposure 

within the sound field was used to 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
814 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

estimate take. However, NMFS concurs 

that density models and animal 

movement models may not capture all 

site-specific conditions nor year-to-year 

fluctuations in animal distributions. 

Where modeled takes were zero, South 

Fork Wind requested Level B 

harassment take for the following 

species based on cited references rather 

than on DoN (2017): sperm whales 

(Barkaski and Kelly, 2018) and long 

finned pilot whales (Kenney and 

Vigness-Raposa, 2010). 

Given that South Fork Wind already 

conservatively requested (and NMFS 

proposed to authorize) 3 Level B 

harassment takes of sperm whales (or 

one group size; Barkaski and Kelly, 

2018) despite animal exposure modeling 

resulting in zero Level B harassment 

takes of sperm whales, NMFS 

determined that no further increases in 

authorized take are warranted. 

Upon further review of scientific 

literature, NMFS updated the reference 

for average group size for long-finned 

pilot whales (n=20; CETAP 1982) and 

increased authorized take by Level B 

harassment from 12 to 20 (Table 18). 

Atlantic spotted dolphins were sighted 

on two occasions (approximately 20 

individuals total; average group size of 

10) during recent monitoring efforts 

near the South Fork Wind project area 

conducted over a 7-month period and 

covering over 11,000 km of survey 

trackline (Smultea Sciences, 2020). 

Similar monitoring efforts within the 

South Fork Wind project area covering 

9,597 km from June through September 

2020 detected zero Atlantic spotted 

dolphins (Gardline 2021). Barkaski and 

Kelly (2018) report an average group 

size of 13 for Atlantic spotted dolphins, 

which is similar to the average group 

size based on sighting data near the 

South Fork Wind project area (10; CSA 

2021). To account for group size, NMFS 

has conservatively increased take, by 

Level B harassment, of Atlantic spotted 

dolphins from 2 to 13 (Table 18). 

NMFS does not agree that take, by 

Level A harassment, of blue whales 

should be increased. Rather, upon 

further review, and based on the lack of 

blue whale sightings during previous 

monitoring efforts within and near the 

South Fork Wind project area (Smultea 

Sciences, 2020; Gardline 2021), NMFS 

has determined that any take, by Level 

A harassment or Level B harassment, of 

blue whales resulting from the project’s 

construction activities is de minimus 

and, therefore, NMFS has not 

authorized take of blue whales by Level 

B harassment. Tables 18 and 23 have 

been revised to reflect this change from 

the notice of the proposed IHA, which 

included the proposal of one take, by 

Level B harassment, of a blue whale. 

South Fork Wind requested, and 

NMFS proposed to authorize, one take, 

by Level A harassment, and 6 takes, by 

Level B harassment, of fin whales 

incidental to impact pile driving. The 

Level A harassment zone, assuming 10- 

dB attenuation, is 1,769 m for fin 

whales. Given that the shutdown zone 

for fin whales (2,000 m) is larger than 

the Level A harassment zone (1,769 m), 

and the relatively small number of 

monopiles planned for installation, 

NMFS has determined that no increases 

in take, by Level A harassment or Level 

B harassment, of fin whales incidental 

monopile installation, are warranted. 

Because the Level A harassment zone 

for humpback whales (3,642 m, 

assuming 10-dB attenuation) is larger 

than the 2,000-m shutdown zone, South 

Fork Wind requested and NMFS 

proposed to authorize, 4 takes, by Level 

A harassment, of humpback whales in 

addition to 8 takes, by Level B 

harassment. NMFS has determined that, 

due to the relatively small number of 

monopiles planned for installation, 4 

takes by Level A harassment and 8 takes 

by Level B harassment are appropriate 

for authorization. 

Upon further review of scientific 

literature (DoN 2017; Smultea Sciences, 

2020; CSA 2921; AMAPPS 2021), NMFS 

has conservatively selected the largest 

group size reported among references 

for common (35; AMAPPS 2021) and 

bottlenose (21.6; AMAPPS 2021) 

dolphins to incorporate into increases of 

take, by Level B harassment, for each 

species. The group size for each species 

was multiplied by the number of days 

on which impact pile driving of 

monopiles may occur (16), resulting in 

560 common dolphin and 346 

bottlenose dolphin takes, by Level B 

harassment. 

Comment 8: The Commission noted 

several perceived inconsistencies, 

errors, and omissions in the Federal 

Register Notice of the proposed IHA (86 

FR 8490; February 5, 2021) and the 

proposed authorization, including: 

(1) Omission of shutdown, Level A 

harassment, and Level B harassment 

zones in Table 2 of the proposed IHA; 

(2) Lack of alignment of mitigation 

and monitoring measures between the 

Federal Register notice and the 

proposed IHA; 

(3) Need to clarify that the 5,000-m 

clearance and 2,000-m acoustic 

shutdown zones for North Atlantic right 

whales (NARWs) will minimize the 

potential for Level A harassment, but 

not necessarily Level B harassment (as 

stated in the notice of the proposed 

IHA). 

Response: The harassment, clearance, 

and shutdown zone ranges (which were 

included in the notice of the proposed 

IHA but erroneously excluded from the 

draft IHA) are now included in the final 

IHA (Tables 2–6) and align with 

corresponding tables in this notice. All 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

now align between this notice and the 

final IHA. In the final IHA, NMFS is 

requiring that South Fork Wind shut 

down impact pile driving of monopiles 

if a NARW is sighted at any distance. 

On days with good visibility, shutdown 

may occur based on a NARW sighting 

entering or within the limit of the Level 

B harassment zone (4,684 m). While this 

mitigation measure will not necessarily 

minimize take by Level B harassment, it 

might reduce the duration and intensity 

of exposure above the Level B 

harassment isopleth. 

Comment 9: The Commission argues 

that, if NMFS’ intent is to minimize all 

impacts during impact pile driving, 

requiring South Fork Wind to monitor a 

2,200-m clearance zone is inadequate 

given that the Level B harassment zone 

is 4,684 m. Further, the Commission 

asserts that a single vessel stationed a 

2,200 m would not be sufficient to 

monitor the farther extents of the zones. 

The Commission claims that the range 

to the farthest extent would be 4,200 m 

based on the exclusion zone and more 

than 6,800 m based on the 

Commission’s calculation of the size of 

the Level B harassment zone using 

DCSM. 

Response: NMFS is requiring South 

Fork Wind to monitor the Level B 

harassment zone (4,684 m) prior to all 

impact pile driving, utilizing a 

combination of two PSOs located on the 

impact pile-driving vessel, two PSOs 

located on a dedicated vessel circling 

the pile-driving vessel at a radius of 

2,200 m from the pile-driving vessel, 

and PAM capable of localizing baleen 

whale calls within a 5-km radius of the 

impact pile-driving vessel. The 2,200-m 

zone to which the Commission is 

referring is the minimum visual 

clearance zone for all baleen whale 

species other than the NARW (for which 

the clearance zone is undefined because 

any NARW observed by a PSO stationed 

on the pile-driving vessel or dedicated 

PSO vessel, regardless of distance, 

would trigger a delay in pile driving). 

The use of PAM to complement visual 

observations will be particularly 

important when visibility is limited to 

the minimum visual clearance zone 

rather than the full extent of the Level 

B harassment zone. Monitoring must 

begin 60 minutes prior to initiating pile 

driving; however, the clearance zones 

must be clear of marine mammals for 30 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 815 

minutes before pile driving may 

commence. The final IHA adds and 

clarifies all zones and the mitigation 

and monitoring required to be 

implemented by South Fork Wind. It is 

unclear what method the Commission 

used to estimate a range of 4,200 m, or 

to what that range refers. Finally, as 

described above, NMFS does not adopt 

the use of DCSM to estimate or 

substantiate the modeled Level B 

harassment zone for impact pile driving, 

and is proceeding with 4,684 m as the 

range to the Level B harassment 

isopleth. Again, these ranges will be 

verified upon the onset of pile driving 

and the IHA contains measures that 

must be followed should SFV indicate 

ranges are larger than those predicted by 

the model. 

Comment 10: The Commission states 

that the measure in the proposed IHA 

requiring PAM PSOs to review acoustic 

detections within 15 minutes of the 

original detection to verify whether a 

NARW has been detected is not realtime and would not preclude taking. 

Response: PAM will occur in realtime, meaning a PAM PSO will be 

actively monitoring the hydrophones. 

However, in some cases, a PAM PSO 

cannot immediately identify a call as 

one from a NARW and requires some 

time to analyze the signal. Following the 

publication of the proposed IHA, South 

Fork Wind communicated to NMFS that 

PAM PSOs will be capable of reviewing 

and classifying detections within 5 

minutes of the original detection, better 

approximating real-time monitoring of 

NARW presence. The final IHA and 

Federal Register notice have been 

revised to reflect this updated 

capability. 

Comment 11: The Commission 

requested more specificity regarding 

South Fork Wind’s proposed PAM plan 

(i.e., minimum number, type, and 

location of hydrophones; bandwidth/ 

sampling rate; estimated acoustic 

detection range; sensitivity of the 

hydrophones; detection software 

planned for use), noting that this 

information is necessary to ensure that 

South Fork Wind can detect, classify, 

and locate NARWs. ENGOs also 

requested that NMFS explain how the 

number and location of acoustic 

detection systems will be adequate to 

fully cover the area within the clearance 

and shutdown zones, particularly 

during times of high vessel traffic and 

development activity. Finally, the 

Commission recommends that NMFS 

consider how the direct strike pulses 

and reverberation from pile-driving 

activity could inhibit detection of 

marine mammal vocalizations, 

particularly those of NARWs. 

Response: South Fork Wind is 

required to submit a detailed PAM plan 

to NMFS and BOEM for review and 

approval at least 90 days prior to the 

planned start of construction. The PAM 

plan must include sufficient 

information, including all equipment, 

procedures, and protocols to 

demonstrate that the monitoring and 

mitigation requirements included in the 

authorization will be met. Regarding the 

Commission’s recommendation that 

NMFS consider the influence of direct 

strike pulses and reverberation on the 

ability to detect marine mammal 

vocalizations, NMFS agrees that the 

multipaths will potentially spread the 

signal out and reduce the ‘‘quiet time’’ 

between pulses, thus increasing 

masking and making the detection 

process during pile driving more 

difficult. Additional signal processing 

methods will be required to enhance 

signal detection under such 

circumstances. The IHA is conditioned 

such that hydrophones will not be 

placed closer than 1 km from the pile 

being driven to minimize interference, 

and that the PAM system must be 

capable of detecting whales to 

implement mitigation within 5 km. The 

PAM plan submitted by South Fork 

Wind must be approved by NMFS prior 

to construction. 

Comment 12: The Commission noted 

several perceived errors and omissions 

regarding hydroacoustic monitoring 

reporting requirements for impact pile 

driving, recommending that the 

following should be included: (1) 

hydrophone sensitivity, (2) water depth 

and sediment type(s) at the pile-driving 

location(s), (3) ranges to the Level A 

SELcum harassment isopleths, (4) fitting 

of the hydroacoustic data using DCSM 

and/or a simple cylindrical spreading 

model (following Waterproof (2020)), 

and 5) ambient noise spectra for 

diagnosing issues with hydrophone(s), 

and that the visibility metrics and 

ambient sound level measurements 

should be omitted from the reporting 

requirements. 

Response: NMFS concurs with the 

Commission’s recommendation that the 

hydroacoustic monitoring report should 

include (1) hydrophone sensitivity, 

water depth and sediment type at the 

pile location, ranges to the Level A 

harassment isopleths, and ambient noise 

spectra and (2) omit visibility metrics, 

and has adjusted those requirements in 

both the final IHA and in the 

Monitoring and Reporting section. In 

addition, for comparison of in situ data 

to sound fields modeled a priori, South 

Fork Wind plans to conduct SFV by 

measuring sound levels at multiple 

locations, (e.g., nominal distances of 

750; 1,500; 3,000; and 6,000 m). The 

SFV results will be fitted using a 

geometric spreading loss model, a · 

Log(r), to provide the ability to predict 

sound levels at any range. The fitting 

process generates a site-dependent 

estimate of the transmission loss 

coefficient, a, in the geometric 

spreading model. This differs from 

assuming cylindrical spreading loss, 

a=10, as is done in a Damped 

Cylindrical Spreading Model (DCSM). 

The DCSM includes a damping 

(absorption) term, which may be 

included when fitting the geometric 

model. 

NMFS agrees with the Commission 

that ambient noise spectra should be 

reported and that visibility metrics are 

not a necessary reporting requirement, 

and has included these changes in the 

final IHA. However, despite the 

Commission’s suggestion, NMFS 

supports collection of ambient sound 

measurements (as proposed by South 

Fork Wind), as these data contribute to 

the overall soundscape characterization 

within the WEA and provide context for 

detections of marine mammals during 

construction activities. NMFS has 

included this requirement in the final 

IHA. 

Comment 13: The Commission claims 

that the Level B harassment zone 

presented here for vibratory pile driving 

is overestimated, that the modeled 

spectra provided in the Denes et al. 

(2020a) are inconsistent with spectra 

obtained from in situ measurements of 

similar activities (e.g., Caltrans 2016; 

Illingworth and Rodkin 2017), and that 

the source level used to model the Level 

B harassment range for vibratory pile 

driving was too high. Using a simple 

transmission loss calculation and the 

estimated distance to the Level B 

harassment isopleth (36.8 km), the 

Commission estimates that the source 

level would be 173.5 dB re 1 mPa at 10 

m and claims that this source level is 

higher than that used by NMFS for 

installation of smaller piles or sheet 

piles. 

Response: The Commission appears 

concerned NMFS overestimated the 

Level B harassment zone for vibratory 

pile driving; however, any difference in 

the size of the modeled Level B 

harassment zone using their backcalculated source level (or any other 

lower source level) is minimally 

impactful given the very short period of 

activity (no more than 36 hours). NMFS 

recognizes that no model is exactly 

accurate and that in situ data 

demonstrate sound levels are not 

consistent both vertically and 

horizontally in the water column or 

during the same activity (e.g., installing 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
816 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

2 different piles of the same size/ 

configuration). JASCO maintains, and 

NMFS agrees, that the spectra calculated 

using GRLWEAP (Denes et al., 2020a) 

are fundamentally consistent with those 

provided by Illingworth and Rodkin 

(2017), as presented in the Caltrans 

reports (Caltrans 2016, 2020). The 

spectra calculated by JASCO are low 

frequency (i.e., primary acoustic energy 

occurs below approximately 1 kHz), 

with peaks around the oscillation 

frequency of the vibratory hammer. This 

is approximately the same finding as 

Illingworth and Rodkin (2017), which 

showed that most of the primary 

acoustic energy occurs below 

approximately 2 kHz. The calculated 

levels near the source exceed the 

expected values of SPL 160–165 dB re 

1 mPa measured at 10 m for sheet pile 

driving in the Caltrans report (2016, 

2020) and as cited in NOAA’s piledriving worksheet tool (Caltrans 2012, 

2015) (https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

2021-02/SERO%20Pile%20

Driving%20Noise%20Calculator_

for%20web.xlsx?null). JASCO estimates 

an SPL of 180 dB re 1 mPa at 31 m, and 

consequently a range to 120 dB re 1mPa 

of approximately 36 km. JASCO 

recognized this as an overestimate but 

considered it acceptable because the 

source level measurements for vibratory 

driving of sheet piles cited in Caltrans 

(2012, 2015) come from only a few 

examples, and were obtained when 

setting the pile to a shallow depth 

before impact pile driving was used to 

drive the sheet pile to full desired 

depth. Only vibratory driving would be 

used for installation of sheet piles to 

construct the cofferdam for the South 

Fork Wind project. It is likely that sheet 

piles, and therefore the vibratory 

hammer, might encounter more 

resistance as the desired installation 

depth is approached at the cofferdam 

location compared to the examples 

included in the Caltrans report (2016, 

2020). This increased resistance would 

require an increase in vibratory hammer 

energy, producing an elevated level of 

sound propagating from the installation 

site. NMFS agrees with this approach 

and, as such, no adjustments were made 

to the Level B harassment zone (or Level 

A harassment zone) in the final IHA for 

vibratory driving of sheet piles. 

Comment 14: The Commission claims 

that NMFS assumed that vibratory pile 

driving would occur on only two days, 

rather than a maximum of six days (up 

to three days each for installation and 

removal) specified elsewhere in the 

notice of the proposed IHA 86 FR 8490; 

February 5, 2021). 

Response: This is an incorrect 

interpretation of the text. The total 

installation and removal will take up to 

six days to complete. Within that 

period, vibratory pile driving for the 

cofferdam is expected to occur for 18 

hours to install the sheet piles and 18 

hours to remove them, so a total of 2 

days was used to estimate take. [86 FR 

8490; February 5, 2021, p. 8533 states: 

Since NMFS expects that any exposures 

would be brief (no more than 3 hours 

per day for impact pile driving or 36 

hours over 6 days for vibratory pile 

driving, and likely less given probable 

avoidance response). 36 hours over 6 

days=a maximum of two 18-hour 

periods. p. 8521 states: Modeling of the 

Level A harassment exposures resulting 

from two 18-hour periods of vibratory 

pile driving and removal resulted in less 

than one exposure for all species for 

each month between October 1 and May 

31. p. 8508 states: But the short-term 

duration (approximately 36 hours over 6 

non-consecutive days, 18 hours each for 

installation and removal). p. 8491 states: 

Installation and removal of the 

cofferdam are each expected to take 1 to 

3 days of vibratory pile driving.]. 

Comment 15: The Commission claims 

that NMFS did not increase the 

estimated Level B harassment takes for 

vibratory pile driving to an appropriate 

number, based on group size and 

frequency of occurrence in the project, 

for fin whales, sei whales, humpback 

whales, Atlantic white-sided dolphins, 

and common dolphins. 

Response: Based on the best available 

scientific information and the large 

Level B harassment zone, NMFS agrees 

and has increased the number of takes 

by Level B harassment for humpback 

whales, and common and Atlantic 

white-sided dolphins. NMFS reviewed 

reported group sizes for each species 

(DoN 2017; Smultea Sciences, 2020; 

CSA 2921; AMAPPS 2021), selected the 

largest group size reported for 

humpback whales (1.6; AMAPPS) and 

common dolphins (35; AMAPPS), 

multiplied group size by the number of 

potential days on which vibratory pile 

driving could occur (18 hours over 3 

days for installation, 18 hours over 3 

days for removal, total of 6 days), and 

rounded to the nearest whole number. 

This approach resulted in the following 

increases in Level B harassment takes: 

Humpback whale (10) and common 

dolphins (210). Previous monitoring 

efforts in or near the South Fork Wind 

Lease Area reported that no Atlantic 

white-sided dolphins were sighted 

during surveys (Smultea Sciences, 2020; 

CSA 2021). However, AMAPPS (2021) 

reported sightings of Atlantic whitesided dolphins in the RI/MA WEA, with 

a peak group size of 50 during the 

summer. Based on this group size, 

NMFS has increased Level B harassment 

takes of Atlantic white-sided dolphins 

from 1 to 50. Finally, the Commission 

also recommended increasing take, by 

Level B harassment, of fin and sei 

whales incidental to vibratory pile 

driving. Exposure modeling resulted in 

exposures for each of 10 months 

(October–May; Table 19) for all species 

potentially impacted by vibratory pile 

driving. The amount of take proposed, 

by Level B harassment, of fin whales 

was based on the month (April) with the 

highest number of exposures (n=2). Of 

the remaining months, fin whale 

exposure estimates were zero 

(November, December, January, and 

February) and one (March and May). 

Given that the proposed amount of take 

was already conservatively based on 

modeled exposures in April and 

sightings of fin whales are generally 

more frequent in/near the Lease Area as 

compared to along the ECR and 

nearshore HDD site (e.g., Smultea 

Sciences, 2020), NMFS does not find 

that increasing take of fin whales, by 

Level B harassment, is warranted. 

Exposure modeling resulted in zero 

exposures of sei whales in all 10 months 

considered (Table 19). In addition, sei 

whale sightings are extremely rare 

throughout the project area, which 

agrees with the generally offshore 

pattern of sei whale distribution (Hayes 

et al., 2021). Given the brief timeframe 

for cofferdam installation/removal, the 

low likelihood of sei whale occurrence 

in the project area during that brief 

timeframe, and the lack of exposures 

resulting from exposure modeling, 

NMFS does not find that increasing take 

of sei whales, by Level B harassment, is 

warranted. 

Comment 16: The Commission notes 

that the input parameters necessary to 

estimate the Level A harassment zones 

for construction surveys using HRG 

equipment were not specified in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5, 2021). In 

addition, the Commission states that 

South Fork Wind specified incorrect 

frequencies in Table 13 of the IHA 

application for each functional hearing 

group’s most sensitive frequency within 

the proposed operating frequencies of 

all impulsive sources, citing the 

example that South Fork Wind specified 

1.5 kHz as the most sensitive frequency 

for all functional hearing groups within 

the 0.4–5 kHz operating frequency for 

the GeoMarine Geo-Source 400 tip 

sparker. The Commission states that 

most sensitive frequencies are 1.7 kHz 

for low-frequency (LF) cetaceans and 5 

kHz for the other three functional 

hearing groups. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 817 

Response: NMFS recognizes that not 

all input parameters (e.g., Weighting 

Factor Adjustments, WFAs) required to 

estimate Level A harassment zones were 

included in the notice for the proposed 

IHA; however, these values were 

included in the IHA application, which 

was available for review during the 

public comment period (please refer to 

the IHA application for more details on 

input parameters). The Commission 

notes that the frequencies in Table 13 of 

the application were incorrectly 

specified, and NMFS agrees. However, 

when the correct frequencies are 

applied, the resulting ranges to the 

Level A harassment isopleths are 

significantly smaller than the 500-m 

shutdown zone for NARWs and 100-m 

shutdown for all other species 

(excluding some delphinid species for 

which shutdown is waived). Further, 

NMFS has repeatedly indicated that the 

potential for Level A harassment from 

marine site characterization surveys is 

not a realistic outcome regardless of 

implementation of mitigation measures 

such as shut down (see Take 

Calculation and Estimation section); 

therefore, identifying inputs into any 

Level A harassment model is not 

necessary. 

Comment 17: The Commission notes 

that the ranges to Level A harassment 

isopleths in Table 12 of the notice of the 

proposed IHA (86 FR 8490, February 5, 

2021) for high-frequency cetaceans are 

incorrect, according to their 

calculations, by a margin of tenths of a 

meter for all impulsive sources based on 

SELcum thresholds (ranges were reported 

as zero in the notice of the proposed 

IHA, but should have been reported as 

<1), by a margin of 1.9 m for the AA 

triple plate S-boom based on SPLpeak

(2.8 m versus 4.7 m, as indicated in the 

notice of the proposed IHA), and by a 

margin of tens of meters for the nonimpulsive GeoPulse 5430 based on 

SELcum (97.7 m versus 36.5 m as 

indicated in the notice of the proposed 

IHA), assuming use of the User 

Spreadsheet and South Fork Wind’s 

specified input parameters. 

Response: NMFS appreciates the 

Commission’s detailed comments 

regarding ranges to the Level A 

harassment isopleths for high-frequency 

cetaceans. NMFS has corrected the text 

in the Take Calculation and Estimation 

section to reflect that South Fork Wind 

estimated the range to the Level A 

harassment isopleth based on SELcum for 

the GeoPulse 5430 (36.5 m) following 

NMFS interim guidance (NMFS, 2019b), 

which accounts for beamwidth, water 

depth, and absorption (rather than using 

the User Spreadsheet). While there are 

minor inconsistencies between values 

calculated by NMFS and the 

Commission for the other ranges to the 

Level A harassment isopleths, the 

differences are inconsequential given 

that NMFS neither anticipates nor 

authorizes Level A harassment 

incidental to construction surveys. For 

the purposes of the exposure analysis, it 

was conservatively assumed that 

sparkers would be the dominant 

acoustic source for all survey days. 

Thus, the range to the isopleth 

corresponding to the threshold for Level 

B harassment for sparkers (141 m), 

which is larger than any modeled range 

to the Level A harassment isopleth for 

any hearing group, was used as the basis 

of the take calculation for all marine 

mammals. 

Comment 18: The Commission seeks 

clarification regarding why the 

exclusion zones for mid-frequency 

cetaceans (except sperm whales), and 

phocids are different between Table 26 

in the Federal Register notice of the 

proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5, 

2021) and Table 2 of the proposed 

authorization. 

Response: The zones being referenced 

in Table 26 of the notice of the proposed 

IHA are the Level A harassment zones 

for HRG survey activities, which are 

based on the calculated ranges, whereas 

the zones in Table 2 of the proposed 

authorization represent the clearance 

zones to be implemented during 

surveys. These zones are consistent with 

the clearance and shutdown zones listed 

in Table 26 of the notice of the proposed 

IHA (100 m). 

Comment 19: The Commission notes 

that the Level B harassment zones for 

CHIRPS are inconsistent in Tables 12 

and 26 of the Federal Register notice of 

the proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; February 

5, 2021). 

Response: The Level B harassment 

zones for CHIRPS have been corrected 

to 54 m in Table 28 of this notice. 

Comment 20: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS publish a 

revised Federal Register notice and 

draft authorization with another 30-day 

comment period because it believes 

there were errors in the proposed IHA 

notice that prevented the public from 

fully understanding NMFS’ proposed 

action and NMFS’s preliminary findings 

are questionable given these perceived 

errors. 

Response: NMFS does not agree with 

the Commission assertions and does not 

adopt the recommendation. Specifically, 

NMFS disagrees that the information 

presented in association with the 

proposed IHA was insufficient to make 

the relevant findings under the MMPA. 

What the Commission claims are 

‘‘inconsistencies, omissions, errors, and 

deficiencies’’ are, for the most part, 

differences of opinion on how available 

data should be applied to our analysis. 

For example, the Commission states that 

installing 16 monopiles, with one pile 

installed every other day, would take 31 

rather than 30 days as specified in 

South Fork Wind’s application and the 

Federal Register notice. Neither the IHA 

application nor the Federal Register 

notice state that monopiles would 

actually be installed every other day. 

Animal exposure modeling required a 

piling schedule within which to 

conduct animat modeling; therefore, 

two construction schedules were 

considered, one in which piles are 

installed every day and one in which 

piles are installed every other day. It is 

likely that neither of these absolute 

representative schedules will be 

adhered to during installation of the 

monopiles (e.g., pile installation may 

occur on consecutive days if conditions 

allow, or might be interrupted by days 

of inclement weather or other mitigating 

circumstances, etc.). The 30-day 

timeframe for monopile installation was 

proposed by South Fork Wind in the 

IHA application and, therefore, 

included in the notice of the proposed 

IHA. Regardless of the detailed 

schedule, up to 16 monopiles will be 

installed, no more than one per day, 

over the course of the South Fork Wind 

construction project. 

As described in responses to 

comments 1 and 3, a majority of the 

Commission’s comments were centered 

around the recommendation to use a 

different, but not necessarily more 

accurate, acoustic model (i.e., DCSM 

and associated spreadsheet tool, DCSiE 

(Heaney et al., 2020)). NMFS does not 

agree that utilizing DCSM and the 

DCSiE spreadsheet tool would provide 

more appropriate acoustic propagation 

distances because the DCSM and DCSIE 

approach would include a simpler 

model of propagation (with limitations 

beyond 5 km from the acoustic source) 

that approximates some aspects of 

environmental interaction (namely 

absorption). NMFS believes that the 

well-tested, range-dependent 

propagation models based on solutions 

to the wave equation used by JASCO 

(described in Denes et al., 2020a) are 

more appropriate. Where we did agree 

that there was an error or that the 

Commission’s logic was more 

appropriate to implement, we have 

made the recommended changes. 

However, the recommendations by the 

Commission we did adopt were 

predominately to either provide 

additional clarification or detail and do 

not provide additional conservation 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
818 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

value or meaningfully influence any of 

the analyses underlying the necessary 

findings. NMFS strongly disagrees with 

the Commission’s suggestion that 

NMFS’ negligible impact and least 

practicable adverse impact 

determinations may be invalid, and we 

note that the Commission does not 

provide any information supporting this 

comment, whether NMFS retained the 

take numbers and mitigation 

requirements from the proposed IHA or 

adopted those recommended by the 

Commission. Since publication of the 

proposed IHA, NMFS included 

additional monitoring and mitigation 

measures, including multiple additions 

to the vessel strike avoidance 

requirements. In addition, the Federal 

Register notice for issuance of the final 

IHA includes installation of a casing 

pipe as an alternative to a cofferdam. 

Given the shorter installation time and 

fewer number of piles, potential impacts 

associated with installation of a casing 

pipe are anticipated to be equal to or 

less than those associated with 

installation of the cofferdam. Overall, 

these changes are not sufficient to lead 

NMFS to reach any other conclusions 

regarding the impact to marine 

mammals. For these reasons, NMFS is 

not republishing a notice of proposed 

IHA. 

Comment 21: The Commission states 

that NMFS must provide consistent and 

informed guidance to the numerous 

industry operators that have submitted 

or soon will submit incidental take 

authorization applications for wind 

energy surveying, siting, and 

construction projects. 

Response: NMFS appreciates the 

Commission recommendation and will 

consider developing broader/general 

guidance that allows for proper and 

consistent mitigation and monitoring 

during various stages of offshore wind 

development. NMFS will continue to 

prioritize pre-application engagement 

with applicants seeking incidental take 

authorizations. 

Comment 22: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS consider 

whether, in situations involving marine 

site characterization surveys using HRG 

equipment, IHAs are necessary. The 

Commission makes reference to 

comments on previously proposed IHAs 

for marine site characterization surveys, 

in which the Commission states that the 

small size of the Level B harassment 

zones, the various shutdown 

requirements, and BOEM’s leasestipulated requirements support the 

claim that NMFS should consider the 

Commission’s recommendation. In 

addition, the Commission 

recommended that NMFS should 

evaluate whether take needs to be 

authorized for those sources that are not 

considered de minimis, including 

sparkers, and for which implementation 

of the various mitigation measures 

should be sufficient to avoid Level B 

harassment takes. 

Response: NMFS thanks the 

Commission for its recommendation. 

However, as NMFS has noted 

previously to comments (e.g., 85 FR 

60424; September 25, 2020), NMFS has 

evaluated whether taking needs to be 

authorized for those sources that are not 

considered de minimis, including 

sparkers and boomers, factoring into 

consideration the effectiveness of 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

and we have determined that 

implementation of mitigation and 

monitoring measures cannot ensure that 

all take can be avoided during all 

marine site characterization survey 

activities under all circumstances at this 

time. If and when we are able to reach 

such a conclusion, we will re-evaluate 

our determination that an incidental 

take authorization is warranted for these 

activities. 

Comment 23: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS reduce the 

number of Level A harassment takes for 

large whales to as close to zero as 

possible and ensure zero Level A 

harassment takes of NARWs. The 

ENGOs feel that the number of 

individuals projected to experience 

permanent threshold shift (PTS), 

including humpback, minke, and 

endangered fin whales, is relatively high 

for a project comprising only 15 

turbines. 

Response: South Fork Wind has not 

requested, nor has NMFS authorized, 

incidental take by Level A harassment 

of NARWs. The mitigation and 

monitoring measures included in the 

IHA help ensure this level of 

harassment does not occur. The 

estimated Level A harassment exposures 

for humpback, minke, and endangered 

fin whales resulting from animal 

movement modeling are conservatively 

based on the maximum design scenario 

including one difficult-to-drive pile, the 

maximum densities across the proposed 

construction months, and a 24-hour 

accumulation period. This sophisticated 

model produces a reliable, but 

conservative, estimate of how many 

marine mammals may experience PTS 

incidental to the project. Although 

modeling does take into account the 

seasonal moratorium on impact pile 

driving of monopiles, it does not 

account for any additional mitigation. In 

addition, the proposed Level A 

harassment (in the form of PTS) take 

numbers, which are based on animal 

movement modeling, do not fully 

account for the likelihood that whales 

will avoid a stimulus (i.e., aversion) 

when possible before the individual 

accumulates enough acoustic energy to 

potentially cause auditory injury. Any 

adjustments to the model considering 

mitigation or avoidance behavior are 

uncertain; therefore, to be conservative, 

NMFS is authorizing the amount of take, 

by Level A harassment (PTS), predicted 

by the model. Any Level A harassment 

would be expected to be in the form of 

slight PTS (i.e., minor degradation of 

hearing capabilities) which is not likely 

to meaningfully affect the ability to 

forage or communicate with 

conspecifics. Even absent mitigation, no 

serious injury or mortality from 

construction activities is anticipated. 

Comment 24: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS require the 

seasonal prohibition on impact pile 

driving to be effective from December 1 

through April 30. 

Response: Since publication of the 

proposed IHA, South Fork Wind 

communicated to NMFS that 

construction activities will not 

commence until November 2022, rather 

than between April and May 2022 (as 

indicated in the proposed IHA). 

Therefore, the period of effectiveness of 

the IHA is November 15, 2022, to 

November 14, 2023. In the final IHA, 

NMFS is requiring a seasonal restriction 

on impact pile driving of monopiles 

from December 1 through April 30, 

unless unanticipated delays due to 

weather or technical problems, notified 

to and approved by the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM), arise that 

necessitate extending impact pile 

driving of monopiles into December. 

South Fork Wind’s revised project 

schedule includes, as the first 

construction activity during the period 

of effectiveness of the IHA, installation 

of a cofferdam or casing pipe where the 

export cable conduit exits from the 

seabed to contain drilling returns and 

prevent the excavated sediments from 

silting back into the Horizontal 

Directional Drill (HDD) exit pit. Based 

on the seasonal restriction on monopile 

installation and South Fork Wind’s 

revised construction schedule, 

monopile installation would not begin 

until May 2023. Therefore, the 

timeframe in which South Fork Wind 

would install monopiles is limited to 

May 1, 2023, through November 14, 

2023. 

Comment 25: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS take measures 

to minimize Level B harassment 

exposure of NARWs to noise from pile 

driving beyond the 5,000-m clearance 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 819 

zone by requiring stringent noise 

reduction and attenuation devices. 

Response: While the clearance zone 

(using a combination of visual and 

acoustic observation) for NARWs is 

5,000 m, NMFS is including measures to 

minimize exposure beyond that zone. 

For example, any observation of a 

NARW at any distance by PSOs on the 

pile-driving platform or dedicated PSO 

vessel will trigger a delay in impact pile 

driving. Because PSOs on the piledriving platform will be equipped with 

enhanced vision capabilities (e.g., big 

eye binoculars), it may well be that 

NARWs are observed beyond 5,000 m 

on days with good visibility conditions. 

The final IHA clarifies that the 

minimum visibility zone to begin pile 

driving is 2,200 m and that PAM PSOs 

must confirm that there have been no 

PAM detections of NARWs out to 5,000 

m prior to commencing pile driving 

(during the clearance period). The IHA 

does require noise reduction such that 

the model results, assuming 10-dB 

attenuation, are not exceeded. If 

acoustic monitoring reveals greater than 

anticipated zone sizes, the IHA requires 

South Fork Wind to take additional 

noise mitigation measures to prevent 

further exceedance of the modeled 

zones. If all measures are exhausted and 

monitoring reveals South Fork Wind 

was not successful in meeting the 

modeled zones, harassment, minimum 

visibility, and shutdown zones will be 

expanded and monitoring enhanced. 

Comment 26: The ENGOs 

recommended that if a NARW is 

visually or acoustically detected within 

the 5,000-m clearance zone, or visually 

detected at any distance from the pile at 

any time, that pile driving be shutdown, 

unless continued pile-driving activities 

are necessary for reasons of human 

safety or installation feasibility. In 

addition, they suggest that NMFS 

should consider expanding these same 

protections to other endangered species, 

as well as those currently experiencing 

a UME that are in the same functional 

hearing group as the NARW. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

ENGOs that impact pile driving should 

be delayed or shutdown, if already 

initiated, if a NARW is sighted at any 

distance from the pile and, thus, NMFS 

included those conditions in the 

proposed IHA and has carried them over 

to the final authorization as well. South 

Fork Wind is required to delay pile 

driving if a NARW call is localized to a 

position within the 5,000-m clearance 

zone and, if pile driving has already 

commenced, South Fork Wind must 

shutdown pile driving if a NARW call 

is localized to a position within the 

2,000-m PAM shutdown zone. NMFS 

has determined that the combination of 

a PAM shutdown zone that is larger 

than the Level A harassment zone for 

NARWs (1,621 m) and the requirement 

to shutdown if a NARW is sighted at 

any distance are sufficiently protective 

to prevent Level A harassment. 

The ENGOs suggested that NMFS 

should also require a 5,000-m shutdown 

zone during monopile installation if 

other endangered species (i.e., fin and 

sei whales) as well as those currently 

experiencing a UME (i.e., humpback 

and minke whales), are detected 

visually or acoustically within the 

5,000-m clearance zone specific to 

NARWs. NMFS is not authorizing any 

take by Level A harassment (i.e., PTS) 

for NARWs; therefore, the shutdown 

requirements when a NARW is detected 

(visually or acoustically) must afford the 

greatest practicable protection to avoid 

any Level A harassment. NMFS is 

authorizing take by Level A harassment 

of fin, sei, and minke whales (one take 

for each species), although both the 

clearance (2,200 m) and shutdown 

zones (2,000 m) are hundreds of meters 

larger than the exposure-based modeled 

ranges to the Level A harassment 

isopleths for these species. Animal 

movement modeling resulted in the 

Level A harassment exposure of one fin 

whale and one minke whale; however, 

animal movement modeling does not 

account for mitigation measures or 

potential avoidance behavior and, as 

mentioned above, the shutdown zone is 

larger than the ranges to the Level A 

harassment isopleths for both fin (1,756 

m) and minke whales (1,571 m). 

Although animal movement modeling 

resulted in zero Level A exposures of sei 

whales, South Fork Wind requested and 

NMFS is authorizing take, by Level A 

harassment, of one sei whale based on 

(1) rare observations of singleton sei 

whales in the Lease Area during 

previous monitoring effects (Kenney 

and Vigness-R,aposa, 2010; Smultea 

Sciences, 2020; AMAPPS 2021), and (2) 

difficulty distinguishing fin and sei 

whales at sea (observers sometimes 

report a sei/fin whale complex). NMFS 

is authorizing take, by Level A 

harassment, of 4 humpback whales 

based on the results of animal 

movement modeling, and the possibility 

that humpback whales might remain in 

the area between the shutdown zone 

(2,000 m) and the furthest extent of the 

Level A harassment zone (3,642 m), 

(assuming 10-dB attenuation) for a long 

enough timeframe to incur PTS. 

If any large whale (including NARWs) 

enters the Level B harassment zone 

undetected or if visibility conditions 

limit visual monitoring to the minimum 

visibility zone, it is possible that 

individuals might be exposed to impact 

pile-driving noise sufficient to cause 

behavioral effects rising to the level of 

take under the MMPA. NMFS expects 

those effects would be temporary in 

nature and unlikely to cause any 

perceptible longer-term consequences to 

individuals or populations. 

While NMFS analyzed Level A 

harassment exposures as requested by 

South Fork Wind and authorized them 

as appropriate, NMFS finds that such 

exposures are unlikely given (1) the 

short duration of monopile installation 

(2–4 hours), (2) the fact that authorized 

take numbers do not account for 

mitigation measures, and (3) the 

potential for a whale’s averse behavior 

in response to impact pile driving. Level 

B harassment of some smaller number of 

individuals as a subset of the overall 

stock is unlikely to result in any 

significant realized decrease in viability 

for the affected individuals, and thus 

would not result in any adverse impact 

to the stock as a whole. Accordingly, 

NMFS does not find it warranted to 

require shutdown if a fin, sei, 

humpback, or minke whale is detected 

between 2,000 m and 5,000 m of the 

pile. 

Comment 27: The ENGOs stated that 

NMFS should provide more detail (both 

a written description and diagram of 

potential ‘‘blind spots’’ during 

monitoring) on how the secondary 

vessel will be deployed during the 60- 

minute clearance period (e.g., vessel 

speed, configuration of PSOs on the 

vessel, etc.) to monitor the entire 

clearance zones as well as the 3,642-m 

Level A harassment zone for humpback 

whales and, if it is not possible to 

provide full coverage of the clearance 

zone for the full 60-minute period, the 

ENGOs recommended that NMFS 

require additional monitoring vessels 

and PSOs. 

Response: South Fork Wind is 

required to visually monitor a minimum 

clearance zone with a 2.2-km radius 

from the pile-driving vessel, and to use 

a combination of visual and acoustic 

methods to ensure that a 5-km radius 

clearance zone is clear of NARWs prior 

to initiating pile driving. Further, on 

days when PSOs are able to observe 

beyond 5 km, any detection of a NARW 

by PSOs on the pile-driving and/or 

dedicated PSO vessels, regardless of 

distance, would trigger a delay in pile 

driving. Each of the two PSOs deployed 

on the pile-driving vessel will be 

responsible for visually surveying 180 

degrees (for a total of 360 degrees) out 

to a minimum of 2.2 km from the piledriving vessel, the minimum visibility 

requirement for clearance to occur, 

thereby providing total visual coverage 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
820 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

of the large whale clearance zone 

without any potential ‘‘blind spots.’’ 

The PSOs on the pile-driving vessel will 

likely be positioned at a higher 

elevation above the waterline than the 

PSOs on the dedicated PSO vessel and 

will, therefore, have a range of vision 

well beyond 2.2 km on days with good 

visibility. The two additional PSOs 

deployed on the dedicated PSO vessel, 

surveying at a radius of 2.2 km from the 

pile-driving vessel, are expected to be 

positioned at an elevation above the 

waterline similar to PSOs on HRG 

vessels used in marine site 

characterization surveys. Each of these 

PSOs will also be responsible for 

surveying 180 degrees, with one PSO 

providing visual coverage between the 

dedicated PSO vessel and the piledriving vessel (the 2.2-km clearance 

zone), and the second PSO visual 

monitoring the area beyond the 2.2-km 

clearance zone. Visibility conditions 

may, at times, prevent 100-percent 

visual coverage of the humpback Level 

A harassment zone beyond 2.2 km from 

the piling vessel; therefore NMFS is 

authorizing 4 takes, by Level A 

harassment, of humpback whales. 

PSOs on board the pile-driving and 

dedicated PSO vessels will coordinate 

to the extent practicable to visually 

cover discrete zones while monitoring. 

The dedicated PSO vessel will travel at 

a maximum speed of 10 kts, allowing it 

to make a complete trip around the 

piling vessel at a distance of 2.2 km in 

one hour or less. The use of a real-time 

data collection platform, including the 

software program Mysticetus, will allow 

PSOs on the pile-driving vessel to see 

detections made by PSOs on the 

dedicated PSO vessel, and vice versa. 

Comment 28: The ENGOs 

recommended that all project-associated 

vessels should adhere to a 10-kt speed 

restriction at all times, except in 

circumstances where the best available 

scientific information demonstrates that 

whales do not use a particular area 

within the overall project area. 

Response: South Fork Wind is 

required to operate all vessels at 10 kts 

or less when overlapping with a DMA 

and in any designated SMA. Further, if 

a vessel is operating faster than 10 kts, 

a dedicated observer is required to be 

onboard that vessel. While NMFS 

acknowledges that vessel strikes can 

result in injury or mortality, and that 

risk of vessel strike increases with 

speed, NMFS has analyzed the potential 

for ship strike resulting from South Fork 

Wind’s activity and has determined 

that, based on the number and 

frequency of vessels South Fork Wind 

will be operating and the required 

mitigation measures specific to vessel 

strike avoidance included in the IHA, 

the potential for vessel strike is so low 

as to be discountable. These mitigation 

measures, most of which were included 

in the proposed IHA and all of which 

are required in the final IHA, include, 

but are not limited to the following 

requirements: (1) All vessel operators 

must comply with 10-kt (18.5 km/hour) 

or less speed restriction in any SMA 

while underway, (2) in the event that a 

DMA is established that overlaps with 

an area where a project-associated 

vessel would operate, that vessel, 

regardless of size, will transit that area 

at 10 kts (18.5 km/hour) or less, and (3) 

vessels of all sizes must operate port to 

port at 10 kts (18.5 km/hour) or less 

between November 1 and April 30, 

except while transiting inside 

Narragansett Bay or Long Island Sound. 

NMFS has determined that the ship 

strike avoidance measures in the IHA 

are sufficient to ensure the least 

practicable adverse impact on species or 

stocks and their habitat. Furthermore, 

NMFS is not aware of any documented 

vessel strikes involving vessels 

associated with offshore wind 

development, including vessels used for 

marine site characterization surveys (for 

which IHAs were issued by NMFS) 

during the survey activities themselves 

or while transiting to and from project 

sites. 

Comment 29: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS require South 

Fork Wind to use the best commercially 

feasible technology and methods to 

minimize sound levels from pile 

driving. Specifically, they stated that 

NMFS should require a combination of 

noise mitigation systems to (1) obtain 

the greatest noise reduction and 

attenuation using technically and 

commercially feasible measures 

considering factors such as project 

design and seabed conditions, and (2) 

achieve no less than 10-dB SEL in 

combined noise reduction and 

attenuation, taking as a baseline, 

projections from prior noise 

measurements of unmitigated piles from 

Europe and North America. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

ENGOs recommendation that South 

Fork Wind should use the best available 

technology to reduce acoustic impacts 

to marine mammals incidental to impact 

pile driving of monopiles. In the IHA 

application, South Fork Wind proposed 

to use a single BBC to attenuate noise 

produced during monopile installation. 

However, the final IHA requires that 

South Fork Wind use either a single 

BBC coupled with an additional noise 

mitigation device (e.g., Hydro Sound 

Damper), or a dBBC to achieve 

measured ranges to the Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

isopleths that are equal to or less than 

those predicted by acoustic modeling, 

assuming 10-dB attenuation. NMFS has 

determined that this mitigation measure 

will help to ensure that take of marine 

mammals, including NARWs, is 

reduced to the level of least practicable 

adverse impact. 

Comment 30: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS should 

require South Fork Wind to report all 

visual observations and acoustic 

detections of NARWs to NMFS or the 

Coast Guard as soon as possible and no 

later than the end of the PSO shift, and 

that South Fork Wind should also be 

required to immediately report an 

entangled or dead NARW to NMFS, the 

Marine Animal Response Team (1–800– 

900–3622) or the United States Coast 

Guard via one of several available 

systems (e.g., phone, app, radio). 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

recommendation that NARW detections, 

both visual and acoustic, should be 

reported as soon as possible. The IHA 

requires that if a NARW is observed at 

any time by PSOs or personnel on any 

project vessels, during any projectrelated activity or during vessel transit, 

South Fork Wind must report sighting 

information to the NMFS NARW 

Sighting Advisory System, the U.S. 

Coast Guard via channel 16, and the 

WhaleAlert app as soon as feasible but 

no longer than 24 hours after the 

sighting. We anticipate that most 

sightings will be reported by the end of 

the PSO shift as recommended by the 

ENGOs; however, we also recognize that 

communications at sea can sometimes 

be interrupted (e.g., poor cellular or 

satellite service). Therefore, we are 

allowing the 24-hour maximum delay in 

reporting a sighting(s) (with the caveat 

they report a sighting as soon as 

feasible). If a NARW is detected via 

PAM, a report of the detection must be 

submitted to NMFS as soon as is 

feasible, but no longer than 24 hours 

after the detection. In addition, within 

48 hours, metadata associated with the 

detection(s) must be submitted to the 

Northeast Passive Acoustic Reporting 

System (nmfs.pacmdata@noaa.gov). We 

note that given the gravity of a situation 

associated with the unauthorized take 

by ship strike, the IHA requires South 

Fork Wind to report any such taking to 

NMFS immediately, dedicating all 

resources to ensure that the incident is 

reported. Such dedication, including 

ceasing activities (as required if a ship 

strike occurs) is not necessary for a 

sighting or acoustic detection report. 

See the Mitigation section below for 

details. In addition, NMFS agrees with 

the recommendation that South Fork 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 821 

Wind should be required to 

immediately report a dead or entangled 

whale to NMFS, a Marine Animal 

Response Team, and the USCG, and has 

included this requirement in the final 

authorization. 

Comment 31: The ENGOs and a 

commenter from the general public 

recommended that NMFS incorporate 

additional data sources into calculations 

of marine mammal density and take 

estimates. Similarly, RODA stated the 

NMFS’ analyses should rely on the best 

available data for estimating marine 

mammal take and developing robust 

mitigation measures, and that the 

impacts to NARWs be fully considered 

prior to the issuance of the IHA. 

Response: Habitat-based density 

models produced by the Duke 

University Marine Geospatial Ecology 

Lab (MGEL; Roberts et al., 2016, 2017, 

2018, 2020) represent the best available 

scientific information concerning 

marine mammal occurrence within the 

U.S. Atlantic Ocean (more information, 

including the model results and 

supplementary information for each of 

those models, is available at https://

seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/ 

EC/). Density models were originally 

developed for all cetacean taxa in the 

U.S. Atlantic (Roberts et al., 2016). 

These models provided key 

improvements over previously available 

information, by (1) incorporating 

additional aerial and shipboard survey 

data from NMFS and other 

organizations collected over the period 

1992–2014, (2) incorporating data from 

60-percent more shipboard and 500- 

percent more aerial survey hours than 

did previously available models, (3) 

controlling for the influence of sea state, 

group size, availability bias, and 

perception bias on the probability of 

making a sighting, and (4) modeling 

density from an expanded set of 8 

physiographic and 16 dynamic 

oceanographic and biological covariates. 

In subsequent years, certain models 

have been updated on the basis of 

availability of additional data as well as 

methodological improvements. In 

addition, a new density model for seals 

was produced as part of the 2017–18 

round of model updates. Of particular 

note, Roberts (2020) further updated 

density model results for NARWs by 

incorporating additional sighting data 

and implementing three major changes: 

Increasing spatial resolution, generating 

monthly estimates based on three 

periods of survey data, and dividing the 

study area into 5 discrete regions. Model 

Version 9 for NARWs was undertaken 

with the following objectives (Roberts 

2020): (1) To account for recent changes 

to NARW distributions, the model 

should be based on survey data that 

extend through 2018, or later if possible. 

In addition to updates from existing 

collaborators, data should be solicited 

from two survey programs not used in 

prior model versions, including aerial 

surveys of an area overlapping the 

Massachusetts (MA) and RI/MA WEAs 

from 2011–2015 led by New England 

Aquarium (Kraus et al., 2016), and 

continued from 2017–2018, and recent 

surveys of New York waters, either 

traditional aerial surveys initiated by 

the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation in 2017, or 

digital aerial surveys initiated by the 

New York State Energy Research and 

Development Authority in 2016, or 

both; (2) to reflect a view in the NARW 

research community that spatiotemporal 

patterns in NARW density changed 

around the time the species entered a 

decline in approximately 2010, consider 

basing the new model only on recent 

years, including contrasting ‘‘before’’ 

and ‘‘after’’ models that might illustrate 

shifts in density, as well as a model 

spanning both periods, and specifically 

consider which model would best 

represent NARW density in the near 

future; (3) to facilitate better application 

of the model to near-shore management 

questions, extend the spatial extent of 

the model farther in-shore, particularly 

north of New York; and (4) increase the 

resolution of the model beyond 10 km, 

if possible. All of these objectives were 

met in developing the Version 9 update 

to the NARW density model. 

Accordingly, NMFS has determined 

that the Roberts et al. suite of density 

models represent the best available 

scientific information, and this 

determination was incorporated into 

NMFS’ analysis for this IHA. NMFS’ 

reliance on the best available scientific 

evidence in our analysis of potential 

impacts of the project on marine 

mammals and the development of take 

estimates further includes recent survey 

data. For example, where marine 

mammal sighting data collected by 

PSOs during marine site 

characterization surveys in or near the 

project area indicated that the potential 

for take may be higher than indicated by 

the modeled exposures, we adjusted 

take numbers accordingly, when 

appropriate. For NARWs, exposure 

modeling was based on the most recent 

density data (Roberts 2020), which, as 

described above, incorporated more 

recent survey data (through 2018) and 

that for the first time included data from 

the 2011–2015 surveys of the MA and 

RI/MA WEAs (Kraus et al. 2016) as well 

as the 2017–2018 continuation of those 

surveys, known as the Marine Mammal 

Surveys of the Wind Energy Areas 

(MMS–WEA) (Quintana et al., 2018). In 

addition, Pace (2021) describes that the 

stock abundance of NARW is lower than 

that considered when the proposed IHA 

was published; we have evaluated that 

new information and incorporated it 

into the final IHA. In developing the 

final IHA, NMFS also consulted the 

NARW sighting database, WhaleMap, 

which aggregates both visual and 

acoustic sighting information from 2010 

to present day. Contributors to the 

database include the Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport 

Canada, NOAA’s Protected Species 

Branch, Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution/robots4whales, New England 

Aquarium, Center for Coastal Studies, 

Canadian Whale Institute, Mingan 

Island Cetacean Study, Ocean Tracking 

Network, Dalhousie University, 

University of New Brunswick, and Nick 

Hawkins Photography, making it an 

extensive database and useful tool in 

identifying spatial and temporal 

occurrence of whales as well as 

locations and timing of management 

actions such as implementation of 

DMAs. 

NMFS invests heavily in conserving 

NARWs and, in analyzing the impacts to 

NARWs from project construction, has 

considered and leveraged the wealth of 

data collected by NOAA and partners to 

make appropriately conservative 

management decisions in consideration 

of our statutory authority under the 

MMPA. NMFS has applied the best 

available (and most recent) science and 

has made the determinations necessary 

to issue this IHA. 

For future IHAs, NMFS will continue 

to review other recommended data 

sources that become available to 

evaluate their applicability in a 

quantitative sense (e.g., to an estimate of 

take numbers) and, separately, to ensure 

that relevant information is considered 

qualitatively when assessing the 

impacts of the specified activity on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat. NMFS will continue to use the 

best available scientific information, 

and we welcome future input from 

interested parties on data sources that 

may be of use in analyzing the potential 

presence and movement patterns of 

marine mammals, including NARWs, in 

U.S. Atlantic waters. 

Comment 32: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS should 

acknowledge the potential for take from 

vessel strikes and vessel noise. RODA 

similarly expressed concern that the 

vessel traffic associated with 

construction and operation of offshore 

wind farms may increase the risk of ship 

strike of NARWs, and suggests that 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
822 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

NMFS should focus restrictions on 

increases in vessel traffic rather than 

vessel speed restrictions alone. In 

addition, RODA stated that increased 

vessel travel might contribute to 

elevated noise levels that will disrupt 

NARW behavior. 

Response: South Fork Wind did not 

request authorization for take incidental 

to vessel strike during construction of 

South Fork Wind Farm. Nevertheless, as 

mentioned in the response to a previous 

comment, NMFS analyzed the potential 

for vessel strikes to occur during the 

construction phase of the project, and 

determined that the potential for vessel 

strike is so low as to be discountable. 

NMFS does not authorize any take of 

marine mammals incidental to vessel 

strike resulting from the construction 

phase of the project. If South Fork Wind 

strikes a marine mammal with a vessel, 

it would be in violation of the MMPA. 

This gives South Fork Wind a strong 

incentive to operate its vessels with all 

due caution and to effectively 

implement the suite of vessel strike 

avoidance measures called for in the 

IHA. South Fork Wind proposed a very 

conservative suite of mitigation 

measures related to vessel strike 

avoidance, including measures 

specifically designed to avoid impacts 

to NARWs. Section 4(d) in the IHA 

contains a suite of non-discretionary 

requirements pertaining to ship strike 

avoidance, including vessel operation 

protocols and monitoring. Since 

publication of the proposed IHA, NMFS 

included several new vessel strike 

avoidance measures that further reduce 

the likelihood of take incidental to 

vessel strike (see Changes from 

Proposed IHA to Final IHA). 

Construction of the project will likely be 

based out of ProvPort, RI or Port of New 

London, CT, both of which require a 50– 

60 mile one-way trip by vessel to the 

Lease Area. South Fork Wind has 

indicated that during construction, the 

number of crew transfer vessel transits 

will be limited to 20 per month. To date, 

NMFS is not aware of any wind 

industry vessel (e.g., marine site 

characterization survey vessel) reporting 

a ship strike. When considered in the 

context of the low overall probability of 

any vessel strike by South Fork Wind 

vessels, given the limited additional 

project-related vessel traffic relative to 

existing traffic in the project area, the 

comprehensive visual and PAM 

monitoring required in transit routes, 

and that construction would occur 

during the time of year when NARW 

density is lowest, NMFS believes these 

measures are sufficiently protective to 

avoid ship strike; thus, we did not 

authorize take from ship strike. These 

measures are described fully in the 

Mitigation section below, and include, 

but are not limited to: training for all 

vessel observers and captains, daily 

monitoring of the NARW Sighting 

Advisory System, WhaleAlert app, and 

USCG Channel 16 for situational 

awareness regarding NARW presence in 

the project area (including transit 

corridors), communication protocols if 

whales are observed by any South Fork 

Wind personnel, vessel operational 

protocols should any marine mammal 

be observed, and visual and passive 

acoustic monitoring to clear transit 

routes of NARWs. 

The potential impacts of overall 

increases in the amount of vessel traffic 

related to OSW development, which is 

separate from the analysis of the 

potential for vessel strike during South 

Fork Wind’s construction phase under 

the final authorization, were addressed 

in BOEM’s EIS for the South Fork Wind 

project, which can be found here: 

https://www.boem.gov/renewableenergy/state-activities/south-fork. In 

summary, BOEM determined that it is 

likely that mobile marine mammals 

would avoid behavioral disturbance 

from exposures like those resulting from 

vessel noise, meaning that the duration 

of exposure to noise from slow-moving, 

or closely clustered and stationary 

construction vessels would be limited. 

Moreover, a substantial portion of 

construction vessel activity would occur 

in an area having high existing levels of 

vessel traffic. In these areas, 

construction vessel noise would 

contribute to, but may not substantially 

alter, ambient noise generated by 

existing large vessel traffic in the 

vicinity. 

As described above, South Fork Wind 

estimates that 20 crew transfer vessel 

transits per month will be required. 

While some individual marine 

mammals may exhibit short-term 

behavioral responses, and given the 

possibility that elevated background 

noise from vessels and other sources 

could interfere with the detection or 

interpretation of acoustic cues among 

NARW conspecifics, brief exposures to 

one or two South Fork Wind vessels 

transporting crew between the Lease 

Area and a nearby port would be 

unlikely to disrupt behavioral patterns 

in a manner that would rise to the level 

of take. 

Comment 33: The ENGOs and a 

commenter from the general public 

recommended that NMFS analyze 

cumulative impacts to NARWs and 

other endangered and protected marine 

mammals species and stocks as part of 

the take estimation and permitting 

process, and suggest that NMFS advance 

a programmatic incidental take 

regulation for offshore wind 

development activities that takes into 

account risks from other sectors. 

Response: The ENGOs conflate the 

requirements of the MMPA and NEPA 

in their contention that NMFS must 

analyze the cumulative impacts from 

multiple proposed wind development 

activities on NARWs and other 

endangered and protected species and 

stocks, and that appropriate mitigation 

must be prescribed to mitigate those 

cumulative impacts. Neither the MMPA 

nor NMFS’ codified implementing 

regulations specifically call for 

consideration of impacts on marine 

mammals and their habitat from 

activities other than those specified in 

the request for authorization. The 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989) states in response to comments 

that the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are to 

be incorporated into the negligible 

impact analysis via their impacts on the 

baseline. Consistent with that direction, 

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). 

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

requires NMFS to modify, suspend, or 

revoke the IHA if it finds that the 

activity is having more than a negligible 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

of marine mammals. NMFS will closely 

monitor baseline conditions before and 

during the period when the IHA is 

effective and will exercise this authority 

if appropriate. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 

the MMPA requires NMFS to make a 

determination that the take incidental to 

a ‘‘specified activity,’’ as opposed to 

other activities not specified in the 

request for an IHA, will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals. 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). 

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. 

Here, South Fork Wind was the 

applicant for the IHA, and NMFS is 

responding to the specified activity as 

described in their application (and 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 823 

making the necessary findings on that 

basis). Through the response to public 

comments in the 1989 implementing 

regulations, we also indicated (1) that 

NMFS would consider cumulative 

effects that are reasonably foreseeable 

when preparing a NEPA analysis and (2) 

that reasonably foreseeable cumulative 

effects would also be considered 

through the section 7 consultation for 

ESA-listed species. In this case, 

cumulative impacts have been 

adequately addressed under NEPA in 

BOEM’s Environmental Impact 

Statement regarding South Fork Wind’s 

proposed project. NMFS is a 

cooperating agency under NEPA on that 

EIS and has adopted the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

for purposes of issuing the IHA to South 

Fork Wind. In addition, NMFS was a 

signatory to the associated Record of 

Decision issued on November 24, 2021. 

Separately, NMFS engaged in intraagency consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA. The resulting Biological 

Opinion, issued October 1, 2021, 

determined that NMFS’ action of issuing 

the IHA is not likely to adversely affect 

listed marine mammals or adversely 

modify their critical habitat. The 

Biological Opinion considered activities 

both within (related to construction) 

and outside (e.g., operation and 

decommissioning) the scope of NMFS’ 

IHA and included Terms and 

Conditions aimed at reducing the 

potential impacts of the project on 

marine mammals, including NARWs. 

With respect to the recommendation 

that NMFS advance programmatic 

incidental take regulations for offshore 

wind development that take into 

account risks from other sectors, NMFS 

may issue regulations upon request. To 

date, neither the offshore wind industry 

nor BOEM has expressed interest in 

applying for such regulations. We note 

that the footnote the ENGOs provided in 

the letter including this comment cites 

the request to BOEM for a programmatic 

EIS. Again, it appears the ENGOs are 

conflating the NEPA and MMPA 

processes. NMFS does agree with the 

ENGOs that consistency in mitigation 

measures, where appropriate, provides 

efficiencies and helps to ensure 

adequate measures are being prescribed. 

To this end, NMFS is working on 

developing best management practice 

guidelines that will assist NMFS in 

developing mitigation measures 

common to all offshore wind IHAs. 

Comment 34: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS avoid 

describing potential changes resulting 

from offshore wind development as 

‘‘beneficial,’’ as it is unclear what 

implications these changes may have on 

the wider ecosystem, and instead use 

terminology such as ‘‘increase,’’ 

‘‘decrease,’’ and ‘‘change.’’ 

Response: In the proposed IHA notice, 

NMFS identified that impacts from the 

permanent structures (i.e., WTGs and 

OSS) on marine mammal habitat may be 

beneficial as a result of increased 

presence of prey due to the WTGs (and 

OSS) potentially acting as artificial reefs 

(Russell et al., 2014). However, we 

recognize that the long-term impact 

from foundation presence is outside the 

scope of the effective period of the IHA 

and that this analysis is more 

appropriate in the context of the ESA 

consultation and NEPA analysis as it 

relates to marine mammal habitat. We 

agree that the long-term ecosystem 

effects from offshore wind development 

in the Northwest Atlantic are still being 

evaluated and that those ecosystem 

effects are likely to be complex. Thus, 

while we acknowledge that there is 

currently insufficient information to 

draw a conclusion regarding longer-term 

impacts to marine mammals, we agree 

with the commenters that the term 

‘‘beneficial’’ should be avoided when 

describing potential outcomes of 

offshore wind development for marine 

mammals. 

Comment 35: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS prohibit 

extensions of any 1-year authorizations 

through a truncated 15-day comment 

period as it is contrary to the MMPA. A 

member of the general public echoed 

this concern and suggested that there is 

not adequate time in the review process 

to comment on the proposed IHA or any 

potential renewal IHA. 

Response: NMFS did not include 

language in the final IHA for the South 

Fork Wind project related to renewal. 

While this does not necessarily preclude 

a Renewal IHA, we think a Renewal IHA 

is unlikely in this case, given the 

potential for changes over the next three 

years that could affect our analyses. 

However, NMFS’ IHA renewal process 

meets all statutory requirements. In 

prior responses to comments about IHA 

renewals (e.g., 84 FR 52464; October 02, 

2019 and 85 FR 53342, August 28, 

2020), NMFS has explained how the 

renewal process, as implemented, is 

consistent with the statutory 

requirements contained in section 

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

additional efficiencies beyond the use of 

abbreviated notices and, further, 

promotes NMFS’ goals of improving 

conservation of marine mammals and 

increasing efficiency in the MMPA 

compliance process. Therefore, we 

intend to continue implementing the 

renewal process. The notice of the 

proposed IHA published in the Federal 

Register on February 5, 2021 (86 FR 

8490) made clear that the agency was 

seeking comment on both the initial 

proposed IHA and the potential 

issuance of a renewal for this project. 

Because any renewal is limited to 

another year of identical or nearly 

identical activities in the same location 

or the same activities that were not 

completed within the 1-year period of 

the initial IHA, reviewers have the 

information needed to effectively 

comment on both the immediate 

proposed IHA and a possible 1-year 

renewal, should the IHA holder choose 

to request one. While there would be 

additional documents submitted with a 

renewal request, for a qualifying 

renewal these would be limited to 

documentation that NMFS would make 

available and use to verify that the 

activities are identical to those in the 

initial IHA, are nearly identical such 

that the changes would have either no 

effect on impacts to marine mammals or 

decrease those impacts, or are a subset 

of activities already analyzed and 

authorized but not completed under the 

initial IHA. NMFS would also need to 

confirm, among other things, that the 

activities would occur in the same 

location; involve the same species and 

stocks; provide for continuation of the 

same mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements; and that no new 

information has been received that 

would alter the prior analysis. The 

renewal request would also contain a 

preliminary monitoring report in order 

to verify that effects from the activities 

do not indicate impacts of a scale or 

nature not previously analyzed. The 

additional 15-day public comment 

period provides the public an 

opportunity to review these few 

documents, provide any additional 

pertinent information, and comment on 

whether they think the criteria for a 

renewal have been met. Between the 

initial 30-day comment period on these 

same activities and the additional 15 

days, the total comment period for a 

renewal is 45 days. 

In addition to the IHA renewal 

process being consistent with all 

requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D), 

it is also consistent with Congress’ 

intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent 

reflected in statements in the legislative 

history of the MMPA. Through the 

provision for renewals in the 

regulations, description of the process 

and express invitation to comment on 

specific potential renewals in the 

Request for Public Comments section of 

each proposed IHA, the description of 

the process on NMFS’ website, further 

elaboration on the process through 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
824 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

responses to comments such as these, 

posting of substantive documents on the 

agency’s website, and provision of 30 or 

45 days for public review and comment 

on all proposed initial IHAs and 

Renewals respectively, NMFS has 

ensured that the public is ‘‘invited and 

encouraged to participate fully in the 

agency’s decision-making process’’ as 

Congress intended. 

Comment 36: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS work with 

relevant experts and stakeholders 

towards developing a robust and 

effective near real-time monitoring and 

mitigation system for NARWs and other 

endangered and protected species (e.g., 

fin, sei, minke, and humpback whales) 

during offshore wind development. 

Response: NMFS is generally 

supportive of this concept. A network of 

near real-time baleen whale monitoring 

devices are active or have been tested in 

portions of New England and Canadian 

waters. These systems employ various 

digital acoustic monitoring instruments, 

which have been placed on autonomous 

platforms including slocum gliders, 

wave gliders, profiling floats, and 

moored buoys. Systems that have 

proven to be successful will likely see 

increased use as operational tools for 

many whale monitoring and mitigation 

applications. A recent report published 

by NMFS summarizes a workshop 

NMFS convened to address objectives 

specifically related to monitoring 

NARWs and presents the Expert 

Working Group’s recommendations for a 

comprehensive monitoring strategy to 

guide future analyses and data 

collection (‘‘Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-OPR-64: North Atlantic Right 

Whale Monitoring and Surveillance: 

Report and Recommendations of the 

National Marine Fisheries Service’s 

Expert Working Group,’’ which is 

available at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/ 

document/north-atlantic-right-whalemonitoring-and-surveillance-report-andrecommendations). Among the 

numerous recommendations found in 

the report, the Expert Working Group 

encouraged the widespread deployment 

of auto-buoys to provide near real-time 

detections of NARW calls that visual 

survey teams can then respond to for 

collection of identification photographs 

or biological samples. Similar 

approaches utilizing real-time or 

archival PAM could be utilized to 

monitor other marine mammal species 

throughout the life cycles of offshore 

wind farms. 

Comment 37: For comments and 

recommendations on high-resolution 

geophysical survey activities, the 

ENGOs directed NMFS to their letter 

submitted on September 9, 2020, 

regarding NMFS’ failure to adequately 

protect endangered and protected 

marine mammals during marine site 

characterization surveys required for 

offshore wind development. 

Response: NMFS refers the ENGOS to 

the Federal Register notice 85 FR 63508 

(October 8, 2020) for previous responses 

to the ENGOs’ previous letter. 

Comment 38: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS coordinate 

with BOEM to establish and fund a 

robust, long-term scientific plan to 

monitor the effects of offshore wind 

development on marine mammals and 

other species before, during, and after 

large-scale commercial projects are 

constructed. 

Response: NMFS appreciated the 

ENGOs’ recommendation and will 

continue working with BOEM to 

develop strategies for monitoring the 

impacts of offshore wind development 

on protected species. 

Comment 39: RODA expressed 

concern about potential negative 

impacts (i.e., increased restrictions or 

other constraints) to Atlantic fisheries, 

local fisherman, and coastal 

communities resulting from any 

potential adverse impacts to NARWs 

and other protected species from 

offshore wind construction projects, 

noting that impacts on the fishing 

industry were not addressed in the 

proposed IHA. 

Response: The socio-economic 

impacts of the South Fork Wind’s 

activities are evaluated in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

prepared by BOEM to assess the effects 

of construction and operation of the 

project, and which NMFS adopted to 

support the issuance of the IHA. 

However, neither the MMPA nor our 

implementing regulations require NMFS 

to analyze impacts to other industries 

(e.g., fishermen) or coastal communities 

from issuance of an ITA. In order to 

issue an ITA, Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA require NMFS 

to make a determination that the take 

incidental to a ‘‘specified activity’’ will 

have a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals, 

and will not result in an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

marine mammals for taking for 

subsistence uses. NMFS has made the 

required determinations. 

Comment 40: RODA expressed 

concern that the presence of offshore 

wind turbines may impact low altitude 

aerial surveys conducted by NOAA/ 

NMFS to monitor protected species, 

including NARWs, as the height of the 

turbines would exceed the survey 

altitude. 

Response: NMFS has determined that 

offshore wind development projects in 

the Northeast will impact several 

NEFSC surveys, including the aerial 

surveys for protected species. NEFSC 

has developed a federal survey 

mitigation program to mitigate the 

impacts to these surveys, and is in the 

early stages of implementing this 

program. However, this impact is 

outside the scope of analysis related to 

issuance of take incidental to the 

specified activity under the MMPA. 

Comment 41: RODA stated that 

offshore wind site characterization 

surveys using HRG equipment could 

result in long-term and high-intensity 

impacts on marine mammals. In 

addition, RODA questions the efficacy 

of mitigation measures prescribed for 

such surveys, stating that it is 

presumptive to assume that mitigation 

measures are sufficient to eliminate 

adverse impacts to marine mammals 

and guarantee that no NARWs will be 

harmed during site characterization 

surveys. 

Response: This IHA does not cover 

site characterization surveys— 

nevertheless, the construction surveys 

covered similarly utilize HRG 

equipment. RODA provides no evidence 

that site characterization surveys could 

result in long-term and high-intensity 

impacts on marine mammals, and that 

NARWs could be harmed during these 

surveys. The surveys utilizing HRG 

equipment SFEC (construction surveys) 

that will be conducted under the South 

Fork Wind IHA are specifically to assess 

the inter-array and export cables during 

construction of the SFWF, are relatively 

small scale (i.e., no more than 60 days 

of survey activities), and use HRG 

equipment with small associated Level 

A harassment and Level B harassment 

zones (maximum of 141 m for Level B 

harassment). Both the clearance and 

shutdown zones for NARWs are more 

than three times the size of the Level B 

harassment zone (i.e., 500 m), making it 

unlikely that NARWs would even 

experience Level B harassment from 

surveys, let alone more significant or 

long-term impacts. In contrast to 

RODA’s comment, the Commission, the 

agency charged with advising federal 

agencies on the impacts of human 

activity on marine mammals, has 

questioned in its comments whether 

incidental take authorizations are even 

necessary for surveys utilizing HRG 

equipment (i.e., take is unlikely to 

occur). 

BOEM (2021a) reviewed underwater 

noise levels produced by the available 

types of HRG survey equipment as part 

of a programmatic biological assessment 

for this and other activities associated 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 825 

with regional offshore wind energy 

development. NMFS (2021) concurred 

with BOEM’s determination that 

planned marine site characterization 

survey activities using even the loudest 

available equipment types would be 

unlikely to injure or measurably affect 

the behavior of ESA-listed marine 

mammals. The rationale supporting this 

conclusion also applies to non-listed 

marine mammal species. Specifically, 

the noise levels produced by HRG 

survey equipment are relatively low, 

meaning that an individual marine 

mammal would have to remain very 

close to the sound source for extended 

periods to experience auditory injury. 

This type of exposure is unlikely as the 

sound sources are continuously mobile 

and directional (i.e., pointed at the 

bottom). Along those lines, on June 29, 

2021, NMFS GARFO concluded ESA 

consultation with BOEM and NMFS, 

finding that marine site assessment 

surveys using HRG equipment similar to 

that used by the surveys planned under 

this South Fork Wind IHA, may effect, 

but are not likely to adversely affect, 

ESA-listed marine mammals provided 

the project design criteria (PDC) and 

best management practices (BMP) 

proposed by BOEM are incorporated. 

NMFS has included those PDCs and 

BMPs in South Fork Wind’s IHA, 

including the use of protected species 

observer (PSO) monitoring of speciesspecific clearance zones around 

specified HRG equipment (i.e., boomers, 

sparkers, and Chirps), and mandatory 

shutdown procedures to further 

minimize exposure risk. While 

individual marine mammals may be 

exposed to marine site characterization 

survey noise sufficient to cause 

behavioral effects rising to the level of 

take under the MMPA, those effects 

would be temporary in nature and 

unlikely to cause any perceptible 

longer-term consequences to individuals 

or populations. Upon request, NMFS 

has conservatively issued take, by Level 

B harassment, incidental to construction 

surveys using HRG equipment. 

Comment 42: RODA expressed 

interest in understanding the outcome if 

the number of actual takes exceed the 

number authorized during construction 

of an offshore wind project (i.e., would 

the project be stopped mid-construction 

or mid-operation), and how offshore 

wind developers will be held 

accountable for impacts to protected 

marine species such that impacts are not 

inadvertently assigned to fishermen. 

Response: It is important to recognize 

that an IHA does not authorize the 

activity but authorizes take of marine 

mammals incidental to the activity. As 

described in condition 3(b) and (c) of 

the IHA, authorized take, by Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

only, is limited to the species and 

numbers listed in Table 1 of the final 

IHA, and any taking exceeding the 

authorized amounts listed in Table 1 is 

prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension, or revocation 

of the IHA. As described in condition 

3(f), if an individual from a species for 

which authorization has not been 

granted, or a species for which 

authorization has been granted but the 

authorized take number has not been 

met, is observed entering or within the 

Level B harassment zone (construction 

surveys) or clearance zone (both impact 

and vibratory piles driving), HRG 

acoustic sources and pile-driving 

activities must be shut down 

immediately (when technically feasible 

as described under condition 4(a)(ix)(1) 

of the final IHA). Pile driving and 

reinitiation of HRG acoustic sources 

must not resume until the animal has 

been confirmed to have left the relevant 

clearance zone or the observation time 

(as indicated in conditions 4(a)(xi)(2), 

4(b)(i)(6)), and 4(c)(i)(4) of the final IHA) 

has elapsed with no further sightings. 

It is unclear why RODA would be 

concerned that impacts would be 

‘‘inadvertently assigned’’ to fishermen. 

Fishing impacts generally center on 

entanglement in fishing gear, which is a 

very acute, visible, and severe impact. 

In contrast, the pathway by which 

impacts occur incidental to construction 

is primarily acoustic in nature. 

Regardless, any take beyond that 

authorized is unlawful. If the authorized 

takes were exceeded, but the project 

could proceed without additional take 

of marine mammals, it would be lawful. 

It is BOEM’s responsibility as the 

permitting agency to make decisions 

regarding ceasing the project. If the case 

suggested by RODA does occur, NMFS 

would work with BOEM and South Fork 

Wind to determine the most appropriate 

means by which to ensure compliance 

with the MMPA. 

Comment 43: A commenter from the 

general public suggested that there is a 

lack of baseline auditory physiology 

data and adequate conservation metrics 

for sea turtles, finfish, and other marine 

species in the project area. The 

commenter correctly noted that the 

mitigation measures included in the 

proposed IHA do not include 

protections for sea turtles. 

Response: Under the MMPA, NMFS is 

charged with analyzing the impacts 

from the specified activity to marine 

mammals and their habitat, including 

their prey (e.g., fish and invertebrates), 

and to prescribe the permissible means 

of taking and other ‘‘means of effecting 

the least practicable adverse impact’’ on 

the affected species or stocks and their 

habitat. In the Effects to Prey section of 

the notice of the proposed IHA (84 FR 

8690, February 5, 2021), NMFS provides 

a summary and discussion of the ways 

noise produced by construction 

activities might impact fishes. The 

potential effects of noise on fishes 

depends on the overlapping frequency 

range, distance from the sound source, 

water depth of exposure, and speciesspecific hearing range, anatomy, and 

physiology. Key impacts to fishes may 

include behavioral responses, hearing 

damage, barotrauma (pressure-related 

injuries), and mortality. However, the 

most likely impact to fishes from impact 

and vibratory pile-driving activities in 

the project areas would be temporary 

avoidance of the area. The duration of 

fish avoidance of an area is unknown, 

but given the relatively short duration of 

vibratory pile driving (18 hours each for 

installation and removal), and the small 

number of monopiles planned for 

installation, NMFS anticipates a rapid 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution, and behavior. In general, 

impacts to marine mammal prey species 

are expected to be minor and temporary. 

Because sea turtles are not marine 

mammals, no protections are afforded to 

them under the MMPA. However, we 

refer the commenter to NMFS’ 

Biological Opinion, issued October 1, 

2021. The Biological Opinion, issued 

pursuant to the ESA, contains an 

analysis on the impacts to ESA-listed 

fish and all sea turtles (as all sea turtle 

species are listed as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA). Impacts to 

non-listed fishes may be found in 

BOEM’s Final EIS for the project, issued 

August 20, 2021, and found here: 

https://www.boem.gov/renewableenergy/state-activities/south-fork. 

Comment 44: A commenter from the 

general public identified several 

scientific journal articles that discuss 

the diving physiology of marine 

mammals, and stated that NMFS should 

consider this information as it relates to 

potential avoidance behavior marine 

mammals might demonstrate as a result 

of impact pile driving. 

Response: NMFS used the best 

available science in developing its 

impact analysis and making the findings 

required to issue the requested IHA. The 

proposed IHA notice acknowledges 

avoidance as a potential response of a 

marine mammal when exposed to noise 

from project construction and identifies 

that such a response may reduce the 

potential of more severe impacts such as 

PTS. While the commenter was not 

specific about how NMFS should 

consider the suggested literature related 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
826 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

to diving behavior, the Level A 

Harassment exposure estimates modeled 

by JASCO incorporated known dive 

behavior via animat modeling. However, 

NMFS has found that incorporating a 

behavior such as avoidance into an 

exposure model is extremely complex 

and contains a high degree of 

uncertainty. For this reason, the 

exposure modeling, and resulting take, 

do not consider avoidance behavior. 

NMFS reviewed the references provided 

by the commenter and determined that 

that the information contained therein 

was not sufficient to lead NMFS to 

reach any other conclusions regarding 

the impacts of pile driving on marine 

mammals. 

Comment 45: A commenter from the 

general public stated that the proposed 

IHA would have benefited from NMFS’ 

consideration of input from public 

comments on the DEIS and subsequent 

corrections in BOEM’s Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), 

which assesses the physical, biological, 

and social/human impacts of the South 

Fork Wind project and all reasonable 

alternatives. 

Response: NMFS’ proposal to issue an 

IHA under the MMPA to authorize the 

taking of marine mammals incidental to 

South Fork Wind’s in-water 

construction activities was a major 

federal action for purposes of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), necessitating preparation of an 

appropriate level NEPA document. 

NMFS chose to satisfy this obligation by 

actively working with BOEM as a 

cooperating agency on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) for the South Fork 

Wind offshore wind project. Once the 

FEIS was completed, NMFS 

independently evaluated it and 

determined the FEIS was sufficient to 

satisfy NMFS’ independent NEPA 

responsibilities. NMFS drafted a 

memorandum for the record 

documenting its rationale for adopting 

BOEM’s FEIS. NMFS then signed a Joint 

Record of Decision (ROD) in which it 

selected the alternative of issuing the 

IHA to South Fork Wind, explained the 

factors it considered in doing so, and 

specified the mitigation measures that 

would be imposed. 

Changes From Proposed IHA to Final 

IHA 

In the final IHA, NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR) adopted the 

Terms and Conditions of the October 

2021 Biological Opinion for the South 

Fork Offshore Energy Project, the 

August 2021 Programmatic Consultation 

on marine site assessment surveys, and 

made other modifications as a result of 

public input on the proposed IHA, 

which resulted in changes to mitigation 

and monitoring measures from proposed 

to final IHA. NMFS provides a summary 

here, and the changes are also described 

in the specific applicable sections below 

(e.g., Mitigation). A complete list of final 

measures may be found in the issued 

IHA (available at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable). 

Please note that since publication of 

the notice of the proposed IHA, NMFS 

has changed terminology from exclusion 

zone to shutdown zone to clarify the 

mitigation action to be taken when a 

marine mammal enters this zone. In 

addition, in order to distinguish surveys 

using HRG equipment to obtain a 

baseline assessment of seabed, 

ecological, and archeological conditions 

within the footprint of future offshore 

wind development (marine site 

characterization) from those surveys 

planned under this IHA (also using HRG 

equipment) to assess the inter-array and 

export cables throughout construction of 

the SFWF and SFEC, NMFS has 

changed terminology from HRG surveys 

to construction surveys. 

Since publication of the proposed 

IHA, South Fork Wind communicated to 

NMFS that construction activities will 

not commence until November 2022, 

rather than between April and May 2022 

(as indicated in the proposed IHA). 

Therefore, the period of effectiveness of 

the IHA is November 15, 2022 to 

November 14, 2023. 

In addition to the seasonal restriction 

on impact pile driving of monopiles 

from January 1 through April 30 

included in the proposed IHA, the final 

IHA specifies that impact pile driving of 

monopiles must not occur in December 

unless an unanticipated delay due to 

weather or technical problems, notified 

to and approved by BOEM, arises that 

necessitates extending impact pile 

driving of monopiles through December. 

After further consideration, NMFS 

modified several zone sizes associated 

with monitoring and mitigation 

measures to provide additional 

protection for NARWs. The final IHA 

includes the condition that any large 

whale visually observed by a PSO 

within 2,000 m, or as modified based on 

SFV measurements, of the impact piledriving vessel that cannot be identified 

to species must be treated as if it were 

a NARW for clearance and shutdown 

purposes. The distance has been 

increased from 1,000 m (included in the 

proposed IHA) to 2,000 m to align with 

the large whale shutdown zone. 

Similarly, the distance within which 

PSOs must treat an unspecified large 

whale as a NARW during vibratory pile 

driving has been increased from 1,000 m 

to 1,500 m for the same reason. In the 

final IHA, NMFS has defined the 

minimum visibility zone, or the area 

over which PSOs must be able to clearly 

observe marine mammals to begin the 

clearance process, as 2.2 km. In 

addition, NMFS has clarified that the 

2.2 km large whale clearance zone 

included in the notice of proposed IHA 

(Table 24) is the minimum visual 

clearance zone (i.e., the zone that must 

be both fully visible and clear of 

NARWs and other large whales for 30 

minutes immediately prior to 

commencing impact pile driving of 

monopiles)—beyond that distance, 

PAM, in conjunction with visual 

monitoring (recognizing the visibility 

limitations under certain conditions), 

must be used to confirm that the 5 km 

NARW clearance zone is clear of 

NARW’s and other large whales prior to 

commencing impact pile driving of 

monopiles. 

Since publication of the proposed 

IHA, South Fork Wind communicated to 

NMFS that the PAM system will be 

designed such that the PAM PSO will be 

capable of reviewing acoustic detections 

within 5 minutes of the original 

detection, rather than 15 minutes (as 

indicated in the proposed IHA), to 

determine if a NARW was detected. 

This reduced evaluation time provides 

improved support for near real-time 

mitigation actions, should they be 

required. While the proposed IHA 

required a PAM PSO to have 75-percent 

confidence that a vocalization 

originated from a NARW to call for a 

delay or shutdown of impact pile 

driving of monopiles, the final IHA only 

requires that a PAM PSO categorize a 

call as having a probable (or greater) 

likelihood of originating from a NARW 

(scale: No, possible, probable, yes). In 

addition, South Fork Wind is required 

to communicate detections of all marine 

mammals detected at any distance (i.e., 

not limited to the 5 km Level B 

harassment zone) to visual PSOs for 

situational awareness. Finally, the final 

IHA now specifies that the PAM 

system(s) must not be placed closer than 

1 km to the pile being driven. 

The final IHA includes several 

additional vessel strike avoidance 

measures to provide enhanced 

protection for NARWs. South Fork 

Wind must use available sources of 

information on NARW presence, 

including (1) daily monitoring of the 

Right Whale Sightings Advisory System, 

(2) consulting the WhaleAlert app, and 

(3) monitoring of Coast Guard VHF 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 827 

Channel 16 throughout the day to 

receive notifications of any sightings 

and information associated with any 

Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs), to 

plan construction activities and vessel 

routes, if practicable, to minimize the 

potential for co-occurrence with 

NARWs. This measure was not included 

in the proposed IHA but affords 

increased protection of NARWs by 

raising awareness of NARW presence in 

the area through monitoring efforts 

outside of South Fork Wind’s efforts. In 

addition, whenever multiple projectassociated vessels (e.g., construction 

survey, crew transfer) are operating 

concurrently, any visual observations of 

ESA-listed marine mammals must be 

communicated to PSOs and/or vessel 

captains associated with other vessels to 

increase situational awareness. While 

the proposed IHA only required vessels 

greater than or equal to 65 ft (19.8 m) 

to immediately reduce speed to 10 kts 

or less when a NARW is sighted at any 

distance by the observer or anyone on 

the underway vessel (or any other large 

whale, mom/calf pair, or large 

assemblage of non-delphinoid cetaceans 

are observed near (within 100 m) of an 

underway vessel), the final IHA 

includes vessels of all sizes in this 

requirement. The final IHA requires that 

confirmation of marine mammal 

observer training (including an 

understanding of the IHA requirements) 

must be documented on a training 

course log sheet and reported to NMFS 

for those dedicated visual observers 

required on vessels that are traveling 

over 10 knots. In addition, NMFS now 

requires that when a marine mammal is 

observed during vessel transit, the 

following data must be collected: Time, 

date and location (latitude/longitude); 

the vessel’s activity, heading and speed; 

sea state, water depth and visibility; 

marine mammal identification to the 

best of the observer’s ability (e.g., 

NARW, whale, dolphin, seal); initial 

distance at which the marine mammal 

was observed from the vessel and 

closest point of approach; and any 

avoidance measures taken in response 

to the marine mammal sighting. 

South Fork Wind is required to 

implement a noise mitigation system to 

reduce noise during impact pile driving 

of monopiles such that the measured 

ranges to Level A harassment and Level 

B harassment isopleths are equal to or 

less than those predicted by acoustic 

modeling, assuming 10-dB attenuation. 

The proposed IHA included the use of 

a single BBC, while the final IHA 

specifies that South Fork Wind must use 

(at a minimum) a single BBC coupled 

with an additional noise mitigation 

device, or a dBBC. 

The final IHA requires verification of 

the Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment zones through sound field 

verification (SFV), whereas the 

proposed IHA only required verification 

of the Level B harassment zone. 

Additionally, the final IHA now 

specifies that NMFS may expand the 

relevant clearance and shutdown zones 

in the event that field measurements 

indicate ranges to Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment isopleths are 

consistently greater than the ranges 

predicted by modeling, assuming 10-dB 

attenuation (see Acoustic Monitoring for 

Sound Field and Harassment Isopleth 

Verification section). However, if 

harassment zones are expanded beyond 

an additional 1,500 m, additional PSOs 

must be deployed on additional 

platforms, with each observer 

responsible for maintaining watch in no 

more than 180°, and of an area with a 

radius no greater than 1,500 m. 

Depending on the extent of zone size 

expansion, reinitiation of consultation 

under Section 7 of the ESA may be 

required. Conversely, if initial acoustic 

field measurements indicate ranges to 

the isopleths corresponding to Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

thresholds are less than the ranges 

predicted by modeling (assuming 10-dB 

attenuation), South Fork Wind may 

request a modification of the clearance 

and shutdown zones for impact pile 

driving of monopiles. However, for a 

modification request to be considered 

by NMFS, South Fork Wind must have 

conducted SFV on at least three piles in 

representative monopile installation 

locations (e.g., substrate type, water 

depth) to verify that zone sizes are 

consistently smaller than those 

predicted by modeling, assuming 10-dB 

attenuation. In the event that 

subsequently driven monopiles require 

greater hammer energy or substrate 

conditions suggest noise generated from 

the activity could produce larger sound 

fields, SFV must be conducted for those 

subsequent piles. Should NMFS 

approve reductions in zone sizes (i.e., 

Level A harassment, Level B 

harassment, clearance and/or shutdown) 

for impact pile driving of monopiles, the 

minimum visibility zone will not be 

decreased to a size smaller than 2.2 km. 

The shutdown and clearance zones 

would be equivalent to the measured 

range to the Level A harassment 

isopleth plus 10 percent and 20 percent, 

respectively, rounded up to the nearest 

100 m for PSO clarity. The shutdown 

zone for sei, fin, and sperm whales must 

not be reduced to a size less than 1,000 

m. The visual and PAM clearance and 

shutdown zones for NARWs must not be 

decreased, regardless of acoustic field 

measurements. The Level B harassment 

zone would be equal to the largest 

measured range to the Level B 

harassment isopleth. Finally, the final 

IHA requires South Fork Wind to report 

hammer energies required for each 

monopile installation, as well as 

ambient noise spectra. 

There are several additional planning 

and reporting requirements included in 

the final IHA. Specifically, NMFS is 

requiring that South Fork Wind prepare 

and submit Pile Driving and Marine 

Mammal Monitoring Plans to NMFS for 

review and approval at least 90 days 

before the start of any pile driving. The 

plans must include final project design 

related to all pile driving (e.g., number 

and type of piles, hammer type, noise 

mitigation equipment, anticipated start 

date, etc.), and all information related to 

PAM PSO protocols and visual PSO 

protocols (including alternative 

monitoring technology (i.e., IR/Thermal 

camera)), for all activities. South Fork 

Wind must also submit a NARW vessel 

strike avoidance plan 90 days prior to 

commencement of vessel use. The plan 

will describe, at a minimum, how PAM 

will be conducted to ensure the transit 

corridor(s) is clear of NARWs and 

provide details on vessel-based observer 

protocols on transiting vessels. 

Submission of the above plans was not 

required in the proposed IHA. 

When reporting the results of SFV, 

South Fork Wind must include (in 

addition to the information that was 

included as a requirement in the 

proposed IHA) the bandwidth, 

hydrophone sensitivity, a description of 

the depth and sediment type at the 

recording and pile-driving locations, 

and any action taken to adjust the noise 

mitigation system. In addition to the 

final report, the IHA requires South 

Fork Wind to provide the initial results 

of SFV to NMFS in an interim report 

after each monopile installation for the 

first three piles as soon as they are 

available, but no later than 48 hours 

after each installation. 

If a NARW is detected via PAM, the 

date, time, location of the detection, and 

the recording platform must be reported 

to NMFS as soon as feasible but no 

longer than 24 hours after the detection. 

Full detection data and metadata must 

be submitted on the 15th of every month 

for the previous month. Prior to 

initiation of the project activities, South 

Fork Wind must demonstrate in a report 

submitted to NMFS (itp.esch@noaa.gov) 

that all required training has been 

completed for South Fork Wind 

personnel (including vessel crew and 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
828 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

captains, and PSOs). This report was not 

required in the proposed IHA. The 

proposed IHA only required that South 

Fork Wind submit a draft report on all 

monitoring conducted under the IHA 

within 90 days of completion of the 

monitoring efforts. Since that time, 

NMFS determined that more frequent 

reviews of South Fork Wind’s monopile 

installation activities and monitoring 

data are warranted. In the final IHA, 

South Fork Wind is required to submit 

weekly and monthly reports (see 

Reporting section for details). Finally, 

NMFS has updated the contact 

information for reporting injured or 

dead marine mammals, or a vessel 

strike, in the event that South Fork 

Wind needs to report either. 

From the proposed IHA to the final 

IHA, NMFS modified the take number 

for blue whales. The proposed IHA 

allocated one take, by Level B 

harassment, of a blue whale incidental 

to impact pile driving of monopiles, 

even though animal exposure modeling 

resulted in zero blue whale exposures 

(by Level A harassment or Level B 

harassment). However, after further 

examination, NMFS has determined that 

the potential for even Level B 

harassment of this species is de 

minimus and NMFS is not authorizing 

take by Level B harassment. The area is 

not a preferred blue whale habitat, as 

the species generally prefers deeper 

water and bathymetric features such as 

the continental shelf edge. In addition, 

there have been no blue whale sightings 

during previous monitoring efforts 

within and near the SFWF and SFEC 

(e.g., CSA 2020; Smultea Environmental 

Sciences 2020; Gardline 2021). For these 

reasons, NFMS does not adopt the 

Commission’s recommendation to 

authorize (in addition to the proposed 

single take, by Level B harassment, 

which is now considered de minimus) 

one take, by Level A harassment (PTS), 

of a blue whale incidental to impact pile 

driving of monopiles. 

Per the Commission’s 

recommendation, NMFS has modified 

take, by Level B harassment, incidental 

to impact pile driving of monopiles for 

long-finned pilot whales, Atlantic 

spotted dolphins, common dolphins, 

and bottlenose dolphins. The take 

numbers, by Level B harassment, 

included in the proposed IHA for these 

species were those requested by South 

Fork Wind in the IHA application. Upon 

further review of scientific literature 

(DoN 2017; Smultea Sciences, 2020; 

CSA 2921; AMAPPS 2021), NMFS 

updated the reference for average group 

size for each species and conservatively 

selected the largest average group size 

for each species reported among 

references as the basis for increasing 

take numbers from the proposed to the 

final IHA. NMFS selected the group size 

reported for long-finned pilot whales 

(n=20) in CETAP (1982) and increased 

take, by Level B harassment, from 12 

(included in the proposed IHA) to 20 

(Table 18). Barkaski and Kelly (2018) 

report an average group size of 13 for 

Atlantic spotted dolphins, which is 

similar to the average group size based 

on sighting data within and near the 

SFWF and SFEC (Smultea Sciences, 

2020). To account for group size, NMFS 

conservatively increased take, by Level 

B harassment, of Atlantic spotted 

dolphins from 2 to 13 (Table 18). To 

account for the frequent occurrence of 

common dolphins and bottlenose 

dolphins in the project area, NMFS 

increased take, by Level B harassment, 

by multiplying the largest group size 

(common dolphins (35), bottlenose 

dolphins (21.6); AMAPPS 2021) by the 

maximum number of days on which 

monopile installation might occur 

(n=16), resulting in 560 common 

dolphin takes and 346 bottlenose 

dolphins takes. Given the large size of 

the Level B harassment zone for 

vibratory pile driving (approximately 36 

km), NMFS agreed with the 

Commission’s recommendation to 

modify take, by Level B harassment, of 

humpback whales, as well as common 

dolphins and Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins. NMFS based take increases on 

the largest estimated group sizes for 

each species using the best available 

science (DoN 2017; Smultea Sciences, 

2020; CSA 2921; AMAPPS 2021). For 

humpback whales and common 

dolphins, the largest estimated group 

sizes (humpback whales (1.6), common 

dolphins (35); AMAPPS (2021)) were 

multiplied by the number of days over 

which vibratory pile driving might 

occur (18 hours over 3 days for 

installation, 18 hours over 3 days for 

removal, total = 6 days). This approach 

resulted in the following increases in 

takes, by Level B harassment, from the 

proposed IHA to the final IHA: 

Humpback whales (from 1 to 9.6, 

rounded to 10) and common dolphins 

(from 4 to 210). Animal exposure 

modeling predicted one take, by Level B 

harassment, of an Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin incidental to vibratory pile 

driving, although sightings of this 

species are uncommon in the project 

area. However, NMFS has 

conservatively authorized 50 takes (or 

the equivalent of the largest seasonal 

group size, reported for summer; 

AMAPPS 2021), by Level B harassment, 

of Atlantic white-sided dolphins. As 

described in the Comments and 

Responses section, the Commission also 

recommended increasing take, by Level 

B harassment, of fin and sei whales 

incidental to vibratory pile driving. 

Exposure modeling resulted in 

exposures for each of 10 months 

(October–May; Table 19) for all species 

potentially impacted by vibratory pile 

driving. Of the remaining months, fin 

whale exposure estimates were zero 

(November–February) and one (in both 

March and May). The proposed take 

estimate was already conservatively 

based on the month with the highest 

number of modeled exposures (April; 

n=2), and sightings of fin whales are less 

frequent along the ECR and nearshore 

HDD site as compared to in/near the 

Lease Area (e.g., Smultea Sciences, 

2020). For these reasons, NMFS does 

not find that increasing take of fin 

whales, by Level B harassment, is 

warranted. As for sei whales, exposure 

modeling resulted in zero exposures in 

all 10 months considered (Table 19). As 

described in the Comments and 

Responses section, sei whale sightings 

are relatively rare throughout the project 

area, which agrees with the generally 

offshore pattern of sei whale 

distribution (Hayes et al., 2021). Given 

the brief timeframe for cofferdam 

installation/removal, the low likelihood 

of sei whale occurrence in the project 

area during that brief timeframe, and the 

lack of exposures resulting from 

exposure modeling, NMFS does not find 

that increasing take, by Level B 

harassment, is warranted. 

After review of the scientific 

literature, NMFS has increased take of 

long-finned pilot whales, by Level B 

harassment, incidental to construction 

surveys from 4 (proposed) to 20 

(authorized) based on the largest 

estimated group size (CETAP 1982). 

Since publication of the proposed 

IHA, South Fork Wind proposed the 

installation of a temporary casing pipe 

using a small pneumatic impact 

hammer at the horizontal directional 

drilling (HDD) exit pit location for the 

SFEC as an alternative to the previously 

assessed sheet pile cofferdam at the 

same location. The cofferdam, but not 

the casing pipe alternative, was 

considered in the acoustic impact 

analysis performed by JASCO in support 

of the South Fork Wind Construction 

Operation Plan (COP) (Denes et al., 

2020a,b). However, JASCO recently 

provided NMFS with an general 

assessment of the potential acoustic 

impacts of casing pipe installation, 

showing that it is expected to have less 

than, or equal, acoustic impact relative 

to vibratory pile driving to construct a 

cofferdam. No potential injurious 

exposures are expected for installation 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 829 

of the cofferdam (see Estimated Take), 

and are, therefore, not expected for 

installation of the casing pipe. The 

range to behavioral disruption is less for 

casing pipe driving using a small impact 

hammer (approximately 2,154 m) than 

for cofferdam construction using 

vibratory pile driving (approximately 

36,000 m). If temporary supports for the 

casing pipe are needed during the HDD 

installation, vibratory pile driving of up 

to 8 sheet piles may be required 

(resulting in a 36,000 m range to 

behavioral disruption during 

installation of the support sheet piles). 

South Fork Wind estimates that the 

entire installation and removal will each 

take approximately four hours to 

complete. In comparison, installation of 

a temporary cofferdam would require 

vibratory pile driving of approximately 

80–100 sheet piles for up to 18 hours for 

installation and an additional 18 hours 

for removal. If vibratory pile driving of 

support sheet piles for the casing pile is 

required, the range to the Level B 

harassment isopleth may be the same as 

for cofferdam construction, but the 

potential for take would occur over a 

shorter duration. Regardless of the 

construct selected for installation at the 

exit pit location, South Fork Wind will 

adhere to the more conservative 

mitigation and monitoring requirements 

for the installation of the cofferdam (as 

proposed by South Fork Wind and 

described in the notice of the proposed 

IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5, 2021)). 

NMFS agrees with this approach, given 

that the larger zone sizes and longer 

duration for cofferdam installation/ 

removal encompass the potential spatial 

and temporal scales for installation of 

the casing pipe alternative. Accordingly, 

authorized take (by Level B harassment 

only) in the final IHA is conservatively 

based on take incidental to vibratory 

pile driving associated with installation/ 

removal of the cofferdam. 

In addition to the changes described 

above, NMFS has also (1) revised tables 

in the Federal Register notice and IHA 

so all the harassment, clearance, and 

shutdown zones align between the 

Federal Register notice and final IHA, 

(2) corrected the reported maximum 

water depth in the project area to 90 m, 

(3) corrected a typographical error in 

Table 8 to reflect the fact that the mean 

Level A harassment zone for a difficultto-drive pile based on the cumulative 

SEL (SELcum) thresholds for lowfrequency cetaceans is 7,868 m rather 

than 7,846 m, 4) aligned the Level A 

harassment zones in Tables 10 and 24 

based on the SELcum thresholds for gray 

seals and in Tables 7 and 24 based on 

the peak sound pressure level (SPLpeak) 

thresholds for harbor porpoises, and 

gray and harbor seals, 5) corrected the 

Level B harassment zone for Chirps to 

54 m in Table 28, 6) corrected the Level 

A harassment zone (SPL0-pk) for highfrequency cetaceans for AA Triple plate 

S-Boom (700/1,000 J) to 2.8 m in Table 

12, 7) removed visibility metrics from 

the reporting requirements for SFV, and 

8) added a target air flow rate of at least 

0.5 m3/(min*m) for the bubble curtain(s) 

used for noise mitigation during impact 

pile driving of monopiles. In addition, 

the final IHA specifies that if a species 

for which authorization has not been 

granted, or, a species for which 

authorization has been granted but the 

authorized number of takes has been 

met, approaches or is observed within 

the Level B harassment zone (rather 

than the clearance zone, as specified in 

the proposed IHA), impact pile driving 

of monopiles must not commence or 

resume until the animal has been 

confirmed to have left the Level B 

harassment zone or a full 15 minutes 

(small odontocetes and seals) or 30 

minutes (for all other marine mammals) 

have elapsed with no further sightings. 

Finally, NMFS did not include language 

in the final IHA related to a Renewal 

IHA. This does not necessarily preclude 

a Renewal IHA but, as described above, 

NMFS thinks a Renewal IHA is unlikely 

in this case, given the potential for 

changes over the next two years that 

could affect the analyses germane to 

construction of the SFWF and SFEC. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the IHA 

application summarize available 

information regarding status and trends, 

distribution and habitat preferences, 

and behavior and life history of the 

potentially affected species. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’ 

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’ 

website (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/findspecies). 

There are 36 marine mammal species 

that could potentially occur in the 

project area and that are included in 

Table 16 of the IHA application. 

However, the temporal and/or spatial 

occurrence of 21 of these species is such 

that take is not expected to occur or 

authorized, and they are, therefore, not 

discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided here. The 

following species are not expected to 

occur in the project area due to their 

more likely occurrence in habitat that is 

outside the SFWF and SFEC, based on 

the best available information: The blue 

whale (Balaenoptera musculus), beluga 

whale (Delphinapterus leucas), northern 

bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon 

ampullatus), killer whale (Orcinus 

orca), pygmy killer whale (Feresa 

attenuata), false killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens), melon-headed whale 

(Peponocephala electra), pygmy sperm 

whale (Kogia breviceps), Cuvier’s 

beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), 

Mesplodont beaked whales (spp.), shortfinned pilot whale (Globicephala 

macrorhynchus), pantropical spotted 

dolphin (Stenella attenuata), Fraser’s 

dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei), whitebeaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus 

albirostris), rough-toothed dolphin 

(Steno bredanensis), Clymene dolphin 

(Stenella clymene), spinner dolphin 

(Stenella longirostris), and striped 

dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba). The 

following species may occur in the 

project area, but at such low densities 

that take is not anticipated: Hooded seal 

(Cystophora cristata) and harp seal 

(Pagophilus groenlandica). There are 

two pilot whale species (long-finned 

(Globicephala melas) and short-finned 

(Globicephala macrorhynchus)) with 

distributions that may overlap in the 

latitudinal range of the SFWF (Hayes et 

al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2016). Because 

it is difficult to differentiate between the 

two species at sea, sightings, and thus 

the densities calculated from them, are 

generally reported together as 

Globicephala spp. (Hayes et al., 2021; 

Roberts et al., 2016). However, based on 

the best available information, shortfinned pilot whales generally occur in 

habitat that is both further offshore on 

the shelf break and further south than 

the project area (Hayes et al., 2021). 

Therefore, NMFS assumes that any take 

of pilot whales would be of long-finned 

pilot whales. 

In addition, the Florida manatee 

(Trichechus manatus) may be found in 

the coastal waters of the project area. 

However, Florida manatees are managed 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and are not considered further in this 

document. 

Between October 2011 and June 2015, 

a total of 76 aerial surveys were 

conducted throughout the MA and RI/ 

MA WEAs. As mentioned previously, 

the SFWF is contained within the RI/ 

MA WEA (along with several other 

offshore renewable energy Lease Areas). 

Between November 2011 and March 

2015, Marine Autonomous Recording 

Units (MARUs; a type of static PAM 

recorder) were deployed at nine sites in 

the MA and RI/MA WEAs. The goal of 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
830 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

the study was to collect visual and 

acoustic baseline data on distribution, 

abundance, and temporal occurrence 

patterns of marine mammals (Kraus et 

al., 2016). The lack of acoustic 

detections or sightings of any of the 

species listed above reinforces the fact 

that these species are not expected to 

occur in the project area. In addition, 

during recent marine site 

characterization surveys of the South 

Fork Wind Lease Area, none (other than 

long-finned pilot whales) of the 

aforementioned species were observed 

during marine mammal monitoring 

(Smultea Sciences, 2020; CSA, 2021). 

Further, acoustic detections of four 

species of baleen whales in data 

collected from 2004–2014 show 

important distributional changes over 

the range of these baleen whale species 

(Davis et al., 2020). That study showed 

blue whales were more frequently 

detected in the northern latitudes of the 

study area after 2010, and no detections 

occurred in the project area in spring, 

summer, and fall when impact pile 

driving of monopiles would occur 

(Davis et al., 2020). As the species 

identified above are not expected to 

occur in the project area during the 

planned activities, they are not 

discussed further in this document. 

NMFS expects that the 15 species 

listed in Table 3 will potentially occur 

in the project area and may, therefore, 

be taken as a result of the project. Table 

3 summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. For taxonomy, NMFS 

follows the Committee on Taxonomy 

(2020). PBR is defined by the MMPA as 

the maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’ 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR is included here 

as a gross indicator of the status of the 

species and other threats. Four marine 

mammal species that are listed under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) may 

be present in the project area and may 

be taken incidental to the planned 

activity: The NARW, 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 comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. Atlantic SARs. All values 

presented in Table 3 are the most recent 

available at the time of publication, 

which can be found in the NMFS’ 2021 

Draft SARs (Hayes et al., 2021), 

available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMALS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY SOUTH FORK

WIND’S CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

Common name 

(scientific name) Stock 

MMPA 

and 

ESA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most 

recent abundance 

survey) 2

PBR 3 Annual M/SI 3

Occurrence and 

seasonality in 

project area 

Toothed whales (Odontoceti) 

Sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus).

North Atlantic ................... E; Y 4,349 (0.28; 3,451; 

2016).

3.9 0 Rare. 

Long-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala melas).

W. North Atlantic .............. --; N 39,215 (0.3; 30,627; 

2016).

306 29 Rare. 

Atlantic spotted dolphin 

(Stenella frontalis).

W. North Atlantic .............. --; N 39,921 (0.27; 

32,032; 2016).

320 0 Rare. 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus acutus).

W. North Atlantic .............. --; N 93,233 (0.71; 

54,443; 2016).

544 27 Common year 

round. 

Bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus).

W. North Atlantic, Offshore.--; N 62,851 (0.23; 

51,914; 2019).

519 28 Common year 

round. 

Common dolphin 

(Delphinus delphis).

W. North Atlantic .............. --; N 172,974 (0.21; 

145,216; 2016).

1,452 390 Common year 

round. 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus).

W. North Atlantic .............. --; N 35,215 (0.19; 

30,051; 2016).

301 34 Rare. 

Harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena).

Gulf of Maine/Bay of 

Fundy.

--; N 95,543 (0.31; 

74,034; 2019).

851 164 Common year 

round. 

Baleen whales (Mysticeti) 

North Atlantic right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis).

W. North Atlantic .............. E; Y 368 (0; 364; 2019) ... 0.7 7.7 Year round in 

continental 

shelf and slope 

waters, occur 

seasonally. 

Humpback whale 

(Megaptera 

novaeangliae).

Gulf of Maine ................... --; N 1,396 (0.15; 1,375; 

2016).

22 58 Common year 

round. 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus).

W. North Atlantic .............. E; Y 6,802 (0.24; 5,573; 

2016).

11 1.8 Year round in 

continental 

shelf and slope 

waters, occur 

seasonally. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2

I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 831 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMALS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY SOUTH FORK

WIND’S CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Common name 

(scientific name) Stock 

MMPA 

and 

ESA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most 

recent abundance 

survey) 2

PBR 3 Annual M/SI 3

Occurrence and 

seasonality in 

project area 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera 

borealis).

Nova Scotia ...................... E; Y 6,292 (1.02; 3,098 ; 

2016).

6.2 0.8 Year round in 

continental 

shelf and slope 

waters, occur 

seasonally. 

Minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata).

Canadian East Coast ....... --; N 21,968 (0.31; 

17,002; 2016).

170 10.6 Year round in 

continental 

shelf and slope 

waters, occur 

seasonally. 

Earless seals (Phocidae) 

Gray seal 4 (Halichoerus 

grypus).

W. North Atlantic .............. --; N 27,300 (0.22; 

22,785; 2016).

1,389 4,453 Common year 

round. 

Harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina).

W. North Atlantic .............. --; N 61,336 (0.08; 

57,637; 2012).

1,729 339 Common year 

round. 

1ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or 

designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed 

under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS’ 2021 Draft SARs, available online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. 

CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 3These values, found in NMFS’ SAR, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., 

commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or 

range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4The NMFS stock abundance estimate applies to U.S. population only, however the actual stock abundance is approximately 451,431.

A detailed description of the species 

for which take has been authorized, 

including brief introductions to the 

relevant stocks as well as available 

information regarding population trends 

and threats, and information regarding 

local occurrence, were provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5, 2021). 

Since that time, the status of some 

species and stocks have been updated, 

most notably for large whales. In 

particular, Pace (2021) and NMFS’ 2021 

Draft SARS (Hayes et al., 2021) provide 

an updated population estimate of 368 

for NARWs, a decrease from the 

estimate of 412 reported in the notice of 

the proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; February 

5, 2021). Table 3 includes the most 

recent population abundances, PBR, and 

annual mortality and serious injury (M/ 

SI) rates for all species. NMFS refers the 

reader to the proposed IHA Federal 

Register notice for basic descriptions of 

each species’ status, and provides a 

summary of updates below where 

necessary. Please also refer to NMFS’ 

website (https://

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

generalized species accounts, and note 

that Oleson et al. (2020) have 

established the project area as yearround foraging habitat for NARWs. 

As described in the proposed IHA 

notice, beginning in 2017, elevated 

mortalities in the NARW population 

have been documented, primarily in 

Canada but also in the U.S., and were 

collectively declared an Unusual 

Mortality Event (UME). As of December 

2021, 34 NARWs have been confirmed 

dead and an additional 16 have been 

determined to be seriously injured. 

Entanglement and vessel strikes are the 

primary causes of M/SI. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To assess the 

potential effects of exposure to sound 

appropriately, it is necessary to 

understand the frequency ranges marine 

mammals are able to hear. Data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007, 

2019) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into functional 

hearing groups based on directly 

measured, or estimated hearing ranges 

on the basis of available behavioral 

response data, audiograms derived 

using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible; in this case, the lower 

bound from Southall et al. (2007) was 

retained. Marine mammal hearing 

groups and their associated hearing 

ranges are provided in Table 4. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
832 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 4—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. 

* 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 and Holt, 2013). 

For more details concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Fifteen marine 

mammal species (13 cetacean and 2 

pinniped (both phocid species); Table 3) 

have the reasonable potential to cooccur with South Fork Wind’s 

construction activities. Of the cetacean 

species that may be present, five are 

classified as low-frequency cetaceans 

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

classified as mid-frequency cetaceans 

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

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

porpoise). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

South Fork Wind’s construction 

activities have the potential to result in 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the project area. The notice 

of proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; February 

5, 2021) included a discussion of the 

effects of anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals, and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from South Fork 

Wind’s construction activities on 

marine mammals and their habitat. That 

information and analysis is incorporated 

by reference into this final IHA 

determination and is not repeated here; 

for more details, please refer to the 

notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; 

February 5, 2021). 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. As noted in the 

summary of Changes from Proposed 

IHA to Final IHA, changes have been 

made to the number of takes for the 

given species incidental to: Impact pile 

driving of monopiles (blue whales, pilot 

whales, Atlantic spotted dolphins, 

common dolphins, and bottlenose 

dolphins); vibratory pile driving 

(humpback whales, common dolphins, 

white-sided dolphins); and construction 

surveys (pilot whales). Detailed 

descriptions are provided in the 

Comments and Responses and Changes 

from Proposed IHA to Final IHA 

sections, and below. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from South Fork 

Wind’s construction 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 take would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as noise from 

impact and vibratory pile driving and 

construction surveys has the potential to 

result in disruption of behavioral 

patterns for individual marine 

mammals, either directly or as a result 

of masking or temporary hearing 

impairment (also referred to as 

temporary threshold shift (TTS), as 

described in the notice of proposed IHA 

(86 FR 8490, February 5, 2021)). There 

is also some potential for auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) to result for 

select marine mammals. Mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of such taking to 

the extent practicable. No serious injury 

or mortality is anticipated or authorized 

for this activity. Below we describe how 

the take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, NMFS estimates 

take by considering: (1) Acoustic 

thresholds above which NMFS believes 

the best available science indicates 

marine mammals will be behaviorally 

harassed or incur some degree of 

permanent hearing impairment; (2) the 

area or volume of water that will be 

ensonified above these levels in a day; 

(3) the density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and (4) and the number of days of 

activities. NMFS notes that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, 

NMFS describes the factors considered 

here in more detail and presents the 

authorized take. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source (e.g., 

frequency, predictability, duty cycle), 

the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and 

the receiving animals (hearing, 

motivation, experience, demography, 

behavioral context) and can be difficult 

to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison 

et al., 2012). Based on what the 

available science indicates and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a factor that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

uses a generalized acoustic threshold 

based on received level to estimate the 

onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 833 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

we consider Level B harassment when 

exposed to underwater anthropogenic 

noise above a received level of 160 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms) for impulsive and/or 

intermittent sources. South Fork Wind’s 

activities includes the use of impulsive 

and intermittent sources (e.g., impact 

pile driving, HRG acoustic sources), and 

thus the 160 dB threshold applies. 

Quantifying Level B harassment in this 

manner is also expected to capture any 

qualifying changes in behavioral 

patterns that may result from TTS. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). The components of South 

Fork Wind’s activities that may result in 

take of marine mammals include the use 

of impulsive and non-impulsive 

sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 5. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2018 Technical Guidance, which may 

be accessed at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 5—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

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

* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should 

also be considered. 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, NMFS describes operational 

and environmental parameters of the 

activity that will feed into identifying 

the area ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

Impact Pile Driving of Monopiles: 

Acoustic Range 

As described above, South Fork Wind 

plans install up to 15 WTGs and one 

OSS in the SFWF (i.e., a maximum of 

16 foundations). Two piling scenarios 

may be encountered during construction 

and were, therefore, considered in the 

modeling conducted to estimate the 

potential number of marine mammal 

exposures above relevant harassment 

thresholds: (1) Maximum design, 

including one difficult-to-drive pile, and 

(2) standard design with no difficult-todrive pile included. 

The two piling scenarios were 

modeled separately to conservatively 

assess the potential impacts of each. The 

two scenarios modeled were: 

(1) The ‘‘maximum design’’ consisting 

of 15 piles requiring ∼4,500 strikes per 

pile (per 24 hours), and one difficult-todrive pile requiring ∼8,000 strikes (per 

24 hours) 

(2) The ‘‘standard design’’ consisting 

of 16 piles requiring ∼4,500 strike per 

pile (per 24 hours). 

Representative hammering schedules 

of increasing hammer energy with 

increasing penetration depth were 

modeled, resulting in generally higher 

intensity sound fields as the hammer 

energy and penetration increases (Table 

6). 

TABLE 6—HAMMER ENERGY SCHEDULE FOR MONOPILE INSTALLATION

Energy level 

(kilojoule[kJ]) 

Standard pile 

strike count 

(4,500 total) 

Difficult pile 

strike count 

(8,000 total) 

Pile 

penetration 

(m) 

1,000 ............................................................................................................................................ 500 800 0–6 

1,500 ............................................................................................................................................ 1,000 1,200 6–23.5 

2,500 ............................................................................................................................................ 1,500 3,000 23.5–41 

4,000 ............................................................................................................................................ 1,500 3,000 41–45 

Monopiles were assumed to be 

vertical and driven to a penetration 

depth of 45 m. While pile penetration 

across the sites would vary, this value 

was chosen as a reasonable maximum 

penetration depth. All acoustic 

modeling was performed assuming that 

only one pile is driven at a time. 

Additional modeling assumptions for 

the monopiles were as follows: 

• One pile installed per day. 

• 10.97-m steel cylindrical piling 

with wall thickness of 10 cm. 

• Impact pile driver: IHC S–4000 

(4000 kilojoules (kJ) rated energy; 1977 

kilonewtons (kN) ram weight). 

• Helmet weight: 3234 kN. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
834 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

As described in the Comments and 

Responses section, sound fields 

produced during monopile installation 

were estimated by first computing the 

force at the top of each pile associated 

with typical hammers using the 

GRLWEAP 2010 wave equation model 

(GRLWEAP, Pile Dynamics 2010), 

which produced forcing functions. The 

source signatures of each monopile were 

predicted using the TDFD PDSM to 

compute the monopile vibrations 

caused by hammer impact. To 

accurately calculate propagation metrics 

of an impulsive sound, a time-domain 

representation of the pressure wave in 

the water was used. To model the sound 

waves associated with the monopile 

vibration in an acoustic propagation 

model, the monopiles are represented as 

vertical arrays of discrete point sources. 

The discrete sources are distributed 

throughout the length of the monopile 

below the sea surface and into the 

sediment with vertical separation of 3 

m. The length of the acoustic source is 

adjusted for the site-specific water 

depth and penetration at each energy 

level, and the section length of the 

monopile within the sediment is based 

on the monopile hammering schedule 

(Table 6). Pressure signatures for the 

point sources are computed from the 

particle velocity at the monopile wall 

up to a maximum frequency of 2,048 

Hz. This frequency range is suitable 

because most of the sound energy 

generated by impact hammering of the 

monopiles is below 1 kHz. 

As described previously, to calculate 

predicted propagation of sounds 

produced during impact pile driving of 

monopiles below 2 kHz, JASCO used it’s 

FWRAM, which is an acoustic model 

based on the wide-angle parabolic 

equation (PE) algorithm (Collins 1993). 

FWRAM computes synthetic pressure 

waveforms versus range and depth for 

range-varying marine acoustic 

environments. It takes environmental 

inputs (e.g., bathymetry, sound velocity 

profile, and seabed geoacoustic profile) 

and computes pressure waveforms at 

grid points of range and depth. Because 

the monopile is represented as a linear 

array and FWRAM employs the array 

starter method to accurately model 

sound propagation from a spatially 

distributed source (MacGillivray and 

Chapman 2012), using FWRAM ensures 

accurate characterization of vertical 

directivity effects in the near-field zone. 

JASCO used BELLHOP, a Gaussian 

beam ray-trace model that also 

incorporates environmental inputs, to 

model propagation of sound produced 

above 2 kHz during monopile 

installation. The beam-tracing model is 

described as an approximation of a 

given source by a fan of beams through 

the medium. Then, the quantities of 

interest (e.g., acoustic pressure at 

different ranges) are computed at a 

specified location by summing the 

contribution of each of the individual 

beams. 

Two locations within the SFWF were 

selected to provide representative 

propagation and sound fields for the 

project area (see Figure 1 in SFWF COP, 

Appendix J1). The two locations were 

selected to span the region from shallow 

to deeper water and varying distances to 

dominant bathymetric features (i.e., 

slope and shelf break). Water depth and 

environmental characteristics (e.g., 

bottom-type) are similar throughout the 

SFWF, and therefore minimal 

differences were found in sound 

propagation results for the two sites 

(Denes et al., 2018). Propagation 

modeling also incorporated two 

different sound velocity profiles (based 

on in situ measurements of temperature, 

salinity, and pressure within the water 

column) to account for variations in the 

acoustic propagation conditions 

between summer and winter. Estimated 

impact pile driving of monopiles 

schedules (Table 6) were used to 

calculate the SEL sound fields at 

different points in time during monopile 

installation. 

The sound propagation modeling 

incorporated site-specific environmental 

data that describes the bathymetry, 

sound speed in the water column, and 

seabed geoacoustics in the construction 

area. Sound level estimates were 

calculated from three-dimensional 

sound fields and then at each horizontal 

sampling range, the maximum received 

level that occurs within the water 

column is used as the received level at 

that range. These maximum-over-depth 

(Rmax) values are then compared to 

predetermined threshold levels to 

determine acoustic ranges to Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

isopleths. However, the ranges to an 

isopleth typically differ among radii 

from a source, and might not be 

continuous because sound levels may 

drop below threshold at some ranges 

and then exceed threshold at farther 

ranges. To minimize the influence of 

these inconsistencies, 5 percent of such 

footprints were excluded from the 

model data. The resulting range, 

R95percent, is used because, regardless of 

the shape of the maximum-over-depth 

footprint, the predicted range 

encompasses at least 95 percent of the 

horizontal area that would be exposed 

to sound at or above the specified 

threshold. The difference between Rmax

and R95percent depends on the source 

directivity and the heterogeneity of the 

acoustic environment. R95percent excludes 

ends of protruding areas or small 

isolated acoustic foci not representative 

of the nominal ensonified zone (see 

Figure 12; SFWF COP Appendix J1). 

The modeled source spectrum is 

provided in Figure 7 of the SFWF COP 

(Appendix J1). The dominant energy for 

both impact pile-driving scenarios 

(‘‘maximum’’ and ‘‘standard’’) is below 

1000 Hz. Please see Appendix J1 of the 

SFWF COP for further details on the 

modeling methodology (Denes et al., 

2020a). 

South Fork Wind will employ a noise 

mitigation system during all impact pile 

driving of monopiles. Bubble curtains, 

one type of noise mitigation technology, 

are sometimes 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 to 

attenuate lower frequencies. There are a 

variety of bubble curtain systems, 

confined or unconfined, and some with 

encapsulated bubbles or panels. 

Attenuation levels also vary by type of 

system, frequency band, and location. 

Small bubble curtains have been shown 

to reduce sound levels, but effective 

attenuation is highly dependent on 

depth of water, current, and 

configuration and operation of the 

curtain (Austin, Denes, MacDonnell, & 

Warner, 2016; Koschinski & 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 

(i.e., dBBC) (Bellmann, 2014; 

Koschinski & Lu ̈demann, 2013; Nehls, 

Rose, Diederichs, Bellmann, & Pehlke, 

2016). 

Encapsulated bubble systems (e.g., 

Hydro Sound Dampers (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 

and difficulty of properly installing and 

operating in-water attenuation devices. 

A California Department of 

Transportation (CalTrans) study tested 

several systems and found that the best 

attenuation systems resulted in 10–15 

dB of attenuation (Buehler et al., 2015). 

Similarly, Da ̈hne et al. (2017) found that 

single BBCs that reduced sound levels 

by 7–10 dB reduced the overall sound 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 835 

level by ∼12 dB when combined with a 

dBBC for 6-m steel monopiles in the 

North Sea. Bellmann et al. (2020) 

provide a review of the efficacy of using 

bubble curtains (both single and double) 

as noise abatement systems in the 

German EEZ of the North and Baltic 

Seas. For 8-m diameter monopiles, 

single BBCs achieved an average of 11- 

dB broadband noise reduction 

(Bellmann et al., 2020). In modeling the 

sound fields for South Fork Wind’s 

activities, hypothetical broadband 

attenuation levels of 0-, 6-, 10-, 12-, and 

15-dB were modeled to gauge the effects 

on the ranges to isopleths given these 

levels of attenuation. Although five 

attenuation levels (and associated 

ranges) are provided, South Fork Wind 

anticipates that the use of a noise 

mitigation system will produce field 

measurements of the ranges to the Level 

A harassment and Level B harassment 

isopleths that accord with those 

modeled assuming 10-dB attenuation. 

To account for variability, ensure 

harassment zone sizes are no larger than 

those assumed in this analysis, and 

ensure that sound levels are reduced to 

the lowest level practicable, South Fork 

Wind is required to employ an 

additional noise mitigation device if 

using a single BBC. Alternatively, a 

dBBC may be used without use of 

additional noise mitigation equipment. 

The acoustic thresholds for impulsive 

sounds (such as impact pile driving) 

contained in the Technical Guidance 

(NMFS, 2018) were presented as dual 

metric acoustic thresholds using both 

SELcum and SPLpeak (Table 5). 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). The SELcum metric 

considers both level and duration of 

exposure, as well as auditory weighting 

functions by marine mammal hearing 

group. 

Tables 7 and 8 shows the modeled 

acoustic ranges to the Level A 

harassment isopleths, with 0, 6 10, 12, 

and 15-dB sound attenuation 

incorporated. For the peak level, the 

greatest ranges expected within a given 

hearing group are shown, typically 

occurring at the highest hammer energy 

(Table 7). The SELcum Level A 

harassment threshold is the only metric 

that is affected by the number of strikes 

within a 24-hour period; therefore, it is 

only this acoustic threshold that is 

associated with differences in range 

estimates between the standard scenario 

and the difficult-to drive pile scenario 

(Table 8). The maximum ranges for 

SPLpeak are equal for both scenarios 

because this metric is used to define 

characteristics of a single impulse and 

does vary based on the number of 

strikes (Denes et al., 2020a). The radial 

ranges shown in Tables 7 and 8 are the 

mean ranges from the piles, averaged 

between the two modeled locations and 

between summer and winter sound 

velocity profiles. 

TABLE 7—MEAN ACOUSTIC RANGE (R95%) TO LEVEL A PEAK SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL (SPLpeak) HARASSMENT

ISOPLETHS FOR MARINE MAMMALS DUE TO IMPACT PILE DRIVING OF MONOPILES

Marine mammal hearing group 

Threshold 

SPLpeak

(dB re 1 μPa) 

Mean range (m) to isopleth 

0 dB 

attenuation 

6 dB 

attenuation 

10 dB 

attenuation 

12 dB 

attenuation 

15 dB 

attenuation 

Low-frequency cetaceans ........................ 219 87 22 9 7 2 

Mid-frequency cetaceans ......................... 230 8 2 1 1 1 

High-frequency cetaceans ....................... 202 1,545 541 243 183 108 

Phocid pinnipeds ...................................... 218 101 26 12 8 2 

dB re 1 μPa = decibel referenced to 1 micropascal. 

TABLE 8—MEAN ACOUSTIC RANGE (R95%) TO LEVEL A SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL (SELcum) HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FOR

MARINE MAMMALS DUE TO IMPACT PILE DRIVING OF A STANDARD MONOPILE (S; 4,500 STRIKES *) AND A DIFFICULTTO-DRIVE-MONOPILE (D; 8,000 STRIKES *) 

Marine mammal hearing group 

Threshold 

SELcum

(dB re 1 μPa2s) 

Mean range (m) to isopleth 

0 dB attenuation 6 dB attenuation 10 dB attenuation 12 dB attenuation 15 dB attenuation 

S D S D S D S D S D 

Low-frequency cetaceans ............. 183 16,416 21,941 8,888 11,702 6,085 7,846 5,015 6,520 3,676 4,870 

Mid-frequency cetaceans .............. 185 107 183 43 59 27 32 27 26 26 26 

High-frequency cetaceans ............ 155 9,290 13,374 4,012 6,064 2,174 3,314 2,006 2,315 814 1,388 

Phocid pinnipeds ........................... 185 3,224 4,523 1,375 2,084 673 1,080 437 769 230 415 

dB re 1 μPa2s = decibel referenced to 1 micropascal squared second. 

* Approximation. 

Table 9 shows the acoustic ranges to 

the Level B harassment isopleth with no 

attenuation, 6-, 10-, 12-, and 15-dB 

sound attenuation incorporated. 

Acoustic propagation was modeled at 

two representative sites in the SFWF, as 

described above. The radial ranges 

shown in Table 8 are the mean ranges 

to the Level B harassment isopleth, 

derived by averaging the R95percent to the 

Level B harassment threshold for 

summer and winter (see Appendix P2 of 

the SFWF COP for more details). The 

range estimated assuming 10-dB 

attenuation (4,684 m) was used to 

identify the extent of the Level B 

harassment zone for impact pile driving 

of monopiles. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
836 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 9—MEAN ACOUSTIC RANGES (R95percent) TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETH (SPLrms) DUE TO IMPACT PILE

DRIVING OF MONOPILES

Threshold SPLrms

(dB re 1 μPa) 

Mean range (m) to isopleth 

0 dB 

attenuation 

6 dB 

attenuation 

10 dB 

attenuation 

12 dB 

attenuation 

15 dB 

attenuation 

160 ....................................................................................... 11,382 6,884 4,684 4,164 3,272 

dB re 1 μPa = decibel referenced to 1 micropascal. 

Impact Pile Driving of Monopiles: 

Exposure-Based Ranges 

Modeled acoustic ranges to 

harassment isopleths may overestimate 

the actual ranges at which animals 

receive exposures meeting the Level A 

(SELcum) harassment threshold criterion. 

Therefore, such ranges are not realistic, 

particularly for accumulating metrics 

like SELcum. Applying animal movement 

and behavior (Denes et al., 2020c) 

within the propagated noise fields 

provides the exposure range, which 

results in a more realistic indication of 

the ranges at which acoustic thresholds 

are met. For modeled animals that have 

received enough acoustic energy to 

exceed a given threshold, the exposure 

range for each animal is defined as the 

closest point of approach (CPA) to the 

source made by that animal while it 

moved throughout the modeled sound 

field, accumulating received acoustic 

energy. The resulting exposure range for 

each species is the 95th percentile of the 

CPA ranges for all animals that 

exceeded threshold levels for that 

species (termed the 95 percent exposure 

range (ER95percent)). Notably, the 

ER95percent are species-specific rather 

than categorized only by hearing group, 

which affords more biologically-relevant 

data (e.g., dive durations, swim speeds, 

etc.) to be considered when assessing 

impact ranges. The ER95percent values for 

SELcum provided in Table 10 are smaller 

than the acoustic ranges calculated 

using propagation modeling alone 

(Table 7 and 8). Please see the Estimated 

Take section below and Appendix P1 of 

the SFWF COP for further detail on the 

acoustic modeling methodology. The 

ER95percent ranges assuming 10-dB 

attenuation for a difficult-to-drive pile 

were used to determine the Level A 

harassment zones for impact pile 

driving of monopiles. 

TABLE 10—EXPOSURE-BASED RANGES (ER95percent) TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL (SELcum) HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS DUE TO IMPACT PILE DRIVING OF A STANDARD MONOPILE (S; 4,500 STRIKES *) AND A DIFFICULT-TO-DRIVE-MONOPILE (D; 8,000 STRIKES *) 

Species 

ER95% to SELcum isopleths (m) 

0 dB 

attenuation 

6 dB 

attenuation 

10 dB 

attenuation 

12 dB 

attenuation 

15 dB 

attenuation 

S D S D S D S D S D 

Low-Frequency Cetaceans 

Fin whale ........... 5,386 6,741 2,655 2,982 1,451 1,769 959 1,381 552 621 

Minke whale ...... 5,196 6,033 2,845 2,882 1,488 1,571 887 964 524 628 

Sei whale ........... 5,287 6,488 2,648 3,144 1,346 1,756 1,023 1,518 396 591 

Humpback whale 9,333 11,287 5,195 5,947 3,034 3,642 2,450 2,693 1,593 1,813 

North Atlantic 

right whale ..... 4,931 5,857 2,514 3,295 1,481 1,621 918 1,070 427 725 

Mid-Frequency Cetaceans 

Sperm whale ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Atlantic spotted 

dolphin ........... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Atlantic whitesided dolphin 20 6 20 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Common dolphin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Risso’s dolphin .. 24 13 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bottlenose dolphin ................ 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Long-finned pilot 

whale ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

High-Frequency Cetaceans 

Harbor porpoise 2,845 3,934 683 996 79 365 26 39 21 26 

Pinnipeds in Water 

Gray seal ........... 1,559 1,986 276 552 46 117 0 21 0 21 

Harbor seal ........ 1,421 2,284 362 513 22 85 22 0 21 0 

dB re 1 μPa2s = decibel referenced to 1 micropascal squared second. 

* Approximation. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2

I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 837 

Cofferdam Installation and Removal 

Similar to cylindrical piles, sheet 

piles are a distributed acoustic source 

that can be treated as a linear array of 

point sources. The acoustic source 

modeling of vibratory driving of sheet 

piles was conducted following the same 

steps used to model impact pile driving. 

An American Pile-driving Equipment 

APE Model 200T with Model 200 

Universal Clamp was modeled driving 

a19.5-meter-long (64-foot-long), 0.95 cm 

(3⁄8 in) thick, Z-type sheet pile 9 m (30 

feet) into the sediment in 9 m (30 ft) of 

water. The forcing function was 

modeled for a single cycle of the 

vibrating hammer using GRLWEAP 

2010 wave equation model (GRLWEAP, 

Pile Dynamics 2010). The finite 

difference (FD) model was used to 

compute the resulting pile vibrations 

from the stress wave that propagates 

down the sheet pile. The radiated sound 

waves were modeled as discrete point 

sources over the 18 m (60 ft) of the pile 

in the water and sediment (9 m [30 ft] 

water depth, 9 m [30 ft] penetration) 

with a vertical separation of 10 cm. The 

source level spectrum for vibratory pile 

driving of a sheet pile for a cofferdam 

at the export cable landfall site is shown 

in Figure 9 in Denes et al. (2020a). 

Underwater sound propagation (i.e., 

transmission loss) as a function of range 

from each point source was modeled at 

one construction site using JASCO’s 

Marine Operations Noise Model 

(MONM). MONM computes received 

sound energy, the sound exposure level 

(SEL), for directional sources. MONM 

uses a wide-angle parabolic equation 

solution to the acoustic wave equation 

(Collins 1993) based on a version of the 

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

which has been modified to account for 

a solid seabed (Zhang and Tindle 1995). 

The parabolic equation method has been 

extensively benchmarked and is widely 

employed in the underwater acoustics 

community (Collins et al. 1996). 

MONM’s predictions have been 

validated against experimental data 

from several underwater acoustic 

measurement programs conducted by 

JASCO (Hannay and Racca 2005, Aerts 

et al. 2008, Funk et al. 2008, Ireland et 

al. 2009, O’Neill et al. 2010, Warner et 

al. 2010, Racca et al. 2012a, Racca et al. 

2012b). MONM accounts for the 

additional reflection loss at the seabed 

due to partial conversion of incident 

compressional waves to shear waves at 

the seabed and sub-bottom interfaces, 

and it includes wave attenuations in all 

layers. MONM incorporates site-specific 

environmental properties, such as 

bathymetry, underwater sound speed as 

a function of depth, and a geoacoustic 

profile the seafloor. MONM treats 

frequency dependence by computing 

acoustic transmission loss at the center 

frequencies of 1/3-octave-bands. At each 

center frequency, the transmission loss 

is modeled as a function of depth and 

range from the source. Composite 

broadband received SELs are then 

computed by summing the received 1/ 

3-octave-band levels across the modeled 

frequency range. 

For computational efficiency, MONM 

and similar models such as PE–RAM, do 

not track temporal aspects of the 

propagating signal (as opposed to the 

models used for impact pile driving that 

can output time-domain pressure 

signals). It is the total sound energy 

transmission loss that is calculated. For 

our purposes, that is equivalent to 

propagating the SEL acoustic metric. For 

continuous, steady-state signals SPL is 

readily obtained from the SEL. 

Removal of the cofferdam using a 

vibratory extractor is expected to be 

acoustically comparable to installation 

activities. No noise mitigation system 

will be used during vibratory piling. 

Summaries of the maximum ranges to 

Level A harassment isopleths and the 

Level B harassment isopleth resulting 

from propagation modeling of vibratory 

pile driving are provided in Table 11. 

Peak thresholds were not reached for 

any marine mammal hearing group. 

The large range to the Level B 

harassment isopleth resulting from 

vibratory piling installation and removal 

is, in part, a reflection of the threshold 

set for behavioral disturbance from a 

continuous noise (i.e., 120 dB rms). In 

addition (as discussed in the Comments 

and Responses section), the source level 

(SPL of 180 dB re 1 mPa at 31 m) for 

installation of sheet piles for the 

cofferdam is likely an overestimate but 

was considered acceptable for the 

following reasons: (1) The source level 

(SPL 160–165 dB re 1 mPa measured at 

10 m) for vibratory pile driving of sheet 

piles cited in Caltrans (2016, 2020) and 

provided in NOAA’s Pile Driving Noise 

Calculator spreadsheet (Caltrans 2012, 

2015) (available at https://

media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-02/ 

SERO%20Pile%20Driving%20

Noise%20Calculator_for%20

web.xlsx?null) is based on 

measurements of a small number of 

piles for which vibratory pile driving 

was only used to set the pile prior to 

impact pile driving to the final desired 

penetration depth, whereas South Fork 

Wind would be vibratory pile driving 

sheet piles to the full extent of the 

desired penetration depth, and (2) the 

pile (and vibratory hammer) will 

potentially encounter more resistance 

with depth and, therefore, require more 

hammer energy, during installation of 

the cofferdam because the piles will be 

driven to a deeper depth than those 

included in Caltrans (2016, 2020). 

Finally, Level B harassment is highly 

contextual for different species and the 

range to the isopleth does not represent 

a definitive impact zone or a suggested 

mitigation zone; rather, the information 

serves as the basis for assessing 

potential impacts within the context of 

the project and potentially exposed 

species. 

TABLE 11—RANGES TO LEVEL A CUMULATIVE SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL (SELcum) HARASSMENT ISOPLETH AND LEVEL B 

ROOT-MEAN-SQUARE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL (SPLrms) HARASSMENT ISOPLETH DUE TO 18 HOURS OF VIBRATORY

PILE DRIVING 1

Marine mammal hearing group 

Level A 

harassment 

threshold 

SELcum

(dB re 1 μPa 2s) 

Maximum 

range (m) 

to level A 

harassment 

isopleth 

Level B 

harassment 

threshold 

SPLrms

(dB re 1 μPa) 

Maximum 

range (m) 

to level B 

harassment 

isopleth 

Low-frequency cetaceans .......................................................................... 199 1,470 120 36,766 

Mid-frequency cetaceans ........................................................................... 198 0 120 36,766 

High-frequency cetaceans ......................................................................... 173 63 120 36,766 

Phocid pinnipeds ....................................................................................... 201 103 120 36,766 

1Although South Fork Wind may conduct a combination of impact and vibratory pile driving to install a casing pipe alternative to the cofferdam, 

mitigation and monitoring will be implemented based on ranges presented here. 

dB re 1 μPa = decibel referenced to 1 micropascal; μPa2s = decibel referenced to 1 micropascal squared second. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
838 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

Construction Surveys 

Ranges to Level A harassment 

isopleths for HRG equipment planned 

for use and all marine mammal 

functional hearing groups were modeled 

using the NMFS User Spreadsheet and 

NMFS Technical Guidance (2018), 

which provides a conservative approach 

to exposure estimation. However, 

sources that project a narrower beam, 

often in frequencies above 10 kHz 

directed at the seabed, are expected to 

have smaller distances to isopleths and 

less horizontal propagation due to the 

directionality of the source and faster 

attenuation rate of higher frequencies. 

Narrow beamwidths allow these HRG 

sources to be highly directional, 

focusing energy in the vertical direction 

and minimizing horizontal propagation, 

which greatly reduces the possibility of 

direct path exposure to receivers (i.e., 

marine mammals) from sounds emitted 

by these sources. 

NMFS has developed a user-friendly 

methodology for determining the sound 

pressure level (SPLrms) at the 160-dB 

isopleth for the purposes of estimating 

the extent of Level B harassment 

isopleths associated with HRG survey 

equipment (NMFS, 2020). This 

methodology incorporates frequencydependent absorption and some 

directionality to refine estimated 

ensonified zones. South Fork Wind used 

NMFS’ methodology with additional 

modifications to incorporate a seawater 

absorption formula and account for 

energy emitted outside of the primary 

beam of the source. Therefore, for 

sources with beamwidths less than 180°, 

ranges to the Level B harassment 

isopleth were calculated following 

NMFS’s methodology (NMFS, 2020) to 

account for the influence of beamwidth 

and frequency on the horizontal 

propagation of these sources. For 

sources that operate with different beam 

widths, the maximum beam width was 

used (see Table 2). The lowest frequency 

of the source was used when calculating 

the absorption coefficient (Table 2). 

NMFS considers the data provided by 

Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) to 

represent the best available information 

on source levels associated with HRG 

equipment and, therefore, recommends 

that source levels provided by Crocker 

and Fratantonio (2016) be incorporated 

in the method described above to 

estimate ranges to the Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

isopleths. In cases when the source level 

for a specific type of HRG equipment is 

not provided in Crocker and Fratantonio 

(2016), NMFS recommends that either 

the source levels provided by the 

manufacturer be used, or, in instances 

where source levels provided by the 

manufacturer are unavailable or 

unreliable, a proxy from Crocker and 

Fratantonio (2016) be used instead. 

Table 2 shows the HRG equipment types 

that may be used during the 

construction surveys and the sound 

levels associated with those HRG 

equipment types. 

Results of modeling using the 

methodology described above indicated 

that, of the HRG equipment planned for 

use by South Fork Wind that has the 

potential to result in Level B harassment 

of marine mammals, sound produced by 

the Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark UHD 

sparkers and GeoMarine Geo-Source 

sparker would propagate furthest to the 

Level B harassment isopleth (141 m; 

Table 12). For the purposes of the 

exposure analysis, it was conservatively 

assumed that sparkers would be the 

dominant acoustic source for all survey 

days. Thus, the range to the isopleth 

corresponding to the threshold for Level 

B harassment for sparkers (141 m) was 

used as the basis of the take calculation 

for all marine mammals. 

TABLE 12—RANGE TO WEIGHTED LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND UNWEIGHTED LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FOR EACH

HRG SOUND SOURCE OR COMPARABLE SOUND SOURCE CATEGORY FOR MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

Source 

Range to level A harassment isopleth (m) Range to 

level B 

harassment 

isopleth (m) LF 

(SELcum

threshold) 

MF 

(SELcum

threshold) 

HF 

(SELcum

threshold) 

HF 

(SPL0-pk

threshold) 

PW 

(SELcum

threshold) All species 

Shallow SBPs 

ET 216 CHIRP ......................................... <1 <1 2.9 - 0 12 

ET 424 CHIRP ......................................... 0 0 0 - 0 4 

ET 512i CHIRP ........................................ 0 0 <1 - 0 6 

GeoPulse 5430 ........................................ <1 <1 36.5 - <1 29 

TB CHIRP III ............................................ 1.5 <1 16.9 - <1 54 

Medium SBPs 

AA Triple plate S-Boom (700/1,000 J) .... <1 0 0 4.7 <1 76 

AA, Dura-spark UHD (500 J/400 tip) ....... <1 0 0 2.8 <1 141 

AA, Dura-spark UHD 400+400 ................ <1 0 0 2.8 <1 141 

GeoMarine, Geo-Source dual 400 tip 

sparker .................................................. <1 0 0 2.8 <1 141 

- = not applicable; μPa = micropascal; AA = Applied Acoustics; Chirp = Compressed High-Intensity Radiated Pulse; dB = decibels; ET 

=EdgeTech; HF = high-frequency; J = joules; LF = low-frequency; MF = mid-frequency; PW = Phocids in water; re = referenced to; SBP = subbottom profiler; SELcum = cumulative sound exposure level in dB re 1 μPa2s; SPL0-pk = zero to peak sound pressure level in dB re 1 μPa; TB = 

teledyne benthos; UHD = ultra-high definition; USBL = ultra-short baseline. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

This section provides information 

about the presence, density, or group 

dynamics of marine mammals that will 

inform the take calculations. The best 

available information regarding marine 

mammal densities in the project area is 

provided by habitat-based density 

models produced by the Duke 

University Marine Geospatial Ecology 

Laboratory (Roberts et al., 2016, 2017, 

2018, 2020). Density models were 

originally developed for all cetacean 

taxa in the U.S. Atlantic (Roberts et al., 

2016); more information, including the 

model results and supplementary 

information for each of those models, is 

available at seamap.env.duke.edu/ 

models/Duke-EC-GOM-2015/. In 

subsequent years, certain models have 

been updated on the basis of additional 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 839 

data as well as certain methodological 

improvements. Although these updated 

models (and a newly developed seal 

density model) are not currently 

publicly available, our evaluation of the 

updates leads to the conclusion that 

these modeled densities represent the 

best scientific evidence available. 

Marine mammal density estimates in 

the SFWF (animals/km2) were obtained 

using these model results (Roberts et al., 

2016, 2017, 2018, 2020). As noted in the 

Comments and Responses section, the 

updated models incorporate additional 

sighting data, including sightings from 

the NOAA Atlantic Marine Assessment 

Program for Protected Species 

(AMAPPS) surveys from 2010–2016, 

which included some aerial surveys 

over the RI/MA WEAs (NEFSC & 

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

2014b, 2015, 2016). In addition, the 

2020 update to the NARW density 

model (Roberts et al., 2020) includes, for 

the first time, data from the 2011–2015 

surveys of the MA and RI/MA WEAs 

(Kraus et al. 2016) as well as the 2017– 

2018 continuation of those surveys, 

known as the Marine Mammal Surveys 

of the Wind Energy Areas (MMS–WEA) 

(Quintana et al., 2018). 

Densities of marine mammals and 

their subsequent exposure risk are 

different for the SFWF area (where 

impact pile driving of monopiles will 

occur), the nearshore export cable 

landing area (where vibratory pile 

driving will occur), and the construction 

survey area. Therefore, density blocks 

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

2018) specific to each activity area were 

selected for evaluating the potential 

numbers of take for the 15 assessed 

species. The Denes et al. (2020b) model 

analysis utilized NARW densities from 

the most recent survey period, 2010– 

2018, as suggested by Roberts et al. 

(2020). 

Monopile Installation 

Mean monthly densities for all 

animals were calculated using a 60 km 

(37.3 mi) square centered on SFWF and 

overlaying it on the density maps from 

Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020). 

The relatively large area selected for 

density estimation encompasses and 

extends beyond the estimated ranges to 

the isopleth corresponding to Level B 

harassment (with no attenuation, as well 

as with 6, 10, 12 and 15-dB sound 

attenuation) for all hearing groups using 

the unweighted threshold of 160 dB re 

1 mPa (rms) (Table 9). Please see Figure 

3 in the SFWF COP (Appendix P2) for 

an example of a density map showing 

Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020) 

density grid cells overlaid on a map of 

the SFWF. 

The mean density for each month was 

determined by calculating the 

unweighted mean of all 10 × 10 km (6.2 

× 6.2 mi) grid cells partially or fully 

within the buffer zone polygon. Mean 

values from the density maps were 

converted from units of abundance 

(animals/100 km2 [38.6 miles2]) to units 

of density (animals/km2). Densities were 

computed for the months of May to 

December to coincide with planned 

impact pile driving of monopile 

activities (as described above, no impact 

pile driving of monopiles may occur 

from December (with caveats) through 

April). In cases where monthly densities 

were unavailable, annual mean 

densities (e.g., pilot whales) and 

seasonal mean densities (e.g., all seals) 

were used instead. Table 13 shows the 

monthly marine mammal density 

estimates for each species incorporated 

in the exposure modeling analysis. To 

obtain conservative exposure estimates, 

South Fork Wind used the maximum of 

the mean monthly (May to December) 

densities for each species to estimate the 

number of individuals of each species 

exposed to sound above Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

thresholds. The maximum densities 

applied are denoted by an asterisk. 

TABLE 13—ESTIMATED DENSITIES (ANIMALS/km-2) USED FOR MODELING MARINE MAMMAL EXPOSURES INCIDENTAL TO

MONOPILE INSTALLATION WITHIN SOUTH FORK WIND FARM

Common name 

Monthly density 

(animals km-2) 

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Fin whale .......................................................... 0.00201 0.00219 * 0.00264 0.00251 0.00217 0.00145 0.00102 0.00105 

Minke whale ..................................................... * 0.00163 0.00143 0.00047 0.00026 0.00027 0.00049 0.00022 0.00032 

Sei whale ......................................................... * 0.00019 0.00013 0.00003 0.00002 0.00003 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 

Humpback whale ............................................. 0.00133 0.00148 0.00069 0.00094 * 0.00317 0.00156 0.00042 0.00061 

North Atlantic right whale ................................. * 0.00154 0.00011 0.00002 0.00001 0.00001 0.00005 0.00029 0.00151 

Blue whale ....................................................... * 0.00001 

Sperm whale .................................................... 0.00002 0.00008 * 0.00031 0.00024 0.00010 0.00007 0.00007 0.00001

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ............................. * 0.03900 0.03600 0.02500 0.01300 0.01500 0.02200 0.02100 0.02800 

Atlantic spotted dolphin .................................... 0.00012 0.00016 0.00034 0.00041 0.00051 * 0.00058 0.00037 0.00007 

Bottlenose dolphin ........................................... 0.00496 0.01800 0.03700 0.03800 * 0.04000 0.02000 0.00962 0.00846 

Pilot whales 1 .................................................... * 0.00596 

Risso’s dolphin ................................................. 0.00005 0.00005 0.00018 * 0.00026 0.00015 0.00005 0.00009 0.00019 

Common dolphin .............................................. 0.04400 0.04600 0.04300 0.06200 0.10200 0.12800 0.09800 * 0.20400 

Harbor porpoise ............................................... * 0.03800 0.00236 0.00160 0.00172 0.00161 0.00399 0.02400 0.02300 

Gray seal .......................................................... * 0.03900 0.02600 0.00874 0.00357 0.00529 0.00955 0.00630 0.03400 

Harbor seal ...................................................... * 0.03900 0.02600 0.00874 0.00357 0.00529 0.00955 0.00630 0.03400 

* Denotes the highest monthly density estimated. 

1 Long- and short-finned pilot whales are grouped together to estimate the total density of both species. 

Cofferdam Installation and Removal 

Marine mammal densities in the 

nearshore export cable landing area 

were estimated from the 10 × 10 km 

habitat density blocks that contained the 

anticipated potential locations 

(separated by 22 km) of the cofferdam. 

Monthly marine mammal densities for 

the potential construction locations of 

the cofferdam are provided in Table 14. 

The maximum densities (denoted by an 

asterisk) were incorporated in the 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
840 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

exposure modeling to obtain the most 

conservative estimates of potential take 

by Level A harassment or Level B 

harassment. 

The species listed in each respective 

density table represent animals that 

could be reasonably expected to occur 

within the Level B harassment zone, in 

the months during which the cofferdam 

could potentially be installed and 

extracted (e.g., installation likely 

between November and April; removal 

could occur anytime up to expiration of 

the IHA). Several of the outer 

continental shelf and deeper water 

species that appear in the SFWF area are 

not included in the cofferdam species 

list because the densities were zero for 

those species. 

TABLE 14—ESTIMATED DENSITIES (ANIMALS/km-2) USED FOR MODELING MARINE MAMMAL EXPOSURES WITHIN THE

AFFECTED AREA AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE OF THE COFFERDAM INSTALLATION

Species 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Oct Nov Dec 

Fin whale .......................................................... 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 * 0.0005 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 

Minke whale ..................................................... 0.0005 * 0.0008 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 

Sei whale ......................................................... 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 

Humpback whale ............................................. * 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 

North Atlantic right whale ................................. * 0.0014 0.0014 0.0013 0.0008 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.0008 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ............................. 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 * 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 

Common dolphin .............................................. 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0007 0.0007 * 0.0010 0.0008 

Bottlenose dolphin ........................................... 0.0694 0.0296 0.0157 0.0474 0.3625 * 0.4822 0.2614 0.0809 

Harbor porpoise ............................................... 0.0007 0.0005 0.0005 0.0011 0.0007 * 0.0026 0.0003 0.0006 

Gray seal .......................................................... * 0.3136 0.3136 0.3136 0.3136 0.3136 0.3136 0.3136 0.3136 

Harbor seal ...................................................... * 0.3136 0.3136 0.3136 0.3136 0.3136 0.3136 0.3136 0.3136 

* Denotes density used for take estimates. 

1Only species with potential exposures are listed. 

Construction Surveys 

Densities for construction surveys 

were combined for the SFWF area 

(inter-array cables) and the SFEC using 

density blocks that encompassed those 

areas. The densities used for 

construction surveys are provided in 

Table 15. Average annual, rather than 

maximum monthly, densities were 

estimated to account for spatial 

variability in the distribution of marine 

mammals throughout the SFWF and 

SFEC and temporal variability in 

distribution over the 12-month 

timeframe during which construction 

surveys would occur. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2EN06JA22.003</GPH>

Table 15. Estimated Densities (animals/km2) Of Marine Mammals Within the 

Construction Surve'il' Area (Export Cable Routes and Inter-Arra,, Cables) 

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May JW1 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual 

Average* 

Fin whale 0.0020 0.0015 0.0016 0.0027 0.0022 0.0022 0.0025 0.0024 0.0018 0.0018 0.0016 0.0022 0.0020 

Minke whale 0.0006 0.0007 0.0006 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0.0001 0.0006 0.0006 0.0005 

Sei whale 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 

Hwnpback whale 0.0008 0.0007 0.0008 0.0006 0.0009 0.0013 0.0008 0.0010 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0007 0.0010 

North Atlantic 0.0038 0.0053 0.0060 0.0054 0.0016 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0017 0.0020 

ri2:htwhale 

Sperm whale 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 

Atlantic white- 0.0227 0.0103 0.0078 0.0172 0.0326 0.0276 0.0178 0.0126 0.0202 0.0267 0.0298 0.0352 0.0217 

sided dolphin 

Atlantic spotted 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 

dolphin 

Common dolphin 0.0218 0.0100 0.0085 0.0182 0.0568 0.0645 0.0417 0.0456 0.0468 0.0538 0.0600 0.0506 0.0399 

Bottlenose 0.0081 0.0033 0.0014 0.0035 0.0241 0.0324 0.0544 0.0405 0.0393 0.0392 0.0271 0.0108 0.0237 

dolohin 

Risso's dolphin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Long-finned pilot 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 

whale 

Harbor porpoise 0.0871 0.0584 0.0475 0.0964 0.0547 0.0182 0.0037 0.0014 0.0024 0.0150 0.0046 0.0482 0.0365 

Gray seal 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151 0.0121 

Harbor seal 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151 0.0121 

• Average annual density used for take estimates. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 841 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Below is a description of how the 

information provided above is brought 

together to produce a quantitative take 

estimate. The following steps were 

performed to estimate the potential 

numbers of marine mammal exposures 

above Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds as a result of the 

planned activities. 

Monopile Installation 

JASCO’s Animal Simulation Model 

Including Noise Exposure (JASMINE) 

animal movement model was used to 

predict the probability of marine 

mammal exposure to impact pile 

driving sound generated by monopile 

installation. Sound exposure models 

like JASMINE use simulated animals 

(also known as ‘‘animats’’) to forecast 

behaviors of animals in new situations 

and locations based on 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 location of animats (and 

their pathways) are not known prior to 

a project, therefore, a repeated random 

sampling technique (Monte Carlo) is 

used to estimate exposure probability 

with many animats and randomized 

starting positions. The probability of an 

animat starting out in or transitioning 

into a given behavioral state can be 

defined in terms of the animat’s current 

behavioral state, depth, and the time of 

day. In addition, each travel parameter 

and behavioral state has a termination 

function that governs how long the 

parameter value or overall behavioral 

state persists in the simulation. 

The output of the simulation is the 

exposure history for each animat within 

the simulation, and the combined 

history of all animats gives a probability 

density function of exposure during the 

project. Scaling the probability density 

function by the real-world density of 

animals (Table 13) results in the mean 

number of animats expected to be 

exposed over the duration of the project. 

Due to the probabilistic nature of the 

process, fractions of animats may be 

predicted to exceed threshold. If, for 

example, 0.1 animats are predicted to 

exceed threshold in the model, that is 

interpreted as a 10-percent chance that 

one animat will exceed a relevant 

threshold during the project, or 

equivalently, if the simulation were rerun ten times, one of the ten simulations 

would result in an animat exceeding the 

threshold. Similarly, a mean number 

prediction of 33.11 animats can be 

interpreted as re-running the simulation 

where the number of animats exceeding 

the threshold may differ in each 

simulation but the mean number of 

animats over all of the simulations is 

33.11. A portion of an individual marine 

mammal cannot be taken during a 

project, so it is common practice to 

round mean number animat exposure 

values to integers using standard 

rounding methods. However, for lowprobability events it is more precise to 

provide the actual values. For this 

reason, mean number values are not 

rounded. 

Sound fields were input into the 

JASMINE model and animats were 

programmed based on the best available 

information to ‘‘behave’’ in ways that 

reflect the behaviors of the 15 marine 

mammal species expected to occur in 

the project area during the activity. The 

various parameters for forecasting 

realistic marine mammal behaviors (e.g., 

diving, foraging, surface times, etc.) are 

determined based on the available 

literature (e.g., tagging studies). When 

literature on these behaviors was not 

available for a particular species, it was 

extrapolated from a similar species for 

which behaviors would be expected to 

be similar to the species of interest. 

Please refer to the footnotes on Tables 

16 and 17, and Appendix P2 of SFWF 

COP for a more detailed description of 

the species that were used as proxies 

when data on a particular species was 

not available. The parameters used in 

JASMINE describe animat movement in 

both the vertical and horizontal planes 

(e.g., direction, travel rate, ascent and 

descent rates, depth, bottom following, 

reversals, inter-dive surface interval). 

More information regarding modeling 

parameters can be found in Denes et al. 

(2020b). 

The mean numbers of animats that 

may be exposed to noise exceeding 

acoustic thresholds were calculated for 

two construction schedules, one 

representing the most likely schedule, 

and one representing a more aggressive, 

or maximum schedule (Denes et al., 

2019). The most likely schedule 

assumes that three foundations are 

installed per week with an average of 

one pile installed every other day. The 

maximum schedule assumes six 

monopile foundations are installed per 

week with one pile installation per day. 

Within each of the construction 

schedules, a single difficult-to-drive pile 

was included in the model assumptions 

to account for the potential for 

additional strikes (Denes et al., 2019). 

Animats were modeled to move 

throughout the three-dimensional sound 

fields produced by each construction 

schedule for the entire construction 

period. For PTS exposures, both SPLpeak

and SPLcum were calculated for each 

species based on the corresponding 

acoustic criteria. Once an animat is 

taken within a 24-hour period, the 

model does not allow it to be taken a 

second time in that same period but 

rather resets the 24-hour period on a 

sliding scale across 7 days of exposure. 

An individual animat’s exposure levels 

are summed over that 24-hour period to 

determine its total received energy, and 

then compared to the threshold criteria. 

Potential behavioral exposures are 

estimated when an animat is within the 

area ensonified by sound levels 

exceeding the corresponding thresholds. 

It should be noted that the estimated 

numbers of individuals exceeding any 

of the thresholds is conservative 

because the 24-hour evaluation window 

allows individuals to be counted on 

multiple days (or can be interpreted as 

different individuals each 24-hour 

period) when in the real world it may 

in fact be the same individual 

experiencing repeated exposures (Denes 

et al., 2019). Please note that animal 

aversion was not incorporated into the 

JASMINE model runs that were the 

basis for the take estimate for any 

species. See Appendix P2 of the SFWF 

COP for more details on the JASMINE 

modeling methodology, including the 

literature sources used for the 

parameters that were input in JASMINE 

to describe animal movement for each 

species that is expected to occur in the 

project area. 

In summary, exposures were 

estimated in the following way: 

(1) The characteristics of the sound 

output from the pile-driving activities 

were modeled using the GRLWEAP 

(wave equation analysis of pile driving) 

model and JASCO’s TDFD PDSM; 

(2) Acoustic propagation modeling 

was performed within the exposure 

model framework using FWRAM and 

BELLHOP, which combined the outputs 

of the source model with the spatial and 

temporal environmental context (e.g., 

location, oceanographic conditions, 

seabed type) to estimate sound fields; 

(3) Animal movement modeling 

integrated the estimated sound fields 

with species-typical behavioral 

parameters in the JASMINE model to 

estimate received sound levels for the 

animals that may occur in the 

operational area; and 

(4) The number of potential exposures 

above Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds was calculated 

for each potential piling scenario 

(standard, maximum). 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
842 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

All scenarios were modeled with no 

sound attenuation and 6, 10, 12, and 15- 

dB sound attenuation. The results of 

marine mammal exposure modeling for 

the potentially more impactful 

maximum piling scenarios are shown in 

Tables 16 and 17, as these form the basis 

for authorized take. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

Again, only the estimated Level B 

harassment exposures for the maximum 

design impact pile driving of monopiles 

schedule are presented here (Table 17). 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2EN06JA22.004</GPH>

Table 16. Modeled Potential Level A Harassment Exposures1 Due to Impact Pile 

Driving Using the Maximum Design Scenario With the Inclusion of 1 Difficult-toD rive . p1 ·1 e an d O 6 10 12 d 15 dB B db d Att f ' ' ' , an - roa an enua ion 

OdB 6dB lOdB 12 dB 15 dB 

Species attenuation attenuation attenuation attenuation attenuation 

SELcum SPLpk SELcum SPLpk SELcum SPLpk SELcum SPLpk SELcum 

Low-Frequency Cetaceans 

Fin whale 7 <1 3 <1 1 <1 1 <1 <1 

Minke whale2 7 <1 3 <1 1 <1 1 <1 <1 

Sei whale3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

Humpback whale2 21 <1 9 <1 4 <1 3 <1 3 

North Atlantic right 4 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

whale2 

Blue whale <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

Mid-Frequency Cetaceans 

Sperm whale <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

Atlantic spotted dolphin4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

Atlantic white-sided <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

dolphin4 

Bottlenose dolphin <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

Common dolphin4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

Risso's dolphin4 <l <l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <l <l 

Pilot whale5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

High-Frequency Cetaceans 

Harbor porpoise 33 23 4 7 I I 3 1 3 <1 

Pinnipeds in Water 

Gray seal6 6 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

Harbor seall 8 1 2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

dB=decibel; SELcum=sound exposure level in units of dB referenced to 1 micropascal squared second; 

SPLpk=peak sound pressure level in units of dB referenced to 1 micropascal. 

1The maximum density available for any month was used for each species to estimate the maximum 

potential exposures (i.e., exposure estimates for all species are not for the same month). 

2Subset of fin whale behaviors used to approximate model parameters. 

3Fin whale used as proxy species for exposure modeling. 

4Subset of sperm whale and Atlantic spotted dolphin behaviors used to approximate model parameters. 

5Subset of sperm whale behaviors used to approximate model parameters. 

6Harbor seal used as proxy species for exposure modeling. 

7Calculated exposures with 10 dB for harbor porpoises were< 1 but >0.5; therefore they were rounded up 

to the nearest whole number. 

SPLpk 

<1 

<1 

<1 

<1 

<1 

<1 

<1 

<1 

<1 

<1 

<1 

<1 

<1 

1 

<1 

<1 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 843 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Although exposures are presented 

according to a range of attenuation 

levels, take numbers are based on an 

assumption of 10-dB attenuation and are 

shown below in Table 18. South Fork 

Wind considers an attenuation level of 

10-dB achievable using a dBBC, which 

is the most likely noise mitigation 

technology that will be used during 

construction of SFWF. Recently 

reported in situ measurements during 

installation of monopiles (∼8 m) 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 mitigation. Designed to gather 

additional data regarding the efficacy of 

BBCs, the Coastal Virginia Offshore 

Wind (CVOW) pilot project 

systematically measured noise resulting 

from the impact driven installation of 

two 7.8-m monopiles, one installation 

using a dBBC and the other installation 

using no noise mitigation system 

(CVOW, unpublished data). Although 

many factors contributed to variability 

in received levels throughout the 

installation of the piles (e.g., hammer 

energy, technical challenges during 

operation of the dBBC), reduction in 

broadband SEL using the dBBC 

(comparing measurements derived from 

the mitigated and the unmitigated 

monopiles) ranged from approximately 

9–15 dB. The effectiveness of the dBBC 

as a noise mitigation system was found 

to be frequency-dependent, reaching 

maximum efficacy around 1 kHz; this 

finding is consistent with other studies 

(e.g., Bellman, 2014; Bellman et al., 

2020). The noise measurements were 

incorporated into a dampened 

cylindrical transmission loss model to 

estimate ranges to Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment isopleths. The 

ranges to Level A harassment and Level 

B harassment isopleths estimated for the 

monopile with the dBBC were more 

than 90 percent and 74 percent smaller 

than those estimated for the unmitigated 

pile, respectively (CVOW unpublished 

data). 

South Fork Wind conservatively 

based their exposure modeling on the 

maximum piling scenario, including 

one difficult-to-drive monopile (out of 

16) and a compressed buildout schedule 

(16 piles installed over 20 days). 

In addition, the acoustic modeling 

scenario represents only that which 

produced the largest harassment zones, 

and does not reflect all the mitigation 

measures that must be employed during 

piling operations to reduce the 

ensonified zone or increase mitigation 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2EN06JA22.005</GPH>

Table 17. Modeled Potential Level B Harassment Exposures1 Due to Impact Pile 

Driving Using the Maximum Design Scenario With 1 Difficult-to Drive pile and O, 6, 

10, 12, and 15-dB broadband attenuation 

Species Level B Exposures by Noise Attenuation Level 

0dB 6dB lOdB 12 dB 

attenuation attenuation attenuation attenuation 

Low-Frequency Cetaceans 

Fin whale 21 10 6 5 

Minke whale2 27 15 10 8 

Sei whale3 <1 <1 <1 <1 

Humpback whale2 26 13 8 7 

North Atlantic right whale2 16 7 4 3 

Blue whale <1 <1 <1 <1 

Mid-Freauencv Cetaceans 

Sperm whale <1 <1 <1 <1 

Atlantic snotted dolohin4 6 3 2 1 

Atlantic white-sided 322 152 107 85 

dolphin4 

Bottlenose dolohin 1261 459 197 148 

Common dolphin4 2 1 <1 <1 

Risso's dolohin4 212 85 43 34 

Pilot whale5 <1 <1 <1 <1 

High-Freauencv Cetaceans 

Harbor porpoise 272 129 78 67 

Pinnioeds in Water 

Gray seal6 307 116 60 52 

Harbor seal 319 119 54 45 

dB=decibel 

1The maximum density available for any month was used for each species to estimate the maximum 

potential exposures (i.e., exposure estimates for all species are not for the same). 2Subset of fin whale behaviors used to approximate model parameters. 

3Fin whale used as proxy species for exposure modeling. 

4Subset of sperm whale and Atlantic spotted dolphin behaviors used to approximate model parameters. 

5Subset of sperm whale behaviors used to approximate model parameters. 

6Harbor seal used as proxy species for exposure modeling. 

15 dB 

attenuation 

4 

6 

<1 

6 

3 

<1 

<1 

<1 

48 

73 

<1 

14 

<1 

40 

28 

28 
844 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

actions, which may reduce take (see the 

Mitigation section for details). 

Variability in monthly species 

densities is not considered in South 

Fork Wind’s take estimates for impact 

pile driving of monopiles, which are 

based on the highest mean density value 

for any month for each species. Given 

that all monopile installations will 

potentially occur within an 

approximately 30-day timeframe, it is 

unlikely that maximum monthly 

densities would be encountered for all 

species. 

Finally, start delays and shutdowns of 

monopile installation are not considered 

in the exposure modeling parameters for 

monopile driving. However, South Fork 

Wind must delay impact pile driving of 

monopiles if a NARW is observed at any 

distance prior to initiating pile driving 

to avoid take, and if any other marine 

mammal is observed entering or within 

the respective clearance zone during the 

clearance period. If monopile 

installation has already commenced, 

South Fork Wind is required to 

shutdown if a NARW is sighted at any 

distance or detected via PAM within 2 

km of the monopile location, and if any 

other marine mammal enters its 

respective shutdown zone (unless South 

Fork Wind and/or its contractor 

determines shutdown is not practicable 

due to an 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). 

There are two scenarios, approaching 

pile refusal and pile instability, where 

this imminent risk could be a factor. 

These scenarios are considered unlikely 

and it is expected that shutdowns will 

predominantly be practicable during 

operations. See Mitigation section for 

shutdown procedural details. 

Although exposure modeling for 

monopile installations indicated that 

take by Level A harassment (PTS) is 

only expected for a three species of 

baleen whales (fin whale, minke whale, 

and humpback whale), South Fork 

Wind requested, and NMFS has 

authorized, take, by Level A harassment, 

of one sei whale based on (1) rare 

observations of sei whales in/near the 

Lease Area during prior monitoring 

efforts, and (2) difficulty distinguishing 

fin and sei whales at sea (observers 

sometimes report a fin/sei complex). In 

addition, South Fork Wind requested 

authorization of take, by Level B 

harassment, equal to the mean group 

size for several species, based on the 

following: Seals, Herr et al., (2009); 

long-finned pilot whale, Kenney and 

Vigness-Raposa (2010); sperm whale, 

and Risso’s dolphin, Barkaszi and Kelly 

(2018). NMFS generally agrees that this 

approach is appropriate in cases where 

instantaneous exposure is expected to 

result in harassment (e.g., Level B 

harassment) and calculated take 

estimates are either zero or less than the 

group size. Upon further review of 

scientific literature, NMFS has 

increased take, by Level B harassment, 

of long-finned pilot whales from 12 to 

20, based on the largest reported group 

size (n=20; CETAP, 1982). Similarly, 

NMFS increased take, by Level B 

harassment, of Atlantic spotted 

dolphins from 2 to 13 based on Barkaski 

and Kelly (2018); this group size is 

similar to average group size estimated 

from observations of Atlantic spotted 

dolphins within or near the project area 

(n=10), as reported in Smultea (2020). 

Common dolphins are frequently 

sighted in the project area, although the 

average group size varies by season 

(AMAPPS, 2021). During previous 

monitoring efforts in or near the SFWF 

and SFEC, the average group size ranged 

from 9.6 (CSA, 2021) to 35 (AMAPPS 

2021). To account for the frequency of 

occurrence in the project area, NMFS 

conservatively increased take of 

common dolphins, by Level B 

harassment, from 197 to 560 by 

multiplying the largest reported group 

size (35; AMAPPS, 2021) by the number 

of days on which impact pile driving of 

monopiles may occur (n=16). AMAPPS 

(2021) reports the largest average group 

size for bottlenose dolphins (n=21.6) 

among the literature reviewed (DoN, 

2017; Smultea, 2020; CSA, 2021; 

AMAPPS, 2021). NMFS increased take, 

by Level B harassment, of bottlenose 

dolphins from 43 to 346 by multiplying 

group size (n=21.6; AMAPPS, 2021) by 

the number of days on which monopile 

installation may occur (n=16). Finally, 

as described in the Comments and 

Responses and Changes from Proposed 

to Final IHA sections, one take, by Level 

B harassment, of a blue whale was 

originally proposed for authorization. 

However, given the lack of observations 

of blue whales within or near the project 

area and the species’ preference for 

deeper water and bathymetric features 

such as continental shelf edges, NMFS 

has determined that the potential for 

Level B harassment for this species is de 

minimus and NMFS has not authorized 

take of a blue whale, by Level B 

harassment. Please see Table 18 for the 

number of takes proposed and 

authorized, by species, incidental to 

impact pile driving of monopiles. 

TABLE 18—PROPOSED AND AUTHORIZED LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS

RESULTING FROM IMPACT PILE DRIVING OF UP TO 16, 11-m MONOPILES WITH INCLUSION OF A SINGLE DIFFICULTTO-DRIVE PILE AT SOUTH FORK WIND FARM ASSUMING 10-DB BROADBAND SOUND ATTENUATION

Species/stock Abundance 1

estimate 

Proposed 

take 2

Authorized 

take 3

Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment 

Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment 

Fin whale .............................................................................. 6,802 1 6 1 6 

Minke whale ......................................................................... 21,968 1 10 1 10 

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

Humpback whale ................................................................. 1,396 4 8 4 8 

North Atlantic right whale ..................................................... 368 0 4 0 4 

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

Long-finned pilot whale ........................................................ 39,215 0 2 0 20 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ........................................................ 39,921 0 2 0 13 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ................................................. 93,233 0 107 0 107 

Common dolphin .................................................................. 172,974 0 197 0 560 

Risso’s dolphin ..................................................................... 35,215 0 30(1) 0 30 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................... 62,851 0 43 0 346 

Harbor porpoise ................................................................... 95,543 0 78 0 78 

Gray seal .............................................................................. 27,300 0 60 0 60 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 845 

TABLE 18—PROPOSED AND AUTHORIZED LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS

RESULTING FROM IMPACT PILE DRIVING OF UP TO 16, 11-m MONOPILES WITH INCLUSION OF A SINGLE DIFFICULTTO-DRIVE PILE AT SOUTH FORK WIND FARM ASSUMING 10-DB BROADBAND SOUND ATTENUATION—Continued 

Species/stock Abundance 1

estimate 

Proposed 

take 2

Authorized 

take 3

Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment 

Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment 

Harbor seal .......................................................................... 61,336 0 54 0 54 

1The best available abundance estimates are derived from the NMFS’ 2021 Draft SARs (Hayes et al., 2021). NMFS stock abundance estimate 

for gray seals in Table 3 applies to U.S. population only; actual stock abundance is approximately 451,431. 2Parentheses denote animal exposure model estimates. For species with no modeled exposures for Level A harassment or Level B harassment, proposed takes are based on mean group sizes (e.g., sei whale, long-finned pilot whale: Kenney and Vigness-Raposa (2010); sperm 

whale, Risso’s dolphin: Barkaszi and Kelly, (2018)). 3Authorized take is based on largest group size reported from observations in or near the project area (e.g., long-finned pilot whale: CETAP 

1982; Atlantic spotted dolphin: Barkasky and Kelly (2018); common dolphin, bottlenose dolphin: AMAPPS 2021). 

Cofferdam Installation and Removal 

Animal movement and exposure 

modeling was not used to determine 

potential exposures from vibratory pile 

driving. Rather, the modeled acoustic 

ranges to isopleths corresponding to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds were used to 

calculate the area around the cofferdam 

predicted to be ensonified daily to 

levels that exceed the thresholds, or the 

Zone of Influence (ZOI). ZOI is 

calculated as the following: 

ZOI = pr2, 

where r is the linear acoustic range from 

the source to the isopleth 

corresponding to Level A 

harassment or Level B harassment 

thresholds. This area was adjusted 

to account for the portion of the ZOI 

truncated by the coastline of Long 

Island, NY. 

The daily area was then multiplied by 

the maximum monthly density of a 

given marine mammal species. Roberts 

et al. (2018) produced density models 

for all seals, but did not differentiate by 

seal species. Because the seasonality 

and habitat use by gray seals roughly 

overlaps with that of harbor seals in the 

project area, it was assumed that the 

mean annual density of seals could refer 

to either of the respective species and 

was, therefore, divided equally between 

the two species. 

Finally, the resulting value was 

multiplied by the number of activity 

days that contain the potential duration 

of actual vibratory pile driving (36 hours 

total) which is, for cofferdam 

installation and removal, conservatively 

estimated as two days. Modeling of the 

Level A harassment exposures resulting 

from an 18-hour period of vibratory pile 

driving for installation and another 18- 

hour period for removal resulted in less 

than one exposure for all species for 

each month between October 1 and May 

31. South Fork Wind plans to install a 

cofferdam or casing pipe, if required, as 

one of the first activities in the 

construction schedule; removal could 

occur at any time through the expiration 

of the IHA. Modeled potential Level B 

harassment exposures resulting from 

installation and removal of the 

cofferdam are shown in Table 19. 

TABLE 19—MODELED LEVEL B HARASSMENT EXPOSURES RESULTING FROM VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING TO INSTALL AND

REMOVE THE COFFERDAM

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Oct Nov Dec 

Fin whale .......................................................................................... 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 

Minke whale ..................................................................................... 2 3 3 0 0 0 2 2 

Sei whale ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Humpback whale ............................................................................. 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

North Atlantic right whale ................................................................. 6 6 5 3 1 0 1 3 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ............................................................. 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 

Common dolphin .............................................................................. 1 0 0 1 3 3 4 3 

Bottlenose dolphin ........................................................................... 289 123 65 197 1,509 2,007 1,088 337 

Harbor porpoise ............................................................................... 3 2 2 5 3 11 1 2 

Gray seal .......................................................................................... 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 

Harbor seal ...................................................................................... 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 

Maximum 18-hour period of vibratory pile driving for installation and 18-hour period for removal will be separated by at least 24 hours of no vibratory sound source operating at the cofferdam. 

Modeled vibratory pile-driving 

activities for the SFEC (SFWF COP 

Appendix J1 [Denes et al., 2018]) 

resulted in mean acoustic ranges to the 

Level A harassment isopleth for lowfrequency cetaceans (LFCs), ranging 

from 742 m for 6 hours of piling to 1,470 

m for 18 hours of piling (Denes et al., 

2018). Maximum acoustic ranges to 

Level A harassment isopleths for other 

marine mammal hearing groups are all 

under 103 m. Level A harassment 

exposures are not expected, due to 

relatively low population densities of 

LFC species near the installation area, 

animal movement and required 

accumulation periods (Denes et al., 

2019), the short duration of vibratory 

pile driving, and mitigation measures 

(including a 1,500 m shutdown zone for 

LFCs; see Mitigation section). 

Vibratory pile driving during 

cofferdam installation and removal for 

the SFEC HDD exit pit does have the 

potential to elicit behavioral responses 

in marine mammals. However, 

predicting Level B harassment exposure 

estimates resulting from vibratory pile 

driving is complicated by the nearshore 

location, short duration of cofferdam 

installation and removal, and static 

species density data that are not 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
846 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

indicative of animals transiting the 

nearshore environment. Marine 

mammal densities were estimated from 

the 10 x 10 km habitat density block 

from Roberts et al. (2016) and Roberts et 

al. (2018) that contained the anticipated 

location of the temporary cofferdam. 

However, density estimates are not 

provided for the area adjacent to the 

shoreline, although some density blocks 

do intersect the shore. Due to this 

structure, densities are artificially 

weighted to the nearest 100 km2

offshore and do not adequately 

represent the low numbers expected for 

some groups like large whales. In 

addition, the species densities 

represented in the Roberts et al. (2016) 

and Robert et al. (2018) are provided as 

monthly estimates and are, therefore, 

not indicative of a single-day 

distribution of animals within the 

potential ensonified zone. The modeled 

range to the behavioral harassment 

isopleth extends beyond 36 km from the 

source (Table 11); despite this extensive 

Level B harassment zone, only 

bottlenose dolphin, harbor seal, and 

gray seal exposure estimates are 

comparatively large. However, the 

relatively low densities of most species 

nearshore, the seasonality of occurrence, 

and the transitory nature of marine 

mammals coupled with the small period 

of vibratory pile driving significantly 

reduces the risk of behavioral 

harassment exposures. In addition, 

marine mammal species in this region 

are not expected to remain in proximity 

to the cofferdam location for an 

extended amount of time. Although the 

modeled Level B harassment exposure 

estimates for harbor and gray seals were 

relatively large (1,305), seals are only 

expected to be seasonally present in the 

region, and there are no known 

rookeries documented near the 

cofferdam location. Seals typically haulout for some portion of their daily 

activities, often in large groups (Hayes et 

al., 2020); however, the in-water median 

group size is estimated to be 1–3 

animals, depending on the distance to 

shore (Herr et al., 2009), with larger 

groups typically being associated with 

direct proximity to a haul-out site. 

There are a few documented haul-out 

sites around Long Island, New York; the 

nearest site is Montauk Point, 

approximately 20 km northeast of the 

northern potential cofferdam location, 

where seals are primarily observed in 

winter (CRESLI, 2019). Potential 

exposures of offshore bottlenose 

dolphins varied substantially across the 

construction months, with a minimum 

number of potential Level B harassment 

exposures in March (65) and a 

maximum in October (2,007). The 

impact of vibratory pile driving on this 

species (and both seal species) will be 

largely dependent on the timing of the 

installation and removal of the 

cofferdam. 

Given the possibility that vibratory 

pile driving (for installation and 

removal of the cofferdam, or the casing 

pipe support piles) could occur anytime 

in the construction schedule, the 

maximum modeled exposure across 

months for each species (Table 19) was 

used to conservatively predict take 

numbers and assess impacts resulting 

from vibratory pile driving (Table 20). 

However, in response to a comment 

from the Commission on the proposed 

IHA and as described in the Changes 

from Proposed IHA to Final IHA, NMFS 

has increased take, by Level B 

harassment, of humpback whales, 

white-sided dolphins, and common 

dolphins. Please see Table 20 for all 

proposed and authorized take, by Level 

B harassment, incidental to vibratory 

pile driving. 

TABLE 20—PROPOSED AND AUTHORIZED LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE RESULTING FROM VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING

Species/stock Population 

estimate 1

Proposed 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

Authorized 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

Fin whale ..................................................................................................................................... 6,802 2 2 

Minke whale ................................................................................................................................. 21,968 3 3 

Sei whale ..................................................................................................................................... 6,292 0 0 

Humpback whale ......................................................................................................................... 1,396 1 10 

North Atlantic right whale ............................................................................................................ 368 6 6 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ......................................................................................................... 93,233 1 50 

Common dolphin .......................................................................................................................... 172,974 4 210 

Bottlenose dolphin ....................................................................................................................... 62,851 2,007 2,007 

Harbor porpoise ........................................................................................................................... 95,543 11 11 

Gray seal ..................................................................................................................................... 27,300 1,305 1,305 

Harbor seal .................................................................................................................................. 61,336 1,305 1,305 

1The best available abundance estimates are derived from the NMFS’ 2021 Draft SARs (Hayes et al., 2021). NMFS’ stock abundance estimate for gray seals in Table 3 applies to U.S. population only; actual stock abundance is approximately 451,431. 

Construction Surveys 

Potential exposures of marine 

mammals to acoustic impacts from 

construction survey activities were 

estimated using an approach similar to 

that described for installation and 

removal of a cofferdam. For 

construction surveys, however, the ZOI 

was calculated as follows: 

ZOI = 2rd + pr2

where r is the linear acoustic range from the 

source to the largest estimated ranges to 

Level A harassment (36.5 m) and Level 

B harassment (141 m) isopleths, and d is 

the survey trackline distance per day (70 

km). 

The daily area was then multiplied by 

the mean annual density of a given 

marine mammal species. Finally, the 

resulting value was multiplied by the 

number of survey days (60). 

Modeled ranges to isopleths 

corresponding to the Level A 

harassment threshold are very small (<1 

m) for three of the four marine mammal 

functional hearing groups that may be 

impacted by the planned activities (i.e., 

low-frequency and mid-frequency 

cetaceans, and phocid pinnipeds; see 

Table 12). Based on the extremely small 

Level A harassment zones for these 

functional hearing groups, the potential 

for species within these functional 

hearing groups to be taken by Level A 

harassment is considered so low as to be 

discountable. These three functional 

hearing groups encompass all but one of 

the marine mammal species listed in 

Table 3 that may be impacted by the 

planned activities. There is one species 

(harbor porpoise) within the highfrequency functional hearing group that 

may be impacted by the planned 

activities. However, the largest modeled 

range to the Level A harassment 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 847 

isopleth for the high-frequency 

functional hearing group was only 36.5 

m (Table 12). More importantly, Level A 

harassment would also be more likely to 

occur at close approach to the sound 

source, or as a result of longer duration 

exposure to the sound source. 

Mitigation measures (including a 100-m 

shutdown zone for harbor porpoises) are 

expected to minimize the potential for 

exposure to HRG sources that would 

result in Level A harassment. In 

addition, harbor porpoises are a 

notoriously shy species, known to avoid 

vessels, and would be expected to avoid 

a sound source prior to that source 

reaching a sound level that would result 

in injury (Level A harassment). 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the potential for take by Level A 

harassment of harbor porpoises is so 

low as to be discountable. The modeled 

Level B harassment exposures of marine 

mammals resulting from construction 

survey activities are shown in Table 21. 

TABLE 21—MODELED LEVEL B HARASSMENT EXPOSURES RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS OF THE SFWF 

AND SFEC 

Species Population 

estimate 1

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment 

exposures 

Fin whale ................................................................................................................................................................. 6,802 3 

Minke whale ............................................................................................................................................................. 21,968 1 

Sei whale ................................................................................................................................................................. 6,292 <1 

Humpback whale ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,396 1 

North Atlantic right whale ........................................................................................................................................ 368 3 

Sperm whale ............................................................................................................................................................ 4,349 <1 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ........................................................................................................................................... 39,215 <1 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ..................................................................................................................................... 93,233 26 

Common dolphin ...................................................................................................................................................... 172,974 47 

Bottlenose dolphin ................................................................................................................................................... 62,851 28 

Risso’s dolphin ......................................................................................................................................................... 35,215 <1 

Long-finned pilot whale ............................................................................................................................................ 39,215 4 

Harbor porpoise ....................................................................................................................................................... 95,543 43 

Gray Seal ................................................................................................................................................................. 27,300 14 

Harbor seal .............................................................................................................................................................. 61,336 14 

1The best available abundance estimates are derived from the NMFS’ 2021 Draft SARs (Hayes et al., 2021). NMFS’ stock abundance estimate for gray seals in Table 3 applies to U.S. population only; actual stock abundance is approximately 451,431. 

The proposed and authorized number 

of takes by Level B harassment resulting 

from construction surveys are shown in 

Table 22. Again, as NMFS has 

determined that the likelihood of take of 

any marine mammals in the form of 

Level A harassment occurring as a result 

of the planned surveys is so low as to 

be discountable, and South Fork Wind 

did not request any take by Level A 

harassment associated with construction 

surveys, NMFS does not authorize take 

by Level A harassment of any marine 

mammals. 

The seasonal mean number of minke 

whales sighted during marine site 

characterization surveys in or near the 

Lease Area in 2017 and 2018 was 19; 

therefore, South Fork Wind increased 

the number of takes requested for minke 

whales from 1 to 19. Preliminary PSO 

reports from similar surveys in or near 

the Lease Area in 2019 and 2020 show 

a high number of common dolphin 

detections within the estimated Level B 

harassment zones. Using a mean group 

size of 25 (based on sightings during 

monitoring efforts in the project area), 

South Fork Wind multiplied the mean 

group size by the number of Level B 

harassment exposures modeled (47) to 

produce the number of takes, by Level 

B harassment, they requested (1,175). 

There were zero exposures estimated for 

several species; however, as a 

precautionary measure, South Fork 

Wind requested, and NMFS has 

authorized, Level B harassment takes for 

those species based on published values 

of mean group sizes (Atlantic spotted 

dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, Barkaszi and 

Kelly (2018)). After review of the 

scientific literature, NMFS has 

increased authorized take, by Level B 

harassment, of long-finned pilot whales 

from 4 to 20, based on the largest 

reported group size (CETAP 1982). 

Please see Table 22 for all proposed and 

authorized take, by Level B harassment, 

incidental to construction surveys. 

TABLE 22—PROPOSED AND AUTHORIZED LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS OF

THE SFWF AND SFEC 

Species/stock Population 

estimate 1

Proposed 

Level B 

harassment 

take 2

Authorized 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

Fin whale ..................................................................................................................................... 6,802 3 3 

Minke whale ................................................................................................................................. 21,968 19 (1) 19 

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

Humpback whale ......................................................................................................................... 1,396 1 1 

North Atlantic right whale ............................................................................................................ 368 3 3 

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

Long-finned pilot whale ................................................................................................................ 39,215 4 20 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ............................................................................................................... 39,921 13 (0) 13 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ......................................................................................................... 93,233 26 26 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
848 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 22—PROPOSED AND AUTHORIZED LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS OF

THE SFWF AND SFEC—Continued 

Species/stock Population 

estimate 1

Proposed 

Level B 

harassment 

take 2

Authorized 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

Common dolphin .......................................................................................................................... 172,974 1,175 (47) 1,175 

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

Bottlenose dolphin ....................................................................................................................... 62,851 28 28 

Harbor porpoise ........................................................................................................................... 95,543 43 43 

Gray seal ..................................................................................................................................... 27,300 14 14 

Harbor seal .................................................................................................................................. 61,336 14 14 

1The best available abundance estimates are derived from the NMFS’ 2021 Draft SARs (Hayes et al., 2021). NMFS stock abundance estimate 

for gray seals in Table 3 applies to U.S. population only; actual stock abundance is approximately 451,431. 2The modeled number of takes is shown in parentheses. 

Combined Activity Authorized Take 

The number of takes, by Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment, 

authorized incidental to the combined 

activities (impact pile driving of 

monopiles using a noise mitigation 

system, vibratory pile driving, and 

construction surveys) are provided in 

Table 23. NMFS also presents the 

percentage of each stock taken based on 

the total amount of take. The mitigation 

and monitoring measures provided in 

the Mitigation and Monitoring and 

Reporting sections are activity-specific 

and are designed to minimize acoustic 

exposures to marine mammal species. 

The take numbers NMFS has 

authorized (Table 23) are considered 

conservative for the following key 

reasons: 

• Authorized take numbers for impact 

pile driving of monopiles assume a 

maximum piling schedule (16 

monopiles installed in 20 days); 

• Authorized take numbers for 

vibratory pile driving assume that a 

sheet pile temporary cofferdam will be 

installed (versus the alternative 

installation of a casing pipe for which 

less take is expected); 

• Authorized take numbers for impact 

pile driving of monopiles are 

conservatively based on maximum 

densities across the planned 

construction months; 

• Authorized Level A harassment 

take numbers do not fully account for 

the likelihood that marine mammals 

will avoid a stimulus when possible 

before that stimulus reaches a level that 

would have the potential to result in 

injury; 

• Authorized take numbers do not 

fully account for the effectiveness of 

mitigation and monitoring measures in 

reducing the number of takes to effect 

the least practicable adverse impact 

(with the exception of the seasonal 

restriction on impact pile driving of 

monopiles, which is accounted for in 

the authorized take numbers). 

TABLE 23—AUTHORIZED TAKE BY LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FOR ALL ACTIVITIES 1 CONDUCTED

DURING SFWF AND SFEC CONSTRUCTION

Species/stock Population 2

estimate 

Authorized 

take for all 

construction 

activities 

Total 

authorized 

take 

(Level A 

+ Level B) 

Percentage of 

population 

or stock 

(%) Level A 3

harassment 

take 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

Fin whale .............................................................................. 6,802 1 11 12 0.28 

Minke whale ......................................................................... 21,968 1 32 33 0.15 

Sei whale ............................................................................. 6,292 1 2 3 0.06 

Humpback whale ................................................................. 1,396 4 19 23 1.65 

North Atlantic right whale ..................................................... 368 0 13 13 3.53 

Sperm whale ........................................................................ 4,349 0 6 6 0.14 

Pilot whales (long-finned) .................................................... 39,215 0 40 40 0.10 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ........................................................ 39,921 0 26 26 0.07 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ................................................. 93,233 0 183 183 0.20 

Common dolphin .................................................................. 172,974 0 1,945 1,945 1.12 

Risso’s dolphin ..................................................................... 35,215 0 60 60 0.17 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................... 62,851 0 2,381 2,318 3.79 

Harbor porpoise ................................................................... 95,543 0 132 132 0.14 

Gray seal .............................................................................. 451,431 0 1,379 1,379 0.31 

Harbor seal .......................................................................... 61,336 0 1,373 1,373 1.81 

1Activities include impact pile driving of monopiles using a noise mitigation system, vibratory pile driving, and construction surveys. 2The best available abundance estimates are derived from the NMFS’ 2021 Draft SARs (Hayes et al., 2021). NMFS’ stock abundance estimate for gray seals in Table 3 applies to U.S. population only; actual stock abundance is approximately 451,431. 3 Calculations of percentage of stock taken are based on the best available abundance estimate. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 849 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

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

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses (latter not 

applicable for this action). NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS carefully considers 

two primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost and 

impact on operations. 

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., ramp-up, 

establishing harassment zone, 

implementing shutdown zones, etc.). 

Additional measures have also been 

incorporated to account for the fact that 

some of the planned activities would 

occur offshore. Modeling was performed 

to estimate ensonified areas or ZOIs; 

these ensonified area values were used 

to inform mitigation measures for all 

analyzed construction activities to 

minimize Level A harassment and Level 

B harassment to the extent possible, 

while providing estimates of the areas 

within which Level B harassment might 

occur. Several measures have been 

added or modified since the proposed 

IHA was published, and are identified 

and described in detail below. 

In addition to the specific measures 

described later in this section, South 

Fork Wind must conduct briefings for 

construction supervisors and crews, the 

marine mammal and acoustic 

monitoring teams, and South Fork Wind 

staff prior to the start of all pile-driving 

and construction survey activity, and 

when new personnel join the work, in 

order to explain responsibilities, 

communication procedures, the marine 

mammal monitoring protocols, and 

operational procedures. South Fork 

Wind must use available sources of 

information on NARW presence, 

including daily monitoring of the Right 

Whale Sightings Advisory System, 

monitoring of Coast Guard VHF Channel 

16 throughout the day to receive 

notifications of any sightings, and 

information associated with any DMAs. 

This measure was not included in the 

proposed IHA, but affords increased 

protection of NARWs by raising 

awareness of NARW presence in the 

area through ongoing visual and passive 

acoustic monitoring efforts (outside of 

South Fork Wind’s efforts), and allows 

for planning of construction activities, 

when practicable, to minimize potential 

impacts on NARWs. 

Monopile Installation 

Seasonal Restriction on Impact Pile 

Driving of Monopiles 

Based on the best available 

information (Kraus et al., 2016; Roberts 

et al., 2017, 2020), the highest densities 

of NARWs in the project area are 

expected from January through April. 

As described in the proposed IHA, 

impact pile driving of monopiles must 

not occur January 1 through April 30. In 

addition, impact pile driving of 

monopiles must not occur in December 

unless unanticipated delays due to 

weather or technical problems, notified 

to and approved by BOEM, arise that 

necessitate extending impact pile 

driving of monopiles into December. 

NMFS is requiring this seasonal 

restriction to minimize the potential for 

NARWs to be exposed to noise 

incidental to impact pile driving of 

monopiles. However, South Fork 

Wind’s revised project schedule 

includes installation of a cofferdam or 

casing pipe (in preparation for HDD) as 

the first construction activity during the 

period of effectiveness of the IHA 

(starting November 15, 2022). Therefore, 

based on South Fork Wind’s 

construction schedule, impact pile 

driving of monopiles will not occur 

from November 15, 2022 through April 

30, 2023. Impact pile driving of 

monopiles will occur between May 1, 

2023 and November 14, 2023. No more 

than one monopile will be driven per 

day. Monopiles must be no larger than 

11 m in diameter. For all monopiles, the 

minimum amount of hammer energy 

necessary to effectively and safely 

install and maintain the integrity of the 

monopiles must be used. Hammer 

energies must not exceed 4,000 kJ. 

Clearance and Shutdown Zones 

South Fork Wind must use PSOs and 

PAM PSOs to establish clearance zones 

around the impact pile-driving location 

to ensure these zones are clear of marine 

mammals prior to the start of impact 

pile driving. The purpose of ‘‘clearance’’ 

of a particular zone is to prevent 

potential instances of auditory injury, 

and more severe behavioral disturbance 

as a result of exposure to impact piledriving noise, by delaying the activity 

before it begins if marine mammals are 

detected within certain pre-defined 

distances of the impact pile-driving 

vessel. The primary goal in this case is 

to prevent auditory injury (PTS) of 

NARWs and reduce the risk of PTS for 

other marine mammals where there is 

potential for it to occur. The clearance 

zones are larger than the modeled 

ranges to isopleths (based on ER95percent

SELcum), assuming 10-dB attenuation, 

corresponding to Level A harassment 

thresholds for all marine mammal 

species except humpback whales. These 

zone sizes vary by species and are 

shown in Tables 24 and 25. All 

distances to the perimeter of clearance 

zones are the radii from the center of the 

pile. The clearance zones for large 

whales (excluding humpback whales), 

harbor porpoises, and seals are based on 

the maximum range to the Level A 

harassment isopleth plus a 20-percent 

buffer, rounded up for PSO clarity. For 

mid-frequency cetaceans, modeled 

ranges to the Level A harassment 

isopleth are 0 m, based on ER95percent

SELcum (assuming 10-dB attenuation). 

Although the Level A harassment zones 

based on SPLpeak are small for midfrequency cetaceans, clearance zones are 

defined using a precautionary distance 

of 100-m, and will extend to that 

distance or just beyond the placement of 

the noise mitigation system, whichever 

is further. 

The Level A harassment zone (based 

on ER95percent SELcum) is larger for 

humpback whales than other lowfrequency baleen whales because the 

animal movement modeling used to 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
850 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

estimate the associated range to the 

Level A harassment isopleth relies on 

behavior-based exposures with no 

aversion (based on the best available 

data that inform the animat models). 

Specific movement parameters help 

drive the larger zone size for humpback 

whales, including a modeled preference 

for slightly deeper water than the depths 

in the SFWF. This modeled preference 

resulted in fewer exposures, but each 

exposure was farther from the impact 

piling location, producing the larger 

Level A harassment zone. While the 

clearance zone (2,200 m) for humpback 

whales is smaller than the Level A 

harassment zone (3,642 m), visual 

monitoring must be conducted from 

both the impact pile driving vessel and 

a secondary, smaller vessel (on which 

dedicated PSOs must be deployed) 

surveying the circumference of the piledriving vessel at a radius approximate to 

the clearance zone for non-NARW large 

whales (2,200 m). NMFS expects that, 

depending on visibility conditions, this 

additional visual monitoring will 

facilitate detection of humpback whales 

within the Level A harassment zone 

(3,642 m) for the species, beyond the 

farthest extent of the clearance zone. 

The NARW clearance zone is 

conservatively based on the Level B 

harassment zone (4,684 m), rounded up 

to 5,000 m for PSO clarity. PSOs and 

PAM PSOs may use a combination of 

visual observation and real-time PAM to 

clear this zone (see Monitoring and 

Reporting); however, as noted in the 

Changes from Proposed IHA to Final 

IHA, the 2.2-km minimum visibility 

zone is defined as the area over which 

PSOs must be able to clearly observe 

marine mammals, including NARWs, to 

begin the clearance process. When 

visibility conditions permit (i.e., on 

clear days), PSOs will be able to detect 

marine mammals at farther distances. 

Under all circumstances, a visual 

detection of a NARW at any distance by 

a PSO on the impact pile-driving or 

dedicated PSO vessel will trigger a 

delay. Further, any large whale sighted 

by a PSO within 2,000 m of the pile that 

cannot be identified to species must be 

treated as if it were a NARW, triggering 

a delay in impact pile driving of 

monopiles. In addition, an acoustic 

detection of a NARW localized to a 

position within the 5-km radius 

clearance zone will trigger a delay. 

Finally, the PAM system will likely be 

capable of detecting NARW over an 

approximately 10-km radius from the 

pile, providing PAM PSOs with the 

capacity to monitor an area larger than 

the NARW clearance zone. Detections of 

potential NARW vocalizations 

originating from outside the PAM 

clearance zone will provide situational 

awareness to PSOs. 

TABLE 24—IMPACT PILE DRIVING OF MONOPILES: RADIAL DISTANCES (m) TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS, REQUIRED CLEARANCE AND SHUTDOWN ZONES, AND VESSEL SEPARATION DISTANCES

Species 

Level A 

harassment 

zone 

(SEL) 

Level A 

harassment 

zone 

(PK) 

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

Clearance 

zone 

Shutdown 

zone 

Vessel 

separation 

distance 

from marine 

mammals 

Low-Frequency Cetaceans 

Fin whale E ............................................... 1,756 ≤10 4,684 2,200 2,000 100 

Minke whale ............................................. 1,571 ≤10 4,684 2,200 2,000 100 

Sei whale E ............................................... 1,769 ≤10 4,684 2,200 2,000 100 

Humpback whale ..................................... 3,642 ≤10 4,684 2,200 2,000 100 

North Atlantic right whale E ...................... 1,621 <10 4,684 See Table 25 See Table 26 500 

Mid-Frequency Cetaceans 

Sperm whale E .......................................... ........................ ≤10 4,684 2,200 2,000 100 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ............................ ........................ ≤10 4,684 100 50 50 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ..................... ........................ ≤10 4,684 100 50 50 

Common dolphin ...................................... ........................ ≤10 4,684 100 50 50 

Risso’s dolphin ......................................... ........................ ≤10 4,684 100 50 50 

Bottlenose dolphin ................................... ........................ ≤10 4,684 100 50 50 

Long-finned pilot whale ............................ ........................ ≤10 4,684 100 50 50 

High-Frequency Cetaceans 

Harbor porpoise ....................................... 365 243 4,684 450 450 50 

Phocid Pinnipeds in Water 

Gray seal .................................................. 117 12 4,684 150 150 50 

Harbor seal .............................................. 85 12 4,684 150 150 50 

1 Upon receipt of an interim SFV report, NMFS may adjust the zones to reflect SFV measurements. However, minimum visibility zone will not 

be decreased, and zones for fin, sei, and sperm whales must not be decreased to a size less than 1 km. Zone sizes for NARWs must not be reduced. 2 dB = decibel; SEL = cumulative sound exposure level; PK = peak sound pressure level. 

2SEL values are the 95% Exposure Ranges (ER95%) and assume 10-dB attenuation. E ESA-listed. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 851 

TABLE 25—REQUIRED NARW CLEARANCE AND REAL-TIME PAM MONITORING ZONES (RADIAL DISTANCES FROM THE

PILE) FOR MONOPILE INSTALLATION

Minimum visibility zone 123 PAM clearance 

zone 4

PAM monitoring 

zone 5

2.2 km .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 km 10 km 

1 Defined as the area over which PSOs must be able to clearly observe marine mammals, including NARWs, to begin clearance process. This 

zone size cannot be reduced. 2A visual detection of a NARW at any distance from the pile by a PSO on the pile-driving vessel or dedicated PSO vessel triggers a delay in 

pile driving. 3Any large whale sighted by a PSO within 2,000 m of the pile that cannot be identified to species must be treated as if it were a NARW. 

4A confirmed PAM detection of a NARW within the PAM clearance zone must be treated as a visual detection, triggering a delay in pile driving. 5 Calls detected outside of the PAM clearance zone must be reported to the lead PSO immediately for situational awareness, but will not trigger a delay in pile driving. 6Zone sizes for NARWs must not be decreased. 

TABLE 26—REQUIRED NARW SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR MONOPILE INSTALLATION

NARW shutdown zone 1 2

(Visual and PAM) 

Visual PAM 

Any distance ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 km 

1 If NARW is sighted at any distance, a shutdown of pile driving must be implemented when practicable, as described under Condition 

4(a)(ix)(1–3) of this IHA. 2A confirmed PAM detection of a NARW within the PAM shutdown zone must be treated as a visual detection, triggering a shutdown of pile 

driving. 3Zone sizes for NARWs must not be decreased. 

Prior to the start of impact pile 

driving of monopiles, both visual and 

PAM (for NARWs) clearance zones will 

be monitored for 60 minutes to ensure 

that they are clear of the relevant 

species of marine mammals. The entire 

minimum visibility zone must be visible 

(i.e., not obscured by dark, rain, fog, 

etc.) for a full 30 minutes immediately 

prior to commencing impact pile 

driving. Impact pile driving may only 

commence once PSOs and PAM PSOs 

have declared the respective clearance 

zones clear of marine mammals. If a 

marine mammal is observed 

approaching or entering the relevant 

clearance zones prior to the start of 

impact pile driving, pile-driving activity 

must be delayed until either the marine 

mammal has voluntarily left the 

respective clearance zone and been 

visually confirmed beyond that 

clearance zone, 30 minutes have elapsed 

without re-detection of the animal in the 

case of mysticetes (including NARWs), 

sperm whales, Risso’s dolphins and 

pilot whales, or 15 minutes have 

elapsed without re-detection of the 

animal in the case of all other marine 

mammals. For NARWs, there is an 

additional requirement that the 

clearance zone may only be declared 

clear if no confirmed NARW acoustic 

detections (in addition to visual) have 

occurred during the 30-minute 

monitoring period. 

The shutdown zones for non-NARW 

large whales, harbor porpoises, and 

seals are based on the maximum Level 

A harassment zone for each group 

(excluding humpback whales), 

increased by a 10-percent buffer and 

rounded up for PSO clarity (Table 24). 

Similar to clearance zones, midfrequency cetacean (except sperm 

whale) shutdown zones will extend to 

the larger of two distances: 50 m, or just 

outside the noise mitigation system. For 

NARWs, a visual detection at any 

distance by a PSO (from the impact piledriving vessel or dedicated PSO vessel) 

or acoustic detection localized to a 

position within 2,000 m of the pile will 

trigger shutdown of impact pile driving 

(Table 26). 

If a species for which authorization 

has not been granted, or, a species for 

which authorization has been granted 

but the authorized number of takes has 

been met, approaches or is observed 

within the Level B harassment zone, 

impact pile-driving activities must be 

shut down immediately or delayed if 

impact pile driving has not commenced. 

Impact pile driving must not commence 

or resume until the animal has been 

confirmed to have left the Level B 

harassment zone on its own volition, or 

a full 30 minutes have elapsed with no 

further sightings. 

Soft Start of Impact Pile Driving 

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. Soft 

start typically involves initiating 

hammer operation at a reduced energy 

level (relative to full operating capacity) 

followed by a waiting period. South 

Fork Wind must utilize a soft start 

protocol for impact pile driving of 

monopiles by performing 4–6 strikes per 

minute at 10 to 20 percent of the 

maximum hammer energy, 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. For impact 

hammers, the actual number of strikes at 

reduced energy will vary because 

operating the hammer at less than full 

power results in ‘‘bouncing’’ of the 

hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting 

in multiple ‘‘strikes’’; however, as 

mentioned previously, South Fork Wind 

will target less than 20 percent of the 

total hammer energy for the initial 

hammer strikes during soft start. Soft 

start will be required at the beginning of 

each day’s monopile installation, and at 

any time following a cessation of impact 

pile driving of 30 minutes or longer. 

Shutdown of Impact Pile-Driving 

The purpose of a shutdown is to 

prevent some undesirable outcome, 

such as auditory injury or severe 

behavioral disturbance of sensitive 

species, by halting the activity. If a 

marine mammal is observed entering or 

within the respective shutdown zone 

(Table 24) after impact pile driving has 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
852 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

begun, the PSO will request a temporary 

cessation of impact pile driving. 

In situations when shutdown is called 

for but South Fork Wind determines 

shutdown 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, reduced hammer 

energy must be implemented when the 

lead engineer determines it is 

practicable. After shutdown, impact pile 

driving may be reinitiated once all 

clearance zones are clear of marine 

mammals for the minimum speciesspecific periods, or, if required to 

maintain installation feasibility. 

Installation feasibility refers to ensuring 

that the pile installation results in a 

usable foundation for the WTG (e.g., 

installed to the target penetration depth 

without refusal). 

Visibility Requirements 

Impact pile driving of monopiles must 

not be initiated at night, or when the 

full extent of the clearance zones (Table 

24) cannot be confirmed to be clear of 

marine mammals, as determined by the 

lead PSO on duty. As mentioned 

previously, the 2.2 km clearance zone 

for non-NARW baleen whales may only 

be declared clear when the full extent of 

the minimum visibility zone is visible 

(i.e., when not obscured by dark, rain, 

fog, etc.) and PSOs have not detected 

marine mammals for a full 30 minutes 

prior to impact pile driving. Impact pile 

driving of monopiles may continue after 

dark only when driving of the same pile 

began no less than 90 minutes prior to 

civil sunset, when the minimum 

visibility zone for impact pile driving of 

monopiles was fully visible, and must 

proceed for human safety or installation 

feasibility reasons. PSOs must utilize 

alternative technology (Infrared (IR) 

and/or Thermal camera) to monitor 

clearance zones if impact pile driving of 

monopiles continues past civil sunset. 

Sound Attenuation 

South Fork Wind must implement 

noise mitigation technology designed to 

result in the targeted reduction in sound 

levels that would produce measured 

ranges to Level A harassment and Level 

B harassment isopleths corresponding to 

those modeled assuming 10-dB sound 

attenuation, pending results of SFV (see 

Acoustic Monitoring for Sound Field 

and Harassment Isopleth Verification 

section below). The noise mitigation 

system must be either (1) a single BBC 

coupled with an additional noise 

mitigation device, or (2) a dBBC. 

The bubble curtain(s) must distribute 

air bubbles using a target air flow rate 

of at least 0.5 m3/(min*m), and must 

distribute bubbles around 100 percent of 

the piling perimeter for the full depth of 

the water column. The lowest bubble 

ring must be in contact with the seafloor 

for the full circumference of the ring, 

and the weights attached to the bottom 

ring must ensure 100-percent seafloor 

contact. No parts of the ring or other 

objects should prevent full seafloor 

contact. South Fork Wind must require 

that construction contractors train 

personnel in the proper balancing of 

airflow to the bubble ring, and must 

require that construction contractors 

submit an inspection/performance 

report for approval by South Fork Wind 

within 72 hours following the 

performance test. Corrections to the 

attenuation device to meet the 

performance standards must occur prior 

to impact driving. If South Fork Wind 

uses a noise mitigation device in 

addition to a BBC, similar quality 

control measures must be required. 

Cofferdam Installation and Removal 

Vibratory pile driving or impact 

driving of a casing pipe must occur at 

the export cable landing site only. 

Visibility Requirements 

Vibratory pile driving of sheet piles 

may continue after dark only when the 

driving of the same pile began no less 

than 90 minutes prior to civil sunset, 

when the clearance zones were fully 

visible for a full 30 minutes 

immediately prior to commencing pile 

driving, and installation of sheet piles 

must proceed for human safety or 

installation feasibility reasons. 

Clearance and Shutdown Zones 

South Fork Wind must implement 

visual monitoring of the clearance zones 

for 30 minutes immediately prior to the 

initiation of ramp-up of vibratory piling 

equipment (Table 27). During this 

period, the clearance zone will be 

monitored by the PSOs, using the 

appropriate visual technology. Ramp-up 

may not be initiated if any marine 

mammal(s) is detected within its 

respective clearance zone. If a marine 

mammal is observed within a clearance 

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

been observed exiting its respective 

clearance zone or until an additional 

time period has elapsed with no further 

sighting (i.e., 15 minutes for small 

odontocetes and seals, and 30 minutes 

for all other species). 

TABLE 27—INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL OF A TEMPORARY COFFERDAM: RADIAL DISTANCES (m) TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS, REQUIRED CLEARANCE AND SHUTDOWN ZONES, AND VESSEL SEPARATION DISTANCES. 

Species 

Level A 

harassment 

zone 

(SEL) 

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(SPL) 

Clearance 

zone 

Shutdown 

zone 

Vessel 

separation 

distance 

from marine 

mammals 

Low-Frequency Cetaceans 

Fin whale .............................................................................. 1,470 36,766 1,500 1,500 100 

Minke whale ......................................................................... 1,470 36,766 1,500 1,500 100 

Sei whale ............................................................................. 1,470 36,766 1,500 1,500 100 

Humpback whale ................................................................. 1,470 36,766 1,500 1,500 100 

North Atlantic right whale ..................................................... 1,470 36,766 1,500 1,500 500 

Mid-Frequency Cetaceans 

Sperm whale ........................................................................ ........................ 36,766 1,500 1,500 100 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ........................................................ ........................ 36,766 100 50 50 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ................................................. ........................ 36,766 100 50 50 

Common dolphin .................................................................. ........................ 36,766 100 50 50 

Risso’s dolphin ..................................................................... ........................ 36,766 100 50 50 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................... ........................ 36,766 100 50 50 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 853 

TABLE 27—INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL OF A TEMPORARY COFFERDAM: RADIAL DISTANCES (m) TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS, REQUIRED CLEARANCE AND SHUTDOWN ZONES, AND VESSEL SEPARATION DISTANCES.—Continued 

Species 

Level A 

harassment 

zone 

(SEL) 

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(SPL) 

Clearance 

zone 

Shutdown 

zone 

Vessel 

separation 

distance 

from marine 

mammals 

Long-finned pilot whale ........................................................ ........................ 36,766 100 50 50 

High-Frequency Cetaceans 

Harbor porpoise ................................................................... 63 36,766 100 100 50 

Phocid Pinnipeds in Water 

Gray seal .............................................................................. 103 36,766 150 125 50 

Harbor seal .......................................................................... 103 36,766 150 125 50 

SEL = cumulative sound exposure level in units of decibels referenced to 1 micropascal squared second. 

SPL = root-mean-square sound pressure level in units of decibels referenced to 1 micropascal. 

Shutdown of Vibratory Pile Driving 

An immediate shutdown of vibratory 

pile-driving equipment must be 

implemented if a marine mammal(s) is 

sighted entering or within its respective 

shutdown zone after cofferdam 

installation has commenced. 

Resumption of vibratory pile driving 

may begin if the animal(s) has been 

observed exiting its respective 

shutdown zone or an additional time 

period has elapsed without a resighting 

(i.e., 15 minutes for small odontocetes 

and seals and 30 minutes for all other 

species). If a species for which 

authorization has not been granted, or a 

species for which authorization has 

been granted but the authorized number 

of takes has been met, approaches or is 

observed within the Level B harassment 

zone, vibratory pile-driving activities 

must be shut down immediately or 

delayed if vibratory pile driving has not 

commenced. Vibratory pile driving must 

not must not recommence until the 

animal(s) has been confirmed to have 

left the Level B harassment zone or a 

full 15 min (small odontocetes and 

seals) or 30 min (all other marine 

mammals) have elapsed with no further 

sightings. 

Construction Surveys 

Clearance and Shutdown Zones 

South Fork Wind must implement a 

30-minute clearance period of the 

clearance zones (Table 28) immediately 

prior to the initiation of ramp-up of 

boomers, sparkers, and Chirps. Since 

publication of the proposed IHA, the 

clearance zones for ESA-listed species 

have been increased from 100 to 500 m 

to align with standard marine site 

characterization mitigation and 

monitoring measures. Any large whale 

sighted by a PSO within 1,000 m of 

boomers, sparkers, and Chirps that 

cannot be identified to species must be 

treated as if it were a NARW. The 

clearance zones will be monitored by 

PSOs, using the appropriate visual 

technology. If a marine mammal is 

observed within a clearance zone during 

the clearance period, ramp-up 

(described below) may not begin until 

the animal(s) has been observed 

voluntarily exiting its respective 

clearance zone or until an additional 

time period has elapsed with no further 

sighting (i.e., 15 minutes for small 

odontocetes and seals, and 30 minutes 

for all other species). In cases when the 

clearance process has begun in 

conditions with good visibility, 

including via the use of night vision 

equipment (IR/thermal camera), and the 

lead PSO has determined that the 

clearance zones are clear of marine 

mammals, survey operations may 

commence (i.e., no delay is required) 

despite periods of inclement weather 

and/or loss of daylight. In cases when 

the shutdown zones become obscured 

for brief periods due to inclement 

weather, survey operations may 

continue (i.e., no shutdown is required). 

TABLE 28—CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS OPERATING CHIRP SUB-BOTTOM PROFILERS, BOOMERS, AND SPARKERS: RADIAL

DISTANCES (m) TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS, REQUIRED CLEARANCE AND SHUTDOWN ZONES, AND VESSEL SEPARATION DISTANCES. 

Species 

Level A 

harassment 

zone (SEL) 

Level A 

harassment 

zone 

(PK) 

Maximum extent of zones Vessel 

separation 

distance 

from marine 

mammals 

Level B harassment zones 

Clearance 

zone 

Shutdown 

zone Chirps Boomers and 

sparkers 

Low-Frequency Cetaceans 

Fin whale ...................... <1 <1 54 141 500 100 100 

Minke whale ................. <1 <1 54 141 100 100 100 

Sei whale ..................... <1 <1 54 141 500 100 100 

Humpback whale ......... <1 <1 54 141 100 100 100 

North Atlantic right 

whale ........................ <1 <1 54 141 500 500 500 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
854 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 28—CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS OPERATING CHIRP SUB-BOTTOM PROFILERS, BOOMERS, AND SPARKERS: RADIAL

DISTANCES (m) TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS, REQUIRED CLEARANCE AND SHUTDOWN ZONES, AND VESSEL SEPARATION DISTANCES.—Continued 

Species 

Level A 

harassment 

zone (SEL) 

Level A 

harassment 

zone 

(PK) 

Maximum extent of zones Vessel 

separation 

distance 

from marine 

mammals 

Level B harassment zones 

Clearance 

zone 

Shutdown 

zone Chirps Boomers and 

sparkers 

Mid-Frequency Cetaceans 

Sperm whale ................ <1 <1 54 141 500 100 100 

Atlantic spotted dolphin <1 <1 54 141 100 ........................ 50 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ........................... <1 <1 54 141 100 ........................ 50 

Common dolphin .......... <1 <1 54 141 100 ........................ 50 

Risso’s dolphin ............. <1 <1 54 141 100 ........................ 50 

Bottlenose dolphin ....... <1 <1 54 141 100 ........................ 50 

Long-finned pilot whale <1 <1 54 141 100 ........................ 50 

High-Frequency Cetaceans 

Harbor porpoise ........... 37 5 54 141 100 100 50 

Phocid Pinnipeds in Water 

Gray seal ...................... <1 <1 54 141 100 ........................ 50 

Harbor seal .................. <1 <1 54 141 100 ........................ 50 

Ramp-Up of HRG Survey Equipment 

At the start or restart of the use of 

boomers, sparkers, and/or Chirps, a 

ramp-up procedure must be 

implemented. Ramp-up must begin with 

the powering up of the specified HRG 

equipment at the lowest power output 

appropriate for the survey. When 

practicable, the power must then be 

gradually turned up, and then any other 

acoustic sources added. The ramp-up 

procedure must be used at the beginning 

of construction survey activities using 

the specified HRG equipment to provide 

additional protection to marine 

mammals in or near the survey area by 

allowing them to vacate the area prior 

to operation of survey equipment at full 

power. 

Ramp-up activities will be delayed if 

a marine mammal(s) enters its 

respective clearance zone. Ramp-up will 

continue if the animal(s) has been 

observed exiting its respective clearance 

zone or until additional time has 

elapsed with no further sighting (i.e, 15 

minutes for small odontocetes and seals, 

and 30 minutes for all other species). 

Shutdown of Construction Survey 

Equipment 

An immediate shutdown of boomers 

and sparkers is required if a marine 

mammal(s) is sighted entering or within 

its respective shutdown zone. No 

shutdown is required for Chirp subbottom profilers. The vessel operator 

must comply immediately with any call 

for shutdown by the Lead PSO. Any 

disagreement between the Lead PSO 

and vessel operator should be discussed 

only after shutdown has occurred. 

Subsequent restart of the survey 

equipment may be initiated if the 

animal(s) has been observed exiting its 

respective shutdown zone or until an 

additional period has elapsed (i.e., 15 

minutes for small odontocetes and seals 

and 30 minutes for all other marine 

mammals). 

If a species for which authorization 

has not been granted, or a species for 

which authorization has been granted 

but the authorized number of takes has 

been met, approaches or is observed 

within the Level B harassment zone, 

boomers and sparkers must be shut 

down immediately, or use delayed if not 

yet activated. Use of boomers and 

sparkers must not must not commence 

or resume until the animal(s) has been 

confirmed to have left the Level B 

harassment zone or a full 15 minutes 

(small odontocetes and seals) or 30 

minutes (for all other marine mammals) 

have elapsed with no further sightings. 

If a boomer, sparker, or Chirp is shut 

down for reasons other than mitigation 

(e.g., mechanical difficulty) for less than 

30 minutes, it may be activated again 

without ramp-up if PSOs have 

maintained constant observation and no 

detections of any marine mammal have 

occurred within the respective 

shutdown zones. If a boomer, sparker, or 

Chirp is shut down for a period longer 

than 30 minutes, then clearance and 

ramp-up procedures must be initiated as 

described in the previous section. 

The shutdown requirement will be 

waived for small delphinids of the 

following genera: Delphinus, Stenella, 

and Tursiops. Specifically, if a 

delphinid from the specified genera is 

visually detected approaching the vessel 

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

shutdown is not required. Furthermore, 

if there is uncertainty regarding 

identification of a marine mammal 

species (i.e., whether the observed 

marine mammal(s) belongs to one of the 

delphinid genera for which shutdown is 

waived), PSOs must use their best 

professional judgement in making the 

decision to call for a shutdown. 

Additionally, shutdown is required if a 

delphinid that belongs to a genus other 

than those specified is detected in the 

shutdown zone. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

The IHA contains numerous vessel 

strike avoidance measures. South Fork 

Wind 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 restricted in its ability to maneuver 

and, because of the restriction, cannot 

comply. 

South Fork Wind must submit a 

NARW vessel strike avoidance plan 90 

days prior to commencement of vessel 

use. The plan will describe, at a 

minimum, how PAM will be conducted 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 855 

to ensure the transit corridor is clear of 

NARWs. The plan must also provide 

details on the vessel-based observer 

protocols on transiting vessels. The 

requirement to submit this plan was not 

included in the proposed IHA. 

Vessel operators and crews must 

maintain a vigilant watch for all marine 

mammals and slow down, stop their 

vessel, or alter course as appropriate 

and regardless of vessel size, to avoid 

striking any marine mammal. A visual 

observer aboard the vessel must monitor 

a vessel strike avoidance zone around 

the vessel (distances stated below). 

Visual observers monitoring the vessel 

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

members, but crew members 

responsible for these duties must be 

provided sufficient training to 

distinguish marine mammals from other 

phenomena and broadly to identify a 

marine mammal as a NARW, other 

whale (defined in this context as sperm 

whales or baleen whales other than 

NARWs), or other marine mammal. 

South Fork Wind must adhere to the 

following measures: 

• Year-round, operators of all vessels 

associated with South Fork Wind must 

use all available sources of information 

on NARW presence, including daily 

monitoring of the Right Whale Sightings 

Advisory System, WhaleAlert app, and 

Coast Guard VHF Channel 16 

throughout the day to receive 

notifications of any sightings and/or 

information associated with any Slow 

Zones (i.e., DMAs or acousticallytriggered slow zones) to plan vessel 

routes, if practicable, to minimize the 

potential for co-occurrence with any 

NARWs. 

• For construction surveys, members 

of the PSO monitoring team must 

consult the Right Whale Sightings 

Advisory System, WhaleAlert app, and 

monitor Coast Guard VHF Channel 16 

for reports of NARW presence in the 

survey area. 

• On all vessels associated with 

South Fork Wind, regardless of size or 

speed of travel, operators and crews 

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. 

• Whenever multiple projectassociated vessels (e.g., construction 

survey, crew transfer) are operating 

concurrently, any visual observations of 

ESA-listed marine mammals must be 

communicated to PSOs and/or vessel 

captains associated with other vessels to 

increase situational awareness. 

• Vessels of all sizes associated with 

South Fork Wind must operate port to 

port at 10 kts or less between November 

1 and April 30, and while operating in 

the Lease Area, along the SFEC, or 

transit area to and from ports in NY, CT, 

RI, and MA, except for vessels transiting 

inside Narragansett Bay or Long Island 

Sound (unless during a DMA). Vessels 

transiting from other ports outside those 

described must operate at 10 kts or less 

when within any active Seasonal 

Management Area (SMA) or within the 

Lease Area. 

• For vessels of all sizes, vessel 

speeds must immediately be reduced to 

10 kts when any large whale, mother/ 

calf pairs, or large assemblages of nondelphinoid cetaceans are observed near 

(within 100 m) an underway vessel. In 

the proposed IHA, this measure only 

applied to vessels greater than or equal 

to 65 ft (19.8 m). 

The measures above were not 

included in the proposed IHA, but are 

included in the final IHA. The measures 

below were included in the proposed 

IHA and are carried over to the final 

IHA. 

• All vessels 65-ft (19.8 m) or greater 

in length must comply with the 10-kt 

speed restriction rule in any SMA, per 

the NOAA ship strike reduction rule (74 

FR 60173; October 10, 2008). 

• All underway vessels (e.g., 

transiting, surveying) must have a 

dedicated visual observer on duty at all 

times to monitor for marine mammals 

within a 180° direction of the forward 

path of the vessel (90° port to 90° 

starboard). Visual observers must be 

equipped with alternative monitoring 

technology for periods of low visibility 

(e.g., darkness, rain, fog, etc.). The 

dedicated visual observer must receive 

prior training on protected species 

detection and identification, vessel 

strike minimization procedures, how 

and when to communicate with the 

vessel captain, and reporting 

requirements in this IHA. Visual 

observers may be third-party observers 

(i.e., NMFS-approved PSOs) or crew 

members. Observer training related to 

these vessel strike avoidance measures 

must be conducted for all vessel 

operators and crew prior to the start of 

in-water construction activities. 

Confirmation of the observers’ training 

and understanding of the IHA 

requirements must be documented on a 

training course log sheet and reported to 

NMFS. 

• Vessel speed must immediately be 

reduced to 10 kts or less when a NARW 

is sighted by an observer or anyone else 

on the underway vessel. 

• In the event that any Slow Zone 

(designated as a DMA) is established 

that overlaps with an area where a 

project-associated vessel must operate, 

that vessel, regardless of size, must 

transit that area at 10 kts or less. 

• If a vessel is traveling at greater 

than 10 kts between May 1 and October 

31, in addition to the required dedicated 

observer, real-time PAM of transit 

corridors must be conducted prior to 

and during transits. If a NARW is 

detected via visual observation or PAM 

within or approaching the transit 

corridor, all crew transfer vessels must 

travel at 10 kts or less for the following 

12 hours. Each subsequent detection 

will trigger a 12-hour reset. A slowdown in the transit corridor expires 

when there has been no further visual 

or acoustic detection in the transit 

corridor in the past 12 hours. 

• All vessels must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 500 m 

from NARWs. If a whale is observed but 

cannot be confirmed as a species other 

than a NARW, the vessel operator must 

assume that it is a NARW and take 

appropriate action. 

• If underway, all vessels must steer 

a course away from any sighted NARW 

at 10 kts or less such that the 500-m 

minimum separation distance 

requirement is not violated. If a NARW, 

or a large whale that cannot be 

confirmed to species, is sighted within 

500 m of an underway vessel, that 

vessel must shift the engine to neutral. 

Engines will not be engaged until the 

whale has moved outside of the vessel’s 

path and beyond 500 m. 

• All vessels must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 100 m 

from sperm whales and non-NARW 

baleen whales. If one of these species is 

sighted within 100 m of an underway 

vessel, that vessel must shift the engine 

to neutral. Engines will not be engaged 

until the whale has moved outside of 

the vessel’s path and beyond 100 m. 

• All vessels must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, attempt to maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 50 m 

from all delphinoid cetaceans and 

pinnipeds, with an exception made for 

those that approach the vessel (e.g., 

bow-riding dolphins). If a delphinoid 

cetacean or pinniped is sighted within 

50 m of an underway vessel, that vessel 

must shift the engine to neutral, with an 

exception made for those that approach 

the vessel (e.g., bow-riding dolphins). 

Engines will not be engaged until the 

animal(s) has moved outside of the 

vessel’s path and beyond 50 m. 

• When a marine mammal(s) is 

sighted while a vessel is underway, the 

vessel must take action as necessary to 

avoid violating the relevant separation 

distances (e.g., attempt to remain 

parallel to the animal’s course, avoid 

excessive speed or abrupt changes in 

direction until the animal has left the 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
856 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

area). If a marine mammal(s) is sighted 

within the relevant separation distance, 

the vessel must reduce speed and shift 

the engine to neutral, not engaging the 

engine(s) until the animal(s) is clear of 

the area. This does not apply to any 

vessel towing gear or any vessel that is 

navigationally constrained. 

• All vessels underway must not 

divert or alter course in order to 

approach any marine mammal. Any 

vessel underway must avoid excessive 

speed or abrupt changes in direction. 

• For in-water construction heavy 

machinery activities other than impact 

or vibratory pile driving, if a marine 

mammal comes within 10 m of 

equipment, South Fork Wind must 

cease operations (when practicable) 

until the marine mammal has moved 

more than 10 m on a path away from the 

activity. 

With the measures described herein, 

NMFS has prescribed the means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on the affected marine mammal 

species and stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the planned action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

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). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Marine Mammal Observations 

South Fork Wind must collect 

sighting data and behavioral responses 

to construction activities for marine 

mammals species observed in the region 

of activity during the period of activity. 

All observers must be trained in marine 

mammal identification and behaviors 

and are required to have no other 

construction-related tasks while 

conducting monitoring. PSOs will 

monitor all clearance and shutdown 

zones prior to, during, and following 

impact and vibratory pile driving, and 

while boomers, sparkers, and Chirps are 

active. PSOs will also monitor Level B 

harassment zones and will document 

any marine mammals observed within 

these zones, to the extent practicable 

(noting that some zones are too large to 

fully observe). As mentioned, South 

Fork Wind must conduct monitoring 

before, during, and after construction 

activities (monitoring durations 

specified below), with observers located 

at the best practicable vantage points on 

the pile driving and dedicated PSO 

vessels. Full details regarding marine 

mammal monitoring must be included 

in a Pile Driving and Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Plan that, under the IHA, 

South Fork Wind is required to submit 

to NMFS for approval at least 90 days 

in advance of commencement of 

construction activities. Please note 

submission of this plan was not 

included in the proposed IHA. The 

following additional measures apply to 

visual monitoring: 

(1) Monitoring must be conducted by 

qualified, trained PSOs who will be 

placed on the pile-driving and 

dedicated PSO vessels (monopile), 

installation or nearby construction 

vessel (cofferdam or casing pipe), and 

construction survey vessels, in positions 

which represent the best vantage point 

to monitor for marine mammals and 

implement shutdown procedures when 

applicable; 

(2) PSOs may not exceed 4 

consecutive watch hours; must have a 

minimum 2-hour break between 

watches; and may not exceed a 

combined watch schedule of more than 

12 hours in a 24-hour period; 

(3) PSOs must have no other 

construction-related tasks while 

conducting monitoring; 

(4) PSOs should have the following 

minimum qualifications: 

• Visual acuity in both eyes 

(correction is permissible) sufficient for 

discernment of moving targets at the 

water’s surface with ability to estimate 

target size and distance; use of 

binoculars may be necessary to correctly 

identify the target; 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to 

document observations including, but 

not limited to: The number and species 

of marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were suspended to avoid 

potential incidental injury of marine 

mammals from construction noise 

within a defined shutdown zone; and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

Observer teams employed by South 

Fork Wind in satisfaction of the 

mitigation and monitoring requirements 

described herein must meet the 

following additional requirements: 

• Independent observers (i.e., not 

construction personnel) are required; 

• At least one observer must have 

prior experience working as an observer; 

• Other observers may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience; 

• One observer will be designated as 

lead observer or monitoring coordinator. 

The lead observer must have prior 

experience working as an observer; and 

• All PSOs must be approved by 

NMFS. South Fork Wind must submit 

the CVs of the initial set of PSOs 

necessary to commence the project to 

NMFS OPR for approval at least 60 days 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 857 

prior to the first day of construction 

activities. 

South Fork Wind must conduct 

briefings between construction 

supervisors and crews and the PSO 

team prior to the start of all construction 

activities, and when new personnel join 

the work, in order to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocols, and operational procedures. 

An informal guide must be included 

with the Marine Mammal Monitoring 

Plan to aid in identifying species if they 

are observed in the vicinity of the 

project area. 

The following are measures specific to 

each activity. 

Monopile Installation 

South Fork Wind must implement the 

following procedures for impact pile 

driving of monopiles: 

• A minimum of two PSOs on the 

impact pile-driving vessel must 

maintain watch at all times when 

impact pile driving is underway. 

• A minimum of two PSOs on a 

dedicated PSO vessel located at the 

outer edge of the 2,200 m (or as 

modified based on SFV) large whale 

clearance zone must maintain watch at 

all times when impact pile driving of 

monopiles is underway. 

• PSOs must be located at the best 

vantage point(s) on the impact piledriving vessel and dedicated PSO 

vessels in order to ensure 360° visual 

coverage of the entire clearance and 

shutdown zones around the vessels, and 

as much of the Level B harassment zone 

as possible. 

• The clearance zones must be 

monitored for the presence of marine 

mammals for 60 minutes before, 

throughout the installation of the 

monopile, and for 30 minutes after 

monopile installation. 

• During all observation periods, 

PSOs must use high magnification (25X) 

binoculars, standard handheld (7X) 

binoculars, and the naked eye to search 

continuously for marine mammals. 

During periods of low visibility (e.g., 

darkness, rain, fog, etc.), PSOs must use 

alternative technology (e.g., IR/Thermal 

camera) to monitor clearance and 

shutdown zones. 

• Monopile installation may only 

commence when the minimum 

visibility zone (2.2 km) is fully visible 

(e.g., not obscured by darkness, rain, 

fog, etc.) and clearance zones are clear 

of marine mammals for at least 30 

minutes, as determined by the lead PSO, 

immediately prior to initiation of impact 

pile driving of monopiles. 

• If the minimum visibility zone (2.2 

km) is obscured by fog or poor lighting 

conditions while impact pile driving of 

monopiles is underway, the activity 

must be halted when practicable, as 

described above. Following a shutdown, 

monopile installation may not 

recommence until the minimum 

visibility zone is fully visible and clear 

of marine mammals for 30 minutes, as 

described above. 

During vessel transits within or to/ 

from the SFWF (e.g., crew transfer, etc.), 

an observer must be stationed on vessels 

at the best vantage points to ensure 

maintenance of standoff distances 

between marine mammals and vessels 

(as described above). South Fork Wind 

must implement the following measures 

during vessel transit when there is an 

observation of a marine mammal: 

• PSOs or dedicated observers will 

record the time, date, vessel’s position, 

heading and speed, sea state, water 

depth, and visibility, marine mammal 

species identification, initial distance 

and bearing from the vessel to the 

marine mammal, closest point of 

approach, and any avoidance measures 

taken in response to the marine 

mammal sighting. Individuals 

implementing the monitoring protocol 

will assess its effectiveness using an 

adaptive approach. PSOs will use their 

best professional judgment throughout 

implementation and seek improvements 

to these methods when deemed 

appropriate. Any modifications to the 

protocol will be coordinated between 

NMFS and South Fork Wind. 

Cofferdam or Casing Pipe Installation 

and Removal 

South Fork Wind must implement the 

following procedures for impact and 

vibratory pile driving associated with 

installation of a cofferdam or casing 

pipe: 

• A minimum of two PSOs will 

maintain watch at all times when 

vibratory pile driving or impact 

hammering is underway. 

• PSOs must be located at the best 

vantage point(s) on the impact or 

vibratory pile-driving platform, or 

platform in the immediate vicinity of 

the impact or vibratory pile-driving 

platform, in order to ensure visual 

coverage of the entire visual clearance 

zones and as much of the Level B 

harassment zone as possible. 

• The clearance zones will be 

monitored for the presence of marine 

mammals for 30 minutes before, 

throughout the installation of the sheet 

piles (and casing pipe, if installed), and 

for 30 minutes after all vibratory piledriving or impact-hammering activity. 

• During all observation periods 

related to impact and vibratory pile 

driving, PSOs must use highmagnification (25X), standard handheld 

(7X) binoculars, and the naked eye to 

search continuously for marine 

mammals. During periods of low 

visibility (e.g., darkness, rain, fog, etc.), 

PSOs must use alternative technology 

(e.g., IR/Thermal camera) to monitor 

clearance and shutdown zones. 

• Sheet pile or casing pipe 

installation may only commence when 

visual clearance zones are fully visible 

(e.g., not obscured by darkness, rain, 

fog, etc.) and clear of marine mammals, 

as determined by the lead PSO, for at 

least 30 minutes immediately prior to 

initiation of impact or vibratory pile 

driving. 

Construction Surveys 

South Fork Wind must implement the 

following procedures for construction 

surveys: 

• At least one PSO must be on duty 

on each survey vessel during daytime 

operations, conducting visual 

observations at all times during daylight 

hours (i.e., from 30 minutes prior to 

sunrise through 30 minutes following 

sunset). 

• A minimum of two PSOs must be 

on watch during nighttime operations. 

• The clearance zones must be 

monitored for the presence of marine 

mammals for 30 minutes before, 

throughout, and for 30 minutes after use 

of boomers, sparkers, and Chirps. 

• During all observation periods, 

PSOs must use standard handheld (7X) 

binoculars and the naked eye to search 

continuously for marine mammals. 

During periods of low visibility (e.g., 

darkness, rain, fog, etc.), PSOs must use 

alternative technology (e.g., IR/Thermal 

camera) to monitor clearance and 

shutdown zones. 

• Ramp-up of boomers, sparkers, and 

Chirps may only commence when 

visual clearance zones are fully visible 

(e.g., not obscured by darkness, rain, 

fog, etc.) and clear of marine mammals, 

as determined by the lead PSO, for at 

least 30 minutes immediately prior to 

initiation of survey activities utilizing 

the specified acoustic sources. 

• In cases where multiple vessels are 

surveying concurrently, any 

observations of marine mammals must 

be communicated to PSOs on all nearby 

survey vessels. 

• During daylight hours when survey 

equipment is not operating, South Fork 

Wind must ensure that visual PSOs 

conduct, as rotation schedules allow, 

observations for comparison of sighting 

rates and behavior with and without use 

of the specified acoustic sources. Offeffort PSO monitoring must be reflected 

in the monthly PSO monitoring reports. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
858 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

Data Collection 

NMFS requires that observers use 

standardized forms. In addition to other 

data, South Fork Wind must record 

detailed information about any 

implementation of delays or shutdowns, 

including the distance of the animal(s) 

to the pile or specified HRG equipment 

and a description of specific actions that 

ensued and resulting behavior of the 

animal, if any. NMFS requires that, at a 

minimum, the following information be 

collected on the sighting forms: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

• Weather parameters (e.g., wind 

speed, percent cloud cover, visibility); 

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 

• All marine mammal sightings, 

regardless of distance from the 

construction activity; 

• Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

• Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

the activity; 

• Distance and bearing of each marine 

mammal observed relative to the pile 

being driven or specified HRG 

equipment for each sighting, and time 

spent within harassment zones; 

• Type of construction activity (e.g., 

vibratory or impact pile driving, 

construction survey) and specific phase 

of activity (e.g., ramp-up of HRG 

equipment, HRG acoustic source on/off, 

soft start for impact pile driving, active 

pile driving, etc.) when marine 

mammals are observed. 

• Description of implementation of 

mitigation measures (e.g., delay or 

shutdown). 

• Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

• Other human activity in the area. 

Marine Mammal Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring 

South Fork Wind must utilize a PAM 

system to supplement visual monitoring 

for all monopile installations. The PAM 

system must be monitored by a 

minimum of one PAM PSO beginning at 

least 60 minutes prior to soft start of 

impact pile driving of monopiles, at all 

times during monopile installation, and 

30 minutes post-completion of 

installation. PAM PSOs must 

immediately communicate all 

detections of marine mammals at any 

distance (i.e., not limited to the 5-km 

Level B harassment zone) to visual 

PSOs, including any determination 

regarding species identification, 

distance, and bearing and the degree of 

confidence in the determination. 

PAM PSOs may be on watch for a 

maximum of four consecutive hours 

followed by a break of at least two hours 

between watches. PAM PSOs must be 

required to demonstrate that they have 

completed specialized training for 

operating PAM systems, including 

identification of species-specific 

mysticete vocalizations. PSOs can act as 

PAM PSOs or visual PSOs (but not 

simultaneously) as long as they 

demonstrate that their training and 

experience are sufficient to perform 

each task. 

A Passive Acoustic Monitoring Plan 

must be submitted to NMFS and BOEM 

for review and approval at least 90 days 

prior to the planned start of monopile 

installations. PAM must follow 

standardized measurement, processing 

methods, reporting metrics, and 

metadata standards for offshore wind 

(Van Parijs et al., 2021). The plan must 

describe all proposed PAM equipment, 

procedures, and protocols. Please see 

the IHA for additional PAM 

requirements. 

Acoustic Monitoring for Sound Field 

and Harassment Isopleth Verification 

During the first three monopile 

installations, South Fork Wind must 

empirically determine the ranges to the 

isopleths corresponding to Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

thresholds. For verification of the range 

to the Level B harassment isopleth, 

South Fork Wind must report the 

measured or extrapolated ranges where 

the received levels SPLrms decay to 160 

dB, as well as integration time for such 

SPLrms. South Fork Wind may also 

estimate ranges to the Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

isopleths by extrapolating from in situ 

measurements conducted at several 

distances from the pile being driven. In 

addition, South Fork Wind must 

measure received levels at a standard 

distance of 750 m from the pile, or an 

alternative distance as agreed to in the 

SFV Plan. 

If acoustic field measurements for 

installation of the first monopile 

indicate ranges to the isopleths 

corresponding to Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment isopleths are 

greater than the ranges predicted by 

modeling (assuming 10-dB attenuation), 

South Fork Wind must implement 

additional noise mitigation measures 

prior to installing the second monopile. 

Initial additional measures may include 

improving the efficacy of the 

implemented noise mitigation 

technology (e.g., BBC, dBBC) and/or 

modifying the piling schedule to reduce 

the sound source. Each sequential 

modification must be evaluated 

empirically by acoustic field 

measurements. In the event that field 

measurements indicate ranges to 

isopleths corresponding to Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

thresholds are consistently greater than 

the ranges predicted by modeling 

(assuming 10-dB attenuation), NMFS 

may expand the relevant harassment, 

clearance, and shutdown zones and 

associated monitoring protocols. If 

harassment zones are expanded beyond 

an additional 1,500 m, additional PSOs 

must be deployed on additional 

platforms, with each observer 

responsible for maintaining watch in no 

more than 180° and of an area with a 

radius no greater than 1,500 m. 

Depending on the extent of zone size 

expansion, reinitiation of consultation 

under Section 7 of the ESA may be 

required. 

If acoustic measurements indicate that 

ranges to isopleths corresponding to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds are less than the 

ranges predicted by modeling (assuming 

10-dB attenuation), South Fork Wind 

may request a modification of the 

clearance and shutdown zones for 

impact pile driving of monopiles. For a 

modification request to be considered 

by NMFS, South Fork Wind must have 

conducted SFV on three or more 

monopile installations to verify that 

zone sizes are consistently smaller than 

predicted by modeling (assuming 10-dB 

attenuation). In addition, if a subsequent 

monopile installation location is 

selected that was not represented by 

previous three locations (i.e., substrate 

composition, water depth), SFV must be 

conducted. Upon receipt of an interim 

SFV report, NMFS may adjust zones 

(i.e., Level A harassment, Level B 

harassment, clearance, and/or 

shutdown) to reflect SFV measurements. 

The shutdown and clearance zones 

would be equivalent to the measured 

range to the Level A harassment 

isopleths plus 10 percent (shutdown 

zone) and 20 percent (clearance zone), 

rounded up to the nearest 100 m for 

PSO clarity. However, the minimum 

visibility zone must not be decreased to 

a radius smaller than 2.2 km from the 

pile. The shutdown zone for sei, fin, and 

sperm whales must not be reduced to a 

size less than 1,000 m. The visual and 

PAM clearance and shutdown zones for 

NARWs must not be decreased, 

regardless of acoustic field 

measurements. The Level B harassment 

zone would be equal to the largest 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 859 

measured range to the Level B 

harassment isopleth. 

Reporting 

A draft final report must be submitted 

to NMFS within 90 days of the 

completion of activities occurring under 

this IHA. The report must include 

marine mammal observations preactivity, during-activity, and postactivity for all pile-driving and 

construction survey days, and must also 

provide descriptions of any changes in 

marine mammal behavioral patterns 

resulting from construction activities. 

The report must detail the implemented 

monitoring protocol, summarize the 

data recorded during monitoring 

including an estimate of the number of 

marine mammals that may have been 

harassed during the period of the report, 

and describe any mitigation actions 

taken (i.e., delays or shutdowns due to 

detections of marine mammals, 

documentation of when shutdowns 

were called for but not implemented 

and why). The report must also include 

results from acoustic monitoring 

including, but not limited to, dates and 

times of all detections, types and nature 

of sounds heard, whether detections 

were linked with visual sightings, water 

depth of the hydrophone array, bearing 

of the animal to the vessel (if 

determinable), species or taxonomic 

group (if determinable), spectrogram 

screenshot, a record of the PAM PSO’s 

review of any acoustic detections, and 

any other notable information. A final 

report must be submitted within 30 days 

following resolution of comments on the 

draft report. 

South Fork Wind will be required to 

provide the initial results of SFV 

(including measurements) to NMFS in 

interim reports after each monopile 

installation for the first three piles as 

soon as they are available, but no later 

than 48 hours after each installation. If 

SFV is required for subsequent 

monopile installations, the same 

reporting timeline and data 

requirements apply. In addition to in 

situ measured ranges to the Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

isopleths, the acoustic monitoring report 

must include: SPLpeak, SPLrms that 

contains 90 percent of the acoustic 

energy, single strike sound exposure 

level, integration time for SPLrms, SELss, 

and 24-hour cumulative SEL 

extrapolated from measurements. All 

these levels must be reported in the 

form of median, mean, max, and 

minimum. The acoustic monitoring 

report must also include a description of 

the hydrophones used, hydrophone and 

water depth, distance to the pile driven, 

and sediment type at the recording 

location. Final results of SFV must be 

submitted as soon as possible, but no 

later than within 90 days following 

completion of impact pile driving of 

monopiles. Please see the IHA for a full 

list of reporting requirements. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. NMFS also assesses 

the number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Impact and vibratory pile-driving and 

construction survey activities associated 

with South Fork Wind’s project, as 

described previously, have the potential 

to disturb or temporarily displace 

marine mammals. Specifically, the 

specified activities may result in take, in 

the form of Level A harassment (PTS, 

from impact pile driving only) or Level 

B harassment (potential behavioral 

disturbance) from underwater sounds 

generated by pile driving (impact and 

vibratory) and certain HRG active 

acoustic sources used for construction 

surveys. Potential take could occur if 

individual marine mammals are present 

in the ensonified zone when any piledriving or construction survey activities 

are occurring. 

To avoid repetition, the majority of 

our analyses apply to all the species 

listed in Table 3, given that many of the 

anticipated effects of South Fork Wind’s 

project on different marine mammal 

stocks are expected to be relatively 

similar in nature. Where there are 

meaningful differences between species 

or stocks—as is the case of the NARW— 

they are included as separate 

subsections below. 

Non-NARW Marine Mammal Species 

Impact pile driving has source 

characteristics (short, sharp pulses with 

higher peak levels and sharper rise time 

to reach those peaks) that are potentially 

injurious or more likely to produce 

severe behavioral reactions. However, 

modeling indicates there is limited 

potential for injury (i.e., PTS), even in 

the absence of the mitigation measures 

(Table 16). The potential for injury is 

expected to be greatly minimized 

through implementation of mitigation 

measures including soft start, use of a 

noise mitigation system, and the 

implementation of clearance zones that 

would facilitate a delay of impact pile 

driving of monopiles if marine 

mammals were observed (visually and/ 

or acoustically) approaching or within 

areas that could be ensonified above 

sound levels that could result in 

auditory injury. Given sufficient notice 

through use of soft start, marine 

mammals are expected to move away 

from a sound source that is annoying 

prior to it becoming potentially 

injurious (i.e., PTS) or resulting in more 

severe behavioral reactions. The 

requirement that the clearance process 

for impact and vibratory pile driving 

may only commence when the full 

extents of the respective visual 

clearance zones are entirely visible to 

PSOs will facilitate a high rate of 

success in marine mammal detection 

and implementation of mitigation 

measures (i.e., delay) to avoid injury. 

NMFS expects that any take resulting 

from exposures above the Level A 

harassment threshold would be in the 

form of slight PTS (minor degradation of 

hearing capabilities within regions of 

hearing that align most completely with 

the energy produced by impact pile 

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

below 2 kHz)), not severe hearing 

impairment. If hearing impairment 

occurs, 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, much less impact 

reproduction or survival. 

Additionally, the amount of 

authorized take, by Level A harassment, 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
860 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

is very low for all marine mammal 

stocks and species. For 11 of 15 stocks, 

NMFS authorizes no Level A 

harassment take over the duration of 

South Fork Wind’s planned activities; 

for the other four stocks, NMFS 

authorizes no more than 4 takes by 

Level A harassment. As described 

above, NMFS expects that marine 

mammals would likely move away from 

an aversive stimulus, especially at levels 

that would be expected to result in PTS, 

given sufficient notice through use of 

soft start, thereby minimizing the degree 

of PTS that would be incurred. Even 

absent mitigation, no serious injury or 

mortality from construction activities is 

anticipated or authorized. 

NMFS has authorized an amount of 

Level B harassment take for all marine 

mammal species based on either 

modeling or information reflected in 

field data (e.g., monitoring reports, 

published group sizes); NMFS based the 

number of authorized takes on 

whichever approach resulted in a 

greater amount. This authorized take, by 

Level B harassment, reflects behavioral 

disturbance directly in response to noise 

exposure (e.g., avoidance) or indirectly 

from associated impacts such as TTS or 

masking. Both the amount and intensity 

of Level B harassment will be reduced 

to the level of least practicable adverse 

impact through use of required 

mitigation measures. Effects on 

individuals that are taken by Level B 

harassment, on the basis of reports in 

the literature as well as monitoring from 

other similar activities, will likely be 

limited to reactions such as avoidance, 

increased swimming speeds, increased 

surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if 

such activity were occurring) (e.g., 

Thorson and Reyff, 2006; HDR, Inc., 

2012; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, 

individuals will simply move away 

from the sound source and temporarily 

avoid the area where impact or vibratory 

pile driving is occurring. Therefore, 

NMFS expects that animals annoyed by 

project sound would simply avoid the 

area during impact or vibratory pile 

driving in favor of other, similar 

habitats. NMFS expects that any 

avoidance of the project area by marine 

mammals would be temporary in nature 

and that any marine mammals that 

avoid the project area during 

construction would not be permanently 

displaced. 

Feeding behavior is not likely to be 

significantly impacted, as most prey 

species are mobile, broadly distributed 

throughout the project area, and likely 

to only respond temporarily to exposure 

to impact or vibratory pile-driving 

noise; therefore, marine mammals that 

may be temporarily displaced during 

construction activities are expected to 

be able to resume foraging once they 

have moved away from areas with 

disturbing levels of underwater noise. 

Soft starts would allow mobile prey to 

move away from the source prior to 

exposure to any noise levels that may 

cause physical injury. The use of noise 

mitigation devices during impact pile 

driving of monopiles should reduce 

sound levels to the degree that any 

mortality or injury of prey will 

minimized. Use of bubble curtains, for 

example, is a key mitigation measure in 

reducing injury and mortality of ESAlisted salmon on the west coast during 

impact pile driving. NMFS recognizes 

some mortality, physical injury and/or 

hearing impairment in marine mammal 

prey may still occur but anticipates the 

amount of prey impacted in this manner 

is minimal compared to overall prey 

availability. Any behavioral responses 

by mobile marine mammal prey are 

expected to be brief. For example, Jones 

et al. (2020) found that when squid 

(Doryteuthis pealeii) were exposed to 

impact pile-driving noise, body pattern 

changes, inking, jetting, and startle 

responses were observed and nearly all 

squid exhibited at least one response. 

However, these responses occurred 

primarily during the first eight impulses 

and diminished quickly, indicating 

potential rapid, short-term habituation. 

NMFS expects that other impacts such 

as stress or masking would occur in fish 

that serve as marine mammal prey 

(Thomas et al. 2006); however, those 

impacts would be limited to the 

duration of impact or vibratory pile 

driving and, if prey were to move out 

the area in response to noise, these 

impacts would be minimized. 

Because of the temporary nature of 

the disturbance and the availability of 

similar habitat and resources in the 

surrounding area, the impacts to marine 

mammals and the food sources that they 

utilize are not expected to cause 

significant or long-term consequences 

for individual marine mammals or their 

populations. There are no notable areas 

of biological significance for non-NARW 

marine mammals, other than fin whales, 

known to exist within the Lease Area or 

potential export cable route corridors. 

Although the SFWF and SFEC will be 

constructed within a fin whale foraging 

BIA that exists east of Montauk Point, 

NY, from March through October, the 

BIA is considerably larger than the 

relatively small area within which 

impacts from monopile installations 

may occur; this difference in scale will 

provide ample access to foraging 

opportunities for fin whales within the 

remaining area of the BIA. Vibratory 

pile-driving for installation of the 

cofferdam will occur sometime between 

November 2022 and April 2023 

(removal could occur any time prior to 

expiration of this IHA); this schedule 

indicates that the overlap between 

cofferdam installation and the fin whale 

foraging BIA would occur for only 36 

non-continuous hours. Monopiles will 

be installed on up to 16 days, which is 

a small percentage of the duration of the 

fin whale foraging BIA. Impact pile 

driving of one monopile per day (the 

limit under the IHA), and the associated 

potential disturbance of foraging fin 

whales, will only occur for 2–4 hours 

per day. The remaining 20–22 hours of 

the day will provide fin whales the 

opportunity to forage undisturbed by 

noise produced during monopile 

installation. Any disruption of feeding 

behavior or avoidance of the project area 

by fin whales is expected to be 

temporary, with habitat utilization by 

fin whales returning to baseline once 

the disturbance ceases. In addition, a 

second, larger, year-round fin whale 

foraging BIA, as well as foraging BIAs 

for sei, humpback, and minke whales, 

are delineated to the east of the project 

area. This second fin whale BIA will 

provide alternate suitable habitat and 

food resources for foraging fin whales 

during construction activities within the 

SFWF and SFEC. Please see LeBrecque 

et al. (2015) for maps of all East Coast 

BIAs. It is extremely unlikely that 

feeding (or non-feeding) whales would 

be able to detect any impact or vibratory 

pile-driving noise, even near the 

western-most edges of the BIAs, given 

the absorption of sound over the large 

propagation distances between the 

Lease Area and the BIAs. Finally, there 

are no rookeries, mating, or calving 

areas known to be biologically 

important to marine mammals within 

the project area. 

Repeated exposures of individuals to 

relatively low levels of sound outside of 

preferred habitat areas are unlikely to 

significantly disrupt critical behaviors. 

Thus, even repeated Level B harassment 

of some small subset of an overall stock 

is unlikely to result in any significant 

realized decrease in viability for the 

affected individuals, and thus would 

not result in any adverse impact to the 

stock as a whole. 

NMFS concludes that exposures to 

marine mammals due to South Fork 

Wind’s activity would result in only 

short-term effects to individuals 

exposed. Marine mammals may 

temporarily avoid the immediate area 

but are not expected to permanently 

abandon the area. Impacts to breeding, 

feeding, sheltering, resting, or migration 

are not expected, nor are shifts in 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 861 

habitat use, distribution, or foraging 

success. NMFS does not anticipate the 

marine mammal takes that would result 

from the planned activity would impact 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

As described in the notice of the 

proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5, 

2021), humpback and minke whales, 

and gray and harbor seals are 

experiencing ongoing UMEs. For minke 

whales and seals, although the ongoing 

UME is under investigation (as occurs 

for all UMEs), this event does not 

provide cause for concern regarding 

population-level impacts. The minke 

whale population abundance is greater 

than 20,000 whales. Even though the 

PBR value is based on an abundance for 

U.S. waters that is negatively biased and 

a small fraction of the true population 

abundance, annual M/SI does not 

exceed the calculated PBR value for 

minke whales. For harbor seals, the 

population abundance is over 75,000 

and annual M/SI (345) is well below 

PBR (2,006) (Hayes et al., 2018). For 

gray seals, the population abundance is 

over 27,000, and abundance is likely 

increasing in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ and 

in Canada (Hayes et al., 2018). For harp 

seals, the current population trend in 

U.S. waters is unknown, as is PBR 

(Hayes et al., 2018); however, the 

population abundance is over 7 million 

seals, suggesting that the UME is 

unlikely to result in population-level 

impacts (Hayes et al., 2018). With regard 

to humpback whales, the population is 

facing a UME wherein elevated 

strandings have occurred since 2016 

and are ongoing. A portion of the 

whales have shown evidence of premortem vessel strike; however, this 

finding is not consistent across all 

whales examined and investigations are 

ongoing. Animals involved in this UME 

primarily belong to the West Indies 

Distinct Population Segment (DPS), of 

which the Gulf of Maine stock is a part. 

While the MMPA designated Gulf of 

Maine stock is relatively small 

(n=1,393), the most recent population 

estimate for the ESA-designated West 

Indies DPS (of which animals belonging 

to the Gulf of Maine stock also belong) 

is approximately 10,400 animals (Smith 

et al., 2009). The UME is a cause for 

concern to the Gulf of Maine stock; 

however, the taking associated with the 

issuance of the IHA is not anticipated to 

contribute to the UME or impact the 

stock such that it would affect annual 

rates or recruitment or survival. 

Authorized take numbers, by Level A 

harassment, for the potentially impacted 

species are very low (i.e., no more than 

4 takes by Level A harassment 

authorized for any of these species) and 

as described above, any Level A 

harassment would be expected to be in 

the form of slight PTS (i.e., minor 

degradation of hearing capabilities) 

which is not likely to meaningfully 

affect the ability to forage or 

communicate with conspecifics. The 

suite of measures for vessel operation 

and monitoring ensure risk of serious 

injury or mortality from ship strikes is 

minimized such that the probability of 

a strike is de minimus. Mortality and 

serious injury is neither expected, even 

absent mitigation, nor authorized, and 

Level B harassment of humpback 

whales and minke whales and gray, 

harbor, and harp seals will be reduced 

to the level of least practicable adverse 

impact through implementation of 

mitigation measures. As such, the 

authorized take of these species would 

not exacerbate or compound the 

ongoing UMEs in any way. 

North Atlantic Right Whales 

NARWs are currently threatened by 

low population abundance, higher than 

average mortality rates, and lower than 

average reproductive rates. Pace et al. 

(2021) recently released an update of his 

NARW abundance model. From 1990– 

2014, the female apparent survival rate 

fluctuated around 0.96. In 2014, 

survival decreased to approximately 

0.93 and hit an all-time low of 0.89 in 

2017. However, in 2018, survival 

increased dramatically back to around 

0.95. The average survival rate, based on 

the Pace et al. (2021) regime model from 

2014–2018, is approximately 0.93, 

slightly lower than the average longterm rate from 1990–2014 (0.96). Since 

1990, the estimated number of new 

entrants (which can be used as a proxy 

for recruitment rates) has widely 

fluctuated between 0 and 39 (Pace et al., 

2021, NMFS 2021). In the last 10 years 

(2011–2020), the average number of 

calves born into the population is 

approximately 11. Unfortunately, not all 

calves born into the population survive. 

For example, on December 22, 2020, a 

newborn calf was sighted off El Hierro, 

an island in the Canary Islands, but has 

not been subsequently detected with its 

mother, suggesting it did not survive. 

More recently, a dead NARW calf was 

reported stranded on February 13, 2021, 

along the Florida coast. 

On November 24, 2021, a NARW and 

newborn calf were sighted east of 

Pawleys Island, SC. On December 2, 

2021, a second NARW and newborn calf 

were sighted east of the northern tip of 

Cumberland Island, GA; the NARW in 

this pair is currently entangled. On 

December 10, 2021, a third NARW and 

newborn calf were sighted off Ossabaw 

Island, GA, and a fourth pair was 

sighted off Morris Island, SC, on the 

same day. The fifth and sixth NARW/ 

calf pairs were sighted off Fernandina 

Beach, FL, and near Nassau Sound, FL, 

respectively, on December 16, 2021. On 

December 18, 2021, a seventh NARW 

and calf were sighted off Amelia Island, 

FL, and an eighth NARW/calf pair was 

sighted in Florida off the St. Johns River 

entrance. A ninth NARW/calf pair was 

sighted off St. Simons Sound, GA, on 

December 26, 2021. The most recent 

information on the status of NARWs can 

be found in NMFS’ 2021 Draft Stock 

Assessment Reports, available online at: 

(www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

As described above, the project area 

represents part of an important 

migratory area for NARWs. In addition, 

core year-round foraging habitats have 

been identified south of Martha’s 

Vineyard and Nantucket to the east of 

the project area (Oleson et al., 2020); 

however, abundance in this area in 

summer months remains low compared 

to winter. It also appears the majority of 

sightings from June through October 

(when South Fork Wind would be 

conducting most, if not all, monopile 

installations) are concentrated 

approximately 90 km east of the Lease 

Area, on Nantucket Shoals (sightings 

which triggered DMAs in 2019, 2020, 

and 2021) with occasional sightings or 

acoustic detections within the project 

area triggering DMAs or acoustic Slow 

Zones. In general, due to the current 

status of NARWs, and the spatial 

overlap of the planned project with an 

area of biological significance for 

NARWs, the potential impacts of the 

planned project on NARWs warrant 

particular attention. 

The IHA includes the following nine 

overarching mitigation measures related 

to impact pile driving of monopiles, 

which are intended to reduce both the 

number and intensity of NARW takes: 

(1) Time of year restrictions; (2) time of 

day restrictions; (3) implementation of 

clearance zones; (4) implementation of 

shutdown zones; (5) use of soft-start; (6) 

use of noise mitigation technology; (7) 

use of PSOs to visually observe for 

NARWs (with any detection within 

designated zones triggering delay or 

shutdown); (8) use of PAM to 

acoustically detect NARWs (with any 

detection within designated zones 

triggering delay or shutdown); and (9) 

enhanced awareness of NARW presence 

(e.g., requirement to monitor NARW 

sighting network platforms to be aware 

of NARW presence within or near the 

project area and/or transit corridors). 

The specifics regarding these measures 

are dependent upon the time of year. In 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
862 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

addition, the IHA includes mitigation 

measures for cofferdam installation (and 

removal) which mirror a subset of those 

prescribed for monopile installation 

(measures (2–5), (7) and (9)). There is no 

time of year restriction on vibratory pile 

driving at the HDD site; however, 

installation and removal will only 

require a maximum of 36 hours (18 

hours for installation, 18 hours for 

removal). Finally, mitigation measures 

for construction surveys include ramp 

up, and measures (3–4), (7), and (9) 

listed above. 

As described in Oleson et al. (2020), 

NARWs respond to environmental 

changes and may use habitats 

intermittently over time. They have 

been known to nearly abandon a 

frequently used foraging habitat only to 

come back in future years in large 

numbers. In recent years, NARWs have 

demonstrated actual shifts in 

distribution, frequenting previously 

unrecognized foraging habitats. Sighting 

data also indicate that NARWs may 

investigate a previously preferred 

habitat, but not stay if the prey resource 

is insufficient, so some habitats 

previously used no longer have high 

densities of NARWs (Davis et al. 2017; 

Davies et al. 2019). As described above, 

NARW presence in the project area is 

year-round; however, abundance during 

summer months is low compared to 

winter months with spring and fall 

serving as ‘‘shoulder seasons,’’ wherein 

abundance waxes (fall) or wanes 

(spring). During aerial surveys 

conducted from 2011–2015 in the 

project area, NARW sightings occurred 

only December through April, with no 

sightings from May through November 

(Kraus et al., 2016). There was not 

significant variability in sighting rate 

among years, indicating consistent 

annual seasonal use of the area by 

NARWs during those years (Kraus et al., 

2016). More recently, seasonal 

distribution patterns of NARWs have 

been less consistent, with NARWs 

observed near the project area in late 

summer and fall. As mentioned 

previously, in 2019, 2020, and 2021, 

NARWs were observed in August and 

September around Nantucket Shoals, 

triggering NMFS to establish a DMA that 

last several weeks each year; however, 

as noted above, these sightings around 

Nantucket Shoals are approximately 90 

km east of the eastern-most edge of the 

project area, well outside the Level B 

harassment zones created by project 

activities. Given this year-round habitat 

usage and in recognition that where 

whales may actually occur during 

project activities is largely influenced by 

unpredictable, patchy prey availability, 

NMFS has included a suite of mitigation 

measures designed to reduce impacts to 

NARWs to the maximum extent 

practicable. However, even in 

consideration of these recent habitat-use 

and distribution shifts, South Fork 

Wind would be installing monopiles 

when the presence of NARWs is lower 

(compared to winter), as reflected in the 

density data (Roberts et al., 2020; Table 

13). Up to a maximum of 16 monopiles 

will be installed, making for relatively 

brief elevated sound levels in/near 

NARW habitat (1 pile per day (at a 

maximum of 4 hours per day) for 16 

intermittent days). 

The most significant measure to 

minimize impacts to individual NARWs 

during monopile installations is the 

seasonal moratorium on impact pile 

driving of monopiles from January 1 

through April 30, when NARW 

abundance in the project area is 

expected to be greatest. In addition, 

monopile installation must not occur in 

December unless an unanticipated delay 

due to weather or technical problems, 

notified to and approved by BOEM, 

arises that necessitates extending 

monopile installation through 

December. 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 migration through the 

project area. Mitigation and monitoring 

measures outside of those months will 

greatly minimize any take that may 

otherwise occur. 

When monopile installation does 

occur, South Fork Wind is committed to 

reducing the noise levels generated by 

pile driving to the lowest levels 

practicable, such that they do not 

exceed a noise footprint above that 

which was modeled, assuming a 10-dB 

attenuation. Use of a soft start will allow 

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

the sound source prior to the elevation 

of the hammer energy to the level 

maximally needed to install the pile 

(South Fork Wind will not use a 

hammer energy greater than necessary 

to install piles). To reduce the daily 

amount of time the area may be 

ensonified (and thereby decrease daily 

exposure risk), South Fork Wind will 

drive no more than one monopile per 

day. NMFS is also requiring South Fork 

Wind to apply a dBBC, or a single BBC 

coupled with an additional noise 

mitigation device, to ensure sound 

generated from the project does not 

exceed that modeled (assuming 10-dB 

reduction) at given ranges to harassment 

isopleths, and to minimize noise levels 

to the lowest level practicable. Double 

BBCs are successfully and widely 

applied across European wind 

development efforts, and are known to 

reduce noise levels more than single 

BBC alone (e.g., see Table 3, Bellman et 

al., 2020). Further, NMFS will be 

reviewing South Fork Wind’s BBC (or 

dBBC) operational reports to ensure that 

deployments are successful (e.g., the 

maximum air flow rate is being used 

during pile driving). 

NMFS expects that any avoidance of 

the project area by NARWs due to 

exposure to monopile installation, 

cofferdam/casing pipe installation, and 

construction surveys would be 

temporary in nature, and that any 

NARW that avoids the project area 

during construction would not be 

permanently displaced. The IHA 

authorizes a total of 13 takes, by Level 

B harassment only, of NARWs (4 based 

on the maximum impact pile-driving 

design scenario for impact pile driving, 

6 from vibratory pile driving, and 3 from 

construction survey using boomers and/ 

or sparkers). Although unlikely, this 

may comprise 13 individuals taken once 

or fewer than 13 individuals taken on 

multiple days. For those individuals 

where take is limited to occurring once, 

behavioral disturbance and other Level 

B harassment impacts that may occur 

during exposure to elevated noise levels 

(e.g., masking, stress) are likely 

insignificant. As described in the notice 

of proposed IHA, nearly all Population 

Consequences of Disturbance (PCOD) 

studies and experts agree that infrequent 

exposures from a single day or less are 

unlikely to impact individual fitness, let 

alone lead to population-level effects. 

There is potential for the same 

individual NARW to be exposed on 

multiple days; however, the risk is low, 

and given the total number of 

anticipated exposures, even if a single 

individual were exposed on more than 

one day, it would not be more than a 

few (and that would mean that fewer 

total individuals were exposed). Impact 

pile driving of monopiles is limited to 

one pile per day and may only begin in 

the absence of NARWs (based on 

clearance zones, as determined by 

visual and PAM PSOs). If impact pile 

driving has commenced, NMFS 

anticipates NARWs would avoid the 

area, utilizing nearby habitats not 

impacted by monopile installation. 

However, impact pile driving must be 

shutdown if a NARW is sighted at any 

distance, unless a shutdown is not 

feasible due to risk of injury or loss of 

life. Depending on visibility conditions, 

shutdown may occur based on a NARW 

sighting in the Level B harassment zone, 

thereby minimizing the duration and 

intensity of exposure above the Level B 

harassment threshold. NMFS anticipates 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 863 

that if NARWs go undetected and they 

are exposed to impact pile-driving noise 

from monopile installation, it would be 

at noise levels only slightly above the 

Level B harassment threshold, as it is 

unlikely a NARW would approach the 

impact pile-driving locations to the 

degree that they would purposely 

expose themselves to very high noise 

levels. NMFS also anticipates that the 

combination of PAM and visual 

observers (as well as communication 

protocols with other South Fork Wind 

vessels, and other heightened awareness 

efforts such as daily monitoring of 

NARW sighting databases) will result in 

maximum detection effectiveness such 

that as a NARW approaches the source 

(and thereby could be exposed to higher 

noise energy levels), PSO detection 

efficacy will increase, the whale will be 

detected, and a shutdown (if feasible) 

will occur. In addition, the 

implementation of a soft start will 

provide an opportunity for whales to 

move away from the source, reducing 

received levels. Although the Level B 

harassment zone for vibratory pile 

driving is large (approximately 36 km), 

the cofferdam, if South Fork Wind 

chooses to install one, would be 

installed nearshore over a short 

timeframe, at a distance approximately 

70 km from the Lease Area. Further, 

South Fork Wind has indicated that 

vibratory pile driving for cofferdam 

installation would likely occur upon the 

effectiveness of the IHA in 2022, while 

monopile driving is likely to occur 

several months later in 2023. NARWs 

will, therefore, not be exposed to both 

vibratory and impact pile driving on any 

given day. Finally, for construction 

surveys, the maximum distance to the 

Level B harassment isopleth is 141 m. 

The authorized take, by Level B 

harassment only, associated with 

construction surveys is to account for 

any NARW PSOs may miss when HRG 

acoustic sources are active. However, 

because of the short maximum distance 

to the Level B harassment isopleth (141 

m), the requirement that vessels 

maintain a distance of 500 m from any 

NARWs, and the fact whales are 

unlikely to remain in close proximity to 

a construction survey vessel for any 

length of time, any exposure to Level B 

harassment (the only type that is 

authorized for construction survey), if 

any, would be very brief and exposure 

of the same individual on multiple days 

is unlikely. To further minimize 

exposure, ramp-up of boomers, sparkers, 

and Chirps must be delayed during the 

clearance period if PSOs detect a NARW 

(or any other ESA-listed species) within 

500 m of the acoustic source. Operation 

of this equipment (if active) must be 

shut down if a NARW is sighted within 

500 m. Overall, given the information 

above, the magnitude of any Level B 

harassment is expected to be low. 

There are no known NARW mating or 

calving areas within the project area; 

however, as described above, it is on the 

far western edge of a larger core foraging 

area (Oleson et al., 2020). If a NARW 

does avoid foraging within the project 

area, there is ample foraging habitat 

adjacent to the project area that would 

not be not ensonified by the project’s 

impact or vibratory pile-driving noise. 

For example, the presence of NARWs on 

Nantucket Shoals in the fall in recent 

years indicates that this habitat is a 

foraging hotspot. Given that the nearest 

NARWs detections on Nantucket Shoals 

are approximately 90 km away from the 

eastern-most edge of the project area 

where impact pile driving monopiles 

would occur, noise from the project 

would not impact NARW foraging in 

this habitat. Further, monopile driving 

would be limited to a maximum of four 

hours per day; therefore, if foraging 

activity is disrupted due to pile driving, 

any disruption would be brief as 

NARWs would likely resume foraging 

after pile driving ceases. 

As described above, due to the 

temporary nature of disturbance from 

South Fork Wind’s project activities and 

the availability of similar habitat and 

resources in the surrounding area, the 

impacts to NARWs and the food sources 

that they utilize are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term 

consequences for individual NARWs or 

their population. Feeding NARWs that 

may be temporarily displaced during 

South Fork Wind’s construction 

activities are expected to be able to 

resume foraging once they have moved 

away from areas with disturbing levels 

of underwater noise or when the activity 

ceases. Even repeated Level B 

harassment of some smaller number (13 

or less) of individuals, as a subset of the 

overall stock, over several days is 

unlikely to result in any significant 

realized decrease in viability for the 

affected individuals, and thus would 

not result in any adverse impact to the 

stock as a whole. 

With respect to potential vessel strike, 

the IHA includes an extensive suite of 

mitigation measures designed to avoid 

ship strike and close approaches, 

including, but not limited it: Separation 

distances; limiting vessel speed to 10 kts 

or less (except in the case of transiting 

crew transfer vessels in the transit route 

under specific conditions, including use 

of observers and PAM for crew transfer 

vessels travelling in excess of 10 kts 

(outside of any DMA or SMA); training 

and communication protocols; and 

monitoring of NARW sighting resources. 

As described above, given the 

anticipated effectiveness of these 

measures in addition to the already very 

low probability of a vessel strike, take 

from vessel strike is not anticipated or 

authorized. 

As described above, NARWs are 

experiencing an ongoing UME, the 

primary drivers of which are 

entanglement and ship strikes leading to 

serious injury or mortality. The loss of 

even one individual could significantly 

impact the population. However, no 

mortality, serious injury, or injury of 

NARWs as a result of the project is 

expected or authorized. Any 

disturbance to NARWs due to exposure 

to impact or vibratory pile-driving noise 

(Level B harassment) or construction 

surveys is expected to result in 

temporary avoidance of the immediate 

area of construction. As no injury or 

mortality is expected or authorized, and 

Level B harassment of NARWs will be 

reduced to the level of least practicable 

adverse impact through use of 

mitigation measures, the authorized 

number of takes of NARWs would not 

exacerbate or compound the effects of 

the ongoing UME in any way. 

NMFS concludes that (1) exposures of 

NARWs to impact pile-driving noise 

from monopile installation will be 

greatly reduced due to seasonal 

restrictions on monopile installation, 

and (2) additional required mitigation 

measures would ensure that any 

exposures above the Level B harassment 

threshold during months outside of the 

seasonal restriction on monopile 

installation would result in only shortterm effects to individuals exposed. 

With implementation of the mitigation 

requirements, take by Level A 

harassment is not expected to occur and 

is therefore not authorized. Potential 

impacts associated with Level B 

harassment would include low-level, 

temporary behavioral modifications, 

most likely in the form of avoidance 

behavior or potential alteration of 

vocalizations (due to masking). 

Although unlikely given the NARWspecific mitigation, TTS is another 

potential form of Level B harassment 

that could result in brief periods of 

slightly reduced hearing sensitivity, 

affecting behavioral patterns by making 

it more difficult to hear or interpret 

acoustic cues within the frequency 

range (and slightly above) of sound 

produced during impact pile driving; 

however, it is unlikely that any 

individuals would be exposed to impact 

or vibratory pile driving, or active 

specified HRG acoustic sources at 

distances or for durations that would 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
864 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

have more than brief and minor 

impacts, which would not be expected 

to affect the fitness of any individuals. 

Although acoustic masking may 

occur, based on the acoustic 

characteristics of noise associated with 

pile driving (e.g., frequency spectra, 

short duration) and construction 

surveys (e.g., intermittent signals), 

NMFS expects masking effects to be 

minimal (e.g., impact or vibratory pile 

driving) to none (e.g., construction 

surveys). Masking events that might be 

considered Level B harassment have 

already been accounted for in the 

exposure analysis as they would be 

expected to occur within the behavioral 

harassment zones predetermined for 

impact and vibratory pile driving. 

Avoidance of the SFWF or SFEC 

during construction would represent a 

potential manifestation of behavioral 

disturbance. Although the project area is 

located within the migratory BIA for 

NARWs, impact pile driving of 

monopile foundations would only occur 

on up to 16 days (one pile would be 

driven per day for a maximum of 4 

hours), and vibratory pile driving for 

cofferdam installation/removal would 

be limited to a maximum of 36 hours 

(18 hours for installation and an 

additional 18 hours for removal) of the 

12 months of activities covered in this 

IHA. If a casing pipe and support piles 

are installed, impact hammering and 

vibratory pile driving would be limited 

to a total of 8 hours. Further, seasonal 

restrictions preclude monopile 

installation during the months in which 

NARW occurrence is expected to be 

highest (January through April). 

Monopile installation is also prohibited 

in December, unless unanticipated 

delays due to weather or technical 

problems arise that necessitate 

extending installations into December. If 

avoidance of the project area by NARWs 

occurs, it is expected to be temporary. 

Finally, consistent NARW utilization of 

the habitat south of Martha’s Vineyard 

and Nantucket (Oleson et al., 2020) 

indicates that suitable alternative nearby 

habitat would be available to NARWs 

that might avoid the project area during 

construction. 

In order to evaluate whether or not 

individual behavioral responses (in 

combination with other stressors) 

impact animal populations, scientists 

have developed theoretical frameworks 

which can then be applied to particular 

case studies when the supporting data 

are available. One such framework is the 

Population Consequences of 

Disturbance Model (PCoD), which 

attempts to assess the combined effects 

of individual animal exposures to 

stressors at the population level (NAS 

2017). Nearly all PCoD studies 

(considering multiple marine mammal 

species) and experts agree that 

infrequent exposures of a single day or 

less are unlikely to impact individual 

fitness, let alone lead to populationlevel effects (Christiansen and Lusseau 

2015; Dunlop et al., 2021; Harwood et 

al., 2014; Harwood and Booth 2016; 

Keen et al., 2021; King et al., 2015; New 

et al., 2014; Pirotta et al., 2018; Southall 

et al., 2007; Villegas-Amtmann et al., 

2015). Since NMFS expects that any 

exposures would be brief (no more than 

4 hours per day for impact pile driving 

of monopiles, 36 hours over 6 days for 

vibratory pile driving of a cofferdam, or 

8 hours over 2–4 days for impact 

hammering and vibratory pile driving if 

the casing pipe is installed (and likely 

less given probable avoidance 

response)), and the likelihood or repeat 

exposures across multiple days to the 

same individuals is low (but possible), 

any behavioral responses that would 

occur due to animals being exposed to 

noise produced during construction 

activities are expected to be temporary, 

with behavior returning to a baseline 

state shortly after the acoustic stimuli 

ceases. NARWs may temporarily avoid 

the immediate project area, but are not 

expected to permanently abandon the 

habitat that contains the SFWF and 

SFEC. Given this, and NMFS’ evaluation 

of the available PCoD studies, any such 

behavioral responses are not expected to 

impact an individual animal’s health or 

fitness, or have effects on individual 

animal’s survival or reproduction, much 

less impact the population. 

In the IHA, up to 13 individual 

NARWs could be behaviorally disturbed 

incidental to all construction activities, 

or some fewer number of individual 

NARWs could be behaviorally disturbed 

on more than one day, but no more than 

13 total instances of take would occur. 

Since most monopile installations 

would occur during a period when 

NARW occurrence is much lower than 

January through April (when impact 

pile driving of monopiles is, under no 

circumstances, allowed to proceed) and 

considering the required mitigation and 

monitoring, it is highly unlikely a single 

NARW would incur all the authorized 

take (i.e., the same whale taken on 13 

different days). Because the project area 

is both a migratory corridor and foraging 

area (although to a lesser extent than the 

area south of Martha’s Vineyard and 

Nantucket), it is more likely that a 

subset of whales will be exposed only 

once and some subset would potentially 

be exposed on more than one day (e.g., 

7 individuals taken in one day each and 

3 individuals taken on two days each). 

While there may be temporary 

impacts to behaviors such as foraging 

near impact and vibratory pile-driving 

activities, meaningful shifts in habitat 

use, distribution, or foraging success are 

not anticipated. As described above, 

NMFS expects NARWs to avoid areas 

with high noise levels. Given the suite 

of monitoring and mitigation measures 

in the IHA specific to NARWs, if an 

individual is exposed to noise levels 

that may result in Level B harassment, 

this exposure would likely occur at 

distance (i.e., farther from the noise 

source). Because sound loses energy as 

it moves away from the source, more 

distant received levels would be 

relatively low; any resulting behavioral 

changes are also anticipated to be low 

in severity. Based on the information 

above, NMFS does not anticipate that 

any Level B harassment of NARWs that 

may result from South Fork Wind’s 

planned impact and vibratory pile 

driving would impact the reproduction 

or survival of any individual NARWs, 

much less annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

NMFS’ determination that the impacts 

resulting from the South Fork Wind’s 

construction activites are not expected 

to adversely affect any marine mammal 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Where Level A harassment is 

authorized, the amount of Level A 

harassment is low for all impacted 

species and would be in the form of a 

slight PTS; 

• Level B harassment would be in the 

form of behavioral disturbance, 

primarily resulting in avoidance of the 

project area around where impact or 

vibratory pile driving is occurring, and 

some low-level TTS and masking that 

may limit the detection of acoustic cues 

for relatively brief amounts of time. 

• Repeated disturbance to some 

individuals, including a very limited 

number of NARWs (potentially up to a 

few individuals on a few days), may 

occur; however, any resulting 

behavioral reactions from exposure to 

acoustic impacts from the specified 

HRG acoustic sources, and impact and 

vibratory pile driving (e.g., avoidance, 

short-term cessation of foraging) are not 

expected to result in impacts to any 

stock’s reproduction or survival. 

• Total authorized take as a 

percentage of population is very low for 

all species and stocks impacted (i.e., less 

than 4 percent for all stocks, and less 

than 1 percent for 10 of 15 stocks); 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 865 

• Areas of similar habitat value are 

available for marine mammals that may 

temporarily vacate the project area 

during construction activities covered in 

this IHA; 

• Effects on species that serve as prey 

for marine mammals from the activity 

are expected to be short-term and are 

not expected to result in significant or 

long-term consequences for individual 

marine mammals, or to contribute to 

adverse impacts on their populations; 

• A biologically important migratory 

area exists for NARWs within the Lease 

Area and potential export cable route 

corridors; however, the required 

seasonal moratorium on monopile 

installations is expected to largely avoid 

impacts to the NARW migration, as 

described above. The project area 

encompasses a subset of a core yearround foraging habitat; however, there 

are areas within this core foraging 

habitat that would not be impacted by 

project noise. Further, any noise within 

the project area would be temporary 

given the limitation to the amount of 

pile driving for the project, the 

limitations on the number of piles 

installed per day, and time of day 

restrictions limiting when pile driving 

could occur. Moreover, potential for 

exposure from noise causing behavioral 

disruptions such as a cessation of 

foraging is further reduced through 

implementation of the required 

mitigation measures (e.g., requiring a 

delay in pile driving should a NARW be 

observed at any distance by PSOs on the 

pile-driving/dedicated PSO vessels 

would limit any disruption of foraging). 

• There are no known important 

feeding, breeding or calving areas in the 

project area for any other marine 

mammals, except fin whales. A foraging 

BIA exists for fin whales from March 

through October within the Lease Area 

and ECR, but ample alternate suitable 

foraging habitat is available in the 

immediate vicinity of the project area. A 

second fin whale BIA, and BIAs for 

humpback, sei, and minke whales are 

delineated to the east of the project area; 

however, received levels (if any) within 

these areas would be extremely low 

given the distance to the BIAs from the 

project area; therefore, exposure to these 

low levels (while possibly audible) are 

not expected to result in disruption of 

foraging within the BIAs. 

• The required mitigation measures, 

including visual and acoustic 

monitoring, clearance zones, soft start, 

and ramp-up, are expected to minimize 

potential impacts to marine mammals 

and effect the least practicable adverse 

impact on all marine mammals. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from South Fork Wind’s 

planned activity will have a negligible 

impact on all affected marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is less than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

NMFS authorizes incidental take of 15 

marine mammal stocks. The total 

amount of take authorized is less than 

4 percent for five of these stocks, and 

less than 1 percent for the 10 remaining 

stocks (Table 23), which NMFS finds are 

small numbers of marine mammals 

relative to the estimated overall 

population abundances for those stocks. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the planned activity (including 

the required mitigation and monitoring 

measures) and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the population size 

of all 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 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, in this 

case with the NMFS Greater Atlantic 

Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

The NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources Permits and Conservation 

Division is authorizing the incidental 

take of four species of marine mammals 

that are listed under the ESA: The 

NARW, fin, sei and sperm whale. NMFS 

requested initiation of consultation 

under Section 7 of the ESA with NMFS 

GARFO on February 8, 2021, for the 

issuance of this IHA. On October 1, 

2021, NMFS GARFO issued a Biological 

Opinion concluding that these activities 

may adversely affect but are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

NARW, fin, sei and sperm whales or 

adversely modify their critical habitat. 

The Biological Opinion can be found at: 

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

incidental-take-authorization-southfork-wind-llc-construction-south-forkoffshore-wind. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. In compliance 

with NEPA, as implemented by the 

regulations published by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508 (1978)), BOEM prepared an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

to consider the direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects to the human 

environment resulting from the South 

Fork Wind project. NMFS has 

participated as a cooperating agency on 

BOEM’s EIS and provided technical 

expertise to BOEM in development of 

the document as it pertains to NMFS 

trust resources, including marine 

mammals. BOEM’s Draft EIS was made 

available for public comment from 

January 8, 2021 to February 22, 2021 

online at: https://www.boem.gov/ 

renewable-energy/state-activities/southfork. BOEM published a Notice of 

Availability of the Final EIS on August 

20, 2021. As a cooperating agency, 

NMFS reviewed and provided 

comments related to NMFS trust 

resources, including marine mammals, 

on the Draft EIS and cooperating agency 

review draft of the Final EIS. In 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2
866 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

compliance with NEPA and the CEQ 

regulations (40 CFR 1506.3), as well as 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6 and 

its Companion Manual, NMFS has 

reviewed BOEM’s Final EIS, determined 

it to be sufficient, and adopted that 

Final EIS which adequately evaluates 

the direct, indirect and cumulative 

impacts of NMFS’s proposed action to 

issue an IHA under the MMPA to South 

Fork Wind for its offshore commercial 

wind project. NMFS has further 

determined that its comments and 

suggestions as a cooperating agency 

have been satisfied and recirculation of 

BOEM’s EIS is therefore unnecessary (40 

CFR 1506.3(c)). NMFS signed a joint 

Record of Decision (ROD) on November 

24, 2021. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to South 

Fork Wind authorizing take of marine 

mammals incidental to pile driving 

(vibratory and impact) and surveys 

utilizing specified HRG equipment 

associated with construction of the 

South Fork Wind Offshore Wind Project 

offshore New York, Massachusetts, and 

Rhode Island, for a period of one year, 

from November 15, 2022, through 

November 14, 2023. South Fork Wind is 

required to abide by all mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

in the IHA. 

Dated: January 3, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00041 Filed 1–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 2