Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 38033 

our analyses, the proposed renewal IHA, 

and any other aspect of this Notice. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform our final decision on the 

request for MMPA authorization. 

Dated: July 14, 2021. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15238 Filed 7–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB203] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Site 

Characterization Surveys Off the Coast 

of Massachusetts and Rhode Island 

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 

Mayflower Wind Energy LLC 

(Mayflower) to incidentally harass, by 

Level B harassment only, marine 

mammals during site characterization 

surveys off the coast of Massachusetts 

and Rhode Island in the area of the 

Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands 

for Renewable Energy Development on 

the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS–A 

0521) and along a potential submarine 

cable route to landfall at Falmouth, 

Massachusetts and Narragansett Bay. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Pauline, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

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

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

Summary of Request 

On October 23, 2020, NMFS received 

a request from Mayflower for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to site 

characterization surveys in the area of 

the Commercial Lease of Submerged 

Lands for Renewable Energy 

Development on the Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS–A 0521; Lease Area) and a 

submarine export cable route 

connecting the Lease Area to landfall in 

Falmouth, Massachusetts. A revised 

application was received on December 

15, 2020. NMFS deemed that request to 

be adequate and complete on February 

1, 2021. A notice of a proposed IHA was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 1, 2021 (85 FR 11930). After 

publication of the proposed IHA 

Mayflower determined that they needed 

to add an additional export cable route 

corridor to their survey plan. Mayflower 

originally had proposed two separate 

but parallel export cable routes that 

would run north from the Lease Area 

between Martha’s Vineyard and 

Nantucket islands through Nantucket 

Sound to a landfall location in 

Falmouth, MA. As part of the 

modification, Mayflower plans to 

eliminate the easternmost export cable 

corridor route between Martha’s 

Vineyard and Nantucket and replace it 

with an export cable corridor route that 

runs south of Martha’s Vineyard 

through Narragansett Bay to an 

unspecified landfall location in the Bay. 

The westernmost export cable route 

corridor to Falmouth, MA remains 

unchanged from the initial proposed 

IHA. Therefore, a final IHA was not 

issued and Mayflower submitted a 

modified application on April 19, 2021. 

NMFS published a notice of a modified 

proposed IHA on May 20, 2021 (86 FR 

27393). Mayflower’s request was for 

take of a small number of 14 species of 

marine mammals by Level B harassment 

only. Neither Mayflower nor NMFS 

expects serious injury or mortality to 

result from this activity and, therefore, 

an IHA is appropriate. 

NMFS previously issued an IHA to 

Mayflower for similar work (85 FR 

45578; July 29, 2020) in the same Lease 

Area and along the same submarine 

cable route connected to Falmouth, MA 

that is effective from July 23, 2020 

through July 22, 2021. However, the 

survey activity conducted under that 

IHA concluded on October 23, 2020. 

Mayflower submitted a marine mammal 

monitoring report and complied with all 

the requirements (e.g., mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting) of the 

previous IHA. Information regarding 

their monitoring results may be found in 

the Estimated Take section. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Mayflower plans to conduct marine 

site characterization surveys, including 

high-resolution geophysical (HRG) and 

geotechnical surveys, in the area of 

Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands 

for Renewable Energy Development on 

the Outer Continental Shelf #OCS–A 

0521 (Lease Area) and along potential 

submarine cable routes to landfall at 

Falmouth, Massachusetts and 

Narragansett Bay. 

The objective of the activities is to 

acquire high resolution geophysical 

(HRG) and geotechnical data on the 

bathymetry, seafloor morphology, 

subsurface geology, environmental/ 

biological sites, seafloor obstructions, 

soil conditions, and locations of any 

man-made, historical or archaeological 

resources within Lease Area OCS–A 

0521 which is located approximately 20 

nautical miles (38 kilometers (km)) 

south-southwest of Nantucket, 

Massachusetts covering approximately 

515 km2 and along the two planned 

export cable route corridors described 

above. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38034 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 

The total duration of HRG survey 

activities would be approximately 471 

survey days with a total trackline 

distance of 14,350 kilometers (km). Each 

day that a survey vessel is operating 

counts as a single survey day. This 

schedule is based on 24-hour operations 

in the offshore, deep-water portion of 

the Lease Area, and 12-hour operations 

in shallow-water and nearshore areas of 

the export cable routes. Some shallowwater HRG activities will occur only 

during daylight hours. Mayflower 

would begin survey activities in July 

2021 and conclude operations by 

December 31, 2021. The IHA is effective 

for 1 year from the date of issuance. 

Underwater sound resulting from 

Mayflower’s planned activities, 

specifically certain acoustic sources 

planned for use during its HRG surveys, 

has the potential to result in incidental 

take of marine mammals in the form of 

behavioral harassment. 

The HRG survey activities planned by 

Mayflower are described in detail in the 

notice of modified proposed IHA (86 FR 

27393; May 20, 2021). Since that time, 

no changes have been made to the 

planned HRG survey activities. 

Therefore, a detailed description is not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for the 

description of the specific activity. 

Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures are described in detail later in 

this document (please see Mitigation 

and Monitoring and Reporting below). 

The HRG equipment planned for use is 

shown in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF HRG SURVEY EQUIPMENT PLANNED FOR USE THAT COULD RESULT IN TAKE OF MARINE

MAMMALS

Specific HRG equipment 

Operating 

frequency 

range 

(kHz) 

Source level 

(dB rms) 

Beamwidth 

(degrees) 

Typical pulse 

duration 

(ms) 

Pulse 

repetition 

rate 

(Hz) 

Sparker 

Geomarine Geo-Spark 400 tip 800 J system ...................... 0.01–1.9 203 180 3.4 2 

Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark UHD 400 tips, up to 800 J 0.01–1.9 203 180 3.4 2 

Boomer 

Applied Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate ............................... 0.01–5 205 61 0.6 3 

Applied Acoustics S-Boom .................................................. 0.01–5 195 98 0.9 3 

Sub-bottom Profiler 

Edgetech 3100 with SB–2–16S towfish .............................. 2–16 179 51 9.1 10 

Edgetech DW–106 ............................................................... 1–6 176 66 14.4 10 

Teledyne Benthos Chirp III—towfish ................................... 2–7 199 82 5.8 10 

Knudson Pinger SBP ........................................................... 15 180 71 4 2 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’s modified 

proposal to issue an IHA to Mayflower 

was published in the Federal Register 

on May 20, 2021 (86 FR 27393). That 

notice described, in detail, Mayflower’s 

activity, the marine mammal species 

that may be affected by the activity, and 

the anticipated effects on marine 

mammals. During the 30-day comment 

period, NMFS received comments from 

a group of environmental nongovernmental organizations (ENGOs) 

including the Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Conservation Law Foundation, 

National Wildlife Federation, Defenders 

of Wildlife, Southern Environmental 

Law Center, Surfrider Foundation, Mass 

Audubon, Friends of the Earth, 

International Fund for Animal Welfare, 

NY4WHALES, WDC Whale and Dolphin 

Conservation, Marine Mammal Alliance 

Nantucket and Gotham Whale. 

Comment 1: The ENGOs stressed that 

NMFS must ensure undisturbed access 

to foraging habitat to adequately protect 

North Atlantic right whales since North 

Atlantic right whales employs a ‘‘highdrag’’ foraging strategy that enables 

them to selectively target high-density 

prey patches, but is energetically 

expensive. 

Response: NMFS stated in the 

modified proposed IHA, that part of the 

Project Area coincides directly with 

year-round ‘‘core’’ North Atlantic right 

whale foraging habitat (Oleson et al., 

2020) south of Martha’s Vineyard and 

Nantucket islands where both visual 

and acoustic detections of North 

Atlantic right whales indicate a nearly 

year-round presence (Oleson et al., 

2020). NMFS notes that prey for North 

Atlantic right whales are mobile and 

broadly distributed throughout the 

project area; therefore, North Atlantic 

right whales are expected to be able to 

resume foraging once they have moved 

away from any areas with disturbing 

levels of underwater noise. There is 

ample foraging habitat adjacent to the 

Project Area that is not ensonified by 

HRG sources. For example, in the fall of 

2019 and 2020, North Atlantic right 

whales were particularly attracted to 

Nantucket Shoals, located to the east of 

the Project Area. Furthermore, the 

spatial acoustic footprint of the survey 

is very small relative to the spatial 

extent of the available foraging habitat. 

Finally, we have established a 500-m 

shutdown zone for North Atlantic right 

whales, which is more than three times 

as large as the greatest Level B 

harassment isopleth calculated for the 

specified activities for this IHA. 

Comment 2: The ENGO’s noted that 

harbor porpoises are particularly 

sensitive to noise, and, therefore, 

impacts to this species must be 

minimized and mitigated to the full 

extent practicable during offshore wind 

siting and development activities. 

Response: Harbor porpoises are 

classified as high-frequency cetaceans 

(NMFS 2018) and are the hearing group 

with the lowest PTS onset thresholds, 

with maximum susceptibility to 

frequencies between 20 and 40 kHz 

(susceptibility decreases with outside 

this frequency range). However, the 

largest modeled distance to the Level A 

harassment threshold of for HF 

cetaceans was 57 m. Furthermore, this 

is a conservative assessment given that 

the model used to determine PTS 

isopleths treats all devices as impulsive 

and results in significant overestimates 

for non-impulsive devices, since PTS 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 38035 

onset thresholds are lower for impulsive 

sources compare to non-impulsive 

sources. Level A harassment would also 

be more likely to occur at close 

approach to the sound source or as a 

result of longer duration exposure to the 

sound source, and mitigation 

measures—including a 100 m exclusion 

zone (EZ) for harbor porpoises—are 

expected to minimize the potential for 

close approach or longer duration 

exposure to active HRG sources. In 

addition, harbor porpoises are known to 

be behaviorally sensitive species, in that 

they respond to comparatively lower 

received levels and are known to avoid 

vessels and other sound sources and, 

therefore, harbor porpoises would also 

be expected to avoid a sound source 

prior to that source reaching a level that 

would result in injury (Level A 

harassment). Therefore, NMFS has 

determined that take of harbor porpoises 

or any other animal by Level A 

harassment is unlikely to occur and has 

not authorized any such takes. Any 

takes by Level B harassment are 

anticipated to be limited to brief 

startling reactions and/or temporary 

avoidance of the Project Area. Further, 

appropriate mitigation measures have 

been included to ensure the least 

practicable adverse impact on harbor 

porpoises and other marine mammal 

species. 

Comment 3: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS incorporate 

additional data sources into calculations 

of marine mammal density and take and 

that NMFS must ensure all available 

data are used to ensure that any 

potential shifts in North Atlantic right 

whale habitat usage are reflected in 

estimations of marine mammal density 

and take. The ENGOs asserted in general 

that the density models used by NMFS 

do not fully reflect the abundance, 

distribution, and density of marine 

mammals for the U.S. East Coast and 

therefore result in an underestimate of 

take. 

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. 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 https://

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

EC/. These models provided key 

improvements over previously available 

information, by incorporating additional 

aerial and shipboard survey data from 

NMFS and from other organizations 

collected over the period 1992–2014, 

incorporating 60 percent more 

shipboard and 500 percent more aerial 

survey hours than did previously 

available models; controlling for the 

influence of sea state, group size, 

availability bias, and perception bias on 

the probability of making a sighting; and 

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 

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 et al., 

(2020) further updated density model 

results for North Atlantic right whales 

by incorporating additional sighting 

data and implementing three major 

changes: Increasing spatial resolution, 

generating monthly estimates on three 

time periods of survey data, and 

dividing the study area into 5 discrete 

regions. This most recent update— 

model version nine for North Atlantic 

right whales—was undertaken with the 

following objectives (Roberts et al., 

2020): 

• To account for recent changes to 

right whale 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 the Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island Wind Energy Areas led by New 

England Aquarium (Kraus et al., 2016), 

spanning 2011–2015 and 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. 

• To reflect a view in the right whale 

research community that spatiotemporal 

patterns in right whale 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 right whale density in the near 

future. 

• 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. 

• Increase the resolution of the model 

beyond 10 kilometers (km), if possible. 

All of these objectives were met in 

developing the most recent update to 

the North Atlantic right whale density 

model. 

As noted above, NMFS has 

determined that the Roberts et al. suite 

of density models represent the best 

available scientific information. 

However, NMFS acknowledges that 

there may be additional data that is not 

reflected in the models and that may 

inform our analyses, whether because 

the data were not available to the model 

authors or because the data is more 

recent than the latest model version for 

a specific taxon. 

The ENGOs pointed to additional data 

that can be obtained from sightings 

databases, passive acoustic monitoring 

efforts, aerial surveys, and autonomous 

vehicles. The ENGO’s pointed 

specifically to monthly standardized 

marine mammal aerial surveys flown in 

the Massachusetts and Rhode Island and 

Massachusetts Wind Energy Areas by 

the New England Aquarium from 

October 2018 through August 2019 and 

March 2020 through July 2021. The 

2018–2019 New England Aquarium 

study showed North Atlantic right 

whales were primarily found to the east 

of the Project Area although, 

distribution changed seasonally. There 

was only one North Atlantic right whale 

sighted in the Lease Area while limited 

numbers were found north of the Lease 

Area in the export cable corridor route 

occurring between Martha’s Vineyard 

and Nantucket heading to a landfall 

location in Falmouth, MA. Sightings of 

north Atlantic right whales occurred in 

these areas only during the spring while 

Mayflower plans to conduct operations 

from June 2021 to December 31, 2021. 

Information on the results from the 

2020–2021 aerial survey was 

unavailable at the time of the issuance 

of the final IHA. The commenters also 

referenced a study funded by the Bureau 

of Offshore Energy Management (BOEM) 

using an autonomous vehicle for realtime acoustical monitoring of marine 

mammals from December 2019 through 

March 2020 and again from December 

2020 through February 2021 on Cox 

Ledge, located approximately 35 miles 

east of Montauk Point, New York 

between Block Island and Martha’s 

Vineyard. Note that only a small portion 

of BOEM’s acoustic study area 

overlapped with Mayflower’s export 

cable corridor route running to 

Narraganset Bay. Between November 15, 

2020 and February 26, 2021 (103 days) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38036 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 

North Atlantic right whales were 

acoustically detected on 19 days and 

possibly detected on an additional 12 

days. Most of these detections and 

possible detections occurred south of 

Mayflower’s planned export cable 

corridor route outside of the Project 

Area. No North Atlantic right whales 

were detected in BOEM’s study area 

between March 25, 2021 and June 29, 

2021 (96 days). The data from these 

recent studies does not indicate that 

NMFS should employ seasonal 

restrictions or alter any of the required 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, particularly as NMFS 

considers impacts from these types of 

survey operations to be near de minimis 

and that Mayflower will not be 

conducting survey operations during the 

spring. It would be difficult to draw any 

qualitative conclusions from these study 

results given that most of the 

observations and detections occurred 

outside of Mayflower’s Project Area. 

NMFS will review any 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 North Atlantic right whales, 

in U.S. Atlantic waters. 

While the ENGO’s referenced 

additional data, no specific 

recommendations were made with 

regard to use of this information in 

informing the take estimates. Rather, the 

commenters suggested that NMFS 

should ‘‘collate and integrate these and 

more recent data sets to more accurately 

reflect marine mammal presence for 

future IHAs and other work.’’ NMFS 

would welcome in the future 

constructive suggestions as to how these 

objectives might be more effectively 

accomplished. NMFS used the best 

scientific information available at the 

time the analyses for the proposed and 

modified proposed IHAs were 

conducted, and has considered all 

available data, including sources 

referenced by the commenters, in 

reaching its determinations in support 

of issuance of the IHA requested by 

Mayflower. 

Comment 4: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS require the 

implementation of seasonal restrictions 

on site characterization activities that 

have the potential to injure or harass the 

North Atlantic right whale from 

December 1, 2021 through April 30, 

2022. The ENGOs further note that they 

consider source levels greater than 180 

dB re 1 mPa (SPL) at 1-meter at 

frequencies between 7 Hz and 35 kHz to 

be potentially harmful to low-frequency 

cetaceans. 

Response: NMFS is concerned about 

the status of the North Atlantic right 

whale, given that a UME has been in 

effect for this species since June of 2017 

and that there have been a number of 

recent mortalities. NMFS appreciates 

the value of seasonal restrictions under 

some circumstances. However, in this 

case, we have determined seasonal 

restrictions are not warranted since 

NMFS considers impacts from these 

types of survey operations to be near de 

minimis. NMFS, however, is requiring 

Mayflower to comply with restrictions 

associated with identified seasonal 

management areas (SMAs) and they 

must comply with dynamic 

management areas (DMAs), if any DMAs 

are established near the Project Area. 

Furthermore, we have established a 500- 

m shutdown zone for North Atlantic 

right whales, which is more than three 

times as large as the greatest Level B 

harassment isopleth calculated for the 

specified activities for this IHA (141 m). 

Take estimation conservatively assumes 

that these acoustic sources will operate 

on all survey days although it is 

probable that Mayflower will only use 

sparkers on a subset of survey days, and 

on the remaining days utilize HRG 

equipment with considerably smaller 

Level B harassment isopleths. Therefore, 

the number of Level B harassment takes 

is likely an overestimate. Finally, 

significantly shortening Mayflower’s 

work season is impracticable given the 

number of survey days planned for the 

specified activity for this IHA. 

It is unclear how the commenters 

determined that source levels greater 

than 180 dB re 1 mPa (SPL) are 

potentially harmful to low-frequency 

cetaceans. NMFS historically applied a 

received level (not source level) root 

mean square (rms) threshold of 180 dB 

SPL as the potential for marine 

mammals to incur PTS (i.e., Level A 

(injury) harassment); however, in 2016, 

NMFS published it Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing which updated the 

180 dB SPL Level A harassment 

threshold. Since that time, NMFS has 

been applying dual threshold criteria 

based on both peak and a weighted (to 

account for marine mammal hearing) 

cumulative sound exposure level. 

NMFS released a revised version of the 

Technical Guidance in 2018. We 

encourage the ENGOs to review the 

Technical Guidance available at https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance to 

inform future reviews of any proposed 

IHA on which they may wish to 

comment. As described in the Estimated 

Take section, NMFS has established a 

PTS (Level A harassment) threshold of 

183 dB cumulative SEL for low 

frequency specialists, and a right whale 

would need to approach within 2 meters 

of the source to potentially incur PTS 

from the largest source. 

Comment 5: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS should 

prohibit the commencement of 

geophysical surveys at night to 

maximize the probability that marine 

mammals are detected and confirmed 

clear of the EZ. The commenters 

asserted that initiation of work should 

occur with ramp-up, only during 

daylight hours. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

limitations inherent in detection of 

marine mammals at night. However, no 

injury is expected to result even in the 

absence of mitigation, given the 

characteristics of the sources planned 

for use (supported by the very small 

estimated Level A harassment zones). 

The ENGOs do not provide any support 

for the apparent contention that injury 

is a potential outcome of these 

activities. Regarding Level B 

harassment, any potential impacts 

would be limited to short-term 

behavioral responses, as described in 

greater detail herein. The commenters 

establish that the status of North 

Atlantic right whales in particular is 

precarious. NMFS agrees in general with 

the discussion of this status provided by 

the commenters. Note that NMFS 

considers impacts from this category of 

survey operations to be near de 

minimis, with the potential for Level A 

harassment for any species to be 

discountable and the severity of Level B 

harassment (and, therefore, the impacts 

of the take event on the affected 

individual), if any, to be low. NMFS is 

also requiring Mayflower to deploy two 

PSOs during nighttime hours who must 

have access to night-vision equipment 

(i.e., night-vision goggles and/or 

infrared technology). Given these 

factors, NMFS does not believe that 

there is a need for more restrictive 

mitigation requirements. 

Restricting surveys in the manner 

suggested by the commenters may 

reduce marine mammal exposures by 

some degree in the short term, but 

would not result in any significant 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 38037 

reduction in either intensity or duration 

of noise exposure. Vessels would also 

potentially be on the water for an 

extended time introducing noise into 

the marine environment. The restriction 

recommended by the commenters could 

result in the surveys spending increased 

time on the water, which may result in 

greater overall exposure to sound for 

marine mammals; thus the commenters 

have not demonstrated that such a 

requirement would result in a net 

benefit. Furthermore, restricting the 

applicant to begin operations only 

during daylight hours would have the 

potential to result in lengthy shutdowns 

of the survey equipment, which could 

result in the applicant failing to collect 

the data they have determined is 

necessary and, subsequently, the need 

to conduct additional surveys the 

following year. This would result in 

significantly increased costs incurred by 

the applicant. Thus, the restriction 

suggested by the commenters would not 

be practicable for the applicant to 

implement. In consideration of the 

likely effects of the activity on marine 

mammals absent mitigation, potential 

unintended consequences of the 

measures as proposed by the 

commenters, and practicability of the 

recommended measures for the 

applicant, NMFS has determined that 

restricting operations as recommended 

is not warranted or practicable in this 

case. 

Comment 6: Based on the assertion 

that the 160 dB threshold for behavioral 

harassment is not supported by best 

available scientific information and 

grossly underestimates Level B take, the 

ENGOs recommended that NMFS 

establish an EZ of 1,000 m around each 

vessel conducting activities with noise 

levels that they assert could result in 

injury or harassment to North Atlantic 

right whales, and a minimum EZ of 500 

m for all other large whale species and 

strategic stocks of small cetaceans. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with this 

recommendation and the assertion that 

the 160 dB threshold for behavioral 

harassment is not supported by best 

available scientific information and 

grossly underestimates take by Level B 

harassment. 

Regarding the 160-dB threshold, 

NMFS acknowledges that the 160-dB 

rms step-function approach is 

simplistic, and that an approach 

reflecting a more complex probabilistic 

function may more effectively represent 

the known variation in responses at 

different levels due to differences in the 

receivers, the context of the exposure, 

and other factors. The commenters 

suggested that our use of the 160-dB 

threshold implies that we do not 

recognize the science indicating that 

animals may react in ways constituting 

behavioral harassment when exposed to 

lower received levels (RL). However, we 

do recognize the potential for Level B 

harassment at exposures to RLs below 

160 dB rms, in addition to the potential 

that animals exposed to RLs above 160 

dB rms will not respond in ways 

constituting behavioral harassment (e.g., 

Malme et al., 1983, 1984, 1985, 1988; 

McCauley et al., 1998, 2000a, 2000b; 

Barkaszi et al., 2012; Stone, 2015a; 

Gailey et al., 2016; Barkaszi and Kelly, 

2018). These comments appear to 

evidence a misconception regarding the 

concept of the 160-dB threshold. While 

it is correct that in practice it works as 

a step-function, i.e., animals exposed to 

RLs above the threshold are considered 

to be ‘‘taken’’ and those exposed to 

levels below the threshold are not, it is 

in fact intended as a sort of mid-point 

of likely behavioral responses (which 

are extremely complex depending on 

many factors including species, noise 

source, individual experience, and 

behavioral context). What this means is 

that, conceptually, the function 

recognizes that some animals exposed to 

levels below the threshold will in fact 

react in ways that are appropriately 

considered take, while others that are 

exposed to levels above the threshold 

will not. Use of the 160-dB threshold 

allows for a simplistic quantitative 

estimate of take, while we can 

qualitatively address the variation in 

responses across different RLs in our 

discussion and analysis. 

As behavioral responses to sound 

depend on the context in which an 

animal receives the sound, including 

the animal’s behavioral mode when it 

hears sounds, prior experience, 

additional biological factors, and other 

contextual factors, defining sound levels 

that disrupt behavioral patterns is 

extremely difficult. Even experts have 

not previously been able to suggest 

specific new criteria due to these 

difficulties (e.g., Southall et al. 2007; 

Gomez et al., 2016). 

Regarding the shutdown zone 

recommendation, we note that the 500- 

m EZ for North Atlantic right whales 

exceeds the modeled distance to the 

largest 160-dB Level B harassment 

isopleth distance (141 m) by a factor of 

more than three. Given that calculated 

Level B harassment isopleths are likely 

conservative, and NMFS considers 

impacts from HRG survey activities to 

be near de minimis, a 100-m shutdown 

for other marine mammal species 

(including large whales and strategic 

stocks of small cetaceans) is sufficiently 

protective to effect the least practicable 

adverse impact on those species and 

stocks. 

Comment 7: The ENGOs 

recommended that Mayflower must 

employ a minimum of four protected 

species observers (PSOs) following a 

two-on, two-off rotation, each 

responsible for scanning no more than 

180° of the horizon during both daylight 

and nighttime hours. The commenters 

also recommended that infrared 

equipment should be during daylight 

hours to maximize the probability of 

detection of marine mammals. 

Response: NMFS typically requires 

that a single PSO must be stationed at 

the highest vantage point and engaged 

in general 360-degree scanning during 

daylight hours. Although NMFS 

acknowledges that the single PSO 

cannot reasonably maintain observation 

of the entire 360-degree area around the 

vessel, it is reasonable to assume that 

the single PSO engaged in continual 

scanning of such a small area (i.e., 500- 

m EZ, which is greater than the 

maximum 141-m harassment zone) will 

be successful in detecting marine 

mammals that are available for detection 

at the surface. The monitoring reports 

submitted to NMFS have demonstrated 

that PSOs active only during daylight 

operations are able to detect marine 

mammals and implement appropriate 

mitigation measures. Nevertheless, as 

night vision technology has continued 

to improve, NMFS has adapted its 

practice, and two PSOs are required to 

be on duty at night. As the ENGOs 

noted, NMFS has included a 

requirement in the final IHA that nightvision equipment (i.e., night-vision 

goggles with thermal clip-ons and 

infrared/thermal imaging technology) 

must be available for use. Under the 

issued IHA, survey operators are not 

required to provide PSOs with infrared 

devices during the day but observers are 

not prohibited from employing them. 

Given that use of infrared devices for 

detecting marine mammals during the 

day has been shown to be helpful under 

certain conditions, NMFS will consider 

requiring them to be made accessible for 

daytime PSOs. 

Comment 8: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS should 

require passive acoustic monitoring 

(PAM) at all times, both day and night, 

to maximize the probability of detection 

for North Atlantic right whales, and 

other protected species and stocks. 

Response: The foremost concern 

expressed by the ENGOs in making the 

recommendation to require use of PAM 

is with regard to North Atlantic right 

whales. However, the commenters do 

not explain why they expect that PAM 

would be effective in detecting 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38038 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 

vocalizing mysticetes. It is generally 

well-accepted fact that, even in the 

absence of additional acoustic sources, 

using a towed passive acoustic sensor to 

detect baleen whales (including right 

whales) is not typically effective 

because the noise from the vessel, the 

flow noise, and the cable noise are in 

the same frequency band and will mask 

the vast majority of baleen whale calls. 

Vessels produce low-frequency noise, 

primarily through propeller cavitation, 

with main energy in the 5–300 Hertz 

(Hz) frequency range. Source levels 

range from about 140 to 195 decibel (dB) 

re 1 mPa (micropascal) at 1 m (NRC, 

2003; Hildebrand, 2009), depending on 

factors such as ship type, load, and 

speed, and ship hull and propeller 

design. Studies of vessel noise show 

that it appears to increase background 

noise levels in the 71–224 Hz range by 

10–13 dB (Hatch et al., 2012; McKenna 

et al., 2012; Rolland et al., 2012). PAM 

systems employ hydrophones towed in 

streamer cables approximately 500 m 

behind a vessel. Noise from water flow 

around the cables and from strumming 

of the cables themselves is also lowfrequency and typically masks signals in 

the same range. Experienced PAM 

operators participating in a recent 

workshop (Thode et al., 2017) 

emphasized that a PAM operation could 

easily report no acoustic encounters, 

depending on species present, simply 

because background noise levels 

rendered any acoustic detection 

impossible. The same workshop report 

stated that a typical eight-element array 

towed 500 m behind a vessel could be 

expected to detect delphinids, sperm 

whales, and beaked whales at the 

required range, but not baleen whales, 

due to expected background noise levels 

(including seismic noise, vessel noise, 

and flow noise). 

There are several additional reasons 

why we do not agree that use of PAM 

is warranted for 24-hour HRG surveys. 

While NMFS agrees that PAM can be an 

important tool for augmenting detection 

capabilities in certain circumstances, its 

utility in further reducing impact during 

HRG survey activities is limited. First, 

for this activity, the area expected to be 

ensonified above the Level B 

harassment threshold is relatively small 

(a maximum of 141 m)—this reflects the 

fact that, to start with, the source level 

is comparatively low and the intensity 

of any resulting impacts would be lower 

level and, further, it means that 

inasmuch as PAM will only detect a 

portion of any animals exposed within 

a zone, the overall probability of PAM 

detecting an animal in the harassment 

zone is low—together these factors 

support the limited value of PAM for 

use in reducing take with smaller zones. 

PAM is only capable of detecting 

animals that are actively vocalizing, 

while many marine mammal species 

vocalize infrequently or during certain 

activities, which means that only a 

subset of the animals within the range 

of the PAM would be detected (and 

potentially have reduced impacts). 

Additionally, localization and range 

detection can be challenging under 

certain scenarios. For example, 

odontocetes are fast moving and often 

travel in large or dispersed groups 

which makes localization difficult. 

Given that the effects to marine 

mammals from the types of surveys 

authorized in this IHA are expected to 

be limited to low level behavioral 

harassment even in the absence of 

mitigation, the limited additional 

benefit anticipated by adding this 

detection method (especially for right 

whales and other low frequency 

cetaceans, species for which PAM has 

limited efficacy), and the cost and 

impracticability of implementing a fulltime PAM program, we have determined 

the current requirements for visual 

monitoring are sufficient to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat. 

Comment 9: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS should 

require Mayflower to select sub-bottom 

profiling systems for survey activities, 

and operate those systems at power 

settings that achieve the lowest 

practicable source level for the 

objective. 

Response: Wind energy developers 

selected the equipment necessary 

during HRG surveys to achieve their 

objectives. As part of the analysis for all 

HRG IHAs, NMFS evaluated the effects 

expected as a result of use of this 

equipment, made the necessary 

findings, and imposed mitigation 

requirements sufficient to achieve the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

affected species and stocks of marine 

mammals. It is not within NMFS’ 

purview to make judgments regarding 

what constitutes the ‘‘lowest practicable 

source level’’ for an operator’s survey 

objectives. 

Comment 10: The ENGOs 

recommended that NMFS require all 

offshore wind energy related project 

vessels operating within or transiting to/ 

from survey areas, regardless of size, to 

observe a 10-knot speed restriction 

during the entire survey period. 

Response: NMFS does not concur 

with these measures. NMFS has 

analyzed the potential for ship strike 

resulting from various HRG activities 

and has determined that the mitigation 

measures specific to ship strike 

avoidance are sufficient to avoid the 

potential for ship strike. These include: 

A requirement that all vessel operators 

comply with 10 knot (18.5 km/hour) or 

less speed restrictions in any 

established DMA or SMA; a requirement 

that all vessel operators reduce vessel 

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

when any large whale, mother/calf 

pairs, pods, or large assemblages of nondelphinid cetaceans are observed within 

100 m of an underway vessel; a 

requirement that all survey vessels 

maintain a separation distance of 500 m 

or greater from any sighted North 

Atlantic right whale; a requirement that, 

if underway, vessels must steer a course 

away from any sighted North Atlantic 

right whale at 10 knots or less until the 

500 m minimum separation distance has 

been established; a requirement that all 

vessels must maintain a minimum 

separation distance of 100 m from 

sperm whales and all other baleen 

whales; and a requirement that all 

vessels must, to the maximum extent 

practicable, attempt to maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 50 m 

from all other marine mammals, with an 

understanding that at times this may not 

be possible (e.g., for animals that 

approach the vessel). We have 

determined that the ship strike 

avoidance measures are sufficient to 

ensure the least practicable adverse 

impact on species or stocks and their 

habitat. Furthermore, no documented 

vessel strikes have occurred for any 

marine site characterization survey 

activities which were issued IHAs from 

NMFS. 

Comment 11: The ENGOs recommend 

that NMFS develop a robust and 

effective near real-time monitoring and 

mitigation system for North Atlantic 

right whales and other endangered and 

protected species that will be more 

responsive to the ongoing dynamic 

species distributional shifts resulting 

from climate change, as well as provide 

more flexibility to developers during 

offshore wind energy 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. The ENGOs cited the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 38039 

NMFS publication ‘‘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-rightwhale-monitoring-and-surveillancereport-and-recommendations. This 

report summarizes a workshop NMFS 

convened to address objectives related 

to monitoring North Atlantic right 

whales and presents the Expert Working 

Group’s recommendations for a 

comprehensive monitoring strategy to 

guide future analyses and data 

collection. Among the numerous 

recommendations found in the report, 

the Expert Working Group encouraged 

the widespread deployment of autobuoys to provide near real-time 

detections of North Atlantic right whale 

calls that visual survey teams can then 

respond to for collection of 

identification photographs or biological 

samples. 

Comment 12: The ENGOs state that 

NMFS must not issue renewal IHAs 

since the process is contrary to statutory 

requirements. 

Response: 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 modified proposed 

IHA published in the Federal Register 

on May 20, 2021 (86 FR 86 FR 27393) 

made clear that the agency was seeking 

comment on the modified 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 in the coming months. 

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. 

Changes From the Modified Proposed 

IHA to Final IHA 

There were no changes made between 

the modified proposed IHA and the 

final IHA. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (https://

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

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and authorized 

for this action, and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and ESA and potential 

biological removal (PBR), where known. 

For taxonomy, NMFS follows 

Committee on Taxonomy (2020). PBR is 

defined by the MMPA as the maximum 

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain 

its optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’s SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or Project Area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s U.S. Atlantic SARs. All values 

presented in Table 2 are the most recent 

available at the time of publication and 

are available in the 2019 Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal SARs 

(Hayes et al., 2020), available online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessment-reportsregion and draft 2020 Atlantic and Gulf 

of Mexico Marine Mammal SARs 

available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38040 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY MAYFLOWER’S

PLANNED ACTIVITY

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR 3 Annual M/ 

SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenidae: 

North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis ............... Western North Atlantic .......... E/D; Y 412 (0; 408; 2018) ............ 0.89 18.6 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

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

Fin whale .......................... Balaenoptera physalus .......... Western North Atlantic .......... E/D; Y 6,820 (0.24; 5,573; 2016) 12 2.35 

Sei whale ......................... Balaenoptera borealis ........... Nova Scotia ........................... E/D; Y 6292 (1.02; 3,098; 2016) .. 6.2 1.2 

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

2016).

170 10.6 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae: 

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

SAR).

3.9 0 

Family Delphinidae: 

Long-finned pilot whale .... Globicephala melas ............... Western North Atlantic .......... -/-; N 39,215 (0.3; 30,627; See 

SAR).

306 21 

Bottlenose dolphin ........... Tursiops truncatus ................. Western North Atlantic Offshore.-/-; N 62,851 (0.213; 51,914; 

See SAR).

519 28 

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

2016).

1,452 399 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin.Lagenorhynchus acutus ........ Western North Atlantic .......... -/-; N 92,233 (0.71; 54,433; See 

SAR).

544 26 

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

SAR).

303 54.3 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

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

2016).

851 217 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Gray seal 4 ....................... Halichoerus grypus ............... Western North Atlantic .......... -/-; N 27,131 (0.19; 23,158, 

2016).

1,389 4,729 

Harbor seal .............................. Phoca vitulina ........................ Western North Atlantic .......... -/-; N 75,834 (0.15; 66,884, 

2012).

2,006 350 

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

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

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

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable 3Potential biological removal, 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 size (OSP). Annual M/SI, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual 

levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, subsistence hunting, ship strike). Annual M/SI values often 

cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value. 4 NMFS stock abundance estimate applies to U.S. population only, actual stock abundance is approximately 451,431. 

As indicated above, all 14 species 

(with 14 managed stocks) in Table 2 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the planned activity to the degree that 

take is reasonably likely to occur, and 

NMFS has authorized such take. 

A description of the marine mammals 

for which take is likely to occur may be 

found in the documents supporting 

Mayflower’s previous IHA covering 

Lease Area OCS–A 0521 and potential 

submarine cable routes (85 FR 45578; 

July 29, 2020), the same general 

geographic areas where Mayflower has 

planned activities for this IHA. The 

most recent draft SARs data has been 

included in Table 2. 

Effects of Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and Their Habitat 

The underwater noise from 

Mayflower’s survey activities has the 

potential to result in take of marine 

mammals by harassment in the vicinity 

of the survey area. The Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR 

11930; March 1, 2021) included a 

discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and their habitat. That 

information and analysis is incorporated 

by reference into this final IHA 

determination and is not repeated here; 

please refer to the notice of proposed 

IHA (86 FR 11930; March 1, 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. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 38041 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to HRG sources. Based on 

the nature of the activity and the 

anticipated effectiveness of the 

mitigation measures (i.e., EZs and 

shutdown measures), discussed in detail 

below in the Mitigation section, Level A 

harassment is neither anticipated nor 

authorized. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. We note 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, we 

describe the factors considered here in 

more detail and present 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 permanent 

threshold shift (PTS) of some degree 

(equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

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

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner NMFS considers 

Level B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

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

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. 

Mayflower’s planned activity includes 

the use of intermittent sources 

(geophysical survey equipment), and 

therefore use of the 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) threshold is applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (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). Mayflower’s planned 

activities that could result in take by 

harassment include the use of impulsive 

and non-impulsive sources. 

Predicted distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths, which vary based 

on marine mammal functional hearing 

groups were calculated. The updated 

acoustic thresholds for impulsive and 

non-impulsive sounds contained in the 

Technical Guidance (NMFS, 2018) were 

presented as dual metric acoustic 

thresholds using both cumulative sound 

exposure level (SELcum) and peak sound 

pressure level metrics. 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. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 3 below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

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

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

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

also be considered. 

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

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

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

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

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

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38042 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe 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. 

The planned survey activities would 

entail the use of HRG equipment. The 

distance to the isopleth corresponding 

to the threshold for Level B harassment 

was calculated for all HRG equipment 

with the potential to result in 

harassment of marine mammals. NMFS 

has developed methodology for 

determining the rms sound pressure 

level (SPLrms) at the 160-dB isopleth for 

the purposes of estimating take by Level 

B harassment resulting from exposure to 

HRG survey equipment. This 

methodology incorporates frequency 

and some directionality to refine 

estimated ensonified zones. Mayflower 

used this methodology. For sources that 

operate with different beam widths, the 

maximum beam width was used. The 

lowest frequency of the source was used 

when calculating the absorption 

coefficient. The formulas used to apply 

the methodology are described in detail 

in Appendix A of the IHA application. 

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 isopleth distances to the Level 

B harassment threshold. Table 1 shows 

the HRG equipment types that may be 

used during the planned surveys and 

the sound levels associated with those 

HRG equipment. 

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS FOR THE PLANNED SURVEY

EQUIPMENT

Representative system(s) 

Distance (m) to Level A harassment threshold 1 Distance to 

Level B 

harassment 

threshold 

(m) LFC MFC HFC PPW OPW 

All marine 

mammals 

Sparker 

SIG ELC 820 @750 J .............................. 1 <1 2 4 <1 <1 141 

Sub-Bottom Profiler 

Teledyne Benthos Chirp III ...................... 2 <1 57 1 <1 66 

Boomer 

Applied Acoustics S-boom @700 J ......... <1 <1 2 1 <1 <1 90 

1 Distances to the Level A harassment threshold based on the larger of the dual criteria (peak SPL and SELcum) are shown. 2Peak SPL pressure level resulted in larger isopleth than SELcum. 

NMFS has determined that the 

potential for take by Level A harassment 

is so low as to be discountable and has 

not authorized take by Level A 

harassment of any mammals. This 

determination is based on the modeling 

of distances to Level A harassment 

thresholds which resulted in small 

isopleths. This modeling was performed 

for all types of HRG equipment planned 

for use with the potential to result in 

harassment of marine mammals. Rather 

than repeat the description of the model 

here, NMFS refers the reader to the 

notice of modified proposed IHA 

published in the Federal Register (86 

FR 27393; May 20, 2021). Note that 

there is one species (harbor porpoise) 

within the high frequency functional 

hearing group that may be impacted by 

the planned activities. However, the 

largest modeled distance to the Level A 

harassment threshold for the high 

frequency functional hearing group was 

57 m (Table 4) for the Chirp III. This is 

likely a conservative assessment given 

that the JASCO model treats all devices 

as impulsive and results in gross 

overestimates for non-impulsive 

devices. Level A harassment would also 

be more likely to occur at close 

approach to the sound source or as a 

result of longer duration exposure to the 

sound source, and mitigation 

measures—including a 100 m EZ zone 

for harbor porpoises—are expected to 

minimize the potential for close 

approach or longer duration exposure to 

active HRG sources. In addition, harbor 

porpoises are a notoriously shy species 

which is known to avoid vessels. Harbor 

porpoises would also be expected to 

avoid a sound source prior to that 

source reaching a level that would result 

in injury (Level A harassment). 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

take of harbor porpoises or any other 

animal is unlikely to occur. 

The largest distance to the 160 dB 

SPLrms Level B harassment threshold is 

expected to be 141 m from the sparkers. 

This distance was used as described in 

this section to estimate the area of water 

potentially exposed above the Level B 

harassment threshold by the planned 

activities. 

Up to 14,350 km of survey activity 

may occur from April through 

November 2021, including turns 

between lines or occasional testing of 

equipment while not collecting 

geophysical data. For the purposes of 

calculating take, Mayflower’s HRG 

survey activities have been split into 

two different areas, (1) the lease area 

plus the deep-water portion of the cable 

route, and (2) the shallow water portion 

of the cable route including very 

shallow water sections of the cable 

route. 

Within the Lease Area and deep-water 

portion of the cable route, the vessel 

will conduct surveys at a speed of 

approximately 3 knots (5.6 km/hr) 

during mostly 24-hr operations. 

Allowing for weather and equipment 

downtime, the survey vessel is expected 

to collect geophysical data over an 

average distance of 80 km per day. 

Using a 160 dB SPLrms threshold 

distance of 141 m, the total daily 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 38043 

ensonified area is estimated to be 282.8 

km2 within the Lease Area and deepwater portion of the cable route. 

Along the shallow-water portion of 

the cable route, survey vessels will also 

conduct surveys at a speed of 

approximately 3 knots (5.6 km/hr) 

during either daylight only or 24-hour 

operations. Survey operations in very 

shallow water will occur only during 

daylight hours. Allowing for weather 

and equipment downtime, the survey 

vessels are expected to cover an average 

distance of approximately 30–60 km per 

day in shallow waters and only 15 km 

per day in very shallow waters. 

Assuming daylight only operations and 

30 km per day of surveys in shallow 

waters results in slightly larger 

ensonified area estimates. Distributing 

the 3,250 km of survey data to be 

collected in shallow waters and the 

4,100 km to be collected in very shallow 

waters across the 7-month period of 

anticipated activity results in 

approximately 15.5 and 39 survey days 

per month in shallow and very-shallow 

waters, respectively. Using a 160 dB 

SPLrms threshold distance of 141 m, the 

total daily ensonified area in shallow 

waters is estimated to be 8.5 km2, and 

in very-shallow waters 4.3 km2. 

Combined, these result in an average 

monthly ensonified area in the 

combined shallow water survey areas of 

299.5 km2. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section NMFS provides the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Note that Mayflower submitted a partial 

marine mammal monitoring report 

under the existing IHA (85 FR 45578; 

July 39, 2020) which included the first 

90 days of survey work. A total of 415 

individual identifiable marine mammals 

from six species were observed within 

the predicted Level B harassment zone 

while an HRG source was active. These 

observations included one humpback 

whale, two minke whales, two sei 

whales, three bottlenose dolphins and 

405 common dolphins. There were also 

two unidentified seal observations. An 

additional 24 unidentified dolphins and 

one unidentified whale were observed 

inside the estimated Level B harassment 

zone but those observations could not 

be identified to the species level. All 

mitigation and monitoring requirements 

were followed and Mayflower did not 

exceed authorized take limits for any 

species. 

Density estimates for all species 

except North Atlantic right whale 

within the deep and shallow portions of 

the survey areas were derived from 

habitat-based density modeling results 

reported by Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 

2018). Those data provide abundance 

estimates for species or species guilds 

within 10 km x 10 km grid cells (100 

km2) on a monthly or annual basis, 

depending on the species. In order to 

select a representative sample of grid 

cells in and near the survey areas, a 10- 

km wide perimeter around the lease 

area and an 8-km wide perimeter 

around the cable routes were created in 

GIS (ESRI 2017). The perimeters were 

then used to select grid cells near the 

survey areas containing the most recent 

monthly or annual estimates for each 

species in the Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 

2018) data. The average monthly 

abundance for each species in each 

survey area was calculated as the mean 

value of the grid cells within each 

survey area in each month and then 

converted to density (individuals/1 

km2) by dividing by 100 km2 (Table 5, 

Table 6). 

The estimated monthly densities of 

North Atlantic right whales were based 

on updated model results from Roberts 

et al. (2020). These updated data for 

North Atlantic right whales are 

provided as densities (individuals/1 

km2) within 5 km x 5 km grid cells (25 

km2) on a monthly basis. The same GIS 

process described above was used to 

select the appropriate grid cells from 

each month and the monthly North 

Atlantic right whales density in each 

survey area was calculated as the mean 

value of the grid cells within each 

survey area as shown in Table 5 and 

Table 6. 

The estimated monthly density of 

seals provided in Roberts et al. (2018) 

includes all seal species present in the 

region as a single guild. Mayflower did 

not separate this guild into the 

individual species based on the 

proportion of sightings identified to 

each species within the dataset because 

so few of the total sightings used in the 

Roberts et al. (2018) analysis were 

actually identified to species (Table 5, 

Table 6). 

Marine mammal densities from 

Roberts et al. (2018) data in areas 

immediately adjacent to the coast and 

within Nantucket Sound were used 

when calculating potential takes from 

survey activities within Narragansett 

Bay. This is a conservative approach 

since there have only been a few 

reported sightings of marine mammal 

species, besides seals, within 

Narragansett Bay (Raposa 2009). 

For comparison purposes and to 

account for local variation not captured 

by the predicted densities provided by 

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

Protected Species Observers (PSOs) data 

from Mayflower’s 2020 HRG surveys 

were analyzed to assess the 

appropriateness of the density-based 

take calculations. To do this, the total 

number of individual marine mammals 

sighted by PSOs within 150 m of a 

sound source (rounding up from the 

141-m Level B harassment distance) 

from April 19 through September 19, 

2020, a period of 23 weeks, were 

summed by species or ‘‘unidentified’’ 

species group when sightings were not 

classified to the species level. As a 

conservative approach, all sightings 

were included in this calculation 

regardless of whether the source was 

operating at the time. In order to include 

the ‘‘unidentified’’ individuals in the 

species-specific calculations, the 

number of individuals in each 

unidentified species group (e.g., 

unidentified whale) was then added to 

the sums of the known species within 

that group (e.g., humpback whale, fin 

whale, etc.) according to the proportion 

of individuals within that group 

positively identified to the species level. 

With individuals from ‘‘unidentified’’ 

species sightings proportionally 

distributed among the species, 

Mayflower then divided the total 

number of individuals of each species 

by the number of survey weeks to 

calculate the average number of 

individuals of each species sighted 

within 150 m of the sound sources per 

week during the surveys. See section 6.4 

in application for additional detail. 

Mayflower currently plans for its 

survey activities to be concluded in 

December 2021. If survey activities 

extend beyond December 2021, the 

monthly densities for the marine 

mammals listed below may change, 

potentially affecting take values. In that 

situation, Mayflower would need to 

contact NMFS to determine a path 

forward to ensure that they remain in 

compliance with the MMPA. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38044 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 5–AVERAGE MONTHLY DENSITIES FOR SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE LEASE AREA AND ALONG THE DEEPWATER SECTION OF THE CABLE ROUTE DURING THE PLANNED SURVEY PERIOD

Species Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Mysticetes 

Fin Whale ................................................. 0.0025 0.0025 0.0024 0.0020 0.0013 0.0011 0.0012 

Humpback Whale ..................................... 0.0012 0.0013 0.0009 0.0020 0.0015 0.0005 0.0006 

Minke Whale ............................................ 0.0018 0.0007 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0003 0.0004 

North Atlantic Right Whale ...................... 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0005 0.0028 

Sei Whale ................................................. 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Odontocetes 

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin ................... 0.0449 0.0318 0.0180 0.0183 0.0234 0.0249 0.0317 

Common Bottlenose Dolphin ................... 0.0267 0.0585 0.0483 0.0546 0.0459 0.0223 0.0136 

Harbor Porpoise ....................................... 0.0133 0.0088 0.0080 0.0067 0.0081 0.0267 0.0260 

Pilot Whales ............................................. 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 

Risso’s Dolphin ........................................ 0.0001 0.0003 0.0006 0.0005 0.0002 0.0002 0.0004 

Short-Beaked Common Dolphin .............. 0.0410 0.0432 0.0747 0.1187 0.1280 0.0903 0.1563 

Sperm Whale ........................................... 0.0001 0.0003 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 

Pinnipeds 

Seals (Harbor and Gray) ......................... 0.0322 0.0078 0.0041 0.0054 0.0085 0.0091 0.0345 

TABLE 6—AVERAGE MONTHLY DENSITIES FOR SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR ALONG THE SHALLOW-WATER SECTION OF THE

CABLE ROUTE DURING THE PLANNED SURVEY PERIOD

Species Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Mysticetes 

Fin Whale ................................................. 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 

Humpback Whale ..................................... 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0017 

Minke Whale ............................................ 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

North Atlantic Right Whale * .................... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0005 

Sei Whale * ............................................... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Odontocetes 

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin ................... 0.0010 0.0006 0.0005 0.0008 0.0014 0.0011 0.0006 

Common Bottlenose Dolphin ................... 0.2308 0.4199 0.3211 0.3077 0.1564 0.0813 0.0174 

Harbor Porpoise ....................................... 0.0048 0.0023 0.0037 0.0036 0.0003 0.0214 0.0253 

Pilot Whales ............................................. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Risso’s Dolphin ........................................ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Short-Beaked Common Dolphin .............. 0.0003 0.0002 0.0006 0.0009 0.0008 0.0010 0.0006 

Sperm Whale ........................................... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Pinnipeds 

Seal (Harbor and Gray) ........................... 0.2496 0.0281 0.0120 0.0245 0.0826 0.5456 1.3589 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here NMFS describes how the 

information provided above is brought 

together to produce a quantitative take 

estimate. 

The potential numbers of takes by 

Level B harassment were calculated by 

multiplying the monthly density for 

each species in each survey area shown 

in Table 5 and Table 6 by the respective 

monthly ensonified area within each 

survey area. The results are shown in 

the ‘‘Calculated Take’’ columns of Table 

7. The survey area estimates were then 

summed to produce the ‘‘Total Densitybased Calculated Take’’ and then 

rounded up to arrive at the number of 

‘‘Density-based Takes’’ for each species 

(Table 7). 

To account for potential local 

variation in animal presence compared 

to the predicted densities, the average 

weekly number of individuals for each 

species observed within 150 m of the 

HRG survey sound sources in 2020, 

regardless of their operational status at 

the time were multiplied by the 

anticipated 32-week survey period in 

2021. These results are shown in the 

‘‘Sightings-based Takes’’ column of 

Table 7. The larger of the take estimates 

from the density-based and sightingsbased methods are shown in the ‘‘Take’’ 

column, except as noted below. 

Based on density and sightings data 

for the modified Project Area, 

Mayflower modified its take 

authorization request and NMFS 

concurred with its modification. 

Accordingly, NMFS has authorized the 

following take reductions by Level B 

harassment as part of the issued IHA: 37 

to 33 humpback whale takes; 15 to 14 

minke whale takes; 85 to 57 Atlantic 

white-sided dolphin takes; 2,153 to 

1,969 common dolphin takes; 61 to 46 

harbor porpoise takes; and 989 to 718 

seal takes. The number of authorized 

takes by Level B harassment for 

bottlenose dolphins has been increased 

from 483 to 536. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 38045 

The differences in requested take for 

four species (Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin, 

harbor porpoise, and seals) resulted 

from a combination of different monthly 

densities as well as a different monthly 

ensonified area being applied to those 

densities. The same calculations were 

performed for all species, so the relative 

changes in the requested take for these 

species was driven by the amount of 

change in monthly densities for each 

species. The densities changed between 

applications for two reasons, (1) the 

survey area location was changed to 

include the alternative cable route and 

(2) the months in which the activity will 

occur were shifted later in the year, 

from April–November to June– 

December. The various combinations of 

changes to these factors resulted in 

different relative changes to the 

requested takes for these four species. 

For the other three species (i.e., 

humpback whale, minke whale, 

common dolphin) take calculated based 

on Roberts et al. densities was 

considerably lower than observed 

numbers of animals during the 2020 

surveys. Therefore, the numbers of 

observations per week were considered 

more representative of the area 

densities. For humpback whale, the 

requested take in the original proposed 

IHA was based on the average weekly 

sightings rate from 2020 PSO 

observations (1.04 humpback whales/ 

week). The reduction in the authorized 

take is a result of the shortened overall 

length of the activity from 35 weeks to 

32 weeks. For minke whale, the average 

weekly sightings rate from 2020 PSO 

observations (0.43 minke whales/week) 

reduced authorized take due to 

shortened overall length of the activity 

(from 35 weeks to 32 weeks). The same 

reduction in authorized take of common 

dolphin was similarly based on the 

average weekly sightings rate from 2020 

PSO observations (61.52 common 

dolphins/week) and the decreased 

overall length of the activity. The 

reduction in the requested take is a 

result of the shortened overall length of 

the activity (from 35 weeks to 32 

weeks). 

Using the best available density data 

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

Mayflower requested and NMFS has 

authorized 57 takes of white-sided 

dolphin, 536 takes of bottlenose dolphin 

and 46 harbor porpoise takes by Level 

B harassment. For six species, 

humpback whale, North Atlantic right 

whale, sei whale, pilot whales, Risso’s 

dolphin, and sperm whale the 

authorized take column reflects a 

rounding up of three times the mean 

group size calculated from survey data 

in this region (Kraus et al. 2016; Palka 

et al. 2017). Three times the group size 

was used rather than a single group size 

to account for more than one chance 

encounter with these species during the 

surveys. 

NFMS concurred with this assessment 

and, therefore, has authorized take by 

Level B harassment of 9 North Atlantic 

right whales, 6 fin whales, 6 sei whales, 

27 pilot whales, 18 Risso’s dolphins and 

6 sperm whales. The authorized take 

numbers for these species remains 

unchanged from the original proposed 

IHA. 

The authorized number of takes by 

Level B harassment as a percentage of 

the ‘‘best available’’ abundance 

estimates provided in the most recent 

NMFS draft Stock Assessment Reports 

(Hayes et al. 2020) are also provided in 

Table 7. For the seal guild, the estimated 

abundance for both gray and harbor 

seals was summed in Table 7. 

Mayflower requested and NMFS has 

authorized 718 incidental takes of 

harbor and gray seal by Level B 

harassment. 

Bottlenose dolphins encountered in 

the survey area would likely belong to 

the Western North Atlantic Offshore 

Stock (Hayes et al. 2020). However, it is 

possible that a few animals encountered 

during the surveys could be from the 

North Atlantic Northern Migratory 

Coastal Stock, but they generally do not 

range farther north than New Jersey. 

Also, based on the distributions 

described in Hayes et al. (2020), pilot 

whale sightings in the survey area 

would most likely be long-finned pilot 

whales, although short-finned pilot 

whales could be encountered in the 

survey area during the summer months. 

For North Atlantic right whales, the 

implementation of a 500 m EZ means 

that the likelihood of an exposure to 

received sound levels greater than 160 

dB SPLrms is very low. In addition, most 

of the survey activity will take place 

during the time of year when North 

Atlantic right whales are unlikely to be 

present in this region. Nonetheless, it is 

possible that North Atlantic right 

whales could occur within 500 m of the 

vessel without first being detected PSO, 

so Mayflower requested and NMFS has 

authorized take consistent with other 

species (i.e. three times average group 

size). 

TABLE 7—NUMBER OF LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKES AUTHORIZED BY NMFS AND PERCENTAGES OF EACH STOCK

ABUNDANCE

Lease area + 

deep water 

cable 

Shallow water 

cable 

Total densitybased takes Density based 

takes 

Sightings 

based takes 

Authorized 

takes Abundance 

Percent of 

stock 

abundance 

Mysticetes 

Fin Whale .......................... 3.7 0.5 4.1 5 1 6 3,006 0.2 

Humpback Whale .............. 2.2 0.7 2.9 3 33 33 1,396 2.4 

Minke Whale ..................... 1.3 0.1 1.5 2 14 14 2,591 0.5 

North Atlantic Right Whale 1.0 0.2 1.2 2 0 9 368 2.4 

Sei Whale .......................... 0.1 0.0 0.1 1 0 6 28 21.4 

Odontocetes 

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin ................................ 54.6 1.8 56.4 57 0 57 31,912 0.2 

Common Bottlenose Dolphin ................................ 76.3 459.6 536.0 536 59 536 62,851 0.9 

Harbor Porpoise ................ 27.6 18.4 46.0 46 0 46 75,079 0.1 

Pilot Whales ...................... 9.2 0.0 9.2 10 17 27 68,139 0.0 

Risso’s Dolphin ................. 0.7 0.0 0.7 1 0 18 35,493 0.1 

Short-Beaked Common 

Dolphin ........................... 184.5 1.3 185.8 186 1,969 1,969 80,227 2.5 

Sperm Whale .................... 0.3 0.0 0.3 1 0 6 4,349 0.1 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38046 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 7—NUMBER OF LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKES AUTHORIZED BY NMFS AND PERCENTAGES OF EACH STOCK

ABUNDANCE—Continued 

Lease area + 

deep water 

cable 

Shallow water 

cable 

Total densitybased takes Density based 

takes 

Sightings 

based takes 

Authorized 

takes Abundance 

Percent of 

stock 

abundance 

Pinnipeds 

Seals (Harbor and Gray) ... 28.7 689.2 718.0 718 141 718 102,965 0.7 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS carefully considers 

two primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, and 

impact on operations. 

Marine Mammal Exclusion Zones and 

Harassment Zones 

NMFS is requiring Mayflower to 

implement the following mitigation 

measures during Mayflower’s planned 

marine site characterization surveys. 

Marine mammal EZs would be 

established around the HRG survey 

equipment and monitored by protected 

species observers (PSO) during HRG 

surveys as follows: 

• A 500-m EZ would be required for 

North Atlantic right whales during use 

of all acoustic sources; and 

• 100 m EZ for all marine mammals, 

with certain exceptions specified below, 

during operation of impulsive acoustic 

sources (boomer and/or sparker). 

If a marine mammal is detected 

approaching or entering the EZs during 

the HRG survey, the vessel operator 

would adhere to the shutdown 

procedures described below to 

minimize noise impacts on the animals. 

These stated requirements will be 

included in the site-specific training to 

be provided to the survey team. 

Pre-Clearance of the Exclusion Zones 

Mayflower will implement a 30- 

minute pre-clearance period of the EZs 

prior to the initiation of ramp-up of 

HRG equipment. During this period, the 

EZ will be monitored by the PSOs, using 

the appropriate visual technology. 

Ramp-up may not be initiated if any 

marine mammal(s) is within its 

respective EZ. If a marine mammal is 

observed within an EZ during the preclearance period, ramp-up may not 

begin until the animal(s) has been 

observed exiting its respective EZ or 

until an additional time period has 

elapsed with no further sighting (i.e., 15 

minutes for small odontocetes and seals, 

and 30 minutes for all other species). 

Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment 

When technically feasible, a ramp-up 

procedure will be used for HRG survey 

equipment capable of adjusting energy 

levels at the start or restart of survey 

activities. The ramp-up procedure will 

be used at the beginning of HRG survey 

activities in order to provide additional 

protection to marine mammals near the 

Project Area by allowing them to vacate 

the area prior to the commencement of 

survey equipment operation at full 

power. 

A ramp-up will begin with the 

powering up of the smallest acoustic 

HRG equipment at its lowest practical 

power output appropriate for the 

survey. When technically feasible, the 

power will then be gradually turned up 

and other acoustic sources would be 

added. 

Ramp-up activities will be delayed if 

a marine mammal(s) enters its 

respective EZ. Ramp-up will continue if 

the animal has been observed exiting its 

respective EZ or until an additional time 

period has elapsed with no further 

sighting (i.e, 15 minutes for small 

odontocetes and seals and 30 minutes 

for all other species). 

Activation of survey equipment 

through ramp-up procedures may not 

occur when visual observation of the 

pre-clearance zone is not expected to be 

effective (i.e., during inclement 

conditions such as heavy rain or fog). 

Shutdown Procedures 

An immediate shutdown of the 

impulsive HRG survey equipment is 

required if a marine mammal is sighted 

entering or within its respective EZ. The 

vessel operator must comply 

immediately with any call for shutdown 

by the Lead PSO. Any disagreement 

between the Lead PSO and vessel 

operator should be discussed only after 

shutdown has occurred. Subsequent 

restart of the survey equipment can be 

initiated if the animal has been observed 

exiting its respective EZ or until an 

additional time period has elapsed (i.e., 

30 minutes for all other species). 

If a species for which authorization 

has not been granted, or, a species for 

which authorization has been granted 

but the authorized number of takes have 

been met, approaches or is observed 

within the Level B harassment zone (48 

m, non-impulsive; 141 m impulsive), 

shutdown will occur. 

If the acoustic source is shut down for 

reasons other than mitigation (e.g., 

mechanical difficulty) for less than 30 

minutes, it may be activated again 

without ramp-up if PSOs have 

maintained constant observation and no 

detections of any marine mammal have 

occurred within the respective EZs. If 

the acoustic source is shut down for a 

period longer than 30 minutes and PSOs 

have maintained constant observation, 

then pre-clearance and ramp-up 

procedures will be initiated as described 

in the previous section. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 38047 

The shutdown requirement would be 

waived for small delphinids of the 

following genera: Delphinus, 

Lagenorhynchus, Stenella, and Tursiops 

and seals. Specifically, if a delphinid 

from the specified genera or a pinniped 

is visually detected approaching the 

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

equipment, shutdown is not required. 

Furthermore, if there is uncertainty 

regarding identification of a marine 

mammal species (i.e., whether the 

observed marine mammal(s) belongs to 

one of the delphinid genera for which 

shutdown is waived), PSOs must use 

best professional judgement in making 

the decision to call for a shutdown. 

Additionally, shutdown is required if a 

delphinid or pinniped detected in the 

EZ and belongs to a genus other than 

those specified. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

Mayflower will ensure that vessel 

operators and crew maintain a vigilant 

watch for cetaceans and pinnipeds and 

slow down or stop their vessels to avoid 

striking these species. Survey vessel 

crew members responsible for 

navigation duties will receive sitespecific training on marine mammals 

sighting/reporting and vessel strike 

avoidance measures. Vessel strike 

avoidance measures would include the 

following, except under circumstances 

when complying with these 

requirements would put the safety of the 

vessel or crew at risk: 

• Vessel operators and crews must 

maintain a vigilant watch for all 

protected species and slow down, stop 

their vessel, or alter course, as 

appropriate and regardless of vessel 

size, to avoid striking any protected 

species. A visual observer aboard the 

vessel must monitor a vessel strike 

avoidance zone based on the 

appropriate separation distance around 

the vessel (distances stated below). 

Visual observers monitoring the vessel 

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

members, but crew members 

responsible for these duties must be 

provided sufficient training to (1) 

distinguish protected species from other 

phenomena and (2) broadly to identify 

a marine mammal as a right whale, 

other whale (defined in this context as 

sperm whales or baleen whales other 

than right whales), or other marine 

mammal. 

• All vessels (e.g., source vessels, 

chase vessels, supply vessels), 

regardless of size, must observe a 10- 

knot speed restriction in specific areas 

designated by NMFS for the protection 

of North Atlantic right whales from 

vessel strikes including SMAs and 

DMAs when in effect; 

• All vessels greater than or equal to 

19.8 m in overall length operating from 

November 1 through April 30 will 

operate at speeds of 10 knots or less 

while transiting to and from Project 

Area; 

• All vessels must reduce their speed 

to 10 knots or less when mother/calf 

pairs, pods, or large assemblages of 

cetaceans are observed near a vessel. 

• All vessels must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 500 m 

from right whales. If a whale is observed 

but cannot be confirmed as a species 

other than a right whale, the vessel 

operator must assume that it is a right 

whale and take appropriate action. 

• All vessels must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 100 m 

from sperm whales and all other baleen 

whales. 

• All vessels must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, attempt to maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 50 m 

from all other marine mammals, with an 

understanding that at times this may not 

be possible (e.g., for animals that 

approach the vessel). 

• When marine mammals are sighted 

while a vessel is underway, the vessel 

shall take action as necessary to avoid 

violating the relevant separation 

distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel 

to the animal’s course, avoid excessive 

speed or abrupt changes in direction 

until the animal has left the area). If 

marine mammals are sighted within the 

relevant separation distance, the vessel 

must reduce speed and shift the engine 

to neutral, not engaging the engines 

until animals are clear of the area. This 

does not apply to any vessel towing gear 

or any vessel that is navigationally 

constrained. 

• These requirements do not apply in 

any case where compliance would 

create an imminent and serious threat to 

a person or vessel or to the extent that 

a vessel is restricted in its ability to 

maneuver and, because of the 

restriction, cannot comply. 

• Members of the monitoring team 

will consult NMFS North Atlantic right 

whale reporting system and Whale 

Alert, as able, for the presence of North 

Atlantic right whales throughout survey 

operations, and for the establishment of 

a DMA. If NMFS should establish a 

DMA in the Lease Areas during the 

survey, the vessels will abide by speed 

restrictions in the DMA. 

Project-specific training will be 

conducted for all vessel crew prior to 

the start of a survey and during any 

changes in crew such that all survey 

personnel are fully aware and 

understand the mitigation, monitoring, 

and reporting requirements. Prior to 

implementation with vessel crews, the 

training program will be provided to 

NMFS for review and approval. 

Confirmation of the training and 

understanding of the requirements will 

be documented on a training course log 

sheet. Signing the log sheet will certify 

that the crew member understands and 

will comply with the necessary 

requirements throughout the survey 

activities. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

we have determined that the required 

mitigation measures provide the means 

of effecting the least practicable impact 

on marine mammal species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38048 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 

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. 

Monitoring Measures 

Visual monitoring will be performed 

by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, the 

resumes of whom will be provided to 

NMFS for review and approval prior to 

the start of survey activities. Mayflower 

would employ independent, dedicated, 

trained PSOs, meaning that the PSOs 

must (1) be employed by a third-party 

observer provider, (2) have no tasks 

other than to conduct observational 

effort, collect data, and communicate 

with and instruct relevant vessel crew 

with regard to the presence of marine 

mammals and mitigation requirements 

(including brief alerts regarding 

maritime hazards), and (3) have 

successfully completed an approved 

PSO training course appropriate for 

their designated task. On a case-by-case 

basis, non-independent observers may 

be approved by NMFS for limited, 

specific duties in support of approved, 

independent PSOs on smaller vessels 

with limited crew capacity operating in 

nearshore waters. 

The PSOs will be responsible for 

monitoring the waters surrounding each 

survey vessel to the farthest extent 

permitted by sighting conditions, 

including EZs, during all HRG survey 

operations. PSOs will visually monitor 

and identify marine mammals, 

including those approaching or entering 

the established EZs during survey 

activities. It will be the responsibility of 

the Lead PSO on duty to communicate 

the presence of marine mammals as well 

as to communicate the action(s) that are 

necessary to ensure mitigation and 

monitoring requirements are 

implemented as appropriate. 

During all HRG survey operations 

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

source is planned to occur), a minimum 

of one PSO must be on duty during 

daylight operations on each survey 

vessel, conducting visual observations 

at all times on all active survey vessels 

during daylight hours (i.e., from 30 

minutes prior to sunrise through 30 

minutes following sunset). Two PSOs 

will be on watch during nighttime 

operations. The PSO(s) would ensure 

360° visual coverage around the vessel 

from the most appropriate observation 

posts and would conduct visual 

observations using binoculars and/or 

night vision goggles and the naked eye 

while free from distractions and in a 

consistent, systematic, and diligent 

manner. PSOs may be on watch for a 

maximum of four consecutive hours 

followed by a break of at least two hours 

between watches and may conduct a 

maximum of 12 hours of observation per 

24-hour period. In cases where multiple 

vessels are surveying concurrently, any 

observations of marine mammals would 

be communicated to PSOs on all nearby 

survey vessels. 

Vessels conducting HRG survey 

activities in very-shallow waters using 

shallow-draft vessels are very limited in 

the number of personnel that can be 

onboard. In such cases, one visual PSO 

will be onboard and the vessel captain 

(or crew member on watch) will 

conduct observations when the PSO is 

on required breaks. All vessel crew 

conducting PSO watches will receive 

training in monitoring and mitigation 

requirements and species identification 

necessary to reliably carry out the 

mitigation requirements. Given the 

small size of these vessels, the PSO 

would effectively remain available to 

confirm sightings and any related 

mitigation measures while on break. 

PSOs must be equipped with 

binoculars and have the ability to 

estimate distance and bearing to detect 

marine mammals, particularly in 

proximity to EZs. Reticulated binoculars 

must also be available to PSOs for use 

as appropriate based on conditions and 

visibility to support the sighting and 

monitoring of marine mammals. During 

nighttime operations, night-vision 

goggles with thermal clip-ons and 

infrared technology would be used. 

Position data would be recorded using 

hand-held or vessel GPS units for each 

sighting. 

During good conditions (e.g., daylight 

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

to the maximum extent practicable, 

PSOs will also conduct observations 

when the acoustic source is not 

operating for comparison of sighting 

rates and behavior with and without use 

of the active acoustic sources. Any 

observations of marine mammals by 

crew members aboard any vessel 

associated with the survey will be 

relayed to the PSO team. 

Data on all PSO observations will be 

recorded based on standard PSO 

collection requirements. This will 

include dates, times, and locations of 

survey operations; dates and times of 

observations, location and weather; 

details of marine mammal sightings 

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

details of any observed marine mammal 

behavior that occurs (e.g., noted 

behavioral disturbances). 

Reporting Measures 

Within 90 days after completion of 

survey activities or expiration of this 

IHA, whichever comes sooner, a final 

technical report will be provided to 

NMFS that fully documents the 

methods and monitoring protocols, 

summarizes the data recorded during 

monitoring, summarizes the number of 

marine mammals observed during 

survey activities (by species, when 

known), summarizes the mitigation 

actions taken during surveys (including 

what type of mitigation and the species 

and number of animals that prompted 

the mitigation action, when known), 

and provides an interpretation of the 

results and effectiveness of all 

mitigation and monitoring. Any 

recommendations made by NMFS must 

be addressed in the final report prior to 

acceptance by NMFS. All draft and final 

marine mammal and acoustic 

monitoring reports must be submitted to 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov. 

The report must contain, at minimum, 

the following: 

• PSO names and affiliations; 

• Dates of departures and returns to 

port with port name; 

• Dates and times (Greenwich Mean 

Time) of survey effort and times 

corresponding with PSO effort; 

• Vessel location (latitude/longitude) 

when survey effort begins and ends; 

vessel location at beginning and end of 

visual PSO duty shifts; 

• Vessel heading and speed at 

beginning and end of visual PSO duty 

shifts and upon any line change; 

• Environmental conditions while on 

visual survey (at beginning and end of 

PSO shift and whenever conditions 

change significantly), including wind 

speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, 

Beaufort wind force, swell height, 

weather conditions, cloud cover, sun 

glare, and overall visibility to the 

horizon; 

• Factors that may be contributing to 

impaired observations during each PSO 

shift change or as needed as 

environmental conditions change (e.g., 

vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); 

and 

• Survey activity information, such as 

type of survey equipment in operation, 

acoustic source power output while in 

operation, and any other notes of 

significance (i.e., pre-clearance survey, 

ramp-up, shutdown, end of operations, 

etc.). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 38049 

If a marine mammal is sighted, the 

following information should be 

recorded: 

• Watch status (sighting made by PSO 

on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, 

alternate vessel/platform); 

• PSO who sighted the animal; 

• Time of sighting; 

• Vessel location at time of sighting; 

• Water depth; 

• Direction of vessel’s travel (compass 

direction); 

• Direction of animal’s travel relative 

to the vessel; 

• Pace of the animal; 

• Estimated distance to the animal 

and its heading relative to vessel at 

initial sighting; 

• Identification of the animal (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified); also 

note the composition of the group if 

there is a mix of species; 

• Estimated number of animals (high/ 

low/best); 

• Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, 

calves, group composition, etc.); 

• Description (as many distinguishing 

features as possible of each individual 

seen, including length, shape, color, 

pattern, scars or markings, shape and 

size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and 

blow characteristics); 

• Detailed behavior observations (e.g., 

number of blows, number of surfaces, 

breaching, spyhopping, diving, feeding, 

traveling; as explicit and detailed as 

possible; note any observed changes in 

behavior); 

• Animal’s closest point of approach 

and/or closest distance from the center 

point of the acoustic source; 

• Platform activity at time of sighting 

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

acquisition, other); and 

• Description of any actions 

implemented in response to the sighting 

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

or course alteration, etc.) and time and 

location of the action. 

If a North Atlantic right whale is 

observed at any time by PSOs or 

personnel on any project vessels, during 

surveys or during vessel transit, 

Mayflower must immediately report 

sighting information to the NMFS North 

Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory 

System: (866) 755–6622. North Atlantic 

right whale sightings in any location 

may also be reported to the U.S. Coast 

Guard via channel 16. 

In the event that Mayflower personnel 

discover an injured or dead marine 

mammal, Mayflower would report the 

incident to the NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR) and the 

NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. The report would include the 

following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

In the unanticipated event of a ship 

strike of a marine mammal by any vessel 

involved in the activities covered by the 

IHA, Mayflower would report the 

incident to the NMFS OPR and the 

NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. The report would include the 

following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Vessel’s course/heading and what 

operations were being conducted (if 

applicable); 

• Status of all sound sources in use; 

• Description of avoidance measures/ 

requirements that were in place at the 

time of the strike and what additional 

measures were taken, if any, to avoid 

strike; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, visibility) 

immediately preceding the strike; 

• Estimated size and length of animal 

that was struck; 

• Description of the behavior of the 

marine mammal immediately preceding 

and following the strike; 

• If available, description of the 

presence and behavior of any other 

marine mammals immediately 

preceding the strike; 

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

dead, injured but alive, injured and 

moving, blood or tissue observed in the 

water, status unknown, disappeared); 

and 

• To the extent practicable, 

photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. NMFS also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, our analysis 

applies to all the species listed in Table 

7 given that NMFS expects the 

anticipated effects of the planned survey 

to be similar in nature. Where there are 

meaningful differences between species 

or stocks—as in the case of the North 

Atlantic right whale—they are included 

as separate subsections below. 

NMFS does not anticipate that serious 

injury or mortality would occur as a 

result from HRG surveys, even in the 

absence of mitigation, and no serious 

injury or mortality is authorized. As 

discussed in the Potential Effects of 

Specified Activity on Marine Mammals 

and their Habitat section in the initial 

notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 11930; 

March 1, 2021), non-auditory physical 

effects and vessel strike are not expected 

to occur. NMFS expects that all 

potential takes would be in the form of 

short-term Level B harassment 

behavioral harassment in the form of 

temporary avoidance of the area or 

decreased foraging (if such activity was 

occurring), reactions that are considered 

to be of low severity and with no lasting 

biological consequences (e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007). Even repeated Level B 

harassment of some small subset of an 

overall stock is unlikely to result in any 

significant realized decrease in viability 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38050 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 

for the affected individuals, and thus 

would not result in any adverse impact 

to the stock as a whole. As described 

above, Level A harassment is not 

expected to occur given the nature of 

the operations, the estimated size of the 

Level A harassment zones, and the 

required shutdown zones for certain 

activities—and is not authorized. The 

potential effects associated with the 

addition of the new export cable route 

extending through Narragansett Bay are 

similar to those described in the initial 

notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 11930; 

March 1, 2021). 

In addition to being temporary, the 

maximum expected harassment zone for 

the modified proposed IHA is identical 

to that in the initial proposed IHA with 

a distance of 141 m per vessel. 

Therefore, the ensonified area 

surrounding each vessel is also 

identical, and relatively small, 

compared to the overall distribution of 

the animals in the area and their use of 

the habitat. Feeding behavior is not 

likely to be significantly impacted as 

prey species are mobile and are broadly 

distributed throughout the modified 

Project Area; therefore, marine 

mammals that may be temporarily 

displaced during survey activities are 

expected to be able to resume foraging 

once they have moved away from areas 

with disturbing levels of underwater 

noise. Similar to the initial proposed 

IHA, given the temporary nature of the 

disturbance and 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 in 

the issued IHA. 

Furthermore, the Project Area is 

located approximately 50 miles west of 

feeding BIAs for North Atlantic right 

whales (February–April) and sei whales 

(May–November) and approximately 40 

west of feeding BIAs for humpback 

whales (March–December) and fin 

whales (March–October). These were 

discussed in the previous IHA (85 FR 

45578; July 29, 2020) issued for this 

area. Additionally, the new Narragansett 

Bay cable route corridor is located just 

to the north of another fin whale BIA 

(March–October) south of Martha’s 

Vineyard. Even if whales are feeding 

outside of the identified feeding BIAs, 

they are extensive and sufficiently large 

(705 km2 and 3,149 km2 for North 

Atlantic right whales; 47,701 km2 for 

humpback whales; 2,933 km2 for fin 

whales; and 56,609 km2 for sei whales), 

and the acoustic footprint of the 

planned survey is sufficiently small, 

such that feeding opportunities for these 

whales would not be reduced 

appreciably. Therefore, under the issued 

IHA, NMFS does not expect impacts to 

whales within feeding BIAs to affect the 

fitness of any large whales. 

Furthermore, NMFS does not anticipate 

impacts from the planned survey that 

would impact the fitness of any 

individual marine mammals, much less 

annual rates of recruitment. 

There are no rookeries, mating or 

calving grounds known to be 

biologically important to marine 

mammals within the Project Area. 

Furthermore, there is no designated 

critical habitat for any ESA-listed 

marine mammals in the Project Area. 

North Atlantic Right Whales 

The status of the North Atlantic right 

whale population is of heightened 

concern and, therefore, merits 

additional analysis. As noted 

previously, elevated North Atlantic right 

whale mortalities began in June 2017 

and there is an active UME. Overall, our 

findings support human interactions, 

specifically vessel strikes and 

entanglements, as the cause of death for 

the majority of North Atlantic right 

whales. In addition to the right whale 

feeding BIA located west of the planned 

Project Area noted above, the Project 

Area overlaps a migratory corridor BIA 

for North Atlantic right whales (effective 

March–April and November–December) 

that extends from Massachusetts to 

Florida (LeBrecque et al., 2015). Off the 

coast of Massachusetts, this migratory 

BIA extends from the coast to beyond 

the shelf break. Due to the fact that that 

the planned survey activities are 

temporary and the spatial extent of 

sound produced by the survey would be 

very small relative to the spatial extent 

of the available migratory habitat in the 

BIA, right whale migration is not 

expected to be impacted by the planned 

survey. Given the relatively small size of 

the ensonified area, it is unlikely that 

prey availability would be adversely 

affected by HRG survey operations. 

Required vessel strike avoidance 

measures will also decrease risk of ship 

strike during migration; no ship strike is 

expected to occur during Mayflower’s 

planned activities. Additionally, only 

very limited take by Level B harassment 

of North Atlantic right whales has been 

requested by Mayflower and authorized 

by NMFS as HRG survey operations are 

required to maintain a 500-m EZ and 

shutdown if a North Atlantic right 

whale is sighted at or within the EZ. 

The 500-m shutdown zone for North 

Atlantic right whales is conservative, 

considering the Level B harassment 

isopleth for the most impactful acoustic 

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

tip sparker) is estimated to be 141 m, 

and thereby minimizes the potential for 

behavioral harassment of this species. 

As noted previously, Level A 

harassment is not expected due to the 

small PTS zones associated with HRG 

equipment types planned use. 

As described previously, North 

Atlantic right whale presence is 

increasingly variable in identified core 

habitats, including the recently 

identified foraging area south of 

Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket 

islands where both visual and acoustic 

detections of North Atlantic right 

whales indicate a nearly year-round 

presence (Oleson et al., 2020). However, 

prey for North Atlantic right whales are 

mobile and broadly distributed 

throughout the Project Area; therefore, 

North Atlantic right whales are expected 

to be able to resume foraging once they 

have moved away from any areas with 

disturbing levels of underwater noise. In 

addition, there are no North Atlantic 

right whale mating or calving areas 

within the Project Area. 

Given the information above, NMFS 

does not anticipate North Atlantic right 

whales takes that would result from 

Mayflower’s planned activities would 

impact the reproduction or survival of 

any individual North Atlantic right 

whales, much less annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. Thus, any takes 

that occur under the issued IHA would 

not result in population level impacts 

for the species. 

Other Marine Mammal Species With 

Active UMEs 

As noted in the previous IHA (85 FR 

45578; July 29, 2020) there are several 

active UMEs occurring in the vicinity of 

Mayflower’s Project Area. Elevated 

humpback whale mortalities have 

occurred along the Atlantic coast from 

Maine through Florida since January 

2016. Of the cases examined, 

approximately half had evidence of 

human interaction (ship strike or 

entanglement). The UME does not yet 

provide cause for concern regarding 

population-level impacts. Despite the 

UME, the relevant population of 

humpback whales (the Gulf of Maine 

humpback whale stock) is characterized 

by a positive trend in abundance of 

approximately 2.8 percent (Hayes et al. 

2020). 

Beginning in January 2017, elevated 

minke whale strandings have occurred 

along the Atlantic coast from Maine 

through South Carolina, with highest 

numbers in Massachusetts, Maine, and 

New York. This event does not provide 

cause for concern regarding population 

level impacts, as the population 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 38051 

abundance is greater than 20,000 

whales. 

Elevated numbers of harbor seal and 

gray seal mortalities were first observed 

in July 2018 and have occurred across 

Maine, New Hampshire, and 

Massachusetts. Based on tests 

conducted so far, the main pathogen 

found in the seals is phocine distemper 

virus, although additional testing to 

identify other factors that may be 

involved in this UME are underway. 

The UME does not yet provide cause for 

concern regarding population-level 

impacts to any of these stocks. For 

harbor seals, the population abundance 

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

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

2020). The population abundance for 

gray seals in the United States is over 

27,000, with an estimated abundance, 

including seals in Canada, of 

approximately 505,000. In addition, the 

abundance of gray seals is likely 

increasing in the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive 

Economic Zone as well as in Canada 

(Hayes et al., 2020). 

The required mitigation measures are 

expected to reduce the number and/or 

severity of authorized takes for all 

species listed in Table 7, including 

those with active UME’s to the level of 

least practicable adverse impact. In 

particular they would provide animals 

the opportunity to move away from the 

sound source throughout the Project 

Area before HRG survey equipment 

reaches full energy, thus preventing 

them from being exposed to sound 

levels that have the potential to cause 

injury (Level A harassment) or more 

severe Level B harassment. No Level A 

harassment is anticipated, even in the 

absence of mitigation measures, or 

authorized by NMFS. 

NMFS expects that takes would be in 

the form of short-term Level B 

harassment behavioral harassment by 

way of brief startling reactions and/or 

temporary vacating of the area, or 

temporarily decreased foraging (if such 

activity was occurring)—reactions that 

(at the scale and intensity anticipated 

here) are considered to be of low 

severity, with no lasting biological 

consequences. Since both the sources 

and marine mammals are mobile, 

animals would only be exposed briefly 

to a small ensonified area that might 

result in take. Additionally, required 

mitigation measures would further 

reduce exposure to sound that could 

result in more severe behavioral 

harassment. 

Mayflower’s planned HRG survey 

activities consist of 471 survey days 

(conducted by up to four survey vessels) 

and the total trackline distance is 14,350 

km, which are identical to the values 

presented in the initial proposed IHA 

(86 FR 11930; March 1, 2021) and any 

effects or impacts are expected to be 

similar. Note that due to differences in 

densities in the cable route corridors 

associated with the initial proposed IHA 

compared to the issued IHA authorized 

takes in the issued IHA have been 

reduced for 6 species (i.e., humpback 

whale, minke whale, Atlantic whitesided dolphin, common dolphin, harbor 

porpoise and seal) while authorized take 

has only increased for one species (i.e., 

bottlenose dolphin). 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• No Level A harassment (PTS) is 

anticipated, even in the absence of 

mitigation measures, or authorized; 

• Take is anticipated to be limited to 

Level B behavioral harassment 

consisting of brief startling reactions 

and/or temporary avoidance of the 

Project Area; 

• Due to the relatively small footprint 

of the survey activities in relation to the 

size of feeding BIAs for North Atlantic 

right, humpback, fin, and sei whales, 

the survey activities are not expected to 

directly affect foraging success of these 

whale species; 

• Foraging success is not likely to be 

significantly impacted through effects 

on species that serve as prey species for 

marine mammals, as effects from the 

survey are expected to be minimal; 

• Alternate areas of nearby similar 

habitat value will be available for 

marine mammals that temporarily 

vacate the Project Area during the 

planned survey to avoid exposure to 

sounds from the activity; 

• While the Project Area is within 

areas noted as a migratory BIA for North 

Atlantic right whales, the activities 

would occur in such a comparatively 

small area such that any avoidance of 

the Project Area due to activities would 

not affect migration. In addition, 

mitigation measures to shutdown at 500 

m to minimize potential for Level B 

behavioral harassment would limit any 

take of the species; 

• While the foraging areas south of 

Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket 

overlap with the Project Area, prey for 

North Atlantic right whales are mobile 

and broadly distributed. Therefore, 

North Atlantic right whales are expected 

to be able to resume foraging once they 

have moved away from any areas with 

disturbing noise levels, which would be 

temporary in nature; 

• The required mitigation measures, 

including visual monitoring and 

shutdowns, are expected to minimize 

potential impacts to marine mammals; 

and 

• While UMEs are in effect for some 

species, the take from Mayflower’s 

activities is not expected to impact the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals of any species, and 

therefore, is not expected to impact 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

either alone or in combination with the 

effects of the UMEs. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from the 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 fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

NMFS has authorized incidental take 

of 14 marine mammal species. The total 

amount of authorized takes is less than 

3 percent for all species and stocks 

authorized for take except for sei whales 

(less than 22 percent), which NMFS 

finds are small numbers of marine 

mammals relative to the estimated 

overall population abundances for those 

stocks. See Table 7. 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 

the affected species or stocks. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38052 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 

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. 

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 

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

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental 

harassment authorizations with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

determined that the issuance of the IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (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 is authorizing the incidental 

take of four species of marine mammals 

which are listed under the ESA: Fin, sei, 

sperm, and North Atlantic right whales. 

We requested initiation of consultation 

under section 7 of the ESA with NMFS 

GARFO on March 5, 2021, for the 

issuance of this IHA. On March 5, 2021, 

NMFS GARFO determined our issuance 

of the IHA to Mayflower was not likely 

to adversely affect the North Atlantic 

right, fin, sei, and sperm whale or the 

critical habitat of any ESA-listed species 

or result in the take of any marine 

mammals in violation of the ESA. 

GARFO determined that since the 

issued IHA includes only a small 

modification to the geographic scope of 

the survey activities they previously 

consulted on and there are no additional 

effects to listed species anticipated that 

were not already considered, no 

additional consultation was necessary. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to 

Mayflower for the potential harassment 

of small numbers of 14 marine mammal 

species incidental to the conducting 

marine site characterization surveys 

offshore of Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island in the area of the Commercial 

Lease of Submerged Lands for 

Renewable Energy Development on the 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS–A 0521) 

and along a potential submarine cable 

routes to landfall at Falmouth, 

Massachusetts and Narraganset Bay, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

requirements are followed. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15243 Filed 7–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB246] 

Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and 

South Atlantic; Southeast Data, 

Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); 

Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 79 Data 

Scoping Webinar for Gulf of Mexico and 

South Atlantic mutton snapper. 

SUMMARY: The SEDAR 79 assessment 

process of Gulf of Mexico and South 

Atlantic mutton snapper will consist of 

a Data Workshop, a series of assessment 

webinars, and a Review Workshop. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

DATES: The SEDAR 79 Data Scoping 

Webinar will be held August 18, 2021, 

from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., Eastern Time. 

ADDRESSES: 

Meeting address: The meeting will be 

held via webinar. The webinar is open 

to members of the public. Those 

interested in participating should 

contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to 

request an invitation providing webinar 

access information. Please request 

webinar invitations at least 24 hours in 

advance of each webinar. 

SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place 

Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 

29405. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571– 

4366; email: Julie.neer@safmc.net 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf 

of Mexico, South Atlantic, and 

Caribbean Fishery Management 

Councils, in conjunction with NOAA 

Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commissions 

have implemented the Southeast Data, 

Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 

process, a multi-step method for 

determining the status of fish stocks in 

the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multistep process including: (1) Data 

Workshop, (2) a series of assessment 

webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. 

The product of the Data Workshop is a 

report that compiles and evaluates 

potential datasets and recommends 

which datasets are appropriate for 

assessment analyses. The assessment 

webinars produce a report that describes 

the fisheries, evaluates the status of the 

stock, estimates biological benchmarks, 

projects future population conditions, 

and recommends research and 

monitoring needs. The product of the 

Review Workshop is an Assessment 

Summary documenting panel opinions 

regarding the strengths and weaknesses 

of the stock assessment and input data. 

Participants for SEDAR Workshops are 

appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South 

Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery 

Management Councils and NOAA 

Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, 

HMS Management Division, and 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 

Participants include data collectors and 

database managers; stock assessment 

scientists, biologists, and researchers; 

constituency representatives including 

fishermen, environmentalists, and 

NGO’s; International experts; and staff 

of Councils, Commissions, and state and 

federal agencies. 

The items of discussion during the 

Data Scoping Webinar are as follows: 

• Panelists will review the data sets 

being considered for the assessment. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1