Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 27575 

10(a)1(A) scientific enhancement 

permit. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

NMFS renewed Section 10(a)1(A) 

scientific enhancement Permit 20085– 

2R to Stillwater Sciences Inc. 

(Stillwater). Authorized activities 

within the permit are expected to affect 

and enhance the threatened South 

Central California Coast (SCCC) Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) of steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) through 

invasive species removal from a 

southern California watershed (Chorro 

Creek) in San Luis Obispo County, 

California. 

ADDRESSES: The permit application, the 

permit, and other related documents are 

available for review by contacting the 

California Coastal Office, Section 

10(a)1(A) permit coordinator for 

southern California (Matt McGoogan: 

phone: 562–980–4026 or email at: 

Matthew.McGoogan@noaa.gov). The 

application for Permit 20085–2R is also 

available for review at the 

Authorizations and Permits for 

Protected Species website: https://

apps.nmfs.noaa.gov/search/search.cfm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

McGoogan at 562–980–4026, or email: 

Matthew.McGoogan@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

ESA-Listed Species Covered in This 

Notification 

Threatened SCCC steelhead. 

Authority 

Scientific research and enhancement 

permits are issued in accordance with 

Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations 

governing listed fish and wildlife 

permits (50 CFR 222–227). NMFS issues 

a Section 10(a)1(A) permit based on 

findings that the permit is (1) applied 

for in good faith, (2) would not operate 

to the disadvantage of the listed species 

which is the subject of the permit, and 

(3) consistent with the purposes and 

policies set forth in Section 2 of the 

ESA. Authority for take exemption of 

listed species is subject to conditions set 

forth in the permit. 

Permit 20085–2R 

A receipt of application notice for 

Permit 20085–2R was published in the 

Federal Register on August 20, 2021 (86 

FR 46832), providing 30 days for public 

comment prior to permit processing. No 

comments were received. Permit 20085– 

2R was issued to Stillwater on October 

20, 2021. 

Permit 20085–2R authorizes take 

exemption of threatened SCCC 

steelhead in association with 

enhancement activities involving the 

removal of Sacramento pikeminnow 

(Ptychocheilus grandis) from the Chorro 

Creek watershed in San Luis Obispo 

County, California. The primary 

objectives of this enhancement effort 

involve: (1) Determining the 

distribution, abundance, size, and age 

structures of both pikeminnow and 

steelhead in the watershed; (2) 

eliminating pikeminnow from the 

watershed; (3) developing a plan for 

long-term pikeminnow management in 

the watershed; and (4) documenting 

changes in steelhead abundance and 

distribution in response to pikeminnow 

removal. Proposed enhancement 

activities include: (1) Conducting 

snorkel surveys to assess abundance and 

distribution of pikeminnow and 

steelhead; (2) using backpack 

electrofishing equipment, seines, hookand-line sampling, and spearfishing to 

capture pikeminnow; (3) measuring the 

weight and length of juvenile steelhead 

collected during sampling activities; (4) 

returning the collected steelhead alive 

and unharmed to Chorro Creek; and (5) 

humanely euthanizing and disposing 

pikeminnow. 

Permit 20085–2R authorized field 

activities associated with the 

enhancement effort to begin on October 

20, 2021 (the date the permit was 

issued), and ceases authorization of the 

subject activities when the permit 

expires on December 31, 2031. The 

annual take exemption of threatened 

SCCC steelhead that permit 20085–2R 

authorizes for the subject enhancement 

effort is as follows: (1) Non-lethal 

capture and release of up to 1,500 

juvenile steelhead while electrofishing, 

(2) non-lethal capture and release of up 

to 150 juvenile steelhead while seining, 

(3) non-lethal capture and release up to 

10 juvenile steelhead while hook-andline fishing, and (4) non-lethal 

observation of up to 2,000 juvenile and 

10 adult steelhead during instream 

snorkel surveys. The potential annual 

unintentional lethal take permit 20085– 

2R authorizes is up to 33 juvenile 

steelhead. No intentional lethal take of 

steelhead is authorized or expected as a 

result of these enhancement activities. 

The subject scientific enhancement 

activities that Permit 20085–2R 

authorizes are expected to support 

steelhead recovery in the Chorro Creek 

watershed and are consistent with 

recommendations and objectives 

outlined in NMFS’ South Central 

California Coast Steelhead Recovery 

Plan. See the application for Permit 

20085–2R and issued Permit 20085–2R 

for greater details on the associated 

scientific enhancement activities and 

related methodology authorized with 

this permit. 

Dated: May 3, 2022. 

Angela Somma, 

Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office 

of Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09838 Filed 5–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB832] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Marine Site 

Characterization Surveys Off New 

Jersey by NextEra Energy 

Transmission MidAtlantic Holdings, 

LLC 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from NextEra Energy Transmission 

MidAtlantic Holdings, LLC (NEETMA) 

for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to high-resolution 

geophysical (HRG) site characterization 

surveys off the coast of New Jersey. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS is also requesting 

comments on a possible one-time, oneyear Renewal that could be issued under 

certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met, as described in 

Request for Public Comments at the end 

of this notice. NMFS will consider 

public comments prior to making any 

final decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorization and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than June 8, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Written 

comments should be submitted via 

email to ITP.Potlock@noaa.gov. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
27576 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelsey Potlock, 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 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental harassment authorization is 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. This action 

is consistent with categories of activities 

identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 

(IHAs with no anticipated serious injury 

or mortality) of the Companion Manual 

for NOAA Administrative Order 216– 

6A, which do not individually or 

cumulatively have the potential for 

significant impacts on the quality of the 

human environment and for which we 

have not identified any extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude this 

categorical exclusion. Accordingly, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the issuance of the proposed IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On February 4, 2022, NMFS received 

a request from NextEra Energy 

Transmission MidAtlantic Holdings, 

LLC (NEETMA) for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to marine 

site characterization surveys occurring 

in two locations (Northern and Southern 

survey areas) off the coast of New Jersey 

in the New Jersey Offshore 

Transmission Facilities Project (NJOTF 

or Project). The application was deemed 

adequate and complete on April 1, 2022. 

NEETMA’s request is for take of a small 

number of 15 marine mammal species 

(consisting of 16 stocks) by Level B 

harassment only. Neither NEETMA nor 

NMFS expects serious injury or 

mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

NEETMA proposes to conduct HRG 

and geotechnical surveys as part of the 

New Jersey Offshore Transmission 

Facilities Project NJOTF off the coast of 

New Jersey. The surveys will take place 

along proposed submarine export cable 

routes and at locations for potential 

offshore platforms. Geotechnical survey 

activities would include the use of 

vibracores and/or cone penetration tests 

(CPTs), to identify and characterize the 

seabed conditions vertically for project 

planning and design, and to collect data 

to identify paleolandscapes. 

The purpose of the proposed surveys 

are to support the siting and design of 

offshore facilities, including offshore 

platforms for converter stations and 

offshore submarine transmission cables. 

As many as three survey vessels may 

operate concurrently as part of the 

proposed surveys. Underwater sound 

resulting from NEETMA’s proposed site 

characterization survey activities, 

specifically HRG surveys, has the 

potential to result in incidental take of 

marine mammals in the form of 

behavioral harassment. 

Dates and Duration 

The estimated duration of the activity 

is expected to consist of up to 320 total 

survey days over the course of a single 

year within the two survey areas (Table 

1). As multiple vessels (i.e., three survey 

vessels) may be operating concurrently 

across both survey areas, each day that 

a single survey vessel is operating 

constitutes a single survey day. 

Therefore, it is expected that the 

anticipated 320 survey days would 

occur over a shorter aggregate duration. 

This schedule is based on 24-hour 

operations that may be conducted at any 

time throughout the year. The schedule 

presented here for this proposed project 

has accounted for potential down time 

due to inclement weather or other 

project-related delays. The IHA would 

be effective for a period of one year. 

TABLE 1—NUMBER OF SURVEY DAYS

THAT NEETMA PLANS TO PERFORM THE DESCRIBED HRG SURVEY

ACTIVITIES

Survey area 

Number of 

active survey 

days expected 1

Northern .......................... 248 

Southern ......................... 72 

Total ......................... 320 

1 Up to three total survey vessels may be 

operating within both of the survey areas 

concurrently. 

Specific Geographic Region 

NEETMA’s proposed activities would 

occur in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean 

within Federal and state waters (Figure 

1). Surveys would occur in both the 

Northern and Southern survey areas 

along potential areas for future offshore 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 27577 

platforms used for converter stations 

and potential offshore submarine 

transmission cable routes. NEETMA’s 

proposed activities would occur within 

the NJOTF. The total site area is 

approximately 1,861,198 acres 

(2,908.121 square miles (mi2); 7,532 

square kilometers (km2)) and extends 

approximately 51 nautical miles (nm; 

59.03 miles (mi); 95 kilometers (km)) 

offshore at its furthest point with some 

coastal surveys planned. However, the 

expected area to be surveyed is much 

smaller than the total site area, 

consisting of 6,254 km2 in the Northern 

survey area and 1,278 km2 in the 

Southern. This equates to approximately 

5,183.97 km2 of ensonified area over the 

duration of the activities. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
27578 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

NEETMA’s proposed marine site 

characterization surveys include HRG 

and geotechnical survey activities. 

These surveys would occur within both 

the Northern and Southern areas off 

New Jersey, as specified in Figure 1. The 

Northern and Southern Project areas are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN09MY22.032</GPH>

Northern Survey Areli! 

Southern SurveyArea· 

~ "' - State Seaward Boundary (3 NM) 

....... , Territorial Sea (12 NM) 

NJOTF 

HRG ANO GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY AREAS 

Figure 1- Proposed survey areas for the New Jersey Offshore Transmission 

Facilities Project (NJOTF Project) HRG&G Surveys. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 27579 

approximately 7,532 km2 (1,861,197.73 

acres) and are located approximately 95 

kilometers offshore of New Jersey at the 

furthest point. For the purposes of this 

proposed IHA, both the Northern and 

Southern areas are collectively referred 

to as the survey sites. NEETMA’s survey 

activities are anticipated to be 

supported by vessels, which will 

maintain a speed of approximately to 4 

knots (kn; 7.4 kilometer per hour (km/ 

h)) while transiting survey lines. The 

proposed HRG and geotechnical survey 

activities are described below. 

Proposed Geotechnical Survey 

Activities 

NEETMA’s proposed geotechnical 

activities would include the drilling of 

vibracores and/or CPTs. Similar 

proposed activities have been 

previously analyzed, e.g., see the 

proposed 2020 Federal Register notice 

(85 FR 7926; February 12, 2020) and the 

proposed 2022 Federal Register notice 

(87 FR 4200; January 27, 2022) for 

Atlantic Shores’ site characterization 

surveys. The same discussion by NMFS 

to not analyze the geotechnical activities 

further that was included in that notice 

(i.e., as they do not constitute take of 

marine mammals) was determined to 

apply to this proposed project. In these 

notifications, NMFS determined that the 

likelihood of the proposed geotechnical 

surveys resulting in harassment of 

marine mammals was to be so low as to 

be discountable. As this information 

remains applicable and NMFS’ 

determination has not changed, these 

activities will not be discussed further 

in this proposed notification. 

Proposed Geophysical Survey Activities 

NEETMA has proposed that HRG 

survey operations would be conducted 

continuously 24 hours a day. Based on 

24-hour operations, the estimated total 

duration of the proposed activities 

would be approximately 320 survey 

days. This includes 248 days of survey 

activities in the Northern area and 72 

days in the Southern area (refer back to 

Table 1). As previously discussed above, 

this schedule does include potential 

down time due to inclement weather or 

other project-related delays. The HRG 

survey activities will be supported by 

vessels of sufficient size to accomplish 

the survey goals in each of the specified 

survey areas. It is assumed surveys in 

both of the identified survey areas will 

be executed by a total of three vessels 

during any given campaign (i.e., up to 

three vessels operating collectively 

across the 320 days of the proposed 

project but each vessel may operate 

concurrently in either the Northern or 

Southern survey areas). HRG survey 

equipment will either be mounted to or 

towed behind the survey at a typical 

survey speed of approximately 4 knot 

(7.4 km per hour). 

The geophysical survey activities 

proposed by NEETMA may include the 

use of the following equipment: 

• Shallow Penetration Sub-bottom 

Profilers (SBPs; Compressed HighIntensity Radiated Pulses [CHIRPs]); 

• Medium penetration SBPs 

(Boomers); 

• Medium penetration SBPs 

(Sparkers); 

• Parametric SBPs, also called 

sediment echosounders; 

• Ultra-short Baseline (USBL) 

Positioning and Global Acoustic 

Positioning System (GAPS); 

• Multibeam echosounder (MBES); 

and 

• Seafloor imaging (sidescan sonar). 

However, not all of the equipment 

described above has the potential to 

harass marine mammals. The MBES and 

sidescan sonar are known to produce 

sounds outside the hearing range of 

marine mammals (≤180 kHz); therefore 

these are not discussed further in this 

notice as they are not expected to cause 

harassment. Specifically due to its 

functionality and source characteristics 

as USBLs are primarily used to locate 

the position(s) of other HRG equipment, 

USBLs are not expected to have the 

reasonable potential to cause 

harassment of marine mammals. Lastly, 

parametric SBPs tend to operate at high 

frequencies with very narrow 

beamwidth, which results in small 

harassment zones (<4 m). Further, due 

to the size of the Level B harassment 

zones produced by these acoustic 

sources, both NMFS and NEETMA do 

not expect harassment to occur. 

Therefore, and as noted in the IHA 

application, NMFS concurs that the 

shallow and medium SBPs (Sparkers, 

Boomers, and CHIRPs) have the 

potential to cause harassment to marine 

mammals. 

Table 2 identifies the representative 

survey equipment that may be used in 

support of planned geophysical survey 

activities that may also cause the take of 

marine mammals. The make and model 

of the listed equipment may vary 

depending on availability and the final 

equipment choices will vary depending 

upon the final survey design, vessel 

availability, and survey contractor 

selection. Geophysical surveys are 

expected to use several equipment types 

concurrently in order to collect multiple 

aspects of geophysical data along one 

transect. Selection of equipment 

combinations is based on specific 

survey objectives. All categories of 

representative HRG survey equipment 

shown in Table 2 work with operating 

frequencies <180 kHz. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS WITH OPERATING FREQUENCIES BELOW 180 KHZ

Equipment 

category HRG survey equipment type 

Operating 

frequency 

ranges 

(kHZ) 

Operational 

source level 

ranges 

(dB re 1 μPa m) 

Source 

level0-peak

(dB re 1 μPa m) 

Beamwidth 

ranges 

(degrees) 

Typical pulse 

durations 

(millisecond) 

Pulse 

repetition 

rate 

(Hz) 

Non-Parametric Shallow Penetration SBPS (Non-Impulsive) 

CHIRPs ....... ET 216 (2000DS or 3200 top unit) ................ 2–16 195 .......................... 24 ........................ 20 6 

2–8 

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

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

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

Teledyne Benthose Chirp III—TTV 170 ......... 2–7 197 .......................... 100 ...................... 60 15 

Medium Penetration SBPs (Impulsive) 

Sparker ........ AA, Dura-spark UHD (400 tips, 500 J) 1 ........ 0.3–1.2 203 211 Omnidirectional ... 1.1 4 

GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 (400 tip) 1 ......... 0.05–3 203 213 Omnidirectional ... 3.4 1 

Boomer ........ AA, triple plate S-Boom (700–1,000 J) 2 ........ 0.1–5 205 211 80 ........................ 0.6 4 

Note:—= not applicable; μPa = micropascal; AA = Applied Acoustics; dB = decibel; ET = EdgeTech; J = joule; Omni = omnidirectional source; re = referenced to; 

SL = source level; 0–PK = zero-to-peak; RMS = root mean squared; UHD = ultra-high definition. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
27580 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 

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

include variants of the Dura-spark sparker system and various configurations of the GeoMarine Geo-Source sparker system. The data provided in Crocker and 

Fratantonio (2016) represent the most applicable data for similar sparker systems with comparable operating methods and settings when manufacturer or other reliable measurements are not available. 2 Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) provide S-Boom measurements using two different power sources (CSP–D700 and CSP–N). The CSP–D700 power source was 

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

lower SL; therefore, the single maximum SL value was used for both operational levels of the S-Boom. 

The deployment of HRG survey 

equipment, including the equipment 

planned for use during NEETMA’s 

proposed activities, produces sound in 

the marine environment that has the 

potential to result in harassment of 

marine mammals. Proposed mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting measures are 

described in detail later in this 

document (please see Proposed 

Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring 

and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of NEETMA’s 

application summarize available 

information regarding status and trends, 

distribution and habitat preferences, 

and behavior and life history, of the 

potentially affected species. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’ 

Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-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 3 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this action, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (2021). PBR is 

defined by the MMPA as the maximum 

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain 

its optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’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’ draft 2021 SARs. All values 

presented in Table 3 are the most recent 

available at the time of publication and 

are available in the draft 2021 SARs 

available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR NEAR THE PROJECT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY

NEETMA’S ACTIVITY

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

North Atlantic right whale .. Eubalaena glacialis ..................... Western North Atlantic ..... E/D, Y 368 (0; 356; 2020) 5 6 .................. 0.8 18.6 

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

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

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

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Sperm whale ..................... Physeter macrocephalus ............ North Atlantic .................... E/D, Y 4,349 (0.28; 3,451; 2016) ........... 3.9 0 

Risso’s dolphin .................. Grampus griseus ........................ Western North Atlantic ..... -/-, N 35,493 (0.19; 30,289; 2016) ....... 303 54.3 

Long-finned pilot whale ..... Globicephala melas .................... Western North Atlantic ..... -/-, N 39,215 (0.3; 30,627; 2016) ......... 306 21 

Short-finned pilot whale .... Globicephala macrorhynchus ..... Western North Atlantic ..... -/-, Y 28,924 (0.24; 23,637, 2016) ....... 236 136 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin.Lagenorhynchus acutus .............. Western North Atlantic ..... -/-, N 93,233 (0.71; 54,443; 2016) ....... 544 26 

Common dolphin ............... Delphinus delphis ....................... Western North Atlantic ..... -/-, Y 172,897 (0.21, 145,216, 2016) ... 526 399 

Common bottlenose dolphin.Tursiops truncatus ...................... Western North Atlantic— 

Offshore.

-/-, N 62,851 (0.23; 51,914; 2016) ....... 519 28 

Western North Atlantic— 

Coastal Migratory.

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

Atlantic spotted dolphin ..... Stenella frontalis ......................... Western North Atlantic ..... -/-, N 39,921 (0.27; 32,032; 2016) ....... 320 0 

Harbor porpoise ................ Phocoena phocoena ................... Gulf of Maine/Bay of 

Fundy.

-/-, N 95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 2016) ....... 851 217 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Harbor seal ....................... Phoca vitulina ............................. Western North Atlantic ..... -/-, N 75,834 (0.15; 66,884; 2012) ....... 2006 350 

Gray seal ........................... Halichoerus grypus ..................... Western North Atlantic ..... -/-, N 27,131 (0.19; 23,158; 2016) ....... 1389 4,729 

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

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

as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is 

the coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I 

I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 27581 

3These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, 

ship strike). 4 NMFS’ stock abundance estimate (and associated PBR value) applies to U.S. population only. Total stock abundance (including animals in Canada) is approximately 451,431. The annual M/SI value given is for the total stock. 5Abundance source is Pace et al. (2021). PBR and annual M/SI source is final 2020 SAR (Hayes et al. 2020). Because PBR is based on the minimum population 

estimate, we anticipate it will be slightly lower than what is presented here given the Pace et al. (2021) abundance. Regardless of final numbers, NMFS recognizes 

the NARW stock is critically endangered with a low PRB and high annual M/SI rate due primarily to ship strikes and entanglement 6The draft 2022 SARs have yet to be released; however, NMFS has updated its species web page to recognize the population estimate for NARWs is now below 

350 animals (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale). 

As indicated above, all 15 species 

(with 16 managed stocks) in Table 3 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur, and we have 

proposed authorizing. 

The temporal and/or spatial 

occurrence of several cetacean and 

pinniped species is such that take of 

these species is not expected to occur 

either because they have very low 

densities in the survey area or are 

known to occur further offshore than the 

survey area. These include: Cuvier’s 

beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), four 

species of Mesoplodont beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon spp.), dwarf and pygmy 

sperm whale (Kogia sima and Kogia 

breviceps), northern bottlenose whale 

(Hyperoodon ampullatus), killer whale 

(Orcinus orca), pygmy killer whale 

(Feresa attenuata), false killer whale 

(Pseudorca crassidens), melon-headed 

whale (Peponocephala electra), striped 

dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), whitebeaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus 

albirostris), pantropical spotted dolphin 

(Stenella attenuata), Fraser’s dolphin 

(Lagenodelphis hosei), rough-toothed 

dolphin (Steno bredanensis), Clymene 

dolphin (Stenella clymene), spinner 

dolphin (Stenella longirostris), hooded 

seal (Cystophora cristata), and harp seal 

(Pagophilus groenlandicus). 

Furthermore, based on the density data 

presented in NEETMA’s application, 

NMFS considers it unlikely for sei 

whales (Balaenoptera borealis) and blue 

whales (Balaenoptera musculus) to 

occur in the project area due to the nearzero density estimates for both cetacean 

species. As harassment and subsequent 

take of these species is not anticipated 

as a result of the proposed activities, 

these species are not analyzed or 

discussed further. 

In addition, the Florida manatee 

(Trichechus manatus; a sub-species of 

the West Indian manatee) has been 

previously documented as an occasional 

visitor the Northeast region during 

summer months (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) 2019). However, 

manatees are managed by the USFWS 

and are not considered further in this 

document. 

Recently, NMFS has updated its 

species web page to recognize the 

population estimate for NARWs is now 

below 350 animals (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/northatlantic-right-whale). We anticipate this 

to be more formalized in the draft 2022 

SAR. 

For the majority of species potentially 

present in the specific geographic 

region, NMFS has designated only a 

single generic stock (e.g., ‘‘western 

North Atlantic’’) for management 

purposes. This includes the ‘‘Canadian 

east coast’’ stock of minke whales, 

which includes all minke whales found 

in U.S. waters and is also a generic stock 

for management purposes. For 

humpback whales, NMFS defines stocks 

on the basis of feeding locations, i.e., 

Gulf of Maine. However, references to 

humpback whales in this document 

refer to any individuals of the species 

that are found in the specific geographic 

region. Additional information on these 

species can be found in Sections 3 and 

4 of NEETMA’s IHA application, the 

draft 2021 SARs (https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/marine-mammal-stockassessments), and NMFS’ website 

(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/findspecies). 

Below is a description of the species 

that have the highest likelihood of 

occurring in the survey area and are 

thus expected to potentially be taken by 

the proposed activities as well as further 

detail informing the baseline for select 

species (i.e., information regarding 

current Unusual Mortality Events 

(UMEs) and important habitat areas). 

North Atlantic Right Whale 

The North Atlantic right whale ranges 

from calving grounds in the 

southeastern United States to feeding 

grounds in New England waters and 

into Canadian waters (Hayes et al., 

2018). Surveys have demonstrated the 

existence of seven areas where North 

Atlantic right whales congregate 

seasonally, including north and east of 

the proposed survey area in Georges 

Bank, off Cape Cod, and in 

Massachusetts Bay (Hayes et al., 2018). 

In the late fall months (e.g., October), 

right whales are generally thought to 

depart from the feeding grounds in the 

North Atlantic and move south to their 

calving grounds off Georgia and Florida. 

However, recent research indicates our 

understanding of their movement 

patterns remains incomplete (Davis et 

al., 2017). A review of passive acoustic 

monitoring data from 2004 to 2014 

throughout the western North Atlantic 

demonstrated nearly continuous yearround right whale presence across their 

entire habitat range (for at least some 

individuals), including in locations 

previously thought of as migratory 

corridors, suggesting that not all of the 

population undergoes a consistent 

annual migration (Davis et al., 2017). 

However, given that NEETMA’s surveys 

would be concentrated offshore New 

Jersey, any right whales in the vicinity 

of the survey areas are expected to be 

transient, most likely migrating through 

the area. 

The western North Atlantic 

population demonstrated overall growth 

of 2.8 percent per year between 1990 to 

2010, despite a decline in 1993 and no 

growth between 1997 and 2000 (Pace et 

al., 2017). However, since 2010 the 

population has been in decline, with a 

99.99 percent probability of a decline of 

just under 1 percent per year (Pace et 

al., 2017). Between 1990 and 2015, 

calving rates varied substantially, with 

low calving rates coinciding with all 

three periods of decline or no growth 

(Pace et al., 2017). On average, North 

Atlantic right whale calving rates are 

estimated to be roughly half that of 

southern right whales (Eubalaena 

australis) (Pace et al., 2017), which are 

increasing in abundance (NMFS, 2015). 

In 2018, no new North Atlantic right 

whale calves were documented in their 

calving grounds; this represented the 

first time since annual NOAA aerial 

surveys began in 1989 that no new right 

whale calves were observed. Eighteen 

right whale calves were documented in 

2021. As of March 16, 2022 and the 

writing of this proposed Notice, 15 

North Atlantic right whale calves have 

documented to have been born during 

this calving season. Presently, the best 

available population estimate for North 

Atlantic right whales is 368 per the draft 

2021 SARs (https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/marine-mammal-stockassessments). 

The proposed survey area is part of a 

migratory corridor Biologically 

Important Area (BIA) for North Atlantic 

right whales (effective March–April and 

November–December) that extends from 

Massachusetts to Florida (LeBrecque et 

al., 2015). Off the coast of New Jersey, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
27582 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 

the migratory BIA extends from the 

coast to beyond the shelf break. This 

important migratory area is 

approximately 269,488 km2 in size 

(compared with the approximately 

5,183.97 km2 of total estimated Level B 

harassment ensonified area associated 

with the 320 planned survey days) and 

is comprised of the waters of the 

continental shelf offshore the East Coast 

of the United States, extending from 

Florida through Massachusetts. NMFS’ 

regulations at 50 CFR part 224.105 

designated nearshore waters of the MidAtlantic Bight as Mid-Atlantic U.S. 

Seasonal Management Areas (SMA) for 

right whales in 2008. SMAs were 

developed to reduce the threat of 

collisions between ships and right 

whales around their migratory route and 

calving grounds. A portion of one SMA, 

which occurs off the mouth of Delaware 

Bay, overlaps spatially with a section of 

the proposed survey area. The SMA, 

which occurs off the mouth of Delaware 

Bay, is active from November 1 through 

April 30 of each year. Within SMAs, the 

regulations require a mandatory vessel 

speed (less than 10 kn) for all vessels 

greater than 65 ft. A portion of one SMA 

overlaps spatially with the northern 

section of the proposed survey area. 

Elevated North Atlantic right whale 

mortalities have occurred since June 7, 

2017, along the U.S. and Canadian 

coast. This event has been declared an 

Unusual Mortality Event (UME), with 

human interactions, including 

entanglement in fixed fishing gear and 

vessel strikes, implicated in at least 15 

of the mortalities thus far. As of April 

14, 2022, a total of 34 confirmed dead 

stranded whales (21 in Canada; 13 in 

the United States) have been 

documented. The cumulative total 

number of animals in the North Atlantic 

right whale UME has been updated to 

49 individuals to include both the 

confirmed mortalities (dead stranded or 

floaters) (n=34) and seriously injured 

free-swimming whales (n=15) to better 

reflect the confirmed number of whales 

likely removed from the population 

during the UME and more accurately 

reflect the population impacts. More 

information is available online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

Right Whale Slow Zones are areas 

where mariners are encouraged to avoid 

areas and/or reduce speeds to 10 kn to 

avoid vessel collisions with North 

Atlantic right whales. Slow Zones 

typically persist for 15 days. More 

information on these right whale Slow 

Zones can be found on NMFS’ website 

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

national/endangered-speciesconservation/reducing-vessel-strikesnorth-atlantic-right-whales). 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales are found 

worldwide in all oceans. Humpback 

whales were listed as endangered under 

the Endangered Species Conservation 

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

ESA replaced the ESCA, and 

humpbacks continued to be listed as 

endangered. On September 8, 2016, 

NMFS divided the species into 14 

distinct population segments (DPS), 

removed the current species-level 

listing, and in its place listed four DPSs 

as endangered and one DPS as 

threatened (81 FR 62259; September 8, 

2016). The remaining nine DPSs were 

not listed. The West Indies DPS, which 

is not listed under the ESA, is the only 

DPS of humpback whale that is 

expected to occur in the survey area. 

Whales occurring in the survey area are 

not necessarily from the Gulf of Maine 

feeding population managed as a stock 

by NMFS. Barco et al. (2002) estimated 

that, based on photo-identification, only 

39 percent of individual humpback 

whales observed along the mid- and 

south Atlantic U.S. coast are from the 

Gulf of Maine stock. Bettridge et al. 

(2015) estimated the size of the West 

Indies DPS population at 12,312 (95 

percent CI 8,688–15,954) whales in 

2004–05, which is consistent with 

previous population estimates of 

approximately 10,000–11,000 whales 

(Stevick et al., 2003; Smith et al., 1999) 

and the increasing trend for the West 

Indies DPS (Bettridge et al., 2015). 

Humpback whales utilize the midAtlantic as a migration pathway 

between calving/mating grounds to the 

south and feeding grounds in the north 

(Waring et al., 2007a; Waring et al., 

2007b). Barco et al. (2002) suggested 

that the mid-Atlantic region primarily 

represents a supplemental winterfeeding ground used by humpbacks. 

Recent research by King et al. (2021) has 

demonstrated a higher occurrence and 

use (foraging) of the New York Bight 

area by humpback whales than 

previously known. 

Three previous UMEs involving 

humpback whales have occurred since 

2000, in 2003, 2005, and 2006. Since 

January 2016, elevated humpback whale 

mortalities have occurred along the 

Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida. 

Partial or full necropsy examinations 

have been conducted on approximately 

half of the 158 known cases (as of April 

14, 2022). Of the whales examined, 

about 50 percent had evidence of 

human interaction, either ship strike or 

entanglement. While a portion of the 

whales have shown evidence of premortem vessel strike, this finding is not 

consistent across all whales examined 

and more research is needed. NOAA is 

consulting with researchers that are 

conducting studies on the humpback 

whale populations, and these efforts 

may provide information on changes in 

whale distribution and habitat use that 

could provide additional insight into 

how these vessel interactions occurred. 

More information is available at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2016-2021- 

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

Fin Whale 

Fin whales are common in waters of 

the U. S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ), principally from Cape 

Hatteras northward (Waring et al., 

2016). Fin whales are present north of 

35-degree latitude in every season and 

are broadly distributed throughout the 

western North Atlantic for most of the 

year (Waring et al., 2016). They are 

typically found in small groups of up to 

five individuals (Brueggeman et al., 

1987). The main threats to fin whales 

are fishery interactions and vessel 

collisions (Waring et al., 2016). 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales can be found in 

temperate, tropical, and high-latitude 

waters. The Canadian East Coast stock 

can be found in the area from the 

western half of the Davis Strait (45° W) 

to the Gulf of Mexico (Waring et al., 

2016). This species generally occupies 

waters less than 100-m deep on the 

continental shelf. There appears to be a 

strong seasonal component to minke 

whale distribution in the survey areas, 

in which spring to fall are times of 

relatively widespread and common 

occurrence while during winter the 

species appears to be largely absent 

(Waring et al., 2016). 

Since January 2017, elevated minke 

whale mortalities have occurred along 

the Atlantic coast from Maine through 

South Carolina, with a total of 122 

strandings (as of April 14, 2022). This 

event has been declared a UME. Full or 

partial necropsy examinations were 

conducted on more than 60 percent of 

the whales. Preliminary findings in 

several of the whales have shown 

evidence of human interactions or 

infectious disease, but these findings are 

not consistent across all of the whales 

examined, so more research is needed. 

More information is available at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2017-2021-minkewhale-unusual-mortality-event-alongatlantic-coast. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 27583 

Sperm Whale 

The distribution of the sperm whale 

in the U.S. EEZ occurs on the 

continental shelf edge, over the 

continental slope, and into mid-ocean 

regions (Waring et al., 2014). The basic 

social unit of the sperm whale appears 

to be the mixed school of adult females 

plus their calves and some juveniles of 

both sexes, normally numbering 20–40 

animals in all. There is evidence that 

some social bonds persist for many 

years (Christal et al., 1998). This species 

forms stable social groups, site fidelity, 

and latitudinal range limitations in 

groups of females and juveniles 

(Whitehead, 2002). In summer, the 

distribution of sperm whales includes 

the area east and north of Georges Bank 

and into the Northeast Channel region, 

as well as the continental shelf (inshore 

of the 100-m isobath) south of New 

England. In the fall, sperm whale 

occurrence south of New England on the 

continental shelf is at its highest level, 

and there remains a continental shelf 

edge occurrence in the mid-Atlantic 

bight. In winter, sperm whales are 

concentrated east and northeast of Cape 

Hatteras. 

Long-Finned Pilot Whale 

Long-finned pilot whales are found 

from North Carolina to Iceland, 

Greenland and the Barents Sea (Hayes et 

al., 2021). In the U.S. Atlantic waters the 

species is distributed principally along 

the continental shelf edge off the 

northeastern U.S. coast in winter and 

early spring and in late spring, pilot 

whales move onto Georges Bank and 

into the Gulf of Maine northward, and 

remain in these areas through late fall 

(Hayes et al., 2021). Long-finned and 

short-finned pilot whales overlap 

spatially along the mid-Atlantic shelf 

break between Delaware and the 

southern flank of Georges Bank. Longfinned pilot whales have occasionally 

been observed stranded as far south as 

South Carolina, but sightings of longfinned pilot whales south of Cape 

Hatteras would be considered unusual 

(Hayes et al., 2021). The main threats to 

this species include interactions with 

fisheries and habitat issues including 

exposure to high levels of 

polychlorinated biphenyls and 

chlorinated pesticides, and toxic metals 

including mercury, lead, and cadmium, 

and selenium (Hayes et al., 2021). 

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 

As described above, long-finned and 

short-finned pilot whales overlap 

spatially with the survey area and along 

the mid-Atlantic shelf. There is limited 

information on the distribution of shortfinned pilot whales. They prefer warmer 

tropical waters and deeper waters 

offshore, and in the northeastern United 

States they are often sighted near the 

Gulf Stream (Hayes et al., 2021). Shortfinned pilot whales have occasionally 

been observed stranded as far north as 

Massachusetts but north of ∼42° N shortfinned pilot whale sightings would be 

considered unusual while south of Cape 

Hatteras most pilot whales would 

expected to be short-finned pilot whales 

(Hayes et al., 2021). As with long-finned 

pilot whales, the main threats to this 

species include interactions with 

fisheries and habitat issues including 

exposure to high levels of 

polychlorinated biphenyls and 

chlorinated pesticides, and toxic metals 

including mercury, lead, cadmium, and 

selenium (Hayes et al., 2021). 

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin 

White-sided dolphins are found in 

temperate and sub-polar waters of the 

North Atlantic, primarily in continental 

shelf waters to the 100m depth contour 

from central West Greenland to North 

Carolina (Waring et al., 2016). The Gulf 

of Maine stock is most common in 

continental shelf waters from Hudson 

Canyon to Georges Bank, and in the Gulf 

of Maine and lower Bay of Fundy. 

Sighting data indicate seasonal shifts in 

distribution (Northridge et al., 1997). 

During January to May, low numbers of 

white-sided dolphins are found from 

Georges Bank to Jeffreys Ledge (off New 

Hampshire), with even lower numbers 

south of Georges Bank, as documented 

by a few strandings collected on beaches 

of Virginia to South Carolina. From June 

through September, large numbers of 

white-sided dolphins are found from 

Georges Bank to the lower Bay of 

Fundy. From October to December, 

white-sided dolphins occur at 

intermediate densities from southern 

Georges Bank to southern Gulf of Maine 

(Payne and Heinemann, 1990). Sightings 

south of Georges Bank, particularly 

around Hudson Canyon, occur year 

round but at low densities. 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 

Atlantic spotted dolphins are found in 

tropical and warm temperate waters 

ranging from southern New England, 

south to Gulf of Mexico and the 

Caribbean to Venezuela (Waring et al., 

2014). This stock regularly occurs in 

continental shelf waters south of Cape 

Hatteras and in continental shelf edge 

and continental slope waters north of 

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

are two forms of this species, with the 

larger ecotype inhabiting the continental 

shelf and is usually found inside or near 

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

Common Dolphin 

The common dolphin is found 

worldwide in temperate to subtropical 

seas. In the North Atlantic, common 

dolphins are commonly found over the 

continental shelf between the 100-m 

and 2,000-m isobaths and over 

prominent underwater topography and 

east to the mid-Atlantic Ridge (Waring 

et al., 2016). 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

There are two distinct bottlenose 

dolphin morphotypes in the western 

North Atlantic: The coastal and offshore 

forms (Waring et al., 2016). The offshore 

form is distributed primarily along the 

outer continental shelf and continental 

slope in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean 

from Georges Bank to the Florida Keys. 

The coastal morphotype is 

morphologically and genetically distinct 

from the larger, more robust 

morphotype that occupies habitats 

further offshore. Spatial distribution 

data, tag-telemetry studies, photo-ID 

studies and genetic studies demonstrate 

the existence of a distinct Northern 

Migratory stock of coastal bottlenose 

dolphins (Waring et al., 2014). During 

summer months (July–August), this 

stock occupies coastal waters from the 

shoreline to approximately the 25-m 

isobath between the Chesapeake Bay 

mouth and Long Island, New York; 

during winter months (January–March), 

the stock occupies coastal waters from 

Cape Lookout, North Carolina, to the 

North Carolina/Virginia border (Waring 

et al., 2014). The Western North 

Atlantic northern migratory coastal 

stock and the Western North Atlantic 

offshore stock may be encountered by 

the proposed survey. 

Harbor Porpoise 

In the Lease Area, only the Gulf of 

Maine/Bay of Fundy stock may be 

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

Canadian Atlantic waters and is 

concentrated in the northern Gulf of 

Maine and southern Bay of Fundy 

region, generally in waters less than 

150-m deep (Waring et al., 2016). They 

are seen from the coastline to deep 

waters (>1,800-m; Westgate et al., 1998), 

although the majority of the population 

is found over the continental shelf 

(Waring et al., 2016). The main threat to 

the species is interactions with fisheries, 

with documented take in the U.S. 

northeast sink gillnet, mid-Atlantic 

gillnet, and northeast bottom trawl 

fisheries and in the Canadian herring 

weir fisheries (Waring et al., 2016). 

Pinninpeds (Harbor Seal and Gray Seal) 

The harbor seal is found in all 

nearshore waters of the North Atlantic 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
27584 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 

and North Pacific Oceans and adjoining 

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

the western North Atlantic, harbor seals 

are distributed from the eastern 

Canadian Arctic and Greenland south to 

southern New England and New York, 

and occasionally to the Carolinas 

(Waring et al., 2016). Haul-out and 

pupping sites are located off Manomet, 

MA and the Isles of Shoals, ME, but 

generally do not occur in areas in 

southern New England (Waring et al., 

2016). 

There are three major populations of 

gray seals found in the world; eastern 

Canada (western North Atlantic stock), 

northwestern Europe and the Baltic Sea. 

Gray seals in the survey area belong to 

the western North Atlantic stock. The 

range for this stock is thought to be from 

New Jersey to Labrador. Current 

population trends show that gray seal 

abundance is likely increasing in the 

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

Although the rate of increase is 

unknown, surveys conducted since their 

arrival in the 1980s indicate a steady 

increase in abundance in both Maine 

and Massachusetts (Waring et al., 2016). 

It is believed that recolonization by 

Canadian gray seals is the source of the 

U.S. population (Waring et al., 2016). 

Since July 2018, elevated numbers of 

harbor seal and gray seal mortalities 

have occurred across Maine, New 

Hampshire and Massachusetts. This 

event has been declared a UME. 

Additionally, stranded seals have 

shown clinical signs as far south as 

Virginia, although not in elevated 

numbers, therefore the UME 

investigation now encompasses all seal 

strandings from Maine to Virginia. Ice 

seals (harp and hooded seals) have also 

started stranding with clinical signs, 

again not in elevated numbers, and 

those two seal species have also been 

added to the UME investigation. A total 

of 3,152 reported strandings (of all 

species) had occurred from July 1, 2018, 

through March 13, 2020. Full or partial 

necropsy examinations have been 

conducted on some of the seals and 

samples have been collected for testing. 

Based on tests conducted thus far, the 

main pathogen found in the seals is 

phocine distemper virus. NMFS is 

performing additional testing to identify 

any other factors that may be involved 

in this UME. Presently, this UME is 

non-active and is pending closure by 

NMFS as of March 2020. Information on 

this UME is available online at: 

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

2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-eventalong. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range 1

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

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

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

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

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

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

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

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

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

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Fifteen marine 

mammal species (thirteen cetacean and 

two pinniped (both phocid) species) 

have the reasonable potential to cooccur with the proposed survey 

activities. Please refer back to Table 3. 

Of the cetacean species that may be 

present, four are classified as lowfrequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete 

species), eight are classified as midfrequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid 

and the sperm whale), and one is 

classified as a high-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., harbor porpoise). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. 

Detailed descriptions of the potential 

effects of similar specified activities 

have been provided in other recent and 

related Federal Register notices, 

including for survey activities using 

similar HRG methodologies, over 

similar amounts of time, and occurring 

within the Mid-Atlantic region, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 27585 

including waters off New Jersey (e.g., 82 

FR 20563, May 3, 2017; 85 FR 7926, 

February 12, 2020; 85 FR 37848, June 

24, 2020; 86 FR 16327, March 29, 2021; 

and 87 FR 14823, March 16, 2022). No 

significant new information is available, 

and we refer the reader to these 

documents rather than repeating the 

details here. 

The Estimated Take section later in 

this document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 

and Determination section considers the 

potential effects of the specified activity, 

the Estimated Take section, and the 

Proposed Mitigation section, to draw 

conclusions regarding the likely impacts 

of these activities on the reproductive 

success or survivorship of individuals 

and how those impacts on individuals 

are likely to impact marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

Background on Active Acoustic Sound 

Sources and Acoustic Terminology 

This subsection contains a brief 

technical background on sound, on the 

characteristics of certain sound types, 

and on metrics used in this proposal 

inasmuch as the information is relevant 

to the specified activity and to the 

summary of the potential effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals. 

For general information on sound and 

its interaction with the marine 

environment, please see, e.g., Au and 

Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. 

(1995); Urick (1983). 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in hertz or 

cycles per second. Wavelength is the 

distance between two peaks or 

corresponding points of a sound wave 

(length of one cycle). Higher frequency 

sounds have shorter wavelengths than 

lower frequency sounds, and typically 

attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, 

except in certain cases in shallower 

water. Amplitude is the height of the 

sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’ 

of a sound and is typically described 

using the relative unit of the decibel. A 

sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is 

described as the ratio between a 

measured pressure and a reference 

pressure (for underwater sound, this is 

1 microPascal (mPa)), and is a 

logarithmic unit that accounts for large 

variations in amplitude. Therefore, a 

relatively small change in dB 

corresponds to large changes in sound 

pressure. The source level (SL) 

represents the SPL referenced at a 

distance of 1-m from the source 

(referenced to 1 mPa), while the received 

level is the SPL at the listener’s position 

(referenced to 1 mPa). 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. Root mean 

square is calculated by squaring all of 

the sound amplitudes, averaging the 

squares, and then taking the square root 

of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean 

square accounts for both positive and 

negative values; squaring the pressures 

makes all values positive so that they 

may be accounted for in the summation 

of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). This measurement is often used 

in the context of discussing behavioral 

effects, in part because behavioral 

effects, which often result from auditory 

cues, may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

Sound exposure level (SEL; 

represented as dB re 1 mPa2-s) represents 

the total energy in a stated frequency 

band over a stated time interval or event 

and considers both intensity and 

duration of exposure. The per-pulse SEL 

is calculated over the time window 

containing the entire pulse (i.e., 100 

percent of the acoustic energy). SEL is 

a cumulative metric; it can be 

accumulated over a single pulse, or 

calculated over periods containing 

multiple pulses. Cumulative SEL 

represents the total energy accumulated 

by a receiver over a defined time 

window or during an event. Peak sound 

pressure (also referred to as zero-to-peak 

sound pressure or 0-pk) is the maximum 

instantaneous sound pressure 

measurable in the water at a specified 

distance from the source and is 

represented in the same units as the rms 

sound pressure. 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in a manner similar 

to ripples on the surface of a pond and 

may be directed either in a beam or in 

beams or may radiate in all directions 

(omnidirectional sources). The 

compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound, which is defined as 

environmental background sound levels 

lacking a single source or point 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The sound 

level of a region is defined by the total 

acoustical energy being generated by 

known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging, 

construction) sound. A number of 

sources contribute to ambient sound, 

including wind and waves, which are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient sound for frequencies between 

200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In 

general, ambient sound levels tend to 

increase with increasing wind speed 

and wave height. Precipitation can 

become an important component of total 

sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, and 

possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 

times. Marine mammals can contribute 

significantly to ambient sound levels, as 

can some fish and snapping shrimp. The 

frequency band for biological 

contributions is from approximately 12 

Hz to over 100 kHz. Sources of ambient 

sound related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels), 

dredging and construction, oil and gas 

drilling and production, geophysical 

surveys, sonar, and explosions. Vessel 

noise typically dominates the total 

ambient sound for frequencies between 

20 and 300 Hz. In general, the 

frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are 

below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency 

sound levels are created, they attenuate 

rapidly. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources that 

comprise ambient sound at any given 

location and time depends not only on 

the source levels (as determined by 

current weather conditions and levels of 

biological and human activity) but on 

the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. Details of source types are 

described in the following text. 

Sounds are often considered to fall 

into one of two general types: Pulsed 

and non-pulsed (defined in the 

following). The distinction between 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
27586 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 

these two sound types is important 

because they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in 

Southall et al., 2007). Please see 

Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth 

discussion of these concepts. The 

distinction between these two sound 

types is not always obvious, as certain 

signals share properties of both pulsed 

and non-pulsed sounds. A signal near a 

source could be categorized as a pulse, 

but due to propagation effects as it 

moves farther from the source, the 

signal duration becomes longer (e.g., 

Greene and Richardson, 1988). 

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 

1998; NIOSH, 1998) and occur either as 

isolated events or repeated in some 

succession. Pulsed sounds are all 

characterized by a relatively rapid rise 

from ambient pressure to a maximal 

pressure value followed by a rapid 

decay period that may include a period 

of diminishing, oscillating maximal and 

minimal pressures, and generally have 

an increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995; 

NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonpulsed sounds can be transient signals 

of short duration but without the 

essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid 

rise time). Examples of non-pulsed 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems. 

The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

Sparkers and boomers produce pulsed 

signals with energy in the frequency 

ranges specified in Table 2. The 

amplitude of the acoustic wave emitted 

from sparker sources is equal in all 

directions (i.e., omnidirectional), while 

other sources planned for use during the 

proposed surveys have some degree of 

directionality to the beam, as specified 

in Table 2. Other sources planned for 

use during the proposed survey activity 

(e.g., CHIRP SBPs) should be considered 

non-pulsed, intermittent sources. 

Summary on Specific Potential Effects 

of Acoustic Sound Sources 

Underwater sound from active 

acoustic sources can include one or 

more of the following: temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment, 

behavioral disturbance, masking, stress, 

and non-auditory physical effects. The 

degree of effect is intrinsically related to 

the signal characteristics, received level, 

distance from the source, and duration 

of the sound exposure. Marine 

mammals exposed to high-intensity 

sound, or to lower-intensity sound for 

prolonged periods, can experience 

hearing threshold shift (TS), which is 

the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain 

frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS 

can be permanent (PTS; permanent 

threshold shift), in which case the loss 

of hearing sensitivity is not fully 

recoverable, or temporary (TTS; 

temporary threshold shift), in which 

case the animal’s hearing threshold 

would recover over time (Southall et al., 

2007). 

Animals in the vicinity of NEETMA’s 

proposed HRG survey activity are 

unlikely to incur even TTS due to the 

characteristics of the sound sources, 

which include relatively low source 

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

generally very short pulses and 

potential duration of exposure. These 

characteristics mean that instantaneous 

exposure is unlikely to cause TTS, as it 

is unlikely that exposure would occur 

close enough to the vessel for received 

levels to exceed peak pressure TTS 

criteria, and that the cumulative 

duration of exposure would be 

insufficient to exceed cumulative sound 

exposure level (SEL) criteria. Even for 

high-frequency cetacean species (e.g., 

harbor porpoises), which have the 

greatest sensitivity to potential TTS, 

individuals would have to make a very 

close approach and also remain very 

close to vessels operating these sources 

in order to receive multiple exposures at 

relatively high levels, as would be 

necessary to cause TTS. Intermittent 

exposures—as would occur due to the 

brief, transient signals produced by 

these sources—require a higher 

cumulative SEL to induce TTS than 

would continuous exposures of the 

same duration (i.e., intermittent 

exposure results in lower levels of TTS). 

Moreover, most marine mammals would 

more likely avoid a loud sound source 

rather than swim in such close 

proximity as to result in TTS. Kremser 

et al. (2005) noted that the probability 

of a cetacean swimming through the 

area of exposure when a sub-bottom 

profiler emits a pulse is small—because 

if the animal was in the area, it would 

have to pass the transducer at close 

range in order to be subjected to sound 

levels that could cause TTS and would 

likely exhibit avoidance behavior to the 

area near the transducer rather than 

swim through at such a close range. 

Further, the restricted beam shape of 

many of HRG survey devices planned 

for use (Table 2) makes it unlikely that 

an animal would be exposed more than 

briefly during the passage of the vessel. 

Behavioral disturbance may include a 

variety of effects, including subtle 

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

avoidance of an area or changes in 

vocalizations), more conspicuous 

changes in similar behavioral activities, 

and more sustained and/or potentially 

severe reactions, such as displacement 

from or abandonment of high-quality 

habitat. Behavioral responses to sound 

are highly variable and context-specific 

and any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors. 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. 

In addition, sound can disrupt 

behavior through masking, or interfering 

with, an animal’s ability to detect, 

recognize, or discriminate between 

acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those 

used for intraspecific communication 

and social interactions, prey detection, 

predator avoidance, navigation). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, 

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in 

origin. Marine mammal 

communications would not likely be 

masked appreciably by the acoustic 

signals given the directionality of the 

signals for most HRG survey equipment 

types planned for use (Table 2) and the 

brief period when an individual 

mammal is likely to be exposed. 

Classic stress responses begin when 

an animal’s central nervous system 

perceives a potential threat to its 

homeostasis. That perception triggers 

stress responses regardless of whether a 

stimulus actually threatens the animal; 

the mere perception of a threat is 

sufficient to trigger a stress response 

(Moberg 2000; Seyle 1950). Once an 

animal’s central nervous system 

perceives a threat, it mounts a biological 

response or defense that consists of a 

combination of the four general 

biological defense responses: Behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 27587 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses. In the case of many 

stressors, an animal’s first and 

sometimes most economical (in terms of 

biotic costs) response is behavioral 

avoidance of the potential stressor or 

avoidance of continued exposure to a 

stressor. An animal’s second line of 

defense to stressors involves the 

sympathetic part of the autonomic 

nervous system and the classical ‘‘fight 

or flight’’ response which includes the 

cardiovascular system, the 

gastrointestinal system, the exocrine 

glands, and the adrenal medulla to 

produce changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity 

that humans commonly associate with 

‘‘stress.’’ These responses have a 

relatively short duration and may or 

may not have significant long-term 

effect on an animal’s welfare. An 

animal’s third line of defense to 

stressors involves its neuroendocrine 

systems; the system that has received 

the most study has been the 

hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system 

(also known as the HPA axis in 

mammals). Unlike stress responses 

associated with the autonomic nervous 

system, virtually all neuro-endocrine 

functions that are affected by stress— 

including immune competence, 

reproduction, metabolism, and 

behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction 

(Moberg 1987; Rivier 1995), reduced 

immune competence (Blecha 2000), and 

behavioral disturbance. Increases in the 

circulation of glucocorticosteroids 

(cortisol, corticosterone, and 

aldosterone in marine mammals; see 

Romano et al., 2004) have been long 

been equated with stress. The primary 

distinction between stress (which is 

adaptive and does not normally place an 

animal at risk) and distress is the biotic 

cost of the response. In general, there 

are few data on the potential for strong, 

anthropogenic underwater sounds to 

cause non-auditory physical effects in 

marine mammals. The available data do 

not allow identification of a specific 

exposure level above which nonauditory effects can be expected 

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

no definitive evidence that any of these 

effects occur even for marine mammals 

in close proximity to an anthropogenic 

sound source. In addition, marine 

mammals that show behavioral 

avoidance of survey vessels and related 

sound sources are unlikely to incur nonauditory impairment or other physical 

effects. NMFS does not expect that the 

generally short-term, intermittent, and 

transitory HRG and geotechnical survey 

activities would create conditions of 

long-term, continuous noise and chronic 

acoustic exposure leading to long-term 

physiological stress responses in marine 

mammals. 

Sound may affect marine mammals 

through impacts on the abundance, 

behavior, or distribution of prey species 

(e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, 

and zooplankton) (i.e., effects to marine 

mammal habitat). Prey species exposed 

to sound might move away from the 

sound source, experience TTS, 

experience masking of biologically 

relevant sounds, or show no obvious 

direct effects. The most likely impacts 

(if any) for most prey species in a given 

area would be temporary avoidance of 

the area. Surveys using active acoustic 

sound sources move through an area, 

limiting exposure to multiple pulses. In 

all cases, sound levels would return to 

ambient once a survey ends and the 

noise source is shut down and, when 

exposure to sound ends, behavioral and/ 

or physiological responses are expected 

to end relatively quickly. Finally, the 

HRG survey equipment will not have 

significant impacts to the seafloor and 

does not represent a source of pollution. 

Vessel Strike 

Vessel collisions with marine 

mammals, or ship strikes, can result in 

death or serious injury of the animal. 

These interactions are typically 

associated with large whales, which are 

less maneuverable than are smaller 

cetaceans or pinnipeds in relation to 

large vessels. Ship strikes generally 

involve commercial shipping vessels, 

which are generally larger and of which 

there is much more traffic in the ocean 

than geophysical survey vessels. Jensen 

and Silber (2004) summarized ship 

strikes of large whales worldwide from 

1975–2003 and found that most 

collisions occurred in the open ocean 

and involved large vessels (e.g., 

commercial shipping). For vessels used 

in geophysical survey activities, vessel 

speed while towing gear is typically 

only 4–5 knots. At these speeds, both 

the possibility of striking a marine 

mammal and the possibility of a strike 

resulting in serious injury or mortality 

are so low as to be discountable. At 

average transit speed for geophysical 

survey vessels, the probability of serious 

injury or mortality resulting from a 

strike is less than 50 percent. However, 

the likelihood of a strike actually 

happening is again low given the 

smaller size of these vessels and 

generally slower speeds. Notably in the 

Jensen and Silber study, no strike 

incidents were reported for geophysical 

survey vessels during that time period. 

The potential effects of NEETMA’s 

specified survey activity are expected to 

be limited to Level B behavioral 

harassment. No permanent or temporary 

auditory effects, or significant impacts 

to marine mammal habitat, including 

prey, are expected. 

Marine Mammal Habitat 

The HRG survey equipment will not 

contact the seafloor and does not 

represent a source of pollution. As the 

HRG survey equipment introduces noise 

to the marine environment, there is the 

potential for it to result in avoidance of 

the area around the HRG survey 

activities on the part of marine mammal 

prey. Any avoidance of the area on the 

part of marine mammal prey would be 

expected to be short term and 

temporary. 

Because of the temporary nature of 

the disturbance, and the availability of 

similar habitat and resources (e.g., prey 

species) in the surrounding area, the 

impacts to marine mammals and the 

food sources that they utilize are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm consequences for individual 

marine mammals or their populations. 

Impacts on marine mammal habitat 

from the proposed activities will be 

temporary, insignificant, and 

discountable. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to noise from certain 

HRG acoustic sources. Based primarily 

on the characteristics of the signals 

produced by the acoustic sources 

planned for use, Level A harassment is 

neither anticipated (even absent 

mitigation), nor proposed to be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
27588 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 

authorized. Consideration of the 

anticipated effectiveness of the 

measures (i.e., exclusion zones and 

shutdown measures), discussed in detail 

below in the Proposed Mitigation 

section, further strengthens the 

conclusion that Level A harassment is 

not a reasonably anticipated outcome of 

the survey activity. As described 

previously, no serious injury or 

mortality is anticipated or proposed to 

be 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) 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 proposed take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS uses acoustic thresholds that 

identify the received level of 

underwater sound above which exposed 

marine mammals would be reasonably 

expected to be behaviorally harassed 

(equated to Level B harassment) or to 

incur PTS of some degree (equated to 

Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source (e.g., 

frequency, predictability, duty cycle), 

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

the receiving animals (hearing, 

motivation, experience, demography, 

behavioral context) and can be difficult 

to predict (Southall et al., 2007; Ellison 

et al., 2012). NMFS uses a generalized 

acoustic threshold based on received 

level to estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals may be behaviorally harassed 

(i.e., Level B harassment) when exposed 

to underwater anthropogenic noise 

above received levels of 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) for the impulsive sources (i.e., 

boomers, sparkers) and non-impulsive, 

intermittent sources (e.g., CHIRP SBPs) 

evaluated here for NEETMA’s proposed 

activity. 

Level A Harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). For more information, see 

NMFS’ 2018 Technical Guidance, which 

may be accessed at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

NEETMA’s proposed activity includes 

the use of impulsive (i.e., sparkers and 

boomers) and non-impulsive, 

intermittent (e.g., CHIRP SBP) sources. 

These can be found in Table 2. 

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. 

NMFS has developed a user-friendly 

methodology for estimating the extent of 

the Level B harassment isopleths 

associated with relevant HRG survey 

equipment (NMFS, 2020). This 

methodology incorporates frequency 

and directionality to refine estimated 

ensonified zones. For acoustic sources 

that operate with different beamwidths, 

the maximum beamwidth was used, and 

the lowest frequency of the source was 

used when calculating the frequencydependent absorption coefficient. 

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 

harassment thresholds. In cases when 

the source level for a specific type of 

HRG equipment is not provided in 

Crocker and Fratantonio (2016), NMFS 

recommends that either the source 

levels provided by the manufacturer be 

used, or, in instances where source 

levels provided by the manufacturer are 

unavailable or unreliable, a proxy from 

Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be used 

instead. Table 2 shows the HRG 

equipment types that may be used 

during the proposed surveys and the 

source levels associated with those HRG 

equipment types. 

Results of modeling using the 

methodology described above indicated 

that, of the HRG survey equipment 

planned for use by NEETMA that has 

the potential to result in Level B 

harassment of marine mammals, the 

Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark UHD and 

GeoMarine Geo-Source sparkers would 

produce the largest Level B harassment 

isopleth (141 m). Estimated Level B 

harassment isopleths for all sources 

evaluated here, including the sparkers, 

are provided in Table 5. Although 

NEETMA does not expect to use sparker 

sources on all planned survey days, it 

proposes to assume for purposes of 

analysis that the sparker would be used 

on all survey days. This is a 

conservative approach, as the actual 

sources used on individual survey days 

may produce smaller harassment 

distances. 

TABLE 5—DISTANCES TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

[160 dB rms] 

Equipment category HRG equipment 

Distance to 

level B 

harassment 

threshold in 

meters 

(m) 

Shallow SBPs ........................................... ET 216 CHIRP ............................................................................................................. 9 

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

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

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

Medium SBPs ........................................... AA, triple plate S-Boom (700–1,000 J) ........................................................................ 34 

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 27589 

TABLE 5—DISTANCES TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD—Continued 

[160 dB rms] 

Equipment category HRG equipment 

Distance to 

level B 

harassment 

threshold in 

meters 

(m) 

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

GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 (400 tip) ......................................................................... 141 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Habitat-based density models 

produced by the Duke University 

Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory 

and the Marine-life Data and Analysis 

Team, based on the best available 

marine mammal data from 1992–201 

obtained in a collaboration between 

Duke University, the Northeast Regional 

Planning Body, the University of North 

Carolina Wilmington, the Virginia 

Aquarium and Marine Science Center, 

and NOAA (Roberts et al., 2016a; 

Curtice et al., 2018), represent the best 

available information regarding marine 

mammal densities in the survey area. 

More recently, these data have been 

updated with new modeling results and 

include density estimates for pinnipeds 

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

The density data presented by Roberts 

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

incorporates aerial and shipboard linetransect survey data from NMFS and 

other organizations and incorporates 

data from eight physiographic and 16 

dynamic oceanographic and biological 

covariates, and controls for the 

influence of sea state, group size, 

availability bias, and perception bias on 

the probability of making a sighting. 

These density models were originally 

developed for all cetacean taxa in the 

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

subsequent years, certain models have 

been updated based on additional data 

as well as certain methodological 

improvements. More information is 

available online at https://

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

. Marine mammal density estimates in 

the survey area (animals/km2) were 

obtained using the most recent model 

results for all taxa (Roberts et al., 2016b, 

2017, 2018, 2020). The updated models 

incorporate additional sighting data, 

including sightings from NOAA’s 

Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for 

Protected Species (AMAPPS) surveys. 

For the exposure analysis, marine 

mammal density data from Roberts et al. 

(2016a; 2016b; 2017; 2018; 2020; 2021a; 

2021b) were mapped for the survey area 

using a geographic information system 

(GIS). NEETMA used all 10 x 10 km (6.2 

x 6.2 mile) grid cells (5 x 5 km (3.1 x 

3.1 mile) for the North Atlantic right 

whale) where the centroid was within 

each survey area in developing 

estimated density values for each 

species. For data in which the Roberts 

et al. data does not provide outputs at 

the species level (i.e., pilot whale spp. 

and pinnipeds) the single annual 

density was used. For all other species, 

the monthly densities were used to 

yield the average annual density. 

Bottlenose dolphin density estimates 

were also divided based on the specified 

stock. 

In the Roberts et al. (2016b, 2017, 

2018) models, species-specific 

delineations were not made for some 

marine mammals, including some 

pinniped species’ (harbor seal and gray 

seal) and for pilot whale spp. (longfinned and short-finned). For pilot 

whales, both species are known to share 

similar habitat in the project area, feed 

on similar prey, and have overlapping 

distributions (Mintzer et al., 2008; Rone 

and Pace, 2012). Hayes et al. (2017) 

noted a particular overlap between the 

two species between New Jersey and 

George’s Bank. Furthermore, due to 

their similar appearances at sea and 

difficulty in distinguishing speciesspecific characteristics, observers are 

likely to combine sightings of pilot 

whales (Waring, 1993; Rone and Pace, 

2012; Stepanuk et al., 2018). 

Regarding the pinniped species, 

because the seasonality, feeding 

preferences, and habitat use by gray 

seals often overlaps with that of harbor 

seals in the survey areas, it was assumed 

that modeled takes of seals could occur 

to either of the respective species. 

As discussed in the application, the 

single annual density for each marine 

mammal group (pilot whale spp. and 

pinnipeds) was applied and the results 

were divided between each species, 

resulting in an equal split. 

For the bottlenose dolphin densities, 

Roberts et al. (2016b, 2017, 2018) does 

not differentiate by stock. The Western 

North Atlantic northern migratory 

coastal stock is generally expected to 

occur only in coastal waters from the 

shoreline to approximately the 20-m 

(65-ft) isobath (Hayes et al., 2018). Both 

of these stocks have the potential to 

occur in the Northern and Southern 

survey areas. To account for the 

potential for mixed stocks within the 

survey areas, the densities of the two 

stocks were apportioned based on the 

20-m isobaths contour. Any grid cells in 

the Roberts et al. data that feel entirely 

inshore of the 20-m isobaths were 

assigned to the coastal migratory stock. 

Any grid cells that fell outside this 20- 

m isobaths were apportioned to the 

offshore stock. 

Densities from both of the survey sites 

were averaged annually to provide a 

density estimate for each species (Table 

6). Please see Table 6 for density values 

used in the exposure estimation process. 

Additional data regarding average group 

sizes from survey effort in the region 

was considered to ensure adequate take 

estimates are evaluated. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
27590 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 6—MAXIMUM SEASONAL MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES (NUMBER OF ANIMALS PER 100 KM2) IN THE NORTHERN AND

SOUTHERN SURVEY AREAS

Species groups Marine mammal species Stock 

Mean annual density (number 

of animals/100km2) a

Northern 

survey area 

Southern 

survey area 

Cetaceans ....................................... North Atlantic right whale ............... Western North Atlantic ................... 0.169 0.102 

Fin whale ........................................ Western North Atlantic ................... 0.154 0.058 

Sperm whale .................................. North Atlantic ................................. 0.017 0.002 

Humpback whale ........................... Gulf of Maine ................................. 0.042 0.040 

Common minke whale ................... Canadian East Coast ..................... 0.044 0.010 

Risso’s dolphin ............................... Western North Atlantic ................... 0.014 0.001 

Long-finned pilot whale .................. Western North Atlantic ................... 0.108 0.005 

Short-finned pilot whale ................. Western North Atlantic ................... 0.108 0.005 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ........... Western North Atlantic ................... 0.836 0.092 

Common dolphin (short-beaked) ... Western North Atlantic ................... 5.692 0.739 

Common bottlenose dolphin .......... Western North Atlantic—Offshore 2.616 8.158 

Western North Atlantic—Coastal 

Migratory.

14.203 33.409 

Atlantic spotted dolphin .................. Western North Atlantic ................... 0.129 0.004 

Harbor porpoise ............................. Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ........... 3.012 0.874 

Pinnipeds ........................................ Harbor seal .................................... Western North Atlantic ................... 1.690 1.226 

Gray seal ........................................ Western North Atlantic ................... 1.690 1.226 

aAll density data was derived from Roberts et al. (2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021a, and 2021b) 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

In order to estimate the number of 

marine mammals predicted to be 

exposed to sound levels that would 

result in harassment, radial distances to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to 

Level B harassment thresholds are 

calculated, as described above. The 

maximum distance (i.e., 141-m distance 

associated with the Medium SBPs) to 

the Level B harassment criterion and the 

estimated distance traveled per day by 

a given survey vessel (i.e., 62-km (38.5- 

mi)) are then used to calculate the daily 

ensonified area, or zone of influence 

(ZOI) around the survey vessel. 

NEETMA estimates that proposed 

surveys will achieve a maximum daily 

track line distance of 62 km per day (24- 

hour period) during proposed HRG 

surveys. This distance accounts for the 

vessel traveling at approximately 4- 

knots and accounts for non-active 

survey periods. Based on the maximum 

estimated distance to the Level B 

harassment threshold of 141-m (refer 

back to Table 5) and the maximum 

estimated daily track line distance of 62- 

km across both survey sites, an area of 

5,183.97-km2 would be ensonified to the 

Level B harassment threshold during 

NEETMA’s proposed surveys (Table 7) 

based on the following formula: 

Mobile Source ZOI = (Distance/day x 2r) 

+ pr2

Where: 

Distance/day = the maximum distance a 

survey vessel could travel in a 24-hour 

period; and 

r = the maximum radial distance from a given 

sound source to the NOAA Level B 

harassment thresholds. 

TABLE 7—ZOI FOR EACH TYPE OF REPRESENTATIVE HRG SURVEY EQUIPMENT

Equipment type 

Largest 

harassment 

isopleth in 

km (m); r 

Distance/ 

day in km 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Shallow SBP .............................................................................................................. 0.048 (48) 62 5.98 

Medium SBP (sparker) .............................................................................................. 0.141 (141) 17.61 

These calculated ZOIs were than 

input to yield the total ensonified area 

per day (in km2), as shown in Table 8 

below. 

TABLE 8—HRG SURVEY AREA DISTANCES FOR NEETMA’S PROPOSED PROJECT

HRG survey 

equipment type 

Specific equipment used Largest 

harassment 

isopleth; r 

(km) 

Survey 

distances per 

day 

(km)1

Calculated ZOI 

per day 

(km2) 

Shallow SBP ............ TB CHIRP III 0.048 62 5.98 

Medium (SBP) .......... AA, Dura-spark UHD 

(500 J/400 tip).

AA, Dura-spark UHD 

400+400.

GeoMarine Geo 

Spark 2000 (400 

tip).

0.141 17.61 

1Assumes 24-hours of survey activity during the proposed project. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 27591 

As described above, this is a 

conservative estimate as it assumes the 

HRG source that results in the greatest 

isopleth distance to the Level B 

harassment threshold would be 

operated at all times during the entire 

survey, which may not ultimately occur. 

The number of marine mammals 

expected to be incidentally taken per 

day is then calculated by estimating the 

number of each species predicted to 

occur within the daily ensonified area 

(animals/km2), incorporating the 

maximum seasonal estimated marine 

mammal densities as described above. 

Estimated numbers of each species 

taken per day across both survey sites 

are then multiplied by the total number 

of survey days (i.e., 320). The product is 

then rounded, to generate an estimate of 

the total number of instances of 

harassment expected for each species 

over the duration of the survey. A 

summary of this method is illustrated in 

the following formula with the resulting 

proposed take of marine mammals is 

shown below in Table 11: 

Estimated Take = D × ZOI × # of days 

Where: 

D = average species density (per km2); and 

ZOI = maximum daily ensonified area to 

relevant thresholds. 

TABLE 11—TOTAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT AND PERCENT OF POPULATION/STOCK PROPOSED FOR

NEETMA’S PROJECT

Marine mammal species Stock 

Calculated Level B take Proposed Level B take 

Northern 

survey area 

Southern 

survey area Proposed a % stock c

North Atlantic right whale .................. Western North Atlantic ..................... 7.40 0.83 8 2.17 

Fin whale ........................................... Western North Atlantic ..................... 6.73 0.47 7 0.10 

Sperm whale ..................................... North Atlantic .................................... 0.73 0.02 3 0.07 

Humpback whale .............................. Gulf of Maine .................................... 1.83 0.33 b 3 (6) b 0.21 (0.43) 

Common minke whale ...................... Canadian East Coast ....................... 1.92 0.08 2 0.01 

Risso’s dolphin .................................. Western North Atlantic ..................... 0.62 0.01 30 0.09 

Long-finned pilot whale ..................... Western North Atlantic ..................... 4.72 0.04 20 0.05 

Short-finned pilot whale .................... Western North Atlantic ..................... 4.72 0.04 20 0.07 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin .............. Western North Atlantic ..................... 36.52 0.76 37 0.04 

Common dolphin (short-beaked) ...... Western North Atlantic ..................... 248.52 6.04 255 0.15 

Common bottlenose dolphin ............. Western North Atlantic—Offshore .... 53.88 9.27 63 0.10 

Western North Atlantic—Coastal Migratory.325.25 235.27 561 8.45 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ..................... Western North Atlantic ..................... 5.61 0.03 100 0.25 

Harbor porpoise ................................ Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ............. 131.51 7.15 139 0.15 

Harbor seal ....................................... Western North Atlantic ..................... 73.77 10.02 84 0.14 

Gray seal ........................................... Western North Atlantic ..................... 73.77 10.02 84 0.31 

aAll of these values were requested by NEETMA, with exception for the value in parenthesis found for humpback whales. 

bThe values in parenthesis were a proposed adjustment by NMFS based on a proposed adjustment to account for higher recorded occurrences of humpback whales in the New York Bight area (see King et al., 2021). c Calculated percentages of population/stock were based on the population estimates (Nest) found in the NMFS’s draft 2021 U.S. Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessment on NMFS’s website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports). 

Adjustments have been made for 

sperm whales (Barkaszi and Kelly, 

2019), Risso’s dolphin (Baird et al., 

1991; Barkaszi and Kelly, 2019), pilot 

whales spp.(CETAP, 1982), and Atlantic 

spotted dolphins (Jefferson et al., 2008) 

based on typical group sizes due to 

estimated takes lower than the predicted 

group size. The take numbers shown in 

Table 11 represent those originally 

calculated and requested by NEETMA 

with minor modifications proposed by 

NMFS for one species. 

Based on recent information from 

King et al. (2021) that demonstrated that 

the humpback whale is commonly 

sighted along the New York Bight area, 

NMFS determined that the humpback 

whale take request may be too low given 

the occurrence of animals near the 

survey area. Because of this, NMFS 

proposes to increase the requested take 

to account for underestimates to the 

actual occurrence of this species within 

the density data. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
27592 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

NMFS proposes the following 

mitigation measures be implemented 

during NEETMA’s proposed marine site 

characterization surveys. Pursuant to 

section 7 of the ESA, NEETMA would 

also be required to adhere to relevant 

Project Design Criteria (PDC) of the 

NMFS’ Greater Atlantic Regional 

Fisheries Office (GARFO) programmatic 

consultation (specifically PDCs 4, 5, and 

7) regarding geophysical surveys along 

the U.S. Atlantic coast (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-englandmid-atlantic/consultations/section-7- 

take-reporting-programmatics-greateratlantic#offshore-wind-site-assessmentand-site-characterization-activitiesprogrammatic-consultation). 

Marine Mammal Exclusion Zones and 

Harassment Zones 

Marine mammal exclusion zones (EZ) 

would be established around the HRG 

survey equipment and monitored by 

NMFS-approved protected species 

observers (PSOs): 

• 500 m EZ for North Atlantic right 

whales during use of specified acoustic 

sources (sparkers, boomers, and nonparametric sub-bottom profilers). 

• 100 m EZ for all other 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-Start Clearance 

Marine mammal clearance zones 

would be established around the HRG 

survey equipment and monitored by 

protected species observers (PSOs): 

• 500 m for all ESA-listed marine 

mammals; and, 

• 100 m for all other marine 

mammals. 

NEETMA would implement a 30- 

minute pre-start clearance period prior 

to the initiation of ramp-up of specified 

HRG equipment (see exception to this 

requirement in the Shutdown 

Procedures section below). During this 

period, clearance zones 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 

clearance zone. If a marine mammal is 

observed within a clearance zone during 

the pre-start clearance period, ramp-up 

may not begin until the animal(s) has 

been observed exiting its respective 

exclusion zone or until an additional 

time period has elapsed with no further 

sighting (i.e., 15 minutes for small 

odontocetes and seals, and 30 minutes 

for all other species). 

Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment 

A ramp-up procedure, involving a 

gradual increase in source level output, 

is required at all times as part of the 

activation of the acoustic source when 

technically feasible. The ramp-up 

procedure would be used at the 

beginning of HRG survey activities in 

order to provide additional protection to 

marine mammals near the survey area 

by allowing them to vacate the area 

prior to the commencement of survey 

equipment operation at full power. 

Operators should ramp up sources to 

half power for 5 minutes and then 

proceed to full power. 

Ramp-up activities will be delayed if 

a marine mammal(s) enters its 

respective exclusion zone. Ramp-up 

will continue if the animal has been 

observed exiting its respective exclusion 

zone or until an additional time period 

has elapsed with no further sighting 

(i.e., 15 minutes for small odontocetes 

and seals and 30 minutes for all other 

species). 

Ramp-up may occur at times of poor 

visibility, including nighttime, if 

appropriate visual monitoring has 

occurred with no detections of marine 

mammals in the 30 minutes prior to 

beginning ramp-up. Acoustic source 

activation may only occur at night 

where operational planning cannot 

reasonably avoid such circumstances. 

Shutdown Procedures 

An immediate shutdown of the 

impulsive HRG survey equipment 

would be required if a marine mammal 

is sighted entering or within its 

respective exclusion zone. The vessel 

operator must comply immediately with 

any call for shutdown by the Lead PSO. 

Any disagreement between the Lead 

PSO and vessel operator should be 

discussed only after shutdown has 

occurred. Subsequent restart of the 

survey equipment can be initiated if the 

animal has been observed exiting its 

respective exclusion zone or until an 

additional time period has elapsed (i.e., 

15 minutes for harbor porpoise, 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 

(refer back to Table 5), shutdown would 

occur. 

If the acoustic source is shut down for 

reasons other than mitigation (e.g., 

mechanical difficulty) for less than 30 

minutes, it may be activated again 

without ramp-up if PSOs have 

maintained constant observation and no 

detections of any marine mammal have 

occurred within the respective 

exclusion zones. If the acoustic source 

is shut down for a period longer than 30 

minutes, then pre-clearance and rampup procedures will be initiated as 

described in the previous section. 

The shutdown requirement would be 

waived for pinnipeds and for small 

delphinids of the following genera: 

Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, Stenella, 

and Tursiops. 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 is detected in the 

exclusion zone and belongs to a genus 

other than those specified. 

Shutdown, pre-start clearance, and 

ramp-up procedures are not required 

during HRG survey operations using 

only non-impulsive sources (e.g., 

echosounders) other than nonparametric sub-bottom profilers (e.g., 

CHIRPs). 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

NEETMA must adhere to the 

following measures except in the 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. 

• 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 27593 

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. 

• Members of the monitoring team 

will consult NMFS North Atlantic right 

whale reporting system and WhaleAlert 

(http://www.whalealert.org), 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 

survey area during the survey, the 

vessels will abide by speed restrictions 

in the DMA. 

• All survey vessels, regardless of 

size, must observe a 10-knot speed 

restriction in specific areas designated 

by NMFS for the protection of North 

Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes 

including seasonal management areas 

(SMAs) and dynamic management areas 

(DMAs) when in effect; 

• All vessels greater than or equal to 

19.8 m in overall length operating from 

November 1 through April 30 will 

operate at speeds of 10 knots or less at 

all times; 

• 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 and other ESA-listed 

large whales; 

• If a whale is observed but cannot be 

confirmed as a species other than a right 

whale or other ESA-listed large 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 non-ESA listed 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. 

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 preliminarily determined that 

the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on marine mammal 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and, 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Proposed Monitoring Measures 

Visual monitoring will be performed 

by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, the 

resumes of whom will be provided to 

NMFS for review and approval prior to 

the start of survey activities. NEETMA 

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. Section 5 

of the draft IHA contains further details 

regarding PSO approval. 

The PSOs will be responsible for 

monitoring the waters surrounding each 

survey vessel to the farthest extent 

permitted by sighting conditions, 

including exclusion zones, during all 

HRG survey operations. PSOs will 

visually monitor and identify marine 

mammals, including those approaching 

or entering the established exclusion 

zones during survey activities. It will be 

the responsibility of the Lead PSO on 

duty to communicate the presence of 

marine mammals as well as to 

communicate the action(s) that are 

necessary to ensure mitigation and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
27594 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 

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 4 consecutive hours 

followed by a break of at least 2 hours 

between watches and may conduct a 

maximum of 12 hours of observation per 

24-hr period. In cases where multiple 

vessels are surveying concurrently, any 

observations of marine mammals would 

be communicated to PSOs on all nearby 

survey vessels. 

PSOs must be equipped with 

binoculars and have the ability to 

estimate distance and bearing to detect 

marine mammals, particularly in 

proximity to exclusion zones. 

Reticulated binoculars must also be 

available to PSOs for use as appropriate 

based on conditions and visibility to 

support the sighting and monitoring of 

marine mammals. During nighttime 

operations, night-vision goggles with 

thermal clip-ons and infrared 

technology would be used. Position data 

would be recorded using hand-held or 

vessel GPS units for each sighting. 

During good conditions (e.g., daylight 

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

to the maximum extent practicable, 

PSOs would also conduct observations 

when the acoustic source is not 

operating for comparison of sighting 

rates and behavior with and without use 

of the active acoustic sources. Any 

observations of marine mammals by 

crew members aboard any vessel 

associated with the survey would be 

relayed to the PSO team. Data on all 

PSO observations would be recorded 

based on standard PSO collection 

requirements. This would include dates, 

times, and locations of survey 

operations; dates and times of 

observations, location and weather; 

details of marine mammal sightings 

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

details of any observed marine mammal 

behavior that occurs (e.g., noted 

behavioral disturbances). 

Proposed Reporting Measures 

Within 90 days after completion of 

survey activities or expiration of this 

IHA, whichever comes sooner, a draft 

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. A final report must be 

submitted within 30 days following 

resolution of any comments on the draft 

report. All draft and final marine 

mammal and acoustic monitoring 

reports must be submitted to 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and ITP.Potlock@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-start clearance 

survey, ramp-up, shutdown, end of 

operations, etc.). 

If a marine mammal is sighted, the 

following information should be 

recorded: 

• Watch status (sighting made by PSO 

on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, 

alternate vessel/platform); 

• PSO who sighted the animal; 

• Time of sighting; 

• Vessel location at time of sighting; 

• Water depth; 

• Direction of vessel’s travel (compass 

direction); 

• Direction of animal’s travel relative 

to the vessel; 

• Pace of the animal; 

• 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, 

NEETMA 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 NEETMA personnel 

discover an injured or dead marine 

mammal, NEETMA will report the 

incident to the NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR) and the 

NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic 

Stranding Coordinator (978–282–8478 

or 978–281–9291) 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); 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 27595 

• 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, NEETMA would report the 

incident to the NMFS OPR and the 

NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic 

Stranding Coordinator (978–282–8478 

or 978–281–9291) as soon as feasible. 

The report would include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Vessel’s course/heading and what 

operations were being conducted (if 

applicable); 

• Status of all sound sources in use; 

• Description of avoidance measures/ 

requirements that were in place at the 

time of the strike and what additional 

measures were taken, if any, to avoid 

strike; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, visibility) 

immediately preceding the strike; 

• Estimated size and length of animal 

that was struck; 

• Description of the behavior of the 

marine mammal immediately preceding 

and following the strike; 

• If available, description of the 

presence and behavior of any other 

marine mammals immediately 

preceding the strike; 

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

dead, injured but alive, injured and 

moving, blood or tissue observed in the 

water, status unknown, disappeared); 

and 

• To the extent practicable, 

photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. NMFS also assesses 

the number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, our analysis 

applies to all the species listed in Table 

3 given that NMFS expects the 

anticipated effects of the proposed 

survey to be similar in nature. Where 

there are meaningful differences 

between species or stocks—as is the 

case of the North Atlantic right whale— 

they are included as separate 

subsections below. NMFS does not 

anticipate that serious injury or 

mortality would occur as a result from 

HRG surveys, even in the absence of 

mitigation, and no serious injury or 

mortality is proposed to be authorized. 

As discussed in the Potential Effects of 

Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat section, 

non-auditory physical effects and vessel 

strike are not expected to occur. NMFS 

expects that all potential takes would be 

in the form of short-term Level B 

behavioral harassment in the form of 

temporary avoidance of the area or 

decreased foraging (if such activity was 

occurring), reactions that are considered 

to be of low severity and with no lasting 

biological consequences (e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007). Even repeated Level B 

harassment of some small subset of an 

overall stock is unlikely to result in any 

significant realized decrease in viability 

for the affected individuals, and thus 

would not result in any adverse impact 

to the stock as a whole. As described 

above, Level A harassment is not 

expected to occur given the nature of 

the operations and the estimated size of 

the Level A harassment zones. 

In addition to being temporary, the 

maximum expected harassment zone 

around a survey vessel is 141 m. 

Although this distance is assumed for 

all survey activities in estimating take 

numbers proposed for authorization and 

evaluated here, in reality much of the 

survey activity would involve use of 

non-impulsive acoustic sources with a 

reduced acoustic harassment zone of 48 

m, producing expected effects of 

particularly low severity. Therefore, the 

ensonified area surrounding each vessel 

is relatively small compared to the 

overall distribution of the animals in the 

area and their use of the habitat. 

Feeding behavior is not likely to be 

significantly impacted as prey species 

are mobile and are broadly distributed 

throughout the survey area; therefore, 

marine mammals that may be 

temporarily displaced during survey 

activities are expected to be able to 

resume foraging once they have moved 

away from areas with disturbing levels 

of underwater noise. Because of the 

temporary nature of the disturbance and 

the availability of similar habitat and 

resources in the surrounding area, the 

impacts to marine mammals and the 

food sources that they utilize are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm consequences for individual 

marine mammals or their populations. 

There are no rookeries, mating or 

calving grounds known to be 

biologically important to marine 

mammals within the proposed survey 

area and there are no feeding areas 

known to be biologically important to 

marine mammals within the proposed 

survey area. There is no designated 

critical habitat for any ESA-listed 

marine mammals in the proposed 

survey area. 

North Atlantic Right Whales 

The status of the North Atlantic right 

whale population is of heightened 

concern and, therefore, merits 

additional analysis. As noted 

previously, elevated North Atlantic right 

whale mortalities began in June 2017 

and there is an active UME. Overall, 

preliminary findings support human 

interactions, specifically vessel strikes 

and entanglements, as the cause of 

death for the majority of right whales. 

As noted previously, the proposed 

survey area overlaps a migratory 

corridor BIA for North Atlantic right 

whales. Due to the fact that the 

proposed survey activities are 

temporary and the spatial extent of 

sound produced by the survey would be 

very small relative to the spatial extent 

of the available migratory habitat in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
27596 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 

BIA, right whale migration is not 

expected to be impacted by the 

proposed survey. Given the relatively 

small size of the ensonified area, it is 

unlikely that prey availability would be 

adversely affected by HRG survey 

operations. Required vessel strike 

avoidance measures will also decrease 

risk of ship strike during migration; no 

ship strike is expected to occur during 

NEETMA’s proposed activities. 

Additionally, only very limited take by 

Level B harassment of North Atlantic 

right whales has been requested and is 

being proposed for authorization by 

NMFS as HRG survey operations are 

required to maintain a 500 m EZ and 

shutdown if a North Atlantic right 

whale is sighted at or within the EZ. 

The 500 m shutdown zone for right 

whales is conservative, considering the 

Level B harassment isopleth for the 

most impactful acoustic source (i.e., 

sparker) is estimated to be 141 m, and 

thereby minimizes the potential for 

behavioral harassment of this species. 

As noted previously, Level A 

harassment is not expected due to the 

small PTS zones associated with HRG 

equipment types proposed for use. 

NMFS does not anticipate North 

Atlantic right whales takes that would 

result from NEETMA’s proposed 

activities would impact annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. Thus, any takes 

that occur would not result in 

population level impacts. 

Other Marine Mammal Species With 

Active UMEs 

As noted previously, there are several 

active UMEs occurring in the vicinity of 

NEETMA’s proposed survey area. 

Elevated humpback whale mortalities 

have occurred along the Atlantic coast 

from Maine through Florida since 

January 2016. Of the cases examined, 

approximately half had evidence of 

human interaction (ship strike or 

entanglement). The UME does not yet 

provide cause for concern regarding 

population-level impacts. Despite the 

UME, the relevant population of 

humpback whales (the West Indies 

breeding population, or DPS) remains 

stable at approximately 12,000 

individuals. 

Beginning in January 2017, elevated 

minke whale strandings have occurred 

along the Atlantic coast from Maine 

through South Carolina, with highest 

numbers in Massachusetts, Maine, and 

New York. This event does not provide 

cause for concern regarding population 

level impacts, as the likely population 

abundance is greater than 20,000 

whales. 

The required mitigation measures are 

expected to reduce the number and/or 

severity of proposed takes for all species 

listed in Table 3, including those with 

active UMEs, to the level of least 

practicable adverse impact. In particular 

they would provide animals the 

opportunity to move away from the 

sound source throughout the survey 

area before HRG survey equipment 

reaches full energy, thus preventing 

them from being exposed to sound 

levels that have the potential to cause 

injury (Level A harassment) or more 

severe Level B harassment. No Level A 

harassment is anticipated, even in the 

absence of mitigation measures, or 

proposed for authorization. 

NMFS expects that takes would be in 

the form of short-term Level B 

behavioral harassment by way of brief 

startling reactions and/or temporary 

vacating of the area, or decreased 

foraging (if such activity was 

occurring)—reactions that (at the scale 

and intensity anticipated here) are 

considered to be of low severity, with 

no lasting biological consequences. 

Since both the sources and marine 

mammals are mobile, animals would 

only be exposed briefly to a small 

ensonified area that might result in take. 

Additionally, required mitigation 

measures would further reduce 

exposure to sound that could result in 

more severe behavioral harassment. 

Biologically Important Areas for Other 

Species 

As previously discussed, impacts 

from the proposed project are expected 

to be localized to the specific area of 

activity and only during periods of time 

where NEETMA’s acoustic sources are 

active. While areas of biological 

importance to fin whales, humpback 

whales, and harbor seals can be found 

off the coast of New Jersey and New 

York, NMFS does not expect this 

proposed action to affect these areas. 

These important areas are found outside 

of the range of this survey area, as is the 

case with fin whales and humpback 

whales (BIAs found further north), and, 

therefore, not expected to be impacted 

by NEETMA’s proposed survey 

activities. 

There are three major haul-out sites 

exist for harbor seals along New Jersey, 

including at Great Bay, Sand Hook, and 

Barnegat Inlet (CWFNJ, 2015). As 

hauled out seals would be out of the 

water, no in-water effects are expected. 

Preliminary Determinations 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or proposed for 

authorization; 

• No Level A harassment is 

anticipated, even in the absence of 

mitigation measures, or proposed for 

authorization; 

• Foraging success is not likely to be 

significantly impacted as effects on 

species that serve as prey species for 

marine mammals from the survey are 

expected to be minimal; 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the planned survey 

to avoid exposure to sounds from the 

activity; 

• Take is anticipated to be by Level 

B behavioral harassment only, 

consisting of brief startling reactions 

and/or temporary avoidance of the 

survey area; 

• While the survey area is within 

areas noted as a migratory BIA for North 

Atlantic right whales, the activities 

would occur in such a comparatively 

small area such that any avoidance of 

the survey area due to activities would 

not affect migration. In addition, 

mitigation measures require shutdown 

at 500 m (almost four times the size of 

the Level B harassment isopleth (141 

m)), which minimizes the effects of the 

take on the species; and, 

• The proposed mitigation measures, 

including visual monitoring and 

shutdowns, are expected to minimize 

potential impacts to marine mammals. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures, NMFS preliminarily 

finds that the total marine mammal take 

from the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Notices 27597 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

NMFS proposes to authorize 

incidental take of 15 marine mammal 

species (with 16 managed stocks). The 

total amount of takes proposed for 

authorization relative to the best 

available population abundance is less 

than 8.5 percent for all stocks which 

NMFS preliminarily finds are small 

numbers of marine mammals relative to 

the estimated overall population 

abundances for those stocks. Refer back 

to Table 3. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR) consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

NMFS is authorizing the incidental take 

of four species of marine mammals 

which are listed under the ESA, 

including the North Atlantic right, fin, 

and sperm whale, and has determined 

that these activities fall within the scope 

of activities analyzed 107 in GARFO’s 

programmatic consultation regarding 

geophysical surveys along the U.S. 

Atlantic coast in the three Atlantic 

Renewable Energy Regions (completed 

June 29, 2021; revised September 2021). 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to NEETMA for conducting 

high-resolution site characterization 

surveys off New Jersey for one year from 

the date of issuance, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. A draft of the 

proposed IHA can be found at https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed marine site 

characterization surveys. We also 

request at this time comment on the 

potential Renewal of this proposed IHA 

as described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform decisions on the request for 

this IHA or a subsequent Renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, one-year Renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice would not be completed by the 

time the IHA expires and a Renewal 

would allow for completion of the 

activities beyond that described in the 

Dates and Duration section of this 

notice, provided all of the following 

conditions are met: 

• A request for Renewal is received 

no later than 60 days prior to the needed 

Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the Renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond one year from 

expiration of the initial IHA). 

• The request for Renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

Renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take). 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

Upon review of the request for 

Renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: May 4, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09917 Filed 5–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB882] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Tugs Towing 

Drill Rig in Cook Inlet, Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorizations; request for 

comments on proposed authorizations. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from Hilcorp Alaska LLC (Hilcorp) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to tugboats towing a drill rig 

in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Pursuant to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue two successive 

incidental harassment authorizations 

(IHAs) to incidentally take marine 

mammals during the specified activities. 

NMFS is also requesting comments on 

a possible one-time, one-year renewal 

that could be issued under certain 

circumstances and if all requirements 

are met, as described in Request for 

Public Comments at the end of this 

notice. NMFS will consider public 

comments prior to making any final 

decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than June 8, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES