33730 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 1—TAKE ANALYSIS

Species Authorized 

take 1 Abundance 2 Percent abundance 

Rice’s whale ................................................................................................................................. 0 51 n/a 

Sperm whale ................................................................................................................................ 263 2,207 11.9 

Kogia spp. .................................................................................................................................... 3 99 4,373 2.3 

Beaked whales ............................................................................................................................ 1,161 3,768 30.8 

Rough-toothed dolphin ................................................................................................................ 200 4,853 4.1 

Bottlenose dolphin ....................................................................................................................... 946 176,108 0.5 

Clymene dolphin .......................................................................................................................... 562 11,895 4.7 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ............................................................................................................... 378 74,785 0.5 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ......................................................................................................... 2,549 102,361 2.5 

Spinner dolphin ............................................................................................................................ 683 25,114 2.7 

Striped dolphin ............................................................................................................................. 219 5,229 4.2 

Fraser’s dolphin ........................................................................................................................... 63 1,665 3.9 

Risso’s dolphin ............................................................................................................................. 165 3,764 4.4 

Melon-headed whale ................................................................................................................... 369 7,003 5.3 

Pygmy killer whale ....................................................................................................................... 87 2,126 4.1 

False killer whale ......................................................................................................................... 138 3,204 4.3 

Killer whale .................................................................................................................................. 0 267 n/a 

Short-finned pilot whale ............................................................................................................... 107 1,981 5.4 

1Scalar ratios were not applied in this case due to brief survey duration. 

2Best abundance estimate. For most taxa, the best abundance estimate for purposes of comparison with take estimates is considered here to 

be the model-predicted abundance (Roberts et al., 2016). For those taxa where a density surface model predicting abundance by month was 

produced, the maximum mean seasonal abundance was used. For those taxa where abundance is not predicted by month, only mean annual 

abundance is available. For the killer whale, the larger estimated SAR abundance estimate is used. 3 Includes 5 takes by Level A harassment and 94 takes by Level B harassment. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of LLOG’s proposed survey 

activity described in its LOA 

application and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the affected species 

or stock sizes and therefore is of no 

more than small numbers. 

Authorization 

NMFS has determined that the level 

of taking for this LOA request is 

consistent with the findings made for 

the total taking allowable under the 

incidental take regulations and that the 

amount of take authorized under the 

LOA is of no more than small numbers. 

Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to 

LLOG authorizing the take of marine 

mammals incidental to its geophysical 

survey activity, as described above. 

Dated: May 27, 2022. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11850 Filed 6–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XC026] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Marine Site 

Characterization Surveys Off of 

Coastal Virginia 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

Virginia Electric and Power Company 

doing business as Dominion Energy 

Virginia (Dominion Energy) to 

incidentally harass marine mammals 

during marine site characterization 

surveys off of Virginia in support of the 

Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind 

Commercial (CVOW) Project. 

DATES: This Authorization is effective 

from May 27, 2022 to May 26, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leah Davis, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

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

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 33731 

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. 

Summary of Request 

On September 30, 2021, NMFS 

received a request from Dominion 

Energy for an IHA to take marine 

mammals incidental to marine site 

characterization surveys off of Virginia. 

Dominion Energy submitted revised 

applications on December 3, 2021, 

January 21, 2022 and March 2, 2022 in 

response to comments from NMFS. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on March 8, 2022. Dominion 

Energy’s request is for take of a small 

number of 14 species of marine 

mammals by Level B harassment only. 

Neither Dominion Energy nor NMFS 

expects serious injury or mortality to 

result from this activity and, therefore, 

an IHA is appropriate. 

NMFS previously issued IHAs to 

Dominion Energy for similar and related 

work in the same general area (85 FR 

55415; September 8, 2020 (modified on 

December 17, 2020 (85 FR 81879) and 

April 22, 2021 (86 FR 21298)), 85 FR 

30930; May 21, 2020, and 83 FR 39062; 

August 8, 2018). Dominion Energy 

complied with all the requirements (e.g., 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of 

the previous IHAs and information 

regarding their monitoring results may 

be found in the Estimated Take section. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

As part of its overall marine site 

characterization survey operations, 

Dominion Energy plans to conduct highresolution geophysical (HRG) surveys in 

the Lease Area and along the Offshore 

Export Cable Corridor (OECC) off the 

coast of Virginia. 

The purpose of the surveys is to locate 

and identify potential unexploded 

ordnance (UXO) in support of the 

Dominion Energy Coastal Virginia 

Offshore Wind Commercial Project. 

Underwater sound resulting from 

Dominion Energy’s planned site 

characterization survey activities, 

specifically HRG surveys, has the 

potential to result in incidental take of 

marine mammals in the form of 

behavioral harassment. 

Table 1 identifies the representative 

survey equipment with the expected 

potential to result in exposure of marine 

mammals and potentially result in take. 

The make and model of the listed 

geophysical equipment may vary 

depending on availability and the final 

equipment choices will vary depending 

on the final survey design, vessel 

availability, and survey contractor 

selection. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE HRG EQUIPMENT

System Representative equipment a

Operating 

frequency 

(kHz) 

RMS 

source 

level 

(dB re 1 μPA 

m) 

Peak 

source 

level 

(dB re 1 μPA 

m) 

Primary 

beam 

width 

(degrees) 

Pulse 

duration 

(millisecond) 

Multibeam 

Echosounder.

R2Sonics 2026 ....................... 170–450 b 191 b 221 0.45 × 0.45–1 × 1 .. 0.015–1.115 

Medium Penetration 

Seismic.

Geo Marine Dual 400 Sparker 

800J.

0.3–1.2 c 203 c 212 Omnidirectional ...... 0.5–0.8 

Applied Acoustics S-Boom 

(Triple Plate Boomer 1000J).

0.5–3.5 d 203 d 213 e 60 ......................... 10 

a Make/model of equipment may vary depending on availability. Will be finalized as part of the survey preparations and contract negotiations 

with the survey contractor. b Reported by manufacturer. 

cBased on data from Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) for the Applied Acoustics Dura Spark. 

dBased on data from Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) for the Applied Acoustics S-Boom with CS. 

eThe beam width was based on data from Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) for the Applied Acoustics S-Boom. dB re 1 μPa m—decibels referenced to 1 microPascal at 1 meter. 

Required mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Mitigation and Monitoring and 

Reporting). 

A detailed description of the planned 

survey is provided in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (87 

FR 19864; April 6, 2022). Since that 

time, no changes have been made to 

Dominion Energy’s planned survey 

activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not provided here. Please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

the description of the specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA to Dominion Energy was 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 6, 2022 (87 FR 19864). That 

proposed notice described, in detail, 

Dominion Energy’s activities, the 

marine mammal species that may be 

affected by the activities, and the 

anticipated effects on marine mammals. 

In that notice, we requested public 

input on the request for authorization 

described therein, our analyses, the 

proposed authorization, and any other 

aspect of the notice of proposed IHA, 

and requested that interested persons 

submit relevant information, 

suggestions, and comments. This 

proposed notice was available for a 30- 

day public comment period. 

NMFS received letters from Oceana 

and Southern Environmental Law 

Center (SELC) and one comment from a 

private citizen. Summaries of all 

substantive comments, and our 

responses to these comments, are 

provided here. Please see the comment 

letters, available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-dominionenergy-marine-site-characterizationsurveys-coastal, for full detail regarding 

the comments received. 

Comment 1: Oceana made comments 

objecting to NMFS’ renewal process 

regarding the extension of any one-year 

IHA with a truncated 15-day public 

comment period, and suggested an 

additional 30-day public comment 

period is necessary for any renewal 

request. 

Response: NMFS’ IHA renewal 

process meets all statutory 

requirements. In prior responses to 

comments about IHA renewals (e.g., 84 

FR 52464; October 2, 2019 and 85 FR 

53342, August 28, 2020), NMFS has 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
33732 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 

explained how the renewal process, as 

implemented, is consistent with the 

statutory requirements contained in 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, and 

further, promotes NMFS’ goals of 

improving conservation of marine 

mammals and increasing efficiency in 

the MMPA compliance process. 

Therefore, we intend to continue 

implementing the renewal process. 

In particular, we emphasize that any 

Renewal IHA does have a 30-day public 

comment period, and in fact, each 

Renewal IHA is made available for a 45- 

day public comment period. The notice 

of the proposed IHA published in the 

Federal Register on April 6, 2022 (87 FR 

19864) made clear that NMFS was 

seeking comment on the proposed IHA 

and the potential issuance of a renewal 

for this survey. As detailed in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA and on the agency’s website, any 

renewal is limited to another year of 

identical or nearly identical activities in 

the same location or the same activities 

that were not completed within the 1- 

year period of the initial IHA. NMFS’ 

analysis of the anticipated impacts on 

marine mammals caused by the 

applicant’s activities covers both the 

Initial IHA period and the possibility of 

a one-year Renewal. Therefore a 

member of the public considering 

commenting on a proposed Initial IHA 

also knows exactly what activities (or 

subset of activities) would be included 

in a proposed Renewal IHA, the 

potential impacts of those activities, the 

maximum amount and type of take that 

could be caused by those activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

that would be required, and the basis for 

the agency’s negligible impact 

determinations, least practicable 

adverse impact findings, small numbers 

findings, and (if applicable) the no 

unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence use finding—all the 

information needed to provide complete 

and meaningful comments on a possible 

Renewal at the time of considering the 

proposed Initial IHA. Reviewers have 

the information needed to meaningfully 

comment on both the immediate 

proposed IHA and a possible 1-year 

renewal, should the IHA holder choose 

to request one. 

While there would be additional 

documents submitted with a renewal 

request, for a qualifying renewal these 

would be limited to documentation that 

NMFS would make available and use to 

verify that the activities are identical to 

those in the initial IHA, are nearly 

identical such that the changes would 

have either no effect on impacts to 

marine mammals or decrease those 

impacts, or are a subset of activities 

already analyzed and authorized but not 

completed under the initial IHA. NMFS 

would also need to confirm, among 

other things, that the activities would 

occur in the same location; involve the 

same species and stocks; provide for 

continuation of the same mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements; 

and that no new information has been 

received that would alter the prior 

analysis. The renewal request would 

also contain a preliminary monitoring 

report, in order to verify that effects 

from the activities do not indicate 

impacts of a scale or nature not 

previously analyzed. The additional 15- 

day public comment period, which 

includes NMFS’ direct notice to anyone 

who commented on the proposed Initial 

IHA, provides the public an opportunity 

to review these few documents, provide 

any additional pertinent information 

and comment on whether they think the 

criteria for a renewal have been met. 

Between the initial 30-day comment 

period on these same activities and the 

additional 15 days, the total comment 

period for a renewal is 45 days. 

In addition to the IHA renewal 

process being consistent with all 

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

it is also consistent with Congress’ 

intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent 

reflected in statements in the legislative 

history of the MMPA. Through the 

provision for renewals in the 

regulations, description of the process 

and express invitation to comment on 

specific potential renewals in the 

Request for Public Comments section of 

each proposed IHA, the description of 

the process on NMFS’ website, further 

elaboration on the process through 

responses to comments such as these, 

posting of substantive documents on the 

agency’s website, and provision of 30 or 

45 days for public review and comment 

on all proposed initial IHAs and 

Renewals respectively, NMFS has 

ensured that the public is ‘‘invited and 

encouraged to participate fully in the 

agency’s decision-making process’’, as 

Congress intended. 

Comment 2: Oceana stated that NMFS 

must utilize the best available science, 

and suggested that NMFS has not done 

so, specifically referencing information 

regarding the North Atlantic right whale 

such as updated population estimates, 

habitat usage in the survey area, and 

seasonality information. Oceana 

specifically asserted that NMFS is not 

using the best available science with 

regards to the North Atlantic right whale 

population estimate and state that 

NMFS should be using the estimate of 

336 individuals presented in the recent 

North Atlantic Right Whale Report Card 

(https://www.narwc.org/reportcards.html). 

Response: While NMFS agrees that 

the best available science should be 

used for assessing North Atlantic right 

whale abundance estimates, we disagree 

that the North Atlantic Right Whale 

Report Card (i.e., Pettis et al. (2022)) 

study represents the most recent and 

best available estimate for North 

Atlantic right whale abundance. Rather 

the revised abundance estimate (368; 95 

percent with a confidence interval of 

356–378) published by Pace (2021) (and 

subsequently included in the 2021 draft 

Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports)), which was used in the 

proposed IHA, provides the most recent 

and best available estimate, and 

introduced improvements to NMFS’ 

right whale abundance model. 

Specifically, Pace (2021) looked at a 

different way of characterizing annual 

estimates of age-specific survival. NMFS 

considered all relevant information 

regarding North Atlantic right whale, 

including the information cited by the 

commenters. However, NMFS relies on 

the SAR. Recently (after publication of 

the notice of proposed IHA), NMFS 

updated its species web page to 

recognize the population estimate for 

North Atlantic right whales is now 

below 350 animals (https://

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

this information will be presented in the 

draft 2022 SAR. We note that this 

change in abundance estimate would 

not change the estimated take of North 

Atlantic right whales or authorized take 

numbers, nor affect our ability to make 

the required findings under the MMPA 

for Dominion Energy’s survey activities. 

NMFS further notes that the 

commenters seem to be conflating the 

phrase ‘‘best available data’’ with ‘‘the 

most recent data.’’ The MMPA specifies 

that the ‘‘best available data’’ must be 

used, which does not always mean the 

most recent. As is NMFS’ prerogative, 

we referenced the best available NARW 

abundance estimate of 368 from the 

draft 2021 SARs as NMFS’ 

determination of the best available data 

that we relied on in our analysis. The 

Pace (2021) results strengthened the 

case for a change in mean survival rates 

after 2010–2011, but did not 

significantly change other current 

estimates (population size, number of 

new animals, adult female survival) 

derived from the model. Furthermore, 

NMFS notes that the SARs are peer 

reviewed by other scientific review 

groups prior to being finalized and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 33733 

published and that the North Atlantic 

Right Whale Report Card (Pettis et al., 

2022) does not undertake this process. 

NMFS considered the best available 

science regarding both recent habitat 

usage patterns for the study area and upto-date seasonality information in the 

notice of the proposed IHA, including 

consideration of existing BIAs and 

densities provided by Roberts et al. 

(2021). While the commenter has 

suggested that NMFS consider best 

available information for recent habitat 

usage patterns and seasonality, it has 

not offered any additional information 

which it suggests should be considered 

best available information in place of 

what NMFS considered in its notice of 

proposed IHA (87 FR 19864; April 6, 

2022). 

Lastly, as we stated in the notice of 

proposed IHA (87 FR 19864; April 6, 

2022), any impacts to marine mammals 

are expected to be temporary and minor 

and, given the relative size of the survey 

area compared to the overall migratory 

route leading to foraging habitat (which 

is not affected by the specified activity). 

Comparatively, the survey area is 

extremely small (approximately 4,000 

km2) compared to the size of the NARW 

migratory BIA (269,448 km2). Because of 

this, and in context of the minor, lowlevel nature of the impacts expected to 

result from the planned survey, such 

impacts are not expected to result in 

disruption to biologically important 

behaviors. 

Comment 3: Oceana noted that 

chronic stressors are an emerging 

concern for NARW conservation and 

recovery, and stated that chronic stress 

may result in energetic effects for North 

Atlantic right whales. Oceana suggested 

that NMFS has not fully considered 

both the use of the area and the effects 

of both acute and chronic stressors on 

the health and fitness of North Atlantic 

right whales, as disturbance responses 

in North Atlantic right whales could 

lead to chronic stress or habitat 

displacement, leading to an overall 

decline in their health and fitness. 

Response: NMFS agrees with Oceana 

that both acute and chronic stressors are 

of concern for North Atlantic right 

whale conservation and recovery. We 

recognize that acute stress from acoustic 

exposure is one potential impact of 

these surveys, and that chronic stress 

can have fitness, reproductive, etc. 

impacts at the population-level scale. 

NMFS has carefully reviewed the best 

available scientific information in 

assessing impacts to marine mammals, 

and recognizes that the surveys have the 

potential to impact marine mammals 

through behavioral effects, stress 

responses, and auditory masking. 

However, NMFS does not expect that 

the generally short-term, intermittent, 

and transitory marine site 

characterization survey activities 

planned by Dominion Energy will create 

conditions of acute or chronic acoustic 

exposure leading to long-term 

physiological stress responses in marine 

mammals. NMFS has also prescribed a 

robust suite of mitigation measures, 

including extended distance shutdowns 

for North Atlantic right whale, that are 

expected to further reduce the duration 

and intensity of acoustic exposure, 

while limiting the potential severity of 

any possible behavioral disruption. The 

potential for chronic stress was 

evaluated in making the determinations 

presented in NMFS’ negligible impact 

analyses. Because North Atlantic right 

whales generally use this location in a 

transitory manner, specifically for 

migration, any potential impacts from 

these surveys are lessened for other 

behaviors due to the brief periods where 

exposure is possible. In context of these 

expected low-level impacts, which are 

not expected to meaningfully affect 

important behavior, we also refer again 

to the large size of the migratory 

corridor compared with the survey area 

(the overlap between the BIA and the 

proposed survey area will cover 

approximately 4,000 km2 of the 269,448 

km2 BIA). Thus, the transitory nature of 

North Atlantic right whales at this 

location means it is unlikely for any 

exposure to cause chronic effects, as 

Dominion Energy’s planned survey area 

and ensonified zones are much smaller 

than the overall migratory corridor. As 

such, NMFS does not expect acute or 

cumulative stress to be a detrimental 

factor to North Atlantic right whales 

from Dominion Energy’s described 

survey activities. 

Comment 4: Oceana asserted that 

NMFS must fully consider the discrete 

effects of each activity and the 

cumulative effects of the suite of 

approved, proposed and potential 

activities on marine mammals and 

North Atlantic right whales in particular 

and ensure that the cumulative effects 

are not excessive before issuing or 

renewing an IHA. In a related comment, 

the SELC stated that in proceeding with 

this IHA and all incidental take 

authorizations for future offshore wind 

energy development off the East Coast, 

NMFS should analyze the cumulative 

risk to North Atlantic right whales and 

other marine mammal species posed by 

these multiple projects and leasing 

phases, including as it relates to 

development of mitigation measures. 

Response: Neither the MMPA nor 

NMFS’ codified implementing 

regulations call for consideration of 

other unrelated activities and their 

impacts on populations. The preamble 

for NMFS’ implementing regulations (54 

FR 40338; September 29, 1989) states in 

response to comments that the impacts 

from other past and ongoing 

anthropogenic activities are to be 

incorporated into the negligible impact 

analysis via their impacts on the 

baseline. Consistent with that direction, 

NMFS has factored into its negligible 

impact analysis the impacts of other 

past and ongoing anthropogenic 

activities via their impacts on the 

baseline, e.g., as reflected in the density/ 

distribution and status of the species, 

population size and growth rate, and 

other relevant stressors. The 1989 final 

rule for the MMPA implementing 

regulations also addressed public 

comments regarding cumulative effects 

from future, unrelated activities. There 

NMFS stated that such effects are not 

considered in making findings under 

section 101(a)(5) concerning negligible 

impact. In this case, this IHA, as well as 

other IHAs currently in effect or 

proposed within the specified 

geographic region, are appropriately 

considered an unrelated activity relative 

to the others. The IHAs are unrelated in 

the sense that they are discrete actions 

under section 101(a)(5)(D), issued to 

discrete applicants. 

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

requires NMFS to make a determination 

that the take incidental to a ‘‘specified 

activity’’ will have a negligible impact 

on the affected species or stocks of 

marine mammals. NMFS’ implementing 

regulations require applicants to include 

in their request a detailed description of 

the specified activity or class of 

activities that can be expected to result 

in incidental taking of marine mammals. 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(1). Thus, the 

‘‘specified activity’’ for which incidental 

take coverage is being sought under 

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

and described by the applicant. Here, 

Dominion Energy was the applicant for 

the IHA, and we are responding to the 

specified activity as described in that 

application (and making the necessary 

findings on that basis). 

Through the response to public 

comments in the 1989 implementing 

regulations, NMFS also indicated (1) 

that we would consider cumulative 

effects that are reasonably foreseeable 

when preparing a NEPA analysis, and 

(2) that reasonably foreseeable 

cumulative effects would also be 

considered under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) for ESAlisted species, as appropriate. 

Accordingly, NMFS has written 

Environmental Assessments (EA) that 

addressed cumulative impacts related to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
33734 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 

substantially similar activities, in 

similar locations, e.g., the 2019 

Avangrid EA for survey activities 

offshore North Carolina and Virginia; 

the 2017 Ocean Wind, LLC EA for site 

characterization surveys off New Jersey; 

and the 2018 Deepwater Wind EA for 

survey activities offshore Delaware, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. 

Cumulative impacts regarding issuance 

of IHAs for site characterization survey 

activities such as those planned by 

Dominion Energy have been adequately 

addressed under NEPA in prior 

environmental analyses that support 

NMFS’ determination that this action is 

appropriately categorically excluded 

from further NEPA analysis. NMFS 

independently evaluated the use of a 

categorical exclusion (CE) for issuance 

of Dominion Energy’s IHA, which 

included consideration of extraordinary 

circumstances. 

Separately, the cumulative effects of 

substantially similar activities in the 

northwest Atlantic Ocean have been 

analyzed in the past under section 7 of 

the ESA when NMFS has engaged in 

formal intra-agency consultation, such 

as the 2013 programmatic Biological 

Opinion for BOEM Lease and Site 

Assessment Rhode Island, 

Massachusetts, New York, and New 

Jersey Wind Energy Areas (https://

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

29291). Analyzed activities include 

those for which NMFS issued previous 

IHAs (82 FR 31562; July 7, 2017, 85 FR 

21198; April 16, 2020 and 86 FR 26465; 

May 10, 2021), which are similar to 

those planned by Dominion Energy 

under this current IHA request. This 

Biological Opinion determined that 

NMFS’ issuance of IHAs for site 

characterization survey activities 

associated with leasing, individually 

and cumulatively, are not likely to 

adversely affect listed marine mammals. 

NMFS notes, that while issuance of this 

IHA is covered under a different 

consultation, this BiOp remains valid. 

Comment 5: The SELC recommends 

that NMFS reinitiate its consultation 

under the ESA, stating that it relies on 

outdated scientific information about 

the North Atlantic right whale and fails 

to include mitigation measures that 

meet the ESA’s requirements. It says 

that NMFS should instead require in the 

Final IHA the measures found in 

Attachment 5 of its comment letter. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with 

SELC’s assertion that reinitiation of its 

ESA section 7 consultation is warranted, 

as none of the reinitiation triggers listed 

in NMFS’ 2021 programmatic 

consultation have been met. Regarding 

the mitigation measures included in the 

2021 programmatic consultation, NMFS 

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 

Office (GARFO) has determined that 

activities which were considered in its 

2021 programmatic consultation are not 

likely to adversely affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals, provided that the 

required Project Design Criteria (PDC) 

are implemented. This IHA requires 

Dominion Energy to abide by the 

relevant PDCs. Please see the response 

to Comment 6 and other relevant 

comments regarding the appropriateness 

of the measures in Attachment 5 to 

SELC’s comment letter. 

Comment 6: The SELC recommends 

that NMFS require the mitigation 

measures described in Attachment 5 of 

its letter in the Final IHA. NMFS has 

summarized the remaining 

recommendations from Attachment 5 

here. Please refer to Attachment 5 to 

SELC’s letter for the full recommended 

measures. SELC recommends that 

NMFS: (1) Prohibit site assessment and 

site characterization activities during 

times of highest risk. (2) Require diel 

restrictions on site assessment and 

characterization activities. (3) Require 

the clearance zone and exclusion zone 

distances stated in Attachment 5 prior 

to activities known to injure or harass 

large whales. (4) Require shutdown of 

activities if a large whale is detected 

visually or acoustically. (5) Require 

robust monitoring protocols during preclearance and when site assessment and 

characterization activities are underway. 

(6) Require mandatory vessel speed 

restrictions. (7) Implement other vesselrelated measures. (8) Require 

underwater noise reduction to the 

fullest extent feasible. (9) Require 

mandatory reporting of all North 

Atlantic right whale and other large 

whale detections. 

Response: Responses below refer to 

the corresponding number in the 

comment. 

(1) Given the very minor degree to 

which North Atlantic right whales are 

anticipated to be impacted by this 

activity (see the Estimated Take and 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination sections for additional 

detail), it is not appropriate to prohibit 

survey activities during certain times. 

However, as described in the Mitigation 

section of this notice, the IHA does 

include mitigation measures related to 

vessel transit that are required during 

certain times when North Atlantic right 

whales are anticipated to occur in the 

project area in higher numbers. Further, 

the IHA requires that members of the 

monitoring team consult NMFS North 

Atlantic right whale reporting system 

and Whale Alert, as able, for the 

presence of North Atlantic right whales 

throughout survey operations, and for 

the establishment of a DMA. If NMFS 

should establish a DMA in the survey 

area during the survey, vessels must 

abide by speed restrictions in the DMA. 

Please also see NMFS’ response to 

Comment 14. 

(2) Please see NMFS’ response to 

Comment 8. 

(3) Please see NMFS’ response to 

Comment 16. 

(4) Please see NMFS’ response to 

Comment 18. 

(5) Regarding the recommendation to 

conduct acoustic monitoring, please 

refer to Comment 17. Further, as also 

recommended by the commenter, PSOs 

stationed on a survey vessel must be 

able to view the entire exclusion or 

clearance zone, and monitoring must 

begin at least 30 minutes prior to the 

commencement or re-activation after a 

shutdown. NMFS requires that visual 

monitoring must continue until 30 

minutes after use of the specified 

acoustic source ceases. However, NMFS 

disagrees with the commenter’s 

recommendation to require at least 4 

PSOs (rotating two on duty, two off 

duty). Rather, the IHA requires a 

minimum of one PSO on duty, per 

source vessel, during daylight hours and 

two PSOs must be on duty, per source 

vessel, during nighttime hours, and 

expects that these PSOs will be able to 

sufficiently monitor the zones. NMFS 

disagrees with the commenter that a 

1,000 m clearance zone for North 

Atlantic right whales and other large 

whale species is appropriate. Please see 

NMFS’ response to Comment 16 for 

additional explanation. 

(6) Please see NMFS’ response to 

Comment 10 that describes why it has 

not required a 10-knot speed restriction 

at all times. Further, Dominion Energy 

has not developed a peer-reviewed 

‘‘Adaptive Plan’’ that is proven to be 

equally or more effective than a 10-knot 

speed restriction, nor does NMFS find 

such a plan to be warranted, given that 

the factors described in Comment 10 in 

support of the vessel speed restriction 

requirements included in the IHA. 

(7) The IHA states that visual 

observers monitoring the vessel strike 

avoidance zone may be third-party 

observers (i.e., PSOs) or crew members, 

but crew members responsible for these 

duties must be provided sufficient 

training to (1) distinguish marine 

mammals 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 mammals. While this 

requirement does not include ‘‘all 

personnel working offshore’’ as 

recommended by the commenter, it 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 33735 

includes all relevant personnel who 

may be responsible for vessel strike 

avoidance. 

Regarding vessel separation zones, 

NMFS requires a 500 m separation 

distance for ESA-listed whales (North 

Atlantic right whale and fin whale), 

which aligns with the commenter’s 

recommendation for North Atlantic 

right whale, and is more conservative 

than the commenter’s recommendation 

(100 m) for fin whales. For all other 

large whales, the final IHA requires a 

vessel separation distance of 100 m, as 

also recommended by the commenter 

and as was included in the proposed 

IHA. As needed, vessels must take 

action to maintain these separation 

distances. During nighttime 

observations, PSOs will use thermal 

imaging devices. Regarding the 

recommendation for crew transport 

vessels to use thermal imaging devices, 

Dominion Energy’s survey plans do not 

require additional vessels for crew 

transport, and therefore, this 

recommendation has not been included 

in the IHA. 

(8) Please see NMFS’ response to 

Comment 7. 

(9) Please see NMFS’ response to 

Comment 15. 

Comment 7: Oceana states that NMFS 

must make an assessment of which 

activities, technologies and strategies 

are truly necessary to achieve site 

characterization to inform development 

of the offshore wind projects and which 

are not critical, asserting that NMFS 

should prescribe the appropriate survey 

techniques. In general, Oceana and the 

SELC stated that NMFS must require 

that all IHA applicants minimize the 

impacts of underwater noise to the 

fullest extent feasible, including through 

the use of best available technology and 

methods to minimize sound levels from 

geophysical surveys such as through the 

use of technically and commercially 

feasible and effective noise reduction 

and attenuation measures. SELC states 

that for example, project proponents 

should select and operate sub-bottom 

profiling systems at power settings that 

achieve the lowest practicable source 

level for the objective. 

Response: The MMPA requires that an 

IHA include measures that will effect 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

the affected species and stocks and, in 

practice, NMFS agrees that the IHA 

should include conditions for the 

survey activities that will first avoid 

adverse effects on North Atlantic right 

whales in and around the survey site, 

where practicable, and then minimize 

the effects that cannot be avoided. 

NMFS has determined that the IHA 

meets this requirement to effect the least 

practicable adverse impact. As part of 

the analysis for all marine site 

characterization survey IHAs, NMFS 

evaluated the effects expected as a result 

of the specified activity, made the 

necessary findings, and prescribed 

mitigation requirements sufficient to 

achieve the least practicable adverse 

impact on the affected species and 

stocks of marine mammals. It is not 

within NMFS’ purview to make 

judgments regarding what may be 

appropriate techniques or technologies 

for an operator’s survey objectives. 

Comment 8: SELC recommends that 

NMFS prohibit initiation of site 

characterization activities within 1.5 

hours of civil sunset or in times of low 

visibility when the visual clearance and 

exclusion zones cannot be visually 

monitored. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

commenter that prohibiting initiation of 

site characterization activities within 

1.5 hours of civil sunset or in times of 

low visibility when the visual clearance 

and exclusion zones cannot be visually 

monitored is warranted. 

NMFS acknowledges the limitations 

inherent in detection of marine 

mammals at night and in times of low 

visibility. However, no injury is 

expected to result even in the absence 

of mitigation, given the characteristics 

of the sources planned for use 

(supported by the very small estimated 

Level A harassment zones; i.e., <54 m 

for all impulsive sources). Regarding 

Level B harassment, any potential 

impacts will be limited to short-term 

behavioral responses, as described in 

the Potential Effects of Specified 

Activities on Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat section of the notice of 

proposed IHA (87 FR 19864; April 6, 

2022) and the Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination section of 

this notice. NMFS considers impacts 

from this category of survey operations 

to be near de minimis, with the 

potential for Level A harassment for any 

species to be discountable and the 

severity of Level B harassment (and, 

therefore, the impacts of the take event 

on the affected individual), if any, to be 

low. Commenters provide no evidence 

to the contrary. NMFS is also requiring 

Dominion Energy to employ two PSOs 

during nighttime hours and Dominion 

Energy must supply at least one thermal 

(infrared) imaging device suited for the 

marine environment. Given these 

factors, NMFS has determined that more 

restrictive mitigation requirements are 

not warranted. 

Restricting surveys in the manner 

suggested by the commenters may 

reduce marine mammal exposures by 

some degree in the short term, but 

would not result in any significant 

reduction in either intensity or duration 

of noise exposure. Vessels would also 

potentially be on the water for an 

extended time introducing additional 

noise into the marine environment. The 

restrictions recommended by the 

commenters could result in the surveys 

spending increased time on the water, 

which may result in greater overall 

exposure to sound for marine mammals; 

thus the commenters have not 

demonstrated that such a requirement 

would result in a net benefit. 

Furthermore, restricting the ability of 

the applicant to begin surveys within 

1.5 hours of civil sunset would have the 

potential to result in lengthy shutdowns 

of the survey equipment, which could 

result in the applicant failing to collect 

the data they have determined is 

necessary and, subsequently, the need 

to conduct additional surveys in the 

future. This would result in 

significantly increased costs incurred by 

the applicant. Thus, the restriction 

suggested by the commenters would not 

be practicable for the applicant to 

implement. In consideration of the 

likely effects of the activity on marine 

mammals absent mitigation, potential 

unintended consequences of the 

measures as proposed by the 

commenters, and practicability of the 

recommended measures for the 

applicant, NMFS has determined that 

restricting operations as recommended 

is not warranted or practicable in this 

case. 

Comment 9: Oceana suggests that 

PSOs complement their survey efforts 

using additional technologies, such as 

infrared detection devices when in lowlight conditions. 

Response: NMFS agrees with Oceana 

regarding this suggestion and a 

requirement to utilize a thermal 

(infrared) device during low-light 

conditions was included in the 

proposed Federal Register Notice. That 

requirement is included as a 

requirement of the issued IHA. 

Comment 10: Oceana and the SELC 

recommended that NMFS restrict all 

vessels of all sizes associated with the 

proposed survey activities to speeds less 

than 10 knots (kn) at all times due to the 

risk of vessel strikes to North Atlantic 

right whales and other large whales. 

Response: While NMFS acknowledges 

that vessel strikes can result in injury or 

mortality, we have analyzed the 

potential for vessel strike resulting from 

Dominion Energy’s activity and have 

determined that based on the nature of 

the activity and the required mitigation 

measures specific to vessel strike 

avoidance included in the IHA, 

potential for vessel strike is so low as to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
33736 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 

be discountable. The required 

mitigation measures, all of which were 

included in the proposed IHA and are 

now required in the final IHA, include: 

A requirement that all vessel operators 

comply with 10 kn (18.5 km/hour) or 

less speed restrictions in any SMA, 

DMA or Slow Zone while underway, 

and check daily for information 

regarding the establishment of 

mandatory or voluntary vessel strike 

avoidance areas (SMAs, DMAs, Slow 

Zones) and information regarding 

NARW sighting locations; a requirement 

that all vessels greater than or equal to 

19.8 m in overall length operating from 

November 1 through April 30 operate at 

speeds of 10 kn (18.5 km/hour) or less; 

a requirement that all vessel operators 

reduce vessel speed to 10 kn (18.5 km/ 

hour) or less when any large whale, any 

mother/calf pairs, pods, or large 

assemblages of non-delphinid cetaceans 

are observed near the vessel; a 

requirement that all survey vessels 

maintain a separation distance of 500 m 

or greater from any ESA-listed whales or 

other unidentified large marine 

mammals visible at the surface while 

underway; a requirement that, if 

underway, vessels must steer a course 

away from any sighted ESA-listed whale 

at 10 kn or less until the 500 m 

minimum separation distance has been 

established; a requirement that, if an 

ESA-listed whale is sighted in a vessel’s 

path, or within 500 m of an underway 

vessel, the underway vessel must reduce 

speed and shift the engine to neutral; a 

requirement that all vessels underway 

must maintain a minimum separation 

distance of 100 m from all non-ESAlisted baleen whales; and a requirement 

that all vessels underway must, to the 

maximum extent practicable, attempt to 

maintain a minimum separation 

distance of 50 m from all other marine 

mammals, with an understanding that at 

times this may not be possible (e.g., for 

animals that approach the vessel). We 

have determined that the vessel strike 

avoidance measures in the IHA are 

sufficient to ensure the least practicable 

adverse impact on species or stocks and 

their habitat. Furthermore, no 

documented vessel strikes have 

occurred for any marine site 

characterization surveys which were 

issued IHAs from NMFS during the 

survey activities themselves or while 

transiting to and from survey sites. 

Comment 11: Oceana suggests that 

NMFS require vessels maintain a 

separation distance of at least 500 m 

from North Atlantic right whales at all 

times. 

Response: NMFS agrees with Oceana 

regarding this suggestion and a 

requirement to maintain a separation 

distance of at least 500 m from North 

Atlantic right whales at all times was 

included in the proposed Federal 

Register Notice and was included as a 

requirement in the issued IHA. 

Comment 12: Oceana recommended 

that the IHA should require all vessels 

supporting site characterization to be 

equipped with and using Class A 

Automatic Identification System (AIS) 

devices at all times while on the water. 

Oceana suggested this requirement 

should apply to all vessels, regardless of 

size, associated with the survey. 

Response: NMFS is generally 

supportive of the idea that vessels 

involved with survey activities be 

equipped with and using Class A 

Automatic Identification System 

(devices) at all times while on the water. 

Indeed, there is a precedent for NMFS 

requiring such a stipulation for 

geophysical surveys in the Atlantic 

Ocean (38 FR 63268, December 7, 2018); 

however, these activities carried the 

potential for much more significant 

impacts than the marine site 

characterization surveys to be carried 

out by Dominion Energy, with the 

potential for both Level A and Level B 

harassment take. Given the small 

isopleths and small numbers of take 

authorized by this IHA, NMFS does not 

agree that the benefits of requiring AIS 

on all vessels associated with the survey 

activities outweighs and warrants the 

cost and practicability issues associated 

with this requirement. 

Comment 13: Oceana asserts that the 

IHA must include requirements to hold 

all vessels associated with site 

characterization surveys accountable to 

the IHA requirements, including vessels 

owned by the developer, contractors, 

employees, and others regardless of 

ownership, operator, and contract. They 

state that exceptions and exemptions 

will create enforcement uncertainty and 

incentives to evade regulations through 

reclassification and redesignation. They 

recommend that NMFS simplify this by 

requiring all vessels to abide by the 

same requirements, regardless of size, 

ownership, function, contract or other 

specifics. 

Response: NMFS agrees with Oceana 

and required these measures in the 

proposed IHA and final IHA. The IHA 

requires that a copy of the IHA must be 

in the possession of Dominion Energy, 

the vessel operators, the lead PSO, and 

any other relevant designees of 

Dominion Energy operating under the 

authority of this IHA. The IHA also 

states that Dominion Energy must 

ensure that the vessel operator and other 

relevant vessel personnel, including the 

Protected Species Observer (PSO) team, 

are briefed on all responsibilities, 

communication procedures, marine 

mammal monitoring protocols, 

operational procedures, and IHA 

requirements prior to the start of survey 

activity, and when relevant new 

personnel join the survey operations. 

Comment 14: The SELC recommends 

that NMFS prohibit site characterization 

activities that have the potential to 

injure or harass North Atlantic right 

whales (defined in its letter as sources 

operating at frequencies between 7 and 

35 kHz) from November 1 to April 30. 

Response: NMFS appreciates the 

value of seasonal restrictions under 

certain circumstances. However, in this 

case, we have determined seasonal 

restrictions from April 1 to November 

30 are not warranted, given the 

relatively low density of North Atlantic 

right whales in the area, the nature of 

the proposed activities, and the required 

mitigation measures. As described in 

response to Comment 16, Dominion 

Energy is required to implement 

clearance and exclusion zones of 500 m 

for North Atlantic right whales. This 

500 m zone exceeds the modeled 

distance to the largest 160 dB Level B 

harassment isopleth (141 m during 

sparker use) by a substantial margin. 

Further, Level A harassment (auditory 

injury) is not expected to result even in 

the absence of mitigation, given the 

characteristics of the sources planned 

for use. 

Comment 15: Oceana stated that the 

IHA must include a requirement for all 

phases of the site characterization to 

subscribe to the highest level of 

transparency, including frequent 

reporting to federal agencies. Oceana 

and SELC recommend requirements to 

report all visual and acoustic detections 

of North Atlantic right whales and any 

dead, injured, or entangled marine 

mammals to NMFS or the Coast Guard 

as soon as possible and no later than the 

end of the PSO shift. SELC also 

recommends the Marine Animal 

Response Team as a potential 

organization for reporting of entangled 

or dead North Atlantic right whales or 

other large whales. Oceana states that to 

foster stakeholder relationships and 

allow public engagement and oversight 

of the permitting, the IHA should 

require all reports and data to be 

accessible on a publicly available 

website. Related, SELC recommends 

that quarterly reports of PSO sighting 

data be made publicly available. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the need 

for reporting and indeed, the MMPA 

calls for IHAs to incorporate reporting 

requirements. However, NMFS does not 

concur with the suggestion that 

Dominion Energy should submit 

quarterly PSO sightings data reports, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 33737 

and that these reports be made publicly 

available. As included in the proposed 

IHA, the final IHA includes 

requirements for reporting that supports 

Oceana’s recommendations. Dominion 

Energy is required to submit a 

monitoring report to NMFS within 90 

days after completion of survey 

activities that fully documents the 

methods and monitoring protocols, 

summarizes the data recorded during 

monitoring. PSO datasheets or raw 

sightings data must also be provided 

with the draft and final monitoring 

report. SELC did not provide specific 

examples regarding how making PSO 

sightings data publicly available on a 

quarterly basis would inform marine 

mammal science and protection in any 

meaningful way on this timescale. 

Further, the draft IHA and final IHA 

stipulate that if a North Atlantic right 

whale is observed at any time by any 

survey vessels, during surveys or during 

vessel transit, Dominion Energy must 

immediately report sighting information 

to the NMFS North Atlantic Right 

Whale Sighting Advisory System within 

two hours of occurrence, when 

practicable, or no later than 24 hours 

after occurrence. Dominion Energy may 

also report the sighting to the U.S. Coast 

Guard. Additionally, Dominion Energy 

must report any discoveries of injured 

or dead marine mammals to the Office 

of Protected Resources, NMFS, and to 

the New England/Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. This includes entangled 

animals. All reports and associated data 

submitted to NMFS are included on the 

website for public inspection. 

Daily visual and acoustic detections 

of North Atlantic right whales and other 

large whale species along the Eastern 

Seaboard, as well as Slow Zone 

locations, are publicly available on 

WhaleMap (https://whalemap.org/ 

WhaleMap/). Further, recent acoustic 

detections of North Atlantic right 

whales and other large whale species 

are available to the public on NOAA’s 

Passive Acoustic Cetacean Map website 

https://apps-nefsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

pacm/#/narw. Given the open access to 

the resources described above, NMFS 

does not concur that public access to 

quarterly PSO reports is warranted and 

we have not included this measure in 

the authorization. 

Comment 16: The SELC 

recommended that for site 

characterization activities that have the 

potential to injure or harass North 

Atlantic right whales, NMFS require a 

visual clearance and exclusion zone of 

at least 1,000 m for North Atlantic right 

whales and 500 m for all large whale 

species around each vessel conducting 

activities with noise levels that could 

result in injury to or harassment of large 

whales, and also require an acoustic 

clearance and exclusion zone of at least 

1,000 m for North Atlantic right whales 

around each vessel conducting activities 

with noise levels that could harass 

North Atlantic right whales. SELC states 

that if a large whale is detected within 

the 1000 m clearance zone but the 

species cannot be identified, it must be 

assumed to be a North Atlantic right 

whale. Similarly, Oceana recommended 

increasing the Exclusion Zone to 

1,000m for North Atlantic right whales. 

Response: NMFS notes that the 500 m 

Exclusion Zone for North Atlantic right 

whales exceeds the modeled distance to 

the largest 160 dB Level B harassment 

isopleth (141 m during sparker use) by 

a substantial margin. Commenters do 

not provide a compelling rationale for 

why the Exclusion Zone should be even 

larger. Given that these surveys are 

relatively low impact and that, 

regardless, NMFS has prescribed a 

North Atlantic right whale Exclusion 

Zone that is significantly larger (500 m) 

than the conservatively estimated 

largest harassment zone (141 m), NMFS 

has determined that the Exclusion Zone 

is appropriate. Regarding the clearance 

zone, the SELC did not provide a 

compelling reason why the 

recommended clearance zones are 

warranted. The IHA already requires a 

clearance zone of 500 m for ESA-listed 

marine mammals (which includes all 

large whales, except humpback and 

minke whales), which like the 

Exclusion Zones, are much larger than 

the Level B harassment zone for all 

activities (the largest of which is 141 m, 

as noted above). For all other marine 

mammals, the 100 m clearance zone is 

significantly larger than the calculated 

Level A harassment zones, and it 

incorporates most or all of the Level B 

harassment zones, including the largest 

Level B harassment zone of 141 m. 

Further, Level A harassment is not 

expected to result even in the absence 

of mitigation, given the characteristics 

of the sources planned for use. 

Regarding the use of acoustic 

monitoring to implement exclusion and 

clearance zones, NMFS does not 

anticipate that acoustic monitoring 

would be effective for a variety of 

reasons, as described in its response to 

Comment 17, and therefore has not 

required it in this IHA. Please refer to 

Comment 17 for additional information. 

As described in the Mitigation section, 

NMFS has determined that the 

prescribed mitigation requirements are 

sufficient to effect the least practicable 

adverse impact on all affected species or 

stocks. 

Comment 17: Oceana recommended 

that NMFS should require Passive 

Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) at all times 

to maximize the probability of detection 

for North Atlantic right whales. It 

provided recommendations that NMFS 

should require PAM at all times, both 

day and night, to maximize the 

probability of detection for North 

Atlantic right whales, as well as other 

species and stocks. In a related 

comment, the SELC recommended that 

applicants use PAM to assist in 

implementing clearance and exclusion 

zones for North Atlantic right whales. 

Response: The commenters do not 

explain why they expect that PAM 

would be effective in detecting 

vocalizing mysticetes, nor does NMFS 

agree that this measure is warranted, as 

it is not expected to be effective for use 

in detecting the species of concern. It is 

generally accepted that, even in the 

absence of additional acoustic sources, 

using a towed passive acoustic sensor to 

detect baleen whales (including North 

Atlantic right whales) is not typically 

effective because the noise from the 

vessel, the flow noise, and the cable 

noise are in the same frequency band 

and will mask the vast majority of 

baleen whale calls. Vessels produce 

low-frequency noise, primarily through 

propeller cavitation, with main energy 

in the 5–300 Hertz (Hz) frequency range. 

Source levels range from about 140 to 

195 decibel (dB) re 1 mPa (micropascal) 

at 1 m (NRC, 2003; Hildebrand, 2009), 

depending on factors such as ship type, 

load, and speed, and ship hull and 

propeller design. Studies of vessel noise 

show that it appears to increase 

background noise levels in the 71–224 

Hz range by 10–13 dB (Hatch et al. 2012; 

McKenna et al. 2012; Rolland et al. 

2012). PAM systems employ 

hydrophones towed in streamer cables 

approximately 500 m behind a vessel. 

Noise from water flow around the cables 

and from strumming of the cables 

themselves is also low frequency and 

typically masks signals in the same 

range. Experienced PAM operators 

participating in a recent workshop 

(Thode et al. 2017) emphasized that a 

PAM operation could easily report no 

acoustic encounters, depending on 

species present, simply because 

background noise levels rendered any 

acoustic detection impossible. The same 

workshop report stated that a typical 

eight-element array towed 500 m behind 

a vessel could be expected to detect 

delphinids, sperm whales, and beaked 

whales at the required range, but not 

baleen whales, due to expected 

background noise levels (including 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
33738 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 

seismic noise, vessel noise, and flow 

noise). 

There are several additional reasons 

why we do not agree that use of PAM 

is warranted for 24-hour HRG surveys. 

While NMFS agrees that PAM can be an 

important tool for augmenting detection 

capabilities in certain circumstances, its 

utility in further reducing impact during 

HRG survey activities is limited. First, 

for this activity, the area expected to be 

ensonified above the Level B 

harassment threshold is relatively small 

(a maximum of 141 m); this reflects the 

fact that, to start with, the source level 

is comparatively low and the intensity 

of any resulting impacts would be lower 

level and, further, it means that 

inasmuch as PAM will only detect a 

portion of any animals exposed within 

a zone, the overall probability of PAM 

detecting an animal in the harassment 

zone is low. Together these factors 

support the limited value of PAM for 

use in reducing take with smaller zones. 

PAM is only capable of detecting 

animals that are actively vocalizing, 

while many marine mammal species 

vocalize infrequently or during certain 

activities, which means that only a 

subset of the animals within the range 

of the PAM would be detected (and 

potentially have reduced impacts). 

Additionally, localization and range 

detection can be challenging under 

certain scenarios. For example, 

odontocetes are fast moving and often 

travel in large or dispersed groups 

which makes localization difficult. 

Given that the effects to marine 

mammals from the types of surveys 

authorized in this IHA are expected to 

be limited to low level behavioral 

harassment even in the absence of 

mitigation, the limited additional 

benefit anticipated by adding this 

detection method (especially for North 

Atlantic right whales and other low 

frequency cetaceans, species for which 

PAM has limited efficacy), and the cost 

and impracticability of implementing a 

full-time PAM program, we have 

determined the current requirements for 

visual monitoring are sufficient to 

ensure the least practicable adverse 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat. NMFS has previously 

provided discussions on why PAM isn’t 

a required monitoring measure during 

HRG survey IHAs in past Federal 

Register notices (see 86 FR 21289, April 

22, 2021 and 87 FR 13975, March 11, 

2022 for examples). 

Comment 18: Oceana recommends a 

shutdown requirement if a North 

Atlantic right whale or other ESA-listed 

species is detected in the clearance zone 

as well as a publicly available 

explanation of any exemptions as to 

why the applicant would not be able to 

shut down in these situations. In a 

related comment, the SELC recommends 

that if a North Atlantic right whale or 

other large whale species is visually or 

acoustically detected within the 

relevant clearance zone, site assessment 

and characterization activities with 

noise levels that could result in injury 

or harassment to large whales must not 

be initiated. SELC further recommends 

that site assessment and 

characterization activities with noise 

levels that could result in injury or 

harassment to large whales be halted if 

a North Atlantic right whale or other 

large whale species is visually detected 

within the visual exclusion zone or if a 

North Atlantic right whale is 

acoustically detected within the 

acoustic exclusion zone. 

Response: NMFS reiterates that use of 

the planned sources is not expected to 

have any potential to cause injury of any 

species, including North Atlantic right 

whale, even in the absence of 

mitigation. Consideration of the 

anticipated effectiveness of the 

mitigation measures (i.e., exclusion 

zones and shutdown measures) 

discussed below and in the Mitigation 

section of this notice further strengthens 

the conclusion that injury is not a 

reasonably anticipated outcome of the 

survey activity. Nevertheless, there are 

several shutdown requirements 

described in the Federal Register notice 

of the proposed IHA (87 FR 19864; April 

6, 2022), and which are included in the 

final IHA, including the stipulation that 

geophysical survey equipment must be 

immediately shut down if any marine 

mammal is observed within or entering 

the relevant Exclusion Zone while 

geophysical survey equipment is 

operational. There is no exemption for 

the shutdown requirement for NARW 

and ESA-listed species. 

Dominion Energy is required to 

implement a 30-minute pre-start 

clearance period prior to the initiation 

of ramp-up of specified HRG equipment. 

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 an 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). 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. 

NMFS does not require acoustic 

monitoring for the reasons stated in our 

response to Comment 17. 

Comment 19: Oceana recommended 

that when HRG surveys are allowed to 

resume after a shutdown event, the 

surveys should be required to use a 

ramp-up procedure to encourage any 

nearby marine life to leave the area. 

Response: NMFS agrees with this 

recommendation and included in the 

Federal Register notice of the proposed 

IHA (87 FR 19864; April 6, 2022) and 

this final IHA a stipulation that when 

technically feasible, survey equipment 

must be ramped up at the start or restart 

of survey activities. Ramp-up must 

begin with the power of the smallest 

acoustic equipment at its lowest 

practical power output appropriate for 

the survey. When technically feasible 

the power must then be gradually 

turned up and other acoustic sources 

added in a way such that the source 

level would increase gradually. NMFS 

notes that ramp-up is not required for 

short periods where acoustic sources 

were shut down (i.e., less than 30 

minutes) if PSOs have maintained 

constant visual observation and no 

detections of marine mammals occurred 

within the applicable Exclusion Zones. 

Changes From the Proposed IHA to 

Final IHA 

Since publication of the Notice of 

proposed IHA, NMFS has acknowledged 

that the population estimate of North 

Atlantic right whales is now under 350 

animals (https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-rightwhale). However, as discussed in our 

response to Comment 2 above, NMFS 

has determined that this change in 

abundance estimate would not change 

the estimated take of North Atlantic 

right whales or authorized take 

numbers, nor affect our ability to make 

the required findings under the MMPA 

for Dominion Energy’s survey activities. 

The status and trends of the NARW 

population remain unchanged. 

NMFS considered all public 

comments received and determined that 

no changes to the final IHA were 

necessary due to these 

recommendations. However, in section 

6 of the IHA (Reporting Requirements) 

NMFS removed reference to an acoustic 

monitoring report which was 

inadvertently included in the proposed 

IHA, as an acoustic monitoring report is 

not required. Additionally, in the same 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 33739 

section, NMFS added a GARFO email 

address to which the draft and final 

reports must also be sent. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’ Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ 

website (https://

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

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and authorized 

for this action, and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and ESA and potential 

biological removal (PBR), where known. 

For taxonomy, 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’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

SARS. All values presented in Table 2 

are the most recent available at the time 

of publication and are available in the 

2020 SARs (Hayes et al. 2021) and draft 

2021 SARs (available online at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY DOMINION ENERGY’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) 

Family Balaenidae: 

North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis ................ Western North Atlantic ........... E, D, Y 368 (0, 364, 2019) ................. 0.7 7.7 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Fin whale .......................... Balaenoptera physalus ........... Western North Atlantic ........... E, D, Y 6,802 (0.24, 5,573, 2016) ...... 11 1.8 

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

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

Sei whale ......................... Balaenoptera borealis ............ Nova Scotia ............................ E, D, Y 6,292 (1.02, 3,098, 2016) ...... 6.2 0.8 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae: 

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

Family Delphinidae: 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin.Lagenorhynchus acutus ......... Western North Atlantic ........... -, -, N 93,233 (0.71, 54,443, 2016) .. 544 27 

Bottlenose dolphin ........... Tursiops spp ........................... Western North Atlantic Offshore.-, -, N 62,851 b (0.23, 51,914 b, 

2016).

519 28 

Southern Migratory Coastal ... -, -, Y 3,751 (0.6, 2,353, 2016) ........ 23 0–18.3 

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

Long-finned pilot whale .... Globicephala melas ................ Western North Atlantic ........... -, -, N 39,215 (0.3, 30,627, 2016) .... 306 29 

Risso’s dolphin ................. Grampus griseus .................... Western North Atlantic ........... -, -, N 35,215 (0.19, 30,051, 2016) .. 301 34 

Common dolphin .............. Delphinus delphis ................... Western North Atlantic ........... -, -, N 172,974 (0.21, 145,216, 2016) 1452 390 

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

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena .............. Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ... -, -, N 95,543 (0.31, 74,034, 2016) .. 851 164 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Gray seal 4 ............................... Halichoerus grypus ................ Western North Atlantic ........... -, -, N 27,300 (0.22, 22,785, 2016) .. 1389 4453 

Harbor seal ....................... Phoca vitulina ......................... Western North Atlantic ........... -, -, N 61,336 (0.08, 57,637, 2018) .. 1729 339 

1ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused 

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

the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 3These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, 

vessel 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I 

I I I I 
33740 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 

A detailed description of the of the 

species likely to be affected by 

Dominion Energy’s activities, including 

information regarding population 

trends, threats, and local occurrence, 

was provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (87 FR 

19864; April 6, 2022); since that time, 

we are not aware of any changes in the 

status of these species and stocks; 

therefore, detailed descriptions are not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for these 

descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS’ 

website (https://

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

generalized species accounts. 

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 3. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing range * 

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

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

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

cruciger & L. australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

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

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

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

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

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

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al. 2006; Kastelein et al. 

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. 16 marine 

mammal species (14 cetacean and two 

phocid pinniped species) have the 

reasonable potential to co-occur with 

the planned survey activities. Please 

refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean species 

that may be present, five are classified 

as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all 

mysticete species), eight are classified as 

mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all 

delphinids and the sperm whale), and 

one is classified as high-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

the deployed acoustic sources have the 

potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the study area. The Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (87 

FR 19864; April 6, 2022) included a 

discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and their habitat, therefore 

that information is not repeated here; 

please refer to the Federal Register 

notice (87 FR 19864; April 6, 2022) for 

that information. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

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 are by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to HRG 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 authorized. 

Consideration of the anticipated 

effectiveness of the mitigation measures 

(i.e., exclusion zones and shutdown 

measures) discussed in detail below in 

the 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 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 33741 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. We note that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, we 

describe the factors considered here in 

more detail and present the take 

estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source (e.g., 

frequency, predictability, duty cycle), 

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

the receiving animals (hearing, 

motivation, experience, demography, 

behavioral context) and can be difficult 

to predict (Southall et al. 2007, Ellison 

et al. 2012). Based on what the available 

science indicates and the practical need 

to use a threshold based on a factor that 

is both predictable and measurable for 

most activities, NMFS uses a 

generalized acoustic threshold based on 

received level to estimate the onset of 

behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts 

that marine mammals are likely to be 

behaviorally harassed in a manner we 

consider 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) evaluated here 

for Dominion Energy’s 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. 

Dominion Energy’s planned survey 

includes the use of impulsive (i.e., 

sparkers and boomers) sources. 

However, as discussed above, NMFS has 

concluded that Level A harassment is 

not a reasonably likely outcome for 

marine mammals exposed to noise 

through use of the sources planned for 

use here, and the potential for Level A 

harassment is not evaluated further in 

this document. Please see Dominion 

Energy’s application for details of a 

quantitative exposure analysis exercise, 

i.e., calculated Level A harassment 

isopleths and estimated Level A 

harassment exposures. Maximum 

estimated Level A harassment isopleths 

were less than 6 m for all sources and 

hearing groups with the exception of an 

estimated 54 m zone calculated for highfrequency cetaceans during use of the 

Applied Acoustics S-Boom Boomer, (see 

Table 1 for source characteristics). 

Dominion Energy did not request 

authorization of take by Level A 

harassment, and no take by Level A 

harassment is authorized here by NMFS. 

Ensonified Area 

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 (Table 

1). 

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 1 shows the HRG 

equipment types that may be used 

during the planned 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 Dominion Energy 

that has the potential to result in Level 

B harassment of marine mammals, the 

Geo Marine Dual 400 Sparker 800J will 

produce the largest Level B harassment 

isopleth (141 m; see Table 6–3 of 

Dominion Energy’s application). The 

Applied Acoustics S-Boom (Triple Plate 

Boomer 1000J) will produce a Level B 

harassment isopleth of 22 m. Although 

Dominion Energy does not expect to use 

the Geo Marine Dual 400 Sparker 800J 

source on all planned survey days, it 

assumes, for purposes of analysis, that 

the sparker will 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. 

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 1992–2019 

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. 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021). 

The density data presented by Roberts 

et al. (2016b, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021) 

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. 2016). 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
33742 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 

obtained using the most recent model 

results for all taxa (Roberts et al. 2016, 

2017, 2018, 2020, 2021), with the 

exception of the North Atlantic right 

whale (discussed below). 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, the density 

data from Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 

2018, 2020, 2021) were mapped using a 

geographic information system (GIS). 

For the full survey area, Dominion 

Energy averaged the densities of each 

species as reported by Roberts et al. 

(2016, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021) by 

season; thus, a density was calculated 

for each species for spring, summer, fall 

and winter. To be conservative, the 

greatest seasonal density calculated for 

each species was then carried forward 

in the exposure analysis. The largest 

estimated seasonal densities (animals 

per km2) of all marine mammal species 

that may be taken by the proposed 

survey, for all survey areas, is shown in 

Table 4, below. Below, we discuss how 

densities were assumed to apply to 

specific species for which the Roberts et 

al. (2016b, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021) 

models provide results at the genus or 

guild level. Additional data regarding 

average group sizes from survey effort in 

the region was considered to ensure take 

estimates are adequate to account for 

anticipated real-world encounter rates. 

For bottlenose dolphin densities, 

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

not differentiate by stock. Given the 

southern coastal migratory stock’s 

propensity to occur in waters shallower 

than the 25 m (82 ft) isobath north of 

Cape Hatteras (Reeves et al. 2002; Hayes 

et al. 2018), the project’s offshore export 

cable route corridor segment was 

roughly divided along the 25 m (82 ft) 

isobath. Roughly 90 percent of the cable 

corridor is 25 m (82 ft) or less in depth. 

The Lease Area is mostly located within 

depths exceeding 25 m (82 ft), where the 

southern coastal migratory stock is 

unlikely to occur. Roughly 25 percent of 

the Lease Area survey segment is 25 m 

(82 ft) or less in depth. Therefore, to 

account for the potential for mixed 

stocks within the Project’s offshore 

export cable route corridor, 90 percent 

of the estimated take calculation in that 

area is assumed to be of individuals in 

the southern coastal migratory stock and 

the remaining applied to the Western 

North Atlantic offshore stock within the 

Project’s offshore export cable route 

corridor survey area. Within the Lease 

Area, 25 percent of the estimated take 

calculation is assumed to be of 

individuals from the southern coastal 

migratory stock and the remaining 

applied to the Western North Atlantic 

offshore stock. 

The seasonality, feeding preferences, 

and habitat use by gray seals often 

overlaps with that of harbor seals in the 

survey areas. The density models 

produced by Roberts et al. (2016b, 2017, 

2018) do not differentiate between gray 

seals and harbor seals. Rather, the 

model provides one density estimate for 

‘‘seals.’’ Therefore, for the density 

values reported in the IHA application, 

Dominion Energy assumed that half of 

the seals were gray seals, and the other 

half harbor seals. 

Dominion Energy used model Version 

10 (Roberts et al. 2021) to estimate the 

density of North Atlantic right whales. 

While two more recent versions 

(Version 11 and Version 11.1) of the 

model are available, the updates in 

these versions do not affect the densities 

in the project area. The update in 

Version 11 pertains to Cape Cod Bay 

only, which is outside of the CVOW 

project area. Density surfaces in Version 

11.1 did not change from Version 11; 

rather Version 11.1 includes uncertainty 

surfaces as well as density surfaces. 

TABLE 4—MAXIMUM SEASONAL DENSITIES OF MARINE MAMMALS IN THE LEASE AREA AND OECC 

[Animals per 100 km2] 

Species Lease area/ 

OECC 

North Atlantic right whale .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.111 

Humpback whale ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.060 

Fin whale ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.184 

Sei whale ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.001 

Minke whale ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.047 

Sperm whale ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.003 

Pilot whale ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.029 

Bottlenose dolphin (Offshore) .............................................................................................................................................................. 10.614 

Bottlenose dolphin (Southern Migratory Coastal).

Common dolphin .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2.163 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.600 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.311 

Risso’s dolphin ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.008 

Harbor porpoise ................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.794 

Gray seal ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.514 

Harbor seal.

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 

harassment thresholds are calculated, as 

described above. Those distances are 

then used to calculate the area(s) around 

the HRG survey equipment predicted to 

be ensonified to sound levels that 

exceed harassment thresholds. The area 

estimated to be ensonified to relevant 

thresholds in a single day (zone of 

influence (ZOI)) is then calculated, 

based on areas predicted to be 

ensonified around the HRG survey 

equipment (i.e., 141 m) and the 

estimated trackline distance traveled per 

day by the survey vessel (i.e., 58 km). 

Based on the maximum estimated 

distance to the Level B harassment 

threshold of 141 m (Geo Marine Dual 

400 Sparker 800J) and the maximum 

estimated daily track line distance of 58 

km, the ZOI is estimated to be 16.4 km2

during Dominion Energy’s planned HRG 

surveys. As described above, this is a 

conservative estimate as it assumes the 

HRG source that results in the greatest 

distance to the Level B harassment 

isopleth will be operated at all times 

during all vessel days. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 33743 

ZOI = (Distance/day × 2r) + pr2

Where r is the linear distance from the 

source to the harassment isopleth. 

Potential daily Level B harassment 

takes are estimated by multiplying the 

average annual marine mammal 

densities (animals/km2), as described 

above, by the ZOI. Estimated numbers of 

each species taken over the duration of 

the authorization are calculated by 

multiplying the potential daily Level B 

harassment takes by the total number of 

vessel days. 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: 

Estimated Take = D × ZOI × vessel days 

Where D = average species density 

(animals/km2), ZOI = maximum daily 

ensonified area to relevant threshold, 

and vessel days = 244. 

Table 5 shows the authorized take by 

Level B harassment. 

TABLE 5—AUTHORIZED INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS AND AUTHORIZED TAKES AS A PERCENTAGE OF

POPULATION

Species 

Estimated 

takes by 

Level B 

harassment 

Authorized 

takes by 

Level B 

harassment a

Abundance 

Authorized 

takes as a 

percent of 

stock 

North Atlantic right whale ................................................................................ 4.4 4 368 1.4 

Humpback whale ............................................................................................. 2.4 2 1,396 <1 

Fin whale ......................................................................................................... 7.4 7 6,802 <1 

Sei whale ......................................................................................................... 0.04 0 6,292 0 

Minke whale ..................................................................................................... 1.9 2 21,968 <1

Sperm whale .................................................................................................... 0.0 0 4,349 0 

Short-finned pilot whale ................................................................................... 1.2 20 28,924 <1 

Long-finned pilot whale .................................................................................... 39,215 <1 

Bottlenose dolphin (Western North Atlantic Offshore stock) ........................... 279.2 279 62,851 <1 

Bottlenose dolphin (Southern Migratory Coastal stock) .................................. 147.1 147 3,751 3.9 

Common dolphin .............................................................................................. 86.6 4,880 172,974 2.8 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ............................................................................. 24.1 25 93,233 <1 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ................................................................................... 12.5 4,880 39,921 12.4 

Risso’s dolphin ................................................................................................. 0.3 25 35,215 <1 

Harbor porpoise ............................................................................................... 31.8 32 95,543 <1

Gray seal ......................................................................................................... 12 12 451,431 <1 

Harbor seal ...................................................................................................... 12 12 61,336 <1 

The authorized take listed in Table 5 

generally reflects the estimated take 

calculation described above (Estimated 

Take = D × ZOI × vessel days). Further, 

take estimates for pilot whale and 

Risso’s dolphin have been modified to 

reflect group size estimates, and take 

estimates for Atlantic spotted dolphin 

and common dolphin have been 

modified to reflect previous monitoring 

in the CVOW project area, as described 

further below. 

Roberts et al. (2017) provides a 

density for all pilot whales that does not 

differentiate between short-finned and 

long-finned pilot whales, both of which 

could be in the project area. However, 

the take estimate for pilot whales was 

further adjusted to account for group 

size. Dominion Energy estimates that a 

group of 20 pilot whales (Reeves et al. 

2002) may be taken by Level B 

harassment during the surveys. While 

the take calculation described above 

estimates no takes of Risso’s dolphin, 

Dominion Energy also conservatively 

estimates that a group of 25 Risso’s 

dolphins (Reeves et al. 2002) may be 

taken by Level B harassment during the 

surveys. NMFS concurs with these 

estimates, and has authorized 20 takes 

by Level B harassment of pilot whales 

and 25 takes by Level B harassment of 

Risso’s dolphin. 

Previous monitoring in the CVOW 

project area (Dominion Energy, 2021; 86 

FR 21298; April 22, 2021 and 85 FR 

81879; December 17, 2020) indicates 

that the calculated take of Atlantic 

spotted dolphin and common dolphin is 

too low. Given previous monitoring, 

Dominion Energy conservatively 

estimated that two pods of common 

dolphins, each averaging 10 individuals, 

may be taken by Level B harassment on 

each vessel day (2 pods × 10 individuals 

× 244 vessel days = 4,880 takes by Level 

B harassment of common dolphin). 

Dominion Energy conservatively 

estimates that one pod of Atlantic 

spotted dolphins, averaging 20 

individuals, may be taken by Level B 

harassment on each vessel day (1 pod × 

20 individuals × 244 vessel days = 4,880 

takes by Level B harassment of Atlantic 

spotted dolphin). While these estimates 

are likely conservative, NMFS concurs, 

and has authorized 4,880 takes by Level 

B harassment of both common dolphin 

and Atlantic spotted dolphin. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
33744 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 

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, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

NMFS requires that the following 

mitigation measures be implemented 

during Dominion Energy’s planned 

marine site characterization surveys. 

Pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, 

Dominion Energy is also required to 

adhere to relevant Project Design 

Criteria (PDC) of the NMFS’ GARFO 

programmatic consultation (specifically 

PDCs 4, 5, and 7) regarding geophysical 

surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast 

(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/newengland-mid-atlantic/consultations/ 

section-7-take-reporting-programmaticsgreater-atlantic#offshore-wind-siteassessment-and-site-characterizationactivities-programmatic-consultation). 

Marine Mammal Exclusion Zones and 

Harassment Zones 

Marine mammal exclusion zones will 

be established around the HRG survey 

equipment and monitored by protected 

species observers (PSOs): 

• 500 m exclusion zone for North 

Atlantic right whales during use of 

specified acoustic sources (sparkers, 

boomers, and non-parametric subbottom profilers). 

• 100 m exclusion zone 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 exclusion 

zone during the HRG survey, the vessel 

operator will 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 will 

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. 

Dominion Energy will 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 an 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 will 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 is 

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, 

shutdown will occur. 

If the acoustic source is shut down for 

reasons other than mitigation (e.g., 

mechanical difficulty) for less than 30 

minutes, it may be activated again 

without ramp-up if PSOs have 

maintained constant observation and no 

detections of any marine mammal have 

occurred within the respective 

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 will 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 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). 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

Dominion Energy 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 33745 

• Vessel operators and crews must 

maintain a vigilant watch for all 

protected species and slow down, stop 

their vessel, or alter course, as 

appropriate and regardless of vessel 

size, to avoid striking any protected 

species. A visual observer aboard the 

vessel must monitor a vessel strike 

avoidance zone based on the 

appropriate separation distance around 

the vessel (distances stated below). 

Visual observers monitoring the vessel 

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

members, but crew members 

responsible for these duties must be 

provided sufficient training to (1) 

distinguish protected species from other 

phenomena and (2) broadly to identify 

a marine mammal as a right whale, 

other whale (defined in this context as 

sperm whales or baleen whales other 

than right whales), or other marine 

mammal; 

• Members of the monitoring team 

will consult NMFS North Atlantic right 

whale reporting system and Whale 

Alert, as able, for the presence of North 

Atlantic right whales throughout survey 

operations, and for the establishment of 

a DMA. If NMFS should establish a 

DMA in the 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 (18.5 km/ 

hr) 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 (18.5 km/ 

hr) or less at all times; 

• All vessels must reduce their speed 

to 10 knots (18.5 km/hr) 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 50m 

from all other marine mammals, with an 

understanding that at times this may not 

be possible (e.g., for animals that 

approach the vessel); and 

• 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, 

NMFS has determined that the required 

mitigation measures provide the means 

of effecting the least practicable impact 

on marine mammal species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the survey area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

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. Dominion 

Energy will 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
33746 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 

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 

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) will ensure 360° 

visual coverage around the vessel from 

the most appropriate observation posts 

and will 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 will 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 will be used. Position data 

will be recorded using hand-held or 

vessel GPS units for each sighting. 

During good conditions (e.g., daylight 

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

to the maximum extent practicable, 

PSOs will also conduct observations 

when the acoustic source is not 

operating for comparison of sighting 

rates and behavior with and without use 

of the active acoustic sources. Any 

observations of marine mammals by 

crew members aboard any vessel 

associated with the survey will be 

relayed to the PSO team. Data on all 

PSO observations will be recorded 

based on standard PSO collection 

requirements. This will include dates, 

times, and locations of survey 

operations; dates and times of 

observations, location and weather; 

details of marine mammal sightings 

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

details of any observed marine mammal 

behavior that occurs (e.g., noted 

behavioral disturbances). 

Reporting Measures 

Within 90 days after completion of 

survey activities or expiration of this 

IHA, whichever comes sooner, a draft 

technical report will be provided to 

NMFS that fully documents the 

methods and monitoring protocols, 

summarizes the data recorded during 

monitoring, summarizes the number of 

marine mammals observed during 

survey activities (by species, when 

known), summarizes the mitigation 

actions taken during surveys (including 

what type of mitigation and the species 

and number of animals that prompted 

the mitigation action, when known), 

and provides an interpretation of the 

results and effectiveness of all 

mitigation and monitoring. A final 

report must be submitted within 30 days 

following resolution of any comments 

on the draft report. All draft and final 

marine mammal monitoring reports 

must be submitted to 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov, 

ITP.Davis@noaa.gov, and 

nmfs.gar.incidental-take@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, 

Dominion Energy must immediately 

report sighting information to the NMFS 

North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting 

Advisory System: (866) 755–6622. North 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 33747 

Atlantic right whale sightings in any 

location may also be reported to the U.S. 

Coast Guard via channel 16. 

In the event that Dominion Energy 

personnel discover an injured or dead 

marine mammal, Dominion Energy will 

report the incident to the NMFS Office 

of Protected Resources (OPR) and the 

NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. The report would include the 

following information: 

1. Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

2. Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

3. Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

4. Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

5. If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

6. General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

In the unanticipated event of a vessel 

strike of a marine mammal by any vessel 

involved in the activities covered by the 

IHA, Dominion Energy would report the 

incident to the NMFS OPR and the 

NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. The report would include the 

following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Vessel’s course/heading and what 

operations were being conducted (if 

applicable); 

• Status of all sound sources in use; 

• Description of avoidance measures/ 

requirements that were in place at the 

time of the strike and what additional 

measures were taken, if any, to avoid 

strike; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, visibility) 

immediately preceding the strike; 

• Estimated size and length of animal 

that was struck; 

• Description of the behavior of the 

marine mammal immediately preceding 

and following the strike; 

• If available, description of the 

presence and behavior of any other 

marine mammals immediately 

preceding the strike; 

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

dead, injured but alive, injured and 

moving, blood or tissue observed in the 

water, status unknown, disappeared); 

and 

• To the extent practicable, 

photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the 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 

2, given that NMFS expects the 

anticipated effects of the planned survey 

to be similar in nature. Where there are 

meaningful differences between species 

or stocks—as 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 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 will 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, the estimated size of the 

Level A harassment zones, and the 

required shutdown zones for certain 

activities. 

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 activity in estimating take 

numbers evaluated and authorized here, 

in reality, the Geo Marine Dual 400 

Sparker will likely not be used across 

the entire 24-hour period and across all 

244 vessel days. The other acoustic 

sources operating below 200 kHz that 

Dominion Energy has included in their 

application produce Level B harassment 

zones below 22 m. 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 planned survey 

area and there are no feeding areas 

known to be biologically important to 

marine mammals within the planned 

survey area. There is no designated 

critical habitat for any ESA-listed 

marine mammals in the planned survey 

area. 

North Atlantic Right Whales 

The status of the North Atlantic right 

whale population is of heightened 

concern and, therefore, merits 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
33748 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 

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 planned survey 

area overlaps a migratory corridor BIA 

for North Atlantic right whales. Due to 

the fact that the impacts of the planned 

survey are expected to be of low severity 

(as described in the Potential Effects of 

Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat), the survey 

activities are temporary, and the spatial 

extent of sound produced by the survey 

will be very small relative to the spatial 

extent of the available migratory habitat 

in the BIA (the overlap between the BIA 

and the survey area covers 

approximately 4,000 km2 of the 269,448 

km2 BIA), right whale migration is not 

expected to be impacted by the 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 vessel strike during 

migration; no vessel strike is expected to 

occur during Dominion Energy’s 

planned activities. 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 planned for use. The 

authorization of take by Level B 

harassment of North Atlantic right 

whale is not expected to exacerbate or 

compound upon the ongoing UME. The 

limited authorized takes of North 

Atlantic right whale by Level B 

harassment are expected to be of a short 

duration, and given the number of 

estimated takes, repeated exposures of 

the same individual are not expected. 

Further, given the relatively small size 

of the ensonified area during Dominion 

Energy’s planned activities, it is 

unlikely that North Atlantic right whale 

prey availability would be adversely 

affected. Accordingly, NMFS does not 

anticipate North Atlantic right whales 

takes that may result from Dominion 

Energy’s planned activities will impact 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

of any individuals. Thus, any takes that 

occur will 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 

Dominion Energy’s planned 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 (vessel 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 authorized takes for all 

species listed in Table 2, 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. As discussed 

previously, take by Level A harassment 

(injury) is considered unlikely, even 

absent mitigation, based on the 

characteristics of the signals produced 

by the acoustic sources planned for use, 

and is not authorized. Implementation 

of required mitigation will further 

reduce this potential. 

NMFS expects that takes will 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 will only 

be exposed briefly to a small ensonified 

area that might result in take. 

Additionally, required mitigation 

measures will further reduce exposure 

to sound that could result in more 

severe behavioral harassment. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• No Level A harassment (PTS) is 

anticipated, even in the absence of 

mitigation measures, or authorized; 

• Foraging success is not likely to be 

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 will 

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 required mitigation measures, 

including effective 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 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from the planned 

activity will have a negligible impact on 

all affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 33749 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

NMFS has authorized incidental take 

(by Level B harassment only) of 14 

marine mammal species (with 15 

managed stocks). The total amount of 

authorized takes relative to the best 

available population abundance is less 

than 33 percent for all stocks (Table 5). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the planned activity (including 

the required mitigation and monitoring 

measures) and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the population size 

of the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must evaluate our 

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

IHA) and alternatives with respect to 

potential impacts on the human 

environment. This action is consistent 

with categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 of the 

Companion Manual for NAO 216–6A, 

which do not individually or 

cumulatively have the potential for 

significant impacts on the quality of the 

human environment and for which we 

have not identified any extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude this 

categorical exclusion. Accordingly, 

NMFS has determined that this action 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

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 take of North 

Atlantic right whale and fin whales, 

which are listed under the ESA. On June 

29, 2021 (revised September 2021), 

GARFO completed an informal 

programmatic consultation on the 

effects of certain site assessment and 

site characterization activities to be 

carried out to support the siting of 

offshore wind energy development 

projects off the U.S. Atlantic coast. Part 

of the activities considered in the 

consultation are geophysical surveys 

such as those proposed by Dominion 

Energy and for which we have authorize 

take. GARFO concluded site assessment 

surveys are not likely to adversely affect 

endangered species or adversely modify 

or destroy critical habitat. NMFS has 

determined issuance of the IHA is 

covered under the programmatic 

consultation; therefore, ESA 

consultation has been satisfied. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to Dominion 

Energy authorizing take, by Level B 

harassment, incidental to conducting 

marine site characterization surveys off 

of Virginia for a period of one year, that 

includes the previously explained 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements. 

Dated: May 31, 2022. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11987 Filed 6–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

Review and Approval; Comment 

Request; Marine Recreational 

Information Program, Access-Point 

Angler Intercept Survey 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and clearance in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, on or after the date of publication 

of this notice. We invite the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

comment on proposed, and continuing 

information collections, which helps us 

assess the impact of our information 

collection requirements and minimize 

the public’s reporting burden. Public 

comments were previously requested 

via the Federal Register on 2/7/2022 

during a 60-day comment period. This 

notice allows for an additional 30 days 

for public comments. 

Agency: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

Title: Marine Recreational Information 

Program, Access-Point Angler Intercept 

Survey (APAIS). 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0659. 

Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Request: Regular submission 

(extension of a current information 

collection). 

Number of Respondents: 100,000. 

Average Hours per Response: 0.083. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 8,333. 

Needs and Uses: This request is for 

extension of a currently approved 

information collection. 

Marine recreational anglers are 

surveyed to collect catch and effort data, 

fish biology data, and angler 

socioeconomic characteristics. These 

data are required to carry out provisions 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (16 

U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended, 

regarding conservation and management 

of fishery resources. 

Marine recreational fishing catch and 

effort data are collected through a 

combination of mail surveys, telephone 

surveys and on-site intercept surveys 

with recreational anglers. Amendments 

to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA) require the development of an 

improved data collection program for 

recreational fisheries. To partially meet 

these requirements, NOAA Fisheries 

designed and implemented a new 

Access-Point Angler Intercept Survey 

(APAIS) in 2013 to ensure better 

coverage and representation of 

recreational fishing activity. 

The APAIS intercepts marine 

recreational fishers at public-access sites 

in coastal counties from Maine to 

Mississippi, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico to 

obtain information about the justcompleted day’s fishing activity. 

Respondents are asked about the time 

and type of fishing, the angler’s avidity 

and residence location, and details of 

any catch of finfish. Species 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES