Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38067 

1 In contrast to hemp, marijuana, defined as 

cannabis with a concentration of more than 0.3 

percent on a dry weight basis, remains a Schedule 

I substance under the Controlled Substances Act 

(CSA). 21 U.S.C. 802(16); 21 U.S.C. 812(d); 21 CFR 

1308.11(d)(23). 

The Committee will consider a 

proposal to modify and provide clarity 

to the language as to how packaged 

natural wood and compressed firewood 

bricks shall be sold. This also clarifies 

the terms for plural and singular 

representation for the units. 

Item 22.1. Uniform Labeling Regulation 

for Electronic Commerce (referred as 

e-commerce) Products 

The L&R Committee will further 

consider a proposal that has been 

designated as an ‘‘Assigned’’ item, 

meaning that further development will 

be done by the Packaging and Labeling 

Subcommittee. This proposal would 

add a new regulation into NIST HB 130 

that pertains to the labeling of products 

in e-commerce for consumer 

commodities and non-consumer 

commodities. This regulation will 

provide guidance to industry, as well as 

those states that adopt this regulation 

for the purpose of inspecting ecommerce websites. This regulation 

would also lay out the terms that shall 

appear on an e-commerce website. The 

development of this item will include 

outreach to stakeholders, including 

federal agencies. Adequate time should 

be considered for the implementation of 

this regulation for online retailers. 

Item Block 3 Cannabis 

B3: PALS –22.1. Section XX. Cannabis 

and Cannabis-Containing Products.1

The Committee will further consider 

proposals to establish definitions within 

NIST HB 130 Packaging and Labeling 

Requirements for Cannabis and 

Cannabis containing products. In 

addition, PAL–22.2 Section 10.XX. 

Cannabis and Cannabis-Containing 

Products will establish labeling 

requirements. B3: NET–22.1. Section 

1.XX. Cannabis and CannabisContaining Products and 2.XX. 

Cannabis and Cannabis-Containing 

Products. provides for a 3% moisture 

allowance for Cannabis containing more 

than 0.3% total Delta-9 THC or 

containing 0.3% less total Delta-9 THC 

(hemp). B3: MOS–22.2. HB130 Section 

1.XX. and Section 2.XX. Cannabis and 

Cannabis-Containing Products. The 

Committee will consider a proposal to 

amend these two sections to include 

language for a method of sale for 

Cannabis. Included within this proposal 

is also a water activity limit of 0.60

(± 0.05), when unprocessed Cannabis is 

sold or transferred. 

Alicia Chambers, 

NIST Executive Secretariat. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13541 Filed 6–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XC122] 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Take of Anadromous Fish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Issuance of a permit; for 

implementation of the Rescue and 

Rearing Management Plan (RRMP) for 

Petaluma River Steelhead. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

NMFS has issued a permit pursuant to 

Section 10 of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) for the implementation of the 

RRMP by the United Anglers of Casa 

Grande (UACG). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodi 

Charrier, Santa Rosa, California (ph.: 

707–575–6069; email: jodi.charrier@

noaa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

ESA-Listed Species Covered in This 

Notice 

• Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)— 

Central California Coast (CCC) distinct 

population segment (DPS) 

Discussion of the Biological Analysis 

Underlying Permit Issuance 

NMFS has issued a permit for UACG 

to implement the RRMP, which is 

intended to increase adult CCC 

steelhead DPS abundance in the 

Petaluma River Watershed. Fish rearing 

will occur at the UACG Hatchery and 

will be run by Casa Grande High School 

located in Petaluma, California. The 

RRMP has two main components: (1) 

rescue and translocate wild steelhead 

from drying stream reaches; and (2) 

captively rear wild fry at the UACG 

Hatchery to be released as smolts into 

natal tributaries. There is no spawning 

of steelhead at the Hatchery. These 

management actions should result in 

higher survival rates; thereby increasing 

the abundance of the population over 

time. 

The program uses natural-origin fish, 

and the permit for this program is 

issued under ESA section 10(a)(1)(A). 

Description of the programs was 

provided in the RRMP submitted by the 

UACG. NMFS has analyzed the effects 

of the RRMP on CCC DPS steelhead 

listed under the ESA, and has 

concluded that the program is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

CCC steelhead or destroy or adversely 

modify its designated critical habitat. 

Authorization of the activities is 

contingent upon implementation of all 

of the monitoring, evaluation, reporting 

tasks or assignments, and enforcement 

activities included in the permit. 

Summary of Comments Received on the 

RRMP 

NMFS made the permit application 

available for public comment on 

February 16, 2022 (87 FR 8787) for 30 

days, as required by the ESA. No 

comments were received. 

Dated: June 22, 2022. 

Angela Somma, 

Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office 

of Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13672 Filed 6–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XC058] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Site 

Characterization Surveys Off New 

Jersey and New York in the Area of the 

Atlantic Shores Lease Area (OCS–A 

0541) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind 

Bight, LLC (Atlantic Shores Bight) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to site characterization 

surveys off New Jersey and New York in 

the area of Commercial Lease of 

Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy 

Development on the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lease Area (OCS–A 0541). 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38068 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS is also requesting 

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

certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met, as described in 

Request for Public Comments at the end 

of this notice. NMFS will consider 

public comments prior to making any 

final decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorization and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than July 27, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service and should be 

submitted via email to ITP.taylor@

noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jessica Taylor, 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/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable. In case of problems 

accessing these documents, please call 

the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

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

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental harassment authorization is 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable MMPA 

statutory terms cited above are included 

in the relevant sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On April 8, 2022, NMFS received a 

request from Atlantic Shores Bight for 

an IHA to take marine mammals 

incidental to marine site 

characterization survey activities off 

New Jersey and New York. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on May 23, 2022. Atlantic 

Shores Bight’s request is for take of 15 

species of marine mammals by Level B 

harassment only. Neither Atlantic 

Shores Bight nor NMFS expect serious 

injury or mortality to result from this 

activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

NMFS previously issued three IHAs 

to Atlantic Shores, the parent company 

of Atlantic Shores Bight, for similar 

work in a comparable geographic region 

(85 FR 21198, April 16, 2020; 86 FR 

21289, April 22, 2021; 87 FR 24103, 

April 20, 2022). The 2020 monitoring 

report confirmed that Atlantic Shores 

had previously implemented the 

required mitigation and monitoring, and 

demonstrated that no impacts of a scale 

or nature not previously analyzed or 

authorized had occurred as a result of 

the activities conducted under the 2020 

IHA. At the time of developing this 

proposed IHA for Atlantic Shores Bight, 

the Atlantic Shores 2021 (Renewal) 

monitoring report was not available as 

the renewal IHA expired on April 19, 

2022 (86 FR 21289; April 22, 2021). 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

As part of its overall marine site 

characterization survey operations, 

Atlantic Shores Bight proposes to 

conduct high-resolution geophysical 

(HRG) surveys in the Lease Area (OCS)– 

A 0451 and along potential submarine 

export cable routes (ECR) to a landfall 

location in either New York or New 

Jersey. These two areas are collectively 

referred to as the survey area. The 

survey area is approximately 1,375,710 

acres (5,567.3 km2) and extends from 11 

nautical miles (20 km) offshore of New 

Jersey and New York out to a maximum 

distance of approximately 40 nautical 

miles (74 km). 

The purpose of the proposed surveys 

are to support the site characterization, 

siting, and engineering design of 

offshore wind project facilities 

including wind turbine generators, 

offshore substations, and submarine 

cables within the Lease Area and along 

ECRs. A maximum of three survey 

vessels may operate at any one time 

during the proposed surveys. 

Underwater sound resulting from 

Atlantic Shores Bight’s proposed site 

characterization survey activities, 

specifically HRG surveys, has the 

potential to result in incidental take of 

marine mammals in the form of 

behavioral harassment. Atlantic Shores 

Bight intends to conduct HRG surveys 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38069 

within the lease area and ECR survey 

areas over a period of up to 12 months. 

Dates and Duration 

Survey activities are proposed to 

initiate on August 1, 2022. The 

estimated duration of the in-water 

activities is expected to be up to 360 

total survey days over the course of a 

single year within the two survey areas 

(Table 1). As multiple vessels (i.e., a 

maximum of three survey vessels) may 

be operating at any one time across the 

Lease Area and ECR Survey Area, each 

day that a survey vessel is operating 

counts as a single survey day. For 

example, if three vessels are operating 

in the ECR and Lease Areas 

concurrently, this counts as three survey 

days. This schedule is based on 24- 

hours of operations throughout 12 

months. The schedule presented here 

for this proposed project has accounted 

for potential down time due to 

inclement weather or other projectrelated delays. 

TABLE 1—NUMBER OF SURVEY DAYS

FOR PROPOSED HRG ACTIVITIES

Survey areas 

Number of 

active survey 

days expected 

Lease Survey Area (OCS–A 

541) ................................... 180 

ECR Survey Area ................. 180 

Total ............................... 360 

Specific Geographic Region 

Atlantic Shores Bight’s proposed 

activities would occur in the Northwest 

Atlantic Ocean within Federal and state 

waters (Figure 1). Surveys would occur 

in the Lease Area and along potential 

ECRs to landfall in either New York or 

New Jersey. Proposed activities would 

occur within the Commercial Lease of 

Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy 

Development Lease Area OCS–A 0541. 

The survey area is approximately 

1,375,710 acres (5,567.3 square 

kilometers (km2)) and extends from 11 

nautical miles (20 kilometers (km)) 

offshore to approximately 40 nautical 

miles (nm; 74 kilometers (km)) offshore. 

In general, the survey area spans from 

Sandy Hook Bay to Ocean City, New 

Jersey. No nearshore surveys are 

proposed for this project. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38070 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

Atlantic Shores Bight proposes to 

conduct both geotechnical and HRG 

survey activities. The proposed 

geotechnical activities would include 

the drilling of sample boreholes, deep 

cone penetration tests (CPTs), and 

shallow CPTs. Such proposed activities 

have been performed before by Atlantic 

Shores and considerations of the 

impacts produced from geotechnical 

activities have been previously analyzed 

and included in the proposed 2020 

Federal Register notice for Atlantic 

Shores’ HRG activities (85 FR 7926; 

February 12, 2020). In that notification, 

NMFS determined that the likelihood of 

the proposed geotechnical surveys 

resulting in harassment of marine 

mammals was so low as to be 

discountable. As this information 

remains applicable and NMFS’ 

determination has not changed, these 

activities will not be discussed further 

in this proposed notification. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1EN27JN22.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38071 

Atlantic Shores Bight has proposed 

that HRG survey operations would be 

conducted continuously 24 hours a day. 

Based on 24-hour operations, the 

estimated total duration of the proposed 

activities would be approximately 360 

survey days. This includes 180 days of 

survey activities in the Lease Survey 

Area and 180 days in ECR Survey Area 

(refer back to Table 1). As previously 

discussed above, this schedule includes 

potential downtime due to inclement 

weather or other project-related delays. 

The HRG survey equipment to be 

used in the identified survey area will 

be similar to the HRG survey equipment 

used to support previous surveys 

conducted by Atlantic Shores and other 

offshore wind development projects 

along the Atlantic Coast. The HRG 

survey activities will be supported by 

vessels of sufficient size to accomplish 

the survey goals in each of the specified 

survey areas. There will be a maximum 

of three geophysical survey vessels 

working at any one time across the 

survey areas. HRG equipment will either 

be mounted to or towed behind the 

survey vessel at a typical survey speed 

of approximately 3.5 knots (6.5 km) per 

hour. The geophysical survey activities 

proposed by Atlantic Shores Bight 

would include the following: 

• Depth sounding (multibeam depth 

sounder and single beam echosounder) 

to determine water depths and general 

bottom topography (currently estimated 

to range from approximately 16 feet (ft) 

(5 meters [m] to 131 ft [40 m] in depth); 

• Magnetic intensity measurements 

(gradiometer) for detecting local 

variations in regional magnetic field 

from geological strata and potential 

ferrous objects on and below the bottom; 

• Seafloor imaging (side scan sonar 

survey) for seabed sediment 

classification purposes to identify 

natural and man-made acoustic targets 

resting on the bottom as well as any 

anomalous features; 

• Shallow penetration sub-bottom 

profiler (pinger/chirp) to map the near 

surface stratigraphy (top 0 ft to 16 ft [0 

m to 5 m] soils below seabed); and 

• Medium penetration sub-bottom 

profiler (chirps/parametric profilers/ 

sparkers) to map deeper subsurface 

stratigraphy as needed (soils down to 

246 ft [75 m] to 328 ft [100 m] below 

seabed). Based upon three years of 

previous survey experience (i.e., 2019— 

2021 surveys), Atlantic Shores Bight 

anticipates that it will operate the 

Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark and/or 

the Geo Marine Geo-Source to map 

deeper stratigraphy in the survey areas. 

• Grab sampling to validate seabed 

classification using typical sample sizes 

between 0.1 m2 and 0.2 m2. 

Table 2 identifies the representative 

survey equipment that may be used in 

support of planned geophysical survey 

activities. Operational parameters 

presented in Table 2 were obtained from 

the following sources: Crocker and 

Fratantonio (2016); manufacturer 

specifications; personal communication 

with manufacturers; agency 

correspondence; and Atlantic Shores/ 

Atlantic Shores Bight. The make and 

model of the listed geophysical 

equipment may vary depending on 

availability and the final equipment 

choices will vary depending upon the 

final survey design, vessel availability, 

and survey contractor selection. 

Geophysical surveys are expected to use 

several equipment types concurrently in 

order to collect multiple aspects of 

geophysical data along one transect. 

Selection of equipment combinations is 

based on specific survey objectives. All 

categories of representative HRG survey 

equipment shown in Table 2 work with 

operating frequencies <180 kHz. 

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

HRG survey 

equipment Representative equipment 

Operating 

frequency 

ranges 

(kHz) 

Operational 

source level 

(dBRMS) 

Beamwidth 

ranges 

(degrees) 

Typical pulse 

durations 

RMS90

(millisecond) 

Pulse 

repetition rate 

(Hz) 

Sparker ........... Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark 240 ∧ ...... 0.01 to 1.9 ..... 203 180 3.4 2 

Geo Marine Geo-Source ......................... 0.2 to 5 .......... 195 180 7.2 0.41 

CHIRPs .......... Edgetech 2000–DSS .............................. 2 to 16 ........... 195 24 6.3 10 

Edgetech 216 .......................................... 2 to 16 ........... 179 17, 20, 0r 24 10 10 

Edgetech 424 .......................................... 4 to 24 ........... 180 71 4 2 

Edgetech 512i ......................................... 0.7 to 12 ........ 179 80 9 8 

Pangeosubsea Sub-Bottom ImagerTM .. 4 to 12.5 ........ 190 120 4.5 44 

∧The operational source level for the Dura-Spark 240 is assigned based on the value closest to the field operational history of the Dura-Spark 

240 [operating between 500–600 J] found in Table 10 in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016), which reports a 203 dBRMS for 500 J source setting 

and 400 tips. Because Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) did not provide other source levels for the Dura-Spark 240 near the known operational 

range, the SIG ELC 820 @750 J at 5m depth assuming an omnidirectional beam width was considered as a proxy or comparison to the DuraSpark 240. The corresponding 203 dBRMS level is considered a realistic and conservative value that aligns with the history of operations of the 

Dura-Spark 240 over three years of survey by Atlantic Shores. 

The deployment of HRG survey 

equipment, including the equipment 

planned for use during Atlantic Shores 

Bight’s proposed activities, produces 

sound in the marine environment that 

has the potential to result in harassment 

of marine mammals. Proposed 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures are described in detail later in 

this document (please see Proposed 

Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring 

and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. NMFS fully considered 

all of this information, and we refer the 

reader to these descriptions, 

incorporated here by reference, instead 

of reprinting the information. 

Additional information regarding 

population trends and threats may be 

found in NMFS’ Stock Assessment 

Reports (SARs; www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments) 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’ website (https://

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

Table 3 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this action, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38072 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. PBR is defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or authorized, PBR and annual serious 

injury and mortality from anthropogenic 

sources are included here as gross 

indicators of the status of the species or 

stocks and other threats. 

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. draft 2021 U.S. Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico SARs. All values 

presented in Table 3 are the most recent 

available at the time of publication and 

are available in the draft 2021 SARs 

(available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

TABLE 3—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

North Atlantic right whale ........ Eubalaena glacialis ................ Western Atlantic ..................... E/D, Y 368 (0; 364; 2019) 5 ............... 0.7 7.7 

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

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

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

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

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

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

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

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

Bottlenose dolphin ................... Tursiops truncatus .................. Western North Atlantic Offshore.-/-, N 62,851 (0.23; 51,914; 2016) .. 519 28 

Common dolphin ..................... Delphinus delphis ................... Western North Atlantic ........... -/-, N 172,974 (0.21, 145,216, 2016) 1,452 390 

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

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

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

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

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

Gray seal 4 ............................... Halichoerus grypus ................ Western North Atlantic ........... -/-, N 27,300 (0.22; 22,785; 2018) .. 1,389 4,453 

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

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

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

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

ship strike). 4 NMFS’ stock abundance estimate (and associated PBR value) applies to U.S. populations only. Total stock abundance (including animals in Canada) is approximately 451,431. The annual M/SI value given is for the total stock. 5The draft 2022 SARs have yet to be released; however, NMFS has updated its species web page to recognize the population estimate for NARWs is now below 

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

As indicated above, all 15 species 

(with 15 managed stocks) in Table 3 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur. Four marine 

mammal species that are listed under 

the ESA may be present in the survey 

area and are included in the take 

request: The North Atlantic right, fin, 

sei, and sperm whale. The temporal 

and/or spatial occurrence of several 

cetacean and pinniped species listed in 

Table 3–1 of Atlantic Shores Bight’s 

2022 IHA application is such that take 

of these species is not expected to occur 

either because they have very low 

densities in the survey area or are 

known to occur further offshore than the 

survey area. These include: The blue 

whale (Balaenoptera musculus), 

Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius 

cavirostris), four species of Mesoplodont 

beaked whale (Mesoplodon spp.), dwarf 

and pygmy sperm whale (Kogia sima 

and Kogia breviceps), killer whale 

(Orcinus orca), false killer whale 

(Pseudorca crassidens), short-finned 

pilot whale (Globicephala 

macrorhynchus), striped dolphin 

(Stenella coeruleoalba), white-beaked 

dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris), 

northern migratory stock of bottlenose 

dolphins, pantropical spotted dolphin 

(Stenella attenuata), hooded seal 

(Cystophora cristata), and harp seal 

(Pagophilus groenlandicus). As 

harassment and subsequent take of these 

species is not anticipated as a result of 

the proposed activities, these species are 

not analyzed or discussed further. 

In addition, the Florida manatee 

(Trichechus manatus; a sub-species of 

the West Indian manatee) has been 

previously documented as an occasional 

visitor to the Northeast region during 

summer months (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), 2019). However, 

manatees are managed by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are 

not considered further in this document. 

For the majority of species potentially 

present in the specific geographic 

region, NMFS has designated only a 

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


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38073 

North Atlantic’’) for management 

purposes. This includes the ‘‘Canadian 

east coast’’ stock of minke whales, 

which includes all minke whales found 

in U.S. waters. For humpback whales, 

NMFS defines stocks on the basis of 

feeding locations, i.e., Gulf of Maine. 

However, references to humpback 

whales in this document refer to any 

individuals of the species that are found 

in the specific geographic region. 

Additional information on these 

animals can be found in Sections 3 and 

4 of Atlantic Shores’ IHA application, 

the draft 2021 SARs (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

NMFS’ website. 

Below is a description of the species 

that have the highest likelihood of 

occurring in the survey area and are 

thus expected to potentially be taken by 

the proposed activities as well as further 

detail on the baseline for select species 

(i.e., information regarding current 

Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs) and 

important habitat areas). 

North Atlantic Right Whale 

The North Atlantic right whale 

(NARW) ranges from calving grounds in 

the southeastern United States to 

feeding grounds in New England waters 

and into Canadian waters (Hayes et al., 

2021). Surveys identify seven areas in 

which NARWs congregate seasonally, 

including north and east of the 

proposed survey area in Georges Bank, 

off Cape Cod, and in Massachusetts Bay 

(Hayes et al., 2020). In the late fall 

months (e.g., October), right whales are 

generally thought to depart from the 

feeding grounds in the North Atlantic 

and move south to their calving grounds 

off Georgia and Florida. Migrating 

NARWs have been acoustically detected 

in the New York Bight from February to 

May, likely migrating north to their 

feeding grounds (Biedron et al., 2009). 

However, recent research indicates that 

our understanding of NARW movement 

patterns remains incomplete (Davis et 

al., 2017). For example, there has been 

an apparent shift in habitat use patterns 

(Davis et al., 2017), which includes an 

increased use of Cape Cod Bay (Mayo et 

al., 2018) and decreased use of the Great 

South Channel. A review of passive 

acoustic monitoring data from 2004 to 

2014 throughout the western North 

Atlantic demonstrated nearly 

continuous year-round right whale 

presence across their entire habitat 

range (for at least some individuals), 

including in locations previously 

thought of as migratory corridors, 

suggesting that not all of the population 

undergoes a consistent annual migration 

(Davis et al., 2017). Observations of 

NARWs feeding in winter in the MidAtlantic region and recorded off the 

coast of New Jersey in all months of the 

year (Whitt et al., 2013) support the 

theory that not all NARWs undergo 

consistent annual migrations. However, 

given that Atlantic Shores Bight’s 

surveys would be concentrated offshore 

New Jersey and New York, any right 

whales in the vicinity of the survey area 

are expected to be transient and would 

most likely migrate through the region. 

The western North Atlantic 

population demonstrated overall growth 

of 2.8 percent per year between 1990 to 

2010, despite a decline in 1993 and no 

growth between 1997 and 2000 (Pace et 

al., 2017). However, since 2010 the 

population has been in decline, with a 

99.99 percent probability of a decline of 

just under 1 percent per year (Pace et 

al., 2017). Between 1990 and 2015, 

calving rates varied substantially, with 

low calving rates coinciding with all 

three periods of decline or no growth 

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

Atlantic right whale calving rates are 

estimated to be roughly half that of 

southern right whales (Eubalaena 

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

increasing in abundance (NMFS, 2015). 

In 2018, no new NARW calves were 

documented in their calving grounds; 

this represented the first time since 

annual NOAA aerial surveys began in 

1989 that no new right whale calves 

were observed. Eighteen right whale 

calves were documented in 2021. As of 

May 9, 2022 and the writing of this 

proposed Notification, fifteen NARW 

calves were documented to have been 

born during this calving season. 

Presently, the best available population 

estimate for NARWs is 386 per the draft 

2021 SARs (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

in footnote to Table 2, NMFS has 

acknowledged that the population 

estimate of North Atlantic right whales 

is now under 350 animals (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/northatlantic-right-whale). However, 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 Atlantic Shores Bight’s survey 

activities. The status and trends of the 

NARW population remain unchanged. 

NMFS has designated two critical 

habitat areas for the NARW under the 

ESA: The Gulf of Atlantic Shores Bight 

Maine/Georges Bank region, and the 

southeast calving grounds from North 

Carolina to Florida. Two additional 

critical habitat areas in Canadian waters, 

Grand Manan Basin and Roseway Basin, 

were identified in Canada’s final 

recovery strategy for the NARW (Brown 

et al., 2009). 

The proposed survey area is part of a 

migratory corridor Biologically 

Important Area (BIA) for NARWs 

(effective March-April and NovemberDecember) that extends from 

Massachusetts to Florida (LeBrecque et 

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

the migratory BIA extends from the 

coast to beyond the shelf break. This 

important migratory area is 

approximately 269,488 km2 in size 

(compared with the approximately 

11,134.6 km2 of total estimated Level B 

harassment ensonified area associated 

with the 360 planned survey days) and 

is comprised of the waters of the 

continental shelf offshore the East Coast 

of the United States, extending from 

Florida through Massachusetts. NMFS’ 

regulations at 50 CFR 224.105 

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

Seasonal Management Areas (SMA) for 

North Atlantic right whales in 2008. 

SMAs were developed to reduce the 

threat of collisions between ships and 

right whales around their migratory 

route and calving grounds. A portion of 

one SMA, which occurs off the ports of 

New York and New Jersey, overlaps 

spatially with a section of the proposed 

survey area, as shown by Figure 4–1 in 

the application. The SMA is active from 

November 1 through April 30 of each 

year. Within SMAs, the regulations 

require a mandatory vessel speed (less 

than 10 knots) for all vessels greater 

than 65 ft. (19.8 m). 

Historically, there have been several 

documented sightings of NARWs off the 

coast of New Jersey and surrounding 

waters (CETAP, 1982; Knowlton and 

Kraus, 2001; Biedron et al., 2009). 

Satellite-monitored radio tags on a 

NARW cow and calf documented the 

migratory route of this pair from the Bay 

of Fundy to New Jersey and back during 

a six-week period (Knowlton et al., 

2002). A few NARW sightings were 

documented west of the south of the 

Lease Survey Area near the Delaware 

Bay in October, December, May, and 

July (Knowlton et al., 2002). Other 

visual recordings of NARWs were found 

in New Jersey waters during the spring 

and fall seasons (CETAP, 1982). It has 

been noted, however, that NARW 

sightings in several traditional feeding 

habitats has been declining, supporting 

speculation that a shift in NARW habitat 

usage may be occurring (Pettis et al., 

2017). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38074 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

Elevated NARW mortalities have 

occurred since June 7, 2017, along the 

U.S. and Canadian coasts. This event 

has been declared an Unusual Mortality 

Event (UME), with human interactions, 

including entanglement in fixed fishing 

gear and vessel strikes, implicated in at 

least 15 of the mortalities. As of May 9, 

2022, a total of 34 confirmed dead 

stranded whales (21 in Canada; 13 in 

the United States) have been 

documented. The cumulative total 

number of animals in the NARW UME 

has been updated to 50 individuals to 

include both the confirmed mortalities 

(dead stranded or floaters) (n=34) and 

seriously injured free-swimming whales 

(n=16) to better reflect the confirmed 

number of whales likely removed from 

the population during the UME and 

more accurately reflect the population 

impacts. More information is available 

online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-life-distress/2017– 

2021-north-atlantic-right-whaleunusual-mortality-event. 

Humpback Whale 

Prior to 2016, humpback whales were 

listed under the ESA as an endangered 

species worldwide. Following a 2015 

global status review (Bettridge et al., 

2015), NMFS delineated 14 distinct 

population segments (DPS) with 

different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; 

September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. 

The West Indies DPS, which is not 

listed under the ESA, is the only DPS of 

humpback whales that is expected to 

occur in the survey area. Bettridge et al. 

(2015) estimated the size of this 

population at 12,312 (95 percent CI 

8,688–15,954) whales in 2004–05, 

which is consistent with previous 

population estimates of approximately 

10,000–11,000 whales (Stevick et al., 

2003; Smith et al., 1999) and the 

increasing trend for the West Indies DPS 

(Bettridge et al., 2015). Whales 

occurring in the survey area are 

considered to be from the West Indies 

DPS, but are not necessarily from the 

Gulf of Maine feeding population 

managed as a stock by NMFS. 

Humpback whales are known to occur 

regularly throughout the Mid-Atlantic 

Bight, including New Jersey waters 

(Geo-Marine, 2010). The occurrence of 

this population is strongly seasonal with 

most observations occurring during the 

spring and fall, with a peak from April 

to June (Geo-Marine, 2010; Curtice et al., 

2019). Group size tends to be single 

animals or pairs with a mean distance 

from shore of 11.4 mi (18.4 km) and a 

mean depth of 67 ft (20.5 m) (GeoMarine, 2010). Acoustic data indicate 

that this species may be present within 

the surrounding areas year-round, with 

the highest rates of acoustic detections 

in adjacent waters in winter and spring 

(Kraus et al., 2016). Since acoustic 

detections do not differentiate between 

individuals, detections on multiple days 

could be the same or different 

individuals. 

Humpback whales utilize the midAtlantic region mainly as a migration 

pathway between calving/mating 

grounds to the south and feeding 

grounds in the north (Waring et al., 

2007a; Waring et al., 2007b). However, 

Barco et al., (2002) suggests that the 

mid-Atlantic region also represents a 

supplemental winter-feeding ground for 

humpbacks. Humpback whales 

belonging to the West Indies DPS 

typically feed in the waters between the 

Gulf of Maine and Newfoundland 

during spring, summer, and fall, but 

they have been observed feeding in 

other areas, such as off the coast of New 

York (Sieswerda et al., 2015). A 

biologically important area (BIA) for 

humpback whales for feeding from 

March to December has been designated 

in the Gulf of Maine, Stellwagen Bank, 

and the Great South Channel; all of 

which are north of the survey area 

(LaBrecque et al., 2015). 

Despite the seasonality of occurrence, 

there have been some wintertime 

humpback sightings in coastal waters of 

the eastern U.S., including 46 sightings 

of humpbacks in the New York-New 

Jersey Harbor Estuary documented 

between 2011 and 2016 (Brown et al., 

2017). There have also been 

documented strandings from the New 

Jersey coast (Barco et al., 2002). 

Humpback whales have been observed 

feeding off the coast of New Jersey with 

juveniles exhibiting feeding behavior 

south of the study area near the mouth 

of the Chesapeake Bay (Swingle et al., 

2006). Additionally, a cow-calf pair was 

seen north of the study area boundary 

supporting the theory that the nearshore 

waters off of New Jersey may provide 

important feeding and nursery habitats 

for humpback whales (Geo-Marine, 

2010). In addition, recent research by 

King et al. (2021) has demonstrated a 

higher occurrence and foraging use of 

the New York Bight area by humpback 

whales than previously known. 

The most significant anthropogenic 

causes of mortality of humpback whales 

include incidental fishery 

entanglements, responsible for roughly 

eight whale mortalities, and vessel 

collisions, responsible for four 

mortalities both on average annually 

from 2013 to 2017 (Hayes et al., 2020). 

Furthermore, King et al. (2021) 

highlights important concerns for 

humpback whales found specifically in 

the nearshore environment (<10 km 

from shore) from various anthropogenic 

impacts. 

Since January 2016, elevated 

humpback whale mortalities have 

occurred along the Atlantic coast from 

Maine to Florida. A total of 159 

humpback whale mortalities have 

occurred along the east coast of the U.S. 

since 2016 with 4 mortalities occurring 

in 2022 (NOAA Fisheries 2022a). Partial 

or full necropsy examinations have been 

conducted on approximately half of the 

159 known cases (as of May 6, 2022). Of 

the whales examined, about 50 percent 

had evidence of human interaction, 

either ship strike or entanglement. 

While a portion of the whales have 

shown evidence of pre-mortem vessel 

strike, this finding is not consistent 

across all whales examined and more 

research is needed. NOAA is consulting 

with researchers that are conducting 

studies on the humpback whale 

populations, and these efforts may 

provide information on changes in 

whale distribution and habitat use that 

could provide additional insight into 

how these vessel interactions occurred. 

Three previous UMEs involving 

humpback whales have occurred since 

2000, in 2003, 2005, and 2006. More 

information is available at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2016-2021- 

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

Fin Whale 

Fin whales are common in waters of 

the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ), principally from Cape 

Hatteras northward (Hayes et al., 2020). 

There is evidence that fin whales are 

present year-round throughout much of 

the U.S. EEZ north of 35° N, but the 

density of individuals in any one area 

changes seasonally (NOAA Fisheries 

2022b, Hayes et al., 2020). Fin whales 

have a high multi-seasonal relative 

abundance in U.S. Mid-Atlantic waters, 

and surrounding areas. During the GeoMarine (2010) surveys, most of the 

sightings off southern New Jersey were 

observed during winter and summer. 

There were mixed aggregations of 

feeding humpbacks during fin whale 

sightings, and with the presence of 

known prey species, it is possible that 

fin whales use the area off southern 

New Jersey to feed (Geo-Marine, 2010). 

Within the southern New Jersey study 

area, group size ranged from one to four 

animals with a mean distance from 

shore of 20 km and a mean water depth 

of 21.5 m (Geo-Marine, 2010). Acoustic 

data also indicate that this species is 

present off New Jersey in all seasons 

(CETAP, 1982). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38075 

While the typical feeding grounds of 

fin whales include the Gulf of Maine 

and the waters surrounding New 

England, their mating, calving, and 

general wintering areas are largely 

unknown (Hain et al., 1992; Hayes et al., 

2020). Recordings from Massachusetts 

Bay, New York Bight, and deep-ocean 

areas have detected some level of fin 

whale singing from September through 

June (Watkins et al., 1987; Clark and 

Gagnon, 2002; Morano et al., 2012). 

These acoustic observations from both 

coastal and deep-ocean regions support 

the conclusion that male fin whales are 

broadly distributed throughout the 

western North Atlantic for most of the 

year (Hayes et al., 2020). Based on an 

analysis of neonate stranding data, Hain 

et al. (1992) suggest that calving occurs 

during October to January in latitudes of 

the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region. 

The fin whale is federally listed under 

the ESA as an endangered marine 

mammal and are designated as a 

strategic stock under the MMPA due to 

their endangered status under the ESA, 

uncertain human-caused mortality, and 

incomplete survey coverage of the 

stock’s defined range. The main threats 

to fin whales are fishery interactions 

and vessel collisions (Hayes et al., 

2021). A fin whale feeding BIA is 

located northeast of the study area near 

Rhode Island Sound (LaBrecque et al., 

2015). 

Sei Whale 

Sei whales present within the study 

area belong to the Nova Scotia stock, 

which occurs within the U.S. Atlantic 

EEZ and ranges along the continental 

shelf waters of the northeastern U.S. to 

Newfoundland (Hayes et al., 2020). The 

southern portion of the stock’s range 

during spring and summer includes the 

Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank, an area 

also identified as a sei whale feeding 

BIA (LaBrecque et al., 2015). Spring is 

the period of greatest abundance in U.S. 

waters, with sightings concentrated 

along the eastern margin of Georges 

Bank and into the Northeast Channel 

area, and along the southwestern edge of 

Georges Bank in the area of 

Hydrographer Canyon (Hayes et al., 

2020). Sei whales occur in shallower 

waters to feed. The wintering habitat for 

sei whales remains largely unknown 

(Hayes et al., 2020). 

There has been little detection of sei 

whales within New Jersey and 

surrounding waters (Kenney et al., 1985; 

Geo-Marine, 2010). According to the 

New Jersey Endangered and Nongame 

Species Program (NJ ENSP), there have 

been no sightings of this species 

documented within state waters. On the 

continental shelf offshore of New Jersey, 

sei whales have been detected in spring. 

Approximately 200 sei whale 

vocalizations were detected in midSeptember 2006 on the mid-Atlantic 

continental shelf, in waters ranging from 

13 m to 80 m in depth (Newhall et al., 

2009). 

Sei whales are listed as endangered 

under the ESA, and the Nova Scotia 

stock is considered strategic and 

depleted under the MMPA. The main 

threats to this stock are interactions 

with fisheries and vessel collisions. 

Impacts from environmental 

contaminants also present a concern as 

well as potential spatial shifts in 

distribution related to climate change 

(Hayes et al., 2020; Sousa et al., 2019). 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales can be found in 

temperate, tropical, and high-latitude 

waters. The Canadian East Coast stock 

can be found in the area from the 

western half of the Davis Strait (45° W) 

to the Gulf of Mexico (Hayes et al., 

2021). This species generally occupies 

waters less than 100-m deep on the 

continental shelf. There appears to be a 

strong seasonal component to minke 

whale distribution on the continental 

shelf and in deeper off-shelf waters, in 

which spring to fall are times of 

relatively widespread and common 

acoustic occurrence (e.g., Risch et al., 

2013). September through April is the 

period of highest acoustic occurrence in 

deep-ocean waters throughout most of 

the western North Atlantic (Clark and 

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

Minke whales are primarily 

documented near the continental shelf 

offshore of New Jersey (Schwartz, 1962; 

Mead, 1975; Potter, 1979; Rowlett, 1980; 

Potter, 1984; Winn et al., 1985, DoN, 

2005). Acoustic recordings of minke 

whales have been detected north of the 

Lease survey area within the New York 

Bight during the fall (August to 

December) and winter (February to May) 

(Biedron et al., 2009). Minke whales are 

most common off New Jersey in coastal 

waters in the spring and early summer 

as they move north to feeding ground in 

New England and fall as they migrate 

south (Geo-Marine, 2010). Geo-Marine 

(2010) observed four minke whales near 

the survey area and surrounding waters 

during winter and spring. A juvenile 

minke whale was sighted northwest of 

the Lease survey area near the New York 

Harbor in April 2007 (Hamazaki, 2002). 

Minke whale sightings off the coast of 

New Jersey were within water depths of 

36 ft to 79 ft (11 m to 24 m) and 

temperatures ranging from 5.4 to 11.5 °C 

(47 °F) (Geo-Marine, 2010). 

Based on habitat information and 

predictive habitat models, Hamazaki 

(2002) determined that minke whales 

are likely to occur in nearshore waters 

off New Jersey. 

Since January 2017, elevated minke 

whale mortalities have occurred along 

the Atlantic coast from Maine through 

South Carolina, with a total of 122 

strandings (as of May 9, 2022). This 

event has been declared a UME. Full or 

partial necropsy examinations were 

conducted on more than 60 percent of 

the whales. Preliminary findings in 

several of the whales have shown 

evidence of human interactions or 

infectious disease, but these findings are 

not consistent across all of the whales 

examined, so more research is needed. 

More information is available at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

Sperm Whale 

The distribution of the sperm whale 

in the U.S. EEZ occurs on the 

continental shelf edge, over the 

continental slope, and into mid-ocean 

regions (Hayes et al., 2020). The basic 

social unit of the sperm whale appears 

to be a mixed school of adult females, 

their calves and some juveniles of both 

sexes, normally numbering 20–40 

animals. There is evidence that some 

social bonds persist for many years 

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

stable social groups, site fidelity, and 

latitudinal range limitations in groups of 

females and juveniles (Whitehead, 

2002). In contrast, males migrate to the 

Polar Regions to feed and move among 

populations to breed (Whitehead, 2002; 

Englehaupt et al., 2009). 

Within U.S. Atlantic EEZ waters, 

sperm whales appear to exhibit seasonal 

movement patterns (CETAP, 1982, Scott 

and Sadove, 1997). In winter, sperm 

whales are concentrated east and 

northeast of Cape Hatteras. This 

distribution shifts northward in spring, 

when sperm whales are most abundant 

in the central portion of the MidAtlantic Bight to the southern region of 

Georges Bank. In summer, this 

distribution continues to move 

northward, including the area east and 

north of Georges Bank and the 

continental shelf to the Mid-Atlantic 

region. In fall, sperm whales are most 

abundant on the continental shelf to the 

south of New England and remain 

abundant along the continental shelf 

edge in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (Hayes et 

al., 2020). 

No sperm whale sightings were made 

during the Ocean Wind Power 

Ecological Baseline Study off New 

Jersey (Geo-Marine, 2010); however, 

approximately nine individuals were 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38076 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

observed offshore of New Jersey near the 

OCS during shipboard surveys in 

summer 2011 (Palka, 2012). There is 

substantial information on sperm whale 

occurrence offshore of New Jersey, 

exclusively near the OCS (CETAP, 1982; 

Waring et al., 2007a) and are therefore 

likely to be present within the survey 

area. 

Sperm whales are listed as 

engendered under the ESA, and the 

North Atlantic stock is considered 

strategic under the MMPA. The greatest 

threats to sperm whales include ship 

strikes ((McGillivary et al., 2009; 

Carrillo and Ritter, 2010), anthropogenic 

sound (Nowacek et al., 2015), and the 

potential for climate change to influence 

variations in spatial distribution and 

abundance of prey (Hayes et al., 2020). 

Long-Finned Pilot Whale 

Long-finned pilot whales are found 

from North Carolina to North Africa and 

the Mediterranean, and north to Iceland, 

Greenland and the Barents Sea (Hayes et 

al., 2020). In U.S. Atlantic waters the 

species is distributed principally along 

the continental shelf edge off the 

northeastern U.S. coast in winter, early 

spring, and in late spring, long-finned 

pilot whales move onto Georges Bank 

and into the Gulf of Maine and more 

northern waters and remain in these 

areas through late autumn (CETAP, 

1982; Hayes et al., 2020). 

Long-finned pilot whales have been 

known to occur offshore of New Jersey 

(Abend and Smith, 1999; Tyler, 2008; 

Hayes et al., 2020). It is likely that the 

species can be found along the shelf 

break between New Jersey and Georges 

Bank, however, there is limited 

information on the spatial and temporal 

distribution of long-finned pilot whales 

near the survey area (Hayes et al., 2020). 

For instance, pilot whales were not 

detected during the Geo-Marine (2010) 

study. The limited information of the 

presence of long-finned pilot whales 

within the survey area is likely based on 

the habitat preference and the pelagic 

nature of pilot whales (Hayes et al., 

2020) that would suggest pilot whales 

have a rare presence in New Jersey 

waters (Bowers-Altman and NJ Division 

of Fish and Wildlife, 2009). 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

There are two distinct bottlenose 

dolphin ecotypes in the western North 

Atlantic: coastal and offshore (Hersh 

and Duffield, 1990; Mead and Potter, 

1995; Curry and Smith, 1997; Rosel et 

al., 2009). The coastal ecotype is 

morphologically and genetically distinct 

from the larger, more robust offshore 

ecotype that occupies habitats further 

offshore. The offshore ecotype is 

distributed primarily along the outer 

continental shelf and continental slope 

in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean from 

Georges Bank to the Florida Keys 

(CETAP, 1982; Kenney, 1990). North of 

Cape Hatteras, there is separation of the 

two ecotypes across bathymetry during 

summer months. Based upon genetic 

analyses, bottlenose dolphins 

concentrated close to shore were of the 

coastal ecotype, while those in waters 

>25 m depth were from the offshore 

ecotype (Garrison et al., 2003). 

Off the coast of New Jersey, bottlenose 

dolphins, likely from the coastal 

migratory and offshore stocks, can occur 

throughout the year and were the most 

frequently detected species in an 

ecological baseline survey conducted in 

coastal New Jersey waters (Geo-Marine, 

2010; BOEM, 2012). Seasonal 

movements of bottlenose dolphins north 

along the coast during the warmer 

months are likely directed by the 

presence of prey (Barco et al., 1999; 

Hayes et al., 2018). Targeted prey 

species vary by area, season, and stock; 

however, sciaenid fishes, such as 

Atlantic croaker and weakfish, and 

squid, are common (Gannon and 

Waples, 2004). Bottlenose dolphins 

were the most frequently observed 

species during the Geo-Marine (2010) 

study period. A total of 319 bottlenose 

dolphins with group sizes averaging at 

15.3 animals were detected offshore of 

New Jersey (Geo-Marine 2010). Several 

other monitoring efforts recorded 

sightings of this species during 

geophysical surveys in the potential 

windfarm sites (including the survey 

area) southeast of Atlantic City (GeoMarine 2009a, 2009b). Bottlenose 

dolphins have been present annually 

near and offshore of New Jersey, with 

greater sightings during spring and 

summer months (Geo-Marine, 2010). 

Given the northern migratory coastal 

stock propensity to be found shallower 

than the 65.6 ft (20 m) depth isobath 

between Assateague, Virginia and Long 

Island, New York (Reeves et al., 2002; 

Hayes et al., 2020), the northern 

migratory coastal stock is not expected 

to occur in the survey area which is 

located beyond the 65.6 ft (20 m) depth 

isobath. Only the offshore ecotype is 

expected to occur within the study area. 

Common Dolphin 

Common dolphins within the U.S. 

Atlantic EEZ belong to the Western 

North Atlantic stock, generally 

occurring from Cape Hatteras to the 

Scotian Shelf (Hayes et al., 2021). 

Common dolphins are a highly seasonal, 

migratory species. Within the U.S. 

Atlantic EEZ, this species is distributed 

along the continental shelf and typically 

associated with Gulf Stream features 

(CETAP, 1982; Selzer and Payne, 1988; 

Hamazaki, 2002; Hayes et al., 2021). 

Common dolphins occur from Cape 

Hatteras northeast to Georges Bank (35° 

to 42° N) during mid-January to May 

and move as far north as the Scotian 

Shelf from mid-summer to fall (Selzer 

and Payne, 1988). Migration onto the 

Scotian Shelf and continental shelf off 

Newfoundland occurs when water 

temperatures exceed 51.8 °F 

(11 °Celsius) (Sergeant et al., 1970, 

Gowans and Whitehead 1995). Breeding 

usually takes place between June and 

September (Hayes et al., 2019). 

There have been numerous sightings 

of common dolphins along the New 

Jersey coastline (Ulmer, 1981; 

Hamazaki, 2002). Generally, this species 

has been documented 20 nm (>37 km) 

near the shelf break within the months 

of February, May, and July, however, 

they have been sighted year-round (GeoMarine 2010). Geo-Marine (2010) 

recorded a total of 32 common dolphin 

sightings off the coast of New Jersey in 

waters ranging from 33 ft to 102 ft (10 

m to 21 m). Approximately 26% of the 

shipboard sightings of common 

dolphins were calves (Geo-Marine, 

2010) study. Common dolphins are 

regularly observed in large groups 

consisting of hundreds of animals 

(NOAA Fisheries, 2022a). Multiple 

strandings of the common dolphins 

have occurred within the New Jersey 

coasts across multiple seasons (Hayes et 

al., 2021). 

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins 

observed off the U.S. Atlantic coast are 

part of the Western North Atlantic Stock 

(Hayes et al., 2020). This stock inhabits 

waters from central West Greenland to 

North Carolina (about 35° N), primarily 

in continental shelf waters to the 328 ft 

(100 m) depth contour (Doks#ter et al., 

2008). Sighting data indicate seasonal 

shifts in distribution (Northridge et al., 

1997). From January to May, low 

numbers of Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins are found from Georges Bank 

to Jeffrey’s Ledge off New Hampshire. 

From June through September, large 

numbers of Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins are found from Georges Bank 

to the lower Bay of Fundy. From 

October to December, they occur at 

intermediate densities from southern 

Georges Bank to the southern Gulf of 

Maine (Payne and Heinemann, 1990). 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins were 

not observed in the Geo-Marine (2010) 

study off New Jersey, suggesting that 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins occur 

infrequently in the survey area and 

surrounding areas. The NJ ENSP noted 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38077 

that there is little information on the 

sightings of this species and more 

information is needed to accurately 

assess the abundance of Atlantic whitesided dolphins within New Jersey 

waters (see CETAP, 1982; Selzer and 

Payne, 1988; Waring et al., 2007a; 

Bowers-Altman and NJ Division of Fish 

and Wildlife, 2009). A shallow water 

(∼188 ft [36 m]) marine mammal survey 

off of New Jersey found no presence of 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins across 

each season (Kenney et al., 1985), which 

further implies that it is unlikely for this 

species to be present within the survey 

area. Although regional surveys found 

very limited presence of this species 

near the survey area, data adapted from 

Roberts et al. (2016b; 2017; 2018) via the 

MDAT (Curtice et al., 2019) indicate 

abundance in this region increases in 

the spring so although unlikely, Atlantic 

white-sided dolphins may be present 

during HRG activities. 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 

Atlantic spotted dolphins are found in 

tropical and warm temperate waters 

ranging from southern New England, 

south to Gulf of Mexico and the 

Caribbean to Venezuela (Hayes et al., 

2020). The Western North Atlantic stock 

regularly occurs in continental shelf 

waters south of Cape Hatteras and in 

continental shelf edge and continental 

slope waters north of this region (Hayes 

et al., 2020). There are two forms of this 

species, with the larger ecotype 

inhabiting the continental shelf and 

usually occurring inside or near the 200- 

m isobaths (Hayes et al., 2020). Though 

the waters off the coast of New Jersey 

are located within the distributional 

range of the Atlantic spotted dolphin, 

the species was not observed in the Geomarine (2010) study. It has been 

suggested that the species may move 

inshore seasonally during the spring, 

but data to support this theory is limited 

(Caldwell and Caldwell, 1966; Fritts et 

al., 1983). 

Risso’s Dolphin 

Risso’s dolphins occur worldwide in 

both tropical and temperate waters 

(Jefferson et al., 2008, Jefferson et al., 

2014). Risso’s dolphins within the U.S. 

Atlantic EEZ are part of the Western 

North Atlantic stock. The Western North 

Atlantic stock of Risso’s dolphins 

inhabits waters from Florida to eastern 

Newfoundland (Leatherwood et al., 

1976; Baird and Stacey, 1991). During 

spring, summer, and fall, Risso’s 

dolphins are distributed along the 

continental shelf edge from Cape 

Hatteras northward to Georges Bank 

(CETAP, 1982; Payne et al., 1984). 

During the winter, the distribution 

extends outward into oceanic waters 

(Payne et al., 1984) within the MidAtlantic Bight, however, little is known 

about movement and migration patterns 

and Risso’s dolphins are infrequently 

observed in continental shelf waters. 

There is limited data regarding Risso’s 

dolphins offshore of New Jersey. 

Increased strandings of this species 

were recorded from 2003 to 2004 on 

New York, New Jersey, and Delaware 

coasts (DiGiovanni et al., 2005). This 

species has also been primarily 

documented on the shelf break off of 

New Jersey (DiGiovanni et al., 2005). 

There were no Risso’s dolphins 

documented during the Geo-Marine 

(2010) study, however, one Risso’s 

dolphin observation was recorded 

during Atlantic Shores 2020 geophysical 

campaign in the vicinity of the survey 

area. 

Harbor Porpoise 

The harbor porpoise occupies U.S. 

and Canadian waters. During summer 

(July to September), harbor porpoises 

are generally concentrated along the 

continental shelf within the northern 

Gulf of Maine, southern Bay of Fundy 

region, and around the southern tip of 

Nova Scotia, generally in waters less 

than 150 m deep (Gaskin, 1977; Kraus 

et al., 1983; Palka, 1995). During fall 

(October to December) and spring (April 

to June), they are more widely dispersed 

from New Jersey to Maine with lower 

densities farther north and south. In 

winter (January to March), intermediate 

densities of harbor porpoises can be 

found in waters off New Jersey to North 

Carolina with lower densities found in 

waters off New York to New Brunswick, 

Canada (Hayes et al., 2020). 

There are four distinct populations of 

harbor porpoise in the western Atlantic: 

Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy, Gulf of St. 

Lawrence, Newfoundland, and 

Greenland (Gaskin, 1984, 1992; Hayes et 

al., 2020). Harbor porpoises observed 

within the U.S. Atlantic EEZ are 

considered part of the Gulf of Maine/ 

Bay of Fundy stock. Harbor porpoises 

are a frequently sighted cetacean 

offshore of New Jersey (Geo-Marine, 

2010). During the Geo-Marine (2010) 

study off New Jersey, 51 harbor porpoise 

sightings were documented 

approximately 0.8 to 19.8 nm (1.5 to 

36.6 km) from shore. These sightings 

were primarily during winter months 

(February to March). It is therefore 

likely that this marine mammal will be 

present within the survey area. 

The main threat to harbor porpoises is 

interactions with fisheries, with 

documented take in the U.S. northeast 

sink gillnet, mid-Atlantic gillnet, and 

northeast bottom trawl fisheries (Hayes 

et al., 2020). 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals are found throughout 

coastal waters of the Atlantic Ocean and 

adjoining seas above 30° N (Hayes et al., 

2020). In the western North Atlantic, 

they are distributed from eastern Canada 

to southern New England and New 

York, and occasionally as far south as 

the Carolinas (Payne and Selzer, 1989). 

Harbor seals are year-round inhabitants 

of the coastal waters of eastern Canada 

and Maine (Richardson and Rough, 

1993), and occur seasonally from 

southern New England to New Jersey 

between September and late May 

(Schneider and Payne, 1983; Barlas, 

1999; Schroeder, 2000). The western 

North Atlantic stock may occupy 

southern waters of the Mid-Atlantic 

Bight during seasonal migrations from 

the Bay of Fundy in the late autumn and 

winter (Palka et al., 2017). A general 

southward movement from the Bay of 

Fundy to southern New England occurs 

in fall and early winter (Rosenfeld et al., 

1988, Whitman and Payne, 1990, Barlas 

1999). A northward movement from 

southern New England to Maine and 

eastern Canada takes place prior to the 

pupping season, which occurs from 

mid-May through June along the Maine 

coast (Richardson, 1976; Wilson, 1978; 

Whitman and Payne, 1990; Kenney, 

1994). Geo-Marine (2010) observed one 

harbor seal offshore of New Jersey 

during their survey effort. 

In addition to coastal waters, harbor 

seals use terrestrial habitat as haul-out 

sites throughout the year, but primarily 

during the pupping and molting 

periods, which occur from late spring to 

late summer in the northern portion of 

their range. There are three major haulout sites along the New Jersey coast, 

located in Great Bay, Sandy Hook, and 

Barnegat Inlet (CWFNJ, 2015). 

Gray Seal 

Gray seals are the second most 

common pinniped along the U.S. 

Atlantic coast (Jefferson et al., 2008). 

Gray seals in the survey area belong to 

the Western North Atlantic stock. The 

range for this stock is thought to be from 

New Jersey to Labrador, and is centered 

at Sable Island, Nova Scotia (Davies, 

1957; Mansfield, 1966; Katona et al., 

1993). This species inhabits temperate 

and sub-arctic waters and lives on 

remote, exposed islands, shoals, and 

unstable sandbars (Jefferson et al., 

2008). Gray seals range from Canada to 

New Jersey; however, stranding records 

as far south as Cape Hatteras (Gilbert et 

al., 2005) have been recorded. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38078 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

In U.S. waters, gray seals primarily 

pup at four established colonies: 

Muskeget and Monomoy islands in 

Massachusetts, and Green and Seal 

Islands in Maine. Since 2010, pupping 

has also been observed at Noman’s 

Island in Massachusetts and Wooden 

Ball and Matinicus Rock in Maine 

(Hayes et al., 2020). Although whitecoated pups have stranded on eastern 

Long Island beaches in New York, no 

pupping colonies have been detected in 

that region. Following the breeding 

season, gray seals may spend several 

weeks ashore in late spring and early 

summer while undergoing a yearly molt. 

Geo-Marine (2010) did not observe 

gray seals offshore of New Jersey. 

However, the Marine Mammal 

Stranding Center (2022) documented 25 

gray seal strandings in New Jersey in 

2019. Other reported sightings of gray 

seal in waters off of New Jersey were 

found as bycatch in gillnets (Hatch and 

Orphanides, 2017; Orphanides, 2019). 

Gray seals are less likely than harbor 

seals to occur around the survey area 

(Hayes et al., 2020). 

Since July 2018, elevated numbers of 

harbor seal and gray seal mortalities 

have occurred across Maine, New 

Hampshire and Massachusetts. This 

event has been declared a UME. 

Additionally, stranded seals have 

shown clinical signs as far south as 

Virginia, although not in elevated 

numbers, therefore the UME 

investigation now encompasses all seal 

strandings from Maine to Virginia. Ice 

seals (harp and hooded seals) have also 

started stranding with clinical signs, 

again not in elevated numbers, and 

those two seal species have also been 

added to the UME investigation. A total 

of 3,152 reported strandings (of all 

species) occurred from July 1, 2018 

through March 13, 2020. Full or partial 

necropsy examinations have been 

conducted on some of the seals and 

samples have been collected for testing. 

Based on tests conducted thus far, the 

main pathogen found in the seals is 

phocine distemper virus. NMFS is 

performing additional testing to identify 

other factors that may be involved in 

this UME. Presently, this UME is nonactive and is pending closure by NMFS. 

Information on this UME is available 

online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/newengland-mid-atlantic/marine-lifedistress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusualmortality-event-along. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

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

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007, 2019) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into hearing 

groups based on directly measured 

(behavioral or auditory evoked potential 

techniques) or estimated hearing ranges 

(behavioral response data, anatomical 

modeling, etc.). Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

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. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section provides a discussion of 

the ways in which components of the 

specified activity may impact marine 

mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take section, later in this 

document, includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 

and Determination section considers the 

content of this section, the Estimated 

Take section, and the Proposed 

Mitigation section, to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of these 

activities on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and how 

those impacts on individuals may or 

may not impact marine mammal species 

or stocks. 

Background on Active Acoustic Sound 

Sources and Acoustic Terminology 

This subsection provides relevant 

technical background information on 

sound, the characteristics of certain 

sound types, and the metrics used the 

proposed activity. The focused 

discussion also includes analysis of the 

potential effects of the specified activity 

on marine mammals. For general 

information on sound and its interaction 

with the marine environment, please 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38079 

see, e.g., Au and Hastings (2008); 

Richardson et al., (1995); Urick (1983). 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in hertz or 

cycles per second. Wavelength is the 

distance between two peaks or 

corresponding points of a sound wave 

(length of one cycle). Higher frequency 

sounds have shorter wavelengths than 

lower frequency sounds, and higher 

frequency sounds typically attenuate 

(decrease) more rapidly, except in 

certain cases in shallower water. 

Amplitude is the height of the sound 

pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’ of a 

sound and is typically described using 

the relative unit of the decibel. A sound 

pressure level (SPL) in dB is described 

as the ratio between a measured 

pressure and a reference pressure (for 

underwater sound, this is 1 microPascal 

(mPa)), and is a logarithmic unit that 

accounts for large variations in 

amplitude. Therefore, a relatively small 

change in dB corresponds to large 

changes in sound pressure. The source 

level (SL) represents the SPL referenced 

at a distance of 1-m from the source 

(referenced to 1 mPa), while the received 

level is the SPL at the listener’s position 

(referenced to 1 mPa). 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. Root mean 

square is calculated by squaring all of 

the sound amplitudes, averaging the 

squares, and then taking the square root 

of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean 

square accounts for both positive and 

negative values; squaring the pressures 

makes all values positive so they may be 

accounted for in the summation of 

pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). This measurement is often used 

in the context of discussing behavioral 

effects, in part because behavioral 

effects, which often result from auditory 

cues, may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

Sound exposure level (SEL; 

represented as dB re 1 mPa2 -s) 

represents the total energy in a stated 

frequency band over a stated time 

interval or event and considers both 

intensity and duration of exposure. The 

per-pulse SEL is calculated over the 

time window containing the entire 

pulse (i.e., 100 percent of the acoustic 

energy). SEL is a cumulative metric; it 

can be accumulated over a single pulse, 

or calculated over periods containing 

multiple pulses. Cumulative SEL 

represents the total energy accumulated 

by a receiver over a defined time 

window or during an event. Peak sound 

pressure (also referred to as zero-to-peak 

sound pressure or 0-pk) is the maximum 

instantaneous sound pressure 

measurable in the water at a specified 

distance from the source and is 

represented in the same units as the rms 

sound pressure. 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in a manner similar 

to ripples on the surface of a pond and 

may be directed either in a single beam 

or in multiple beams or may radiate in 

all directions (omnidirectional sources). 

The compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound, which is defined as 

environmental background sound levels 

lacking a single source or point 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The sound 

level of a region is defined by the total 

acoustical energy being generated by 

known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging, 

construction) sound. Many sources 

contribute to ambient sound, including 

wind and waves, which are a main 

source of naturally occurring ambient 

sound for frequencies between 200 Hz 

and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, 

ambient sound levels tend to increase 

with increasing wind speed and wave 

height. Precipitation can become an 

important component of total sound at 

frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly 

down to 100 Hz during quiet times. 

Marine mammals can contribute 

significantly to ambient sound levels, as 

can some fish and snapping shrimp. The 

frequency band for biological 

contributions is from approximately 12 

Hz to over 100 kHz. Sources of ambient 

sound related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels), 

dredging and construction, oil and gas 

drilling and production, geophysical 

surveys, sonar, and explosions. Vessel 

noise typically dominates the total 

ambient sound for frequencies between 

20 and 300 Hz. In general, the 

frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are 

below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency 

sound levels are created, they attenuate 

rapidly. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources that 

comprise ambient sound at any given 

location and time depends not only on 

the source levels (as determined by 

current weather conditions and levels of 

biological and human activity) but on 

the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

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

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. Details of source types are 

described in the following text. 

Sounds are often considered to fall 

into one of two general types: Pulsed 

and non-pulsed (defined in the 

following). The distinction between 

these two sound types is important 

because each sound type has differing 

potential to cause physical effects, 

particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., 

Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). 

Please see Southall et al., (2007) for an 

in-depth discussion of these concepts. 

The distinction between these two 

sound types is not always obvious, as 

certain signals share properties of both 

pulsed and non-pulsed sounds. A signal 

near a source could be categorized as a 

pulse, but due to propagation effects as 

the signal moves farther from the 

source, the signal duration becomes 

longer (e.g., Greene and Richardson, 

1988). 

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 

1998; NIOSH, 1998) and occur either as 

isolated events or repeated in some 

succession. Pulsed sounds are all 

characterized by a relatively rapid rise 

from ambient pressure to a maximal 

pressure value followed by a rapid 

decay period that may include a period 

of diminishing, oscillating maximal and 

minimal pressures, and generally have 

an increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38080 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995; 

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

of short duration but without the 

essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid 

rise time). Examples of non-pulsed 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems. 

The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

Sparkers produce pulsed signals with 

energy in the frequency ranges specified 

in Table 2. The amplitude of the 

acoustic wave emitted from sparker 

sources is equal in all directions (i.e., 

omnidirectional), while other sources 

planned for use during the proposed 

surveys have some degree of 

directionality to the beam, as specified 

in Table 2. Other sources planned for 

use during the proposed survey activity 

(e.g., CHIRPs) should be considered 

non-pulsed, intermittent sources. 

Summary on Specific Potential Effects 

of Acoustic Sound Sources 

Underwater sound from active 

acoustic sources can include one or 

more of the following: Temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment, 

behavioral disturbance, masking, stress, 

and non-auditory physical effects. The 

degree of effect is intrinsically related to 

the signal characteristics, received level, 

distance from the source, and duration 

of the sound exposure. Marine 

mammals exposed to high-intensity 

sound, or to lower-intensity sound for 

prolonged periods, can experience 

hearing threshold shift (TS), which is 

the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain 

frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS 

can be permanent (PTS; permanent 

threshold shift), in which case the loss 

of hearing sensitivity is not fully 

recoverable, or temporary (TTS; 

temporary threshold shift), in which 

case the animal’s hearing threshold 

recovers over time (Southall et al., 

2007). 

Animals in the vicinity of Atlantic 

Shores Bight’s proposed HRG survey 

activity are unlikely to incur even TTS 

due to the characteristics of the sound 

sources, which include relatively low 

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

and generally very short pulses and 

potential duration of exposure. These 

characteristics mean that instantaneous 

exposure is unlikely to cause TTS as it 

is unlikely that exposure would occur 

close enough to the vessel for received 

levels to exceed peak pressure TTS 

criteria, and the cumulative duration of 

exposure would be insufficient to 

exceed cumulative sound exposure level 

(SEL) criteria. Regarding instantaneous 

exposure, high-frequency cetacean 

species (e.g., harbor porpoises) have the 

greatest sensitivity to potential TTS, and 

individuals would have to make an 

approach within 5 m of the vessel (the 

estimated isopleth distance to the peak 

threshold). Intermittent exposures—as 

would occur due to the brief, transient 

signals produced by these sources— 

require a higher cumulative SEL to 

induce TTS than would continuous 

exposures of the same duration (i.e., 

intermittent exposure results in lower 

levels of TTS). Moreover, most marine 

mammals would more likely avoid loud 

sound sources rather than approach 

within close proximity to the vessel, 

and also remain within this distance to 

the vessel operating these sources in 

order to receive multiple exposures at 

relatively high levels, as would be 

necessary to cause TTS. Kremser et al. 

(2005) noted that the probability of a 

cetacean swimming through the area of 

exposure when a sub-bottom profiler 

emits a pulse is small—because if the 

animal was in the area, it would have 

to pass the transducer at close range in 

order to be subjected to sound levels 

that could cause TTS and would likely 

exhibit avoidance behavior to the area 

near the transducer rather than swim 

through at such a close range. Further, 

the restricted beam shape of some of the 

HRG survey devices planned for use 

(Table 2) makes it unlikely that an 

animal would be exposed more than 

briefly during the passage of the vessel. 

Behavioral disturbance may include a 

variety of effects, including subtle 

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

avoidance of an area or changes in 

vocalizations), more conspicuous 

changes in similar behavioral activities, 

and more sustained and/or potentially 

severe reactions, such as displacement 

from or abandonment of high-quality 

habitat. Behavioral responses to sound 

are highly variable and context-specific 

and any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors. 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. 

In addition, sound can disrupt 

behavior through masking, or interfering 

with, an animal’s ability to detect, 

recognize, or discriminate between 

acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those 

used for intraspecific communication 

and social interactions, prey detection, 

predator avoidance, navigation). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

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

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in 

origin. Marine mammal 

communications would not likely be 

masked appreciably by the acoustic 

signals given the directionality of the 

signals for most HRG survey equipment 

types planned for use (Table 2) and the 

brief period when an individual 

mammal is likely to be exposed. 

Classic stress responses begin when 

an animal’s central nervous system 

perceives a potential threat to its 

homeostasis. That perception triggers 

stress responses regardless of whether a 

stimulus actually threatens the animal; 

the mere perception of a threat is 

sufficient to trigger a stress response 

(Moberg, 2000; Seyle, 1950). Once an 

animal’s central nervous system 

perceives a threat, it mounts a biological 

response or defense that consists of a 

combination of the four general 

biological defense responses: Behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses. In the case of many 

stressors, an animal’s first and 

sometimes most economical (in terms of 

biotic costs) response is behavioral 

avoidance of the potential stressor or 

avoidance of continued exposure to a 

stressor. An animal’s second line of 

defense to stressors involves the 

sympathetic part of the autonomic 

nervous system and the classical ‘‘fight 

or flight’’ response which includes the 

cardiovascular system, the 

gastrointestinal system, the exocrine 

glands, and the adrenal medulla to 

produce changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity 

that humans commonly associate with 

‘‘stress.’’ These responses have a 

relatively short duration and may or 

may not have significant long-term 

effect on an animal’s welfare. An 

animal’s third line of defense to 

stressors involves its neuroendocrine 

systems; the system that has received 

the most study has been the 

hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system 

(also known as the HPA axis in 

mammals). Unlike stress responses 

associated with the autonomic nervous 

system, virtually all neuro-endocrine 

functions that are affected by stress— 

including immune competence, 

reproduction, metabolism, and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38081 

behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction 

(Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995), reduced 

immune competence (Blecha, 2000), 

and behavioral disturbance. Increases in 

the circulation of glucocorticosteroids 

(cortisol, corticosterone, and 

aldosterone in marine mammals; see 

Romano et al., 2004) have long been 

equated with stress. The primary 

distinction between stress (which is 

adaptive and does not normally place an 

animal at risk) and distress is the biotic 

cost of the response. In general, there is 

little data on the potential for strong, 

anthropogenic underwater sounds to 

cause non-auditory physical effects in 

marine mammals. The available data 

does not allow identification of a 

specific exposure level above which 

non-auditory effects can be expected 

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

no definitive evidence that any of these 

effects occur even for marine mammals 

in close proximity to an anthropogenic 

sound source. In addition, marine 

mammals that show behavioral 

avoidance of survey vessels and related 

sound sources are unlikely to incur nonauditory impairment or other physical 

effects. NMFS does not expect that the 

generally short-term, intermittent, and 

transitory HRG and geotechnical survey 

activities would create conditions of 

long-term, continuous noise and chronic 

acoustic exposure leading to long-term 

physiological stress responses in marine 

mammals. 

Sound may affect marine mammals 

through impacts on the abundance, 

behavior, or distribution of prey species 

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

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

mammal habitat). Prey species exposed 

to sound might move away from the 

sound source, experience TTS, 

experience masking of biologically 

relevant sounds, or show no obvious 

direct effects. The most likely impacts 

(if any) for most prey species in a given 

area would be temporary avoidance of 

the area. Surveys using active acoustic 

sound sources move through an area, 

limiting exposure to multiple pulses. In 

all cases, sound levels would return to 

ambient once a survey ends and the 

noise source is shut down and, when 

exposure to sound ends, behavioral and/ 

or physiological responses are expected 

to end relatively quickly. 

Ship Strikes 

Vessel collisions with marine 

mammals, or ship strikes, can result in 

death or serious injury of the animal. 

These interactions are typically 

associated with large whales, which are 

less maneuverable than smaller 

cetaceans or pinnipeds in relation to 

large vessels. Ship strikes often involve 

commercial shipping vessels, which are 

generally larger (e.g., 40,000 ton 

container ship) and less able to notice 

collisions, or potential collisions, than 

smaller geophysical survey vessels. 

Jensen and Silber (2004) summarized 

ship strikes of large whales worldwide 

from 1975–2003 and found that most 

collisions occurred in the open ocean 

and involved large vessels (e.g., 

commercial shipping). Atlantic Shores 

Bight vessels planned for use in the 

proposed activities range in length from 

40 ft (12.2 m) to 292 ft (89 m). Vessel 

speed while towing gear will be 

approximately 3.5 knots. At these 

speeds, both the possibility of striking a 

marine mammal and the possibility of a 

strike resulting in serious injury or 

mortality are so low as to be 

discountable. At average transit speed 

for geophysical survey vessels, the 

probability of serious injury or mortality 

resulting from a strike is less than 50 

percent. However, the likelihood of a 

strike actually happening is again low 

given the smaller size of these vessels 

and generally slower speeds. Notably in 

the Jensen and Silber study, no strike 

incidents were reported for geophysical 

survey vessels during that time period. 

Marine Mammal Habitat 

The HRG survey equipment will not 

contact the seafloor and does not 

represent a source of pollution. We are 

not aware of any available literature on 

impacts to marine mammal prey from 

sound produced by HRG survey 

equipment. However, as the HRG survey 

equipment introduces noise to the 

marine environment, there is the 

potential for it to result in avoidance of 

the area around the HRG survey 

activities on the part of marine mammal 

prey. Any avoidance of the area on the 

part of marine mammal prey would be 

expected to be short term and 

temporary. 

Because of the temporary nature of 

the disturbance, and the availability of 

similar habitat and resources (e.g., prey 

species) in the surrounding area, the 

impacts to marine mammals and the 

food sources that they utilize are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm consequences for individual 

marine mammals or their populations. 

Impacts on marine mammal habitat 

from the proposed activities will be 

temporary, insignificant, and 

discountable. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers,’’ and 

the negligible impact determinations. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to HRG acoustic sources. 

Based on the nature of the activity, 

Level A harassment is neither 

anticipated nor proposed to be 

authorized. Level A harassment (injury) 

is considered unlikely based on the 

characteristics of the signals produced 

by the acoustic sources planned for use. 

Implementation of required mitigation 

detailed in the Proposed Mitigation 

section below further reduces the 

potential for Level A harassment. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

proposed to be authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

proposed take numbers are estimated. 

For acoustic impacts, generally 

speaking, we estimate take by 

considering: (1) acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) the number of days of activities. 

We note that while these factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of potential 

takes, additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the proposed take estimates. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38082 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

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 or exposure 

context (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle, duration of the exposure, 

signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the 

source), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry, other noises in the area, 

predators in the area), and the receiving 

animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography, life stage, 

depth) and can be difficult to predict 

(e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021, Ellison 

et al., 2012). Based on what the 

available science indicates and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a metric that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

typically uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS generally predicts 

that marine mammals are likely to be 

behaviorally harassed in a manner 

considered to be Level B harassment 

when exposed to underwater 

anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS 

SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 

micropascal (re 1 mPa)) when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

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

and non-impulsive, intermittent sources 

(e.g., CHIRPs) evaluated here for 

Atlantic Shores Bight’s proposed 

activity. 

Atlantic Shores Bight’s proposed HRG 

surveys include the use of nonimpulsive, intermittent (CHIRPs) and 

impulsive (sparkers) sources, and 

therefore the RMS SPL threshold of 160 

dB re 1 mPa is applicable. 

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). Atlantic Shores Bight’s 

proposed HRG survey activities include 

the use of impulsive (sparkers) and nonimpulsive (CHIRPs) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS’ 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

TABLE 5—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans .................................... Cell 1: Lp,0-pk,flat: 219 dB; LE,p, LF,24h: 183 dB .............. Cell 2: LE,p, LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans .................................... Cell 3: Lp,0-pk,flat: 230 dB; LE,p, MF,24h: 185 dB ............. Cell 4: LE,p, MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans .................................. Cell 5: Lp,0-pk,flat: 202 dB; LE,p,HF,24h: 155 dB ............... Cell 6: LE,p, HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ........................... Cell 7: Lp,0-pk.flat: 218 dB; LE,p,PW,24h: 185 dB .............. Cell 8: LE,p,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ........................... Cell 9: Lp,0-pk,flat: 232 dB; LE,p,OW,24h: 203 dB .............. Cell 10: LE,p,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

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

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

for consideration. 

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

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

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

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

thresholds will be exceeded. 

The 2020 Federal Register notice of 

proposed IHA for Atlantic Shores’ HRG 

surveys (85 FR 7926; February 12, 2020) 

previously analyzed the potential for 

Level A harassment (refer to Table 5 in 

that notification and additional 

discussion therein). 

Similar to the past IHAs issued to 

Atlantic Shores, the proposed activities 

for 2022–2023 include the use of 

impulsive (i.e., sparkers) and nonimpulsive (e.g., CHIRPs) sources, and 

Atlantic Shores Bight did not request 

authorization of take by Level A 

harassment. The locations, species, 

survey durations, equipment used, and 

source levels proposed are all of a 

similar scope previously analyzed for 

Atlantic Shores’ surveys. NMFS 

concluded for past surveys that Level A 

harassment was not a reasonably likely 

outcome for marine mammals exposed 

to noise through use of similar 

impulsive and non-impulsive HRG 

sources, therefore, the same conclusion 

applies to the sources proposed for use 

here. Therefore, the potential for Level 

A harassment is not evaluated further in 

this document and no take by Level A 

harassment is proposed for 

authorization by NMFS. [Note that the 

proposed mitigation measures would 

further reduce the potential for Level A 

harassment.] 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that are used in estimating the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, including source levels and 

transmission loss coefficient. 

NMFS has developed a user-friendly 

methodology for estimating the extent of 

the Level B harassment isopleths 

associated with relevant HRG survey 

equipment (NMFS, 2020). This 

methodology incorporates frequency 

and directionality to refine estimated 

ensonified zones. For acoustic sources 

that operate with different beamwidths, 

the maximum beamwidth was used, and 

the lowest frequency of the source was 

used when calculating the frequencydependent absorption coefficient (Table 

2). 

NMFS considers the data provided by 

Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) to 

represent the best available scientific 

information on source levels associated 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38083 

with HRG survey 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 where 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) may be 

used instead. Table 2 shows the HRG 

equipment types that may be used 

during the proposed surveys and the 

source levels associated with those HRG 

equipment types. The computations and 

results from the Level B harassment 

ensonified area analysis are displayed in 

Table 6. 

TABLE 6—INFORMATION INPUTS AND RESULTING DISTANCES TO LEVEL B THRESHOLD (m) FOR REPRESENTATIVE

ACOUSTIC SOURCES

Source information Input values into spreadsheet Computed values 

HRG survey 

equipment type Representative equipment 

Operating 

frequencies 

ranges 

(kHz) 

Operational 

source level 

ranges 

(dBRMS) 

Beamwidth 

ranges 

(degree) 

Water depth 

(m) 

Slant threshold 

range to Level 

B threshold 

(m) 

Horizontal 

threshold 

range to Level 

B threshold 

(m) 

Sparker .............. SIG ELC 820 sparker at 750J * ................ 0.01 203 180 5 141 141 

Geo Marine Survey System 2D SUHRS .. 0.2 195 180 5 56 56 

CHIRPs .............. Edgetech 2000–DSS ................................. 2 195 24 5 56 1.1 

Edgetech 216 ............................................ 2 179 24 5 9 1.1 

Edgetech 424 ............................................ 4 180 71 10 10 5.8 

Edgetech 512i ........................................... 0.7 179 80 10 9 5.8 

Pangeosubsea Sub-Bottom ImagerTM ..... 4 190 120 5 32 8.7 

* Used as a proxy for the Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark 240 because the specific energy setting isn’t described in Crocker and Franantonio (2016). 

Results of modeling using the 

methodology described and shown 

above indicated that, of the HRG survey 

equipment planned for use by Atlantic 

Shores Bight that has the potential to 

result in Level B harassment of marine 

mammals, the Applied Acoustics DuraSpark 240 would produce the largest 

Level B harassment isopleth (141 m; 

please refer to Table 6). 

Although Atlantic Shores Bight does 

not expect to use sparker sources on all 

planned survey days and during the 

entire duration that surveys are likely to 

occur, Atlantic Shores Bight proposes to 

assume for purposes of analysis that the 

sparker would be used on all survey 

days. This is a conservative approach, as 

the actual sources used on individual 

survey days may produce smaller 

harassment distances. 

The Level B harassment isopleth 

distance of 141 m generated for the 

Dura-Spark 240 was used as the ‘‘r’’ 

input to calculate the zone of influence 

(ZOI) around the survey vessel, which is 

the maximum ensonified area around 

the sound source over a 24 hour period. 

The following formula for a mobile 

source was used to calculate the ZOI: 

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

+ pr2 

Where: Distance/day = the maximum 

distance a survey vessel could travel in 

a 24-hour period; r = the maximum 

radial distance from a given sound 

source to the NOAA Level A or Level B 

harassment thresholds. For the purpose 

of the Atlantic Shores Bight HRG 

surveys, the total distance/day has been 

estimated to be approximately 55.0 km 

in the survey area. Based upon a daily 

survey distance of 55 km/day and a 

maximum radial distance to the Level B 

harassment threshold (141 m, see Tables 

6, 7), an area of 15.57 km2 would be 

ensonified to the Level B harassment 

threshold across both survey sites 

during Atlantic Shores Bight’s proposed 

surveys (Table 7). 

TABLE 7—MAXIMUM HRG SURVEY AREA DISTANCES AND DAILY ENSONIFIED AREAS

Survey area 

Number of 

active survey 

days 

Survey 

distances 

per day 

in km 

Maximum 

radial 

distance (r) 

in m 

Calculated 

Isopleth per 

day 

(km2) 

Total annual 

ensonified 

area 

(km2) 

Lease Area ........................................................................... 180 55 141 15.57 2,802.6 

ECR Survey Area ................................................................ 180 ........................ ........................ ........................ 2,802.6 

As described above, this is a 

conservative estimate as it assumes the 

HRG source that results in the greatest 

isopleth distance to the Level B 

harassment threshold would be 

operated at all times during the entire 

survey, which is not expected to 

ultimately occur. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide information 

about the occurrence of marine 

mammals, including density or other 

relevant information 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 scientific information 

regarding marine mammal densities in 

the survey area. More recently, these 

data have been updated with new 

modeling results and include density 

estimates for pinnipeds (Roberts et al., 

2016b, 2017, 2018, 2020). 

The density data presented by Roberts 

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

incorporates aerial and shipboard linetransect survey data from NMFS and 

other organizations and incorporates 

data from eight physiographic and 16 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38084 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

dynamic oceanographic and biological 

covariates, and controls for the 

influence of sea state, group size, 

availability bias, and perception bias on 

the probability of making a sighting. 

These density models were originally 

developed for all cetacean taxa in the 

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

subsequent years, certain models have 

been updated based on additional data 

as well as certain methodological 

improvements. More information is 

available online at https://

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

EC/. Marine mammal density estimates 

in the survey area (animals/km2) were 

obtained using the most recent model 

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

2017, 2018, 2020). The updated models 

incorporate additional sighting data, 

including sightings from NOAA’s 

Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for 

Protected Species (AMAPPS) surveys. 

For the exposure analysis, density 

data from Roberts et al., (2016b, 2017, 

2018, 2020) were mapped using a 

geographic information system (GIS). 

For each of the survey areas (i.e., Lease 

Survey Area, ECR Survey Area), the 

densities of each species as reported by 

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

were averaged by season; thus, a density 

was calculated for each species for 

spring, summer, fall and winter. The 

seasons were defined as follows: Spring 

(March–May); summer (June–August); 

fall (September–November); winter 

(December–February). To be 

conservative, the greatest seasonal 

density calculated for each species was 

then carried forward in the exposure 

analysis. Estimated seasonal densities 

(animals per km2) of all marine mammal 

species that may be taken by the 

proposed survey, for all survey areas are 

shown in Tables C–1, C–2 and C–3 in 

Appendix C of Atlantic Shores Bight’s 

IHA application. The maximum 

seasonal density values used to estimate 

take numbers are shown in Table 9 

below. Below, we discuss how densities 

were assumed to apply to specific 

species for which the Roberts et al. 

(2016b, 2017, 2018, 2020) models 

provide results at the genus or guild 

level. 

For bottlenose dolphin densities, 

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

not differentiate by individual stock. As 

the northern migratory coastal stock is 

not expected to occur in the survey area, 

densities and takes were only analyzed 

for the offshore stock. 

Pilot whale density models from Duke 

University (Roberts et al. 2016a, 2016b, 

2017) represent pilot whales as a ‘guild’ 

rather than by species. However, since 

the survey area is only expected to 

contain long-finned pilot whales, it is 

assumed that pilot whale densities 

modeled by Roberts et al. (2016a, 2016b, 

2017) in the survey area only reflect the 

presence of long-finned pilot whales. 

Recently, the Duke University density 

data have been updated with new 

modeling results, including updated 

NARW density data and density 

estimates for pinnipeds (Roberts et al., 

2016b, 2017, 2018, 2020). Updated 

density estimates for the NARW are due 

to the inclusion of three new datasets: 

2011–2015 Northeast Large Pelagic 

Survey Cooperative, 2017–2018 Marine 

Mammal Surveys of the Wind Energy 

Areas conducted by the New England 

Aquarium, and 2017–2018 New York 

Bight Whale Monitoring Program 

surveys conducted by the New York 

State Department of Environmental 

conservation (NYSDEC). This new 

density data shows distribution changes 

that are likely influenced by 

oceanographic and prey covariates in 

the whale density model (Roberts et al., 

2021). 

Pinniped density data (as presented in 

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

used to estimate pinniped densities 

within the identified survey area. Since 

pinniped density models (Roberts et al., 

2016b, 2017, 2018) represent seals as a 

‘‘guild’’ rather than by species, seal 

densities were apportioned for gray and 

harbor seals as 50% for each stock. 

These estimates were then applied to 

the average seasonal density values 

which were analyzed using the Roberts 

et al. (2018) data. 

Seasonal marine mammal densities 

across survey areas are shown in Table 

8. Maximum densities used in exposure 

analysis are shown in Table 9. 

TABLE 8—MARINE MAMMAL SEASONAL DENSITIES ACROSS SURVEY SITES

Species 

Averaged seasonal densities 

(number of animals per 100 km2) 

Spring Summer Fall Winter 

Lease area ECR Lease area ECR Lease area ECR Lease area ECR 

North Atlantic right whale .................................. 0.386 0.475 0.003 0.003 0.011 0.012 0.273 0.373 

Humpback whale ............................................... 0.068 0.045 0.021 0.023 0.055 0.058 0.021 0.040 

Fin whale ........................................................... 0.230 0.193 0.295 0.216 0.237 0.170 0.167 0.120 

Sei whale ........................................................... 0.012 0.013 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 

Minke whale ...................................................... 0.168 0.112 0.062 0.037 0.045 0.027 0.057 0.039 

Sperm whale ..................................................... 0.003 0.003 0.030 0.042 0.021 0.023 0.002 0.001 

Long-finned pilot whale ..................................... 0.354 0.256 0.354 0.256 0.354 0.256 0.354 0.256 

Bottlenose dolphin (offshore stock) .................. 1.622 0.776 2.309 3.028 5.011 3.231 2.786 1.347 

Common dolphin ............................................... 7.017 3.326 6.138 3.753 7.235 6.611 19.246 13.251 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin .............................. 2.213 1.611 0.972 0.802 0.855 0.726 1.461 0.890 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ..................................... 0.062 0.036 0.513 0.327 0.409 0.267 0.026 0.015 

Risso’s dolphin .................................................. 0.012 0.005 0.089 0.038 0.024 0.012 0.032 0.015 

Harbor porpoise ................................................ 6.657 6.059 0.034 0.049 0.215 0.556 3.927 5.635 

Harbor seal ........................................................ 3.544 5.799 0.052 0.077 0.055 0.109 3.262 5.479 

Gray seal ........................................................... 3.544 5.799 0.052 0.077 0.055 0.109 3.262 5.479 

TABLE 9—MAXIMUM SEASONAL DENSITIES OF MARINE MAMMALS USED IN EXPOSURE ANALYSIS

Species 

Maximum seasonal density 

used 

(number of animals per 100 

km2) 

Lease area ECR 

survey area 

North Atlantic right whale .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.386 0.475 

Humpback whale ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.068 0.058 

Fin whale ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.295 0.216 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38085 

TABLE 9—MAXIMUM SEASONAL DENSITIES OF MARINE MAMMALS USED IN EXPOSURE ANALYSIS—Continued 

Species 

Maximum seasonal density 

used 

(number of animals per 100 

km2) 

Lease area ECR 

survey area 

Sei whale ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.012 0.013 

Minke whale .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.168 0.112 

Sperm whale ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.030 0.042 

Long-finned pilot whale ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.354 0.256 

Bottlenose dolphin ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5.011 3.231 

Common dolphin ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 19.246 13.251 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2.213 1.611 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.062 0.036 

Risso’s dolphin .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.089 0.038 

Harbor porpoise ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 6.657 6.059 

Harbor seal ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3.544 5.799 

Gray seal ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.544 5.799 

Take Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is synthesized to 

produce a quantitative estimate of the 

take that is reasonably likely to occur 

and proposed for authorization. 

The number of marine mammals 

expected to be incidentally taken per 

day is calculated by estimating the 

number of each species predicted to 

occur within the daily ensonified area 

(animals/km2), incorporating the 

maximum seasonal estimated marine 

mammal densities as described above. 

Estimated numbers of each species 

taken per day across all survey sites are 

then multiplied by the total number of 

survey days (i.e., 360). The product is 

then rounded, to generate an estimate of 

the total number of instances of 

harassment expected for each species 

over the duration of the survey. A 

summary of this method is illustrated in 

the following formula with the resulting 

proposed take of marine mammals is 

shown below in Table 10: 

Estimated Take = D × ZOI × # of days 

Where: 

D = average species density (per km2); and 

ZOI = maximum daily ensonified area to 

relevant thresholds. 

TABLE 10—TOTAL ESTIMATED AND REQUESTED TAKE NUMBERS

[By Level B harassment only] 

Species 

Calculated take estimate 

Combined 

take estimate 

Total adjusted 

proposed take 

estimate * 

Proposed 

percent of 

population to 

be taken Lease area ECR survey area 

North Atlantic right whale ..................................................... 11 13 24 24 6.5 

Humpback whale * ............................................................... 2 2 4 8 0.6 

Fin whale .............................................................................. 9 7 16 16 0.2 

Sei whale ∧ ........................................................................... 0.3 0.4 0.7 2 0.03 

Minke whale ......................................................................... 5 3 8 8 0.04 

Sperm whale ........................................................................ 0.9 2 2.9 3 0.07 

Long-finned pilot whale * ...................................................... 10 8 18 20 0.07 

Bottlenose dolphin (Offshore stock) .................................... 141 91 232 232 0.4 

Common dolphin .................................................................. 539 372 911 911 0.2 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ................................................. 62 46 108 108 0.5 

Atlantic spotted dolphin * ...................................................... 2 1 3 100 0.3 

Risso’s dolphin * ................................................................... 3 2 5 30 0.1 

Harbor porpoise ................................................................... 187 170 357 357 0.4 

Harbor seal .......................................................................... 100 163 263 263 0.4 

Gray seal .............................................................................. 100 163 263 263 1.0 

* Requested take adjusted for group size. 

∧Based upon previous IHAs. 

NMFS proposes to round decimal 

estimates to the nearest whole number 

in the event that a decimal was 

calculated for take. Therefore, take 

estimates for the sperm whale and sei 

whale were rounded up to three whales 

and two whales, respectively (Table 10). 

Requested take estimates were also 

adjusted to account for typical group 

sizes of humpback whale (King et al., 

2021), Risso’s dolphin (NOAA 2022b), 

Atlantic spotted dolphin (Jefferson et 

al., 2008), and long-finned pilot whale 

(NOAA 2022b). A total of 30 takes of 

Risso’s dolphin, 100 takes of Atlantic 

spotted dolphin, and 20 takes of longfinned pilot whales are requested. 

Adding these additional takes ensures 

the number of takes authorized is at 

least equal to the average group size, 

and NMFS agrees with this approach. 

Based on recent information from 

King et al. (2021) that demonstrated that 

the humpback whale is commonly 

sighted along the New York Bight area, 

NMFS determined that the humpback 

whale take request may be too low given 

the occurrence of animals near the 

survey area. Because of this, NMFS 

proposes to double the requested take to 

account for underestimates to the actual 

occurrence of this species within the 

density data. 

Previously, 100 takes of Atlantic 

spotted dolphins, by Level B 

harassment, were authorized to Atlantic 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38086 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

Shores during their 2020 IHA surveys 

(85 FR 7926; February 12, 2020). Early 

into the 2021 field season, Atlantic 

Shores observed large numbers of 

Atlantic spotted dolphins. A take of 100 

Atlantic spotted dolphins was 

authorized for the Atlantic Shores 2022 

IHA (87 FR 4200, January 27, 2022) to 

account for these numerous sightings. 

Based upon takes authorized for prior 

IHAs, NMFS proposes to adjust the take 

estimate, by Level B harassment, from 3 

to 100 Atlantic spotted dolphins. 

One sei whale take was calculated 

(Table 10), however, Atlantic Shores 

Bight has requested to increase sei 

whale takes to two whales. This 

increase is based on the average group 

size of sei whales (NOAA 2022b). 

Therefore, NMFS proposes to adjust the 

take estimate, by Level B harassment, 

from 1 sei whale to 2 sei whales. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost and 

impact on operations. 

NMFS proposes the following 

mitigation measures be implemented 

during Atlantic Shores Bight’s planned 

marine site characterization surveys. 

Pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, 

Atlantic Shores Bight is also required to 

adhere to relevant Project Design 

Criteria (PDC) of the NMFS’ Greater 

Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office 

(GARFO) programmatic consultation 

(specifically PDCs 4, 5, and 7) regarding 

geophysical surveys along the U.S. 

Atlantic coast (https://

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

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

Marine Mammal Shutdown Zones 

Marine mammal shutdown zones 

would be established around specified 

HRG survey equipment and monitored 

by protected species observers (PSOs). 

These PSOs will be NMFS-approved 

visual PSOs. Based upon the acoustic 

source in use (impulsive: Sparkers; nonimpulsive: Non-parametric sub-bottom 

profilers), a minimum of one PSO must 

be on duty, per source vessel, during 

daylight hours and two PSOs must be 

on duty, per source vessel, during 

nighttime hours. These PSO will 

monitor shutdown zones based upon 

the radial distance from the acoustic 

source rather than being based around 

the vessel itself. The shutdown zone 

distances are as follows: 

• A 500-m shutdown zone for North 

Atlantic right whales during use of 

specified acoustic sources (impulsive: 

Sparkers; non-impulsive: Nonparametric sub-bottom profilers). 

• A 100-m shutdown zone for all 

other marine mammals (excluding 

NARWs and delphinids from the genera 

Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, Stenella, or 

Tursiops that are visually detected as 

voluntarily approaching the vessel or 

towed equipment) during use of 

specified acoustic sources (as specified 

below). All visual monitoring must 

begin no less than 30 minutes prior to 

the initiation of the specified acoustic 

source and must continue until 30 

minutes after use of specified acoustic 

sources ceases. 

If a marine mammal is detected 

approaching or entering the shutdown 

zones during the HRG survey, the vessel 

operator would adhere to the shutdown 

procedures described below to 

minimize noise impacts on the animals. 

If a shutdown is required, a PSO will 

notify the survey crew immediately. 

Vessel operators and crews will comply 

immediately with any call for 

shutdown. Shutdown will remain in 

effect until the minimum separation 

distances (detailed above) between the 

animal and noise source are reestablished. These stated requirements 

will be included in the site-specific 

training to be provided to the survey 

team. 

Ramp Up of Survey Equipment and PreClearance of the Shutdown Zones 

When technically feasible, a ramp-up 

procedure would be used for HRG 

survey equipment capable of adjusting 

energy levels at the start or restart of 

survey activities. A ramp-up would 

begin with the powering up of the 

smallest acoustic HRG equipment at its 

lowest practical power output 

appropriate for the survey. The ramp-up 

procedure would be used 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. 

When technically feasible, the power 

would then be gradually turned up and 

other acoustic sources would be added. 

All ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as 

to minimize the time spent with the 

source being activated. 

Ramp-up activities will be delayed if 

a marine mammal(s) enters its 

respective shutdown zone. Ramp-up 

will continue if the animal has been 

observed exiting its respective 

shutdown 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). 

Atlantic Shores Bight would 

implement a 30 minute pre-clearance 

period of the shutdown zones prior to 

the initiation of ramp-up of HRG 

equipment. The operator must notify a 

designated PSO of the planned start of 

ramp-up where the notification time 

should not be less than 60 minutes prior 

to the planned ramp-up. This would 

allow the PSOs to monitor the 

shutdown zones for 30 minutes prior to 

the initiation of ramp-up. Prior to rampup beginning, Atlantic Shores Bight 

must receive confirmation from the PSO 

that the shutdown zone is clear prior to 

proceeding. During this 30 minute prestart clearance period, the entire 

applicable shutdown zones must be 

visible. The exception to this would be 

in situations where ramp-up may occur 

during periods of poor visibility 

(inclusive of nighttime) as long as 

appropriate visual monitoring has 

occurred with no detections of marine 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38087 

mammals in 30 minutes prior to the 

beginning of ramp-up. Acoustic source 

activation may only occur at night 

where operational planning cannot 

reasonably avoid such circumstances. 

During this period, the shutdown 

zone 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 shutdown zone. If a marine 

mammal is observed within a shutdown 

zone during the pre-clearance period, 

ramp-up may not begin until the 

animal(s) has been observed exiting its 

respective shutdown zone or until an 

additional time period has elapsed with 

no further sighting (i.e., 15 minutes for 

small odontocetes and pinnipeds and 30 

minutes for all other species). If a 

marine mammal enters the shutdown 

zone during ramp-up, ramp-up activities 

must cease and the source must be shut 

down. Any PSO on duty has the 

authority to delay the start of survey 

operations if a marine mammal is 

detected within the applicable pre-start 

clearance zones. 

The pre-clearance zones would be: 

• 500-m for all ESA-listed species 

(North Atlantic right, sei, fin, sperm 

whales); and 

• 100-m for all other marine 

mammals. 

If any marine mammal species that 

are listed under the ESA are observed 

within the clearance zones, the presence 

of the animal will be recorded and the 

30 minute clock must be paused. If the 

PSO confirms the animal has exited the 

zone and headed away from the survey 

vessel, the 30 minute clock that was 

paused may resume. The pre-clearance 

clock will reset to 30 minutes if the 

animal dives or visual contact is 

otherwise lost. 

If the acoustic source is shut down for 

brief periods (i.e., less than 30 minutes) 

for reasons other than implementation 

of prescribed mitigation (e.g., 

mechanical difficulty), the acoustic 

source may be reactivated without 

ramp-up if PSOs have maintained 

constant visual observation and no 

detection of marine mammals occurs 

within the applicable shutdown zone. 

For any longer shutdown, pre-start 

clearance observation and ramp-up are 

required. 

Activation of survey equipment 

through ramp-up procedures may not 

occur when visual detection of marine 

mammals within the pre-clearance zone 

is not expected to be effective (e.g., 

during inclement conditions such as 

heavy rain or fog). 

The acoustic source(s) must be 

deactivated when not acquiring data or 

preparing to acquire data, except as 

necessary for testing. Unnecessary use 

of the acoustic source shall be avoided. 

Shutdown Procedures 

An immediate shutdown of the 

impulsive HRG survey equipment 

(Table 2) would be required if a marine 

mammal is sighted entering or within its 

respective shutdown zone(s). Any PSO 

on duty has the authority to call for a 

shutdown of the acoustic source if a 

marine mammal is detected within the 

applicable shutdown zones. Any 

disagreement between the PSO and 

vessel operator should be discussed 

only after shutdown has occurred. The 

vessel operator would establish and 

maintain clear lines of communication 

directly between PSOs on duty and 

crew controlling the HRG source(s) to 

ensure that shutdown commands are 

conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs 

to maintain watch. 

The shutdown requirement is waived 

for small delphinids (belonging to the 

genera of the Family Delphinidae: 

Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, Stenella, or 

Tursiops) and pinnipeds if they are 

visually detected within the applicable 

shutdown zones. 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 applicable Level 

B harassment zone, shutdown would 

occur. In the event of uncertainty 

regarding the identification of a marine 

mammal species (i.e., such as whether 

the observed marine mammal belongs to 

Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, Stenella, or 

Tursiops for which shutdown is waived, 

PSOs must use their best professional 

judgment in making the decision to call 

for a shutdown. 

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. 

Upon implementation of a shutdown, 

the source may be reactivated after the 

marine mammal has been observed 

exiting the applicable shutdown zone or 

following a clearance period of 15 

minutes for harbor porpoises and 30 

minutes for all other species where 

there are no further detections of the 

marine mammal. 

Shutdown, pre-start clearance, and 

ramp-up procedures are not required 

during HRG survey operations using 

only non-impulsive sources (e.g., 

parametric sub-bottom profilers) other 

than non-parametric sub-bottom 

profilers (e.g., CHIRPs). Pre-clearance 

and ramp-up, but not shutdown, are 

required when using non-impulsive, 

non-parametric sub-bottom profilers. 

Seasonal Operating Requirements 

A section of the proposed survey area 

overlaps with approximately 2% of a 

North Atlantic right whale SMA. This 

SMA is active from November 1 through 

April 30 of each year. All survey 

vessels, regardless of length, would be 

required to adhere to vessel speed 

restrictions (<10 knots) when operating 

within the SMA during times when the 

SMA is active. In addition, between 

watch shifts, members of the monitoring 

team would consult NMFS’ North 

Atlantic right whale reporting systems 

for the presence of North Atlantic right 

whales throughout survey operations. 

Members of the monitoring team would 

also monitor the NMFS North Atlantic 

right whale reporting systems for the 

establishment of Dynamic Management 

Areas (DMA). NMFS may also establish 

voluntary right whale Slow Zones any 

time a right whale (or whales) is 

acoustically detected. Atlantic Shores 

Bight should be aware of this possibility 

and remain attentive in the event a Slow 

Zone is established nearby or 

overlapping the survey area (Table 11). 

TABLE 11—NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE DYNAMIC MANAGEMENT AREA (DMA) AND SEASONAL MANAGEMENT AREA

(SMA) RESTRICTIONS WITHIN SURVEY AREA

Survey area Species DMA restrictions Slow zones SMA restrictions 

Lease Area ........................ North Atlantic Right Whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis).

If established by NMFS, all of Atlantic Shores Bight’s 

vessels will abide by the described restrictions. 

N/A. 

ECR Survey Area .............. November 1–April 30 

(ports of New York/New 

Jersey). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38088 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

There are no known marine mammal 

rookeries or mating or calving grounds 

in the survey area that would otherwise 

potentially warrant increased mitigation 

measures for marine mammals or their 

habitat (or both). The proposed survey 

activities would occur in an area that 

has been identified as a biologically 

important area (BIA) for migration for 

North Atlantic right whales. However, 

given the small spatial extent of the 

survey area relative to the substantially 

larger spatial extent of the right whale 

migratory area and the relatively low 

amount of noise generated by the 

survey, the survey is not expected to 

appreciably reduce the quality of 

migratory habitat nor to negatively 

impact the migration of North Atlantic 

right whales. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance Procedures 

Vessel operators must comply with 

the below measures except under 

extraordinary circumstances when the 

safety of the vessel or crew is in doubt 

or the safety of life at sea is in question. 

These requirements do not apply in any 

case where compliance would create an 

imminent and serious threat to a person 

or vessel or to the extent that a vessel 

is restricted in its ability to maneuver 

and, because of the restriction, cannot 

comply. 

• A Vessel Strike Avoidance Zone(s) 

will be maintained, as defined as 1,640 

ft (500 m) or greater from any sighted 

ESA-listed whale species or other 

unidentified large marine mammal; 

Æ If a large whale is identified within 

1,640 ft (500 m) of the forward path of 

any vessel, the vessel operator must 

steer a course away from the whale at 

10 knots (18.5 km/hr) or less until the 

1,640 ft (500 m) minimum separation 

distance has been established. Vessels 

may also shift to idle if feasible. 

Æ If a large whale is sighted within 

656 ft (200 m) of the forward path of a 

vessel, the vessel operator must reduce 

speed and shift the engine to neutral. 

Engines must not be engaged until the 

whale has moved outside of the vessel’s 

path and beyond 1,640 ft (500 m). If 

stationary, the vessel must not engage 

engines until the large whale has moved 

beyond 1,640 ft (500 m). 

• All vessel operators and crew will 

maintain vigilant watch for all marine 

mammals, and slow down, stop their 

vessel, or alter course, as appropriate 

and regardless of vessel size, to avoid 

striking any marine mammals. Unless a 

required PSO is aboard and on duty, 

then a designated and trained vessel 

crew member on all vessels associated 

with survey activities (transiting [i.e., 

traveling between a port and survey site] 

or actively surveying) will be assigned 

as a lookout for marine mammals; 

• Members of the monitoring team 

will consult NMFS North Atlantic right 

whale reporting system and Whale 

Alert, daily and 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, 

will observe a 10 knot (less than 18.5 

km per hour [km/h]) speed restriction in 

the specific areas designated by NOAA 

Fisheries for the protection of NARWs 

from vessel strikes including seasonal 

management areas (SMAs), Right Whale 

Slow Zones, and dynamic management 

areas (DMAs), when in effect. See 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

endangered-species-conservation/ 

reducing-ship-strikes-north-atlanticright-whales for specific detail regarding 

these areas. 

• All vessels greater than or equal to 

65 ft (19.8 m) in overall length operating 

from November 1 through April 30 will 

operate at speeds of 10 knots or less 

while transiting to and from the survey 

area. 

• All vessels, regardless of size, will 

reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less 

when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large 

assemblages of cetaceans are observed 

near (within 330 ft [100 m]) of an 

underway vessel. 

• All vessels will, to the maximum 

extent practicable, attempt to maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 164 ft 

(50 m) from all other marine mammals 

than ESA-listed and large whales, with 

an understanding that at times this may 

not be possible (e.g., for animals that 

approach the vessel). 

• When marine mammals are sighted 

while a vessel is underway, the vessel 

will 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). 

Engines will not be engaged until the 

animals are clear of the area. This will 

not apply to any vessel towing gear or 

any vessel that is navigationally 

constrained. 

Training 

All PSOs must have completed a PSO 

training program and received NMFS 

approval to act as a PSO for geophysical 

surveys. Documentation of NMFS 

approval and most recent training 

certificates of individual PSOs’ 

successful completion of a commercial 

PSO training course must be provided 

upon request. Further information can 

be found at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/endangered-speciesconservation/protected-speciesobservers. In the event where third-party 

PSOs are not required, crew members 

serving as lookouts must receive 

training on protected species 

identification, vessel strike 

minimization procedures, how and 

when to communicate with the vessel 

captain, and reporting requirements. 

Atlantic Shores Bight shall instruct 

relevant vessel personnel with regard to 

the authority of the marine mammal 

monitoring team, and shall ensure that 

relevant vessel personnel and the 

marine mammal monitoring team 

participate in a joint onboard briefing 

(hereafter PSO briefing), led by the 

vessel operator and lead PSO, prior to 

beginning survey activities to ensure 

that responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocols, safety and operational 

procedures, and IHA requirements are 

clearly understood. This PSO briefing 

must be repeated when relevant new 

personnel (e.g., PSOs, acoustic source 

operator) join the survey operations 

before their responsibilities and work 

commences. 

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. All vessel 

crew members must be briefed in the 

identification of protected species that 

may occur in the survey area and in 

regulations and best practices for 

avoiding vessel collisions. Reference 

materials must be available aboard all 

project vessels for identification of 

listed species. The expectation and 

process for reporting of protected 

species sighted during surveys must be 

clearly communicated and posted in 

highly visible locations aboard all 

project vessels, so that there is an 

expectation for reporting to the 

designated vessel contact (such as the 

lookout or the vessel captain), as well as 

a communication channel and process 

for crew members to do so. 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38089 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present while conducting the activities. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and, 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Proposed Monitoring Measures 

Atlantic Shores Bight must use 

independent, dedicated, trained PSOs, 

meaning that the PSOs must be 

employed by a third-party observer 

provider, must 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 mammal and 

mitigation requirements (including brief 

alerts regarding maritime hazards), and 

must have successfully completed an 

approved PSO training course for 

geophysical surveys. Visual monitoring 

must be performed by qualified, NMFSapproved PSOs. PSO resumes must be 

provided to NMFS for review and 

approval prior to the start of survey 

activities. 

PSO names must be provided to 

NMFS by the operator for review and 

confirmation of their approval for 

specific roles prior to commencement of 

the survey. For prospective PSOs not 

previously approved, or for PSOs whose 

approval is not current, NMFS must 

review and approve PSO qualifications. 

Resumes should include information 

related to relevant education, 

experience, and training, including 

dates, duration, location, and 

description of prior PSO experience. 

Resumes must be accompanied by 

relevant documentation of successful 

completion of necessary training. 

NMFS may approve PSOs as 

conditional or unconditional. A 

conditionally-approved PSO may be one 

who is trained but has not yet attained 

the requisite experience. An 

unconditionally-approved PSO is one 

who has attained the necessary 

experience. For unconditional approval, 

the PSO must have a minimum of 90 

days at sea performing the role during 

a geophysical survey, with the 

conclusion of the most recent relevant 

experience not more than 18 months 

previous. 

At least one of the visual PSOs aboard 

the vessel must be unconditionallyapproved. One unconditionallyapproved visual PSO shall be 

designated as the lead for the entire PSO 

team. This lead should typically be the 

PSO with the most experience, would 

coordinate duty schedules and roles for 

the PSO team, and serve as primary 

point of contact for the vessel operator. 

To the maximum extent practicable, the 

duty schedule shall be planned such 

that unconditionally-approved PSOs are 

on duty with conditionally-approved 

PSOs. 

PSOs must have successfully attained 

a bachelor’s degree from an accredited 

college or university with a major in one 

of the natural sciences, a minimum of 

30 semester hours or equivalent in the 

biological sciences, and at least one 

undergraduate course in math or 

statistics. The educational requirements 

may be waived if the PSO has acquired 

the relevant skills through alternate 

experience. Requests for such a waiver 

shall be submitted to NMFS and must 

include written justification. Alternate 

experience that may be considered 

includes, but is not limited to (1) 

secondary education and/or experience 

comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous 

work experience conducting academic, 

commercial, or government-sponsored 

marine mammal surveys; and (3) 

previous work experience as a PSO 

(PSO must be in good standing and 

demonstrate good performance of PSO 

duties). 

PSOs must successfully complete 

relevant training, including completion 

of all required coursework and passing 

(80 percent or greater) a written and/or 

oral examination developed for the 

training program. 

PSOs must coordinate to ensure 360° 

visual coverage around the vessel from 

the most appropriate observation posts 

and shall conduct visual observations 

using binoculars or night-vision 

equipment and the naked eye while free 

from distractions and in a consistent, 

systematic, and diligent manner. 

PSOs may be on watch for a 

maximum of four consecutive hours 

followed by a break of at least two hours 

between watches and may conduct a 

maximum of 12 hours of observation per 

24-hour period. 

Any observations of marine mammal 

by crew members aboard any vessel 

associated with the survey shall be 

relayed to the PSO team. 

Atlantic Shores Bight must work with 

the selected third-party PSO provider to 

ensure PSOs have all equipment 

(including backup equipment) needed 

to adequately perform necessary tasks, 

including accurate determination of 

distance and bearing to observed marine 

mammals, and to ensure that PSOs are 

capable of calibrating equipment as 

necessary for accurate distance 

estimates and species identification. 

Such equipment, at a minimum, shall 

include: 

• At least one thermal (infrared) 

imagine device suited for the marine 

environment; 

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

appropriate quality (at least one per 

PSO, plus backups); 

• Global Positioning Units (GPS) (at 

least one plus backups); 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38090 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

• Digital cameras with a telephoto 

lens that is at least 300-mm or 

equivalent on a full-frame single lens 

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

The camera or lens should also have an 

image stabilization system; 

• Equipment necessary for accurate 

measurement of distances to marine 

mammal; 

• Compasses (at least one plus 

backups); 

• Means of communication among 

vessel crew and PSOs; and 

• Any other tools deemed necessary 

to adequately and effectively perform 

PSO tasks. 

The equipment specified above may 

be provided by an individual PSO, the 

third-part PSO provider, or the operator, 

but Atlantic Shores Bight is responsible 

for ensuring PSOs have the proper 

equipment required to perform the 

duties specified in the IHA. 

During good conditions (e.g., daylight 

hours; Beaufort sea state 3 or less), PSOs 

shall conduct observations when the 

specified acoustic sources are not 

operating for comparison of sighting 

rates and behavior with and without use 

of the specified acoustic sources and 

between acquisition periods, to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

The PSOs will be responsible for 

monitoring the waters surrounding each 

survey vessel to the farthest extent 

permitted by sighting conditions, 

including shutdown zones, during all 

HRG survey operations. PSOs will 

visually monitor and identify shutdown 

zones during survey activities. It will be 

the responsibility of the PSO(s) on duty 

to communicate the presence of marine 

mammals as well as to communicate the 

action(s) that are necessary to ensure 

mitigation and monitoring requirements 

are implemented as appropriate. 

In cases when pre-clearance has 

begun in conditions with good 

visibility, including via the use of nightvision equipment, and the lead PSO has 

determined that the pre-start clearance 

zones are clear of marine mammals, 

survey operations may commence (i.e., 

no delay is required) despite brief 

periods of inclement weather and/or 

loss of daylight. 

Atlantic Shores Bight plans to utilize 

six PSOs across each vessel to account 

for shift changes, with a total of 18 

during this project (six PSOs per vessel 

x three vessels). At a minimum, during 

all HRG survey operations (e.g., any day 

on which use of an HRG source is 

planned to occur), 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) 

and two PSOs will be on watch during 

nighttime operations. The PSO(s) would 

ensure 360° visual coverage around the 

vessel from the most appropriate 

observation posts and would conduct 

visual observations using binoculars 

and/or night vision goggles and the 

naked eye while free from distractions 

and in a consistent, systematic, and 

diligent manner. PSOs may be on watch 

for a maximum of four consecutive 

hours followed by a break of at least two 

hours between watches and may 

conduct a maximum of 12 hours of 

observation per 24-hr period. In cases 

where multiple vessels are surveying 

concurrently, any observations of 

marine mammals would be 

communicated to PSOs on all nearby 

survey vessels. 

PSOs must be equipped with 

binoculars and have the ability to 

estimate distance and bearing to detect 

marine mammals, particularly in 

proximity to Exclusion Zones. 

Reticulated binoculars must also be 

available to PSOs for use as appropriate 

based on conditions and visibility to 

support the sighting and monitoring of 

marine mammals. During nighttime 

operations, night-vision goggles with 

thermal clip-ons and infrared 

technology would be used. Position data 

would be recorded using hand-held or 

vessel GPS units for each sighting. 

During good conditions (e.g., daylight 

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

to the maximum extent practicable, 

PSOs would also conduct observations 

when the acoustic source is not 

operating for comparison of sighting 

rates and behavior with and without use 

of the active acoustic sources. Any 

observations of marine mammals by 

crew members aboard any vessel 

associated with the survey would be 

relayed to the PSO team. Data on all 

PSO observations would be recorded 

based on standard PSO collection 

requirements (see Proposed Reporting 

Measures). This would include dates, 

times, and locations of survey 

operations; dates and times of 

observations, location and weather; 

details of marine mammal sightings 

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

details of any observed marine mammal 

behavior that occurs (e.g., noted 

behavioral disturbances). 

Proposed Reporting Measures 

Atlantic Shores Bight shall submit a 

draft comprehensive report on all 

activities and monitoring results within 

90 days of the completion of the survey 

or expiration of the IHA, whichever 

comes sooner. The report must describe 

all activities conducted and sightings of 

marine mammals, must provide full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring, and must summarize the 

dates and locations of survey operations 

and all marine mammals sightings 

(dates, times, locations, activities, 

associated survey activities). The draft 

report shall also include geo-referenced, 

time-stamped vessel tracklines for all 

time periods during which acoustic 

sources were operating. Tracklines 

should include points recording any 

change in acoustic source status (e.g., 

when the sources began operating, when 

they were turned off, or when they 

changed operational status such as from 

full array to single gun or vice versa). 

GIS files shall be provided in ESRI 

shapefile format and include the UTC 

date and time, latitude in decimal 

degrees, and longitude in decimal 

degrees. All coordinates shall be 

referenced to the WGS84 geographic 

coordinate system. In addition to the 

report, all raw observational data shall 

be made available. The report must 

summarize the information submitted in 

interim monthly reports (if required) as 

well as additional data collected. A final 

report must be submitted within 30 days 

following resolution of any comments 

on the draft report. All draft and final 

marine mammal reports must be 

submitted to 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov, 

ITP.Taylor@noaa.gov, and 

nmfs.gar.incidental-take@noaa.gov. 

PSOs must use standardized 

electronic data forms to record data. 

PSOs shall record detailed information 

about any implementation of mitigation 

requirements, including the distance of 

marine mammal to the acoustic source 

and description of specific actions that 

ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), 

any observed changes in behavior before 

and after implementation of mitigation, 

and if shutdown was implemented, the 

length of time before any subsequent 

ramp-up of the acoustic source. If 

required mitigation was not 

implemented, PSOs should record a 

description of the circumstances. 

At a minimum, the following 

information must be recorded: 

1. Vessel names (source vessel and 

other vessels associated with survey), 

vessel size and type, maximum speed 

capability of vessel; 

2. Dates of departures and returns to 

port with port name; 

3. The lease number; 

4. PSO names and affiliations; 

5. Date and participants of PSO 

briefings; 

6. Visual monitoring equipment used; 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38091 

7. PSO location on vessel and height 

of observation location above water 

surface; 

8. Dates and times (Greenwich Mean 

Time) of survey on/off effort and times 

corresponding with PSO on/off effort; 

9. Vessel location (decimal degrees) 

when survey effort begins and ends and 

vessel location at beginning and end of 

visual PSO duty shifts; 

10. Vessel location at 30-second 

intervals if obtainable from data 

collection software, otherwise at 

practical regular interval 

11. Vessel heading and speed at 

beginning and end of visual PSO duty 

shifts and upon any change; 

12. Water depth (if obtainable from 

data collection software); 

13. Environmental conditions while 

on visual survey (at beginning and end 

of PSO shift and whenever conditions 

change significantly), including BSS 

and any other relevant weather 

conditions including cloud cover, fog, 

sun glare, and overall visibility to the 

horizon; 

14. Factors that may contribute to 

impaired observations during each PSO 

shift change or as needed as 

environmental conditions change (e.g., 

vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); 

and 

15. Survey activity information (and 

changes thereof), such as acoustic 

source power output while in operation, 

number and volume of airguns 

operating in an array, tow depth of an 

acoustic source, and any other notes of 

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

ramp-up, shutdown, testing, shooting, 

ramp-up completion, end of operations, 

streamers, etc.). 

Upon visual observation of any 

marine mammal, the following 

information must be recorded: 

1. Watch status (sighting made by 

PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, 

alternate vessel/platform); 

2. Vessel/survey activity at time of 

sighting (e.g., deploying, recovering, 

testing, shooting, data acquisition, 

other); 

3. PSO who sighted the animal; 

4. Time of sighting; 

5. Initial detection method; 

6. Sightings cue; 

7. Vessel location at time of sighting 

(decimal degrees); 

8. Direction of vessel’s travel 

(compass direction); 

9. Speed of the vessel(s) from which 

the observation was made; 

10. 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; 

11. Species reliability (an indicator of 

confidence in identification); 

12. Estimated distance to the animal 

and method of estimating distance; 

13. Estimated number of animals 

(high/low/best); 

14. Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, 

calves, group composition, etc.); 

15. 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); 

16. Detailed behavior observations 

(e.g., number of blows/breaths, number 

of surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, 

diving, feeding, traveling; as explicit 

and detailed as possible; note any 

observed changes in behavior before and 

after point of closest approach); 

17. Mitigation actions; description of 

any actions implemented in response to 

the sighting (e.g., delays, shutdowns, 

ramp-up, speed or course alteration, 

etc.) and time and location of the action; 

18. Equipment operating during 

sighting; 

19. Animal’s closest point of approach 

and/or closest distance from the center 

point of the acoustic source; and 

20. Description of any actions 

implemented in response to the sighting 

(e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up) 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, Atlantic 

Shores Bight must report the sighting 

information to the NMFS North Atlantic 

Right Whale Sighting Advisory System 

(866–755–6622) within two hours of 

occurrence, when practicable, or no 

later than 24 hours after occurrence. 

North Atlantic right whale sightings in 

any location may also be reported to the 

U.S. Coast Guard via channel 16 and 

through the WhaleAlert app (http://

www.whalealert.org). 

In the event that Atlantic Shores Bight 

personnel discover an injured or dead 

marine mammal, regardless of the cause 

of injury or death, Atlantic Shores Bight 

must report the incident to NMFS as 

soon as feasible by phone (866–755– 

6622) and by email 

(nmfs.gar.stranding@noaa.gov and 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov) as 

soon as feasible. The report must 

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 ship 

strike of a marine mammal by any vessel 

involved in the activities covered by the 

IHA, Atlantic Shores Bight must report 

the incident to NMFS by phone (866– 

755–6622) and by email 

(nmfs.gar.stranding@noaa.gov and 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov) as 

soon as feasible. The report would 

include the following information: 

1. Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

2. Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

3. Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

4. Vessel’s course/heading and what 

operations were being conducted (if 

applicable); 

5. Status of all sound sources in use; 

6. 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; 

7. Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, visibility) 

immediately preceding the strike; 

8. Estimated size and length of animal 

that was struck; 

9. Description of the behavior of the 

marine mammal immediately preceding 

and/or following the strike; 

10. If available, description of the 

presence and behavior of any other 

marine mammals immediately 

preceding the strike; 

11. 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 

12. 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38092 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any impacts or responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

impacts or responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, foraging 

impacts affecting energetics), as well as 

effects on habitat, and the likely 

effectiveness of the mitigation. We also 

assess the number, intensity, and 

context of estimated takes by evaluating 

this information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known, ongoing sources of 

human-caused mortality, or ambient 

noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, the discussion of 

our analysis applies to all the species 

listed in Table 3, given that the 

anticipated effects of this activity on 

these different marine mammal stocks 

are expected to be similar. Where there 

are meaningful differences between 

species or stocks—as is the case of the 

North Atlantic right whale—they are 

included as separate subsections below. 

NMFS does not anticipate that serious 

injury or mortality would occur as a 

result from HRG surveys, even in the 

absence of mitigation, and no serious 

injury or mortality is proposed to be 

authorized. As discussed in the 

Potential Effects section, non-auditory 

physical effects and vessel strike are not 

expected to occur. NMFS expects that 

all potential takes would be in the form 

of short-term Level B behavioral 

harassment in the form of temporary 

avoidance of the area or decreased 

foraging (if such activity was occurring), 

reactions that are considered to be of 

low severity and with no lasting 

biological consequences (e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007). Even repeated Level B 

harassment of some small subset of an 

overall stock is unlikely to result in any 

significant realized decrease in viability 

for the affected individuals, and thus 

would not result in any adverse impact 

to the stock as a whole. As described 

above, Level A harassment is not 

expected to occur given the nature of 

the operations, the estimated size of the 

Level A harassment zones, and the 

required shutdown zones for certain 

activities. 

In addition to HRG activities 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 proposed for 

authorization and evaluated here, in 

reality, the Applied Acoustics DuraSpark 240 would likely not be used 

across the entire 24-hour period and 

across all 360 days. As noted in Table 

6, the other acoustic sources Atlantic 

Shores Bight has included in their 

application produce Level B harassment 

zones below 60-m. Therefore, the 

ensonified area surrounding each vessel 

is relatively small compared to the 

overall distribution of the animals in the 

area and their 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. Due to 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 known mating or calving 

grounds nor feeding areas known to be 

biologically important to marine 

mammals within the proposed survey 

area. There is no designated critical 

habitat for any ESA-listed marine 

mammals in the proposed survey area. 

North Atlantic Right Whales 

The status of the North Atlantic right 

whale population is of heightened 

concern and, therefore, merits 

additional analysis. As noted 

previously, elevated North Atlantic right 

whale mortalities began in June 2017 

and there is an active UME. Overall, 

preliminary findings support human 

interactions, specifically vessel strikes 

and entanglements, as the cause of 

death for the majority of right whales. 

As noted previously, the proposed 

survey area overlaps a migratory 

corridor BIA for North Atlantic right 

whales. Due to the fact that the 

proposed survey activities are 

temporary and the spatial extent of 

sound produced by the survey would be 

very small relative to the spatial extent 

of the available migratory habitat in the 

BIA, right whale migration is not 

expected to be impacted by the 

proposed survey activities. Required 

vessel strike avoidance measures will 

also decrease risk of ship strike during 

migration; no ship strike is expected to 

occur during Atlantic Shores Bight’s 

proposed 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 proposed for use. The 

proposed authorizations for Level B 

harassment takes of North Atlantic right 

whale are not expected to exacerbate or 

compound upon the ongoing UME. The 

limited North Atlantic right whale Level 

B harassment takes proposed for 

authorization 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 Atlantic 

Shores Bight’s proposed activities, it is 

unlikely that North Atlantic right whale 

prey availability would be adversely 

affected. Accordingly, NMFS does not 

anticipate that any North Atlantic right 

whales takes resulting from Atlantic 

Shores Bight’s proposed activities 

would impact annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. Thus, any takes 

that occur would not result in 

population level impacts. 

Other Marine Mammal Species With 

Active UMEs 

As noted previously, there are several 

active UMEs occurring in the vicinity of 

Atlantic Shores Bight’s proposed survey 

area. Elevated humpback whale 

mortalities have occurred along the 

Atlantic coast from Maine through 

Florida since January 2016. Of the cases 

examined, approximately half had 

evidence of human interaction (ship 

strike or entanglement). The UME does 

not yet provide cause for concern 

regarding population-level impacts. 

Despite the UME, the relevant 

population of humpback whales (the 

West Indies breeding population, or 

DPS) remains stable at approximately 

12,000 individuals. 

Beginning in January 2017, elevated 

minke whale strandings have occurred 

along the Atlantic coast from Maine 

through South Carolina, with highest 

numbers in Massachusetts, Maine, and 

New York. This event does not provide 

cause for concern regarding population 

level impacts, as the likely population 

abundance is greater than 20,000 

whales. 

The required mitigation measures are 

expected to reduce the number and/or 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38093 

severity of proposed takes for all species 

listed in Table 3, including those with 

active UMEs, to the level of least 

practicable adverse impact. In 

particular, they would provide animals 

the opportunity to move away from the 

sound source throughout the survey 

area before HRG survey equipment 

reaches full energy, thus preventing 

them from being exposed to sound 

levels that have the potential to cause 

injury (Level A harassment) or more 

severe Level B harassment. 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 proposed for authorization. 

Implementation of required mitigation 

would further reduce this potential. 

Therefore, NMFS is not proposing any 

Level A harassment for authorization. 

NMFS expects that takes would be in 

the form of short-term Level B 

behavioral harassment by way of brief 

startling reactions, temporarily vacating 

the area, or decreased foraging (if such 

activity was occurring)—reactions that 

(at the scale and intensity anticipated 

here) are considered to be of low 

severity, with no lasting biological 

consequences. Since both the sources 

and marine mammals are mobile, 

animals would only be exposed briefly 

to a small ensonified area that might 

result in take. Additionally, required 

mitigation measures would further 

reduce exposure to sound that could 

result in more severe behavioral 

harassment. 

Biologically Important Areas for Other 

Species 

As previously discussed, impacts 

from the proposed project are expected 

to be localized to the specific area of 

activity and only during periods of time 

where Atlantic Shores Bight’s acoustic 

sources are active. While BIAs for 

feeding for fin and humpback whales as 

well as haul out sites for harbor seals 

can be found off the coast of New Jersey 

and New York, NMFS does not expect 

this proposed action to affect these 

areas. This is due to the combination of 

the mitigation and monitoring measures 

being required of Atlantic Shores Bight 

as well as the location of these 

biologically important areas. All of these 

important areas are found outside of the 

range of this survey area, as is the case 

with fin whales and humpback whales 

(BIAs found further north), and, 

therefore, not expected to be impacted 

by Atlantic Shores Bight’s proposed 

survey activities. 

Three major haul-out sites exist for 

harbor seals, inshore of the ECR Survey 

Area along New Jersey, at Great Bay, 

Sand Hook, and Barnegat Inlet (CWFNJ, 

2015). As hauled outs are inshore and 

seals would be out of the water, no inwater effects are expected. 

Preliminary Determinations 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect any of 

the species or stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• No Level A harassment (PTS) is 

anticipated, even in the absence of 

mitigation measures, or proposed for 

authorization; 

• Foraging success is not likely to be 

impacted as effects on prey species for 

marine mammals from the proposed 

activities are expected to be minimal; 

• Alternate areas of similar habitat 

value are available for marine mammals 

to temporarily vacate the survey area 

during the planned activities to avoid 

exposure to sounds generated by 

surveys; 

• 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 a 

noted migratory BIA for North Atlantic 

right whales, the activities would occur 

in such a comparatively small area such 

that any avoidance of the survey area 

due to activities would not affect 

migration; and 

• The proposed 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 activities on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one-third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

NMFS proposes to authorize 

incidental take (by Level B harassment 

only) of 15 marine mammal species 

(with 15 managed stocks). The total 

amount of takes proposed for 

authorization relative to the best 

available population abundance is less 

than 7 percent for all stocks (Table 11). 

Therefore, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that small numbers of marine mammals 

may be taken relative to the estimated 

overall population abundances for those 

stocks. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals would be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the Greater Atlantic 

Regional Fisheries Office. 

NMFS OPR is proposing to authorize 

the incidental take of four species of 

marine mammals which are listed under 

the ESA, including the North Atlantic 

right, fin, sei, and sperm whale, and has 

determined that this activity falls within 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38094 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

the scope of activities analyzed in 

NMFS GARFO’s programmatic 

consultation regarding geophysical 

surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast in 

the three Atlantic Renewable Energy 

Regions (completed June 29, 2021; 

revised September 2021). 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to Atlantic Shores Bight for 

conducting site characterization surveys 

off New Jersey and New York from 

August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. A draft 

of the proposed IHA can be found at: 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-otherenergy-activities.- 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed site 

characterization surveys. We also 

request comment on the potential 

renewal of this proposed IHA as 

described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform decisions on the request for 

this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, one-year renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice would not be completed by the 

time the IHA expires and a renewal 

would allow for completion of the 

activities beyond that described in the 

Dates and Duration section of this 

notice, provided all of the following 

conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond one year from 

expiration of the initial IHA). 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take). 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: June 22, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13668 Filed 6–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XC024] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Marine Site 

Characterization Surveys Off the Coast 

of New Jersey and New York in the 

New York Bight 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from Attentive Energy LLC (Attentive 

Energy) for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to marine site 

characterization surveys off the coast of 

New Jersey and New York in the area of 

Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands 

for Renewable Energy Development on 

the Outer Continental Shelf Lease Area 

OCS–A 0538. Pursuant to the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

is requesting comments on its proposal 

to issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS is also requesting 

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

certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met, as described in 

Request for Public Comments at the end 

of this notice. NMFS will consider 

public comments prior to making any 

final decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorization and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than July 27, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service and should be 

submitted via email to ITP.harlacher@

noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenna Harlacher, 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/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable. In case of problems 

accessing these documents, please call 

the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

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

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1