30266 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 

certification (i.e., documents maintained in 

the normal course of business, or documents 

obtained by the certifying party, for example, 

mill certificates, production records, 

invoices, etc.) for the later of: (1) A period of 

five years from the date of entry or (2) a 

period of three years after the conclusion of 

any litigation in the United States courts 

regarding such entries. 

(I) I understand that {NAME OF 

IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to 

provide this certification and supporting 

records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) and/or the 

Department of Commerce (Commerce). 

(J) I understand that {NAME OF 

IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to 

maintain a copy of the exporter’s certification 

(attesting to the production and/or export of 

the imported merchandise identified above), 

and any supporting records provided by the 

exporter to the importer, for the later of: (1) 

A period of five years from the date of entry 

or (2) a period of three years after the 

conclusion of any litigation in United States 

courts regarding such entries. 

(K) I understand that {NAME OF 

IMPORTING COMPANY}is required, upon 

request, to provide a copy of the exporter’s 

certification and any supporting records 

provided by the exporter to the importer, to 

CBP and/or Commerce. 

(L) I understand that the claims made 

herein, and the substantiating 

documentation, are subject to verification by 

CBP and/or Commerce. 

(M) I understand that failure to maintain 

the required certifications, and/or failure to 

substantiate the claims made herein, and/or 

failure to allow CBP and/or Commerce to 

verify the claims made herein, may result in 

a de facto determination that all entries to 

which this certification applies are within 

the scope of the antidumping/countervailing 

duty order on corrosion resistant steel 

products from China. I understand that such 

finding will result in: 

(i) Suspension of liquidation of all 

unliquidated entries (and entries for which 

liquidation has not become final) for which 

these requirements were not met; 

(ii) the requirement that the importer post 

applicable antidumping duty and/or 

countervailing duty cash deposits (as 

appropriate) equal to the rates determined by 

Commerce; and 

(iii) the revocation of {NAME OF 

IMPORTING COMPANY}’s privilege to 

certify future imports of corrosion resistant 

steel products from Malaysia as not 

manufactured using hot-rolled steel and/or 

cold-rolled steel substrate from China. 

(N) I understand that agents of the 

importer, such as brokers, are not permitted 

to make this certification. 

(O) This certification was completed at or 

prior to the date of entry summary. 

(P) I am aware that U.S. law (including, but 

not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes 

criminal sanctions on individuals who 

knowingly and willfully make material false 

statements to the U.S. government. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Signature 

lllllllllllllllllllll

NAME OF COMPANY OFFICIAL 

lllllllllllllllllllll

TITLE 

lllllllllllllllllllll

DATE 

Appendix IV 

Exporter Certification 

Special Instructions: The party that made 

the sale to the United States should fill out 

the exporter certification. 

I hereby certify that: 

(A) My name is {COMPANY OFFICIAL’S 

NAME} and I am an official of {NAME OF 

COMPANY}, located at {ADDRESS}; 

(B) I have direct personal knowledge of the 

facts regarding the production and 

exportation of the corrosion resistant steel 

products identified below. ‘‘Direct personal 

knowledge’’ refers to facts the certifying party 

is expected to have in its own books and 

records. For example, an exporter should 

have direct personal knowledge of the 

producer’s identity and location. 

(C) The corrosion resistant steel products 

produced in Malaysia and covered by this 

certification were not manufactured using 

hot-rolled steel and/or cold-rolled steel 

substrate produced in China. 

(D) This certification applies to the 

following sales to {NAME OF U.S. 

CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. 

CUSTOMER} (repeat this block as many 

times as necessary): 

Foreign Seller’s Invoice # to U.S. Customer: 

Foreign Seller’s Invoice to U.S. Customer 

Line item #: 

Producer Name: 

Producer’s Address: 

Producer’s Invoice # to Foreign Seller: (If the 

foreign seller and the producer are the 

same party, put NA here.) 

(E) The corrosion resistant steel products 

covered by this certification were shipped to 

{NAME OF U.S. PARTY TO WHOM 

MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}, located at 

{U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE 

WAS SHIPPED}. 

(F) I understand that {NAME OF 

EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to 

maintain a copy of this certification and 

sufficient documentation supporting this 

certification (i.e., documents maintained in 

the normal course of business, or documents 

obtained by the certifying party, for example, 

mill certificates, production records, 

invoices, etc.) for the later of: (1) A period of 

five years from the date of entry or (2) a 

period of three years after the conclusion of 

any litigation in the United States courts 

regarding such entries. 

(G) I understand that {NAME OF 

EXPORTING COMPANY} must provide a 

copy of this Exporter Certification to the U.S. 

importer by the date of shipment; 

(H) I understand that {NAME OF 

EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to 

provide a copy of this certification and 

supporting records, upon request, to U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or 

the Department of Commerce (Commerce). 

(I) I understand that the claims made 

herein, and the substantiating 

documentation, are subject to verification by 

CBP and/or Commerce. 

(J) I understand that failure to maintain the 

required certification, and/or failure to 

substantiate the claims made herein, and/or 

failure to allow CBP and/or Commerce to 

verify the claims made herein, may result in 

a de facto determination that all sales to 

which this certification applies are within 

the scope of the antidumping/countervailing 

duty order on corrosion resistant steel 

products from China. I understand that such 

finding will result in: 

(i) Suspension of all unliquidated entries 

(and entries for which liquidation has not 

become final) for which these requirements 

were not met; and 

(ii) the requirement that the importer post 

applicable antidumping duty and/or 

countervailing duty cash deposits (as 

appropriate) equal to the rates as determined 

by Commerce; and 

(iii) the revocation of {NAME OF 

EXPORTING COMPANY}’s privilege to 

certify future exports of corrosion resistant 

steel products from Malaysia as not 

manufactured using hot-rolled steel and/or 

cold-rolled steel substrate from China. 

(K) This certification was completed at or 

prior to the date of shipment. 

(L) I am aware that U.S. law (including, but 

not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes 

criminal sanctions on individuals who 

knowingly and willfully make material false 

statements to the U.S. government. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Signature 

lllllllllllllllllllll

NAME OF COMPANY OFFICIAL 

lllllllllllllllllllll

TITLE 

lllllllllllllllllllll

DATE 

[FR Doc. 2021–11849 Filed 6–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB006] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Marine Site 

Characterization Surveys Off of 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island 

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 Vineyard Wind 1, LLC (Vineyard 

Wind 1) for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to marine site 

characterization surveys off of 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 30267 

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 authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than July 7, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Written 

comments should be submitted via 

email to ITP.Davis@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 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-otherenergy-activities-renewable 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: 

Leah Davis, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/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 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

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 January 29, 2021, NMFS received 

a request from Vineyard Wind 1 for an 

IHA to take marine mammals incidental 

to marine site characterization surveys 

off of Massachusetts and Rhode Island 

for the 501 North wind energy project. 

The application was deemed adequate 

and complete on May 19, 2021. 

Vineyard Wind 1’s request is for take of 

a small number of 14 species of marine 

mammals by Level B harassment only. 

Neither Vineyard Wind 1 nor NMFS 

expects serious injury or mortality to 

result from this activity and, therefore, 

an IHA is appropriate. 

NMFS previously issued an IHA to 

Vineyard Wind LLC (Vineyard Wind) 

for similar marine site characterization 

surveys (85 FR 42357; July 14, 2020), 

and NMFS has received a request from 

Vineyard Wind for a renewal of that 

IHA. 

Since issuance of Vineyard Wind’s 

previous IHA (85 FR 42357; July 14, 

2020), Vineyard Wind has split into 

separate corporate entities, Vineyard 

Wind (to which the previous IHA was 

issued), and Vineyard Wind 1, which 

holds assets associated with the 501 

North wind energy project. Therefore, 

although the surveys analyzed in this 

proposed IHA to Vineyard Wind 1 

would occur in an area that overlaps 

with a portion of the project area 

included in the previous Vineyard Wind 

IHA (and potentially a renewal, if 

appropriate), this proposed IHA would 

be issued to a separate corporate entity 

(Vineyard Wind 1). 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

As part of its overall marine site 

characterization survey operations, 

Vineyard Wind 1 proposes to conduct 

high-resolution geophysical (HRG) 

surveys in the Lease Area and along the 

Offshore Export Cable Corridor (OECC) 

off of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 

The purpose of the marine site 

characterization surveys is to obtain a 

baseline assessment of seabed/subsurface soil conditions in the Lease Area 

and cable route corridors to support the 

siting of potential future offshore wind 

projects. Underwater sound resulting 

from Vineyard Wind 1’s proposed site 

characterization survey activities, 

specifically HRG surveys, has the 

potential to result in incidental take of 

marine mammals in the form of 

behavioral harassment. 

Dates and Duration 

The total duration of HRG survey 

activities would be approximately 170 

survey days. Each day that a survey 

vessel is operating counts as a single 

survey day, e.g., two survey vessels 

operating on the same day count as two 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30268 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 

survey days. This schedule is based on 

assumed 24-hour operations. Vineyard 

Wind 1 proposes to begin survey 

activities in summer 2021, upon receipt 

of an IHA, and continue for up to one 

year (though the actual duration will 

likely be shorter, particularly given the 

use of multiple vessels). The IHA would 

be effective for one year from the date 

of issuance. 

Specific Geographic Region 

Vineyard Wind 1’s proposed survey 

activities would occur in the Lease 

Area, located approximately 24 

kilometers (km) (13 nautical miles 

(nmi)) from the southeast corner of 

Martha’s Vineyard, and along the OECC 

route (landfall) in both Federal and 

State waters of Massachusetts (see 

Figure 1). The OECC routes will extend 

from the lease areas to shallow water 

areas near potential landfall locations. 

Water depths in the Lease Area range 

from about 35 to 60 meters (m) (115 to 

197 feet (ft)). Water depths along the 

potential OECC route range from 2.5 to 

approximately 35 m (8 to approximately 

115 ft). For the purpose of this IHA, the 

Lease Area and OECC are collectively 

referred to as the project area. The 

project area for this proposed IHA 

overlaps with the project area for 

Vineyard Wind’s previous IHA (85 FR 

42357; July 14, 2020) for which 

Vineyard Wind has submitted a renewal 

request. 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

Vineyard Wind 1 proposes to conduct 

HRG survey operations, including single 

and multibeam depth sounding, 

magnetic intensity measurements, 

seafloor imaging, and shallow and 

medium penetration sub bottom 

profiling. The HRG surveys may be 

conducted using any or all of the 

following equipment types: Side scan 

sonar, single and multibeam 

echosounders, magnetometers and 

gradiometers, parametric sub-bottom 

profiler (SBP), CHIRP SBP, boomers, or 

sparkers. HRG survey activities are 

anticipated to include multiple survey 

vessels (up to eight, depending on the 

season), which may operate 

concurrently, though surveys will be 

spaced to avoid geophysical interference 

with one another. Vineyard Wind 1 

assumes that HRG survey activities 

would be conducted continuously 24 

hours per day, with an assumed daily 

survey distance of 80 km (43 nmi). 

Survey vessels would maintain a speed 

of approximately 4 knots (2.1 m/second) 

while surveying, which equates to 181 

km per 24-hour period. However, based 

on past survey experience (i.e., 

knowledge of typical daily downtime 

due to weather, system malfunctions, 

etc.), Vineyard Wind 1 assumes 80 km 

as the average daily distance. 

Acoustic sources planned for use 

during HRG survey activities proposed 

by Vineyard Wind 1 include the 

following: 

• Shallow Penetration Sub-bottom 

Profilers (SBP; Chirps) to map the nearVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jun 04, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN07JN21.000</GPH>

W'O.QOO'W 73"30.000'W 73"0.000'W 72"30.000'W no0.000'W 71"30.000'W 71'0.000'W 70"30.000'W 70'0.000'W 69"30.000'W 

I D Potential survey 

t D Vineyard Wind 0501 lease area I 

® 50km .. 0 25 

0 10 20NM 

73"30,000'W 73'0.000'W 72"30.000'W 72'0.000'W 71"30.000'W 71'0.000'W 70"30.ooo'W 10'0,000'W 69'30.000'W 

Figure 1-- Potential Survey Area 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 30269 

surface stratigraphy (top 0 to 5 m (0 to 

16 ft)) of sediment below seabed). A 

chirp system emits sonar pulses that 

increase in frequency from about 2 to 20 

kHz over time. The pulse length 

frequency range can be adjusted to meet 

project variables. These sources are 

typically mounted on the hull of the 

vessel or from a side pole; 

• Medium Penetration SBPs (Boomers 

and Sparkers) to map deeper subsurface 

stratigraphy as needed. A boomer is a 

broadband sound source operating in 

the 3.5 Hz to 10 kHz frequency range. 

Sparkers create acoustic pulses from 50 

Hz to 4 kHz omnidirectionally from the 

source that can penetrate several 

hundred meters into the seafloor. These 

sources are typically towed behind the 

vessel. 

Operation of the following survey 

equipment types is not reasonably 

expected to present risk of marine 

mammal take, and will not be discussed 

further beyond the brief summaries 

provided below; 

• Parametric SBPs, also called 

sediment echosounders, for providing 

high data density in sub-bottom profiles 

that are typically required for cable 

routes, very shallow water, and 

archaeological surveys. These sources 

generate short, very narrow-beam (1° to 

3.5°) signals at high frequencies 

(generally around 85–100 kHz). The 

narrow beamwidth significantly reduces 

the potential that a marine mammal 

could be exposed to the signal, while 

the high frequency of operation means 

that the signal is rapidly attenuated in 

seawater. These sources are typically 

mounted on the hull of the vessel or 

from a side pole rather than towed 

behind the vessel; 

• Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL) 

positioning systems are used to provide 

high accuracy ranges by measuring the 

time between the acoustic pulses 

transmitted by the vessel transceiver 

and the equipment transponder (or 

beacon) necessary to produce the 

acoustic profile. It is a two-component 

system with a hull or pole mounted 

transceiver and one or several 

transponders either on the seabed or on 

the equipment. USBLs are expected to 

produce extremely small acoustic 

propagation distances in their typical 

operating configuration; 

• Single beam and Multibeam 

Echosounders (MBESs) to determine 

water depths and general bottom 

topography. The proposed single beam 

and MBES all have operating 

frequencies >180 kHz and are therefore 

outside the general hearing range of 

marine mammals; 

• Side-scan Sonar (SSS) is used for 

seabed sediment classification purposes 

and to identify natural and man-made 

acoustic targets on the seafloor. The 

proposed SSSs all have operating 

frequencies >180 kHz and are therefore 

outside the general hearing range of 

marine mammals; and 

• Magnetometer/Gradiometer has an 

operating frequency >180 kHz and is 

therefore outside the general hearing 

range of marine mammals. 

Table 1 identifies the representative 

survey equipment with the expected 

potential to result in exposure of marine 

mammals and potentially result in take. 

The make and model of the listed 

geophysical equipment may vary 

depending on availability and the final 

equipment choices will vary depending 

on the final survey design, vessel 

availability, and survey contractor 

selection. 

HRG 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. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE HRG EQUIPMENT

System Frequency 

(kHz) 

Beam width 

(°) 

Pulse duration 

(ms) 

Repetition rate 

(Hz) 

In-beam source level 

(dB) 

RMS Pk 

Shallow subbottom profiler (non-impulsive) 

EdgeTech Chirp 216 ................................ 2–16 65 2 3.75 178 182 

Deep seismic profiler (impulsive) 

Applied Acoustics AA251 Boomer ........... 0.2–15 180 0.8 2 205 212 

GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 ....................

(400 tip) .................................................... 0.05–3 180 3.4 1 203 213 

Note: While many of these sources overlap with Vineyard Wind’s previous IHA (85 FR 42357; July 14, 2020), the operating parameters used 

as proxies in modeling some sources were changed as a result of HRG modeling recommendations from NMFS. For data source information, 

please see Table A–3 in Vineyard Wind 1’s application. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (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. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (https://

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

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this action, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. For taxonomy, we follow 

the Committee on Taxonomy (2020). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’s 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I 
30270 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico SARs. All values presented in 

Table 2 are the most recent available at 

the time of publication and, except for 

North Atlantic right whale, are available 

in the 2019 SARs (Hayes et al., 2020) 

and draft 2020 SARs (available online 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

draft-marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports). The most recent 

North Atlantic right whale stock 

abundance estimate is presented in 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS– 

NE–269 (Pace 2021). 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY VINEYARD WIND 1’S

PROPOSED ACTIVITY

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenidae: 

North Atlantic right 

whale 4.

Eubalaena glacialis .............. Western North Atlantic ......... E/D; Y 368 (NA; 356; 2018) ............ 0.8 18.6 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback whale ............ Megaptera novaeangliae ...... Gulf of Maine ........................ -/-; Y 1,393 (0.15; 1,375; 2016) .... 22 58 

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

Sei whale ........................ Balaenoptera borealis .......... Nova Scotia .......................... E/D; Y 6,292 (1.02; 3,098; 2016) .... 6.2 1.2 

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

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae: 

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

Family Delphinidae: 

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

Bottlenose dolphin .......... Tursiops spp ......................... Western North Atlantic Offshore.-/-; N 62,851 (0.213; 51,914; 2016) 519 28 

Common dolphin ............ Delphinus delphis ................. Western North Atlantic ......... -/-; N 172,974 (0.21; 145,216; 

2016).

1,452 399 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin.Lagenorhynchus acutus ....... Western North Atlantic ......... -/-; N 92,233 (0.71; 54,433; 2016) 544 26 

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

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise ............. Phocoena phocoena ............ Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy -/-; N 95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 2016) 851 217 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Gray seal 5 ...................... Halichoerus grypus .............. Western North Atlantic ......... -/-; N 27,131 (0.19; 23,158, 2016) 1,389 4,729 

Harbor seal ..................... Phoca vitulina ....................... Western North Atlantic ......... -/-; N 75,834 (0.15; 66,884, 2012) 2,006 350 

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

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

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

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (NA). 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). 4This is the latest stock abundance estimate and Nmin as presented in Pace (2021). 

5 NMFS stock abundance estimate (and associated PBR value) applies to U.S. population only. Total stock abundance (including animals in Canada) is approximately 451,431. The annual M/SI value is given for the total stock. 

As indicated above, all 14 species 

(with 14 managed stocks) in Table 2 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur. All species 

that could potentially occur in the 

proposed survey areas are included in 

Table 2 of the IHA application. 

However, the temporal and/or spatial 

occurrence of several species listed in 

Table 2 in Vineyard Wind 1’s IHA 

application is such that take of these 

species is not expected to occur. Killer 

whale (Orcinus orca) Northern 

bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon 

ampullatus), pygmy killer whale (Feresa 

attenuata), false killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens), melon-headed whale 

(Peponocephala electra), pantropical 

spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata), 

Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei), 

rough-toothed dolphin (Steno 

bredanensis), Clymene dolphin 

(Stenella clymene), spinner dolphin 

(Stenella longirostris), and hooded seal 

(Cystophora cristata), are not expected 

to occur within the project area based 

on a lack of sightings in the area and 

their known habitat preferences and 

distributions. 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), and striped dolphin 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 30271 

(Stenella coeruleoalba), typically occur 

further offshore than the project area, 

while short-finned pilot whales 

(Globicephala macrorhynchus) and 

Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella 

frontalis) are typically found further 

south than the project area (Hayes et al., 

2020). There are stranding records of 

harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) 

in Massachusetts, but the species 

typically occurs north of the project area 

and appearances in Massachusetts 

usually occur between January and May 

(Hayes et al., 2020), outside of the 

months that Vineyard Wind 1 is most 

likely to conduct the majority of the 

survey activities. 

Vineyard Wind observed two white 

beaked dolphins during surveys 

authorized under a previous IHA (85 FR 

42357; July 14, 2020). Please see https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-vineyardwind-llc-marine-site-characterizationsurveys for additional information on 

this sighting. Except for the single 

observation of white beaked dolphins 

referenced here, no sightings of white 

beaked dolphins have been reported in 

monitoring reports from issued IHAs in 

the same region in recent years, and 

encounters with the species in the 

survey area remain unlikely. Given the 

low likelihood of occurrence of white 

beaked dolphins, NMFS does not 

propose to include take of white beaked 

dolphins in this IHA. As take of these 

species is not anticipated as a result of 

the proposed activities, these species are 

not discussed further. 

In addition to what is included in 

Sections 3 and 4 of Vineyard Wind 1’s 

application, the SARs, and NMFS’s 

website, further detail informing the 

baseline for select species (i.e., 

information regarding current Unusual 

Mortality Events (UME) and important 

habitat areas) is provided below. 

North Atlantic Right Whale 

The North Atlantic right whale ranges 

from the calving grounds in the 

southeastern United States to feeding 

grounds in New England waters and 

into Canadian waters (Waring et al., 

2017). Surveys indicate that there are 

seven areas where NARWs congregate 

seasonally, including Georges Basin 

along the northeastern edge of Georges 

Bank, Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bay 

(Hayes et al. 2018). Aerial surveys 

indicated that right whales were 

consistently detected in or near the 

Lease Area and surrounding survey 

areas during the winter and spring 

seasons. Acoustic detections of right 

whales occurred during all months of 

the year, with the highest number of 

detections typically between December 

and late May. Data indicate that right 

whales occur at elevated densities in the 

project area south and southwest of 

Martha’s Vineyard in the spring 

(March–May) and south of Nantucket 

during winter (December–February; 

Roberts et al. 2018; Leiter et al. 2017; 

Kraus et al. 2016). Consistent 

aggregations of right whales feeding and 

possibly mating within or close to these 

specific areas is such that they have 

been considered right whale ‘‘hotspots’’ 

(Leiter et al. 2017; Kraus et al. 2016). 

Although there is variability in right 

whale distribution patterns among 

years, and some aggregations appear to 

be ephemeral, an analysis of hot spots 

suggests that there is some regularity in 

right whale use of the project area 

(Kraus et al. 2016). 

Additionally, numerous Dynamic 

Management Areas (DMAs) have been 

established in these areas in recent 

years. NMFS may establish DMAs when 

and where NARWs are sighted outside 

Seasonal Management Areas (SMAs). 

DMAs are generally in effect for two 

weeks. During this time, vessels are 

encouraged to avoid these areas or 

reduce speeds to 10 knots (5.1 m/s) or 

less while transiting through these 

areas. 

NMFS’s regulations at 50 CFR part 

224.105 designated nearshore waters of 

the Mid-Atlantic Bight as Mid-Atlantic 

U.S. SMAs for right whales in 2008. 

SMAs were developed to reduce the 

threat of collisions between ships and 

right whales around their migratory 

route and calving grounds. All vessels 

greater than 19.8 m (65 ft) in overall 

length must operate at speeds of 10 

knots (5.1 m/s) or less within these areas 

during specific time periods. The Block 

Island Sound SMA overlaps with the 

south/east portion of Lease Area OCS– 

A 0501 and is active between November 

1 and April 30 each year. 

The project area overlaps with a right 

whale Biologically Important Area (BIA) 

for migration from March to April and 

from November to December (LaBrecque 

et al. 2015). Identified right whale 

feeding BIAs occur outside of the 

project area (map showing designated 

BIAs is available at: https://

cetsound.noaa.gov/biologicallyimportant-area-map); however, Oleson 

et al. (2020) identified an area south of 

Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, 

referred to as ‘‘South of the Islands,’’ as 

a newer, year-round, core North Atlantic 

right whale foraging habitat. The South 

of the Islands area overlaps with most 

of Vineyard Wind 1’s project area. 

The western North Atlantic 

population demonstrated overall growth 

of 2.8 percent per year from 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). In 2018, no new North 

Atlantic right whale calves were 

documented in their calving grounds; 

this represented the first time since 

annual NOAA aerial surveys began in 

1989 that no new right whale calves 

were observed. However, in 2019 seven 

right whale calves were identified, 10 in 

2020, and to date 17 live calves have 

been identified in 2021. Data indicates 

that the number of adult females fell 

from 200 in 2010 to 186 in 2015 while 

males fell from 283 to 272 in the same 

time frame (Pace et al., 2017). 

Elevated North Atlantic right whale 

mortalities have occurred since June 7, 

2017. A total of 34 confirmed dead 

stranded whales (21 in Canada; 13 in 

the United States), have been 

documented to date. This event has 

been declared an Unusual Mortality 

Event (UME), with human interactions 

(i.e., entanglements and vessel strikes) 

identified as the most likely cause. More 

information is available online at: 

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

national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021- 

north-atlantic-right-whale-unusualmortality-event (accessed May 7, 2020). 

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 whale 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. 

Kraus et al. (2016) observed 

humpback whales in the Rhode Island/ 

Massachusetts and Massachusetts Wind 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30272 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 

Energy Areas (RI/MA & MA WEAs) and 

surrounding areas during all seasons. 

Humpback whales were observed most 

often during spring and summer 

months, with a peak from April to June. 

Calves were observed 10 times and 

feeding was observed 10 times during 

the Kraus et al. (2016) study. That study 

also observed one instance of courtship 

behavior. Although humpback whales 

were rarely seen during fall and winter 

surveys, acoustic data indicate that this 

species may be present within the MA 

WEA year-round, with the highest rates 

of acoustic detections in winter and 

spring (Kraus et al. 2016). 

Since January 2016, elevated 

humpback whale mortalities have 

occurred along the Atlantic coast from 

Maine through Florida. The event has 

been declared a UME. Partial or full 

necropsy examinations have been 

conducted on approximately half of the 

149 known cases (as of April 28, 2021). 

A portion of the whales have shown 

evidence of pre-mortem vessel strike; 

however, this finding is not consistent 

across all of the whales examined so 

more research is needed. NOAA is 

consulting with researchers that are 

conducting studies on the humpback 

whale populations, and these efforts 

may provide information on changes in 

whale distribution and habitat use that 

could provide additional insight into 

how these vessel interactions occurred. 

More detailed information is available 

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

national/marine-life-distress/2016-2021- 

humpback-whale-unusual-mortalityevent-along-atlantic-coast (accessed 

April 28, 2021). No BIAs have been 

identified for humpback whales in the 

project area. 

Fin Whale 

Fin whales typically feed in the Gulf 

of Maine and the waters surrounding 

New England, but their mating and 

calving (and general wintering) areas are 

largely unknown (Hain et al. 1992, 

Hayes et al. 2018). Acoustic detections 

of fin whale singers augment and 

confirm these visual sighting 

conclusions for males. 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. 2019). 

Kraus et al. (2016) suggest that, 

compared to other baleen whale species, 

fin whales have a high multi-seasonal 

relative abundance in the RI/MA & MA 

WEAs and surrounding areas. Fin 

whales were observed in the MA WEA 

in spring and summer. This species was 

observed primarily in the offshore 

(southern) regions of the RI/MA & MA 

WEAs during spring and was found 

closer to shore (northern areas) during 

the summer months (Kraus et al. 2016). 

Calves were observed three times and 

feeding was observed nine times during 

the Kraus et al. (2016) study. Although 

fin whales were largely absent from 

visual surveys in the RI/MA & MA 

WEAs in the fall and winter months 

(Kraus et al. 2016), acoustic data 

indicated that this species was present 

in the RI/MA & MA WEAs during all 

months of the year. 

New England waters represent a major 

feeding ground for fin whales. The 

proposed project area would overlap 

spatially and temporally with a feeding 

BIA for fin whales, from March to 

October (LaBrecque et al. 2015). The 

separate year-round feeding BIA to the 

northeast does not overlap with the 

project area. 

Sei Whale 

The Nova Scotia stock of sei whales 

can be found in deeper waters of the 

continental shelf edge waters of the 

northeastern United States and 

northeastward to south of 

Newfoundland. NMFS considers sei 

whales occurring from the U.S. East 

Coast to Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, and 

east to 42° as the Nova Scotia stock of 

sei whales (Waring et al. 2016; Hayes et 

al. 2018). In the Northwest Atlantic, it 

is speculated that the whales migrate 

from south of Cape Cod along the 

eastern Canadian coast in June and July, 

and return on a southward migration 

again in September and October (Waring 

et al. 2014; 2017). 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 

(Waring et al., 2015). A BIA for sei 

whale feeding occurs east of, but near, 

the project area from May through 

November (LaBrecque et al. 2015). 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales occur in temperate, 

tropical, and high-latitude waters. The 

Canadian East Coast stock occur in the 

area from the western half of the Davis 

Strait (45° W) to the Gulf of Mexico 

(Waring et al., 2017). This species 

generally occupies waters less than 100 

m deep on the continental shelf. There 

appears to be a strong seasonal 

component to minke whale distribution 

in which spring to fall are times of 

relatively widespread and common 

occurrence, and when the whales are 

most abundant in New England waters, 

while during winter the species appears 

to be largely absent (Waring et al., 2017). 

Kraus et al. (2016) observed minke 

whales in the RI/MA & MA WEAs and 

surrounding areas primarily from May 

to June. This species demonstrated a 

distinct seasonal habitat usage pattern 

that was consistent throughout the 

study. Though minke whales were 

observed in spring and summer months 

in the MA WEA, they were only 

observed in the lease areas in the spring. 

Minke whales were not observed 

between October and February, but 

acoustic data indicate the presence of 

this species in the offshore proposed 

project area in winter months. A BIA for 

minke whale feeding occurs east of, but 

near, the project area from March to 

November. 

Since 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. 

Partial or full necropsy examinations 

have been conducted on more than 60 

percent of the 105 known cases (as of 

April 28, 2021). Preliminary findings in 

several of the whales have shown 

evidence of human interactions or 

infectious disease. These findings are 

not consistent across all of the whales 

examined, so more research is needed. 

More information is available at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2017-2021-minkewhale-unusual-mortality-event-alongatlantic-coast (accessed April 28, 2021). 

Sperm Whale 

The distribution of the sperm whale 

in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ) occurs on the continental shelf 

edge, over the continental slope, and 

into mid-ocean regions (Waring et al. 

2015). Sperm whales are somewhat 

migratory; however, their migrations are 

not as specific as seen in most of the 

baleen whale species. In the North 

Atlantic, there appears to be a general 

shift northward during the summer, but 

there is no clear migration in some 

temperate areas (Rice 1989). In summer, 

the distribution of sperm whales 

includes the area east and north of 

Georges Bank and into the Northeast 

Channel region, as well as the 

continental shelf (inshore of the 100-m 

isobath) south of New England. In the 

fall, sperm whale occurrence south of 

New England on the continental shelf is 

at its highest level, and there remains a 

continental shelf edge occurrence in the 

mid-Atlantic bight. In winter, sperm 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 30273 

whales are concentrated east and 

northeast of Cape Hatteras. Their 

distribution is typically associated with 

waters over the continental shelf break 

and the continental slope and into 

deeper waters (Whitehead et al. 1991). 

Sperm whale concentrations near dropoffs and areas with strong currents and 

steep topography are correlated with 

high productivity. These whales occur 

almost exclusively at the shelf break, 

regardless of season. 

Kraus et al. (2016) observed sperm 

whales four times in the RI/MA & MA 

WEAs during the summer and fall from 

2011 to 2015. Sperm whales, traveling 

singly or in groups of three or four, were 

observed three times in August and 

September of 2012, and once in June of 

2015. 

Long-Finned Pilot Whale 

Long-finned pilot whales occur from 

North Carolina north to Iceland, 

Greenland and the Barents Sea (Waring 

et al., 2016). They generally occur along 

the edge of the continental shelf (a 

depth of 330 to 3,300 feet (100 to 1,000 

meters)), choosing areas of high relief or 

submerged banks in cold or temperate 

shoreline waters. In the western North 

Atlantic, long-finned pilot whales are 

pelagic, occurring in especially high 

densities in winter and spring over the 

continental slope, then moving inshore 

and onto the shelf in summer and 

autumn following squid and mackerel 

populations (Reeves et al. 2002). They 

frequently travel into the central and 

northern Georges Bank, Great South 

Channel, and Gulf of Maine areas during 

the late spring and remain through early 

fall (May and October) (Payne and 

Heinemann 1993). 

Note that long-finned and shortfinned pilot whales overlap spatially 

along the mid-Atlantic shelf break 

between New Jersey and the southern 

flank of Georges Bank (Payne and 

Heinemann 1993, Hayes et al. 2017) 

Long-finned pilot whales have 

occasionally been observed stranded as 

far south as South Carolina, and shortfinned pilot whale have stranded as far 

north as Massachusetts (Hayes et al. 

2017). The latitudinal ranges of the two 

species therefore remain uncertain. 

However, north of approximately 42° N 

(slightly north of the project area), most 

pilot whale sightings are expected to be 

long-finned pilot whales (Hayes et al. 

2017). Based on the distributions 

described in Hayes et al. (2017), pilot 

whale sightings in the project area 

would are expected to be long-finned 

pilot whales. 

Kraus et al. (2016) observed pilot 

whales infrequently in the RI/MA & MA 

WEAs and surrounding areas. No pilot 

whales were observed during the fall or 

winter, and these species were only 

observed 11 times in the spring and 

three times in the summer. 

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin 

White-sided dolphins occur in 

temperate and sub-polar waters of the 

North Atlantic, primarily in continental 

shelf waters to the 100-m depth contour 

from central West Greenland to North 

Carolina (Waring et al., 2017). The Gulf 

of Maine stock is most common in 

continental shelf waters from Hudson 

Canyon to Georges Bank, and in the Gulf 

of Maine and lower Bay of Fundy. 

Sighting data indicate seasonal shifts in 

distribution (Northridge et al., 1997). 

During January to May, low numbers of 

white-sided dolphins are found from 

Georges Bank to Jeffreys Ledge (off New 

Hampshire), with even lower numbers 

south of Georges Bank, as documented 

by a few strandings collected on beaches 

of Virginia to South Carolina. From June 

through September, large numbers of 

white-sided dolphins are found from 

Georges Bank to the lower Bay of 

Fundy. From October to December, 

white-sided dolphins occur at 

intermediate densities from southern 

Georges Bank to southern Gulf of Maine 

(Payne and Heinemann 1990). Sightings 

south of Georges Bank, particularly 

around Hudson Canyon, occur year 

round but at low densities. 

Kraus et al. (2016) suggest that 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins occur 

infrequently in the RI/MA & MA WEAs 

and surrounding areas. Effort-weighted 

average sighting rates for Atlantic whitesided dolphins could not be calculated, 

because this species was only observed 

on eight occasions throughout the 

duration of the study (October 2011 to 

June 2015). No Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins were observed during the 

winter months, and this species was 

only sighted twice in the fall and three 

times in the spring and summer. 

Common Dolphin 

The common dolphin occurs worldwide in temperate to subtropical seas. In 

the North Atlantic, common dolphins 

commonly occur over the continental 

shelf between the 100-m and 2,000-m 

isobaths and over prominent 

underwater topography and east to the 

mid-Atlantic Ridge (Waring et al., 2016). 

This species is found between Cape 

Hatteras and Georges Bank from midJanuary to May, although they migrate 

onto the northeast edge of Georges Bank 

in the fall where large aggregations 

occur (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa 

2009), where large aggregations occur on 

Georges Bank in fall (Waring et al. 

2007). Kraus et al. (2016) suggested that 

common dolphins occur year-round in 

the RI/MA & MA WEAs and 

surrounding areas. Common dolphins 

were the most frequently observed small 

cetacean species within the Kraus et al. 

(2016) study area. Common dolphins 

were observed in the RI/MA & MA 

WEAs in all seasons and observed in the 

Lease Area OCS–A 0501 in spring, 

summer, and fall. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Bottlenose dolphins encountered in 

the survey area would likely belong to 

the Western North Atlantic Offshore 

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

possible that a few animals encountered 

during the surveys could be from the 

North Atlantic Northern Migratory 

Coastal Stock, they generally do not 

range farther north than New Jersey, and 

therefore, such an occurrence would be 

unlikely, and take of the North Atlantic 

Northern Migratory Coastal Stock is not 

considered further. Kraus et al. (2016) 

observed common bottlenose dolphins 

during all seasons within the RI/MA & 

MA WEAs. Common bottlenose 

dolphins were the second most 

commonly observed small cetacean 

species and exhibited little seasonal 

variability in abundance. They were 

observed in the MA WEA in all seasons 

and observed in Lease Area OCS–A 

0501 in the fall and winter. 

Risso’s Dolphins 

Off the northeastern U.S. coast, 

Risso’s dolphins are distributed along 

the continental shelf edge from Cape 

Hatteras northward to Georges Bank 

during spring, summer, and autumn 

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

winter, the range is in the mid-Atlantic 

Bight and extends outward into oceanic 

waters (Payne et al. 1984). Kraus et al. 

(2016) results suggest that Risso’s 

dolphins occur infrequently in the RI/ 

MA & MA WEAs and surrounding areas. 

Harbor Porpoise 

The Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock 

of harbor porpoise may occur in the 

project area. This stock occurs in U.S. 

and Canadian Atlantic waters and is 

concentrated in the northern Gulf of 

Maine and southern Bay of Fundy 

region, generally in waters less than 150 

m deep (Waring et al., 2017). During fall 

(October–December) and spring (April– 

June) harbor porpoises are widely 

dispersed from New Jersey to Maine. 

During winter (January to March), 

intermediate densities of harbor 

porpoises occur in waters off New Jersey 

to North Carolina, and lower densities 

are found in waters off New York to 

New Brunswick, Canada. They occur 

from the coastline to deep waters 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30274 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 

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

although the majority of the population 

is found over the continental shelf 

(Waring et al., 2017). 

Kraus et al. (2016) indicate that 

harbor porpoises occur within the RI/ 

MA & MA WEAs in fall, winter, and 

spring. Harbor porpoises were observed 

in groups ranging in size from three to 

15 individuals and were primarily 

observed in the Kraus et al. (2016) study 

area from November through May, with 

very few sightings during June through 

September. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals occur year-round in the 

coastal waters of eastern Canada and 

Maine (Katona et al. 1993), and occur 

seasonally along the coasts from 

southern New England to New Jersey 

from September through late May. 

While harbor seals occur year-round 

north of Cape Cod, they only occur 

during winter migration, typically 

September through May, south of Cape 

Cod (Southern New England to New 

Jersey; Waring et al. 2015; Kenney and 

Vigness-Raposa 2009). 

Gray Seal 

The western North Atlantic stock of 

gray seal occurs in the project area. The 

range for this stock is thought to be from 

New Jersey to Labrador. Current 

population trends show that gray seal 

abundance is likely increasing in the 

U.S. Atlantic EEZ (Waring et al., 2017). 

Gray seals are expected to occur yearround in at least some potential OECC 

routes, with seasonal occurrence in the 

offshore areas from September to May 

(Hayes et al. 2018). 

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, seals showing clinical 

signs of stranding have occurred as far 

south as Virginia, although not in 

elevated numbers. Therefore the UME 

investigation now encompasses all seal 

strandings from Maine to Virginia 

(including harp and hooded seals, 

though no take of either species is 

proposed for authorization). Between 

July 1, 2018 and April 28, 2021, a total 

of 3,152 seal strandings have been 

recorded as part of this designated 

Northeast Pinniped UME. Based on tests 

conducted so far, the main pathogen 

found in the seals is phocine distemper 

virus. Additional testing to identify 

other factors that may be involved in 

this UME are underway. Please see 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/newengland-mid-atlantic/marine-lifedistress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusualmortality-event-along for additional 

information. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 3. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS (NMFS, 2018) 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

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

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

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

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

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

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

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

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

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

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. 14 marine 

mammal species (12 cetacean and two 

phocids pinnipeds) have the reasonable 

potential to co-occur with the proposed 

survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. 

Of the cetacean species that may be 

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

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

species and the sperm whale), and one 

is classified as high-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., harbor porpoise). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary of 

the ways that Vineyard Wind 1’s 

specified activity may impact marine 

mammals and their habitat. Detailed 

descriptions of the potential effects of 

similar specified activities have been 

provided in other recent Federal 

Register notices, including for survey 

activities using the same methodology, 

over a similar amount of time, and 

occurring within the same specified 

geographical region (e.g., 82 FR 20563, 

May 3, 2017; 85 FR 36537, June 17, 

2020; 85 FR 37848, June 24, 2020; 85 FR 

48179, August 10, 2020). No significant 

new information is available, and we 

refer the reader to these documents 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 30275 

rather than repeating the details here. 

The Estimated Take section includes a 

quantitative analysis of the number of 

individuals that are expected to be taken 

by Vineyard Wind 1’s activity. The 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination section considers the 

potential effects of the specified activity, 

the Estimated Take section, and the 

Proposed Mitigation section, to draw 

conclusions regarding the likely impacts 

of these activities on the reproductive 

success or survivorship of individuals 

and how those impacts on individuals 

are likely to impact marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

Background on Active Acoustic Sound 

Sources and Acoustic Terminology 

This subsection contains a brief 

technical background on sound, on the 

characteristics of certain sound types, 

and on metrics used in this proposal 

inasmuch as the information is relevant 

to the specified activity and to the 

summary of the potential effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals. 

For general information on sound and 

its interaction with the marine 

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

Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. 

(1995); Urick (1983). 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in hertz or 

cycles per second. Wavelength is the 

distance between two peaks or 

corresponding points of a sound wave 

(length of one cycle). Higher frequency 

sounds have shorter wavelengths than 

lower frequency sounds, and typically 

attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, 

except in certain cases in shallower 

water. Amplitude is the height of the 

sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’ 

of a sound and is typically described 

using the relative unit of the decibel. A 

sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is 

described as the ratio between a 

measured pressure and a reference 

pressure (for underwater sound, this is 

1 microPascal (mPa)), and is a 

logarithmic unit that accounts for large 

variations in amplitude. Therefore, a 

relatively small change in dB 

corresponds to large changes in sound 

pressure. The source level (SL) 

represents the SPL referenced at a 

distance of 1 m from the source 

(referenced to 1 mPa), while the received 

level is the SPL at the listener’s position 

(referenced to 1 mPa). 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. Root mean 

square is calculated by squaring all of 

the sound amplitudes, averaging the 

squares, and then taking the square root 

of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean 

square accounts for both positive and 

negative values; squaring the pressures 

makes all values positive so that they 

may be accounted for in the summation 

of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). This measurement is often used 

in the context of discussing behavioral 

effects, in part because behavioral 

effects, which often result from auditory 

cues, may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

Sound exposure level (SEL; 

represented as dB re 1 mPa2-s) represents 

the total energy in a stated frequency 

band over a stated time interval or event 

and considers both intensity and 

duration of exposure. The per-pulse SEL 

is calculated over the time window 

containing the entire pulse (i.e., 100 

percent of the acoustic energy). SEL is 

a cumulative metric; it can be 

accumulated over a single pulse, or 

calculated over periods containing 

multiple pulses. Cumulative SEL 

represents the total energy accumulated 

by a receiver over a defined time 

window or during an event. Peak sound 

pressure (also referred to as zero-to-peak 

sound pressure or 0–pk) is the 

maximum instantaneous sound pressure 

measurable in the water at a specified 

distance from the source and is 

represented in the same units as the rms 

sound pressure. 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in a manner similar 

to ripples on the surface of a pond and 

may be either directed in a beam or 

beams or may radiate in all directions 

(omnidirectional sources), as is the case 

for sound produced by the pile driving 

activity considered here. The 

compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound, which is defined as 

environmental background sound levels 

lacking a single source or point 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The sound 

level of a region is defined by the total 

acoustical energy being generated by 

known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging, 

construction) sound. A number of 

sources contribute to ambient sound, 

including wind and waves, which are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient sound for frequencies between 

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

general, ambient sound levels tend to 

increase with increasing wind speed 

and wave height. Precipitation can 

become an important component of total 

sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, and 

possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 

times. Marine mammals can contribute 

significantly to ambient sound levels, as 

can some fish and snapping shrimp. The 

frequency band for biological 

contributions is from approximately 12 

Hz to over 100 kHz. Sources of ambient 

sound related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels), 

dredging and construction, oil and gas 

drilling and production, geophysical 

surveys, sonar, and explosions. Vessel 

noise typically dominates the total 

ambient sound for frequencies between 

20 and 300 Hz. In general, the 

frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are 

below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency 

sound levels are created, they attenuate 

rapidly. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources that 

comprise ambient sound at any given 

location and time depends not only on 

the source levels (as determined by 

current weather conditions and levels of 

biological and human activity) but also 

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 they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

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

Southall et al., 2007). Please see 

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30276 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 

discussion of these concepts. The 

distinction between these two sound 

types is not always obvious, as certain 

signals share properties of both pulsed 

and non-pulsed sounds. A signal near a 

source could be categorized as a pulse, 

but due to propagation effects as it 

moves farther from the source, the 

signal duration becomes longer (e.g., 

Greene and Richardson, 1988). 

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 

1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and 

occur either as isolated events or 

repeated in some succession. Pulsed 

sounds are all characterized by a 

relatively rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to a maximal pressure value 

followed by a rapid decay period that 

may include a period of diminishing, 

oscillating maximal and minimal 

pressures, and generally have an 

increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995; 

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

of short duration but without the 

essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid 

rise time). Examples of non-pulsed 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems. 

The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

Sparkers and boomers produce pulsed 

signals with energy in the frequency 

ranges specified in Table 1. 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 1. Other sources planned for 

use during the proposed survey activity 

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

non-pulsed, intermittent sources. 

Summary on Specific Potential Effects 

of Acoustic Sound Sources 

Underwater sound from active 

acoustic sources can include one or 

more of the following: Temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment, nonauditory physical or physiological 

effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, 

and masking. 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), in which case the loss 

of hearing sensitivity is not fully 

recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in 

which case the animal’s hearing 

threshold would recover over time 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

Animals in the vicinity of Vineyard 

Wind 1’s proposed HRG survey activity 

are unlikely to incur even TTS due to 

the characteristics of the sound sources, 

which include relatively low source 

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

generally very short pulses and 

potential duration of exposure. These 

characteristics mean that instantaneous 

exposure is unlikely to cause TTS, as it 

is unlikely that exposure would occur 

close enough to the vessel for received 

levels to exceed peak pressure TTS 

criteria, and that the cumulative 

duration of exposure would be 

insufficient to exceed cumulative sound 

exposure level (SEL) criteria. Even for 

high-frequency cetacean species (e.g., 

harbor porpoises), which have the 

greatest sensitivity to potential TTS, 

individuals would have to make a very 

close approach and also remain very 

close to vessels operating these sources 

in order to receive multiple exposures at 

relatively high levels, as would be 

necessary to cause TTS. Intermittent 

exposures—as would occur due to the 

brief, transient signals produced by 

these sources—require a higher 

cumulative SEL to induce TTS than 

would continuous exposures of the 

same duration (i.e., intermittent 

exposure results in lower levels of TTS). 

Moreover, most marine mammals would 

more likely avoid a loud sound source 

rather than swim in such close 

proximity as to result in TTS. Kremser 

et al. (2005) noted that the probability 

of a cetacean swimming through the 

area of exposure when a sub-bottom 

profiler emits a pulse is small—because 

if the animal was in the area, it would 

have to pass the transducer at close 

range in order to be subjected to sound 

levels that could cause TTS and would 

likely exhibit avoidance behavior to the 

area near the transducer rather than 

swim through at such a close range. 

Further, the restricted beam shape of 

many of HRG survey devices planned 

for use (Table 1) 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 1) and the 

brief period when an individual 

mammal is likely to be exposed. 

Sound may affect marine mammals 

through impacts on the abundance, 

behavior, or distribution of prey species 

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

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 

relatively quickly, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 30277 

ends, behavioral and/or physiological 

responses are expected to end relatively 

quickly. Finally, the HRG survey 

equipment will not have significant 

impacts to the seafloor and does not 

represent a source of pollution. 

Vessel Strike 

Vessel collisions with marine 

mammals, or ship strikes, can result in 

death or serious injury of the animal. 

These interactions are typically 

associated with large whales, which are 

less maneuverable than are smaller 

cetaceans or pinnipeds in relation to 

large vessels. Ship strikes generally 

involve commercial shipping vessels, 

which are generally larger and of which 

there is much more traffic in the ocean 

than geophysical survey vessels. Jensen 

and Silber (2004) summarized ship 

strikes of large whales worldwide from 

1975–2003 and found that most 

collisions occurred in the open ocean 

and involved large vessels (e.g., 

commercial shipping). For vessels used 

in geophysical survey activities, vessel 

speed while towing gear is typically 

only 4–5 knots. At these speeds, both 

the possibility of striking a marine 

mammal and the possibility of a strike 

resulting in serious injury or mortality 

are so low as to be discountable. At 

average transit speed for geophysical 

survey vessels, the probability of serious 

injury or mortality resulting from a 

strike is less than 50 percent. However, 

the likelihood of a strike actually 

happening is again low given the 

smaller size of these vessels and 

generally slower speeds. Notably in the 

Jensen and Silber study, no strike 

incidents were reported for geophysical 

survey vessels during that time period. 

The potential effects of Vineyard 

Wind 1’s specified survey activity are 

expected to be limited to Level B 

behavioral harassment. No permanent or 

temporary auditory effects, or 

significant impacts to marine mammal 

habitat, including prey, are expected. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’s 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to HRG sources. Based 

primarily on the characteristics of the 

signals produced by the acoustic 

sources planned for use, Level A 

harassment is neither anticipated (even 

absent mitigation) nor proposed to be 

authorized. Consideration of the 

anticipated effectiveness of the 

mitigation measures (i.e., exclusion 

zones (EZs) and shutdown measures) 

discussed in detail below in the 

Proposed Mitigation section, further 

strengthens the conclusion that Level A 

harassment is not a reasonably 

anticipated outcome of the survey 

activity. As described previously, no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or proposed to be authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. We note that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, we 

describe the factors considered here in 

more detail and present the proposed 

take estimates. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source (e.g., 

frequency, predictability, duty cycle), 

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

the receiving animals (hearing, 

motivation, experience, demography, 

behavioral context) and can be difficult 

to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison 

et al., 2012). Based on what the 

available science indicates and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a factor that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

uses a generalized acoustic threshold 

based on received level to estimate the 

onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

we consider Level B harassment when 

exposed to underwater anthropogenic 

noise above received levels of 160 dB re 

1 mPa (rms) for the impulsive sources 

(i.e., boomers, sparkers) and nonimpulsive, intermittent sources (e.g., 

chirp SBPs) evaluated here for Vineyard 

Wind 1’s proposed activity. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’s 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

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

NMFS’s 2018 Technical Guidance, 

which may be accessed at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

Vineyard Wind 1’s proposed activity 

includes the use of impulsive (i.e., 

sparkers and boomers) and nonimpulsive (e.g., CHIRP SBP) sources. 

However, as discussed above, NMFS has 

concluded that Level A harassment is 

not a reasonably likely outcome for 

marine mammals exposed to noise 

through use of the sources proposed for 

use here, and the potential for Level A 

harassment is not evaluated further in 

this document. Please see Vineyard 

Wind 1’s application for details of a 

quantitative exposure analysis exercise, 

i.e., calculated Level A harassment 

isopleths and estimated Level A 

harassment exposures. Maximum 

estimated Level A harassment isopleths 

were less than 5 m for all sources and 

hearing groups with the exception of an 

estimated 53 m zone calculated for highfrequency cetaceans during use of the 

Applied Acoustics AA251 Boomer, (see 

Table 1 for source characteristics). 

Vineyard Wind 1 did not request 

authorization of take by Level A 

harassment, and no take by Level A 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30278 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 

harassment is proposed for 

authorization by NMFS. 

Ensonified Area 

NMFS has developed a user-friendly 

methodology for estimating the extent of 

the Level B harassment isopleths 

associated with relevant HRG survey 

equipment (NMFS, 2020). This 

methodology incorporates frequency 

and directionality to refine estimated 

ensonified zones. For acoustic sources 

that operate with different beamwidths, 

the maximum beamwidth was used, and 

the lowest frequency of the source was 

used when calculating the frequencydependent absorption coefficient (Table 

1). 

NMFS considers the data provided by 

Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) to 

represent the best available information 

on source levels associated with HRG 

equipment and, therefore, recommends 

that source levels provided by Crocker 

and Fratantonio (2016) be incorporated 

in the method described above to 

estimate isopleth distances to 

harassment thresholds. In cases when 

the source level for a specific type of 

HRG equipment is not provided in 

Crocker and Fratantonio (2016), NMFS 

recommends that either the source 

levels provided by the manufacturer be 

used, or, in instances where source 

levels provided by the manufacturer are 

unavailable or unreliable, a proxy from 

Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be used 

instead. Table 1 shows the HRG 

equipment types that may be used 

during the proposed surveys and the 

source levels associated with those HRG 

equipment types. 

Results of modeling using the 

methodology described above indicated 

that, of the HRG survey equipment 

planned for use by Vineyard Wind 1 

that has the potential to result in Level 

B harassment of marine mammals, the 

Applied Acoustics AA251 Boomer 

would produce the largest Level B 

harassment isopleth (178 m; see Table 7 

of Vineyard Wind 1’s application). The 

estimated Level B harassment isopleth 

associated with the GeoMarine Geo 

Spark 2000 (400 tip) system planned for 

use is 141 m. Although Vineyard Wind 

1 does not expect to use the AA251 

Boomer source on all planned survey 

days, it proposes to assume, for 

purposes of analysis, that the boomer 

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. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Density estimates for all species 

within the project area were derived 

from habitat-based density modeling 

results reported by Roberts et al. (2016, 

2017, 2018, 2020). The data presented 

by Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018, 

2020) incorporates aerial and shipboard 

line-transect survey data from NMFS 

and other organizations and 

incorporates data from 8 physiographic 

and 16 dynamic oceanographic and 

biological covariates, and controls for 

the influence of sea state, group size, 

availability bias, and perception bias on 

the probability of making a sighting. 

These density models were originally 

developed for all cetacean taxa in the 

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

subsequent years, certain models have 

been updated based on additional data 

as well as certain methodological 

improvements. More information is 

available online at https://seamap.env.

duke.edu/models/Duke/ 

EC/. 

Marine mammal density estimates in 

the survey area (animals/km2) were 

obtained using the most recent model 

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

2017, 2018, 2020). We note the 

availability of a more recent model 

version for the North Atlantic right 

whale. However, this latest update 

resulted in changed predictions only for 

Cape Cod Bay and, therefore, would not 

result in changes to the take estimate 

presented herein. More information is 

available online at: https://

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

EC_North_Atlantic_right_whale_

history.html. The updated models 

incorporate additional sighting data, 

including sightings from NOAA’s 

Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for 

Protected Species (AMAPPS) surveys. 

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

provide abundance estimates for species 

or species guilds within 10 km x 10 km 

grid cells (100 km2; except North 

Atlantic right whale—see discussion 

below) on a monthly or annual basis, 

depending on the species. 

For the exposure analysis, density 

data from Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 

2018, 2020) were mapped using a 

geographic information system (GIS). 

Vineyard Wind 1 calculated densities 

within a 50 km buffer polygon around 

the wind development area perimeter. 

The 50 km limit was derived from 

studies demonstrating that received 

levels, distance from the source, and 

behavioral context are known to 

influence marine mammals’ probability 

of behavioral response (Dunlop et al. 

2017). The monthly density was 

determined by calculating the mean of 

all grid cells partially or fully within the 

buffer polygon. The average monthly 

abundance for each species in each 

survey area was calculated as the mean 

value of the grid cells within the buffer 

area in each month and then converted 

to density (individuals/km2) by dividing 

by 100 km2 (Table 1). Annual mean 

densities were calculated from monthly 

densities (Table 4). 

The estimated monthly densities of 

North Atlantic right whales were based 

on updated model results from Roberts 

et al. (2020). These updated data for 

North Atlantic right whales are 

provided as densities (individuals/1 

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

km2) on a monthly basis. The same GIS 

process described above was used to 

select the appropriate grid cells from 

each month and the monthly North 

Atlantic right whale density in each 

survey area was calculated as the mean 

value of the grid cells as described 

above. Additional data regarding 

average group sizes from survey effort in 

the region was considered to ensure 

adequate take estimates are evaluated. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. In 

order to estimate the number of marine 

mammals predicted to be exposed to 

sound levels that would result in 

harassment, radial distances to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to 

harassment thresholds are calculated, as 

described above. Those distances are 

then used to calculate the area(s) around 

the HRG survey equipment predicted to 

be ensonified to sound levels that 

exceed harassment thresholds. The area 

estimated to be ensonified to relevant 

thresholds in a single day (zone of 

influence (ZOI)) is then calculated, 

based on areas predicted to be 

ensonified around the HRG survey 

equipment (i.e., 178 m) and the 

estimated trackline distance traveled per 

day by the survey vessel (i.e., 80 km). 

Based on the maximum estimated 

distance to the Level B harassment 

threshold of 178 m (Applied Acoustics 

AA251 Boomer) and the maximum 

estimated daily track line distance of 80 

km, the ZOI is estimated to be 28.58 km2

during Vineyard Wind 1’s planned HRG 

surveys. As described above, this is a 

conservative estimate as it assumes the 

HRG source that results in the greatest 

distance to the Level B harassment 

isopleth would be operated at all times 

during all vessel days. 

ZOI = (Distance/day × 2r) + pr2

Where r is the linear distance from the 

source to the harassment isopleth. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 30279 

Potential daily Level B harassment 

takes are estimated by multiplying the 

average annual marine mammal 

densities (animals/km2), as described 

above, by the ZOI. Estimated numbers of 

each species taken over the duration of 

the authorization are calculated by 

multiplying the potential daily Level B 

harassment takes by the total number of 

vessel days plus a 10 percent buffer (i.e., 

by 170 vessel days × 1.1 percent = 192.5 

vessel days). The product is then 

rounded, to generate an estimate of the 

total number of instances of harassment 

expected for each species over the 

duration of the survey. A summary of 

this method is illustrated in the 

following formula: 

Estimated Take = D × ZOI × vessel days 

Where D = average species density 

(animals/km2), ZOI = maximum daily 

ensonified area to relevant threshold, and 

vessel days = 192.5. 

Take by Level B harassment proposed 

for authorization is shown in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—TOTAL NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION AND

PROPOSED TAKES AS A PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

Species of interest 

Annual mean 

density 

(km2) 

Estimated 

takes by 

Level B 

harassment 

Proposed 

takes by 

Level B 

harassment a

Abundance Percent of 

stock 

Fin whale .............................................................................. 0.00149 8.22 8 6,802 0.13 

Humpback whale ................................................................. 0.00084 4.63 5 1,393 0.36 

Minke whale ......................................................................... 0.00062 3.42 3 21,968 0.02 

North Atlantic right whale ..................................................... 0.00164 9.05 9 368 2.72 

Sei whale ............................................................................. 0.00005 0.28 2 6,292 0.03 

Sperm whale ........................................................................ 0.00006 0.33 2 4,349 0.05 

Atlantic white sided dolphin ................................................. 0.02226 122.78 123 92,233 0.13 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................... 0.0403 222.29 222 62,851 0.35 

Long-finned pilot whale ........................................................ 0.00459 25.32 25 39,215 0.07 

Risso’s dolphin ..................................................................... 0.00012 0.66 8 35,493 0.02 

Common dolphin .................................................................. 0.0544 300.06 3,484 172,974 2.01 

Harbor porpoise ................................................................... 0.02858 157.64 158 95,543 0.17 

Gray seal b ........................................................................... 0.09784 539.67 540 27,131 1.99 

Harbor seal b ........................................................................ ........................ 539.67 540 75,834 0.71 

a Increases from calculated values for sei whale, sperm whale, and Risso’s dolphin are based on observed group sizes during Vineyard Wind 

LLC’s 2018–2020 surveys (Vineyard Wind 2018, 2020a, 2020b). b Roberts et al. (2018) only provides density estimates for seals without differentiating by species. Harbor seals and gray seals are assumed to

occur equally; therefore, density values were split evenly between the two species, i.e., total estimated take for ‘‘seals’’ is 1,080. 

The take numbers shown in Table 4 

are those requested by Vineyard Wind 1, 

with the exception of certain minor 

rounding differences. Further, Vineyard 

Wind 1 requested take of the pilot whale 

guild, rather than just long-finned pilot 

whale, but as described previously, pilot 

whales in the project area are expected 

to be long-finned pilot whales. 

Additionally, NMFS increased proposed 

Level B harassment take of common 

dolphin to 3,484 takes. This take 

estimate reflects the daily rate of 

approximately 18.1 common dolphin 

observations within the Level B 

harassment zone per vessel day (3,332 

dolphin observations over 184 days) 

during surveys under Vineyard Wind’s 

previous IHA (85 FR 42357; July 14, 

2020), and an estimated 192.5 vessel 

days, as described above (18.1 takes per 

day × 192.5 vessel days = 3,484 takes). 

Given the overlap in project areas, 

NMFS expects that this estimate is more 

appropriate than the density-based 

common dolphin take estimate 

calculated by Vineyard Wind 1. For all 

other species, NMFS concurs with the 

take numbers requested by Vineyard 

Wind 1 and proposes to authorize them. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned); 

and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost and 

impact on operations. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

NMFS proposes the following 

mitigation measures be implemented 

during Vineyard Wind 1’s proposed 

marine site characterization surveys. 

Marine Mammal Exclusion Zones and 

Harassment Zones 

Marine mammal EZs would be 

established around the HRG survey 

equipment and monitored by protected 

species observers (PSO): 

• 500 m (1,640 ft) EZ for North 

Atlantic right whales during use of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30280 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 

impulsive acoustic sources (e.g., 

boomers and/or sparkers) and certain 

non-impulsive acoustic sources 

(nonparametric sub-bottom profilers); 

and 

• 100 m (328 ft) EZ for all other 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions specified below, during use 

of impulsive acoustic sources (e.g., 

boomers and/or sparkers). 

If a marine mammal is detected 

approaching or entering the EZs during 

the HRG survey, the vessel operator 

would adhere to the shutdown 

procedures described below to 

minimize noise impacts on the animals. 

These stated requirements will be 

included in the training to be provided 

to the survey team. 

Pre-Clearance of the Exclusion Zones 

Vineyard Wind 1 would implement a 

60-minute pre-clearance period of the 

EZs prior to the initiation of ramp-up of 

HRG equipment. This pre-clearance 

duration was proposed by Vineyard 

Wind 1. During this period, the EZ will 

be monitored by the PSO(s), using the 

appropriate visual technology. Ramp-up 

may not be initiated if any marine 

mammal(s) is within its respective EZ. 

If a marine mammal is observed within 

an EZ during the pre-clearance period, 

ramp-up may not begin until the 

animal(s) has been observed exiting its 

respective EZ or until an additional time 

period has elapsed with no further 

sighting (i.e., 15 minutes for small 

odontocetes and seals, 60 minutes for 

North Atlantic right whale, and 30 

minutes for all other species). Here and 

below, the 60-minute North Atlantic 

right whale clearance period was 

proposed by Vineyard Wind 1. 

Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment 

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. The ramp-up 

procedure would be used at the 

beginning of HRG survey activities in 

order to provide additional protection to 

marine mammals near the survey area 

by allowing them to vacate the area 

prior to the commencement of survey 

equipment operation at full power. 

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. When technically feasible, the 

power would then be gradually turned 

up and other acoustic sources would be 

added. 

Ramp-up activities will be delayed if 

a marine mammal(s) enters its 

respective EZ. Ramp-up will continue if 

the animal has been observed exiting its 

respective EZ or until an additional time 

period has elapsed with no further 

sighting (i.e, 15 minutes for small 

odontocetes and seals, 60 minutes for 

North Atlantic right whale, and 30 

minutes for all other species). 

Activation of survey equipment 

through ramp-up procedures may not 

occur when visual observation of the 

pre-clearance/exclusion zone is not 

expected to be effective using the 

appropriate visual technology (i.e., 

during inclement conditions such as 

heavy rain or fog). 

Shutdown Procedures 

An immediate shutdown of the HRG 

survey equipment would be required if 

a marine mammal is sighted entering or 

within its respective EZ. The vessel 

operator must comply immediately with 

any call for shutdown by the PSO. Any 

disagreement between the PSO and 

vessel operator should be discussed 

only after shutdown has occurred. 

Subsequent restart of the survey 

equipment can be initiated if the animal 

has been observed exiting its respective 

EZ or until an additional time period 

has elapsed (i.e, 15 minutes for 

delphinid cetaceans and seals, 60 

minutes for North Atlantic Right Whale, 

and 30 minutes for all other species). 

If a species for which authorization 

has not been granted, or, a species for 

which authorization has been granted 

but the authorized number of takes have 

been met, approaches or is observed 

within the Level B harassment zone 

(178 m impulsive), shutdown would 

occur. 

If the acoustic source is shut down for 

reasons other than mitigation (e.g., 

mechanical difficulty) for less than 30 

minutes, it may be activated again 

without ramp-up if PSOs have 

maintained constant observation and no 

detections of any marine mammal have 

occurred within the respective EZs. If 

the acoustic source is shut down for a 

period longer than 30 minutes and PSOs 

have maintained constant observation, 

then pre-clearance and ramp-up 

procedures will be initiated as described 

in the previous section. 

The shutdown requirement would be 

waived for small delphinids of the 

following genera: Delphinus, 

Lagenorhynchus (acutus only), and 

Tursiops. Specifically, if a delphinid 

from the specified genera is visually 

detected approaching the vessel (i.e., to 

bow ride) or towed equipment, 

shutdown is not required. Furthermore, 

if there is uncertainty regarding 

identification of a marine mammal 

species (i.e., whether the observed 

marine mammal(s) belongs to one of the 

delphinid genera for which shutdown is 

waived), PSOs must use best 

professional judgement in making the 

decision to call for a shutdown. 

Additionally, shutdown is required if a 

delphinid detected in the EZ belongs to 

a genus other than those specified. 

Shutdown, pre-start clearance, and 

ramp-up procedures are not required 

during HRG survey operations using 

only non-impulsive sources (e.g., USBL 

and 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. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

Vineyard Wind 1 will ensure that 

vessel operators and crew maintain a 

vigilant watch for cetaceans and 

pinnipeds and slow down or stop their 

vessels to avoid striking these species. 

Survey vessel crew members 

responsible for navigation duties will 

receive site-specific training on marine 

mammals sighting/reporting and vessel 

strike avoidance measures. Vessel strike 

avoidance measures include the 

following, except under circumstances 

when complying with these 

requirements would put the safety of the 

vessel or crew at risk: 

• Vessel operators and crews must 

maintain a vigilant watch for all 

protected species and slow down, stop 

their vessel, or alter course, as 

appropriate and regardless of vessel 

size, to avoid striking any protected 

species. A visual observer aboard the 

vessel must monitor a vessel strike 

avoidance zone based on the 

appropriate separation distance around 

the vessel (distances stated below). 

Visual observers monitoring the vessel 

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

members, but crew members 

responsible for these duties must be 

provided sufficient training to (1) 

distinguish protected species from other 

phenomena and (2) broadly to identify 

a marine mammal as a right whale, 

other whale (defined in this context as 

sperm whales or baleen whales other 

than right whales), or other marine 

mammal; 

• All survey vessels, regardless of 

size, must observe a 10-knot speed 

restriction in specific areas designated 

by NMFS for the protection of North 

Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes 

including seasonal management areas 

(SMAs) and dynamic management areas 

(DMAs) when in effect; 

• All vessels greater than or equal to 

19.8 m in overall length operating from 

November 1 through April 30 will 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 30281 

operate at speeds of 10 knots or less, 

except while transiting in Nantucket 

Sound; 

• All vessels must reduce their speed 

to 10 knots or less when mother/calf 

pairs, pods, or large assemblages of 

cetaceans are observed near a vessel; 

• All vessels must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 500 m 

from right whales. If a whale is observed 

but cannot be confirmed as a species 

other than a right whale, the vessel 

operator must assume that it is a right 

whale and take appropriate action; 

• All vessels must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 100 m 

from sperm whales and all other baleen 

whales; 

• All vessels must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, attempt to maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 50 m 

from all other marine mammals, with an 

understanding that at times this may not 

be possible (e.g., for animals that 

approach the vessel); 

• When marine mammals are sighted 

while a vessel is underway, the vessel 

shall take action as necessary to avoid 

violating the relevant separation 

distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel 

to the animal’s course, avoid excessive 

speed or abrupt changes in direction 

until the animal has left the area). If 

marine mammals are sighted within the 

relevant separation distance, the vessel 

must reduce speed and shift the engine 

to neutral, not engaging the engines 

until animals are clear of the area. This 

does not apply to any vessel towing gear 

or any vessel that is navigationally 

constrained; 

• These requirements do not apply in 

any case where compliance would 

create an imminent and serious threat to 

a person or vessel or to the extent that 

a vessel is restricted in its ability to 

maneuver and, because of the 

restriction, cannot comply; and 

• Members of the monitoring team 

will consult NMFS North Atlantic right 

whale reporting system and Whale 

Alert, as able, for the presence of North 

Atlantic right whales throughout survey 

operations, and for the establishment of 

a DMA. If NMFS should establish a 

DMA in the survey area during the 

survey, the vessels will abide by speed 

restrictions in the DMA. 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

Vineyard Wind 1 has proposed to 

employ trained passive acoustic 

monitoring (PAM) operators to monitor 

for acoustic detections of marine 

mammals during nighttime HRG survey 

activities. PAM operators will 

communicate nighttime detections to 

the lead PSO on duty who will ensure 

the implementation of the appropriate 

mitigation measure. If PAM is not used 

or is deemed non-functional at any time 

during the survey, the survey will be 

shut down until PAM is restored. NMFS 

does not concur that PAM is an effective 

technique for detecting mysticetes in 

order to implement mitigation measures 

during HRG surveys, given masking that 

would occur from vessel noise and flow 

noise. Therefore, NMFS has not 

included it as a requirement in this 

proposed IHA. 

Seasonal Restrictions 

Vineyard Wind 1 will not operate 

more than three concurrent HRG survey 

vessels, with HRG survey equipment 

operating below 200 kHz, from January 

through April within the lease area or 

export cable corridor, not including 

coastal and bay waters. Additionally, 

the monitoring team will consult 

NMFS’s North Atlantic right whale 

reporting systems for any observed right 

whales throughout survey operations 

within or adjacent to SMAs and/or 

DMAs, and will comply with 10 knot 

speed restrictions in any DMA, as noted 

above. 

Crew Training 

Prior to initiation of survey work, all 

crew members will undergo 

environmental training, a component of 

which will focus on the procedures for 

sighting and protection of marine 

mammals. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means 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 in the proposed action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Proposed Monitoring Measures 

As described above, visual monitoring 

would be performed by qualified and 

NMFS-approved PSOs, the resumes of 

whom will be provided to NMFS for 

review and approval prior to the start of 

survey activities. Vineyard Wind 1 

would employ independent, dedicated, 

trained PSOs, meaning that the PSOs 

must (1) be employed by a third-party 

observer provider, (2) have no tasks 

other than to conduct observational 

effort, collect data, and communicate 

with and instruct relevant vessel crew 

with regard to the presence of marine 

mammals and mitigation requirements 

(including brief alerts regarding 

maritime hazards), and (3) have 

successfully completed an approved 

PSO training course appropriate for 

their designated task. 

The PSOs will be responsible for 

monitoring the waters surrounding each 

survey vessel to the farthest extent 

permitted by sighting conditions, 

including exclusion zones, during all 

HRG survey operations. PSOs will 

visually monitor and identify marine 

mammals, including those approaching 

or entering the established exclusion 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30282 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 

zones during survey activities. It will be 

the responsibility of the Lead PSO on 

duty to communicate the presence of 

marine mammals as well as to 

communicate the action(s) that are 

necessary to ensure mitigation and 

monitoring requirements are 

implemented as appropriate. 

During all HRG survey operations 

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

source is planned to occur), a minimum 

of one PSO must be on duty and 

conducting visual observations at all 

times on all active survey vessels when 

HRG equipment operating at or below 

200 kHz is operating, including both 

daytime and nighttime operations. 

Visual monitoring would begin no less 

than 60 minutes prior to initiation of 

HRG survey equipment and would 

continue until 30 minutes after use of 

the acoustic source ceases. Vineyard 

Wind 1 states that a requirement to 

employ at least 2 PSOs during all 

nighttime survey operations is 

impracticable, given the limited 

available berths on the survey vessels 

and additional personnel required to 

conduct PAM. 

Observations would take place from 

the highest available vantage point on 

the survey vessel. In cases where more 

than one PSO is on duty at a time PSOs 

would coordinate to ensure 360° visual 

coverage around the vessel from the 

most appropriate observation posts. 

PSOs may be on watch for a maximum 

of four consecutive hours followed by a 

break of at least two hours between 

watches and may conduct a maximum 

of 12 hours of observation per 24-hour 

period. In cases where multiple vessels 

are surveying concurrently, any 

observations of marine mammals would 

be communicated to PSOs on all 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 will also be 

available to PSOs for use as appropriate 

based on conditions and visibility to 

support the monitoring of marine 

mammals. PSOs must use night-vision 

technology during nighttime surveys 

when the sources are active. 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 conduct observations when 

the acoustic source is not operating for 

comparison of sighting rates and 

behavior with and without use of the 

acoustic source. Any observations of 

marine mammals by crew members 

aboard any vessel associated with the 

survey would be relayed to the PSO 

team. Data on all PSO observations 

would be recorded based on standard 

PSO collection requirements. This 

would include dates, times, and 

locations of survey operations; dates 

and times of observations, location and 

weather; details of marine mammal 

sightings (e.g., species, numbers, 

behavior); and details of any observed 

marine mammal take that occurs (e.g., 

noted behavioral disturbances). 

Proposed Reporting Measures 

Within 90 days after completion of 

survey activities, a final technical report 

will be provided to NMFS that fully 

documents the methods and monitoring 

protocols, summarizes the data recorded 

during monitoring, summarizes the 

number of marine mammals estimated 

to have been taken during survey 

activities (by species, when known), 

summarizes the mitigation actions taken 

during surveys (including what type of 

mitigation and the species and number 

of animals that prompted the mitigation 

action, when known), and provides an 

interpretation of the results and 

effectiveness of all mitigation and 

monitoring measures. Any 

recommendations made by NMFS must 

be addressed in the final report prior to 

acceptance by NMFS. PSO datasheets or 

raw sightings data must also be 

provided with the draft and final 

monitoring report. All draft and final 

monitoring reports must be submitted to 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and ITP.Davis@noaa.gov. 

The report must contain at minimum, 

the following: 

• PSO names and affiliations; 

• Dates of departures and returns to 

port with port name; 

• Dates and times (Greenwich Mean 

Time) of survey effort and times 

corresponding with PSO effort; 

• Vessel location (latitude/longitude) 

when survey effort begins and ends; 

vessel location at beginning and end of 

visual PSO duty shifts; 

• Vessel heading and speed at 

beginning and end of visual PSO duty 

shifts and upon any line change; 

• Environmental conditions while on 

visual survey (at beginning and end of 

PSO shift and whenever conditions 

change significantly), including wind 

speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, 

Beaufort wind force, swell height, 

weather conditions, cloud cover, sun 

glare, and overall visibility to the 

horizon; 

• Factors that may be contributing to 

impaired observations during each PSO 

shift change or as needed as 

environmental conditions change (e.g., 

vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); 

and 

• Survey activity information, such as 

type of survey equipment in operation, 

acoustic source power output while in 

operation, and any other notes of 

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

ramp-up, shutdown, end of operations, 

etc.). 

If a marine mammal is sighted, the 

following information should be 

recorded: 

• Watch status (sighting made by PSO 

on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, 

alternate vessel/platform); 

• PSO who sighted the animal; 

• Time of sighting; 

• Vessel location at time of sighting; 

• Water depth; 

• Direction of vessel’s travel (compass 

direction); 

• Direction of animal’s travel relative 

to the vessel; 

• Pace of the animal; 

• Estimated distance to the animal 

and its heading relative to vessel at 

initial sighting; 

• Identification of the animal (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified); also 

note the composition of the group if 

there is a mix of species; 

• Estimated number of animals (high/ 

low/best); 

• Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, 

calves, group composition, etc.); 

• Description (as many distinguishing 

features as possible of each individual 

seen, including length, shape, color, 

pattern, scars or markings, shape and 

size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and 

blow characteristics); 

• Detailed behavior observations (e.g., 

number of blows, number of surfaces, 

breaching, spyhopping, diving, feeding, 

traveling; as explicit and detailed as 

possible; note any observed changes in 

behavior); 

• Animal’s closest point of approach 

and/or closest distance from the center 

point of the acoustic source; and 

• Description of any actions 

implemented in response to the sighting 

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

or course alteration, etc.) and time and 

location of the action. 

If a North Atlantic right whale is 

observed at any time by PSOs or 

personnel on any project vessels, during 

surveys or during vessel transit, 

Vineyard Wind 1 must immediately 

report sighting information to the NMFS 

North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting 

Advisory System: (866) 755–6622. North 

Atlantic right whale sightings in any 

location may also be reported to the U.S. 

Coast Guard via channel 16. 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the survey activities covered by the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 30283 

authorization discover an injured or 

dead marine mammal, Vineyard Wind 1 

must report the incident to the NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR) and 

the NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. The report must include the 

following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

In the event of a vessel strike of a 

marine mammal by any vessel involved 

in the activities covered by the 

authorization, Vineyard Wind 1 must 

report the incident to the NMFS OPR 

and the NMFS New England/MidAtlantic Stranding Coordinator as soon 

as feasible. The report must include the 

following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Vessel’s course/heading and what 

operations were being conducted (if 

applicable); 

• Status of all sound sources in use; 

• Description of avoidance measures/ 

requirements that were in place at the 

time of the strike and what additional 

measures were taken, if any, to avoid 

strike; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, visibility) 

immediately preceding the strike; 

• Estimated size and length of animal 

that was struck; 

• Description of the behavior of the 

marine mammal immediately preceding 

and following the strike; 

• If available, description of the 

presence and behavior of any other 

marine mammals immediately 

preceding the strike; 

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

dead, injured but alive, injured and 

moving, blood or tissue observed in the 

water, status unknown, disappeared); 

and 

• To the extent practicable, 

photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, our analysis 

applies to all the species listed in Table 

2, given that NMFS expects the 

anticipated effects of the proposed 

survey to be similar in nature. Where 

there are meaningful differences 

between species or stocks—as is the 

case of the North Atlantic right whale— 

they are included as separate 

subsections below. NMFS does not 

anticipate that serious injury or 

mortality would occur as a result from 

HRG surveys, even in the absence of 

mitigation, and no serious injury or 

mortality is proposed to be authorized. 

As discussed in the Potential Effects of 

Specified Activity on Marine Mammals 

and Their Habitat section, non-auditory 

physical effects and vessel strike are not 

expected to occur. NMFS expects that 

all potential takes would be in the form 

of short-term Level B behavioral 

harassment in the form of temporary 

avoidance of the area or decreased 

foraging (if such activity was occurring), 

reactions that are considered to be of 

low severity and with no lasting 

biological consequences (e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007). Even repeated Level B 

harassment of some small subset of an 

overall stock is unlikely to result in any 

significant realized decrease in viability 

for the affected individuals, and thus 

would not result in any adverse impact 

to the stock as a whole. As described 

above, Level A harassment is not 

expected to occur given the nature of 

the operations, the estimated size of the 

Level A harassment zones, and the 

required shutdown zones for certain 

activities. 

In addition to being temporary, the 

maximum expected harassment zone 

around a survey vessel is 178 m. 

Although this distance is assumed for 

all survey activity in estimating take 

numbers proposed for authorization and 

evaluated here, in reality much of the 

survey activity would involve use of 

acoustic sources with smaller acoustic 

harassment zones, producing expected 

effects of particularly low severity. 

Therefore, the ensonified area 

surrounding each vessel is relatively 

small compared to the overall 

distribution of the animals in the area 

and their use of the habitat. Feeding 

behavior is not likely to be significantly 

impacted as prey species are mobile and 

are broadly distributed throughout the 

survey area; therefore, marine mammals 

that may be temporarily displaced 

during survey activities are expected to 

be able to resume foraging once they 

have moved away from areas with 

disturbing levels of underwater noise. 

Because of the temporary nature of the 

disturbance and the availability of 

similar habitat and resources in the 

surrounding area, the impacts to marine 

mammals and the food sources that they 

utilize are not expected to cause 

significant or long-term consequences 

for individual marine mammals or their 

populations. 

There are no rookeries, mating or 

calving grounds known to be 

biologically important to marine 

mammals within the proposed survey 

area. (Biologically important areas for 

feeding and migration are discussed 

below.) 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30284 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 

and entanglements, as the cause of 

death for the majority of right whales. 

As noted previously, the proposed 

project area overlaps a migratory 

corridor BIA for North Atlantic right 

whales (March–April and November– 

December). In addition to the migratory 

BIA, Oleson et al. (2020) identified an 

area south of Martha’s Vineyard and 

Nantucket, referred to as ‘‘South of the 

Islands,’’ as a newer, year-round, core 

North Atlantic right whale foraging 

habitat. The South of the Islands area 

overlaps with most of Vineyard Wind 

1’s project area. 

As stated previously, the largest Level 

B harassment isopleth for Vineyard 

Wind 1’s survey is 178 m. Therefore, 

even if Vineyard Wind 1 operates 

multiple survey vessels concurrently in 

this area, the total area ensonified above 

the Level B harassment threshold would 

be minimal in comparison with the 

remaining South of the Islands feeding 

habitat, and habitat within the migratory 

corridor BIA available to North Atlantic 

right whales. Additionally, NMFS is 

also requiring Vineyard Wind 1 to limit 

the number of survey vessels operating 

concurrently in the lease area or export 

cable corridor (not including coastal and 

bay waters) to no more than three from 

January through April, when North 

Atlantic right whale densities are the 

highest. Given the factors discussed 

above, and the temporary nature of the 

surveys, right whale migration is not 

expected to be impacted by the 

proposed survey, and feeding is not 

expected to be affected a degree that 

would affect North Atlantic right whale 

foraging success in the South of the 

Islands important feeding area. 

No ship strike is expected to occur 

during Vineyard Wind 1’s proposed 

activities, and required vessel strike 

avoidance measures will decrease risk 

of ship strike, including during 

migration and feeding. HRG survey 

operations are required to maintain a 

500 m EZ and shutdown if a North 

Atlantic right whale is sighted at or 

within the EZ. Regarding take by Level 

B harassment, the 500 m shutdown zone 

for right whales is conservative, 

considering the Level B harassment 

isopleth for the most impactful acoustic 

source (i.e., boomer) is estimated to be 

178 m. Therefore, this EZ minimizes the 

potential for behavioral harassment of 

this species. Additionally, as noted 

previously, Level A harassment take is 

not expected for any species, including 

North Atlantic right whales, given the 

small PTS zones associated with HRG 

equipment types proposed for use. 

The Level B harassment takes of 

North Atlantic right whale proposed for 

authorization 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. Therefore, 

the takes would not be expected to 

impact individual fitness or annual rates 

of recruitment or survival. Further, 

given the relatively small size of the 

ensonified area during surveys, it is 

unlikely that North Atlantic right whale 

prey availability would be adversely 

affected by HRG survey operations. 

Biologically Important Area for Fin 

Whales 

The proposed project area overlaps 

with a feeding BIA for fin whales 

(March-October). The fin whale feeding 

BIA is large (2,933 km2), and the 

acoustic footprint of the proposed 

survey is sufficiently small such that 

feeding opportunities for these whales 

would not be reduced appreciably. Any 

fin whales temporarily displaced from 

the proposed survey area would be 

expected to have sufficient remaining 

feeding habitat available to them, and 

would not be prevented from feeding in 

other areas within the biologically 

important feeding habitat. In addition, 

any displacement of fin whales from the 

BIA or interruption of foraging bouts 

would be expected to be temporary in 

nature. Therefore, we do not expect fin 

whales feeding within the feeding BIAs 

to be impacted by the proposed survey 

to an extent that would affect fitness or 

reproduction. 

Other Marine Mammal Species With 

Active UMEs 

As noted previously, there are several 

active UMEs occurring in the vicinity of 

Vineyard Wind 1’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). Despite the 

UME, the relevant population of 

humpback whales (the West Indies 

breeding population, or DPS) remains 

stable at approximately 12,000 

individuals, and the Level B harassment 

takes of humpback whale proposed for 

authorization are not expected to 

exacerbate or compound the ongoing 

UME. 

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. The likely population 

abundance is greater than 20,000 

whales, and the Level B harassment 

takes of minke whale proposed for 

authorization are not expected to 

exacerbate or compound upon the 

ongoing UME. 

Elevated numbers of harbor seal and 

gray seal mortalities were first observed 

in July 2018 and have occurred across 

Maine, New Hampshire, and 

Massachusetts. Based on tests 

conducted so far, the main pathogen 

found in the seals is phocine distemper 

virus, although additional testing to 

identify other factors that may be 

involved in this UME are underway. 

The Level B harassment takes of harbor 

seal and gray seal proposed for 

authorization are not expected to 

exacerbate or compound upon the 

ongoing UME. For harbor seals, the 

population abundance is over 75,000 

and annual M/SI (350) is well below 

PBR (2,006) (Hayes et al., 2020). The 

population abundance for gray seals in 

the United States is over 27,000, with an 

estimated abundance, including seals in 

Canada, of approximately 450,000. In 

addition, the abundance of gray seals is 

likely increasing in the U.S. Atlantic as 

well as in Canada (Hayes et al., 2020). 

The required mitigation measures are 

expected to reduce the number and/or 

severity of proposed takes for all species 

listed in Table 2, including those with 

active UMEs, to the level of least 

practicable adverse impact. In particular 

they would provide animals the 

opportunity to move away from the 

sound source throughout the survey 

area before HRG survey equipment 

reaches full energy, thus preventing 

them from being exposed to sound 

levels that have the potential to cause 

injury (Level A harassment) or more 

severe Level B harassment. No Level A 

harassment is anticipated, even in the 

absence of mitigation measures, or 

proposed for authorization. 

NMFS expects that takes would be in 

the form of short-term Level B 

behavioral harassment by way of brief 

startling reactions and/or temporary 

vacating of the area, or decreased 

foraging (if such activity was 

occurring)—reactions that (at the scale 

and intensity anticipated here) are 

considered to be of low severity, with 

no lasting biological consequences. 

Since both the sources and marine 

mammals are mobile, animals would 

only be exposed briefly to a small 

ensonified area that might result in take. 

Additionally, required mitigation 

measures would further reduce 

exposure to sound that could result in 

more severe behavioral harassment. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 30285 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or proposed for 

authorization; 

• No Level A harassment (PTS) is 

anticipated, even in the absence of 

mitigation measures, or proposed for 

authorization; 

• Foraging success is not likely to be 

significantly impacted as effects on 

species that serve as prey species for 

marine mammals from the survey are 

expected to be minimal; 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the planned survey 

to avoid exposure to sounds from the 

activity; 

• Take is anticipated to be primarily 

Level B behavioral harassment 

consisting of brief startling reactions 

and/or temporary avoidance of the 

survey area; 

• While the survey area overlaps 

areas noted as a migratory BIA for North 

Atlantic right whales, the activities 

would occur in such a comparatively 

small area such that any avoidance of 

the survey area due to activities would 

not affect migration. In addition, 

mitigation measures to shutdown at 500 

m to minimize potential for Level B 

behavioral harassment would limit any 

take of the species; 

• Similarly, due to the relatively 

small footprint of the survey activities 

in relation to the size of the fin whale 

feeding BIA and South of the Islands 

North Atlantic right whale feeding area, 

the survey activities would not affect 

foraging success of these species; and 

• The proposed mitigation measures, 

including visual monitoring and 

shutdowns, are expected to minimize 

potential impacts to marine mammals. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

Vineyard Wind 1’s proposed HRG 

survey activities 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. 

Take of all species or stocks is below 

one third of the estimated stock 

abundance (in fact, take of individuals 

is less than 3 percent of the abundance 

for all affected stocks) as shown in Table 

4. Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with NMFS Greater Atlantic 

Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO). 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

(OPR) is proposing to authorize take of 

fin whale, North Atlantic right whale, 

sei whale, and sperm whale, which are 

listed under the ESA. OPR will consult 

with GARFO for the issuance of this 

IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA 

consultation prior to reaching a 

determination regarding the proposed 

issuance of the authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to Vineyard Wind 1 for 

conducting marine site characterization 

surveys off of Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island for one year from the date of 

issuance, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

A draft of the proposed IHA can be 

found at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed marine site 

characterization surveys. We also 

request at this time comment on the 

potential Renewal of this proposed IHA 

as described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform decisions on the request for 

this IHA or a subsequent Renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, one-year Renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical, 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30286 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take); and 

(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 1, 2021. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11823 Filed 6–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

Review and Approval; Comment 

Request; National Saltwater Angler 

Registry and State Exemption Program 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and clearance in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, on or after the date of publication 

of this notice. We invite the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

comment on proposed, and continuing 

information collections, which helps us 

assess the impact of our information 

collection requirements and minimize 

the public’s reporting burden. Public 

comments were previously requested 

via the Federal Register on January 25, 

2021 (86 FR 6875) during a 60-day 

comment period. This notice allows for 

an additional 30 days for public 

comments. 

Agency: National Oceanic & 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

Title: National Saltwater Angler 

Registry and State Exemption Program. 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0578. 

Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Request: Regular submission 

(extension of a current information 

collection). 

Number of Respondents: 1204. 

Average Hours Per Response: 

Registration of Anglers—3 minutes; 

Registration of For-Hire Vessels—3 

minutes. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 61. 

Needs and Uses: This request is for 

extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

The National Saltwater Angler 

Registry Program (Registry Program) was 

established to implement 

recommendations included in the 

review of national saltwater angling data 

collection programs conducted by the 

National Research Council (NRC) in 

2005/2006, and the provisions of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act, 

codified at Section 401(g) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA), which require the Secretary of 

Commerce to commence improvements 

to recreational fisheries surveys, 

including establishing a national 

saltwater angler and for-hire vessel 

registry, by January 1, 2009. A final rule 

that includes regulatory measures to 

implement the Registry Program (RIN 

0648–AW10) was adopted and codified 

in 50 CFR 600, Subpart P. 

The Registry Program collects 

identification and contact information 

from those anglers and for-hire vessels 

who are involved in recreational fishing 

in the United States Exclusive Economic 

Zone or for anadromous fish in any 

waters, unless the anglers or vessels are 

exempted from the registration 

requirement. Data collected includes: 

For anglers: Name, address, date of 

birth, telephone contact information and 

region(s) of the country in which they 

fish; for for-hire vessels: Owner and 

operator name, address, date of birth, 

telephone contact information, vessel 

name and registration/documentation 

number and home port or primary 

operating area. This information is 

compiled into a national and/or series of 

regional registries that is being used to 

support surveys of recreational anglers 

and for-hire vessels to develop estimates 

of recreational angling effort. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; Business or other for-profit 

organizations. 

Frequency: Annual. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

Legal Authority: Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA). 

This information collection request 

may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. 

Follow the instructions to view the 

Department of Commerce collections 

currently under review by OMB. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be 

submitted within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice on the 

following website www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain. Find this 

particular information collection by 

selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function and 

entering either the title of the collection 

or the OMB Control Number 0648–0578. 

Sheleen Dumas, 

Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, Commerce 

Department. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11887 Filed 6–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

Review and Approval; Comment 

Request; Data Collections To Support 

Comprehensive Economic and SocioEconomic Evaluations of the Fisheries 

in Regions of the United States 

Affected by Catastrophic Events 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and clearance in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, on or after the date of publication 

of this notice. We invite the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

comment on proposed, and continuing 

information collections, which helps us 

assess the impact of our information 

collection requirements and minimize 

the public’s reporting burden. Public 

comments were previously requested 

via the Federal Register on March 2, 

2021(86 FR 12174) during a 60-day 

comment period. This notice allows for 

an additional 30 days for public 

comments. 

Agency: National Oceanic & 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

Title: Data Collections to Support 

Comprehensive Economic and SocioEconomic Evaluations of the Fisheries 

in Regions of the United States Affected 

by Catastrophic Events. 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0767. 

Form Number(s): None. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES