78806 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD666 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

receive an overview from the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 

about their geological and geophysical 

(G&G) permitting process in the 

Atlantic, focusing on regulations and 

the permitted activities for G&G surveys. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, January 20, 2015, from 1:30 

p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST, via Internet 

Webinar. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held 

via Internet Webinar. To join the 

Webinar, follow this link and enter the 

online meeting room: http:// 

mafmc.adobeconnect.com/ 

januaryboem/ 

Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 800 North State 

Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901, 

telephone: (302) 674–2331. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Christopher M. Moore, Executive 

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council; telephone: (302) 

526–5255. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BOEM 

will give a presentation to the Council 

that provides an overview of the 

geological and geophysical (G&G) 

permitting process in the Atlantic, 

focusing on regulations and the 

permitted activities for G&G surveys. 

BOEM will outline what is included in 

a complete permit and discuss the 

coordination process. The outline will 

also go through the National 

Environmental Policy Act and internal 

environmental review processes and 

discuss the related consultation and 

coordination, and finally touch on 

mitigation and operations monitoring. 

BOEM staff will be available to answer 

any questions following the 

presentation. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is accessible to people 

with disabilities. Requests for sign 

language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aid should be directed to 

Kathy Collins, (302) 526–5253, at least 

5 days prior to the meeting date. 

Dated: December 23, 2014. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30554 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XC228 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Operation, 

Maintenance, and Repair of the 

Northeast Gateway Liquefied Natural 

Gas Port and the Algonquin Pipeline 

Lateral Facilities in Massachusetts Bay 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

take authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) regulations, notification is 

hereby given that NMFS has issued an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

(IHA) to the Northeast Gateway® Energy 

BridgeTM, L.P. (Northeast Gateway or 

NEG) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, 

L.L.C. (Algonquin) to take, by 

harassment, small numbers of 14 

species of marine mammals incidental 

to operating, maintaining, and repairing 

a liquefied natural gas (LNG) port and 

the Algonquin Pipeline Lateral (Pipeline 

Lateral) facilities by NEG and 

Algonquin, in Massachusetts Bay, 

between December 22, 2014, through 

December 21, 2015. 

DATES: Effective December 22, 2014, 

through December 21, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the original and 

revised application containing a list of 

the references used in this document, 

The Maritime Administration 

(MARAD), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(Final EIS) on the Northeast Gateway 

Energy Bridge LNG Deepwater Port 

license application, and other related 

documents are available for viewing at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental.htm#applications. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A)(D) of the MMPA 

(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to 

allow, upon request, the incidental, but 

not intentional taking 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 regulations are issued or, 

if the taking is limited to harassment, a 

notice of a proposed authorization is 

provided to the public for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 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.’’ 

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

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the U.S. can apply for 

a one-year authorization to incidentally 

take small numbers of marine mammals 

by harassment, provided that there is no 

potential for serious injury or mortality 

to result from the activity. Section 

101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time 

limit for NMFS review of an application 

followed by a 30-day public notice and 

comment period on any proposed 

authorizations for the incidental 

harassment of marine mammals. Within 

45 days of the close of the comment 

period, NMFS must either issue or deny 

the authorization. 

Summary of Request 

On January 18, 2013, NMFS received 

an application from Excelerate and 

Tetra Tech, on behalf of Northeast 

Gateway and Algonquin, for an 

authorization to take 14 species of 

marine mammals by Level B harassment 

incidental to operations, maintenance, 

and repair of an LNG port and the 

Pipeline Lateral facilities in 

Massachusetts Bay. They are: North 

Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, 

fin whale, sei whale, minke whale, longfinned pilot whale, Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, shortbeaked common dolphin, killer whale, 

Risso’s dolphin, harbor porpoise, harbor 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78807 

seal, and gray seal. Since LNG Port and 

Pipeline Lateral operation, maintenance, 

and repair activities have the potential 

to take marine mammals, a marine 

mammal take authorization under the 

MMPA is warranted. 

In response to the IHA application, 

NMFS published a Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA on 

November 18, 2013 (78 FR 69049), 

which included proposed mitigation 

and monitoring measures to minimize 

and monitor potential impacts to marine 

mammals that could result from the 

proposed LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral 

operation, maintenance, and repair 

activities. After the close of the public 

comment period, Northeast Gateway 

notified NMFS that it does not intend to 

use marine autonomous recording units 

(MARUs) for long-term passive acoustic 

monitoring (PAM), as was described in 

the November 18, 2013, proposed IHA 

Federal Register notice, the IHA 

application, and marine mammal 

monitoring plan, except under certain 

levels of LNG port activity, and 

requested NMFS to modify the 

monitoring measures in the proposed 

IHA to use alternative acoustic 

monitoring, with triggers for additional 

long-term monitoring during higher 

levels of LNG port activity (which 

would require reinstallation of MARUs). 

Following discussions with NMFS’ 

Office of Protected Resources, the NMFS 

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 

Office (GARFO), and National Ocean 

Service’s Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary, on June 20, 2014, 

Excelerate and Tetra Tech submitted a 

revised IHA application with tiered 

PAM measures corresponding to 

different levels of LNG Port and 

Pipeline Lateral operation, maintenance, 

and repair activities. On October 6, 

2014, NMFS published a Federal 

Register notice (79 FR 60142) for the 

revised proposed IHA that include 

updated PAM. No changes was made for 

the proposed updated PAM as described 

in the revised proposed IHA. Please 

refer to Federal Register notices for the 

proposed IHA (78 FR 69049; November 

18, 2013) and the revised proposed IHA 

(79 FR 60142; October 6, 2014) for a 

detailed description of the project 

activities and the updated PAM. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA to Northeast Gateway and 

Algonquin was published in the Federal 

Register notice on November 18, 2013 

(78 FR 69049), and was revised in a 

second Federal Register notice on 

October 6, 2014 (79 FR 60142). These 

notices described, in detail, Northeast 

Gateway and Algonquin’s activities, the 

marine mammal species that may be 

affected by the activity, the anticipated 

effects on marine mammals, and the 

proposed monitoring, mitigation, and 

reporting measures. 

During the 30-day public comment 

period for the Federal Register notice 

published on November 18, 2013, 

NMFS received two comment letters: 

one from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission) and one 

from the Whale and Dolphin 

Conservation (WDC) and the Humane 

Society of the United States (HSUS). 

During the 30-day public comment 

period for the Federal Register notice 

published on October 6, 2014, NMFS 

received only one comment letter from 

the Commission. In that comment letter, 

the Commission states that it believes 

that the revised acoustic monitoring 

measures are justified and, in 

combination with other previously 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures, are sufficient to ensure that 

NMFS’ previous findings and 

determinations are still valid. All 

relevant comments are addressed here. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS issue the 

requested authorization, subject to 

inclusion of the proposed mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

Response: NMFS concurs with the 

Commission’s recommendation and has 

included the mitigation and monitoring 

measures contained in the proposed 

authorization in the issued IHA. 

Comment 2: Citing Mussoline et al. 

(2012), the WDC and HSUS state that 

North Atlantic right whales are detected 

within Massachusetts Bay year round, 

and therefore NEG’s maintenance and 

repair activities between May 1 and 

November 30 would have ‘‘direct 

impact’’ to North Atlantic right whales. 

In addition, the WDC and HSUS point 

out that other endangered whale species 

can also be found in Massachusetts Bay 

during this time span but they are not 

mentioned in the IHA application. WDC 

and HSUS thus conclude that since no 

lethal take can be authorized, any takes 

would violate both the MMPA and the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Response: NMFS does not agree with 

the WDC and HSUS’ assessment on the 

potential impacts of whales in 

Massachusetts Bay and their conclusion 

in regards to lethal takes. 

First, Mussoline et al. (2012) used 

marine autonomous recording units 

(MARUs) deployed throughout the 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary (SBNMS, Massachusetts Bay) 

from January 2006 to February 2007 to 

study the presence and absence of the 

North Atlantic right whales in the area 

by detection of the whale’s up-calls. The 

results showed that although up-calls 

were detected year round, except during 

July and August, in the SBNMS area, 

calling rates were highest from January 

through May, peaking in April 

(Mussoline et al. 2012, Figure 2), 

suggesting seasonal variation. These 

seasonal variations in distribution of the 

North Atlantic right whale in the project 

vicinity were taken into consideration 

when analyzing potential human 

impacts from the proposed NEG and 

Algonquin LNG Port operations and 

maintenance and repair activities and 

fashioning mitigation such as the 

window for planned maintenance and 

repair. 

Second, with regard to the issue of 

lethal take, it is stated clearly in the 

Federal Register notices for the 

proposed IHA that no mortality or 

injury of marine mammals from the 

proposed LNG Port/Pipeline operations 

and maintenance and repair activities 

(with mitigation and monitoring) is 

expected and none are authorized. 

Potential adverse effects to marine 

mammals, including endangered whales 

that might occur in the proposed LNG 

Port action area, were assessed and 

provided in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA, as well as the 

associated EIS. Finally, in preparation 

for the issuance of the IHA, NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources conducted 

a section 7 consultation under the ESA 

with the NMFS Greater Atlantic Region 

Fisheries Office. A Biological Opinion 

was issued on November 21, 2014, 

concluding that the proposed action is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of endangered marine 

mammal and other species, with no 

mortality anticipated. 

Comment 3: Citing potential vessel 

collision of the endangered North 

Atlantic right whales, WDC and HSUS 

recommend limiting the Energy Bridge 

Regasification Vessel (EBRV) speeds to 

10 knots as right whales have been 

sighted throughout Massachusetts and 

Cape Cod Bays at all times of the year. 

The WDC and HSUS further state that 

monitoring measures are not effective 

because not all whales in an area will 

be seen or heard, and detection can only 

provide a record of where whales have 

been recently seen. 

Response: NMFS is aware of the 

potential threats of vessel collision to 

the North Atlantic right whale from all 

transiting cargo ships, not just EBRVs, 

in the area. Therefore, a series of 

temporal and spatial vessel speed 

related measures are required for the 

LNG Port/Pipeline operations and 

maintenance and repair activities in the 

Massachusetts Bay. These measures are 

the results of careful analyses and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78808 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 

assessment on the seasonal and spatial 

distribution of the right whale, and the 

balance between species conservation 

and practicability. Although right 

whales are sighted in Massachusetts and 

Cape Cod Bays throughout the year, 

their presence in the summer months is 

extremely rare, and NMFS does not 

believe reducing vessel speeds from 12 

knots to 10 knots would provide any 

additional conservation benefits to the 

species because vessels will have 

protected species observers on board. 

However, mitigation measures require 

that once a whale is acoustically 

detected, the vessel must slow down to 

10 knots or less within 5 miles (8 km) 

of the last sighting area, which provides 

for a fairly large buffer to avoid any 

potential collision with North Atlantic 

right whales. We determined that this 

measure was protective and would 

reduce the likelihood of collision 

further. 

Comment 4: Citing the NEG IHA 

application that maintenance and repair 

activities will result in ‘‘increased levels 

of turbidity which can interfere with the 

ability of whales to forage effectively by 

obscuring visual detection of or 

dispersing potential prey,’’ WDC and 

HSUS state that the proposed LNG Port 

maintenance and repair activities may 

result in reduced fitness of marine 

mammal species. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

cited statement in the IHA application, 

as well as the conclusion from WDC and 

HSUS based on the incorrect statement. 

NMFS is aware that turbidity is a 

potential effect from Algonquin Pipeline 

Lateral maintenance and repair 

activities. However, the area that may be 

affected by these activities is expected 

to be of very small scale, on the order 

of tens of meters. Because the 

disturbance would occur on such a 

small scale relative to the size of 

Massachusetts Bay and available 

foraging area, we determined that the 

maintenance and repair activities would 

not appreciably affect the visual 

detection of prey by marine mammals. 

In addition, the turbidity by soil 

disturbance from the proposed 

maintenance and repair activities is 

expected to be brief in duration. 

Suspended sediments from the ocean 

bottom are expected to resettle within 

hours after any disturbance. 

Comment 5: The WDC and HSUS are 

concerned about the dramatic increase 

in water withdrawal that has been 

requested. The WDC and HSUS states 

that these withdrawals would increase 

from 2.6 billion gallons of sea water per 

year to 11 billion gallons per year. The 

WDC and HSUS question the 

assessment performed by the applicant 

on abundance of planktonic species due 

to their patchy distribution (citing 

Baumgartner et al. 2003). Further, 

without providing any scientific 

evidence, the WDC and HSUS state that 

an increase of 400% or more in water 

uptake is bound to have significant 

effects on localized plankton 

aggregations. 

Response: NMFS does not agree with 

WDC and HSUS’ statement that the 

increase of water intake would have 

significant effects on localized plankton 

aggregations. The Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA provided 

detailed analyses on the extra water 

intake by the proposed LNG Port 

operations and maintenance and repair 

activities. Under the requested wateruse scenario, Tech Tech (2011) 

conducted an environmental impact 

assessment (EIA) titled ‘‘Environmental 

Assessment: Northeast Gateway 

Deepwater Port’’ on the potential 

impacts to marine mammals and their 

prey. To evaluate impacts to 

phytoplankton under the increased 

water usage, the biomass of 

phytoplankton lost from the 

Massachusetts Bay ecosystem was 

estimated based on the same method 

presented in the final Environmental 

Impact Statement/Environmental 

Impact Report (EIS/EIR). Phytoplankton 

densities of 65,000 to 390,000 cells/

gallon were multiplied by the annual 

planned activities withdrawal rate of 11 

billion gallons to estimate a loss of 7.15 

× 1014 to 4.29 × 1015 cells per year. 

Assuming a dry-weight biomass of 

10¥10 to 10¥11 gram per cell (g/cell), an 

estimated 7.2 kg to 429 kg of biomass 

would be lost annually from 

Massachusetts Bay under the proposed 

activity, up to approximately 4.2 times 

greater than that estimated in the EIS/ 

EIR for the permitted operational 

scenario. An order of magnitude 

estimate of the effect of this annual 

biomass loss on the regional food web 

can be calculated assuming a 10 percent 

transfer of biomass from one trophic 

level to the next (Sumich 1988) 

following the method used in the final 

EIS/EIR. This suggests that the loss of 

7.2 kg to 429 kg of phytoplankton will 

result in the loss of about 0.7 kg to 42.9 

kg of zooplankton, less than 0.1 kg to 4.3 

kg of small planktivorous fish, and up 

to 0.4 kg of large piscivorous fish 

(approximately equivalent to a single 1- 

pound striped bass). Relative to the 

biomass of these trophic levels in the 

project area, this biomass loss is minor 

and consistent with the findings in the 

final EIS/EIR. NMFS’ analysis relied on 

the analysis in the EIA for its own 

analysis, and the comment does not 

provide support for a contradictory 

conclusion. 

In addition, the density of 

zooplankton determined by the 

sampling conducted by the 

Massachusetts Water Resource 

Authority (MWRA) to characterize the 

area is approximately of 34.9 × 103

organisms per m3. Applying this 

density, the water withdrawal volume 

under the proposed activity would 

result in the entrainment of 2.2 × 1010

zooplankton individuals per trip or 1.5 

× 1012 individuals per year. Assuming 

an average biomass of 0.63 × 10-6 g per 

individual, this would result in the loss 

of 14.1 kg of zooplankton per shipment 

or 916.5 kg of zooplankton per year for 

65 shipments. As discussed for 

phytoplankton, biomass transfers from 

one trophic level to the next at a rate of 

about 10 percent. Therefore, this 

entrainment of zooplankton would 

result in loss of about 91.6 kg of 

planktivorous fish and 9.2 kg of large 

piscivorous fish (approximately 

equivalent to two 9-pound striped bass). 

These losses are minor relative to the 

total biomass of these trophic levels in 

Massachusetts Bay. 

Finally, ichthyoplankton (fish eggs 

and larvae) losses and equivalent age 

one juvenile fish estimates under the 

proposed activity were made based on 

actual monthly ichthyoplankton data 

collected in the port area from October 

2005 through December 2009 and the 

proposed activity withdrawal volume of 

11 billion gallons per year evenly 

distributed among months (0.92 billion 

gallons per month) as a worst-case 

scenario, representing the maximum 

number of Port deliveries during any 

given month. Similarly, the lower, 

upper, and mean annual entrainment 

estimates are based on the lower and 

upper 95 percent confidence limits, of 

the monthly mean ichthyoplankton 

densities, and the monthly mean 

estimates multiplied by the monthly 

withdrawal rate of 0.92 billion gallons 

per month. At this withdrawal rate, 

approximately 106 million eggs and 67 

million larvae are estimated to be lost. 

Nevertheless, the demand for natural 

gas and corresponding Port activities 

will likely be greatest during the winter 

heating season (November through 

March) when impacts from entrainment 

will likely be lower. 

These estimated losses are not 

significant given the very high natural 

mortality of ichthyoplankton. This 

comparison was done in the final EIS/ 

EIR where ichthyoplankton losses based 

on historic regional ichthyoplankton 

densities and a withdrawal rate of 

approximately 2.6 billion gallons per 

year were represented by the equivalent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78809 

number of age one fish. Under the final 

EIS/EIR withdrawal scenario, equivalent 

age one losses due to entrainment 

ranged from 1 haddock to 43,431 sand 

lance (Tetra Tech 2010). Equivalent age 

one losses when no NEG Port operations 

occurred were recalculated using 

Northeast Gateway monitoring data in 

order to facilitate comparisons between 

the permitted scenario and no action 

scenario. Using Northeast Gateway 

monitoring data, withdrawal of 2.6 

billion gallons per year would result in 

equivalent age one losses ranging from 

less than 1 haddock to 5,602 American 

sand lance. By comparison, equivalent 

age one losses under the proposed 

activity withdrawal rate of 11 billion 

gallons per year ranged from less than 

1 haddock to 23,701 sand lance and 

were generally similar to or less than 

those in the final EIS/EIR. 

Although no reliable annual food 

consumption rates of baleen whales are 

available for comparison, based on the 

calculated quantities of phytoplankton, 

zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton 

removal analyzed above, we believe it is 

reasonable to conclude that baleen 

whale predation rates would dwarf any 

reasonable estimates of prey removals 

by NEG Port operations. 

In conducting this analysis, NMFS is 

aware of the prey patchiness in the 

natural environment. However, for a 

large scale and long-term environmental 

assessment, random and uniform 

plankton distribution is a valid 

assumption to make. Therefore, NMFS 

determined that the prey removals by 

NEG Port operations resulting from 

water usage will have inconsequential 

impacts on plankton aggregation. 

Comment 6: The WDC and HSUS are 

concerned about the increased discharge 

of warm water during off-loading. The 

WDC and HSUS state that there are 

likely to be adverse impacts to 

zooplankton in the area and, 

consequently, the forage base for several 

endangered whale species. The WDC 

and HSUS further state that in 

particular, this warmer water could 

affect right whale prey distribution and 

prey availability, as their primary prey, 

Calanus finmarchicus, tends to be 

concentrated in discrete thermal layers 

(Baumgartner and Mate, 2005). In 

addition, WDC and HSUS point out that 

research by Keller et al. (2002) has 

indicated that presence or absence of 

right whales was dependent on water 

temperature differences of as little as 2 

°C. 

Response: NMFS is aware of the 

increased discharge of warm water 

during NEG LNG Port operation offloading process. In 2011, NMFS 

requested that NEG conduct an analysis 

of its warm water discharge from the 

cooling systems. The analysis used a 

refined software system, CORnell 

MIxing Zone Expert System (CORMIX), 

to estimate behavior of the thermal 

plumes (Dill and Hamilton 2011). 

Initial data indicate the actual 

temperature difference (DT) associated 

with the discharge water can approach 

12 °C, which is greater than originally 

anticipated (2.6 °C). Using the newer 

version of the modeling software 

(CORMIX 6.0–GT) to simulate the 

originally estimated discharge 

characteristics as a point of comparison, 

and to simulate a range of conditions, 

including variable plume discharge DT 

levels from the main condenser cooling 

system of 4 to 12 °C, and variable 

receiving water conditions in winter 

and summer, the results showed the 

following: 

• Summer conditions: Results showed for 

summer (when the water column in 

Massachusetts Bay is stratified) that the 

plume generally is expected to surface when 

DT is 6 °C or greater. The plume is unstable 

in the near-field, and may surface 

immediately adjacent to the hull. Lower 

temperature differences (e.g., DT of 4 °C) can 

mix at depth within the cooler lower layer of 

Massachusetts Bay. The distance at which a 

DT of 0.8 °C is achieved ranges from 13 to 

65 m from the ship. At 500 m from the ship, 

the surface DT is 0.34 °C or less. 

• Winter conditions: Results showed for 

winter (when the water column is wellmixed) that the plume surfaces within 37 m 

(discharge DT of 12 °C) to 78 m (discharge DT 

of 4 °C) from the ship. The distance at which 

DT of 0.8 °C is achieved ranges from 19 to 

37 m from the ship, which is a submerged 

position within the plume. Maximum surface 

DT is less than 1 °C. At 500 m from the ship, 

the surface DT is 0.31 °C or less. 

In summary, the temperature 

difference is expected to drop to nonsignificant over the distance of tens of 

meters from the vessel. Therefore, 

NMFS determined that the warm water 

discharge from the LNG Port operations 

is expected to have no effects on the 

marine environment, zooplankton in the 

area, and marine mammal prey 

distribution. 

Comment 7: The WDC and HSUS 

state that the applicant does not appear 

concerned that underwater sound 

resulting from maintenance and 

operation of the port is likely to result 

in harassment to marine mammals, 

except noise from a DP dive vessel. The 

WDC and HSUS further states that 

sound propagation calculations the 

applicant performed were based on 

outdated data that may no longer be 

applicable, as environmental factors 

such as seabed composition are likely to 

have changed in the past twenty years, 

and the applicant acknowledges that the 

maximum radius of the Zone of 

Influence (ZOI) is inherently variable. 

Response: NMFS does not agree. The 

initial Federal Register notice (FR 

69049; November 18, 2013) for the 

proposed IHA described noise from the 

proposed maintenance and repair 

activities, and the analysis discussed 

more than just sound from a DP dive 

vessel, including models used to assess 

vessel noises such as turning screws, 

engine noise, noise of operating 

machinery, and thruster use. In 

addition, to confirm these modeled 

results and better understand the noise 

footprint associated with the initial 

construction activities at the LNG Port, 

field measurements were taken of 

various construction activities during 

the 2007 NEG Port and Algonquin 

Pipeline Lateral Construction period. 

Measurements were taken to establish 

the ‘‘loudest’’ potential construction 

measurement event. The location at the 

LNG Port was used to determine sitespecific distances to the 120/180 dB re 

1 mPa isopleths for NEG Port 

maintenance and repair activities. 

As described for NEG Port operations, 

sound propagation calculations were 

performed to determine the noise 

footprint of the construction activity. 

The calculations took into consideration 

aspects of water depth, sea state, 

bathymetry, and seabed composition, 

and specifically evaluated sound energy 

in the range that encompasses the 

auditory frequencies of marine 

mammals and sound propagation 

beyond the immediate vicinity of the 

source. These results were then summed 

across frequencies to provide the 

broadband received levels at receptor 

locations. The resulting distance to the 

120 dB isopleth (180 dB re 1 mPa does 

not exist) was estimated to determine 

the maximum distance at which Level B 

harassment may occur. 

NMFS used the most recent and best 

data available regarding sound 

measurements from the Port, which 

were collected during maintenance and 

repair activities in 2009. We note, 

however, that this IHA requires the 

applicant to conduct passive acoustic 

monitoring (PAM) for the noise 

environment in Massachusetts Bay 

during operations and maintenance and 

repair activities. The acoustic data 

collected by the PAM will measure and 

document the sound ‘‘budget’’ of 

Massachusetts Bay so as to eventually 

assist in determining whether or not an 

overall increase in noise in the Bay 

associated with the Project might be 

having a potentially negative impact on 

marine mammals. These acoustic data 

will provide additional new insight on 

the noise levels from NEG’s proposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78810 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 

LNG Port operations and maintenance 

and repair activities. 

Comment 8: The WDC and HSUS 

state that the applicant does not take 

into account the fact that GDF SUEZNeptune LNG is also operating in 

Massachusetts Bay, and because the 

ports are ‘‘very similar in their potential 

need and type or maintenance and 

repair’’, the cumulative impacts of noise 

from both ports should be considered 

but have not been discussed by the 

applicant. 

Response: The potential cumulative 

impacts from the nearby Neptune LNG 

Port were analyzed in the EIS/EIR for 

the NEG LNG project. However, on July 

5, 2013, the Maritime Administration 

granted the request of Neptune LNG to 

suspend operations of their LNG Port 

facility for a period of 5 years, which 

began on June 26, 2013. Therefore, 

Neptune LNG will not be conducting 

any operations until at least June 26, 

2018. 

Comment 9: The WDC and HSUS are 

concerned by the estimated number of 

takes of marine mammals, particularly 

the North Atlantic right whale. The 

applicant estimates takes for this species 

as high as 29 per year due to port 

operations and maintenance and repair 

activities of the NEG Port and the 

Algonquin Pipeline Lateral. 

Response: As analyzed and discussed 

in detail in the Federal Register notices 

for the proposed IHA, the estimated take 

of up to 29 North Atlantic right whale 

by Level B behavioral harassment 

represent 6.59% of the population. 

Since it is likely that individual animals 

could be ‘‘taken’’ by harassment 

multiple times, the percentage is the 

upper boundary of the numbers of 

animals in the population that could be 

affected. The Level B behavioral 

harassment of these animals is expected 

to consist of brief exposure of 

anthropogenic underwater noise levels 

above 120 dB re 1 mPa, and animals 

exposed to that level may exhibit brief 

alert or avoidance activities during the 

exposure. In addition, no mortality or 

injury is expected to occur, and due to 

the nature, degree, and context of the 

Level B harassment anticipated, the 

activity is not expected to impact rates 

of recruitment or survival. 

Comment 10: The WDC and HSUS 

point out an inconsistency in the IHA 

application regarding historical marine 

mammal take numbers. The WDC and 

HSUS state that in the IHA application, 

the applicant stated that ‘‘to date, based 

on both ERBV vessel observations and 

MARU data, no take by harassment has 

been recorded during NEG Port 

operations,’’ while later in the 

application it stated that ‘‘[t]o date, 

these mitigation and monitoring 

activities have successfully safeguarded 

marine mammals and sea turtles, 

resulting in a total of only 1 take by 

acoustic harassment over the past 3 

years of operation.’’ 

Response: NMFS contacted NEG for 

clarification of these two statements. 

After review of the original marine 

mammal monitoring records, NEG’s 

contractor Tetra Tech states that the 

only observed take of a marine mammal 

was on February 5, 2009, when an 

unidentified small marine mammal 

(either a seal or a dolphin) was briefly 

spotted within the 120 dB re 1 mPa zone 

of influence at a distance between 1 and 

1.2 miles from the EBRV Explorer while 

DP thrusters were engaged. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activities 

The Federal Register notice (78 FR 

69049; November 18, 2013) for the 

proposed IHA and Northeast Gateway’s 

IHA application identified 14 marine 

mammal species under NMFS 

jurisdiction likely to occur in the 

construction area: 

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena 

glacialis), 

humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), 

fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), 

minke whale (B. acutorostrata), 

long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala 

melas), 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus acutus), 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), 

common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), 

killer whale (Orcinus orca), 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus), 

harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), 

harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), and 

gray seal (Halichoerus grypus). 

Information on those species that may 

be affected by this activity is discussed 

in detail in the USCG Final EIS on the 

Northeast Gateway LNG proposal. 

Please refer to that document for more 

information on these species and 

potential impacts from operation of this 

LNG facility. In addition, general 

information on these marine mammal 

species can also be found in Wu ̈rsig et 

al. (2000) and in the NMFS Stock 

Assessment Reports (Waring et al., 

2014). This latter document is available 

at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/

pdf/ao2013_tm228.pdf. That 

information has not changed and is 

therefore not repeated here. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals 

The proposed NEG LNG port/pipeline 

operations and maintenance and repair 

activities could affect marine mammal 

species and stocks by exposing them to 

elevated noise levels in the vicinity of 

the activity area. As described in detail 

in the Federal Register notice of 

proposed IHA (78 FR 69049, November 

18, 2013), potential impacts from port 

operations and maintenance and repair 

activities could result in behavioral 

disturbances, masking, habituation, and 

although highly unlikely temporary 

hearing threshold shift. That 

information has not changed and is 

therefore not repeated here. 

Northeast Gateway contracted with 

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (Tetra Tech) to 

perform field investigations to 

document various underwater noise 

levels emitted during the construction 

of the NEG Port and Algonquin Pipeline 

Lateral and during the operation of NEG 

Port facilities (namely the operation of 

EBRVs). Tetra Tech conducted five 

offshore hydroacoustic field programs: 

One in 2005 and one in 2006 at the Gulf 

Gateway Deepwater Port located 

approximately 116 miles off the coast of 

Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico; and 

three in 2007 at the NEG Port and 

Algonquin Pipeline Lateral Project area. 

The 2005 measurements were 

completed to determine underwater 

noise levels during EBRV onboard 

regasification and vessel movements. 

The data from the 2005 field program 

was used to support the modeling and 

analysis of potential acoustic effects of 

EBRV operations in Massachusetts Bay 

during the NEG Port permitting and 

licensing process. The data collected in 

2006 was also associated with EBRV 

operation activities and were collected 

for the purpose of verifying the 

measurement completed in 2005 as well 

as to further document sound levels 

during additional operational and EBRV 

activities such as EBRV coupling and 

decoupling from the buoy system, 

transit and the use of stern and bow 

thrusters required for dynamic 

positioning. The 2007 measurements 

were collected during NEG Port and 

Algonquin Pipeline Lateral construction 

to obtain site-specific underwater 

sound-level data associated with various 

construction activities that were 

previously modeled in support of 

permitting and licensing. These data are 

used here to analyze potential noise 

impacts to marine mammals and to 

provide the basis for take calculation 

before new measurements are made onsite (see Monitoring Measures section 

below). 

A detailed report describing both the 

2006 and 2007 operation and 

construction noise measurement events 

and associated results have been 

included as Appendix B of the IHA 

application. The Federal Register notice 

of proposed IHA provided a complete 

description of NEG port operations, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78811 

NEG port maintenance and repair, and 

Algonquin pipeline lateral operations 

and maintenance and unplanned repair, 

the activities that could result in Level 

B harassment from the described 

activities. 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

NEG Port Operations 

Operation of the NEG Port will not 

result in short-term effects on habitat; 

however, long-term effects on the 

marine environment, including 

alteration of the seafloor conditions, 

continued disturbance of the seafloor, 

regular withdrawal of sea water, and 

regular generation of underwater noise, 

will result from Port operations. 

Specifically, a small area (0.14 acre) 

along the Pipeline Lateral has been 

permanently altered (armored) at two 

cable crossings. In addition, the 

structures associated with the NEG Port 

(flowlines, mooring wire rope and 

chain, suction anchors, and pipeline 

end manifolds) occupy 4.8 acres of 

seafloor. An additional area of the 

seafloor of up to 43 acres (a worst case 

scenario based on severe 100-year storm 

with EBRVs occupying both STL buoys) 

will be subject to disturbance due to 

chain sweep while the buoys are 

occupied. Given the relatively small size 

of the NEG Port area that will be directly 

affected by Port operations, NMFS does 

not anticipate that habitat loss will be 

significant. 

EBRVs are currently authorized to 

withdraw an average of 4.97 million 

gallons per day (mgd) and 2.6 billion 

gallons per year of sea water for general 

ship operations during it cargo delivery 

activities at the NEG Port. However, 

during the operations of the NEG Port 

facility, it was revealed that 

significantly more water usage is needed 

from what was originally evaluated in 

the final USCG Environmental Impact 

Statement/Environmental Impact Report 

(EIS/EIR). The updates for the needed 

water intake and discharge temperature 

are: 

• 11 billion gallons of total annual water 

use at the Port; 

• Maximum daily intake volume of up to 

56 mgd at a rate of 0.45 feet per second when 

an EBRV is not able to achieve the heat 

recovery system (HRS: It is the capability of 

reducing water use during the regasification 

process) mode of operation; and, 

• Maximum daily change in discharge 

temperature of 12 °C (21.6 °F) from ambient 

from the vessel’s main condenser cooling 

system. 

Under the requested water-use 

scenario, Tech Tech (2011) conducted 

an environmental analysis on the 

potential impacts to marine mammals 

and their prey. To evaluate impacts to 

phytoplankton under the increased 

water usage, the biomass of 

phytoplankton lost from the 

Massachusetts Bay ecosystem was 

estimated based on the method 

presented in the final EIS/EIR. 

Phytoplankton densities of 65,000 to 

390,000 cells/gallon were multiplied by 

the annual planned activities of 

withdrawal rate of 11 billion gallons to 

estimate a loss of 7.15 × 1014 to 4.29 × 

1015 cells per year. Assuming a dryweight biomass of 10¥10 to 10¥11 gram 

per cell (g/cell), an estimated 7.2 kg to 

429 kg of biomass would be lost from 

Massachusetts Bay under the proposed 

activity, up to approximately 4.2 times 

that estimated in the final EIS/EIR for 

the permitted operational scenario. An 

order of magnitude estimate of the effect 

of this annual biomass loss on the 

regional food web can be calculated 

assuming a 10 percent transfer of 

biomass from one trophic level to the 

next (Sumich 1988) following the 

method used in the final EIS/EIR. This 

suggests that the loss of 7.2 kg to 429 kg 

of phytoplankton will result in the loss 

of about 0.7 kg to 42.9 kg of 

zooplankton, less than 0.1 kg to 4.3 kg 

of small planktivorous fish, and up to 

0.4 kg of large piscivorous fish 

(approximately equivalent to a single 1- 

pound striped bass). Relative to the 

biomass of these trophic levels in the 

project area, this biomass loss is minor 

and consistent with the findings in the 

final EIS/EIR. 

In addition, zooplankton losses will 

also increase proportionally to the 

increase in water withdrawn. The final 

EIS/EIR used densities of zooplankton 

determined by the sampling conducted 

by the Massachusetts Water Resource 

Authority (MWRA) to characterize the 

area around its offshore outfall and 

assumed a mean zooplankton density of 

34.9 × 103 organisms per m3. Applying 

this density, the water withdrawal 

volume under the proposed activity 

would result in the entrainment of 2.2 

× 1010 zooplankton individuals per trip 

or 1.5 × 1012 individuals per year. 

Assuming an average biomass of 0.63 × 

10¥6 g per individual, this would result 

in the loss of 14.1 kg of zooplankton per 

shipment or 916.5 kg of zooplankton per 

year. As discussed for phytoplankton, 

biomass transfers from one trophic level 

to the next at a rate of about 10 percent. 

Therefore, this entrainment of 

zooplankton would result in loss of 

about 91.6 kg of planktivorous fish and 

9.2 kg of large piscivorous fish 

(approximately equivalent to two 9- 

pound striped bass). These losses are 

minor relative to the total biomass of 

these trophic levels in Massachusetts 

Bay. 

Finally, ichthyoplankton (fish eggs 

and larvae) losses and equivalent age 

one juvenile fish estimates under the 

proposed activity were made based on 

actual monthly ichthyoplankton data 

collected in the port area from October 

2005 through December 2009 and the 

proposed activity withdrawal volume of 

11 billion gallons per year evenly 

distributed among months (0.92 billion 

gallons per month) as a worst-case 

scenario, representing the maximum 

number of Port deliveries during any 

given month. Similarly, the lower, 

upper, and mean annual entrainment 

estimates are based on the lower and 

upper 95 percent confidence limits, of 

the monthly mean ichthyoplankton 

densities, and the monthly mean 

estimates multiplied by the monthly 

withdrawal rate of 0.92 billion gallons 

per month. At this withdrawal rate 

approximately 106 million eggs and 67 

million larvae are estimated to be lost 

(see Table 4.2–2 of the IHA application). 

The most abundant species and life 

stages estimated to be entrained under 

the proposed activity are cunner post 

yolk-sac larvae (33.3 million), yellowtail 

flounder/Labridae eggs (27.4 million) 

and hake species eggs (18.7 million). 

Together, these species and life stages 

accounted for approximately 46 percent 

of the total entrainment estimated. 

Entrainment was estimated to be highest 

in June through July when 97.4 million 

eggs and larvae (approximately 57 

percent of the annual total) were 

estimated to be entrained. Nevertheless, 

the demand for natural gas and 

corresponding Port activities will likely 

be greatest during the winter heating 

season (November through March), 

when impacts from entrainment will 

likely be lower. 

These estimated losses are not 

significant given the very high natural 

mortality of ichthyoplankton. This 

comparison was done in the final EIS/ 

EIR where ichthyoplankton losses based 

on historic regional ichthyoplankton 

densities and a withdrawal rate of 

approximately 2.6 billion gallons per 

year were represented by the equivalent 

number of age one fish. Under the final 

EIS/EIR withdrawal scenario, equivalent 

age one losses due to entrainment 

ranged from 1 haddock to 43,431 sand 

lance (Tetra Tech 2010). Equivalent age 

one losses under the conditions when 

no NEG Port operations occur were 

recalculated using Northeast Gateway 

monitoring data in order to facilitate 

comparisons between the permitted 

scenario. Using Northeast Gateway 

monitoring data, withdrawal of 2.6 

billion gallons per year would result in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78812 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 

equivalent age one losses ranging from 

less than 1 haddock to 5,602 American 

sand lance. By comparison, equivalent 

age one losses under the proposed 

activity withdrawal rate of 11 billion 

gallons per year ranged from less than 

1 haddock to 23,701 sand lance and 

were generally similar to or less than 

those in the final EIS/EIR. Substantially 

more equivalent age one Atlantic 

herring, pollock, and butterfish were 

estimated to be lost under the final EIS/ 

EIR at a withdrawal rate of 2.6 billion 

gallons per year, while substantially 

more equivalent age one Atlantic cod, 

silver hake and hake species, cunner, 

and Atlantic mackerel are estimated to 

be lost under the proposed activity. 

Although no reliable annual food 

consumption rates of baleen whales are 

available for comparison, based on the 

calculated quantities of phytoplankton, 

zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton 

removal analyzed above, it is reasonable 

to conclude that baleen whale predation 

rates would dwarf any reasonable 

estimates of prey removals by NEG Port 

operations. Therefore, NMFS believes 

that the prey removals by NEG Port 

operations resulting from water usage 

will have negligible impacts on marine 

mammal habitat. 

NEG Port Maintenance 

As stated earlier, NEG LNG Port will 

require scheduled maintenance 

inspections using either divers or ROVs. 

The duration of these inspections are 

not anticipated to be more than two 8- 

hour working days. An EBRV will not 

be required to support these annual 

inspections. Water usage during the 

LNG Port maintenance would be limited 

to the standard requirements of NEG’s 

normal support vessel. As with all 

vessels operating in Massachusetts Bay, 

sea water uptake and discharge is 

required to support engine cooling, 

typically using a once-through system. 

The rate of seawater uptake varies with 

the ship’s horsepower and activity and 

therefore will differ between vessels and 

activity type. For example, the Gateway 

Endeavor is a 90-foot vessel powered 

with a 1,200 horsepower diesel engine 

with a four-pump seawater cooling 

system. This system requires seawater 

intake of about 68 gallons per minute 

(gpm) while idling and up to about 150 

gpm at full power. Use of full power is 

required generally for transit. A 

conservatively high estimate of vessel 

activity for the Gateway Endeavor 

would be operation at idle for 75 

percent of the time and full power for 

25 percent of the time. During the 

routine activities this would equate to 

approximately 42,480 gallons of 

seawater per 8-hour work day. When 

compared to the engine cooling 

requirements of an EBRV over an 8-hour 

period (approximately 18 million 

gallons), the Gateway Endeavour uses 

about 0.2 percent of the EBRV 

requirement. To put this water use into 

context, potential effects from the 

waters-use scenario of 56 mgd have 

been concluded to be orders of 

magnitude less than the natural 

fluctuations of Massachusetts Bay and 

Cape Cod Bay and not detectable. Water 

use by support vessels during routine 

port activities would not materially add 

to the overall impacts. 

Certain maintenance and repair 

activities may also require the presence 

of an EBRV at the Port. Such instances 

may include maintenance and repair on 

the STL Buoy, vessel commissioning, 

and any onboard equipment 

malfunction or failure occurring while a 

vessel is present for cargo delivery. 

Because the requested water-use 

scenario allows for daily water use of up 

to 56 mgd to support standard EBRV 

requirements when not operating in the 

HRS mode, vessels would be able to 

remain at the Port as necessary to 

support all such maintenance and repair 

scenarios. Therefore, NMFS considers 

that NEG Port maintenance and repair 

would have negligible impacts to 

marine mammal habitat in the proposed 

activity area. 

Unanticipated Algonquin Pipeline 

Lateral Maintenance and Repair 

Proper care and maintenance of the 

Algonquin Pipeline Lateral should 

minimize the likelihood of an 

unanticipated maintenance and/or 

repair event; however, unanticipated 

activities may occur from time to time 

if facility components become damaged 

or malfunction. Unanticipated repairs 

may range from relatively minor 

activities requiring minimal equipment 

and one or two diver/ROV support 

vessels to major activities requiring 

larger construction-type vessels similar 

to those used to support the 

construction and installation of the 

facility. 

Major repair activities, although 

unlikely, may include repairing or 

replacement of pipeline manifolds or 

sections of the Pipeline Lateral. This 

type of work would likely require the 

use of large specialty construction 

vessels such as those used during the 

construction and installation of the NEG 

Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral. 

The duration of a major unplanned 

activity would depend upon the type of 

repair work involved and would require 

careful planning and coordination. 

Turbidity would likely be a potential 

effect of Algonquin Pipeline Lateral 

maintenance and repair activities on 

listed species. In addition, the possible 

removal of benthic or planktonic 

species, resulting from relatively minor 

construction vessel water use 

requirements, as measured in 

comparison to EBRV water use, is 

unlikely to affect in a measurable way 

the food sources available to marine 

mammals. Therefore, NMFS considers 

that Algonquin Pipeline Lateral 

maintenance and repair would have 

negligible impacts to marine mammal 

habitat in the proposed activity area. 

Mitigation Measures 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) 

of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the 

permissible methods of taking pursuant 

to such activity, and other means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on such species or stock and its 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

taking for certain subsistence uses. 

NMFS is requiring the following 

mitigation measures to minimize the 

potential impacts to marine mammals in 

the project vicinity as a result of the 

LNG Port and Algonquin Pipeline 

Lateral operations and maintenance and 

repair activities. The primary purpose of 

these mitigation measures is to ensure 

that no marine mammal will be injured 

or killed by vessels transiting the LNG 

Port facility, and to minimize the 

intensity of noise exposure of marine 

mammals in the activity area. 

(a) General Marine Mammal Avoidance 

Measures 

(i) All vessels shall utilize the 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO)-approved Boston Traffic 

Separation Scheme (TSS) on their 

approach to and departure from the 

NEG Port and/or the repair/maintenance 

area at the earliest practicable point of 

transit in order to avoid the risk of 

whale strikes. 

(ii) Upon entering the TSS and areas 

where North Atlantic right whales are 

known to occur, including the Great 

South Channel Seasonal Management 

Area (GSC–SMA) and the SBNMS, the 

EBRV shall go into ‘‘Heightened 

Awareness’’ as described below. 

(A) Prior to entering and navigating 

the modified TSS the Master of the 

vessel shall: 

(I) Consult Navigational Telex 

(NAVTEX), NOAA Weather Radio, the 

NOAA Right Whale Sighting Advisory 

System (SAS) or other means to obtain 

current right whale sighting information 

as well as the most recent Cornell 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78813 

acoustic monitoring buoy data for the 

potential presence of marine mammals; 

(II) Post a look-out to visually monitor 

for the presence of marine mammals; 

(III) Provide the US Coast Guard 

(USCG) required 96-hour notification of 

an arriving EBRV to allow the NEG Port 

Manager to notify Cornell of vessel 

arrival. 

(B) The look-out shall concentrate his/ 

her observation efforts within the 2-mile 

radius zone of influence (ZOI) from the 

maneuvering EBRV. 

(C) If marine mammal detection was 

reported by NAVTEX, NOAA Weather 

Radio, SAS and/or an acoustic 

monitoring buoy, the look-out shall 

concentrate visual monitoring efforts 

towards the areas of the most recent 

detection. 

(D) If the look-out (or any other 

member of the crew) visually detects a 

marine mammal within the 2-mile 

radius ZOI of a maneuvering EBRV, he/ 

she will take the following actions: 

(I) The Officer-of-the-Watch shall be 

notified immediately; who shall then 

relay the sighting information to the 

Master of the vessel to ensure action(s) 

can be taken to avoid physical contact 

with marine mammals. 

(II) The sighting shall be recorded in 

the sighting log by the designated lookout. 

(iii) In accordance with 50 CFR 

224.103(c), all vessels associated with 

NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral activities 

shall not approach closer than 500 yards 

(460 m) to a North Atlantic right whale 

and 100 yards (91 m) to other whales to 

the extent physically feasible given 

navigational constraints. In addition, 

when approaching and departing the 

project area, vessels shall be operated so 

as to remain at least 1 km away from 

any visually-detected North Atlantic 

right whales. 

(iv) In response to active right whale 

sightings and active acoustic detections, 

and taking into account exceptional 

circumstances, EBRVs, repair and 

maintenance vessels shall take 

appropriate actions to minimize the risk 

of striking whales. Specifically vessels 

shall: 

(A) Respond to active right whale 

sightings and/or Dynamic Management 

Area (DMA) as described at 73 FR 

60173, 60180 (October 10, 2008) 

reported on the Mandatory Ship 

Reporting (MSR) or SAS by 

concentrating monitoring efforts 

towards the area of most recent 

detection and reducing speed to 10 

knots or less if the vessel is within the 

boundaries of a DMA or within the 

circular area centered on an area 8 nm 

in radius from a sighting location; 

(B) Respond to active acoustic 

detections by concentrating monitoring 

efforts towards the area of most recent 

detection and reducing speed to 10 

knots or less within an area 5 nm in 

radius centered on the detecting AB; 

and 

(C) Respond to additional sightings 

made by the designated look-outs 

within a 2-mile radius of the vessel by 

slowing the vessel to 10 knots or less 

and concentrating monitoring efforts 

towards the area of most recent sighting. 

(v) All vessels operated under NEG 

and Algonquin must follow the 

established specific speed restrictions 

when calling at the NEG Port. The 

specific speed restrictions required for 

all vessels (i.e., EBRVs and vessels 

associated with maintenance and repair) 

consist of the following: 

(A) Vessels shall reduce their 

maximum transit speed while in the 

TSS from 12 knots or less to 10 knots 

or less from March 1 to April 30 in all 

waters bounded by straight lines 

connecting the following points in the 

order stated below unless an emergency 

situation dictates for an alternate speed. 

This area shall hereafter be referred to 

as the Off Race Point Seasonal 

Management Area (ORP–SMA) and 

tracks NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 

224.105: 

42°30′ N 70°30′ W 

42°30′ N 69°45′ W 

41°40′ N 69°45′ W 

42°04.8′ N 70°10′ W 

41°40′ N 69°57′ W 

42°12′ N 70°15′ W 

42°12′ N 70°30′ W 

42°30′ N 70°30′ W 

(B) Vessels shall reduce their 

maximum transit speed while in the 

TSS to 10 knots or less unless an 

emergency situation dictates for an 

alternate speed from April 1 to July 31 

in all waters bounded by straight lines 

connecting the following points in the 

order stated below. This area shall 

hereafter be referred to as the GSC–SMA 

and tracks NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 

224.105: 

42°30′ N 69°45′ W 

42°30′ N 67°27′ W 

42°09′ N 67°08.4′ W 

41°40′ N 69°45′ W 

42°30′ N 69°45′ W 

41°00′ N 69°05′ W 

(C) Vessels are not expected to transit 

the Cape Cod Bay or the Cape Cod 

Canal; however, in the event that transit 

through the Cape Cod Bay or the Cape 

Cod Canal is required, vessels shall 

reduce maximum transit speed to 10 

knots or less from January 1 to May 15 

in all waters in Cape Cod Bay, extending 

to all shorelines of Cape Cod Bay, with 

a northern boundary of 42°12′ N latitude 

and the Cape Cod Canal. This area shall 

hereafter be referred to as the Cape Cod 

Bay Seasonal Management Area (CCB– 

SMA). 

(D) All Vessels transiting to and from 

the project area shall report their 

activities to the mandatory reporting 

Section of the USCG to remain apprised 

of North Atlantic right whale 

movements within the area. All vessels 

entering and exiting the MSRA shall 

report their activities to 

WHALESNORTH. Vessel operators shall 

contact the USCG by standard 

procedures promulgated through the 

Notice to Mariner system. 

(E) All Vessels greater than or equal 

to 300 gross tons (GT) shall maintain a 

speed of 10 knots or less, unless an 

emergency situation requires speeds 

greater than 10 knots. 

(F) All Vessels less than 300 GT 

traveling between the shore and the 

project area that are not generally 

restricted to 10 knots will contact the 

Mandatory Ship Reporting (MSR) 

system, the USCG, or the project site 

before leaving shore for reports of active 

DMAs and/or recent right whale 

sightings and, consistent with 

navigation safety, restrict speeds to 10 

knots or less within 5 miles (8 

kilometers) of any sighting location, 

when traveling in any of the seasonal 

management areas (SMAs) or when 

traveling in any active DMA. 

(b) NEG Port-Specific Operations 

(i) In addition to the general marine 

mammal avoidance requirements 

identified in (5)(a) above, vessels calling 

on the NEG Port must comply with the 

following additional requirements: 

(A) EBRVs shall travel at 10 knots 

maximum speed when transiting to/

from the TSS or to/from the NEG Port/ 

Pipeline Lateral area. For EBRVs, at 1.86 

miles (3 km) from the NEG Port, speed 

will be reduced to 3 knots and to less 

than 1 knot at 1,640 ft (500 m) from the 

NEG buoys, unless an emergency 

situation dictates the need for an 

alternate speed. 

(B) EBRVs that are approaching or 

departing from the NEG Port and are 

within the ATBA5 surrounding the NEG 

Port, shall remain at least 1 km away 

from any visually-detected North 

Atlantic right whale and at least 100 

yards (91 m) away from all other 

visually-detected whales unless an 

emergency situation requires that the 

vessel stay its course. During EBRV 

maneuvering, the Vessel Master shall 

designate at least one look-out to be 

exclusively and continuously 

monitoring for the presence of marine 

mammals at all times while the EBRV is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78814 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 

approaching or departing from the NEG 

Port. 

(C) During NEG Port operations, in the 

event that a whale is visually observed 

within 1 km of the NEG Port or a 

confirmed acoustic detection is reported 

on either of the two ABs closest to the 

NEG Port (western-most in the TSS 

array), departing EBRVs shall delay 

their departure from the NEG Port, 

unless an emergency situation requires 

that departure is not delayed. This 

departure delay shall continue until 

either the observed whale has been 

visually (during daylight hours) 

confirmed as more than 1 km from the 

NEG Port or 30 minutes have passed 

without another confirmed detection 

either acoustically within the acoustic 

detection range of the two ABs closest 

to the NEG Port, or visually within 1 km 

from the NEG Port. 

(ii) Vessel captains shall focus on 

reducing dynamic positioning (DP) 

thruster power to the maximum extent 

practicable, taking into account vessel 

and Port safety, during the operation 

activities. Vessel captains will shut 

down thrusters whenever they are not 

needed. 

(c) Planned and Unplanned 

Maintenance and Repair Activities 

(i) NEG Port 

(A) The Northeast Gateway shall 

conduct empirical source level 

measurements on all noise emitting 

construction equipment and all vessels 

that are involved in maintenance/repair 

work. 

(B) If dynamic positioning (DP) 

systems are employed and/or activities 

will emit noise with a source level of 

139 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m or greater, 

activities shall be conducted in 

accordance with the requirements for 

DP systems listed in (b)(ii) above. 

(C) Northeast Gateway shall provide 

the NMFS Headquarters Office of the 

Protected Resources, NMFS Northeast 

Region Ship Strike Coordinator, and 

SBNMS with a minimum of 30 days 

notice prior to any planned repair and/ 

or maintenance activity. For any 

unplanned/emergency repair/

maintenance activity, Northeast 

Gateway shall notify the agencies as 

soon as it determines that repair work 

must be conducted. Northeast Gateway 

shall continue to keep the agencies 

apprised of repair work plans as further 

details (e.g., the time, location, and 

nature of the repair) become available. 

A final notification shall be provided to 

agencies 72 hours prior to crews being 

deployed into the field. 

(ii) Pipeline Lateral 

(A) Pipeline maintenance/repair 

vessels less than 300 GT traveling 

between the shore and the maintenance/ 

repair area that are not generally 

restricted to 10 knots shall contact the 

MSR system, the USCG, or the project 

site before leaving shore for reports of 

active DMAs and/or recent right whale 

sightings and, consistent with 

navigation safety, restrict speeds to 10 

knots or less within 5 miles (8 km) of 

any sighting location, when travelling in 

any of the seasonal management areas 

(SMAs) as defined above. 

(B) Maintenance/repair vessels greater 

than 300 GT shall not exceed 10 knots, 

unless an emergency situation that 

requires speeds greater than 10 knots. 

(C) Planned maintenance and repair 

activities shall be restricted to the 

period between May 1 and November 

30. 

(D) Unplanned/emergency 

maintenance and repair activities shall 

be conducted utilizing anchor-moored 

dive vessel whenever operationally 

possible. 

(E) Algonquin shall also provide the 

NMFS Office of the Protected Resources, 

NMFS Northeast Region Ship Strike 

Coordinator, and Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) 

with a minimum of 30-day notice prior 

to any planned repair and/or 

maintenance activity. For any 

unplanned/emergency repair/

maintenance activity, Northeast 

Gateway shall notify the agencies as 

soon as it determines that repair work 

must be conducted. Algonquin shall 

continue to keep the agencies apprised 

of repair work plans as further details 

(e.g., the time, location, and nature of 

the repair) become available. A final 

notification shall be provided to 

agencies 72 hours prior to crews being 

deployed into the field. 

(F) If dynamic positioning (DP) 

systems are to be employed and/or 

activities will emit noise with a source 

level of 139 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m or 

greater, activities shall be conducted in 

accordance with the requirements for 

DP systems listed in (b)(ii) above. 

(G) In the event that a whale is 

visually observed within 0.5 mile (0.8 

kilometers) of a repair or maintenance 

vessel, the vessel superintendent or ondeck supervisor shall be notified 

immediately. The vessel’s crew shall be 

put on a heightened state of alert and 

the marine mammal shall be monitored 

constantly to determine if it is moving 

toward the repair or maintenance area. 

(H) Repair/maintenance vessel(s) 

must cease any movement and/or cease 

all activities that emit noises with 

source level of 139 dB re 1 mPa @1 m 

or higher when a right whale is sighted 

within or approaching at 500 yd (457 m) 

from the vessel. Repair and maintenance 

work may resume after the marine 

mammal is positively reconfirmed 

outside the established zones (500 yd 

[457 m]) or 30 minutes have passed 

without a redetection. Any vessels 

transiting the maintenance area, such as 

barges or tugs, must also maintain these 

separation distances. 

(I) Repair/maintenance vessel(s) must 

cease any movement and/or cease all 

activities that emit noises with source 

level of 139 dB re 1 mPa @1 m or higher 

when a marine mammal other than a 

right whale is sighted within or 

approaching at 100 yd (91 m) from the 

vessel. Repair and maintenance work 

may resume after the marine mammal is 

positively reconfirmed outside the 

established zones (100 yd [91 m]) or 30 

minutes have passed without a 

redetection. Any vessels transiting the 

maintenance area, such as barges or 

tugs, must also maintain these 

separation distances. 

(J) Algonquin and associated 

contractors shall also comply with the 

following: 

(I) Operations involving equipment 

with sound source levels exceeding 139 

dB re 1mPa @1 m shall ‘‘ramp-up’’ sound 

sources, allowing whales a chance to 

leave the area before sounds reach 

maximum levels. In addition, Northeast 

Gateway, Algonquin, and other 

associated contractors shall maintain 

equipment to manufacturers’ 

specifications, including any soundmuffling devices or engine covers in 

order to minimize noise effects. Noisy 

construction equipment shall only be 

used as needed and equipment shall be 

turned off when not in operation. 

(II) Any material that has the potential 

to entangle marine mammals (e.g., 

anchor lines, cables, rope or other 

construction debris) shall only be 

deployed as needed and measures shall 

be taken to minimize the chance of 

entanglement. 

(III) For any material mentioned above 

that has the potential to entangle marine 

mammals, such material shall be 

removed from the water immediately 

unless such action jeopardizes the safety 

of the vessel and crew as determined by 

the Captain of the vessel. 

(IV) In the event that a marine 

mammal becomes entangled, the marine 

mammal coordinator and/or PSO will 

notify NMFS (if outside the SBNMS), 

and SBNMS staff (if inside the SBNMS) 

immediately so that a rescue effort may 

be initiated. 

(K) All maintenance/repair activities 

shall be scheduled to occur between 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78815 

May 1 and November 30; however, in 

the event of unplanned/emergency 

repair work that cannot be scheduled 

during the preferred May through 

November work window, the following 

additional measures shall be followed 

for Pipeline Lateral maintenance and 

repair related activities between 

December and April: 

(I) Between December 1 and April 30, 

if on-board PSOs do not have at least 

0.5-mile visibility, they shall call for a 

shutdown. At the time of shutdown, the 

use of thrusters must be minimized. If 

there are potential safety problems due 

to the shutdown, the captain will decide 

what operations can safely be shut 

down. 

(II) Prior to leaving the dock to begin 

transit, the barge shall contact one of the 

PSOs on watch to receive an update of 

sightings within the visual observation 

area. If the PSO has observed a North 

Atlantic right whale within 30 minutes 

of the transit start, the vessel shall hold 

for 30 minutes and again get a clearance 

to leave from the PSOs on board. PSOs 

shall assess whale activity and visual 

observation ability at the time of the 

transit request to clear the barge for 

release. 

(III) Transit route, destination, sea 

conditions and any marine mammal 

sightings/mitigation actions during 

watch shall be recorded in the log book. 

Any whale sightings within 1,000 m of 

the vessel shall result in a high alert and 

slow speed of 4 knots or less and a 

sighting within 750 m shall result in 

idle speed and/or ceasing all movement. 

(IV) The material barges and tugs used 

in repair and maintenance shall transit 

from the operations dock to the work 

sites during daylight hours when 

possible provided the safety of the 

vessels is not compromised. Should 

transit at night be required, the 

maximum speed of the tug shall be 5 

knots. 

(V) All repair vessels must maintain a 

speed of 10 knots or less during daylight 

hours. All vessels shall operate at 5 

knots or less at all times within 5 km of 

the repair area. 

(d) Acoustic Monitoring Related 

Activities 

(i) Vessels associated with 

maintaining the AB network operating 

as part of the mitigation/monitoring 

protocols shall adhere to the following 

speed restrictions and marine mammal 

monitoring requirements. 

(A) In accordance with 50 CFR 

224.103 (c), all vessels associated with 

NEG Port activities shall not approach 

closer than 500 yards (460 meters) to a 

North Atlantic right whale. 

(B) All vessels shall obtain the latest 

DMA or right whale sighting 

information via the NAVTEX, MSR, 

SAS, NOAA Weather Radio, or other 

available means prior to operations to 

determine if there are right whales 

present in the operational area. 

(I) In the ORP–SMA between March 1 

and April 30; and 

(II) In the CCB–SMA between January 

1 and May 15. 

(C) All vessels shall obtain the latest 

DMA or right whale sighting 

information via the NAVTEX, MSR, 

SAS, NOAA Weather Radio, or other 

available means prior to operations to 

determine if there are right whales 

present in the operational area. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

mitigation measures in the context of 

ensuring that NMFS prescribes the 

means of effecting the least practicable 

impact on the affected marine mammal 

species and stocks and their habitat. Our 

evaluation of potential measures 

included consideration of the following 

factors in relation to one another: 

• The manner in which, and the degree to 

which, the successful implementation of the 

measure is expected to minimize adverse 

impacts to marine mammals; 

• The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; and 

• The practicability of the measure for 

applicant implementation. 

Based on our evaluation of mitigation 

measures, NMFS has determined that 

the mitigation measures provide the 

means of effecting the least practicable 

impact on marine mammal species or 

stocks and their habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting Measures 

In order to issue an ITA 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 ITAs 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. 

Monitoring Measures 

(a) Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

(i) Vessel-based monitoring for marine 

mammals shall be done by trained lookouts during NEG LNG Port and Pipeline 

Lateral operations and maintenance and 

repair activities. The observers shall 

monitor the occurrence of marine 

mammals near the vessels during LNG 

Port and Pipeline Lateral related 

activities. Lookout duties include 

watching for and identifying marine 

mammals; recording their numbers, 

distances, and reactions to the activities; 

and documenting ‘‘take by harassment’’. 

(ii) The vessel look-outs assigned to 

visually monitor for the presence of 

marine mammals shall be provided with 

the following: 

(A) Recent NAVTEX, NOAA Weather 

Radio, SAS and/or acoustic monitoring 

buoy detection data; 

(B) Binoculars to support 

observations; 

(C) Marine mammal detection guide 

sheets; and 

(D) Sighting log. 

(b) NEG LNG Port Operations 

(i) All individuals onboard the EBRVs 

responsible for the navigation duties 

and any other personnel that could be 

assigned to monitor for marine 

mammals shall receive training on 

marine mammal sighting/reporting and 

vessel strike avoidance measures. 

(ii) While an EBRV is navigating 

within the designated TSS, there shall 

be three people with look-out duties on 

or near the bridge of the ship including 

the Master, the Officer-of-the-Watch and 

the Helmsman-on-watch. In addition to 

the standard watch procedures, while 

the EBRV is transiting within the 

designated TSS, maneuvering within 

the Area to be Avoided (ATBA), and/or 

while actively engaging in the use of 

thrusters, an additional look-out shall be 

designated to exclusively and 

continuously monitor for marine 

mammals. 

(iii) All sightings of marine mammals 

by the designated look-out, individuals 

posted to navigational look-out duties 

and/or any other crew member while 

the EBRV is transiting within the TSS, 

maneuvering within the ATBA and/or 

when actively engaging in the use of 

thrusters, shall be immediately reported 

to the Officer-of-the-Watch who shall 

then alert the Master. The Master or 

Officer-of-the-Watch shall ensure the 

required reporting procedures are 

followed and the designated marine 

mammal look-out records all pertinent 

information relevant to the sighting. 

(iv) Visual sightings made by lookouts from the EBRVs shall be recorded 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78816 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 

using a standard sighting log form. 

Estimated locations shall be reported for 

each individual and/or group of 

individuals categorized by species when 

known. This data shall be entered into 

a database and a summary of monthly 

sighting activity shall be provided to 

NMFS. Estimates of take and copies of 

these log sheets shall also be included 

in the reports to NMFS. 

(c) Planned and Unplanned 

Maintenance and Repair 

(i) Two (2) qualified and NMFSapproved protected species observers 

(PSOs) shall be assigned to each vessel 

that will use dynamic positioning (DP) 

systems during maintenance and repair 

related activities. PSOs shall operate 

individually in designated shifts to 

accommodate adequate rest schedules. 

Additional PSOs shall be assigned to 

additional vessels if auto-detection buoy 

(AB) data indicates that sound levels 

exceed 120 dB re 1 mPa, further then 100 

meters (328 feet) from these vessels. 

(ii) All PSOs shall receive NMFSapproved marine mammal observer 

training and be approved in advance by 

NMFS after review of their resume. All 

PSOs shall have direct field experience 

on marine mammal vessels and/or aerial 

surveys in the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of 

Mexico. 

(iii) PSOs (one primary and one 

secondary) shall be responsible for 

visually locating marine mammals at the 

ocean’s surface and, to the extent 

possible, identifying the species. The 

primary PSO shall act as the 

identification specialist and the 

secondary PSO will serve as data 

recorder and also assist with 

identification. Both PSOs shall have 

responsibility for monitoring for the 

presence of marine mammals and sea 

turtles. Specifically PSO’s shall: 

(A) Monitor at all hours of the day, 

scanning the ocean surface by eye for a 

minimum of 40 minutes every hour. 

(B) Monitor the area where 

maintenance and repair work is 

conducted beginning at daybreak using 

25× power binoculars and/or hand-held 

binoculars. Night vision devices must be 

provided as standard equipment for 

monitoring during low-light hours and 

at night. 

(C) Conduct general 360° visual 

monitoring during any given watch 

period and target scanning by the 

observer shall occur when alerted of a 

whale presence. 

(D) Alert the vessel superintendent or 

construction crew supervisor of visual 

detections within 2 miles (3.31 

kilometers) immediately. 

(E) Record all sightings on marine 

mammal field sighting logs. 

Specifically, all data shall be entered at 

the time of observation, notes of 

activities will be kept, and a daily report 

prepared and attached to the daily field 

sighting log form. The basic reporting 

requirements include the following: 

• Beaufort sea state; 

• Wind speed; 

• Wind direction; 

• Temperature; 

• Precipitation; 

• Glare; 

• Percent cloud cover; 

• Number of animals; 

• Species; 

• Position; 

• Distance; 

• Behavior; 

• Direction of movement; and 

• Apparent reaction to construction 

activity. 

(iv) In the event that a whale is 

visually observed within the 2-mile 

(3.31-kilometers) zone of influence 

(ZOI) of a DP vessel or other 

construction vessel that has shown to 

emit noise with source level in excess 

of 139 dB re 1 mPa @ 1 m, the PSO will 

notify the repair/maintenance 

construction crew to minimize the use 

of thrusters until the animal has moved 

away, unless there are divers in the 

water or an ROV is deployed. 

(d) Acoustic Monitoring 

(i) Northeast Gateway shall deploy 10 

ABs within the Separation Zone of the 

TSS for the operational life of the 

Project. 

(ii) The ABs shall be used to detect a 

calling North Atlantic right whale an 

average of 5 nm from each AB. The AB 

system shall be the primary detection 

mechanism that alerts the EBRV Master 

to the occurrence of right whales, 

heightens EBRV awareness, and triggers 

necessary mitigation actions as 

described in section (5) above. 

(iii) Northeast Gateway shall conduct 

short-term passive acoustic monitoring 

to document sound levels during: 

(A) The initial operational events in 

the 2014–2015 winter heating season; 

(B) regular deliveries outside the 

winter heating season should such 

deliveries occur; and (C) scheduled and 

unscheduled maintenance and repair 

activities. 

(iv) Northeast Gateway shall conduct 

long-term monitoring of the noise 

environment in Massachusetts Bay in 

the vicinity of the NEG Port and 

Pipeline Lateral using marine 

autonomous recording units (MARUs) 

when there is anticipated to be more 

than 5 LNG shipments in a 30-day 

period or over 20 shipments in a sixmonth period. 

(v) The acoustic data collected in 

6(d)(ii) shall be analyzed to document 

the seasonal occurrences and overall 

distributions of whales (primarily fin, 

humpback and right whales) within 

approximately 10 nm of the NEG Port 

and shall measure and document the 

noise ‘‘budget’’ of Massachusetts Bay so 

as to eventually assist in determining 

whether or not an overall increase in 

noise in the Bay associated with the 

Project might be having a potentially 

negative impact on marine mammals. 

(vi) Northeast Gateway shall make all 

acoustic data, including data previously 

collected by the MARUs during prior 

construction, operations, and 

maintenance and repair activities, 

available to NOAA. Data storage will be 

the responsibility of NOAA. 

(e) Acoustic Whale Detection and 

Response Plan 

(i) NEG Port Operations 

(A) Ten (10) ABs that have been 

deployed since 2007 shall be used to 

continuously screen the low-frequency 

acoustic environment (less than 1,000 

Hertz) for right whale contact calls 

occurring within an approximately 5- 

nm radius from each buoy (the AB’s 

detection range). 

(B) Once a confirmed detection is 

made, the Master of any EBRVs 

operating in the area will be alerted 

immediately. 

(ii) NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral 

Planned and Unplanned/Emergency 

Repair and Maintenance Activities 

(A) If the repair/maintenance work is 

located outside of the detectible range of 

the 10 project area ABs, Northeast 

Gateway and Algonquin shall consult 

with NOAA (NMFS and SBNMS) to 

determine if the work to be conducted 

warrants the temporary installation of 

an additional AB(s) to help detect and 

provide early warnings for potential 

occurrence of right whales in the 

vicinity of the repair area. 

(B) The number of ABs installed 

around the activity site shall be 

commensurate with the type and spatial 

extent of maintenance/repair work 

required, but must be sufficient to detect 

vocalizing right whales within the 120- 

dB impact zone. 

(C) Should acoustic monitoring be 

deemed necessary during a planned or 

unplanned/emergency repair and/or 

maintenance event, active monitoring 

for right whale calls shall begin 24 

hours prior to the start of activities. 

(D) Revised noise level data from the 

acoustic recording units deployed in the 

NEG Port and/or Pipeline Lateral 

maintenance and repair area shall be 

provided to NMFS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78817 

Reporting Measures 

(a) Throughout NEG Port and Pipeline 

Lateral operations, Northeast Gateway 

and Algonquin shall provide a monthly 

Monitoring Report. The Monitoring 

Report shall include: 

(i) Both copies of the raw visual EBRV 

lookout sighting information of marine 

mammals that occurred within 2 miles 

of the EBRV while the vessel transits 

within the TSS, maneuvers within the 

ATBA, and/or when actively engaging 

in the use of thrusters, and a summary 

of the data collected by the look-outs 

over each reporting period. 

(ii) Copies of the raw PSO sightings 

information on marine mammals 

gathered during pipeline repair or 

maintenance activities. This visual 

sighting data shall then be correlated to 

periods of thruster activity to provide 

estimates of marine mammal takes (per 

species/species class) that took place 

during each reporting period. 

(iii) Conclusion of any planned or 

unplanned/emergency repair and/or 

maintenance period, a report shall be 

submitted to NMFS summarizing the 

repair/maintenance activities, marine 

mammal sightings (both visual and 

acoustic), empirical source-level 

measurements taken during the repair 

work, and any mitigation measures 

taken. 

(b) During the maintenance and repair 

of NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral 

components, weekly status reports shall 

be provided to NOAA (both NMFS and 

SBNMS) using standardized reporting 

forms. The weekly reports shall include 

data collected for each distinct marine 

mammal species observed in the repair/ 

maintenance area during the period that 

maintenance and repair activities were 

taking place. The weekly reports shall 

include the following information: 

(i) Location (in longitude and latitude 

coordinates), time, and the nature of the 

maintenance and repair activities; 

(ii) Indication of whether a DP system 

was operated, and if so, the number of 

thrusters being used and the time and 

duration of DP operation; 

(iii) Marine mammals observed in the 

area (number, species, age group, and 

initial behavior); 

(iv) The distance of observed marine 

mammals from the maintenance and 

repair activities; 

(v) Changes, if any, in marine 

mammal behaviors during the 

observation; 

(vi) A description of any mitigation 

measures (power-down, shutdown, etc.) 

implemented; 

(vii) Weather condition (Beaufort sea 

state, wind speed, wind direction, 

ambient temperature, precipitation, and 

percent cloud cover etc.); 

(viii) Condition of the observation 

(visibility and glare); and 

(ix) Details of passive acoustic 

detections and any action taken in 

response to those detections. 

(d) Injured/Dead Protected Species 

Reporting 

(i) In the unanticipated event that 

survey operations clearly cause the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the proposed IHA, such as 

an injury (Level A harassment), serious 

injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear 

interaction, and/or entanglement), NEG 

and/or Algonquin shall immediately 

cease activities and immediately report 

the incident to the Supervisor of the 

Incidental Take Program, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301– 

427–8401 and/or by email to 

Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and 

Shane.Guan@noaa.gov and the 

Northeast Regional Stranding 

Coordinators (Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov 

or Lanni.Hall@noaa.gov) or by phone at 

978–281–9300. The report must include 

the following information: 

(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

(B) the name and type of vessel 

involved; 

(C) the vessel’s speed during and 

leading up to the incident; 

(D) description of the incident; 

(E) status of all sound source use in 

the 24 hours preceding the incident; 

(F) water depth; 

(G) environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

(H) description of marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

(I) species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

(J) the fate of the animal(s); and 

(K) photographs or video footage of 

the animal (if equipment is available). 

Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS shall work with NEG and/or 

Algonquin to determine what is 

necessary to minimize the likelihood of 

further prohibited take and ensure 

MMPA compliance. NEG and/or 

Algonquin may not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS via 

letter, email, or telephone. 

(ii) In the event that NEG and/or 

Algonquin discovers an injured or dead 

marine mammal, and the lead PSO 

determines that the cause of the injury 

or death is unknown and the death is 

relatively recent (i.e., in less than a 

moderate state of decomposition as 

described in the next paragraph), NEG 

and/or Algonquin will immediately 

report the incident to the Supervisor of 

the Incidental Take Program, Permits 

and Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301– 

427–8401, and/or by email to 

Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and 

Shane.Guan@noaa.gov and the NMFS 

Northeast Stranding Coordinators 

(Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov or 

Lanni.Hall@noaa.gov) or by phone at 

978–281–9300, within 24 hours of the 

discovery. The report must include the 

same information identified above. 

Activities may continue while NMFS 

reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. NMFS will work with NEG 

and/or Algonquin to determine whether 

modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

(iii) In the event that NEG or 

Algonquin discovers an injured or dead 

marine mammal, and the lead PSO 

determines that the injury or death is 

not associated with or related to the 

activities authorized (if the IHA is 

issued) (e.g., previously wounded 

animal, carcass with moderate to 

advanced decomposition, or scavenger 

damage), NEG and/or Algonquin shall 

report the incident to the Supervisor of 

the Incidental Take Program, Permits 

and Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301– 

427–8401, and/or by email to 

Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and 

Shane.Guan@noaa.gov and the NMFS 

Northeast Stranding Coordinators 

(Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov or 

Lanni.Hall@noaa.gov) or by phone at 

978–281–9300, within 24 hours of the 

discovery. NEG and/or Algonquin shall 

provide photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS and 

the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

NEG and/or Algonquin can continue its 

operations under such a case. 

Summary of Previous Monitoring 

Reports 

Based on monthly activity reports 

submitted to NMFS for the period 

between August 2010 and January 2014, 

there were no activities at the NEG Port 

during the period. Therefore, no take of 

marine mammals occurred or were 

reported during this period. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78818 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 

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]. Only take by Level B 

harassment is anticipated as a result of 

NEG’s operation and maintenance and 

repair activities. Anticipated take of 

marine mammals is associated with 

operation of dynamic positioning during 

the docking of the LNG vessels and 

positioning of maintenance and dive 

vessels, and by operations of certain 

machinery during maintenance and 

repair activities. The regasification 

process itself is an activity that does not 

rise to the level of taking, as the 

modeled source level for this activity is 

108 dB, which is below our current 

threshold for Level B harassment. 

Certain species may have a behavioral 

reaction to the sound emitted during the 

activities. Hearing impairment is not 

anticipated. Additionally, vessel strikes 

are not anticipated, especially because 

of the speed restriction measures that 

are required and were described earlier 

in this document. 

The full suite of potential impacts to 

marine mammals was described in 

detail in the ‘‘Potential Effects of the 

Specified Activity on Marine Mammals’’ 

section in the 2013 proposed IHA 

notice. The potential effects of sound 

from the proposed open water marine 

survey programs might include one or 

more of the following: masking of 

natural sounds; behavioral disturbance; 

non-auditory physical effects; and, at 

least in theory, temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment (Richardson et al. 

1995). As discussed earlier in this 

document, the most common impact 

will likely be from behavioral 

disturbance, including avoidance of the 

ensonified area or changes in speed, 

direction, and/or diving profile of the 

animal. For reasons discussed 

previously in this document, temporary 

or permanent hearing impairment (TTS 

and PTS, respectively) is highly 

unlikely to occur based on the proposed 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

that would preclude marine mammals 

from being exposed to noise levels high 

enough to cause hearing impairment. 

For non-pulse sounds, such as those 

produced by operating dynamic 

positioning (DP) thruster during vessel 

docking and supporting underwater 

construction and repair activities and 

the operations of various machineries 

that produces non-pulse noises, NMFS 

uses the 120 dB (rms) re 1 mPa isopleth 

to indicate the onset of Level B 

harassment. 

NEG Port and Algonquin Pipeline 

Lateral Activities Acoustic Footprints 

I. NEG Port Operations 

For the purposes of understanding the 

noise footprint of operations at the NEG 

Port, measurements taken to capture 

operational noise (docking, undocking, 

regasification, and EBRV thruster use) 

during the 2006 Gulf of Mexico field 

event were taken at the source. 

Measurements taken during EBRV 

transit were normalized to a distance of 

328 feet (100 meters) to serve as a basis 

for modeling sound propagation at the 

NEG Port site in Massachusetts Bay. 

Sound propagation calculations for 

operational activities were then 

completed at two positions in 

Massachusetts Bay to determine sitespecific distances to the 120/160/180 dB 

isopleths: 

• Operations Position 1—Port (EBRV 

Operations): 70°36.261′ W and 42°23.790′ N 

• Operations Position 2—Boston TSS 

(EBRV Transit): 70°17.621′ W and 42°17.539′ 

N 

At each of these locations sound 

propagation calculations were 

performed to determine the noise 

footprint of the operation activity at 

each of the specified locations. 

Calculations were performed in 

accordance with Marsh and Schulkin 

(1985) and Richardson et al. (1995) and 

took into consideration aspects of water 

depth, sea state, bathymetry, and seabed 

composition. In addition, the acoustic 

modeling performed specifically 

evaluated sound energy in 1/3-octave 

spectral bands covering frequencies 

from 12.5 Hz to 20 kHz. The resultant 

distances to the 120 dB isopleth are 

presented in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—RADII OF 120-DB SPL 

ISOPLETHS FROM NEG LNG OPERATIONS

Radius to 

120-dB 

zone (m) 

One EBRV docking procedure 

with support vessel ............... 4,250 

Two EBRV docking procedure 

with support vessel ............... 5,500 

EBRV regasification .................. <300 

EBRV transiting the TSS (10 

knot) ...................................... 1,750 

II. NEG Port Maintenance and Repair 

Modeling analysis conducted for the 

construction of the NEG Port concluded 

that the only underwater noise of 

critical concern during NEG Port 

construction would be from vessel 

noises such as turning screws, engine 

noise, noise of operating machinery, and 

thruster use. To confirm these modeled 

results and better understand the noise 

footprint associated with construction 

activities at the NEG Port, field 

measurements were taken of various 

construction activities during the 2007 

NEG Port and Algonquin Pipeline 

Lateral Construction period. 

Measurements were taken and 

normalized as described to establish the 

‘‘loudest’’ potential construction 

measurement event. One position 

within Massachusetts Bay was then 

used to determine site-specific distances 

to the 120/180 dB isopleths for NEG 

Port maintenance and repair activities: 

• Construction Position 1. Port: 70°36.261′ 

W and 42°23.790′ N 

Sound propagation calculations were 

performed to determine the noise 

footprint of the construction activity. 

The calculations took into consideration 

aspects of water depth, sea state, 

bathymetry, and seabed composition, 

and specifically evaluated sound energy 

in the range that encompasses the 

auditory frequencies of marine 

mammals and at which sound 

propagates beyond the immediate 

vicinity of the source. These results 

were then summed across frequencies to 

provide the broadband received levels at 

receptor locations. The results showed 

that the estimated distance from the 

loudest source involved in construction 

activities fell to 120 dB re 1 mPa at a 

distance of 3,600 m. 

III. Algonquin Pipeline Lateral 

Maintenance and Repair Activities 

Modeling analysis conducted during 

the NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral 

construction concluded that the only 

underwater noise of critical concern 

during such activities would be from 

vessel noises such as turning screws, 

engine noise, noise of operating 

machinery, and thruster use. As with 

construction noise at the NEG Port, to 

confirm modeled results and better 

understand the noise footprint 

associated with construction activities 

along the Algonquin Pipeline Lateral, 

field measurements were taken of 

various construction activities during 

the 2007 NEG Port and Algonquin 

Pipeline Lateral construction period. 

Measurements were taken and 

normalized to establish the ‘‘loudest’’ 

potential construction measurement 

event. Two positions within 

Massachusetts Bay were then used to 

determine site-specific distances to the 

120/160/180 dB isopleths: 

• Construction Position 2. PLEM: 

70°46.755′ W and 42°28.764′ N 

• Construction Position 3. Mid-Pipeline: 

70°40.842′ W and 42°31.328′ N 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78819 

Sound propagation calculations were 

performed to determine the noise 

footprint of the construction activity. 

The calculations took into consideration 

aspects of water depth, sea state, 

bathymetry, and seabed composition, 

and specifically evaluated sound energy 

in the range that encompasses the 

auditory frequencies of marine 

mammals and at which sound 

propagates beyond the immediate 

vicinity of the source. These results 

were then summed across frequencies to 

provide the broadband received levels at 

receptor locations. The results of the 

distances to the 120-dB isopleths are 

shown in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—RADII OF 120-DB SPL 

ISOPLETHS FROM ALGONQUIN PIPELINE LATERAL MAINTENANCE AND

REPAIR

Radius to 

120-dB 

zone (m) 

Barge/tug (pulling & pushing)/

construction vessel/barge 

@PLEM ................................. 3,600 

Barge/tug (pulling & pushing)/

construction vessel/barge 

@mid-pipeline ....................... 2,831 

The basis for Northeast Gateway and 

Algonquin’s take estimate is the number 

of marine mammals that would be 

exposed to sound levels at or in excess 

of 120 dB, which is the threshold used 

by NMFS for harassment from nonpulse sounds. For the NEG LNG Port 

and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral 

operations and maintenance and repair 

activities, the take estimates are 

determined by multiplying the 120-dB 

ensonified area by local marine mammal 

density estimates, and then multiplying 

by the estimated number of days such 

activities would occur during a yearlong period. For the NEG Port 

operations, the 120-dB ensonfied area is 

56.8 km2 for a single visit during 

docking when running DP system. For 

NEG Port and Algonquin Pipeline 

Lateral maintenance and repair 

activities, modeling based on the 

empirical measurements showed that 

the distance of the 120-dB radius is 

expected to be 3.6 km, making a 

maximum 120-dB ZOI area of 

approximately 40.7 km2. 

Although there have been no LNG 

deliveries since February 2010 at the 

NEG LNG Port, under full operation, 

NEG expects it would receive up to 65 

LNG shipments per year, and would 

require 14 days for NEG Port 

maintenance and up to 40 days for 

planned and unplanned Algonquin 

Pipeline Lateral maintenance and 

repair. 

NMFS recognizes that baleen whale 

species other than North Atlantic right 

whales have been sighted in the project 

area from May to November. However, 

the occurrence and abundance of fin, 

humpback, and minke whales is not 

well documented within the project 

area. Nonetheless, NMFS uses the data 

on cetacean distribution within 

Massachusetts Bay, such as those 

published by the National Centers for 

Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS 2006), 

to estimate potential takes of marine 

mammals species in the vicinity of 

project area. 

The NCCOS study used cetacean 

sightings from two sources: (1) the 

North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 

(NARWC) sightings database held at the 

University of Rhode Island (Kenney, 

2001); and (2) the Manomet Bird 

Observatory (MBO) database, held at 

NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center (NEFSC). The NARWC data 

contained survey efforts and sightings 

data from ship and aerial surveys and 

opportunistic sources between 1970 and 

2005. The main data contributors 

included: Cetacean and Turtles 

Assessment Program (CETAP), Canadian 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 

PCCS, International Fund for Animal 

Welfare, NOAA’s NEFSC, New England 

Aquarium, Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution, and the University of Rhode 

Island. A total of 653,725 km (406,293 

mi) of survey track and 34,589 cetacean 

observations were provisionally selected 

for the NCCOS study in order to 

minimize bias from uneven allocation of 

survey effort in both time and space. 

The sightings-per-unit-effort (SPUE) was 

calculated for all cetacean species by 

month covering the southern Gulf of 

Maine study area, which also includes 

the project area (NCCOS, 2006). 

The MBO’s Cetacean and Seabird 

Assessment Program (CSAP) was 

contracted from 1980 to 1988 by NMFS 

NEFSC to provide an assessment of the 

relative abundance and distribution of 

cetaceans, seabirds, and marine turtles 

in the shelf waters of the northeastern 

United States (MBO, 1987). The CSAP 

program was designed to be completely 

compatible with NMFS NEFSC 

databases so that marine mammal data 

could be compared directly with 

fisheries data throughout the time series 

during which both types of information 

were gathered. A total of 5,210 km 

(8,383 mi) of survey distance and 636 

cetacean observations from the MBO 

data were included in the NCCOS 

analysis. Combined valid survey effort 

for the NCCOS studies included 567,955 

km (913,840 mi) of survey track for 

small cetaceans (dolphins and 

porpoises) and 658,935 km (1,060,226 

mi) for large cetaceans (whales) in the 

southern Gulf of Maine. The NCCOS 

study then combined these two data sets 

by extracting cetacean sighting records, 

updating database field names to match 

the NARWC database, creating geometry 

to represent survey tracklines and 

applying a set of data selection criteria 

designed to minimize uncertainty and 

bias in the data used. 

Owing to the comprehensiveness and 

total coverage of the NCCOS cetacean 

distribution and abundance study, 

NMFS calculated the estimated take 

number of marine mammals based on 

the most recent NCCOS report 

published in December 2006. A 

summary of seasonal cetacean 

distribution and abundance in the 

project area is provided above, in the 

‘‘Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activities’’ 

section. For a detailed description and 

calculation of the cetacean abundance 

data and SPUE, please refer to the 

NCCOS study (NCCOS, 2006). These 

data show that the relative abundance of 

North Atlantic right, fin, humpback, 

minke, sei, and pilot whales, and 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins for all 

seasons, as calculated by SPUE in 

number of animals per square kilometer, 

is 0.0082, 0.0097, 0.0118, 0.0059, 

0.0084, 0.0407, and 0.1314 n/km, 

respectively. 

In calculating the area density of these 

species from these linear density data, 

NMFS used 0.5 mi (0.825 km) as the 

hypothetical strip width (W). This strip 

width is based on the distance of 

visibility used in the NARWC data that 

was part of the NCCOS (2006) study. 

However, those surveys used a strip 

transect instead of a line transect 

methodology. Therefore, in order to 

obtain a strip width, one must divide 

the visibility or transect value in half. 

Since the visibility value used in the 

NARWC data was 2.3 mi (3.7 km), it 

thus gives a strip width of 1.15 mi (1.85 

km). The hypothetical strip width used 

in the analysis is less than half of that 

derived from the NARWC data, 

therefore, the analysis provided here is 

more protective in calculating marine 

mammal densities in the area. Based on 

this information, the area density (D) of 

these species in the project area can be 

obtained by the following formula: 

D = SPUE/2W 

where D is marine mammal density in 

the area, and W is the strip width. Based 

on this calculation method, the 

estimated take numbers per year for 

North Atlantic right, fin, humpback, 

minke, sei, and pilot whales, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78820 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins by the 

NEG Port facility operations (maximum 

65 visits per year), NEG Port 

maintenance and repair (up to 14 days 

per year), and Algonquin Pipeline 

Lateral operation and maintenance (up 

to 40 days per year), are 29, 35, 42, 21, 

30, 145, and 469, respectively (Table 3). 

These numbers represent approximately 

6.59%, 1%, 5.12%, 0.1%, 8.4%, 1.2%, 

and 1% of the populations for these 

species based on the latest NMFS 

Atlantic marine mammal stock 

assessment reports (Waring et al. 2013), 

respectively. Since it is very likely that 

individual animals could be ‘‘taken’’ by 

harassment multiple times, these 

percentages are the upper boundary of 

the animal population that could be 

affected. The actual number of 

individual animals being exposed or 

taken would likely be far less. There is 

no danger of injury, death, or hearing 

impairment from the exposure to these 

noise levels. 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED ANNUAL TAKES, BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, OF MARINE MAMMALS FROM THE NEG PORT AND

ALGONQUIN PIPELINE LATERAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ACTIVITIES IN MASSACHUSETTS BAY

Species Population/stock Number of 

takes 

Right whale ................................................................................... Western Atlantic ........................................................................... 29 

Humpback whale ........................................................................... Gulf of Maine ............................................................................... 42 

Fin whale ....................................................................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................................. 35 

Sei whale ....................................................................................... Nova Scotia ................................................................................. 30 

Minke whale .................................................................................. Canadian East Coast ................................................................... 21 

Long-finned pilot whale ................................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................................. 145 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin .......................................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................................. 469 

Bottlenose dolphin ......................................................................... Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory ................................. 20 

Short-beaked common dolphin ..................................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................................. 40 

Risso’s dolphin .............................................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................................. 40 

Killer whale .................................................................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................................. 10 

Harbor porpoise ............................................................................ Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ......................................................... 20 

Harbor seal .................................................................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................................. 60 

Gray seal ....................................................................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................................. 30 

In addition, bottlenose dolphins, 

common dolphins, killer whales, Risso’s 

dolphins, harbor porpoises, harbor 

seals, and gray seals could also be taken 

by Level B harassment as a result of 

deepwater NEG Port and Algonquin 

Pipeline Lateral operations and 

maintenance and repair. Since these 

species are less likely to occur in the 

area, and there are no density estimates 

specific to this particular area, NMFS 

based the take estimates on typical 

group size. Therefore, NMFS estimates 

that up to approximately 20 bottlenose 

dolphins, 40 short-beaked common 

dolphins, 40 Risso’s dolphins, 10 killer 

whales, 20 harbor porpoises, 60 harbor 

seals, and 30 gray seals could be 

exposed to continuous noise at or above 

120 dB re 1 mPa rms incidental to 

operations during the one year period of 

the IHA, respectively. These numbers 

represent 0.16%, 0.06%, 0.26%, and 

0.03% of the bottlenose dolphin, shortbeaked common dolphin, Risso’s 

dolphin, and harbor porpoise 

populations/stocks. Since no 

population/stock estimates for killer 

whale, and harbor and gray seals is 

available, the percentage of estimated 

takes for these species is unknown. 

Nevertheless, since Massachusetts Bay 

represents only a small fraction of the 

western North Atlantic basin where 

these animals occur, NMFS has 

determined that the takes of 10 killer 

whales, 60 harbor seals, and 30 gray 

seals represent a relatively small 

number of marine mammals of the 

affected species or populations stocks 

(Table 3). The take estimates presented 

in this section of the document do not 

take into consideration the mitigation 

and monitoring measures that are 

required in the IHA. 

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers 

Analysis and Determination 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 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.’’ In making a 

negligible impact determination, NMFS 

considers a variety of factors, including 

but not limited to: (1) The number of 

anticipated mortalities; (2) the number 

and nature of anticipated injuries; (3) 

the number, nature, intensity, and 

duration of Level B harassment; and (4) 

the context in which the takes occur. 

No injuries or mortalities are 

anticipated to occur as a result of 

Northeast Gateway LNG Port Algonquin 

Pipeline Lateral operations and 

maintenance and repair activities, and 

none are authorized by NMFS. 

Additionally, animals in the area are not 

anticipated to incur any hearing 

impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS), as the 

modeling of source levels indicates that 

none of the source received levels 

exceed 180 dB (rms). 

While some of the species occur in 

the proposed project area year-round, 

some species only occur in the area 

during certain seasons. Humpback and 

minke whales are not expected in the 

project area in the winter. During the 

winter, a large portion of the North 

Atlantic right whale population occurs 

in the southeastern U.S. calving grounds 

(i.e., South Carolina, Georgia, and 

northern Florida). The fact that certain 

activities will occur during times when 

certain species are not commonly found 

in the area will help reduce the amount 

of Level B harassment for these species. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hr cycle). 

Behavioral reactions to noise exposure 

(such as disruption of critical life 

functions, displacement, or avoidance of 

important habitat) are more likely to be 

significant if they last more than one 

diel cycle or recur on subsequent days 

(Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a 

behavioral response lasting less than 

one day and not recurring on 

subsequent days is not considered 

particularly severe unless it could 

directly affect reproduction or survival 

(Southall et al. 2007). Operational 

activities are not anticipated to occur at 

the Port on consecutive days. In 

addition, Northeast Gateway EBRVs are 

expected to make a maximum of 65 port 

calls throughout the year (and likely 

less), with thruster use needed for a 

couple of hours. Therefore, Northeast 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78821 

Gateway will not be creating increased 

sound levels in the marine environment 

for prolonged periods of time. 

Of the 14 marine mammal species 

likely to occur in the area, four are listed 

as endangered under the ESA: North 

Atlantic right, humpback, and fin 

whales. All of these species are also 

considered depleted under the MMPA. 

There is currently no designated critical 

habitat or known reproductive areas for 

any of these species in or near the 

proposed project area. However, there 

are several well-known North Atlantic 

right whale feeding grounds in the Cape 

Cod Bay and Great South Channel. No 

mortality or injury is expected to occur, 

and due to the nature, degree, and 

context of the Level B harassment 

anticipated, the activity is not expected 

to impact rates of recruitment or 

survival. There is no critical habitat or 

biologically important areas for marine 

mammals within the proposed project 

area. 

The population estimates for the 

species that may be taken by Level B 

behavioral harassment contained in the 

most recent U.S. Atlantic Stock 

Assessment Reports were provided 

earlier in this document. From the most 

protective estimates of both marine 

mammal densities in the project area 

and the size of the 120-dB ZOI, the 

maximum calculated number of 

individual marine mammals for each 

species that could potentially be 

harassed annually is small relative to 

the overall population sizes. 

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 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS finds that the proposed Northeast 

Gateway LNG Port and Algonquin 

Pipeline Lateral operations and 

maintenance and repair activities would 

result in the incidental take of small 

numbers of marine mammals, by Level 

B harassment only, and that the total 

taking from Northeast Gateway and 

Algonquin’s proposed activities will 

have a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species or Stock for Taking for 

Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals 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 (ESA) 

Our November 18, 2013, Federal 

Register notice of proposed IHA 

described the history and status of 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

compliance for the NE Gateway LNG 

facility. As explained in that notice, the 

biological opinions for construction and 

operation of the facility only analyzed 

impacts on ESA-listed species from 

activities under the initial construction 

period and during operations, and did 

not take into consideration potential 

impacts to marine mammals that could 

result from the subsequent LNG Port 

and Pipeline Lateral maintenance and 

repair activities. In addition, NEG also 

revealed that significantly more water 

usage and vessel operating air emissions 

are needed from what was originally 

evaluated for the LNG Port operation. 

NMFS PR1 initiated consultation with 

NMFS Greater Atlantic Region Fisheries 

Office under section 7 of the ESA on the 

proposed issuance of an IHA to NEG 

under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

for the proposed activities that include 

increased NEG Port and Algonquin 

Pipeline Lateral maintenance and repair 

and water usage for the LNG Port 

operations this activity. A Biological 

Opinion was issued on November 21, 

2014, and concluded that the proposed 

action may adversely affect but is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of ESA-listed right, 

humpback, fin, and sei whales. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

MARAD and the USCG released a 

Final EIS/Environmental Impact Report 

(EIR) for the proposed Northeast 

Gateway Port and Pipeline Lateral. A 

notice of availability was published by 

MARAD on October 26, 2006 (71 FR 

62657). The Final EIS/EIR provides 

detailed information on the proposed 

project facilities, construction methods 

and analysis of potential impacts on 

marine mammals. 

NMFS was a cooperating agency (as 

defined by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1501.6)) 

in the preparation of the Draft and Final 

EISs. NMFS reviewed the Final EIS and 

adopted it on May 4, 2007. NMFS 

issued a separate Record of Decision for 

issuance of authorizations pursuant to 

section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA for the 

construction and operation of the 

Northeast Gateway’s LNG Port Facility 

in Massachusetts Bay. A 2010 

environmental assessment/

environmental impact assessment 

conducted by TetraTech analyzed the 

increased water usage and other 

operational changes. We reviewed that 

document to determine whether there is 

a need for supplemental NEPA analysis 

based on any substantial changes 

between the current proposed action 

and the proposed action analyzed for 

the FEIS/EIR or any significant new 

circumstances or information relevant to 

environmental concerns and bearing on 

the proposed action or its impacts. 

Based on our review of that analysis, we 

have determined that supplementation 

was not required. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to Northeast 

Gateway for conducting LNG Port 

facility and Pipeline Lateral operations 

and maintenance and repair activities in 

Massachusetts Bay, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: December 23, 2014. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30539 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD644 

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Specified Activities; Vashon Seismic 

Retrofit Project 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments and information. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the Washington State Department 

of Transportation (WSDOT) Ferries 

Division (WSF) for an authorization to 

take small numbers of nine species of 

marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment, incidental to proposed 

construction activities for Vashon 

Seismic Retrofit Project in Vashon 

Island, Washington State. Pursuant to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an authorization 

to WDOT to incidentally take, by 

harassment, small numbers of marine 

mammals for a period of 1 year. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than January 30, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to Jolie 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES