33810 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Request National Oceanic and Atmospheric Background On September 7, 2018, NMFS Administration received a request from Vineyard Wind The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of for an IHA to take marine mammals [RTID 0648–XA881] marine mammals, with certain incidental to pile driving associated exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and with the construction of an offshore Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et wind energy project south of Specified Activities; Taking Marine seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce Massachusetts. Vineyard Wind Mammals Incidental to Construction of (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon submitted revised versions of the the Vineyard Wind Offshore Wind request, the incidental, but not application on October 11, 2018 and on Project intentional, taking of small numbers of January 28, 2019. The application was marine mammals by U.S. citizens who deemed adequate and complete on AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries engage in a specified activity (other than Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and February 15, 2019. A notice of proposed commercial fishing) within a specified IHA was published in the Federal Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), geographical region if certain findings Commerce. Register on April 30, 2019 (84 FR are made and either regulations are 18346). In response to Vineyard Wind’s ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental issued or, if the taking is limited to request and in consideration of public harassment authorization. harassment, a notice of a proposed comments, NMFS has authorized the incidental take authorization may be taking of 15 species of marine mammals SUMMARY: In accordance with the provided to the public for review. regulations implementing the Marine by harassment. Neither Vineyard Wind Authorization for incidental takings nor NMFS expects serious injury or Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as shall be granted if NMFS finds that the amended, notification is hereby given mortality to result from this activity taking will have a negligible impact on and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. that NMFS has issued an incidental the species or stock(s) and will not have harassment authorization (IHA) to an unmitigable adverse impact on the Description of Activity Vineyard Wind 1, LLC (Vineyard Wind) availability of the species or stock(s) for to take, by Level A harassment and Vineyard Wind proposes to construct taking for subsistence uses (where an 800 megawatt (mw) offshore wind Level B harassment, marine mammals relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe during construction of a commercial energy project in the northern portion of the permissible methods of taking and Lease Area OCS–A 0501, offshore wind energy project offshore other ‘‘means of effecting the least Massachusetts. Massachusetts (Figure 1). In its request practicable adverse impact’’ on the for an IHA, Vineyard Wind states that DATES: The IHA is valid from May 1, affected species or stocks and their the project would consist of up to 100 2023 through April 30, 2024. habitat, paying particular attention to offshore wind turbine generators FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of (WTGs) and one or more electrical Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected similar significance, and on the service platforms (ESPs), an onshore Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. availability of such species or stocks for substation, offshore and onshore Electronic copies of the application and taking for certain subsistence uses cabling, and onshore operations and supporting documents, as well as a list (referred to in shorthand as maintenance facilities. Take of marine of the references cited in this document, ‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements mammals may occur incidental to the may be obtained online at: pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring construction of the project due to in- www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ and reporting of such takings are set water noise exposure resulting from pile incidental-take-authorizations-under- forth. driving activities associated with marine-mammal-protection-act. In case The definitions of all applicable installation of WTG and ESP of problems accessing these documents, MMPA statutory terms cited above are foundations. please call the contact listed above. included in the relevant sections below. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33811

- -- -- :12------... ·.·••~esl'ltiicalloii ••. ~ WTG:t«a!roris

Figure 1. Location of the Vineyard Wind WDA within the northern portion of Lease Area OCS-A 0501

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C commence in May 2023. Up to 102 days cylinder fabricated from steel that is Vineyard Wind plans to install the of pile driving may occur between May secured in the seabed while the jacket WTGs and ESPs between May and 1 and November 30. Pile driving in design concept consists of three to four November in the northeast portion of December would only occur if steel piles, a large lattice jacket the 675 square kilometer (km2) (166,886 unforeseen circumstances arise such structure, and a transition piece. Piles acre) Lease Area, referred to as the Wind that construction is not complete by for monopile foundations would be Development Area (WDA) (See Figure 1 November and the Bureau of Ocean constructed for specific locations with in the IHA application). At its nearest Energy Management (BOEM) approves maximum diameters ranging from ∼8 m point, the WDA is just over 23 km (14 pile driving during December. No pile (26.2 ft) up to 10.3 m (33.8 ft) and an mi) from the southeast corner of driving activities would occur from expected median diameter of ∼9 m (29.5 Martha’s Vineyard and a similar January 1 through April 30 under any ft). The piles for the monopile distance from Nantucket. Water depths circumstances. foundations are up to 95 m (311.7 ft) in in the WDA range from approximately Two potential foundation types are length and will be driven to a 37–49.5 meters (m) (121–162 feet (ft)). proposed for the project: Monopiles and penetration depth of 20–45 m (65.6– Construction of the project is planned to jackets. A monopile is a single, hollow 147.6 ft) (mean penetration depth 30 m

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 EN25JN21.000 33812 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

(98.4 ft)). A schematic diagram showing Wind has proposed that up to 100 WTG WTGs and ESPs and their foundations, potential heights and dimensions of the foundations may be constructed and and the number of foundations that may various components of a monopile that, of those 100 foundations, no more be installed per day (a maximum of two foundation are shown in Figure 2 of the than 10 may be jackets. In addition, foundations would be installed per day). IHA application. Jacket foundations either one or two ESPs would be built The flexibility provided in the envelope each require the installation of three to on a jacket foundation (each foundation concept is important because it four jacket securing piles, known as is comprised of four piles). Therefore up precludes the need for numerous ∼ jacket pin piles, of 3 m (9.8 ft) to 108 piles may be installed in the authorization modifications as diameter. The 3 m (9.8 ft) diameter WDA. Vineyard Wind has incorporated infrastructure or construction jacket piles for the jacket foundations more than one design scenario in their techniques evolve after authorizations are up to ∼65 m (213.3 ft) in length and planning of the project. This approach, are granted but before construction would be driven to a penetration depth called the ‘‘design envelope’’ concept, commences. Under the maximum of 30–75 m (98.4–196.9 ft) (mean allows for flexibility on the part of the penetration depth of 45 m (147. ft)). A developer, in recognition of the fact that design scenario in Vineyard Wind’s IHA schematic diagram showing potential offshore wind technology and application, where 100 WTGs are heights and dimensions of the various installation techniques are constantly installed on monopiles, a total of as components of a jacket foundation are evolving and exact specifications of the many as 108 piles may be driven (i.e., shown in Figure 3 of the IHA project are not yet certain as of the 100 monopiles for WTG foundations application. publishing of this document. Variables and 8 pin piles for two ESPs). WTGs and ESPs may be placed on that are not yet certain include the Specifications for both foundation types either type of foundation. Vineyard number, size, and configuration of are shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1—FOUNDATION TYPES AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE VINEYARD WIND PROJECT

Maximum number that Foundation type Pile diameter Pile length Penetration depth may be installed *

Monopile ...... ∼8 to ∼10.3 m (26.2 to 33.8 ft) ∼60 m up to ∼95 m (196.9– 20–45 m (65.6–147.6 ft) ...... 100 311.7 ft). Jacket (4 piles each) ...... 3 m (9.8 ft) ...... ∼65 m (213.3 ft) ...... 30–75 m (98.4–196.9 ft) ...... 2 * The total number of foundations installed would not exceed 102.

For monopile installation, a typical Comments and Responses species that could occur during pile driving operation is expected to vibratory pile driving and (2) require A notice of proposed IHA was Vineyard Wind conduct and report take less than approximately three hours published in the Federal Register on to achieve the target penetration depth. April 30, 2019 (84 FR 18346). During sound source and sound propagation It is anticipated that a maximum of two the 30-day public comment period, measurements during vibratory pile monopiles could potentially be driven NMFS received comment letters from driving and adjust the Level A and B into the seabed per day. Concurrent the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s harassment zones, as needed. driving (i.e., the driving of more than Association (AOLA), the Marine Response: According to Vineyard one pile at the same time) would not Mammal Commission (Commission), Wind, vibratory driving is not planned occur. Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP and would only be used in A detailed description of Vineyard representing ACK Residents Against extraordinary circumstances in the Wind’s planned construction activities Turbines, and a group of environmental event that impact driving is not is provided in the notice of proposed non-governmental organizations sufficient to ensure pile stability. IHA (84 FR 18346; April 30, 2019). (ENGOs) including Conservation Law Vineyard Wind is using a pile gripper to Since that time, Vineyard Wind has not Foundation, National Wildlife hold the pile in place during impact proposed any changes to its Federation, Natural Resources Defense hammering. If that pile gripper fails construction activities through the IHA Council, Defenders of Wildlife, Humane (which is not anticipated), Vineyard process. Therefore, a detailed Society of the United States, Humane Wind would either stand-down and fix description is not provided here. Please Society Legislative Fund, Whale and the pile gripper or be forced to bring in refer to that notice for the detailed Dolphin Conservation, International a vibratory hammer to install the pile description of the specified activity. Fund for Animal Welfare, Mass deep enough so that it is stable before Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting Audubon, NY4WHALES, and Inland moving to an impact hammer to finish measures are described in detail later in Ocean Coalition. NMFS has posted the installing the pile. This is an extremely this document (please see Mitigation comments online at: unlikely scenario. As described in and Monitoring and Reporting below). www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ Vineyard Wind’s application, if it Modifications and additions to the marine-mammal-protection/incidental- becomes necessary to use a vibratory mitigation and monitoring measures take-authorizations-other-energy- hammer, the average driving time to get have occurred since the proposed IHA. activities-renewable. Please see those the pile stabilized is anticipated to be 10 All changes since the proposed IHA letters for full detail regarding the minutes (with a rare case of up to 30 have been summarized in the Changes commenters’ recommendations and minutes). Because use of a vibratory From Proposed IHA to Final IHA underlying rationale. hammer would be extremely costly, this section and described in detail in their Comment 1: The Commission option would be utilized only if respective sections and/or the Comment recommended that NMFS (1) authorize absolutely necessary and for the Responses below. takes of the various marine mammal minimum amount of time possible (as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33813

necessary to repair the pile gripper). For simplifies application of the zone with threshold, an animal documented those limited number of piles partially such assumption in that they consider if within that zone does not necessarily installed with a vibratory hammer, less an animal enters the Level A harassment mean that animal was taken by Level A strikes of the impact hammer would be zone, it would incur PTS upon entering, harassment when observed within that required to fully install the pile. similar to how we consider the potential zone. In contrast, the takes by Level B Because of stability issues, use of a for Level B harassment to occur. This in harassment are based on an vibratory hammer and impact hammer fact is not the case, as the distance to the instantaneous step function wherein the would occur on the same day. PTS isopleth represents the distance at animal could experience Level B As vibratory driving is not considered which the animal would have to remain harassment as soon as it is exposed to likely to occur and, if it did occur, less during installation of all four piles. sound levels above the 160 dB re 1 impact driving would be necessary, we NMFS recognizes calculating a zone microPascal (mPa) root mean square have determined that additional based on work occurring over 24 hours (rms) threshold. Therefore, directly modelling specifically to generate an is highly conservative; however, the comparing zone sizes is not an estimate of take for this unlikely, brief zone does not represent the area in appropriate approach. Moreover, activity is not warranted. If this which PTS would occur simply if an suggesting the amount of take allocated vibratory driving were to occur, and if animal enters the zone, as interpreted by to Level A harassment and Level B any small number of marine mammals the Commission. Further, Vineyard harassment should be proportional to not already disturbed by the impact Wind conducted modeling using zone sizes is not reflective of what the driving in the same day were taken, the sophisticated sound propagation and zones represent and therefore would be existing conservative amount of take animat modeling. The Commission a misrepresentation of potential effects authorized is adequate to account for identified in its letter that it supports on marine mammals. In addition, as any take that may occur during the 24-hour approach if an action noted in the proposed IHA and as vibratory pile driving. Likewise, we proponent is able to conduct more described below, the authorized number have determined that a requirement for sophisticated sound propagation and of takes by Level A harassment are vibratory driving sound source animat modeling. Therefore, the already considered conservative, as verification is not warranted given that Commission is contradictory in its there were 0 takes by Level A it is unlikely that this activity will occur comment specific to this action. NMFS harassment modeled for the majority of and, if it did, would occur only has determined the modeling results species (including with the SELcum temporarily on a limited number of represent likely zones by which we metric) and, in some cases, we increased piles for a limited duration identify the potential for PTS and the authorized number of takes by Level (approximately 10 minutes per pile). We behavioral harassment to occur; A harassment from 0 to mean group size anticipate that if Vineyard Wind however, NMFS appropriately considers based on a conservative assumption that determines that the unexpected use of a the temporal component associated with a group of each species may be taken vibratory hammer is necessary, they will the Level A harassment zone when despite the modeling results. Further, consult with NMFS upon making that considering the potential for PTS to take estimate modeling does not account decision. occur. for mitigation and monitoring measures Comment 2: The Commission Comment 3: The Commission included in the IHA. Thus, we reject the recommended that NMFS consult with recommended that NMFS reassess the Commission’s recommendation as the external scientists and acousticians to numbers of Level A harassment takes for authorized numbers of takes by Level A determine the appropriate accumulation low-frequency cetaceans and revise harassment are sufficient and do not time that action proponents should use authorized take numbers such that the warrant revision. to determine the extent of the Level A Level A harassment takes account for 77 Comment 4: The Commission harassment zones based on the percent of total takes for installation of recommends that NMFS reassess the associated [cumulative sound exposure monopiles and 100 percent of the total numbers of Level B harassment takes for level] SELcum thresholds for the takes for jacket piles. all species and authorize an appropriate various types of sound sources, Response: The Commission suggests number of takes relative to the extent of including stationary sound sources and that the ratio of authorized takes by the Level B harassment zones, each that NMFS make the issue a priority. Level A harassment to takes by Level B species’ occurrence in the area, and the Response: NMFS concurs with this harassment for low-frequency cetaceans 102 days that activities are proposed to recommendation and has prioritized the should exactly match the ratio of the occur. issue. As identified in the Commission’s Level A harassment to Level B Response: The current numbers of letter, NMFS has formed an internal harassment zone sizes. However, as takes by Level B harassment authorized committee to identify a more noted in the Commission’s comment, are considered conservative for several sophisticated approach for determining takes by Level A harassment and takes reasons: Takes were modeled separately the extent of Level A harassment zones by Level B harassment are modeled for each species through exposure and is developing a proposal upon differently, with the Level A harassment modeling which was run for four which additional internal and external zones calculated with dual metrics (i.e., separate construction scenarios and the review will be sought. Specific to this SELcum and peak sound pressure level largest resulting exposure number from IHA, the Commission takes issue that (SPL)). The Level A harassment zone the four scenarios was carried forward. the Level A harassment isopleth for cited by the Commission in their Thus the number that was carried jacket foundation installation (based on comment (i.e., 3,191 m for impact forward was from the ‘‘maximum case the installation of 4 piles in a 24-hour driving for low-frequency cetaceans) is scenario’’ in terms of possible period) is greater than the Level B calculated with the SELcum metric and construction scenarios. All of the harassment isopleth and based on the thereby incorporates a time component. construction scenarios used in the extent of those zones, it is assumed that As described in our response to modeling assumed 102 foundations an animal would experience permanent comment 2 above, while this zone based would be installed when ultimately threshold shift (PTS) before responding on the SELcum metric is used as a fewer foundations, resulting in fewer behaviorally and leaving or avoiding the conservative tool for modeling potential pile driving days, may be installed. For area. However, the Commission exposures above the Level A harassment comparison, takes by Level B

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33814 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

harassment were also calculated for only a small fraction of the number of Wind to conduct sound source each species using Vineyard Wind’s marine mammals authorized for Level B measurements at least monthly to observer data from site characterization harassment take (Bay State Wind, 2019). ensure that the sound attenuation surveys. Vineyard Wind reviewed For the reasons stated above, we find device continues to provide at least a 6- monitoring data recorded during site the authorized amount of take to dB reduction in sound levels, we do not characterization surveys in the WDA Vineyard Wind, by Level B harassment, agree this is warranted. Vineyard Wind from 2016–2018 and calculated a daily is sufficient considering the scope of the is required to conduct acoustic sighting rate (individuals per day) for project. monitoring upon commencement of each species in each year, then Comment 5: The Commission installing each foundation type and multiplied the maximum sighting rate recommended that NMFS require demonstrate that the piles monitored are from the three years by the number of Vineyard Wind to (1) submit the results done so under conditions that are pile driving days under the Maximum of the sound source measurements taken reflective of conditions for other piles Design scenario (i.e., 102 days). This during installation of the first monopile installed across the WDA (e.g., similar method assumes that the largest average for which sound attenuation devices are substrate, hammer energy, etc.). If group size for each species observed used and adjust the Level A and B Vineyard Wind finds noise levels during the three years of surveys may be harassment zones accordingly prior to associated with the project are higher present during piling on each day. proceeding with installation of any than modeled (assuming 6 dB Then, the larger of the two take numbers additional monopiles and (2) conduct attenuation), mitigative action is calculated for each species (i.e., through sound source measurements at least required and acoustic monitoring must exposure modeling or calculated based monthly to ensure that the sound continue. If noise levels are less than on Vineyard Wind’s monitoring data) attenuation device continues to provide those predicted, Vineyard Wind must was then carried forward as the at least a 6-dB reduction in sound conduct monitoring on at least 3 authorized take number. For these levels. monopiles and again demonstrate the reasons, the authorized take numbers by Response: The IHA includes extensive pile monitored are installed under Level B harassment are sufficient, and acoustic monitoring requirements. The conditions representative of future piles we have determined that no revision to IHA requires that sound field to ensure any variability is captured. authorized numbers of takes by Level B measurements must be conducted These measures are sufficient to ensure harassment are warranted (aside from during pile driving of the first monopile the sound field produced during pile the minor revisions described in the and first jacket foundation installed over driving is well understood throughout Estimated Take section below). the course of the project and that construction. Vineyard Wind must provide the initial Comment 6: The Commission With respect to comparing the results of the field measurements to recommended that NMFS require authorized amount of take here with NMFS as soon as they are available. In Vineyard Wind to conduct passive HRG surveys, we find the Commission the event that subsequently driven piles acoustic monitoring (PAM) at all times inappropriately compared the amount of are installed that have a larger diameter, during which pile-driving activities take associated with HRG surveys to or, are installed with a larger hammer or occur and implement shutdowns when pile driving activities. The Commission greater hammer energy than the first NARWs are detected within Level A made this recommendation based on the monopile and jacket pile, sound field harassment zones. number of days without considering the measurements must be conducted for Response: Vineyard Wind is required daily amount of hours during which the those subsequent piles. If initial to conduct passive acoustic monitoring activities occur. For example, 40 days of acoustic field measurements indicate before, during and after all pile driving HRG surveys occur over a 24-hour distances to the isopleths corresponding events. Pile driving must be delayed period daily while pile driving to Level A and/or Level B harassment upon a confirmed PAM detection of a associated with the Vineyard Wind thresholds are greater than the distances NARW, if the detection is confirmed to project is limited to the installation of predicted by modeling (as presented in have been located within the relevant one to two piles per day (approximately the IHA application), Vineyard Wind PAM clearance zones (Table 16a). 3 hours of pile driving per pile which must implement additional sound Vineyard Wind is also required, in is significantly less than 24 hours). attenuation measures prior to consideration of safety and pile While the number of hours of work per conducting additional pile driving. integrity, that pile driving for both day is not part of the take calculation, Additionally, in the event that field monopile and jacket foundation piles be it does play a role in making a direct measurements indicate distances the shut down should a NARW be observed comparison between take allocated for isopleths corresponding to Level A within 3.2 kms of the pile being driven; the two activities (i.e., site harassment and Level B harassment this distance represents the Level A characterization versus pile driving). thresholds are greater than the distances harassment zone for monopiles (Table Moreover, many delphinid species (e.g., predicted by modeling, Vineyard Wind 16b). Because the Level A harassment bottlenose dolphins) are attracted to must implement additional attenuation zone for a jacket foundation represents HRG vessels, resulting in unavoidable devices such that modeled harassment the energy needed to incur PTS from the take during the surveys. Impact pile threshold distances (or smaller) based installation of four piles, implementing driving; however, is not an activity on a 6 dB reduction are realized in the a shutdown zone based on this amount expected to attract marine mammals. To field. If an additional device(s) still does of work over the amount of time it takes compare the amount of take authorized not achieve the model results and to install four piles is unreasonable and from the proposed project to HRG Vineyard Wind has no other means to not appropriate. surveys is inappropriate. Finally, while reduce noise levels (e.g., reduced Comment 7: The Commission the Commission identifies the amount hammer energy), Vineyard Wind must recommended that NMFS require of take authorized to Bay State Wind for expand the harassment zones to reflect Vineyard Wind to cease activities if any HRG surveys for some species (e.g., field measurements, in consultation marine mammal comes within 10 m of bottlenose dolphins), the subsequent with NMFS. the equipment, particularly during pile monitoring report required under Bay Regarding the Commission’s placement; implement delay and State Wind’s IHA showed detections of recommendation to require Vineyard shutdown procedures, if a species for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33815

which authorization has not been Commission does not provide information available at the time of the granted or if a species for which recommendations for methods of request (2023 or 2024) and whether the authorization has been granted but the generating such estimates in a manner Renewal criteria could be met. NMFS authorized takes are met, approaches or that would lead to credible results. did not include language in the final is observed within the Level A and/or NMFS does believe that Vineyard IHA related to Renewal. While this does B harassment zone; and extrapolate the Wind should report visibility and has not necessarily preclude a Renewal, we total number of marine mammals taken included this requirement in the final think a Renewal is unlikely in this case, based on the distance to which visual authorization. NMFS is also requiring given the potential for changes over the observations can be made accurately Vineyard Wind to report several details next three years that could affect our and the extents of the Level A and B related to all observations of marine analyses. harassment zones. mammals, including if observed animals The Commission expressed concern Response: Regarding the occurred within the Level B harassment that a renewal for complex projects recommendation that NMFS require zone during pile driving. These pieces would hinder the ability for the public Vineyard Wind to cease activities if any of information—numbers of individuals to comment within the 15-day public marine mammal comes within 10 m of of each species detected within the comment period if a renewal is sought the equipment, we agree and have harassment zones and the estimated by the initial IHA Holder. NMFS implemented this requirement in the visibility—may be used to glean an maintains that the public has at least 30 IHA. The Commission provided a approximate understanding of whether days to comment on all proposed IHAs, footnote (14) that this distance should Vineyard Wind may have exceeded the with a cumulative total of 45 days for be increased due to the size of Vineyard amount of take authorized. Although the IHA Renewals. The Request for Public Wind piles; however, given the large Commission does not explain its Comments section in the proposed IHA clearance and shutdown zones in reasoning for offering these made clear that the agency was seeking addition to the large bubble curtain recommendations, NMFS recognizes the comment on both the initial proposed encompassing the piles at distances basic need to understand whether an IHA and the potential issuance of a greater than 10 m, we do not believe this IHA-holder may have exceeded its Renewal for this project. Because any recommendation is warranted simply authorized take. The need to accomplish Renewal (as explained in the Request because the piles are large. Regarding this basic function of reporting does not for Public Comments section) is limited the recommendation that NMFS require necessitate that NMFS require to another year of identical or nearly Vineyard Wind to delay or shutdown applicants to use methods we do not pile driving if a species for which have confidence in to generate estimates identical activities in the same location authorization has not been granted or if of ‘‘total take’’ that cannot be considered (as described in the Description of a species for which authorization has reliable. To do so would require a Proposed Activity section) or the same been granted but the authorized takes number of assumptions resulting in a activities that were not completed are met, approaches or is observed high degree of uncertainty regarding within the one-year period of the initial within the Level A harassment and/or B take and there would be very limited IHA, reviewers have the information harassment zones, we have included a circumstances in which one could needed to effectively comment on both measure that Vineyard Wind must assume take occurred. the immediate proposed IHA and a shutdown pile driving (as technically Comment 8: The Commission possible one-year Renewal, should the feasible) if such circumstances arise. recommended that NMFS refrain from IHA Holder choose to request one. Regarding the recommendation that using the proposed renewal process for While additional documents would be NMFS require Vineyard Wind to Vineyard Wind’s authorization and that required should any such Renewal extrapolate the total number of marine NMFS provide the Commission and request be submitted, these would be mammals taken based on the distance to other reviewers the full 30-day comment limited to documentation that NMFS which visual observations can be made opportunity. would make available and use to verify accurately and the extents of the Level NMFS Response: Regarding renewals, that the activities are identical to those A and B harassment zones, we do not NMFS issued a one-year IHA with the in the initial IHA, are nearly identical concur with the Commission’s understanding that Vineyard Wind can such that the changes would have either recommendation and do not adopt it as complete the planned work for which no effect on impacts to marine mammals stated. the IHA authorizes take within the one- or decrease those impacts, or are a The Commission does not explain year period. As necessary, NMFS makes subset of activities already analyzed and why it believes Vineyard Wind should the decision of whether or not to issue authorized but not completed under the be required to extrapolate the total a Renewal after one is requested based initial IHA. NMFS would also confirm, number of marine mammals taken other on current information, the best among other things, that the activities than it is ‘‘standard’’ which it is not. available science, and the renewal will occur in the same location; involve While NMFS previously included a criteria described in the notice of the the same species and stocks; provide for requirement to report estimated takes proposed IHA (84 FR 18346; April 30, continuation of the same mitigation, based on an undefined extrapolation 2019). NMFS may issue a one-time, one- monitoring, and reporting requirements; method in some inshore, estuarine year Renewal IHA if, upon review of the and that no new information has been construction project IHAs, we realized request for Renewal, the status of the received that would alter the prior the assumptions and uncertainty affected species or stocks, and any other analysis. The Renewal request would surrounding this requirement preclude pertinent information, NMFS also need to contain a preliminary any meaningful analysis. Further, in determines that there are no more than monitoring report, specifically to verify those IHAs, NMFS did not consider minor changes in the activities, the that effects from the activities do not those estimated takes to count against mitigation and monitoring measures indicate impacts of a scale or nature not the total take authorized given the high will remain the same and appropriate, previously analyzed. The additional 15- degree of uncertainty surrounding the and the findings in the initial IHA day public comment period provides simplistic approach of estimating take remain valid. If and when Vineyard the public an opportunity to review based on the visible area compared to Wind were to request a Renewal, NMFS these few documents, provide any the estimated harassment area. The would fully consider the best available additional pertinent information and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33816 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

comment on whether they think the operational phase of their project. National Environmental Policy Act criteria for a Renewal have been met. Further, the IHA is valid for one-year, section below. Between the initial 30-day comment during which time operations would not Comment 10: ACK Residents Against period on these same activities and the occur. The MMPA is specific in that Turbines stated that NMFS’ analysis additional 15 days, the total comment upon request, NMFS shall authorize, for does not assess cumulative impacts on period for a Renewal is 45 days. periods of not more than one year, the marine mammals, when considered in In addition to the IHA Renewal incidental taking of marine mammals conjunction with other threats to marine process being consistent with all while engaging in a specified activity (in mammals, including those posed by the requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D), this case construction of the project) other proposed wind farms adjacent to it is also consistent with Congress’ provided NMFS makes the necessary the Vineyard Wind leasehold. intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent findings. NMFS has made the necessary Response: Neither the MMPA nor reflected in statements in the legislative findings (see Negligible Impact Analysis NMFS’ codified implementing history of the MMPA. Through the and Determination section) and regulations specifically call for provision for Renewals in the therefore, in accordance with the consideration of other unrelated regulations, description of the process MMPA, and upon request by Vineyard activities and their impacts on marine and express invitation to comment on Wind, NMFS has issued a 1-year IHA mammal populations. The preamble for specific potential Renewals in the for the take of marine mammals NMFS’ implementing regulations (54 FR Request for Public Comments section of incidental to construction of the 40338; September 29, 1989) states in each proposed IHA, the description of Vineyard Wind Project. response to comments that the impacts the process on NMFS’ website, further In addition to our analysis under the from other past and ongoing elaboration on the process through MMPA related to the specified activity anthropogenic activities are to be incorporated into the negligible impact responses to comments such as these, (i.e., construction of the project), NMFS analysis via their impacts on the posting of substantive documents on the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries baseline. Consistent with that direction, agency’s website, and provision of 30 or Office (GARFO) issued a Biological NMFS has factored into its negligible 45 days for public review and comment Opinion on September 11, 2020 that impact analysis the impacts of other on all proposed initial IHAs and fully evaluated the effects of the past and ongoing anthropogenic Renewals respectively, NMFS has construction, operation, maintenance, activities via their impacts on the ensured that the public is ‘‘invited and and decommissioning of the Vineyard baseline, e.g., as reflected in the density/ encouraged to participate fully in the Wind Project on ESA-listed species, agency decision-making process.’’ distribution and status of the species, including marine mammals. The Lastly, in prior responses to population size and growth rate, and Biological Opinion includes an comments about IHA Renewals (e.g., 84 other relevant stressors. Section FR 52464; October 02, 2019 and 85 FR assessment of the potential effects from 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires 53342, August 28, 2020), NMFS has WTG operations and concluded that NMFS to modify, suspend, or revoke the explained how the Renewal process, as noise from turbines operations is IHA if it finds that the activity is having implemented, is consistent with the expected to be at or below ambient more than a negligible impact on the statutory requirements contained in levels at relatively short distances from affected species or stocks of marine section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, the foundations and that if ESA-listed mammals. NMFS will closely monitor provides additional efficiencies beyond marine mammals are exposed to baseline conditions before and during the use of abbreviated notices, and, operational noise, the effects on ESA- the period when the IHA is effective and further, promotes NMFS’ goals of listed whales are considered will exercise this authority if improving conservation of marine insignificant (i.e., so minor that the appropriate. mammals and increasing efficiency in effect cannot be meaningfully evaluated Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA the MMPA compliance process. or detected). Supporting activities such requires NMFS to make a determination Comment 9: ACK Residents Against as vessel and aircraft operation would that the take incidental to a ‘‘specified Turbines (represented by Gatzke Dillon also occur during operation. The 2020 activity,’’ as opposed to other activities & Ballance LLP) stated that NMFS’ Biological Opinion concluded that ESA- not specified in the request, will have a analysis focused solely on construction- listed marine mammals are either not negligible impact on the affected species related impacts on marine mammals likely to respond to vessel noise or are or stocks of marine mammals. NMFS’ (e.g., noise effects from pile-driving) and not likely to measurably respond in implementing regulations require failed to evaluate the extent to which ways that would significantly disrupt applicants to include in their request a the operation of the project could affect normal behavior patterns that include, detailed description of the specified marine mammals. but are not limited to, breeding, feeding activity or class of activities that can be Response: Vineyard Wind’s request or sheltering. Therefore, the effects of expected to result in incidental taking of for authorization to take marine vessel noise on ESA-listed marine marine mammals. 50 CFR 216.104(a)(1). mammals was specific to one-year mammals were also deemed to be Thus, the ‘‘specified activity’’ for which during construction of the project. The insignificant. A similar finding was incidental take coverage is being sought activities considered under this request made for exposure to aircraft noise. under section 101(a)(5)(D) is generally are those associated with pile driving, In addition, NMFS is a cooperating defined and described by the applicant. which includes the use of vessels agency on BOEM’s EIS for the project Here, Vineyard Wind was the applicant necessary to support pile installation. and a co-signatory to the associated for the IHA, and we are responding to As required under 101(a)(5)(D) of the Record of Decision (ROD), issued on the specified activity as described in MMPA, NMFS assessed the impacts of May 10, 2021. Under the National their application (and making the the construction in supporting the Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), necessary findings on that basis). issuance of an incidental take BOEM, in coordination with NMFS, Through the response to public authorization for the construction evaluated the direct, indirect, and comments in the 1989 implementing phase. Vineyard Wind has not cumulative effects of the proposed regulations, we also indicated (1) that submitted a request for authorization to action which include construction, NMFS would consider cumulative take marine mammals incidental to the operation and decommissioning. See effects that are reasonably foreseeable

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33817

when preparing a NEPA analysis, and marine mammal), the IHA could be mitigation measures are ‘‘inadequate (2) that reasonably foreseeable modified, suspended, or revoked. and unenforceable’’ and that the cumulative effects would also be Vineyard Wind is planning on proposed seasonal moratorium on pile considered through the section 7 running a limited number of crew driving (i.e., from January through consultation for ESA-listed species. In transfer vessels during construction and April) is ‘‘far too short.’’ this case, cumulative impacts have been proposed a very conservative suite of Response: The mitigation measures adequately addressed under NEPA in mitigation measures related to vessel included in the final IHA, including BOEM’s Environmental Impact strike avoidance, including measures seasonal closures, are adequate and Statement regarding Vineyard Wind’s specifically designed to avoid impacts appropriate for the protection of proposed project. NMFS is a to right whales. Section 4(l) in the IHA NARWs and are enforceable. Despite the cooperating agency under NEPA on that contains a suite of non-discretionary commenters’ suggestion, NMFS does not EIS and has adopted the Final requirements pertaining to ship strike intend to rely on the wind energy Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) avoidance, including vessel operational industry to police itself. If Vineyard for purposes of issuing the IHA to protocols and monitoring. Construction Wind fails to implement any mitigation Vineyard Wind. In addition, NMFS was of the project will be based out of New measure in the IHA and an a signatory to the associated Record of Bedford, Massachusetts, which is a 50 to unauthorized take occurs, Vineyard Decision issued on May 10, 2021. 60-mile (80 to 97 kilometers (km)) trip Wind will be in violation of the MMPA. Separately, NMFS engaged in intra- by vessel to the WDA. Vineyard Wind NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement is agency consultation under section 7 of has indicated that during construction, responsible for investigating all the ESA, which determined that NMFS’ the number of crew transfer vessels will violations of the MMPA, including any action of issuing the IHA is not likely to be limited to two and that each of those unauthorized takes that may occur adversely affect listed marine mammals vessels will make only one round trip during this project. or their critical habitat. The resulting per day (for a total of two round trips). In concluding the proposed seasonal Biological Opinion considered activities To date, NMFS is not aware of a wind pile driving moratorium of January industry vessel (e.g., marine site through April is ‘‘far too short’’ the both within and outside the scope of characterization survey vessel or wind commenters incorrectly state that NMFS’ IHA (e.g., operation and energy vessels used in European wind NARW densities are higher in May, decommissioning) and included Terms project construction and operation) June, and December than in January. and Conditions aimed at reducing the reporting a ship strike. When However, as shown in Table 9, NARW potential impacts of the project on considered in the context of the low densities during the months of the marine mammals, including NARWs. overall probability of any vessel strike seasonal closure identified in the IHA Comment 11: ACK Residents Against given the limited additional vessel (January: 0.510 per 100 km2; February: Turbines stated that the analysis of traffic, the comprehensive visual and 0.646 per 100 km2; March: 0.666 per 100 impacts to marine mammals from vessel PAM monitoring required in transit km2; April: 0.599 per 100 km2) are strikes is inadequate and is based on an lanes, and that construction would higher than in May (0.204 per 100 km2), assumption that mitigation to prevent occur during the time of year when June (0.016 per 100 km2) and December vessel strikes will be 100 percent NARW density is lowest, NMFS (0.274 per 100 km2)) and, in fact, are by effective. believes these measures are adequately far the highest in those four months Response: Vineyard Wind did not protective to avoid ship strike; thus, we compared to any other months of the request authorization for takes from did not authorize take from ship strike. year (December has the next highest vessel strikes and NMFS has not These measures are described fully in density at 0.274 per 100 km2). In authorized any. NMFS analyzed the the Mitigation section below, and addition, Vineyard Wind has agreed to potential for vessel strikes to occur include, but are not limited to training not pile drive in December unless during construction and determined for all vessel observers and captains, extraordinary circumstances arise that vessel strike is unlikely to occur daily monitoring of the NARW Sighting necessitating pile driving in December, (not that there is no collision threat at Advisory System, WhaleAlert app, and and this is notified to and approved by all, as suggested by AKC), based on a USCG Channel 16 for whale presence BOEM. This measure is included in the combination of the low probability of a awareness, communications protocols if IHA. Thus, the seasonal moratorium in ship strike generally, and the extensive whales are observed by any Vineyard the IHA minimizes the exposure of right mitigation and monitoring included. Wind personnel, vessel speed whales to pile driving noise while The IHA also includes a provision that restrictions at certain times of year or if allowing the project to move forward NMFS may modify, suspend or revoke certain monitoring requirements are not (i.e., is practicable). In addition to the the IHA if the holder fails to abide by met, vessel operational protocols should seasonal moratorium, enhanced the conditions prescribed herein any marine mammal be observed, and mitigation measures for right whales (including, but not limited to, failure to visual and passive acoustic monitoring (which are fully described in the comply with monitoring or reporting to clear transit routes and WDA of Mitigation section below) include, but requirements), or if NMFS determines: NARWs. are not limited to, the following for (1) The authorized taking is likely to We have determined the mitigation times of year when pile driving may have or is having more than a negligible measures in the IHA provide the means occur: impact on the species or stocks of of effecting the least practicable adverse • Pile driving must be delayed upon affected marine mammals or (2) the impact on marine mammal species or visual observation of a NARW by prescribed measures are likely not or are stocks and their habitat, paying protected species observers (PSOs) on not effecting the least practicable particular attention to rookeries, mating the pile driving vessel at any distance adverse impact on the affected species grounds, and areas of similar from the pile; or stocks and their habitat. We find that significance, and on the availability of • Pile driving must be delayed upon the prescribed measures are effecting such species or stock for subsistence a confirmed PAM detection of a NARW, the least practicable adverse impact on uses. if the detection is confirmed to have marine mammals; however, should an Comment 12: ACK Residents Against been located within the relevant PAM unanticipated ship strike occur (to any Turbines stated that the proposed clearance zone;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33818 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

• From May 1 through May 14 and Response: We have relied on the best make conservative management November 1 through December 31 an available scientific evidence in our decisions in consideration of our extended clearance zone of 10 km is analysis of potential impacts of the statutory authority under the MMPA. established for NARWs, monitored project on marine mammals and the Despite the changes in density and using real-time PAM, and an aerial or development of take estimates, population numbers noted above, when vessel-based survey must also be including recent survey data. For the proposed IHA was issued, the status conducted that covers the 10 km example, where survey data indicated of NARWs was critically endangered extended clearance zone; take estimates may be higher than those and this remains true today. We have • From May 1 through May 14 and modeled, we adjusted to represent the applied the best available (and most November 1 through December 31, if a higher potential for take. We note that recent) science and have made the NARW is confirmed via visual after the proposed IHA was published, determinations necessary to issue the observation or PAM within the 10 km updated NARW density data (Roberts et IHA. extended clearance zone, pile driving al., 2020) became available that Comment 15: AOLA commented that must be delayed or shut down until the incorporated more recent survey data it was concerned that the real-time PAM following day; and (through 2018) and that for the first time system has not yet been developed and • Pile driving must shut down, if included data from the 2011–2015 will only be ‘‘used to inform visual feasible, if a marine mammal enters a surveys of the Massachusetts and Rhode monitoring during construction; no designated shut down zone. Island (M/RI) Wind Energy Areas (WEA) mitigation actions would be required on The commenters do not provide any (Kraus et al. 2016) as well as the 2017– PAM detection alone’’ and asked recommendations regarding additional 2018 continuation of those surveys, whether the IHA would be contingent or different mitigation measures, or known as the Marine Mammal Surveys on vetting the design and operation of specifically explain why they believe of the Wind Energy Areas (MMS–WEA) the currently hypothetical system by the measures are unenforceable. NMFS (Quintana et al., 2018). As this data experts in the field. Response: As described in the has determined the mitigation measures represented new information that was Mitigation section, the real-time PAM in the IHA provide the means of deemed the best available information system will not only be used to inform effecting the least practicable adverse on NARW density in the project area, visual monitoring, but will also trigger impact on marine mammal species or we based the exposure modeling for required mitigation actions under stocks and their habitat, paying right whales in the final IHA on this new density data, for all possible certain circumstances. For instance, as particular attention to rookeries, mating described above and as described more grounds, and areas of similar construction scenarios, to confirm whether the incorporation of the new fully under the Mitigation section significance, and on the availability of below, from May 1 through May 14, an density data would result in a change to such species or stock for subsistence extended clearance zone of 10 km must modeled exposure numbers. This is uses (see Mitigation section below). be established for NARWs using real- described in more detail in the Comment 13: AOLA commented that time PAM, and any detection of a Estimated Take section below. In the IHA should consider the entire life NARW via real-time PAM within that 10 addition, Pace et al. (2021) describes cycle of the wind turbine generators km clearance zone would trigger that the stock abundance of NARW is (WTGs) and all potential sources of take immediate delay or shutdown of pile lower than that considered when the (i.e., acoustics, vessel strike, habitat driving. Regarding the request that the proposed IHA was published and we changes, etc.) applicable to those design of the real-time PAM system be have evaluated that new information. In phases. vetted by experts in the field, while the Response: As described above developing the final IHA, NMFS also commenters do not provide any specific (Comment 9), we analyzed the potential consulted the NARW sighting database, recommendations regarding who should for the take of marine mammals to occur WhaleMap, which aggregates both be consulted on the design and during pile driving activities associated visual and acoustic sighting information operation, we note that the IHA requires with the construction phase of the from 2010 to present day. Contributors that a Passive Acoustic Monitoring Plan, project, as identified in Vineyard to the database include the Department which must describe all proposed PAM Wind’s application. We have therefore of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, equipment, procedures, and protocols authorized the requested take as a result Transport Canada, NOAA’s Protected including those related to real-time of the construction phase of the project, Species Branch, Woods Hole PAM, must be submitted to NMFS for specifically pile driving activities. Oceanographic Institution/ review and approval at least 90 days However, we note that the potential robots4whales, New England Aquarium, prior to the planned start of pile driving. impacts of other phases of the project Center for Coastal Studies, Candadian Comment 16: AOLA recommended are fully analyzed in BOEM’ Final EIS, Whale Institute, Mingan Island Cetacean NOAA or BOEM create a third-party which NMFS has adopted to satisfy our Study, Ocean Tracking Network, certification program for PSOs, similar obligations under NEPA (see National Dalhouise University, University of New to the system used for fishery observers, Environmental Policy Act section, Brunswick, and Nike Hawkins which sets universal standards for all above) as well as NMFS 2020 Biological Photography, making it an extensive wind projects and requires reporting Opinion associated with this action for database and useful tool in identifying after each construction activity/trip. ESA-listed species. Vineyard Wind has spatial and temporal occurrence of Response: At this time, NMFS is not the opportunity to submit an IHA whales as well as locations and timing creating a third-party certification application for operation or of management actions such as program for PSOs. Each IHA requires all decommissioning activities, if implementation of Dynamic PSOs must be approved by NMFS, and appropriate. Management Areas (DMAs). that Vineyard Wind must submit PSO Comment 14: AOLA requested that NMFS invests heavily in conserving resumes to NMFS for approval at least NMFS consider recent survey data and NARWs and, in analyzing the impacts to 60 days prior to commencing pile any pre-construction data being NARWs from project construction, has driving activity. A full list of collected in the analysis of risk to considered and leveraged the wealth of qualifications required of PSOs is marine mammals. data collected by NOAA and partners to included in Vineyard Wind’s IHA. For

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33819

example, PSO must have a degree in summary of any mitigation-related Vineyard Wind’s IHA. NMFS executes, biological sciences and experience and/ actions (e.g., delay, shutdown, etc.) funds, and coordinates several marine or training working as a PSO. The lead called for by PSOs but not implemented, mammal studies throughout the PSO must have experience as a PSO in and the reason why the mitigation- Northeast to improve our understanding an offshore environment. All PSO related action was not implemented. of marine mammals distribution and qualification requirements can be found Regarding the recommendation that habitat use. The primary entity charged in the Monitoring and Reporting section further mitigation should be with doing so is the Northeast Fisheries and the issued IHA. BOEM and NMFS immediately required if NMFS finds Science Center; however, NMFS Office are also working on developing continued pile driving to cause of Protected Resources and GARFO also consistent data reporting requirements unauthorized risk to marine mammals, contribute to studies on marine for the offshore wind industry. we note that the IHA explicitly mammals. These are continuing ongoing Comment 17: AOLA recommended identifies that the taking by serious efforts. For example, through the that all pile driving activity should injury or death of any of the species for Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for cease when a NARW is observed within which take is authorized or any taking Protected Species (AMAPPS), the 5 miles (8 km) of a pile being driven, of any other species of marine mammal NEFSC is developing models and tools and that all shutdowns called for by a is prohibited and may result in the to provide seasonal abundance PSO should be reported to NOAA daily modification, suspension, or revocation estimates that incorporate with detailed explanation when of the IHA. If an individual from a environmental habitat characteristics for shutdowns were not deemed feasible. species for which authorization has not marine mammals and other protected AOLA also recommended that further been granted, or a species for which species in the western North Atlantic mitigation should be immediately authorization has been granted but the Ocean, including Rhode Island and required if NMFS finds continued pile authorized take number has been met, is Massachusetts. driving to cause unauthorized risk to observed entering or within the Level B With respect to funding analyses of marine mammals. harassment zone, Vineyard Wind is recently collected sighting and acoustic Response: The commenters’ required to delay or shutdown pile data for all data-holders, the ENGOS did recommendation for a 5 mile (8 km) driving activities (when technically not identify which data holders or shutdown zone is not supported or feasible) to avoid unauthorized take. which data they are referring to. warranted. First, we have already Further, the IHA may be modified, Because data on marine mammals in the included a requirement in the IHA that suspended, or withdrawn if Vineyard pile driving be delayed upon a visual Wind fails to abide by the conditions project area are collected in different detection of a NARW by PSOs on the prescribed in the IHA, or, if NMFS ways (e.g., from PSOs, systematic aerial pile driving platform at any distance determines that the authorized taking is surveys, anecdotal sightings, stranding from the pile, at any time of year. In having more than a negligible impact on reports); it is not possible to integrate all addition, as noted above and as the species or stock of affected marine the data on marine mammals. Therefore, described fully in the Mitigation section mammals. it is unclear what type of analyses the below, the IHA also requires a 10 km Comment 18: AOLA recommended ENGOs are referring to. However, NMFS clearance zone (larger than the zone that the IHA require a mandatory 10 is committed to improving our recommended by the commenters) nautical miles per hour (knots; kts) understanding of distribution and during the seasons when NARW (18.52 nautical km per hour) speed habitat use of marine mammals. NMFS abundance is greatest (November– restriction on all vessels in all leased and its many partners (including the December (although VW would avoid areas of the RI/MA WEA when right government of Canada) already, and pile driving in December except in whales are present. continue to, submit all survey reports unforeseen, extraordinary Response: As noted above (see (effort and sightings) to the NARW circumstances) and May 1 through May Comment 11) and as described fully in Consortium Database maintained by the 14). Further, during these periods, if a the Mitigation section below, we have University of Rhode Island for inclusion NARW is detected within the 10 km included a suite of mitigation measures in the sightings database and those with extended clearance zone (via visual related to vessel speed to minimize photographs are also submitted to the observation or PAM), pile driving must potential impacts to marine mammals New England Aquarium for integration be delayed. Pile driving must not and to NARWs in particular. The into a unified photo-identification resume until the following day, or, until mitigation measures in the IHA catalog. Most field research teams match a follow-up aerial or vessel-based survey prescribe the means of effecting the least their photographs to this catalog during is able to confirm all right whale(s) have practicable adverse impact on the their field efforts. In addition, NMFS is departed the 10 km extended clearance affected species or stocks and their developing systematic data collection zone, as determined by the lead PSO. habitat, paying particular attention to methods, where possible, to maximize NMFS also added a minimum shutdown rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of the use of those data in conservation distance of 3.2 km, which is a similar significance. and management decisions. For conservative estimate to the Level A Comment 19: The ENGOs example, with funding from the Marine harassment isopleth, more than half the recommended that NMFS: (1) Fund Mammal Commission, NMFS is distance to the Level B harassment analyses of recently collected sighting currently working with the New isopleth for NARWs, and is a practicable and acoustic data for all data-holders; England Aquarium to analyze offshore shutdown zone. and (2) continue to fund and expand wind site characterization survey PSO Regarding the recommendation that surveys and studies to improve our data and how those data compare to all shutdowns called for by a PSO understanding of distribution and more systematic, line transect surveys. should be reported to NOAA daily with habitat use of marine mammals off The results of this project will include detailed explanation when shutdowns Rhode Island and Massachusetts, recommendations about how PSO data were not deemed feasible, we have including the Project area, as well as the can be collected to provide the greatest determined that this is not necessary as broader region, in the very near future. conservation value for protected species the IHA requires weekly and monthly Response: We note that this is a and recommendations about how PSO monitoring reports which will include a general comment not specific to data can be utilized for regulatory/

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33820 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

management and scientific purposes. Comment 21: The ENGOs note submission of such a plan was not More information on this project can be recommended that PAM be required for included in the proposed IHA. found at https://www.mmc.gov/grants- 60 minutes prior to commencement of Comment 25: The ENGOs and-research-survey/grant-awards/ pile driving. recommended that the IHA require 2020-grant-awards/. Response: We agree with the reporting of NARW sightings to NMFS Comment 20: Regarding NMFS’ recommendation and have incorporated within 2 hours of the sighting. requirement that pile driving be this requirement in the IHA. The IHA Response: We agree with the postponed until the following day if a requires that acoustic monitoring begin recommendation that NARW sightings NARW is detected by real-time PAM or at least 60 minutes prior to initiation of be reported as soon as possible to a vessel-based or aerial survey within 10 pile driving. See the Mitigation section NMFS. The IHA requires that if a km of the pile driving location from below for details. NARW is observed at any time by PSOs May 1–May 14, the ENGOs Comment 22: The ENGOs or personnel on any project vessels, recommended NMFS remove the recommended that the mitigation during any project-related activity or exception that allows the activity to requirements include NARW acoustic during vessel transit, Vineyard Wind resume the same day if an aerial or detections as a shutdown trigger. must report sighting information to the Response: We agree with the vessel-based survey could confirm that NMFS NARW Sighting Advisory recommendation and have incorporated the extended clearance zone is free of System, the U.S. Coast Guard via this requirement in the IHA. The IHA right whales. They assert that as many channel 16, and WhaleAlert app as soon requires that pile driving be delayed or NARW sightings go unseen, resuming as feasible but no longer than 24 hours shut down upon a confirmed acoustic the same day is too risky. after the sighting. We anticipate that detection of a NARW within the most sightings will be reported within Response: NMFS disagrees that PAM relevant exclusion zone. See the the 2 hour timeframe recommended by and a visual survey (either vessel or Mitigation section and Table 16 for the ENGOs; however, we also recognize aerial) would not result in adequate details. that communications at sea can protections for NARWs. First, the Comment 23: The ENGOs sometimes be interrupted (e.g., poor ENGOs do not acknowledge there will recommended that between November 1 cellular or satellite service); therefore, be additional monitoring efforts. PSOs and May 14, upon a confirmed sighting we are allowing 24 hours maximum at the pile driving vessel will monitor of a NARW, vessels should be required (with the caveat they report a sighting for NARWs, Vineyard Wind is required to reduce their speed to 10 kts or less as soon as feasible) in case such. We to monitor the NARW sighting network, for the remainder of the day, and to use note that given the gravity of a situation USCG Channel 16, etc., and all Vineyard real-time PAM in order to more associated with an unauthorized take Wind vessels will have observers. The accurately detect the presence of right from a ship strike, the IHA requires project area is a known foraging area but whales. They also recommended PAM Vineyard Wind to report any such it is also a migratory corridor and we be used in transit corridors. taking to NMFS immediately, dedicating anticipate NARWs may remain in the Response: The IHA includes several all resources to ensure that incident is area or pass through rather quickly. If a scenarios under which vessels are reported. Such dedication, including whale(s) remains, it is likely to be required to travel at 10 kts or less and immediately ceasing activities (as detected by PAM, vessel or aerial requires use of real-time PAM at all required if a ship strike occurs) is not surveys, or the pile driving PSO in times. The IHA requires that from necessary for a sighting report. which case pile driving would not November 1 through May 14, all vessels, See the Mitigation section below for commence. If it is migrating, there is no regardless of size, must travel at less details. reason for pile driving to be delayed an than 10 kts within the WDA. In the Comment 26: The ENGOs additional day as animals may move transit corridor, crew transfer vessels recommended that the take analysis be quickly through the area. For example, must reduce speed to 10kts if the PAM updated to reflect the best available in 2000, one whale was photographed in system within the corridor detects a scientific information to account for Florida waters on January 12th, then NARW or one is sighted from the vessel. evidence supporting the importance of again 11 days later (January 23rd) in Further, any vessel traveling over 10 kts the waters off Massachusetts and Rhode Cape Cod Bay, less than a month later is required to have a dedicated Island as NARW foraging habitat, and to off Georgia (February 16th), and back in observer(s) on board at all times. Crew more accurately reflect times that right Cape Cod Bay on March 23rd, transfer vessels traveling within any whales are likely to be present in the effectively making the round-trip designated DMA must travel at 10 kts or area. The ENGOs further recommended migration to the Southeast and back at less, unless NARWs are clear of the that NMFS consider any initial data least twice during the winter season transit route and WDA for two from state monitoring efforts, passive (Brown and Marx 2000). Further, if any consecutive days, as confirmed by acoustic monitoring data, opportunistic animal is missed and pile driving does vessel based surveys conducted during marine mammal sightings data, and begin while the NARW is within the daylight hours and real-time PAM, or, other data sources, and to take steps to Level B harassment zone, we have by an aerial survey, conducted once the develop a dataset that more accurately analyzed the impacts to that individual lead aerial observer determines reflects marine mammal presence so it and have concluded any impacts would adequate visibility. If confirmed clear by is in hand for future authorizations. be minor in that no fitness one of the measures above, vessels Response: As noted above, updated consequences are likely (see Negligible transiting within a DMA must employ at NARW density data (Roberts et al., Impact Analysis and Determination least two visual observers to monitor for 2020) that incorporated more recent section). We have also identified that NARWs. Vineyard Wind is required to survey data and that for the first time pushing any pile driving to times when submit a Vessel Strike Avoidance Plan included survey data from the MA and NARWs are more likely to be present in to NMFS for approval no later than 90 RI/MA WEAs (Kraus et al. 2016; greater numbers would result in days prior to utilizing vessels which Quintana et al., 2018) became available unnecessary impacts as the potential for will include details regarding after the proposed IHA was published. take is higher and pile driving could monitoring and the PAM systems in The exposure modeling for NARWs in occur over a longer timeframe. both the WDA and transit corridors. We the final IHA was updated to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33821

incorporate this more recent and more vessel strike avoidance, including construction, there are also potential accurate density data which reflects measures specifically designed to avoid benefits that may result from the year-round presence in the project area impacts to NARWs. These measures presence of wind turbine foundations in (albeit highest densities are when pile (e.g., reduced vessel speed) also provide marine mammal habitat. Thus, BOEM driving would not occur). Habitat use is protection for other marine mammals. also concluded that some impacts from indirectly considered in density All ship strike avoidance measures are the Project can be moderately beneficial estimates as the estimates are based on described fully in the Mitigation section for those habitats. Thus, while we sighting data and those data would below. acknowledge that there is currently reflect if animals are remaining (i.e., Regarding the commenters’ insufficient information to draw a present) within an area for prolonged recommendation to consider conclusion regarding longer term periods; thereby, increasing density. If displacement as a result of project- impacts to marine mammals, we animals are remaining in the area, it can related noise to result in vessel strike, disagree with the commenters that the be assumed they are engaging in critical we have considered this possibility and term ‘‘beneficial’’ should be avoided behaviors such as foraging. We note; have concluded that while short-term altogether when describing potential however, habitat use is directly displacement from the project area is a outcomes of offshore wind for marine considered in our Negligible Impact possibility, there is no evidence to mammals. Analysis and Determination section. We suggest that any short-term Comment 29: The ENGOs have used the best scientific information displacement would result in a change recommended that NMFS’ negligible available as the basis for generating take to the likelihood of vessel strike impact determination consider potential numbers for all marine mammal species. occurring for any marine mammal cumulative impacts arising from the This is described in more detail in the species. The amount of vessels utilized construction of the proposed project and Estimated Take section below. In our by Vineyard Wind during the effective additional offshore wind projects that negligible impact analysis (see period of the IHA results in only a small are expected to be installed in the Negligible Impact Analysis and increase in vessel traffic over baseline future. Specifically, they recommended Determinations section), we identify (e.g., two crew transfer vessels making a cumulative effects analysis include how habitat use is factored into our one round trip per day). consideration of repeated disturbance determinations given the type and Comment 28: The ENGOs from the same activity over time and amount of take authorized. recommended that NMFS avoid space, interactions between different Regarding the recommendation to describing potential changes resulting types of potential impacts, multiple consider initial data from other from offshore wind development as wind energy development projects, and monitoring efforts and to take steps to ‘‘beneficial,’’ as it is unclear what the broader context of other ocean uses develop a dataset that more accurately implications these changes may have on within the leasing area and that may be reflects marine mammal presence so it the wider ecosystem, and instead use encountered by transboundary and is in hand for future authorizations, we terminology such as ‘‘increase,’’ migratory species during their life considered all data sources and did not ‘‘decrease,’’ and ‘‘change.’’ cycles. solely rely upon density data when Response: In the proposed IHA notice, Response: NMFS agrees that estimating take as the ENGOs suggested NMFS identified that impacts from the consideration of repeated disturbance we did. For example, we increased the permanent structures (i.e., WTGs) on from the same activity (as identified in amount of take authorized for some marine mammal habitat may be the application) over time and space species from the modelling results in beneficial as a result of increased should be incorporated into a negligible consideration of HRG survey monitoring presence of prey due to the WTGs acting impact determination and we have done data previously collected by Vineyard as artificial reefs (Russell et al., 2014). so as the impact of the specified activity Wind. In other cases, when model However, we recognize, the long-term on marine mammals must be considered results suggested take was less than impact from foundation presence is in accordance with 101(a)(5)(D) of the average group size, take was increased. outside the scope of the effective period MMPA. However, neither the MMPA NMFS will continue to rely on the best of the IHA and that this analysis is more nor NMFS’ codified implementing available scientific information in both appropriate in the context of the ESA regulations require NMFS to consider the analysis of potential impacts to consultation and NEPA analysis as it impacts from other unrelated activities marine mammals and in the relates to marine mammal habitat. (such as the construction and operation development of exposure estimates and Regarding the EIS, we agree that the of additional wind farms) and their our findings. long term ecosystem effects from impacts on populations. The preamble Comment 27: The ENGOs offshore wind development in the for NMFS’ implementing regulations (54 recommended that vessel strikes be Northwest Atlantic are still being FR 40338; September 29, 1989) states in incorporated into the take analysis. The evaluated and that those ecosystem response to comments that the impacts ENGOs also recommended that the effects are likely to be complex. from other past and ongoing potential for vessel strike resulting from Accordingly, we acknowledge that anthropogenic activities are to be displacement as a result of project- documentation of a change that may incorporated into the negligible impact related noise be considered. appear ‘‘beneficial’’ (i.e., an increased analysis via their impacts on the Response: NMFS analyzed the number of a particular species baseline. Consistent with that direction, potential for vessel strikes to occur documented within a wind NMFS has factored into its negligible during Vineyard Wind’s construction development area) does not necessarily impact analysis the impacts of other and determined that it is not likely to equate to overall beneficial impacts to a past and ongoing anthropogenic occur. We do not authorize any take of species or ecosystem. BOEM’s FEIS activities via their impacts on the marine mammals by vessel strike describes impacts to coastal and benthic baseline, e.g., as reflected in the density/ incidental to Vineyard Wind’s planned habitats as being adversely negligible to distribution and status of the species, construction activities under this IHA. moderate, as defined in the FEIS. That population size and growth rate, and Also as described under Comment 10 said, just as there are potential negative current stressors. In addition, we above, we have included a conservative impacts to marine mammals from noise consider these factors as relevant suite of mitigation measures related to associated with offshore wind contextual elements of the analysis. See

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33822 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

the Negligible Impact Analysis and construction could temporarily affect occurring within one day. While 20 Determinations section of this notice for marine mammals, the extensive instances of take is the maximum full detail. mitigation (including those measures anticipated and authorized, we do not Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA designed to avoid vessel strike) would know whether these 20 takes occur to 20 requires NMFS to make a determination minimize the severity and amount of different individual NARWs (each taken that the take incidental to a ‘‘specified harassment such that no meaningful on one day) or if some individuals activity’’ will have a negligible impact biological consequences would occur. might be taken on more than one day, on the affected species or stocks of Similar findings were made in NMFS’ but we do know that the product of marine mammals, and will not result in 2020 Biological Opinion related to this individual whales times days of an unmitigable adverse impact on the action. The effects of the action disturbance cannot exceed 20 (e.g., 20 availability of marine mammals for analyzed in the 2020 Biological Opinion different whales disturbed on 1 day taking for subsistence uses. NMFS’ reflect all consequences to listed species each, 10 different whales disturbed on implementing regulations require or critical habitat that are caused by the two days each, etc.), and given the applicants to include in their request a proposed action, including the number, it is unlikely that any single detailed description of the specified consequences of other activities that are whale would be disturbed on more than activity that can be expected to result in caused by the proposed action. It a few days. Given Vineyard Wind would incidental taking of marine mammals considered whether the action will be pile driving primarily June through (50 CFR 216.104(a)(1)). Thus, the result in reductions in reproduction, October (with limited pile driving in ‘‘specified activity’’ for which incidental numbers or distribution of these species May and November) it is highly unlikely take coverage is being sought under and then considered whether any that any single whale would be taken 20 section 101(a)(5)(D) is generally defined reductions in reproduction, numbers or times. Thus any instances of repeated and described by the applicant. Here, distribution resulting from the action disturbance would be minimal. For Vineyard Wind is the applicant and we would reduce appreciably the smaller cetaceans, their populations are are responding to the specified activity likelihood of both the survival and relatively large compared to baleen as described in their petition (and recovery of these species. The Biological whales and they have large habitat making the necessary findings on that Opinion concluded the proposed action, ranges; therefore, repeated disturbance basis). which included NMFS’ action of issuing to a degree that would cause impacts to Our 1989 final rule for the MMPA an IHA to Vineyard Wind, may annual rates and survival to those implementing regulations also adversely affect ESA-listed marine populations is also unlikely. addressed public comments regarding mammals but would not likely The impacts of masking and impacts cumulative effects from future, jeopardize the continued existence of to marine mammal acoustic habitat from unrelated activities. There we stated those species or adversely modify or the specified activity were fully that such effects are not considered in destroy their critical habitat. We note considered in the Federal Register making findings under section 101(a)(5) the analysis in BOEM’s FEIS and notice announcing the proposed IHA concerning negligible impact. We Biological Opinion extends over the (see sections entitled Auditory Masking indicated (1) that NMFS would consider duration of the project while our IHA is and Potential Effects of the Specified cumulative effects that are reasonably limited to one year, and to harassment Activity for discussions on masking; see foreseeable when preparing a NEPA during construction of the project. section entitled Anticipated Effects on analysis, and (2) that reasonably Comment 30: The ENGOs Marine Mammal Habitat for discussion foreseeable cumulative effects would recommended NMFS expand its on potential impacts to acoustic also be considered under section 7 of analysis to better consider repeated habitat). That analysis was integrated the ESA for ESA-listed species. exposure to the same stressor over into our negligible impact finding In addition to above considerations, multiple days, as well as masking and decision-making. For example, we BOEM’s 2021 FEIS, of which NMFS was acoustic habitat impacts. found that impacts from masking would a cooperating agency, NMFS adopted, Response: As described above, the be insignificant and any masking event and was a co-signatory to the joint potential impacts from repeat exposures that could possibly rise to Level B Record of Decision, analyzes cumulative are incorporated into our negligible harassment under the MMPA would impacts from the construction and impact analysis. As described in the occur concurrently within the zones of operation of the Vineyard Wind Project Negligible Impact Determination and behavioral harassment already when combined with other past, present Analysis section below, although some estimated for impact pile driving, and and reasonably foreseeable future animals may be disturbed repeatedly which have already been taken into actions, including development of other from pile driving over multiple days, we account in the exposure analysis. The wind energy areas and other stressors anticipate the impact on marine temporary elevated noise levels caused (e.g., ship strike, entanglement, climate mammals from resulting behavioral by the project would impact acoustic change). That analysis included an reactions such as temporary avoidance habitat; however, similar to masking, assessment of whether the predicted of the ensonified area during pile these elevated noise areas are captured level and amount of take from driving would not result in impacts to in the behavioral harassment zones construction would have meaningful reproductive success of any individual established in our analysis. biological consequences at a species or marine mammal, much less annual rates Comment 31: The ENGOs believe that population level. NMFS, therefore, of recruitment and survival. For large NMFS’ use of a Renewal IHA process assessed and integrated other contextual whales, including the NARW, we does not allow for adequate public factors (e.g., species’ life history and authorize only a small number of Level comment because NMFS supplies no biology, distribution, abundance, and B harassment takes. For example, legal rationale for why it is authorized status of the stock; mitigation and Vineyard Wind is authorized for 20 to issue an identical IHA for a second monitoring; characteristics of the takes by Level B harassment of NARW. year while cutting in half the comment surveys and sound sources) in Each take represents exposure of one period the statute requires. They state determining the overall impact of NARW above NMFS behavioral that should the agency wish to establish issuance of the IHA to Vineyard Wind. harassment threshold (and the expected its new IHA renewal process as a While exposure to noise during associated behavioral disturbance) reasonable interpretation of an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33823

ambiguous statutory provision, it should initial 30-day comment period for the to be practicable, in the case of do so through notice-and-comment proposed IHA asks the public to review unanticipated delays due to weather or rulemaking or comparable process with and provide input on both the initial technical problems that require the appropriate indicia of formality. proposed IHA, as well as the potential extension of pile-driving activities, pile NMFS must also explain why applicants for a Renewal should the Renewal driving may occur in December if BOEM whose activities may result in the conditions be met, following an is notified and approves. incidental harassment of marine additional 15-day comment period. It In consideration of the best available mammals over more than one year would be unnecessary and inefficient science and public input, NMFS has should not be required to apply for for both the applicant and NMFS to increased clearance zone sizes from the authorization to do so through the require them to go through a rulemaking proposed IHA to ensure Level A take of incidental take regulation procedure process in case their project extended NARWs is avoided and that any Level established by sec. 101(a)(5)(A)(i), and beyond the expiration date of their IHA. B harassment is minimized to the justify how its extension process, with The most common cases of issuing a maximum extent practicable. During all a curtailed comment period, is Renewal IHA is when there are times of the year, if a PSO on the pile consistent with both statutorily- unforeseen circumstances that prevent driving vessel observes a NARW, at any established processes. the applicant from completing the distance, pile driving will be delayed. Response: In prior responses to analyzed activity from being completed However, we recognize in certain comments about IHA Renewals (e.g., 84 before the expiration date of the original circumstances, weather may impede FR 52464; October 02, 2019 and 85 FR IHA. As noted in the response to visibility. From June 1 through October 53342, August 28, 2020), NMFS has Comment 8 above, there are strict 31, we increased the minimum explained how the Renewal process, as criteria NMFS has set forth that an clearance zone (i.e., the zone that must implemented, is consistent with the applicant must meet prior to being be visibly clear of NARWs for 30 statutory requirements contained in granted a Renewal IHA. Specific to the minutes prior to commencing pile section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA and Vineyard Wind IHA, any request for a driving) from 1 km (which Vineyard promotes NMFS’ goals of improving Renewal by Vineyard Wind, will be Wind had proposed as a result of their conservation of marine mammals and considered against established and Agreement with NGOs) to 2 km. In increasing efficiency in the MMPA transparent Renewal criteria, including addition, we have imposed a 5 km PAM compliance process. Also, please see the careful consideration of any changes clearance zone during the same time of our response to Comment 8 for in the status of the affected species or year. In addition to modifications to the additional information. stocks and whether they would change clearance zone, we have extended the The ENGOs recommended we utilize our findings. shutdown zone (i.e., the zone in which a stand-alone rulemaking process to Vineyard Wind must shut down pile solicit input on the renewal process so Changes From Proposed IHA to Final driving if a NARW approaches or enters, that it is open to public comment. IHA except if not deemed feasible for human However, using the 30-day public Since publication of the Proposed safety or structural integrity) for NARW comment period for an IHA to provide IHA (83 FR 18346, April 30, 2019), from 1 km to 3.2 kms. The 3.2 km relevant explanations of the Renewal Vineyard Wind has split into separate shutdown zone represents the modeled process and also announce the option to corporate entities, Vineyard Wind, LLC Level A harassment zone assuming a 6 issue a Renewal to an applicant for a (the applicant identified in the IHA dB of attenuation from the sound specific project is an effective and application), and Vineyard Wind 1, attenuation systems. That is, this efficient way for NMFS to provide which now holds assets associated with distance represents where a NARW information to the reader, solicit the project. While the application and could incur PTS if it remains at that focused input from the public, and the proposed IHA identify Vineyard distance for the number of strikes ultimately affords the same Wind, LLC as the potential IHA Holder, considered in the model (i.e., the opportunities for public comment as a NMFS has issued, upon request from maximum number of strikes for stand-alone rulemaking would. The Vineyard Wind, LLC, the IHA to installing a pile). To be conservative, we ENGOs have the opportunity to Vineyard Wind 1. have identified this distance as the comment on the potential Renewal, and, In the final IHA, NMFS Office of initial shutdown zone; however, should by default, the process during the Protected Resources adopted the Terms sound source verification (SSV) proposed IHA phase. There is no reason and Conditions of the November 2020 monitoring determine the Level A to undertake a rulemaking process to Biological Opinion for the Vineyard harassment isopleth is less than 3.2 km, carry out a process that is afforded Wind Project and made other NMFS may modify the shutdown zone under the MMPA and for which NMFS modifications as a result of public input upon receipt of a SSV report detailing has discretion to carry out. The eNGOs on the proposed IHA, which resulted in measurements from, at minimum, three have not provided reason why the 30 several changes to mitigation and piles representing conditions reflective day public comment period during the monitoring measures from proposed to of future piles driving scenarios (e.g., proposed IHA phase plus the additional final. We provide a summary here, and similar substrate, hammer energy, etc.). 15-day public comment during a the changes are also described in the The final IHA also incorporates all proposed Renewal IHA phase (which specific applicable sections below (e.g., Terms and Conditions of the 2021 generally occurs less than one year after Mitigation). A complete list of final Vineyard Wind Biological Opinion. the initial 30-day public comment measures may be found in the issued These include not starting to install a period) for a total public comment IHA (available at https:// new pile less than 1.5 hours prior to period of 45 days does not meet the www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ civil sunset and that pile driving may requirements of the MMPA. marine-mammal-protection/incidental- only occur at night if pile driving began The Renewal process does not allow take-authorizations-other-energy- during daylight hours and the relevant for an IHA to cover applicants intending activities-renewable). visual and PAM clearance zone were on conducting activities for more than Vineyard Wind has committed to clear of NARWs. We also carried over one year, as mistakenly interpreted by adding December to the seasonal pile the suite of vessel strike avoidance the eNGOs. Rather, the FR notice for the driving moratorium window. However, measures considered part of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33824 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

proposed action in the Biological Description of Marine Mammals in the continental shelf edge and continental Opinion. These include mandatory ship Area of Specified Activities slope, in waters that are further offshore speeds and separation distances, use of Sections 3 and 4 of the IHA than the project area (Hayes et al., 2019). trained dedicated observers, PAM in the application summarize available Between October 2011 and June 2015 transit corridors, and monitoring of the information regarding status and trends, a total of 76 aerial surveys were NARW Sighting Network. distribution and habitat preferences, conducted throughout the MA and RI/ From proposed to final IHA, we and behavior and life history of the MA Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) (the modified take numbers for sperm potentially affected species. Additional WDA is contained within the MA WEA whales. The proposed IHA allocated information regarding population trends along with several other offshore two takes, by Level A harassment (i.e., and threats may be found in NMFS’ renewable energy lease areas). Between PTS) of sperm whales incidental to pile Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; November 2011 and March 2015, driving, as it was requested by Vineyard www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ Marine Autonomous Recording Units Wind. However, after further marine-mammal-protection/marine- (MARU; a type of static PAM recorder) examination, we have determined the mammal-stock-assessments) and more were deployed at nine sites in the MA potential for Level A harassment (PTS) general information about these species and RI/MA WEAs. The goal of the study for this species is de minimis and we (e.g., physical and behavioral was to collect visual and acoustic have not authorized take by Level A descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ baseline data on distribution, harassment. The area is not a preferred website (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find- abundance, and temporal occurrence sperm whale habitat as they prefer species). patterns of marine mammals (Kraus et deeper waters and bathymetric features There are 26 marine mammal species al., 2016). Further, between 2004–2014, such as canyons. The monopile and that could potentially occur in the acoustic detections of four species of jacket foundation Level A harassment project area and that are included in baleen whales were examined that show distance for sperm whales is very small Table 3 of the IHA application. important distributional changes over the range of baleen whales (Davis et al., (less than 75 m). It is highly unlikely However, the temporal and/or spatial 2020). That study showed blue whales that a sperm whale would remain occurrence of several species listed in were more frequently detected in the within this area during the entire Table 3 of the IHA application is such northern latitudes of the study area after duration of pile driving necessary to that take of these species is not expected 2010 and no detections occurred in the incur PTS and we have required to occur nor authorized, and they are project area in spring, summer, and fall clearance and shut down zones greater therefore not discussed further beyond when pile driving would occur (Davis et than 75 m. In addition, in the 2020 the explanation provided here. Take of al., 2020). In addition, during recent Biological Opinion, NMFS concluded these species is not anticipated either Vineyard Wind marine site take of sperm whales by Level A because they have very low densities in characterization surveys, none of the harassment was not reasonably certain the project area, or because they are not aforementioned species were observed to occur and determined no take by expected to occur in the project area due to their more likely occurrence in during marine mammal monitoring injury (PTS) will be exempted in the habitat that is outside the WDA, based (Vineyard Wind, 2021). The lack of corresponding Incidental Take on the best available information. There sightings of any of the species listed Statement issued under the ESA. The are two pilot whale species (long-finned above reinforces the fact that these final IHA identifies the amount of take and short-finned (Globicephala species are not expected to occur in the authorized for non-listed marine macrorhynchus)) with distributions that project area. As these species are not mammals should Vineyard Wind install overlap in the latitudinal range of the expected to occur in the project area 100 WTG monopile foundations and WDA (Hayes et al., 2020). Because it is during the planned activities, they are two jacket foundations for the ESPs (the difficult to discriminate between the not discussed further in this document. maximum design envelope), though two species at sea, sightings, and thus We expect that the species listed in fewer WTG foundations will be the densities calculated from them, are Table 2 will potentially occur in the installed. The ESA incidental take generally reported together as project area and will potentially be statement (ITS), which NMFS Office of Globicephala spp. (Hayes et al., 2020; taken as a result of the project. Table 2 Protected Resources is required to Roberts et al., 2016). However, based on summarizes information related to the implement, will be scaled so that the the best available information, short- population or stock, including amount of ESA-listed marine mammal finned pilot whales occur in habitat that regulatory status under the MMPA and take authorized will correspond with is both further offshore on the shelf ESA and potential biological removal the actual amount of piles planned to be break and further south than the project (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we installed. Thus, if Vineyard Wind area (Hayes et al., 2018). Therefore, we follow the Committee on Taxonomy installs fewer piles, it will be exempted assume that any take of pilot whales (2018). PBR is defined by the MMPA as from the ESA section 9 prohibition on would be of long-finned pilot whales. the maximum number of animals, not take for a fewer number of ESA-listed Blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus including natural mortalities, that may marine mammals (see Endangered musculus), dwarf and pygmy sperm be removed from a marine mammal Species Act section below). The amount whales (Kogia sima and K. breviceps), stock while allowing that stock to reach of take authorized for non-listed marine Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius or maintain its optimum sustainable mammals is not scaled. cavirostris), striped dolphins (Stenella population (as described in NMFS’ NMFS did not include language in the coeruleoalba) and four species of SARs). While no mortality is anticipated final IHA related to a Renewal. This Mesoplodont beaked whale or authorized here, PBR is included here does not necessarily preclude a (Mesoplodon spp.), also occur in as a gross indicator of the status of the Renewal, but as described above, we deepwater habitat that is further species and other threats. Four marine think a Renewal is unlikely in this case, offshore than the project area (Hayes et mammal species that are listed under given the potential for changes over the al., 2020, Roberts et al., 2016). Likewise, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) may next three years that could affect our Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella be present in the project area and may analyses. frontalis) primarily occur near the be taken incidental to the planned

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33825

activity: The NARW, fin whale, sei abundance estimates for most species presented in Table 2 are the most recent whale, and sperm whale. represent the total estimate of available at the time of publication and, Marine mammal abundance estimates individuals within the geographic area, except as otherwise noted, are available presented in this document represent if known, that comprises that stock. For in the 2019 Atlantic SARs (Hayes et al., the total number of individuals that some species, this geographic area may 2019), available online at: https:// make up a given stock or the total extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ number estimated within a particular stocks in this region are assessed in marine-mammal-protection/marine- study or survey area. NMFS’ stock NMFS’ U.S. Atlantic SARs. All values mammal-stock-assessments. TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY VINEYARD WIND’S ACTIVITY

MMPA Predicted Common name and ESA Stock abundance Annual Occurrence and seasonality Stock status; (CV, N , most recent abundance PBR 4 (scientific name) min M/SI 4 in project area strategic abundance survey) 2 (CV) 3 I (Y/N) 1 I I I I Toothed whales (Odontoceti)

Sperm whale (Physeter North Atlantic ..... E; Y 4,349 (0.28; 3,451; 2019) .... 5,353 (0.12) 3.9 0 Rare. macrocephalus). Long-finned pilot whale W North Atlantic -; N 39,219 (0.3; 30,627; n/a) ..... 5 18,977 (0.11) 306 21 Rare. (Globicephala melas). Atlantic white-sided dolphin W North Atlantic -; N 93,233 (0.71; 54,443; 2019) 37,180 (0.07) 544 26 Common year round. (Lagenorhynchus acutus). Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops W North Atlantic, -; N 62,851 (0.23; 51,914; 2019) 5 97,476 (0.06) 519 28 Common year round. truncatus). Offshore. Common dolphin (Delphinus W North Atlantic -; N 172,974 (0.21; 145,216; 86,098 (0.12) 1,452 399 Common year round. delphis). 2019). Risso’s dolphin (Grampus W North Atlantic -; N 35,493 (0.19; 30,298; 2019) 7,732 (0.09) 303 54.3 Rare. griseus). Harbor porpoise (Phocoena Gulf of Maine/ -; N 95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 2019) * 45,089 (0.12) 851 217 Common year round. phocoena). Bay of Fundy.

Baleen whales (Mysticeti)

NARW (Eubalaena glacialis) W North Atlantic E; Y 368 (0; 356; 2020) 6 ...... * 535 (0.45) 6 0.8 6 18.6 Year round in continental shelf and slope waters, seasonally. Humpback whale (Megaptera Gulf of Maine ..... -; N 1,393 (0.15; 1,375; 2019) .... * 1,637 (0.07) 22 58 Common year round. novaeangliae). Fin whale (Balaenoptera W North Atlantic E; Y 6,802 (0.24; 5,573; 2019) .... 4,633 (0.08) 11 2.35 Year round in continental physalus). shelf and slope waters, occur seasonally. Sei whale (Balaenoptera bo- Nova Scotia ...... E; Y 6,292 (1.02; 3,098; 2019) .... * 717 (0.30) 6.2 1.2 Year round in continental realis). shelf and slope waters, occur seasonally. Minke whale (Balaenoptera Canadian East -; N 21,968 (0.31; 17,002; n/a) ... * 2,112 (0.05) 170 10.6 Year round in continental acutorostrata). Coast. shelf and slope waters, occur seasonally.

Earless seals (Phocidae)

Gray seal 7 (Halichoerus W North Atlantic -; N 27,131 (0.19; 23,158; 2019) n/a 1,389 4,729 Common year round. grypus). Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) W North Atlantic -; N 75,834 (0.15; 66,884; 2019) n/a 2,006 350 Common year round. Harp seal (Pagophilus W North Atlantic -; N 7,411,000 8 (unk.; unk; 2019) n/a unk 232,422 Rare. groenlandicus). I I I I I 1 ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as de- pleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) or which is de- termined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 Stock abundance as reported in NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports (SAR) except where otherwise noted. SARs available online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks, abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no associated CV. The most re- cent abundance survey that is reflected in the abundance estimate is presented; there may be more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the esti- mate. All values presented are from the 2019 Atlantic SARs. 3 This information represents species- or guild-specific abundance predicted by recent habitat-based cetacean density models (Roberts et al., 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020). These models provide the best available scientific information regarding predicted density patterns of cetaceans in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean, and we provide the corresponding abundance predictions as a point of reference. Total abundance estimates were produced by computing the mean density of all pixels in the modeled area and multiplying by its area. For those species marked with an asterisk, the available information supported development of either two or four seasonal models; each model has an associated abundance prediction. Here, we report the maximum predicted abundance. 4 Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP). Annual mortality or serious injury (M/SI), found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, subsistence hunting, ship strike). Annual M/SI values often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value. All M/SI values are as presented in the draft 2019 At- lantic SARs. 5 Abundance estimates are in some cases reported for a guild or group of species when those species are difficult to differentiate at sea. Similarly, the habitat- based cetacean density models produced by Roberts et al. (2016) are based in part on available observational data which, in some cases, is limited to genus or guild in terms of taxonomic definition. Roberts et al. (2016) produced density models to genus level for Globicephala spp. and produced a density model for bottlenose dol- phins that does not differentiate between offshore and coastal stocks. 6 Abundance source is Pace et al. (2021). PBR and annual M/SI source is draft 2020 SAR (Hayes et al. 2020). Because PBR is based on the minimum population estimate, we anticipate it will be slightly lower than what is presented here given the Pace et al. (2021) abundance; however, the 2020 SARs are not yet finalized. Re- gardless of final numbers, NMFS recognizes the NARW stock is critically endangered with a low PRB and high annual M/SI rate due primarily to ship strikes and en- tanglement.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33826 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

7 NMFS stock abundance estimate applies to U.S. population only, actual stock abundance is approximately 505,000. 8 The stock abundance of harp seal is considered unknown in the draft 2020 SAR; however, the abundance reflected here is the most recent available.

A detailed description of the species Pace et al. (2021) has identified a the frequency ranges marine mammals for which take has been authorized, reduction in NARW abundance since are able to hear. Current data indicate including brief introductions to the the proposed IHA (451 to 368) and that not all marine mammal species relevant stocks as well as available Oleson et al. (2020) have established the have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., information regarding population trends project area as year-round foraging Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and and threats, and information regarding habitat. Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). local occurrence, were provided in the Since the proposed IHA, the annual To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007, Federal Register notice for the proposed rate of mortality and serious injury for 2019) recommended that marine IHA (84 FR 18346; April 30, 2019). humpback whales belonging to the Gulf mammals be divided into functional Since that time, the status of some of Maine stock increased from 12.5 to hearing groups based on directly species and stocks have been updated, 58. This dramatic increase is a result of measured or estimated hearing ranges most notably for large whales. Table 2 changing how the rate is modeled; 12.5 on the basis of available behavioral includes the most recent population, was observed M/SI while 58 represents response data, audiograms derived PBR and annual mortality and serious a model approach considering the using auditory evoked potential injury (M/SI) rates for all species. We observed rate. The draft 2020 SAR techniques, anatomical modeling, and refer the reader to the proposed IHA applies a new hierarchical Bayesian, other data. Note that no direct Federal Register notice for basic state-space model used to estimate measurements of hearing ability have descriptions on each species status and mortality (Hayes et al., 2020). The been successfully completed for provide a summary of updates below estimated rate is based on the observed mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency where necessary. Please also refer to rate of serious injury and mortality and cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) NMFS’ website (https:// an estimated detection rate. The described generalized hearing ranges for www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for estimated annual rate of total mortality generalized species accounts. using this modeling approach is 57.6 these marine mammal hearing groups. As described in the proposed IHA animals for the period 2011–2015. The Generalized hearing ranges were chosen notice, beginning in 2017, elevated IHA does not authorize serious injury or based on the approximately 65 decibel mortalities in the NARW population mortality of humpback whales. (dB) threshold from the normalized have been documented, primarily in composite audiograms, with the Canada but some in the U.S., and were Marine Mammal Hearing exception for lower limits for low- collectively declared an Unusual Hearing is the most important sensory frequency cetaceans where the lower Mortality Event (UME). As of May 2021, modality for marine mammals bound was deemed to be biologically 34 NARWs have been confirmed dead underwater, and exposure to implausible and the lower bound from and an additional 15 have been anthropogenic sound can have Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine determined to be seriously injured. deleterious effects. To appropriately mammal hearing groups and their Entanglement and vessel strikes are the assess the potential effects of exposure associated hearing ranges are provided primary causes of M/SI. In addition, to sound, it is necessary to understand in Table 3.

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS [NMFS, 2018]

Generalized hearing Hearing group range *

Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ...... 7 Hz to 35 kHz. Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ...... 150 Hz to 160 kHz. High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L. 275 Hz to 160 kHz. australis). Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ...... 50 Hz to 86 kHz. Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) ...... 60 Hz to 39 kHz. * Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).

The pinniped functional hearing mammal species (twelve cetacean and Potential Effects of Specified Activities group was modified from Southall et al. three pinniped (all phocid species)) on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat (2007) on the basis of data indicating have the reasonable potential to co- The effects of underwater noise from that phocid species have consistently occur with the planned activities. Please Vineyard Wind’s construction activities demonstrated an extended frequency refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean species have the potential to result in behavioral range of hearing compared to otariids, that may be present, five are classified harassment of marine mammals in the especially in the higher frequency range as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all vicinity of the project area. The notice (Hemila¨ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., mysticete species), six are classified as of proposed IHA (84 FR 18346; April 30, 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all 2019) included a discussion of the For more detail concerning these delphinid species and the sperm whale), effects of anthropogenic noise on marine groups and associated frequency ranges, and one is classified as a high-frequency mammals and the potential effects of please see NMFS (2018) for a review of cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise). underwater noise from Vineyard Wind’s available information. Fifteen marine construction activities on marine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33827

mammals and their habitat. That expected to minimize the severity of motivation, experience, demography, information and analysis is incorporated such taking to the extent practicable. No behavioral context) and can be difficult by reference into this final IHA marine mammal mortality is anticipated to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison determination and is not repeated here; or authorized for this activity. Below we et al., 2012). Based on what the please refer to the notice of proposed describe how the take is estimated. available science indicates and the IHA (84 FR 18346; April 30, 2019). Generally speaking, we estimate take practical need to use a threshold based by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds on a factor that is both predictable and Estimated Take above which NMFS believes the best measurable for most activities, NMFS This section provides an estimate of available science indicates marine uses a generalized acoustic threshold the number of incidental takes mammals will be behaviorally harassed based on received level to estimate the authorized through this IHA, which will or incur some degree of permanent onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS inform both NMFS’ consideration of hearing impairment; (2) the area or predicts that marine mammals are likely ‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible volume of water that will be ensonified to be behaviorally harassed in a manner impact determination. As noted in the above these levels in a day; (3) the we consider Level B harassment when Summary of Changes from Proposed to density or occurrence of marine exposed to underwater anthropogenic Final, a small change was made for mammals within these ensonified areas; noise above received levels of 160 dB re Level A harassment for fin whales and and, (4) and the number of days of 1 mPa (rms) for impulsive and/or sperm whales. activities. We note that while these intermittent sources (e.g., impact pile Harassment is the only type of take basic factors can contribute to a basic driving). Quantifying Level B expected to result from these activities. calculation to provide an initial harassment in this manner is also Except with respect to certain activities prediction of takes, additional expected to capture any qualifying not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the information that can qualitatively changes in behavioral patterns that may MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act inform take estimates is also sometimes result from TTS. of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, available (e.g., previous monitoring Level A harassment—NMFS’ which (i) has the potential to injure a results or average group size). Below, we Technical Guidance for Assessing the marine mammal or marine mammal describe the factors considered here in Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on stock in the wild (Level A harassment); more detail and present the take Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) or (ii) has the potential to disturb a estimates. (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies marine mammal or marine mammal dual criteria to assess auditory injury Acoustic Thresholds stock in the wild by causing disruption (Level A harassment) to five different of behavioral patterns, including, but Using the best available science, marine mammal groups (based on not limited to, migration, breathing, NMFS has developed acoustic hearing sensitivity) as a result of nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering thresholds that identify the received exposure to noise from two different (Level B harassment). level of underwater sound above which types of sources (impulsive or non- Authorized takes are primarily by exposed marine mammals would be impulsive). The components of Level B harassment, as noise from pile reasonably expected to be behaviorally Vineyard Wind’s planned activity that driving has the potential to result in harassed (equated to Level B may result in the take of marine disruption of behavioral patterns for harassment) or to incur PTS of some mammals include the use of impulsive individual marine mammals, either degree (equated to Level A harassment). sources. directly or as a result of masking or Level B Harassment—Though These thresholds are provided in temporary hearing impairment (also significantly driven by received level, Table 4. The references, analysis, and referred to as temporary threshold shift the onset of behavioral disturbance from methodology used in the development (TTS), as described in the notice of anthropogenic noise exposure is also of the thresholds are described in NMFS proposed IHA (83 FR 18346, April 30, informed to varying degrees by other 2018 Technical Guidance, which may 2019)). There is also some potential for factors related to the source (e.g., be accessed at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ auditory injury (Level A harassment) to frequency, predictability, duty cycle), national/marine-mammal-protection/ result for select marine mammals. the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and marine-mammal-acoustic-technical- Mitigation and monitoring measures are the receiving animals (hearing, guidance.

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * Hearing group (received level) Impulsive Non-impulsive

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ...... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ...... Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ...... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ...... Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ...... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ...... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ...... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ...... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. * Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered. 2 Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incor- porating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33828 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

Ensonified Area with a maximum of 10.3 m (33.8 ft.) In recognition of the need to ensure diameter piles and jacket-style that the range of potential impacts to Here, we describe operational and foundations using three or four 3 m (9.8 marine mammals from the various environmental parameters of the activity ft.) diameter piles per foundation. potential scenarios within the design that feed into identifying the area As described above, Vineyard Wind envelope are accounted for, potential ensonified above the acoustic has incorporated more than one design design scenarios were modeled thresholds, which include source levels scenario in their planning of the project. separately in order to conservatively and transmission loss coefficient. This approach, called the ‘‘design assess the impacts of each scenario. The As described above, Vineyard Wind envelope’’ concept, allows for flexibility two installation scenarios modeled are requested NMFS evaluate project on the part of the developer, in shown in Table 5 and consist of: construction activity (specifically pile recognition of the fact that offshore driving) involving installation of up to wind technology and installation (1) The ‘‘maximum design’’ scenario 100 WTGs and up to two ESPs in the techniques are constantly evolving and consisting of 10010.3 m (33.8 ft.) WTG WDA (i.e., a maximum of 102 exact specifications of the project are monopile foundations, 0 jacket foundations). Two types of foundations not yet certain as of the publishing of foundations, and 2 jacket foundations may be used in the construction of the this document. Variables that are not yet for ESPs (i.e., eight jacket pin piles); and project and were therefore considered in certain include the number, size, and (2) The ‘‘most likely design’’ scenario the acoustic modeling study conducted configuration of WTGs and ESPs and consisting of 90 10.3 m (33.8 ft.) WTG to estimate the potential number of their foundations, and the number of monopile foundations, 10 WTG jacket marine mammal exposures above foundations that may be installed per foundations (i.e., 40 total jacket pin relevant harassment thresholds: day (though a maximum of two piles), and 2 jacket foundations for ESPs Monopile foundations varying in size foundations would be installed per day). (i.e., eight jacket pin piles).

TABLE 5—POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DESIGN SCENARIOS MODELED

WTG WTG jacket ESP jacket Total number 1 Total number Design scenario monopiles foundations foundations of installation (pile size: 10.3 (pile size: 3 m (pile size: 3 m of piles locations m (33.8 ft)) (9.8 ft)) (9.8 ft))

Most likely design scenario ...... 90 10 2 138 102 Maximum design scenario 3 ...... 100 0 2 108 102 1 Each ESP jacket foundation consists of four pin piles each. 2 To be conservative and in alignment with Vineyard Wind’s request, we considered the maximum design scenario in the IHA; however, the amount of take for ESA-listed species will be contingent upon that authorized in the ITS.

Vineyard Wind’s IHA application jacket would be installed per day thus diameter. All modeling assumed 10.3-m requested authorization to take marine one jacket foundation per day (four piles would be used for monopiles and mammals incidentally while driving piles) was assumed for both scenarios. 3 m piles would be used for jacket 100 monopiles and 2 jacket foundations No concurrent pile driving (i.e., driving foundations (other specifications in the WDA, but other information of more than one pile at a time) would associated with monopiles and jacket suggests that Vineyard Wind may occur and therefore concurrent driving pin piles are shown in Figures 2 and 3 actually drive fewer monopiles, which was not modeled. The pile driving in the IHA application). would result in fewer impacts to marine schedules for modeling were created Representative hammering schedules mammals. In December 2020, Vineyard based on the number of expected of increasing hammer energy with Wind announced it would likely reduce suitable weather days available per increasing penetration depth were the total number of turbines to 62, and month (based on weather criteria modeled, resulting in, generally, higher on May 5, 2021, BOEM signed a Record determined by Vineyard Wind) in intensity sound fields as the hammer of Decision authorizing the construction which pile driving may occur to better energy and penetration increases. For of no more than 84 turbines (in addition understand when the majority of pile both monopile and jacket structure to the foundations required to construct driving is likely to occur throughout the models, the piles were assumed to be the two ESPs (for a total of 92 individual year. The number of suitable weather vertical and driven to a penetration piles)). As Vineyard Wind has not days per month was obtained from depth of 30 m and 45 m, respectively. amended its original proposal of 102 historical weather data. The modeled While pile penetrations across the site foundations in its IHA application and pile-driving schedule for the Maximum would vary, these values were chosen as because evaluating the impacts from Design scenario is shown in Table 2 of reasonable penetration depths. The driving those foundations allows for the the IHA application. estimated number of strikes required to conservative assessment of the relevant Monopile foundation would have drive piles to completion were obtained statutory criteria, NMFS finds it maximum diameters ranging from ∼8 m from drivability studies provided by appropriate to evaluate the impact of (26.2 ft) up to ∼10.3 m (33.8 ft) and an Vineyard Wind. All acoustic modeling 102 foundations in this IHA. expected median diameter of ∼9 m (29.5 was performed assuming that only one Vineyard Wind may install either one ft). The 10.3-m (33.8 ft) monopile pile is driven at a time. or two monopiles per day, both the foundation is the largest potential pile Additional modeling assumptions for ‘‘maximum design’’ and ‘‘most likely diameter that may be used for the the monopiles were as follows: design’’ scenarios were modeled project and was therefore used in • 1,030 cm steel cylindrical piling assuming the installation of one acoustic modeling to be conservative. with wall thickness of 10 cm. foundation per day and two foundations Jacket foundations each require the • Impact pile driver: IHC S–4000 per day distributed across the same installation of three to four piles, known (4000 kilojoules (kJ) rated energy; 1977 calendar period. No more than one as jacket pin piles, of ∼3 m (9.8 ft) kips (kN) ram weight).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33829

• Helmet weight: 3234 kN. RAM incorporates bathymetry, evaluation of vibration. For this study, Additional modeling assumptions for underwater sound speed as a function of synthetic pressure waveforms were the jacket pile are as follows: depth, and a geoacoustic profile based computed using FWRAM, which is • 300 cm steel cylindrical pilings on seafloor composition, and accounts JASCO’s acoustic propagation model with wall thickness of 5 cm. for source horizontal directivity. The PE capable of producing time-domain • Impact pile driver: IHC S–2500 method has been extensively waveforms. (2500 kJ rated energy; 1227 kN ram benchmarked and is widely employed Models are more efficient at weight). in the underwater acoustics community, estimating SEL than rms SPL. Therefore, • Helmet weight: 2401 kN. and MONM–RAM’s predictions have conversions may be necessary to derive • Up to four jacket pin piles installed been validated against experimental the corresponding rms SPL. Propagation per day. data in several underwater acoustic was modeled for a subset of sites using Sound fields produced during pile measurement programs conducted by a full-wave RAM PE model (FWRAM), driving were modeled by first JASCO. At frequencies greater than 2 from which broadband SEL to SPL characterizing the sound signal kHz, MONM accounts for increased conversion factors were calculated. The produced during pile driving using the sound attenuation due to volume FWRAM required intensive calculation industry-standard GRLWEAP (wave absorption at higher frequencies with for each site, thus a representative equation analysis of pile driving) model the widely used BELLHOP Gaussian subset of modeling sites were used to and JASCO Applied Sciences’ (JASCO) beam ray-trace propagation model. This Pile Driving Source Model (PDSM). component incorporates bathymetry and develop azimuth-, range-, and depth- Underwater sound propagation (i.e., underwater sound speed as a function of dependent conversion factors. These transmission loss) as a function of range depth with a simplified representation conversion factors were used to from each source was modeled using of the sea bottom, as subbottom layers calculate the broadband rms SPL from JASCO’s Marine Operations Noise have a negligible influence on the the broadband SEL prediction. Model (MONM) for multiple propagation of acoustic waves with Two locations within the WDA were propagation radials centered at the frequencies above 1 kHz. MONM– selected to provide representative source to yield 3D transmission loss BELLHOP accounts for horizontal propagation and sound fields for the fields in the surrounding area. The directivity of the source and vertical project area (see Table 6). The two MONM computes received per-pulse variation of the source beam pattern. locations were selected to span the SEL for directional sources at specified Both propagation models account for region from shallow to deep water and depths. MONM uses two separate full exposure from a direct acoustic varying distances to dominant models to estimate transmission loss. wave, as well as exposure from acoustic bathymetric features (i.e., slope and At frequencies less than 2 kHz, wave reflections and refractions (i.e., shelf break). Water depth and MONM computes acoustic propagation multi-path arrivals at the receiver). environmental characteristics (e.g., via a wide-angle parabolic equation (PE) The sound field radiating from the bottom-type) are similar throughout the solution to the acoustic wave equation pile was simulated using a vertical array WDA (Vineyard Wind, 2018), and based on a version of the U.S. Naval of point sources. Because sound itself is therefore minimal difference was found Research Laboratory’s Range-dependent an oscillation (vibration) of water in sound propagation results for the two Acoustic Model (RAM) modified to particles, acoustic modeling of sound in sites (see Appendix A of the IHA account for an elastic seabed. MONM– the water column is inherently an application for further detail).

TABLE 6—LOCATIONS USED IN PROPAGATION MODELING

Location (UTM Zone 19N) Water depth Site (m) Sound sources modeled Easting Northing

P1 ...... 382452 4548026 38 Monopile, Jacket pile. P2 ...... 365240 4542200 46 Monopile, Jacket pile.

Estimated pile driving schedules were predetermined threshold levels (see the Noise attenuation systems, such as used to calculate the SEL sound fields IHA application; Appendix A.3.2). bubble curtains, are used to decrease the at different points in time during pile Contour maps (see the IHA application; sound levels radiated from an driving. The pile driving schedule for Appendix A.14) show the planar underwater source. Bubbles create a monopiles is shown in Tables A–3 and distribution of the limits of the areas local impedance change that acts as a A–4 in the IHA application. For each affected by levels that are higher than barrier to sound transmission. The size hammer energy level, the pile the specific sound level thresholds. of the bubbles determines their effective penetration is expected to be 20 percent The modeled source spectra are frequency band, with larger bubbles of the total depth. provided in Figures 11 and 12 of the needed for lower frequencies. There are The sound propagation modeling IHA application. For both pile a variety of bubble curtain systems, incorporated site-specific environmental diameters, the dominant energy is below confined or unconfined bubbles, and data that describes the bathymetry, 100 Hz. The source spectra of the 10.3 some with encapsulated bubbles or sound speed in the water column, and m (33.8 ft) pile installation contain more panels. Attenuation levels also vary by seabed geoacoustics in the construction energy at lower frequencies than for the type of system, frequency band, and area. Sound level estimates are smaller 3 m (9.8 ft) piles. Please see location. Small bubble curtains have calculated from three-dimensional Appendix A of the IHA application for been measured to reduce sound levels sound fields and then collapsed over further details on the modeling but effective attenuation is highly depth to find the ranges to methodology. dependent on depth of water, current,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33830 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

and configuration and operation of the Similarly, Da¨hne et al. (2017) found that and peak sound pressure level metrics. curtain (Austin, Denes, MacDonnell, & single bubble curtains reduced sound As dual metrics, NMFS considers onset Warner, 2016; Koschinski & Lu¨ demann, levels by 7 to 10 dB and reduced the of PTS (Level A harassment) to have 2013). Bubble curtains vary in terms of overall sound level by ∼12 dB when occurred when either one of the two the sizes of the bubbles and those with combined as a double bubble curtain for metrics is exceeded (i.e., metric larger bubbles tend to perform a bit 6 m steel monopiles in the North Sea. resulting in the largest isopleth). The better and more reliably, particularly In August 2018, Norther NV started the SELcum metric considers both level and when deployed with two separate rings construction of an offshore wind farm at duration of exposure, as well as (Bellmann, 2014; Koschinski & about 13 NM from Zeebrugge. The auditory weighting functions by marine Lu¨ demann, 2013; Nehls, Rose, diameter of the 45 monopiles installed mammal hearing group. Diederichs, Bellmann, & Pehlke, 2016). for that project ranged from 7.2 to 7.8 m. Encapsulated bubble systems (e.g., The pile driving was done using a 3500 Table 7 shows the modeled radial Hydro Sound Dampers (HSDs)), can be kJ hydraulic hammer. Monitoring distances to the dual Level A effective within their targeted frequency results demonstrated the big bubble harassment thresholds using NMFS ranges, e.g., 100–800 Hz, and when used curtain achieved 6–7 dB of reduction (2018) frequency weighting for marine in conjunction with a bubble curtain and, in combination with an additional mammals, with 0 dB, 6 dB, and 12 dB appear to create the greatest attenuation. sound attenuation device, a 10–12 dB sound attenuation incorporated. For the The literature presents a wide array of reduction was achieved (Degraer et al., peak level, the greatest distances observed attenuation results for bubble 2019). In modeling the sound fields for expected are shown, typically occurring curtains. The variability in attenuation the planned project, hypothetical at the highest hammer energies. The levels is the result of variation in design, broadband attenuation levels of 6 dB distances to SEL thresholds were as well as differences in site conditions and 12 dB were modeled to gauge the calculated using the hammer energy and difficulty in properly installing and effects on the ranges to thresholds given schedules for driving one monopile or operating in-water attenuation devices. these levels of attenuation. four jacket pin piles, as shown. The A California Department of The acoustic thresholds for impulsive radial distances shown in Table 7 are Transportation (CalTrans) study tested sounds (such as pile driving) contained several systems and found that the best in the Technical Guidance (NMFS, the maximum distances from the piles, attenuation systems resulted in 10–15 2018) are presented as dual metric averaged between the two modeled locations. dB of attenuation (Buehler et al., 2015). acoustic thresholds using both SELcum

TABLE 7—RADIAL DISTANCES (m) TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS FOR EACH FOUNDATION TYPE WITH 0, 6, AND 12 dB SOUND ATTENUATION INCORPORATED

Level A harassment Level A harassment (peak) (SEL) Foundation type Hearing group 6 dB 12 dB 6 dB 12 dB No attenuation attenuation attenuation No attenuation attenuation attenuation

10.3 m (33.8 ft) monopile ...... LFC ..... 34 17 8.5 5,443 3,191 1,599 MFC .... 10 5 2.5 56 43 0 HFC ..... 235 119 49 101 71 71 PPW .... 38 19 10 450 153 71 Four, 3 m (9.8 ft) jacket pin LFC ..... 7.5 4 2.5 12,975 7,253 3,796 piles. MFC .... 2.5 1 0.5 71 71 56 HFC ..... 51 26 13.5 1,389 564 121 PPW .... 9 5 2.5 2,423 977 269 Note:* Radial distances were modeled at two different representative modeling locations as described above. Distances shown represent the average of the two modeled locations.

Table 8 shows the modeled radial Acoustic propagation was modeled at distance to the Level B harassment distances to the Level B harassment two representative sites in the WDA as threshold from the piles, averaged threshold with no attenuation, 6 dB and described above. The radial distances between the two modeled locations, 12 dB sound attenuation incorporated. shown in Table 8 are the maximum using the maximum hammer energy.

TABLE 8—RADIAL DISTANCES (m) TO THE LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

6 dB 12 dB Foundation type No attenuation attenuation attenuation

10.3 m (33.8 ft) monopile ...... 6,316 4,121 2,739 Four, 3 m (9.8 ft) jacket pin piles ...... 4,104 3,220 2,177

Please see Appendix A of the IHA Marine Mammal Occurrence We note that NARW density estimates application for further detail on the used to inform take estimates have been acoustic modeling methodology. In this section we provide the updated since the proposed IHA was information about the presence, density, published to include more recent or group dynamics of marine mammals surveys (Roberts et al., 2020). that will inform the take calculations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33831

The best available information (AMAPPS) surveys, which included attenuation, as well as with 6 dB and 12 regarding marine mammal densities in some aerial surveys over the RI/MA & dB sound attenuation) for all hearing the project area is provided by habitat- MA WEAs (NEFSC & SEFSC, 2011b, groups using the unweighted threshold based density models produced by the 2012, 2014a, 2014b, 2015, 2016), and of 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) (Table 8). The Duke University Marine Geospatial the 2020 update to the NARW density 13 km buffer incorporates the maximum Ecology Laboratory (Roberts et al., 2016, model (Roberts et al., 2020) that for the area around the WDA with the potential 2017, 2018, 2020). Density models were first time includes data from the 2011– to result in behavioral disturbance for originally developed for all cetacean 2015 surveys of the MA and RI/MA the 10.3 m (33.8 ft) monopile taxa in the U.S. Atlantic (Roberts et al., WEAs (Kraus et al. 2016) as well as the installation using (Wood, Southall, & 2016); more information, including the 2017–2018 continuation of those Tollit, 2012) threshold criteria. model results and supplementary surveys, known as the Marine Mammal The mean density for each month was information for each model, is available Surveys of the Wind Energy Areas determined by calculating the at seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke- (MMS–WEA) (Quintana et al., 2018). unweighted mean of all 10 × 10 km (6.2 EC-GOM-2015/. In subsequent years, Mean monthly densities for all × 6.2 mi) grid cells partially or fully certain models have been updated on animals were calculated using a 13 km within the buffer zone polygon. the basis of additional data as well as (8 mi) buffered polygon around the Densities were computed for the months certain methodological improvements. WDA perimeter and overlaying it on the of May to December to coincide with Our evaluation of the changes leads to density maps from Roberts et al. (2016, planned pile driving activities (as a conclusion that these represent the 2017, 2018, 2020). Please see Figure 13 described above, no pile driving would best scientific evidence available. in the IHA application for an example occur from January through April). In Marine mammal density estimates in of a density map showing Roberts et al. cases where monthly densities were the WDA (animals/km2) were obtained (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020) density grid unavailable, annual mean densities (e.g., using these model results (Roberts et al., cells with a 13 km buffer overlaid on a pilot whales) and seasonal mean 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020). As noted, the map of the WDA. The 13 km (8 mi) densities (e.g., all seals) were used updated models incorporate additional buffer is conservative as it encompasses instead. Table 9 shows the monthly sighting data, including sightings from and extends beyond the estimated marine mammal density estimates for the NOAA Atlantic Marine Assessment distances to the isopleth corresponding each species incorporated in the Program for Protected Species to the Level B harassment (with no exposure modeling analysis. TABLE 9—MONTHLY MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR EACH SPECIES INCORPORATED IN EXPOSURE MODELING ANALYSIS

Monthly densities May to 2 1 Species (animals/100 km ) Annual Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean Mean

Fin whale...... 0.151 0.115 0.122 0.234 0.268 0.276 0.26 0.248 0.197 0.121 0.12 0.131 0.187 0.203 Humpback whale...... 0.033 0.018 0.034 0.204 0.138 0.139 0.199 0.109 0.333 0.237 0.078 0.049 0.131 0.16 Minke whale...... 0.052 0.064 0.063 0.136 0.191 0.171 0.064 0.051 0.048 0.045 0.026 0.037 0.079 0.079 North Atlantic right whale 2 0.510 0.646 0.666 0.599 0.204 0.016 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.007 0.053 0.274 0.248 0.070 Sei whale...... 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.033 0.029 0.012 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.007 0.007 Atlantic white sided dolphin 1.935 0.972 1.077 2.088 4.059 3.742 2.801 1.892 1.558 1.95 2.208 3.281 2.297 2.686 Bottlenose dolphin...... 0.382 0.011 0.007 0.497 0.726 2.199 5.072 3.603 4.417 4.46 2.136 1.216 2.061 2.979 Pilot whales...... 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.555 Risso’s dolphin...... 0.006 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.016 0.006 0.013 0.018 0.009 0.012 Short beaked dolphin ...... 7.734 1.26 0.591 1.613 3.093 3.153 3.569 6.958 12.2 12.727 9.321 16.831 6.588 8.482 Sperm whale* ...... 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.029 0.033 0.012 0.012 0.008 0.001 0.009 0.013 Harbor porpoise...... 3.939 6.025 12.302 6.959 3.904 1.332 0.91 0.784 0.717 0.968 2.609 2.686 3.595 1.739 Gray seal 3 ...... 6.844 8.291 8.621 15.17 19.123 3.072 0.645 0.372 0.482 0.687 0.778 3.506 5.633 3.583 Harbor seal 3 ...... 6.844 8.291 8.621 15.17 19.123 3.072 0.645 0.372 0.482 0.687 0.778 3.506 5.633 3.583 Harp seal 3 ...... 6.844 8.291 8.621 15.17 19.123 3.072 0.645 0.372 0.482 0.687 0.778 3.506 5.633 3.583 1 Density estimates from habitat-based density modeling of the entire Atlantic EEZ from Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020). 2 NARW density estimates have been updated from the Notice of Proposed IHA based on data from 2010 through 2018 (Roberts et al, 2020). 3 All seal species are grouped together in the density models presented by Roberts et al. (2018).

JASCO’s Animal Simulation Model the simulation is the exposure history parameter value or overall behavioral Including Noise Exposure (JASMINE) for each animat within the simulation. state persists in the simulation. animal movement model was used to The precise location of animals (and The output of the simulation is the predict the probability of marine their pathways) are not known prior to exposure history for each animat within mammal exposure to project-related a project, therefore a repeated random the simulation, and the combined sound. Sound exposure models like sampling technique (Monte Carlo) is history of all animats gives a probability JASMINE use simulated animals (also used to estimate exposure probability density function of exposure during the known as ‘‘animats’’) to forecast with many animats and randomized project. Scaling the probability density behaviors of animals in new situations starting positions. The probability of an function by the real-world density of and locations based on previously animat starting out in or transitioning animals (Table 9) results in the mean documented behaviors of those animals. into a given behavioral state can be number of animals expected to be The predicted 3D sound fields (i.e., the defined in terms of the animat’s current exposed over the duration of the project. output of the acoustic modeling process behavioral state, depth, and the time of Due to the probabilistic nature of the described earlier) are sampled by day. In addition, each travel parameter process, fractions of animals may be animats using movement rules derived and behavioral state has a termination predicted to exceed threshold. If, for from animal observations. The output of function that governs how long the example, 0.1 animals are predicted to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33832 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

exceed threshold in the model, that is • Travel rate—defines an animat’s for each species that is expected to interpreted as a 10 percent chance that rate of travel in the horizontal plane. occur in the project area. one animal will exceed a relevant When combined with vertical speed and Take Calculation and Estimation threshold during the project, or dive depth, the dive profile of the equivalently, if the simulation were re- animat is produced. Here we describe how the information run ten times, one of the ten simulations Dive sub-models: provided above is brought together to would result in an animal exceeding the • Ascent rate—defines an animat’s produce a quantitative take estimate. We threshold. Similarly, a mean number rate of travel in the vertical plane during note the only change from proposed to prediction of 33.11 animals can be the ascent portion of a dive. final IHA was the removal of two Level interpreted as re-running the simulation • Descent rate—defines an animat’s A takes for sperm whales. The following where the number of animals exceeding rate of travel in the vertical plane during steps were performed to estimate the the threshold may differ in each the descent portion of a dive. potential numbers of marine mammal simulation but the mean number of • Depth—defines an animat’s exposures above Level A and Level B animals over all of the simulations is maximum dive depth. harassment thresholds as a result of the 33.11. A portion of an animal cannot be • Bottom following—determines planned activity: taken during a project, so it is common whether an animat returns to the surface (1) The characteristics of the sound practice to round mean number animal once reaching the ocean floor, or output from the planned pile-driving exposure values to integers using whether it follows the contours of the activities were modeled using the standard rounding methods. However, bathymetry. GRLWEAP (wave equation analysis of for low-probability events it is more • Reversals—determines whether pile driving) model and JASCO’s PDSM; precise to provide the actual values. For multiple vertical excursions occur once (2) Acoustic propagation modeling this reason, mean number values are not an animat reaches the maximum dive was performed using JASCO’s MONM rounded. depth. This behavior is used to emulate and FWRAM that combined the outputs Sound fields were input into the the foraging behavior of some marine of the source model with the spatial and JASMINE model and animats were temporal environmental context (e.g., programmed based on the best available mammal species at depth. Reversal- specific ascent and descent rates may be location, oceanographic conditions, information to ‘‘behave’’ in ways that seabed type) to estimate sound fields; reflect the behaviors of the 15 marine specified. • (3) Animal movement modeling mammal species expected to occur in Surface interval–determines the integrated the estimated sound fields the project area during the planned duration an animat spends at, or near, with species-typical behavioral activity. The various parameters for the surface before diving again. forecasting realistic marine mammal An individual animat’s received parameters in the JASMINE model to behaviors (e.g., diving, foraging, surface sound exposure levels are summed over estimate received sound levels for the times, etc.) are determined based on the a specified duration, such as 24 hours, animals that may occur in the available literature (e.g., tagging to determine its total received energy, operational area; and studies); when literature on these and then compared to the threshold (4) The number of potential exposures behaviors was not available for a criteria described above. As JASMINE above Level A and Level B harassment particular species, it was extrapolated modeling includes the movement of thresholds was calculated for each from a similar species for which animats both within as well as in and potential scenario within the project behaviors would be expected to be out of the modeled ensonified area, design envelope. similar to the species of interest. See some animats enter and depart the As described above, two project Appendix B of the IHA application for modeled ensonified area within a design scenarios were modeled: The a description of the species that were modeled 24 hour period; however, it is ‘‘maximum design’’ consisting of 100 used as proxies when data on a important to note that the model 10.3-m (33.8 ft) WTG monopile particular species was not available. The accounts for the acoustic energy that an foundationsand two jacket foundations parameters used in JASMINE describe animat accumulates even if that animat for ESPs, and the ‘‘most likely design’’ animal movement in both the vertical departs the ensonified area prior to the consisting of 90 10.3-m (33.8 ft) WTG and horizontal planes. The parameters full 24 hours (i.e., even if the animat monopile foundations, 10 WTG jacket relating to travel in these two planes are departs prior to a full 24 hour modeled foundations, and two ESP jacket briefly described below: period, if that animat accumulated foundations (Table 5). Both of these Travel sub-models: enough acoustic energy to be taken, it is design scenarios were also modeled • Direction—determines an animat’s accounted for in the take estimate). Also with either one or two monopile choice of direction in the horizontal note that animal aversion was not foundations installed per day. All plane. Sub-models are available for incorporated into the Jasmine model scenarios were modeled with both 6 dB determining the heading of animats, runs that were the basis for the take sound attenuation and 12 dB sound allowing for movement to range from estimate for any species. See Figure 14 attenuation incorporated. Results of strongly biased to undirected. A random in the IHA application for a depiction of marine mammal exposure modeling of walk model can be used for behaviors animats in an environment with a these scenarios is shown in Tables 10– with no directional preference, such as moving sound field. See Appendix B of 13. Note that while fractions of an feeding and playing. A directional bias the IHA application for more details on animal cannot be taken, these tables are can also be incorporated in the random the JASMINE modeling methodology, meant simply to show the modeled walk for use in situations where animals including the literature sources used for exposure numbers, versus the actual have a preferred absolute direction, the parameters that were input in take estimate. Authorized take numbers such as migration. JASMINE to describe animal movement are shown below in Table 15.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33833

TABLE 10—MEAN NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS ESTIMATED TO BE EXPOSED ABOVE LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS USING THE MAXIMUM DESIGN SCENARIO AND ONE FOUNDATION INSTALLED PER DAY

0 dB attenuation 6 dB attenuation 12 dB attenuation Species Level A Level A Level A Level A Level A Level A (SEL) (peak) Level B (SEL) (peak) Level B (SEL) (peak) Level B

Fin Whale...... 0.25 16.78 49.76 0.1 4.13 33.11 0.02 0.29 21.78 Humpback Whale...... 0.12 27.25 45.33 0.03 9.01 30.1 0.01 1 19.66 Minke Whale...... 0.12 2.72 17.74 0.04 0.22 12.21 0 0.07 7.9 North Atlantic Right Whale*...... 0.04 2.99 9.03 0.02 0.63 5.97 0 0.04 3.94 Sei Whale...... 0.01 0.57 1.63 0 0.14 1.09 0 0.01 0.74 Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin ...... 0 0 706.25 0 0 449.2 0 0 277.82 Bottlenose Dolphin...... 0.33 0 159.14 0 0 96.21 0 0 62.21 Pilot Whales...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Risso’s Dolphin...... 0.01 0 2.48 0 0 1.61 0 0 1.04 Common Dolphin...... 1.58 0 1603.82 0.1 0 1059.97 0.1 0 703.81 Sperm Whale...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harbor Porpoise...... 8.85 0.27 236.74 4.23 0.17 150.13 1.54 0 91.96 Gray Seal...... 0.61 0.6 314.75 0.11 0.3 196.4 0.04 0.07 118.06 Harbor Seal...... 0.82 0.81 340.11 0.36 0.21 214.04 0.33 0.07 136.33 Harp Seal...... 1.53 2.08 349.08 0.73 0.87 217.35 0 0.04 132.91 Note: * NARW exposure estimates have been revised from the Notice of Proposed IHA based on updated density estimates for the species in the project area (Roberts et al., 2020).

TABLE 11—MEAN NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS ESTIMATED TO BE EXPOSED ABOVE LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS USING THE MAXIMUM DESIGN SCENARIO AND TWO FOUNDATIONS INSTALLED PER DAY

0 dB attenuation 6 dB attenuation 12 dB attenuation Species Level A Level A Level A Level A Level A Level A (SEL) (peak) Level B (SEL) (peak) Level B (SEL) (peak) Level B

Fin Whale...... 0.29 18.09 41.57 0.1 4.49 29.71 0 0.41 20.57 Humpback Whale...... 0.15 27.65 38.91 0.03 9.59 27.23 0 1.09 18.48 Minke Whale...... 0.09 2.87 16.05 0.03 0.23 11.52 0 0.05 7.76 North Atlantic Right Whale*...... 0.03 3.02 7.42 0.01 1.39 5.32 0 0.05 3.6 Sei Whale...... 0.01 0.57 1.32 0 0.14 0.93 0 0.01 0.65 Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin ...... 0.25 0 632.3 0.13 0 428.23 0 0 272.67 Bottlenose Dolphin...... 0.17 0 103.3 0 0 67.71 0 0 43.87 Pilot Whales...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Risso’s Dolphin...... 0 0 1.95 0 0 1.38 0 0 0.95 Common Dolphin ...... 0.89 0 1260.46 0.44 0 897.91 0.1 0 622.78 Sperm Whale...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harbor Porpoise...... 8.24 0.33 183.1 4.23 0.17 125.23 1.85 0.06 82.28 Gray Seal...... 1.32 1.12 209.52 0.29 0.47 145.2 0.04 0.25 96.41 Harbor Seal...... 2.45 1.62 235.29 1.01 0.86 164.48 0.16 0.39 110.25 Harp Seal...... 1.36 2.6 238.09 0.38 0.53 162.03 0.17 0.04 108.19 Note: * NARW exposure estimates have been revised from the Notice of Proposed IHA based on updated density estimates for the species in the project area (Roberts et al., 2020).

TABLE 12—MEAN NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS ESTIMATED TO BE EXPOSED ABOVE LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS USING THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO AND ONE FOUNDATION INSTALLED PER DAY

0 dB attenuation 6 dB attenuation 12 dB attenuation Species Level A Level A Level A Level A Level B Level A harassment Level B Level A harassment Level B (SEL) (peak) (SEL) (peak) harassment (SEL) (peak) harassment

Fin Whale ...... 0.26 11.86 46.71 0.11 2.84 29.85 0.02 0.23 19.43 Humpback Whale...... 0.13 20.26 41.32 0.04 6.54 26.27 0.01 0.83 17.08 Minke Whale ...... 0.12 1.7 15.41 0.04 0.13 10.28 0 0.06 6.77 North Atlantic Right Whale * ...... 0.03 1.59 7.38 0.02 0.31 4.6 0 0.02 3.01 Sei Whale...... 0.01 0.4 1.48 0 0.09 0.95 0 0.01 0.65 Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin ...... 0 0 630.06 0 0 380.82 0 0 236.77 Bottlenose Dolphin...... 0.37 0 165 0 0 98.56 0 0 64.19 Pilot Whales ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Risso’s Dolphin ...... 0.01 0 2.37 0 0 1.48 0 0 0.94 Common Dolphin ...... 1.55 0 1480.84 0.01 0 941.41 0.01 0 617.01 Sperm Whale ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harbor Porpoise...... 8.12 0.15 221.91 3.86 0.14 134.88 1.38 0 80.89 Gray Seal ...... 0.37 0.02 292.13 0 0.01 176.92 0 0 104.6 Harbor Seal...... 0.68 0.35 312.37 0.34 0.01 191.06 0.34 0 120.64 Harp Seal...... 1.43 0.76 320.84 0.72 0.72 193.65 0 0 116.13 Note: * NARW exposure estimates have been revised from the Notice of Proposed IHA based on updated density estimates for the species in the project area (Roberts et al., 2020).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33834 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

TABLE 13—MEAN NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS ESTIMATED TO BE EXPOSED ABOVE LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS USING THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO AND TWO FOUNDATIONS INSTALLED PER DAY

0 dB attenuation 6 dB attenuation 12 dB attenuation Species Level A har- Level A har- Level A har- Level A har- Level A har- Level A har- assment assment Level B har- assment assment Level B har- assment assment Level B har- (SEL) (peak) assment (SEL) (peak) assment (SEL) (peak) assment

Fin Whale...... 0.3 13.31 37.62 0.11 3.24 26.07 0 0.36 18.08 Humpback Whale...... 0.16 20.71 34.21 0.04 7.18 23.09 0 0.93 15.77 Minke Whale...... 0.09 1.86 13.57 0.03 0.15 9.53 0 0.04 6.62 North Atlantic Right Whale * ...... 0.03 1.63 5.7 0.01 0.32 3.91 0 0.03 2.66 Sei Whale ...... 0.01 0.4 1.15 0 0.09 0.78 0 0.01 0.55 Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin.... 0.28 0 548.53 0.14 0 357.71 0 0 231.09 Bottlenose Dolphin ...... 0.19 0 102.67 0 0 66.75 0 0 43.72 Pilot Whales ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Risso’s Dolphin...... 0 0 1.78 0 0 1.22 0 0 0.84 Common Dolphin ...... 0.79 0 1099.62 0.39 0 761.48 0.01 0 527.04 Sperm whale ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harbor Porpoise...... 7.44 0.22 163.17 3.86 0.14 107.61 1.72 0.07 70.29 Gray Seal ...... 1.1 0.56 183.32 0.19 0.19 123.97 0 0.18 82.23 Harbor Seal...... 2.37 1.19 203.98 1.01 0.68 139.82 0.17 0.34 93.67 Harp Seal...... 1.26 1.29 206.08 0.36 0.36 136.45 0.18 0 90.56 Note: * NARW exposure estimates have been revised from the Notice of Proposed IHA based on updated density estimates for the species in the project area (Roberts et al., 2020).

As shown in Tables 10–13, the pinnipeds). However, Vineyard Wind that were observed very rarely during greatest potential number of marine requested Level A harassment takes for the Kraus et al. (2016) study (i.e., sperm mammal exposures above the Level B most species as a precautionary whales and Risso’s dolphins) or harassment threshold occurs under the measure, based on the fact that observed but not analyzed (i.e., Maximum Design scenario with one shutdown of pile driving may not be pinnipeds), data derived from AMAPPS monopile foundation installed per day technically feasible once pile driving surveys (Palka et al., 2017) were used to (Table 10) while the greatest potential has begun, thus if a marine mammal evaluate mean group size. For sperm number of marine mammal exposures were to enter the Level A harassment whales and Risso’s dolphins, the above the Level A harassment zone after pile driving has commenced number of individuals divided by the thresholds occurs under the Maximum Vineyard Wind may not be able to avoid number of groups observed during Design scenario with two monopile that animal(s) being taken by Level A 2010–2013 AMAPPS NE summer foundations installed per day (Table 11). harassment. Vineyard Wind requested shipboard surveys and NE aerial surveys With the inclusion of more jacket Level A harassment takes for these during all seasons was used (Appendix foundations, which would require more species based on mean group size for I of Palka et al., 2017). Though piles and more overall pile driving, each respective species, assuming that if pinnipeds congregate in large numbers marine mammal exposure estimates for one group member were to be exposed, on land, at sea they are generally the Maximum Design scenario (Tables it is likely that all animals in the same 10 and 11) are higher than under the group would receive a similar exposure foraging alone or in small groups. For Most Likely scenario (Tables 12 and 13). level, especially in a scenario with a harbor and gray seals, Palka et al. (2017) In all scenarios, the maximum number larger area ensonified above the Level A report sightings of seals at sea during of jacket foundations modeled per day harassment threshold. Thus, for the 2010–2013 spring, summer, and fall NE was one (four jacket pin piles). species for which exposure modeling AMAPPS aerial surveys. Those sightings Modeling indicates that whether one indicated less than the number of include both harbor seals and gray seals, monopile foundation is installed per individuals in a mean group size would as well as unknown seals, and thus a day or two makes little difference with be taken (by either Level A or Level B single group size estimate was respect to estimated Level A harassment harassment), Vineyard Wind increased calculated for these two species. Harp exposures; total exposures above the the value from the exposure modeling seals are occasionally recorded south of Level A harassment threshold differed results to equal one mean group size, the RI/MA & MA WEAs on Long Island, by less than one exposure over the rounded up to the nearest integer, for New York, and in the nearshore waters, duration of the project, for each species. species with predicted exposures of less usually in groups of one or two For exposures above the Level B than one mean group size (with the individuals. During 2002–2018, the harassment threshold, exposure exception of NARWs, as described Coastal Research and Education Society estimates for one monopile foundation below). Mean group sizes for species of Long Island (CRESLI) reported seven per day are somewhat higher than for were derived from Kraus et al. (2016), sightings of harp seals (CRESLI, 2018). two monopile foundations per day. where available, as the best Five of these were of single individuals With two monopile foundations per representation of expected group sizes and two were of two animals. day, there are half as many days of pile within the RI/MA & MA WEAs. These Calculated group sizes for all species are driving so there is likewise a reduced were calculated as the number of shown in Table 14. number of overall predicted Level B individuals sighted, divided by the harassment exposures over the duration number of sightings summed over the of the project. four seasons (see Tables 5 and 19 in Exposure modeling indicated that no Kraus et al., 2016). Sightings for which Level A harassment takes are expected species identification was considered for several species (i.e., minke whale, sei either definite or probable were used in whale, and all small cetaceans and the Kraus et al. (2016) data. For species

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33835

TABLE 14—MEAN GROUP SIZES OF attenuation will be effective during the observation data, or, based on modeled MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES IN THE planned activity. NMFS reviewed the exposures above threshold) should be PROJECT AREA CalTrans bubble curtain ‘‘on and off’’ used to estimate Level B exposures. studies conducted in San Francisco Bay Therefore, for species for which the Mean in 2003 and 2004. Based on 74 Level B harassment exposure numbers Species group measurements (37 with the bubble modeled based on marine mammal size curtain on and 37 with the bubble densities reported by Roberts et al. curtain off) at both near (<100 m) and (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020) with 6 dB Fin Whale ...... 1.8 Humpback Whale ...... 2 far (>100 m) distances, the linear sound attenuation applied (Table 10) Minke Whale ...... 1.2 averaged received level reduction is 6 were higher than the take numbers North Atlantic Right Whale ...... 2.4 dB (CalTrans, 2015). Nehls et al. (2016) based on visual observation data (i.e., Sei Whale ...... 1.6 reported that attenuation from use of a fin whale, bottlenose dolphin, harbor Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin ...... 27.9 bubble curtain during pile driving at the porpoise, harbor seal and harp seal) we Common Bottlenose Dolphin ...... 7.8 Borkum West II offshore wind farm in authorize take numbers based on those Pilot whale ...... 8.4 the North Sea was between 10 dB and modeled using densities derived from Risso’s Dolphin ...... 5.3 17 dB (mean 14 dB) (peak). Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020) Short-Beaked Common Dolphin ...... 34.9 Based on the best available Sperm Whale ...... 1.5 with 6 dB sound attenuation applied. Harbor Porpoise ...... 2.7 information, we believe it reasonable to As noted above, there were zero takes Gray Seal ...... 1.4 assume some level of effective of sperm whales modeled under all Harbor Seal ...... 1.4 attenuation due to implementation of modeling scenarios (Table 10, 11, 12 Harp Seal ...... 1.3 noise attenuation during impact pile and 13) and sightings of sperm whales driving. Vineyard Wind did not provide were extremely rare in the Kraus et al Vineyard Wind requested Level B take information regarding the attenuation (2016) data. However, Vineyard Wind numbers for some species that differ system that will ultimately be used requested Level A takes of sperm whales from the numbers modeled and were during the planned activity (e.g., what based on the potential for there to be instead based on monitoring data from size bubbles and in what configuration one group of average size exposed to site characterization surveys conducted a bubble curtain would be used, noise above the Level A harassment at the same location. Vineyard Wind whether a double curtain will be threshold and we proposed to authorize reviewed monitoring data recorded employed, whether hydro-sound 2 takes of sperm whales by Level A during site characterization surveys in dampers, noise abatement system, or harassment in the notice of proposed the WDA from 2016–2018 and some other alternate attenuation device IHA (84 FR 18346; April 30, 2019). calculated a daily sighting rate will be used, etc.) to support their However, through the analysis (individuals per day) for each species in conclusion that 12 dB effective conducted during ESA section 7 each year, then multiplied the attenuation can be expected. In the consultation, we determined the maximum sighting rate from the three absence of this information regarding likelihood of a sperm whale to incur years by the number of pile driving days the attenuation system that will be used, PTS (Level A harassment) is de minimis under the Maximum Design scenario and in consideration of the available because the area is not a preferred (i.e., 102 days). This method assumes information on attenuation that has sperm whale habitat as they prefer that the largest average group size for been achieved during impact pile deeper waters and bathymetric features each species observed during the three driving, we conservatively assume that such as canyons and the monopile and years of surveys may be present during 6 dB of sound attenuation will be jacket foundation Level A harassment piling on each day. Vineyard Wind used achieved. We further recognize that the distances for sperm whales is very small this method for all species that were pile size and hammer strength (less than 75 m). It is highly unlikely documented by protected species ultimately chosen by Vineyard Wind that a sperm whale would remain observers (PSOs) during the 2016–2018 may be less than that considered under within this area during the entire surveys. For sei whales, this approach the maximum design scenario. duration of pile driving necessary to resulted in the same number of Regardless, in absence of in situ data, incur PTS and we have required estimated Level B harassment takes as NMFS conservatively assumes the clearance and shut down zones greater Level A harassment takes (two), so to be sound field generated from pile driving than 75 m. Accordingly, the Biological conservative Vineyard Wind doubled will resemble that of the model Opinion’s ITS does not include an the Level A harassment value to arrive assuming 6dB of attenuation and the exemption for any takes by Level A at their requested number of Level B amount of take we have authorized harassment of sperm whales. For these harassment takes. Risso’s dolphins and reflects that assumption. reasons, we did not authorize take by harp seals were not documented by In some cases Vineyard Wind’s site Level A harassment of sperm whales. PSOs during those surveys, so Vineyard characterization survey monitoring For NARWs, exposure modeling Wind requested take based on two efforts revealed species presence at presented in the IHA application was average group sizes for those species. lower values than the Level B based on the best available density data The Level B harassment take calculation harassment exposure numbers modeled available at the time (i.e., Roberts et al. methodology described here resulted in (assuming 6 dB of attenuation) based on 2016, 2017, 2018). Because takes by higher take numbers than those marine mammal densities reported by Level B harassment calculated based on modeled (Table 10) for 10 out of 15 Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020) Vineyard Wind’s PSO data were higher species expected to be taken. (Table 10). While we agree that than those modeled using the best We have authorized take numbers that Vineyard Wind’s use of visual available density data, in the proposed are slightly different than the numbers observation data as the basis for Level IHA (84 FR 18346; April 30, 2019) we requested by Vineyard Wind for some B harassment take requests is generally proposed to authorize Level B species. Vineyard Wind’s requested take sound, we believe that, to be harassment based on the numbers numbers for Level A harassment conservative, the higher of the two calculated from Vineyard Wind’s PSO authorization are based on an calculated take numbers (i.e., take data (i.e., 20 takes by Level B expectation that 12 dB sound numbers based on available visual harassment). After the proposed IHA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33836 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

was published, NARW density data NARW exposure numbers (based on the modeling with 6 dB sound attenuation (Roberts et al., 2020) was updated to newer density data (Roberts et al., applied rather than Vineyard Wind’s incorporate more recent survey data 2020)) for all construction scenarios are PSO data. However, for all species for (through 2018) including those data shown in Tables 10–13. The updated which the modeled number of takes by from the 2011–2015 surveys of the MA NARW density data incorporated in the Level A harassment was lower than the and RI/MA WEAs (Kraus et al. 2016) as revised exposure modeling (Roberts et estimated mean group size (Table 9), we well as the 2017–2018 continuation of al., 2020) is shown in Table 9. proposed to authorize takes by Level A those surveys, known as the Marine For NARWs, one exposure above the harassment based on mean group size to Mammal Surveys of the Wind Energy Level A harassment threshold was be conservative (except for NARWs, for Areas (MMS–WEA) (Quintana et al., modeled over the duration of the which no takes by Level A harassment 2018) (Table 9). As this data represented planned project based on the Maximum were proposed because of the enhanced new information that was deemed the Design scenario and 6 dB effective mitigation protocols). There were three best available information on NARW attenuation (Tables 10 and 11). species for which estimated takes by density in the project area, we requested However, exposure modeling does not Level A harassment based on exposure that Vineyard Wind re-run the exposure consider mitigation and Vineyard Wind modeling were higher than the modeling for NARWs using this new requested no authorization for Level A estimated mean group size, and density data, for all possible harassment takes of NARWs based on an therefore the proposed number of takes expectation that any potential exposures construction scenarios, to confirm by Level A harassment were based on above the Level A harassment threshold whether the incorporation of the new exposure modeling rather than mean will be avoided through enhanced density data would result in a change to group size: Fin whale, humpback whale mitigation and monitoring measures modeled exposure numbers. The and harbor porpoise. Thus for these implemented specifically to minimize resulting modeled number of takes by three species, we recalculated takes by potential NARW exposures. As Level B harassment of right whales were described in the notice of proposed IHA, Level A harassment based on exposure lower under all four potential based on the enhanced mitigation and modeling assuming a scenario of 100 construction scenarios than the numbers monitoring measures implemented piles driven with 6 dB attenuation and that had been previously modeled and specifically for NARWs (described two piles driven with no attenuation. presented in the IHA application and below, see ‘‘Mitigation’’), including, but This resulted in the following change to the proposed IHA, and, remained lower not limited to, the seasonal moratorium takes by Level A harassment from the under all four potential construction on construction from January through proposed IHA (84 FR 18346; April 30, scenarios than the number calculated April, delay of pile driving upon any 2019): Fin whale takes by Level A using Vineyard Wind’s PSO data. To be sighting of a NARW at any distance by harassment increased from 4 to 5 conservative in our impact assessment observers on the pile driving platform, (recalculation of Level A harassment and given the year-round presence of extended PAM clearance and takes for humpback whale and harbor NARWs in the project area (albeit still monitoring zones beyond the Level B porpoise did not result in a change to very low in the summer months as harassment zone, and pile driving the estimated Level A harassment take indicated in the density estimates), the shutdown called for at the Level A number). Although no unattenuated pile number of authorized takes by Level B harassment distance, any potential take driving will occur, we have issued the harassment of right whales in the IHA of right whales by Level A harassment amount of take of fin whales in Table 15 remains at 20 (the same number of will be avoided. Therefore, we do not to be conservative. This take also aligns authorized takes proposed in the authorize any takes of NARWs by Level with the amount of take exempted in the proposed IHA (84 FR 18346; April 30, A harassment. Biological Opinion and associated ITS. 2019)) based on calculations using Estimates of take by Level A Authorized take numbers are shown in Vineyard Wind’s PSO data. Modeled harassment are based on exposure Table 15.

TABLE 15—TOTAL AMOUNT OF TAKE AUTHORIZED, BY SPECIES

Total takes Takes by Takes by as a Species Level A Level B Total takes percentage harassment harassment authorized of stock taken 2

Fin whale 1 ...... 5 33 38 0.5 Humpback Whale ...... 10 56 66 4.7 Minke Whale ...... 2 98 100 0.4 North Atlantic Right Whale 1 ...... 0 20 20 5.4 Sei Whale 1 ...... 2 4 6 0.1 Sperm whale 1 ...... 0 5 5 0.1 Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin ...... 28 1,107 1,135 1.2 Bottlenose Dolphin ...... 8 96 104 0.2 Long-finned Pilot Whale ...... 9 91 100 0.3 Risso’s Dolphin ...... 6 12 18 0.1 Common Dolphin...... 35 4,646 4,681 2.7 Harbor porpoise ...... 4 150 155 0.2 Gray seal ...... 2 414 416 1.5 Harbor seal ...... 2 214 216 0.3 Harp seal ...... 2 217 219 0.0 1 Here we present take numbers of ESA-listed marine mammals provided Vineyard Wind installs 102 foundations. Ultimately this take is contin- gent upon the amount of take authorized in the associated Incidental Take Statement which is scaled based on final design.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33837

2 Calculations of percentage of stock taken are based on the Nbest abundance estimate as shown in Table 2. For all other species the best available abundance estimates are derived from the most recent NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (Hayes et al., 2020).

The take numbers authorized (Table species or stocks and their habitat, as of Coast Guard VHF Channel 16 15) are considered conservative for the well as subsistence uses where throughout the day to receive following reasons: applicable, we carefully consider two notifications of any sightings, and • Authorized take numbers are based primary factors: information associated with any on an assumption that all installed (1) The manner in which, and the Dynamic Management Areas and Slow monopiles would be 10.3 m in diameter, degree to which, the successful Zones to plan pile driving to minimize when some or all monopiles ultimately implementation of the measure(s) is the potential for exposure of any right installed may be smaller; expected to reduce impacts to marine whales to pile driving noise. This • Authorized take numbers are based mammals, marine mammal species or measure was not included in the on an assumption that 102 foundations stocks, and their habitat. This considers proposed IHA and affords increased would be installed, when ultimately the the nature of the potential adverse protection of NARWs by raising total number installed may be lower; impact being mitigated (likelihood, awareness of NARW presence in the • Authorized take numbers are based scope, range). It further considers the area by both visual and passive acoustic on a scenario that includes up to 10 likelihood that the measure will be monitoring efforts outside of Vineyard jacket foundations, when it is possible effective if implemented (probability of Wind’s efforts and allows for planning that fewer than 10 jacket foundations accomplishing the mitigating result if of pile driving to minimize potential may be installed; implemented as planned), the impacts. • Authorized Level A take numbers likelihood of effective implementation Seasonal Restriction do not account for the likelihood that (probability implemented as planned), marine mammals will avoid a stimulus and; As described in the proposed IHA, no when possible before that stimulus (2) the practicability of the measures pile driving activities may occur reaches a level that would have the for applicant implementation, which between January 1 and April 30. More potential to result in injury; may consider such things as cost and recently, as identified in the final IHA, • Authorized take numbers do not impact on operations. Vineyard Wind has also committed to account for the effectiveness of The mitigation strategies described avoiding pile driving in December mitigation and monitoring measures in below are consistent with those required except under unforeseen, extraordinary reducing the number of takes (with the and successfully implemented under circumstances that require them to do so exception of NARWs, for which previous incidental take authorizations to complete the project and they may mitigation and monitoring measures are issued in association with in-water pile- only do so upon approval from BOEM. factored into the Level A harassment driving activities (e.g., ramp-up, This seasonal restriction is established take number); establishing harassment zone, to minimize the potential for NARWs to • For 9 of 15 species, no Level A implementing shutdown zones, etc.). be exposed to pile driving noise. Based takes were predicted based on Additional measures have also been on the best available information (Kraus modeling, however Level A take incorporated to account for the fact that et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2017, 2020), numbers have been conservatively the planned activities would occur the highest densities of right whales in increased from zero to mean group size offshore. Modeling was performed to the project area are expected during the for these species. estimate zones of influence (ZOI; see months of December through April. This ‘‘Estimated Take’’); these ZOI values restriction is expected to greatly reduce Mitigation were used to inform mitigation the potential for NARW exposure to pile In order to issue an IHA under measures for pile driving activities to driving noise associated with the Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, minimize Level A harassment and Level planned project. NMFS must set forth the permissible B harassment to the extent possible, Clearance Zones methods of taking pursuant to such while providing estimates of the areas activity, and other means of effecting within which Level B harassment might Vineyard Wind must use PSOs to the least practicable impact on such occur. Several measures have been establish clearance zones around the species or stock and its habitat, paying added or modified since the proposed pile driving equipment to ensure these particular attention to rookeries, mating IHA was published, and are identified zones are clear of marine mammals grounds, and areas of similar and described in detail below. prior to the start of pile driving. The significance, and on the availability of In addition to the specific measures purpose of ‘‘clearance’’ of a particular such species or stock for taking for described later in this section, Vineyard zone is to prevent potential instances of certain subsistence uses (latter not Wind would conduct briefings for auditory injury and potential instances applicable for this action). NMFS construction supervisors and crews, the of more severe behavioral disturbance as regulations require applicants for marine mammal and acoustic a result of exposure to pile driving noise incidental take authorizations to include monitoring teams, and Vineyard Wind (serious injury or death are unlikely information about the availability and staff prior to the start of all pile driving outcomes even in the absence of feasibility (economic and technological) activity, and when new personnel join mitigation measures) by delaying the of equipment, methods, and manner of the work, in order to explain activity before it begins if marine conducting such activity or other means responsibilities, communication mammals are detected within certain of effecting the least practicable adverse procedures, the marine mammal pre-defined distances of the pile driving impact upon the affected species or monitoring protocol, and operational equipment. The primary goal in this stocks and their habitat (50 CFR procedures. Vineyard Wind must use case is to prevent auditory injury (Level 216.104(a)(11)). available sources of information on right A harassment) of NARWs and reduce In evaluating how mitigation may or whale presence, including, at least, the risk of PTS to other marine may not be appropriate to ensure the daily monitoring of the Right Whale mammals where there is potential it least practicable adverse impact on Sightings Advisory System, monitoring may occur. The clearance zones are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33838 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

larger than the modeled distances to the PSO will be able to detect a whale at time period was greatly expanded to 5 isopleths corresponding to Level A farther distances on clear days. Further, km and a minimum visibility zone was harassment (based on peak SPL) for all at all times of year, any large whale established. The clearance zones for marine mammal functional hearing sighted by a PSO within 1,000 m of the non-NARWs species remained as groups, assuming an effective 6 dB pile that cannot be identified to species proposed in the final IHA. Clearance attenuation of pile driving noise. For must be treated as if it were a NARW, zones apply to both monopile and jacket NARWs, a detection at any distance by triggering a delay in pile driving. installation. These zones vary a PSO on the pile driving vessel will The proposed IHA identified a pile depending on species and are shown in trigger a delay. The clearance zone driving clearance zone of 1,000 m (1 Table 16 for all piles. All distances to identified in Table 16a is the minimum km) for NARWs from May 15 through clearance zones are the radius from the zone that must be visible and clear prior October 31. In the final IHA, the center of the pile. to commence pile driving; however, clearance zone for NARWs during this

TABLE 16a AND b—REQUIRED NARW CLEARANCE ZONES (16a) AND SHUTDOWN ZONES (16b)

Clearance and PAM Monitoring Zones PAM Minimum visual clearance monitoring Time of year Pile type PAM clearance zone 5 zone 12 zone (km)

May 1–May 14 ...... All ...... 10 km ...... 10 km 6 ...... 10 May 15–May 31 ...... monopile/jacket ...... 2 km/1.6 km 34 ...... 5 km/3.2 km 3 ...... 10 June 1–Oct 31 ...... monopile/jacket ...... 2 km/1.6 km 34 ...... 5 km/3.2 km 36 ...... 7 5 Nov 1–Dec 31 ...... monopile/jacket ...... 2 km/1.6 km 3 ...... 10 km 6 ...... 10 1 At any time of year, a visual detection of a NARW by a PSO at the pile driving platform triggers a delay in pile driving. 2 At all times of year, any large whale sighted by a PSO within 1,000 m of the pile that cannot be identified to species must be treated as if it were a NARW. 3 Upon receipt of an interim SSV report, NMFS may adjust the clearance zones to reflect SSV measurements such that the minimum visual clearance zones represent the Level A (SELcum) zones and the PAM clearance zones represent the Level B harassment zones. However, zone sizes will not be decreased less than 1 km from June 1–Oct 31 and not less than 2 km during May 15–May 31 or if a DMA or Slow Zone is es- tablished that overlaps with the Level B harassment zone. 4 If a DMA or Slow Zone overlaps the Level B harassment zone, Vineyard Wind will employ a third PSO at the pile driving platform such that 3 PSOs will be on duty. The primary duty of the 3rd PSO is to observe for NARWs. 5 At any time of year, a PAM detection (75 percent confidence) within the clearance zone must be treated as a visual detection, triggering a delay in pile driving. 6 From May 1–14 and Nov 1–Dec 31, the PAM system must be operated 24/7 if pile driving will occur and must not be less than 10 km. 7 If a DMA or Slow Zone overlaps the Level B zone, the PAM system must be extended to the largest practicable detection zone to increase situational awareness but must not be smaller than the Level B zone.

NARW shutdown zone zones prior to the start of pile driving not obscured by dark, rain, fog, etc.) for (visual and PAM) operations, pile driving activity must be a full 30 minutes prior to pile driving. delayed until either the marine mammal Shutdown From May 1 through May 14 an Pile type zone 12 has voluntarily left the respective extended clearance zone of 10 km (km) clearance zone and been visually (radial distance from the pile being confirmed beyond that clearance zone, driven) must be established for NARWs. Monopile/Jacket ...... 3.2 or, 30 minutes have elapsed without re- This zone must be monitored using real- 1 If a marine mammal is observed entering detection of the animal in the case of time PAM. An aerial or vessel-based or within the respective clearance zone after mysticetes, sperm whales, Risso’s survey must also be conducted that pile driving has commenced, a shutdown of covers the 10 km extended clearance pile driving must be implemented when tech- dolphins and pilot whales, or 15 nically feasible. minutes have elapsed without re- zone during this period. Vessel-based 2 Upon receipt of an interim SSV report, detection of the animal in the case of all surveys must not begin until the lead NMFS may adjust the shutdown zone. other marine mammals. PSO on duty determines there is adequate visibility. Aerial surveys must Prior to the start of pile driving TABLE 17—REQUIRED NON-NARW not begin until the lead PSO on duty activity, the clearance zones will be CLEARANCE AND SHUTDOWN ZONES determines adequate visibility and at monitored for 60 minutes to ensure that least one hour after sunrise (on days Clearance they are clear of the relevant species of with sun glare). From November 1 and marine mammals. Pile driving may only through December 31 an extended Species group shutdown commence once PSOs and PAM zones clearance zone of 10 km (radial distance (m) operators have declared the respective from the pile being driven) must be clearance zones clear of marine established for NARWs. This zone must Non-NARW mysticete whales mammals. Marine mammals observed be monitored using real-time PAM (no (including humpback, sei, fin within a clearance zone must be survey is required prior to pile driving and minke) and sperm whale 500 allowed to remain in the clearance zone during this period). Harbor porpoise ...... 120 (i.e., must leave of their own volition), All other marine mammals (in- From May 1 through May 14 and cluding dolphins and and their behavior will be monitored November 1 through December 31, if a pinnipeds) ...... 50 and documented. The clearance zones NARW is confirmed via visual may only be declared clear, and pile observation or PAM within the 10 km If a marine mammal is observed driving started, when the entire extended clearance zone, pile driving within or entering the relevant clearance clearance zones are visible (i.e., when must be delayed (if it has not yet

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33839

commenced) or shut down (if it has Additional Measures for North Atlantic monitoring zone would be required to already begun, and if technically Right Whales make such a determination if they have feasible) and must not resume until the Enhanced measures for right whales, at least 75 percent confidence that the following day or until a survey confirms including extended clearance zones vocalization within 10 km of the pile NARWs are no longer in the zone. From during certain times of year, are driving location originated from a North May 15 through May 31 an extended included in the IHA and are designed to Atlantic right whale. A record of the PAM monitoring zone of 10 km must be further minimize the potential for right PAM operator’s review of any acoustic established for NARWs. While the whales to be exposed to pile driving detections must be reported to NMFS. If a NARW is observed at any time by clearance zone is 5 km, a confirmed noise. Extended clearance zones are PSOs or personnel on any project PAM detection of a NARW from 5 to 10 required during times of year that are vessels, during any project-related km does not trigger delay or shutdown considered to be ‘‘shoulder seasons’’ in activity or during vessel transit, of pile driving but must be immediately terms of NARW presence in the project Vineyard Wind must report sighting relayed to visual PSOs to increase area (November, December and May). information to the NMFS NARW situational awareness. From June 1 While NARW presence during these through October 31, the PAM clearance Sighting Advisory System, to the U.S. times of year is considered less likely Coast Guard via channel 16, and and monitoring zone is 5 km. than during the required seasonal NMFS did consider a 5 km minimum through the WhaleAlert app (http:// closure (January through April), based www.whalealert.org/) as soon as feasible visibility clearance zone; however, to do on the best available information right but no longer than 24 hours after the so during a time of year when NARW whales may occur in the project area sighting. If a NARW is detected via density is very low, and in during these times of year (Roberts et al, PAM, a report of the detection must be consideration of all the enhanced 2017, 2020; Kraus et al. 2016). Extended submitted to NMFS as soon as feasible mitigation and monitoring measures, we clearance zones must be maintained but no longer than 24 hours after the determined a zone of that size would through PAM, as well as by visual detection. In addition, within 48 hours, only delay the project such that pile observation conducted on aerial or metadata associated with the detection driving would be pushed to the vessel-based surveys during certain must be submitted to the NMFS NARW shoulder seasons when NARWs are seasons, as described below. Passive Acoustic Reporting System present in higher densities. Further, a 5 Pile driving must be delayed upon website. None of these reporting km minimum visibility clearance zone visual observation of a NARW by PSOs requirements were included in the is impracticable as it would likely result on the pile driving vessel at any proposed IHA and offer additional in a delay in construction. According to distance from the pile. We note that in protection to marine mammals via Vineyard Wind, the project must be the proposed IHA, the delay in pile increased awareness for all mariners. constructed in one construction season driving was triggered from May 15– to meet the commercial operations date October 31 by a detection within 1km of Soft Start under its contractual obligations and the pile; therefore, the measure in the The use of a soft start procedure is maintain the commercial viability of the final IHA is more protective of NARWs. believed to provide additional project. Vineyard Wind is planning for Pile driving must be delayed upon a protection to marine mammals by a 6-month construction season. Of the confirmed PAM detection of a NARW, warning marine mammals or providing hours available for pile driving during if the detection is confirmed to have them with a chance to leave the area the 6-month construction season, almost been located within the relevant prior to the hammer operating at full 60 percent are lost due to prohibitions clearance zone (Table 16). Any large capacity, and typically involves a on pile driving at night and pile driving whale visually observed by a PSO requirement to initiate sound from the not being allowed to begin until at least within 1,000 m of the pile that cannot hammer at reduced energy followed by one hour after sunrise and not before 1.5 be identified to species must be treated a waiting period. Vineyard Wind must hours of civil sunset. Further restricting as if it were a NARW for clearance utilize soft start techniques for impact the available hours for pile driving are purposes (we note this measure was not pile driving by performing an initial set wind and wave conditions that preclude included in the IHA). Any sighting of a of three strikes from the impact hammer the ability to work safely offshore. NARW by Vineyard Wind personnel or at a reduced energy level followed by a Overall, Vineyard Wind estimates that by personnel contracted by Vineyard 1 minute waiting period. We note that of the total available hours for pile Wind (including vessel crews and it is difficult to specify the reduction in driving, an average of 75 percent are lost construction personnel) must be energy for any given hammer because of due to regulatory restrictions and sea/ immediately reported to the lead PSO variation across drivers and, for impact weather conditions. This does not on duty. hammers, the actual number of strikes at account for lost time due to technical Real-time acoustic monitoring must reduced energy will vary because difficulties or stoppages for protected begin at least 60 minutes prior to pile operating the hammer at less than full species. If we were to increase the driving. The real-time PAM system must power results in ‘‘bouncing’’ of the minimum visual clearance zone to 5 km, be designed and established such that hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting the project would likely not be detection capability extends to 10 km in multiple ‘‘strikes’’; however, completed within the time necessary from the pile driving location. The real- Vineyard Wind has proposed that they and therefore the measure is time PAM system must ensure that will target less than 40 percent of total impracticable. Further, pushing pile acoustic detections can be classified hammer energy for the initial hammer driving to times when NARWs are more (i.e., potentially originating from a strikes during soft start. The soft start abundant (but still within the pile NARW) within 30 minutes of the process would be conducted a total of driving window), could result in original detection. The PAM operator three times prior to driving each pile adverse and unnecessary impacts to must be trained in identification of (e.g., three single strikes followed by a NARWs. Finally, we have included a mysticete vocalizations. The PAM one minute delay, then three additional minimum 5 km PAM clearance zone operator responsible for determining if single strikes followed by a one minute which is not impacted by weather/ the acoustic detection originated from a delay, then a final set of three single visibility. NARW within the 10 km PAM strikes followed by an additional one

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33840 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

minute delay). Soft start would be enough to secure pile stability in the driving such large piles to meet the 6dB required at the beginning of each day’s interim situation, taking into account attenuation requirement was not impact pile driving work and at any weather statistics for the relevant season warranted. Instead, Vineyard Wind is time following a cessation of impact pile and the current weather forecast. prohibited from driving unattenuated driving of thirty minutes or longer. Determinations by the lead engineer on piles and instead must ensure such duty will be made for each pile as the devices are achieving the anticipated Shutdown installation progresses and not for the harassment isopleths based on modeling The purpose of a shutdown is to site as a whole. assuming 6 dB reduction. This measure prevent some undesirable outcome, If a shutdown is called for by PSOs results in reduced noise levels, such as auditory injury or behavioral but Vineyard Wind determines benefiting all marine mammals. The disturbance of sensitive species, by shutdown is not technically feasible due final IHA states that Vineyard Wind halting the activity. The proposed IHA to human safety concerns or to maintain must implement a noise attenuation included a shutdown zone equal to the installation feasibility then reduced device(s) during all impact pile driving. proposed clearance zones (i.e., 1 km for hammer energy must be implemented, The attenuation system may include one NARWs, 500 m for all other mysticetes, when the lead engineer determines it is of the following or some combination of 120 m for harbor porpoise, and 50 m for technically feasible. the following: A Noise Mitigation all other marine mammals). However, Following a shutdown, pile driving System, Hydro-sound Damper, Noise after further consideration, we may not commence until either the Abatement System, and/or bubble determined that a shutdown zone equal animal has voluntarily left and been curtain. Vineyard Wind would also have to the Level A harassment zone for visually confirmed beyond the relevant a second back-up attenuation device monopiles was warranted for NARWs clearance zone or when 30 minutes have (e.g., bubble curtain or similar) year-round. This expansion of the elapsed without re-detection (for available, if needed, to ensure the shutdown zone affords additional mysticetes, sperm whales, Risso’s harassment zones do not exceed those protection to NARWs from both Level A dolphins and pilot whales) or 15 modeled (assuming at least a 6dB harassment (e.g., PTS) and reduces the minutes have elapsed without re- reduction), pending results of sound severity of Level B harassment as a detection (for all other marine field verification testing. A Pile Driving received level at 3.2 km will be much mammals), or if required to maintain Plan including a complete description less than that at 1km. The shutdown installation feasibility. of the sound attenuation systems zones for all other marine mammals Visibility Requirements planned for use must be submitted to remain as proposed. If a marine NMFS for approval no less than 90 days mammal is observed entering or within The proposed IHA included a prior to commencement of pile driving. the respective clearance zones (Table measure that pile driving must not be We note that submission of such a plan 16) after pile driving has begun, the PSO initiated after sunset or at nighttime. was not included in the proposed IHA. will request a temporary cessation of The final IHA affords additional We have also included additional pile driving. Vineyard Wind has protection to marine mammals in that requirements related to field proposed that, when called for by a no pile driving may begin until at least measurements (see Monitoring and PSO, shutdown of pile driving would be one hour after (civil) sunrise and no pile Reporting section below). implemented when feasible but that driving may begin within 1.5 hours of shutdown would not always be (civil) sunset, after sunset or at Marine Mammal Monitoring Protocols technically practicable once driving of a nighttime. Pile driving may continue Monitoring would be conducted pile has commenced as it has the after dark only when the installation of before, during, and after pile driving potential to result in pile instability. We the same pile began during daylight activities. In addition, observers will therefore require that shutdown would (within 1.5 hours of (civil) sunset) when record all incidents of marine mammal be implemented when technically clearance zones were fully visible for at occurrence, regardless of distance from feasible, with a focus on other least 30 minutes immediately prior to the construction activity, and monitors mitigation measures as the primary pile driving. Pile driving must not be will document any behavioral reactions means of minimizing potential impacts initiated at night, or, when the full in concert with distance from piles on marine mammals from noise related extent of all relevant clearance zones being driven. Observations made to pile driving. If shutdown is called for cannot be confirmed to be clear of outside the clearance zones will not by a PSO, and Vineyard Wind marine mammals, as determined by the result in delay of pile driving; that pile determines a shutdown to be technically lead PSO on duty. The clearance zones segment may be completed without feasible, pile driving would be halted may only be declared clear, and pile cessation, unless the marine mammal immediately. driving started, when the full extent of approaches or enters the clearance zone, In situations when shutdown is called all clearance zones are visible (i.e., at which point pile driving activities for but Vineyard Wind determines when not obscured by dark, rain, fog, would be halted when practicable, as shutdown is not practicable due to etc.) for a full 30 minutes prior to pile described above. Pile driving activities human safety or operational concerns, driving. During periods of obscured include the time to install a single pile reduced hammer energy would be visibility, alternative detection devices or series of piles, as long as the time implemented when practicable. In cases (e.g., night vision, thermal, infrared) elapsed between uses of the pile driving where pile driving is already started and must be used. equipment is no more than 30 minutes. a PSO calls for shutdown, the lead engineer on duty will evaluate the Sound Attenuation Vessel Strike Avoidance following to determine whether The proposed IHA indicated Vineyard The IHA contains numerous vessel shutdown is technically feasible: (1) Use Wind may drive unattenuated piles to strike avoidance measures. Vineyard the site-specific soil data and the real- identify the effectiveness of the bubble Wind is required to comply with these time hammer log information to judge curtain and confirm that at least a 6dB measures except under circumstances whether a stoppage would risk causing attenuation was being achieved using when doing so would create an piling refusal at re-start of piling; and (2) such devices. After further imminent and serious threat to a person Check that the pile penetration is deep consideration, we determined that or vessel or to the extent that a vessel

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33841

is restricted in its ability to maneuver must either travel at less than 10 kts, or, Crew transfer vessels may travel at and, because of the restriction, cannot must implement visual surveys with at over 10 kts if, in addition to the required comply. least one visual observer to monitor for dedicated observer, real-time PAM of Vineyard Wind must submit a NARW NARWs (with the exception of vessel transit corridors is conducted prior to strike avoidance plan 90 days prior to transit within Nantucket Sound unless a and during transits. If a NARW is commencement of vessel use. The plan DMA is in place). detected via visual observation or PAM will, at minimum, describe how the In the event that any DMA is within or approaching the transit route, required vessel, PAM, or aerial based established that overlaps with an area all crew transfer vessels must travel at monitoring will be conducted to ensure where a vessel would operate, that 10 kts or less for the remainder of that the transit corridor is clear of NARWs. vessel, regardless of size, will transit day. All vessels will reduce vessel speed The plan will also provide details on the that area at 10 kts or less unless it is a to 10 kts or less when any large whale, vessel-based observer protocol on crew transfer vessel and certain any mother/calf pairs, pods, or large transiting vessels and PAM required monitoring conditions are met. assemblages of non-delphinoid between November 1 and May 14. Crew transfer vessels traveling within cetaceans are observed near (within 100 Submission of this plan was not any designated DMA must travel at 10 m (330 ft.)) an underway vessel. included in the proposed IHA. kts (18.5 km/hr.) or less, unless NARWs NMFS did consider whether all Additional measure included in the are clear of the transit route and WDA vessels associated with Vineyard Wind’s final IHA that was not included in the for two consecutive days, as confirmed specified activity should travel at 10 kts proposed IHA includes one that states, by vessel-based surveys conducted or less at all times of the year under all year-round, vessel operators will use all during daylight hours and real-time conditions (except when there is risk to available sources of information on right PAM, or, by an aerial survey, conducted human and vessel safety). NMFS finds whale presence, including at least daily once the lead aerial observer determines this measure both impracticable and monitoring of the Right Whale Sightings adequate visibility. If confirmed clear by unnecessary. First and foremost, to limit Advisory System, WhaleAlert app, and one of the measures above, vessels vessel speeds during a time when monitoring of Coast Guard VHF Channel transiting within a DMA over 10 kts NARW presence is extremely low could 16 throughout the day to receive must employ at least two visual result in delays to the project that push notifications of any sightings and/or observers to monitor for NARWs. If a work into times of year when NARW consideration of information associated NARW is observed within or presence is higher. In addition, given with any Dynamic Management Areas to approaching the transit route, vessels the 50–60 mile distance from port to the plan vessel routes to minimize the must operate at less than 10 kts until WDA, traveling at 10kts or less would potential for co-occurrence with any clearance of the transit route for 2 take approximately 4.5 to 5 hours each right whales. consecutive days. way (9–10 hours total). Vineyard Wind Vessel operators and crews must Since the proposed IHA was released, has indicated that workers are limited to maintain a vigilant watch for all marine NMFS has developed the NARW ‘‘Slow a 12-hour workday, including transit mammals and slow down, stop their Zone’’ Program. This program notifies time. Therefore, 10 hours of their 12 vessel, or alter course, as appropriate vessel operators of areas where hour workday would be taken up by and regardless of vessel size, to avoid maintaining speeds of 10 kts or less can transit, which is not feasible when striking any marine mammal. A visual help protect right whales from vessel workers are limited to a 12 hour work observer aboard the vessel must monitor collisions. Maintaining speeds of 10 kts day. a vessel strike avoidance zone around or less in a Slow Zone is voluntary (i.e., All vessels must maintain a minimum the vessel (distances stated below). there is no requirement any mariner separation distance of 500 m (1,640 ft) Visual observers monitoring the vessel reduce speeds). All DMAs (triggered by from a NARW. If a whale is observed strike avoidance zone may be third- the visual detection of three or more but cannot be confirmed as a species party observers (i.e., PSOs) or crew NARWs) fall under the Slow Zone other than a right whale, the vessel members, but crew members program. Slow Zones may also be operator must assume that it is a right responsible for these duties must be triggered by acoustic detections on PAM whale and take appropriate action. If provided sufficient training to systems meeting certain criteria. underway, vessels must steer a course distinguish marine mammals from other Acoustically-triggered Slow Zones are away from any sighted NARW at 10 kts phenomena and broadly to identify a in place for 15 days (similar to a DMA) or less such that the 500 m (1,640 ft.) marine mammal as a right whale, other and extend 20 miles from the recorder minimum separation distance is not whale (defined in this context as sperm on which the NARW was detected. violated. If a NARW is sighted within whales or baleen whales other than right NMFS determined that measures 500 m (1,640 ft.) of an underway vessel, whales), or other marine mammal. associated with Slow Zones that are the underway vessel must shift the Vineyard Wind must adhere to the acoustically triggered should be engine to neutral. Engines will not be following measures: included in the final IHA. Therefore, engaged until the right whale has moved Whenever multiple vessels are crew transfer vessels travelling over 10 outside of the vessel’s path and beyond operating, any visual observations of kts within an acoustically-triggered 500 m. ESA-listed marine mammals must be Right Whale Slow Zone must employ an All vessels must maintain a minimum communicated to a PSO and/or vessel additional observer (for a total of two separation distance of 100 m from captains associated with other vessels. similar to a DMA) or other enhanced sperm whales and non-NARW baleen Under any condition, vessel speeds will detection methods (e.g., thermal whales. If one of these species is sighted immediately be reduced to 10 kts or less cameras) to monitor for NARWs in within 100 m (330 ft.) of an underway if a NARW is sighted by the observer or addition to PAM monitoring in the vessel, the underway vessel must shift anyone on the vessel. transit corridor. the engine to neutral. Engines will not From November 1 through May 14, all All vessels greater than or equal to 65 be engaged until the whale has moved vessels, regardless of size, must travel at ft (19.8 m) in overall length must outside of the vessel’s path and beyond less than 10 kts within the WDA. From comply with the 10 kt speed restriction 100 m. November 1 through May 14, when in any Seasonal Management Area All vessels must, to the maximum transiting to or from the WDA, vessels (SMA). extent practicable, attempt to maintain a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33842 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

minimum separation distance of 50 m the suggested means of accomplishing to the extent practicable (noting that (164 ft) from all delphinoid cetaceans the necessary monitoring and reporting some distances to these zones are too and pinnipeds, with an exception made that will result in increased knowledge large to fully observe). Vineyard Wind for those that approach the vessel (e.g., of the species and of the level of taking will conduct monitoring 60 minutes bowriding dolphins). If a delphinoid or impacts on populations of marine before, during, and 30 minutes after pile cetacean or pinniped is sighted within mammals that are expected to be driving, with observers located at the 50 m (164 ft.) of an underway vessel, the present in the project area. Effective best practicable vantage points on the underway vessel must shift the engine reporting is critical both to compliance pile driving vessel. Full details to neutral, with an exception made for as well as ensuring that the most value regarding marine mammal monitoring those that approach the vessel (e.g., is obtained from the required must be included in a Marine Mammal bowriding dolphins). Engines will not monitoring. Monitoring Plan that, under the IHA, be engaged until the animal(s) has Monitoring and reporting Vineyard Wind is required to submit to moved outside of the vessel’s path and requirements prescribed by NMFS NMFS for approval at least 90 days in beyond 50 m. should contribute to improved advance of commencement of pile When marine mammals are sighted understanding of one or more of the driving. We note submission of this plan while a vessel is underway, the vessel following: was not included in the proposed IHA. must take action as necessary to avoid • Occurrence of marine mammal Monitoring will be conducted by violating the relevant separation species or stocks in the area in which qualified, trained PSOs, who will be distances, e.g., attempt to remain take is anticipated (e.g., presence, placed on the installation vessel, which parallel to the animal’s course, avoid abundance, distribution, density). represents the best vantage point to • excessive speed or abrupt changes in Nature, scope, or context of likely monitor for marine mammals and direction until the animal has left the marine mammal exposure to potential implement shutdown procedures when area. If marine mammals are sighted stressors/impacts (individual or applicable. The proposed IHA included within the relevant separation distance, cumulative, acute or chronic), through a measure that a minimum of two PSOs the vessel must reduce speed and shift better understanding of: (1) Action or will be on-watch from 60 minutes prior the engine to neutral, not engaging the environment (e.g., source to commencement of pile driving, engines until animals are clear of the characterization, propagation, ambient throughout the time required to drive a area. This does not apply to any vessel noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life pile, and for 30 minutes following the towing gear or any vessel that is history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence conclusion of pile driving. The final navigationally constrained. of marine mammal species with the IHA carries this measure over but All vessels underway will not divert action; or (4) biological or behavioral includes an enhanced measure in that, or alter course in order to approach any context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or if a DMA or Slow Zone is in place that marine mammal. Any vessel underway feeding areas). overlaps the Level B harassment zone, will avoid excessive speed or abrupt • Individual marine mammal an additional PSO will be required (for changes in direction. responses (behavioral or physiological) a total of three PSOs on active duty on Project-specific training must be to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or the pile driving vessel). PSOs may not conducted for all vessel crew prior to cumulative), other stressors, or exceed four consecutive watch hours; the start of in-water construction cumulative impacts from multiple must have a minimum two hour break activities. Confirmation of the training stressors. between watches; and may not exceed a and understanding of the requirements • How anticipated responses to combined watch schedule of more than must be documented on a training stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 12 hours in a 24- hour period. course log sheet. Vineyard Wind must fitness and survival of individual Monitoring will be conducted. PSOs ensure that vessel operators and crew marine mammals; or (2) populations, will have no other construction-related maintain a vigilant watch for marine species, or stocks. tasks while conducting monitoring. mammals by slowing down or stopping • Effects on marine mammal habitat the vessel to avoid striking marine (e.g., marine mammal prey species, All PSOs must be approved by NMFS. mammals. When not on active watch acoustic habitat, or other important Vineyard Wind must submit resumes of duty, members of the monitoring team physical components of marine the initial set of PSO resumes necessary must consult NMFS’ NARW advisory mammal habitat). to commence the project to NMFS for systems for the presence of NARWs in • Mitigation and monitoring approval at least 60 days prior to the the project area at least once a day. effectiveness. first day of pile driving activity. With the measure described herein, PSOs must have the following Visual Marine Mammal Observation we have prescribed the means of minimum qualifications: effecting the least practicable adverse Vineyard Wind will collect sighting (1) Visual acuity in both eyes impact on the affected marine mammal data and behavioral responses to pile (correction is permissible) sufficient for species and stocks and their habitat, driving activity for marine mammal discernment of moving targets at the paying particular attention to rookeries, species observed in the region of water’s surface with ability to estimate mating grounds, and areas of similar activity during the period of activity. All target size and distance; use of significance. observers will be trained in marine binoculars may be necessary to correctly mammal identification and behaviors identify the target; Monitoring and Reporting and are required to have no other (2) Ability to conduct field In order to issue an IHA for an construction-related tasks while observations and collect data according activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the conducting monitoring. PSOs will to assigned protocols; MMPA states that NMFS must set forth monitor all clearance zones at all times. (3) Experience or training in the field requirements pertaining to the PSOs will also monitor Level B identification of marine mammals, monitoring and reporting of such taking. harassment zones (i.e., 4,121 m for including the identification of The MMPA implementing regulations at monopiles and 3,220 m for jacket pin behaviors; 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that piles) and will document any marine (4) Sufficient training, orientation, or requests for authorizations must include mammals observed within these zones, experience with the construction

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33843

operation to provide for personal safety vision devices, IR/Thermal camera). A • Species, numbers, and, if possible, during observations; full description of this technology will sex and age class of marine mammals; (5) Writing skills sufficient to be included in Vineyard Wind’s • Description of any observable document observations including, but Alternative Monitoring Plan which will marine mammal behavior patterns, not limited to: The number and species be submitted to NMFS no later than 90 including bearing and direction of travel of marine mammals observed; dates and days prior to the commencement of pile and distance from pile driving activity; times when in-water construction driving. We note submission of this plan • Distance and bearing of each marine activities were conducted; dates and was not included in the proposed IHA. mammal observed relative to the pile times when in-water construction Monitoring distances must be measured being driven for each sighting and time activities were suspended to avoid with range finders or reticule spent within harassment zone (if pile potential incidental injury of marine binoculars. Distances to marine driving was occurring at time of mammals from construction noise mammals observed must be based on sighting); within a defined shutdown zone; and the best estimate of the PSO, relative to • Description of any marine mammal marine mammal behavior; and known distances to objects in the behavioral observations (e.g., observed (6) Ability to communicate orally, by vicinity of the PSO. Bearings to animals behaviors such as feeding or traveling), radio or in person, with project shall be determined using a compass. including an assessment of behavioral personnel to provide real-time When monitoring is required during responses thought to have resulted from information on marine mammals the activity; vessel transit (as described above), the • observed in the area as necessary. PSO(s) will be stationed on vessels at Type of construction activity (e.g., Observer teams employed by the best vantage points to ensure monopile or jacket pile installation) Vineyard Wind in satisfaction of the when marine mammals are observed; maintenance of standoff distances • mitigation and monitoring requirements between marine mammals and vessels Description of implementation of described herein must meet the (as described above). Vineyard Wind mitigation measures (e.g., delay or following additional requirements: shutdown) or why mitigation was not • would implement the following Be independent observers (i.e., not measures during vessel transit when implemented; • Locations of all marine mammal construction personnel) are required; there is an observation of a marine • At least one observer must have observations; and mammal: • prior experience working as an observer • Other human activity in the area. in an offshore environment; PSOs will record the vessel’s • Other observers may substitute position and speed, water depth, sea Marine Mammal Passive Acoustic education (degree in biological science state, and visibility will be recorded at Monitoring or related field) or training for the start and end of each observation Vineyard Wind would utilize a PAM experience; period, and whenever there is a change system to supplement visual • One observer will be designated as in any of those variables that materially monitoring. The PAM system would be lead observer or monitoring coordinator. affects sighting conditions. monitored by a minimum of one • The lead observer must have prior PSOs will record the time, location, acoustic PSO beginning at least 60 experience working as an observer; and speed, and activity of the vessel, sea minutes prior to ramp-up of pile driving • NMFS will require submission and state, and visibility. and at all times during pile driving. approval of observer resumes. Individuals implementing the Acoustic PSOs must immediately Vineyard Wind must conduct monitoring protocol will assess its communicate all detections of marine briefings between construction effectiveness using an adaptive mammals to visual PSOs, including any supervisors and crews and the PSO approach. PSOs will use their best determination regarding species team prior to the start of all pile driving professional judgment throughout identification, distance, and bearing and activities, and when new personnel join implementation and seek improvements the degree of confidence in the the work, in order to explain to these methods when deemed determination. The PAM system would responsibilities, communication appropriate. Any modifications to the not be located on the pile installation procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol will be coordinated between vessel. protocol, and operational procedures. NMFS and Vineyard Wind. Acoustic PSOs may be on watch for An informal guide must be included Data Collection a maximum of four consecutive hours with the Marine Mammal Monitoring followed by a break of at least two hours Plan to aid in identifying species if they We require that observers use between watches. Acoustic PSOs would are observed in the vicinity of the standardized data forms. Among other be required to demonstrate that they project area. PSOs must be located at pieces of information, Vineyard Wind have completed specialized training for best vantage point(s) in order to observe will record detailed information about operating PAM systems. PSOs can act as the entire clearance zones and must any implementation of delays or acoustic or visual observers (but not record all incidents of marine mammal shutdowns, including the distance of simultaneously) as long as they occurrence, regardless of distance from animals to the pile and a description of demonstrate that their training and the construction activity. PSOs must specific actions that ensued and experience are sufficient to perform document any behavioral reactions of resulting behavior of the animal, if any. each task. Acoustic PSO(s) must marine mammals in concert with The following information will be immediately communicate all distance from the pile being driven. collected by PSOs during pile driving: detections of marine mammals to visual During all pile driving, PSOs must use • Date and time that monitored PSOs, including any determination high-magnification (25X), as well as activity begins or ends; regarding species identification, standard handheld (7X) binoculars, and • Construction activities occurring distance, and bearing and the degree of the naked eye to search continuously for during each observation period; confidence in the determination. marine mammals. During periods of • Weather parameters (e.g., wind A Passive Acoustic Monitoring Plan poor visibility, PSOs must use speed, percent cloud cover, visibility); must be submitted to NMFS and BOEM alternative monitoring technologies to • Water conditions (e.g., sea state, for review and approval at least 90 days monitor clearance zones (e.g., night tide state); prior to the planned start of pile driving.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33844 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

The Plan must describe all proposed measurements indicate distances to the descriptions of any behavioral responses PAM equipment, procedures, and isopleths corresponding to Level A and/ to construction activities by marine protocols. We note submission of this or Level B harassment thresholds are mammals. The reports would detail the plan was not included in the proposed greater than the distances predicted by monitoring protocol, summarize the IHA. modeling (Tables 5 and 6), Vineyard data recorded during monitoring Wind must implement additional sound including an estimate of the number of Sound Field Verification Acoustic attenuation measures prior to marine mammals that may have been Monitoring conducting additional pile driving. harassed during the period of the report, Vineyard Wind will also conduct Additionally, in the event that field and describe any mitigation actions hydroacoustic monitoring during pile measurements indicate distances the taken (i.e., delays or shutdowns due to driving of the first monopile and first isopleths corresponding to Level A and detections of marine mammals, and jacket foundation installed over the Level B harassment thresholds are documentation of when shutdowns course of the project, with noise greater than the distances predicted by were called for but not implemented attenuation activated. We note the modeling, NMFS may expand the and why). The reports would also proposed IHA did not specify that the relevant clearance and shutdown zones. include results from marine mammal first of these piles were to be monitored. We note that none of these measures passive acoustic monitoring including In the event that subsequently driven regarding specific action based on dates and times of all detections, types piles are installed that have a larger results of the acoustic monitoring were and nature of sounds heard, whether diameter, or, are installed with a larger included in the proposed IHA. The detections were linked with visual hammer or greater hammer energy than acoustic monitoring report would sightings, water depth of the the first monopile and jacket pile, sound include: Peak sound pressure level hydrophone array, bearing of the animal field measurements must be conducted (SPLpk), root-mean-square sound to the vessel (if determinable), species for those subsequent piles. A Sound pressure level that contains 90 percent or taxonomic group (if determinable), Field Verification Plan must be of the acoustic energy (SPLrms), single spectrogram screenshot, a record of the submitted to NMFS for review and strike sound exposure level, integration PAM operator’s review of any acoustic approval at least 90 days prior to time for SPLrms, SELss spectrum, and detections, and any other notable planned start of pile driving (this 24-hour cumulative SEL extrapolated information. The weekly reports would measure was not included in the from measurements. All these levels contain a summary of this information proposed IHA). This plan must describe would be reported in the form of while the final report would contain how Vineyard Wind will ensure that the median, mean, max, and minimum. The more detailed information. After receipt location selected is representative of the sound levels reported would be in of the 90-day draft final report, NMFS rest of the piles of that type to be median and linear average (i.e., taking will provide comments on the report, if installed and, in the case that it is not, averages of sound intensity before necessary, to Vineyard Wind. Vineyard how additional sites will be selected for converting to dB). The acoustic Wind must submit a final report within sound field verification, or, how the monitoring report would also include a 30 days following resolution of results from the first pile can be used to description of depth and sediment type comments on the draft report. predict actual installation noise at the recording location. The final IHA also requires Vineyard propagation for subsequent piles. The Recording would also occur when no Wind to submit results of pile driving plan must describe how the construction activities are occurring in sound field verification to NMFS as effectiveness of the sound attenuation order to establish ambient sound levels. soon as possible but no later than within methodology will be evaluated based on Vineyard Wind would also conduct 30 days following completion of the results. Vineyard Wind must real-time PAM during certain times of acoustic monitoring. provide the initial results of the field year to facilitate mitigation (as described Negligible Impact Analysis and measurements to NMFS as soon as they above). are available. Determination Vineyard Wind would be required to Reporting NMFS has defined negligible impact empirically determine the distances to The proposed IHA included a as an impact resulting from the the isopleths corresponding to the Level measure that, similar to other coastal specified activity that cannot be A and Level B harassment thresholds pile driving projects, Vineyard Wind reasonably expected to, and is not either by extrapolating from in situ would submit a final report to NMFS reasonably likely to, adversely affect the measurements conducted at several within 90 days after expiration of the species or stock through effects on points from the pile being driven, or by IHA that contained both marine annual rates of recruitment or survival direct measurements to locate the mammal and pile driving acoustic (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact distance where the received levels reach monitoring data. Since that time, NMFS finding is based on the lack of likely the relevant thresholds or below. determined more frequent review of adverse effects on annual rates of Isopleths corresponding to the Level A Vineyard Wind’s pile driving activities recruitment or survival (i.e., population- and Level B harassment thresholds and monitoring data was warranted. In level effects). An estimate of the number would be empirically verified for impact the final IHA, Vineyard Wind is of takes alone is not enough information driving of the largest diameter monopile required to submit weekly and monthly on which to base an impact used over the duration of the IHA, and marine mammal monitoring reports in determination. In addition to impact driving of the largest diameter addition to submitting a draft final considering estimates of the number of jacket pile used over the duration of the marine mammal monitoring report to marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ IHA. For verification of the extent of the NMFS within 90 days of the completion through harassment, NMFS considers Level B harassment zone, Vineyard of monitoring activities (not 90 days other factors, such as the likely nature Wind would be required to report the upon expiration of the IHA). The reports of any responses (e.g., intensity, measured or extrapolated distances would include marine mammal duration), the context of any responses where the received levels SPLrms decay observations pre-activity, during- (e.g., critical reproductive time or to 160-dB, as well as integration time for activity, and post-activity during pile location, migration), as well as effects such SPLrms. If initial acoustic field driving days, and would also provide on habitat, and the likely effectiveness

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33845

of the mitigation. We also assess the for recruitment rates) has widely frequently used foraging habitat only to number, intensity, and context of fluctuated between 0 and 39 (Pace et al., come back in future years in large estimated takes by evaluating this 2021, NMFS 2021). In the last 10 years numbers. In recent years, the whales information relative to population (2011–2020), the average number of have demonstrated actual shifts in status. Consistent with the 1989 calves born into the population is distribution, frequenting previously preamble for NMFS’s implementing approximately 11. Unfortunately, not all unrecognized foraging habitats. Sighting regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, calves born into the population survive. data also indicate that NARWs may 1989), the impacts from other past and Most recently, a dead NARW calf was investigate a previously preferred ongoing anthropogenic activities are reported stranded on February 13, 2021, habitat, but not stay if the prey resource incorporated into this analysis via their along the Florida coast. On December is insufficient, so some habitats impacts on the environmental baseline 22, 2020, a newborn calf was sighted off previously used no longer have high (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status El Hierro, an island in the Canary densities of NARWs (Davies et al. 2019; of the species, population size and Islands, but has not been subsequently Davis et al. 2017). As described above, growth rate where known, ongoing detected with its mother suggesting it NARW presence in the project area is sources of human-caused mortality, or did not survive. year-round; however, abundance during ambient noise levels). As described above, the project area summer months is low compared to Pile driving activities associated with represents part of an important the project, as described previously, migratory area for NARWs. Core year- winter months with spring and fall have the potential to disturb or round foraging habitats have also been serving as ‘‘shoulder seasons’’ wherein temporarily displace marine mammals. identified south of Martha’s Vineyard abundance waxes (fall) or wanes Specifically, the specified activities may and Nantucket within and around the (spring). During aerial surveys result in take, in the form of Level A project area (Oleson et al., 2020); conducted from 2011–2015 in the harassment (potential injury) or Level B however, abundance in this area in project area, NARW sightings occurred harassment (potential behavioral summer months remains low compared only December through April, with no disturbance) from underwater sounds to winter. It also appears the majority of sightings from May through November generated from pile driving. Potential sightings between the June–October (Kraus et al., 2016). There was not takes could occur if individual marine timeframe (when Vineyard Wind would significant variability in sighting rate mammals are present in the ensonified be conducting most if not all of its pile among years, indicating consistent zone when pile driving is occurring. driving work) are concentrated annual seasonal use of the area by right To avoid repetition, the majority of approximately 20–30 kms west of the whales during those years (Kraus et al., our analyses apply to all the species WDA boundary line on Nantucket 2016). More recently, seasonal listed in Table 2, given that many of the Shoals (which triggered DMAs in 2019 distribution patterns of right whales anticipated effects of the planned and 2020) with occasional, random have been less consistent, with right project on different marine mammal sightings east of the project area. In whales observed near the project area in stocks are expected to be relatively general, due to the current status of late summer and fall. For example, in similar in nature. Where there are NARWs, and the spatial overlap of the 2019 and 2020, NARWs were observed meaningful differences between species planned project with an area of in August and September around or stocks—as is the case of the NARW— biological significance for right whales, Nantucket Shoals, triggering NMFS to they are included as separate sub- the potential impacts of the planned establish a DMA that last several weeks sections below. As noted above, some project on right whales warrant each year; however, these sightings new data and literature have become particular attention. around Nantucket Shoals are available since the Proposed IHA was The IHA includes nine overarching approximately 20–30 kms east of the published (e.g., NARW abundance and mitigation measures related to pile most eastern edge of the project area and distribution information), and this driving. The following measures are outside the Level B harassment zones information has been considered fully related to pile driving: (1) Time of year created by the activities. Figure 2 restrictions; (2) time of day restrictions; in the analysis below. provides a map of all sightings from (3) implementation of pre-pile driving June 1 through November 31, annually, North Atlantic Right Whales clearance zones; (4) implementation of for the years 2010 through 2020 as well NARWs are currently threatened by shutdown zones; (5) use of soft-start; (6) low population abundance, higher than use of sound attenuation systems; (7) as 2021 to date (Johnson, 2018). The average mortality rates and lower than use of PSOs to visually observe for 2019 and 2020 cluster of sightings average reproductive rates. Pace et al. NARWs (with any detection triggering around Nantucket Shoals is prominent. (2021) recently released an update of his delay or shutdown); (8) use of PAM to Given this year-round habitat usage and NARW abundance model. From 1990– acoustically detect NARWs (with any in recognition where whales may 2014, the female apparent survival rate detection within designated zones actually occur during pile driving is fluctuated around 0.96. In 2014, triggering delay or shutdown); and (9) largely influenced by unpredictable, survival decreased to approximately requirement to monitor NARW sighting patchy prey availability, NMFS has 0.93 and hit an all-time low of 0.89 in network platforms to be aware of NARW included a suite of mitigation measures 2017. However, in 2018, survival presence within or near the project area designed to reduce impacts to NARWs increased dramatically back to around and transit corridors. The specifics to the maximum extent practicable. 0.95. The average survival rate, based on regarding these measures are dependent However, even in consideration of these the Pace et al. (2021) regime model from upon the time of year. recent habitat-use and distribution 2014–2018 is approximately 0.93, As described in Oleson et al. (2020), shifts, Vineyard Wind would be slightly lower than the average long NARWs respond to environmental conducting pile driving when presence term rate from 1990–2014 (0.96). Since changes and may use habitat of NARWs is lower than in winter 1990, the estimated number of new intermittently over time. They have months, as reflected in the density data entrants (which can be used as a proxy been known to nearly abandon a (Roberts et al., 2020; Table 9).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33846 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

Figure 2. All NARW detections (both visual and acoustic) from June 1 through November 31, annually, 2010 through 2021. (Source: WhaleMap Accessed May 2021)

The most significant measure in piles). To reduce the amount of time the would only begin in the absence of minimizing impacts to right whales is area may be ensonified (and thereby NARWs detected from PSOs on the pile the seasonal pile driving moratorium decrease exposure risk), Vineyard Wind driving vessel (at any distance) or that would occur from January through will drive no more than two monopiles within the designated PAM clearance April, when NARW abundance in the or four jacket pin piles per day. zone. If pile driving has commenced, we project area is expected to be greatest. We expect that any avoidance of the anticipate NARWs would avoid the NMFS has also included a measure that project area by NARWs would be area, utilizing nearby habitats not no pile will occur in December (a time temporary in nature and that any NARW impacted by the project. Further, during when NARW density is lower than that avoids the project area during times of the year NARWs are most likely January–April; however, is greater than construction would not be permanently to be in the area, the clearance zones are summer and fall through November) displaced. The IHA authorizes 20 takes much greater than the Level B unless unforeseen circumstances arise of NARWs based on the maximum harassment zone. However, should a that require Vineyard Wind to complete design scenario. This may be comprised NARW be exposed to pile driving noise the project. We also expect these of 20 individuals taken once or less than above the Level B harassment threshold, measures to greatly reduce the potential 20 individuals taken on multiple days. pile driving would be shut down (if for mother-calf pairs to be exposed to The most likely scenario is some safe) thereby minimizing the duration project-related noise above the Level B combination wherein a few individuals and intensity of exposure. We anticipate harassment threshold during their are taken only once and a few annual migration through the project individuals are taken on more than one if NARWs go undetected and they are area. In addition, mitigation and day. For those individuals where take is exposed to pile driving noise, it would monitoring measures outside of those limited to one day, behavioral be to noise levels only slightly above the months will greatly minimize any takes disturbance and other Level B Level B harassment threshold as it is that may otherwise occur. harassment impacts that may occur likely a NARW would not approach pile When pile driving does occur, during exposure to elevated noise levels driving locations to the degree they Vineyard Wind is committed to (e.g., masking, stress) is likely would purposely expose themselves to reducing the noise levels generated by insignificant. As described in the notice very high noise levels. The pile driving to the lowest levels of proposed IHA, nearly all Population implementation of a soft start would practicable such that they do not exceed Consequences of Disturbance (PCOD) provide an opportunity for whales to a noise footprint above that which was studies and experts agree that infrequent move away from the source. Given any modeled assuming a 6 dB attenuation. exposures from a single day or less are given exposure would likely involve Use of a soft start will allow animals to unlikely to impact individual fitness, let noise levels on the low end of the Level move away from (i.e., avoid) the sound alone lead to population-level effects. B harassment spectrum and that animals source prior to reaching the hammer There is potential for the same would likely be at some great distance energy needed to install the pile individual NARW to be exposed on to the source, the magnitude of any (Vineyard Wind will not use a hammer multiple days; however, the risk is low. Level B harassment is expected to be energy greater than necessary to install Pile driving is limited per day and low.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 EN25JN21.001 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33847

There are no known NARW mating or injury of right whales as a result of the 2016; King et al. 2015; McHuron et al. calving areas within the project area; project is expected or authorized. Any 2018; NAS 2017; New et al. 2014; however, as described above, it is as disturbance to NARWs due to exposure Pirotta et al. 2018; Southall et al. 2007; part of a larger core foraging area to pile driving noise (Level B Villegas-Amtmann et al. 2015). Since (Oleson et al., 2020). If a NARW does harassment) is expected to result in NMFS expects that any exposures avoid foraging within the project area, temporary avoidance of the immediate would be brief, and the likelihood or there is ample foraging habitat for it area of construction. As no injury or repeat exposures to the same adjacent to the project area that is not mortality is expected or authorized, and individuals is low (but possible), any ensonified by the project’s pile driving Level B harassment of NARWs will be behavioral responses that would occur noise. For example, in the fall of 2019 reduced to the level of least practicable due to animals being exposed to pile and 2020, NARWs were particularly adverse impact through use of driving noise are expected to be attracted to Nantucket Shoals, a known mitigation measures, the authorized temporary, with behavior returning to a foraging hot spot. The nearest NARWs takes of right whales would not baseline state shortly after the acoustic detections were approximately 30 kms exacerbate or compound the ongoing stimuli ceases. Given this, and NMFS’ away from the most western edge of the UME in any way. evaluation of the available PCoD project area where pile driving would NMFS concludes that exposures to studies, any such behavioral responses occur. Therefore, any noise from the NARWs would be greatly reduced due are not expected to impact individual project would not have impacted NARW to the seasonal restrictions, and animals’ health or have effects on foraging in this habitat should it have additional mitigation measures that individual animals’ survival or been occurring at the time. would ensure that any exposures above reproduction, thus no detrimental Prey for NARWs are mobile and the Level B harassment threshold would impacts at the population or stock level broadly distributed throughout the result in only short-term effects to are anticipated. NARWs may project area; therefore, right whales that individuals exposed. With temporarily avoid the immediate area may be temporarily displaced during implementation of the mitigation but are not expected to permanently Vineyard Wind’s pile driving activities requirements, take by Level A abandon the area. Further, while the are expected to be able to resume harassment is unlikely and is therefore project area may be used as foraging foraging once they have moved away not authorized. Potential impacts habitat, the surrounding area, including from areas with disturbing levels of associated with Level B harassment Nantucket Shoals where NARWs are underwater noise. Because of the would include low-level, temporary most likely to congregate, is temporary nature of the disturbance and behavioral modifications, most likely in approximately 20–30 kms west of the the availability of similar habitat and the form of avoidance behavior or project area. Therefore, noise from the resources in the surrounding area, the potential alteration of vocalizations. project in this area will be minimal to impacts to right whales and the food Although unlikely given the NARW- none and well below the 160 dB rms sources that they utilize are not specific mitigation, temporary threshold Level B harassment threshold. In expected to cause significant or long- shift is another potential form of Level addition, the amount of Level B take term consequences for individual right B harassment and could result in brief authorized in the IHA is limited to 20. whales or their population. Even periods of slightly reduced hearing Under the ITS, less take is authorized if repeated Level B harassment of some sensitivity that could affect behavioral fewer piles are ultimately installed, smaller number (<20) of individuals as patterns by making it more difficult to meaning the authorized level of take a subset of the overall stock over several hear or interpret acoustic cues in the may be lower for NARW. days is unlikely to result in any frequency range of pile driving (and In our IHA, up to 20 NARW significant realized decrease in viability slightly above)—however, it is unlikely individuals could be behaviorally for the affected individuals, and thus that any individuals would be exposed disturbed or some fewer number of would not result in any adverse impact to piling noise at a distance or duration individual right whales could be to the stock as a whole. that would have more than brief and behaviorally disturbed on more than With respect to potential vessel strike, minor impacts, which would not be one day, but no more than 20 instances the IHA includes an extensive suite of expected to affect the fitness of any of take would occur. Given most pile mitigation measures designed to avoid individuals. driving would occur during a time when ship strike and close approaches, In order to evaluate whether or not NARW is much lower than January including, but not limited it, separation individual behavioral responses, in through May (when pile driving is, distances, limiting vessel speed to 10 kts combination with other stressors, under no circumstances, allowed to (18.5 km/hr) (except in the case of impact animal populations, scientists proceed) and given the required transiting crew transfer vessels in the have developed theoretical frameworks mitigation and monitoring, it is highly transit route under specific conditions), which can then be applied to particular unlikely a single NARW would absorb use of observers and PAM for crew case studies when the supporting data all the authorized take (i.e., the same transfer vessels travelling in excess of 10 are available. One such framework is the whale taken on 20 different days). kts (18.5 km/hr), training and Population Consequences of Because the project area is both a communication protocols, and NARW Disturbance Model (PCoD), which migratory corridor and foraging area, it observation system monitoring. As attempts to assess the combined effects is likely a subset of whales will be described above, given anticipated of individual animal exposures to exposed only once and some subset effectiveness of these measures on top of stressors at the population level (NAS would be exposed on more than one the already very low probability of a 2017). Nearly all PCoD studies and day. vessel strike, take from vessel strike is experts agree that infrequent exposures While there may be temporary not anticipated or authorized. of a single day or less are unlikely to impacts to behaviors such as foraging As described above, NARWs are impact individual fitness, let alone lead near pile driving activities, meaningful experiencing an ongoing UME. The loss to population level effects (Booth et al. shifts in habitat use, distribution, or of even one individual could 2016; Booth et al. 2017; Christiansen foraging success are not anticipated. significantly impact the population. and Lusseau 2015; Farmer et al. 2018; Given the suite of mitigation measures However, no mortality, serious injury or Harris et al. 2017; Harwood and Booth in the IHA, if a NARW is exposed to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33848 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

noise levels that may result in Level B conspecifics. However, given sufficient of the project area by marine mammals harassment, this exposure would occur notice through use of soft start, marine would be temporary in nature and that at distance. Because sound loses energy mammals are expected to move away any marine mammals that avoid the as it moves away from the source, from a sound source that is annoying project area during construction would received levels at distance would be low prior to it becoming potentially not be permanently displaced. and any resulting behavioral changes injurious or resulting in more severe Feeding behavior is not likely to be are anticipated to be low in severity. We behavioral reactions. significantly impacted, as prey species also expect NARWs to avoid areas with Additionally, the numbers of are mobile and are broadly distributed high noise levels. NMFS does not exposures above the Level A harassment throughout the project area and likely anticipate NARW harassment that may authorized are relatively low for all only respond temporarily to exposure to result from Vineyard Wind’s planned marine mammal stocks and species: For pile driving noise; therefore, marine pile driving would impact the 13 of 15 stocks, we authorize no more mammals that may be temporarily reproduction or survival of any than 10 takes by Level A harassment displaced during construction activities individual NARWs, much less annual over the duration of Vineyard Wind’s are expected to be able to resume rates of recruitment or survival. planned pile driving activities; for the foraging once they have moved away other two stocks we propose to from areas with disturbing levels of All Other Marine Mammal Species authorize no more than 35 takes by underwater noise. Soft starts would Impact pile driving has source Level A harassment. As described allow prey to move away from the characteristics (short, sharp pulses with above, we expect that marine mammals source prior to any noise levels that may higher peak levels and sharper rise time would be likely to move away from a physically injure prey and the use of the to reach those peaks) that are potentially sound source that represents an aversive noise attenuation devices would reduce injurious or more likely to produce stimulus, especially at levels that would noise levels to the degree any mortality severe behavioral reactions. However, be expected to result in PTS, given or injury of prey is also minimized. Use modeling indicates there is limited sufficient notice through use of soft of bubble curtains, for example, is a key potential for injury even in the absence start, thereby minimizing the degree of mitigation measure in reducing injury of the mitigation measures, with several PTS that would be incurred. Any PTS and mortality of ESA-listed salmon on species predicted to experience no Level incurred would likely be a slight shift in the west coast. However, we recognize A harassment based on modeling results hearing threshold and be limited to some mortality, physical injury and (Tables 10–13). In addition, the lower frequencies produced by pile hearing impairment in marine mammal potential for injury is expected to be driving. prey may occur but we anticipate the greatly minimized through NMFS has authorized an amount of amount of prey impacted in this manner implementation of mitigation measures Level B harassment take for all marine is minimal compared to overall including soft start, use of a sound mammal species based on either availability. Any behavioral responses attenuation system, and the sophisticated modeling or information by marine mammal prey are expected to implementation of clearance zones that reflected in field data (e.g., monitoring be brief. For example, Jones et al. (2020) would facilitate a delay of pile driving reports, group sizes). To be found that when squid (Doryteuthis if marine mammals were observed conservative, NMFS authorized pealeii) were exposed to impulse pile approaching or within areas that could whichever method resulted in a greater driving noise, body pattern changes, be ensonified above sound levels that amount of take). This take reflects inking, jetting, and startle responses could result in auditory injury. Given behavioral disturbance directly in were observed and nearly all squid sufficient notice through use of soft response to noise exposure (e.g., exhibited at least one response. start, marine mammals are expected to avoidance) or indirectly from associated However, these responses occurred move away from a sound source that is impacts such as TTS or masking. Both primarily during the first eight impulses annoying prior to it becoming the amount and intensity of Level B and diminished quickly, indicating potentially injurious (i.e., PTS) or harassment will be reduced to the level potential rapid, short-term habituation. resulting in more severe behavioral of least practicable adverse impact We expect that other impacts such as reactions. The requirement that pile through use of mitigation measures and, stress or masking would occur in fish driving can only commence when the if sound produced by pile driving is that serve as marine mammals prey full extent of all clearance zones are sufficiently disturbing, marine (Thomas et al. 2006); however, those fully visible to PSOs will ensure a high mammals are likely to simply avoid the impacts would be limited to the marine mammal detection capability, area while the activity is occurring. duration of pile driving and, if prey enabling a high rate of success in Effects on individuals that are taken by were to move out the area in response implementation of clearance zones to Level B harassment, on the basis of to noise, these impacts would be avoid injury. reports in the literature as well as minimized. We expect that any take resulting monitoring from other similar activities, Because of the temporary nature of from exposures above the Level A will likely be limited to reactions such the disturbance and the availability of harassment threshold would be in the as increased swimming speeds, similar habitat and resources in the form of slight PTS, i.e., minor increased surfacing time, or decreased surrounding area, the impacts to marine degradation of hearing capabilities foraging (if such activity were occurring) mammals and the food sources that they within regions of hearing that align most (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006; HDR, utilize are not expected to cause completely with the energy produced by Inc., 2012; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, significant or long-term consequences pile driving (i.e., the low-frequency individuals will simply move away for individual marine mammals or their region below 2 kHz), not severe hearing from the sound source and temporarily populations. There are no notable areas impairment. If hearing impairment avoid the area where pile driving is of biological significance for non-NARW occurs, it is most likely that the affected occurring. Therefore, we expect that marine mammal feeding activity known animal would lose a few decibels in its animals annoyed by project sound to exist within the WDA. A fin whale hearing sensitivity, which in most cases would simply avoid the area during pile BIA (foraging; March–October) is is not likely to meaningfully affect its driving in favor of other, similar delineated to the east of the WDA and ability to forage and communicate with habitats. We expect that any avoidance a minke whale BIA (foraging, March–

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33849

November) is delineated west of the unlikely to result in population-level • Instances of Level A harassment are WDA. While marine mammals may be impacts (Hayes et al., 2018). With regard limited for all impacted species and able to detect pile driving noise within to humpback whales, the population is would be in the form of a slight PTS; the edges of the BIAs closest to pile facing a UME wherein elevated • Level B harassment would be in the driving activities, it is unlikely noise strandings have occurred since 2016 form of behavioral disturbance, levels would rise to the level where any and are ongoing. A portion of the primarily resulting in avoidance of the foraging behavior is anticipated to be whales have shown evidence of pre- project area around where pile driving impacted from pile driving activities. In mortem vessel strike; however, this is occurring, and some low-level TTS addition, there are no rookeries or finding is not consistent across all and masking that may limit the mating or calving areas known to be whales examined and investigations are detection of acoustic cues for relatively biologically important to marine ongoing. Animals involved in this UME brief amounts of time. mammals within the project area. primarily belong to the West Indies • Repeated disturbance to some Repeated exposures of individuals to Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of individuals, including a very limited relatively low levels of sound outside of which the Gulf of Maine stock is a part. number of NARWs, may occur; preferred habitat areas are unlikely to While the MMPA designated Gulf of however, any resulting behavioral significantly disrupt critical behaviors. Maine stock is relatively small (n = reactions from exposure to pile driving Thus, even repeated Level B harassment 1,393), the most recent population noise (e.g., avoidance, short-term of some small subset of an overall stock estimate for the ESA-designated West cessation of foraging) are not expected is unlikely to result in any significant Indies DPS (of which animals belonging to result in impacts to any stock’s realized decrease in viability for the to the Gulf of Maine stock also belong) reproduction or survival. affected individuals, and thus would is approximately 10,400 animals (Smith • Total authorized takes as a not result in any adverse impact to the et al, 2009). The UME is a cause for percentage of population are very low stock as a whole. concern to the Gulf of Maine stock; for all species and stocks impacted (i.e., NMFS concludes that exposures to however, the taking associated with the less than 5.5 percent for all stocks, and marine mammals due to Vineyard issuance of the IHA is not anticipated to less than 1 percent for 10 of 15 stocks); • Wind’s activity would result in only contribute to the UME or impact the Areas of similar habitat value are short-term effects to individuals stock such that it would affect annual available for marine mammals that may exposed to pile driving. Marine rates or recruitment or survival. temporarily vacate the project area mammals may temporarily avoid the during construction; Authorized takes by Level A harassment • immediate area but are not expected to for all species are very low (i.e., no more Effects on species that serve as prey permanently abandon the area. Impacts than 10 takes by Level A harassment for marine mammals from the activity to breeding, feeding, sheltering, resting, authorized for any of these species) and are expected to be short-term and are or migration are not expected, nor are as described above, any Level A not expected to result in significant or shifts in habitat use, distribution, or harassment would be expected to be in long-term consequences for individual foraging success. NMFS does not the form of slight PTS, i.e., minor marine mammals, or to contribute to anticipate the marine mammal takes adverse impacts on their populations; degradation of hearing capabilities • that would result from the planned which is not likely to meaningfully A biologically important migratory activity would impact annual rates of affect the ability to forage or area exists for NARWs, however the recruitment or survival. communicate with conspecifics. Even required seasonal moratorium on As described in the notice of absent mitigation, no serious injury or construction is expected to largely avoid proposed IHA (84 FR 18346; April 30, mortality from pile driving is impacts to the NARW migration, as 2019), humpback whales, minke whales, anticipated. The suite of measures for described above. The project area and gray, harbor and harp seals are vessel operation and monitoring ensure encompasses a subset of a core year- experiencing ongoing UMEs. For minke risk of serious injury or mortality from round foraging habitat; however, there whales and seals, although the ongoing ship strikes is minimized such that the are areas within this core foraging UME is under investigation (as occurs probability of a strike is de minimus. habitat that would not be impacted by for all UMEs), this event does not Mortality and serious injury is neither project noise. Further, any noise within provide cause for concern regarding expected nor authorized, and Level B the project area would be temporary population level impacts. The minke harassment of humpback whales and given the limitation to the amount of whale population abundance is greater minke whales and gray, harbor and harp pile driving and time of day pile driving than 20,000 whales. Even though the seals will be reduced to the level of least could occur. Moreover, potential for PBR value is based on an abundance for practicable adverse impact through exposure from noise causing behavioral U.S. waters that is negatively biased and implementation of mitigation measures. disruptions such as a cessation of a small fraction of the true population As such, the authorized takes of these foraging is also more reduced through abundance, annual M/SI does not species would not exacerbate or implementation of the required exceed the calculated PBR value for compound the ongoing UMEs in any mitigation measures (e.g., requiring a minke whales. For harbor seals, the way. delay in pile driving should a NARW be population abundance is over 75,000 In summary and as described above, observed at any distance by PSOs on the and annual M/SI (345) is well below the following factors primarily support pile driving vessel would limit any PBR (2,006) (Hayes et al., 2018). For our determination that the impacts disruption of foraging). gray seals, the population abundance is resulting from this activity are not • There are no known important over 27,000, and abundance is likely expected to adversely affect any marine feeding, breeding or calving areas in the increasing in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ and mammal species or stock through effects project area for all other marine in Canada (Hayes et al., 2018). For harp on annual rates of recruitment or mammals within the project area. A seals, the current population trend in survival: foraging BIA exists for fin and minke U.S. waters is unknown, as is PBR • No mortality or serious injury is whales in the general region of southern (Hayes et al., 2018), however the anticipated or authorized and no Level New England; however, any received population abundance is over 7 million A take of ESA-listed marine mammals is levels within these areas would be low seals, suggesting that the UME is authorized; given their distance from the WDA and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 33850 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices

therefore exposure to these low levels stocks would not have an unmitigable Endangered Species Act (while possibly audible) are not adverse impact on the availability of Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered expected to result in disruption of such species or stocks for taking for Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. foraging within the BIAs. subsistence purposes. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal • The required mitigation measures, National Environmental Policy Act agency insure that any action it including visual and acoustic authorizes, funds, or carries out is not monitoring, clearance zones, and soft To comply with the National likely to jeopardize the continued start, are expected to minimize potential Environmental Policy Act of 1969 existence of any endangered or impacts to marine mammals and effect threatened species or result in the the least practicable adverse impact on (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and destruction or adverse modification of all marine mammals. NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) designated critical habitat. To ensure Based on the analysis contained 216–6A, NMFS must review our ESA compliance for the issuance of herein of the likely effects of the proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this specified activity on marine mammals incidental harassment authorization) case with the NMFS Greater Atlantic and their habitat, and taking into with respect to potential impacts on the Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), consideration the implementation of the human environment. In compliance whenever we propose to authorize take monitoring and mitigation measures, with NEPA, as implemented by the for endangered or threatened species. NMFS finds that the total marine regulations published by the Council on The NMFS Office of Protected mammal take from Vineyard Wind’s Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts Resources Permits and Conservation planned activity will have a negligible 1500–1508 (1978)), the Bureau of Ocean Division is authorizing the incidental impact on all affected marine mammal Energy Management (BOEM) prepared take of four species of marine mammals species or stocks. an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider the direct, indirect and which are listed under the ESA: The Small Numbers cumulative effects to the human North Atlantic right, fin, sei and sperm whale. We requested initiation of As noted above, only small numbers environment resulting from the consultation under Section 7 of the ESA of incidental take may be authorized Vineyard Wind project. NMFS has with NMFS GARFO on April 26, 2019, under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of participated as a cooperating agency on for the issuance of this IHA. On the MMPA for specified activities other BOEM’s EIS and provided technical September 11, 2020, NMFS GARFO than military readiness activities. The expertise to BOEM in development of issued a Biological Opinion concluding MMPA does not define small numbers the document as it pertains to NMFS and so, in practice, where estimated that these activities may adversely affect trust resources, including marine but are not likely to jeopardize the numbers are available, NMFS compares mammals. BOEM’s Draft EIS was made the number of individuals taken to the continued existence of North Atlantic available for public comment from right, fin, sei and sperm whales. most appropriate estimation of December 7, 2018 to February 22, 2019. abundance of the relevant species or The ITS issued with the Biological A Supplement to the Draft EIS was Opinion authorizes take of ESA-listed stock in our determination of whether subsequently made available for public an authorization is limited to small species based on the number of turbines comment from June 12, 2020 to July 27, that will actually be constructed. This numbers of marine mammals. 2020; both the Draft EIS and Additionally, other qualitative factors means that if fewer turbines are Supplement to the Draft EIS were made constructed, fewer takes of ESA-listed may be considered in the analysis, such available online at: www.boem.gov/ as the temporal or spatial scale of the species are authorized by the ITS. This Vineyard-Wind. BOEM published a scaled approach reflects how NMFS activities. Notice of Availability of the Final EIS We authorize incidental take of 15 GARFO chose to satisfy requirements on March 8, 2021. As a cooperating marine mammal stocks. The total under ESA. Under Section 7 of the ESA, agency, NMFS reviewed and provided amount of taking authorized is less than a biological opinion reviews a proposed comments related to NMFS trust 5.5 percent for five of these stocks, and action, as reasonably defined by the resources, including marine mammals, less than 1 percent for the remaining 10 action agency, and assesses the ‘‘effects on the Draft EIS, Supplement to the stocks (Table 15), which we consider to of the action.’’ BOEM sought Draft EIS and cooperating agency review be relatively small percentages and we consultation on its proposed action, draft of the Final EIS. In compliance find are small numbers of marine which it defined using a reasonable with NEPA and the CEQ regulations (40 mammals relative to the estimated ‘‘maximum design envelope.’’ The CFR 1506.3), as well as NOAA overall population abundances for those maximum design envelope, however, Administrative Order 216–6 and its stocks. was not necessarily what would actually Based on the analysis contained Companion Manual, NMFS has be constructed. Under regulations herein of the planned activity (including reviewed BOEM’s Final EIS, determined implementing Section 7 of the ESA, the mitigation and monitoring it to be sufficient, and adopted that ‘‘effects of the action’’ include all measures) and the anticipated take of Final EIS which adequately evaluates consequences to listed species caused marine mammals, NMFS finds that the direct, indirect and cumulative by the proposed action. A consequence small numbers of marine mammals will impacts of NMFS’s proposed action to is caused by the proposed action if it be taken relative to the population size issue an IHA under the MMPA to would not occur but for the proposed of all affected species or stocks. Vineyard Wind for its offshore action and it is reasonably certain to commercial wind project. NMFS has occur. In the Biological Opinion, NMFS Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis further determined that its comments GARFO evaluated effects from driving a and Determination and suggestions as a cooperating agency range of piles up to the design There are no relevant subsistence uses have been satisfied and recirculation of envelope’s maximum number of pile of the affected marine mammal stocks or BOEM’s EIS is therefore unnecessary (40 foundations (57 to 102) and then scaled species implicated by this action. CFR 1506.3(c)). NMFS signed a joint the take numbers in the ITS based on Therefore, NMFS has determined that Record of Decision (ROD) on May 10, the number of turbines that will be the total taking of affected species or 2021. constructed so that the amount of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33851

incidental take that is reasonably certain Consultation has been reinitiated on Massachusetts, for a period of one year, to occur and, therefore, commensurate the September 11, 2020 Biological from May 1, 2023 through April 30, with the actual construction. Without Opinion and ITS. However, they remain 2024. Vineyard Wind is required to scaling, the ITS would have exempted valid and effective until reinitiated abide by all mitigation, monitoring, and more incidental take of ESA-listed consultation is completed. reporting requirements in the IHA. species than is reasonably certain to Authorization Dated: June 15, 2021. occur. Since the scaled approach is a NMFS has issued an IHA to Vineyard Catherine Marzin, function of the ITS for this project, it Wind authorizing take of marine Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, only applies to ESA-listed marine mammals incidental to pile driving National Marine Fisheries Service. mammals in the IHA. associated with the construction of the [FR Doc. 2021–13501 Filed 6–24–21; 8:45 am] proposed wind project offshore of BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\25JNN2.SGM 25JNN2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2