Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

8532

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 23 / Friday, February 5, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2

were called for but not implemented and why. The report would also include results from acoustic monitoring including dates and times of all detections, types and nature of sounds heard, whether detections were linked with visual sightings, water depth of the hydrophone array, bearing of the animal to the vessel if determinable, species or taxonomic group if determinable, spectrogram screenshot, a record of the PAM
operators review of any acoustic detections, and any other notable information. A final report must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report.
South Fork Wind would be required to submit a preliminary acoustic monitoring report to NMFS within 24
hrs of completing sound source verification SSV on the first monopile.
In addition to in situ measured distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds, the acoustic monitoring report would include: SPLpk, SPLrms that contains 90 percent of the acoustic energy, single strike sound exposure level, integration time for SPLrms, SELss spectrum 13
octave band or power density spectra.
All these levels would be reported in the form of median, mean, max, and minimum. The sound levels reported would be in median and linear average i.e., taking averages of sound intensity before converting to dB. The acoustic monitoring report would also include a description of the hydrophones used, hydrophone and water depth, distance to the pile driven, and sediment type at the recording location.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival 50 CFR 216.103. A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival i.e., populationlevel effects. An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be taken through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses e.g., intensity, duration, the context of any responses e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration, as well as effects
VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:54 Feb 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. NMFS also assesses the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFSs implementing regulations 54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989, the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels.
Pile driving and HRG survey activities associated with the proposed project, as described previously, have the potential to disturb or temporarily displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level A harassment potential injury; from impact pile driving only or Level B harassment potential behavioral disturbance from underwater sounds generated from pile driving impact and vibratory and certain HRG active acoustic sources.
Potential takes could occur if individual marine mammals are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving or HRG survey activities are occurring.
To avoid repetition, the majority of our analyses apply to all the species listed in Table 3, given that many of the anticipated effects of the proposed project on different marine mammal stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocksas is the case of the North Atlantic right whalethey are included as separate subsections below.
North Atlantic Right Whales North Atlantic right whales are currently threatened by low population abundance, higher than normal mortality rates and lower than normal reproductive rates. As described above, the project area represents part of an important migratory area for North Atlantic right whales, which make annual migrations up and down the Atlantic coast. Due to the current status of North Atlantic right whales, and the spatial overlap of the proposed project with an area of biological significance for North Atlantic right whales, the potential impacts of the proposed project on North Atlantic right whales warrant particular attention.
As described above, North Atlantic right whale presence in the project area is largely seasonal. As a result of several years of aerial surveys and PAM
deployments in the area, NMFS has
PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

confidence that North Atlantic right whales are expected in the project area predominately during certain times of year while at other times of year North Atlantic right whales are expected to occur less frequently in the project area.
During aerial surveys conducted from 20112015 in the project area, North Atlantic right whale sightings occurred only December through April, with no sightings from May through November Kraus et al., 2016. There was not significant variability in sighting rate among years, indicating consistent annual seasonal use of the area by North Atlantic right whales over the timespan of the surveys Kraus et al., 2016.
However, as described previously, North Atlantic right whale presence is increasingly variable in identified core habitats, including the area south of Marthas Vineyard and Nantucket islands northeast of the proposed SFWF where both visual and acoustic detections of North Atlantic right whales indicate a nearly year-round presence Oleson et al., 2020, although seasonal trends are still prominent Hayes et al., 2020.
Due to this seasonal pattern in North Atlantic right whale occurrence in the project area, NMFS expects the most significant measure in minimizing impacts to North Atlantic right whales to be the proposed seasonal closure that would occur from January through April, when North Atlantic right whale abundance in the project area is greatest.
In addition, proposed mitigation measures outside of those months including a 5 km clearance zone facilitated through PAM and PSOswill greatly minimize any takes that may otherwise occur outside of the months of peak abundance in the area. As a result of these mitigation measures, NMFS expects the already small potential for North Atlantic right whales to be exposed to project-related sound above the Level A harassment threshold to be eliminated. Therefore, South Fork did not request nor is NMFS proposing to authorize take by Level A harassment.
NMFS also expects these proposed measures to greatly reduce the amount of exposures to project-related noise above the Level B harassment threshold, and the duration and intensity of any exposures above the Level B harassment threshold that do occur. No serious injury or mortality of North Atlantic right whales would be expected even in the absence of the proposed mitigation measures.
Instances of Level B harassment of North Atlantic right whales will be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of proposed mitigation measures, including soft start
E:FRFM05FEN2.SGM

05FEN2