# Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Atlantic Shores South Project Offshore of New Jersey > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2023-19733 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** September 22, 2023 - **Citation:** 88 FR 65430 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 217 [Docket No. 230907-0215] RIN 0648-BL73 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Atlantic Shores South Project Offshore of New Jersey AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed letter of authorization; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind LLC (Atlantic Shores), a joint venture between EDF-RE Offshore Development LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of EDF Renewables, Inc.) and Shell New Energies US LLC, for Incidental Take Regulations (ITR) and associated Letters of Authorization (LOAs) pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The requested regulations would govern the authorization of take, by Level A harassment and Level B harassment, of small numbers of marine mammals over the course of 5 years (2025-2029) incidental to the construction of Atlantic Shores South located offshore of New Jersey within the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Area OCS-A 0499 (Lease Area) and associated ECCs (ECR Area). Atlantic Shores South would be divided into two projects: Project 1 and Project 2 (the combined hereafter referred to as the “Project Area”) and Atlantic Shores has requested a 5-year LOA for each Project, both issued under these proposed regulations. Atlantic Shores' activities likely to result in incidental take include impact and vibratory pile driving and site assessment surveys using high-resolution geophysical (HRG) equipment within the Lease Area and Export Cable Corridor (ECC). NMFS requests comments on its proposed rule. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the promulgation of the requested ITR and issuance of the LOA; agency responses to public comments will be summarized in the final rule documenting our decision. DATES: The regulations and LOA, if issued, would be effective January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2029. Comments and information must be received no later than October 23, 2023. ADDRESSES: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2023-0068 in the Search box. Click on the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information ( e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelsey Potlock, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability A copy of Atlantic Shores' Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Purpose and Need for Regulatory Action This proposed rule, if promulgated, would provide a framework under the authority of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) for NMFS to authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to construction of Atlantic Shores South within the Lease Area and along ECCs to two landfall locations in New Jersey. NMFS received a request from Atlantic Shores to incidentally take individuals of 16 species of marine mammals (9 species by Level A harassment and Level B harassment and 7 species by Level B harassment only), comprising 17 stocks, incidental to Atlantic Shores' 5 years of construction activities. No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or proposed for authorization. Please see the Legal Authority for the Proposed Action section below for definitions of harassment, serious injury, and incidental take. Legal Authority for the Proposed Action The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made, regulations are promulgated (when applicable), and public notice and an opportunity for public comment are provided. Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). If such findings are made, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking; “other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. As noted above, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed for authorization in this proposed rule. Relevant definitions of MMPA statutory and regulatory terms are included below: • U.S. Citizen —individual U.S. citizens or any corporation or similar entity if it is organized under the laws of the United States or any governmental unit defined in 16 U.S.C. 1362(13) (50 CFR 216.103); • Take —to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal (16 U.S.C. 1362(13); 50 CFR 216.3); • Incidental harassment, incidental taking, and incidental, but not intentional, taking —an accidental taking. This does not mean that the taking is unexpected, but rather it includes those takings that are infrequent, unavoidable or accidental (see 50 CFR 216.103); • Serious Injury —any injury that will likely result in mortality (50 CFR 216.3); • Level A harassment —any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (16 U.S.C. 1362(18); 50 CFR 216.3); and • Level B harassment —any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (16 U.S.C. 1362(18); 50 CFR 216.3). Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for proposing and, if appropriate, issuing regulations and an associated LOA(s). This proposed rule describes permissible methods of taking and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for Atlantic Shores' proposed activities. Summary of Major Provisions Within the Proposed Rule The major provisions of this proposed rule include: • The proposed take of marine mammals by Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment; • No mortality or serious injury of any marine mammal is anticipated or proposed to be authorized; • The establishment of a seasonal moratorium on wind turbine generator (WTG), meteorological tower (Met Tower), and offshore substation (OSS) foundation impact pile driving during the months of highest North Atlantic right whale ( Eubalaena glacialis ) presence in the Project Area (December 1st-April 30th), unless NMFS allows for pile driving to occur in December; • A requirement for both visual and passive acoustic monitoring to occur by trained, NOAA Fisheries-approved Protected Species Observers (PSOs) and Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM; where required) operators before, during, and after select activities; • A requirement for training for all Atlantic Shores personnel to ensure marine mammal protocols and procedures are understood; • The establishment of clearance and shutdown zones for all in-water construction activities to prevent or reduce the risk of Level A harassment and to minimize the risk of Level B harassment; • A requirement to use sound attenuation device(s) during all foundation impact pile driving installation activities to reduce noise levels to those modeled assuming 10 decibels (dB); • A delay to the start of foundation installation if a North Atlantic right whale is observed at any distance by PSOs or acoustically detected within certain distances; • A delay to the start of foundation installation if other marine mammals are observed entering or within their respective clearance zones; • A requirement to shut down impact pile driving (if feasible) if a North Atlantic right whale is observed or if any other marine mammals are observed entering their respective shutdown zones; • A requirement to implement sound field verification during impact pile driving of foundation piles to measure in situ noise levels for comparison against the modeled results; • A requirement to implement soft-starts during impact pile driving using the least amount of hammer energy necessary for installation; • A requirement to implement ramp-up during the use of high-resolution geophysical (HRG) marine site characterization survey equipment; • A requirement for PSOs to continue to monitor for 30 minutes after any impact pile driving for foundation installation; • A requirement for the increased awareness of North Atlantic right whale presence through monitoring of the appropriate networks and Channel 16, as well as reporting any sightings to the sighting network; • A requirement to implement various vessel strike avoidance measures; • A requirement to implement measures during fisheries monitoring surveys, such as removing gear from the water if marine mammals are considered at-risk or are interacting with gear; and • A requirement for frequently scheduled and situational reporting including, but not limited to, information regarding activities occurring, marine mammal observations and acoustic detections, and sound field verification monitoring results. NMFS must withdraw or suspend any LOA(s), if issued under these regulations, after notice and opportunity for public comment, if it finds the methods of taking or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are not being substantially complied with (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(B); 50 CFR 216.206(e)). Additionally, failure to comply with the requirements of the LOA(s) may result in civil monetary penalties and knowing violations may result in criminal penalties (16 U.S.C. 1375). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must evaluate the proposed action ( i.e., promulgation of regulations) and alternatives with respect to potential impacts on the human environment. Accordingly, NMFS proposes to adopt the BOEM Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Atlantic Shores South, provided our independent evaluation of the document finds that it includes adequate information analyzing the effects of promulgating the proposed regulations and issuance of the LOA(s) on the human environment. NMFS is a cooperating agency on BOEM's EIS. BOEM's Atlantic Shores South Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Commercial Wind Lease OCS-A 0499 (DEIS), was made available for public comment through a Notice of Availability on May 19, 2023 (88 FR 32242), available at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/atlantic-shores-south . The DEIS had a 45-day public comment period; the comment period was open from May 19, 2023 to July 3, 2023. Additionally, BOEM held two in-person public meetings, on June 21, 2023 and June 22, 2023, and two virtual public hearings, on June 26, 2023, and June 28, 2023. Information contained within Atlantic Shores' ITA application and this Federal Register document provide the environmental information related to these proposed regulations and associated 5-year LOA for public review and comment. NMFS will review all comments submitted in response to this proposed rulemaking prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the requested 5-year ITR and associated LOAs. Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41) This project is covered under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act or “FAST-41.” FAST-41 includes a suite of provisions designed to expedite the environmental review for covered infrastructure projects, including enhanced interagency coordination as well as milestone tracking on the public-facing Permitting Dashboard. FAST-41 also places a 2-year limitations period on any judicial claim that challenges the validity of a Federal agency decision to issue or deny an authorization for a FAST-41 covered project (42 U.S.C. 4370m-6(a)(1)(A)). Atlantic Shores' proposed project is listed on the Permitting Dashboard, where milestones and schedules related to the environmental review and permitting for the project can be found at https://www.permits.performance.gov/permitting-project/atlantic-shores-south . Summary of Request On February 8, 2022, NMFS received a request from Atlantic Shores for the promulgation of regulations and the issuance of associated LOAs to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities associated with the Atlantic Shores South project located offshore of New Jersey in Lease Area OCS-A 0499 and associated ECCs. Atlantic Shores' request is for the incidental, but not intentional, take of a small number of 16 marine mammal species (comprising 17 stocks) by Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment. Neither Atlantic Shores nor NMFS expects serious injury and/or mortality to result from the specified activities, and Atlantic Shores did not request, and NMFS is not proposing, to authorize mortality or serious injury of any marine mammal species or stock. In response to our questions and comments and following extensive information exchanges with NMFS, Atlantic Shores submitted a final, revised application on August 12, 2022 that NMFS deemed adequate and complete on August 25, 2022. The final version of the application is available on NMFS' website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-atlantic-shores-offshore-wind-llc-construction-atlantic-shores . On September 29, 2022, NMFS published a notice of receipt (NOR) of the adequate and complete application in the Federal Register (87 FR 59061), requesting public comments and information related to Atlantic Shores' request during a 30-day public comment period. Due to a request, NMFS extended the public comment period for an additional 15 days (87 FR 65193, October 28, 2022) for a total of a 45-day public comment period. During the 45-day NOR public comment period, NMFS received 5 comments and letters from the public, including a citizen, environmental non-governmental organization (eNGO), and local citizen group. NMFS has reviewed all submitted material and has taken these into consideration during the drafting of this proposed rule. In June 2022, Duke University's Marine Spatial Ecology Laboratory released updated habitat-based marine mammal density models (Roberts et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2023). Because Atlantic Shores applied previous marine mammal densities to their analysis in their application, Atlantic Shores submitted a final Updated Density and Take Estimation Memo (herein referred to as Updated Density and Take Estimation Memo) on March 28, 2023 that included marine mammal densities and take estimates based on these new models. This memo can be found on NMFS' website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-atlantic-shores-offshore-wind-llc-construction-atlantic-shores . In January and February 2023, Atlantic Shores informed NMFS that the proposed activity had changed from what was presented in the adequate and complete MMPA application. Specifically, Atlantic Shores committed to installing only monopile WTG foundations for Project 1 (and any found in the associated Overlap Area), as opposed to either monopile or jacket foundations. All WTGs built for Project 2 (and any remaining Overlap Area) may still consist of either monopiles or jacket foundations and remain unchanged as presented in the adequate and complete MMPA application. Additionally, all OSS foundations that could be developed across both Projects 1 and 2 continue to maintain build-outs using only jacket foundations. Atlantic Shores provided a memo and supplemental materials outlining these changes to NMFS on March 31, 2023. These supplemental materials can be found on NMFS' website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-atlantic-shores-offshore-wind-llc-construction-atlantic-shores . NMFS has previously issued seven Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs), including one renewed IHA and one correction to an issued IHA, to Atlantic Shores authorizing take incidental to high-resolution site characterization surveys offshore New Jersey (see 85 FR 21198, April 16, 2020; 86 FR 21289, April 22, 2021 (renewal); 87 FR 24103, April 22, 2022; and 88 FR 38821, June 14, 2023). To date, Atlantic Shores has complied with all the requirements ( e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHAs and information regarding Atlantic Shores' take estimates and monitoring results may be found in the Estimated Take section. Final monitoring reports can be found on NMFS' website, along with previously issued IHAs: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable . On August 1, 2022, NMFS announced proposed changes to the existing North Atlantic right whale vessel speed regulations (87 FR 46921, August 1, 2022) to further reduce the likelihood of mortalities and serious injuries to endangered right whales from vessel collisions, which are a leading cause of the species' decline and a primary factor in an ongoing Unusual Mortality Event (UME). Should a final vessel speed rule be issued and become effective during the effective period of these regulations (or any other MMPA incidental take authorization), the authorization holder would be required to comply with any and all applicable requirements contained within the final vessel speed rule. Specifically, where measures in any final vessel speed rule are more protective or restrictive than those in this or any other MMPA authorization, authorization holders would be required to comply with the requirements of the rule. Alternatively, where measures in this or any other MMPA authorization are more restrictive or protective than those in any final vessel speed rule, the measures in the MMPA authorization would remain in place. The responsibility to comply with the applicable requirements of any vessel speed rule would become effective immediately upon the effective date of any final vessel speed rule and, when notice is published on the effective date, NMFS would also notify Atlantic Shores if the measures in the speed rule were to supersede any of the measures in the MMPA authorization such that they were no longer required. Description of the Specified Activities Overview Atlantic Shores has proposed to construct and operate two offshore wind projects (Project 1 and Project 2), collectively known as Atlantic Shores South in Lease Area OCS-A 0499. This lease area is located within the New Jersey Wind Energy Area (NJ WEA). Collectively, Atlantic Shores South will consist of up to 200 WTGs, 10 OSSs, and 1 Met Tower divided into two projects: Project 1 and Project 2. These Projects would assist the State of New Jersey to meet its renewable energy goals under the New Jersey Offshore Wind Economic Development Act (OWEDA). Atlantic Shores has been given an allowance by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, through an Offshore Renewable Energy Certificate (OREC), to construct a facility capable of delivering 1,510 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy to the State of New Jersey through Project 1 (owned by an affiliate of Atlantic Shores, called Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind Project 1, LLC). Atlantic Shores also intends to compete for a second OREC award through a competitive solicitation process to develop Project 2, which will be owned by another affiliate company of Atlantic Shores, Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind Project 2, LLC. The Project would consist of several different types of permanent offshore infrastructure, including up to 200 15-MW WTGs and up to 10 OSSs; a single Met Tower; and OSS array cables and interconnector cables. All permanent foundations (WTGs, OSSs, and the single Met Tower) would be installed using impact pile driving only. For the permanent foundations, Atlantic Shores originally considered three construction scenarios for the completion of Projects 1 and 2. All three schedules assume a start year of 2026 for WTG, Met Tower, and OSS foundation installation. Construction Schedules 1 and 3 assume monopile foundations for all WTGs and the Met Tower across both Projects 1 and 2. Construction Schedule 2 originally assumed a full jacket foundation buildout for both Project 1 and Project 2. However, Atlantic Shores has modified Schedule 2 to now assume that all WTGs and the Met Tower in Project 1 would be built using monopiles; the WTGs for Project 2 would still consist of either jacket or monopile foundations. In all Construction Schedules, the OSS foundations would always be built out using jacket foundations. However, these may vary in size between the two Projects ( i.e., small, medium, or large OSSs). Under Schedules 1 and 2, foundations would be constructed in 2 years. Under Schedule 3, all permanent foundations would be installed within a single year. Atlantic Shores would also conduct the following specified activities: temporarily install and remove, by vibratory pile driving, up to eight nearshore cofferdams to connect the offshore export cables to onshore facilities; deploy up to four temporary meteorological and oceanographic (metocean) buoys (three in Project 1 and one in Project 2); several types of fishery and ecological monitoring surveys; the placement of scour protected, trenching, laying, and burial activities associated with the installation of the export cable route from OSSs to shore-based switching and substations and inter-array cables between turbines; HRG vessel-based site characterization and assessment surveys using active acoustic sources with frequencies of less than 180 kilohertz (kHz); transit within the Project Area and between ports and the Lease Area to transport crew, supplies, and materials to support pile installation via vessels; and WTG operation. All offshore cables would be connected to onshore export cables at the sea-to-shore transition points located in Atlantic City, New Jersey (Atlantic Landfall Site) and in Sea Girt, New Jersey (Monmouth Landfall Site). From the sea-to-shore transition point, onshore underground export cables are then connected in series to switching stations/substations, overhead transmission lines, and ultimately to the grid connection. No detonations of unexploded ordnance or munitions and explosives of concern (UXOs/MECs) were planned to occur, nor are they included in this proposed rule. Therefore, these are not discussed further. Marine mammals exposed to elevated noise levels during impact and vibratory pile driving and site characterization surveys may be taken, by Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment, depending on the specified activity. No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed for authorization. Dates and Duration Atlantic Shores anticipates that activities with the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals would occur throughout all 5 years of the proposed regulations which, if issued, would be effective from January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2029. Based on Atlantic Shores' proposed schedule, the installation of all permanent structures would be completed by the end of November 2026. More specifically, the installation of WTG and OSS foundations is expected to occur between May-December in both 2026 and 2027. The temporary cofferdams used for nearshore cable landfall construction would be installed and subsequently removed anytime within 2025 and 2026. The Met Tower would be installed alongside WTGs in Project 1 (2026). Lastly, Atlantic Shores anticipates HRG survey activities using boomers, sparkers, and Compressed High-Intensity Radiated Pulses (CHIRPs) to occur annually and across the entire 5-year effective period of the proposed rule. These HRG surveys are not planned to occur concurrently to pile driving activities but they may occur across the entire Atlantic Shores South Lease Area and ECCs and may take place at any time of year. Atlantic Shores has provided a schedule for all of their proposed construction activities (Table 1). This table also presents a breakdown of the timing and durations of the activities proposed to occur during the construction and operation of the Atlantic Shores South project. Table 1—Estimated Activity Schedule to Construct and Operate Atlantic Shores South, per the Construction and Operations Plan Activity Duration a (months) Expected schedule b Project 1 start date Project 2 start date Onshore Interconnection Cable Installation 9-12 2024-2025 Q1-2024 Q1-2024 Onshore Substation and/or Onshore Converter Station Construction 18-24 2024-2026 Q1-2025 Q1-2025 HRG Survey Activities 3-6 2025-2029 Q2-2025 Q3-2025 Export Cable Installation 6-9 2025 Q2-2025 Q3-2025 Temporary Cofferdam Installation and Removal 18-24 2025-2026 Q2-2025 Q3-2025 OSS installation and Commissioning 5-7 2025-2026 Q2-2026 Q2-2026 WTG Foundation and Met Tower Installation c 10 2026-2027 Q1-2026 c Q1-2026 Inter-Array Cable Installation 14 2026-2027 Q2-2026 d Q3-2026 WTG Installation and Commissioning e 17 2026-2027 Q2-2026 d Q1-2027 Met Buoy Deployments 36 2025-2027 Q1-2025 Q1-2025 Scour Protection Pre-Installation 17 2025-2027 Q2-2025 Q3-2025 Scour Protection Post-Installation 17 2025-2027 Q2-2025 Q3-2025 Site Preparation 60 2025-2029 Q1-2025 Q4-2029 Fishery Monitoring Surveys 60 2025-2029 Q1-2025 Q4-2029 Note: Q1 = January through March; Q2 = April through June; Q3 = July through September; Q4 = October through December. a These durations are a total across all years the activity may occur. b The expected timeframe is indicative of the most probable duration for each activity; the timeframe could shift and/or extend depending on supply chains. c Pile driving may occur from May to December, annually. d The expected timeframe is dependent on the completion of the preceding Project 1 activities ( i.e., Project 1 inter-array cable installation and WTG installation) and the Project 2 foundation installation schedule. e Atlantic Shores anticipates that WTGs for each Project would be commissioned starting in 2026 and 2027 but turbines would not become operational until 2028 and 2029. Atlantic Shores anticipates the installation of all offshore components for Atlantic Shores South are expected to take up to 3 years to complete. During the construction period, Atlantic Shores plans for Project 1 WTGs to be commissioned in 2026 and for Project 2 WTGs to be commissioned in 2027. Atlantic Shores anticipates that Projects 1 and 2 would become operational in 2028 and 2029, respectively. However, these schedules are subject to change based on the contracting and permitting needs of the projects. Specific Geographic Region Atlantic Shores would construct and operate Atlantic Shores South (both Project 1 and Project 2) in Federal and state waters offshore New Jersey within Lease Area OCS-A-0499 and associated ECCs (Figure 1). The Lease Area covers approximately 413.3 square kilometers (km 2 ; 102,124 acres) and begins approximately 8.7 miles (mi; 14 km) from the New Jersey shoreline. The area for Project 1 measures approximately 219.2 km 2 (54,175 acres) and is located in the western part of the Project Area; the area for Project 2 consists of approximately 182.2 km 2 (45,013 acres) and is located along the eastern part of the Project Area. The Overlap Area, which would be split between Projects 1 and 2, consists of an area measuring approximately 11.9 km 2 (2,936 acres). The water depths in the Lease Area range from 19 to 37 meters (m; 62 to 121 feet (ft)) while water depths along the Atlantic City ECC range from 0 to 22 m (0 to 72 ft) and the Monmouth ECC ranges from 0 to 30 m (0 to 98 ft). Within the Project Area, water depths gradually increase based on distance from shore. Cable landfall construction work ( i.e., temporary cofferdams) would be conducted in shallow waters of 4 to 7.5 m (13.1 to 24.6 ft) deep. Sea surface temperatures range from 41 to 73 degrees Fahrenheit (°F; 5 to 23 degrees Celsius (°C)). Atlantic Shores' specified activities would occur within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (NES LME), an area of approximately 260,000 km 2 (64,247,399.2 acres) from Cape Hatteras in the south to the Gulf of Maine in the north. Specifically, the lease area and cable corridor are located within the Mid-Atlantic Bight sub-area of the NES LME which extends between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, extending westward into the Atlantic to the 100-m isobath. In the Middle Atlantic Bight, the pattern of sediment distribution is relatively simple. The continental shelf south of New England is broad and flat, dominated by fine grained sediments. Most of the surficial sediments on the continental shelf are sands and gravels. Silts and clays predominate at and beyond the shelf edge, with most of the slope being 70-100 percent mud. Fine sediments are also common in the shelf valleys leading to the submarine canyons. There are some larger materials, left by retreating glaciers, along the coast of Long Island and to the north and east. Primary productivity is highest in the nearshore and estuarine regions, with coastal phytoplankton blooms initiating in the winter and summer, although the timing and spatial extent of blooms varies from year to year. The relatively productive continental shelf supports a wide variety of fauna and flora, making it important habitat for various benthic and fish species and marine mammals, including but not limited to, fin whales, humpback whales, North Atlantic right whales, and other large whales as they migrate through the area. The Cold Pool, a bottom-trapped cold, nutrient-rich pool and distinct oceanographic feature of the Mid-Atlantic Bight, creates habitat that provides thermal refuge to cold water species in the area (Atlantic Shores South Construction and Operations Plan (COP), Volume II; Lentz, 2017). Cold Pool waters, when upwelled to the surface, promote primary productivity within this region (Voynova et al., 2013). The seafloor in the Atlantic Shores South Project Area is dynamic and changes over time due to current, tidal flows, and wave conditions. The benthic habitat of the Project Area contains a variety of seafloor substrates, physical features, and associated benthic organisms. The soft bottom sediments in the Project Area are reflective of the rest of the Mid-Atlantic Bight region, and are characterized by fine sand as well as gravel and silt/sand mixes (Milliman, 1972; Steimle and Zetlin, 2000). The offshore Project Area is dominated by fine, medium, and coarse sand. The ECCs consist of medium to coarse sand offshore. The Atlantic City ECC is characterized by fine sand nearshore while the Monmouth ECC largely consists of medium and fine sand in the nearshore portion (Atlantic Shores, 2021). The benthic community within the offshore Project Area is characterized by echinoderms, bivalves, gastropods, polychaetes, oligochaetes, amphipods, crustaceans, and cnidarians (Atlantic Shores, 2021). Additional information on the underwater environment's physical resources can be found in the COP for the Atlantic Shores South project (Atlantic Shores, 2021) available at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/atlantic-shores-offshore-wind-construction-and-operations-plan. BILLING CODE 3510-22-P EP22SE23.000 Figure 1—Project Location BILLING CODE 3510-22-C Detailed Description of Specified Activities Below we provide detailed descriptions of Atlantic Shores' proposed activities, explicitly noting those that are anticipated to result in the take of marine mammals and for which an incidental take authorization is requested. Additionally, a brief explanation is provided for those activities that are not expected to result in the take of marine mammals. WTG, OSS, and Met Tower Foundation Installation Atlantic Shores South, in total, includes up to 200 WTGs, a single Met Tower, and up to 10 OSS. As described above, Atlantic Shores has proposed to divide Atlantic Shores South into two projects. Project 1 and Project 2 (including any relevant Overlap Area allocated) would be electrically distinct in all ways and energy produced from the Projects' OSSs would transmit energy to shore via 230-275 kilovolts (kV) High Voltage Alternating Current (HVAC) and/or 320-525 kV high voltage direct current (HVDC) export cables (a maximum of eight cables would be used) to two landfall locations located near Atlantic City, New Jersey and at the Monmouth site located near Sea Girt, New Jersey. Project 1 would include 105 to 111 WTGs on monopile foundations while Project 2 would include 89 to 95 WTGs on either monopile or jacket foundations. Monopiles would be either 12 m (39.37 ft) or 15 m (49.21 ft) in diameter. The number of OSSs in each project is dependent upon the foundation size. Project 1 may contain five small, two medium, or two large OSSs while Project 2 may contain up to five small, three medium, or two large OSSs. OSSs would be located on jacket foundations using 5 m (16.4 ft) pin piles and could consist of a four-legged (small OSS), six-legged (medium OSS), or eight-legged (large OSS) design. Atlantic Shores would also construct a Met Tower in Project 1 on a monopile foundation. Atlantic Shores has indicated that monopiles, suction bucket jackets, mono-suction buckets, and gravity-base structures may also be used (particularly for the construction of the Met Tower and depending on the size of OSSs built, per Atlantic Shores' Project Design Envelope (PDE) refinement memo). However, for purposes of this analysis, the use of suction buckets and gravity-bases to secure bottom-frame foundations are not being considered further in this analysis as the installation of bottom-frame foundations using suction buckets or gravity-base foundations are not anticipated to result in noise levels that would cause harassment to marine mammals. Small OSSs built on monopile foundations would produce less Level B harassment than if they were built on jacket foundations, as indicated in the ITA application, as more piles would need to be driven by an impact hammer. Hence, we limit our analysis in this proposed rule to foundations which require the maximum amount of impact pile driving possible. A monopile foundation typically consists of a single steel tubular section with several sections of rolled steel plate welded together and secured to the seabed. Secondary structures on each WTG monopile foundation could include a boat landing or alternative means of safe access, ladders, a crane, and other ancillary components. A typical monopile installation sequence begins with the monopiles transported directly to the Project Area for installation or to the construction staging port by an installation vessel or a feeding barge. At the foundation location, the main installation vessel upends the monopile in a vertical position in the pile gripper mounted on the side of the vessel. The hammer is then lifted on top of the pile and pile driving commences with a soft-start and proceeds to completion. Piles are driven until the target embedment depth is met, then the pile hammer is removed and the monopile is released from the pile gripper. Once installation of the monopile is complete, the vessel moves to the next installation location. All monopile foundations ( i.e., 15-m or 12-m) would be installed using a 4,400 kilojoule (kJ) impact hammer ( i.e., Menck MHU 4400S) to obtain a maximum penetration depth of 60 m (197 ft). Atlantic Shores estimates that a 15-m monopile could require up to 15,387 strikes at a rate of up to 30 blows per minute (bpm) to reach the target penetration depth, while a 12-m monopile could require 12,350 total strikes at a rate of 30 bpm. Each monopile is estimated to take between 7 to 9 hours to install using an impact hammer. In most cases, Atlantic Shores anticipates installing one monopile per day. However, they may install up to two monopiles per day if possible. For jacket foundations, pin piles would be installed using a 2,500 kJ hammer ( i.e., IHC S-2500) to reach a maximum penetration depth of 70 m (230 ft). Each pin pile would need an estimated 3 hours of impact hammering to reach the target penetration depth, with up to 12 hours needed per day to install four pin piles (one jacket foundation). Impact hammering for pin piles would require up to 6,750 strikes at a rate of up to 30 bpm. Jackets would be lifted off the transport or installation vessel and lowered to the seabed with the correct orientation. The piles would be driven to the engineered depth, following the same process described above for monopiles. The jacket piles are expected to be pre-piled ( i.e., the jacket structure will be set on pre-installed piles) or post-piled ( i.e., the jacket is placed on the seafloor and piles are subsequently driven through guides at the base of each leg). Figure 2 in Atlantic Shores' ITA application provides a conceptual design of monopile and jacket foundations that may be used for Atlantic Shores South. No concurrent pile driving is planned to occur ( i.e., only one pile would be installed at any given time). Pile driving would not be initiated at night. Nighttime pile driving is not planned; however, if a pile is started 1.5 hours prior to civil sunset and does not pause for more than 30 minutes once visibility is diminished due to darkness during daylight and would necessitate being finished during nighttime hours, Atlantic Shores may complete impact pile driving during night to avoid stability or safety issues. Pile driving associated with foundation installation could occur within the 8-month period of May through December, annually. Atlantic Shores presented three schedules in their application to construct Atlantic Shores South which contained various foundation types for both projects. However, since that time, Atlantic Shores has narrowed their scope for Project 1 which effectively eliminates Schedule 1 and Schedule 3 from potential scenarios. Atlantic Shores has determined all WTG and Met Tower foundations in Project 1 would be monopiles (maximum size of 15-m). However, they retained the description for Project 2 such that either monopiles or jacket foundations could be used. For both Project 1 and Project 2, OSSs would still be built out using jacket foundations. The 2-year construction timeline described for Schedule 2 in their application remains valid. Hence, NMFS is considering this modified Schedule 2 for purposes of this proposed rule. All foundation installation for Project 1 plus the Overlap Area ( i.e., 112 WTGs, 1 Met Tower, and 2 OSSs) would occur during construction year 1. For Project 2, 6 WTG foundations would be installed in year 1 and 89 WTG foundations and 2 OSS would be installed in construction year 2. All foundations would be installed in 2026 and 2027, the second and third year of the proposed effective period of this rulemaking. Based on the overall pile driving schedule, Atlantic Shores estimates up to 112 pile driving days for WTGs/Met Tower and up to 12 days for OSS pin pile installation would be needed in construction year 1 (2026). Up to 89 days for WTG installation would be needed in construction year 2 (2027) with another 12 days necessary for the installation of Project 2's OSSs. This estimates a total of 201 days needed to install WTGs (on either a jacket or monopile foundation) and up to 24 days for OSS jacket foundation installation. Installation of the WTG, Met Tower, and OSS foundations is anticipated to result in the take, by Level A harassment and Level B harassment, of marine mammals due to noise generated during impact pile driving. No vibratory pile driving or drilling of foundations would occur. Cable Landfall Construction Atlantic Shores would bring the Atlantic Shores South offshore export cables to shore at the Atlantic landfall site for Project 1, located east of the Project Area and the Monmouth landfall site for Project 2, located north of the Project Area (see Figure 1). The Atlantic Shores South export cable would be connected to the onshore transmission cable at the landfall locations using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) and potentially a backhoe dredge. Atlantic Shores would construct temporary cofferdams using sheet piles to temporarily “dewater” a specified enclosed area using pumps to allow for excavation of the HDD pit. Once excavation and drilling are completed and the HDD conduit and export cable are installed, the seabed would be restored and water would be allowed to flow back in, following the removal of the temporary cofferdam. Atlantic Shores anticipates installing up to eight temporary cofferdams, with four located at each of two main landfall locations (although fewer may be needed). Each cofferdam is anticipated to measure 30 m x 8 m (98.4 ft x 26.2 ft) in size and would be made up of up to 109 sheet piles which would be both installed and removed by vibratory pile driving methods. This yields a total of 436 sheet piles across all four cofferdams at each landfall location, yielding a total of 872 sheet piles for both landfall locations. Atlantic Shores estimates they can install or remove approximately 13-14 sheet piles per day, assuming 8 hours of vibratory pile driving would occur within any 24-hour period. Given different depths found at the Monmouth and Atlantic landfall sites, the work at Monmouth would take longer (due to deeper waters). The shallower depths found at the Atlantic landfall site would necessitate shorter vibratory pile driving durations. Hence, up to 16 days of work (8 days to install, 8 days to remove) would be required for all cofferdams at the Monmouth landfall site and up to 12 days of work (6 days to install, 6 days to remove) would be necessary for all cofferdams at the Atlantic landfall site. In total, to install and remove all eight cofferdams across both sites, 28 days of vibratory hammering/removal would need to occur. Installation of the temporary cofferdams is anticipated to result in the take, by Level B harassment, of marine mammals due to noise during vibratory driving. Marine Site Assessment Surveys (e.g., HRG) Atlantic Shores would conduct site assessment surveys in the Project Area, including the Lease Area and along potential ECCs to landfall locations in New Jersey throughout construction and operation occurring within the 5-year period of the proposed rulemaking. These activities would include: • Shallow penetration sub-bottom profiler (pingers/CHIRPs) to map the near surface stratigraphy (top 0 ft to 16 ft (0 m to 5 m) soils below seabed); • Medium penetration sub-bottom profiler (CHIRPs/parametric profilers/sparkers) to map deeper subsurface stratigraphy as needed (soils down to 246 ft (75 m) to 328 ft (100 m) below the seabed); • Grab sampling to validate seabed classification using typical sample sizes between 0.1 square meters (m 2 ) and 0.2 m 2 ; • Depth sounding (multibeam depth sounder and single beam echosounder) to determine water depths and general bottom topography (currently estimated to range from approximately 16 ft (5 m) to 131 ft (40 m) in depth); • Seafloor imaging (side scan sonar survey) for seabed sediment classification purposes, to identify natural and man-made acoustic targets resting on the bottom as well as any anomalous features; and • Magnetic intensity measurements (gradiometer) for detecting local variations in regional magnetic field from geological strata and potential ferrous objects on and below the bottom. These site assessment surveys may utilize acoustic equipment such as multibeam echosounders, side scan sonars, shallow penetration sub-bottom profilers (SBPs) ( e.g., CHIRP non-parametric SBP), medium penetration sub-bottom profilers ( e.g., sparkers), and ultra-short baseline positioning equipment, some of which are expected to result in the take of marine mammals. Surveys would occur annually, with durations dependent on the activities occurring in that year ( i.e., construction years versus operational years). Use of gradiometers and grab sampling techniques do not have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals ( e.g., 85 FR 7926, February 12, 2020) and will not be discussed further. Of the HRG equipment proposed for use, the following sources have the potential to result in take of marine mammals: • Shallow penetration SBPs to map the near-surface stratigraphy (top 0 to 5 m (0 to 16 ft) of sediment below seabed). A CHIRP system emits sonar pulses that increase in frequency over time. The pulse length frequency range can be adjusted to meet project variables. These are typically mounted on the hull of the vessel or from a side pole. • Medium penetration SBPs (sparkers) to map deeper subsurface stratigraphy as needed. A sparker creates acoustic pulses from 50 Hz to 4 kHz omni-directionally from the source that can penetrate several hundred meters into the seafloor. These are typically towed behind the vessel with adjacent hydrophone arrays to receive the return signals. Table 2 identifies all the representative HRG survey equipment that may be used during construction of Atlantic Shores South. Table 2—Summary of Representative Site Assessment Equipment HRG survey equipment (sub-bottom profiler) Representative equipment type Operating frequency ranges (kHz) Operational source level ranges (dB RMS ) Beamwidth ranges (degrees) Typical pulse durations RMS 90 (millisecond) Pulse repetition rate (Hz) Sparker Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark 240 * 0.01 to 1.9 a 203 a 180 3.4 a 2. Geo Marine Geo-Source * 0.2 to 5 195 b 180 7.2 b 0.41. Compressed High-Intensity Radiated Pulses (CHIRP) Edgetech 2000-DSS * 2 to 16 195 c 24 d 6.3 10. Edgetech 216 * 2 to 16 179 e 17, 20, or 24 10 10. Edgetech 424 * 4 to 24 f 180 f 71 f 4 2. Edgetech 512i * 0.7 to 12 f 179 f 80 f 9 8. Pangeosubsea Sub-bottom Imager TM * 4 to 12.5 d 190 d g 120 d 4.5 44. INNOMAR INNOMAR SES-2000 Medium-100 Parametric h 85 to 115 d 241 2 d 2 40. INNOMAR deep-36 Parametric h 30 to 42 245 1.5 0.15 to 5 40. Gradiometer Geometrics G-882 Marine Magnetometer Transverse Gradiometer Array n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a. Side-scan Sonar EdgeTech 4200 100 or 400 201 at 100 kHz; 205 at 400 kHz 0.5° × 50°-0.26° × 50° 1.1 to 7.2 at 100 kHz; 1.1 to 1.3 at 400 kHz 5 to 11 or 5 to 20 dependent on pulse duration. Edgetech 4205 Tri-Freq 300, 600, or 900 220 at 300 kHz; 2019 at 600 kHz; 221 at 900 kHz 0.5° × 50°-0.26° × 50° 1.0 to 3.0 at 300 kHz; 0.5 to 5.0 at 600 kHz; 0.4-2.8 at 900 kHz 5 to 11 or 10 to 25 dependent on pulse duration. Multibeam Echosounder Dual Head Kongsberg EM2040 200 to 400 204.5 0.4 to 1.5 0.014 to 12 50. Norbit iWMBS 200 to 700 220 0.5 to 1.9 0.5 Up to 60. Note: RMS stands for root mean square, SPL stands for sound pressure level; * = Sources expected to cause take of marine mammals and that were carried forward into the take estimation analysis. a The operational source level for the Dura-Spark 240 is assigned based on the value closest to the field operational history of the Dura-Spark 240 (operating between 500 to 600 joules (J)) found in Table 10 in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016), which reports a 203 dB RMS for 500 J source setting and 400 tips. Because Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) did not provide other source levels for the Dura-Spark 240 near the known operational range, the SIG ELC 820 @750 J at 5 m depth assuming an omnidirectional beam width was considered as a proxy or comparison to the Dura-Spark 240. The corresponding 203 dB RMS level is considered a realistic and conservative value that aligns with the history of operations of the Dura-Spark 240 over 3 years of surveys by Atlantic Shores. Operational information was provided by Atlantic Shores and assumes that the Geo Marine Survey System would be operating at 400 J. b Information on the source level was obtained from Gene Andella (Edgetech) with JASCO Applied Sciences. c Manufacturer specifications and/or correspondence with manufacturer. d Considered EdgeTech Chirp as a proxy source for levels as the Chirp512i has similar operation settings as the Chirp 2000-DSS tow vehicle. See Table 18 in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) for source levels for 100% power and 2-12 kHz. e Values from Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) for 100% power and comparable bandwidth. f For a frequency of 4 kHz. g Parametric sub-bottom profilers do not have the potential to harass marine mammals due to their lower frequencies and extremely narrow beamwidth (see 87 FR 24103, April 22, 2022). Therefore, these sources were not considered in calculating the maximum r value for the ensonified area calculation. h The specification sheet indicates a peak source level of 247 dB re 1 μPa m (based on personal communications with Atlantic Shores to Jens Wunderlich, Innomar, 7-18-2019). The average difference between the peak SPL source levels for sub-bottom profilers measured by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) was 6 dB. Atlantic Shores therefore estimates the SPL source level is 241 dB re 1 μPa m. While the Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark 240 is planned to be used during project activities, the equipment specifications and subsequent analysis are based on the SIG ELC 820 with a power level of 750 J at a 5 meter depth (Crocker and Fratantonio (2016)). However, while 750 J was used as a worst-case scenario to conservatively account for take of marine mammals as these higher electrical outputs would only be used in areas with denser substrates (700 to 800 J), Atlantic Shores expects a more reasonable power level to be 500 to 600 J based on prior experience with HRG surveys. Of the sources described in Table 2 above, the only sources expected to result in the harassment of marine mammals are CHIRPs and sparkers. Given the combination of characteristics of the non-impulsive sources planned for use, which include operating frequencies mostly above 180 kHz (considered outside of the hearing range of most marine mammals) and/or very narrow beamwidths, harassment is not expected to result from the operation of any of these sources; therefore, they are not considered further in this proposed rule. Atlantic Shores' HRG surveys would utilize up to three vessels working concurrently in different sections of the Lease Area and ECCs. No HRG surveys would occur concurrently with impact pile driving activities. All vessels would be operating several kilometers apart at any one time. On average, 55 km (34.2 mi) would be surveyed each survey day, per vessel, at a speed of approximately 6.5 km/hour (3.5 knots (kn; 4 miles per hour (mph))) on a 24-hour basis. During the 5 years the proposed rule would be effective, an estimated area of 413.3 km 2 (102,124 acres) would be surveyed across the Project Area. Atlantic Shores anticipates up to 60 days of survey activities would occur annually, with 300 days total expected throughout the entire 5-year effective period of the proposed rule. Meteorological Buoy Deployment Atlantic Shores will also deploy up to four meteorological and oceanographic (called “metocean”) buoys within the Atlantic Shores South Project Area. Three of these would be located in Project 1 and one would be located in Project 2. These buoys would be designed to collect different data than obtained by the Met Tower and would only be anticipated to collect data ( e.g., wind resource and metocean data) during 1-2 years of the pre-construction period to support the development of Atlantic Shores' projects. Buoys would be deployed approximately 6 months prior to the start of construction and would remain deployed throughout construction activities. Deployed buoys would be decommissioned after construction was completed. At the time of drafting this proposed rule, Atlantic Shores had not chosen a buoy supplier, so exact design specifics are not certain. However, the buoys will be similar, though smaller, than those deployed in Atlantic Shores' Site Assessment Plan (SAP). We discuss those here for context and to support our analysis of likely buoy effects. Available information on Atlantic Shores' proposed buoy deployments is also available in their COP (Volume I, Section 4.6.2 Temporary Metocean Buoys). Under the SAP, four buoys (specifically the Fugro SEAWATCH TM Wind light detection and ranging (LiDAR) buoy) would be deployed (numbered IA1-IA4 in the SAP, with one located in the northern portion of the project (IA2) and three located in the middle and southern portion (IA1, IA3, and IA4) (Figure1-1; Tetra Tech, 2020). The mooring design for the buoys consists of galvanized chains that would connect the buoy to a large link steel chain weight located on the seafloor. A second steel link chain would connect to a water-level acoustic modem via a bottom weight. The chain for the buoy would attach to the base of the SEAWATCH TM Wavescan platform via a long keel structure. The diameter of the link in the chafe section of the mooring is 19 millimeters. The maximum area that the anchor chain could sweep is estimated as 3.1 acres (0.0048 square miles (mi 2 )), assuming the chain's radius is 63 meters (207 feet). The approximate sweep of the acoustic modem's chain is approximately 50 meters (164 ft). Figure 3-2 in the SAP demonstrates the buoy mooring design (Tetra Tech, 2020). Entanglement can occur if wildlife becomes immobilized in survey lines, cables, nets, or other equipment that is moving through the water column. Atlantic Shores incorporated BOEM's Mid-Atlantic Environmental Assessment (EA), which references a NMFS Biological Opinion on the Cape Wind Energy Project (NMFS, 2010) in Nantucket Sound where metocean buoys were used. The EA, as well as a study by Harnois et al. (2015) assessed the potential entanglement risk of metocean buoy mooring systems on marine mammals and determined that there is an extremely low probability that animals would interact with the buoys, which would indicate a low risk of entanglement. Based on the high tension of the chain proposed for use, as well as the material of the chain (galvanized chains versus rope), Harnois et al. (2015) determined that the risk of entanglement to marine mammals was low. Furthermore, given that these buoys would not have any active acoustic components and do not pose a risk of take of marine mammals, Atlantic Shores did not request, and NMFS does not propose to authorize, take associated with the metocean buoys and these are not analyzed further in this document. Cable Laying and Installation Cable burial operations would occur both in the Lease Area and ECCs from the lease area to shore. The inter-array cables would connect the WTGs to any one of the OSSs. Cables within the ECCs would carry power from the OSSs to shore at the landfall locations in Atlantic City, New Jersey and Sea Girt, New Jersey. The offshore export and inter-array cables would be buried in the seabed at a target depth of up to 1.5 m (5 ft) to 2 m (6.6 ft), although the exact depth will depend on the substrate in the area. All cable burial operations would follow installation of the WTG and OSS foundations, as the foundations must be in place to provide connection points for the export cables and inter-array cables. Cable laying, cable installation, and cable burial activities planned to occur during the construction of the Atlantic Shores South project would include the following methods: simultaneous lay and burial for export cable installation, post-lay burial for inter-array cables, and pre-lay trenching for cable burial that is necessary to be deeper than target depth and/or cable burial in firmer ground such as clays or dense sands. Atlantic Shores is evaluating the use of the following techniques to achieve the target cable burial depth: jet plowing for simultaneous lay and burial, jet trenching for simultaneous lay and burial or post-lay burial in soft soils, and in a more limited capacity, the use of mechanical trenching for pre-lay trenching, simultaneous lay and buy, and post-lay burial in areas more challenging for cable burial. As the noise levels generated from cable laying and installation work are low, the potential for take of marine mammals to result is discountable. Atlantic Shores is not requesting and NMFS is not proposing to authorize take associated with cable laying activities. Therefore, cable laying activities are not analyzed further in this document. Site Preparation and Scour Protection For export cable installation, site preparation typically includes required sand bedform leveling, boulder clearance, pre-lay grapnel runs, and a pre-lay survey. Due to the presence of mobile sand bedforms, some dredging may be required prior to cable laying. Sand bedform leveling may include the removal of tops of sand bedforms and is typically undertaken where cable exposure is predicted over the lifetime of a project due to seabed mobility. This facilitates cable burial below the reference seabed. Alternatively, sand bedform removal may be undertaken where slopes become greater than approximately 10 degrees (17.6 percent), which could cause instability to the burial tool. If necessary to remove sand bedforms, Atlantic Shores will clear the area using subsea excavation methods. The work could be undertaken by traditional dredging methods such as a trailing suction hopper. Controlled flow excavation may be used to induce water currents to force the seabed into suspension, where it would otherwise be directed to eventually settle (Atlantic Shores, 2021). A route clearance plow may be used to push sand aside and clear the way for cable installation. In areas of hard or rocky seabed substrate, cutterhead dredging may be used in place of the trailing suction hopper dredge. This method involves the use of a larger drill and may be necessary along the ECCs. Backhoe dredging may be used in shallow, nearshore areas where only small amounts of material need to be removed. This equipment operates in a similar way to an onshore backhoe excavator yet is mounted on a small barge (Atlantic Shores, 2021). Boulder clearance may also be required in targeted locations to clear boulders along the ECCs, inter-array cable routes, and/or foundations prior to installation. Boulder removal can be performed using a combination of methods to optimize clearance of boulder debris of varying size and frequency. Boulder clearance trials are normally performed prior to wide-scale seafloor preparation activities to evaluate efficacy of boulder clearing techniques. If boulders are encountered during installation activities, Atlantic Shores would move them from the ECCs using subsea grabs as the presence of boulders is expected to be minimal and this type of technique has minimal impacts on the seafloor. A boulder grab involves a grab most likely deployed from a dynamic positioning offshore support vessel being lowered to the seabed, over the targeted boulder. Once “grabbed,” the boulder is relocated away from the cable route and/or foundation location. A displacement plow may be used if more boulders than expected are encountered. This type of plow has a simple Y-shaped design and clears an approximately 10-m wide corridor. The plow is towed along the seafloor by a vessel and displaces boulders along a clearance path as it passes over the seabed surface (Atlantic Shores, 2021). The size of boulders that can be relocated is dependent on a number of factors including the boulder weight, dimensions, embedment, density and ground conditions. Typically, boulders with dimensions less than 2.5 m (8 ft) can be relocated with standard tools and equipment. Additionally, pre-lay grapnel runs may be undertaken to remove any seafloor debris along the ECCs. A specialized vessel will tow an approximately 1-m wide grapnel train consisting of a series of hooks designed to snag debris. Tension measurements on the grapnel train towing rope will indicate whether the hooks have caught debris. Atlantic Shores plans to make three passes with the grapnel train along each cable alignment. Atlantic Shores would conduct pre-lay surveys along the final planned cable alignments prior to cable installation. The purpose of these surveys would be to confirm seabed morphology and bathymetry and to detect any objects that may impact the future infrastructure. Multi-beam echosounders would be used to survey a 20-m (65.6-ft) wide corridor centered on the cable alignments to examine the total width of the seabed area to be disturbed by cable installation activities (Atlantic Shores, 2021). Atlantic Shores would also deposit rock around each foundation as scour protection. Installation of the rock would be conducted from a fallpipe vessel using a pipe that extends to just above the seafloor to deposit rock contained in the vessel's hopper in a controlled manner. Scour protection placement would occur prior to and/or after foundation installation. NMFS does not expect scour protection placement or site preparation work, including boulder removal, sand leveling ( i.e., dredging) pre-lay grapnel runs, and pre-lay surveys, to generate noise levels that would cause take of marine mammals. Dredging, bedform leveling, and boulder clearance is expected to be extremely localized at any given time, and NMFS expects that any marine mammals would not be exposed at levels or durations likely to disrupt behavioral patterns ( i.e., migrating, foraging, calving, etc. ). Therefore, the potential for take of marine mammals to result from these activities is so low as to be discountable. Atlantic Shores did not request and NMFS is not proposing to authorize any takes associated with seabed preparation activities; therefore, they are not analyzed further in this document. Vessel Operation During construction of the project, Atlantic Shores estimates that approximately 550 to 2,050 vessel round trips to the Lease Area will occur annually during the projects' operations, which is an average of two to six vessel trips per day in support of both Project 1 and 2 (COP Volume 1 section 5.6). Atlantic Shores expects up to 51 vessels to be used during construction, though a maximum of 16 vessels are expected to operate at one time for a given construction activity. Construction vessels would make an estimated 1,745 trips to the Project Area, including trips from the future New Jersey Wind Port, Paulsboro Marine Terminal, and Repauno Port and Rail Terminal in New Jersey; Portsmouth Marine Terminal in Virginia; and the Port of Corpus Christi in Texas. Atlantic Shores generally expects 5 to 16 maintenance vessels to operate at a given time, though up to 22 vessels may be required in some repair scenarios. Maintenance vessels would make an estimated 1,861 trips to the Project Area, the majority of which would originate from the O&M facility in Atlantic City, with a smaller number originating from the New Jersey Wind Port (DEIS Section 3.6.6). Atlantic Shores plans that their vessel usage will be divided into different campaigns, including: foundation installation, scour protection installation, OSS installation, WTG installation, inter-array cable installation, inter-link cable installation (if needed), and export cable installation. When performing the specific construction task, the vessels would either anchor, jack-up, or maintain their position using dynamic positioning systems, where a continually adjusting propulsion system keeps the vessel in a single location. Many of these vessels will remain in the Wind Farm Area or ECC for days or weeks at a time, potentially making only infrequent trips to port for bunkering and provisioning, as needed. The actual number of vessels involved in the project at one time is highly dependent on the project's final schedule, the final design of the project's components, and the logistics needed to ensure compliance with the Jones Act, a Federal law that regulates maritime commerce in the United States. Table 3 below shows the number of vessels and the number of vessel trips anticipated during construction activities related to Atlantic Shores South. Table 3—Type and Number of Vessels and Number of Vessel Trips Anticipated During Construction Activities Over the Effective Period of the Requested Rulemaking Vessel role Vessel type Number of vessels Approximated operational speed (kn) a WTG, Met Tower, and OSS Foundation installation Foundation installation Bulk carrier 1 10 Medium heavy lift vessel 1 10 Jack-up vessel 1 10 Bubble curtain support vessel Tugboat 1 10 Transport barge Barge 2-3 3-10 Towing tugboat Tugboat 2-6 3-10 Support vessel Service Operation Vessel 1 10 Crew transfer and noise monitoring Crew transfer vessel 1 29 OSS Installation OSS installation Large heavy lift vessel 1 10 Medium heavy lift vessel 1 10 Bubble curtain support vessel Tugboat 1 10 Transport barge Barge 4 10 Towing tugboat Tugboat 4 10 Assistance tugboat Tugboat 2 10 Crew transfer and noise monitoring Crew transfer vessel 1 29 Scour protection Scour protection installation Fall pipe vessel 1 10 Dredging Dredger 1 10 Cofferdam installation and removal Cofferdam installation and removal Spread-moored barge 1 10 DP barge 1 10 a All vessels will follow required proposed vessel strike mitigation measures and any vessel speed restrictions required by this proposed rule ( i.e., all vessels will travel at 10 kn (11.5 mph) or less in Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs) and Seasonal Management Areas (SMAs)). Atlantic Shores estimates that up to 37 round trips, monthly, from various ports would be necessary associated with the installation of the WTG and OSS foundations, topside construction associated with WTGs and OSSs, and the necessary scour protection. They further estimate that about 19 monthly round trips would be needed from the port in Atlantic City, up to 17 would be needed from the New Jersey Wind port, and a single monthly round trip would occur from European ports. Where a tug and barge combination would be used, a single vessel trip is assumed from the joint approach as these two vessels would be used conjointly. While marine mammals are known to respond to vessel noise and the presence of vessels in different ways, we do not expect Atlantic Shores' vessel operations to result in the take of marine mammals. As existing vessel traffic in the vicinity of the Project Area off of New Jersey is relatively high, we expect that marine mammals in the area are likely somewhat habituated to vessel noise. As part of various construction related activities, including cable laying and construction material delivery, dynamic positioning thrusters may be utilized to hold vessels in position or move slowly. Sound produced through use of dynamic positioning thrusters is similar to that produced by transiting vessels, in that dynamic positioning thrusters are typically operated either in a similarly predictable manner or used for short durations around stationary activities. Sound produced by dynamic positioning thrusters would be preceded by, and associated with, sound from ongoing vessel noise and would be similar in nature; thus, any marine mammals in the vicinity of the activity would be aware of the vessel's presence, further reducing the potential for startle or flight responses on the part of marine mammals. Accordingly, noise from construction-related vessel activity, including the use of dynamic positioning thrusters, is not expected to result in take of marine mammals. In addition, any construction vessels would be stationary for significant periods of time when on-site and any large vessels would travel to and from the site at relatively low speeds. Project-related vessels would be required to adhere to several mitigation measures designed to avoid vessel strikes; these measures are described further below (see the Proposed Mitigation section). Vessel strikes are neither anticipated nor authorized. Atlantic Shores did not request, and NMFS does not propose to authorize, take associated with vessel activity. However, NMFS acknowledges the aggregate impacts of Atlantic Shores South's vessel operations on the acoustic habitat of marine mammals and has considered it in the analysis and preliminary determinations contained herein. Helicopter Usage Atlantic Shores may supplement vessel-based transport with helicopters to transfer crew to and from the shore and the Lease Area. Crew transport via helicopter may be utilized during offshore construction, commissioning, and testing phases as well as during maintenance of the WTGs (Atlantic Shores, 2021). Helicopters could be used when rapid-response operations and maintenance (O&M) activities are needed or when poor weather limits the use of crew transport vessels. Helicopters would be based within a reasonable distance of the project at a general aviation airport (COP Volume 1 section 5.6). The most intense helicopter activity would occur during construction phases and mostly likely during shift changes. Atlantic Shores does not currently anticipate installing helicopter pads on the OSSs, though this feature may be added depending on the O&M strategy employed. If a helicopter pad is installed, it would be designed to support a U.S. Coast Guard helicopter, including appropriate lighting and marking as required (COP Volume 1 section 5.5; DEIS section 2). In addition, fixed wing aircraft may be used to support environmental monitoring and mitigation efforts (Atlantic Shores, 2021). Aircraft usage would align with the best practices from regulators when determining routes and altitudes for travel. Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft produce sounds that can be audible to marine mammals; however, most sound energy from aircraft reflects off the air-water interface as only sound radiated downward within a 26-degree cone penetrates below the surface water (Urick, 1972). Due to the intermittent nature and the small area potentially ensonified by this sound source for a very limited duration, Atlantic Shores did not request, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize, take of marine mammals incidental to helicopter and fixed wing aircraft flights; therefore, these activities will not be discussed further in this proposed action. Fisheries and Benthic Monitoring Fisheries and benthic monitoring surveys have been designed in accordance with recommendations set forth by the Responsible Offshore Science Alliance (ROSA) Offshore Wind Project Monitoring Framework and Guidelines ( https://www.rosascience.org/offshore-wind-and-fisheries-resources/; ROSA, 2021). The purpose of the surveys are to document environmental conditions relevant to fisheries in the Project Area throughout the construction and operation phases of the proposed project. Atlantic Shores would conduct demersal otter trawl surveys, ventless trap surveys, and hydraulic clam dredge surveys to enhance existing data for specific benthic and pelagic species of concern. The demersal otter trawl surveys would follow methodology based upon the Northeast Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) annual trawl surveys, throughout all four seasons to monitor fish and mega-invertebrate communities. The trawl net would be a four-seam, three bridle, 400 centimeter (cm; 157.48 inch (in)) x 12 cm (4.7 in) net with a cookie sweep and 1 in (2.54 cm) knotless liner in the cod end. The fishing circle would be 400 meshes of 12 cm (4.72 in), 4 millimeter (mm; 0.157 in) braided polyethylene twine (4,800 cm (1889.76 in) fishing circle). The total headrope length, including extension chains, hammerlocks, shackles, and combination cable would be 24.6 m (80.7 ft) long, with extension cables fully slacked out while fishing. Sixty 20.3 cm (8 in) orange center-hole floats would run the length of the headrope. The upper and lower wing ends would be made of stainless-steel combination cable and measure 552 cm (217.3 in) and 459 cm (180.7 in) respectively. The total footrope length including hammerlocks, shackles, and extension wires would be approximately 27 m (88.6 ft) long. The doors would be Thyboron type IV, 167.64 cm (425.8 in) otter trawl doors with 2.25 meters squared (m 2 ; 24.2 feet square (ft 2 )) area. A Netmind digital trawl net monitoring system would be incorporated with sensors measuring wing spread, vertical net opening, bottom contact, and a catch sensor in the cod end to trip at approximately 5,000 pounds (lbs; 2,268 kilograms (kg)). Prior to sampling, salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen would be measured during a cast to the seafloor with an appropriate oceanographic probe. Sampling would only occur between 30 minutes after sunrise and 30 minutes before sunset. Oceanographic conditions would be recorded at each station before beginning trawl. The tow cable would be deployed to a length of at least 3 times the water column depth. The tow duration would be 20 minutes at a speed of approximately 3 kn (3.45 mph), with the towpath being regularly logged. Once onboard, the catch would be dumped and sorted by species into buckets and baskets unless the tow is deemed a failure. Demersal otter trawl surveys would be conducted during preconstruction and construction years as well as for 3 years post construction. The ventless trap surveys, or fish pot surveys, would follow survey design adapted from a Rutgers University and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) trap survey of artificial reefs offshore of New Jersey (Jensen et al., 2018). The purpose of the trap surveys would be to monitor the presence and size of dominant structure-associated species. Unbaited ventless traps (110.5 cm x 56 cm x 38 cm (43.5 in x 22 in x 15 in)) would be deployed in a trawl attached to a groundline. Each trap would be affixed with a temperature logger and a camera facing outward above the entrance. The groundline on each trap would serve to prevent gear loss and protected species entanglement. Trap surveys would be conducted during all four seasons during preconstruction and construction phases as well as for 3 years post construction. Once traps are set, they would soak for two periods of 5-7 days, depending upon weather. All gear would be removed from the water in between surveys. Hydraulic clam dredge surveys would use a dredge similar to the NJDEP surf clam survey gear and follow a NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) clam dredge survey methodology (Atlantic Shores, 2023). The purpose of the clam dredge survey would be to detect significant changes in the presence and size of ocean quahogs and Atlantic surf clams from cumulative project effects. Dredge surveys would take place during the summer during preconstruction and construction phases as well as for 3 years post construction. More information about Atlantic Shores' fishery and benthic monitoring surveys can be found in the Atlantic Shores Fisheries Monitoring Plan, Appendix II-K found on our website https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-atlantic-shores-offshore-wind-llc-construction-atlantic-shores. In addition to the above mentioned fishery monitoring surveys, Atlantic Shores would also partner with Rutgers University to conduct a multi-phase modeling study to gain a better understanding of how Mid-Atlantic wind farms and climate change may influence the distribution and abundance of surf clams (Atlantic Shores, 2023). This study builds off an existing simulation of the surf clam fishery in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. The simulation, Spatially-explicit Ecological agent-based Fisheries and Economic Simulator (SEFES), currently models the interactions between surf stock biology, fishery captain and fleet behavior, Federal management decisions, fishery economics, port structure, and wind farm development. Atlantic Shores will partner with Rutgers University to expand the capabilities of SEFES to assess fisheries and wind development activities from present day to 30 years into the future and run scenarios that factor in the presence of the proposed project. Atlantic Shores would also partner with Stockton University to study the ecological succession of newly submerged artificial reefs off New Jersey through the use of acoustic and video observation. Surveys would be conducted using side scan sonar, multibeam echosounder, and direct observation via a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to collect data for 3-D mapping of artificial reef structures. Maps would provide base layers to overlay biological assessments to better understand ecological succession of newly submerged reef structures. Atlantic Shores does not anticipate, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize, take of marine mammals incidental to these activities and they are not discussed further in this document. In general, trap and trawl surveys have the potential to result in the take of marine mammals given there is a risk of entanglement. However, Atlantic Shores would implement mitigation and monitoring measures to avoid taking marine mammals, including, but not limited to, use of bycatch reduction gear such as ropeless gear for trap surveys, monitoring for marine mammals before and during trawling activities, not deploying or pulling trawl gear in certain circumstances, limiting tow times, fully repairing nets, and reporting protected species interactions to the NMFS Greater Atlantic Region Field Office (GARFO). All trap and trawl surveys would also comply with take reduction team regulations for Atlantic large whales, harbor porpoises, and bottlenose dolphins, and Atlantic Trawl Take Reduction Strategy measures to reduce the potential for interactions between small cetaceans and trawl (bottom and mid-water) gear (Atlantic Shores, 2023). A full description of mitigation measures can be found in the Proposed Mitigation section. With the implementation of these measures, Atlantic Shores does not anticipate, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize, take of marine mammals incidental to research trap and trawl surveys. Given no take is anticipated from these surveys, impacts from fishery surveys will not be discussed further in this document (with the exception of the description of measures in the Proposed Mitigation section). Description of Marine Mammals in the Geographic Area of Specified Activities Thirty-eight marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction have geographic ranges within the western North Atlantic OCS (Hayes et al., 2022). However, for reasons described below, Atlantic Shores has requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize, take of only 16 species (comprising 17 stocks) of marine mammals. Sections 3 and 4 of Atlantic Shores' ITA application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species (JASCO, 2022). NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions in the application instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs), https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ), and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ). Of the 38 marine mammal species and/or stocks with geographic ranges that include the Project Area ( i.e., found in the coastal and offshore waters of New Jersey), 22 are not expected to be present or are considered rare or unexpected in the Project Area based on sighting and distribution data (see Table 11 in Atlantic Shores' ITA application); they are, therefore, not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here. Specifically, the following cetacean species are known to occur off of New Jersey but are not expected to occur in the Project Area due to the location of preferred habitat outside the Lease Area and ECCs, based on the best available information: Blue whale ( Balaenoptera musculus ), Cuvier's beaked whale ( Ziphius cavirostris ), four species of Mesoplodont beaked whales ( Mesoplodon densitostris, M. europaeus, M. mirus, and M. bidens ), clymene dolphin ( Stenella clymene ), false killer whale ( Pseudorca crassidens ), Fraser's dolphin ( Lagenodelphis hosei ), killer whale ( Orcinus orca ), melon-headed whale ( Peponocephala electra ), pantropical spotted dolphin ( Stenella attenuata ), pygmy killer whale ( Feresa attenuata ), rough-toothed dolphin ( Steno bredanensis ), spinner dolphin ( Stenella longirostris ), striped dolphin ( Stenella coeruleoalba ), white-beaked dolphin ( Lagenorhynchus albirostris ), Northern bottlenose whale ( Hyperoodon ampullatus ), dwarf sperm whale ( Kogia sima ), and the pygmy sperm whale ( Kogia breviceps ). Two species of phocid pinnipeds are also uncommon in the Project Area, including: harp seals ( Pagophilus groenlandica ) and hooded seals ( Cystophora cristata ). In addition, the Florida manatees ( Trichechus manatus; a sub-species of the West Indian manatee) has been previously documented as an occasional visitor to the Mid-Atlantic region during summer months (Morgan et al., 2002; Cummings et al., 2014). However, as manatees are managed solely under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), they are not considered or discussed further in this document. Table 4 lists all species and stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this action and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined 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” (16 U.S.C. 1362(20)). While no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats. Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs. All values presented in Table 4 are the most recent available data at the time of publication, which can be found in NMFS' final2022 SARs (Hayes et al., 2023) available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports. Table 4—Marine Mammal Species 5 That May Occur in the Project Area and Be Taken, by Harassment Common name Scientific name Stock ESA/ MMPA status; strategic (Y/N) 1 Stock abundance (CV, N min , most recent abundance survey) 2 PBR Annual M/SI 3 Order Artiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Balaenidae: North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis Western Atlantic E, D, Y 338 (0; 332; 2020) 0.7 8.1 Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals): Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Western North Atlantic E, D, Y 6,802 (0.24; 5,573; 2016) 11 1.8 Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Gulf of Maine -, -, N 1,396 (0; 1,380; 2016) 22 12.15 Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata Canadian Eastern Coastal -, -, N 21,968 (0.31; 17,002; 2016) 170 10.6 Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Nova Scotia E, D, Y 6,292 (1.02; 3,098; 2016) 6.2 0.8 Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family Physeteridae: Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus North Atlantic E, D, Y 4,349 (0.28; 3,451; 2016) 3.9 0 Family Delphinidae: Atlantic spotted dolphin Stenella frontalis Western North Atlantic -, -, N 39,921 (0.27; 32,032; 2016) 320 0 Atlantic white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus Western North Atlantic -, -, N 93,233 (0.71; 54,433; 2016) 544 27 Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus Western North Atlantic—Offshore -, -, N 62,851 (0.23; 51,914; 2016) 519 28 Northern Migratory Coastal -, -, Y 6,639 (0.41; 4,759; 2016) 48 12.2-21.5 Common dolphin Delphinus delphis Western North Atlantic -, -, N 172,897 (0.21; 145,216; 2016) 1,452 390 Long-finned pilot whale 6 Globicephala melas Western North Atlantic -, -, N 39,215 (0.3; 30,627; 2016) 306 29 Short-finned pilot whale 6 Globicephala macrorhynchus Western North Atlantic -, -, N 28,924 (0.24, 23,637, 2016) 236 136 Risso's dolphin Grampus griseus Western North Atlantic -, -, N 35,215 (0.19; 30,051; 2016) 301 34 Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy -, -, N 95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 2016) 851 164 Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia Family Phocidae (earless seals): Gray seal 4 Halichoerus grypus Western North Atlantic -, -, N 27,300 (0.22; 22,785; 2016) 1,458 4,453 Harbor seal Phoca vitulina Western North Atlantic -, -, N 61,336 (0.08; 57,637; 2018) 1,729 339 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 depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS' marine mammal stock assessment reports can be found online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is the coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3 These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined ( e.g., commercial fisheries, vessel strike). 4 NMFS' stock abundance estimate (and associated PBR value) applies to the U.S. population only. Total stock abundance (including animals in Canada) is approximately 451,431. The annual M/SI value given is for the total stock. 5 Information on the classification of marine mammal species can be found on the web page for The Society for Marine Mammalogy's Committee on Taxonomy ( https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/; Committee on Taxonomy (2023)). 6 Although both species are described here, the requested take for both short-finned and long-finned pilot whales has been summarized into a single group (pilot whales spp.). As indicated above, all 16 species and 17 stocks in Table 4 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. Four of the marine mammal species for which take is requested are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, including North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and sperm whales. In addition to what is included in Sections 3 and 4 of Atlantic Shores' ITA application ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-atlantic-shores-offshore-wind-llc-construction-atlantic-shores ), the SARs ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ), and NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species-directory/marine-mammals ), we provide further detail below informing the baseline for select species ( e.g., information regarding current UMEs and known important habitat areas, such as Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) (Van Parijs, 2015). There are no ESA-designated critical habitats for any species within the Project Area ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/national-esa-critical-habitat-mapper ). Under the MMPA, a UME is defined as “a stranding that is unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal population; and demands immediate response” (16 U.S.C. 1421h(6)). As of May 2023, five UMEs are active. Four of these UMEs are occurring along the U.S. Atlantic coast for various marine mammal species. Of these, the most relevant to the Project Area are the North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, and harbor and gray seal UMEs given the prevalence of these species in the Project Area. More information on UMEs, including all active, closed, or pending, can be found on NMFS' website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/active-and-closed-unusual-mortality-events. Below, we include information for a subset of the species that presently have an active or recently closed UME occurring along the Atlantic coast or for which there is information available related to areas of biological significance. For the majority of species potentially present in the specific geographic region, NMFS has designated only a single generic stock ( e.g., “western North Atlantic”) for management purposes. This includes the “Canadian east coast” stock of minke whales, which includes all minke whales found in U.S. waters and is also a generic stock for management purposes. For humpback and sei whales, NMFS defines stocks on the basis of feeding locations ( i.e., Gulf of Maine and Nova Scotia, respectively). However, references to humpback whales and sei whales in this document refer to any individuals of the species that are found in the project area. Any areas of known biological importance (including the BIAs identified in LaBrecque et al., 2015) that overlap spatially (or are adjacent) with the project area are addressed in the species sections below. North Atlantic Right Whale The North Atlantic right whale has been listed as Endangered since the ESA's enactment in 1973. The species was recently uplisted from Endangered to Critically Endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (Cooke, 2020). The uplisting was due to a decrease in population size (Pace et al., 2017), an increase in vessel strikes and entanglements in fixed fishing gear (Daoust et al., 2017; Davis & Brillant, 2019; Knowlton et al., 2012; Knowlton et al., 2022; Moore et al., 2021; Sharp et al., 2019), and a decrease in birth rate (Pettis et al., 2022; Reed et al., 2022). The Western Atlantic stock is considered depleted under the MMPA (Hayes et al., 2022). There is a recovery plan (NMFS, 2005) for the North Atlantic right whale, and NMFS completed 5-year reviews of the species in 2012, 2017, and 2022 which concluded no change to the listing status is warranted. Designated by NMFS as a Species in the Spotlight, the North Atlantic right whale is considered among the species with the greatest risk of extinction in the near future ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/endangered-species-conservation/species-in-the-spotlight ). The North Atlantic right whale population had only a 2.8 percent recovery rate between 1990 and 2011 and an overall abundance decline of 23.5 percent from 2011-2019 (Hayes et al., 2022). Since 2010, the North Atlantic right whale population has been in decline (Pace et al., 2017; Pace et al., 2021), with a 40 percent decrease in calving rate (Kraus et al., 2016; Moore et al., 2021). North Atlantic right whale calving rates dropped from 2017 to 2020 with zero births recorded during the 2017-2018 season. The 2020-2021 calving season had the first substantial calving increase in 5 years with 20 calves born followed by 15 calves during the 2021-2022 calving season. However, mortalities continue to outpace births, and best estimates indicate fewer than 70 reproductively active females remain in the population. Critical habitat for North Atlantic right whales is not present in the project area. However, the project area both spatially and temporally overlaps a portion of the migratory corridor BIA within which North Atlantic right whales migrate south to calving grounds generally in November and December, followed by a northward migration into feeding areas north of the Project Area in March and April (LaBrecque et al., 2015; Van Parijs et al., 2015). The Project Area does not overlap any North Atlantic right whale feeding BIAs. NMFS' regulations at 50 CFR 224.105 designated Seasonal Management Areas (SMAs) for North Atlantic right whales in 2008 (73 FR 60173, October 10, 2008). SMAs were developed to reduce the threat of collisions between ships and North Atlantic right whales around their migratory route and calving grounds. There is an SMA for the Ports of New York/New Jersey near the proposed Project Area; this SMA is currently active from November 1 through April 30 of each year and may be used by North Atlantic right whales for feeding (although to a lesser extent than the area to the north near Nantucket Shoals) and/or migrating. As noted above, independent of the action considered here, NMFS is proposing changes to the North Atlantic right whale speed rule (87 FR 46921, August 1, 2022). Due to the current status of North Atlantic right whales and the spatial proximity overlap of the proposed project with areas of biological significance, ( i.e., a migratory corridor, SMA), the potential impacts of the proposed project on North Atlantic right whales warrant particular attention. North Atlantic right whale presence in the Project Area is predominately seasonal. However, year-round occurrence is documented (Davis et al., 2017). Abundance is highest in winter with irregular occurrence during summer months and similar occurrence rates in spring and fall (O'Brien et al., 2022; Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021; Estabrook et al., 2022). North Atlantic right whale distribution can also be derived from acoustic data. A review of passive acoustic monitoring data from 2004 to 2014 collected throughout the western North Atlantic demonstrated nearly continuous year-round North Atlantic right whale presence across their entire habitat range with a decrease in summer months, including in locations previously thought of as migratory corridors, suggesting that not all of the population undergoes a consistent annual migration (Davis et al., 2017). Observations of these transitions in North Atlantic right whale habitat use, variability in seasonal presence in identified core habitats, and utilization of habitat outside of previously focused survey effort prompted the formation of a NMFS' Expert Working Group, which identified current data collection efforts, data gaps, and provided recommendations for future survey and research efforts (Oleson et al., 2020). Recent research indicates understanding of their movement patterns remains incomplete and not all of the population undergoes a consistent annual migration (Davis et al., 2017; Gowan et al., 2019; Krzystan et al., 2018). Non-calving females may remain in the feeding grounds, during the winter in the years preceding and following the birth of a calf to increase their energy stores (Gowen et al., 2019). To describe seasonal trends in North Atlantic right whale presence, Estabrook et al. (2022) analyzed North Atlantic right whale acoustic detections collected between 2011-2015 during winter (January through March), spring (April through June), summer (July through September), and autumn (October-December) off Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Winter had the highest presence (75 percent array-days, n=193), and summer had the lowest presence (10 percent array-days, n=27). Spring and autumn were similar, where 45 percent (n=117) and 51 percent (n=121) of the array-days had detections, respectively. Across all years, detections were consistently lowest in August and September. In Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay, located further north from the Atlantic Shores South Project Area, acoustic detections of North Atlantic right whales increased in more recent years in both the peak season of late winter through early spring and in summer and fall, likely reflecting broad-scale regional habitat changes (Charif et al., 2020). NMFS' Passive Acoustic Cetacean Map (PACM) contains up-to-date acoustic data that contributes to our understanding of when and where specific whales (including North Atlantic right whales), dolphin, and other cetacean species are acoustically detected in the North Atlantic. These data augment the findings of the aforementioned literature. In late fall ( i.e., November), a portion of the North Atlantic right whale population (including pregnant females) typically departs the feeding grounds in the North Atlantic, moves south along the migratory corridor BIA, including through the Project Area, to North Atlantic right whale calving grounds off Georgia and Florida. However, recent research indicates understanding of their movement patterns remains incomplete and not all of the population undergoes a consistent annual migration (Davis et al., 2017; Gowan et al., 2019; Krzystan et al., 2018). The results of multistate temporary emigration capture-recapture modeling, based on sighting data collected over the past 22 years, indicate that non-calving females may remain in the feeding grounds, during the winter in the years preceding and following the birth of a calf to increase their energy stores (Gowan et al., 2019). New Jersey waters are a migratory corridor in the spring and early winter for North Atlantic right whales; these waters are not known foraging or calving habitat. North Atlantic right whales feed primarily on the copepod, Calanus finmarchicus, a species whose availability and distribution has changed both spatially and temporally over the last decade due to an oceanographic regime shift that has been ultimately linked to climate change (Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2021; Record et al., 2019; Sorochan et al., 2019). This distribution change in prey availability has led to shifts in North Atlantic right whale habitat-use patterns within the region over the same time period (Davis et al., 2020; Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2022; Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021; O'Brien et al., 2022). Since 2010, North Atlantic right whales have reduced their use of foraging habitats in the Great South Channel and Bay of Fundy while increasing their use of habitat within Cape Cod Bay as well as a region south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Islands (Stone et al., 2017; Mayo et al., 2018; Ganley et al., 2019; Record et al., 2019; Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2021). While the Project Area is south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Island, these foraging habitats are all located several hundred kilometers north of the Project Area. In August 2023, NMFS released its final 2022 SARs, which updated the population estimate (N best ) of North Atlantic right whales from 368 to 338 individuals and the annual M/SI value from 8.1 to 31.2 due to the addition of estimated undetected mortality and serious injury, as described above, which had not been previously included in the SAR. The population estimate is slightly lower than the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium's 2022 Report Card, which identifies the population estimate as 340 individuals (Pettis et al., 2023). Elevated North Atlantic right whale mortalities have occurred since June 7, 2017, along the U.S. and Canadian coast, with the leading category for the cause of death for this UME determined to be “human interaction,” specifically from entanglements or vessel strikes. Since publication of the proposed rule, the number of animals considered part of the UME has increased. As of August 16, 2023, there have been 36 confirmed mortalities (dead, stranded, or floaters), 0 pending mortalities, and 34 seriously injured free-swimming whales for a total of 70 whales. As of October 14, 2022, the UME also considers animals (n=45) with sub-lethal injury or illness (called “morbidity”) bringing the total number of whales in the UME to 115. More information about the North Atlantic right whale UME is available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2023-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event. Humpback Whale Humpback whales were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA) in June 1970. In 1973, the ESA replaced the ESCA, and humpbacks continued to be listed as endangered. On September 8, 2016, NMFS divided the species into 14 distinct population segments (DPS), removed the species-level listing, and, in its place, listed four DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259, September 8, 2016). The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. The West Indies DPS, which is not listed under the ESA, is the only DPS of humpback whales that is expected to occur in the project area. Bettridge et al. (2015) estimated the size of the West Indies DPS population at 12,312 (95 percent confidence interval (CI) 8,688-15,954) whales in 2004-05, which is consistent with previous population estimates of approximately 10,000-11,000 whales (Stevick et al., 2003; Smith et al., 1999) and the increasing trend for the West Indies DPS (Bettridge et al., 2015). Humpback whales are migratory off coastal New Jersey, moving seasonally between northern feeding grounds in New England and southern calving grounds in the West Indies (Hayes et al., 2022). Although sightings of humpback whales used to occur infrequently off New Jersey, they are now common along the Mid-Atlantic States during the winter when most humpback whales are at the breeding grounds (Swingle et al., 1993; Barco et al., 2002; Brown et al., 2022). This shift is also supported by passive acoustic monitoring data ( e.g., Davis et al., 2020). Recently, Brown et al. (2022) investigated site fidelity, population composition and demographics of individual whales in the New York Bight apex (which includes New Jersey waters and found that although mean occurrence was low (2.5 days), mean occupancy was 37.6 days, and 31.3 percent of whales returned from 1 year to the next. The majority of whales were seen during summer (July to September, 62.5 percent), followed by autumn (October to December, 23.5 percent) and spring (April to June, 13.9 percent). When data were available to evaluate age, most individuals were either confirmed or suspected juveniles, including 4 whales known to be 2 to 4 years old based on known birth year, and 13 whales with sighting histories of 2 years or less on primary feeding grounds. Three individuals were considered adults based on North Atlantic sighting records. The young age structure in the nearshore waters of the New York Bight apex is consistent with other literature (Stepanuk et al., 2021; Swingle et al., 1993; Barco et al., 2002). It remains to be determined whether humpback whales in the New York Bight apex represent a northern expansion of individuals that had wintered off Virginia, a southern expansion of individuals from the adjacent Gulf of Maine, or is the result of another phenomenon. In addition to a migratory pathway, the mid-Atlantic region also represents a supplemental winter feeding ground for juveniles and mature whales (Barco et al., 2002). Records of humpback whales off the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast (New Jersey south to North Carolina) suggest that these waters are used as a winter feeding ground from December through March (Mallette et al., 2017; Barco et al., 2002; LaBrecque et al., 2015) and represent important habitat for juveniles, in particular (Swingle et al., 1993; Wiley et al., 1995). Humpback whales have been observed feeding off the coast of New Jersey (Swingle et al., 1993; Geo-Marine, Inc., 2010; Whitt et al., 2015). A sighting of a cow-calf pair seen north of the study area boundary supports the theory that the nearshore waters off of New Jersey may provide important feeding and nursery habitats for humpback whales (Geo-Marine, 2010). In addition, recent research by King et al. (2021) has demonstrated a higher occurrence and foraging use of the New York Bight area by humpback whales than previously known. According to Roberts et al. (2023) density models, the highest density of humpback whales in the vicinity of the proposed Project Area is expected to occur during the month of April (0.25-0.40 individuals/100 km 2 ). The Project Area does not overlap any ESA-designated critical habitat, BIAs, or other important areas for the humpback whales. A humpback whale feeding BIA extends throughout the Gulf of Maine, Stellwagen Bank, and Great South Channel from May through December, annually (LaBrecque et al., 2015). However, this BIA is located further north of, and thus does not overlap, the Project Area. Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida. This event was declared a UME in April 2017. Partial or full necropsy examinations have been conducted on approximately half of the 204 known cases (as of August 16, 2023). Of the whales examined (approximately 90), about 40 percent had evidence of human interaction, either vessel strike or entanglement (refer to https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2023-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast ). While a portion of the whales have shown evidence of pre-mortem vessel strike, this finding is not consistent across all whales examined and more research is needed. NOAA is consulting with researchers that are conducting studies on the humpback whale populations, and these efforts may provide information on changes in whale distribution and habitat use that could provide additional insight into how these vessel interactions occurred. More information is available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2023-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast. Since December 1, 2022, the number of humpback strandings along the mid-Atlantic coast, including New Jersey, has been elevated. In some cases, the cause of death is not yet known. In others, vessel strike has been deemed the cause of death. As the humpback whale population has grown, they are seen more often in the Mid-Atlantic. These whales may be following their prey (small fish) which are reportedly close to shore in the winter. These prey also attract fish that are of interest to recreational and commercial fishermen. This increases the number of boats and fishing gear in these areas. More whales in the water in areas traveled by boats of all sizes increases the risk of vessel strikes. Vessel strikes and entanglement in fishing gear are the greatest human threats to large whales. Minke Whale Minke whales are common and widely distributed throughout the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (CETAP, 1982; Hayes et al., 2022), although their distribution has a strong seasonal component. Individuals have often been detected acoustically in shelf waters from spring to fall and more often detected in deeper offshore waters from winter to spring (Risch et al., 2013). Minke whales are abundant in New England waters from May through September (Pittman et al., 2006; Waring et al., 2014), yet largely absent from these areas during the winter, suggesting the possible existence of a migratory corridor (LaBrecque et al., 2015). A migratory route for minke whales transiting between northern feeding grounds and southern breeding areas may exist to the north and east of the proposed Project Area as minke whales may track warmer waters along the continental shelf while migrating (Risch et al., 2014). Overall, minke whale use of the Project Area is likely highest during winter and spring months when foundation installation would not be occurring. Density data from Roberts et al. (2023) confirm that the highest average density of minke whales in the vicinity of the Project Area occurs in April (0.63-1.00 individuals/100 km 2 ). Construction is planned for May through December. There are two minke whale feeding BIAs identified in the southern and southwestern section of the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank, the Great South Channel, Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay, Stellwagen Bank, Cape Anne, and Jeffreys Ledge from March through November, annually (LeBrecque et al., 2015). However, these BIAs do not overlap the Project Area as they are located approximately 378.7 km (235.3 mi) away. No mating or calving grounds have been identified along the U.S. Atlantic coast (LaBrecque et al., 2015). Since January 2017, a UME has been declared based on elevated minke whale mortalities detected along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina. As of August 16, 2023, a total of 156 minke whales have stranded during this UME. Full or partial necropsy examinations were conducted on more than 60 percent of the whales. Preliminary findings have shown evidence of human interactions or infectious disease in several of the whales, but these findings are not consistent across all of the whales examined, so more research is needed. This UME has been declared non-active and is pending closure. More information is available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2023-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast. Phocid Seals Since June 2022, elevated numbers of harbor seal and gray seal mortalities have occurred across the southern and central coast of Maine. This event was declared a UME in July 2022. Preliminary testing of samples has found some harbor and gray seals are positive for highly pathogenic avian influenza. While the UME is not occurring in the Project Area, the populations affected by the UME are the same as those potentially affected by the Project. However, due to the two states being approximately 352 km (219 mi) apart, by water (from the most northern point of New Jersey to the most southern point of Maine), NMFS does not expect that this UME would be further conflated by the activities related to the Project. Information on this UME is available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-2023-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along-maine-coast. The above event was preceded by a different UME, occurring from 2018-2020 (closure of the 2018-2020 UME is pending). Beginning in July 2018, elevated numbers of harbor seal and gray seal mortalities occurred across Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Additionally, stranded seals have shown clinical signs as far south as Virginia, although not in elevated numbers, therefore the UME investigation encompassed all seal strandings from Maine to Virginia. A total of 3,152 reported strandings (of all species) occurred from July 1, 2018, through March 13, 2020. Full or partial necropsy examinations have been conducted on some of the seals and samples have been collected for testing. Based on tests conducted thus far, the main pathogen found in the seals is phocine distemper virus. NMFS is performing additional testing to identify any other factors that may be involved in this UME. Information on this UME is available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along. Marine Mammal Hearing Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes ( i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 5. Table 5—Marine Mammal Hearing Groups [NMFS, 2018] Hearing group Generalized hearing range * Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) 7 Hz to 35 kHz. Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) 150 Hz to 160 kHz. High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L. australis ) 275 Hz to 160 kHz. Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) 50 Hz to 86 kHz. * Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite ( i.e., all species within the group), where individual species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range (Hemilä et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. NMFS notes that in 2019a, Southall et al. recommended new names for hearing groups that are widely recognized. However, this new hearing group classification does not change the weighting functions or acoustic thresholds ( i.e., the weighting functions and thresholds in Southall et al. (2019a) are identical to NMFS 2018 Revised Technical Guidance). When NMFS updates our Technical Guidance, we will be adopting the updated Southall et al. (2019a) hearing group classification. Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks. General background information on marine mammal hearing was provided previously (see the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities section). Here, the potential effects of sound on marine mammals are discussed. Atlantic Shores has requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize, the take of marine mammals incidental to the construction activities associated with the Project Area. In their application and Application Update Report, Atlantic Shores presented their analyses of potential impacts to marine mammals from the acoustic sources. NMFS both carefully reviewed the information provided by Atlantic Shores, as well as independently reviewed applicable scientific research and literature and other information to evaluate the potential effects of the project's activities on marine mammals. The proposed activities would result in the construction and placement of up to 205 permanent foundations to support 200 WTGs, 4 large OSSs, and a single Met Tower. There are a variety of types and degrees of effects to marine mammals, prey species, and habitat that could occur as a result of the project. Below we provide a brief description of the types of sound sources that would be generated by the project, the general impacts from these types of activities, and an analysis of the anticipated impacts on marine mammals from the project, with consideration of the proposed mitigation measures. Description of Sound Sources This section contains a brief technical background on sound, on the characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals found later in this document. For general information on sound and its interaction with the marine environment, please see Au and Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. (1995); Urick (1983) as well as the Discovery of Sound in the Sea (DOSITS) website at https://dosits.org/. Sound is a vibration that travels as an acoustic wave through a medium such as a gas, liquid or solid. Sound waves alternately compress and decompress the medium as the wave travels. These compressions and decompressions are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones (underwater microphones). In water, sound waves radiate in a manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either directed in a [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2023-19733. Public record. Not legal advice.