[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66156-66175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26091]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XR032]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Site Characterization 
Surveys Off of Delaware and Maryland

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: ``In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given 
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 
Skipjack Offshore Energy, LLC (Skipjack) to incidentally harass, by 
Level B harassment only, marine mammals during marine site 
characterization surveys offshore of Delaware in the area of the 
Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on 
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0519) and along potential submarine 
cable routes to a landfall location in Delaware or Maryland.

DATES: This authorization is valid for one year from the date of 
issuance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications 
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in 
this document, may be obtained by visiting the internet at: 
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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain 
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a 
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified 
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations 
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a 
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public 
for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses 
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods 
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying 
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for 
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
    The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above 
are included in the relevant sections below.

Summary of Request

    On July 31, 2019, NMFS received a request from Skipjack for an IHA 
to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization 
surveys offshore of Delaware in the area of the Commercial Lease of 
Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0519) and along potential submarine cable 
routes to a landfall location in Delaware or Maryland. A revised 
application was received on August 15, 2019. NMFS deemed that request 
to be adequate and complete. Skipjack's request is for the take of 17 
marine mammal species by Level B harassment that would occur over the 
course of 200 survey days. Neither Skipjack nor NMFS expects serious 
injury or mortality to result from this activity and the activity is 
expected to last no more than one year, therefore, an IHA is 
appropriate.

[[Page 66157]]

Description of the Proposed Activity

    Skipjack proposes to conduct marine site characterization surveys, 
including high-resolution geophysical (HRG) and geotechnical surveys, 
in the area of OCS-A 0519 (Lease Area) and along potential submarine 
cable routes to landfall locations in either Delaware or Maryland. The 
purpose of the surveys is to obtain a baseline assessment of seabed/
sub-surface soil conditions in the Lease Area and cable route corridors 
to support the siting of potential future offshore wind projects. 
Underwater sound resulting from Skipjack's surveys has the potential to 
result in incidental take of marine mammals in the form of behavioral 
harassment (i.e., Level B harassment only).
    Skipjack's survey activities are anticipated to be supported by as 
many as five total vessels, with as many as three vessels operating 
concurrently. Survey vessels would maintain a speed of approximately 4 
knots (kn) while transiting survey lines. A maximum of 200 total survey 
days are expected to be required to complete the surveys. Skipjack's 
geotechnical survey activities are described in detail in the notice of 
proposed IHA (84 FR 51118; September 27, 2019). As described in that 
notice, the geotechnical survey activities not expected to result in 
the take of marine mammals and are therefore not analyzed further in 
this document. The HRG survey activities proposed by Skipjack are also 
described in detail in the notice of proposed IHA (84 FR 51118; 
September 27, 2019). The HRG equipment that may be used by Skipjack are 
shown in Table 1.

                                      Table 1--Summary of Geophysical Survey Equipment Proposed for Use by Skipjack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Sound level     Sound level
                                                    Operating     (SLrms dB re 1   (SLpk dB re 1   Pulse duration     Repetition
          Equipment              Source type     frequency (kHz)   [micro]Pa m)    [micro]Pa m)        (width)         rate (Hz)     Beamwidth (degrees)
                                                                                                    (millisecond)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Shallow Sub-bottom Profilers (Chirps)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teledyne Benthos Chirp III--   Non-impulsive,   2 to 7..........             197              --  5 to 60.........              15  100.
 TTV 170.                       mobile,
                                intermittent.
EdgeTech SB 216 (2000DS or     Non-impulsive,   2 to 16.........             195              --  20..............               6  24.
 3200 top unit).                mobile,         2 to 8..........
                                intermittent.
EdgeTech 424.................  Non-impulsive,   4 to 24.........             176              --  3.4.............               2  71.
                                mobile,
                                intermittent.
EdgeTech 512.................  Non-impulsive,   0.7 to 12.......             179              --  9...............               8  80.
                                mobile,
                                intermittent.
GeoPulse 5430A...............  Non-impulsive,   2 to 17.........             196  ..............  50..............              10  55.
                                mobile,
                                intermittent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parametric Sub-bottom Profilers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innomar SES[dash]2000 Medium   Non-impulsive,   85 to 115.......             247              --  0.07 to 2.......          40-100  1-3.5.
 100 SBP.                       mobile,
                                intermittent.
Innomar SES[dash]2000          Non-impulsive,   85 to 115.......             236              --  0.07 to 2.......              60  1-3.5.
 Standard & Plus.               mobile,
                                intermittent.
Innomar SES[dash]2000 Medium   Non-impulsive,   60 to 80........             241              --  0.1 to 2.5......              40  1-3.5.
 70.                            mobile,
                                intermittent.
Innomar SES[dash]2000 Quattro  Non-impulsive,   85 to 115.......             245              --  0.07 to 1.......              60  1-3.5.
                                mobile,
                                intermittent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Medium Sub-bottom Profilers (Sparkers & Boomers)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GeoMarine Geo-Source 800J      Impulsive,       0.05 to 5.......             203             213  3.4.............            0.41  Omni.
 Sparker.                       Mobile.
GeoMarine Geo-Source 600J      Impulsive,       0.2 to 5........             201             212  5.0.............            0.41  Omni.
 Sparker.                       Mobile.
GeoMarine Geo-Source 400J      Impulsive,       0.2 to 5........             195             208  7.2.............            0.41  Omni.
 Sparker.                       Mobile.
GeoResource 800J Sparker       Impulsive,       0.05 to 5.......             203             213  3.4.............            0.41  Omni.
 System.                        Mobile.
Applied Acoustics Duraspark    Impulsive,       0.3 to 1.2......             203             211  1.1.............             0.4  Omni.
 400.                           Mobile.
Applied Acoustics triple       Impulsive,       0.1 to 5........             205             211  0.6.............               3  80.
 plate S[dash]Boom (700-1000    Mobile.
 Joules) \1\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Acoustic Corers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PanGeo (LF Chirp)............  Non-impulsive,   2 to 6.5........           177.5              --  4.5.............            0.06  73.
                                stationary,
                                intermittent.

[[Page 66158]]

 
PanGeo (HF Chirp)............  Non-impulsive,   4.5 to 12.5.....           177.5              --  4.5.............            0.06  73.
                                stationary,
                                intermittent.
Pangeo Parametric Sonar \5\..  Non-impulsive,   90 to 115.......             239              --  0.25............              40  3.5.
                                stationary,
                                intermittent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Positioning Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonardyne Ranger 2--           Non-impulsive,   19 to 34........             194              --  5...............               1  Omni.
 Transponder.                   mobile,
                                intermittent.
Sonardyne Ranger 2 USBL HPT    Non-impulsive,   19 to 34........             194              --  5...............               1  Not Reported.
 3000/5/7000 Transceiver.       mobile,
                                intermittent.
Sonardyne Scout Pro            Non-impulsive,   35 to 50........             188              --  5...............               3  Not Reported.
 Transponder.                   mobile,
                                intermittent.
IxSea GAPS Beacon System.....  Non-impulsive,   8-16............             188  ..............  12..............               1  Omni.
                                mobile,
                                intermittent.
Easytrak Nexus 2 USBL          Non-impulsive,   18 to 32........             192  ..............  5...............               2  Omni.
 Transceiver.                   mobile,
                                intermittent.
Kongsberg HiPAP 501/502 USBL   Non-impulsive,   27-30.5.........             190  ..............  2...............               1  15.
 Tranceiver.                    mobile,
                                intermittent.
EdgeTech BATS II Transponder.  Non-impulsive,   17 to 30........    Not Reported  ..............  5...............               3  Not Reported.
                                mobile,
                                intermittent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Multi-beam Echosounders and Side Scan Sonar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reson SeaBat 7125 Multibeam    Non-impulsive,   200 or 400......             220              --  0.03 to 0.3.....              --  --
 Echosounder.                   mobile,
                                intermittent.
RESON 700....................  Non-impulsive,   200 or 400......             162              --  0.33............              --  --
                                mobile,
                                intermittent.
R2SONIC......................  Non-impulsive,   200 or 400......             162              --  0.11............              --  --
                                mobile,
                                intermittent.
Klein 3900 SSS...............  Non-impulsive,   >445 kHz........             242              --  0.025...........              --  --
                                mobile,
                                intermittent.
EdgeTech 4000 & 4125 SSS.....  Non-impulsive,   410 kHz.........             225              --  10..............              --  --
                                mobile,
                                intermittent.
EdgeTech 4200 SSS............  Non-impulsive,   >300 kHz........             215              --  0.025...........              --  --
                                mobile,
                                intermittent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- = not applicable or reportable; dB re 1 [micro]Pa m = decibel reference to 1 micropascal meter; GAPS = Global Acoustic Positioning System; HF = high-
  frequency; LF = low-frequency; omni = omnidirectional source; SL = source level; SLpk = peak source level (expressed as dB re 1 [micro]Pa m); SLrms =
  root-mean-square source level (expressed as dB re 1 [micro]Pa m); SSS = side scan sonar; USBL = ultra-short baseline.
\4\ Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) provide S-boom measurements using two different power sources (CSP-D700 and CSP-N). The CSP-D700 power source was
  used in the 700J measurements but not in the 1000J measurements. The CSP-N source was measured for both 700J and 1000J operations but resulted in a
  lower source levels; therefore the single maximum source level value was used for both operational levels of the S-boom.
\5\ The Pangeo acoustic corer parametric sonar was scanned out of further analysis due to high frequency content, operational beam width of less than
  eight degrees, and stationary operational position of less than 3.5 m above the seabed (Pangeo, 2018).

    Of the potential HRG survey equipment planned for use, NMFS 
determined the multi-beam echosounders, side-scan sonars, and acoustic 
corers do not have the potential to result in the harassment of marine 
mammals because these sources are either outside the functional hearing 
ranges of marine mammals or do not result in sound that is expected to 
propagate to distances that would result in harassment. Therefore, 
these equipment types are not analyzed further in this document. All 
other HRG equipment types planned for use by Skipjack as shown in Table 
1 are expected to have the potential to result in the harassment of 
marine mammals and are therefore carried forward in the analysis.
    As described above, detailed description of Skipjack's planned 
surveys is provided in the notice of proposed IHA (84 FR 51118; 
September 27, 2019). Since that time, no changes have been made to the 
activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. 
Please refer to that notice for the detailed description of the 
specified activity. Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are 
described in detail later in this document (please see ``Mitigation'' 
and ``Monitoring and Reporting'').

Comments and Responses

    A notice of proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on 
September 27, 2019 (84 FR 51118). During the 30-day public comment 
period, NMFS received comment letters from: (1) The Marine Mammal

[[Page 66159]]

Commission (Commission); (2) a group of environmental non-governmental 
organizations (ENGOs) including the Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Conservation Law Foundation, National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of 
Wildlife, WDC North America, NY4WHALES, Surfrider Foundation, Mass 
Audubon, International Marine Mammal Project of the Earth Island 
Institute, and Wildlife Conservation Society; and (3) a member of the 
general public. NMFS has posted the comments online at: 
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable. The comment we 
received from the general public was supportive of issuance of the IHA. 
A summary of the public comments received from the Commission and the 
ENGOs and NMFS' responses to those comments are below.
    Comment 1: The Commission recommended that NMFS engage in various 
efforts to ensure consistency in aspects of the MMPA incidental take 
authorization process associated with this and similar specified 
activities (e.g., site characterization surveys in service of placement 
of wind energy facilities), including guidance related to 
methodological and signal processing standards, guidance and tools 
regarding sound propagation modeling for use by action proponents that 
conduct HRG surveys.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the Commission's interest in these 
issues and will evaluate the need for and appropriate development of 
guidance and tools.
    Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS include the 
relevant inputs (i.e., source level, weighting factor adjustment, 
source velocity, pulse duration, and repetition rate) used to estimate 
the Level A harassment zones for all sources proposed for use by the 
action proponents in Federal Register notices.
    Response: NMFS strives to provide all information relevant to 
modeling isopleth distances associated with sound sources used to 
estimate marine mammal exposures. In this instance there were numerous 
potential sound sources which NMFS determined are unlikely to have the 
potential to result in Level A harassment and were not ultimately 
relevant to marine mammal exposure modeling, therefore we provided the 
inputs that were potentially relevant to the exposure modeling and that 
were used for the take estimate.
    Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS implement a 50-m 
Level B harassment zone for Skipjack's proposed survey based on an 
assumption that in-situ measurements and resulting data collected for 
sparkers is accurate and should be relied upon for modeling HRG 
sources. The Commission also recommended that NMFS deem sound sources 
de minimus in a consistent manner for all proposed IHAs and 
rulemakings, and that, given the relatively small sizes of Level B 
harassment zones, NMFS consider whether IHAs are necessary for HRG 
surveys given proposed shutdown requirements and the added protection 
afforded by lease-stipulated exclusion zones.
    Response: NMFS supports the collection of sound field verification 
data on HRG sources and will consider using these data in exposure 
estimates when it is deemed reliable. At this time, NMFS has determined 
the available data from sound field verification studies on directional 
HRG sources is not reliable, but we will review sound field 
verification data collected from omni-directional sources on a case by 
case basis. However, NMFS has concerns with the reliability of some of 
the sound field verification data that has been submitted previously 
for omni-directional sources, therefore we are not willing to make 
categorical assumptions about sound propagation distances associated 
with these equipment types based on this previously submitted data. 
NMFS has developed an interim method for determining the rms sound 
pressure level (SPLrms) at the 160-dB isopleth HRG survey 
equipment that incorporates frequency and some directionality to refine 
estimated ensonified zones (this method is described in greater detail 
in the Take Estimate section, below). NMFS provided this method to 
Skipjack and Skipjack used this method to model isopleth distances to 
the Level B harassment threshold for HRG sources (both directional and 
omni-directional). NMFS believes this remains a sound and conservative 
approach until data from sound field verification studies for HRG 
sources can be relied upon consistently. NMFS will continue to base its 
analyses of modeling of HRG sound sources on the best available 
information.
    NMFS agrees that sound sources should be analyzed in a consistent 
manner and agrees that sources determined to result in de minimis 
impact should generally be considered unlikely to result in take under 
the MMPA. As an example, NMFS has determined that most types of 
geotechnical survey equipment are generally unlikely to result in the 
incidental take of marine mammals (in the absence of site-specific or 
species-specific circumstances that may warrant additional analysis). 
NMFS has not made such a determination with respect to HRG sources. As 
NMFS has not made a determination that sound from all HRG sources would 
be considered de minimis we cannot rule out the potential for these 
sources to result in the incidental take of marine mammals.
    Comment 4: The Commission recommended that NMFS include a 
requirement for Skipjack to provide marine mammal observational 
datasheets or raw sightings data in its draft and final monitoring 
report.
    Response: NMFS agrees with the Commission's recommendation and has 
incorporated this requirement in the IHA.
    Comment 5: The Commission recommended that NMFS refrain from using 
the proposed IHA renewal process and that, if NMFS intends to use the 
renewal process frequently or for authorizations that require a more 
complex review or for which much new information has been generated, 
that NMFS provide the Commission and other reviewers 30 days to 
comment.
    Response: As described in the Federal Register notice for the 
proposed IHA and on NMFS' website where information on all MMPA 
incidental take authorization processes is provided, requests for IHA 
renewals are appropriate only in limited and well-defined 
circumstances. NMFS does not anticipate many projects that would meet 
all the criteria for a renewal. Nonetheless, information about the 
renewal process and the opportunity to comment on a potential renewal 
is included in every notice of a proposed IHA because NMFS cannot 
predetermine who may seek or qualify for a renewal. Under section 
101(a)(5)(D), it is up to an applicant to request incidental harassment 
authorization; NMFS includes information about the potential renewal 
process in all proposed IHAs because it is at least initially up to the 
applicant to decide whether they want to seek qualification for a 
renewal IHA. NMFS has also explained that the possibility of a renewal 
must be included in the notice of the initial proposed IHA for the 
agency to consider a renewal request, for the purpose of providing 
adequate opportunity for public comment on the project during the 30-
day comment period on the appropriateness of, and any information 
pertinent to, a renewal. Where the commenter has likely already 
reviewed and commented on the initial proposed IHA and a potential 
renewal for these same activities, activities by the same

[[Page 66160]]

IHA holder in the same geographic area, the abbreviated additional 
comment period is sufficient for consideration of the results of the 
preliminary monitoring report and new information (if any) from the 
past months.
    NMFS' purpose in providing for renewal is two-fold. First and 
foremost, the efficiencies in dealing with these simple, low-impact 
projects (which have already been fully described and analyzed in the 
initial IHA) frees up limited staff resources to increase focus on more 
complex and impactful projects and improves our ability to conserve and 
protect marine mammals by even better evaluating and utilizing new 
science, evolving technologies, and potential new mitigation measures. 
In addition, while the agency has always striven for efficiency in 
regulatory processes, recent directives have called for agencies to put 
processes in place that reduce regulatory timelines and the regulatory 
burden on the public. The renewal process reduces the effort needed by 
both applicants and NMFS staff for simple, relatively low impact 
projects with little to no uncertainty regarding effects that have 
already been fully analyzed by the agency and considered by the 
public--with no reduction in protection to marine mammals.
    NMFS has taken a number of steps to ensure the public has adequate 
notice, time, and information to be able to comment effectively on 
renewal IHAs. Federal Register notices for proposed initial IHAs 
identify the conditions under which a one-year renewal IHA could be 
appropriate. This information would have been presented in the Request 
for Public Comments section, which encouraged submission of comments on 
a potential one-year Renewal in addition to the initial IHA during the 
initial 30-day comment period. With renewal limited to another year of 
identical or nearly identical activity in the same location or a subset 
of the initial activity that was not completed, this information about 
the renewal process and the project-specific information provided in 
the Federal Register notice provides reviewers with the information 
needed to provide information and comment on both the initial IHA and a 
potential renewal for the project. Thus reviewers interested in 
submitting comments on a proposed renewal during the additional 15-day 
comment period will have already reviewed the activities, the species 
and stocks affected, and the mitigation and monitoring measures, which 
will not change from the IHA issued, and the anticipated effects of 
those activities on marine mammals and provided their comments and any 
information pertinent to a possible renewal during the initial 30-day 
comment period. When we receive a request for a renewal IHA, if the 
project is appropriate for a renewal we will publish notice of the 
proposed IHA renewal in the Federal Register and provide the additional 
15 days for public comment to allow review of the additional documents 
(preliminary monitoring report, renewal request, and proposed renewal), 
which should just confirm that the activities have not changed (or only 
minor changes), commit to continue the same mitigation and monitoring 
measures, and document that monitoring does not indicate any impacts of 
a scale or nature not previously analyzed.
    In addition, to minimize any burden on reviewers, NMFS will 
directly contact all commenters on the initial IHA by email, phone, or, 
if the commenter did not provide email or phone information, by postal 
service to provide them direct notice about the opportunity to submit 
any additional comments.
    Comment 6: The ENGOs expressed concern that the IHA renewal process 
discussed in the notice of proposed IHA is inconsistent with the 
statutory requirements contained in section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. 
The ENGOs asserted that IHAs can be valid for not more than one year 
and both commenters stated that 30 days for comment, including on 
Renewal IHAs, is required.
    Response: NMFS' IHA Renewal process meets all statutory 
requirements. All IHAs issued, whether an initial IHA or a renewal IHA, 
are valid for a period of not more than one year, and the public has at 
least 30 days to comment on all proposed IHAs, with a cumulative total 
of 45 days for IHA renewals. One commenter characterized the agency's 
request for comments as seeking comment on the renewal process and the 
proposed IHA, but the request for comments was not so limited. While 
there will be additional documents submitted with a renewal request, 
for a qualifying renewal these will be limited to documentation that 
NMFS will make available and use to verify that the activities are 
identical to those in the initial IHA, are nearly identical such that 
the changes would have either no effect on impacts to marine mammals or 
decrease those impacts, or are a subset of activities already analyzed 
and authorized but not completed under the initial IHA. NMFS will also 
confirm, among other things, that the activities will occur in the same 
location; involve the same species and stocks; provide for continuation 
of the same mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements; and 
that no new information has been received that would alter the prior 
analysis. The renewal request will also contain a preliminary 
monitoring report, but that is to verify that effects from the 
activities do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously 
analyzed. The additional 15-day public comment period provides the 
public an opportunity to review these few documents, provide any 
additional pertinent information and comment on whether they think the 
criteria for a renewal have been met. Between the initial 30-day 
comment period on these same activities and the additional 15 days, the 
total comment period for a renewal is 45 days.
    In addition to the IHA renewal process being consistent with all 
requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D), it is also consistent with 
Congress' intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent reflected in 
statements in the legislative history of the MMPA. Through the 
provision for renewal in the regulations, description of the process 
and express invitation to comment on specific potential renewal in the 
Request for Public Comments section of each proposed IHA, the 
description of the process on NMFS' website, further elaboration on the 
process through responses to comments such as these, posting of 
substantive documents on the agency's website, and provision of 30 or 
45 days for public review and comment on all proposed initial IHAs and 
renewal respectively, NMFS has ensured that the public is invited and 
encouraged to participate fully in the agency decision-making process.
    Comment 7: The ENGOs recommended that a minimum of four PSOs should 
be required, following a two-on/two-off rotation, each responsible for 
scanning no more than 180[deg] of the EZ at any given time, and that 
observation must begin at least 30 minutes prior to the commencement of 
geophysical survey activity and shall be conducted throughout the time 
of geophysical survey activity.
    Response: NMFS does not agree with the commenters that a minimum of 
four PSOs should be required, following a two-on/two-off rotation, to 
meet the MMPA requirement that mitigation must effect the least 
practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and 
their habitat. Previous IHAs issued for HRG surveys have required that 
a single PSO must be stationed at the highest vantage point and engaged 
in general 360-degree scanning during daylight hours. A number of 
marine mammal monitoring reports submitted

[[Page 66161]]

to NMFS have demonstrated that project proponents have effectively 
employed this approach. However, we note that Skipjack is required by 
BOEM lease stipulations to have two PSOs on duty at all times during 
surveys that occur during daylight hours. The IHA already requires 30 
minutes of pre-clearance observation prior to the commencement of 
survey activities.
    Comment 8: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS consider any initial 
data from State monitoring efforts, passive acoustic monitoring data, 
opportunistic marine mammal sightings data, and other data sources, and 
to take steps now to develop a dataset that reflects marine mammal 
presence so that it is in hand for future IHA authorizations.
    Response: NMFS has used the best available scientific information 
in this IHA to inform our determinations. We will review any 
recommended data sources and will continue to use the best available 
information. We welcome general input on data sources, even outside the 
comment period for a particular IHA, may be of use in analyzing the 
potential presence and movement patterns of marine mammals, including 
North Atlantic right whales, in Mid-Atlantic waters.
    Comment 9: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS include more information 
on the geographic location and timing of surveys and factor this 
information in the take analysis.
    Response: NMFS includes as much information in take analyses and in 
notices of proposed IHAs on location and seasonality of activities as 
is available to us, and has done so in this case.
    Comment 10: The ENGOs recommended that all vessels operating within 
the survey area, including support vessels, should maintain a speed of 
10 knots or less during the entire survey period including those 
vessels transiting to/from the survey area.
    Response: NMFS has analyzed the potential for ship strike resulting 
from Skipjack's activity and has determined that the mitigation 
measures specific to ship strike avoidance are sufficient to avoid the 
potential for ship strike. These include: A requirement that all vessel 
operators comply with 10 knot or less speed restrictions in any 
Seasonal Management Area (SMA) or Dynamic Management Area (DMA); a 
requirement that all vessel operators reduce vessel speed to 10 knots 
or less when any large whale, any mother/calf pairs, pods, or large 
assemblages of non-delphinoid cetaceans are observed within 100-m of an 
underway vessel; a requirement that all survey vessels maintain a 
separation distance of 500-m or greater from any sighted North Atlantic 
right whale; a requirement that, if underway, vessels must steer a 
course away from any sighted North Atlantic right whale at 10 knots or 
less until the 500-m minimum separation distance has been established; 
and a requirement that, if a North Atlantic right whale is sighted in a 
vessel's path, or within 500-m of an underway vessel, the underway 
vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral. We have 
determined that these ship strike avoidance measures are sufficient to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat.
    Comment 11: The ENGOs recommended that indirect ship strike risk 
resulting from habitat displacement should be accounted for in NMFS' 
analysis.
    Response: NMFS determined that habitat displacement was not an 
expected outcome of the specified activity. As discussed in the notice 
of proposed IHA (84 FR 51118; September 27, 2019) we anticipate marine 
mammals may temporarily avoid the area of disturbing noise, but this 
would be a relatively small area even when multiple vessels are 
operating concurrently. The Level B harassment zone was conservatively 
estimated to be only 141 m, as described in the Estimated Take section. 
Additionally, any potential effects are expected to be short-term, 
given the movement of both whales and project vessels and the small 
overall area of potential overlap and response. Therefore, habitat 
displacement is not reasonably likely to occur.
    Comment 12: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS impose a seasonal 
restriction on geophysical surveys in the Lease Area from November 1 to 
April 30 to reduce potential impacts to North Atlantic right whales.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the value of seasonal restrictions under 
certain circumstances. However, in this case, we have determined 
seasonal restrictions are not warranted. Impacts to right whales from 
HRG surveys would be limited to behavioral harassment (i.e., Level B 
harassment) in the form of temporary avoidance of the area, responses 
that are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting 
biological consequences (e.g., Ellison et al., 2012). Based on the best 
available information, the highest densities of right whales in the 
survey area would be expected from December through March (Roberts et 
al., 2018). However, even in those months, densities are relatively low 
compared to densities in other areas such as New England (Roberts et 
al., 2018). In baseline studies conducted in wind energy areas in the 
Mid-Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf from 2012-2014, which included 
both aerial and vessel-based surveys, only nine right whales were 
observed, all of them south of Skipjack's survey area (Williams et al., 
2015).
    In addition, Skipjack has committed to adhering to an agreement 
with the ENGOs that stipulates certain mitigation measures. This 
written agreement was finalized in 2013 and includes a seasonal 
restriction on HRG survey activities during what is referred to as the 
``red period'' from November 23 through March 21. Thus, from November 
23 through March 21, an effective seasonal closure will be in effect. 
For HRG surveys that would occur from November 1 through November 22 
and from March 22 through April 30 (referred to as the ``yellow 
period'') the agreement also requires that Skipjack submit a risk 
assessment report to NMFS and BOEM that analyzes the risk to right 
whales from planned survey activities during these periods. This risk 
assessment report includes an assessment of the potential for right 
whale activity during the planned survey, an acoustic assessment of the 
specific equipment to be used, and a site specific Marine Mammal 
Harassment Avoidance Plan. As of the writing of this document, Skipjack 
has submitted the risk assessment for the period November 1 through 
November 22, and would submit a risk assessment report for the period 
March 22 through April 30 at a later date, should surveys during that 
period be required. NMFS has reviewed the risk assessment report for 
the period November 1 through November 22, which includes additional 
mitigation measures to those required in the IHA, including enhanced 
exclusion zones and pre-clearance times for right whales.
    Based on the relatively low densities of right whales in the survey 
area from November 1 through April 30, the low risk to right whales 
from HRG surveys, the voluntary seasonal closure from November 23 
through March 21 that Skipjack has committed to, and the mitigation 
measures required in the IHA and the additional mitigation measures 
Skipjack has committed to in the NGO agreement, NMFS has determined the 
seasonal closures recommended by the commenters are not warranted.
    Comment 13: The ENGOs recommended that geophysical surveys should 
commence, with ramp up, during daylight hours only to maximize

[[Page 66162]]

the probability that marine mammals are detected and confirmed clear of 
the exclusion zone and that if a right whale is detected in the EZ at 
night and the survey shuts down, the survey should not resume until 
daylight hours.
    Response: We acknowledge the limitations inherent in detection of 
marine mammals at night. However, similar to the discussion above 
regarding time-area closures, restricting the ability of the applicant 
to ramp-up surveys only during daylight hours would have the potential 
to result in lengthy shutdowns of the survey equipment, which could 
result in the applicant failing to collect the data they have 
determined is necessary, which could result in the need to conduct 
additional surveys the following year. This would result in 
significantly increased costs incurred by the applicant. Thus the 
restriction suggested by the commenters would not be practicable for 
the applicant to implement. In addition, potential impacts to marine 
mammals from this survey will be limited to short-term behavioral 
responses. Restricting surveys in the manner suggested by the 
commenters may reduce marine mammal exposures by some degree in the 
short term, but would not result in any significant reduction in either 
intensity or duration of noise exposure. No injury is expected to 
result even in the absence of mitigation, given the very small 
estimated Level A harassment zones. In the event that NMFS imposed the 
restriction suggested by the commenters, vessels would potentially be 
on the water for a longer period of time. Therefore, in addition to 
practicability concerns for the applicant, the restrictions recommended 
by the commenters could result in greater overall exposure to sound by 
marine mammals. We also note that Skipjack must have at least one PSO 
on duty at night per BOEM lease requirements. Thus, the commenters have 
not demonstrated that such a requirement would result in a net benefit. 
In consideration of potential effectiveness of the recommended measure 
and its practicability for the applicant, NMFS has determined that 
restricting survey start-ups to daylight hours is not warranted in this 
case.
    Comment 14: The ENGOs stated that is incumbent upon the agency to 
address potential impacts to other endangered and protected whale 
species, particularly in light of the UMEs declared for right whales, 
humpback whales and minke whales, as well as the several strategic and/
or depleted stocks of small cetaceans that inhabit the region.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the ongoing UMEs for minke whales, 
north Atlantic right whales, humpback whales and pinnipeds and we 
discuss the potential impacts of Skipjack's surveys on species for 
which UMEs have been declared and for which take is authorized in the 
Negligible Impact Determination section. Please refer to that 
discussion.
    Comment 15: The ENGOs recommended that the minimum radii of EZs 
should be increased to ensure a 500-m EZ for all marine mammals and an 
extended 1,000 m-EZ for North Atlantic right whales. Additionally, the 
ENGOs recommended that survey activity should be shut down upon the 
visual or acoustic detection of a North Atlantic right whale.
    Response: Regarding the recommendation for a 1,000 m EZ 
specifically for North Atlantic right whales, we have determined that 
the 500-m EZ, as required in the IHA, is sufficiently protective. We 
note that the 500-m EZ exceeds--by more than three times--the modeled 
distance to the largest Level B harassment isopleth distance (141 m). 
Thus, for North Atlantic right whales detected by PSOs, all forms of 
incidental take would be avoided. For the same reason, we are not 
requiring shutdown if a right whale is observed beyond 500-m. 
Similarly, the recommended 500-m EZ for other species is overly 
conservative given the 141 m modeled isopleth distance to the Level B 
harassment threshold.
    Comment 16: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS require all project 
vessel operators to report sightings of living North Atlantic right 
whales and all sightings of dead, injured, or entangled whales, 
regardless of species.
    Response: NMFS agrees with the recommendation to report all right 
whale sightings to NMFS and has incorporated this requirement in the 
IHA. The IHA already includes a requirement to report all observations 
of dead, injured, or entangled whales to NMFS.
    Comment 17: The ENGOs recommended that a combination of visual 
monitoring by PSOs and passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) should be used 
at all times.
    Response: There are several reasons why we do not think the use of 
PAM is warranted. NMFS agrees that PAM can be an important tool for 
augmenting detection capabilities in certain circumstances, however, 
its utility in further reducing impact for Skipjack's HRG survey 
activities is very limited. First, for this activity, the area expected 
to be ensonified above the Level B harassment threshold is relatively 
small (a maximum of 141 m as described in the Estimated Take section). 
PAM is only capable of detecting animals that are actively vocalizing, 
while many marine mammal species vocalize infrequently or during 
certain activities, which means that only a subset of the animals 
within the range of the PAM would be detected (and potentially have 
reduced impacts). Additionally, localization and range detection can be 
challenging under certain scenarios. For example, odontocetes are fast 
moving and often travel in large or dispersed groups which makes 
localization difficult. In addition, the ability of PAM to detect 
baleen whale vocalizations is further limited due to being deployed 
from the stern of a vessel, which puts the PAM hydrophones in proximity 
to propeller noise and low frequency engine noise which can mask the 
low frequency sounds emitted by baleen whales, including right whales.
    Given that the effects to marine mammals from the types of surveys 
authorized in this IHA are expected to be limited to low level 
behavioral harassment even in the absence of mitigation, the limited 
additional benefit anticipated by adding this detection method 
(especially for right whales and other low frequency cetaceans), and 
the cost and impracticability of implementing a PAM program, we have 
determined the current requirements for visual monitoring are 
sufficient to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the 
affected species or stocks and their habitat.
    Comment 18: The ENGOs commented that the operation of up to three 
survey vessels at any one time across a relatively limited geographic 
area presents a significant potential for cumulative disturbance during 
the North Atlantic right whale's primary migratory period and that NMFS 
should analyze the cumulative impacts from Skipjack's survey activities 
on North Atlantic right whales and other protected species.
    Response: The MMPA grants exceptions to its broad take prohibition 
for a ``specified activity.'' 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(i). Cumulative 
impacts (also referred to as cumulative effects) is a term that appears 
in the context of NEPA and the ESA, but it is defined differently in 
those contexts. Neither the MMPA nor NMFS' codified implementing 
regulations address consideration of other unrelated activities and 
their impacts on populations. However, the preamble for NMFS' 
implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989) states in

[[Page 66163]]

response to comments that the impacts from other past and ongoing 
anthropogenic activities are to be incorporated into the negligible 
impact analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline. 
Accordingly, NMFS here has factored into its negligible impact analyses 
the impacts of other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities via 
their impacts on the baseline (e.g., as reflected in the density/
distribution and status of the species, population size and growth 
rate, and other relevant stressors (such as incidental mortality in 
commercial fisheries)).
    Comment 19: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS fund analyses of 
recently collected sighting and acoustic data for all data-holders and 
continue to fund and expand surveys and studies to improve our 
understanding of distribution and habitat use of marine mammals.
    Response: We agree with the ENGOs that analyses of recently 
collected sighting and acoustic data, as well as continued marine 
mammal surveys, are warranted. We welcome the opportunity to 
participate in fora where implications of such data for potential 
mitigation measures would be discussed; however, we do not have broad 
statutory authority or the ability to require that all ``data-holders'' 
fund such analyses and surveys. Additionally, NMFS will fund pertinent 
surveys based on agency priorities and budgetary considerations.

Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA

    As described above, the following additions to reporting 
requirements have been incorporated in the IHA based on comments 
received during the public comment period:
     Vessel operators must report sightings of North Atlantic 
right whales to NMFS; and
     Marine mammal observational datasheets or raw sightings 
data must be provided in the draft and final monitoring report.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activity

    Sections 3 and 4 of the IHA application summarize available 
information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat 
preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected 
species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats 
may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 
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' 
website (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 2 summarizes information related to the population or stock, 
including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential 
biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow 
Committee on Taxonomy (2018). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum 
number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be 
removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach 
or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' 
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR is 
included here as a gross indicator 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' U.S. Atlantic SARs. All values presented in Table 2 are the most 
recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 
2018 Atlantic SARs (Hayes et al., 2019), available online at: 
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region.

                     Table 2--Marine Mammals Known To Occur in the Survey Area That May Be Affected by Skipjack's Proposed Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        MMPA and ESA     Stock abundance
                                                           status;       (CV, Nmin, most        Predicted                 Annual M/  Expected occurrence
  Common name (scientific name)          Stock          strategic (Y/    recent abundance     abundance (CV)    PBR \4\     SI \4\      in survey area
                                                           N) \1\          survey) \2\             \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Toothed Whales (Odontoceti)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale (Physeter             North Atlantic.....  E; Y            2,288 (0.28; 1,815;       5,353 (0.12)        3.6        0.8  Rare.
 macrocephalus).                                                        n/a).
Killer whale (Orcinus orca).....  W North Atlantic...  --; N           Unknown (n/a; n/a;           11 (0.82)     Undet.          0  Rare.
                                                                        n/a).
Long-finned pilot whale           W North Atlantic...  --; N           5,636 (0.63; 3,464;  \5\ 18,977 (0.11)         35         27  Uncommon.
 (Globicephala melas).                                                  n/a).
Short-finned pilot whale          W North Atlantic...  --; N           28,924 (0.24;        \5\ 18,977 (0.11)        236        168  Rare.
 (Globicephala macrorhynchus).                                          23,637; n/a).
Atlantic white-sided dolphin      W North Atlantic...  --; N           48,819 (0.61;            37,180 (0.07)        304         30  Common.
 (Lagenorhynchus acutus).                                               30,403; n/a).
Atlantic spotted dolphin          W North Atlantic...  --; N           44,715 (0.43;            55,436 (0.32)        316          0  Common.
 (Stenella frontalis).                                                  31,610;.
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops      W North Atlantic     --; N           6,639 (0.41; 4,759;  \5\ 97,476 (0.06)         48    unknown  Common.
 truncatus).                       Coastal Migratory.                   2015).
Common dolphin \6\ (Delphinus     W North Atlantic...  --; N           173,486 (0.55;           86,098 (0.12)        557        406  Common.
 delphis).                                                              55,690; 2011).
Risso's dolphin (Grampus          W North Atlantic...  --; N           18,250 (0.46;             7,732 (0.09)        126       49.9  Rare.
 griseus).                                                              12,619; 2011).
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena         Gulf of Maine/Bay    --; N           79,833 (0.32;          * 45,089 (0.12)        706        255  Common.
 phocoena).                        of Fundy.                            61,415; 2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 66164]]

 
                                                                Baleen Whales (Mysticeti)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale        W North Atlantic...  E; Y            451 (0; 455; n/a)..      \7\ 411 (n/a)        0.9         56  Year round in
 (Eubalaena glacialis).                                                                                                               continental shelf
                                                                                                                                      and slope waters,
                                                                                                                                      occur seasonally.
Humpback whale \8\ (Megaptera     Gulf of Maine......  --; N           896 (0.42; 239; n/      * 1,637 (0.07)       14.6        9.8  Common year round.
 novaeangliae).                                                         a).
Fin whale \6\ (Balaenoptera       W North Atlantic...  E; Y            3,522 (0.27; 1,234;       4,633 (0.08)        2.5        2.5  Year round in
 physalus).                                                             n/a).                                                         continental shelf
                                                                                                                                      and slope waters,
                                                                                                                                      occur seasonally.
Sei whale (Balaenoptera           Nova Scotia........  E; Y            357 (0.52; 236; n/        * 717 (0.30)        0.5        0.6  Year round in
 borealis).                                                             a).                                                           continental shelf
                                                                                                                                      and slope waters,
                                                                                                                                      occur seasonally.
Minke whale \6\ (Balaenoptera     Canadian East Coast  --; N           20,741 (0.3; 1,425;     * 2,112 (0.05)         14        7.5  Year round in
 acutorostrata).                                                        n/a).                                                         continental shelf
                                                                                                                                      and slope waters,
                                                                                                                                      occur seasonally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Earless Seals (Phocidae)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray seal \8\ (Halichoerus        W North Atlantic...  --; N           27,131 (0.10;            505,000 (n/a)      1,389      5,688  Uncommon.
 grypus).                                                               25,908; n/a).
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)....  W North Atlantic...  --; N           75,834 (0.15;            75,834 (0.15)      2,006        345  Uncommon.
                                                                        66,884; 2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 (see
  footnote 3) 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\ Stock abundance as reported in NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports (SAR) except where otherwise noted. SARs available online at:
  www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate
  of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks, abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no
  associated CV. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the abundance estimate is presented; there may be more recent surveys that have
  not yet been incorporated into the estimate. All values presented here are from the 2018 Atlantic SARs.
\3\ This information represents species- or guild-specific abundance predicted by recent habitat-based cetacean density models (Roberts et al., 2016,
  2017, 2018) (with the exception of North Atlantic right whales and pinnipeds--see footnotes 7 and 9 below). These models provide the best available
  scientific information regarding predicted density patterns of cetaceans in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean, and we provide the corresponding abundance
  predictions as a point of reference. Total abundance estimates were produced by computing the mean density of all pixels in the modeled area and
  multiplying by its area. For those species marked with an asterisk (*), the available information supported development of either two or four seasonal
  models; each model has an associated abundance prediction. Here, we report the maximum predicted abundance.
\4\ Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a
  marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP). Annual M/SI, found in NMFS' SARs,
  represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, subsistence hunting, ship
  strike). Annual M/SI values often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value. All M/SI values are as presented
  in the 2018 SARs.
\5\ Abundance estimates are in some cases reported for a guild or group of species when those species are difficult to differentiate at sea. Similarly,
  the habitat-based cetacean density models produced by Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018) are based in part on available observational data which, in
  some cases, is limited to genus or guild in terms of taxonomic definition. Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018) produced density models to genus level
  for Globicephala spp. produced density models for bottlenose dolphins that do not differentiate between offshore and coastal stocks, and produced
  density models for all seals.
\6\ Abundance as reported in the 2007 Canadian Trans-North Atlantic Sighting Survey (TNASS), which provided full coverage of the Atlantic Canadian coast
  (Lawson and Gosselin, 2009). Abundance estimates from TNASS were corrected for perception and availability bias, when possible. In general, where the
  TNASS survey effort provided superior coverage of a stock's range (as compared with NOAA shipboard survey effort), the resulting abundance estimate is
  considered more accurate than the current NMFS abundance estimate (derived from survey effort with inferior coverage of the stock range). NMFS SAR
  reports the stock abundance estimate for the common dolphin as 70,184; NMFS SAR reports the stock abundance estimate for the fin whale as 1,618; NMFS
  SAR reports the stock abundance estimate for the minke whale as 2,591.
\7\ For the North Atlantic right whale the best available abundance estimate is derived from the 2018 North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2018 Annual
  Report Card (Pettis et al., 2018).
\8\ 2018 U.S. Atlantic draft SAR for the Gulf of Maine feeding population lists a current abundance estimate of 896 individuals. However, we note that
  the estimate is defined on the basis of feeding location alone (i.e., Gulf of Maine) and is therefore likely an underestimate.
\9\ The NMFS stock abundance estimate applies to U.S. population only, however the actual stock abundance is approximately 505,000.

    Four marine mammal species that are listed under the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA) may be present in the survey area and are included in 
the take request: The North Atlantic right whale, fin whale, sei whale, 
and sperm whale. We consulted under section 7 of the ESA with the NMFS 
Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) on our authorization 
of take for these species; please see the Endangered Species Act 
section below.
    A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by 
Skipjack's surveys, including brief introductions to the species and 
relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population 
trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were 
provided in the notice of proposed IHA (84 FR 51118; September 27, 
2019); since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status 
of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not 
provided here. Please refer to that notice for these descriptions. 
Please also refer to NMFS' website (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for generalized species accounts.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    The effects of underwater noise from Skipjack's survey activities 
have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals 
in the vicinity of the survey area. The notice of proposed IHA (84 FR 
51118; September 27, 2019) included a discussion of the effects of 
anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential effects of 
underwater noise from Skipjack's survey activities on marine mammals 
and their habitat. That information and

[[Page 66165]]

analysis is incorporated by reference into this final IHA determination 
and is not repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHA 
(84 FR 51118; September 27, 2019).

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration 
of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact determination.
    Level B harassment is the only type of take expected to result from 
these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not 
pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any 
act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to 
injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A 
harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral 
patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, 
breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes are by Level B harassment only. Based on the 
nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the 
mitigation measures (i.e., exclusion zones and shutdown measures), 
discussed in detail below in Mitigation section, Level A harassment is 
neither anticipated nor authorized.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized 
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science 
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some 
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water 
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or 
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) 
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic 
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial 
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively 
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous 
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the 
factors considered here in more detail and present the take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS 
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment--Though significantly driven by received level, 
the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure 
is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the 
source (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment 
(e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to 
predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what 
the available science indicates and the practical need to use a 
threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for 
most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on 
received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 
predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in 
a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater 
anthropogenic noise above received levels of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
for impulsive and/or intermittent sources (e.g., impact pile driving) 
and 120 dB rms for continuous sources (e.g., vibratory driving). 
Skipjack's planned activity includes the use of impulsive sources 
(geophysical survey equipment) therefore use of the 120 and 160 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa (rms) threshold is applicable.
    Level A harassment--NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the 
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 
(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory 
injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups 
(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from 
two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The 
components of Skipjack's planned activity that may result in the take 
of marine mammals include the use of impulsive sources.
    These thresholds are provided in Table 3 below. The references, 
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are 
described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: 
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

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


[[Page 66166]]

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss 
coefficient.
    The survey would entail the use of HRG equipment. The distance to 
the isopleth corresponding to the threshold for Level B harassment was 
calculated for all HRG equipment with the potential to result in 
harassment of marine mammals. NMFS has developed an interim methodology 
for determining the rms sound pressure level (SPLrms) at the 
160-dB isopleth for the purposes of estimating take by Level B 
harassment resulting from exposure to HRG survey equipment. This 
methodology incorporates frequency and some directionality to refine 
estimated ensonified zones and is described below:
    If only peak source sound pressure level (SPLpk) is 
given, the SPLrms can be roughly approximated by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03DE19.002

where [tau] is the pulse duration in seconds. If the pulse duration 
varies, the longest duration should be used, unless there is certainty 
regarding the portion of time a shorter duration will be used, in which 
case the result can be calculated/parsed appropriately.
    In order to account for the greater absorption of higher frequency 
sources, we apply 20 log(r) with an absorption term [alpha][middot]r/
1000 to calculate transmission loss (TL), as described in Eq.s (2) and 
(3) below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03DE19.003

where r is the distance in meters, and [alpha] is absorption 
coefficient in dB/km.
    While the calculation of absorption coefficient varies with 
frequency, temperature, salinity, and pH, the largest factor driving 
the absorption coefficient is frequency. A simple formula to 
approximate the absorption coefficient (neglecting temperature, 
salinity, and pH) is provided by Richardson et al. (1995):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03DE19.004

where f is frequency in kHz. When a range of frequencies, is being 
used, the lower bound of the range should be used for this calculation, 
unless there is certainty regarding the portion of time a higher 
frequency will be used, in which case the result can be calculated/
parsed appropriately.
    Further, if the beamwidth is less than 180[deg] and the angle of 
beam axis in respect to sea surface is known, the horizontal impact 
distance R should be calculated using
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03DE19.005

where SL is the SPLrms at the source (1 m), [thgr] is the 
beamwidth (in radian), and [phi] is the angle of beam axis in respect 
to sea surface (in radian)
    Finally, if the beam is pointed at a normal downward direction, Eq. 
(4) can be simplified as
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03DE19.006

    The interim methodology described above was used to estimate 
isopleth distances to the Level B harassment threshold for the proposed 
HRG survey. NMFS considers the data provided by Crocker and Fratantonio 
(2016) to represent the best available information on source levels 
associated with HRG equipment and therefore recommends that source 
levels provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be incorporated in 
the method described above to estimate isopleth distances to the Level 
B harassment threshold. In cases when the source level for a specific 
type of HRG equipment is not provided in Crocker and Fratantonio 
(2016), NMFS recommends that either the source levels provided by the 
manufacturer be used, or, in instances where source levels provided by 
the manufacturer are unavailable or unreliable, a proxy from Crocker 
and Fratantonio (2016) be used instead. Table 1 shows the HRG equipment 
types that may be used during the proposed surveys and the sound levels 
associated with those HRG equipment types. Table 4 in the IHA 
application shows the literature sources for the sound source levels 
that are shown in Table 1 and that were incorporated into the modeling 
of isopleth distances to the Level B harassment threshold.
    Results of modeling using the methodology described above indicated 
that, of the HRG survey equipment planned for use by Skipjack that has 
the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals, sound produced 
by the AA Dura-Spark 400 sparker and the GeoSource 800 J sparker would 
propagate furthest to the Level B harassment threshold (Table 4); 
therefore, for the purposes of the exposure analysis, it was assumed 
the AA Dura-Spark or the GeoSource 800 J would be active during the 
entirety of

[[Page 66167]]

the survey. Thus the distance to the isopleth corresponding to the 
threshold for Level B harassment for the AA Dura-Spark 400 and the 
GeoSource 800 J (estimated at 141 m; Table 4) was used as the basis of 
the take calculation for all marine mammals. Note that this is 
conservative as Skipjack has stated that for approximately 120 of the 
200 total survey days, neither the AA Dura-Spark nor the GeoSource 800 
J would be operated, and the sources with smaller associated isopleth 
distances to the Level B harassment threshold would be used (Table 4).

Table 4--Modeled Radial Distances From HRG Survey Equipment to Isopleths Corresponding to Level A Harassment and
                                          Level B Harassment Thresholds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Radial distance to Level A harassment threshold (m) *          Radial
                                 ----------------------------------------------------------------   distance to
                                                                                                      Level B
                                   Low frequency   Mid frequency       High           Phocid        harassment
          Sound source               cetaceans       cetaceans       frequency       pinnipeds     threshold (m)
                                    (peak SPL/      (peak SPL/       cetaceans     (underwater)  ---------------
                                      SELcum)         SELcum)       (peak SPL/      (peak SPL/      All marine
                                                                      SELcum)         SELcum)         mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Shallow Sub-bottom Profilers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TB Chirp III....................            -/<1               0            -/<1            -/<1              48
ET 216 Chirp....................            -/<1             -/0            -/<1             -/0               9
ET 424 Chirp....................             -/0             -/0             -/0             -/0               4
ET 512i Chirp...................             -/0             -/0             -/0             -/0               6
GeoPulse 5430...................            -/<1             -/0            -/<1             -/0              21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Parametric Sub-bottom Profilers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innomar Parametric SBPs.........            -/<1            -/<1           -/1.2            -/<1               1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Medium Sub-bottom Profilers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AA Triple plate S-Boom (700/                -/<1             -/0           2.8/0             -/0              34
 1000J).........................
AA Dura-Spark 400...............            -/<1             -/0           2.8/0             -/0             141
GeoSource 400 J Sparker.........            -/<1             -/0           2.0/0             -/0              56
GeoSource 600 J Sparker.........            -/<1             -/0          3.2/<1            -/<1             112
GeoSource 800 J Sparker.........            -/<1             -/0          3.5/<1            -/<1             141
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Acoustic Corers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pangeo Acoustic Corer (LF Chirp)            -/<1             -/0            -/<1             -/0               4
Pangeo Acoustic Corer (HF Chirp)            -/<1             -/0            -/<1             -/0               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Acoustic Positioning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USBL and GAPS (all models)......             -/0             -/0            -/<1             -/0              50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Distances to Level A harassment isopleths were calculated to determine the potential for Level A harassment to
  occur. Skipjack has not requested, and NMFS does not propose to authorize, the take by Level A harassment of
  any marine mammals.
- = not applicable; AA = Applied Acoustics; CF = Crocker and Fratantonio (2016); ET = EdgeTech; GAPS = Global
  Acoustic Positioning System; HF = high-frequency; J = joules; LF = low-frequency; m = meter; MF = mid-
  frequency; PW = Phocids in water; SBP = Sub-bottom profilers; SELcum = cumulative sound exposure level; SL =
  source level; SPLpk = zero to peak sound pressure level in decibel referenced to 1 micropascal (dB re 1
  [micro]Pa); TB = teledyne benthos; USBL = ultra-short baseline.

    Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary 
based on marine mammal functional hearing groups (Table 4), were also 
calculated. The updated acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds (such 
as HRG survey equipment) contained in the Technical Guidance (NMFS, 
2018) were presented as dual metric acoustic thresholds using both 
cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) and peak sound 
pressure level metrics. As dual metrics, NMFS considers onset of PTS 
(Level A harassment) to have occurred when either one of the two 
metrics is exceeded (i.e., the metric resulting in the largest 
isopleth). The SELcum metric considers both level and 
duration of exposure, as well as auditory weighting functions by marine 
mammal hearing group.
    When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in 
recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more 
technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in 
the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools 
to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with 
marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that 
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for 
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced typically 
overestimate Level A harassment. However, these tools offer the best 
way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D 
modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways 
to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address 
the output where appropriate. For mobile sources (such as HRG surveys), 
the User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which a 
stationary animal would incur PTS if the sound source traveled by the 
animal in a straight line at a constant speed.
    Skipjack used the NMFS optional User Spreadsheet to calculate 
distances to Level A harassment isopleths based on SEL and used the 
spherical spreading loss model to calculate distances to Level A 
harassment

[[Page 66168]]

isopleths based on peak SPL. Modeling of distances to isopleths 
corresponding to Level A harassment was performed for all types of HRG 
equipment proposed for use with the potential to result in harassment 
of marine mammals. Isopleth distances to Level A harassment thresholds 
for all types of HRG equipment and all marine mammal functional hearing 
groups are shown in Table 4. To be conservative, the largest isopleth 
distances for each functional hearing group were used to model 
potential exposures above the Level A harassment threshold for all 
species within that functional hearing group. Inputs to the NMFS 
optional User Spreadsheet for the GeoSource 800 J Sparker, which 
resulted in the greatest potential isopleth distance to the Level A 
harassment threshold for any of the functional hearing groups, are 
shown in Table 5.

 Table 5--Inputs to the NMFS Optional User Spreadsheet for GeoSource 800
                                J Sparker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Level (RMS SPL).................  203 dB re 1[mu]Pa.
Source Level (peak)....................  213 dB re 1[mu]Pa.
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz)......  0.05.
Source Velocity (meters/second)........  2.06.
Pulse Duration (seconds)...............  0.0034.
1/Repetition rate (seconds)............  2.43.
Duty Cycle.............................  0.00.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the small estimated distances to Level A harassment 
thresholds for all marine mammal functional hearing groups, based on 
both SELcum and peak SPL (Table 4), and in consideration of 
the mitigation measures (see the Mitigation section for more detail), 
NMFS has determined that the likelihood of take of marine mammals in 
the form of Level A harassment occurring as a result of the survey is 
so low as to be discountable, and we therefore do not authorize the 
take by Level A harassment of any marine mammals.

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations.
    The habitat-based density models produced by the Duke University 
Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory (Roberts et al., 2016, 2017, 2018) 
represent the best available information regarding marine mammal 
densities in the survey area. The density data presented by Roberts et 
al. (2016, 2017, 2018) incorporates aerial and shipboard line-transect 
survey data from NMFS and other organizations and incorporates data 
from 8 physiographic and 16 dynamic oceanographic and biological 
covariates, and controls for the influence of sea state, group size, 
availability bias, and perception bias on the probability of making a 
sighting. These density models were originally developed for all 
cetacean taxa in the U.S. Atlantic (Roberts et al., 2016). In 
subsequent years, certain models have been updated on the basis of 
additional data as well as certain methodological improvements. 
Although these updated models (and a newly developed seal density 
model) are not currently publicly available, our evaluation of the 
changes leads to a conclusion that these represent the best scientific 
evidence available. More information, including the model results and 
supplementary information for each model, is available online at 
seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke-EC-GOM-2015/. Marine mammal density 
estimates in the project area (animals/km\2\) were obtained using these 
model results (Roberts et al., 2016, 2017, 2018). The updated models 
incorporate additional sighting data, including sightings from the NOAA 
Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) 
surveys from 2010-2014 (NEFSC & SEFSC, 2011, 2012, 2014a, 2014b, 2015, 
2016).
    For purposes of the exposure analysis, density data from Roberts et 
al. (2016, 2017, 2018) were mapped using a geographic information 
system (GIS). The density coverages that included any portion of the 
survey area were selected for all survey months (see Figure 4 in the 
IHA application for an example of density blocks used to determine 
monthly marine mammal densities within the project area). Monthly 
density data for each species were then averaged over the year to come 
up with a mean annual density value for each species. Estimated monthly 
and average annual density (animals per km\2\) of all marine mammal 
species that may be taken by the survey are shown in Table 8 of the IHA 
application. The mean annual density values used to estimate take 
numbers are also shown in Table 6 below.

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
    In order to estimate the number of marine mammals predicted to be 
exposed to sound levels that would result in harassment, radial 
distances to predicted isopleths corresponding to harassment thresholds 
are calculated, as described above. Those distances are then used to 
calculate the area(s) around the HRG survey equipment predicted to be 
ensonified to sound levels that exceed harassment thresholds. The area 
estimated to be ensonified to relevant thresholds in a single day is 
then calculated, based on areas predicted to be ensonified around the 
HRG survey equipment and the estimated trackline distance traveled per 
day by the survey vessel. Skipjack estimates that planned surveys will 
achieve a maximum daily track line distance of 110 km per day during 
planned HRG surveys. This distance accounts for the vessel traveling at 
roughly 4 knots and accounts for non-active survey periods. Based on 
the maximum estimated distance to the Level B harassment threshold of 
141 m (Table 4) and the maximum estimated daily track line distance of 
110 km, an area of 31.1 km\2\ would be ensonified to the Level B 
harassment threshold per day during Skipjack's planned HRG surveys. As 
described above, this is a conservative estimate as it assumes the HRG 
sources that result in the greatest isopleth distances to the Level B 
harassment threshold would be operated at all times during the 200 day 
survey.
    The number of marine mammals expected to be incidentally taken per 
day is then calculated by estimating the number of each species 
predicted to occur within the daily ensonified area (animals/km\2\), 
incorporating the estimated marine mammal densities as described above. 
Estimated numbers of each species taken per day are then multiplied by 
the total number of survey days (i.e., 200). The product is then 
rounded, to generate an estimate of the total number of instances of 
harassment expected for each species over the duration of the survey. A 
summary of this method is illustrated in the following formula:

Estimated Take = D x ZOI x # of days

Where:

D = average species density (per km\2\) and ZOI = maximum daily 
ensonified area to relevant thresholds.

    Using this method to calculate take, Skipjack estimated a total of 
2 takes by Level A harassment of 1 species (harbor porpoise) would 
occur, in the absence of mitigation (see Table 9 in the IHA application 
for the estimated number of Level A takes for all potential HRG 
equipment types). However, as described above, due to the very small 
estimated distances to Level A harassment thresholds (Table 4), and in 
consideration of the mitigation measures, the likelihood of the survey 
resulting in take in the form of Level A harassment is considered so 
low as to be discountable; therefore, we do not

[[Page 66169]]

propose to authorize take of any marine mammals by Level A harassment. 
Authorized take numbers are shown in Table 6.

           Table 6--Total Numbers of Potential Incidental Take of Marine Mammals Authorized and Authorized Takes as a Percentage of Population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Total
                                                              Density       Authorized       Estimated      Authorized                      authorized
                         Species                           (animals/100   takes by Level  takes by Level  takes by Level    Total takes     takes as a
                                                              km\2\)       A harassment    B harassment    B harassment     authorized     percentage of
                                                                                                                                          population \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale...............................................         0.00124               0               8               8               8             0.2
Sei whale \2\...........................................         0.00001               0               0               1               1             0.1
Minke whale.............................................         0.00034               0               2               2               2             0.1
Humpback whale..........................................         0.00053               0               3               3               3             0.2
North Atlantic right whale..............................         0.00043               0               3               3               3             0.7
Sperm Whale \2\.........................................         0.00004               0               0               3               3             0.1
Atlantic white-sided dolphin \2\........................         0.00229               0              14              40              40             0.1
Atlantic spotted dolphin \2\............................         0.00124               0               8             100             100             0.2
Bottlenose dolphin (W. N. Atlantic Coastal Migratory)...          0.2355               0           1,465           1,465           1,465            22.1
Killer whale \2\........................................         0.00001               0               0               3               3            27.3
Short-finned pilot whale \2\............................         0.00031               0               2              20              20             0.1
Long-finned pilot whale \2\.............................         0.00031               0               2              20              20             0.1
Risso's dolphin \2\.....................................               0               0               0              30              30             0.4
Common dolphin..........................................         0.01328               0              83              83              83             0.1
Harbor porpoise.........................................         0.01277               0              79              79              79             0.2
Gray seal...............................................         0.00072               0               4               4               4             0.0
Harbor seal.............................................         0.00072               0               4               4               4             0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculations of percentage of stock taken are based on the best available abundance estimate as shown in Table 2. In most cases the best available
  abundance estimate is provided by Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018), when available, to maintain consistency with density estimates derived from
  Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018). For North Atlantic right whales the best available abundance estimate is derived from the 2018 North Atlantic Right
  Whale Consortium 2018 Annual Report Card (Pettis et al., 2018).
\2\ The number of authorized takes (Level B harassment only) for these species has been increased from the estimated take number to mean group size.
  Source for group size estimates are as follows: Sei whale: Kenney and Vigness-Raposa (2010); sperm whale: Barkaszi and Kelly (2019); killer whale: de
  Bruyn et al. (2013); Risso's dolphin: Kenney and Vigness-Raposa (2010); long-finned and short-finned pilot whale: Olson (2018); Atlantic spotted
  dolphin: Herzing and Perrin (2018); Atlantic white-sided dolphin: Cipriano (2018).

    Skipjack requested take authorization for three marine mammal 
species for which no takes were calculated based on the modeling 
approach described above: Killer whale, sei whale and Risso's dolphin. 
Though the modeling resulted in estimates of less than 1 take for these 
species, Skipjack determined that take of these species is possible due 
to low densities in some density blocks and general variability in the 
movements of these species. NMFS believes this is reasonable and we 
therefore authorize take of these species.
    As described above, Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018) produced 
density models to genus level for Globicephala spp. and did not 
differentiate between long-finned and shortfinned pilot whales. 
Similarly, Roberts et al. (2018) produced density models for all seals 
and did not differentiate by seal species. The take calculation 
methodology as described above resulted in an estimate of 2 pilot whale 
takes and 4 seal takes. Based on this estimate, Skipjack requested 2 
takes each of short-finned and long-finned pilot whales, and 4 takes 
each of harbor and gray seals, based on an assumption that the modeled 
takes could occur to either of the respective species. We think this is 
a reasonable approach and therefore authorize the take of 4 harbor 
seals, 4 gray seals, 2 short-finned pilot whales and 2 long-finned 
pilot whales.
    Using the take methodology approach described above, the take 
estimates for the sei whale, sperm whale, killer whale, Risso's 
dolphin, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, spotted dolphin, long-finned and 
short-finned pilot whale were less than the average group sizes 
estimated for these species (Table 6). However, information on the 
social structures of these species indicates these species are likely 
to be encountered in groups. Therefore it is reasonable to 
conservatively assume that one group of each of these species will be 
taken during the survey. We therefore authorize the take of the average 
group size for these species to account for the possibility that the 
survey encounters a group of any of these species or stocks (Table 6).

Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS 
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to 
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic 
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such 
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 
216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood,

[[Page 66170]]

scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure 
will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the 
mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of 
effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;
    (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

Mitigation Measures

    The following mitigation measures must be implemented during 
Skipjack's site characterization surveys.

Marine Mammal Exclusion Zones, Buffer Zone and Monitoring Zone

    Marine mammal exclusion zones (EZ) must be established around the 
HRG survey equipment and monitored by protected species observers (PSO) 
during HRG surveys as follows:
     A 500-m EZ for North Atlantic right whales;
     A 200 m EZ for all other ESA-listed marine mammals (i.e., 
fin, sei and sperm whales), and
     A 100-m EZ for all other marine mammals.
    If a marine mammal is detected approaching or entering the EZs 
during the survey, the vessel operator would adhere to the shutdown 
procedures described below. In addition to the EZs described above, 
PSOs must visually monitor a 200-m Buffer Zone. During use of acoustic 
sources with the potential to result in marine mammal harassment (i.e., 
anytime the acoustic source is active, including ramp-up), occurrences 
of marine mammals within the Buffer Zone (but outside the EZs) must be 
communicated to the vessel operator to prepare for potential shutdown 
of the acoustic source. The Buffer Zone is not applicable when the EZ 
is greater than 100 m. PSOs are required to observe a 500-m Monitoring 
Zone and record the presence of all marine mammals within this zone. In 
addition, any marine mammals observed within 141 m of the HRG equipment 
must be documented by PSOs as taken by Level B harassment. The zones 
described above must be based upon the radial distance from the active 
equipment (rather than being based on distance from the vessel itself).

Visual Monitoring

    A minimum of one NMFS-approved PSO must be on duty and conducting 
visual observations at all times during daylight hours (i.e., from 30 
minutes prior to sunrise through 30 minutes following sunset) and 30 
minutes prior to and during nighttime ramp-ups of HRG equipment. Visual 
monitoring must begin no less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up of HRG 
equipment and must continue until 30 minutes after use of the acoustic 
source ceases or until 30 minutes past sunset. PSOs must establish and 
monitor the applicable EZs, Buffer Zone and Monitoring Zone as 
described above. Visual PSOs must coordinate to ensure 360[deg] visual 
coverage around the vessel from the most appropriate observation posts, 
and must conduct visual observations using binoculars and the naked eye 
while free from distractions and in a consistent, systematic, and 
diligent manner. PSOs must estimate distances to marine mammals located 
in proximity to the vessel and/or relevant using range finders. It is 
the responsibility of the Lead PSO on duty to communicate the presence 
of marine mammals as well as to communicate and enforce the action(s) 
that are necessary to ensure mitigation and monitoring requirements are 
implemented as appropriate. Position data must be recorded using hand-
held or vessel global positioning system (GPS) units for each confirmed 
marine mammal sighting.

Pre-Clearance of the Exclusion Zones

    Prior to initiating HRG survey activities, Skipjack must implement 
a 30-minute pre-clearance period. During pre-clearance monitoring 
(i.e., before ramp-up of HRG equipment begins), the Buffer Zone must 
also act as an extension of the 100 m EZ in that observations of marine 
mammals within the 200 m Buffer Zone also precludes HRG operations from 
beginning. During this period, PSOs must ensure that no marine mammals 
are observed within 200 m of the survey equipment (500 m in the case of 
North Atlantic right whales). HRG equipment must not start up until 
this 200 m zone (or, 500 m zone in the case of North Atlantic right 
whales) is clear of marine mammals for at least 30 minutes. The vessel 
operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of HRG 
survey equipment as agreed upon with the lead PSO; the notification 
time must not be less than 30 minutes prior to the planned initiation 
of HRG equipment order to allow the PSOs time to monitor the EZs and 
Buffer Zone for the 30 minutes of pre-clearance. A PSO conducting pre-
clearance observations must be notified again immediately prior to 
initiating active HRG sources.
    If a marine mammal is observed within the relevant EZs or Buffer 
Zone during the pre-clearance period, initiation of HRG survey 
equipment must not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting 
the respective EZ or Buffer Zone, or, until an additional time period 
has elapsed with no further sighting (i.e., minimum 15 minutes for 
small odontocetes and seals, and 30 minutes for all other species). The 
pre-clearance requirement must include small delphinoids that approach 
the vessel (e.g., bow ride). PSOs must also continue to monitor the 
zone for 30 minutes after survey equipment is shut down or survey 
activity has concluded.

Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment

    When technically feasible, a ramp-up procedure must be used for 
geophysical survey equipment capable of adjusting energy levels at the 
start or re-start of survey activities. The ramp-up procedure should be 
used at the beginning of HRG survey activities in order to provide 
additional protection to marine mammals near the survey area by 
allowing them to detect the presence of the survey and vacate the area 
prior to the commencement of survey equipment operation at full power. 
Ramp-up of the survey equipment must not begin until the relevant EZs 
and Buffer Zone has been cleared by the PSOs, as described above. HRG 
equipment must be initiated at their lowest power output and would be 
incrementally increased to full power. If any marine mammals are 
detected within the EZs or Buffer Zone prior to or during ramp-up, the 
HRG equipment must be shut down (as described below).

Shutdown Procedures

    If an HRG source is active and a marine mammal is observed within 
or entering a relevant EZ (as described above) an immediate shutdown of 
the HRG survey equipment is required. When shutdown is called for by a 
PSO, the acoustic source must be immediately deactivated and any 
dispute resolved only following deactivation. Any PSO on duty will have 
the authority to delay the start of survey operations or to call for 
shutdown of the acoustic source if a marine mammal is detected within 
the applicable EZ. The vessel operator must establish and maintain 
clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and crew 
controlling the HRG source(s) to ensure that shutdown commands are 
conveyed swiftly while

[[Page 66171]]

allowing PSOs to maintain watch. Subsequent restart of the HRG 
equipment must only occur after the marine mammal has either been 
observed exiting the relevant EZ, or, until an additional time period 
has elapsed with no further sighting of the animal within the relevant 
EZ (i.e., 15 minutes for small odontocetes and seals, and 30 minutes 
for large whales).
    Upon implementation of shutdown, the HRG source must be reactivated 
after the marine mammal that triggered the shutdown has been observed 
exiting the applicable EZ (i.e., the animal is not required to fully 
exit the Buffer Zone where applicable), or, following a clearance 
period of 15 minutes for small odontocetes and seals and 30 minutes for 
all other species with no further observation of the marine mammal(s) 
within the relevant EZ. If the HRG equipment shuts down for brief 
periods (i.e., less than 30 minutes) for reasons other than mitigation 
(e.g., mechanical or electronic failure) the equipment may be re-
activated as soon as is practicable at full operational level, without 
30 minutes of pre-clearance, only if PSOs have maintained constant 
visual observation during the shutdown and no visual detections of 
marine mammals occurred within the applicable EZs and Buffer Zone 
during that time. For a shutdown of 30 minutes or longer, or if visual 
observation was not continued diligently during the pause, pre-
clearance observation is required, as described above.
    The shutdown requirement is waived for certain genera of small 
delphinids (i.e., Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, Stenella, and Tursiops) 
under certain circumstances. If a delphinid(s) from these genera is 
visually detected approaching the vessel (i.e., to bow ride) or towed 
survey equipment, shutdown is not required. If there is uncertainty 
regarding identification of a marine mammal species (i.e., whether the 
observed marine mammal(s) belongs to one of the delphinid genera for 
which shutdown is waived), PSOs must use best professional judgment in 
making the decision to call for a shutdown.
    If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or, a 
species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized 
number of takes have been met, approaches or is observed within the 
area encompassing the Level B harassment isopleth (141 m), shutdown 
must occur.

Vessel Strike Avoidance

    Vessel strike avoidance measures include, but are not be limited 
to, the following, except under circumstances when complying with these 
requirements would put the safety of the vessel or crew at risk:
     All vessel operators and crew will maintain vigilant watch 
for cetaceans and pinnipeds, and slow down or stop their vessel to 
avoid striking these protected species;
     All vessel operators will comply with 10 knot (18.5 km/hr) 
or less speed restrictions in any SMA and DMA per NOAA guidance;
     All vessel operators will reduce vessel speed to 10 knots 
(18.5 km/hr) or less when any large whale, any mother/calf pairs, large 
assemblages of non-delphinoid cetaceans are observed near (within 100 m 
(330 ft)) an underway vessel;
     All survey vessels will maintain a separation distance of 
500 m (1640 ft) or greater from any sighted North Atlantic right whale;
     If underway, vessels must steer a course away from any 
sighted North Atlantic right whale at 10 knots (18.5 km/hr) or less 
until the 500 m (1640 ft) minimum separation distance has been 
established. If a North Atlantic right whale is sighted in a vessel's 
path, or within 100 m (330 ft) to an underway vessel, the underway 
vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral. Engines will 
not be engaged until the North Atlantic right whale has moved outside 
of the vessel's path and beyond 100 m. If stationary, the vessel must 
not engage engines until the North Atlantic right whale has moved 
beyond 100 m;
     All vessels will maintain a separation distance of 100 m 
(330 ft) or greater from any sighted non-delphinoid cetacean. If 
sighted, the vessel underway must reduce speed and shift the engine to 
neutral, and must not engage the engines until the non-delphinoid 
cetacean has moved outside of the vessel's path and beyond 100 m. If a 
survey vessel is stationary, the vessel will not engage engines until 
the non-delphinoid cetacean has moved out of the vessel's path and 
beyond 100 m;
     All vessels will maintain a separation distance of 50 m 
(164 ft) or greater from any sighted delphinoid cetacean. Any vessel 
underway remain parallel to a sighted delphinoid cetacean's course 
whenever possible, and avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in 
direction. Any vessel underway reduces vessel speed to 10 knots (18.5 
km/hr) or less when pods (including mother/calf pairs) or large 
assemblages of delphinoid cetaceans are observed. Vessels may not 
adjust course and speed until the delphinoid cetaceans have moved 
beyond 50 m and/or the abeam of the underway vessel;
     All vessels will maintain a separation distance of 50 m 
(164 ft) or greater from any sighted pinniped; and
     All vessels underway will not divert or alter course in 
order to approach any whale, delphinoid cetacean, or pinniped. Any 
vessel underway will avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in 
direction to avoid injury to the sighted cetacean or pinniped.
    Skipjack must ensure that vessel operators and crew maintain a 
vigilant watch for marine mammals by slowing down or stopping the 
vessel to avoid striking marine mammals. Project-specific training will 
be conducted for all vessel crew prior to the start of survey 
activities. Confirmation of the training and understanding of the 
requirements will be documented on a training course log sheet. Signing 
the log sheet will certify that the crew members understand and will 
comply with the necessary requirements throughout the survey 
activities.

Seasonal Operating Requirements

    A section of the planned survey area partially overlaps with a 
portion of a North Atlantic right whale SMA off the mouth of Delaware 
Bay. This SMA is active from November 1 through April 30 of each year. 
Any survey vessels that are >65 ft in length is required to adhere to 
the mandatory vessel speed restrictions (<10 kn) when operating within 
the SMA during times when the SMA is active. In addition, between watch 
shifts, members of the monitoring team must consult NMFS' North 
Atlantic right whale reporting systems for the presence of North 
Atlantic right whales throughout survey operations. Members of the 
monitoring team must also monitor the NMFS North Atlantic right whale 
reporting systems for the establishment of Dynamic Management Areas 
(DMA). If NMFS should establish a DMA in the survey area while surveys 
are underway, Skipjack must contact NMFS within 24 hours of the 
establishment of the DMA to determine whether alteration of survey 
activities was warranted to avoid right whales to the extent possible.
    The mitigation measures are designed to avoid the already low 
potential for injury in addition to some instances of Level B 
harassment, and to minimize the potential for vessel strikes. Further, 
we believe the mitigation measures are practicable for the applicant to 
implement. Skipjack has proposed additional mitigation measures in 
addition to the measures described above; for information on the 
measures proposed by Skipjack, see Section 11 of the IHA application.

[[Page 66172]]

    There are no known marine mammal rookeries or mating or calving 
grounds in the survey area that would otherwise potentially warrant 
increased mitigation measures for marine mammals or their habitat (or 
both). The survey would occur in an area that has been identified as a 
biologically important area for migration for North Atlantic right 
whales. However, given the small spatial extent of the survey area 
relative to the substantially larger spatial extent of the right whale 
migratory area, the survey is not expected to appreciably reduce 
migratory habitat nor to negatively impact the migration of North 
Atlantic right whales, thus mitigation to address the planned survey's 
occurrence in North Atlantic right whale migratory habitat is not 
warranted.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the 
mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least 
practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, 
paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 
similar significance.

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
survey area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well 
as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required 
monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density).
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks.
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat).
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Monitoring Measures

    As described above, visual monitoring must be performed by 
qualified and NMFS-approved PSOs. Skipjack must use independent, 
dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that the PSOs must be employed by a 
third-party observer provider, must have no tasks other than to conduct 
observational effort, collect data, and communicate with and instruct 
relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and 
mitigation requirements (including brief alerts regarding maritime 
hazards), and must have successfully completed an approved PSO training 
course appropriate for their designated task. Skipjack must provide 
resumes of all proposed PSOs (including alternates) to NMFS for review 
and approval at least 45 days prior to the start of survey operations.
    During survey operations (e.g., any day on which use of an HRG 
source is planned to occur), a minimum of one PSO must be on duty and 
conducting visual observations at all times on all active survey 
vessels during daylight hours (i.e., from 30 minutes prior to sunrise 
through 30 minutes following sunset) and nighttime ramp-ups of HRG 
equipment. Visual monitoring must begin no less than 30 minutes prior 
to initiation of HRG survey equipment and must continue until one hour 
after use of the acoustic source ceases or until 30 minutes past 
sunset. PSOs would coordinate to ensure 360[deg] visual coverage around 
the vessel from the most appropriate observation posts, and must 
conduct visual observations using binoculars and the naked eye while 
free from distractions and in a consistent, systematic, and diligent 
manner. PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of four consecutive hours 
followed by a break of at least two hours between watches and may 
conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observation per 24-hour period. In 
cases where multiple vessels are surveying concurrently, any 
observations of marine mammals must be communicated to PSOs on all 
survey vessels.
    PSOs must be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to 
estimate distances to marine mammals located in proximity to the vessel 
and/or exclusion zone using range finders. Reticulated binoculars must 
also be available to PSOs for use as appropriate based on conditions 
and visibility to support the monitoring of marine mammals. Position 
data must be recorded using hand-held or vessel GPS units for each 
sighting. Observations must take place from the highest available 
vantage point on the survey vessel. General 360-degree scanning must 
occur during the monitoring periods, and target scanning by the PSO 
must occur when alerted of a marine mammal presence.
    During good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; Beaufort sea state 
(BSS) 3 or less), to the maximum extent practicable, PSOs will conduct 
observations when the acoustic source is not operating for comparison 
of sighting rates and behavior with and without use of the acoustic 
source and between acquisition periods. Any observations of marine 
mammals by crew members aboard any vessel associated with the survey 
must be relayed to the PSO team.
    Data on all PSO observations must be recorded based on standard PSO 
collection requirements. This includes dates, times, and locations of 
survey operations; dates and times of observations, location and 
weather; details of marine mammal sightings (e.g., species, numbers, 
behavior); and details of any observed marine mammal take that occurs 
(e.g., noted behavioral disturbances).

Reporting Measures

    Within 90 days after completion of survey activities, a final 
technical report must be provided to NMFS that fully documents the 
methods and monitoring protocols, summarizes the data recorded during 
monitoring, summarizes the number of marine mammals estimated to have 
been taken during survey activities (by species, when known), 
summarizes the mitigation actions taken during surveys (including what 
type of mitigation and the species and number of animals that prompted 
the mitigation action, when known), and provides an interpretation of 
the results and effectiveness of all mitigation and

[[Page 66173]]

monitoring. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the 
final report prior to acceptance by NMFS. PSO datasheets or raw 
sightings data must also be provided with the draft and final 
monitoring report.
    In addition to the final technical report, Skipjack must provide 
the reporting described below as necessary during survey activities. If 
a North Atlantic right whale is observed at any time during surveys or 
during vessel transit, Skipjack must report sighting information to the 
NMFS North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System. North 
Atlantic right whale sightings in any location may also be reported to 
the U.S. Coast Guard via channel 16.
    In the unanticipated event that Skipjack's survey activities lead 
to an injury (Level A harassment) or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear 
interaction, and/or entanglement) of a marine mammal, Skipjack must 
immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to 
the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources and the NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic Stranding Coordinator. 
The report must include the following information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Name and type of vessel involved;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Description of the incident;
     Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding 
the incident;
     Water depth;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;
     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
     Fate of the animal(s); and
     Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if 
equipment is available).
    Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the event. NMFS would work with Skipjack to minimize 
reoccurrence of such an event in the future. Skipjack would not resume 
activities until notified by NMFS.
    In the event that Skipjack discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal and determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown 
and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state 
of decomposition), Skipjack would immediately report the incident to 
the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources and the NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic Stranding Coordinator. 
The report would include the same information identified in the 
paragraph above. Activities would be able to continue while NMFS 
reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with 
Skipjack to determine if modifications in the activities are 
appropriate.
    In the event that Skipjack discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal and determines that the injury or death is not associated with 
or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously 
wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or 
scavenger damage), Skipjack would report the incident to the Chief of 
the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
and the NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator, 
within 24 hours of the discovery. Skipjack would provide photographs or 
video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded 
animal sighting to NMFS. Skipjack may continue its operations in such a 
case.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    To avoid repetition, our analysis applies to all the species listed 
in Table 2, given that NMFS expects the anticipated effects of the 
planned survey to be similar in nature.
    NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would 
occur as a result of Skipjack's survey, even in the absence of 
mitigation. Thus the authorization does not authorize any serious 
injury or mortality. As discussed in the Potential Effects section, 
non-auditory physical effects and vessel strike are not expected to 
occur. Additionally and as discussed previously, given the nature of 
activity and sounds sources used and especially in consideration of the 
required mitigation, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor 
authorized. We expect that all potential takes would be in the form of 
short-term Level B behavioral harassment in the form of temporary 
avoidance of the area, reactions that are considered to be of low 
severity and with no lasting biological consequences (e.g., Southall et 
al., 2007).
    Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the 
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other 
similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as 
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased 
foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 
2006; HDR, Inc., 2012; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, individuals will 
simply move away from the sound source and temporarily avoid the area 
where the survey is occurring. We expect that any avoidance of the 
survey area by marine mammals would be temporary in nature and that any 
marine mammals that avoid the survey area during the survey activities 
would not be permanently displaced. Even repeated Level B harassment of 
some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to result in any 
significant realized decrease in viability for the affected 
individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the 
stock as a whole.
    In addition to being temporary and short in overall duration, the 
acoustic footprint of the survey is small relative to the overall 
distribution of the animals in the area and their use of the area. 
Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted. Prey 
species are mobile and are broadly distributed throughout the project 
area; therefore, marine mammals that may be temporarily displaced 
during survey activities are expected to be able to resume foraging 
once they have moved

[[Page 66174]]

away from areas with disturbing levels of underwater noise. Because of 
the temporary nature of the disturbance and the availability of similar 
habitat and resources in the surrounding area, the impacts to marine 
mammals and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to 
cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine 
mammals or their populations.
    There are no rookeries, mating or calving grounds known to be 
biologically important to marine mammals within the survey area and 
there are no feeding areas known to be biologically important to marine 
mammals within the survey area. There is no designated critical habitat 
for any ESA-listed marine mammals in the survey area. The survey area 
overlaps a portion of a biologically important migratory area for North 
Atlantic right whales (effective March-April and November-December) 
that extends from Massachusetts to Florida (LaBrecque, et al., 2015). 
Off the coasts of Delaware and Maryland, this biologically important 
migratory area extends from the coast to beyond the shelf break. Due to 
the fact that that the survey is temporary and the spatial extent of 
sound produced by the survey would be very small relative to the 
spatial extent of the available migratory habitat in the area, right 
whale migration is not expected to be impacted by the survey.
    Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed 
previously in this document (see Potential Effects of the Specified 
Activity on Marine Mammals and their Habitat). Marine mammal habitat 
may be impacted by elevated sound levels, but these impacts would be 
temporary. Repeated exposures of individuals to relatively low levels 
of sound outside of preferred habitat areas are unlikely to 
significantly disrupt critical behaviors. We expect that animals 
disturbed by sound associated with the planned survey would simply 
avoid the area during the survey in favor of other, similar habitats.
    As described above, North Atlantic right, humpback, and minke 
whales, and gray and harbor seals are experiencing ongoing UMEs. For 
North Atlantic right whales, as described above, no injury as a result 
of the proposed survey is expected or authorized, and Level B 
harassment takes of right whales are expected to be in the form of 
avoidance of the immediate area of the proposed survey. In addition, 
the number of takes authorized above the Level B harassment threshold 
are minimal (i.e., 3). As no injury or mortality is expected or 
authorized, and Level B harassment of North Atlantic right whales will 
be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact through use 
of mitigation measures, the authorized takes of right whales would not 
exacerbate or compound the ongoing UME in any way.
    Similarly, no injury or mortality is expected or authorized for any 
of the other species with UMEs, Level B harassment will be reduced to 
the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of mitigation 
measures, and the authorized takes would not exacerbate or compound the 
ongoing UMEs. For minke whales, although the ongoing UME is under 
investigation (as occurs for all UMEs), this event does not provide 
cause for concern regarding population level impacts, as the likely 
population abundance is greater than 20,000 whales. Even though the PBR 
value is based on an abundance for U.S. waters that is negatively 
biased and a small fraction of the true population abundance, annual M/
SI does not exceed the calculated PBR value for minke whales. With 
regard to humpback whales, the UME does not yet provide cause for 
concern regarding population-level impacts. Despite the UME, the 
relevant population of humpback whales (the West Indies breeding 
population, or distinct population segment (DPS)) remains healthy. The 
West Indies DPS, which consists of the whales whose breeding range 
includes the Atlantic margin of the Antilles from Cuba to northern 
Venezuela, and whose feeding range primarily includes the Gulf of 
Maine, eastern Canada, and western Greenland, was delisted. The status 
review identified harmful algal blooms, vessel collisions, and fishing 
gear entanglements as relevant threats for this DPS, but noted that all 
other threats are considered likely to have no or minor impact on 
population size or the growth rate of this DPS (Bettridge et al., 
2015). As described in Bettridge et al. (2015), the West Indies DPS has 
a substantial population size (i.e., approximately 10,000; Stevick et 
al., 2003; Smith et al., 1999; Bettridge et al., 2015), and appears to 
be experiencing consistent growth. With regard to gray and harbor 
seals, although the ongoing UME is under investigation, the UME does 
not yet provide cause for concern regarding population-level impacts to 
any of these stocks. For harbor seals, the population abundance is over 
75,000 and annual M/SI (345) is well below PBR (2,006) (Hayes et al., 
2018). For gray seals, the population abundance in the United States is 
over 27,000, with an estimated abundance including seals in Canada of 
approximately 505,000, and abundance is likely increasing in the U.S. 
Atlantic EEZ as well as in Canada (Hayes et al., 2018).
    The mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or 
severity of takes by giving animals the opportunity to move away from 
the sound source before HRG survey equipment reaches full energy and by 
establishing zones that will prevent animals from being exposed to 
higher sound levels that may otherwise result in injury or more severe 
behavioral responses. No Level A harassment, which involves the 
potential for injury, has been authorized. Additional vessel strike 
avoidance requirements will further mitigate potential impacts to 
marine mammals during vessel transit to and within the survey area.
    NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks 
due to Skipjack's survey would result in only short-term (temporary and 
short in duration) effects to individuals exposed. Marine mammals may 
temporarily avoid the immediate area, but are not expected to 
permanently abandon the area. Major shifts in habitat use, 
distribution, or foraging success are not expected. NMFS does not 
anticipate the authorized takes to impact annual rates of recruitment 
or survival.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity 
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No mortality, serious injury, or Level A harassment is 
anticipated or authorized;
     The anticipated impacts of the activity on marine mammals 
would primarily be in the form of temporary behavioral changes due to 
avoidance of the area around the survey vessel;
     The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat 
value (for foraging, etc.) for marine mammals that may temporarily 
vacate the survey area during the survey to avoid exposure to sounds 
from the activity;
     The survey area does not contain known areas of 
significance for mating or calving;
     Effects on species that serve as prey species for marine 
mammals from the survey would be minor and temporary and would not be 
expected to reduce the availability of prey or to affect marine mammal 
feeding;
     The mitigation measures, including visual and acoustic 
monitoring, exclusion zones, and shutdown measures, are expected to 
minimize potential impacts to marine mammals.

[[Page 66175]]

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation 
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the 
proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine 
mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for 
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA 
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated 
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to 
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or 
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to 
small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative 
factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or 
spatial scale of the activities.
    The numbers of marine mammals that we authorize to be taken, for 
all species and stocks, would be considered small relative to the 
relevant stocks or populations (less than 28 percent for two of 
seventeen species and stocks, and less than 1 percent for all remaining 
species and stocks). See Table 6. Based on the analysis contained 
herein of the activity (including the mitigation and monitoring 
measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that 
small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the 
population size of the affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine 
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has 
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would 
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such 
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must evaluate our proposed action (i.e., the promulgation of 
regulations and subsequent issuance of incidental take authorization) 
and alternatives with respect to potential impacts on the human 
environment.
    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified 
in Categorical Exclusion B4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, 
which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for 
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for 
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would 
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined 
that the proposed action qualifies to be categorically excluded from 
further NEPA review.

Endangered Species Act

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action 
it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result 
in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical 
habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS 
consults internally, in this case with the NMFS Greater Atlantic 
Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), whenever we propose to authorize 
take for endangered or threatened species.
    The NMFS Office of Protected Resources Permits and Conservation 
Division is authorizing the incidental take of four species of marine 
mammals which are listed under the ESA: The North Atlantic right, fin, 
sei and sperm whale. We requested initiation of consultation under 
Section 7 of the ESA with NMFS GARFO on September 30, 2019, for the 
issuance of this IHA. In November, 2019, NMFS GARFO determined our 
issuance of the IHA to Skipjack was not likely to adversely affect the 
North Atlantic right, fin, sei and sperm whale or the critical habitat 
of any ESA-listed species or result in the take of any marine mammals 
in violation of the ESA.

Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA to Skipjack for conducting marine site 
characterization surveys offshore of Delaware and Maryland, from the 
date of issuance for a period of one year, provided the previously 
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are 
incorporated.

    Dated: November 26, 2019.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-26091 Filed 12-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P