[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7952-7977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02662]



[[Page 7952]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XR078]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Site Characterization 
Surveys Off of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York

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

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Vineyard Wind, LLC (Vineyard 
Wind) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to marine 
site characterization surveys of Massachusetts in the areas of the 
Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on 
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0501 and OCS-A 0522) and along 
potential submarine cable routes to a landfall location in 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. Pursuant to the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its 
proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 
incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS 
is also requesting comments on a possible one-year renewal that could 
be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, 
as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. 
NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision 
on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency 
responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than March 
13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments 
should be sent to [email protected].
    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the 
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including 
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments 
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or 
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted online at 
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable without change. 
All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily 
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit 
confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pauline, 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.

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 
preliminarily determined that the proposed action qualifies to be 
categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
    Information in Vineyard Wind's application and this notice 
collectively provide the environmental information related to proposed 
issuance of these regulations and subsequent incidental take 
authorization for public review and comment. We will review all 
comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our 
NEPA process or making a final decision on the request for incidental 
take authorization.

Summary of Request

    On October 24, 2019, NMFS received a request from Vineyard Wind for 
an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to marine site 
characterization surveys offshore of Massachusetts in the areas of the 
Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on 
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0501 and OCS-A 0522) and along 
potential submarine offshore export cable corridors (OECC) to a 
landfall locations in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New 
York. NMFS deemed that request to be adequate and complete on January 
7, 2020. Vineyard Wind's request is for the take of 14 marine mammal 
species by Level B harassment that would occur over the course of up to 
365 calendar

[[Page 7953]]

days. Neither Vineyard Wind 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.

Description of the Proposed Activity

Overview

    Vineyard Wind proposes to conduct high-resolution geophysical (HRG) 
surveys in support of offshore wind development projects in the areas 
of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development 
on the Outer Continental Shelf (#OCS-A 0501 and #OCS-A 0522) (Lease 
Areas) and along potential submarine cable routes to landfall locations 
in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York.
    The purpose of the marine site characterization 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 Vineyard Wind's proposed site characterization surveys has the 
potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals in the form of 
behavioral harassment.

Dates and Duration

    The estimated duration of the activity is expected to be up to 365 
survey days between April 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021. This schedule is 
based on 24-hour operations and includes potential down time due to 
inclement weather. With up to eight survey vessels operating 
concurrently, a maximum of 736 vessels days are anticipated.

Specific Geographic Region

    Vineyard Wind's survey activities would occur in the Northwest 
Atlantic Ocean within Federal waters. The area includes Lease Area OCS-
A 0501, located approximately 24 kilometers (km) (13 nautical miles 
[nm]) from the southeast corner of Martha's Vineyard and Lease Area 
OCS-A 0522, located approximately 46 km (25 nm) south of Nantucket. 
Additionally, OECC routes may also be surveyed within the area depicted 
in Figure 1.
    Water depths across the lease areas range from approximately 35 to 
63 meters (m) (115 to 207 feet [ft]); potential offshore export cable 
corridor (OECC) routes in the Project Area will be evaluated and will 
extend from the lease areas to shallow water areas near potential 
landfall locations in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New 
York as shown in Figure 1.
    HRG survey activities south of Cape Cod are anticipated to begin on 
April 1, 2020 and will last for up to one year. HRG survey activities 
proposed for north and northeast of Cape Cod will be conducted 
exclusively during the months of August and September when North 
Atlantic right whales (NARWs; Eubalaena glacialis) are not anticipated 
to be present (Roberts et al. 2018).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12FE20.001


[[Page 7954]]



Detailed Description of the Specified Activities

    Vineyard Wind's proposed marine site characterization surveys 
include high-resolution geophysical (HRG) survey activities. Water 
depths in the Lease Areas range from 35 to 63 m (115 to 207 ft). Water 
depths along the potential OECC routes range from 5 to greater than 200 
m (16 to >656 ft). The OECC routes will extend from the lease areas to 
shallow water areas near potential landfall locations in Massachusetts, 
Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York.
    HRG equipment will be deployed from multiple vessels acquiring data 
concurrently within the HRG Project Area (Figure 1). HRG survey 
activities south of Cape Cod are anticipated to begin on April 1, 2020 
and will last for up to 365 calendar days with a total of 736 vessel 
days. HRG survey activities proposed for north and northeast of Cape 
Cod will be conducted exclusively during the months of August and 
September when North Atlantic right whales (NARWs; Eubalaena glacialis) 
are not anticipated to be present (Nichols et al. 2008). For the 
purpose of this IHA the Lease Areas and submarine cable corridor are 
collectively termed the Project Area.
    Geophysical survey activities are anticipated to include as many as 
eight survey vessels which may be operating concurrently. Survey 
vessels would maintain a speed of approximately 4 knots (kn) while 
transiting survey lines and each vessel would cover approximately 100 
km per day. The proposed HRG survey activities are described below.

Geophysical Survey Activities

    Vineyard Wind has proposed that HRG survey operations would be 
conducted continuously 24 hours per day. Based on 24-hour operations, 
the estimated duration of the geophysical survey activities would be up 
to 365 calendar days with a total of 736 total survey vessel days 
(including estimated weather down time). As many as eight survey 
vessels may be used concurrently during Vineyard Wind's proposed 
surveys. The geophysical survey activities proposed by Vineyard Wind 
would include the following:
     Shallow Penetration Sub-bottom Profilers (SBP; Chirps) to 
map the near-surface stratigraphy (top 0 to 5 m (0 to 16 ft) of 
sediment below seabed). A chirp system emits sonar pulses that increase 
in frequency over time. The pulse length frequency range can be 
adjusted to meet project variables. Typically mounted on the hull of 
the vessel or from a side pole.
     Medium Penetration SBPs (Boomers) to map deeper subsurface 
stratigraphy as needed. A boomer is a broad-band sound source operating 
in the 3.5 Hz to 10 kHz frequency range. This system is typically 
mounted on a sled and towed behind the vessel.
     Medium Penetration SBPs (Sparkers) to map deeper 
subsurface stratigraphy as needed. Sparkers create acoustic pulses from 
50 Hz to 4 kHz omni-directionally from the source that can penetrate 
several hundred meters into the seafloor. Typically towed behind the 
vessel with adjacent hydrophone arrays to receive the return signals.
     Parametric SBPs, also called sediment echosounders, for 
providing high data density in sub-bottom profiles that are typically 
required for cable routes, very shallow water, and archaeological 
surveys. Typically mounted on the hull of the vessel or from a side 
pole.
     Multibeam Echosounders (MBESs) to determine water depths 
and general bottom topography. MBES sonar systems project sonar pulses 
in several angled beams from a transducer mounted to a ship's hull. The 
beams radiate out from the transducer in a fan-shaped pattern 
orthogonally to the ship's direction.
     Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL) Positioning and Global 
Acoustic Positioning System (GAPS) to provide high accuracy ranges by 
measuring the time between the acoustic pulses transmitted by the 
vessel transceiver and the equipment transponder necessary to produce 
the acoustic profile. It is a two-component system with a hull or pole 
mounted transceiver and one to several transponders either on the 
seabed or on the equipment.
     Side-scan Sonar (SSS) for seabed sediment classification 
purposes and to identify natural and man-made acoustic targets on the 
seafloor. The sonar device emits conical or fan-shaped pulses down 
toward the seafloor in multiple beams at a wide angle, perpendicular to 
the path of the sensor through the water. The acoustic return of the 
pulses is recorded in a series of cross-track slices, which can be 
joined to form an image of the sea bottom within the swath of the beam. 
They are typically towed beside or behind the vessel or from an 
autonomous vehicle.
    Table 1 identifies the representative survey equipment that may be 
used in support of proposed geophysical survey activities that operate 
below 180 kilohertz (kHz) and have the potential to cause acoustic 
harassment to marine species, including marine mammals, and therefore 
require the establishment and monitoring of exclusion zones.
    HRG surveys are expected to use several equipment types 
concurrently in order to collect multiple aspects of geophysical data 
along one transect. Selection of equipment combinations is based on 
specific survey objectives.

                                   Table 1--Summary of Geophysical Survey Equipment Proposed for Use by Vineyard Wind
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Operating                                Peak source      Pulse
         HRG equipment category             Specific HRG equipment      frequency    Beam width   Source level  level (dB re    duration     Repetition
                                                                          (kHz)        ([deg])      (dB rms)     1 [mu]Pa m)      (ms)        rate (Hz)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow subbottom profiler..............  EdgeTech Chirp 216........          2-10            65           178           182             2          3.75
                                          Innomar SES 2000 Medium...        85-115             2           241           247             2            40
Deep seismic profiler...................  Applied Acoustics AA251           0.2-15           180           205           212           0.9             2
                                           Boomer.
                                          GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000          0.25-5           180           206           214           2.8             1
                                           (400 tip).
Underwater positioning (USBL)...........  SonarDyne Scout Pro.......         35-50           180           188           191       Unknown       Unknown
                                          ixBlue Gaps...............         20-32           180           191           194             1            10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deployment of HRG survey equipment, including the equipment 
anticipated for use during Vineyard Wind's proposed activity, produces 
sound in the marine environment that has the potential to result in 
harassment of marine mammals. However, sound propagation in water is 
dependent on several factors including operating mode, frequency and 
beam direction of the HRG equipment; thus, potential impacts to marine 
mammals from HRG

[[Page 7955]]

equipment are driven by the specification of individual HRG sources. 
The specifications of the potential equipment proposed for use during 
HRG survey activities (Table 1) were analyzed to determine which types 
of equipment would have the potential to result in harassment of marine 
mammals.
    Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are 
described in detail later in this document (please see ``Proposed 
Mitigation'' and ``Proposed Monitoring and Reporting'').

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 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
the Project Area and 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 (2016). 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's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR 
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or Project 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 either 
the 2018 Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments 
(Hayes et al., 2019a), available online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region or and draft 2019 Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 
Mammal Stock Assessments (Hayes et al. 2019b) available online at: 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports.

                  Table 2--Marine Mammals Known To Occur in the Project Area That May Be Affected by Vineyard Wind's Proposed Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA status;    Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             Strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\          abundance survey) \2\               SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae:
    North Atlantic Right whale......  Eubalaena glacialis....  Western North Atlantic   E/D; Y              409 \4\ (0; 445; 2017)        0.9       5.56
                                                                (WNA).
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
    Humpback whale..................  Megaptera novaeangliae.  Gulf of Maine..........  -/-; N              1,396 (0; 1,380; See           22      12.15
                                                                                                             SAR).
    Fin whale.......................  Balaenoptera physalus..  WNA....................  E/D; Y              7,418 (0.25; 6,029;            12       2.35
                                                                                                             See SAR).
    Sei whale.......................  Balaenoptera borealis..  Nova Scotia............  E/D; Y              6,292 (1.015; 3,098;          6.2          1
                                                                                                             See SAR)236.
    Minke whale.....................  Balaenoptera             Canadian East Coast....  -/-; N              24,202 (0.3; 18,902;        1,189          8
                                       acutorostrata.                                                        See SAR).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae:
    Sperm whale.....................  Physeter macrocephalus.  NA.....................  E; Y                4,349 (0.28; 3,451;           6.9          0
                                                                                                             See SAR).
Family Delphinidae:
    Long-finned pilot whale.........  Globicephala melas.....  WNA....................  -/-; Y              5,636 (0.63; 3,464)...         35         38
    Bottlenose dolphin..............  Tursiops spp...........  WNA Offshore...........  -/-; N              62,851 (0.23; 51,914;         591         28
                                                                                                             Ses SAR).
    Common dolphin..................  Delphinus delphis......  WNA....................  -/-; N              172,825 (0.21;              1,452        419
                                                                                                             145,216; See SAR).
    Atlantic white-sided dolphin....  Lagenorhynchus acutus..  WNA....................  -/-; N              92,233 (0.71; 54,433;         544         26
                                                                                                             See SAR).
    Risso's dolphin.................  Grampus griseus........  WNA....................  -/-; N              35,493 (0.19; 30,289;         303       54.3
                                                                                                             See SAR).
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
    Harbor porpoise.................  Phocoena phocoena......  Gulf of Maine/Bay of     -/-; N              95,543 (0.31; 74,034;         851        217
                                                                Fundy.                                       See SAR).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Gray seal.......................  Halichoerus grypus.....  WNA....................  -/-; N              27,131 (0.19; 23,158).      1,389      5,688
    Harbor seal.....................  Phoca vitulina.........  WNA....................  -/-; N              75,834 (0.15; 66,884).        345        333
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
3 These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
  fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range.
4 For the North Atlantic right whale the best available abundance estimate is derived from the 2018 North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2019 Annual
  Report Card (Pettis et al., 2012).

    As described below, 14 species (with 14 managed stocks) temporally 
and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is 
reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed authorizing it.
    The following subsections provide additional information on the 
biology, habitat use, abundance, distribution, and the existing threats 
to the non-ESA-listed and ESA-listed marine mammals that are both 
common in the waters of the outer continental shelf (OCS) of Southern 
New England and have the

[[Page 7956]]

likelihood of occurring, at least seasonally, in the Project Area.

North Atlantic Right Whale

    The North Atlantic right whale ranges from the calving grounds in 
the southeastern United States to feeding grounds in New England waters 
and into Canadian waters (Waring et al., 2017). Surveys indicate that 
there are seven areas where NARWs congregate seasonally: the coastal 
waters of the southeastern U.S., the Great South Channel, Jordan Basin, 
Georges Basin along the northeastern edge of Georges Bank, Cape Cod and 
Massachusetts Bays, the Bay of Fundy, and the Roseway Basin on the 
Scotian Shelf (Hayes et al. 2018). NOAA Fisheries has designated two 
critical habitat areas for the NARW under the ESA: The Gulf of Maine/
Georges Bank region, and the southeast calving grounds from North 
Carolina to Florida.
    Aerial surveys indicated that right whales were consistently 
detected in or near the Lease Areas and surrounding survey areas during 
the winter and spring seasons. It appears that right whales begin to 
arrive in this area in December and remain in the area through at least 
April. Acoustic detections of right whales occurred during all months 
of the year, although the highest number of detections typically 
occurred between December and late May. Data indicate that right whales 
occur at elevated densities in the Project Area south and southwest of 
Martha's Vineyard in the spring (March-May) and south of Nantucket 
during winter (December-February) (Roberts et al. 2018; Leiter et al. 
2017; Kraus et al. 2016). Consistent aggregations of right whales 
feeding and possibly mating within or close to these specific areas is 
such that they have been considered right whale ``hotspots'' (Leiter et 
al. 2017; Kraus et al. 2016). Additionally, numerous Dynamic Management 
Areas (DMAs) have been established in these areas in recent years. As 
of this writing a DMA has been established approximately 31 miles due 
south of Nantucket. Although there is variability in right whale 
distribution patterns among years, and some aggregations appear to be 
ephemeral, an analysis of hot spots suggests that there is some 
regularity in right whale use of the Lease Areas and surrounding 
Project Area (Kraus et al. 2016).
    NMFS' regulations at 50 CFR part 224.105 designated nearshore 
waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight as Mid-Atlantic U.S. Seasonal 
Management Areas (SMA) for right whales in 2008. SMAs were developed to 
reduce the threat of collisions between ships and right whales around 
their migratory route and calving grounds. All vessels greater than 
19.8 m (65 ft) in overall length must operate at speeds of 10 knots 
(5.1 m/s) or less within these areas during specific time periods. The 
Block Island Sound SMA overlaps with the southern portion of Lease Area 
OCS-A 0501 and is active between November 1 and April 30 each year. The 
Great South Channel SMA lies to the northeast of Lease Area OCS-A 0501 
and is active April 1 to July 31. Potential OECC routes lie within the 
Cape Cod Bay SMA, which is active between January 1 to May 15, and the 
Off Race Point SMA, which is active from March 1 to April 30.
    NOAA Fisheries may also establish DMAs when and where NARWs are 
sighted outside SMAs. DMAs are generally in effect for two weeks. 
During this time, vessels are encouraged to avoid these areas or reduce 
speeds to 10 knots (5.1 m/s) or less while transiting through these 
areas.
    The lease areas included in the HRG Project Area are encompassed by 
a right whale Biologically Important Area (BIA) for migration from 
March to April and from November to December (LaBrecque et al. 2015). 
Designated feeding BIAs occur in Cape Cod Bay from February to April 
and northeast of the Lease areas from April to June. A map showing 
designated BIAs is available at: https://cetsound.noaa.gov/biologically-important-area-map. Additionally, a small part of the 
proposed Project Area northeast of Cape Cod includes designated right 
whale critical habitat.
    The western North Atlantic population demonstrated overall growth 
of 2.8 percent per year from 1990 to 2010, despite a decline in 1993 
and no growth between 1997 and 2000 (Pace et al. 2017). However, since 
2010 the population has been in decline, with a 99.99 percent 
probability of a decline of just under 1 percent per year (Pace et al. 
2017). Between 1990 and 2015, calving rates varied substantially, with 
low calving rates coinciding with all three periods of decline or no 
growth (Pace et al. 2017). In 2018, no new North Atlantic right whale 
calves were documented in their calving grounds; this represented the 
first time since annual NOAA aerial surveys began in 1989 that no new 
right whale calves were observed. However, in 2019 at least seven right 
whale calves were identified while six calves have been recorded in 
2020. Unfortunately, one of the calves was struck by a vessel and 
suffered serious head injuries. It is not likely to survive. Data 
indicates that the number of adult females fell from 200 in 2010 to 186 
in 2015 while males fell from 283 to 272 in the same time frame (Pace 
et al., 2017). In addition, elevated North Atlantic right whale 
mortalities have occurred since June 7, 2017. A total of 30 confirmed 
dead stranded whales (21 in Canada; 9 in the United States), have been 
documented to date. This event has been declared an Unusual Mortality 
Event (UME), with human interactions (i.e., fishery-related 
entanglements and vessel strikes) identified as the most likely cause. 
More information is available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2019-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event (accessed January 9, 
2020).

Humpback Whale

    Humpback whales are found worldwide in all oceans. Humpback whales 
were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act 
(ESCA) in June 1970. In 1973, the ESA replaced the ESCA, and humpbacks 
continued to be listed as endangered. NMFS recently evaluated the 
status of the species, and on September 8, 2016, NMFS divided the 
species into 14 distinct population segments (DPS), removed the current 
species-level listing, and in its place listed four DPSs as endangered 
and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016). The 
remaining nine DPSs were not listed. The West Indies DPS, which is not 
listed under the ESA, is the only DPS of humpback whale that is 
expected to occur in the Project Area. The best estimate of population 
abundance for the West Indies DPS is 12,312 individuals, as described 
in the NMFS Status Review of the Humpback Whale under the Endangered 
Species Act (Bettridge et al., 2015).
    In New England waters, feeding is the principal activity of 
humpback whales, and their distribution in this region has been largely 
correlated to abundance of prey species, although behavior and 
bathymetry are factors influencing foraging strategy (Payne et al. 
1986, 1990). Humpback whales are frequently piscivorous when in New 
England waters, feeding on herring (Clupea harengus), sand lance 
(Ammodytes spp.), and other small fishes, as well as euphausiids in the 
northern Gulf of Maine (Paquet et al. 1997). During winter, the 
majority of humpback whales from North Atlantic feeding areas 
(including the Gulf of Maine) mate and calve in the West Indies, where 
spatial and genetic mixing among feeding groups occurs, though 
significant numbers of animals are found in mid- and high-latitude 
regions at this time and some individuals have

[[Page 7957]]

been sighted repeatedly within the same winter season, indicating that 
not all humpback whales migrate south every winter (Waring et al., 
2017). Other sightings of note include 46 sightings of humpbacks in the 
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary documented between 2011 and 2016 
(Brown et al. 2017). Multiple humpbacks were observed feeding off Long 
Island during July of 2016 (https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2016/july/26_humpback_whales_visit_new_york.html, accessed 31 December, 2018) and 
there were sightings during November-December 2016 near New York City 
(https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2016/december/09_humans_and_humpbacks_of_new_york_2.html, accessed 31 
December 2018).
    Kraus et al. (2016) observed humpback whales in the RI/MA & MA WEAs 
and surrounding areas during all seasons. Humpback whales were observed 
most often during spring and summer months, with a peak from April to 
June. Calves were observed 10 times and feeding was observed 10 times 
during the Kraus et al. (2016) study. That study also observed one 
instance of courtship behavior. Although humpback whales were rarely 
seen during fall and winter surveys, acoustic data indicate that this 
species may be present within the MA WEA year-round, with the highest 
rates of acoustic detections in winter and spring (Kraus et al. 2016).
    Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have 
occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida. The event 
has been declared a UME. Partial or full necropsy examinations have 
been conducted on approximately half of the 111 known cases. A portion 
of the whales have shown evidence of pre-mortem vessel strike; however, 
this finding is not consistent across all of the whales examined so 
more research is needed. NOAA is consulting with researchers that are 
conducting studies on the humpback whale populations, and these efforts 
may provide information on changes in whale distribution and habitat 
use that could provide additional insight into how these vessel 
interactions occurred. More detailed information is available at: 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2019-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast (accessed 
January 9, 2020). Three previous UMEs involving humpback whales have 
occurred since 2000, in 2003, 2005, and 2006. A BIA for humpback whales 
for feeding has been designated northeast of the lease areas from March 
through December (LaBrecque et al. 2015).

Fin Whale

    Fin whales are common in waters of the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive 
Economic Zone (EEZ), principally from Cape Hatteras northward (Waring 
et al., 2017). Fin whales are present north of 35-degree latitude in 
every season and are broadly distributed throughout the western North 
Atlantic for most of the year, though densities vary seasonally (Waring 
et al., 2017). While fin whales typically feed in the Gulf of Maine and 
the waters surrounding New England, their mating and calving (and 
general wintering) areas are largely unknown (Hain et al. 1992, Hayes 
et al. 2018). Acoustic detections of fin whale singers augment and 
confirm these visual sighting conclusions for males. Recordings from 
Massachusetts Bay, New York bight, and deep-ocean areas have detected 
some level of fin whale singing from September through June (Watkins et 
al. 1987, Clark and Gagnon 2002, Morano et al. 2012). These acoustic 
observations from both coastal and deep-ocean regions support the 
conclusion that male fin whales are broadly distributed throughout the 
western North Atlantic for most of the year (Hayes et al. 2019).
    Kraus et al. (2016) suggest that, compared to other baleen whale 
species, fin whales have a high multi-seasonal relative abundance in 
the Rhode Island/Massachusetts and Massachusetts Wind Energy Areas (RI/
MA & MA WEAs) and surrounding areas. Fin whales were observed in the 
Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (MA WEA) in spring and summer. This 
species was observed primarily in the offshore (southern) regions of 
the RI/MA & MA WEAs during spring and was found closer to shore 
(northern areas) during the summer months (Kraus et al. 2016). Calves 
were observed three times and feeding was observed nine times during 
the Kraus et al. (2016) study. Although fin whales were largely absent 
from visual surveys in the RI/MA & MA WEAs in the fall and winter 
months (Kraus et al. 2016), acoustic data indicated that this species 
was present in the RI/MA & MA WEAs during all months of the year.
    The main threats to fin whales are fishery interactions and vessel 
collisions (Waring et al., 2017). New England waters represent a major 
feeding ground for fin whales. The proposed Project Area would overlap 
spatially and temporally with a feeding BIA for fin whales. The lease 
areas are flanked by two Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for 
feeding fin whales-the area to the northeast is considered a BIA year-
round, while the area off the tip of Long Island to the southwest is a 
BIA from March to October (LaBrecque et al. 2015).

Sei Whale

    The Nova Scotia stock of sei whales can be found in deeper waters 
of the continental shelf edge waters of the northeastern United States 
and northeastward to south of Newfoundland. NOAA Fisheries considers 
sei whales occurring from the U.S. East Coast to Cape Breton, Nova 
Scotia, and east to 42[deg] W as the Nova Scotia stock of sei whales 
(Waring et al. 2016; Hayes et al. 2018). In the Northwest Atlantic, it 
is speculated that the whales migrate from south of Cape Cod along the 
eastern Canadian coast in June and July, and return on a southward 
migration again in September and October (Waring et al. 2014; 2017). 
Spring is the period of greatest abundance in U.S. waters, with 
sightings concentrated along the eastern margin of Georges Bank and 
into the Northeast Channel area, and along the southwestern edge of 
Georges Bank in the area of Hydrographer Canyon (Waring et al., 2015). 
A BIA for feeding for sei whales occurs east of the lease areas from 
May through November (LaBrecque et al. 2015).

Minke Whale

    Minke whales can be found in temperate, tropical, and high-latitude 
waters. The Canadian East Coast stock can be found in the area from the 
western half of the Davis Strait (45 [deg]W) to the Gulf of Mexico 
(Waring et al., 2017). This species generally occupies waters less than 
100 m deep on the continental shelf. There appears to be a strong 
seasonal component to minke whale distribution in which spring to fall 
are times of relatively widespread and common occurrence, and when the 
whales are most abundant in New England waters, while during winter the 
species appears to be largely absent (Waring et al., 2017).
    Kraus et al. (2016) observed minke whales in the RI/MA & MA WEAs 
and surrounding areas primarily from May to June. This species 
demonstrated a distinct seasonal habitat usage pattern that was 
consistent throughout the study. Though minke whales were observed in 
spring and summer months in the MA WEA, they were only observed in the 
lease areas in the spring. Minke whales were not observed between 
October and February, but acoustic data indicate the presence of this 
species in the offshore proposed Project Area in winter months.

[[Page 7958]]

    Since January 2017, elevated minke whale strandings have occurred 
along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina, with 
highest numbers in Massachusetts, Maine, and New York. Partial or full 
necropsy examinations have been conducted on more than 60 percent of 
the 79 known cases. Preliminary findings in several of the whales have 
shown evidence of human interactions or infectious disease. These 
findings are not consistent across all of the whales examined, so more 
research is needed. More information is available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2019-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast (accessed January 9, 
2020).

Sperm Whale

    The distribution of the sperm whale in the U.S. EEZ occurs on the 
continental shelf edge, over the continental slope, and into mid-ocean 
regions (Waring et al. 2015). The basic social unit of the sperm whale 
appears to be the mixed school of adult females plus their calves and 
some juveniles of both sexes, normally numbering 20-40 animals in all. 
Sperm whales are somewhat migratory; however, their migrations are not 
as specific as seen in most of the baleen whale species. In the North 
Atlantic, there appears to be a general shift northward during the 
summer, but there is no clear migration in some temperate areas (Rice 
1989). In summer, the distribution of sperm whales includes the area 
east and north of Georges Bank and into the Northeast Channel region, 
as well as the continental shelf (inshore of the 100-m isobath) south 
of New England. In the fall, sperm whale occurrence south of New 
England on the continental shelf is at its highest level, and there 
remains a continental shelf edge occurrence in the mid-Atlantic bight. 
In winter, sperm whales are concentrated east and northeast of Cape 
Hatteras. Their distribution is typically associated with waters over 
the continental shelf break and the continental slope and into deeper 
waters (Whitehead et al. 1991). Sperm whale concentrations near drop-
offs and areas with strong currents and steep topography are correlated 
with high productivity. These whales occur almost exclusively found at 
the shelf break, regardless of season.
    Kraus et al. (2016) observed sperm whales four times in the RI/MA & 
MA WEAs during the summer and fall from 2011 to 2015. Sperm whales, 
traveling singly or in groups of three or four, were observed three 
times in August and September of 2012, and once in June of 2015. One

Long-Finned Pilot Whale

    Long-finned pilot whales are found from North Carolina and north to 
Iceland, Greenland and the Barents Sea (Waring et al., 2016). They are 
generally found along the edge of the continental shelf (a depth of 330 
to 3,300 feet (100 to 1,000 meters)), choosing areas of high relief or 
submerged banks in cold or temperate shoreline waters. In the western 
North Atlantic, long-finned pilot whales are pelagic, occurring in 
especially high densities in winter and spring over the continental 
slope, then moving inshore and onto the shelf in summer and autumn 
following squid and mackerel populations (Reeves et al. 2002). They 
frequently travel into the central and northern Georges Bank, Great 
South Channel, and Gulf of Maine areas during the late spring and 
remain through early fall (May and October) (Payne and Heinemann 1993).
    Note that long-finned and short-finned pilot whales overlap 
spatially along the mid-Atlantic shelf break between New Jersey and the 
southern flank of Georges Bank (Payne and Heinemann 1993, Hayes et al. 
2017) Long-finned pilot whales have occasionally been observed stranded 
as far south as South Carolina, and short-finned pilot whale have 
stranded as far north as Massachusetts (Hayes et al. 2017). The 
latitudinal ranges of the two species therefore remain uncertain. 
However, south of Cape Hatteras, most pilot whale sightings are 
expected to be short-finned pilot whales, while north of approximately 
42[deg] N, most pilot whale sightings are expected to be long-finned 
pilot whales (Hayes et al. 2017). Based on the distributions described 
in Hayes et al. (2017), pilot whale sightings in OCS-A 0501 and OCS-A 
0522 would most likely be long-finned pilot whales.
    Kraus et al. (2016) observed pilot whales infrequently in the RI/MA 
& MA WEAs and surrounding areas. Effort-weighted average sighting rates 
for pilot whales could not be calculated. No pilot whales were observed 
during the fall or winter, and these species were only observed 11 
times in the spring and three times in the summer.

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin

    White-sided dolphins are found in temperate and sub-polar waters of 
the North Atlantic, primarily in continental shelf waters to the 100-m 
depth contour from central West Greenland to North Carolina (Waring et 
al., 2017). The Gulf of Maine stock is most common in continental shelf 
waters from Hudson Canyon to Georges Bank, and in the Gulf of Maine and 
lower Bay of Fundy. Sighting data indicate seasonal shifts in 
distribution (Northridge et al., 1997). During January to May, low 
numbers of white-sided dolphins are found from Georges Bank to Jeffreys 
Ledge (off New Hampshire), with even lower numbers south of Georges 
Bank, as documented by a few strandings collected on beaches of 
Virginia to South Carolina. From June through September, large numbers 
of white-sided dolphins are found from Georges Bank to the lower Bay of 
Fundy. From October to December, white-sided dolphins occur at 
intermediate densities from southern Georges Bank to southern Gulf of 
Maine (Payne and Heinemann 1990). Sightings south of Georges Bank, 
particularly around Hudson Canyon, occur year round but at low 
densities.
    Kraus et al. (2016) suggest that Atlantic white-sided dolphins 
occur infrequently in the RI/MA & MA WEAs and surrounding areas. 
Effort-weighted average sighting rates for Atlantic white-sided 
dolphins could not be calculated, because this species was only 
observed on eight occasions throughout the duration of the study 
(October 2011 to June 2015). No Atlantic white-sided dolphins were 
observed during the winter months, and this species was only sighted 
twice in the fall and three times in the spring and summer

Common Dolphin

    The short-beaked common dolphin is found world-wide in temperate to 
subtropical seas. In the North Atlantic, short-beaked common dolphins 
are commonly found over the continental shelf between the 100-m and 
2,000-m isobaths and over prominent underwater topography and east to 
the mid-Atlantic Ridge (Waring et al., 2016). This species is found 
between Cape Hatteras and Georges Bank from mid-January to May, 
although they migrate onto the northeast edge of Georges Bank in the 
fall where large aggregations occur (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa 2009), 
where large aggregations occur on Georges Bank in fall (Waring et al. 
2007). Kraus et al. (2016) suggested that short-beaked common dolphins 
occur year-round in the RI/MA & MA WEAs and surrounding areas. Short-
beaked common dolphins were the most frequently observed small cetacean 
species within the Kraus et al. (2016) study area. Short-beaked common 
dolphins were observed in the RI/MA & MA WEAs in all seasons and 
observed in the Lease Area OCS-A 0501 in spring, summer, and fall. Only 
the western North Atlantic stock may be present in the Project Area.

[[Page 7959]]

Bottlenose Dolphin

    There are two distinct bottlenose dolphin ecotypes in the western 
North Atlantic: the coastal and offshore forms (Waring et al., 2015). 
The migratory coastal morphotype resides in waters typically less than 
65.6 ft (20 m) deep, along the inner continental shelf (within 7.5 km 
(4.6 miles) of shore), around islands, and is continuously distributed 
south of Long Island, New York into the Gulf of Mexico. This migratory 
coastal population is subdivided into 7 stocks based largely upon 
spatial distribution (Waring et al. 2015). Of these 7 coastal stocks, 
the Western North Atlantic migratory coastal stock is common in the 
coastal continental shelf waters off the coast of New Jersey (Waring et 
al. 2017). Generally, the offshore migratory morphotype is found 
exclusively seaward of 34 km (21 miles) and in waters deeper than 34 m 
(111.5 feet). This morphotype is most expected in waters north of Long 
Island, New York (Waring et al. 2017; Hayes et al. 2017; 2018). During 
HRG surveys, the Northern Migratory Coastal stock may be encountered 
while surveying potential OECC routes in the nearshore. Bottlenose 
dolphins encountered in the HRG Project Area would likely belong to the 
Western North Atlantic Offshore stock (Hayes et al. 2018). It is 
possible that a few animals could be from the Northern Migratory 
Coastal stock, but they generally do not range farther north than New 
Jersey.
    Kraus et al. (2016) observed common bottlenose dolphins during all 
seasons within the RI/MA & MA WEAs. Common bottlenose dolphins were the 
second most commonly observed small cetacean species and exhibited 
little seasonal variability in abundance. They were observed in the MA 
WEA in all seasons and observed in Lease Area OCS-A 0501 in the fall 
and winter

Risso's Dolphins

    Risso's dolphins are distributed worldwide in tropical and 
temperate seas (Jefferson et al. 2008, 2014), and in the Northwest 
Atlantic occur from Florida to eastern Newfoundland (Leatherwood et al. 
1976; Baird and Stacey 1991). Off the northeastern U.S. coast, Risso's 
dolphins are distributed along the continental shelf edge from Cape 
Hatteras northward to Georges Bank during spring, summer, and autumn 
(CETAP 1982; Payne et al. 1984). In winter, the range is in the mid-
Atlantic Bight and extends outward into oceanic waters (Payne et al. 
1984). Kraus et al. (2016) results suggest that Risso's dolphins occur 
infrequently in the RI/MA & MA WEAs and surrounding areas.

Harbor Porpoise

    In the Project Area, only the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock may 
be present. This stock is found in U.S. and Canadian Atlantic waters 
and is concentrated in the northern Gulf of Maine and southern Bay of 
Fundy region, generally in waters less than 150 m deep (Waring et al., 
2017). During fall (October-December) and spring (April-June) harbor 
porpoises are widely dispersed from New Jersey to Maine. During winter 
(January to March), intermediate densities of harbor porpoises can be 
found in waters off New Jersey to North Carolina, and lower densities 
are found in waters off New York to New Brunswick, Canada. They are 
seen from the coastline to deep waters (>1800 m; Westgate et al. 1998), 
although the majority of the population is found over the continental 
shelf (Waring et al., 2017).
    Kraus et al. (2016) indicate that harbor porpoises occur within the 
RI/MA & MA WEAs in fall, winter, and spring. Harbor porpoises were 
observed in groups ranging in size from three to 15 individuals and 
were primarily observed in the Kraus et al. (2016) study area from 
November through May, with very few sightings during June through 
September

Harbor Seal

    Harbor seals are year-round inhabitants of the coastal waters of 
eastern Canada and Maine (Katona et al. 1993), and occur seasonally 
along the coasts from southern New England to New Jersey from September 
through late May. While harbor seals occur year-round north of Cape 
Cod, they only occur during winter migration, typically September 
through May, south of Cape Cod (Southern New England to New Jersey) 
(Waring et al. 2015; Kenney and Vigness-Raposa 2009). Gray Seal
    There are three major populations of gray seals found in the world; 
eastern Canada (western North Atlantic stock), northwestern Europe and 
the Baltic Sea. Gray seals in the Project Area belong to the western 
North Atlantic stock. The range for this stock is thought to be from 
New Jersey to Labrador. Current population trends show that gray seal 
abundance is likely increasing in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (Waring et al., 
2017). Although the rate of increase is unknown, surveys conducted 
since their arrival in the 1980s indicate a steady increase in 
abundance in both Maine and Massachusetts (Waring et al., 2017). It is 
believed that recolonization by Canadian gray seals is the source of 
the U.S. population (Waring et al., 2017). Gray seals are expected to 
occur year-round in at least some potential OECC routes, with seasonal 
occurrence in the offshore areas from September to May (Hayes et al. 
2018).
    Since July 2018, elevated numbers of harbor seal and gray seal 
mortalities have occurred across Maine, New Hampshire and 
Massachusetts. This event has been declared a UME. Additionally, seals 
showing clinical signs of stranding have occurred as far south as 
Virginia, although not in elevated numbers. Therefore the UME 
investigation now encompasses all seal strandings from Maine to 
Virginia. Between July 1, 2018 and January 9, 2020, a total of 3,050 
seal strandings have been recorded as part of this designated Northeast 
Pinniped UME. Based on tests conducted so far, the main pathogen found 
in the seals is phocine distemper virus. Additional testing to identify 
other factors that may be involved in this UME are underway.

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals 
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious 
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to 
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine 
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine 
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et 
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect 
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided 
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated 
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, 
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, 
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements 
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes 
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described 
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. 
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB 
threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception 
for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was 
deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall 
et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their 
associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 3.

[[Page 7960]]



                  Table 3--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
                              [NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Hearing group                 Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans         7 Hz to 35 kHz.
 (baleen whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans         150 Hz to 160 kHz.
 (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
 whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true  275 Hz to 160 kHz.
 porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
 cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
 cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater)   50 Hz to 86 kHz.
 (true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater)  60 Hz to 39 kHz.
 (sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
  composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
  species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
  hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
  composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
  cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).

    The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et 
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have 
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing 
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range 
(Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).
    For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency 
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. 
Fourteen mammal species (12 cetacean and 2 pinniped (both phocid) 
species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed 
survey activities. Of the cetacean species that may be present, six are 
classified as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 
five are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid 
species and the sperm whale), and one is classified as high-frequency 
cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise).

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and 
their habitat. The Estimated Take section later in this document 
includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are 
expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 
and Determination section considers the content of this section, the 
Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw 
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the 
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those 
impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or 
stocks.

Description of Sound Sources

    This section contains a brief technical background on sound, on the 
characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this 
proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified 
activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified 
activity on marine mammals found later in this document. For general 
information on sound and its interaction with the marine environment, 
please see, e.g., Au and Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. (1995).
    Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are 
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number 
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and 
is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the 
distance between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave 
(length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths 
than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more 
rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the 
height of the sound pressure wave or the ``loudness'' of a sound and is 
typically described using the relative unit of the decibel (dB). A 
sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a 
measured pressure and a reference pressure (for underwater sound, this 
is 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa)), and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for 
large variations in amplitude; therefore, a relatively small change in 
dB corresponds to large changes in sound pressure. The source level 
(SL) represents the SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m from the source 
(referenced to 1 [mu]Pa), while the received level is the SPL at the 
listener's position (referenced to 1 [mu]Pa).
    Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over 
the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring 
all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the 
square root of the average. Root mean square accounts for both positive 
and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive 
so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels 
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the 
context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral 
effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed 
through averaged units than by peak pressures.
    Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s) 
represents the total energy in a stated frequency band over a stated 
time interval or event, and considers both intensity and duration of 
exposure. The per-pulse SEL is calculated over the time window 
containing the entire pulse (i.e., 100 percent of the acoustic energy). 
SEL is a cumulative metric; it can be accumulated over a single pulse, 
or calculated over periods containing multiple pulses. Cumulative SEL 
represents the total energy accumulated by a receiver over a defined 
time window or during an event. Peak sound pressure (also referred to 
as zero-to-peak sound pressure or 0-pk) is the maximum instantaneous 
sound pressure measurable in the water at a specified distance from the 
source, and is represented in the same units as the rms sound pressure.
    When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure 
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the 
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a 
manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either 
directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions 
(omnidirectional sources). The compressions and decompressions 
associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by 
aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.
    Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the 
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound, which is 
defined as environmental background sound levels

[[Page 7961]]

lacking a single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995). The sound 
level of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being 
generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include 
physical (e.g., wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), 
biological (e.g., sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and 
invertebrates), and anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging, 
construction) sound. A number of sources contribute to ambient sound, 
including wind and waves, which are a main source of naturally 
occurring ambient sound for frequencies between 200 hertz (Hz) and 50 
kilohertz (kHz) (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend 
to increase with increasing wind speed and wave height. Precipitation 
can become an important component of total sound at frequencies above 
500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet times. Marine mammals 
can contribute significantly to ambient sound levels, as can some fish 
and snapping shrimp. The frequency band for biological contributions is 
from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz. Sources of ambient sound 
related to human activity include transportation (surface vessels), 
dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, 
geophysical surveys, sonar, and explosions. Vessel noise typically 
dominates the total ambient sound for frequencies between 20 and 300 
Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 
and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate 
rapidly.
    The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources that 
comprise ambient sound at any given location and time depends not only 
on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and 
levels of biological and human activity) but also on the ability of 
sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation 
is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the 
water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of 
the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound 
levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial 
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can 
vary by 10-20 decibels (dB) from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). 
The result is that, depending on the source type and its intensity, 
sound from the specified activity may be a negligible addition to the 
local environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect 
marine mammals.
    Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types: 
Pulsed and non-pulsed. The distinction between these two sound types is 
important because they have differing potential to cause physical 
effects, particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in 
Southall et al., 2007). Please see Southall et al. (2007) for an in-
depth discussion of these concepts. The distinction between these two 
sound types is not always obvious, as certain signals share properties 
of both pulsed and non-pulsed sounds. A signal near a source could be 
categorized as a pulse, but due to propagation effects as it moves 
farther from the source, the signal duration becomes longer (e.g., 
Greene and Richardson, 1988).
    Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, explosions, gunshots, sonic 
booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically 
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients 
(ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and occur 
either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed sounds 
are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure 
to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may 
include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal 
pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical 
injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.
    Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or 
prolonged, and may be either continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995; 
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals 
of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g., 
rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced 
by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or 
dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems. The 
duration of such sounds, as received at a distance, can be greatly 
extended in a highly reverberant environment.

Potential Effects of Underwater Sound

    For study-specific citations, please see that work. Anthropogenic 
sounds cover a broad range of frequencies and sound levels and can have 
a range of highly variable impacts on marine life, from none or minor 
to potentially severe responses, depending on received levels, duration 
of exposure, behavioral context, and various other factors. The 
potential effects of underwater sound from active acoustic sources can 
potentially result in one or more of the following: Temporary or 
permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological 
effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson et 
al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 
2007; G[ouml]tz et al., 2009). The degree of effect is intrinsically 
related to the signal characteristics, received level, distance from 
the source, and duration of the sound exposure. In general, sudden, 
high level sounds can cause hearing loss, as can longer exposures to 
lower level sounds. Temporary or permanent loss of hearing will occur 
almost exclusively for noise within an animal's hearing range.
    Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of 
effect that might be expected to occur, in relation to distance from a 
source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing 
range. First is the area within which the acoustic signal would be 
audible (potentially perceived) to the animal but not strong enough to 
elicit any overt behavioral or physiological response. The next zone 
corresponds with the area where the signal is audible to the animal and 
of sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral or physiological 
responsiveness. Third is a zone within which, for signals of high 
intensity, the received level is sufficient to potentially cause 
discomfort or tissue damage to auditory or other systems. Overlaying 
these zones to a certain extent is the area within which masking (i.e., 
when a sound interferes with or masks the ability of an animal to 
detect a signal of interest that is above the absolute hearing 
threshold) may occur; the masking zone may be highly variable in size.
    We describe the more severe effects (i.e., certain non-auditory 
physical or physiological effects) only briefly as we do not expect 
that there is a reasonable likelihood that HRG surveys may result in 
such effects (see below for further discussion). Potential effects from 
impulsive sound sources can range in severity from effects such as 
behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, 
slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, or 
mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973). Non-auditory physiological effects 
or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to 
high level underwater sound or as a secondary effect of extreme 
behavioral reactions (e.g., change in dive profile as a result of an 
avoidance reaction) caused by exposure to sound include neurological 
effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ 
or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall

[[Page 7962]]

et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007; Tal et al., 2015). The activities 
considered here do not involve the use of devices such as explosives or 
mid-frequency tactical sonar that are associated with these types of 
effects.
    Threshold Shift--Note that, in the following discussion, we refer 
in many cases to a review article concerning studies of noise-induced 
hearing loss conducted from 1996-2015 (i.e., Finneran, 2015). Marine 
mammals exposed to high-intensity sound, or to lower-intensity sound 
for prolonged periods, can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), 
which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges 
(Finneran, 2015). TS can be permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of 
hearing sensitivity is not fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in 
which case the animal's hearing threshold would recover over time 
(Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS 
could cause PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can be total or partial 
deafness, while in most cases the animal has an impaired ability to 
hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).
    When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in 
the ear (i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS represents primarily tissue 
fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other 
investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of 
physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical 
injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to 
constitute auditory injury.
    Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied 
in marine mammals, and there is no PTS data for cetaceans, but such 
relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other 
terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least 
several decibels above (a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset; 
e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing mild TTS (a 6-dB 
threshold shift approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall et al. 2007). 
Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is 
that the PTS thresholds for impulse sounds (such as impact pile driving 
pulses as received close to the source) are at least 6 dB higher than 
the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and PTS cumulative sound 
exposure level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative 
sound exposure level thresholds (Southall et al., 2007). Given the 
higher level of sound or longer exposure duration necessary to cause 
PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS could 
occur.
    TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during 
exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing 
threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in order to be 
heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or 
hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, hearing 
sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Few data 
on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been 
obtained for marine mammals.
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree 
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS 
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to 
serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate 
for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency 
range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there 
are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger 
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when 
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could 
have more serious impacts.
    Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans 
(bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor 
porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) 
and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant seal (Mirounga 
angustirostris), harbor seal, and California sea lion (Zalophus 
californianus)) exposed to a limited number of sound sources (i.e., 
mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran, 
2015). TTS was not observed in trained spotted (Phoca largha) and 
ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to impulsive noise at levels 
matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). In 
general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than 
other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). 
Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited 
number of individuals within these species. There are no data available 
on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on 
TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset 
thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and Jenkins 
(2012), Finneran (2015), and NMFS (2018).
    Animals in the Project Area during the proposed survey are unlikely 
to incur TTS due to the characteristics of the sound sources, which 
include relatively low source levels and generally very short pulses 
and duration of the sound. Even for high-frequency cetacean species 
(e.g., harbor porpoises), which may have increased sensitivity to TTS 
(Lucke et al., 2009; Kastelein et al., 2012b), individuals would have 
to make a very close approach and also remain very close to vessels 
operating these sources in order to receive multiple exposures at 
relatively high levels, as would be necessary to cause TTS. 
Intermittent exposures--as would occur due to the brief, transient 
signals produced by these sources--require a higher cumulative SEL to 
induce TTS than would continuous exposures of the same duration (i.e., 
intermittent exposure results in lower levels of TTS) (Mooney et al., 
2009a; Finneran et al., 2010). Moreover, most marine mammals would more 
likely avoid a loud sound source rather than swim in such close 
proximity as to result in TTS. Kremser et al. (2005) noted that the 
probability of a cetacean swimming through the area of exposure when a 
sub-bottom profiler emits a pulse is small--because if the animal was 
in the area, it would have to pass the transducer at close range in 
order to be subjected to sound levels that could cause TTS and would 
likely exhibit avoidance behavior to the area near the transducer 
rather than swim through at such a close range. Further, the restricted 
beam shape of the majority of the geophysical survey equipment proposed 
for use makes it unlikely that an animal would be exposed more than 
briefly during the passage of the vessel.
    Behavioral Effects--Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of 
effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief 
avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous 
changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or 
potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment 
of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly 
variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous 
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of maturity, 
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, 
time of day), as well as the interplay between factors (e.g., 
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; 
Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral

[[Page 7963]]

reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within an 
individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, 
context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can 
vary depending on characteristics associated with the sound source 
(e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance 
from the source). Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al. (2007) 
for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to 
sound.
    Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes 
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated 
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to 
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that 
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in 
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor 
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to 
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is 
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent 
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of 
exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response. 
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral 
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are 
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with 
captive marine mammals have showed pronounced behavioral reactions, 
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; 
Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to 
loud pulsed sound sources (typically airguns or acoustic harassment 
devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or 
other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 
2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007). However, 
many delphinids approach low-frequency airgun source vessels with no 
apparent discomfort or obvious behavioral change (e.g., Barkaszi et 
al., 2012), indicating the importance of frequency output in relation 
to the species' hearing sensitivity.
    Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater 
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given 
sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving 
the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater 
sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts 
of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let 
alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces 
marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a 
prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be 
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 
2005). However, there are broad categories of potential response, which 
we describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive 
behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 
interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
    Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of 
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as 
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel 
and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et 
al.; 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a, 2013b). Variations in dive behavior 
may reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g., 
foraging) or they may be of little biological significance. The impact 
of an alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure 
depends on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the 
type and magnitude of the response.
    Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with 
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed 
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary 
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, 
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as 
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to 
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al., 
2001; Nowacek et al.; 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness 
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic 
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between 
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history 
stage of the animal.
    Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors 
and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure 
can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a 
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates 
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute 
stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may 
either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and 
signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in 
understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise 
when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic 
sound exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 2005, 2006; Gailey et 
al., 2007; Gailey et al., 2016).
    Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple 
modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and 
singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic 
noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to 
compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased 
vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of 
potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have 
been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al., 
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales 
have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward 
while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic 
noise (Parks et al., 2007). In some cases, animals may cease sound 
production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).
    Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or 
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other 
stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance 
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales 
are known to change direction--deflecting from customary migratory 
paths--in order to avoid noise from airgun surveys (Malme et al., 
1984). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area 
once the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; 
Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007). 
Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to 
changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species 
in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does 
not occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann 
et al., 2006).
    A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a 
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound 
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in 
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement,

[[Page 7964]]

rate of travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of 
marine mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of 
flight responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and 
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight response could range from 
brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the 
signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings 
(Evans and England, 2001). However, it should be noted that response to 
a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and 
Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may 
influence the response.
    Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more 
subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to 
diversion of focus and attention (i.e., when a response consists of 
increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to 
other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects 
have generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies 
involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased 
vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and 
Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford, 2011). In 
addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through 
reduction of fitness (e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent 
reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington 
and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However, 
Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose 
dolphins exposed to sound over a five-day period did not cause any 
sleep deprivation or stress effects.
    Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, 
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption 
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound 
exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one 
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). 
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not 
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe 
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et 
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day 
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic 
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple 
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either 
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further, 
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive 
behavioral responses.
    We expect that some marine mammals may exhibit behavioral responses 
to the HRG survey activities in the form of avoidance of the area 
during the activity, especially the naturally shy harbor porpoise, 
while others such as delphinids might be attracted to the survey 
activities out of curiosity. However, because the HRG survey equipment 
operates from a moving vessel, and the maximum radius to the Level B 
harassment threshold is relatively small, the area and time that this 
equipment would be affecting a given location is very small. Further, 
once an area has been surveyed, it is not likely that it will be 
surveyed again, thereby reducing the likelihood of repeated impacts 
within the Project Area.
    We have also considered the potential for severe behavioral 
responses such as stranding and associated indirect injury or mortality 
from Vineyard Wind's use of HRG survey equipment. Previous commenters 
have referenced a 2008 mass stranding of approximately 100 melon-headed 
whales in a Madagascar lagoon system. An investigation of the event 
indicated that use of a high-frequency mapping system (12-kHz multibeam 
echosounder) was the most plausible and likely initial behavioral 
trigger of the event, while providing the caveat that there is no 
unequivocal and easily identifiable single cause (Southall et al., 
2013). The investigatory panel's conclusion was based on (1) very close 
temporal and spatial association and directed movement of the survey 
with the stranding event; (2) the unusual nature of such an event 
coupled with previously documented apparent behavioral sensitivity of 
the species to other sound types (Southall et al., 2006; Brownell et 
al., 2009); and (3) the fact that all other possible factors considered 
were determined to be unlikely causes. Specifically, regarding survey 
patterns prior to the event and in relation to bathymetry, the vessel 
transited in a north-south direction on the shelf break parallel to the 
shore, ensonifying large areas of deep-water habitat prior to operating 
intermittently in a concentrated area offshore from the stranding site; 
this may have trapped the animals between the sound source and the 
shore, thus driving them towards the lagoon system. The investigatory 
panel systematically excluded or deemed highly unlikely nearly all 
potential reasons for these animals leaving their typical pelagic 
habitat for an area extremely atypical for the species (i.e., a shallow 
lagoon system). Notably, this was the first time that such a system has 
been associated with a stranding event. The panel also noted several 
site- and situation-specific secondary factors that may have 
contributed to the avoidance responses that led to the eventual 
entrapment and mortality of the whales. Specifically, shoreward-
directed surface currents and elevated chlorophyll levels in the area 
preceding the event may have played a role (Southall et al., 2013). The 
report also notes that prior use of a similar system in the general 
area may have sensitized the animals and also concluded that, for 
odontocete cetaceans that hear well in higher frequency ranges where 
ambient noise is typically quite low, high-power active sonars 
operating in this range may be more easily audible and have potential 
effects over larger areas than low frequency systems that have more 
typically been considered in terms of anthropogenic noise impacts. It 
is, however, important to note that the relatively lower output 
frequency, higher output power, and complex nature of the system 
implicated in this event, in context of the other factors noted here, 
likely produced a fairly unusual set of circumstances that indicate 
that such events would likely remain rare and are not necessarily 
relevant to use of lower-power, higher-frequency systems more commonly 
used for HRG survey applications. The risk of similar events recurring 
is likely very low, given the extensive use of active acoustic systems 
used for scientific and navigational purposes worldwide on a daily 
basis and the lack of direct evidence of such responses previously 
reported.
    Stress Responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be 
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination 
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, 
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; 
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most 
economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral 
avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses 
to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and 
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short 
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an 
animal's fitness.
    Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that 
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction, 
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary

[[Page 7965]]

hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones 
have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, 
reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 
1987; Blecha, 2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids 
are also equated with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
    The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does 
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of 
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores 
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such 
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious 
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient 
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, 
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of 
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves 
sufficient to restore normal function.
    Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal 
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well studied through 
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals 
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; 
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to 
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects 
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000; 
Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations 
(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 
that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These 
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine 
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to 
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be 
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS 
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003).
    NMFS does not expect that the generally short-term, intermittent, 
and transitory HRG activities would create conditions of long-term, 
continuous noise and chronic acoustic exposure leading to long-term 
physiological stress responses in marine mammals.
    Auditory Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or 
interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or 
discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for 
intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, 
predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; Erbe et al., 
2016). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by 
another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or 
higher intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., 
snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 
shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise 
source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the 
characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest 
(e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, direction), in 
relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., 
sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency 
discrimination, directional discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 
and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions.
    Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing 
significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their 
performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the 
coincident (masking) sound is man-made, it may be considered harassment 
if disrupting behavioral patterns. It is important to distinguish TTS 
and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which 
occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in 
TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not 
considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral 
effect.
    The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important 
in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-
frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation 
sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection 
of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important 
natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. 
The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be 
considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (e.g., 
Clark et al., 2009) and may result in energetic or other costs as 
animals change their vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 2000; 
Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt 
et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal 
and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995), 
through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other 
compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can be tested 
directly in captive species (e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild populations 
it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking 
compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world masking 
sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild (e.g., 
Branstetter et al., 2013).
    Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and 
can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the 
population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency 
ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 
three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial 
periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping 
(Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially 
chronic and lower-frequency signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
    Marine mammal communications would not likely be masked appreciably 
by the HRG equipment given the directionality of the signals (for most 
geophysical survey equipment types proposed for use (Table 1) and the 
brief period when an individual mammal is likely to be within its beam.

Vessel Strike

    Vessel strikes of marine mammals can cause significant wounds, 
which may lead to the death of the animal. An animal at the surface 
could be struck directly by a vessel, a surfacing animal could hit the 
bottom of a vessel, or a vessel's propeller could injure an animal just 
below the surface. The severity of injuries typically depends on the 
size and speed of the vessel (Knowlton and Kraus 2001; Laist et al., 
2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007).
    The most vulnerable marine mammals are those that spend extended 
periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within 
their tissues after deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In addition, 
some baleen whales, such as the North Atlantic right whale, seem 
generally unresponsive to vessel sound, making them more susceptible to 
vessel collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These species are primarily 
large, slow moving whales. Smaller marine mammals (e.g., bottlenose 
dolphin) move quickly through the water column and are often seen 
riding the bow wave of large ships. Marine mammal responses to vessels 
may include avoidance and changes in dive pattern (NRC 2003).

[[Page 7966]]

    An examination of all known ship strikes from all shipping sources 
(civilian and military) indicates vessel speed is a principal factor in 
whether a vessel strike results in death (Knowlton and Kraus 2001; 
Laist et al., 2001; Jensen and Silber 2003; Vanderlaan and Taggart 
2007). In assessing records with known vessel speeds, Laist et al. 
(2001) found a direct relationship between the occurrence of a whale 
strike and the speed of the vessel involved in the collision. The 
authors concluded that most deaths occurred when a vessel was traveling 
in excess of 24.1 km/h (14.9 mph; 13 kn). Given the slow vessel speeds 
and predictable course necessary for data acquisition, ship strike is 
unlikely to occur during the geophysical surveys. Marine mammals would 
be able to easily avoid the survey vessel due to the slow vessel speed. 
Further, Vineyard Winds would implement measures (e.g., protected 
species monitoring, vessel speed restrictions and separation distances; 
see Proposed Mitigation) set forth in the BOEM lease to reduce the risk 
of a vessel strike to marine mammal species in the Project Area.

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    The proposed activities would not result in permanent impacts to 
habitats used directly by marine mammals, but may have potential minor 
and short-term impacts to food sources such as forage fish. The 
proposed activities could affect acoustic habitat (see masking 
discussion above), but meaningful impacts are unlikely. There are no 
feeding areas, rookeries, or mating grounds known to be biologically 
important to marine mammals within the proposed project area with the 
exception of feeding BIAs for right, humpback, fin, and sei whales and 
a migratory BIA for right whales which were described previously. There 
is also designated critical habitat for right whales. The HRG survey 
equipment will not contact the substrate and does not represent a 
source of pollution. Impacts to substrate or from pollution are 
therefore not discussed further.
    Effects to Prey--Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on 
the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species (e.g., 
crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies 
by species, season, and location and, for some, is not well documented. 
Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on known 
marine mammal prey.
    Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their 
environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator 
avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., Zelick et al., 1999; Fay, 2009). 
Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory structures, 
which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure and 
particle motion sensitivity capabilities and detect the motion of 
surrounding water (Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects of noise on 
fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance from the 
sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific hearing 
sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. Key impacts to fishes may include 
behavioral responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-related 
injuries), and mortality.
    Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or 
intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as 
flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp 
sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local 
distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the 
physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (e.g., 
feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors. 
Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish 
may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Several studies 
have demonstrated that impulse sounds might affect the distribution and 
behavior of some fishes, potentially impacting foraging opportunities 
or increasing energetic costs (e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; 
Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992; Santulli et al., 1999; 
Paxton et al., 2017). However, some studies have shown no or slight 
reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pena et al., 2013; Wardle et al., 
2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Cott et al., 2012). More commonly, 
though, the impacts of noise on fish are temporary.
    We are not aware of any available literature on impacts to marine 
mammal prey from sound produced by HRG survey equipment. However, as 
the HRG survey equipment introduces noise to the marine environment, 
there is the potential for it to result in avoidance of the area around 
the HRG survey activities on the part of marine mammal prey. The 
duration of fish avoidance of an area after HRG surveys depart the area 
is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and 
behavior is anticipated. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey 
species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the expected 
short daily duration of the proposed HRG survey, the fact that the 
proposed survey is mobile rather than stationary, and the relatively 
small areas potentially affected. The areas likely impacted by the 
proposed activities are relatively small compared to the available 
habitat in the Atlantic Ocean. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the 
disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and 
marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. Based on the 
information discussed herein, we conclude that impacts of the specified 
activity are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on 
any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Because of the 
temporary nature of the disturbance, and the availability of similar 
habitat and resources (e.g., prey species) in the surrounding area, any 
impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in 
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or 
to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations. Effects to 
habitat will not be discussed further in this document.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both 
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact 
determination.
    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 would be by Level B harassment only in the form of 
disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals 
resulting from exposure to HRG sources. 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 Proposed Mitigation section, Level A harassment is neither 
anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to 
be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is 
estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds

[[Page 7967]]

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 proposed 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 for non-explosive sources--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). Vineyard Wind's proposed 
activity includes the use of impulsive sources (geophysical survey 
equipment), and therefore use of the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) threshold 
is applicable.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual 
criteria (cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) and peak sound 
pressure level metrics) 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 Vineyard Wind's 
proposed activity includes the use of impulsive sources.
    Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary 
based on marine mammal functional hearing groups were 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 using both 
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., 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.
    These thresholds are provided in Table 4 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 4--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.

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 proposed survey would entail the use of HRG equipment. The 
distance to the isopleths corresponding to both Level A and Level B 
harassment was calculated for all HRG equipment with the potential to 
result in harassment of marine mammals. In their application, Vineyard 
Wind employed a new model for determining the horizontal distance to 
Level A harassment isopleths (See Appendix A). This new model was 
developed by the applicant since the optional User Spreadsheet devised 
by NMFS to calculate PTS isopleths is not

[[Page 7968]]

specifically designed for HRG surveys and does not take into account 
seawater absorption or fully consider beam patterns, both of which can 
influence received sound levels. To account for seawater absorption the 
model calculated an appropriate absorption coefficient using the lowest 
frequency employed by a specific device. To account for beam pattern, 
an out-of-beam source correction factor was derived and used to 
establish the out-of-beam source level as shown in Table 5. Separate 
impact ranges were calculated using the in-beam source level at the 
angle corresponding to the -3 dB half-width and the out-of-beam source 
level in the horizontal direction. The higher of the two sound levels 
was then selected for assessing impact distance. Dual metric acoustic 
thresholds using both cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) and peak 
sound pressure level metrics were calculated. For all equipment 
categories, use of the SELcum resulted in larger Level A harassment 
isopleths.
    As part of this model, sources that operate with a repetition rate 
greater than 10 Hz were assessed with the non-impulsive source criteria 
while sources with a repetition rate equal to or less than 10 Hz were 
assessed with the impulsive source criteria. Under this system all HRG 
sources would be classified as impulsive. NMFS does not agree with the 
classification of all HRG sources as impulsive. The use of the 10 Hz 
repetition rate would be precedent-setting and NMFS believes that this 
issue requires further evaluation. However, NMFS opted to include the 
modeled Level A distances in the proposed IHA, since classification of 
all HRG sources as impulsive results in more conservative Level A 
harassment isopleths.
    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 A-3 in Appendix A of 
the IHA application shows the literature sources for the sound source 
levels that were incorporated into the model.

                                                       Table 5--Derived Out-of-Beam Source Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Description                                            In-beam                                       Out-of-beam
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                -------------------------------
                                                                           Source level     Peak source     Correction     Source level     Peak source
              Equipment type                           System                (dB re 1      level  (dB re       (dB)          (dB re 1      level  (dB re
                                                                             [mu]Pa m)      1 [mu]Pa m)                      [mu]Pa m)      1 [mu]Pa m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow subbottom profilers...............  EdgeTech Chirp 216..........             178             182            -8.1           169.9           173.9
Shallow subbottom profilers...............  Innomar SES 2000 Medium.....             241             247           -36.3           204.7           210.7
Deep seismic profilers....................  Applied Acoustics AA251                  205             212             0.0             205             212
                                             Boomer.
Deep seismic profilers....................  GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000                 206             214             0.0             206             214
                                             (400 tip).
Underwater positioning (USBL).............  SonarDyne Scout Pro.........             188             191             0.0             188             191
Underwater positioning (USBL).............  ixBlue Gaps.................             191             194             0.0             191             194
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (NOAA 19 Sep 2019). Vineyard Wind used this 
methodology with additional modifications that provide a more accurate 
seawater absorption formula and account for energy emitted outside of 
the primary beam of the source. This approach is described in detail in 
Appendix B.
    Note that Vineyard Wind initially proposed to use a blanket 100-ms 
integration time to adjust the source level for all HRG sound sources 
and all species to estimate Level B harassment distances. However, it 
is known that integration time varies and depends on a multitude of 
factors, including frequency, repetition rate, bandwidth, and species. 
NMFS agrees that integration time is an important factor for 
consideration, but using a single number to encompass all sound sources 
and species seems like a potential oversimplification. Therefore, NMFS 
used pulse duration only to estimate Level B harassment isopleths. 
Calculated results using both pulse duration and a 100-ms integration 
time are shown in Appendix B for comparative purposes.
    Results of modeling described above indicated that sound produced 
by the GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 would propagate furthest to the Level B 
harassment threshold; therefore, for the purposes of the exposure 
analysis, it was assumed the GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 would be active 
during the entirety of the survey. The distance to the isopleth 
corresponding to the threshold for Level B harassment for the GeoMarine 
Geo Spark 2000 (estimated at 195 m; Table 6) was used as the basis of 
the take calculation for all marine mammals. Note that this likely 
provides a conservative estimate of the total ensonified area resulting 
from the proposed activities. Vineyard Wind may not operate the 
GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 during the entirety of the proposed survey, 
and for any survey segments in which it is not used the distance to the 
Level B harassment threshold would be less than 195 m and the 
corresponding ensonified area would also decrease. The model also 
assumed that the sparker (GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000) is omnidirectional. 
This assumption, which is made because the beam pattern is unknown, 
results in precautionary estimates of received levels generally, and in 
particular is likely to overestimate both SPL and PK. This 
overestimation of the SPL likely results in an overestimation of the 
number of takes by Level B harassment for this type of equipment.

[[Page 7969]]



   Table 6--Modeled Radial Distances from HRG Survey Equipment to Isopleths Corresponding to Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment Thresholds \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          HRG survey equipment                                  Level A harassment horizontal impact distance  (m)            Level B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   harassment
                                                                                                                                            horizontal
                                                                                                                                              impact
                                                                           Low frequency   Mid frequency  High frequency      Phocid       distance (m)
                                                                             cetaceans       cetaceans       cetaceans       pinnipeds   ---------------
                                                                                                                                                All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow subbottom profilers...............  EdgeTech Chirp 216..........              <1              <1              <1              <1               4
Shallow subbottom profilers...............  Innomar SES 2000 Medium.....              <1              <1              60              <1             116
Deep seismic profilers....................  Applied Acoustics AA251                   <1              <1              60              <1             178
                                             Boomer.
Deep seismic profilers....................  GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000                  <1              <1               6              <1             195
                                             (400 tip).
Underwater positioning (USBL).............  SonarDyne Scout Pro.........               *               *               *               *              24
Underwater positioning (USBL).............  ixBlue Gaps.................            <1 m            <1 m              55            <1 m              35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note that SELcum was greater than peak SPL in all instances.

    Due to the small estimated distances to Level A harassment 
thresholds for all marine mammal functional hearing groups (less than 1 
m for all hearing groups including all equipment types and no more than 
60 m for high frequency cetaceans including all equipment types), and 
in consideration of the proposed mitigation measures (see the Proposed 
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 proposed survey is so low as to be 
discountable, and we therefore do not propose to 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 proposed Project 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 
proposed project area were selected for all survey months. Monthly 
density data for each species were then averaged over the year to come 
up with a mean annual density value for each species. The mean annual 
density values used to estimate take numbers are shown in Table 7 
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. Vineyard Wind estimates that proposed survey 
vessels will achieve a maximum daily track line distance of 100 km per 
day during proposed 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 195 m (Table 6) and the maximum estimated daily 
track line distance of 100 km, an area of 39.12 km\2\ would be 
ensonified to the Level B harassment threshold per day during Vineyard 
Wind's proposed 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 all 736 vessel days.
    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\) by 
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 vessel days (i.e., 736). 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, Vineyard wind estimated that 
there would be takes of several species by Level A harassment including 
Atlantic White-sided dolphin, bottlenose

[[Page 7970]]

dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin, harbor porpoise, gray seal, and 
harbor seal in the absence of mitigation (see Table 10 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 6), 
and in consideration of the proposed mitigation measures, the 
likelihood of the proposed survey resulting in take in the form of 
Level A harassment is considered so low as to be discountable; 
therefore, we do not propose to authorize take of any marine mammals by 
Level A harassment. Proposed take numbers by Level B harassment are 
shown in Table 7.

  Table 7--Total Numbers of Potential Incidental Take of Marine Mammals Proposed for Authorization and Proposed
                                       Takes as a Percentage of Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Estimated
                                                  Annual density      Level B     Proposed takes      Percent
                     Species                       mean  (km-2)     harassment      by Level B    population \1\
                                                                       takes        harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale.......................................          0.0023           67.28              67            0.91
Humpback whale..................................          0.0016           45.73              46            3.28
Minke whale.....................................           0.001           41.20              41            0.17
North Atlantic right whale......................           0.001           30.32              10            7.41
Sei whale.......................................           0.000            3.23            3.23            0.05
Atlantic white sided dolphin....................          0.0351        1,011.19           1,011            1.10
Bottlenose dolphin..............................          0.0283          814.91             815            1.30
Pilot whales \2\................................          0.0049         1,41.98             142            2.52
Risso's dolphin \3\.............................           0.000            5.74              30           <0.08
Common dolphin..................................           0.071        2,035.87           2,036            1.18
Sperm whale.....................................           0.000            3.82               4            0.09
Harbor porpoise.................................          0.0363        1,044.87           1,045            1.09
Gray seal.......................................          0.1404        4,043.67           4,044           14.90
Harbor seal.....................................          0.1404        4,043.67           4,044            5.33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2019 Annual Report Card (Pettis et al., 2020).
\2\ Long- and short-finned pilot whales are grouped together as a guild.
\3\ Mean group sizes for species derived from Kenney and Vigness-Raposa (2010).
\4\ Exclusion zone exceeds Level B isopleth; take adjusted to 10 given duration of survey.

Proposed 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, 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.

Proposed Mitigation Measures

    NMFS proposes the following mitigation measures be implemented 
during Vineyard Wind's proposed marine site characterization surveys.

Marine Mammal Exclusion Zones, Buffer Zone and Monitoring Zone

    Marine mammal exclusion zones (EZ) would be established around the 
HRG survey equipment and monitored by protected species observers (PSO) 
during HRG surveys as follows:

 A 500-m EZ would be required for North Atlantic right whales
 A 100-m EZ would be required for all other marine mammals 
(with the exception of certain small dolphin species specified below)

    If a marine mammal is detected approaching or entering the EZs 
during the proposed survey, the vessel operator would adhere to the 
shutdown procedures described below. In addition to the EZs described 
above, PSOs would 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) would 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 meters. PSOs would 
also be 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 195 m of the active HRG equipment 
operating at or

[[Page 7971]]

below 180 kHz would be documented by PSOs as taken by Level B 
harassment. The zones described above would be based upon the radial 
distance from the active equipment (rather than being based on distance 
from the vessel itself).

Visual Monitoring

    NMFS only requires a single PSO to be on duty during daylight hours 
and 30 minutes prior to and during nighttime ramp-ups for HRG surveys. 
Vineyard Wind has voluntarily proposed that a minimum of two (2) NMFS-
approved PSOs must be on duty and conducting visual observations on all 
survey vessels at all times when HRG equipment is in use (i.e. daylight 
and nighttime operations). PSOs must be on duty 30 minutes prior to and 
during nighttime ramp-ups of HRG equipment. Visual monitoring would 
begin no less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up of HRG equipment and 
would continue until 30 minutes after use of the acoustic source. PSOs 
would establish and monitor the applicable EZs, Buffer Zone and 
Monitoring Zone as described above. Visual PSOs would coordinate to 
ensure 360[deg] visual coverage around the vessel from the most 
appropriate observation posts, and would conduct visual observations 
using binoculars and the naked eye while free from distractions and in 
a consistent, systematic, and diligent manner. PSOs would estimate 
distances to marine mammals located in proximity to the vessel and/or 
relevant using range finders. It would be 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 would 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, Vineyard Wind would 
implement a 30-minute pre-clearance period. During pre-clearance 
monitoring (i.e., before ramp-up of HRG equipment begins), the Buffer 
Zone would also act as an extension of the 100-m EZ in that 
observations of marine mammals within the 200-m Buffer Zone would also 
preclude HRG operations from beginning. During this period, PSOs would 
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 would 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 would notify a designated PSO 
of the proposed start of HRG survey equipment as agreed upon with the 
lead PSO; the notification time should 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 would be 
notified again immediately prior to initiating active HRG sources.
    If a marine mammal were observed within the relevant EZs or Buffer 
Zone during the pre-clearance period, initiation of HRG survey 
equipment would 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 would include small delphinoids that approach 
the vessel (e.g., bow ride). PSOs would 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 would be used for 
geophysical survey equipment capable of adjusting energy levels at the 
start or re-start of survey activities. The ramp-up procedure would be 
used at the beginning of HRG survey activities in order to provide 
additional protection to marine mammals near the Project 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 would not begin until the relevant EZs 
and Buffer Zone has been cleared by the PSOs, as described above. HRG 
equipment would 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 would 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 would be required. When shutdown is called for 
by a PSO, the acoustic source would be immediately deactivated and any 
dispute resolved only following deactivation. Any PSO on duty would 
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 would 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 allowing PSOs to maintain watch. Subsequent 
restart of the HRG equipment would 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 may 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 would be waived for certain genera of 
small delphinids (i.e., Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, 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 would not be 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 would 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

[[Page 7972]]

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 (195 m), shutdown would occur.

Vessel Strike Avoidance

    Vessel strike avoidance measures would include, but would 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 survey vessels, regardless of size, must observe a 10-
knot speed restriction in specific areas designated by NMFS for the 
protection of North Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes: Any DMAs 
when in effect, and the Block Island Seasonal Management Area (SMA) 
(from November 1 through April 30), Cape Cod Bay SMA (from January 1 
through May 15), Off Race Point SMA (from March 1 through April 30) and 
Great South Channel SMA (from April 1 through July 31). Note that this 
requirement includes vessels, regardless of size, to adhere to a 10 
knot speed limit in SMAs and DMAs, not just vessels 65 ft or greater in 
length.
     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 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.
    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

    Vineyard Wind will conduct HRG survey activities in the Cape Cod 
Bay SMA and Off Race Point SMA only during the months of August and 
September to ensure sufficient buffer between the SMA restrictions 
(January to May 15) and known seasonal occurrence of the NARW north and 
northeast of Cape Cod (fall, winter, and spring). Vineyard Wind will 
also limit to three the number survey vessels that will operate 
concurrently from March through June within the lease areas (OCS-A 0501 
and 0487) and OECC areas north of the lease areas up to, but not 
including, coastal and bay waters. The boundaries of this area are 
delineated by a polygon with the following vertices: 40.746 N 70.748 W; 
40.953 N 71.284 W; 41.188 N 71.284 W; ~41.348 N 70.835 W; 41.35 N 
70.455 W; 41.097 N 70.372 W; and 41.021 N 70.37 W. This area is 
delineated by the dashed line shown in Figure 2. Another seasonal 
restriction area south of Nantucket will be in effect from December to 
February in the area delineated by the current DMA (Effective from 
January 31, 2020 through February 15, 2020). The winter seasonal 
restriction area is delineated by latitudes and longitudes of 41.1838 
N; 40.3666 N; 69.5333 W; and 70.6166 W. This area is delineated by the 
solid line in Figure 2.

[[Page 7973]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12FE20.002

    Vineyard Wind would operate either a single vessel, two vessels 
concurrently or, for short periods, no more than three survey vessels 
concurrently in the areas described above during the December-February 
and March-June timeframes when right whale densities are greatest. The 
seasonal restrictions described above will help to reduce both the 
number and intensity of right whale takes.
    Vineyard Wind would also employ passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) 
to support monitoring during night time operations to provide for 
acquisition of species detections at night. While PAM is not typically 
required by NMFS for HRG surveys, it may a provide additional benefit 
as a mitigation and monitoring measure to further limit potential 
exposure to underwater sound at levels that could result in injury or 
behavioral harassment.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means 
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.

Proposed 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 
proposed action 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.

[[Page 7974]]

Proposed Monitoring Measures

    As described above, visual monitoring would be performed by 
qualified and NMFS-approved PSOs. Vineyard Wind would 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. Vineyard Wind would 
provide resumes of all proposed PSOs (including alternates) to NMFS for 
review and approval 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 two PSOs must be on duty and 
conducting visual observations at all times on all active survey 
vessels when HRG equipment is operating, including both daytime and 
nighttime operations. Visual monitoring would begin no less than 30 
minutes prior to initiation of HRG survey equipment and would continue 
until one hour after use of the acoustic source ceases. PSOs would 
coordinate to ensure 360[deg] visual coverage around the vessel from 
the most appropriate observation posts, and would 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 
would be communicated to PSOs on all survey vessels.
    PSOs would 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 will 
also be available to PSOs for use as appropriate based on conditions 
and visibility to support the monitoring of marine mammals. Position 
data would be recorded using hand-held or vessel GPS units for each 
sighting. Observations would take place from the highest available 
vantage point on the survey vessel. General 360-degree scanning would 
occur during the monitoring periods, and target scanning by the PSO 
would 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 would 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 
would be relayed to the PSO team.
    Data on all PSO observations would be recorded based on standard 
PSO collection requirements. This would include 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).

Proposed Reporting Measures

    Within 90 days after completion of survey activities, a final 
technical report will 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 monitoring. Any 
recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report 
prior to acceptance by NMFS.
    In the event that Vineyard Wind personnel discover an injured or 
dead marine mammal, Vineyard Wind shall report the incident to the 
Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to the New England/Mid-
Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. The report 
must include the following information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first 
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
     Species identification (if known) or description of the 
animal(s) involved;
     Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if 
the animal is dead);
     Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
     If available, photographs or video footage of the 
animal(s); and
     General circumstances under which the animal was 
discovered.
    In the event of a ship strike of a marine mammal by any vessel 
involved in the activities covered by the authorization, the IHA-holder 
shall report the incident to OPR, NMFS and to the New England/Mid-
Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. The report 
must include the following information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Species identification (if known) or description of the 
animal(s) involved;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being 
conducted (if applicable);
     Status of all sound sources in use;
     Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were 
in place at the time of the strike and what additional measures were 
taken, if any, to avoid strike;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, visibility) immediately preceding the 
strike;
     Estimated size and length of animal that was struck;
     Description of the behavior of the marine mammal 
immediately preceding and following the strike;
     If available, description of the presence and behavior of 
any other marine mammals immediately preceding the strike;
     Estimated fate of the animal (e.g., dead, injured but 
alive, injured and moving, blood or tissue observed in the water, 
status unknown, disappeared); and
     To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of 
the animal(s).

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''

[[Page 7975]]

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 
proposed survey to be similar in nature. As discussed in the 
``Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and 
Their Habitat'' section, PTS, masking, non-auditory physical effects, 
and vessel strike are not expected to occur.
    The majority of impacts to marine mammals are expected to be short-
term disruption of behavioral patterns, primarily in the form of 
avoidance or potential interruption of foraging. Marine mammal feeding 
behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted.
    Regarding impacts to marine mammal habitat, prey species are 
mobile, and are broadly distributed throughout the Project Area and the 
footprint of the activity is small; therefore, marine mammals that may 
be temporarily displaced during survey activities are expected to be 
able to resume foraging once they have moved away from areas with 
disturbing levels of underwater noise. Because of 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. The HRG survey equipment itself will not 
result in physical habitat disturbance. Avoidance of the area around 
the HRG survey activities by marine mammal prey species is possible. 
However, any avoidance by prey species would be expected to be short 
term and temporary.
    ESA-listed species for which takes are authorized are right, fin, 
sei, and sperm whales, and these effects are anticipated to be limited 
to lower level behavioral effects. NMFS does not anticipate that 
serious injury or mortality would occur to ESA-listed species, even in 
the absence of mitigation and no serious injury or mortality is 
authorized. As discussed in the Potential Effects section, non-auditory 
physical effects and vessel strike are not expected to occur. We expect 
that most potential takes would be in the form of short-term Level B 
behavioral harassment in the form of temporary avoidance of the area or 
decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring), reactions that 
are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological 
consequences (e.g., Southall et al., 2007). The proposed survey is not 
anticipated to affect the fitness or reproductive success of individual 
animals. Since impacts to individual survivorship and fecundity are 
unlikely, the proposed survey is not expected to result in population-
level effects for any ESA-listed species or alter current population 
trends of any ESA-listed species.
    The status of the North Atlantic right whale population is of 
heightened concern and, therefore, merits additional analysis. NMFS has 
rigorously assessed potential impacts to right whales from this survey. 
We have established a 500-m shutdown zone for right whales which is 
precautionary considering the Level B harassment isopleth for the 
largest source utilized (i.e. GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 (400 tip) is 
estimated to be 195 m.
    NMFS is also requiring Vineyard Wind to limit the number of survey 
vessels operating concurrently to no more than three in specified areas 
during periods when right whale densities are likely to be elevated. 
This includes a specified area approximately 31 miles due south of 
Nantucket including Lease Area OCS-A 0522 from December to February as 
well as Lease Area OCS-A 0501 and surrounding Project Areas south and 
southwest of Martha's Vineyard from March to June. Numerous right whale 
aggregations have been reported in these areas during the winter and 
spring. Furthermore, surveys in right whale critical habitat area will 
be limited to August and September when the whales are unlikely to be 
present. Due to the length of the survey and continuous night 
operations, it is conceivable that a limited number of right whales 
could enter into the Level B harassment zone without being observed. 
Any potential impacts to right whales would consist of, at most, low-
level, short-term behavioral harassment in a limited number of animals.
    The proposed Project Area encompasses or is in close proximity to 
feeding BIAs for right whales (February-April), humpback whales (March-
December), fin whales (March-October), and sei whales (May-November) as 
well as a migratory BIA or right whales (March-April and November-
December. Most of these feeding BIAs are extensive and sufficiently 
large (705 km\2\ and 3,149 km\2\ for right whales; 47,701 km\2\ for 
humpback whales; 2,933 km\2\ for fin whales; and 56,609 km\2\ for sei 
whales), and the acoustic footprint of the proposed survey is 
sufficiently small that feeding opportunities for these whales would 
not be reduced appreciably. Any whales temporarily displaced from the 
proposed Project Area would be expected to have sufficient remaining 
feeding habitat available to them, and would not be prevented from 
feeding in other areas within the biologically important feeding 
habitat. In addition, any displacement of whales from the BIA or 
interruption of foraging bouts would be expected to be temporary in 
nature. Therefore, we do not expect whales with feeding BIAs to be 
negatively impacted by the proposed survey.
    A migratory BIA for North Atlantic right whales (effective March-
April and November-December) extends from Massachusetts to Florida 
(LaBrecque, et al., 2015). Off the south coast of Massachusetts and 
Rhode Island, this BIA extends from the coast to beyond the shelf 
break. The fact that the spatial acoustic footprint of the proposed 
survey is very small relative to the spatial extent of the available 
migratory habitat means that right whale migration is not expected to 
be impacted by the proposed survey. Required vessel strike avoidance 
measures will also decrease risk of ship strike during migration. NMFS 
is expanding the standard avoidance measures by requiring that all 
vessels, regardless of size, adhere to a 10 knot speed limit in SMAs 
and DMA. Additionally, limited take by Level B harassment of North 
Atlantic right whales has been authorized as HRG survey operations are 
required to shut down at 500 m to minimize the potential for behavioral 
harassment of this species.
    As noted previously, elevated humpback whale mortalities have 
occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida since 
January 2016. Of the cases examined, approximately half had evidence of 
human interaction (ship strike or entanglement). The UME does not yet 
provide cause for concern regarding population-level impacts. Despite 
the UME, the relevant population of

[[Page 7976]]

humpback whales (the West Indies breeding population, or distinct 
population segment (DPS)) remains healthy. Beginning in January 2017, 
elevated minke whale strandings have occurred along the Atlantic coast 
from Maine through South Carolina, with highest numbers in 
Massachusetts, Maine, and New York. This event does not provide cause 
for concern regarding population level impacts, as the likely 
population abundance is greater than 20,000 whales. Elevated North 
Atlantic right whale mortalities began in June 2017, primarily in 
Canada. Overall, preliminary findings support human interactions, 
specifically vessel strikes or rope entanglements, as the cause of 
death for the majority of the right whales. Elevated numbers of harbor 
seal and gray seal mortalities were first observed in July, 2018 and 
have occurred across Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Based on 
tests conducted so far, the main pathogen found in the seals is phocine 
distemper virus although additional testing to identify other factors 
that may be involved in this UME are underway. 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).
    Direct physical interactions (ship strikes and entanglements) 
appear to be responsible for many of the UME humpback and right whale 
mortalities recorded. The proposed HRG survey will require ship strike 
avoidance measures which would minimize the risk of ship strikes while 
fishing gear and in-water lines will not be employed as part of the 
survey. Furthermore, the proposed activities are not expected to 
promote the transmission of infectious disease among marine mammals. 
The survey is not expected to result in the deaths of any marine 
mammals or combine with the effects of the ongoing UMEs to result in 
any additional impacts not analyzed here. Accordingly, Vineyard Wind 
did not request, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize, take of marine 
mammals by serious injury, or mortality.
    The required 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 preventing animals from being exposed to sound levels that have the 
potential to cause injury (Level A harassment) and more severe Level B 
harassment during HRG survey activities, even in the biologically 
important areas described above. No Level A harassment is anticipated 
or authorized.
    NMFS expects that most takes would primarily be in the form of 
short-term Level B behavioral harassment in the form of brief startling 
reaction and/or temporary vacating of the area, or decreased foraging 
(if such activity were occurring)--reactions that (at the scale and 
intensity anticipated here) are considered to be of low severity and 
with no lasting biological consequences. Since both the source and the 
marine mammals are mobile, only a smaller area would be ensonified by 
sound levels that could result in take for only a short period. 
Additionally, required mitigation measures would reduce exposure to 
sound that could result in more severe behavioral harassment.
    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 or serious injury is anticipated or 
authorized;
     No Level A harassment (PTS) is anticipated;
     Any foraging interruptions are expected to be short term 
and unlikely to be cause significantly impacts;
     Impacts on marine mammal habitat and species that serve as 
prey species for marine mammals are expected to be minimal and the 
alternate areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals are readily 
available;
     Take is anticipated to be primarily Level B behavioral 
harassment consisting of brief startling reactions and/or temporary 
avoidance of the Project Area;
     Survey activities would occur in such a comparatively 
small portion of the biologically important areas for north Atlantic 
right whale migration, including a small area of designated critical 
habitat, that any avoidance of the Project Area due to activities would 
not affect migration. In addition, mitigation measures to shut down at 
500 m to minimize potential for Level B behavioral harassment would 
limit both the number and severity of take of the species.
     Similarly, due to the relatively small footprint of the 
survey activities in relation to the size of a biologically important 
areas for right, humpback, fin, and sei whales foraging, the survey 
activities would not affect foraging behavior of this species; and
     Proposed mitigation measures, including visual monitoring 
and shutdowns, are expected to minimize the intensity of potential 
impacts to marine mammals.
    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 required monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from 
Vineyard Wind's proposed HRG survey activities will have a negligible 
impact on the 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 propose for authorization to 
be taken, for all species and stocks, would be considered small 
relative to the relevant stocks or populations (less than 15 percent 
for all species and stocks) as shown in Table 7. Based on the analysis 
contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed 
mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine 
mammals, NMFS preliminarily 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.

[[Page 7977]]

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 proposing to authorize the incidental take of four species 
of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA: The North Atlantic 
right, fin, sei, and sperm whale. The Permits and Conservation Division 
has requested initiation of Section 7 consultation with NMFS GARFO for 
the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA section 7 
consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed 
issuance of the authorization.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to Vineyard Wind for conducting marine site 
characterization surveys offshore of Massachusetts in the areas of the 
Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on 
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0501 and OCS-A 0522) and along 
potential submarine cable routes to a landfall location in 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York, from April 1, 
2020 through March 31, 2021, provided the previously mentioned 
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A 
draft of the proposed IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed HRG 
survey. We also request at this time comment on the potential Renewal 
of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please 
include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations 
to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent 
Renewal IHA.
    On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-year Renewal IHA 
following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for 
public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly 
identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the 
Specified Activities section of this notice is planned or (2) the 
activities as described in the Specified Activities section of this 
notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a Renewal 
would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in 
the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the 
following conditions are met:
     A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days 
prior to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the 
Renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from 
expiration of the initial IHA).
     The request for renewal must include the following:
    (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the 
requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under 
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so 
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the 
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take 
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).
    (2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the 
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the 
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not 
previously analyzed or authorized.
     Upon review of the request for Renewal, the status of the 
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS 
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, 
the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and 
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

    Dated: February 5, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-02662 Filed 2-11-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P