[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26940-26962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09629]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XA132]


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; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given 
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 
Vineyard Wind, LLC (Vineyard Wind) to incidentally harass, by Level B 
harassment only, marine mammals during marine site characterization 
surveys off the coast 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.

DATES: This authorization is valid from June 1, 2020 through May 31, 
2021.

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

[[Page 26941]]

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

Summary of Request

    On 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 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, using multiple 
concurrently operating vessels, over the course of up to 365 calendar 
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 Specified Activity

    Vineyard Wind plans 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 planned site characterization surveys has the 
potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals in the form of 
behavioral harassment. The estimated duration of the activity is 
expected to be up to 365 survey days starting in June, 2020. This 
schedule is based on 24-hour operations and includes potential down 
time due to inclement weather. A maximum of 736 vessel days are planned 
with up to eight survey vessels operating concurrently. Survey vessels 
will travel at an average speed of 3.5 knots (kn) and total distance 
covered by each while actively operating HRG equipment is approximately 
100 kilometers (km) per day. The notice of proposed IHA incorrectly 
stated an average speed of 4 kn.
    The HRG survey activities planned by Vineyard Wind are described in 
detail in the notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 7952; February 12, 2020). 
The HRG equipment planned for use is shown in Table 1.

                                    Table 1--Summary of Geophysical Survey Equipment Planned for Use by Vineyard Wind
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Operating     Beam                   Peak source level     Pulse
          HRG equipment category              Specific HRG equipment     frequency    width    Source level    (dB re 1 [mu]Pa    duration    Repetition
                                                                           (kHz)     ([deg])     (dB rms)             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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, detailed description of Vineyard Wind's planned 
surveys is provided in the notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 7952; February 
12, 2020). Since that time, no changes have been made to the 
activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. 
Please refer to that notice for the detailed description of the 
specified activity. Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are 
described in detail later in this document (please see Mitigation and 
Monitoring and Reporting below).

Comments and Responses

    A notice of proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on 
February 12, 2020 (85 FR 7952). During the 30-day public comment 
period, NMFS received comment letters from: (1) The Marine Mammal 
Commission (Commission); (2) a group of environmental non-governmental 
organizations (ENGOs) including the Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Conservation Law Foundation, and National Wildlife Federation; and (3) 
the Rhode Island Fisherman's Advisory Board (FAB), which manages the 
state's coastal program under the Coastal Zone Management Act. NMFS has 
posted the comments online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable. A summary of the public comments received from 
the Commission, the ENGOs, and the FAB as well as NMFS' responses to 
those comments are below.
    Comment 1: The Commission recommended that NMFS incorporate the 
actual beamwidth of 75[deg] rather than 180[deg] for the Applied 
Acoustics AA251 boomer for Vineyard Wind and re-

[[Page 26942]]

estimate the Level A and B harassment zones accordingly.
    Response: None of the HRG sources specified by the Commission's 
comment were determined to be the dominant source in terms of Level A/B 
harassment zones and therefore were not used for estimating relevant 
ensonified zones. Additionally, the Commission's recommendations would 
result in harassment zone sizes for these particular sources that would 
be equal to, or lesser than, those described in the proposed IHA, and 
therefore would not result in a change to the dominant source used to 
estimate marine mammal exposures. As re-modeling these specific sources 
would not result in any changes to marine mammal exposure estimates, 
Level A or Level B harassment take numbers, or our determinations, we 
have determined that taking these steps is not warranted for this 
authorization. NMFS will take the Commission's comments into 
consideration for future ITAs for similar activities and sources.
    Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS use the out-of-beam 
source level of 187 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m from Subacoustech (2018) for 
the Innomar SES-2000 Medium-100 parametric SBP and re-estimate the 
Level A and B harassment zones. Otherwise, NMFS should use the in-beam 
source level and beamwidth to revise the harassment zones accordingly 
for the parametric SBP.
    Response: With respect to the Innomar SES-2000 Medium-100 
parametric SBP, NMFS has determined that, based on the very narrow beam 
width of this source (i.e., 2 degrees), it is extremely unlikely that a 
marine mammal would be exposed to sound emitted from this particular 
source. In addition, baleen whales are unlikely to hear signals from 
this source, which operates at 85-115 kHz. Therefore, we have 
determined the potential for this source to result in take of marine 
mammals is so low as to be discountable, and re-modeling harassment 
isopleths for this source is therefore not warranted.
    Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS incorporate water 
depth when considering the beamwidth for all sources, including in this 
instance single-beam echosounders, shallow-penetration SBPs, and 
boomers. The Level A and B harassment zones should be revised 
accordingly.
    Response: NMFS agrees with the Commission that water depth should 
be incorporated in acoustic modeling for HRG sources and acknowledges 
that depth was not incorporated in the modeling of HRG sources that was 
used for modeling exposure estimates in the notice of proposed IHA (85 
FR 7952; February 12, 2020). However, NMFS has confirmed using a 
recently-developed spreadsheet tool that accompanies our interim HRG 
guidance (NMFS, 2019), which incorporates water depth, that the 
incorporation of water depth in modeling the HRG sources planned for 
use by Vineyard Wind would result only in smaller harassment zones for 
some sources, and would not result in larger zones for any sources. In 
addition, for the source that was determined to be the dominant source 
in terms of the Level B harassment zone and was therefore used to model 
acoustic exposures (the GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 (400 tip)), using our 
interim guidance (NMFS, 2019) we determined incorporation of depth 
resulted in no change to the modeled Level B harassment isopleth. As a 
result, NMFS will take the Commission's comments into consideration for 
future ITAs for similar activities and sources to ensure action 
proponents incorporate depth into acoustic modeling (as we agree is 
appropriate). However, as taking this step would not change the modeled 
distances to relevant isopleths for dominant sources, and therefore 
would result in no change to exposure estimates, authorized take 
numbers, or our determinations, NMFS has determined that taking this 
step for this particular authorization is not warranted. We note that 
the recently-developed spreadsheet tool that accompanies the NMFS 
interim HRG guidance, referred to above, was not publicly available at 
the time the Vineyard Wind IHA application was submitted, but is now 
available to the public upon request. We also note that the NMFS 
interim HRG guidance did not previously incorporate water depth, but a 
revised version has been developed since the notice of proposed IHA was 
published, and this version will be shared with applicants from this 
point onward. These recent developments will ensure water depth will be 
incorporated in future IHAs issued for HRG surveys.
    Comment 4: The Commission recommended that NMFS and BOEM expedite 
efforts to develop and finalize, in the next six months, methodological 
and signal processing standards for HRG sources. Those standards should 
be used by action proponents that conduct HRG surveys and that either 
choose to conduct in-situ measurements to inform an authorization 
application or are required to conduct measurements to fulfill a lease 
condition set forth by BOEM.
    Response: NMFS agrees with the Commission that methodological and 
signal processing standards for HRG sources is warranted and is working 
on developing such standards. However, NMFS cannot ensure such 
standards will be developed within the Commission's preferred time 
frame.
    Comment 5: The Commission recommended that NMFS (1) prohibit 
Vineyard Wind and other action proponents from using the impulsive 
Level A harassment thresholds for estimating the extents of the Level A 
harassment zones for non-impulsive sources (i.e., echosounders, 
shallow-penetration SBPs, pingers, etc.) and (2) require action 
proponents to use the correct Level A harassment thresholds in all 
future applications.
    Response: NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation. As 
described in the notice of proposed IHA, NMFS does not agree with 
Vineyard Wind's characterization of certain HRG sources as impulsive 
sources. However, this characterization results in more conservative 
modeling results. Thus, we have assessed the potential for Level A 
harassment to result from the proposed activities based on the modeled 
Level A harassment zones with the acknowledgement that these zones are 
likely conservative. This approach allows us to assess the impacts of 
the proposed activity conservatively and is appropriate in this case. 
Therefore, it is unnecessary to make any changes to the analysis for 
this proposed activity. However, we will proactively work with action 
proponents to require use of the correct Level A harassment thresholds 
in all future applications.
    Comment 6: The Commission recommended that NMFS (1) re-estimate all 
of the Level A and Level B harassment zones for Vineyard Wind using its 
User Spreadsheet that incorporates the operating frequency and 
beamwidth and (2) provide the spreadsheet to all action proponents that 
conduct HRG surveys, post it on NMFS's website, and require all action 
proponents to use it for all future HRG-related authorizations.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the Commission's comments and concurs 
with this recommendation. However, the current Level A harassment User 
Spreadsheet does not incorporate operating frequency or beam width as 
inputs for assessing Level A harassment zones. The tool referenced by 
the Commission is in development and will not be available for use 
prior to making a decision regarding the issuance of this IHA. In 
addition, re-estimating the isopleth distances for Level A harassment 
with the incorporation of

[[Page 26943]]

operating frequency and beam width would result in smaller Level A 
zones and would therefore not result in any change in our determination 
as to whether Level A harassment is a likely outcome of the activity. 
Therefore, the Level A harassment zones will not be recalculated. Note 
that the current User Spreadsheet is available on our website. The 
current interim guidance for determining Level B harassment zones does 
incorporate operating frequency and beam width. We strongly recommend 
that applicants employ these tools, as we believe they are best 
currently available methodologies. However, applicants are free to 
develop additional models or use different tools if they believe they 
are more representative of real-world conditions.
    Comment 7: The Commission recommended that NMFS: (1) Continue to 
prohibit action proponents, including Vineyard Wind, from using a 100-
msec integration time to adjust the SPLrms-based source levels when 
estimating the Level B harassment zones; (2) ensure that the Federal 
Register notice for the final authorization for Vineyard Wind does not 
incorrectly state that pulse duration was considered in the estimation 
of the Level B harassment zones: And (3) require action proponents to 
omit any related discussions regarding integration time from all future 
applications to avoid unnecessary confusion and errors in future 
Federal Register notices.
    Response: As the Commission is aware, NMFS does not have the 
authority to require action proponents to omit the discussion of 
particular topics in ITA applications. We will, however, continue to 
prohibit applicants from using a 100-msec integration time to adjust 
the SPLrms-based source levels when estimating the Level B harassment 
zones, as we have done in this IHA. NMFS has removed references to the 
use of pulse duration for the estimation of Level B harassment zones.
    Comment 8: The Commission recommended that NMFS evaluate the 
impacts of sound sources consistently across all action proponents and 
deem sources de minimis in a consistent manner for all proposed 
incidental harassment authorizations and rulemakings. This has the 
potential to reduce burdens on both action proponents and NMFS.
    Response: NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation and 
agrees that sound sources should be analyzed in a consistent manner and 
agrees that sources determined to result in de minimis impact should 
generally be considered unlikely to result in take under the MMPA. As 
an example, NMFS has determined that most types of geotechnical survey 
equipment are generally unlikely to result in the incidental take of 
marine mammals (in the absence of site-specific or species-specific 
circumstances that may warrant additional analysis). NMFS has not made 
such a determination with respect to all HRG sources. As NMFS has not 
made a determination that sound from all HRG sources would be 
considered de minimis we cannot rule out the potential for these 
sources to result in the incidental take of marine mammals.
    Comment 9: The Commission recommended that NMFS consider whether, 
in such situations involving HRG surveys, incidental harassment 
authorizations are necessary given the small size of the Level B 
harassment zones, the proposed shut-down requirements, and the added 
protection afforded by the lease-stipulated exclusion zones. 
Specifically, the Commission states that NMFS should evaluate whether 
taking needs to be authorized for those sources that are not considered 
de minimis, including sparkers and boomers, and for which 
implementation of the various mitigation measures should be sufficient 
to avoid Level B harassment takes.
    Response: NMFS has evaluated whether taking needs to be authorized 
for those sources that are not considered de minimis, including 
sparkers and boomers, factoring into consideration the effectiveness of 
mitigation and monitoring measures, and we have determined that 
implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures cannot ensure that 
all take can be avoided during all HRG survey activities under all 
circumstances at this time. If and when we are able to reach such a 
conclusion, we will re-evaluate our determination that incidental take 
authorization is warranted for these activities.
    Comment 10: The Commission and ENGOs recommended that NMFS provide 
justification for reducing the number of Level B harassment takes for 
North Atlantic right whales.
    Response: NMFS understands that the required mitigation and 
monitoring measures may not be 100 percent effective under all 
conditions. Due to night time operations over an extended period (736 
vessel days), NMFS acknowledges that a limited number of right whales 
may enter into the Level B harassment zone without being observed. 
Therefore, NMFS has conservatively authorized take of 10 right whales 
by Level B harassment. The number of authorized takes was reduced from 
the calculated take of 30 whales, which does not account for the 
effectiveness of the required mitigation. There are several reasons 
justifying this reduction. Vineyard Wind will establish and monitor a 
shutdown zone at least 2.5 times (500-m) greater than the predicted 
Level B harassment threshold distance (195 m). Take has also been 
conservatively calculated based on the largest source, which will not 
be operating at all times, and take is therefore likely over-estimated 
to some degree. Furthermore, the potential for incidental take during 
daylight hours is very low given that two PSOs are required for 
monitoring.
    Additionally, sightings of right whales have been uncommon during 
previous HRG surveys. Bay State Wind submitted a marine mammal 
monitoring report on July 19, 2019 describing PSO observations and 
takes in Lease Area OCS-A500, which is adjacent to part of Vineyard 
Wind's survey area covered under this IHA. The offshore export cable 
corridor (OECC) areas for Bay State Wind and Vineyard Wind also 
overlap. Over 376 vessel days, three separate survey ships recorded a 
total of 496 marine mammal detections between May 11, 2018 and March 
14, 2019. Nevertheless, there were no confirmed observations of right 
whales on any of the survey ships during the entire survey period. 
There were a number of unidentifiable whales reported, and it is 
possible that some of these unidentified animals may have been right 
whales. Vineyard Wind's marine mammal monitoring report included Lease 
Areas OCS-A 0501 and OCS-A 0522 from May 31, 2019 through January 7, 
2020. No right whales were observed although unidentifiable whales, 
some of them possibly right whales, were recorded. However, the lack of 
confirmed observations by both Bay State Wind and Vineyard Wind within 
or near the Lease Areas included in this issued IHA indicates that 
right whale sightings have not been common in this region during 
previous survey work. In summary, the aforementioned factors lead NMFS 
to conclude that the unadjusted modeled exposure estimate is likely a 
significant overestimate of actual potential exposure. Accordingly, 
NMFS has made a reasonable adjustment to conservatively account for 
these expected impacts on actual taking of right whales.
    Comment 11: The Commission recommended that NMFS authorize up to 
four Level B harassment takes of sei whales, consistent with Table 1 in 
the draft authorization.
    Response: NMFS concurs with the recommendation and has authorized 
four sei whale takes by Level B

[[Page 26944]]

harassment as shown in Table 5 to match the number of takes included in 
the draft and issued IHA.
    Comment 12: The Commission recommended that NMFS require Vineyard 
Wind to report as soon as possible and cease project activities 
immediately in the event of an unauthorized injury or mortality of a 
marine mammal from a vessel strike until NMFS's Office of Protected 
Resources and the New England/Mid-Atlantic Regional Stranding 
Coordinator determine whether additional measures are necessary to 
minimize the potential for additional unauthorized takes.
    Response: NMFS has imposed a suite of measures in this IHA to 
reduce the risk of vessel strikes and has not authorized any takes 
associated with vessel strikes. However, NMFS does not concur and does 
not adopt the recommendation. NMFS does not agree that a blanket 
requirement for project activities to cease would be practicable for a 
vessel that is operating on the open water, and it is unclear what 
mitigation benefit would result from such a requirement in relation to 
vessel strike. The Commission does not suggest what measures other than 
those prescribed in this IHA would potentially prove more effective in 
reducing the risk of strike. Therefore, we have not included this 
requirement in the authorization. NMFS retains authority to modify the 
IHA and cease all activities immediately based on a vessel strike and 
will exercise that authority if warranted.
    Comment 13: The Commission recommended that NMFS refrain from 
issuing renewals for any authorization and instead use its abbreviated 
Federal Register notice process. That process is similarly expeditious 
and fulfills NMFS's intent to maximize efficiencies, and that NMFS (1) 
stipulate that a renewal is a one-time opportunity (a) in all Federal 
Register notices requesting comments on the possibility of a renewal, 
(b) on its web page detailing the renewal process, and (c) in all draft 
and final authorizations that include a term and condition for a 
renewal and, (2) if NMFS refuses to stipulate a renewal being a one-
time opportunity, explain why it will not do so in its Federal Register 
notices, on its web page, and in all draft and final authorizations.
    Response: NMFS does not agree with the Commission and, therefore, 
does not adopt the Commission's recommendation. As explained in 
response to Comment 21, NMFS believes renewals can be issued in certain 
limited circumstances. NMFS will provide a more detailed explanation of 
its decision within 120 days, as required by section 202(d) of the 
MMPA.
    Comment 14: The Commission recommends that, for all authorizations 
and rulemakings, NMFS provide separate, detailed explanations for not 
following or adopting any Commission recommendation.
    Response: NMFS agrees that section 202(d) of the MMPA requires that 
any recommendations made by the Commission be responded to within 120 
days of receipt, and that response to recommendations that are not 
followed or adopted must be accompanied by a detailed explanation of 
the reasons why. Therefore, NMFS concurs with the Commission's 
recommendation that NMFS provide detailed explanations for not 
following or adopting any Commission recommendation.
    However, NMFS disagrees with the Commission's underlying allegation 
that we have not provided the necessary responses, as required by the 
MMPA. Section 202(d) requires NMFS to provide detailed explanations of 
the reasons why recommendations are not adopted within 120 days, 
however it does not provide the Commission with the authority to assess 
the adequacy of NMFS' response, and NMFS believes that the explanations 
provided are sufficient. Regarding certain examples where NMFS does 
acknowledge having yet to provide the requisite detailed explanation, 
the Commission notes that it has been ``over a month'' with no 
response. However, as noted accurately by the Commission, the statute 
requires only that the explanation be provided within 120 days.
    Comment 15: The ENGOs recommended a seasonal restriction on site 
assessment and characterization activities in the Project Areas with 
the potential to harass North Atlantic right whales between November 1, 
2020 and May 14, 2021.
    Response: In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be 
appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species 
or stocks and their habitat, 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; and 
(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, 
which may consider such things as relative cost and impact on 
operations.
    NMFS is concerned about the status of the North Atlantic right 
whale population given that an unusual mortality event (UME) has been 
in effect for this species since June of 2017 and that there have been 
a number of recent mortalities. While the ensonified areas contemplated 
for any single HRG vessel are comparatively small and the anticipated 
resulting effects of exposure relatively lower-level, the potential 
impacts of multiple HRG vessels (up to 8 according to Vineyard Wind) 
operating simultaneously in areas of higher right whale density are not 
well-documented and warrant caution.
    NMFS agrees with the recommendation to include a seasonal 
restriction on survey activity, as described below and determined by 
NMFS to be both warranted and practicable. NMFS reviewed the best 
available right whale abundance data for the planned survey area 
(Roberts et al. 2017; Kraus et al. 2016). We determined that right 
whale abundance is significantly higher in the period starting in late 
winter and extending to late spring in specific sections of the survey 
area.
    Based on this information NMFS has defined seasonal restriction 
areas that Vineyard Wind must follow when conducting HRG surveys. 
Survey activities may only occur in the Cape Cod Bay Seasonal 
Management Area (SMA) and off of the Race Point SMA during the months 
of August and September to ensure sufficient buffer between the SMA 
restrictions (January to May 15) and known seasonal occurrence of right 
whales north and northeast of Cape Cod (fall, winter, and spring).
    Vineyard Wind will limit to three the number of 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. An additional seasonal 
restriction area has been defined south of Nantucket and will be in 
effect from December to February in the area delineated by the Dynamic 
Management Area (DMA) that was effective from January 31, 2020 through 
February 15, 2020. DMAs have been established during this time frame in 
this area for the last several years. DMAs are temporary protection 
zones that are triggered when three or more whales are sighted within 
2-3 miles of each other outside of active SMAs. The size of a DMA is 
larger if more whales are present.
    Vineyard Wind is permitted to operate 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

[[Page 26945]]

number and intensity of right whale takes. Regarding practicability, 
the timing of Vineyard Wind's surveys is driven by a complex suite of 
factors including availability of vessels and equipment (which are used 
for other surveys and by other companies), other permitting timelines, 
and the timing of certain restrictions associated with fisheries gear, 
among other things. Vineyard Wind has indicated that there is enough 
flexibility to revise their survey plan such that they can both 
accommodate this measure and satisfy their permitting and operational 
obligations, and we do not anticipate that these restrictions will 
impact Vineyard Wind's ability to execute their survey plan within the 
planned 736 vessel days. Therefore, NMFS determined that this required 
mitigation measure is sufficient to ensure the least practicable 
adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat.
    Comment 16: The ENGOs recommended a prohibition on the commencement 
of geophysical surveys at night or during times of poor visibility. 
They stated that ramp up should occur during daylight hours only, to 
maximize the probability that North Atlantic right whales are detected 
and confirmed clear of the exclusion zone.
    Response: We acknowledge the limitations inherent in detection of 
marine mammals at night. However, no injury is expected to result even 
in the absence of mitigation, given the very small estimated Level A 
harassment zones. Any potential impacts to marine mammals authorized 
for take would be limited to short-term behavioral responses. 
Restricting surveys in the manner suggested by the commenters may 
reduce marine mammal exposures by some degree in the short term, but 
would not result in any significant reduction in either intensity or 
duration of noise exposure. Vessels would also potentially be on the 
water for an extended time introducing noise into the marine 
environment. The restrictions recommended by the commenters could 
result in the surveys spending increased time on the water, which may 
result in greater overall exposure to sound for marine mammals; thus 
the commenters have not demonstrated that such a requirement would 
result in a net benefit. Furthermore, restricting the ability of the 
applicant to ramp-up only during daylight hours would have the 
potential to result in lengthy shutdowns of the survey equipment, which 
could result in the applicant failing to collect the data they have 
determined is necessary and, subsequently, the need to conduct 
additional surveys the following year. This would result in 
significantly increased costs incurred by the applicant. Thus the 
restriction suggested by the commenters would not be practicable for 
the applicant to implement. In consideration of potential effectiveness 
of the recommended measure and its practicability for the applicant, 
NMFS has determined that restricting survey start-ups to daylight hours 
when visibility is unimpeded is not warranted or practicable in this 
case.
    Comment 17: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS require monitoring an 
exclusion zone (EZ) for North Atlantic right whales of at least 500 
meters (m), and ideally 1,000 m, around each vessel conducting 
activities with noise levels that could result in injury or harassment 
to this species.
    Response: Regarding the recommendation for a 1,000 m EZ 
specifically for North Atlantic right whales, we have determined that 
the 500-m EZ, as required in the IHA, is sufficiently protective. We 
note that the 500-m EZ exceeds the modeled distance to the largest 
Level B harassment isopleth distance (195 m) by a substantial margin. 
Thus, we are not requiring shutdown if a right whale is observed beyond 
500-m.
    Comment 18: The ENGOs recommended a requirement that four PSOs 
adhere to a two-on/two-off shift schedule to ensure no individual PSO 
is responsible for monitoring more than 180[deg] of the exclusion zone 
at any one time.
    Response: NMFS typically 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 proposed, and has voluntarily committed, 
to a minimum of two (2) NMFS-approved PSOs 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). NMFS 
adopted Vineyard Wind's PSO proposal. Even in the absence of the 
mitigation provided by PSOs, the impacts of this survey are quite low 
and Vineyard Wind has proposed more PSOs monitoring when HRG equipment 
is in use than NMFS typically requires. We have determined that the PSO 
requirements in the IHA are sufficient to ensure the least practicable 
adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat.
    Comment 19: The ENGOs recommended that a combination of visual 
monitoring by PSOs and passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) should be used 
at all times. Since PSOs are unable to visually monitor the exclusion 
area during nighttime hours, the ENGOs also recommended that NMFS 
require, for efforts that continue into the nighttime, a combination of 
night-vision, thermal imaging, and PAM.
    Response: There are several reasons why we do not agree that use of 
PAM is warranted for 24-hour HRG surveys such as the one planned by 
Vineyard Wind. While NMFS agrees that PAM can be an important tool for 
augmenting detection capabilities in certain circumstances, its utility 
in further reducing impact for Vineyard Wind's HRG survey activities is 
limited. First, for this activity, the area expected to be ensonified 
above the Level B harassment threshold is relatively small (a maximum 
of 195 m as described in the Estimated Take section)--this reflects the 
fact that, to start with, the source level is comparatively low and the 
intensity of any resulting impacts would be lower level and, further, 
it means that inasmuch as PAM will only detect a portion of any animals 
exposed within a zone (see below), the overall probability of PAM 
detecting an animal in the harassment zone is low--together these 
factors support the limited value of PAM for use in reducing take with 
smaller zones. PAM is only capable of detecting animals that are 
actively vocalizing, while many marine mammal species vocalize 
infrequently or during certain activities, which means that only a 
subset of the animals within the range of the PAM would be detected 
(and potentially have reduced impacts). Additionally, localization and 
range detection can be challenging under certain scenarios. For 
example, odontocetes are fast moving and often travel in large or 
dispersed groups which makes localization difficult. In addition, the 
ability of PAM to detect baleen whale vocalizations is further limited 
due to being deployed from the stern of a vessel, which puts the PAM 
hydrophones in proximity to propeller noise and low frequency engine 
noise which can mask the low frequency sounds emitted by baleen whales, 
including right whales.
    Given that the effects to marine mammals from the types of surveys 
authorized in this IHA are expected to be limited to low level 
behavioral harassment even in the absence of mitigation, the limited 
additional benefit anticipated by adding this detection method 
(especially for right whales and other low frequency cetaceans, species 
for which PAM has limited efficacy), and the cost and impracticability 
of implementing a full-time PAM program, we have determined the current 
requirements for visual

[[Page 26946]]

monitoring are sufficient to ensure the least practicable adverse 
impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat. However, we 
note that Vineyard Wind will voluntarily implement PAM during night 
operations as an added precautionary measure even though this is not a 
NMFS requirement.
    As stated in the draft IHA, Vineyard Wind is required to use night-
vision equipment (i.e., night-vision goggles and/or infrared 
technology) during night time monitoring.
    Comment 20: The ENGOs recommended a requirement that all project 
vessels (regardless of size) either transiting to/from or operating 
within the Lease Areas observe a 10 knot speed restriction during 
times, at minimum, when mother-calf pairs, pregnant females, surface 
active groups, or aggregations of three or more whales are confirmed 
or, based on multi-year sightings data, expected to be in the area. The 
commenters also recommend that a compulsory 10 knot vessel speed 
restriction should also be required of all project vessels (not just 
survey vessels) within a DMA established by NMFS. To the extent that 
any project vessel of any size may exceed a speed of 10 knots, the 
ENGOs state that this should only be allowed if multiple monitoring 
measures are in place, including aerial surveys or a combination of 
vessel-based visual observers and passive acoustic monitoring.
    Response: NMFS has analyzed the potential for ship strike resulting 
from Vineyard Wind's activity and has determined that the mitigation 
measures specific to ship strike avoidance are sufficient to avoid the 
potential for ship strike. These include: A requirement that all vessel 
operators comply with 10 knot (18.5 kilometer (km)/hour) or less speed 
restrictions in any SMA or DMA; a requirement that all vessel operators 
reduce vessel speed to 10 knots (18.5 km/hour) or less when any large 
whale, any mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of non-
delphinoid cetaceans are observed within 100 m of an underway vessel; a 
requirement that all survey vessels maintain a separation distance of 
500-m or greater from any sighted North Atlantic right whale; a 
requirement that, if underway, vessels must steer a course away from 
any sighted North Atlantic right whale at 10 knots or less until the 
500-m minimum separation distance has been established; and a 
requirement that, if a North Atlantic right whale is sighted in a 
vessel's path, or within 500 m of an underway vessel, the underway 
vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral. We have 
determined that the ship strike avoidance measures are sufficient to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat. As noted previously, occurrence of vessel strike during 
surveys is extremely unlikely based on the low vessel speed of 
approximately 3.5 knots (6.5 km/hour) while transiting survey lines. 
Furthermore, no documented vessel strikes have occurred for any HRG 
surveys which were issued IHAs from NMFS.
    Comment 21: The ENGOs objected to NMFS' process to consider 
extending any one-year IHA with a truncated 15-day comment period as 
contrary to the MMPA.
    Response: NMFS' IHA Renewal process meets all statutory 
requirements. All IHAs issued, whether an initial IHA or a Renewal IHA, 
are valid for a period of not more than one year. And the public has at 
least 30 days to comment on all proposed IHAs, with a cumulative total 
of 45 days for IHA Renewals. As noted above, the Request for Public 
Comments section made clear that the agency was seeking comment on both 
the initial proposed IHA and the potential issuance of a Renewal for 
this project. Because any Renewal (as explained in the Request for 
Public Comments section) is limited to another year of identical or 
nearly identical activities in the same location (as described in the 
Description of Proposed Activity section) or the same activities that 
were not completed within the one-year period of the initial IHA, 
reviewers have the information needed to effectively comment on both 
the immediate proposed IHA and a possible one-year Renewal, should the 
IHA holder choose to request one in the coming months.
    While there will be additional documents submitted with a Renewal 
request, for a qualifying Renewal these will be limited to 
documentation that NMFS will make available and use to verify that the 
activities are identical to those in the initial IHA, are nearly 
identical such that the changes would have either no effect on impacts 
to marine mammals or decrease those impacts, or are a subset of 
activities already analyzed and authorized but not completed under the 
initial IHA. NMFS will also confirm, among other things, that the 
activities will occur in the same location; involve the same species 
and stocks; provide for continuation of the same mitigation, 
monitoring, and reporting requirements; and that no new information has 
been received that would alter the prior analysis. The Renewal request 
will also contain a preliminary monitoring report, but that is to 
verify that effects from the activities do not indicate impacts of a 
scale or nature not previously analyzed. The additional 15-day public 
comment period provides the public an opportunity to review these few 
documents, provide any additional pertinent information and comment on 
whether they think the criteria for a Renewal have been met. Between 
the initial 30-day comment period on these same activities and the 
additional 15 days, the total comment period for a Renewal is 45 days.
    In addition to the IHA Renewal process being consistent with all 
requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D), it is also consistent with 
Congress' intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent reflected in 
statements in the legislative history of the MMPA. Through the 
provision for Renewals in the regulations, description of the process 
and express invitation to comment on specific potential Renewals in the 
Request for Public Comments section of each proposed IHA, the 
description of the process on NMFS' website, further elaboration on the 
process through responses to comments such as these, posting of 
substantive documents on the agency's website, and provision of 30 or 
45 days for public review and comment on all proposed initial IHAs and 
Renewals respectively, NMFS has ensured that the public ``is invited 
and encouraged to participate fully in the agency decision-making 
process.''
    Comment 22: The ENGOs suggested that it should be NMFS' top 
priority to consider any initial data from State monitoring efforts, 
passive acoustic monitoring data, opportunistic marine mammal sightings 
data, satellite telemetry, and other data sources. Further, commenters 
state that NMFS should take steps now to develop a dataset that more 
accurately reflects marine mammal presence so that it is in hand for 
future IHA authorizations and other work.
    Response: NMFS will review any recommended data sources and will 
continue to use the best available information. We welcome future input 
from interested parties on data sources that may be of use in analyzing 
the potential presence and movement patterns of marine mammals, 
including North Atlantic right whales, in New England waters.
    Comment 23: The ENGOs stated that the agency's assumptions 
regarding mitigation effectiveness are unfounded and cannot be used to 
justify any reduction in the number of takes authorized as was done for 
right whales. The reasons cited include: (i) The agency's reliance on a 
160 dB threshold for behavioral harassment that is not supported by the 
best available

[[Page 26947]]

scientific information in other low- to mid-frequency sources (which 
commenters assert demonstrates Level B harassment takes will occur with 
near certainty at exposure levels well below the 160 dB threshold); 
(ii) the geographic and temporal extent, as well as the 24-hour nature 
of the survey activities proposed to be authorized; and (iii) the 
reliance on the assumption that marine mammals will avoid sound despite 
studies that have found avoidance behavior is not generalizable among 
species and contexts.
    Response: The three comments provided by the ENGOs are addressed 
individually below.
    (i) NMFS acknowledges that the potential for behavioral response to 
an anthropogenic source is highly variable and context-specific and 
acknowledges the potential for Level B harassment at exposures to 
received levels below 160 dB rms. Alternatively, NMFS acknowledges the 
potential that not all animals exposed to received levels above 160 dB 
rms will respond in ways constituting behavioral harassment. There are 
a variety of studies indicating that contextual variables play a very 
important role in response to anthropogenic noise, and the severity of 
effects are not necessarily linear when compared to a received level 
(RL). The studies cited in the comment (Nowacek et al., 2004 and 
Kastelein et al., 2012 and 2015) showed there were behavioral responses 
to sources below the 160 dB threshold, but also acknowledge the 
importance of context in these responses. For example, Nowacek et al., 
2004 reported the behavior of five out of six North Atlantic right 
whales was disrupted at RLs of only 133-148 dB re 1 [micro]Pa 
(returning to normal behavior within minutes) when exposed to an alert 
signal. However, the authors also reported that none of the whales 
responded to noise from transiting vessels or playbacks of ship noise 
even though the RLs were at least as strong, and contained similar 
frequencies, to those of the alert signal. The authors state that a 
possible explanation for why whales responded to the alert signal and 
did not respond to vessel noise is that the whales may have been 
habituated to vessel noise, while the alert signal was a novel sound. 
In addition, the authors noted differences between the characteristics 
of the vessel noise and alert signal which may also have played a part 
in the differences in responses to the two noise types. Therefore, it 
was concluded that the signal itself, as opposed to the RL, was 
responsible for the response. DeRuiter et al. (2012) also indicate that 
variability of responses to acoustic stimuli depends not only on the 
species receiving the sound and the sound source, but also on the 
social, behavioral, or environmental contexts of exposure. Finally, 
Gong et al. (2014) highlighted that behavioral responses depend on many 
contextual factors, including range to source, RL above background 
noise, novelty of the signal, and differences in behavioral state. 
Similarly, Kastelein et al., 2015 (cited in the comment) examined 
behavioral responses of a harbor porpoise to sonar signals in a quiet 
pool, but stated behavioral responses of harbor porpoises at sea would 
vary with context such as social situation, sound propagation, and 
background noise levels.
    NMFS uses 160 dB (rms) as the exposure level for estimating Level B 
harassment takes, while acknowledging that the 160 db rms step-function 
approach is a simplistic approach. However, there appears to be a 
misconception regarding the concept of the 160 dB threshold. While it 
is correct that in practice it works as a step-function, i.e., animals 
exposed to received levels above the threshold are considered to be 
``taken'' and those exposed to levels below the threshold are not, it 
is in fact intended as a sort of mid-point of likely behavioral 
responses (which are extremely complex depending on many factors 
including species, noise source, individual experience, and behavioral 
context). What this means is that, conceptually, the function 
recognizes that some animals exposed to levels below the threshold will 
in fact react in ways that are appropriately considered take, while 
others that are exposed to levels above the threshold will not. Use of 
the 160-dB threshold allows for a simplistic quantitative estimate of 
take, while we can qualitatively address the variation in responses 
across different received levels in our discussion and analysis.
    Overall, we emphasize the lack of scientific consensus regarding 
what criteria might be more appropriate. Defining sound levels that 
disrupt behavioral patterns is difficult because responses depend on 
the context in which the animal receives the sound, including an 
animal's behavioral mode when it hears sounds (e.g., feeding, resting, 
or migrating), prior experience, and biological factors (e.g., age and 
sex). Other contextual factors, such as signal characteristics, 
distance from the source, and signal to noise ratio, may also help 
determine response to a given received level of sound. Therefore, 
levels at which responses occur are not necessarily consistent and can 
be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007; Ellison et al., 2012; 
Bain and Williams, 2006). Further, we note that the sounds sources and 
the equipment used in the specified activities are outside (higher 
than) of the most sensitive range of mysticete hearing.
    There is currently no agreement on these complex issues, and NMFS 
followed the practice at the time of submission and review of this 
application in assessing the likelihood of disruption of behavioral 
patterns by using the 160 dB threshold. This threshold has remained in 
use in part because of the practical need to use a relatively simple 
threshold based on available information that is both predictable and 
measurable for most activities. We note that the seminal review 
presented by Southall et al. (2007) did not suggest any specific new 
criteria due to lack of convergence in the data. NMFS is currently 
evaluating available information towards development of guidance for 
assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammal behavior. 
However, undertaking a process to derive defensible exposure-response 
relationships is complex (e.g., NMFS previously attempted such an 
approach, but is currently re-evaluating the approach based on input 
collected during peer review of NMFS (2016)). A recent systematic 
review by Gomez et al. (2016) was unable to derive criteria expressing 
these types of exposure-response relationships based on currently 
available data.
    NMFS acknowledges that there may be methods of assessing likely 
behavioral response to acoustic stimuli that better capture the 
variation and context-dependency of those responses than the simple 160 
dB step-function used here, but there is no agreement on what that 
method should be or how more complicated methods may be implemented by 
applicants. NMFS is committed to continuing its work in developing 
updated guidance with regard to acoustic thresholds, but pending 
additional consideration and process is reliant upon an established 
threshold that is reasonably reflective of available science.
    (ii) Given the geographic and temporal extent of the survey area as 
well as continuous 24-hour operations, the ENGOs question the 
effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed to be authorized. 
They specifically recommended that seasonal restrictions should be 
established and consideration should be given to species for which a 
UME has been declared. Note that NMFS is requiring Vineyard Wind to 
comply with seasonal restrictions as described in the response to 
Comment

[[Page 26948]]

15. Furthermore, 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 in the specified activities 
for this IHA is estimated at 195 m. Actual isopleths are no greater 
than 195 m and are considerably less for a number of other HRG devices 
employing downward facing beams at various angles. After accounting for 
these small harassment zones and examining previous marine mammal 
monitoring reports from nearby areas, the calculated right whale 
exposures decreased from 30 to 10 animals (as discussed in greater 
detail in response to Comment 10). At these distances, monitoring by 
PSOs is expected to be highly effective. Given these factors, we are 
confident in our decision to authorize 10 takes by Level B harassment. 
Additionally, similar mitigation measures have been required in several 
previous HRG survey IHAs and have been successfully implemented.
    (iii) The commenters disagreed with NMFS' assumption that marine 
mammals move away from sound sources. The ENGOs claimed that studies 
have not found avoidance behavior to be generalizable among species and 
contexts, and even though avoidance may itself constitute take under 
the MMPA. Importantly, the commenters mistakenly seem to believe that 
the NMFS' does not consider avoidance as a take, and that the concept 
of avoidance is used as a mechanism to reduce overall take--this is not 
the case. Avoidance of loud sounds is a well-documented behavioral 
response, and NMFS often accordingly accounts for this avoidance by 
reducing the number of injurious exposures, which would occur in very 
close proximity to the source and necessitate a longer duration of 
exposure. However, when Level A harassment takes are reduced in this 
manner, they are changed to Level B harassment takes, in recognition of 
the fact that this avoidance or other behavioral responses occurring as 
a result of these exposures are still take. NMFS does not reduce the 
overall amount of take as a result of avoidance.
    Comment 24: The ENGOs recommended that the agency must carefully 
analyze the cumulative impacts from the survey activities and other 
survey activities contemplated in the other lease areas on the North 
Atlantic right whale and other protected species.
    Response: The MMPA grants exceptions to its broad take prohibition 
for a ``specified activity.'' 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(i). Cumulative 
impacts (also referred to as cumulative effects) is a term that appears 
in the context of NEPA and the ESA, but it is defined differently in 
those different contexts. Neither the MMPA nor NMFS's codified 
implementing regulations address consideration of other unrelated 
activities and their impacts on populations. However, the preamble for 
NMFS's implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989) 
states in response to comments that the impacts from other past and 
ongoing anthropogenic activities are to be incorporated into the 
negligible impact analysis via their impacts on the environmental 
baseline. Accordingly, NMFS here has factored into its negligible 
impact analysis the impacts of other past and ongoing anthropogenic 
activities via their impacts on the baseline (e.g., as reflected in the 
density/distribution and status of the species, population size and 
growth rate, and other relevant stressors (such as incidental mortality 
in commercial fisheries)).
    Comment 25: The FAB indicated that NMFS did not adequately justify 
authorized take numbers, particularly in allowing incidental take of 10 
North Atlantic right whale. They also felt that the other numbers for 
allowed take are unjustified, referring to them as a percentage of the 
entire population. As NMFS stated in its Notice for the Proposed IHA, 
``[a]n estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough information 
on which to base an impact determination.''
    Response: In the Estimated Take section, NMFS describes in detail 
how authorized take for each species is calculated using the best 
available scientific data. Please refer to that section. Justification 
for the authorized take of ten right whales by Level B harassment as 
well as the take of other species may be found in the response to 
Comment 23.
    Comment 26: The FAB indicated that the assessment of whether there 
are ``small numbers'' affected, and whether there is only a 
``negligible impact,'' should be assessed in further detail rather than 
simply listing the percentages of potentially-impacted individuals 
compared to the species as a whole, particularly for North Atlantic 
Right Whales.
    Response: The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section 
of the proposed IHA (85 FR 7952; February 12, 2020) provides a detailed 
qualitative discussion supporting NMFS's determination that any 
anticipated impacts from this action would be negligible. The section 
contains a number of factors that were considered by NMFS based on the 
best available scientific data and why we concluded that impacts 
resulting from the specified activity are not reasonably expected to, 
or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
    The MMPA does not define small numbers. NMFS's practice for making 
small numbers determinations is to compare the number of individuals 
estimated and authorized to be taken (often using estimates of total 
instances of take, without regard to whether individuals are exposed 
more than once) against the best available abundance estimate for that 
species or stock. In other words, consistent with past practice, when 
the estimated number of individual animals taken (which may or may not 
be assumed as equal to the total number of takes, depending on the 
available information) is up to, but not greater than, one third of the 
species or stock abundance, NMFS will determine that the numbers of 
marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small.
    In summary, when quantitative take estimates of individual marine 
mammals are available or inferable through consideration of additional 
factors, and the number of animals taken is one third or less of the 
best available abundance estimate for the species or stock, NMFS 
considers it to be of small numbers. NMFS may appropriately find that 
one or two predicted group encounters will result in small numbers of 
take relative to the range and distribution of a species, regardless of 
the estimated proportion of the abundance. Additional information on 
NMFS' interpretation of the small numbers finding may be found in the 
Federal Register notice published on December 7, 2018 (83 FR 63268) and 
we refer the reader to that document.
    Comment 27: The FAB stated that a more detailed description of the 
study equipment planned for use and the potential effects on marine 
mammals should have been included in the proposed IHA.
    Response: The applicant provided detailed descriptions of HRG 
equipment planned for use. Information pertaining to specific device 
characteristics necessary to assess impacts to marine mammals including 
equipment category, source levels, operating frequencies, beam width, 
pulse duration and repetition rate was provided. Note that the HRG 
equipment described in the proposed IHA also serves as a proxy for 
similar equipment types that may be utilized. The potential impacts 
associated with use of HRG equipment

[[Page 26949]]

may be found in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine 
Mammals and Their Habitat section of the proposed IHA. The commenter 
did not provide specific recommendations regarding what additional 
information is necessary.
    Comment 28: The FAB argued that the IHA's revocation language 
requires amendment because 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(C) states that NMFS 
shall revoke the permit if it finds the permittee is not complying with 
the terms and conditions of the permit; thus, the language of the draft 
IHA should reflect this instead of saying that ``[t]his Authorization 
may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by 
the conditions prescribed herein. . .''
    Response: We do not believe the current discretionary language in 
the IHA precludes NMFS from complying 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(C). We also 
note that the use of the term ``shall'' in a statute can be either 
mandatory or directory depending on the context and legislative intent.
    Comment 29: The FAB indicated that the draft IHA does not 
adequately discuss whether nighttime survey activity can be effectively 
monitored by the two required Protected Species Observers using night-
vision goggles and/or infrared technology. While these may work under 
some conditions, the FAB stated it is unlikely they would be sufficient 
for sea states above a flat calm. Information regarding the efficacy of 
using night-vision equipment in monitoring marine mammals in the area 
should be included and addressed.
    Response: Currently, there are no existing standards that NMFS 
could use to approve night vision and infrared equipment. Right whales 
can be seen at night from a considerable distance, depending on 
conditions. Note that in a recent IHA monitoring report submitted to 
NMFS after completion of an HRG survey off the coast of Delaware 
(Deepwater Wind, 83 FR 28808, June 21, 2018) a single confirmed right 
whale and a second probable right whale were observed at night by 
infra-red cameras at distances of 1,251 m and approximately 800 m 
respectively. Research studies have concluded that the use of IR 
(thermal) imaging technology may allow for the detection of marine 
mammals at night as well as improve the detection during all periods 
through the use of automated detection algorithms (Weissenberger 2011). 
While we acknowledge that no technology is 100% effective either during 
daylight or nighttime hours, the equipment used here will enhance PSO's 
ability to detect marine mammals at night and the fact that not all 
will be detected is accounted for in the authorized take.

Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA

    As described above, the following items have been incorporated in 
the issued IHA:
     Based on recently analyzed Atlantic Marine Assessment 
Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) survey data from 2010 through 
2018, NMFS has revised the mean group size for Risso's dolphins to 5.9 
dolphins which represent a reduction from 30 dolphins in the proposed 
IHA (NOAA Fisheries Northeast and Southeast Fisheries Science Centers, 
2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011). Based on this 
information NMFS has reduced authorized take of Risso's dolphins from 
30 to 6.
     NMFS rounded up the calculated take of 3.23 sei whales to 
an authorized take number of 4 sei whales as shown in Table 5.
    None of these modifications affect our negligible impact or small 
numbers determinations.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activity

    Sections 3 and 4 of the IHA application summarize available 
information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat 
preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected 
species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats 
may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species 
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' 
website (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 2 summarizes information related to the population or stock, 
including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential 
biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow 
Committee on Taxonomy (2019). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum 
number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be 
removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach 
or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' 
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR is 
included here as a gross indicator of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS' U.S. Atlantic SARs. All values presented in Table 2 are the most 
recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 
2019 draft Atlantic SARs (Hayes et al., 2019), available online at: 
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region.

                   Table 2--Marine Mammals Known To Occur in the Project Area That May Be Affected by Vineyard Wind's Planned Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       MMPA and ESA       Stock abundance (CV,        Predicted
     Common name (scientific name)                Stock             status; strategic       Nmin, most recent      abundance (CV)    PBR \4\   Annual M/
                                                                        (Y/N) \1\         abundance survey) \2\          \3\                     SI \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Toothed whales (Odontoceti)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)..  North Atlantic...........  E; Y                 4,349 (0.28; 3,451; n/a)      5,353 (0.12)        6.9        0.0
Long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala   W North Atlantic.........  --; N                39,215 (0.3; 30,627; n/         \5\ 18,977        306         21
 melas).                                                                                 a).                                (0.11)
Atlantic white-sided dolphin            W North Atlantic.........  --; N                93,233(0.71; 54,443; n/      37,180 (0.07)        544         26
 (Lagenorhynchus acutus).                                                                a).
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops            W North Atlantic,          --; N                62,851 (0.23; 51,914;           \5\ 97,476        519         28
 truncatus).                             Offshore.                                       2011).                             (0.06)

[[Page 26950]]

 
Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis)....  W North Atlantic.........  --; N                172,825 (0.21; 145,216;      86,098 (0.12)      1,452        419
                                                                                         2011).
Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus).....  W North Atlantic.........  --; N                35,493 (0.19; 30,289;         7,732 (0.09)        303       54.3
                                                                                         2011).
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)...  Gulf of Maine/Bay of       --; N                95,543 (0.31; 74,034;      * 45,089 (0.12)        851        217
                                         Fundy.                                          2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Baleen whales (Mysticeti)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena   W North Atlantic.........  E; Y                 428 (0; 418; n/a).......      * 535 (0.45)        0.8       6.85
 glacialis).
Humpback whale (Megaptera               Gulf of Maine............  --; N                1,396 (0; 1,380; n/a)...    * 1,637 (0.07)         22      12.15
 novaeangliae).
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus).....  W North Atlantic.........  E; Y                 7,418 (0.25; 6,025; n/a)      4,633 (0.08)         12       2.35
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis).....  Nova Scotia..............  E; Y                 6,292 (1.015; 3,098; n/       * 717 (0.30)        6.2        1.0
                                                                                         a).
Minke whale (Balaenoptera               Canadian East Coast......  --; N                24,202 (0.3; 18,902; n/     * 2,112 (0.05)        8.0        7.0
 acutorostrata).                                                                         a).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Earless seals (Phocidae)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray seal \6\ (Halichoerus grypus)....  W North Atlantic.........  --; N                27,131 (0.19; 23,158; n/  ................      1,389      5,410
                                                                                         a).
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)..........  W North Atlantic.........  --; N                75,834 (0.15; 66,884;     ................      2,006        350
                                                                                         2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or
  designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see
  footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ Stock abundance as reported in NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports (SAR) except where otherwise noted. SARs available online at:
  www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate
  of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks, abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no
  associated CV. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the abundance estimate is presented; there may be more recent surveys that have
  not yet been incorporated into the estimate. All values presented here are from the 2019 draft Atlantic SARs (Hayes et al., 2019).
\3\ This information represents species- or guild-specific abundance predicted by recent habitat-based cetacean density models (Roberts et al., 2016,
  2017, 2018). These models provide the best available scientific information regarding predicted density patterns of cetaceans in the U.S. Atlantic
  Ocean, and we provide the corresponding abundance predictions as a point of reference. Total abundance estimates were produced by computing the mean
  density of all pixels in the modeled area and multiplying by its area. For those species marked with an asterisk, the available information supported
  development of either two or four seasonal models; each model has an associated abundance prediction. Here, we report the maximum predicted abundance.
\4\ Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a
  marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP). Annual M/SI, found in NMFS' SARs,
  represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, subsistence hunting, ship
  strike). Annual M/SI values often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value. All M/SI values are as presented
  in the draft 2019 SARs (Hayes et al., 2019).
\5\ Abundance estimates are in some cases reported for a guild or group of species when those species are difficult to differentiate at sea. Similarly,
  the habitat-based cetacean density models produced by Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018) are based in part on available observational data which, in
  some cases, is limited to genus or guild in terms of taxonomic definition. Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018) produced density models to genus level
  for Globicephala spp. and produced a density model for bottlenose dolphins that does not differentiate between offshore and coastal stocks.
\6\ NMFS stock abundance estimate applies to U.S. population only, actual stock abundance is approximately 505,000.

    Four marine mammal species that are listed under the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA) may be present in the survey area and are included in 
the take request: The North Atlantic right whale, fin whale, sei whale, 
and sperm whale. We consulted under section 7 of the ESA with the NMFS 
Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) on our authorization 
of take for these species; please see the Endangered Species Act 
section below.
    A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by 
Vineyard Wind's surveys, including brief introductions to the species 
and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding 
population trends and threats, and information regarding local 
occurrence, were provided in the notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 7952; 
February 12, 2020). Since that time, we are not aware of any changes in 
the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed 
descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that notice for 
these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' website 
(www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for generalized species accounts.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    The effects of underwater noise from Vineyard Wind's survey 
activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of 
marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey area. The notice of 
proposed IHA (85 FR 7952; February 12, 2020) included a discussion of 
the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential 
effects of underwater noise from Vineyard Wind's survey activities on 
marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is 
incorporated by reference into this final IHA determination and is not 
repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 7952; 
February 12, 2020).

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration 
of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact determination.
    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

[[Page 26951]]

zones and shutdown measures), discussed in detail below in the 
Mitigation section, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor 
authorized.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized 
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science 
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some 
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water 
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or 
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) 
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic 
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial 
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively 
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous 
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the 
factors considered here in more detail and present the take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS 
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment--Though significantly driven by received level, 
the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure 
is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the 
source (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment 
(e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to 
predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what 
the available science indicates and the practical need to use a 
threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for 
most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on 
received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 
predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in 
a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater 
anthropogenic noise above received levels of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
for impulsive and/or intermittent sources (e.g., impact pile driving) 
and 120 dB rms for continuous sources (e.g., vibratory driving). 
Vineyard Wind's planned activity includes the use of intermittent 
sources (geophysical survey equipment) therefore use of the 160 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa (rms) threshold is applicable.
    Level A harassment--NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the 
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 
(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory 
injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups 
(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from 
two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The 
components of Vineyard Wind's planned activity that may result in the 
take of marine mammals include the use of impulsive sources. We note 
that sources that operate with a repetition rate greater than 10 Hz 
were assessed by Vineyard Wind with the non-impulsive (intermittent) 
source criteria and sources with a repetition rate equal to or less 
than 10 Hz were assessed with the impulsive source criteria. This 
resulted in all echosounders, sparkers, boomers and sub-bottom 
profilers (with the exception of one: The Innomar SES-2000 Medium-100 
parametric sub-bottom profiler) being categorized as impulsive for 
purposes of modeling Level A harassment zones.
    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 
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 3 below. The references, 
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are 
described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: 
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

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


[[Page 26952]]

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 isopleth corresponding to the threshold for Level B 
harassment was calculated for all HRG equipment with the potential to 
result in harassment of marine mammals. NMFS has developed an interim 
methodology for determining the rms sound pressure level 
(SPLrms) at the 160-dB isopleth for the purposes of 
estimating take by Level B harassment resulting from exposure to HRG 
survey equipment (NMFS, 2019). This methodology incorporates frequency 
and some directionality to refine estimated ensonified zones. Vineyard 
Wind used the methods specified in the interim methodology (NMFS, 2019) 
with additional modifications to incorporate a seawater absorption 
formula and a method to account for energy emitted outside of the 
primary beam of the source. For sources that operate with different 
beam widths, the maximum beam width was used. The lowest frequency of 
the source was used when calculating the absorption coefficient. The 
formulas used to apply the methodology are described in detail in 
Appendix B of the IHA application. As described above, NMFS 
acknowledges that water depth should also be incorporated in modeling 
of HRG sources but was not incorporated in the modeling of HRG sources 
in the notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 7952; February 12, 2020). However, 
also as noted above, NMFS has confirmed using a recently-developed 
spreadsheet tool that accompanies the NMFS interim HRG guidance (NMFS, 
2019), which incorporates water depth, that the incorporation of water 
depth in modeling the HRG sources proposed for use by Vineyard Wind 
would result only in smaller harassment zones for some sources, and 
would not result in larger zones for any sources.
    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 planned 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.
    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 4) 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 planned activities. Vineyard Wind may not operate the 
GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 during the entirety of the planned 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.

   Table 4--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
                                                                                                                            distance (m)
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Low frequency   Mid frequency    High frequency          Phocid             All
                                                                             cetaceans       cetaceans         cetaceans       pinnipeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

    Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary 
based on marine mammal functional hearing groups (Table 3), were also 
calculated. The updated acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds (such 
as HRG survey equipment) contained in the Technical Guidance (NMFS, 
2018) were presented as dual metric acoustic thresholds using both 
cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) and peak sound 
pressure level metrics. As dual metrics, NMFS considers onset of PTS 
(Level A harassment) to have occurred when either one of the two 
metrics is exceeded (i.e., the metric resulting in the largest 
isopleth). The SELcum metric considers both level and 
duration of exposure, as well as auditory weighting functions by marine 
mammal hearing group.
    Modeling of distances to isopleths corresponding to the Level A 
harassment threshold was performed for all types of HRG equipment 
proposed for use with the potential to result in harassment of marine 
mammals.

[[Page 26953]]

Vineyard Wind used a new model developed by JASCO to calculate 
distances to Level A harassment isopleths based on both the peak SPL 
and the SELcum metric. For the peak SPL metric, the model is 
a series of equations that accounts for both seawater absorption and 
HRG equipment beam patterns (for all HRG sources with beam widths 
larger than 90[deg], it was assumed these sources were 
omnidirectional). For the SELcum metric, a model was 
developed that accounts for the hearing sensitivity of the marine 
mammal group, seawater absorption, and beam width for downwards-facing 
transducers. Details of the modeling methodology for both the peak SPL 
and SELcum metrics are provided in Appendix A of the IHA 
application. This model entails the following steps:
    1. Weighted broadband source levels were calculated by assuming a 
flat spectrum between the source minimum and maximum frequency, 
weighted the spectrum according to the marine mammal hearing group 
weighting function (NMFS 2018), and summed across frequency.
    2. Propagation loss was modeled as a function of oblique range.
    3. Per-pulse SEL was modeled for a stationary receiver at a fixed 
distance off a straight survey line, using a vessel transit speed of 
3.5 knots and source-specific pulse length and repetition rate. The 
off-line distance is referred to as the closest point of approach (CPA) 
and was performed for CPA distances between 1 m and 10 km. The survey 
line length was modeled as 10 km long (analysis showed longer survey 
lines increased SEL by a negligible amount). SEL is calculated as SPL + 
10 log10 T/15 dB, where T is the pulse duration.
    4. The SEL for each survey line was calculated to produce curves of 
weighted SEL as a function of CPA distance.
    5. The curves from Step 4 above were used to estimate the CPA 
distance to the impact criteria.
    We note that in the modeling methods described above and in 
Appendix A of the IHA application, sources that operate with a 
repetition rate greater than 10 Hz were assessed with the non-impulsive 
(intermittent) source criteria while sources with a repetition rate 
equal to or less than 10 Hz were assessed with the impulsive source 
criteria. This resulted in all echosounders, sparkers, boomers and sub-
bottom profilers (with the exception of one: The Innomar SES-2000 
Medium-100 parametric sub-bottom profiler) being categorized as 
impulsive for purposes of modeling Level A harassment zones. As noted 
above, NMFS does not agree with this step in the modeling assessment, 
which results in nearly all HRG sources being classified as impulsive. 
However, we note that the classification of the majority of HRG sources 
as impulsive results in more conservative modeling results. Therefore, 
we are retaining the analysis of Level A harassment zones from the 
notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 7952; February 12, 2020), though this 
analysis does incorporate a 10 Hz repetition rate as a cutoff between 
impulsive and non-impulse sources. We acknowledge that this modeling 
approach results in zones are likely conservative for some sources.
    Modeled isopleth distances to Level A harassment thresholds for all 
types of HRG equipment and all marine mammal functional hearing groups 
are shown in Table 4. The dual criteria (peak SPL and 
SELcum) were applied to all HRG sources using the modeling 
methodology as described above, and the largest isopleth distances for 
each functional hearing group were then carried forward in the exposure 
analysis to be conservative. For all HRG sources the SELcum 
metric resulted in larger isopleth distances. Distances to the Level A 
harassment threshold based on the larger of the dual criteria (peak SPL 
and SELcum) are shown in Table 4.
    Modeled distances to isopleths corresponding to the Level A 
harassment threshold are very small (<1 m) for three of the four marine 
mammal functional hearing groups that may be impacted by the proposed 
activities (i.e., low frequency and mid frequency cetaceans, and phocid 
pinnipeds; see Table 4). Based on the very small Level A harassment 
zones for these functional hearing groups, the potential for species 
within these functional hearing groups to be taken by Level A 
harassment is considered so low as to be discountable. These three 
functional hearing groups encompass all but one of the marine mammal 
species listed in Table 2 that may be impacted by the proposed 
activities. There is one species (harbor porpoise) within the high 
frequency functional hearing group that may be impacted by the proposed 
activities. The largest modeled distance to the Level A harassment 
threshold for the high frequency functional hearing group was 60 m 
(Table 4). However, as noted above, modeled distances to isopleths 
corresponding to the Level A harassment threshold are assumed to be 
conservative. Level A harassment would also be more likely to occur at 
close approach to the sound source or as a result of longer duration 
exposure to the sound source, and mitigation measures--including a 100-
m exclusion zone for harbor porpoises--are expected to minimize the 
potential for close approach or longer duration exposure to active HRG 
sources. In addition, harbor porpoises are a notoriously shy species 
which is known to avoid vessels, and would also be expected to avoid a 
sound source prior to that source reaching a level that would result in 
injury (Level A harassment). Therefore, we have determined that the 
potential for take by Level A harassment of harbor porpoises is so low 
as to be discountable. As NMFS has determined that the likelihood of 
take of any marine mammals in the form of Level A harassment occurring 
as a result of the planned surveys is so low as to be discountable, we 
therefore do not authorize the take by Level A harassment of any marine 
mammals.

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations.
    The habitat-based density models produced by the Duke University 
Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory (Roberts et al., 2016, 2017, 2018) 
represent the best available information regarding marine mammal 
densities in the planned survey area. The density data presented by 
Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018) incorporates aerial and shipboard 
line-transect survey data from NMFS and other organizations and 
incorporates data from 8 physiographic and 16 dynamic oceanographic and 
biological covariates, and controls for the influence of sea state, 
group size, availability bias, and perception bias on the probability 
of making a sighting. These density models were originally developed 
for all cetacean taxa in the U.S. Atlantic (Roberts et al., 2016). In 
subsequent years, certain models have been updated on the basis of 
additional data as well as certain methodological improvements. Our 
evaluation of the changes leads to a conclusion that these represent 
the best scientific evidence available. More information 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

[[Page 26954]]

geographic information system (GIS). The density coverages that 
included any portion of the planned 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 5 below.
    Roberts et al. (2018) produced density models for all seals and did 
not differentiate by seal species. Because the seasonality and habitat 
use by gray seals roughly overlaps with that of harbor seals in the 
survey areas, it was assumed that modeled takes of seals could occur to 
either of the respective species, thus the total number of modeled 
takes for seals was applied to each species. This approach represents a 
double-counting of expected total seal takes and is therefore 
conservative.

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 survey vessels 
will achieve a maximum daily track line distance of 100 km per day 
during planned HRG surveys. This distance accounts for the vessel 
traveling at roughly 3.5 kn during active survey periods. Based on the 
maximum estimated distance to the Level B harassment threshold of 195 m 
(Table 5) 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 planned HRG 
surveys. As described above, this is a conservative estimate as it 
assumes the HRG sources that result in the greatest isopleth distances 
to the Level B harassment threshold would be operated at all times 
during 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 take of several species by Level A harassment including 
Atlantic White-sided dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, 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 harassment takes for all potential HRG equipment 
types). However, as described above, due to the very small estimated 
distances to Level A harassment thresholds (Table 4), and in 
consideration of the mitigation measures, the likelihood of survey 
activities resulting in take in the form of Level A harassment is 
considered so low as to be discountable; therefore, we did not 
authorize take of any marine mammals by Level A harassment. Authorized 
take numbers by Level B harassment are shown in Table 5.

 Table 5--Total Numbers of Authorized Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals and Takes as a Percentage of Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Estimated
                                                  Annual density      Level B       Authorized           %
                     Species                        mean (km-2)     harassment    takes by Level   Population\1\
                                                                       takes       B harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale.......................................          0.0023           67.28              67             1.4
Humpback whale..................................          0.0016           45.73              46             2.8
Minke whale.....................................           0.001           41.20              41             1.9
North Atlantic right whale......................           0.001           30.32              10             1.9
Sei whale.......................................           0.000            3.23               4            0.06
Atlantic white sided dolphin....................          0.0351        1,011.19           1,011             2.7
Bottlenose dolphin (WNA Offshore)...............          0.0283          814.91             815             0.8
Pilot whales....................................          0.0049          141.98             142             0.7
Risso's dolphin.................................           0.000            5.74               6            0.08
Common dolphin..................................           0.071        2,035.87           2,036             2.3
Sperm whale.....................................           0.000            3.82               4            0.07
Harbor porpoise.................................          0.0363        1,044.87           1,045             2.3
Gray seal.......................................          0.1404        4,043.67           4,044            14.9
Harbor seal.....................................          0.1404        4,043.67           4,044             5.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculations of percentage of stock taken are based on the best available abundance estimate as shown in
  Table 23. 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 North
  Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2019 Annual Report Card (Pettis et al., 2019). For bottlenose dolphins and
  seals, Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018) provides only a single abundance estimate and does not provide
  abundance estimates at the stock or species level (respectively), so abundance estimates used to estimate
  percentage of stock taken for bottlenose dolphins, gray and harbor seals are derived from NMFS SARs (Hayes et
  al., 2019).

    For the North Atlantic right whale, NMFS required a 500-m EZ which 
substantially exceeds the distance to the level B harassment isopleth 
(195 m). However, Vineyard Wind will be operating up to 24 hours per 
day for a

[[Page 26955]]

total of 736 vessel days. Even with the implementation of mitigation 
measures (including night-vision goggles and thermal clip-ons) it is 
reasonable to assume that night time operations for an extended period 
could result in a limited number of right whales being exposed to 
underwater sound at Level B harassment levels. Given the fact that take 
has been conservatively calculated based on the largest source, which 
will not be operating at all times, and is thereby likely over-
estimated to some degree, the fact that Vineyard Wind will implement a 
shutdown zone 2.5 times the predicted Level B harassment threshold 
distance (see below) for that largest source (and significantly more 
than that for the smaller sources), and the fact that night vision 
goggles with thermal clips will be used for nighttime operations, NMFS 
predicts that no more than 10 right whales may be taken by Level B 
harassment.
    Additionally, sightings of right whales have been uncommon during 
previous HRG surveys. Bay State Wind submitted a marine mammal 
monitoring report HRG survey on July 19, 2019 described PSO 
observations and takes in Lease Area OCS-A500, which is part of the 
survey area covered under this IHA as well as along several ECR 
corridors closer to shore. Over 376 vessel days, three separate survey 
ships recorded a total of 496 marine mammal detections between May 11, 
2018 and March 14, 2019. There were no confirmed observations of right 
whales on any of the survey ships during the entire survey period. 
There were a number of unidentifiable whales reported, and it is 
possible that some of these unidentified animals may have been right 
whales. However, the lack of confirmed observations indicates that 
right whale sightings are not common in this region during previous 
survey work.
    Vineyard Wind provided a marine mammal monitoring report associated 
with survey activity for which Vineyard Wind determined that no take of 
marine mammals was reasonably anticipated to occur, and therefore no 
incidental take authorization requested. The survey activity covered 
the Renewable Lease Numbers OCS-A 0501 and OCS-A 0522 (Lease) and 
associated potential cable routes located offshore of Massachusetts. 
These are the same Lease Areas covered by the IHA NMFS has issued to 
Vineyard Wind. Survey operations began on May 31, 2019 and concluded on 
January 7, 2020. Six survey vessels were employed and engaged in both 
day and night survey operations. There was a total of 412 marine mammal 
sightings but no marine mammals were observed within Level B harassment 
zones estimated by Vineyard Wind. Similar to the Bay State Wind 
findings, no confirmed observations of right whales on any of the 
survey ships occurred during the entire survey period. While some of 
the unidentified animals could also have been right whales, the absence 
of verified sightings demonstrates that right whale observations are 
uncommon.
    In summary, given the low observation rate, and expected efficacy 
of the required mitigation measures, we believe a reduction of 30 
calculated right whale exposures down to 10 authorized takes by Level B 
harassment is reasonable.

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.

Mitigation Measures

    NMFS has required that the following mitigation measures be 
implemented during Vineyard Wind's planned 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 planned 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, 
observation of any marine mammals within the Level B harassment zone 
will be documented. 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 proposed, and has voluntarily committed, to a minimum of 
two (2) NMFS-approved PSOs 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). Visual monitoring would begin no 
less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up of HRG

[[Page 26956]]

equipment and would continue until 30 minutes after use of the acoustic 
source ceases or until 30 minutes past sunset. However, as noted, 
Vineyard Wind has committed to 24-hr use of PSOs. 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 delphinids 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 all other species).
    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 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;

[[Page 26957]]

     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 1. Another seasonal restriction area 
south of Nantucket will be in effect from December to February in the 
area delineated by the DMA that was effective from January 31, 2020 
through February 15, 2020. The winter seasonal restriction area is 
delineated by latitudes and longitudes of 41.183 N; 40.366 N; 69.533 W; 
and 70.616 W. This area is delineated by the solid line in Figure 1.

[[Page 26958]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY20.000

    Vineyard Wind would operate 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.
    Although not required by NMFS, 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.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the 
required 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.

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 
planned 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.

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

[[Page 26959]]

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. Note that NMFS 
only requires that a minimum of one PSO must be on duty and conducting 
visual observations during daylight hours (i.e., from 30 minutes prior 
to sunrise through 30 minutes following sunset) and during nighttime 
ramp-ups of HRG equipment. 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).

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'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses

[[Page 26960]]

(e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as 
effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We 
also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by 
evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent 
with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations (54 FR 
40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing 
anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their 
impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the 
regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where 
known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise 
levels).
    To avoid repetition, our analysis applies to all the species listed 
in Table 2, given that NMFS expects the anticipated effects of the 
planned survey to be similar in nature. As discussed in the ``Potential 
Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat'' 
section of the proposed notice, 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 any 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 planned survey is not 
anticipated to affect the fitness or reproductive success of individual 
animals. Since impacts to individual survivorship and fecundity are 
unlikely, the planned 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 authorized takes of right whales would not exacerbate or compound 
the ongoing UME in any way.
    The planned 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 planned survey is 
sufficiently small that feeding opportunities for these whales would 
not be reduced appreciably. Any whales temporarily displaced from the 
planned 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 planned 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 planned 
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 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 humpback whales (the West Indies 
breeding population, or distinct population segment (DPS)) remains

[[Page 26961]]

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 for seals 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 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 planned 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 authorizing, 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 is anticipated or authorized;
     Any foraging interruptions are expected to be short term 
and unlikely to cause significant 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 ensonified 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
     Required 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 planned 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 have authorized for take, 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 5. Based on the analysis contained herein 
of the planned activity (including the required mitigation and 
monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS 
finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to 
the population size of the affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

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

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)

[[Page 26962]]

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

Endangered Species Act

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action 
it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result 
in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical 
habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS 
consults internally, in this case with the NMFS Greater Atlantic 
Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), whenever we propose to authorize 
take for endangered or threatened species.
    The NMFS Office of Protected Resources Permits and Conservation 
Division is authorizing the incidental take of four species of marine 
mammals which are listed under the ESA: The North Atlantic right, fin, 
sei and sperm whale. We requested initiation of consultation under 
Section 7 of the ESA with NMFS GARFO on February 12, 2020, for the 
issuance of this IHA. BOEM consulted with NMFS GARFO under section 7 of 
the ESA on commercial wind lease issuance and site assessment 
activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf in Massachusetts, 
Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey Wind Energy Areas. The NMFS GARFO 
issued a Biological Opinion concluding that these activities may 
adversely affect but are not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of the North Atlantic right, fin, sei and sperm whale. Upon 
request from the NMFS Office of Protected Resources, NMFS GARFO issued 
an amended incidental take statement associated with this Biological 
Opinion to include the take of the ESA-listed marine mammal species 
authorized through this IHA in April, 2020.

Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA to Vineyard Winds 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 offshore export cable corridors (OECC) to landfall 
locations in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York 
from June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2021, provided the previously 
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are 
incorporated.

    Dated: April 30, 2020.
Donna Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-09629 Filed 5-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P