[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29289-29297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10389]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB970]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Site Characterization 
Surveys Offshore of New Jersey

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of Renewal incidental harassment authorization 
(IHA).

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, notification is hereby given 
that NMFS has issued a Renewal incidental harassment authorization 
(IHA) to Ocean Wind LLC (Ocean Wind) to incidentally harass marine 
mammals incidental to marine site characterization survey activities 
off the coast of New Jersey in the areas of the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management (BOEM) Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable 
Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)-A 0498 (Lease 
Area) and federal and state waters along potential export cable routes 
(ECRs) to landfall

[[Page 29290]]

locations between Raritan Bay (part of the New York Bight) and Delaware 
Bay.

DATES: This renewal IHA is valid May 10, 2022 to May 09, 2023 (one year 
from the expiration of the initial IHA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the original 
application, Renewal request, and supporting documents (including NMFS 
Federal Register notices of the original proposed and final 
authorizations, and the previous IHA), as well as a list of the 
references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these 
documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits the ``take'' of 
marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) 
of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 
(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not 
intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens 
who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) 
within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and 
either regulations are proposed or, if the taking is limited to 
harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental take authorization is 
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 here as ``mitigation 
measures''). Monitoring and reporting of such takings are also 
required. The meaning of key terms such as ``take,'' ``harassment,'' 
and ``negligible impact'' can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 
U.S.C. 1362) and the agency's regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.
    NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) 
indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to 
exceed one year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA 
for the initial authorization, NMFS described the circumstances under 
which we would consider issuing a Renewal for this activity, and 
requested public comment on a potential Renewal under those 
circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a 
one-time one-year Renewal IHA following notice to the public providing 
an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year 
of identical or nearly identical, or nearly identical, activities as 
described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section 
of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as 
described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section 
of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time 
the initial IHA expires and a Renewal would allow for completion of the 
activities beyond that described in the DATES section of the initial 
IHA issuance, provided all of the following conditions are met:
    (1) A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior 
to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the Renewal 
IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from expiration of 
the initial IHA).
    (2) The request for renewal must include the following:
     An explanation that the activities to be conducted under 
the requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed 
under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include 
changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not 
affect the previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, 
or take estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of 
take).
     A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the 
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the 
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not 
previously analyzed or authorized.
    (3) Upon review of the request for Renewal, the status of the 
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS 
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, 
the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and 
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
    An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 
days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to 
commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional 
comments on the proposed Renewal. A description of the Renewal process 
may be found on our website at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-harassment-authorization-renewals.

History of Request

    On May 10, 2021, NMFS issued an IHA to Ocean Wind to take marine 
mammals incidental to marine site characterization survey activities 
off the coast of New Jersey in the areas of the Commercial Lease of 
Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0498) and along potential submarine cable 
routes to landfall locations in New Jersey (86 FR 6465), effective from 
May 10, 2021 through May 09, 2022. On February 18, 2022, NMFS received 
an application for the Renewal of that initial IHA. As described in the 
application for Renewal, the activities for which incidental take is 
requested are identical to those covered in the initial authorization. 
As required, the applicant also provided a preliminary monitoring 
report (available at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-ocean-wind-llc-marine-site-characterization-surveys-new-jersey) which confirms that the applicant has implemented the required 
mitigation and monitoring, and which also shows that no impacts of a 
scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized have occurred as 
a result of the activities conducted. The notice of the proposed 
Renewal incidental harassment authorization was published on April 11, 
2022 (87 FR 21098).

Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts

    Ocean Wind plans to conduct a second year of high-resolution 
geophysical (HRG) marine site characterization surveys in the Lease 
Area and along potential ECRs to landfall locations in New Jersey, 
between Raritan Bay (part of the New York Bight) and Delaware Bay. The 
location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of 
equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the 
original IHA. The purpose of the marine site characterization surveys 
are to obtain an assessment of seabed (geophysical, geotechnical, and 
geohazard), ecological, and archeological conditions within the 
footprint of a planned offshore wind facility development. Surveys are 
also conducted to support engineering design and to map unexploded 
ordnance. Underwater sound resulting from Ocean Wind's site

[[Page 29291]]

characterization survey activities, specifically HRG surveys, has the 
potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals in the form of 
Level B harassment.
    In their 2020 IHA application, Ocean Wind estimated it would 
conduct surveys at a rate of 70 kilometers (km) per survey day. Ocean 
Wind defined a survey day as a 24-hour activity day. Based on the 
planned 24-hours operations, the number of estimated survey days varies 
between the Lease Area and ECR area, with 142 vessel survey days 
expected in the Lease Area and 133 vessel survey days in the ECR area, 
with a total of 275 survey days. A maximum of 2 vessels would operate 
concurrently in areas where 24-hr operations would be conducted, with 
an additional third vessel potentially conducting daylight-only survey 
effort in shallow-water areas. The Renewal IHA authorizes harassment of 
marine mammals for a second year of identical survey activities to be 
completed in one year, in the same area, using survey methods identical 
to those described in the initial IHA application; therefore, the 
anticipated impacts on marine mammals and the affected stocks also 
remain the same.
    Accordingly, the amount of take requested for the Renewal IHA is 
also identical to that authorized in the initial IHA. All active 
acoustic sources and mitigation and monitoring measures would remain 
exactly as described in the Federal Register notices of the initial 
proposed IHA (86 FR 17783; April 06, 2021) and issued initial final IHA 
(86 FR 26465; May 14, 2021).
    The following documents are referenced in this notice and include 
important supporting information:
     Initial final IHA (86 FR 26465; May 14, 2021);
     Initial proposed IHA (86 FR 17783; April 06, 2021); and
     2021 IHA application, references cited, and previous 
public comments received (available at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-ocean-wind-llc-marine-site-characterization-surveys-new-jersey).

Detailed Description of the Activity

    A detailed description of the planned marine site characterization 
survey activities may be found in the Federal Register notice of the 
IHA (86 FR 17783; April 06, 2021) for the initial authorization. Ocean 
Wind plans to complete the survey activities analyzed in the initial 
IHA by the date the IHA expires (May 09, 2022). The surveys Ocean Wind 
plans to conduct under this renewal would be a second year of identical 
surveys in the same area. The general location and nature of the 
activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are 
identical to those described in the previous notices. The Renewal IHA 
is effective for a maximum period of one year from the date of 
issuance, with the expiration date not later than May 09, 2023 (one 
year from the expiration of the initial IHA).

Description of Marine Mammals

    A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities 
for which authorization of take is planned here, including information 
on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the 
Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA for the initial 
authorization (86 FR 17783; April 06, 2021). NMFS has reviewed the 
preliminary monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock 
Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, 
and other scientific literature. Newly available information is 
described below.
    The draft 2021 Stock Assessment Reports (SARs, available online at: 
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports) provide updated information for 
several stocks. Estimated abundance has increased for the U.S. 
population of gray seals (from 27,131 (CV=0.19) to 27,300 (CV=0.22)). 
Abundance estimates have decreased for Risso's dolphins (from 35,493 
(CV=0.19 to 35,215 (CV=0.19)) and harbor seals (from 75,834 (CV=0.15) 
to 61,336 (CV=0.08)). Abundance estimates for North Atlantic right 
whales have also been updated in the draft 2021 SAR, which states that 
right whale abundance has decreased from 412 to 368 (95% CI 356-378) 
individuals (Hayes et al., 2021).
    Roberts et al. (2021) provided updated modeling methodology 
(statistical methods for characterizing model uncertainty) with updated 
monthly densities of North Atlantic right whales since the time of the 
initial IHA. This model also incorporated additional data from spring 
2019 which added transect and sighting data. The new model results 
slightly increased density estimates for North Atlantic right whales in 
southern New England, but these results do not meaningfully impact the 
information supporting exposure estimation in the survey area here.
    In addition, NMFS has recently acknowledged that the population 
estimate of NARWs is now under 350 animals (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale). We 
anticipate that this information will be presented in the draft 2022 
SAR. However, NMFS has determined that this change in abundance 
estimate would not change the estimated take of NARWs or authorized 
take numbers, nor affect our ability to make the required findings 
under the MMPA for the Ocean Wind survey activities. The status and 
trends of the NARW population remain unchanged.
    NMFS has determined that neither this nor any other new information 
affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or 
the pertinent information contained in the supporting documents for the 
initial IHA.

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

    A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on 
marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is 
authorized here may be found in the Federal Register notice for the 
proposed initial IHA (86 FR 17783; April 06, 2021). NMFS has reviewed 
the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment 
Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, other 
scientific literature, and the public comments, and determined that 
neither this nor any other new information affects our initial analysis 
of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.

Estimated Take

    A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate 
take for the specified activity are found in the notices of the 
proposed (86 FR 17783; April 06, 2021) and final (86 FR 26465; May 14, 
2021) initial IHAs. The acoustic source types, as well as source levels 
applicable to this renewal authorization, methods of take, and 
methodology of estimating take remain unchanged from the initial IHA. 
Accordingly, the stocks taken, type of take (i.e., Level B harassment 
only), and amount of take remain unchanged from what was previously 
authorized in the previously issued IHA. The amount of take authorized 
through this renewal is indicated below in Table 1.

[[Page 29292]]



                   Table 1--Authorized Take and Proportion of Population Potentially Affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Abundance    Takes by Level
                             Species                               estimate \1\    B  harassment   % Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis)................         \2\ 368               9            2.44
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).........................           1,396               2            0.14
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)...............................           6,802               6            0.09
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis)...............................           6,292               1            0.02
Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)........................          21,968               2            0.01
Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)............................           4,349               3            0.07
Long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas)....................          39,215               2            0.01
Common bottlenose dolphin (offshore) (Tursiops truncatus).......          62,851             262            0.42
Common bottlenose dolphin (migratory) (Tursiops truncatus)......           6,639           1,410           21.24
Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus)...........          28,924               2            0.01
Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus)............          93,233              16            0.02
Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis)...................          39,921               3            0.01
Risso's dolphin (Stenella frontalis)............................          35,215              30            0.09
Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis)..............................         172,974             124            0.07
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena).............................          95,543              91            0.10
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)....................................          61,336              11            0.02
Gray seal (Halichoerus grypus)..................................         451,431              11            0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.N.A.=Western North Atlantic.
\1\ Abundance estimates have been updated from the initial IHA (86 FR 26465; May 14, 2021) using the 2021 Draft
  SARs (Hayes et al., 2021).
\2\ The draft 2022 SARs have yet to be released; however, NMFS has updated its species web page to recognize the
  population estimate for NARWs is now below 350 animals (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale).

Description of Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Measures

    The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as 
requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in 
the Federal Register notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA 
(86 FR 26465; May 14, 2021), and the discussion of the least 
practicable adverse impact included in that document remains 
applicable. All mitigation, monitoring and reporting measures in the 
initial IHA are carried over to this Renewal IHA and summarized below.
     Exclusion Zones (EZ): Marine mammal EZs would be 
established around the HRG survey equipment and monitored by PSOs 
during marine site characterization surveys as follows: A 500-m EZ for 
North Atlantic right whales during use of all acoustic sources, and a 
100-m EZ for all other marine mammals during use of impulsive acoustic 
sources (e.g., boomers and/or sparkers).
     Ramp-up: A ramp-up procedure would be used for HRG 
equipment capable of adjusting energy levels at the start or re-start 
of survey activities.
     Shutdown of HRG Equipment: 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. 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 Level B harassment zone (48 m, non-impulsive; 141 m 
impulsive), shutdown would occur.
     Vessel strike avoidance measures: Vessel strike measures 
include, but are not limited to, separation distances for large whales 
(500 m North Atlantic right whales, 100 m other large whales; 50 m 
other cetaceans and pinnipeds), restricted vessel speeds, and 
operational maneuvers.
     Protected Species Observers (PSOs): A minimum of one NMFS-
approved PSO would be on duty and conducting visual observations at all 
times during daylight hours (i.e., from 30 minutes prior to sunrise 
through 30 minutes following sunset) and two active duty PSOs will be 
on watch during all nighttime operations.
     Reporting: Ocean Wind would submit a final technical 
report within 90 days following completion of the surveys. In the event 
that Ocean Wind personnel discover an injured or dead marine mammal, 
Ocean Wind shall report the incident to the Office of Protected 
Resources (OPR), NMFS and to the New England/Mid-Atlantic Regional 
Stranding Coordinator through the NOAA Fisheries Marine Mammal and Sea 
Turtle Stranding and Entanglement Hotline as soon as feasible. In the 
event of a ship strike of a marine mammal by any vessel involved in the 
activities covered by the authorization, Ocean Wind shall report the 
incident immediately to OPR, NMFS and to the New England/Mid-Atlantic 
Regional Stranding Coordinator through the NOAA Fisheries Marine Mammal 
and Sea Turtle Stranding and Entanglement Hotline.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue a Renewal IHA to Ocean Wind was 
published in the Federal Register April 11, 2022 (87 FR 21098). That 
notice either described, or referenced descriptions of, Ocean Wind's 
activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the 
activity, the anticipated effects on marine mammals and their habitat, 
estimated amount and manner of take, and proposed mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting measures. NMFS received comments from Clean 
Ocean Action and Save Long Beach Island (LBI). The comments and our 
responses are summarized below, and the letters are available online 
at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-ocean-wind-llc-marine-site-characterization-surveys-new-jersey). Please review the letters for full details regarding the 
comments and underlying justification. We note that LBI, in addition to 
providing comments via email, referenced and submitted a February 2022 
letter originally submitted for a different action. Where appropriate, 
we respond herein to comments referenced from that letter. Full 
responses to the comments provided in that letter may be found in the 
notice of issuance of IHA to Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind, LLC (87 FR 
24103; April 22, 2022).
    Comment 1: LBI requested that NMFS extend the comment period for 
the proposed renewal IHA, asserting that the proposed renewal raises 
substantial concerns and that the proposed renewal notice does not 
provide sufficient

[[Page 29293]]

information on which to evaluate the proposed action.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with LBI's comments and does not grant the 
request. NMFS' IHA renewal process meets all statutory requirements. In 
prior responses to comments about IHA renewals (e.g., 87 FR 24103; 
April 22, 2022, 84 FR 52464; October 2, 2019 and 85 FR 53342; August 
28, 2020), NMFS has explained how the renewal process, as implemented, 
is consistent with the statutory requirements contained in section 
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, and, further, promotes NMFS' goals of 
improving conservation of marine mammals and increasing efficiency in 
the MMPA compliance process. The Notice of the proposed IHA published 
in the Federal Register on April 06, 2021 (86 FR 17783) made clear that 
the agency was seeking comment on the proposed IHA and the potential 
issuance of a renewal for this survey.
    Because any renewal is limited to another year of identical or 
nearly identical activities in the same location or the same activities 
that were not completed within the 1-year period of the initial IHA, 
reviewers have the information needed to effectively comment on both 
the immediate proposed IHA and a possible 1-year renewal, should the 
IHA holder choose to request one in the coming months. While there 
would be additional documents submitted with a renewal request, for a 
qualifying renewal these would be limited to documentation that NMFS 
would 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 would also 
need to confirm, among other things, that the activities would 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 would also contain a 
preliminary monitoring report, in order 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's decision-making process'', as Congress intended.
    Moreover, NMFS disagrees with LBI's assertions regarding the 
supposed ``substantial issues'' presented by the proposed issuance of 
the renewal IHA. NMFS has addressed these concerns in detail through 
response to LBI's February 2022 letter (87 FR 24103; April 22, 2022), 
which was attached to its comments on this proposed action and, as 
appropriate relative to its comments on this action, we reiterate 
certain of those responses below.
    Comment 2: COA asserted that NMFS has failed to appropriately 
account for cumulative impacts, noting that this was specifically 
important given the large number of offshore wind-related activities 
being planned in the northeast region. LBI provided similar concerns 
regarding NMFS' evaluation of cumulative impacts.
    Response: Neither the MMPA nor NMFS' codified implementing 
regulations call for consideration of other unrelated activities and 
their impacts on populations. The preamble for NMFS' 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 baseline. Consistent with that direction, NMFS 
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. The 1989 final rule for the MMPA implementing regulations 
also addressed public comments regarding cumulative effects from 
future, unrelated activities. There NMFS stated that such effects are 
not considered in making findings under section 101(a)(5) concerning 
negligible impact. In this case, this renewal IHA, as well as other 
IHAs currently in effect or proposed within the specified geographic 
region, are appropriately considered an unrelated activity relative to 
the others. The IHAs are unrelated in the sense that they are discrete 
actions under section 101(a)(5)(D), issued to discrete applicants.
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires NMFS to make a 
determination that the take incidental to a ``specified activity'' will 
have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine 
mammals. NMFS' implementing regulations require applicants to include 
in their request a detailed description of the specified activity or 
class of activities that can be expected to result in incidental taking 
of marine mammals. 50 CFR 216.104(a)(1). Thus, the ``specified 
activity'' for which incidental take coverage is being sought under 
section 101(a)(5)(D) is generally defined and described by the 
applicant. Here, Ocean Wind was the applicant for the renewal IHA, and 
we are responding to the specified activity as described in that 
application (and making the necessary findings on that basis).
    Through the response to public comments in the 1989 implementing 
regulations, NMFS also indicated (1) that we would consider cumulative 
effects that are reasonably foreseeable when preparing a NEPA analysis, 
and (2) that reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects would also be 
considered under section 7 of the ESA for ESA-listed species, as 
appropriate. Accordingly, NMFS has written Environmental Assessments 
(EA) that addressed cumulative impacts related to substantially similar 
activities, in similar locations, e.g., the 2017 Ocean Wind, LLC EA for 
site characterization surveys off New Jersey; the 2018 Deepwater Wind 
EA for survey activities offshore Delaware, Massachusetts, and Rhode 
Island; the 2019 Avangrid EA for survey activities offshore North 
Carolina and Virginia; and the 2019 Orsted EA for survey activities 
offshore southern New England. Cumulative impacts regarding issuance of 
IHAs for site characterization survey activities such as those planned 
by Ocean Wind have been adequately addressed under NEPA in prior 
environmental analyses that support NMFS' determination that this 
action is appropriately categorically

[[Page 29294]]

excluded from further NEPA analysis. NMFS independently evaluated the 
use of a categorical exclusion for issuance of Ocean Wind's renewal 
IHA, which included consideration of extraordinary circumstances.
    Separately, the cumulative effects of substantially similar 
activities in the same geographic region have been analyzed in the past 
under section 7 of the ESA when NMFS has engaged in formal intra-agency 
consultation, such as the 2013 programmatic Biological Opinion for BOEM 
Lease and Site Assessment Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and 
New Jersey Wind Energy Areas (https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/29291). Analyzed activities include those for which NMFS issued 
Atlantic Shores' 2020 IHA and subsequent 2021 renewal IHA (85 FR 21198; 
April 16, 2020 and 86 FR 21289; April 22, 2021), which are 
substantially similar to those planned by Ocean Wind under this current 
renewal IHA request and their previous 2021 IHA. This Biological 
Opinion determined that NMFS' issuance of IHAs for site 
characterization survey activities associated with leasing, 
individually and cumulatively, are not likely to adversely affect 
listed marine mammals. NMFS notes, that while issuance of this renewal 
IHA is covered under a different consultation, this BiOp remains valid 
and the surveys currently planned by Ocean Wind from 2022 to 2023 could 
have fallen under the scope of those analyzed previously.
    Comment 3: LBI stated that NMFS should ``consolidate'' its review 
of Ocean Wind's request for renewal IHA with the recent IHA request 
made by Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind, LLC, suggesting that activities 
occurring within the same ``specified geographical region'' should be 
considered singly. LBI notes that the respective survey activities are 
occurring during similar timeframes in similar spatial locations.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. We reiterate that 
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires NMFS to make a determination 
that the take incidental to a ``specified activity'' will have a 
negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals, 
and will not result in an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses, and 
that the ``specified activity'' for which incidental take coverage is 
being sought under section 101(a)(5)(D) is appropriately defined and 
described by the applicant. Please see the response to Comment #2, 
regarding NMFS' analysis of cumulative impacts.
    NMFS is required to consider applications upon request. To date, 
NMFS has not received any joint application from Ocean Wind and 
Atlantic Shores regarding their site characterization surveys off of 
New Jersey (or from any joint entity). While an individual company 
owning multiple lease areas may apply for a single authorization to 
conduct site characterization surveys across a combination of those 
lease areas (see 85 FR 63508, October 8, 2020; 87 FR 13975, March 11, 
2022), this is not applicable in this case to the leases owned by 
Atlantic Shores and Orsted found off New Jersey. In the future, if 
applicants wish to undertake this approach, NMFS is open to the receipt 
of joint applications and additional discussions on joint actions.
    Comment 4: COA asserted that NMFS is not using the best available 
science with regards to the North Atlantic right whale (NARW) 
population estimate and state that NMFS should be using the 336 
estimate presented in the recent North Atlantic Right Whale Report Card 
(https://www.narwc.org/report-cards.html).
    Response: While NMFS agrees that the best available science should 
be used for assessing NARW abundance estimates, we disagree that the 
North Atlantic Right Whale Report Card (i.e., Pettis et al. (2022)) 
study represents the best available estimate for NARW abundance. Rather 
the revised abundance estimate (368; 95 percent with a confidence 
interval of 356-378) published by Pace (2021) (and subsequently 
included in the 2021 draft Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports)), which was used in the proposed renewal IHA, 
provides the most recent and best available estimate, and introduced 
improvements to NMFS' right whale abundance model. Specifically, Pace 
(2021) looked at a different way of characterizing annual estimates of 
age-specific survival. NMFS considered all relevant information 
regarding NARW, including the information cited by the commenters. 
However, NMFS relies on the SAR. Recently (after publication of the 
notice of proposed renewal IHA), NMFS has updated its species web page 
to recognize the population estimate for NARWs is now below 350 animals 
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale). We 
anticipate that this information will be presented in the draft 2022 
SAR. We note that this change in abundance estimate would not change 
the estimated take of NARWs or authorized take numbers, nor affect our 
ability to make the required findings under the MMPA for Ocean Wind's 
survey activities.
    NMFS further notes that the commenters seem to be conflating the 
phrase ``best available data'' with ``the most recent data.'' The MMPA 
specifies that the ``best available data'' must be used, which does not 
always mean the most recent. As is NMFS' prerogative, we referenced the 
best available NARW abundance estimate of 368 from the draft 2021 SARs 
as NMFS's determination of the best available data that we relied on in 
our analysis. The Pace (2021) results strengthened the case for a 
change in mean survival rates after 2010-2011, but did not 
significantly change other current estimates (population size, number 
of new animals, adult female survival) derived from the model. 
Furthermore, NMFS notes that the SARs are peer reviewed by other 
scientific review groups prior to being finalized and published and 
that the North Atlantic Right Whale Report Card (Pettis et al., 2022) 
does not undertake this process.
    Comment 5: COA and LBI assert that Level A harassment is reasonably 
likely to occur, and that this was not accounted for in NMFS' analysis.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the concerns brought up by the 
commenters regarding the potential for Level A harassment of marine 
mammals. However, no Level A harassment is expected to result, even in 
the absence of mitigation, given the characteristics of the sources 
planned for use. This is additionally supported by the required 
mitigation and very small estimated Level A harassment zones. 
Furthermore, the commenters do not provide any persuasive support for 
the apparent contention that Level A harassment is a potential outcome 
of these activities.
    NMFS acknowledges that sufficient disruption of behavioral patterns 
could theoretically, likely in connection with other stressors, result 
in a reduction in fitness and ultimately injury or mortality. However, 
such an outcome could likely result only from repeated disruption of 
important behaviors at critical junctures, or sustained displacement 
from important habitat with no associated compensatory ability. NMFS 
has thoroughly analyzed the potential effects of noise exposure 
resulting from the specified activity and, as discussed in the initial 
notice of proposed IHA (see Potential Effects of Specified Activities 
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat) and in this notice (see Negligible 
Impact Analysis and Determination), no such effects are

[[Page 29295]]

reasonably anticipated to occur as a result of this activity. 
Therefore, no such outcome is expected as a result of these surveys. 
NMFS considers this category of survey operations to be near de 
minimis, with the potential for Level A harassment for any species to 
be discountable. Please refer also to NMFS' response to comment 2.
    Comment 6: COA and LBI do not agree with NMFS' negligible impact 
and small numbers findings for NARWs. Additionally, LBI finds fault 
with NMFS' approach to the small numbers determination, suggesting that 
a limit of one-third of the most relevant population abundance estimate 
is not appropriate and inconsistent with a prior court decision, citing 
the NRDC v. Evans decision of October 31, 2002. LBI goes on to suggest 
reevaluating the small numbers finding with specific regard to 
endangered species like NARW.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenters' position regarding 
the negligible impact analysis, and the commenters do not provide a 
reasoned basis for finding that the effects of the specified activity 
would be greater than negligible on any species or stock. The 
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section of the initial and 
proposed renewal IHA (86 FR 26465; 87 FR 21098) provides a detailed 
qualitative discussion supporting NMFS' 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.
    With specific regard to NARW, we note that take is authorized for 
only a very small percentage of the right whale population (see Table 
1). We further note that Ocean Wind's previous monitoring report 
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-ocean-wind-llc-marine-site-characterization-surveys-new-jersey) 
indicates that no right whales were taken during the previous activity. 
However, the numbers of potential incidents of take or animals taken 
are only part of an assessment and are not, alone, decisively 
indicative of the degree of impact. In order to adequately evaluate the 
effects of noise exposure at the population level, the total number of 
take incidents must be further interpreted in context of relevant 
biological and population parameters and other biological, 
environmental, and anthropogenic factors and in a spatially and 
temporally explicit manner. The effects to individuals of a ``take'' 
are not necessarily equal. Some take events represent exposures that 
only just exceed a Level B harassment threshold, which would be 
expected to result in lower-level impacts, while other exposures occur 
at higher received levels and would typically be expected to have 
comparatively greater potential impacts on an individual. Further, 
responses to similar received levels may result in significantly 
different impacts on an individual dependent upon the context of the 
exposure or the status of the individuals (e.g., if it occurred in an 
area and time where concentrated feeding was occurring, or to 
individuals weakened by other effects). In this case, NMFS reiterates 
that no such higher level takes are expected to occur. The maximum 
anticipated Level B harassment zone is 141 m, a distance smaller than 
the precautionary shutdown zone of 500 m. To the extent that any 
exposure of NARW does occur, it would be expected to result in lower-
level impacts that are unlikely to result in significant or long-
lasting impacts to the exposed individual and, given the relatively 
small amount of exposures expected to occur, it is unlikely that these 
exposures would result in population-level impacts. NMFS acknowledges 
that impacts of a similar degree on a proportion of the individuals in 
a stock may have differing impacts to the stock based on its status, 
i.e., smaller stocks may be less able to absorb deaths or reproductive 
suppression and maintain similar growth rates as larger stocks. 
However, even given the precarious status of the NARW, the low-level 
nature of the impacts expected to occur for only a few individuals 
means that the population status does not weigh meaningfully in NMFS' 
consideration of population-level impacts. The commenters provide no 
substantive reasoning to contradict this finding, and do not support 
their assertions of effects greater than NMFS has assumed may occur.
    Additionally, the initial IHA was subject to a section 7 
consultation, with NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office 
(GARFO) as the consulting agency. NMFS GARFO determined that issuance 
of the initial IHA to Ocean Wind was not likely to adversely affect 
listed species or the critical habitat of any ESA-listed species or 
result in the take of any marine mammals in violation of the ESA. 
During the initial consultation, GARFO considered the potential for a 
renewal. The proposed renewal IHA provides no new information about the 
effects of the action, nor does it change the extent of effects of the 
action, or any other basis to require re-initiation of the Opinion; 
therefore, the incidental take statement issued for the initial IHA 
remains valid.
    NMFS disagrees with LBI's arguments on the topic of small numbers. 
Although there is limited legislative history available to guide NMFS 
and an apparent lack of biological underpinning to the concept, we have 
worked to develop a reasoned approach to small numbers. NMFS explains 
the concept of ``small numbers'' in recognition that there could also 
be quantities of individuals taken that would correspond with 
``medium'' and ``large'' numbers. As such, NMFS considers that one-
third of the most appropriate population abundance number--as compared 
with the assumed number of individuals taken--is an appropriate limit 
with regard to ``small numbers.'' This relative approach is consistent 
with the statement from the legislative history that ``[small numbers] 
is not capable of being expressed in absolute numerical limits'' (H.R. 
Rep. No. 97-228, at 19 (September 16, 1981)), and relevant case law 
(Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 893, 907 (9th 
Cir. 2012) (holding that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reasonably 
interpreted ``small numbers'' by analyzing take in relative or 
proportional terms)). In regards to LBI's suggestion that the one-third 
number is inconsistent with prior caselaw, we note that LBI cited the 
NRDC v. Evans decision of October 31, 2002 (232 F. Supp. 2d 1003), 
which was related to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary 
injunction. Ultimately, after parties' cross-motions for summary 
judgment, the Evans court held that NMFS' regulatory definition of 
small numbers (which NMFS did not apply here) improperly conflated the 
small numbers and negligible impact issues. NRDC v. Evans, 279 F. Supp. 
2d 1129 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Contrary to LBI's suggestion, the Evans court 
expressly stated that it was not setting any numerical limit for small 
numbers. NRDC v. Evans, 279 F. Supp. 2d at 1153. As for LBI's 
suggestion to reconsider small numbers specifically for NARW, the 
argument to establish a small numbers threshold on the basis of stock-
specific context is unnecessarily duplicative of the required 
negligible impact finding, in which relevant biological and contextual 
factors are considered in conjunction with the amount of take.
    Comment 7: COA is concerned regarding the number of species that 
could be impacted by the activities, as

[[Page 29296]]

well as a lack of baseline data being available for species (in 
particular, harbor seals) in the area. In addition, COA has stated that 
NMFS did not adequately address the potential for cumulative impacts to 
bottlenose dolphins from Level B harassment over several years of 
project activities.
    Response: We appreciate the concern expressed by COA. NMFS utilizes 
the best available science when analyzing which species may be impacted 
by an applicant's proposed activities. Based on information found in 
the scientific literature, as well as based on density models developed 
by Duke University, all marine mammal species included in the proposed 
renewal Federal Register Notice have some likelihood of occurring in 
Ocean Wind's survey areas. Furthermore, the MMPA requires us to 
evaluate the effects of the specified activities in consideration of 
the best scientific evidence available and, if the necessary findings 
are made, to issue the requested take authorization. The MMPA does not 
allow us to delay decision making in hopes that additional information 
may become available in the future. Furthermore, NMFS notes that it has 
previously addressed discussions on cumulative impact analyses in 
previous comments and references COA back to these specific responses 
in this Notice. Regarding the lack of baseline information cited by 
COA, with specific concern pointed out for harbor seals, NMFS points 
towards two sources of information for marine mammal baseline 
information: The Ocean/Wind Power Ecological Baseline Studies, January 
2008-December 2009 completed by the New Jersey Department of 
Environmental Protection in July 2010 (https://dspace.njstatelib.org/xmlui/handle/10929/68435) and the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program 
for Protected Species (AMAPPS; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/population-assessments/atlantic-marine-assessment-program-protected) with annual reports available from 2010 to 2020 
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/publication-database/atlantic-marine-assessment-program-protected-species) that cover the areas 
across the Atlantic Ocean. NMFS has duly considered this and all 
available information. Based on the information presented, NMFS has 
determined that no new information has become available, nor do the 
commenters present additional information, that would change our 
determinations since the publication of the proposed notice.
    Comment 8: LBI suggested that the notice lacks sufficient technical 
data, and referred to their February 2022 letter in which it requested 
that NMFS explain why a 20 dB transmission loss coefficient was 
applicable to the analysis or to present a new analysis using a 15 dB 
transmission loss coefficient.
    NMFS' response: NMFS first acknowledges that the notice of proposed 
renewal IHA does not include the same level of technical information as 
was presented in the initial notice of proposed IHA. This was 
purposeful, as the information relied upon is the same as that 
presented in the initial notice, and in the proposed renewal notice, 
NMFS referred the reader to those initial notices, stating that the 
notices provide important supporting information (e.g., initial 
proposed IHA notice; 86 FR 17783; April 06, 2021).
    In its February 2022 letter providing comments on the proposed 
issuance of an IHA to Atlantic Shores, LBI states that NMFS' assumption 
that use of a 20logR transmission loss factor (i.e., spherical 
spreading) is inappropriate, and states that ``According to a number of 
scientific sources, the use of a noise propagation loss coefficient of 
20 dB per tenfold increase in distance represents ``spherical 
spreading'' and is only appropriate in the ``near field'' where the 
calculated horizontal distance is comparable with the water depth.'' 
NMFS disagrees with that comment, and reiterates its response below. 
NMFS also notes that LBI did not cite any such scientific sources, so 
NMFS must evaluate LBI's recommendations based only on its comment.
    A major component of transmission loss is spreading loss and, from 
a point source in a uniform medium, sound spreads outward as spherical 
waves (``spherical spreading'') (Richardson et al., 1995). In water, 
these conditions are often thought of as being related to deep water, 
where more homogenous conditions may be likely. However, the 
theoretical distinction between deep and shallow water is related more 
to the wavelength of the sound relative to the water depth, versus to 
water depth itself. Therefore, when the sound produced is in the 
kilohertz range, where wavelength is relatively short, much of the 
continental shelf may be considered ``deep'' for purposes of evaluating 
likely propagation conditions.
    As described in the initial notice of proposed IHA, the area of 
water ensonified at or above the root mean square (RMS) 160 dB 
threshold was calculated using a simple model of sound propagation 
loss, which accounts for the loss of sound energy over increasing 
range. Our use of the spherical spreading model (where propagation loss 
= 20 * log [range]; such that there would be a 6-dB reduction in sound 
level for each doubling of distance from the source) is a reasonable 
approximation over the relatively short ranges involved. Even in 
conditions where cylindrical spreading (where propagation loss = 10 * 
log [range]; such that there would be a 3-dB reduction in sound level 
for each doubling of distance from the source) may be appropriate 
(e.g., non-homogenous conditions where sound may be trapped between the 
surface and bottom), this effect does not begin at the source. In any 
case, spreading is usually more or less spherical from the source out 
to some distance, and then may transition to cylindrical (Richardson et 
al., 1995). For these types of surveys, NMFS has determined that 
spherical spreading is a reasonable assumption even in relatively 
shallow waters (in an absolute sense) as the reflected energy from the 
seafloor will be much weaker than the direct source and the volume 
influenced by the reflected acoustic energy would be much smaller over 
the relatively short ranges involved.
    In support of its position, LBI cites several examples of use of 
practical spreading (a useful real-world approximation of conditions 
that may exist between the theoretical spreading modes of spherical and 
cylindrical; 15logR) in asserting that this approach is also 
appropriate here. However, these examples (U.S. Navy construction at 
Newport, RI, and NOAA construction in Ketchikan, AK) are not relevant 
to the activity at hand. First, these actions occur in even shallower 
water (e.g., less than 10 m for Navy construction). Of greater 
relevance to the action here, pile driving activity produces sound with 
longer wavelengths than the sound produced by the acoustic sources 
planned for use here. As noted above, a determination of appropriate 
spreading loss is related to the ratio of wavelength to water depth 
more than to a strict reading of water depth. NMFS indeed uses 
practical spreading in typical coastal construction applications, but 
for reasons described here, uses spherical spreading when evaluating 
the effects of HRG surveys on the continental shelf. In addition, this 
analysis is likely conservative for other reasons, e.g., the lowest 
frequency was used for systems that are operated over a range of 
frequencies and other sources of propagation loss are neglected.
    NMFS has determined that spherical spreading is the most 
appropriate form of propagation loss for these surveys

[[Page 29297]]

and has relied on this approach for past IHAs with similar equipment, 
locations, and depths. Please refer back to the 2022 Atlantic Shores 
HRG IHA (87 FR 24103; April 22, 2022), Garden State HRG IHA (83 FR 
14417; April 4, 2018) and the 2019 Skipjack HRG IHA (84 FR 51118; 
September 27, 2019) for examples. Prior to the issuance of these IHAs 
(approximately 2018 and older), NMFS typically relied upon practical 
spreading for these types of survey activities. However, as additional 
scientific evidence became available, including numerous sound source 
verification reports, NMFS determined that this approach was 
inappropriately conservative and, since that time, as consistently used 
spherical spreading. Furthermore, NMFS' User Spreadsheet tool assumes a 
``safe distance'' methodology for mobile sources where propagation loss 
is spherical spreading (20LogR) (https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2020-12/User_Manual%20_DEC_2020_508.pdf?null), and NMFS calculator tool for 
estimating isopleths to Level B harassment thresholds also incorporates 
the use of spherical spreading.

Determinations

    The survey activities planned by Ocean Wind are identical to those 
analyzed in the initial IHA, including the planned number of days and 
general location of activity (i.e., OCS-A 0498 and OCS-A 0532), as are 
the method of taking and the effects of the action. Therefore, the 
amount of authorized take is unchanged from that authorized in the 
initial IHA. The potential effects of Ocean Wind's activities remain 
limited to Level B harassment in the form of behavioral disturbance. No 
serious injury or mortality of marine mammal is anticipated. In 
analyzing the effects of the activities in the initial IHA, NMFS 
determined that Ocean Wind's activities would have a negligible impact 
on the affected species or stocks and that the authorized take numbers 
of each species or stock were small relative to the relevant stocks 
(e.g., less than one-third of the abundance of all stocks). The 
mitigation measures and monitoring and reporting requirements as 
described above are identical to the initial IHA.
    NMFS has concluded that there is no new information suggesting that 
our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the 
initial IHA. This includes consideration of Ocean Wind's monitoring 
report and changes in estimated abundances of the affected stocks. 
Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the 
referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) The 
required mitigation measures will affect the least practicable impact 
on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the 
authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine 
mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small 
numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; 
(4) Ocean Wind's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact 
on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of 
marine mammals are implicated by this action, and; (5) appropriate 
monitoring and reporting requirements are included.

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our final action (i.e., the issuance of an incidental 
harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts on the 
human environment.
    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified 
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or 
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 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 issuance of the Renewal IHA 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 is authorizing the 
incidental take of four species of marine mammals that are listed under 
the ESA: The North Atlantic right, fin, sei and sperm whales. We 
requested initiation of consultation under Section 7 of the ESA with 
NMFS GARFO on February 04, 2021, for the issuance of the initial IHA. 
NMFS GARFO determined that issuance of the IHA to Ocean Wind is not 
likely to adversely affect the North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and 
sperm whale or the critical habitat of any ESA-listed species or result 
in the take of any marine mammals in violation of the ESA, and at this 
time considered the potential for a renewal. The Renewal IHA provides 
no new information about the effects of the action, nor does it change 
the extent of effects of the action, or any other basis to require re-
initiation of the Opinion; therefore, the incidental take statement 
issued for the initial IHA remains valid.

Renewal

    NMFS has issued a Renewal IHA to Ocean Wind for the take of marine 
mammals incidental to conducting marine site characterization surveys 
offshore of New Jersey, from May 10, 2022 to May 09, 2023.

    Dated: May 10, 2022.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-10389 Filed 5-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P