Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RTID 0648-XB896]
 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 IHA to Ocean Wind II, LLC (Ocean Wind II), an affiliate of Orsted Wind Power North America LLC (Orsted), to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment, marine mammals during marine site characterization surveys off New Jersey in and around the area of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf Lease Area (OCS)-A 0532. We note that the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         notice of proposed IHA (87 FR 14823; March 16, 2022) refers to the applicant as “Ocean Wind, LLC.” This was an error on NMFS' part and the correct name (“Ocean Wind II, LLC”) is used herein.
 DATES: The Authorization is effective from May 10, 2022 through May 9, 2023.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. An electronic copy of the IHA and supporting documents may be obtained online at: 
                        *https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​national/​marine-mammal-protection/​incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable.*
                         In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
                    *et seq.*) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
                    ( print page 30454)
                    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 the 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 the 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 1, 2021, NMFS received a request from Ocean Wind II for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys off of New Jersey in the area of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf Lease Area OCS-A 0532 (Lease Area) and potential export cable routes (ECRs) to landfall locations in New Jersey. Following NMFS review of the draft application, a revised version was submitted on November 24, 2021 and again on January 24, 2022. The January 2022 revised version was deemed adequate and complete on February 8, 2022. Ocean Wind II's request is for take of 16 species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only. Neither Ocean Wind II nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. NMFS previously issued an IHA to Ocean Wind, LLC (Ocean Wind) for similar work in the same general geographic area on June 8, 2017 (82 FR 31562; July 7, 2017) with effective dates from June 8, 2017, through June 7, 2018 and on May 10, 2021 (86 FR 26465, May 14, 2021) with effective dates from May 10, 2021 through May 9, 2022. Ocean Wind complied with all the requirements (
                    *e.g.,*
                     mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the 2017-2018 IHA. Because Ocean Wind's current IHA is still effective, we have not yet received the associated monitoring report. Please note that Ocean Wind and Ocean Wind II are both affiliates of Orsted Wind Power North America LLC, with operations occurring in the same general area. This IHA for Ocean Wind II is effective May 10, 2022 through May 9, 2023. There are no changes from the proposed IHA to the final IHA. Description of Proposed Activity Overview As part of its overall marine site characterization survey operations, Ocean Wind II proposes to conduct high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys in the Lease Area and along potential ECRs to landfall locations in New Jersey. 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 area. Surveys are also conducted to support engineering design and to map unexploded ordnance. Underwater sound resulting from Ocean Wind II's proposed site characterization survey activities, specifically HRG surveys, has the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals in the form of Level B behavioral harassment. Dates and Duration Site characterization surveys considered under this application are expected to occur between May 10, 2022 and May 9, 2023 with a total of 275 survey days. A survey day is defined here as a 24-hour activity period. The number of anticipated survey days was calculated as the number of days needed to reach the overall level of effort required to meet survey objectives assuming any single vessel covers, on average, 70 line km per 24 hours of operations. Specific Geographic Region The proposed survey activities will occur within the Project Area which includes the Lease Area and potential ECRs, as shown in Figure 1. The Lease Area is approximately 343.8 square kilometers (km2
                    ) and is within the New Jersey wind energy area (WEA) of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's Mid-Atlantic planning area. Water depths in the Lease Area range from 15 meters (m) to 35 m, and the potential ECRs extend from the shoreline to approximately 40 m depth. 
 
  Detailed Description of Specific Activity Ocean Wind II plans to conduct HRG survey operations, including multibeam depth sounding, seafloor imaging, and shallow and medium penetration sub-bottom profiling. The HRG surveys may be conducted using any or all of the following equipment types: Side scan sonar, multibeam echosounder, magnetometers and gradiometers, parametric sub-bottom profiler (SBP), compressed high intensity radar pulse (CHIRP) SBP, boomers, or sparkers. 
                    ( print page 30456)
                    Ocean Wind II assumes that HRG survey operations would be conducted 24 hours per day, with an assumed daily survey distance of 70 km. Vessels would generally conduct survey effort at a transit speed of approximately 4 knots (kn), which equates to 110 km per 24-hr period. However, based on past survey experience (
                    *i.e.,*
                     knowledge of typical daily downtime due to weather, system malfunctions, etc.) Ocean Wind II assumes 70 km as the average daily distance. On this basis, a total of 275 survey days are expected. In certain shallow-water areas, vessels may conduct survey effort during daylight hours only, with a corresponding assumption that the daily survey distance would be halved (35 km). However, for purposes of analysis all survey days are assumed to cover the maximum 70 km. A maximum of two 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. Acoustic sources planned for use during HRG survey activities proposed by Ocean Wind II include the following: Shallow penetration, non-impulsive, non-parametric SBPs (*i.e.,*
                     CHIRP SBPs) are used to map the near-surface stratigraphy (top 0 to 10 m) of sediment below seabed. A CHIRP system emits signals covering a frequency sweep from approximately 2 to 20 kilohertz (kHz) over time. The frequency range can be adjusted to meet project variables. These sources are typically mounted on a pole rather than towed, reducing the likelihood that an animal would be exposed to the signal.
                Medium penetration, impulsive sources (*i.e.,*
                     boomers and sparkers) are used to map deeper subsurface stratigraphy. A boomer is a broadband source operating in the 3.5 Hertz (Hz) to 10 kHz frequency range. Sparkers create omnidirectional acoustic pulses from 50 Hz to 4 kHz. These sources are typically towed behind the vessel. Operation of the following survey equipment types is not expected to present reasonable risk of marine mammal take, and will not be discussed further beyond the brief summaries provided below. Non-impulsive, parametric SBPs are used for providing high data density in sub-bottom profiles that are typically required for cable routes, very shallow water, and archaeological surveys. These sources generate short, very narrow-beam (1° to 3.5°) signals at high frequencies (generally around 85-100 kHz). The narrow beamwidth significantly reduces the potential that a marine mammal could be exposed to the signal, while the high frequency of operation means that the signal is rapidly attenuated in seawater. These sources are typically deployed on a pole rather than towed behind the vessel.
                Acoustic corers are seabed-mounted sources with three distinct sound sources: A high-frequency parametric sonar, a high-frequency CHIRP sonar, and a low-frequency CHIRP sonar. The beamwidth is narrow (3.5° to 8°) and the source is operated roughly 3.5 meter (m) above the seabed with the transducer pointed directly downward.
                Ultra-short baseline (USBL) positioning systems are used to provide high accuracy ranges by measuring the time between the acoustic pulses transmitted by the vessel transceiver and a transponder (or beacon) necessary to produce the acoustic profile. It is a two-component system with a pole-mounted transceiver and one or several transponders mounted on other survey equipment. USBLs are expected to produce extremely small acoustic propagation distances in their typical operating configuration.
                Multibeam echosounders (MBESs) are used to determine water depths and general bottom topography. The proposed MBESs all have operating frequencies >180 kHz and are therefore outside the general hearing range of marine mammals.
                Side scan sonars (SSS) are used for seabed sediment classification purposes and to identify natural and man-made acoustic targets on the seafloor. The proposed SSSs all have operating frequencies >180 kHz and are therefore outside the general hearing range of marine mammals. Table 1 identifies representative survey equipment with the expected potential to result in exposure of marine mammals and potentially result in take. The make and model of the listed geophysical equipment may vary depending on availability and the final equipment choices will vary depending upon the final survey design, vessel availability, and survey contractor selection. Table 1—Summary of Representative HRG Equipment
Equipment
Operating 
                             frequency 
                             (kHz)
SL
                            rms
                             (dB re 1  
                             μPa m)
SL
                            0-pk
                             (dB re 1  
                             μPa m)
Pulse 
                             Duration  
                             (width) 
                             (millisecond)
Repetition 
                             rate 
                             (Hz)
Beamwidth
                             (degrees)
CF = Crocker 
                             and Fratantonio  
                             (2016), MAN =  
                             manufacturer**Non-parametric shallow penetration SBPs (non-impulsive)**ET 216 (2000DS or 3200 top unit)
2-16, 2-8
195
-
20
6
24
MANET 424 3200-X
4-24
176
-
3.4
2
71
CFET 512i
0.7-12
179
-
9
8
80
CFGeoPulse 5430A
2-17
196
-
50
10
55
MANTeledyne Benthos Chirp III—TTV 170
2-7
197
-
60
15
100
MANPangeo SBI
4.5-12.5
188
-
4.5
45
120
MAN**Medium penetration SBPs (impulsive)**AA, Dura-spark UHD (400 tips, 500 J) 1
0.3-1.2
203
211
1.1
4
Omni
CFAA, Dura-spark UHD Sparker Model 400 × 400 1
0.3-1.2
203
211
1.1
4
Omni
CFGeoMarine, Dual 400 Sparker, Model Geo-Source 800 1
0.4-5
203
211
1.1
4
Omni
CFGeoMarine Sparker, Model Geo-Source 200-400 1
0.3-1.2
203
211
1.1
4
Omni
CFGeoMarine Sparker, Model Geo-Source 200 Lightweight 1
0.3-1.2
203
211
1.1
4
Omni
CFAA, triple plate S-Boom (700-1,000 J) 2
0.1-5
205
211
0.6
4
80
CF- = not applicable; μPa = micropascal; AA = Applied Acoustics; dB = decibel; ET = EdgeTech; J = joule; Omni = omnidirectional source; re = referenced to; PK = zero-to-peak sound pressure level; SL = source level; SPL = root-mean-square sound pressure level; UHD = ultra-high definition.1
                         The Dura-spark measurements and specifications provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) were used for all sparker systems proposed for the survey. These include variants of the Dura-spark sparker system and various configurations of the GeoMarine Geo-Source sparker system. The data provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) represent the most applicable data for similar sparker systems with comparable operating methods and settings when manufacturer or other reliable measurements are not available.
                        ( print page 30457)2
                         Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) provide S-Boom measurements using two different power sources (CSP-D700 and CSP-N). The CSP-D700 power source was used in the 700 J measurements but not in the 1,000 J measurements. The CSP-N source was measured for both 700 J and 1,000 J operations but resulted in a lower SL; therefore, the single maximum SL value was used for both operational levels of the S-Boom.
 Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting). Comments and Responses A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to Ocean Wind II was published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on March 16, 2022 (87 FR 14823). That proposed notice described, in detail, Ocean Wind II's activities, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activities, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals. In that notice, we requested public input on the request for authorization described therein, our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of the notice of proposed IHA, and requested that interested persons submit relevant information, suggestions, and comments. This proposed notice was available for a 30-day public comment period. NMFS received 8 comment letters on the proposed IHA; 2 from environmental non-governmental organizations (eNGOs) (Oceana, Inc. and Clean Ocean Action (COA)) and 6 letters from students at the University of New England School of Marine and Environmental Programs. The letters from the students expressed general support for wind farm construction; however, the IHA pertains to site assessment surveys. Hence, construction of the wind farm, and the associated comments, is outside the scope of NMFS' action considered herein. We do not specifically address comments related to impacts on marine mammals or their prey from potential future wind farm construction. Some student letters also suggested changes to the MMPA itself, which is also outside the scope of NMFS' proposed action here. All substantive comments related to the proposed action (
                    *i.e.,*
                     issuance of take associated with Ocean Wind II's site assessment surveys), and NMFS' responses, are provided below, and the letters are available online at: 
                    *www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​action/​incidental-take-authorization-atlantic-shores-offshore-wind-llc-marine-site-0*). Please review the letters for full details regarding the comments and underlying justification. *Comment 1:*
                     Oceana made comments objecting to NMFS' renewal process regarding the extension of any one-year IHA with a truncated 15-day public comment period, and suggested an additional 30-day public comment period is necessary for any renewal request. *Response:*
                     NMFS' IHA renewal process meets all statutory requirements. In prior responses to comments about IHA renewals (
                    *e.g.,*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. Therefore, we intend to continue implementing the renewal process. The Notice of the proposed IHA published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on March 16, 2022 (87 FR 14823) 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. *Comment 2:*
                     Oceana and COA remarked that NMFS must utilize the best available science. The commenters further suggest that NMFS has not done so, specifically referencing information regarding the North Atlantic right whale (NARW) such as updated population estimates and recent habitat usage patterns in Ocean Wind II's survey area. The commenters specifically asserted that NMFS is not using the best available science with regards to the NARW population estimate and state that NMFS should be using the 336 estimate presented in the recent NARW 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 NARW Report Card (Pettis et al., 2022) 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 
                    ( print page 30458)
                    proposed IHA, provides the most recent and best available estimate, and introduced improvements to NMFS' NARW 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 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 II'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. The commenters also noted their concern regarding NARW habitat usage, stating that NMFS was not appropriately considering relevant information on this topic. While this survey specifically intersects migratory habitat for NARWs, year-round “core” NARW foraging habitat (Oleson 
                    *et al.,*
                     2020) located much further north in the southern area of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Islands where both visual and acoustic detections of NARWs indicate a nearly year-round presence (Oleson 
                    *et al.,*
                     2020). NMFS notes that prey for NARWs are mobile and broadly distributed throughout the survey area; therefore, NARW foraging efforts are not likely to be disturbed given the location of these planned activities in relation to the broader area that NARWs migrate through and the northern areas where NARWs primarily forage. There is ample foraging habitat further north of this survey area that will not be ensonified by the acoustic sources used by Ocean Wind II, such as in the Great South Channel and Georges Bank Shelf Break feeding biologically important area (BIA). Furthermore, and as discussed in the proposed Notice, the spatial acoustic footprint of the survey is very small relative to the spatial extent of the available foraging habitat. Lastly, as we stated in the proposed IHA 
                    **Federal Register**
                     notice (87 FR 14823, March 16, 2022) any impacts to marine mammals are expected to be temporary and minor and, given the relative size of the survey area compared to the overall migratory route leading to foraging habitat (which is not affected by the specified activity). Comparatively, the survey area is extremely small (the lease area is 338 km2
                    ) compared to the size of the NARW migratory BIA (269,448 km2
                    ). Because of this, and in context of the minor, low-level nature of the impacts expected to result from the planned survey, such impacts are not expected to result in disruption to biologically important behaviors. *Comment 3:*
                     Oceana noted that chronic stressors are an emerging concern for NARW conservation and recovery, and stated that chronic stress may result in energetic effects for NARWs. Oceana suggested that NMFS has not fully considered both the use of the area and the effects of both acute and chronic stressors on the health and fitness of NARWs, as disturbance responses in NARWs could lead to chronic stress or habitat displacement, leading to an overall decline in their health and fitness. *Response:*
                     NMFS agrees with Oceana that both acute and chronic stressors are of concern for NARW conservation and recovery. We recognize that acute stress from acoustic exposure is one potential impact of these surveys, and that chronic stress can have fitness, reproductive, etc. impacts at the population-level scale. NMFS has carefully reviewed the best available scientific information in assessing impacts to marine mammals, and recognizes that the surveys have the potential to impact marine mammals through behavioral effects, stress responses, and auditory masking. However, NMFS does not expect that the generally short-term, intermittent, and transitory marine site characterization survey activities planned by Ocean Wind II would create conditions of acute or chronic acoustic exposure leading to long-term physiological stress responses in marine mammals. NMFS has also prescribed a robust suite of mitigation measures, including extended distance shutdowns for NARW, that are expected to further reduce the duration and intensity of acoustic exposure, while limiting the potential severity of any possible behavioral disruption. The potential for chronic stress was evaluated in making the determinations presented in NMFS's negligible impact analyses. Because NARWs generally use this location in a transitory manner, specifically for migration, any potential impacts from these surveys are lessened for other behaviors due to the brief periods where exposure is possible. In context of these expected low-level impacts, which are not expected to meaningfully affect important behavior, we also refer again to the large size of the migratory corridor (BIA of 269,448 km2
                    ) compared with the survey area (5,868 km2
                    ). Thus, the transitory nature of NARWs at this location means it is unlikely for any exposure to cause chronic effects as Ocean Wind II's planned survey area and ensonified zones are much smaller than the overall migratory corridor. Because of this, NMFS does not expect acute or cumulative stress to be a detrimental factor to NARWs from Ocean Wind II described survey activities. *Comment 4:*
                     Oceana and COA asserted that NMFS must fully consider the discrete effects of each activity and the cumulative effects of the suite of approved, proposed and potential activities on marine mammals and NARWs in particular and ensure that the cumulative effects are not excessive before issuing or renewing an IHA. *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 
                    ( print page 30459)
                    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 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 II was the applicant for the 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 II have been adequately addressed under NEPA in prior environmental analyses that support NMFS' determination that this action is appropriately categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis. NMFS independently evaluated the use of a categorical exclusion for issuance of Ocean Wind II's 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 Ocean Wind's 2017 and 2021 IHAs (82 FR 31562; July 7, 2017 and 86 FR 26465; May 10, 2021), which are substantially similar to those planned by Ocean Wind II under this current IHA request. 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 IHA is covered under a different consultation, this BiOp remains valid and the surveys currently planned by Ocean Wind II from 2022 to 2023 could have fallen under the scope of those analyzed previously.. *Comment 5:*
                     Oceana states that NMFS must make an assessment of which activities, technologies and strategies are truly necessary to provide Ocean Wind II the necessary information and identify which are not critical, asserting that NMFS should prescribe the appropriate survey techniques. In general, Oceana stated that NMFS must require that all IHA applicants minimize the impacts of underwater noise to the fullest extent feasible, including through the use of best available technology and methods to minimize sound levels from geophysical surveys. *Response:*
                     The MMPA requires that an IHA include measures that will effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species and stocks and, in practice, NMFS agrees that the IHA should include conditions for the survey activities that will first avoid adverse effects on NARWs in and around the survey site, where practicable, and then minimize the effects that cannot be avoided. NMFS has determined that the IHA meets this requirement to effect the least practicable adverse impact. Oceana does not make any specific recommendations of measures to add to the IHA. As part of the analysis for all marine site characterization survey IHAs, NMFS evaluated the effects expected as a result of the specified activity, made the necessary findings, and prescribed mitigation requirements sufficient to achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species and stocks of marine mammals. It is not within NMFS' purview to make judgments regarding what may be appropriate techniques or technologies for an operator's survey objectives. *Comment 6:*
                     Oceana suggests that PSOs complement their survey efforts using additional technologies, such as infrared detection devices when in low-light conditions. *Response:*
                     NMFS agrees with Oceana regarding this suggestion and a requirement to utilize a thermal (infrared) device during low-light conditions was included in the proposed 
                    **Federal Register**
                     Notice. That requirement is included as a requirement of the issued IHA. *Comment 7:*
                     Oceana and COA recommended that NMFS restrict all vessels of all sizes associated with the proposed survey activities to speeds less than 10 knots (kn) at all times due to the risk of vessel strikes to NARWs and other large whales. *Response:*
                     While NMFS acknowledges that vessel strikes can result in injury or mortality, we have analyzed the potential for ship strike resulting from Ocean Wind II' activity and have determined that based on the nature of the activity and the required mitigation measures specific to vessel strike avoidance included in the IHA, potential for vessel strike is so low as to be discountable. These mitigation measures, most of which were included in the proposed IHA and all of which are required in the final IHA, include: A requirement that all vessel operators comply with 10 kn (18.5 km/hour) or less speed restrictions in any SMA, DMA or Slow Zone while underway, and check daily for information regarding the establishment of mandatory or voluntary vessel strike avoidance areas (SMAs, DMAs, Slow Zones) and information regarding NARW sighting locations; a requirement that all vessels greater than or equal to 19.8 m in overall length operating from November 1 through April 30 operate at speeds of 10 kn (18.5 km/hour) or less; a requirement that all vessel operators reduce vessel speed to 10 kn (18.5 km/hour) or less when any large whale, any mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of non-delphinid cetaceans are observed near the vessel; a requirement that all survey vessels maintain a separation distance of 500 m or greater from any ESA-listed whales or other unidentified large marine 
                    ( print page 30460)
                    mammals visible at the surface while underway; a requirement that, if underway, vessels must steer a course away from any sighted ESA-listed whale at 10 kn or less until the 500 m minimum separation distance has been established; a requirement that, if an ESA-listed 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; a requirement that all vessels underway must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from all non-ESA-listed baleen whales; and a requirement that all vessels underway must, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not be possible (
                    *e.g.,*
                     for animals that approach the vessel). We have determined that the ship strike avoidance measures in the IHA are sufficient to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat. Furthermore, no documented vessel strikes have occurred for any marine site characterization surveys which were issued IHAs from NMFS during the survey activities themselves or while transiting to and from survey sites. *Comment 8:*
                     Oceana suggests that NMFS require vessels maintain a separation distance of at least 500 m from NARWs at all times. *Response:*
                     NMFS agrees with Oceana regarding this suggestion and a requirement to maintain a separation distance of at least 500 m from NARWs at all times was included in the proposed 
                    **Federal Register**
                     Notice and was included as a requirement in the issued IHA. *Comment 9:*
                     Oceana recommended that the IHA should require all vessels supporting site characterization to be equipped with and using Class A Automatic Identification System (AIS) devices at all times while on the water. Oceana suggested this requirement should apply to all vessels, regardless of size, associated with the survey. *Response:*
                     NMFS is generally supportive of the idea that vessels involved with survey activities be equipped with and using Class A Automatic Identification System (devices) at all times while on the water. Indeed, there is a precedent for NMFS requiring such a stipulation for geophysical surveys in the Atlantic Ocean (38 FR 63268, December 7, 2018); however, these activities carried the potential for much more significant impacts than the marine site characterization surveys to be carried out by Ocean Wind II, with the potential for both Level A and Level B harassment take. Given the small isopleths and small numbers of take authorized by this IHA, NMFS does not agree that the benefits of requiring AIS on all vessels associated with the survey activities outweighs and warrants the cost and practicability issues associated with this requirement. *Comment 10:*
                     Oceana asserts that the IHA must include requirements to hold all vessels associated with site characterization surveys accountable to the IHA requirements, including vessels owned by the developer, contractors, employees, and others regardless of ownership, operator, and contract. They state that exceptions and exemptions will create enforcement uncertainty and incentives to evade regulations through reclassification and redesignation. They recommend that NMFS simplify this by requiring all vessels to abide by the same requirements, regardless of size, ownership, function, contract or other specifics. *Response:*
                     NMFS agrees with Oceana and required these measures in the proposed IHA and final IHA. The IHA requires that a copy of the IHA must be in the possession of Ocean Wind II, the vessel operators, the lead PSO, and any other relevant designees of Ocean Wind II operating under the authority of this IHA. The IHA also states that Ocean Wind II must ensure that the vessel operator and other relevant vessel personnel, including the Protected Species Observer (PSO) team, are briefed on all responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocols, operational procedures, and IHA requirements prior to the start of survey activity, and when relevant new personnel join the survey operations. *Comment 11:*
                     Oceana stated that the IHA must include a requirement for all phases of the Ocean Wind II site characterization to subscribe to the highest level of transparency, including frequent reporting to federal agencies, requirements to report all visual and acoustic detections of NARWs and any dead, injured, or entangled marine mammals to NMFS or the Coast Guard as soon as possible and no later than the end of the PSO shift. Oceana states that to foster stakeholder relationships and allow public engagement and oversight of the permitting, the IHA should require all reports and data to be accessible on a publicly available website. *Response:*
                     NMFS agrees with the need for reporting and indeed, the MMPA calls for IHAs to incorporate reporting requirements. As included in the proposed IHA, the final IHA includes requirements for reporting that supports Oceana's recommendations. Ocean Wind II is required to submit a monitoring report to NMFS within 90 days after completion of survey activities that fully documents the methods and monitoring protocols, summarizes the data recorded during monitoring, and describes, assesses and compares the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures. PSO datasheets or raw sightings data must also be provided with the draft and final monitoring report. Further the draft IHA and final IHA stipulate that if a NARW is observed at any time by any survey vessels, during surveys or during vessel transit, Ocean Wind II must immediately report sighting information to the NMFS NARW Sighting Advisory System and to the U.S. Coast Guard, and that any discoveries of injured or dead marine mammals be reported by Ocean Wind II to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and to the New England/Mid-Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. All reports and associated data submitted to NMFS are included on the website for public inspection. *Comment 12:*
                     Oceana recommended increasing the Exclusion Zone to 1,000 m for NARWs. *Response:*
                     NMFS notes that the 500 m Exclusion Zone for NARWs exceeds the modeled distance to the largest 160 dB Level B harassment isopleth distance (141 m during sparker use) by a substantial margin. Oceana does not provide a compelling rationale for why the Exclusion Zone should be even larger. Given that these surveys are relatively low impact and that, regardless, NMFS has prescribed a NARW Exclusion Zone that is significantly larger (500 m) than the conservatively estimated largest harassment zone (141 m), NMFS has determined that the Exclusion Zone is appropriate. Further, Level A harassment is not expected to result even in the absence of mitigation, given the characteristics of the sources planned for use. As described in the Mitigation section, NMFS has determined that the prescribed mitigation requirements are sufficient to effect the least practicable adverse impact on all affected species or stocks. *Comment 13:*
                     Oceana recommended that NMFS should require PAM at all times to maximize the probability of detection for NARWs. *Response:*
                     Oceana does not explain why they expect that PAM would be effective in detecting vocalizing mysticetes, nor does NMFS agree that this measure is warranted, as it is not expected to be effective for use in 
                    ( print page 30461)
                    detecting the species of concern. It is generally accepted that, even in the absence of additional acoustic sources, using a towed passive acoustic sensor to detect baleen whales (including NARWs) is not typically effective because the noise from the vessel, the flow noise, and the cable noise are in the same frequency band and will mask the vast majority of baleen whale calls. Vessels produce low-frequency noise, primarily through propeller cavitation, with main energy in the 5-300 Hertz (Hz) frequency range. Source levels range from about 140 to 195 decibel (dB) re 1 
                    *μ*
                    Pa (micropascal) at 1 m (NRC, 2003; Hildebrand, 2009), depending on factors such as ship type, load, and speed, and ship hull and propeller design. Studies of vessel noise show that it appears to increase background noise levels in the 71-224 Hz range by 10-13 dB (Hatch 
                    *et al.,*
                     2012; McKenna 
                    *et al.,*
                     2012; Rolland 
                    *et al.,*
                     2012). PAM systems employ hydrophones towed in streamer cables approximately 500 m behind a vessel. Noise from water flow around the cables and from strumming of the cables themselves is also low-frequency and typically masks signals in the same range. Experienced PAM operators participating in a recent workshop (Thode 
                    *et al.,*
                     2017) emphasized that a PAM operation could easily report no acoustic encounters, depending on species present, simply because background noise levels rendered any acoustic detection impossible. The same workshop report stated that a typical eight-element array towed 500 m behind a vessel could be expected to detect delphinids, sperm whales, and beaked whales at the required range, but not baleen whales, due to expected background noise levels (including seismic noise, vessel noise, and flow noise). There are several additional reasons why we do not agree that use of PAM is warranted for 24-hour HRG surveys. While NMFS agrees that PAM can be an important tool for augmenting detection capabilities in certain circumstances, its utility in further reducing impact during 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 141 m); 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, 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. 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 NARWs 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 monitoring are sufficient to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat. NMFS has previously provided discussions on why PAM is not a required monitoring measure during HRG survey IHAs in past 
                    **Federal Register**
                     notices (see 86 FR 21289, April 22, 2021 and 87 FR 13975, March 11, 2022 for examples). *Comment 14:*
                     Oceana recommends a shutdown requirement if a NARW or other ESA-listed species is detected in the clearance zone as well as a publically available explanation of any exemptions as to why the applicant would not be able to shut down in these situations. *Response:*
                     There are several shutdown requirements described in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     notice of the proposed IHA (87 FR 4200, January 27, 2022), and which are included in the final IHA, including the stipulation that geophysical survey equipment must be immediately shut down if any marine mammal is observed within or entering the relevant Exclusion Zone while geophysical survey equipment is operational. There is no exemption for the shutdown requirement. In regards to reporting, Ocean Wind II must notify NMFS if a NARW is observed at any time by any survey vessels during surveys or during vessel transit. Additionally, Ocean Wind II is required to report the relevant survey activity information, such as such as the type of survey equipment in operation, acoustic source power output while in operation, and any other notes of significance (
                    *i.e.,*
                     pre-clearance survey, ramp-up, shutdown, end of operations, etc.) as well as the estimated distance to an animal and its heading relative to the survey vessel at the initial sighting and survey activity information. We note that if a NARW is detected within the Exclusion Zone before a shutdown is implemented, the NARW and its distance from the sound source, including if it is within the Level B harassment zone, would be reported in Ocean Wind II's final monitoring report and made publicly available on NMFS' website. Ocean Wind II is required to immediately notify NMFS of any sightings of NARWs and report upon survey activity information. NMFS believes that these requirements address the commenter's concerns. *Comment 15:*
                     Oceana recommended that when HRG surveys are allowed to resume after a shutdown event, the surveys should be required to use a ramp-up procedure to encourage any nearby marine life to leave the area. *Response:*
                     NMFS agrees with this recommendation and included in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     notice of the proposed IHA (March 16, 2022, 87 FR 14823) and this final IHA a stipulation that when technically feasible, survey equipment must be ramped up at the start or restart of survey activities. Ramp-up must begin with the power of the smallest acoustic equipment at its lowest practical power output appropriate for the survey. When technically feasible the power must then be gradually turned up and other acoustic sources added in a way such that the source level would increase gradually. NMFS notes that ramp-up would not be required for short periods where acoustic sources were shut down (
                    *i.e.,*
                     less than 30 minutes) if PSOs have maintained constant visual observation and no detections of marine mammals occurred within the applicable Exclusion Zones. *Comment 16:*
                     COA asserted that Level A harassment may occur, and that this was not accounted for in the proposed Notice. *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 
                    ( print page 30462)
                    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 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 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' responses to comments 3, 4, and 8. *Comment 17:*
                     COA is concerned that habitat displacement could significantly increase the risk of ship-strike to NARWs from outside the survey area. *Response:*
                     NMFS does not anticipate that NARWs would be displaced from the area where Ocean Wind II's marine site characterization surveys would occur, and COA does not provide evidence that this effect should be a reasonably anticipated outcome of the specified activity. Similarly, NMFS is not aware of any scientific information suggesting that the survey activity would drive marine mammals into shipping lanes, and disagrees that this would be a reasonably anticipated effect of the specified activities. The take by Level B harassment authorized by NMFS is precautionary but considered unlikely, as NMFS' take estimation process does not account for the use of extremely precautionary mitigation measures, 
                    *e.g.,*
                     the requirement for Ocean Wind II to implement a Shutdown Zone that is more than 3 times as large as the estimated harassment zone. These requirements are expected to largely eliminate the actual occurrence of Level B harassment events and, to the extent that harassment does occur, would minimize the duration and severity of any such events. Therefore, even if a NARW was in the area of the cable corridor surveys, a displacement impact is not anticipated. Although the primary stressor to marine mammals from the specified activities is acoustic exposure to the sound source, NMFS takes seriously the risk of vessel strike and has prescribed measures sufficient to avoid the potential for ship strike to the extent practicable. NMFS has required these measures despite a very low likelihood of vessel strike; vessels associated with the survey activity will add a discountable amount of vessel traffic to the specific geographic region and, furthermore, vessels towing survey gear travel at very slow speeds (
                    *i.e.,*
                     roughly 4-5 kn). *Comment 18:*
                     COA is concerned regarding the number of species that could be impacted by the activities, as well as a lack of baseline data being available for 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 
                    **Federal Register**
                     Notice have some likelihood of occurring in Ocean Wind II'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. 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. The amount of take authorized in the IHA meets the MMPA's small numbers requirement for dolphins (see Small Numbers section). 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 19:*
                     One commenter suggested that the amount of authorized NARWs takes should be limited to 0.7 instead of the 11 takes proposed for authorization. *Response:*
                     The commenter cites Ocean Wind II's application when stating that only 0.7 are allowed to be “taken from the environment.” NMFS believes the commenter is referring to the potential biological removal (PBR) value in the draft 2021 SAR for NARWs. The commenter appears mistaken in equating the PBR value to the maximum amount of take that NMFS may authorize. 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. That is, PBR represents the amount of mortality and/or serious injury a population can withstand while allowing that stock to reach or maintain the maximum productivity of the population. Ocean Wind II did not request, nor is NMFS authorizing any mortality or serious injury of NARWs. The take authorized is limited to Level B (behavioral) harassment. NMFS has authorized 11 takes of NARWs by Level B harassment and has found that the taking will result in no greater than a negligible impact to the NARW stock (
                    *i.e.,*
                     the specified activity will not adversely affect the species through effects on annual rates of recruitment and/or survival). *Comment 20:*
                     One commenter suggested the IHA should not be issued at this time because they believe there is a lack of research on NARW prey. *Response:*
                     While much of this commenter's letter focused on wind farm construction, NMFS addresses this comment as though applicable to the site assessment surveys considered here. 
                    ( print page 30463)
                    We note first that the region where this survey is located is not a significant feeding area for NARW. Primary feeding areas for the species are located further to the north, with the most important use of this area for NARW being as a migratory pathway. However, we further address this comment in general, as other mysticete species occur in the region and in order to thoroughly address the commenter's concern. NMFS disagrees with the suggestion that we did not adequately consider the potential for effects to prey species. In fact, we considered relevant literature in finding that the most likely impact of survey activity to prey species such as fish and invertebrates would be temporary avoidance of an area, with a rapid return to pre-survey distribution and behavior, and minimal impacts to recruitment or survival anticipated. While there is a lack of specific scientific information to allow an assessment of the duration, intensity, or distribution of effects to prey in specific locations at specific times and in response to specific surveys, the MMPA specifies that the “best available data” must be used and NMFS' review of the available information does not indicate that such effects could be significant enough to impact marine mammal prey to the extent that marine mammal fitness would be affected. We addressed the potential for effects to prey, as well as the potential for those effects to impact marine mammal populations, in our notice of proposed IHA (87 FR 14823, March 16, 2022). As stated in that notice, our review of the available information and the specific nature of the activities considered herein suggest that the activities are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects (if any) on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts to prey species are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations. Additional information relevant to the commenter's specific concern related to NARW prey is summarized below. With regard to potential impacts on zooplankton (
                    *i.e.,*
                     NARW prey), McCauley 
                    *et al.*
                     (2017) found that exposure to noise from airguns (a sound source with significantly more intense sound output than the sources considered herein, with correspondingly greater potential for impacts to marine mammal prey) resulted in significant depletion for more than half the taxa present and that there were two to three times more dead zooplankton after airgun exposure compared with controls for all taxa, within 1 km of the airguns. However, the authors also stated that in order to have significant impacts on 
                    *r*
                    -selected species (
                    *i.e.,*
                     those with high growth rates and that produce many offspring) such as plankton, the spatial or temporal scale of impact must be large in comparison with the ecosystem concerned, and it is possible that the findings reflect avoidance by zooplankton rather than mortality (McCauley 
                    *et al.,*
                     2017). In addition, the results of this study are inconsistent with a large body of research that generally finds limited spatial and temporal impacts to zooplankton as a result of exposure to airgun noise (
                    *e.g.,*
                     Dalen and Knutsen, 1987; Payne, 2004; Stanley 
                    *et al.,*
                     2011). Most prior research on this topic, which has focused on relatively small spatial scales, has showed minimal effects (
                    *e.g.,*
                     Kostyuchenko, 1973; Booman 
                    *et al.,*
                     1996; Sætre and Ona, 1996; Pearson 
                    *et al.,*
                     1994; Bolle 
                    *et al.,*
                     2012). A modeling exercise was conducted as a follow-up to the McCauley 
                    *et al.*
                     (2017) study (as recommended by McCauley 
                    *et al.*), in order to assess the potential for impacts on ocean ecosystem dynamics and zooplankton population dynamics (Richardson 
                    *et al.,*
                     2017). Richardson 
                    *et al.*
                     (2017) found that a full-scale airgun survey would impact copepod abundance within the survey area, but that effects at a regional scale were minimal (2 percent decline in abundance within 150 km of the survey area and effects not discernible over the full region). The authors also found that recovery within the survey area would be relatively quick (3 days following survey completion), and suggest that the quick recovery was due to the fast growth rates of zooplankton, and the dispersal and mixing of zooplankton from both inside and outside of the impacted region. Notably, a more recent study produced results inconsistent with those of McCauley 
                    *et al.*
                     (2017). Researchers conducted a field and laboratory study to assess if exposure to airgun noise affects mortality, predator escape response, or gene expression of the copepod 
                    *Calanus finmarchicus*
                     (Fields 
                    *et al.,*
                     2019). Immediate mortality of copepods was significantly higher, relative to controls, at distances of 5 m or less from the airguns. Mortality one week after the airgun blast was significantly higher in the copepods placed 10 m from the airgun but was not significantly different from the controls at a distance of 20 m from the airgun. The increase in mortality, relative to controls, did not exceed 30 percent at any distance from the airgun. Moreover, the authors caution that even this higher mortality in the immediate vicinity of the airguns may be more pronounced than what would be observed in free-swimming animals due to increased flow speed of fluid inside bags containing the experimental animals. There were no sublethal effects on the escape performance or the sensory threshold needed to initiate an escape response at any of the distances from the airgun that were tested. Whereas McCauley 
                    *et al.*
                     (2017) reported an SEL of 156 dB at a range of 509-658 m, with zooplankton mortality observed at that range, Fields 
                    *et al.*
                     (2019) reported an SEL of 186 dB at a range of 25 m, with no reported mortality at that distance. Note that the sound sources planned for use in Ocean Wind II's survey activities would result in significantly lesser potential for impacts to zooplankton than was observed in the studies described above. Further, given the typically wide dispersal of survey vessels and brief time to regeneration of the potentially affected zooplankton populations, we do not expect any meaningful follow-on effects to the prey base from Ocean Wind II's survey activities. Nevertheless, we provided the additional information above to clarify NMFS's evaluation of all potentially relevant information in our analysis of potential impacts to prey, including NARW prey. *Comment 21:*
                     One commenter suggested the IHA does not contain adequate mitigation measures with respect to vessel strike avoidance measures and there should be assurances to the public these measures are being implemented. *Response:*
                     We understand the commenter to be concerned that if Ocean Wind II does not comply with the vessel strike avoidance measures in the IHA, there may be no mechanisms by which to be aware of such violations. NMFS reiterates that (1) no vessel strike is anticipated to occur as a result of this survey activity; (2) the issued IHA contains appropriate reporting mechanisms in reflection of the potential for an unanticipated strike to occur; and (3) any unauthorized take that occurs is in violation of the MMPA. We refer the reader to our responses to comments 8 and 12 above. *Comment 22:*
                     One commenter suggested that the proposed exclusion zone (
                    *i.e.,*
                     shutdown zone) is inconsistent with BOEM's “standard” marine mammal exclusion zone of 200 m. *Response:*
                     The commenter referenced a BOEM website for oil and gas exploration when suggesting that the standard EZ is 200 m. The referenced web page also appears outdated as it 
                    ( print page 30464)
                    references a decision document issued by BOEM in July 2014. Hence the website cited by the commenter is not applicable to Ocean Wind II's survey activities. Regardless, NMFS prescribes mitigation appropriate to achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals, as required by the MMPA, and has conditioned the IHA in a manner identical to several previously issued offshore wind HRG IHAs and in accordance with the ESA informal consultation relevant to this action (NMFS, 2021 (revised September 2021)). *Comment 23:*
                     One commenter questioned why manatees were discussed in Ocean Wind II's application and why there were no takes of manatees estimated. *Response:*
                     The manatee is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hence, NMFS has no jurisdiction over the manatee and cannot authorize take for that species. Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA There were no changes from proposed IHA to final IHA. NMFS notes that the draft IHA that was posted to our website for review during the 30-day public comment period contained an erroneous amount of take for some species; however, the take for all species was correctly identified in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     notice of proposed IHA (87 FR 14823, March 16). No comments received were related to the take amounts identified in the draft IHA. As discussed in the 
                    **Summary**
                     section, NMFS erroneously referred to the applicant as “Ocean Wind, LLC” in the notice of proposed IHA. Here, we correct that reference to “Ocean Wind II, LLC.” Since publication of the Notice of proposed IHA, NMFS has acknowledged that the population estimate of NARWs is now under 350 animals (
                    *https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​species/​north-atlantic-right-whale*). However, as discussed in our response to Comment #2 above, 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 II survey activities. The status and trends of the NARW population remain unchanged. Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 
                    *www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​national/​marine-mammal-protection/​marine-mammal-stock-assessments*) and more general information about these species (
                    *e.g.,*
                     physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website (
                    *www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​find-species*). Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this action, and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, NMFS follows Committee on Taxonomy (2021). 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 would be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats. Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs. All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the Draft 2021 SARs (Hayes 
                    *et al.,*
                     2021), available at: 
                    *https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​national/​marine-mammal-protection/​marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports.* Table 2—Marine Mammal Species Likely To Occur Near the Project Area That May Be Affected by Ocean Wind II's Activity
Common name
Scientific name
Stock
ESA/MMPA status; strategic
                             
                                (Y/N) 1
Stock abundance (CV, N
                            min
                            , most recent 
                             
                                abundance survey) 2
PBR
Annual M/SI 3**Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)**Family Balaenidae:NARW
*Eubalaena glacialis*
Western North Atlantic (WNA)
E/D; Y
368 5
                             (0; 364; 2019)
0.7
7.7Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):Humpback whale
*Megaptera novaeangliae*
Gulf of Maine
-/-; Y
1,393 (0.15; 1,375; 2016)
22
58Fin whale
*Balaenoptera physalus*
WNA
E/D; Y
6,802 (0.24; 5,573; 2016)
11
2.35Sei whale
*Balaenoptera borealis*
Nova Scotia
E/D; Y
6,292 (1.02; 3,098; 2016)
6.2
1.2Minke whale
*Balaenoptera acutorostrata*
Canadian East Coast
-/-; N
21,968 (0.31; 17,002; 2016)
170
10.6**Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)**Family Physeteridae:Sperm whale
*Physeter macrocephalus*
North Atlantic
E/D; Y
4,349 (0.28; 3,451; 2016)
3.9
0Family Delphinidae:Long-finned pilot whale
*Globicephala melas*
WNA
-/-; N
39,215 (0.30; 30,627; 2016)
306
29Short finned pilot whale
                             Bottlenose dolphin
*Globicephala macrorhynchus* 
                                *Tursiops truncatus*
WNA
                             WNA Offshore
-/-; N
                             -/-; N
28,924 (0.24; 23,637; 2016)
                             62,851 (0.23; 51,914; 2016)
236
                             519
136
                             28WNA Northern Migratory Coastal
-/D;Y
6,639 (0.41, 4,759, 2016)
48
12.2-21.5Common dolphin
*Delphinus delphis*
WNA
-/-; N
172,974 (0.21; 145,216; 2016)
1,452
390( print page 30465)Atlantic white-sided dolphin
*Lagenorhynchus acutus*
WNA
-/-; N
93,233 (0.71; 54,443; 2016)
544
27Atlantic spotted dolphin
*Stenella frontalis*
WNA
-/-; N
39,921 (0.27; 32,032; 2016)
320
0Risso's dolphin
*Grampus griseus*
WNA
-/-; N
35,215 (0.19; 30,051; 2016)
303
54.3Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):Harbor porpoise
*Phocoena phocoena*
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy
-/-; N
95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 2016)
851
164**Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia**Family Phocidae (earless seals):Gray seal 4
*Halichoerus grypus*
WNA
-/-; N
27,300 (0.22; 22,785, 2029)
1,458
4,453Harbor seal
*Phoca vitulina*
WNA
-/-; N
61,336 (0.08; 57,637, 2020)
1,729
3391
                         ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.2
                         NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: 
                        *www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​national/​marine-mammal-protection/​marine-mammal-stock-assessments.*
                         CV is coefficient of variation; N
                        min
                         is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.3
                         These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (
                        *e.g.,*
                         commercial fisheries, ship strike).4
                         NMFS' gray seal stock abundance estimate (and associated PBR value) applies to U.S. population only. Total stock abundance (including animals in Canada) is approximately 451,600. The annual M/SI value given is for the total stock.5
                         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*).
 A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by Ocean Wind II's activities, including information regarding population trends and threats, and local occurrence, were provided in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     notice for the proposed IHA (87 FR 14823, March 16). Since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks or other relevant new information; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that 
                    **Federal Register**
                     notice for those descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS's website (
                    *https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​find-species*) for generalized species accounts. Marine Mammal Hearing Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
                    *e.g.,*
                     Richardson 
                    *et al.,*
                     1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall 
                    *et al.*
                     (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (
                    *i.e.,*
                     low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall 
                    *et al.*
                     (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 3. Table 3—Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
Hearing group
Generalized hearing range *Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales)
7 Hz to 35 kHz.Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales)
150 Hz to 160 kHz.High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises,
                            *Kogia,*
                             river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid, 
                            *Lagenorhynchus cruciger*
                             & 
                            *L. australis*)
275 Hz to 160 kHz.Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals)
50 Hz to 86 kHz.Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals)
60 Hz to 39 kHz.* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (
                        *i.e.,*
                         all species within the group), where individual species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall 
                        *et al.*
                         2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
 
 
 The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall 
                    *et al.*
                     (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range (Hemilä 
                    *et al.,*
                     2006; Kastelein 
                    *et al.,*
                     2009). For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. Sixteen marine mammal species (14 cetacean and 2 pinniped (both phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean species that may be present, five are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (
                    *i.e.,*
                     all mysticete species), eight are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (
                    *i.e.,*
                     all delphinid species and the sperm whale), and one is classified as a high-frequency cetacean (
                    *i.e.,*
                     harbor porpoise). Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat The effects of underwater noise from the deployed acoustic sources have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the study area. The 
                    **Federal Register**
                     notice for the proposed IHA (87 FR 14823; March 16, 2022) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise, ship strike, stress, and potential impacts on marine mammals and their habitat, therefore that information is not repeated here; please refer to the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     notice for that information. 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 noise from certain HRG acoustic sources. Based primarily on the characteristics of the signals produced by the acoustic sources planned for use, Level A harassment is neither anticipated (even absent mitigation), nor has any been authorized. Consideration of the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (
                    *i.e.,*
                     exclusion zones and shutdown measures), discussed in detail below in the Mitigation section, further strengthens the conclusion that Level A harassment is not a reasonably anticipated outcome of the survey activity. As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated. Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 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 estimates. Acoustic Thresholds NMFS uses 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). NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals may be behaviorally harassed (
                    *i.e.,*
                     Level B harassment) when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for the impulsive sources (
                    *i.e.,*
                     boomers, sparkers) and non-impulsive, intermittent sources (
                    *e.g.,*
                     CHIRP SBPs) evaluated here for Ocean Wind II's activity. *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). For more information, see NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at 
                    *www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​national/​marine-mammal-protection/​marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.* Ocean Wind II's activity includes the use of impulsive (
                    *i.e.,*
                     sparkers and boomers) and non-impulsive (
                    *e.g.,*
                     CHIRP SBP) sources. However, as discussed above, NMFS has concluded that Level A harassment is not a reasonably likely outcome for marine mammals exposed to noise through use of the sources proposed for use here, and the potential for Level A harassment is not evaluated further in this document. Please see Ocean Wind II's application for details of a quantitative exposure analysis exercise, 
                    *i.e.,*
                     calculated Level A harassment isopleths and estimated Level A harassment exposures. Maximum estimated Level A harassment isopleths were less than 5 m for all sources and hearing groups with the exception of an estimated 18 m and 21 m zone calculated for high-frequency cetaceans during use of the TB Chirp III and GeoPulse 5430 CHIRP SBP, respectively (see Table 1 for source characteristics). Ocean Wind II did not request authorization of take by Level A harassment, and no take by Level A harassment is authorized by NMFS. Ensonified Area NMFS has developed a user-friendly methodology for estimating the extent of the Level B harassment isopleths associated with relevant HRG survey equipment (NMFS, 2020). This methodology incorporates frequency and directionality to refine estimated ensonified zones. For acoustic sources that operate with different beamwidths, the maximum beamwidth was used, and 
                    ( print page 30467)
                    the lowest frequency of the source was used when calculating the frequency-dependent absorption coefficient (Table 1). 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 harassment thresholds. 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 surveys and the source levels associated with those HRG equipment types. Results of modeling using the methodology described above indicated that, of the HRG survey equipment planned for use by Ocean Wind II that has the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals, the Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark UHD and GeoMarine Geo-Source sparkers would produce the largest Level B harassment isopleth (141 m). Estimated Level B harassment isopleths for all sources evaluated here, including the sparkers, are provided in Table 4. Although Ocean Wind II does not expect to use sparker sources on all planned survey days, it assumes for purposes of analysis that the sparker would be used on all survey days. This is a conservative approach, as the actual sources used on individual survey days may produce smaller harassment distances. Table 4—Distances to Level B Harassment Threshold
[160 dB rms]
Equipment
Distance to
                             Level B 
                             harassment 
                             threshold  
                             (m)ET 216 CHIRP
9ET 424 CHIRP
4ET 512i CHIRP
6GeoPulse 5430A
21TB CHIRP III
48Pangeo SBI
22AA Triple plate S-Boom (700/1,000 J)
34AA, Dura-spark UHD Sparkers
141GeoMarine Sparkers
141
 Marine Mammal Occurrence In this section, NMFS provides information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that informs the take calculations. Habitat-based density models produced by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory (Roberts 
                    *et al.,*
                     2016, 2017, 2018, 2020) represent the best available information regarding marine mammal densities in the survey area. The density data presented by Roberts 
                    *et al.*
                     (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020) 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 based on additional data as well as certain methodological improvements. More information is available online at 
                    *seamap.env.duke .edu/models/Duke-EC/.*
                     Marine mammal density estimates in the survey area (animals/km2
                    ) were obtained using the most recent model results for all taxa (Roberts 
                    *et al.,*
                     2016, 2017, 2018, 2020). The updated models incorporate additional sighting data, including sightings from NOAA's Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) surveys. For the exposure analysis, density data from Roberts 
                    *et al.*
                     (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020) were mapped using a geographic information system (GIS). Density grid cells that included any portion of the survey area were selected for all survey months (see Figure 3 in Ocean Wind II's application). Densities from each of the selected density blocks were averaged for each month available to provide monthly density estimates for each species (when available based on the temporal resolution of the model products), along with the average annual density. Please see Tables 7 of Ocean Wind II's application for density values used in the exposure estimation process. Additional data regarding average group sizes from survey effort in the region was considered to ensure adequate take estimates are evaluated. Take Calculation and Estimation Here NMFS describes 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 Level B harassment thresholds are calculated, as described above. The maximum distance (
                    *i.e.,*
                     141 m distance associated with sparkers) to the Level B harassment criterion and the estimated trackline distance traveled per day by a given survey vessel (
                    *i.e.,*
                     70 km) are then used to calculate the daily ensonified area, or zone of influence (ZOI) around the survey vessel. The ZOI is a representation of the maximum extent of the ensonified area around a sound source over a 24-hr period. The ZOI for each piece of equipment operating below 200 kHz was calculated per the following formula: ZOI = (Distance/day × 2r) + πr2 Where r is the linear distance from the source to the harassment isopleth. ZOIs associated with all sources with the expected potential to cause take of marine mammals are provided in Table 6 of Ocean Wind II's application. The largest daily ZOI (19.8 km2
                    ), associated with the various sparkers planned for use, was applied to all planned survey days. Potential Level B harassment exposures are estimated by multiplying the average annual density of each species within either the Lease Area or potential ECR area by the daily ZOI. That product is then multiplied by the number of operating days expected for the survey in each area assessed, and the product is rounded to the nearest whole number. These results are shown in Table 5.
                    ( print page 30468) Table 5—Summary of Take Numbers
Species
Abundance
Level B 
                             
                                harassment takes 1
Max percent 
                             populationNARW
368
11
2.98Fin whale
6,802
4
<1Sei whale
6,292
0 (1)
<1Minke whale
21,968
1
<1Humpback whale
1,393
2
<1Sperm whale 3
4,349
0 (3)
<1Atlantic white-sided dolphin
93,233
6 (50)
<1Atlantic spotted dolphin
39,921
2 (15)
<1Common bottlenose dolphin: 2Offshore Stock
62,851

2.9Migratory Stock
6,639
1,842
27.75Pilot Whales: 3Short-finned pilot whale
28,924
1 (20)
<1Long-finned pilot whale
39,215
1 (20)
<1Risso's dolphin
35,215
0 (30)
<1Common dolphin
172,974
54 (400)
<1Harbor porpoise
95,543
90
<1Seals: 4Gray seal
451,600
25
<1Harbor seal
61,336
25
<11
                         Parentheses denote take authorization where different from calculated take estimates. Increases from calculated values are based on assumed average group size for the species; sei whale, Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010; sperm whale and Risso's dolphin, Barkaszi and Kelly, 2018.2
                         At this time, Orsted is not able to identify how much work would occur inshore and offshore of the 20 m isobaths, a common delineation between offshore and coastal bottlenose dolphin stocks. Because Roberts 
                        *et al.*
                         does not provide density estimates for individual stocks of common bottlenose dolphins, the take presented here is the total estimated take for both stocks. Although unlikely, for our analysis, we assume all takes could be allocated to either stock.3
                         Roberts (2018) only provides density estimates for pilot whales as a guild. The pilot whale density values were applied to both species of pilot whale; therefore, the total take number proposed for authorization for pilot whales (4) is double the estimated take number for the guild.4
                         Roberts (2018) only provides density estimates for seals without differentiating by species. Harbor seals and gray seals are assumed to occur equally; therefore, density values were split evenly between the two species, 
                        *i.e.,*
                         total estimated take for “seals” is 22.
 The take numbers shown in Table 5 are those requested by Ocean Wind II. NMFS concurs with the requested take numbers and has authorized them. Previous monitoring data compiled by Ocean Wind II (available online at: 
                    *www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​action/​incidental-take-authorization-ocean-wind-marine-site-characterization-surveys-offshore-new*) suggests that the take numbers are sufficient. 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 the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the 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 the 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 and impact on operations. Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat NMFS has prescribed the following mitigation measures be implemented during Ocean Wind II's marine site characterization surveys. Pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, Ocean Wind II would also be required to adhere to relevant Project Design Criteria (PDC) of the NMFS' Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) programmatic consultation (specifically PDCs 4, 5, and 7) regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast (
                    *https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​new-england-mid-atlantic/​consultations/​section-7-take-reporting-programmatics-greater-atlantic#offshore-wind-site-assessment-and-site-characterization-activities-programmatic-consultation*). Marine Mammal Exclusion Zones and Harassment Zones Marine mammal exclusion zones (EZ) will be established around the HRG survey equipment and monitored by protected species observers (PSOs): 500 m EZ for NARWs during use of specified acoustic sources (sparkers, boomers, and non-parametric sub-bottom profilers).
                100 m EZ for all other marine mammals, with certain exceptions specified below, during operation of impulsive acoustic sources (boomer and/or sparker). If a marine mammal is detected approaching or entering the EZs during 
                    ( print page 30469)
                    the HRG survey, the vessel operator will adhere to the shutdown procedures described below to minimize noise impacts on the animals. These stated requirements will be included in the site-specific training to be provided to the survey team. We note that in their application, Ocean Wind II requested an EZ of 50 m for all dolphins, seals, and porpoises and also requested that the shutdown requirements be waived for all dolphin, seal, and porpoise species for which take is authorized. NMFS has determined that the standard 100 m EZ for these species is appropriate, with only limited waiver of shutdown requirements as described in the 
                    *Shutdown Procedures*
                     section below. Pre-Start Clearance Marine mammal clearance zones will be established around the HRG survey equipment and monitored by protected species observers (PSOs): 500 m for all ESA-listed marine mammals; and
                100 m for non all other marine mammals. Ocean Wind II will implement a 30-minute pre-start clearance period prior to the initiation of ramp-up of specified HRG equipment (see exception to this requirement in the 
                    *Shutdown Procedures*
                     section below) During this period, clearance zones will be monitored by the PSOs, using the appropriate visual technology. Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal(s) is within its respective clearance zone. If a marine mammal is observed within an clearance zone during the pre-start clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting its respective exclusion zone or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sighting (
                    *i.e.,*
                     15 minutes for small odontocetes and seals, and 30 minutes for all other species). Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment A ramp-up procedure, involving a gradual increase in source level output, is required at all times as part of the activation of the acoustic source when technically feasible. The ramp-up procedure will be used at the beginning of HRG survey activities in order to provide additional protection to marine mammals near the survey area by allowing them to vacate the area prior to the commencement of survey equipment operation at full power. Operators should ramp up sources to half power for 5 minutes and then proceed to full power. Ramp-up activities will be delayed if a marine mammal(s) enters its respective exclusion zone. Ramp-up will continue if the animal has been observed exiting its respective exclusion zone or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sighting (
                    *i.e.,*
                     15 minutes for small odontocetes and seals and 30 minutes for all other species). Ramp-up may occur at times of poor visibility, including nighttime, if appropriate visual monitoring has occurred with no detections of marine mammals in the 30 minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. Acoustic source activation may only occur at night where operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances. Shutdown Procedures An immediate shutdown of the impulsive HRG survey equipment will be required if a marine mammal is sighted entering or within its respective exclusion zone. The vessel operator must comply immediately with any call for shutdown by the Lead PSO. Any disagreement between the Lead PSO and vessel operator should be discussed only after shutdown has occurred. Subsequent restart of the survey equipment can be initiated if the animal has been observed exiting its respective exclusion zone or until an additional time period has elapsed (
                    *i.e.*
                     15 minutes for harbor porpoise, 30 minutes for all other species). 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 (Table 4), shutdown would occur. If the acoustic source is shut down for reasons other than mitigation (
                    *e.g.,*
                     mechanical difficulty) for less than 30 minutes, it may be activated again without ramp-up if PSOs have maintained constant observation and no detections of any marine mammal have occurred within the respective exclusion zones. If the acoustic source is shut down for a period longer than 30 minutes, then pre-clearance and ramp-up procedures will be initiated as described in the previous section. The shutdown requirement is waived for pinnipeds and for small delphinids of the following genera: 
                    *Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, Stenella,*
                     and 
                    *Tursiops.*
                     Specifically, if a delphinid from the specified genera or a pinniped is visually detected approaching the vessel (
                    *i.e.,*
                     to bow ride) or towed equipment, shutdown is not required. Furthermore, if there is uncertainty regarding identification of a marine mammal species (
                    *i.e.,*
                     whether the observed marine mammal(s) belongs to one of the delphinid genera for which shutdown is waived), PSOs must use best professional judgement in making the decision to call for a shutdown. Additionally, shutdown is required if a delphinid or pinniped detected in the exclusion zone and belongs to a genus other than those specified. Shutdown, pre-start clearance, and ramp-up procedures are not required during HRG survey operations using only non-impulsive sources (
                    *e.g.,*
                     echosounders) other than non-parametric sub-bottom profilers (
                    *e.g.,*
                     CHIRPs). Vessel Strike Avoidance Ocean Wind II must adhere to the following measures except in the case where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply. Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for all protected species and slow down, stop their vessel, or alter course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any protected species. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone based on the appropriate separation distance around the vessel (distances stated below). Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone may be third-party observers (*i.e.,*
                     PSOs) or crew members, but crew members responsible for these duties must be provided sufficient training to (1) distinguish protected species from other phenomena and (2) broadly to identify a marine mammal as a NARW, other whale (defined in this context as sperm whales or baleen whales other than NARWs), or other marine mammal.
                Members of the monitoring team will consult NMFS NARW reporting system and Whale Alert, as able, for the presence of NARWs throughout survey operations, and for the establishment of a DMA. If NMFS should establish a DMA in the survey area during the survey, the vessels will abide by speed restrictions in the DMA.
                All survey vessels, regardless of size, must observe a 10-knot speed restriction in specific areas designated by NMFS for the protection of NARWs from vessel strikes including seasonal management areas (SMAs) and dynamic management areas (DMAs) when in effect;
                All vessels greater than or equal to 19.8 m in overall length operating from November 1 through April 30 will operate at speeds of 10 knots or less at all times;( print page 30470)
                All vessels must reduce their speed to 10 knots or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near a vessel;
                All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500 m from NARWs and other ESA-listed large whales;
                If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as a species other than a NARW or other ESA-listed large whale, the vessel operator must assume that it is a NARW and take appropriate action;
                All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from non-ESA listed whales;
                All vessels must, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not be possible (*e.g.,*
                     for animals that approach the vessel).
                When marine mammals are sighted while a vessel is underway, the vessel shall take action as necessary to avoid violating the relevant separation distance (*e.g.,*
                     attempt to remain parallel to the animal's course, avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction until the animal has left the area). If marine mammals are sighted within the relevant separation distance, the vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral, not engaging the engines until animals are clear of the area. This does not apply to any vessel towing gear or any vessel that is navigationally constrained. Project-specific training will be conducted for all vessel crew prior to the start of a survey and during any changes in crew such that all survey personnel are fully aware and understand the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. Prior to implementation with vessel crews, the training program will be provided to NMFS for review and approval. 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 member understands and will comply with the necessary requirements throughout the survey activities. Based on our evaluation of these measures, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal 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 proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring. Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following: Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (*e.g.,*
                     presence, abundance, distribution, density);
                Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (*e.g.,*
                     source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) affected species (
                    *e.g.,*
                     life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or behavioral context of exposure (
                    *e.g.,*
                     age, calving or feeding areas);
                Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
                How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
                Effects on marine mammal habitat (*e.g.,*
                     marine mammal prey species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine mammal habitat); and
                Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness. Monitoring Measures Visual monitoring will be performed by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, the resumes of whom will be provided to NMFS for review and approval prior to the start of survey activities. Ocean Wind II will employ independent, dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that the PSOs must (1) be employed by a third-party observer provider, (2) have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, collect data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements (including brief alerts regarding maritime hazards), and (3) have successfully completed an approved PSO training course appropriate for their designated task. On a case-by-case basis, non-independent observers may be approved by NMFS for limited, specific duties in support of approved, independent PSOs on smaller vessels with limited crew capacity operating in nearshore waters. Section 5 of the draft IHA contains further details regarding PSO approval. The PSOs will be responsible for monitoring the waters surrounding each survey vessel to the farthest extent permitted by sighting conditions, including exclusion zones, during all HRG survey operations. PSOs will visually monitor and identify marine mammals, including those approaching or entering the established exclusion zones during survey activities. It will be the responsibility of the Lead PSO on duty to communicate the presence of marine mammals as well as to communicate the action(s) that are necessary to ensure mitigation and monitoring requirements are implemented as appropriate. During all HRG survey operations (
                    *e.g.,*
                     any day on which use of an HRG source is planned to occur), a minimum of one PSO must be on duty during daylight operations on each survey vessel, conducting visual observations at all times on all active survey vessels during daylight hours (
                    *i.e.,*
                     from 30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30 minutes following sunset). Two PSOs will be on watch during nighttime operations. The PSO(s) must ensure 360° visual coverage around the vessel from the most appropriate observation posts and will conduct visual observations using binoculars and/or night vision goggles 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 4 consecutive hours followed by a break of at least 2 hours between watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observation per 24-hr period. In cases where multiple vessels are surveying concurrently, any observations of marine mammals will be communicated to PSOs on all nearby survey vessels. PSOs must be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to 
                    ( print page 30471)
                    estimate distance and bearing to detect marine mammals, particularly in proximity to exclusion zones. Reticulated binoculars must also be available to PSOs for use as appropriate based on conditions and visibility to support the sighting and monitoring of marine mammals. During nighttime operations, night-vision goggles with thermal clip-ons and infrared technology will be used. Position data will be recorded using hand-held or vessel GPS units for each sighting. During good conditions (
                    *e.g.,*
                     daylight hours; Beaufort sea state (BSS) 3 or less), to the maximum extent practicable, PSOs will also conduct observations when the acoustic source is not operating for comparison of sighting rates and behavior with and without use of the active acoustic sources. Any observations of marine mammals by crew members aboard any vessel associated with the survey will be relayed to the PSO team. Data on all PSO observations will be recorded based on standard PSO collection requirements. This will 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 behavior that occurs (
                    *e.g.,*
                     noted behavioral disturbances). Reporting Measures Within 90 days after completion of survey activities or expiration of this IHA, whichever comes sooner, 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 observed 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. A final report must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of any comments on the draft report. All draft and final marine mammal and acoustic monitoring reports must be submitted to 
                    *PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov*
                     and 
                    *ITP.Daly@noaa.gov.*
                     The report must contain at minimum, the following: PSO names and affiliations;
                Dates of departures and returns to port with port name;
                Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and times corresponding with PSO effort;
                Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort begins and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts;
                Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts and upon any line change;
                Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, Beaufort wind force, swell height, weather conditions, cloud cover, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon;
                Factors that may be contributing to impaired observations during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions change (*e.g.,*
                     vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); and
                Survey activity information, such as type of survey equipment in operation, acoustic source power output while in operation, and any other notes of significance (*i.e.,*
                     pre-start clearance survey, ramp-up, shutdown, end of operations, etc.). If a marine mammal is sighted, the following information should be recorded: Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
                PSO who sighted the animal;
                Time of sighting;
                Vessel location at time of sighting;
                Water depth;
                Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
                Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel;
                Pace of the animal;
                Estimated distance to the animal and its heading relative to vessel at initial sighting;
                Identification of the animal (*e.g.,*
                     genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level, or unidentified); also note the composition of the group if there is a mix of species;
                Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);
                Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, calves, group composition, etc.);
                Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics);
                Detailed behavior observations (*e.g.,*
                     number of blows, number of surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, feeding, traveling; as explicit and detailed as possible; note any observed changes in behavior);
                Animal's closest point of approach and/or closest distance from the center point of the acoustic source;
                Platform activity at time of sighting (*e.g.,*
                     deploying, recovering, testing, data acquisition, other); and
                Description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting (*e.g.,*
                     delays, shutdown, ramp-up, speed or course alteration, etc.) and time and location of the action. If a NARW is observed at any time by PSOs or personnel on any project vessels, during surveys or during vessel transit, Ocean Wind II must immediately report sighting information to the NMFS NARW Sighting Advisory System: (866) 755-6622. NARW sightings in any location may also be reported to the U.S. Coast Guard via channel 16. In the event that Ocean Wind II personnel discover an injured or dead marine mammal, Ocean Wind II will report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) and the NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic 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 unanticipated event of a ship strike of a marine mammal by any vessel involved in the activities covered by the IHA, Ocean Wind II will report the incident to the NMFS OPR and the NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic 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( print page 30472)
                    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 (
                    *e.g.,*
                     critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. NMFS also assesses 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 5 given that NMFS expects the anticipated effects of the survey to be similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks—as is the case of the NARW—they are included as separate subsections below. NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would occur as a result from HRG surveys, 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. NMFS expects that all potential takes would be in the form of short-term Level B behavioral harassment in the form of temporary avoidance of the area or decreased foraging (if such activity was occurring), reactions that are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological consequences (
                    *e.g.,*
                     Southall 
                    *et al.,*
                     2007). Even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in viability for the affected individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. As described above, Level A harassment is not expected to occur given the nature of the operations, the estimated size of the Level A harassment zones, and the required shutdown zones for certain activities. In addition to being temporary, the maximum expected harassment zone around a survey vessel is 141 m. Although this distance is assumed for all survey activity in estimating take numbers proposed for authorization and evaluated here, in reality much of the survey activity would involve use of non-impulsive acoustic sources with a reduced acoustic harassment zone of 48 m, producing expected effects of particularly low severity. Therefore, the ensonified area surrounding each vessel is relatively small compared to the overall distribution of the animals in the area and their use of the habitat. Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted as prey species are mobile and are broadly distributed throughout the survey area; 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 temporary nature of the disturbance and the availability of similar habitat and resources in the surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations. There are no rookeries, mating or calving grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the proposed survey area and there are no feeding areas known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the survey area. There is no designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals in the survey area. NARWs The status of the NARW population is of heightened concern and, therefore, merits additional analysis. As noted previously, elevated NARW mortalities began in June 2017 and there is an active UME. Overall, preliminary findings support human interactions, specifically vessel strikes and entanglements, as the cause of death for the majority of NARWs. As noted previously, the survey area overlaps a migratory corridor BIA for NARWs. Due to the fact that the survey activities are temporary and the spatial extent of sound produced by the survey would be very small relative to the spatial extent of the available migratory habitat in the BIA, NARW migration is not expected to be impacted by the survey. Given the relatively small size of the ensonified area, it is unlikely that prey availability would be adversely affected by HRG survey operations. Required vessel strike avoidance measures will also decrease risk of ship strike during migration; no ship strike is expected to occur during Ocean Wind II's planned activities. Additionally, only very limited take by Level B harassment of NARWs has been requested and has been authorized by NMFS as HRG survey operations are required to maintain a 500 m EZ and shutdown if a NARW is sighted at or within the EZ. The 500 m shutdown zone for NARWs is conservative, considering the Level B harassment isopleth for the most impactful acoustic source (
                    *i.e.,*
                     sparker) is estimated to be 141 m, and thereby minimizes the potential for behavioral harassment of this species. As noted previously, Level A harassment is not expected due to the small PTS zones associated with HRG equipment types proposed for use. NMFS does not anticipate NARWs takes that would result from Ocean Wind II's activities would impact annual rates of recruitment or survival. Thus, any takes that occur would not result in population level impacts.
                    ( print page 30473) Other Marine Mammal Species With Active UMEs As noted previously, there are several active UMEs occurring in the vicinity of Ocean Wind II's survey area. 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 DPS) remains stable at approximately 12,000 individuals. 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. The required mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or severity of takes for all species listed in Table 5, including those with active UMEs, to the level of least practicable adverse impact. In particular they would provide animals the opportunity to move away from the sound source throughout the survey area before HRG survey equipment reaches full energy, thus preventing them from being exposed to sound levels that have the potential to cause injury (Level A harassment) or more severe Level B harassment. No Level A harassment is anticipated, even in the absence of mitigation measures, or authorized. NMFS expects that takes would be in the form of short-term Level B behavioral harassment by way of brief startling reactions and/or temporary vacating of the area, or decreased foraging (if such activity was occurring)—reactions that (at the scale and intensity anticipated here) are considered to be of low severity, with no lasting biological consequences. Since both the sources and marine mammals are mobile, animals would only be exposed briefly to a small ensonified area that might result in take. Additionally, required mitigation measures would further 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 proposed for authorization;
                No Level A harassment (PTS) is anticipated, even in the absence of mitigation measures, or authorized;
                Foraging success is not likely to be significantly impacted as effects on species that serve as prey species for marine mammals from the survey are expected to be minimal;
                The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during the planned survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity;
                Take is anticipated to be primarily Level B behavioral harassment consisting of brief startling reactions and/or temporary avoidance of the survey area;
                While the survey area is within areas noted as a migratory BIA for NARWs, the activities would occur in such a comparatively small area such that any avoidance of the survey area due to activities would not affect migration. In addition, mitigation measures to shutdown at 500 m to minimize potential for Level B behavioral harassment would limit any take of the species; and
                The mitigation measures, including visual monitoring and shutdowns, are expected to minimize 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 proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks. Small Numbers As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities. NMFS has authorized incidental take of 16 marine mammal species (with 17 managed stocks). The total amount of takes relative to the best available population abundance is less than 22 percent for one stock (bottlenose dolphin northern coastal migratory stock), less than 3 percent for the NARW, and less than 1 percent for all other species and stocks, which NMFS finds are small numbers of marine mammals relative to the estimated overall population abundances for those stocks. See Table 5. Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS 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. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 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 OPR consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species, in this case with NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO). NMFS OPR is authorizing the incidental take of four species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA: North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and sperm whales. On June 29, 2021 (revised September 2021), GARFO completed an informal programmatic consultation on the effects of certain site assessment and site characterization activities to be carried out to support the 
                    ( print page 30474)
                    siting of offshore wind energy development projects off the U.S. Atlantic coast. Part of the activities considered in the consultation are geophysical surveys such as those proposed by Ocean Wind II for which we have authorized take. GARFO concluded site assessment surveys (and issuance of associated IHAs) are not likely to adversely affect endangered species or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. NMFS has determined that issuance of the IHA is covered under the programmatic consultation. 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 action (
                    *i.e.,*
                     the issuance of an IHA) 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 final IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. Authorization As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to Ocean Wind II for conducting marine site characterization surveys off the coast of New Jersey, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The IHA is effective from May 10, 2022 through May 9, 2023 and can be found at 
                    *https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​action/​incidental-take-authorization-ocean-wind-llc-marine-site-characterization-surveys-new-0.* Kimberly Damon-Randall, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.


BILLING CODE 3510-22-P BILLING CODE 3510-22-C [FR Doc. 2022-10759 Filed 5-18-22; 8:45 am]