Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research Arctic Research Activities, 48799-48809 [2018-21070]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices
NESDIS/CRSRA, 1335 East-West
Highway, G–101, Silver Spring,
Maryland 20910; (301) 713–7077 or
samira.patel@noaa.gov.
Additional Information and Public
Comments
Any member of the public who plans
to attend the open meeting should RSVP
to Samira Patel at (301) 713–7077, or
samira.patel@noaa.gov by October 15,
2018. Any member of the public
wishing further information concerning
the meeting or who wishes to submit
oral or written comments should contact
Tahara Dawkins, Designated Federal
Officer for ACCRES, NOAA/NESDIS/
CRSRA, 1335 East-West Highway,
G–101, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910;
(301) 713–3385 or tahara.dawkins@
noaa.gov. Copies of the draft meeting
agenda will be posted on the
Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory
Affairs Office at https://
www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/
accresMeetings.html.
ACCRES expects that public
statements presented at its meetings will
not be repetitive of previouslysubmitted oral or written statements. In
general, each individual or group
making an oral presentation may be
limited to a total time of five minutes.
Written comments sent to NOAA/
NESDIS/CRSRA on or before October
10, 2018 will be provided to Committee
members in advance of the meeting.
Comments received too close to the
meeting date will normally be provided
to Committee members at the meeting.
Stephen M. Volz,
Assistant Administrator for Satellite and
Information Services.
[FR Doc. 2018–21078 Filed 9–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–HR–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XG030
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy’s
Office of Naval Research Arctic
Research Activities
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental
harassment authorization.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to the
U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research
(ONR) to incidentally harass, by Level B
harassment only, marine mammals
during research activities associated
with the Arctic Research Activities
project in the Beaufort and Chukchi
Seas. The Navy’s activities are
considered military readiness activities
pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by
the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2004 (NDAA).
DATES: This Authorization is effective
from September 20, 2018, through
September 19, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Fowler, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Electronic copies of the application and
supporting documents, as well as a list
of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact
listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of
marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce
(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
incidental take authorization may be
provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings
shall be granted if NMFS finds that the
taking will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock(s) and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
taking for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe
the permissible methods of taking and
other ‘‘means of effecting the least
practicable [adverse] impact’’ on the
affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses
(referred to in shorthand as
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48799
‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements
pertaining to the monitoring and
reporting of such takings.
The NDAA (Pub. L. 108–136)
removed the ‘‘small numbers’’ and
‘‘specified geographical region’’
limitations indicated above and
amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’
as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness
activity.’’ The activity for which
incidental take of marine mammals has
been authorized qualifies as a military
readiness activity. The Navy’s action
constitutes a military readiness activity
because these scientific research
activities directly support the adequate
and realistic testing of military
equipment, vehicles, weapons, and
sensors for proper operation and
suitability for combat use by providing
critical data on the changing natural and
physical environment in which such
materiel will be assessed and deployed.
This scientific research also directly
supports fleet training and operations by
providing up to date information and
data on the natural and physical
environment essential to training and
operations. The definitions of all
applicable MMPA statutory terms cited
above are included in the relevant
sections below.
Summary of Request
On April 6, 2018, NMFS received a
request from ONR for an IHA to take
marine mammals incidental to Arctic
Research Activities in the Beaufort and
Chukchi Seas. ONR’s application was
determined adequate and complete on
August 7, 2018. ONR’s request is for
take of beluga whales (Delphinapterus
leucas), bearded seals (Erignathus
barbatus), and ringed seals (Pusa
hispida hispida) by Level B harassment
only. Neither ONR nor NMFS expects
serious injury or mortality to result from
this activity and, therefore, an IHA is
appropriate.
This IHA covers one year of a larger
project for which ONR intends to
request take authorization for
subsequent facets of the project. This
IHA is valid from September 20, 2018,
through September 19, 2019. The larger
three-year project involves several
scientific objectives which support the
Arctic and Global Prediction Program,
as well as the Ocean Acoustics Program
and the Naval Research Laboratory, for
which ONR is the parent command.
Description of Activity
Overview
ONR’s Arctic Research Activities
involve scientific experiments
conducted in support of the Arctic and
Global Prediction Program, the
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
48800
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices
Stratified Ocean Dynamics of the Arctic
(SODA), Arctic Mobile Observing
System (AMOS), Ocean Acoustics field
work, and Naval Research Laboratory
(NRL) in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas
in 2018 and 2019. The study area for the
Arctic Research Activities is located in
the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
and the high seas north of Alaska (see
Figure 1–1 in the IHA application). The
total area of the study area is 257,723
square miles (mi2) (667,500 square
kilometers (km2)).
Beginning in late September 2018, the
U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) HEALY
and the Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq
will be used to tow and deploy acoustic
sources. CGC HEALY may also be
required to perform icebreaking to
deploy the moored and ice-tethered
acoustic sources. A maximum of four
research cruises (one cruise per vessel
in each calendar year) of up to 30 days
are expected. Each vessel may tow
sources for up to 8 hours per day for 15
days during each cruise in open water
or marginal ice. Once deployed, moored
and drifting sources would operate
intermittently each day for up to three
years (only the first year is authorized
by this IHA). Icebreaking may occur on
up to 4 days.
A detailed description of the planned
Arctic Research Activities project is
provided in the Federal Register notice
for the proposed IHA (83 FR 40234;
August 14, 2018). Since that time, no
changes have been made to the planned
Arctic Research Activities. Therefore, a
detailed description is not provided
here. Please refer to that Federal
Register notice for the description of the
specified activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue
an IHA to ONR was published in the
Federal Register on August 14, 2018 (83
FR 40234). That notice described, in
detail, ONR’s activity, the marine
mammal species that may be affected by
the activity, and the anticipated effects
on marine mammals. During the 30-day
public comment period, NMFS received
a comment from the Marine Mammal
Commission (Commission).
Comment 1: The Commission noted
that the Navy used cutoff distances
instead of relying on Bayesian biphasic
dose response functions (BRFs) to
inform take estimates. The Commission
asserted that the cutoff distances used
by the Navy are unsubstantiated and
that the Navy arbitrarily set a cutoff
distance of 10 kilometers (km) for
pinnipeds, which could effectively
eliminate a large portion of the
estimated number of takes. The
Commission, therefore, recommended
that the Navy refrain from using cut-off
distances in conjunction with the
Bayesian BRFs.
Response: We disagree with the
Navy’s recommendation. The derivation
of the behavioral response functions and
associated cutoff distances is provided
in the Navy’s Criteria and Thresholds
for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive
Effects Analysis (Phase III) technical
report (Navy 2017a). The consideration
of proximity (distance cutoff) was part
of criteria developed in consultation
with NMFS and was applied within the
Navy’s BRF. Distance cutoffs beyond
which the potential of significant
behavioral responses were considered to
be unlikely were used in conducting
analysis for ONR’s Arctic Research
Activities. The Navy’s BRF applied
within these distances is an appropriate
method for providing a realistic (but
still conservative where some
uncertainties exist) estimate of impact
and potential take for these activities.
Comment 2: The Commission also
noted that a standard requirement for
coordinating vessel presence in the
Beaufort Sea with the Alaska Eskimo
Whaling Commission (AEWC) to ensure
that ONR vessels do not disrupt
subsistence hunting was left out of the
proposed IHA.
Response: NMFS has included this
requirement to coordinate with the
AEWC in the final authorization.
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’s Stock
Assessment Reports (SAR; https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessment-reportsregion) and more general information
about these species (e.g., physical and
behavioral descriptions) may be found
on NMFS’s website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 1 lists all species with expected
potential for occurrence in the study
area and summarizes information
related to the population or stock,
including regulatory status under the
MMPA and the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and potential biological removal
(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017).
PBR is defined by the MMPA as the
maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal
stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS’s
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated
or authorized here, PBR and annual
serious injury and mortality from
anthropogenic sources are included here
as gross indicators of the status of the
species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study or survey area. NMFS’s 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’s U.S. 2017 SARs (e.g., Muto et
al., 2018, Carretta et al., 2018). All
values presented in Table 1 are the most
recent available at the time of
publication and are available in the
2017 SARs (Muto et al., 2018; Carretta
et al., 2018).
TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Common name
Scientific name
Stock
abundance
(CV, Nmin,
most recent
abundance
survey) 2
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
PBR
Annual
M/SI 3
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale .........................
Eschrichtius robustus ................
Eastern North Pacific ................
-/-; N
20,900 (0.05, 20,125,
2011).
Family Balaenidae:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
624
4.25
48801
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices
TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA—Continued
Common name
Bowhead whale ..................
Stock
abundance
(CV, Nmin,
most recent
abundance
survey) 2
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Scientific name
Stock
Balaena mysticetus ...................
Western Arctic ..........................
E/D; Y
16,820 (0.052, 16,100,
2011).
PBR
Annual
M/SI 3
161
43
Undet.4
139
244
67
273,676,
8,210
391
163,086,
9,785
3.8
170,000,
5,100
1,054
423,237,
12,697
329
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae:
Beluga whale ......................
Delphinapterus leucas ..............
Beaufort Sea .............................
-/-; N
Beluga whale ......................
Delphinapterus leucas ..............
Eastern Chukchi Sea ................
-/-; N
39,258 (0.229, N/A,
1992).
20,752 (0.70, 12.194,
2012).
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Bearded seal 5 ....................
Erignathus barbatus ..................
Alaska .......................................
T/D; Y
Ribbon seal .........................
Histriophoca fasciata ................
Alaska .......................................
-/-; N
.......................
Pusa hispida hispida .................
Alaska .......................................
T/D; Y
Spotted seal ........................
Phoca largha .............................
Alaska .......................................
-/-; N
Ringed
seal 5
299,174 (-,
2013).
184,000 (-,
2013).
170,000 (-,
2013).
461,625 (-,
2013).
1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the
ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically
designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
3 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated
mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
4 The 2016 guidelines for preparing SARs state that abundance estimates older than 8 years should not be used to calculate PBR due to a decline in the reliability
of an aged estimate. Therefore, the PBR for this stock is considered undetermined.
5 Abundances and associated values for bearded and ringed seals are for the U.S. population in the Bering Sea only.
Note—Italicized species are not expected or authorized to be taken.
A detailed description of the species
likely to be affected by the Arctic
Research Activities, including brief
information regarding population trends
and threats, and information regarding
local occurrence, were provided in the
Federal Register notice for the proposed
IHA (83 FR 40234; August 14, 2018).
Since that time, we are not aware of any
changes in the status of these species
and stocks; therefore, detailed
descriptions are not provided here.
Please refer to that Federal Register
notice for those descriptions. Please also
refer to NMFS’ website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for
generalized species accounts.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from
the towed and deployed acoustic
sources, as well as icebreaking, 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 (83
FR 40234; August 14, 2018) included a
discussion of the effects of
anthropogenic noise on marine
mammals and their habitat, therefore
that information is not repeated here;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
please refer to the Federal Register
notice (83 FR 40234; August 14, 2018)
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 the
negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take
expected to result from these activities.
For this military readiness activity, the
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: (i) Any
act that injures or has the significant
potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level
A harassment); or (ii) Any act that
disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of natural
behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a
point where such behavioral patterns
are abandoned or significantly altered
(Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B
harassment only, in the form of
disruption of behavioral patterns and
temporary threshold shift (TTS) for
individual marine mammals resulting
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
from exposure to acoustic transmissions
and icebreaking noise. Based on the
nature of the activity, Level A
harassment is neither anticipated nor
authorized.
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). For this
IHA, ONR employed a sophisticated
model known as the Navy Acoustic
Effects Model (NAEMO) for assessing
the impacts of underwater sound.
Below, we describe the factors
considered here in more detail and
present the authorized takes.
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
48802
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science,
NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received
level of underwater sound above which
exposed marine mammals would be
reasonably expected to be behaviorally
harassed or incur TTS of some degree
(equated to Level B harassment) or to
incur a permanent threshold shift (PTS)
of some degree (equated to Level A
harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive
sources—In coordination with NMFS,
the Navy developed behavioral
thresholds to support environmental
analyses for the Navy’s testing and
training military readiness activities
utilizing active sonar sources; these
behavioral harassment thresholds are
used here to evaluate the potential
effects of the active sonar components of
the planned action. The response of a
marine mammal to an anthropogenic
sound will depend on the frequency,
duration, temporal pattern and
amplitude of the sound as well as the
animal’s prior experience with the
sound and the context in which the
sound is encountered (i.e., what the
animal is doing at the time of the
exposure). The distance from the sound
source and whether it is perceived as
approaching or moving away can also
affect the way an animal responds to a
sound (Wartzok et al. 2003). For marine
mammals, a review of responses to
anthropogenic sound was first
conducted by Richardson et al. (1995).
Reviews by Nowacek et al. (2007) and
Southall et al. (2007) addressed
additional studies and focus on
observations where the received sound
level of the exposed marine mammal(s)
was known or could be estimated.
Multi-year research efforts have
conducted sonar exposure studies for
odontocetes and mysticetes (Miller et al.
2012; Sivle et al. 2012). Several studies
with captive animals have provided
data under controlled circumstances for
odontocetes and pinnipeds (Houser et
al. 2013a; Houser et al. 2013b). Moretti
et al. (2014) published a beaked whale
dose-response curve based on passive
acoustic monitoring of beaked whales
during U.S. Navy training activity at
Atlantic Underwater Test and
Evaluation Center during actual AntiSubmarine Warfare exercises. This new
information necessitated the update of
the behavioral response criteria for the
U.S. Navy’s environmental analyses.
Southall et al. (2007) synthesized data
from many past behavioral studies and
observations to determine the likelihood
of behavioral reactions at specific sound
levels. While in general, the louder the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
sound source the more intense the
behavioral response, it was clear that
the proximity of a sound source and the
animal’s experience, motivation, and
conditioning were also critical factors
influencing the response (Southall et al.
2007). After examining all of the
available data, the authors felt that the
derivation of thresholds for behavioral
response based solely on exposure level
was not supported because context of
the animal at the time of sound
exposure was an important factor in
estimating response. Nonetheless, in
some conditions, consistent avoidance
reactions were noted at higher sound
levels depending on the marine
mammal species or group, allowing
conclusions to be drawn.
Odontocete behavioral criteria for
U.S. Navy non-impulsive, intermittent
sources were updated based on
controlled exposure studies for dolphins
and sea mammals, sonar, and safety (3S)
studies where odontocete behavioral
responses were reported after exposure
to sonar (Antunes et al., 2014; Houser et
al., 2013b); Miller et al., 2011; Miller et
al., 2014; Miller et al., 2012). For the 3S
study the sonar outputs included 1–2
kilohertz (kHz) up- and down-sweeps
and 6–7 kHz up-sweeps; source levels
were ramped up from 152–158 decibels
(dB) re 1 microPascal (mPa) to a
maximum of 198–214 re 1 mPa at 1 m.
Sonar signals were ramped up over
several pings while the vessel
approached the mammals. The study
did include some control passes of ships
with the sonar off to discern the
behavioral responses of the mammals to
vessel presence alone versus active
sonar. The controlled exposure studies
included exposing the Navy’s trained
bottlenose dolphins to mid-frequency
sonar while they were in a pen. Midfrequency sonar was played at 6
different exposure levels from 125–185
dB re 1 mPa (root mean square (rms)).
The behavioral response function for
odontocetes resulting from the studies
described above has a 50 percent
probability of response at 157 dB re 1
mPa. Additionally, distance cutoffs (20
km for MF cetaceans and 10 km for
pinnipeds) were applied to exclude
exposures beyond which the potential
of significant behavioral responses is
considered to be unlikely.
The pinniped behavioral threshold
was updated based on controlled
exposure experiments on the following
captive animals: hooded seal, gray seal,
and California sea lion (Go¨tz et al. 2010;
Houser et al. 2013a; Kvadsheim et al.
2010). Hooded seals were exposed to
increasing levels of sonar until an
avoidance response was observed, while
the grey seals were exposed first to a
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
single received level multiple times,
then an increasing received level. Each
individual California sea lion was
exposed to the same received level ten
times. These exposure sessions were
combined into a single response value,
with an overall response assumed if an
animal responded in any single session.
The resulting behavioral response
function for pinnipeds has a 50 percent
probability of response at 166 dB re 1
mPa. Additional details regarding these
criteria may be found in the technical
report, Criteria and Thresholds for U.S.
Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects
Analysis (2017a) which may be
found at: https://aftteis.com/Portals/3/
docs/newdocs/
Criteria%20and%20Thresholds_TR_
Submittal_05262017.pdf. This technical
report was included as part of the
Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Training and
Testing Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Overseas Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) (Navy
2017b) which is located at: https://
www.aftteis.com/.
NMFS adopted the Navy’s approach
to estimating incidental take by Level B
harassment from the active acoustic
sources for this action, which includes
use of these dose response functions.
The Navy’s dose response functions
were developed to estimate take from
sonar and similar transducers and are
not applicable to icebreaking. NMFS
predicts that marine mammals are likely
to be behaviorally harassed in a manner
we consider Level B harassment when
exposed to underwater anthropogenic
noise above received levels of 120 dB re
1 mPa (rms) for continuous (e.g.,
vibratory pile-driving, drilling,
icebreaking) and above 160 dB re 1 mPa
(rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g.,
seismic airguns) or non-impulsive,
intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar)
sources. Thus, take of marine mammals
by Level B harassment due to
icebreaking has been calculated using
the Navy’s NAEMO model using the 120
dB re 1 mPa (rms) received level
threshold for behavioral response.
Level A harassment for non-explosive
sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance
for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0)
(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies
dual criteria 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 nonimpulsive). ONR’s planned activities
involve only non-impulsive sources.
These thresholds are provided in
Table 2 below. The references, analysis,
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices
and methodology used in the
development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS 2018 Technical
Guidance, which may be accessed at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
48803
marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance.
TABLE 2—INJURY (PTS) THRESHOLDS FOR UNDERWATER SOUNDS
PTS onset acoustic thresholds *
Hearing group
Impulsive
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ......................................
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ......................................
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans .....................................
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) .............................
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) .............................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
1:
3:
5:
7:
9:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
219
230
202
218
232
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
Non-impulsive
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .........................
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB .......................
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB .......................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level threshold associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should
also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1 μPa2s.
In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure
is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being
included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated
with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF
cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level
thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for
action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Quantitative Modeling
The Navy performed a quantitative
analysis to estimate the number of
marine mammals that could be harassed
by the underwater acoustic
transmissions during the planned
action. Inputs to the quantitative
analysis included marine mammal
density estimates, marine mammal
depth occurrence distributions (Navy
2017a), oceanographic and
environmental data, marine mammal
hearing data, and criteria and thresholds
for levels of potential effects. The
quantitative analysis consists of
computer modeled estimates and a postmodel analysis to determine the number
of potential animal exposures. The
model calculates sound energy
propagation from the planned nonimpulsive acoustic sources and
icebreaking, the sound received by
animat (virtual animal) dosimeters
representing marine mammals
distributed in the area around the
modeled activity, and whether the
sound received by animats exceeds the
thresholds for effects.
The Navy developed a set of software
tools and compiled data for estimating
acoustic effects on marine mammals
without consideration of behavioral
avoidance or mitigation. These tools and
data sets serve as integral components of
NAEMO. In NAEMO, animats are
distributed non-uniformly based on
species-specific density, depth
distribution, and group size information
and animats record energy received at
their location in the water column. A
fully three-dimensional environment is
used for calculating sound propagation
and animat exposure in NAEMO. Site-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
specific bathymetry, sound speed
profiles, wind speed, and bottom
properties are incorporated into the
propagation modeling process. NAEMO
calculates the likely propagation for
various levels of energy (sound or
pressure) resulting from each source
used during the training event.
NAEMO then records the energy
received by each animat within the
energy footprint of the event and
calculates the number of animats having
received levels of energy exposures that
fall within defined impact thresholds.
Predicted effects on the animats within
a scenario are then tallied and the
highest order effect (based on severity of
criteria; e.g., PTS over TTS) predicted
for a given animat is assumed. Each
scenario, or each 24-hour period for
scenarios lasting greater than 24 hours
(which NMFS recommends in order to
ensure more consistent quantification of
take across actions), is independent of
all others, and therefore, the same
individual marine animal (as
represented by an animat in the model
environment) could be impacted during
each independent scenario or 24-hour
period. In few instances, although the
activities themselves all occur within
the study area, sound may propagate
beyond the boundary of the study area.
Any exposures occurring outside the
boundary of the study area are counted
as if they occurred within the study area
boundary. NAEMO provides the initial
estimated impacts on marine species
with a static horizontal distribution (i.e.,
animats in the model environment do
not move horizontally).
There are limitations to the data used
in the acoustic effects model, and the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
results must be interpreted within this
context. While the best available data
and appropriate input assumptions have
been used in the modeling, when there
is a lack of definitive data to support an
aspect of the modeling, conservative
modeling assumptions have been
chosen (i.e., assumptions that may
result in an overestimate of acoustic
exposures):
• Animats are modeled as being
underwater, stationary, and facing the
source and therefore always predicted to
receive the maximum potential sound
level at a given location (i.e., no
porpoising or pinnipeds’ heads above
water);
• Animats do not move horizontally
(but change their position vertically
within the water column), which may
overestimate physiological effects such
as hearing loss, especially for slow
moving or stationary sound sources in
the model;
• Animats are stationary horizontally
and therefore do not avoid the sound
source, unlike in the wild where
animals would most often avoid
exposures at higher sound levels,
especially those exposures that may
result in PTS;
• Multiple exposures within any 24hour period are considered one
continuous exposure for the purposes of
calculating potential threshold shift,
because there are not sufficient data to
estimate a hearing recovery function for
the time between exposures; and
• Mitigation measures were not
considered in the model. In reality,
sound-producing activities would be
reduced, stopped, or delayed if marine
mammals are detected by visual
monitoring.
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
48804
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices
coverage). For modeling, the 8/10 and
3/10 ice cover were used based on the
data available. Each modeled day of
icebreaking consisted of 16 hours of
8/10 ice cover and 8 hours of 3/10 ice
cover, which was considered a fairly
conservative way of representing the
expected ice cover based on what is
known. Icebreaking was modeled for 4
days each year. The sound signature of
each of the ice coverage levels was
broken into 1-octave bins (Table 3). In
the model, each bin was included as a
separate source on the modeled vessel.
When these independent sources go
active concurrently, they simulate the
sound signature of CGC HEALY. The
modeled source level summed across
these bins was 196.2 dB for the 8/10
Because of these inherent model
limitations and simplifications, modelestimated results were further analyzed,
considering such factors as the range to
specific effects, avoidance, and the
likelihood of successfully implementing
mitigation measures. This analysis uses
a number of factors in addition to the
acoustic model results to predict
acoustic effects on marine mammals.
The underwater radiated noise
signature for icebreaking in the central
Arctic Ocean by CGC HEALY during
different types of ice cover was
characterized in Roth et al. (2013). The
radiated noise signatures were
characterized for various fractions of ice
cover (represented as the proportion of
ice out of 10, with 10/10 being total ice
signature and 189.3 dB for the 3/10 ice
signature. These source levels are a good
approximation of the icebreaker’s
observed source level (Roth et al., 2013).
Each frequency and source level was
modeled as an independent source, and
applied simultaneously to all of the
animats within the model environment.
Each second was summed across
frequency to estimate sound pressure
level (SPLrms). This value was
incorporated into NAEMO using NMFS’
120 dB re 1 mPa continuous sound
source threshold to estimate Level B
harassment. For PTS and TTS
determinations, sound exposure levels
were summed over the duration of the
test and the transit to the deep water
deployment level.
TABLE 3—MODELED BINS FOR ICEBREAKING IN FRACTIONAL ICE COVERAGE ON CGC HEALY
Frequency
(Hz)
8/10 Ice
coverage
(full power)
3/10 Ice
coverage
(quarter power)
Source level
(dB)
Source level
(dB)
25 .................................................................................................................................................................
50 .................................................................................................................................................................
100 ...............................................................................................................................................................
200 ...............................................................................................................................................................
400 ...............................................................................................................................................................
800 ...............................................................................................................................................................
1,600 ............................................................................................................................................................
3,200 ............................................................................................................................................................
6,400 ............................................................................................................................................................
12,800 ..........................................................................................................................................................
For the other non-impulsive sources,
NAEMO calculates the SPL and SEL for
each active emission during an event.
This is done by taking the following
factors into account over the
propagation paths: Bathymetric relief
and bottom types, sound speed, and
attenuation contributors such as
absorption, bottom loss, and surface
loss. Platforms such as a ship using one
or more sound sources are modeled in
accordance with relevant vehicle
dynamics and time durations by moving
them across an area whose size is
representative of the testing event’s
operational area. Table 4 provides range
to effects for non-impulsive sources and
icebreaking noise planned for the Arctic
research activities to mid-frequency
cetacean and pinniped specific criteria.
Marine mammals within these ranges
would be predicted to receive the
associated effect. Range to effects is
important information in not only
predicting non-impulsive acoustic
impacts, but also in verifying the
189
188
189
190
188
183
177
176
172
167
187
182
179
177
175
170
166
171
168
164
accuracy of model results against realworld situations and determining
adequate mitigation ranges to avoid
higher level effects, especially
physiological effects in marine
mammals. Therefore, the ranges in
Table 4 provide realistic maximum
distances over which the specific effects
from the use of non-impulsive sources
during the planned action would be
possible.
TABLE 4—RANGE TO PTS, TTS, AND BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS IN THE STUDY AREA
Range to behavioral effects (m)
Range to TTS effects (m)
Range to PTS effects (m)
Source
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
MF cetacean
LF4 towed source ....................................
LF5 towed source ....................................
MF9 towed source ...................................
Navigation and real-time sensing sources
Tomography sources ...............................
Spherical Wave source ............................
Icebreaking noise .....................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
4,275
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Pinniped
MF cetacean
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
4,525
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Pinniped
0
0
4
0
0
0
3
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
MF cetacean
1
1
50
6
2
0
12
27SEN1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pinniped
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
48805
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices
A behavioral response study
conducted on and around the Navy
range in Southern California (SOCAL
BRS) observed reactions to sonar and
similar sound sources by several marine
mammal species, including Risso’s
dolphins (Grampus griseus), a midfrequency cetacean (DeRuiter et al.,
2013; Goldbogen et al., 2013; Southall et
al., 2011; Southall et al., 2012; Southall
et al., 2013; Southall et al., 2014). In
preliminary analysis, none of the Risso’s
dolphins exposed to simulated or real
mid-frequency sonar demonstrated any
overt or obvious responses (Southall et
al., 2012, Southall et al., 2013). In
general, although the responses to the
simulated sonar were varied across
individuals and species, none of the
animals exposed to real Navy sonar
responded; these exposures occurred at
distances beyond 10 km, and were up to
100 km away (DeRuiter et al., 2013; B.
Southall pers. comm.). These data
suggest that most odontocetes (not
including beaked whales and harbor
porpoises) likely do not exhibit
significant behavioral reactions to sonar
and other transducers beyond
approximately 10 km. Therefore, the
Navy uses a cutoff distance for
odontocetes of 10 km for moderate
source level, single platform training
and testing events, and 20 km for all
other events, including the planned
Arctic Research Activities (Navy 2017a).
Southall et al. (2007) report that
pinnipeds do not exhibit strong
reactions to SPLs up to 140 dB re 1 mPa
from non-impulsive sources. While
there are limited data on pinniped
behavioral responses beyond about 3 km
in the water, the Navy uses a distance
cutoff of 5 km for moderate source level,
single platform training and testing
events, and 10 km for all other events,
including the planned Arctic Research
Activities (Navy 2017a).
NMFS and the Navy conservatively
implemented a distance cutoff of 5.4
nmi (10 km) for pinnipeds, and 10.8
nmi (20 km) for mid-frequency
cetaceans (Navy 2017a). Regardless of
the received level at that distance, take
is not estimated to occur beyond 10 and
20 km from the source for pinnipeds
and cetaceans, respectively. Not all
sources are likely to result in TTS or
PTS for pinnipeds or MF cetaceans.
These sources show a range to effects of
0 m (Table 4).
As discussed above, within NAEMO
animats do not move horizontally or
react in any way to avoid sound.
Furthermore, mitigation measures that
reduce the likelihood of physiological
impacts are not considered in
quantitative analysis. Therefore, the
model may overestimate acoustic
impacts, especially physiological
impacts near the sound source. The
behavioral criteria used as a part of this
analysis acknowledges that a behavioral
reaction is likely to occur at levels
below those required to cause hearing
loss. At close ranges and high sound
levels approaching those that could
cause PTS, avoidance of the area
immediately around the sound source is
the assumed behavioral response for
most cases.
In previous environmental analyses,
the Navy has implemented analytical
factors to account for avoidance
behavior and the implementation of
mitigation measures. The application of
avoidance and mitigation factors has
only been applied to model-estimated
PTS exposures given the short distance
over which PTS is estimated. Given that
no PTS exposures were estimated
during the modeling process for this
planned action, the quantitative
consideration of avoidance and
mitigation factors were not included in
this analysis.
If exposure were to occur, beluga
whales, bearded seals, and ringed seals
could exhibit behavioral responses.
Additionally, ringed seals may exhibit a
TTS. For the reasons included above,
Level A harassment is not anticipated
for any of the exposed species or stocks.
Table 5 shows the exposures expected
for the beluga whale, bearded seal, and
ringed seal based on NAEMO modeled
results. While density estimates for the
two stocks of beluga whales are equal
(Kaschner et al., 2006; Kaschner 2004),
take of the Eastern Chukchi Sea beluga
whale stock has been reduced to
account for the lower overlap of this
stock’s range with the study area.
TABLE 5—AUTHORIZED TAKES
Density
estimate within
study area
(animals per
square km) 1
Species
Beluga Whale (Beaufort Sea Stock) ........
Beluga Whale (Eastern Chukchi Sea
stock) ....................................................
Bearded Seal ...........................................
Ringed Seal .............................................
1 Kaschner
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Level B
harassment
from
icebreaking
Total
authorized
take
Level A
harassment
Percentage
of stock taken
0.0087
60
24
0
84
0.21
0.0087
0.0332
0.3760
6
5
1,826
2
0
1,245
0
0
0
8
5
3,071
0.04
<0.01
1.81
et al. (2006); Kaschner (2004).
Effects of Specified Activities on
Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals
Subsistence hunting is important for
many Alaska Native communities. A
study of the North Slope villages of
Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Barrow
identified the primary resources used
for subsistence and the locations for
harvest (Stephen R. Braund & Associates
2010), including terrestrial mammals
(caribou, moose, wolf, and wolverine),
birds (geese and eider), fish (Arctic
cisco, Arctic char/Dolly Varden trout,
and broad whitefish), and marine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Level B
harassment
from towed
and deployed
sources
17:20 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
mammals (bowhead whale, ringed seal,
bearded seal, and walrus). Bearded
seals, ringed seals, and beluga whales
are located within the study area during
the planned action. The permitted
sources would be placed outside of the
range for subsistence hunting and the
study plans have been communicated to
the Native communities. The closest
active acoustic source within the study
area (aside from the de minimis
sources), is approximately 141 mi (227
km) from land. As stated above, the
range to effects for acoustic sources in
this experiment is relatively small (20
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
km). In addition, the planned action
would not remove individuals from the
population. Therefore, there would be
no impacts caused by this action to the
availability of bearded seal, ringed seal,
or beluga whale for subsistence hunting.
Therefore, subsistence uses of marine
mammals would not be impacted by the
planned action.
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the permissible methods of
taking pursuant to such activity, and
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
48806
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
other means of effecting the least
practicable impact on such species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock
for taking for certain subsistence uses.
(As explained above, subsistence uses of
marine mammals will not be affected.)
NMFS regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include
information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological)
of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting such activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or
stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)). The NDAA for FY 2004
amended the MMPA as it relates to
military readiness activities and the
incidental take authorization process
such that ‘‘least practicable impact’’
shall include consideration of personnel
safety, practicality of implementation,
and impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity.
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, as well as
subsistence uses. This considers the
nature of the potential adverse impact
being mitigated (likelihood, scope,
range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented (probability of
accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned) the likelihood
of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures
for applicant implementation, which
may consider such things as cost,
impact on operations, and, in the case
of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and
Their Habitat
Ships operated by or for the Navy
have personnel assigned to stand watch
at all times, day and night, when
moving through the water. While in
transit, ships must use extreme caution
and proceed at a safe speed such that
the ship can take proper and effective
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
action to avoid a collision with any
marine mammal and can be stopped
within a distance appropriate to the
prevailing circumstances and
conditions.
Exclusion zones for active acoustics
involve turning off towed sources when
a marine mammal is sighted within 200
yards (yd; 183 m) from the source.
Active transmission will re-commence if
any one of the following conditions are
met: (1) The animal is observed exiting
the exclusion zone, (2) the animal is
thought to have exited the exclusion
zone based on its course and speed and
relative motion between the animal and
the source, (3) the exclusion zone has
been clear from any additional sightings
for a period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds
and 30 minutes for cetaceans, or (4) the
ship has transited more than 400 yd
(366 m) beyond the location of the last
sighting.
During mooring deployment, visual
observation must start 30 minutes prior
to and continue throughout the
deployment within an exclusion zone of
60 yd (55 m) around the deployed
mooring. Deployment will stop if a
marine mammal is visually detected
within the exclusion zone. Deployment
will re-commence if any one of the
following conditions are met: (1) The
animal is observed exiting the exclusion
zone, (2) the animal is thought to have
exited the exclusion zone based on its
course and speed, or (3) the exclusion
zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for a period of 15 minutes for
pinnipeds and 30 minutes for cetaceans.
Visual monitoring will continue through
30 minutes following the deployment of
sources.
Ships must avoid approaching marine
mammals head on and maneuver to
maintain an exclusion zone of 500 yd
(457 m) around observed whales, and
200 yd (183 m) around all other marine
mammals, provided it is safe to do so in
ice free waters.
Moored and drifting sources are left in
place and cannot be turned off until the
following year during ice free months.
Once they are programmed, they will
operate at the specified pulse lengths
and duty cycles until they are either
turned off the following year or there is
failure of the battery and are not able to
operate. Due to the ice covered nature
of the Arctic, it is not possible to recover
the sources or interfere with their
transmit operations in the middle of the
year.
These requirements do not apply if a
vessel’s safety is at risk, such as when
a change of course would create an
imminent and serious threat to safety,
person, vessel, or aircraft, and to the
extent vessels are restricted in their
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ability to maneuver. No further action is
necessary if a marine mammal other
than a whale continues to approach the
vessel after there has already been one
maneuver and/or speed change to avoid
the animal. Avoidance measures should
continue for any observed whale in
order to maintain an exclusion zone of
500 yd (457 m).
All personnel conducting on-ice
experiments, as well as all aircraft
operating in the study area, are required
to maintain a separation distance of
1,000 ft (305 m) from any sighted
pinniped.
All ships are required to coordinate
with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission (AEWC) using established
check-in and communication
procedures when vessels approach
subsistence hunting areas.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s planned measures, NMFS
has determined that the mitigation
measures provide the means of effecting
the least practicable impact on the
affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stock for
subsistence uses.
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 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
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices
noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life
history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the
action; or (4) biological or behavioral
context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas).
• Individual marine mammal
responses (behavioral or physiological)
to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or
cumulative), other stressors, or
cumulative impacts from multiple
stressors.
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) Long-term
fitness and survival of individual
marine mammals; or (2) populations,
species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
(e.g., marine mammal prey species,
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat).
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
While underway, the ships (including
non-Navy ships operating on behalf of
the Navy) utilizing active acoustics and
towed in-water devices will have at
least one watch person during activities.
Watch personnel undertake extensive
training in accordance with the U.S.
Navy Lookout Training Handbook or
civilian equivalent, including on the job
instruction and a formal Personal
Qualification Standard program (or
equivalent program for supporting
contractors or civilians), to certify that
they have demonstrated all necessary
skills (such as detection and reporting of
floating or partially submerged objects).
Their duties may be performed in
conjunction with other job
responsibilities, such as navigating the
ship or supervising other personnel.
While on watch, personnel employ
visual search techniques, including the
use of binoculars, using a scanning
method in accordance with the U.S.
Navy Lookout Training Handbook or
civilian equivalent. A primary duty of
watch personnel is to detect and report
all objects and disturbances sighted in
the water that may be indicative of a
threat to the ship and its crew, such as
debris, or surface disturbance. Per safety
requirements, watch personnel also
report any marine mammals sighted that
have the potential to be in the direct
path of the ship as a standard collision
avoidance procedure.
The U.S. Navy has coordinated with
NMFS to develop an overarching
program plan in which specific
monitoring would occur. This plan is
called the Integrated Comprehensive
Monitoring Program (ICMP) (Navy
2011). The ICMP was developed in
direct response to Navy permitting
requirements established through
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
various environmental compliance
efforts. As a framework document, the
ICMP applies by regulation to those
activities on ranges and operating areas
for which the Navy is seeking or has
sought incidental take authorizations.
The ICMP is intended to coordinate
monitoring efforts across all regions and
to allocate the most appropriate level
and type of effort based on a set of
standardized research goals, and in
acknowledgement of regional scientific
value and resource availability.
The ICMP is focused on Navy training
and testing ranges where the majority of
Navy activities occur regularly as those
areas have the greatest potential for
being impacted. ONR’s Arctic Research
Activities in comparison is a less
intensive test with little human activity
present in the Arctic. Human presence
is limited to a minimal amount of days
for possible towed source operations
and source deployments, in contrast to
the large majority (>95%) of time that
the sources will be left behind and
operate autonomously. Therefore, a
dedicated monitoring project is not
warranted.
ONR previously conducted
experiments in the Beaufort Sea as part
of the Canadian Basin Acoustic
Propagation Experiments (CANAPE)
project in 2016 and 2017. The goal of
the CANAPE project was to determine
the fundamental limits to the use of
acoustic methods and signal processing
imposed by ice and ocean processes in
the changing Arctic. The CANAPE
project included ten moored receiver
arrays (frequencies ranging from 200 Hz
to 16 kHz) that recorded 24 hours per
day for one year. Recordings from the
CANAPE arrays are currently being
compiled and analyzed by Defense
Research and Development Canada,
University of Delaware, and Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI).
Researchers from WHOI are planning to
do marine mammal analysis of the
recordings, including density
estimation. ONR is planning to release
the marine mammal data collected from
the CANAPE receivers to other
researchers.
As part of the planned Arctic
Research Activities, ONR is deploying a
moored receiver array similar to those
used in CANAPE. The receiver array
would be deployed during the SODA
research cruises in 2018 and be
recovered one year later. While a single
array is a modest effort compared to the
ten arrays used in CANAPE, it would
provide new marine mammal
monitoring data for the 2018–2019 time
frame. The array would be deployed at
one of the locations labeled on Figure 1–
1 in the IHA application. There would
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48807
be no active sources associated with the
array. Once the array is recovered, the
recordings would be shared alongside
the CANAPE data.
The Navy is committed to
documenting and reporting relevant
aspects of research and testing activities
to verify implementation of mitigation,
comply with permits, and improve
future environmental assessments. If
any injury or death of a marine mammal
is observed during the 2018–19 Arctic
Research Activities, the Navy will
immediately halt the activity and report
the incident to the Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska
Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS.
The following information must be
provided:
• Time, date, and location of the
discovery;
• 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(s) was discovered (e.g.,
during use of towed acoustic sources,
deployment of moored or drifting
sources, during on-ice experiments, or
by transiting vessel).
ONR will provide NMFS with a draft
exercise monitoring report within 90
days of the conclusion of the planned
activity. The draft exercise monitoring
report will include data regarding
acoustic source use and any mammal
sightings or detection will be
documented. The report will include
the estimated number of marine
mammals taken during the activity. The
report will also include information on
the number of shutdowns recorded. If
no comments are received from NMFS
within 30 days of submission of the
draft final report, the draft final report
will constitute the final report. If
comments are received, a final report
must be submitted within 30 days after
receipt of comments.
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-
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
48808
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices
level effects). An estimate of the number
of takes alone is not enough information
on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’
through harassment, NMFS considers
other factors, such as the likely nature
of any responses (e.g., intensity,
duration), the context of any responses
(e.g., critical reproductive time or
location, migration), as well as effects
on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the
number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this
information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFS’s implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status
of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
Underwater acoustic transmissions
associated with the Arctic Research
Activities, as outlined previously, have
the potential to result in Level B
harassment of beluga whales, ringed
seals, and bearded seals in the form of
TTS and behavioral disturbance. No
serious injury, mortality, or Level A
harassment are anticipated to result
from this activity.
Minimal takes of marine mammals by
Level B harassment would be due to
TTS since the range to TTS effects is
small at only 50 m or less while the
behavioral effects range is significantly
larger extending up to 20 km (Table 4).
TTS is a temporary impairment of
hearing and can last from minutes or
hours to days (in cases of strong TTS).
In many cases, however, hearing
sensitivity recovers rapidly after
exposure to the sound ends. Though
TTS may occur in a single ringed seal,
the overall fitness of the individual seal
is unlikely to be affected and negative
impacts to the entire stock of ringed
seals are not anticipated.
Effects on individuals that are taken
by Level B harassment could include
alteration of dive behavior, alteration of
foraging behavior, effects to breathing
rates, interference with or alteration of
vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
More severe behavioral responses are
not anticipated due to the localized,
intermittent use of active acoustic
sources. Most likely, individuals will
simply be temporarily displaced by
moving away from the sound source. As
described previously in the behavioral
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
effects section, seals exposed to nonimpulsive sources with a received
sound pressure level within the range of
calculated exposures (142–193 dB re 1
mPa), have been shown to change their
behavior by modifying diving activity
and avoidance of the sound source (Go¨tz
et al., 2010; Kvadsheim et al., 2010).
Although a minor change to a behavior
may occur as a result of exposure to the
sound sources associated with the
planned action, these changes would be
within the normal range of behaviors for
the animal (e.g., the use of a breathing
hole further from the source, rather than
one closer to the source, would be
within the normal range of behavior).
Thus, even repeated Level B harassment
of some small subset of the overall stock
is unlikely to result in any significant
realized decrease in fitness for the
affected individuals, and would not
result in any adverse impact to the stock
as a whole.
The project is not expected to have
significant adverse effects on marine
mammal habitat. While the activities
may cause some fish to leave the area
of disturbance, temporarily impacting
marine mammals’ foraging
opportunities, this would encompass a
relatively small area of habitat leaving
large areas of existing fish and marine
mammal foraging habitat unaffected.
Icebreaking may temporarily affect the
availability of pack ice for seals to haul
out but the proportion of ice disturbed
is small relative to the overall amount
of available ice habitat. Icebreaking will
not occur during the time of year when
ringed seals are expected to be within
subnivean lairs or pupping (Chapskii
1940; McLaren 1958; Smith and Stirling
1975). As such, the impacts to marine
mammal habitat are not expected to
cause significant or long-term negative
consequences.
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 injury, serious injury, or
mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• Behavioral Impacts will be limited
to Level B harassment of a relatively
minor nature;
• Minimal takes by Level B
harassment will be due to TTS; and
• There will be no permanent or
significant loss or modification of
marine mammal prey or habitat.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
monitoring and mitigation measures,
NMFS finds that the total marine
mammal take from the planned activity
will have a negligible impact on all
affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
Impacts to subsistence uses of marine
mammals resulting from the planned
action are not anticipated. The closest
active acoustic source within the study
area is approximately 141 mi (227 km)
from land, outside of known subsistence
use areas. Based on this information,
NMFS has determined that there will be
no unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses from ONR’s planned
activities.
National Environmental Policy Act
In compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by
the regulations published by the
Council on Environmental Quality (40
CFR parts 1500–1508), the Navy
prepared an Environmental Assessment/
Overseas Environmental Assessment
(EA/OEA) to consider the direct,
indirect and cumulative effects to the
human environment resulting from the
Arctic Research Activities project.
NMFS made the Navy’s EA/OEA
available to the public for review and
comment, concurrently with the
publication of the proposed IHA, on the
NMFS website (at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities), in relation to its suitability
for adoption by NMFS in order to assess
the impacts to the human environment
of issuance of an IHA to ONR. Also in
compliance with NEPA and the CEQ
regulations, as well as NOAA
Administrative Order 216–6, NMFS has
reviewed the Navy’s EA/OEA,
determined it to be sufficient, and
adopted that EA/OEA and signed a
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) on September 20, 2018.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each
Federal agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the issuance of
IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this
case with the NMFS Alaska Regional
Office (AKR) whenever we propose to
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices
authorize take for endangered or
threatened species.
The AKR issued a Biological Opinion
on September 7, 2018, which concluded
that ONR’s Arctic Research Activities
and NMFS’s issuance of an IHA for
those activities are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the Beringia DPS bearded seal or Arctic
ringed seal or adversely modify any
designated critical habitat.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations,
NMFS has issued an IHA to the U.S.
Navy’s ONR for the Arctic Research
Activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi
Seas from September 20, 2018, through
September 19, 2019, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated.
Dated: September 24, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–21070 Filed 9–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD–2018–OS–0068]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section or at the Defense Privacy, Civil
Liberties, and Transparency Division
website at https://defense.gov/privacy.
The proposed systems reports, as
required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended, were submitted on August 9,
2018, to the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, the
Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, and
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) pursuant to Section 6 to OMB
Circular No. A–108, ‘‘Federal Agency
Responsibilities for Review, Reporting,
and Publication under the Privacy Act,’’
revised December 23, 2016 (December
23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).
PEGASYS CARDKEY, DWHS D02
HISTORY:
ACTION:
November 14, 2011, 76 FR 70425;
March 18, 2010, 75 FR 13088.
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Rescindment of a system of
records notice.
The Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) proposes to rescind a
system of records, PEGASYS CARDKEY,
DWHS D02. This system was used to
maintain a list of individuals granted
room access to areas of the Pentagon
temporarily under the control of
Washington Headquarters Services
(WHS).
SUMMARY:
This action will be effective
September 27, 2018. This system was
decommissioned on June 30, 2014 when
the Pentagon Force Protection Agency
(PFPA) accepted access control
responsibility for these areas. The
Pentagon Facilities Access Control
System, DPFPA 01 applies to those
individuals who continue to require
access to these spaces.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records,
Privacy and Declassification Division
(RPDD), 1155 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–1155, or by
phone at (571) 372–0478.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:08 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
Dated: September 24, 2018.
Meredith Steingold Werner,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate
General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register
Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018–21045 Filed 9–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 6470–006]
AGENCY:
DATES:
facilitate high educational standards
and cost effective operations. The Board
will be focusing primarily on the
internal procedures of Marine Corps
University. All sessions of the meeting
will be open to the public.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
Thursday, 18 Oct. 2018, from 8:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. and Friday, 19 Oct. 2018,
from 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Eastern
Time Zone.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
Marine Corps University in Quantico,
Virginia. The address is: 2076 South
Street, Quantico, VA 22134.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Kim Florich, Director of Faculty
Development and Outreach, Marine
Corps University Board of Visitors, 2076
South Street, Quantico, Virginia 22134,
703–432–4682.
SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:
Privacy Act of 1974; System of
Records
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
This
system of records was temporary and
was decommissioned on June 30, 2014
when responsibility for access and
security for wedge 1, corridors 3 and 4
at the Pentagon were transferred to
PFPA. Continued access by personnel
originally covered by PEGASYS
CARDKEY is now addressed by the
Pentagon Facilities Access Control
System, DPFPA 01 (May 13, 2011, 76 FR
28001).
The Office of the Secretary of Defense
system of records notices subject to the
Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, have
been published in the Federal Register
and are available from the address in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
48809
Dated: September 20, 2018.
Shelly E. Finke,
Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2018–21082 Filed 9–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Meeting of the Board of Visitors of
Marine Corps University
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Board of Visitors of the
Marine Corps University (BOV MCU)
will meet to review, develop and
provide recommendations on all aspects
of the academic and administrative
policies of the University; examine all
aspects of professional military
education operations; and provide such
oversight and advice, as is necessary, to
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Winooski Hydroelectric Company;
Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application
Document, and Approving Use of the
Traditional Licensing Process
a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to
File License Application and Request to
Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
b. Project No.: 6470–006.
c. Date Filed: July 31, 2018.
d. Submitted By: Winooski
Hydroelectric Company.
e. Name of Project: Winooski 8
Hydroelectric Project.
f. Location: On the Winooski River in
Washington County, Vermont. No
federal lands are occupied by the project
works or located within the project
boundary.
g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the
Commission’s regulations.
h. Potential Applicant Contact:
Mathew Rubin, General Partner,
Winooski Hydroelectric Company, 26
State Street, Montpelier, Vermont
05602; (802) 793–5939; or email at
m@mrubin.biz.
i. FERC Contact: Mike Tust at (202)
502–6522; or email at michael.tust@
ferc.gov.
j. Winooski Hydroelectric Company
(Winooski Hydro) filed its request to use
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48799-48809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21070]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XG030
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy's Office of Naval
Research Arctic Research Activities
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research (ONR) to incidentally harass,
by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during research activities
associated with the Arctic Research Activities project in the Beaufort
and Chukchi Seas. The Navy's activities are considered military
readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (NDAA).
DATES: This Authorization is effective from September 20, 2018, through
September 19, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Fowler, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities. In case of problems
accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public
for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable
[adverse] impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat,
paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks
for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and
reporting of such takings.
The NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the ``small numbers'' and
``specified geographical region'' limitations indicated above and
amended the definition of ``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military
readiness activity.'' The activity for which incidental take of marine
mammals has been authorized qualifies as a military readiness activity.
The Navy's action constitutes a military readiness activity because
these scientific research activities directly support the adequate and
realistic testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors
for proper operation and suitability for combat use by providing
critical data on the changing natural and physical environment in which
such materiel will be assessed and deployed. This scientific research
also directly supports fleet training and operations by providing up to
date information and data on the natural and physical environment
essential to training and operations. The definitions of all applicable
MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections
below.
Summary of Request
On April 6, 2018, NMFS received a request from ONR for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to Arctic Research Activities in the
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. ONR's application was determined adequate
and complete on August 7, 2018. ONR's request is for take of beluga
whales (Delphinapterus leucas), bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus),
and ringed seals (Pusa hispida hispida) by Level B harassment only.
Neither ONR nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from
this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
This IHA covers one year of a larger project for which ONR intends
to request take authorization for subsequent facets of the project.
This IHA is valid from September 20, 2018, through September 19, 2019.
The larger three-year project involves several scientific objectives
which support the Arctic and Global Prediction Program, as well as the
Ocean Acoustics Program and the Naval Research Laboratory, for which
ONR is the parent command.
Description of Activity
Overview
ONR's Arctic Research Activities involve scientific experiments
conducted in support of the Arctic and Global Prediction Program, the
[[Page 48800]]
Stratified Ocean Dynamics of the Arctic (SODA), Arctic Mobile Observing
System (AMOS), Ocean Acoustics field work, and Naval Research
Laboratory (NRL) in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in 2018 and 2019. The
study area for the Arctic Research Activities is located in the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the high seas north of Alaska (see
Figure 1-1 in the IHA application). The total area of the study area is
257,723 square miles (mi\2\) (667,500 square kilometers (km\2\)).
Beginning in late September 2018, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (CGC)
HEALY and the Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq will be used to tow and
deploy acoustic sources. CGC HEALY may also be required to perform
icebreaking to deploy the moored and ice-tethered acoustic sources. A
maximum of four research cruises (one cruise per vessel in each
calendar year) of up to 30 days are expected. Each vessel may tow
sources for up to 8 hours per day for 15 days during each cruise in
open water or marginal ice. Once deployed, moored and drifting sources
would operate intermittently each day for up to three years (only the
first year is authorized by this IHA). Icebreaking may occur on up to 4
days.
A detailed description of the planned Arctic Research Activities
project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA
(83 FR 40234; August 14, 2018). Since that time, no changes have been
made to the planned Arctic Research Activities. Therefore, a detailed
description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register
notice for the description of the specified activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to ONR was published in
the Federal Register on August 14, 2018 (83 FR 40234). That notice
described, in detail, ONR's activity, the marine mammal species that
may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine
mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received a
comment from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).
Comment 1: The Commission noted that the Navy used cutoff distances
instead of relying on Bayesian biphasic dose response functions (BRFs)
to inform take estimates. The Commission asserted that the cutoff
distances used by the Navy are unsubstantiated and that the Navy
arbitrarily set a cutoff distance of 10 kilometers (km) for pinnipeds,
which could effectively eliminate a large portion of the estimated
number of takes. The Commission, therefore, recommended that the Navy
refrain from using cut-off distances in conjunction with the Bayesian
BRFs.
Response: We disagree with the Navy's recommendation. The
derivation of the behavioral response functions and associated cutoff
distances is provided in the Navy's Criteria and Thresholds for U.S.
Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) technical
report (Navy 2017a). The consideration of proximity (distance cutoff)
was part of criteria developed in consultation with NMFS and was
applied within the Navy's BRF. Distance cutoffs beyond which the
potential of significant behavioral responses were considered to be
unlikely were used in conducting analysis for ONR's Arctic Research
Activities. The Navy's BRF applied within these distances is an
appropriate method for providing a realistic (but still conservative
where some uncertainties exist) estimate of impact and potential take
for these activities.
Comment 2: The Commission also noted that a standard requirement
for coordinating vessel presence in the Beaufort Sea with the Alaska
Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) to ensure that ONR vessels do not
disrupt subsistence hunting was left out of the proposed IHA.
Response: NMFS has included this requirement to coordinate with the
AEWC in the final authorization.
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's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region) and more general information about
these species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found
on NMFS's website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
the study area and summarizes information related to the population or
stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known.
For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). PBR is defined by
the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is
anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and
mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross
indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS's 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's U.S. 2017 SARs (e.g., Muto et al., 2018, Carretta et al., 2018).
All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the
time of publication and are available in the 2017 SARs (Muto et al.,
2018; Carretta et al., 2018).
Table 1--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present in the Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale...................... Eschrichtius robustus.. Eastern North Pacific.. -/-; N 20,900 (0.05, 20,125, 624 4.25
2011).
Family Balaenidae:
[[Page 48801]]
Bowhead whale................... Balaena mysticetus..... Western Arctic......... E/D; Y 16,820 (0.052, 16,100, 161 43
2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Beluga whale.................... Delphinapterus leucas.. Beaufort Sea........... -/-; N 39,258 (0.229, N/A, Undet.\4\ 139
1992).
Beluga whale.................... Delphinapterus leucas.. Eastern Chukchi Sea.... -/-; N 20,752 (0.70, 12.194, 244 67
2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Bearded seal \5\................ Erignathus barbatus.... Alaska................. T/D; Y 299,174 (-, 273,676, 8,210 391
2013).
Ribbon seal..................... Histriophoca fasciata.. Alaska................. -/-; N 184,000 (-, 163,086, 9,785 3.8
2013).
Ringed seal \5\................. Pusa hispida hispida... Alaska................. T/D; Y 170,000 (-, 170,000, 5,100 1,054
2013).
Spotted seal.................... Phoca largha........... Alaska................. -/-; N 461,625 (-, 423,237, 12,697 329
2013).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ The 2016 guidelines for preparing SARs state that abundance estimates older than 8 years should not be used to calculate PBR due to a decline in the
reliability of an aged estimate. Therefore, the PBR for this stock is considered undetermined.
\5\ Abundances and associated values for bearded and ringed seals are for the U.S. population in the Bering Sea only.
Note--Italicized species are not expected or authorized to be taken.
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the
Arctic Research Activities, including brief information regarding
population trends and threats, and information regarding local
occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice for the
proposed IHA (83 FR 40234; August 14, 2018). Since that time, we are
not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks;
therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to
that Federal Register notice for those descriptions. Please also refer
to NMFS' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for
generalized species accounts.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from the towed and deployed
acoustic sources, as well as icebreaking, 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 (83 FR 40234;
August 14, 2018) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic
noise on marine mammals and their habitat, therefore that information
is not repeated here; please refer to the Federal Register notice (83
FR 40234; August 14, 2018) 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 the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines
``harassment'' as: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
(Level A harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to
disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited
to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to
a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly
altered (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form
of disruption of behavioral patterns and temporary threshold shift
(TTS) for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to acoustic
transmissions and icebreaking noise. Based on the nature of the
activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized.
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). For this IHA, ONR employed a
sophisticated model known as the Navy Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO)
for assessing the impacts of underwater sound. Below, we describe the
factors considered here in more detail and present the authorized
takes.
[[Page 48802]]
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed or incur TTS of some degree (equated to Level B
harassment) or to incur a permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--In coordination with
NMFS, the Navy developed behavioral thresholds to support environmental
analyses for the Navy's testing and training military readiness
activities utilizing active sonar sources; these behavioral harassment
thresholds are used here to evaluate the potential effects of the
active sonar components of the planned action. The response of a marine
mammal to an anthropogenic sound will depend on the frequency,
duration, temporal pattern and amplitude of the sound as well as the
animal's prior experience with the sound and the context in which the
sound is encountered (i.e., what the animal is doing at the time of the
exposure). The distance from the sound source and whether it is
perceived as approaching or moving away can also affect the way an
animal responds to a sound (Wartzok et al. 2003). For marine mammals, a
review of responses to anthropogenic sound was first conducted by
Richardson et al. (1995). Reviews by Nowacek et al. (2007) and Southall
et al. (2007) addressed additional studies and focus on observations
where the received sound level of the exposed marine mammal(s) was
known or could be estimated. Multi-year research efforts have conducted
sonar exposure studies for odontocetes and mysticetes (Miller et al.
2012; Sivle et al. 2012). Several studies with captive animals have
provided data under controlled circumstances for odontocetes and
pinnipeds (Houser et al. 2013a; Houser et al. 2013b). Moretti et al.
(2014) published a beaked whale dose-response curve based on passive
acoustic monitoring of beaked whales during U.S. Navy training activity
at Atlantic Underwater Test and Evaluation Center during actual Anti-
Submarine Warfare exercises. This new information necessitated the
update of the behavioral response criteria for the U.S. Navy's
environmental analyses.
Southall et al. (2007) synthesized data from many past behavioral
studies and observations to determine the likelihood of behavioral
reactions at specific sound levels. While in general, the louder the
sound source the more intense the behavioral response, it was clear
that the proximity of a sound source and the animal's experience,
motivation, and conditioning were also critical factors influencing the
response (Southall et al. 2007). After examining all of the available
data, the authors felt that the derivation of thresholds for behavioral
response based solely on exposure level was not supported because
context of the animal at the time of sound exposure was an important
factor in estimating response. Nonetheless, in some conditions,
consistent avoidance reactions were noted at higher sound levels
depending on the marine mammal species or group, allowing conclusions
to be drawn.
Odontocete behavioral criteria for U.S. Navy non-impulsive,
intermittent sources were updated based on controlled exposure studies
for dolphins and sea mammals, sonar, and safety (3S) studies where
odontocete behavioral responses were reported after exposure to sonar
(Antunes et al., 2014; Houser et al., 2013b); Miller et al., 2011;
Miller et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2012). For the 3S study the sonar
outputs included 1-2 kilohertz (kHz) up- and down-sweeps and 6-7 kHz
up-sweeps; source levels were ramped up from 152-158 decibels (dB) re 1
microPascal ([micro]Pa) to a maximum of 198-214 re 1 [micro]Pa at 1 m.
Sonar signals were ramped up over several pings while the vessel
approached the mammals. The study did include some control passes of
ships with the sonar off to discern the behavioral responses of the
mammals to vessel presence alone versus active sonar. The controlled
exposure studies included exposing the Navy's trained bottlenose
dolphins to mid-frequency sonar while they were in a pen. Mid-frequency
sonar was played at 6 different exposure levels from 125-185 dB re 1
[micro]Pa (root mean square (rms)). The behavioral response function
for odontocetes resulting from the studies described above has a 50
percent probability of response at 157 dB re 1 [micro]Pa. Additionally,
distance cutoffs (20 km for MF cetaceans and 10 km for pinnipeds) were
applied to exclude exposures beyond which the potential of significant
behavioral responses is considered to be unlikely.
The pinniped behavioral threshold was updated based on controlled
exposure experiments on the following captive animals: hooded seal,
gray seal, and California sea lion (G[ouml]tz et al. 2010; Houser et
al. 2013a; Kvadsheim et al. 2010). Hooded seals were exposed to
increasing levels of sonar until an avoidance response was observed,
while the grey seals were exposed first to a single received level
multiple times, then an increasing received level. Each individual
California sea lion was exposed to the same received level ten times.
These exposure sessions were combined into a single response value,
with an overall response assumed if an animal responded in any single
session. The resulting behavioral response function for pinnipeds has a
50 percent probability of response at 166 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. Additional
details regarding these criteria may be found in the technical report,
Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects
Analysis (2017a) which may be found at: https://aftteis.com/Portals/3/docs/newdocs/Criteria%20and%20Thresholds_TR_Submittal_05262017.pdf.
This technical report was included as part of the Navy's Atlantic Fleet
Training and Testing Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) (Navy 2017b) which is located
at: https://www.aftteis.com/.
NMFS adopted the Navy's approach to estimating incidental take by
Level B harassment from the active acoustic sources for this action,
which includes use of these dose response functions. The Navy's dose
response functions were developed to estimate take from sonar and
similar transducers and are not applicable to icebreaking. NMFS
predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in
a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater
anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling, icebreaking)
and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g.,
seismic airguns) or non-impulsive, intermittent (e.g., scientific
sonar) sources. Thus, take of marine mammals by Level B harassment due
to icebreaking has been calculated using the Navy's NAEMO model using
the 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) received level threshold for behavioral
response.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual
criteria 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). ONR's planned activities involve only
non-impulsive sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 2 below. The references,
analysis,
[[Page 48803]]
and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described
in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Table 2--Injury (PTS) Thresholds for Underwater Sounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds *
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
threshold associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Quantitative Modeling
The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number
of marine mammals that could be harassed by the underwater acoustic
transmissions during the planned action. Inputs to the quantitative
analysis included marine mammal density estimates, marine mammal depth
occurrence distributions (Navy 2017a), oceanographic and environmental
data, marine mammal hearing data, and criteria and thresholds for
levels of potential effects. The quantitative analysis consists of
computer modeled estimates and a post-model analysis to determine the
number of potential animal exposures. The model calculates sound energy
propagation from the planned non-impulsive acoustic sources and
icebreaking, the sound received by animat (virtual animal) dosimeters
representing marine mammals distributed in the area around the modeled
activity, and whether the sound received by animats exceeds the
thresholds for effects.
The Navy developed a set of software tools and compiled data for
estimating acoustic effects on marine mammals without consideration of
behavioral avoidance or mitigation. These tools and data sets serve as
integral components of NAEMO. In NAEMO, animats are distributed non-
uniformly based on species-specific density, depth distribution, and
group size information and animats record energy received at their
location in the water column. A fully three-dimensional environment is
used for calculating sound propagation and animat exposure in NAEMO.
Site-specific bathymetry, sound speed profiles, wind speed, and bottom
properties are incorporated into the propagation modeling process.
NAEMO calculates the likely propagation for various levels of energy
(sound or pressure) resulting from each source used during the training
event.
NAEMO then records the energy received by each animat within the
energy footprint of the event and calculates the number of animats
having received levels of energy exposures that fall within defined
impact thresholds. Predicted effects on the animats within a scenario
are then tallied and the highest order effect (based on severity of
criteria; e.g., PTS over TTS) predicted for a given animat is assumed.
Each scenario, or each 24-hour period for scenarios lasting greater
than 24 hours (which NMFS recommends in order to ensure more consistent
quantification of take across actions), is independent of all others,
and therefore, the same individual marine animal (as represented by an
animat in the model environment) could be impacted during each
independent scenario or 24-hour period. In few instances, although the
activities themselves all occur within the study area, sound may
propagate beyond the boundary of the study area. Any exposures
occurring outside the boundary of the study area are counted as if they
occurred within the study area boundary. NAEMO provides the initial
estimated impacts on marine species with a static horizontal
distribution (i.e., animats in the model environment do not move
horizontally).
There are limitations to the data used in the acoustic effects
model, and the results must be interpreted within this context. While
the best available data and appropriate input assumptions have been
used in the modeling, when there is a lack of definitive data to
support an aspect of the modeling, conservative modeling assumptions
have been chosen (i.e., assumptions that may result in an overestimate
of acoustic exposures):
Animats are modeled as being underwater, stationary, and
facing the source and therefore always predicted to receive the maximum
potential sound level at a given location (i.e., no porpoising or
pinnipeds' heads above water);
Animats do not move horizontally (but change their
position vertically within the water column), which may overestimate
physiological effects such as hearing loss, especially for slow moving
or stationary sound sources in the model;
Animats are stationary horizontally and therefore do not
avoid the sound source, unlike in the wild where animals would most
often avoid exposures at higher sound levels, especially those
exposures that may result in PTS;
Multiple exposures within any 24-hour period are
considered one continuous exposure for the purposes of calculating
potential threshold shift, because there are not sufficient data to
estimate a hearing recovery function for the time between exposures;
and
Mitigation measures were not considered in the model. In
reality, sound-producing activities would be reduced, stopped, or
delayed if marine mammals are detected by visual monitoring.
[[Page 48804]]
Because of these inherent model limitations and simplifications,
model-estimated results were further analyzed, considering such factors
as the range to specific effects, avoidance, and the likelihood of
successfully implementing mitigation measures. This analysis uses a
number of factors in addition to the acoustic model results to predict
acoustic effects on marine mammals.
The underwater radiated noise signature for icebreaking in the
central Arctic Ocean by CGC HEALY during different types of ice cover
was characterized in Roth et al. (2013). The radiated noise signatures
were characterized for various fractions of ice cover (represented as
the proportion of ice out of 10, with 10/10 being total ice coverage).
For modeling, the 8/10 and 3/10 ice cover were used based on the data
available. Each modeled day of icebreaking consisted of 16 hours of 8/
10 ice cover and 8 hours of 3/10 ice cover, which was considered a
fairly conservative way of representing the expected ice cover based on
what is known. Icebreaking was modeled for 4 days each year. The sound
signature of each of the ice coverage levels was broken into 1-octave
bins (Table 3). In the model, each bin was included as a separate
source on the modeled vessel. When these independent sources go active
concurrently, they simulate the sound signature of CGC HEALY. The
modeled source level summed across these bins was 196.2 dB for the 8/10
signature and 189.3 dB for the 3/10 ice signature. These source levels
are a good approximation of the icebreaker's observed source level
(Roth et al., 2013). Each frequency and source level was modeled as an
independent source, and applied simultaneously to all of the animats
within the model environment. Each second was summed across frequency
to estimate sound pressure level (SPLrms). This value was
incorporated into NAEMO using NMFS' 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa continuous
sound source threshold to estimate Level B harassment. For PTS and TTS
determinations, sound exposure levels were summed over the duration of
the test and the transit to the deep water deployment level.
Table 3--Modeled Bins for Icebreaking in Fractional Ice Coverage on CGC
HEALY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/10 Ice 3/10 Ice
coverage (full coverage
power) (quarter power)
Frequency (Hz) -------------------------------------
Source level Source level
(dB) (dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25................................ 189 187
50................................ 188 182
100............................... 189 179
200............................... 190 177
400............................... 188 175
800............................... 183 170
1,600............................. 177 166
3,200............................. 176 171
6,400............................. 172 168
12,800............................ 167 164
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the other non-impulsive sources, NAEMO calculates the SPL and
SEL for each active emission during an event. This is done by taking
the following factors into account over the propagation paths:
Bathymetric relief and bottom types, sound speed, and attenuation
contributors such as absorption, bottom loss, and surface loss.
Platforms such as a ship using one or more sound sources are modeled in
accordance with relevant vehicle dynamics and time durations by moving
them across an area whose size is representative of the testing event's
operational area. Table 4 provides range to effects for non-impulsive
sources and icebreaking noise planned for the Arctic research
activities to mid-frequency cetacean and pinniped specific criteria.
Marine mammals within these ranges would be predicted to receive the
associated effect. Range to effects is important information in not
only predicting non-impulsive acoustic impacts, but also in verifying
the accuracy of model results against real-world situations and
determining adequate mitigation ranges to avoid higher level effects,
especially physiological effects in marine mammals. Therefore, the
ranges in Table 4 provide realistic maximum distances over which the
specific effects from the use of non-impulsive sources during the
planned action would be possible.
Table 4--Range to PTS, TTS, and Behavioral Effects in the Study Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range to behavioral effects Range to TTS effects (m) Range to PTS effects (m)
(m) ---------------------------------------------------------------
Source --------------------------------
MF cetacean Pinniped MF cetacean Pinniped MF cetacean Pinniped
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LF4 towed source........................................ 20,000 10,000 0 1 0 0
LF5 towed source........................................ 20,000 10,000 0 1 0 0
MF9 towed source........................................ 20,000 10,000 4 50 0 4
Navigation and real-time sensing sources................ 20,000 10,000 0 6 0 0
Tomography sources...................................... 20,000 10,000 0 2 0 0
Spherical Wave source................................... 20,000 10,000 0 0 0 0
Icebreaking noise....................................... 4,275 4,525 3 12 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48805]]
A behavioral response study conducted on and around the Navy range
in Southern California (SOCAL BRS) observed reactions to sonar and
similar sound sources by several marine mammal species, including
Risso's dolphins (Grampus griseus), a mid-frequency cetacean (DeRuiter
et al., 2013; Goldbogen et al., 2013; Southall et al., 2011; Southall
et al., 2012; Southall et al., 2013; Southall et al., 2014). In
preliminary analysis, none of the Risso's dolphins exposed to simulated
or real mid-frequency sonar demonstrated any overt or obvious responses
(Southall et al., 2012, Southall et al., 2013). In general, although
the responses to the simulated sonar were varied across individuals and
species, none of the animals exposed to real Navy sonar responded;
these exposures occurred at distances beyond 10 km, and were up to 100
km away (DeRuiter et al., 2013; B. Southall pers. comm.). These data
suggest that most odontocetes (not including beaked whales and harbor
porpoises) likely do not exhibit significant behavioral reactions to
sonar and other transducers beyond approximately 10 km. Therefore, the
Navy uses a cutoff distance for odontocetes of 10 km for moderate
source level, single platform training and testing events, and 20 km
for all other events, including the planned Arctic Research Activities
(Navy 2017a).
Southall et al. (2007) report that pinnipeds do not exhibit strong
reactions to SPLs up to 140 dB re 1 [micro]Pa from non-impulsive
sources. While there are limited data on pinniped behavioral responses
beyond about 3 km in the water, the Navy uses a distance cutoff of 5 km
for moderate source level, single platform training and testing events,
and 10 km for all other events, including the planned Arctic Research
Activities (Navy 2017a).
NMFS and the Navy conservatively implemented a distance cutoff of
5.4 nmi (10 km) for pinnipeds, and 10.8 nmi (20 km) for mid-frequency
cetaceans (Navy 2017a). Regardless of the received level at that
distance, take is not estimated to occur beyond 10 and 20 km from the
source for pinnipeds and cetaceans, respectively. Not all sources are
likely to result in TTS or PTS for pinnipeds or MF cetaceans. These
sources show a range to effects of 0 m (Table 4).
As discussed above, within NAEMO animats do not move horizontally
or react in any way to avoid sound. Furthermore, mitigation measures
that reduce the likelihood of physiological impacts are not considered
in quantitative analysis. Therefore, the model may overestimate
acoustic impacts, especially physiological impacts near the sound
source. The behavioral criteria used as a part of this analysis
acknowledges that a behavioral reaction is likely to occur at levels
below those required to cause hearing loss. At close ranges and high
sound levels approaching those that could cause PTS, avoidance of the
area immediately around the sound source is the assumed behavioral
response for most cases.
In previous environmental analyses, the Navy has implemented
analytical factors to account for avoidance behavior and the
implementation of mitigation measures. The application of avoidance and
mitigation factors has only been applied to model-estimated PTS
exposures given the short distance over which PTS is estimated. Given
that no PTS exposures were estimated during the modeling process for
this planned action, the quantitative consideration of avoidance and
mitigation factors were not included in this analysis.
If exposure were to occur, beluga whales, bearded seals, and ringed
seals could exhibit behavioral responses. Additionally, ringed seals
may exhibit a TTS. For the reasons included above, Level A harassment
is not anticipated for any of the exposed species or stocks.
Table 5 shows the exposures expected for the beluga whale, bearded
seal, and ringed seal based on NAEMO modeled results. While density
estimates for the two stocks of beluga whales are equal (Kaschner et
al., 2006; Kaschner 2004), take of the Eastern Chukchi Sea beluga whale
stock has been reduced to account for the lower overlap of this stock's
range with the study area.
Table 5--Authorized Takes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
estimate Level B Level B
within study harassment harassment Level A Total Percentage of
Species area (animals from towed and from harassment authorized stock taken
per square km) deployed icebreaking take
\1\ sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga Whale (Beaufort Sea Stock)....................... 0.0087 60 24 0 84 0.21
Beluga Whale (Eastern Chukchi Sea stock)................ 0.0087 6 2 0 8 0.04
Bearded Seal............................................ 0.0332 5 0 0 5 <0.01
Ringed Seal............................................. 0.3760 1,826 1,245 0 3,071 1.81
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kaschner et al. (2006); Kaschner (2004).
Effects of Specified Activities on Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals
Subsistence hunting is important for many Alaska Native
communities. A study of the North Slope villages of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik,
and Barrow identified the primary resources used for subsistence and
the locations for harvest (Stephen R. Braund & Associates 2010),
including terrestrial mammals (caribou, moose, wolf, and wolverine),
birds (geese and eider), fish (Arctic cisco, Arctic char/Dolly Varden
trout, and broad whitefish), and marine mammals (bowhead whale, ringed
seal, bearded seal, and walrus). Bearded seals, ringed seals, and
beluga whales are located within the study area during the planned
action. The permitted sources would be placed outside of the range for
subsistence hunting and the study plans have been communicated to the
Native communities. The closest active acoustic source within the study
area (aside from the de minimis sources), is approximately 141 mi (227
km) from land. As stated above, the range to effects for acoustic
sources in this experiment is relatively small (20 km). In addition,
the planned action would not remove individuals from the population.
Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by this action to the
availability of bearded seal, ringed seal, or beluga whale for
subsistence hunting. Therefore, subsistence uses of marine mammals
would not be impacted by the planned action.
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and
[[Page 48806]]
other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species
or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses. (As explained above, subsistence uses of marine
mammals will not be affected.) NMFS regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include information about the
availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment,
methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected
species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). The NDAA
for FY 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness
activities and the incidental take authorization process such that
``least practicable impact'' shall include consideration of personnel
safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness
of the military readiness activity.
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, as
well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further
considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if
implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation
(probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
Ships operated by or for the Navy have personnel assigned to stand
watch at all times, day and night, when moving through the water. While
in transit, ships must use extreme caution and proceed at a safe speed
such that the ship can take proper and effective action to avoid a
collision with any marine mammal and can be stopped within a distance
appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
Exclusion zones for active acoustics involve turning off towed
sources when a marine mammal is sighted within 200 yards (yd; 183 m)
from the source. Active transmission will re-commence if any one of the
following conditions are met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the
exclusion zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the exclusion
zone based on its course and speed and relative motion between the
animal and the source, (3) the exclusion zone has been clear from any
additional sightings for a period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 30
minutes for cetaceans, or (4) the ship has transited more than 400 yd
(366 m) beyond the location of the last sighting.
During mooring deployment, visual observation must start 30 minutes
prior to and continue throughout the deployment within an exclusion
zone of 60 yd (55 m) around the deployed mooring. Deployment will stop
if a marine mammal is visually detected within the exclusion zone.
Deployment will re-commence if any one of the following conditions are
met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the exclusion zone, (2) the
animal is thought to have exited the exclusion zone based on its course
and speed, or (3) the exclusion zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for a period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 30 minutes for
cetaceans. Visual monitoring will continue through 30 minutes following
the deployment of sources.
Ships must avoid approaching marine mammals head on and maneuver to
maintain an exclusion zone of 500 yd (457 m) around observed whales,
and 200 yd (183 m) around all other marine mammals, provided it is safe
to do so in ice free waters.
Moored and drifting sources are left in place and cannot be turned
off until the following year during ice free months. Once they are
programmed, they will operate at the specified pulse lengths and duty
cycles until they are either turned off the following year or there is
failure of the battery and are not able to operate. Due to the ice
covered nature of the Arctic, it is not possible to recover the sources
or interfere with their transmit operations in the middle of the year.
These requirements do not apply if a vessel's safety is at risk,
such as when a change of course would create an imminent and serious
threat to safety, person, vessel, or aircraft, and to the extent
vessels are restricted in their ability to maneuver. No further action
is necessary if a marine mammal other than a whale continues to
approach the vessel after there has already been one maneuver and/or
speed change to avoid the animal. Avoidance measures should continue
for any observed whale in order to maintain an exclusion zone of 500 yd
(457 m).
All personnel conducting on-ice experiments, as well as all
aircraft operating in the study area, are required to maintain a
separation distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from any sighted pinniped.
All ships are required to coordinate with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission (AEWC) using established check-in and communication
procedures when vessels approach subsistence hunting areas.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, NMFS
has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.
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
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
[[Page 48807]]
noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3)
co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action; or (4)
biological or behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas).
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks.
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat).
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
While underway, the ships (including non-Navy ships operating on
behalf of the Navy) utilizing active acoustics and towed in-water
devices will have at least one watch person during activities. Watch
personnel undertake extensive training in accordance with the U.S. Navy
Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent, including on the job
instruction and a formal Personal Qualification Standard program (or
equivalent program for supporting contractors or civilians), to certify
that they have demonstrated all necessary skills (such as detection and
reporting of floating or partially submerged objects). Their duties may
be performed in conjunction with other job responsibilities, such as
navigating the ship or supervising other personnel. While on watch,
personnel employ visual search techniques, including the use of
binoculars, using a scanning method in accordance with the U.S. Navy
Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent. A primary duty of
watch personnel is to detect and report all objects and disturbances
sighted in the water that may be indicative of a threat to the ship and
its crew, such as debris, or surface disturbance. Per safety
requirements, watch personnel also report any marine mammals sighted
that have the potential to be in the direct path of the ship as a
standard collision avoidance procedure.
The U.S. Navy has coordinated with NMFS to develop an overarching
program plan in which specific monitoring would occur. This plan is
called the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) (Navy
2011). The ICMP was developed in direct response to Navy permitting
requirements established through various environmental compliance
efforts. As a framework document, the ICMP applies by regulation to
those activities on ranges and operating areas for which the Navy is
seeking or has sought incidental take authorizations. The ICMP is
intended to coordinate monitoring efforts across all regions and to
allocate the most appropriate level and type of effort based on a set
of standardized research goals, and in acknowledgement of regional
scientific value and resource availability.
The ICMP is focused on Navy training and testing ranges where the
majority of Navy activities occur regularly as those areas have the
greatest potential for being impacted. ONR's Arctic Research Activities
in comparison is a less intensive test with little human activity
present in the Arctic. Human presence is limited to a minimal amount of
days for possible towed source operations and source deployments, in
contrast to the large majority (>95%) of time that the sources will be
left behind and operate autonomously. Therefore, a dedicated monitoring
project is not warranted.
ONR previously conducted experiments in the Beaufort Sea as part of
the Canadian Basin Acoustic Propagation Experiments (CANAPE) project in
2016 and 2017. The goal of the CANAPE project was to determine the
fundamental limits to the use of acoustic methods and signal processing
imposed by ice and ocean processes in the changing Arctic. The CANAPE
project included ten moored receiver arrays (frequencies ranging from
200 Hz to 16 kHz) that recorded 24 hours per day for one year.
Recordings from the CANAPE arrays are currently being compiled and
analyzed by Defense Research and Development Canada, University of
Delaware, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI). Researchers
from WHOI are planning to do marine mammal analysis of the recordings,
including density estimation. ONR is planning to release the marine
mammal data collected from the CANAPE receivers to other researchers.
As part of the planned Arctic Research Activities, ONR is deploying
a moored receiver array similar to those used in CANAPE. The receiver
array would be deployed during the SODA research cruises in 2018 and be
recovered one year later. While a single array is a modest effort
compared to the ten arrays used in CANAPE, it would provide new marine
mammal monitoring data for the 2018-2019 time frame. The array would be
deployed at one of the locations labeled on Figure 1-1 in the IHA
application. There would be no active sources associated with the
array. Once the array is recovered, the recordings would be shared
alongside the CANAPE data.
The Navy is committed to documenting and reporting relevant aspects
of research and testing activities to verify implementation of
mitigation, comply with permits, and improve future environmental
assessments. If any injury or death of a marine mammal is observed
during the 2018-19 Arctic Research Activities, the Navy will
immediately halt the activity and report the incident to the Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding
Coordinator, NMFS. The following information must be provided:
Time, date, and location of the discovery;
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(s) was
discovered (e.g., during use of towed acoustic sources, deployment of
moored or drifting sources, during on-ice experiments, or by transiting
vessel).
ONR will provide NMFS with a draft exercise monitoring report
within 90 days of the conclusion of the planned activity. The draft
exercise monitoring report will include data regarding acoustic source
use and any mammal sightings or detection will be documented. The
report will include the estimated number of marine mammals taken during
the activity. The report will also include information on the number of
shutdowns recorded. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30
days of submission of the draft final report, the draft final report
will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final
report must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
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-
[[Page 48808]]
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
Underwater acoustic transmissions associated with the Arctic
Research Activities, as outlined previously, have the potential to
result in Level B harassment of beluga whales, ringed seals, and
bearded seals in the form of TTS and behavioral disturbance. No serious
injury, mortality, or Level A harassment are anticipated to result from
this activity.
Minimal takes of marine mammals by Level B harassment would be due
to TTS since the range to TTS effects is small at only 50 m or less
while the behavioral effects range is significantly larger extending up
to 20 km (Table 4). TTS is a temporary impairment of hearing and can
last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many
cases, however, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to
the sound ends. Though TTS may occur in a single ringed seal, the
overall fitness of the individual seal is unlikely to be affected and
negative impacts to the entire stock of ringed seals are not
anticipated.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment could
include alteration of dive behavior, alteration of foraging behavior,
effects to breathing rates, interference with or alteration of
vocalization, avoidance, and flight. More severe behavioral responses
are not anticipated due to the localized, intermittent use of active
acoustic sources. Most likely, individuals will simply be temporarily
displaced by moving away from the sound source. As described previously
in the behavioral effects section, seals exposed to non-impulsive
sources with a received sound pressure level within the range of
calculated exposures (142-193 dB re 1 [micro]Pa), have been shown to
change their behavior by modifying diving activity and avoidance of the
sound source (G[ouml]tz et al., 2010; Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Although
a minor change to a behavior may occur as a result of exposure to the
sound sources associated with the planned action, these changes would
be within the normal range of behaviors for the animal (e.g., the use
of a breathing hole further from the source, rather than one closer to
the source, would be within the normal range of behavior). Thus, even
repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of the overall stock
is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness
for the affected individuals, and would not result in any adverse
impact to the stock as a whole.
The project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on
marine mammal habitat. While the activities may cause some fish to
leave the area of disturbance, temporarily impacting marine mammals'
foraging opportunities, this would encompass a relatively small area of
habitat leaving large areas of existing fish and marine mammal foraging
habitat unaffected. Icebreaking may temporarily affect the availability
of pack ice for seals to haul out but the proportion of ice disturbed
is small relative to the overall amount of available ice habitat.
Icebreaking will not occur during the time of year when ringed seals
are expected to be within subnivean lairs or pupping (Chapskii 1940;
McLaren 1958; Smith and Stirling 1975). As such, the impacts to marine
mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term
negative consequences.
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 injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
Behavioral Impacts will be limited to Level B harassment
of a relatively minor nature;
Minimal takes by Level B harassment will be due to TTS;
and
There will be no permanent or significant loss or
modification of marine mammal prey or habitat.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned
activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal
species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
Impacts to subsistence uses of marine mammals resulting from the
planned action are not anticipated. The closest active acoustic source
within the study area is approximately 141 mi (227 km) from land,
outside of known subsistence use areas. Based on this information, NMFS
has determined that there will be no unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses from ONR's planned activities.
National Environmental Policy Act
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published
by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the
Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental
Assessment (EA/OEA) to consider the direct, indirect and cumulative
effects to the human environment resulting from the Arctic Research
Activities project. NMFS made the Navy's EA/OEA available to the public
for review and comment, concurrently with the publication of the
proposed IHA, on the NMFS website (at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities), in relation to its suitability for
adoption by NMFS in order to assess the impacts to the human
environment of issuance of an IHA to ONR. Also in compliance with NEPA
and the CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA Administrative Order 216-6,
NMFS has reviewed the Navy's EA/OEA, determined it to be sufficient,
and adopted that EA/OEA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) on September 20, 2018.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes,
funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To
ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults
internally, in this case with the NMFS Alaska Regional Office (AKR)
whenever we propose to
[[Page 48809]]
authorize take for endangered or threatened species.
The AKR issued a Biological Opinion on September 7, 2018, which
concluded that ONR's Arctic Research Activities and NMFS's issuance of
an IHA for those activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the Beringia DPS bearded seal or Arctic ringed seal or
adversely modify any designated critical habitat.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the
U.S. Navy's ONR for the Arctic Research Activities in the Beaufort and
Chukchi Seas from September 20, 2018, through September 19, 2019,
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
Dated: September 24, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-21070 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
