Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Office of Naval Research's Arctic Research Activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (Year 4), 47065-47087 [2021-18070]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
Defining Fishery Ecosystem Issues,
review indicators and data
visualization, and discuss ETC
recommendations.
The ETC will review Case Studies and
Lessons Learned from other FEP efforts
and provide recommendations. They
will receive an Update on Stakeholder
Mapping, Engagement and Mental
Modelling and receive a Status Update
on the Council Coordination Committee
(CCC) Subcommittee on Area-Based
Management; and will then provide
recommendations.
The ETC will receive public
comment; and discuss any Other
Business items.
—Meeting Adjourns
The meeting will be held in-person
and via webinar (hybrid). You may
register for the webinar by visiting
www.gulfcouncil.org and clicking on the
Ecosystem Technical Committee
meeting on the calendar.
The Agenda is subject to change, and
the latest version along with other
meeting materials will be posted on
www.gulfcouncil.org as they become
available.
Although other non-emergency issues
not on the agenda may come before the
Technical Committee for discussion, in
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, those issues may not be the subject
of formal action during this meeting.
Actions of the Technical Committee will
be restricted to those issues specifically
identified in the agenda and any issues
arising after publication of this notice
that require emergency action under
Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, provided the public has been
notified of the Council’s intent to takeaction to address the emergency.
Special Accommodations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
The meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aid should be directed to
Kathy Pereira, (813) 348–1630, at least
5 days prior to the meeting date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: August 18, 2021.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–17993 Filed 8–20–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XB345]
New England Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
The New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) is
scheduling a public meeting of its
Monkfish Committee via webinar to
consider actions affecting New England
fisheries in the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ). Recommendations from this
group will be brought to the full Council
for formal consideration and action, if
appropriate.
SUMMARY:
This webinar will be held on
Thursday, September 9, 2021, at 9 a.m.
Webinar registration URL information:
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/
register/5823477991354445582.
ADDRESSES: Council address: New
England Fishery Management Council,
50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport,
MA 01950.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director,
New England Fishery Management
Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Agenda
The Monkfish Committee will receive
a presentation on analyses related to the
Council’s 2021 Monkfish Priority to
‘‘Complete work recommended by the
Council in June 2020 for including the
2019 discard information in the analysis
of discard estimation methods
undertaken in 2020’’. They will discuss
and make recommendations for 2022
Council monkfish management
priorities. Other business will be
discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained on the agenda may come
before this Council for discussion, those
issues may not be the subject of formal
action during this meeting. Council
action will be restricted to those issues
specifically listed in this notice and any
issues arising after publication of this
notice that require emergency action
under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided the public has
been notified of the Council’s intent to
take final action to address the
emergency. The public also should be
aware that the meeting will be recorded.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47065
Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy
of the recording is available upon
request.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at
(978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to
the meeting date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: August 18, 2021.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–17992 Filed 8–20–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XB239]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to the Office of
Naval Research’s Arctic Research
Activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi
Seas (Year 4)
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments on proposed authorization
and possible renewal.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from Office of Naval Research (ONR) for
authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to Arctic Research Activities
in the Beaufort Sea and eastern Chukchi
Sea. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to
issue an incidental harassment
authorization (IHA) to incidentally take
marine mammals during the specified
activities. NMFS is also requesting
comments on a possible one-time, oneyear renewal that could be issued under
certain circumstances and if all
requirements are met, as described in
Request for Public Comments at the end
of this notice. NMFS will consider
public comments prior to making any
final decision on the issuance of the
requested MMPA authorizations and
agency responses will be summarized in
the final notice of our decision. ONR’s
activities are considered military
readiness activities pursuant to the
MMPA, as amended by the National
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
47066
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004 (NDAA).
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than September 22,
2021.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service and should be
submitted via email to ITP.Potlock@
noaa.gov.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible
for comments sent by any other method,
to any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period. Comments, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 25megabyte file size. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted online at
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without
change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kelsey Potlock, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Electronic copies of the 2021–2022 IHA
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 United States (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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
taking will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock(s) and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
taking for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe
the permissible methods of taking and
other ‘‘means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact’’ on the
affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses
(referred to in shorthand as
‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of the takings are set forth.
The 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 is
being requested addressed here qualifies
as a military readiness activity. The
definitions of all applicable MMPA
statutory terms cited above are included
in the relevant sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must review our
proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
IHA) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
In 2018, the U.S. Navy prepared an
Overseas Environmental Assessment
(OEA; referred to as an EA in this
document) analyzing the project. Prior
to issuing the IHA for the first year of
this project, we reviewed the 2018 EA
and the public comments received,
determined that a separate NEPA
analysis was not necessary, and
subsequently adopted the document and
issued our own Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) in support
of the issuance of an IHA (83 FR 48799;
September 27, 2018).
In 2019, the U.S. Navy prepared a
supplemental EA. Prior to issuing the
IHA in 2019, we reviewed the
supplemental EA and the public
comments received, determined that a
separate NEPA analysis was not
necessary, and subsequently adopted
the document and issued our own
FONSI in support of the issuance of an
IHA (84 FR 50007; September 24, 2019).
In 2020, the Navy submitted a request
for a renewal of the 2019 IHA. Prior to
issuing the renewal IHA, NMFS
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reviewed ONR’s application and
determined that the proposed action
was identical to that considered in the
previous IHA. Because no significantly
new circumstances or information
relevant to any environmental concerns
had been identified, NMFS determined
that the preparation of a new or
supplemental NEPA document was not
necessary and relied on the supplement
EA and FONSI from 2019 when issuing
the renewal IHA in 2020 (85 FR 41560;
July 10, 2020).
For this proposed action, NMFS plans
to adopt the Navy’s 2021 supplemental
EA provided our independent
evaluation of the document finds that it
includes adequate information
analyzing the effects on the human
environment of issuing the IHA. The
Navy’s supplemental EA is available at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizations-militaryreadiness-activities.
We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process
or making a final decision on the IHA
request.
Summary of Request
On June 4, 2021, NMFS received a
request from ONR for an IHA to take
marine mammals incidental to Arctic
Research Activities in the Beaufort and
eastern Chukchi Seas. ONR’s 2021–2022
IHA application was deemed adequate
and complete on August 4, 2021. ONR’s
request is for take of beluga whales
(Delphinapterus leucas; two stocks) 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 proposed IHA would cover the
fourth year of a larger project for which
ONR obtained prior IHAs (83 FR 48799,
September 27, 2018; 84 FR 50007,
September 24, 2019; 85 FR 53333,
August 28, 2020) and may request take
authorization for subsequent facets of
the overall project. This IHA would be
valid for a period of one year from the
date of issuance (early October 2021 to
early October 2022). The larger project
involves several scientific objectives
that support the Arctic and Global
Prediction Program, as well as the
Ocean Acoustic Program and the Naval
Research Laboratory, for which ONR is
the parent command. ONR has
complied with all the requirements (e.g.,
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of
the previous IHAs (83 FR 48799,
September 27, 2018; 84 FR 50007,
September 24, 2019; 85 FR 53333,
August 28, 2020).
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
ONR’s Arctic Research Activities
include scientific experiments to be
conducted in support of the programs
named above. Specifically, the project
includes the Arctic Mobile Observing
System (AMOS), Ocean Acoustics field
work, and Naval Research Laboratory
(NRL) experiments in the Beaufort and
Chukchi Seas. Project activities involve
acoustic testing during cruises (two
planned) and a multi-frequency
navigation system concept test using
left-behind active acoustic sources.
More specifically, these experiments
involve the deployment of moored,
drifting, and ice-tethered active acoustic
sources as well as a towed source (see
details below on the Shallow Water
Integrate Mapping System) from the
Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq and
another vessel, most likely the U.S.
Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) HEALY.
Underwater sound from the acoustic
sources may result in behavioral
harassment of marine mammals.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Dates and Duration
This proposed action would occur
from early October 2021 through early
October 2022. The activities analyzed in
this proposed IHA would begin in early
October 2021, with a tentative sail date
of October 3, 2021 using the R/V
Sikuliaq for the first cruise. During this
first cruise, several acoustic sources
would be deployed from the ship.
Limited at-sea testing of sources would
occur. Around the same time, some of
the sources previously deployed during
past projects would be reactivated.
These sources would stay active for
around two months and then would be
deactivated via satellite. In the spring of
2022, new NRL acoustic sources would
be deployed by aircraft (likely a fixedwing Twin Otter or another single-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
engine aircraft) and subsequently
activated. These would remain active
for approximately five months and then
would be deactivated via satellite.
During the fall of 2022, another research
cruise would begin (likely using the
CGC HEALY). The most likely months
for this cruise would be September or
October 2022.
The cruise utilizing the R/V Sikuliaq
is estimated to consist of approximately
30 days (October 2021—October 2021)
at sea. The second vessel (likely the
CGC HEALY) would operate in the fall
of 2022 for approximately six weeks
within a two-month period (September
or October 2022). However, this
proposed action, if finalized, would
only be valid for a period of one year,
from approximately October 2021–
October 2022.
During the scope of this proposed
project, other activities may occur at
different intervals that would assist
ONR in meeting the scientific objectives
of the various projects discussed above.
However, these activities are designated
as de minimis sources in ONR’s 2021–
2022 IHA application (consistent with
analyses presented in support of
previous Navy ONR IHAs), or would not
produce sounds detectable by marine
mammals (see discussion on de minimis
sources below). These include the
coring of bottom sediments within the
project area, the deployment of weather
balloons, the deployment of on-ice
measurement systems to collect weather
data, the deployment and use of
unmanned aerial systems (UAS), the
mooring and use of fixed receiving
arrays (passive acoustic arrays) and
oceanographic sensors, and the use and
deployment of drifting oceanographic
sensors.
Specific Geographic Region
This proposed action would occur
across the U.S. Exclusive Economic
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47067
Zone (EEZ) in both the Beaufort and
Chukchi Seas, partially in the high seas
north of Alaska, the Global Commons,
and within a part of the Canadian EEZ
(in which the appropriate permits
would be obtained by the Navy). This
proposed project area is further north
from the project area that was
previously considered in the first IHA
(83 FR 48799, September 27, 2018), the
second IHA (84 FR 50007, September
24, 2019), and the subsequent renewal
to the second IHA (85 FR 53333, August
28, 2020). The proposed action would
occur primarily in the Beaufort Sea;
however, the Navy has included the
Chukchi Sea in their 2021–2022 IHA
application and analysis to account for
any drifting of buoys with active
sources.
The study area consists of a deepwater area approximately 110 nautical
miles (nm; 204 kilometers (km)) north of
the Alaska coastline. The total area of
the proposed project site is 294,975
square miles (mi2; 763,981 square
kilometers (km2)). The closest distance
of any leave-behind source (where a
majority of the take associated with this
proposed action could occur) is 240 mi
(386 km) or more from the Alaska
coastline. This is exclusive to any de
minimis sources described below in the
Detailed Description of Specific
Activity. Some other activities, such as
the use of gliders, unmanned undersea
vehicles (UUVs), or some on-site
activities could occur closer to Alaska,
around 110 mi (177 km) from the
coastline; however, little take and
impacts are attributed to these as they
are primarily de minimis acoustic
sources. A map of the proposed project
area and the locations of the moored
and deployed buoys is shown in
Figure 1.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
47068
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
160"0'0"E
110·o·o"E
1so·o·o-
1so·o·o-w
160"0'0-W
140•0-o-w
120·0·0-w 110·0·0-w
100°o'O"W
W"O'O"W
140°0'0-W
150°0'0-W
130"0'0-W
1:12,500,000
ARA Study Area
lll!illllilll
[g
AMOS Mooring Positions
Ct
NRL Drifting Buoys (OCT - DEC 2021)
•
NRL Drifting Buoys (MAR -AUG 2022)
0
Canadian Exclusive
Economic Zone
UUV Operations Area
Nautical Miles
0
100
50
150
200
Kilometers
AF3
F3
0 50 100150200 ·
Date~.14 May 2021 ·l)a1a SOllrce: ESRl;VLIZ, ONR Coordinate S
111:·wos 1984iNorth Pote LAEAAlilska.
Figure 1-- Map of the Proposed Project Location for the Office of Naval Research's
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
The ONR Arctic and Global
Prediction Program supports two major
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
projects: Stratified Ocean Dynamics of
the Arctic (SODA) and AMOS. The
SODA and AMOS projects have been
previously discussed in association with
previously issued IHAs (see 83 FR
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40234, August 14, 2018; 84 FR 37240,
July 31, 2019). However, only activities
relating to the AMOS project will occur
during the period covered by this
proposed action.
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
EN23AU21.003
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Arctic Research Activities from 2021-2022
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
The AMOS project constitutes the
development of a new system involving
very low (35 hertz (Hz)), low (900 Hz),
and mid-frequency transmissions (10
kilohertz (kHz)). The AMOS project
would utilize acoustic sources and
receivers to provide a means of
performing under-ice navigation for
gliders and UUVs. This would allow for
the possibility of year-round scientific
observations of the environment in the
Arctic. As an environment that is
particularly affected by climate change,
year-round observations under a variety
of ice conditions are required to study
the effects of this changing environment
for military readiness, as well as the
implications of environmental change to
humans and animals. Very-low
frequency technology is an important
method of observing ocean warming,
and the continued development of these
types of acoustic sources would allow
for characterization of larger areas. The
technology also has the potential to
allow for development and use of
navigational systems that would not be
heard by some marine mammal species,
and therefore would be less impactful
overall.
Additional leave-behind sources
would be deployed by aircraft and
would support the NRL project for rapid
environmental characterization. This
project would use groups of drifting
buoys with sources and receivers
communicating oceanographic
information to a satellite in near real
time. These sources would employ lowfrequency transmissions only (900 Hz).
NRL currently has four active buoys
covered under the current IHA that is
active until September 13, 2021 (85 FR
53333; August 28, 2020). The proposed
action described herein would allow
ONR to re-activate these buoys for
observation in the far north from
October to December 2021, as well as a
deployment of additional sources to be
active from March to August 2022.
ONR is also supporting a project
called UpTempO that would use two
drifting buoys to observe oceanographic
conditions in the seasonal ice zone.
These buoys would not have any active
acoustic sources and no take is expected
to occur in association with the project.
They would be deployed by ONR during
the October 2021 and fall 2022 cruises.
In contrast to past IHA applications
for ONR Arctic Research Activities,
icebreaking would not occur as part of
this proposed action. The manner of
deployment (by ships, buoys, UUVs, or
other related methods) as well as the
transit of the vessels is not expected to
contribute to take. ONR’s proposed
action would only utilize non-impulsive
acoustic sources, although not all
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
47069
Research Vessels
within the top 328 ft (100 m) of the
water column;
• Three dimensional Sonic
Anemometer, which would measure
wind stress from the foremast of the
ship; and,
• Surface Wave Instrument Float with
Tracking are freely drifting buoys
measuring winds, waves, and other
parameters with deployments spanning
from hours to days.
The R/V Sikuliaq would perform the
research cruise in October 2021, and
conduct testing of acoustic sources
during the cruise, as well as leave
sources behind to operate as a yearround navigation system observation.
The ship to be used in the fall of 2022
is yet to be determined. The most
probable option would be the CGC
HEALY, so that ship is described below.
The R/V Sikuliaq has a maximum
speed of approximately 12 knots with a
cruising speed of 11 knots (University of
Alaska Fairbanks, 2014). The R/V
Sikuliaq is not an ice-breaking ship, but
an ice-strengthened ship. The CGC
HEALY travels at a maximum speed of
17 knots with a cruising speed of 12
knots (United States Coast Guard, 2013),
and a maximum speed of 3 knots when
traveling through 3.5 feet (ft; 1.37 meters
(m)) of sea ice (Murphy, 2010). No
icebreaking activity is anticipated to
occur during this proposed action. Both
vessels would depart from and return to
Nome, Alaska.
The R/V Sikuliaq, CGC HEALY, or
any other vessel operating a research
cruise associated with the proposed
action may perform the following
activities during their research cruises:
• Deployment of moored and/or icetethered passive sensors (oceanographic
measurement devices, acoustic
receivers);
• Deployment of moored and/or icetethered active acoustic sources to
transmit acoustic signals;
• Deployment of unmanned surface,
underwater, and air vehicles;
• Deployment of drifting buoys, with
or without acoustic sources; or,
• Recovery of equipment.
Additional oceanographic
measurements would be made using
ship-based systems, including the
following:
• Modular Microstructure Profiler, a
tethered profiler that would measure
oceanographic parameters within the
top 984 ft (300 m) of the water column;
• Shallow Water Integrate Mapping
System, a winched towed body with a
Conductivity Temperature Depth
sensor, upward and downward looking
Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers
(ADCPs), and a temperature sensor
Moored and Drifting Acoustic Sources
AMOS Project (ONR)—During the
October 2021 cruise, acoustic sources
would be deployed from the ship on
UUVs or drifting buoys. This would be
done for intermittent testing of the
system components. The total amount of
active source testing for ship-deployed
sources used during the cruise would be
120 hours. The testing would take place
near the seven source locations on
Figure 1, with UUVs running tracks
within the designated box. During this
testing, 35 Hz and 900 Hz acoustic
signals, as well as acoustic modems
would be employed.
Up to seven fixed acoustic navigation
sources transmitting at 900 Hz would
remain in place for a year. These
moorings would be anchored on the
seabed and held in the water column
with subsurface buoys. All sources
would be deployed by shipboard
winches, which would lower sources
and receivers in a controlled manner.
Anchors would be steel ‘‘wagon
wheels’’ typically used for this type of
deployment. All navigation sources
would be recovered. The purpose of the
navigation sources is to orient UUVs
and gliders in situations when they are
under ice and cannot communicate with
satellites. For the purposes of this
proposed action, activities potentially
resulting in take would not be included
in the fall 2022 cruise; a subsequent
application would be provided by ONR
depending on the scientific plan
associated with that cruise.
Rapid Environmental
Characterization (NRL)—NRL deployed
six drifting sources under the current
2020 IHA for ONR Arctic Research
Activities (85 FR 53333; August 28,
2020). A maximum of three may still be
available for reactivation in October
2021 and transmission until December
2021. The purpose of these sources is
near-real time environmental
characterization, which is accomplished
by communicating information from the
drifting buoys to a satellite. These buoys
were deployed in the ice (via fixed-wing
aircraft) for purposes of buoy stability,
but eventually drift in open water. An
additional set of five buoys would be
deployed on the ice in March 2022
sources will cause take of marine
mammals. Furthermore, any marine
mammal takes would only arise from
the operation of non-impulsive active
sources.
Below are descriptions of the
equipment and platforms that would be
deployed at different times during the
proposed action.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
47070
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
Table 1. A distinction is made between
sources that would have limited testing
when the ship is on-site, and leave
behind sources that would transmit for
the full year.
potential unauthorized take of marine
mammals), or when they drift outside of
the project location.
The acoustic parameters of sources for
the AMOS and NRL projects discussed
for this proposed action are given in
using fixed- or rotary-wing aircraft and
transmit until August 2022. The sources
can be turned on or off remotely in
accordance with permitting
requirements (i.e., outside of periods
with an active IHA as to not cause
TABLE 1—CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MODELED ACOUSTIC SOURCES USED DURING THE PROPOSED ACTION
AMOS Navigation
Sources (LF) [leave behind].
AMOS Navigation sources
(LF) [on-site; UUV and
ship].
AMOS Navigation sources
(LF) [onsite; buoy].
AMOS VLF Navigation
Sources.
NRL Real-Time Sensing
Sources (2021).
NRL Real-Time Sensing
Sources (2022).
WHOI 2 micromodem (onsite; UUV).
1 dB
Sound
pressure level
(dB re 1 μPa
at 1 m) 1
Frequency
(Hz)
Source name
Pulse
length
(seconds)
Duty cycle
(percent)
Source
type
Usage
900–950
180
30
<1
Moored ................
7 sources transmitting 30
seconds every 4 hours.
900–950
180
30
4
Moving .................
900–950
180
30
<1
Drifting .................
35
190
600
1
Ship-deployed .....
2 sources, transmitting 5
times an hour with 30
sec pulse length.
1 source, transmitting
every 4 hours.
2 times per day.
900–1,000
184
30
<1
Drifting .................
850–1,050
184
60
<1
Drifting .................
8–14 kHz
185
4
10
Moving .................
3 sources transmitting 30
seconds every 6 hours.
5 sources transmitting 1
minute every 8 hours.
Medium duty cycle acoustic communications.
re 1 μPa at 1 m= decibels referenced to 1 micropascal at 1 meter.
= Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
2 WHOI
Activities Not Likely To Result in Take
The following in-water activities have
been determined to be unlikely to result
in take of marine mammals. These
activities are described here but they are
not discussed further in this document.
De minimis Sources—De minimis
sources have the following parameters:
sources and are not anticipated to have
the potential for impacts on marine
mammals or their habitat. Descriptions
of some de minimis sources are
discussed below and in Table 2. More
detailed descriptions of these de
minimis sources can be found in ONR’s
IHA application under Section 1.1.1.2.
Low source levels, narrow beams,
downward directed transmission, short
pulse lengths, frequencies outside
known marine mammal hearing ranges,
or some combination of these factors
(Department of the Navy, 2013b). The
drifting oceanographic sensors
described below use only de minimis
TABLE 2—PARAMETERS FOR DE MINIMIS SOURCES
Source name
PIES .........................
12 ...................................
170–180
0.006
<0.01
45 ........................
ADCP .......................
>200, 150, or 75 ............
190
<0.001
<0.1
2.2 .......................
Chirp sonar ..............
2–16 ...............................
200
0.02
<1
narrow .................
EMATT .....................
700–1,100 Hz and
1100–4,000 Hz.
25–200 ...........................
<150
N/A
25–100
Omni ....................
158–162
<0.001
16
Omni ....................
5–20 ...............................
160
0.004
2
Omni ....................
Coring system ..........
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Sound
pressure
level
(dB re 1 μPa
at 1 m)
Frequency
range
(kHz)
CTD 1 attached
Echosounder.
1 CTD
Pulse
length
(seconds)
Duty
cycle
(percent)
Beamwidth
= Conductivity Temperature Depth.
sediment; not within the water column.
2 Within
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
De minimis
Justification
Extremely low duty
cycle, low source
level, very short
pulse length.
Very low pulse
length, narrow
beam, moderate
source level.
Very short pulse
length, low duty
cycle, narrow
beam width.
Very low source
level.
Very low source
level.2
Very low source
level.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
Drifting Oceanographic Sensors—
Observations of ocean-ice interactions
require the use of sensors that are
moored and embedded in the ice. For
the proposed action, it will not be
required to break ice to do this, as
deployments can be performed in areas
of low ice-coverage or free-floating ice.
Sensors are deployed within a few
dozen meters of each other on the same
ice floe. Three types of sensors would be
used: Autonomous ocean flux buoys,
Integrated Autonomous Drifters, and Ice
Tethered Profilers. The autonomous
ocean flux buoys measure
oceanographic properties just below the
ocean-ice interface. The autonomous
ocean flux buoys would have ADCPs
and temperature chains attached, to
measure temperature, salinity, and other
ocean parameters in the top 20 ft (6 m)
of the water column. The Integrated
Autonomous Drifters would have a long
temperate string extending down to 656
ft (200 m) depth and would incorporate
meteorological sensors, and a
temperature spring to estimate ice
thickness. The Ice Tethered Profilers
would collect information on ocean
temperature, salinity and velocity down
to 820 ft (250 m) depth.
Fifteen autonomous floats (AirLaunched Autonomous Micro Observer)
would be deployed during the proposed
action to measure seasonal evolution of
the ocean temperature and salinity, as
well as currents. They would be
deployed on the eastern edge of the
Chukchi Sea in water less than 3,280 ft
(1,000 m) deep. Three autonomous
floats would act as virtual moorings by
originating on the seafloor, then moving
up the water column to the surface and
returning to the seafloor. The other 12
autonomous floats would sit on the
seafloor and at intervals begin to move
towards the surface. At programmed
intervals, a subset of the floats would
release anchors and begin their profiling
mission. Up to 15 additional floats may
be deployed by ships of opportunity in
the Beaufort Gyre.
The UpTempO project would deploy
two surface buoys. There is a
conductivity-temperature sensor pair
attached to the hull to measure sea
surface temperature and sea surface
salinity.
The drifting oceanographic sensors
described above use only de minimis
sources and are therefore not
anticipated to have the potential for
impacts on marine mammals or their
habitat.
Moored Oceanographic Sensors—
Moored sensors would capture a range
of ice, ocean, and atmospheric
conditions on a year-round basis. These
would be bottom anchored, sub-surface
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
moorings measuring velocity,
temperature, and salinity in the upper
1,640 ft (500 m) of the water column.
The moorings also collect highresolution acoustic measurements of the
ice using the ice profilers described
above. Ice velocity and surface waves
would be measured by 500 kHz multibeam sonars.
Additionally, Beaufort Gyre
Exploration Project moorings BGOS–A
and BGOS–B would be augmented with
McLane Moored Profilers. BGOS–A and
BGOS–B would be placed on existing
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
(WHOI) moorings. The two BGOS
moorings would provide measurements
near the Northwind Ridge, with
considerable latitudinal distribution.
Existing deployments of Nortek
Acoustic Wave and Current Profilers on
BGOS–A and BGOS–B would also be
continued as part of the proposed
action.
The moored oceanographic sensors
described above use only de minimis
sources and are therefore not
anticipated to have the potential for
impacts on marine mammals or their
habitat.
Fixed Receiving Arrays—Horizontal
and vertical arrays may be used to
receive acoustic signals, if they are
available. Examples are the Single
Hydrophone Recording Units and
Autonomous Multichannel Acoustic
Recorder. Such arrays would be moored
to the seafloor and remain in place
throughout the activity.
These are passive acoustic sensors
and therefore are not anticipated to have
the potential for impacts on marine
mammals or their habitat.
Activities Involving Aircraft and
Unmanned Air Vehicles—The
deployment of the NRL sources in 2022
would be accomplished by using aircraft
that would land on the ice. Flights
would be conducted with a Twin Otter
aircraft or a single engine alternative
that would be quieter. Flights would
transit at 1,500 ft or 10,000 ft (457 m or
3,048 m) above sea level. Twin Otters
have flight speeds of 80 to 160 knots
(148 to 296 kilometers per hour (kph)),
a typical survey speed of 90 to 110 knots
(167 to 204 kph), 66 ft (20 m) wingspan,
and a total length of 26 ft (8 m) (U.S.
Department of Commerce and National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, 2015). At a distance of
2,152 ft (656 m) away, the received
pressure levels of a Twin Otter range
from 80 to 98.5 A-weighted decibels
(expression of the relative loudness in
the air as perceived by the human ear)
and frequency levels ranging from 20 Hz
to 10 kHz, though they are more
typically in the 500 Hz range (Metzger,
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47071
1995). Once on the floating ice, the team
would drill holes with up to a 10-inch
(in; 25.4 centimeters (cm)) diameter to
deploy scientific equipment (e.g.,
source, hydrophone array, EMATT) into
the water column.
The proposed action includes the use
of an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS).
The UAS would be utilized for aid of
navigation and to confirm and study ice
cover. The UAS would be deployed
ahead of the ship to ensure a clear
passage for the vessel and would have
a maximum flight time of 20 minutes.
The UAS would not be used for marine
mammal observations or hover close to
the ice near marine mammals. There
would be no videotaping or picture
taking of marine mammals as part of
this proposed action. The UAS that
would be used during the proposed
action is a small commercially available
system that generates low sound levels
and is smaller than military grade
systems. The dimensions of the
proposed UAS are, 11.4 in, (29 cm) by
11.4 in (29 cm) by 7.1 in (18 cm) and
weighs only 2.5 pounds (lbs.; 1.13
kilograms (kg)). The UAS can operate up
to 984 ft (300 m) away, which would
keep the device in close proximity to
the ship. The planned operation of the
UAS is to fly it vertically above the ship
to examine the ice conditions in the
path of the ship and around the area
(i.e., not flown at low altitudes around
the vessel). Currently acoustic
parameters are not available for the
proposed models of UASs to be utilized
in the proposed action. As stated above
these systems are very small and are
similar to a remote control helicopter. It
is likely marine mammals would not
hear the device since the noise
generated would likely not be audible
from greater than 5 ft (1.5 m) away
(Christiansen et al., 2016).
All aircraft (manned and unmanned)
would be required to maintain a
minimum separation distance of 1,000 ft
(305 m) from any pinnipeds hauled out
on the ice. Therefore, no take of marine
mammals is anticipated from these
activities.
On-Ice Measurement Systems—On-ice
measurement systems would be used to
collect weather data. These would
include an Autonomous Weather
Station and an Ice Mass Balance Buoy.
The Autonomous Weather Station
would be deployed on a tripod; the
tripod has insulated foot platforms that
are frozen into the ice. The system
would consist of an anemometer,
humidity sensor, and pressure sensor.
The Autonomous Weather Station also
includes an altimeter that is de minimis
due to its very high frequency (200
kHz). The Ice Mass Balance Buoy is a 20
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
47072
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
ft (6 m) sensor string, which is deployed
through a 2 in (5 cm) hole drilled into
the ice. The string is weighted by a 2.2
lbs. (1 kg) lead weight, and is supported
by a tripod. The buoy contains a de
minimis 200 kHz altimeter and snow
depth sensor. Autonomous Weather
Stations and Ice Mass Balance Buoys
will be deployed, and will drift with the
ice, making measurements, until their
host ice floes melt, thus destroying the
instruments (likely in summer, roughly
one year after deployment). After the
on-ice instruments are destroyed they
cannot be recovered, and would sink to
the seafloor as their host ice floes
melted.
All personnel conducting experiments
on the ice would be required to
maintain a minimum separation
distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from any
pinnipeds hauled out on the ice.
Therefore, no take of marine mammals
is anticipated from these activities.
Bottom Interaction Systems—Coring
of bottom sediment could occur
anywhere within the project location to
obtain a more complete understanding
of the Arctic environment. Coring
equipment would take up to 50 samples
of the ocean bottom in the study
location annually. The samples would
be roughly cylindrical, with a 3.1 in (8
cm) diameter cross-section area; the
corings would be between 10 and 20 ft
(3 and 6 m) long. Coring would only
occur during research cruises, during
the summer or early fall. The coring
equipment moves very slowly through
the muddy bottom, at a speed of
approximately 1 m per hour, and would
not create any detectable acoustic signal
within the water column, though very
low levels of acoustic transmissions
may be created in the mud (refer back
to Table 2). The source levels of the
coring equipment are so low that take of
marine mammals from acoustic
exposure is not considered a potential
outcome of this activity.
Weather Balloons—To support
weather observations, up to forty Kevlar
or latex balloons would be launched per
year for the duration of the proposed
actions. These balloons and associated
radiosondes (a sensor package that is
suspended below the balloon) are
similar to those that have been deployed
by the National Weather Service since
the late 1930s. When released, the
balloon is approximately 5 to 6 ft (1.5
to 1.8 m) in diameter and gradually
expands as it rises owing to the decrease
in air pressure. When the balloon
reaches a diameter of 13 to 22 ft (4 to
7 m), it bursts and a parachute is
deployed to slow the descent of the
associated radiosonde. Weather balloons
would not be recovered.
The deployment of weather balloons
does not include the use of active
acoustics and therefore, is not
anticipated to have the potential for
impacts on marine mammals or their
habitat.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see
Proposed Mitigation and Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the 2021–2022
IHA application summarize available
information regarding status and trends,
distribution and habitat preferences,
and behavior and life history, of the
potentially affected species. Additional
information regarding population trends
and threats may be found in NMFS’s
Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
marine-mammal-stock-assessments)
and more general information about
these species (e.g., physical and
behavioral descriptions) may be found
on NMFS’s website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 3 lists all species or stocks for
which take is expected and proposed to
be authorized for this action, and
summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including
regulatory status under the MMPA and
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
potential biological removal (PBR),
where known. For taxonomy, we follow
Committee on Taxonomy (2021). PBR is
defined by the MMPA as the maximum
number of animals, not including
natural mortalities, that may be removed
from a marine mammal stock while
allowing that stock to reach or maintain
its optimum sustainable population (as
described in NMFS’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 2020 Alaska SARs (Muto et al.,
2021). All values presented in Table 3
are the most recent available at the time
of publication and are available in the
2020 SARs (Muto et al., 2021) and
available online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments.
TABLE 3—SPECIES EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA
Common name
Scientific name
Stock
I
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
I
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance
survey) 2
Annual
M/SI 3
PBR
I
I
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacean—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Monodontidae:
Beluga whale ......................
Delphinapterus leucas ..............
Beaufort Sea 4 ...........................
Beluga whale ......................
Delphinapterus leucas ..............
Eastern Chukchi .......................
-,-; N
-,-; N
I
39,258 (0.229, N/A,
1992).
13,305 (0.51, 8,875,
2012).
I
4 UND
I
178
102
I
55
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Ringed seal 5 .......................
Pusa hispida hispida .................
Arctic .........................................
T, D; Y
171,418 ...........................
1 Endangered
5,100
6,459
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
47073
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
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 Abundance and associated values for ringed seals are for the U.S. population in the Bering Sea only.
Activities conducted during this
proposed action are expected to cause
harassment, as defined by the MMPA as
it applies to military readiness, to the
beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas; of
the Beaufort and eastern Chukchi Sea
stocks) and the ringed seal (Pusa
hispida hispida). As indicated above in
Table 3, both species (with three
managed stocks) temporally and
spatially co-occur with the activity to
the degree that take is reasonably likely
to occur, and we have proposed
authorizing it. While bowhead whales
(Balaena mysticetus), gray whales
(Eschrichtius robustus), bearded seals
(Erignathus barbatus), spotted seals
(Phoca largha), and ribbon seals
(Histiophoca fasciata) have been
documented in the area, the temporal
and spatial occurrence of these species
is such that take is not expected to
occur, and they are not discussed
further beyond the explanation
provided here.
Due to the location of the study area
(i.e., northern offshore, deep water),
there were no calculated exposures for
the bowhead whale, gray whale, spotted
seal, bearded seal, and ribbon seal from
quantitative modeling of acoustic
sources. Bowhead and gray whales are
closely associated with the shallow
waters of the continental shelf in the
Beaufort Sea and are unlikely to be
exposed to acoustic harassment
(Carretta et al., 2017; Muto et al., 2018).
Similarly, spotted seals tend to prefer
pack ice areas with water depths less
than 200 m during the spring and move
to coastal habitats in the summer and
fall, found as far north as 69–72° N
(Muto et al., 2018). Although the study
area includes some waters south of 72°
N, the acoustic sources with the
potential to result in take of marine
mammals are not found below that
latitude and spotted seals are not
expected to be exposed. Ribbon seals are
found year-round in the Bering Sea but
may seasonally range into the Chukchi
Sea (Muto et al., 2018). The proposed
action occurs primarily in the Beaufort
Sea, outside of the core range of ribbon
seals, thus ribbon seals are not expected
to be behaviorally harassed. Narwhals
(Monodon monoceros) are considered
extralimital in the project area and are
not expected to be encountered. As no
harassment is expected of the bowhead
whale, gray whale, spotted seal, bearded
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
seal, narwhal, and ribbon seal, these
species will not be discussed further in
this proposed notice.
Ringed seals lack a reliable
population estimate for the entire stock.
Conn et al., (2014) calculated an
abundance estimate of 171,418 ringed
seals (95 percent CI: 141,588–201,090)
using a sub-sample of data collected
from the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea
in 2012. Researchers plan to combine
these results with those from spring
surveys of the Chukchi and Beaufort
Seas once complete. During the summer
months, ringed seals forage along ice
edges or in open water areas of high
productivity and have been observed in
the northern Beaufort Sea during
summer months (Harwood and Stirling,
1992; Freitas et al., 2008; Kelly et al.,
2010a; Harwood et al., 2015). This open
water movement becomes limited with
the onset of ice in the fall forcing the
seals to move west and south as ice
packs advance, dispersing the animals
throughout the Chukchi and Bering
Seas, with only a portion remaining in
the Beaufort Sea (Frost and Lowry,
1984; Crawford et al., 2012; Harwood et
al., 2012). In a telemetry study, ringed
seals tagged showed preference for
Continental Shelf waters over 96
percent of tracking days, where nearcontinuous foraging activities were
noted (Von Duyke et al., 2020).
The Navy has utilized Kelly et al.,
(2010a) in their IHA application to
determine the abundance estimate for
ringed seals, which is based on surveys
conducted by Bengtson et al., (2005)
and Frost et al., (2004) in the 1990s and
2000 (300,000 ringed seals). NMFS 2013
Alaska SAR (Allen & Angliss, 2013) has
noted that this value is likely an
underestimate as it is based on surveys
that are older than eight years and that
make up a portion of the known range
of the ringed seal. Conn et al., (2014)
determined a different abundance
estimate from Kelly et al., 2010a
(171,418), which is noted in NMFS’s
2020 Alaska SAR (Muto et al., 2021) to
also be inaccurate due to the lack of
accounting for availability bias for seals
that were in the water at the time of the
surveys as well as not including seals
located within the shorefast ice zone.
Muto et al., (2021) notes that an accurate
population estimate is likely larger by a
factor of two or more. However, no
accepted population estimate is present
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
for Arctic ringed seals. Therefore, in the
interest in making conservative
decisions, NMFS will adopt the Conn et
al., (2014) abundance estimate (171,418)
for further analyses and discussions on
this proposed action by ONR.
In addition, the polar bear (Ursus
maritimus) and Pacific walrus
(Odobenus rosmarus) may be found
both on sea ice and/or in the water
within the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi
Sea. These species are managed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and are not considered further in this
document.
Beluga Whale
Beluga whales are distributed
throughout seasonally ice-covered arctic
and subarctic waters of the Northern
Hemisphere (Gurevich, 1980), and are
closely associated with open leads and
polynyas in ice-covered regions
(Hazard, 1988). Belugas are both
migratory and residential (nonmigratory), depending on the
population. Seasonal distribution is
affected by ice cover, tidal conditions,
access to prey, temperature, and human
interaction (Frost et al., 1985).
There are five beluga stocks
recognized within U.S. waters: Cook
Inlet, Bristol Bay, eastern Bering Sea,
eastern Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea.
Two stocks, the Beaufort Sea and
eastern Chukchi Sea stocks, have the
potential to occur in the location of this
proposed action.
There are two migration areas used by
Beaufort Sea belugas that overlap the
proposed project site. One, located in
the Eastern Chukchi and Alaskan
Beaufort Sea, is a migration area in use
from April to May. The second, located
in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, is used by
migrating belugas from September to
October (Calambokidis et al., 2015).
During the winter, they can be found
foraging in offshore waters associated
with pack ice. When the sea ice melts
in summer, they move to warmer river
estuaries and coastal areas for molting
and calving (Muto et al., 2017). Annual
migrations can span over thousands of
kilometers. The residential Beaufort Sea
populations participate in short distance
movements within their range
throughout the year. Based on satellite
tags (Suydam et al., 2001) there is some
overlap in distribution with the eastern
Chukchi Sea beluga whale stock.
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
47074
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
During the winter, eastern Chukchi
Sea belugas occur in offshore waters
associated with pack ice. In the spring,
they migrate to warmer coastal
estuaries, bays, and rivers where they
may molt (Finley, 1982; Suydam, 2009),
give birth to, and care for their calves
(Sergeant and Brodie, 1969). Eastern
Chukchi Sea belugas move into coastal
areas, including Kasegaluk Lagoon
(outside of the proposed project site), in
late June and animals are sighted in the
area until about mid-July (Frost and
Lowry, 1990; Frost et al., 1993). Satellite
tags attached to eastern Chukchi Sea
belugas captured in Kasegaluk Lagoon
during the summer showed these
whales traveled 593 nm (1,100 km)
north of the Alaska coastline, into the
Canadian Beaufort Sea within three
months (Suydam et al., 2001). Satellite
telemetry data from 23 whales tagged
during 1998–2007 suggest variation in
movement patterns for different age
and/or sex classes during JulySeptember (Suydam et al., 2005). Adult
males used deeper waters and remained
there for the duration of the summer; all
belugas that moved into the Arctic
Ocean (north of 75° N) were males, and
males traveled through 90 percent pack
ice cover to reach deeper waters in the
Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean (79–80°
N) by late July/early August. Adult and
immature female belugas remained at or
near the shelf break in the south through
the eastern Bering Strait into the
northern Bering Sea, remaining north of
Saint Lawrence Island over the winter.
A whale tagged in the eastern Chukchi
Sea in 2007 overwintered in the waters
north of Saint Lawrence Island during
2007/2008 and moved to near King
Island in April and May before moving
north through the Bering Strait in late
May and early June (Suydam, 2009).
Ringed Seal
Ringed seals are the most common
pinniped in the proposed project site
and have wide distribution in
seasonally and permanently ice-covered
waters of the Northern Hemisphere
(North Atlantic Marine Mammal
Commission, 2004). Throughout their
range, ringed seals have an affinity for
ice-covered waters and are well adapted
to occupying both shore-fast and pack
ice (Kelly, 1988c). Ringed seals can be
found further offshore than other
pinnipeds since they can maintain
breathing holes in ice thickness greater
than 6.6 ft (2 m) (Smith and Stirling,
1975). The breathing holes are
maintained by ringed seals using their
sharp teeth and claws found on their
fore flippers. They remain in contact
with ice most of the year and use it as
a platform for molting in late spring to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
early summer, for pupping and nursing
in late winter to early spring, and for
resting at other times of the year (Muto
et al., 2017).
Ringed seals have at least two distinct
types of subnivean lairs: Haulout lairs
and birthing lairs (Smith and Stirling,
1975). Haul-out lairs are typically
single-chambered and offer protection
from predators and cold weather.
Birthing lairs are larger, multichambered areas that are used for
pupping in addition to protection from
predators. Ringed seals pup on both
land-fast ice as well as stable pack ice.
Lentfer (1972) found that ringed seals
north of Utqiag˙vik, Alaska (formally
known as Barrow, Alaska) build their
subnivean lairs on the pack ice near
pressure ridges. Since subnivean lairs
were found north of Utqiag˙vik, Alaska,
in pack ice, they are also assumed to be
found within the sea ice in the proposed
project site. Ringed seals excavate
subnivean lairs in drifts over their
breathing holes in the ice, in which they
rest, give birth, and nurse their pups for
5–9 weeks during late winter and spring
(Chapskii, 1940; McLaren, 1958; Smith
and Stirling, 1975). Ringed seals require
snow depths of at least 20–26 in (50–65
cm) for functional birth lairs (Kelly,
1988b; Lydersen, 1998; Lydersen and
Gjertz, 1986; Smith and Stirling, 1975).
Such depths typically are found only
where 8–12 in (20–30 cm) or more of
snow has accumulated on flat ice and
then drifted along pressure ridges or ice
hummocks (Hammill, 2008; Lydersen et
al., 1990; Lydersen and Ryg, 1991;
Smith and Lydersen, 1991). Ringed seals
are born beginning in March, but the
majority of births occur in early April.
About a month after parturition, mating
begins in late April and early May.
In Alaskan waters, during winter and
early spring when sea ice is at its
maximum extent, ringed seals are
abundant in the northern Bering Sea,
Norton and Kotzebue Sounds, and
throughout the Chukchi and Beaufort
seas (Frost, 1985; Kelly, 1988c). Passive
acoustic monitoring of ringed seals from
a high frequency recording package
deployed at a depth of 787 ft (240 m) in
the Chukchi Sea 65 nmi (120 km) northnorthwest of Utqiag˙vik, Alaska detected
ringed seals in the area between midDecember and late May over the 4 year
study (Jones et al., 2014). With the onset
of fall freeze, ringed seal movements
become increasingly restricted and seals
will either move west and south with
the advancing ice pack with many seals
dispersing throughout the Chukchi and
Bering Seas, or remaining in the
Beaufort Sea (Crawford et al., 2012;
Frost and Lowry, 1984; Harwood et al.,
2012). Kelly et al., (2010a) tracked home
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ranges for ringed seals in the subnivean
period (using shore-fast ice); the size of
the home ranges varied from less than
1 up to 279 km2 (median is 0.62 km2 for
adult males and 0.65 km2 for adult
females). Most (94 percent) of the home
ranges were less than 3 km2 during the
subnivean period (Kelly et al., 2010a).
Near large polynyas, ringed seals
maintain ranges, up to 7,000 km2 during
winter and 2,100 km2 during spring
(Born et al., 2004). Some adult ringed
seals return to the same small home
ranges they occupied during the
previous winter (Kelly et al., 2010a).
The size of winter home ranges can vary
by up to a factor of 10 depending on the
amount of fast ice; seal movements were
more restricted during winters with
extensive fast ice, and were much less
restricted where fast ice did not form at
high levels (Harwood et al., 2015).
Most taxonomists recognize five
subspecies of ringed seals. The Arctic
ringed seal subspecies occurs in the
Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea and is the
only stock that occurs in U.S. waters
(referred to as the Arctic stock). NMFS
listed the Arctic ringed seal subspecies
as threatened under the ESA on
December 28, 2012 (77 FR 76706),
primarily due to anticipated loss of sea
ice through the end of the 21st century.
Ice Seal Unusual Mortality Event (UME)
Since June 1, 2018, elevated
strandings of ringed seals, bearded seals,
spotted seals, and several unidentified
seals have occurred in the Bering and
Chukchi Seas. The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), as of September 2019, have
declared this event an Unusual
Mortality Event (UME). A UME is
defined under the MMPA as a stranding
that is unexpected, involves a
significant die-off of any marine
mammal population, and demands
immediate response. From June 1, 2018
to February 9, 2020, there have been 278
dead seals reported, with 112 stranding
in 2018, 165 in 2019, and one in 2020,
which is nearly five times the average
number of strandings of about 29 seals
annually. All age classes of seals have
been reported stranded, and a subset of
seals have been sampled for genetics
and harmful algal bloom exposure, with
a few having histopathology collected.
Results are pending, and the cause of
the UME remains unknown.
There was a previous UME involving
ice seals from 2011 to 2016, which was
most active in 2011–2012. A minimum
of 657 seals were affected. The UME
investigation determined that some of
the clinical signs were due to an
abnormal molt, but a definitive cause of
death for the UME was never
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
determined. The number of stranded ice
seals involved in this UME, and their
physical characteristics, is not at all
similar to the 2011–2016 UME, as the
seals in 2018–2020 have not been
exhibiting hair loss or skin lesions,
which were a primary finding in the
2011–2016 UME. The investigation into
the cause of the most recent UME is
ongoing.
As of July 2021, the current number
of animals counted as part of the UME
is 316. However, while no ice seals have
stranded in 2021, at the time of this
publication, the UME is still considered
ongoing. More detailed information is
available at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-life-distress/2018-2019-ice-sealunusual-mortality-event-alaska.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to
anthropogenic sound can have
deleterious effects. To appropriately
assess the potential effects of exposure
to sound, it is necessary to understand
the frequency ranges marine mammals
are able to hear. Current data indicate
that not all marine mammal species
have equal hearing capabilities (e.g.,
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008).
To reflect this, Southall et al., (2007)
recommended that marine mammals be
divided into functional hearing groups
based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available
behavioral response data, audiograms
47075
derived using auditory evoked potential
techniques, anatomical modeling, and
other data. Note that no direct
measurements of hearing ability have
been successfully completed for
mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018)
described generalized hearing ranges for
these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen
based on the approximately 65 decibel
(dB) threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the
exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower
bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from
Southall et al., (2007) retained. Marine
mammal hearing groups and their
associated hearing ranges are provided
in Table 4.
TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS (NMFS, 2018)
Generalized hearing
range *
Hearing group
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) .....................................................................................................................
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ...........................................
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L.
australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ...................................................................................................................
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) ..............................................................................................
7 Hz to 35 kHz.
150 Hz to 160 kHz.
275 Hz to 160 kHz.
50 Hz to 86 kHz.
60 Hz to 39 kHz.
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’
hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram,
with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
The pinniped functional hearing
group was modified from Southall et al.,
(2007) on the basis of data indicating
that phocid species have consistently
demonstrated an extended frequency
range of hearing compared to otariids,
especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemila¨ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al.,
2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).
For more detail concerning these
groups and associated frequency ranges,
please see NMFS (2018) for a review of
available information. Two marine
mammal species (one cetacean
(odontocete species) and one pinniped
(phocid species)) have the reasonable
potential to co-occur with the proposed
survey activities. Beluga whales are
classified as mid-frequency odontocete
cetaceans. Please refer back to Table 3.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
This section includes a summary and
discussion of the ways that components
of the specified activity may impact
marine mammals and their habitat. The
Estimated Take section later in this
document includes a quantitative
analysis of the number of individuals
that are expected to be taken by this
activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated
Take section, and the Proposed
Mitigation section, to draw conclusions
regarding the likely impacts of these
activities on the reproductive success or
survivorship of individuals and how
those impacts on individuals are likely
to impact marine mammal species or
stocks.
Description of Sound Sources
Here, we first provide background
information on marine mammal hearing
before discussing the potential effects of
the use of active acoustic sources on
marine mammals.
Sound travels in waves, the basic
components of which are frequency,
wavelength, velocity, and amplitude.
Frequency is the number of pressure
waves that pass by a reference point per
unit of time and is measured in Hz or
cycles per second. Wavelength is the
distance between two peaks of a sound
wave; lower frequency sounds have
longer wavelengths than higher
frequency sounds and attenuate
(decrease) more rapidly in shallower
water. Amplitude is the height of the
sound pressure wave or the ‘loudness’
of a sound and is typically measured
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
using the dB scale. A dB is the ratio
between a measured pressure (with
sound) and a reference pressure (sound
at a constant pressure, established by
scientific standards). It is a logarithmic
unit that accounts for large variations in
amplitude; therefore, relatively small
changes in dB ratings correspond to
large changes in sound pressure. When
referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs;
the sound force per unit area), sound is
referenced in the context of underwater
sound pressure to one micropascal (1
mPa). One pascal is the pressure
resulting from a force of one newton
exerted over an area of one square
meter. The source level (SL) represents
the sound level at a distance of 1 m from
the source (referenced to 1 mPa). The
received level is the sound level at the
listener’s position. Note that all
underwater sound levels in this
document are referenced to a pressure of
1 mPa.
Root mean square (rms) is the
quadratic mean sound pressure over the
duration of an impulse. RMS is
calculated by squaring all of the sound
amplitudes, averaging the squares, and
then taking the square root of the
average (Urick, 1983). RMS accounts for
both positive and negative values;
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
47076
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
squaring the pressures makes all values
positive so that they may be accounted
for in the summation of pressure levels
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This
measurement is often used in the
context of discussing behavioral effects,
in part because behavioral effects,
which often result from auditory cues,
may be better expressed through
averaged units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or
activity occurs, sound-pressure waves
are created. These waves alternately
compress and decompress the water as
the sound wave travels. Underwater
sound waves radiate in all directions
away from the source (similar to ripples
on the surface of a pond), except in
cases where the source is directional.
The compressions and decompressions
associated with sound waves are
detected as changes in pressure by
aquatic life and man-made sound
receptors such as hydrophones.
The marine soundscape is comprised
of both ambient and anthropogenic
sounds. Ambient sound is defined as
the all-encompassing sound in a given
place and is usually a composite of
sound from many sources both near and
far (ANSI, 1995). The sound level of an
area is defined by the total acoustical
energy being generated by known and
unknown sources. These sources may
include physical (e.g., waves, wind,
precipitation, earthquakes, ice,
atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals,
fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels,
dredging, aircraft, construction).
The sum of the various natural and
anthropogenic sound sources at any
given location and time—which
comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’
sound—depends not only on the source
levels (as determined by current
weather conditions and levels of
biological and shipping activity) but
also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound
propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying
properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent.
Because of the dependence on a large
number of varying factors, ambient
sound levels can be expected to vary
widely over both coarse and fine spatial
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a
given frequency and location can vary
by 10–20 dB from day to day
(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is
that, depending on the source type and
its intensity, sound from the specified
activity may be a negligible addition to
the local environment or could form a
distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
Underwater sounds fall into one of
two general sound types: impulsive and
non-impulsive (defined in the following
paragraphs). The distinction between
these two sound types is important
because they have differing potential to
cause physical effects, particularly with
regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in
Southall et al., 2007). Please see
Southall et al., (2007) for an in-depth
discussion of these concepts.
Impulsive sound sources (e.g.,
explosions, gunshots, sonic booms,
impact pile driving) produce signals
that are brief (typically considered to be
less than one second), broadband, atonal
transients (ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998;
NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003; ANSI, 2005)
and occur either as isolated events or
repeated in some succession. Impulsive
sounds are all characterized by a
relatively rapid rise from ambient
pressure to a maximal pressure value
followed by a rapid decay period that
may include a period of diminishing,
oscillating maximal and minimal
pressures, and generally have an
increased capacity to induce physical
injury as compared with sounds that
lack these features. However and as
previously noted, no impulsive acoustic
sources will be used during ONR’s
proposed action.
Non-impulsive sounds can be tonal,
narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either
continuous or non-continuous (ANSI,
1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonimpulsive sounds can be transient
signals of short duration but without the
essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid
rise time). Examples of non-impulsive
sounds include those produced by
vessels, aircraft, machinery operations
such as drilling or dredging, vibratory
pile driving, and active sonar sources
that intentionally direct a sound signal
at a target that is reflected back in order
to discern physical details about the
target. These active sources are used in
navigation, military training and testing,
and other research activities such as the
activities planned by ONR as part of the
proposed action. The duration of such
sounds, as received at a distance, can be
greatly extended in a highly reverberant
environment.
Acoustic Impacts
Please refer to the information given
previously regarding sound,
characteristics of sound types, and
metrics used in this document.
Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad
range of frequencies and sound levels
and can have a range of highly variable
impacts on marine life, from none or
minor to potentially severe responses,
depending on received levels, duration
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of exposure, behavioral context, and
various other factors. The potential
effects of underwater sound from active
acoustic sources can potentially result
in one or more of the following:
temporary or permanent hearing
impairment, non-auditory physical or
physiological effects, behavioral
disturbance, stress, and masking
(Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al.,
2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et
al., 2007; Gotz et al., 2009). The degree
of effect is intrinsically related to the
signal characteristics, received level,
distance from the source, and duration
of the sound exposure. In general,
sudden, high level sounds can cause
hearing loss, as can longer exposures to
lower level sounds. Temporary or
permanent loss of hearing will occur
almost exclusively for noise within an
animal’s hearing range. In this section,
we first describe specific manifestations
of acoustic effects before providing
discussion specific to the proposed
activities in the next section.
Permanent Threshold Shift—Marine
mammals exposed to high-intensity
sound, or to lower-intensity sound for
prolonged periods, can experience
hearing threshold shift (TS), which is
the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain
frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS
can be permanent (PTS), in which case
the loss of hearing sensitivity is not
fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in
which case the animal’s hearing
threshold would recover over time
(Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound
exposure that leads to TTS could cause
PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can
be total or partial deafness, while in
most cases the animal has an impaired
ability to hear sounds in specific
frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).
When PTS occurs, there is physical
damage to the sound receptors in the ear
(i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS
represents primarily tissue fatigue and
is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In
addition, other investigators have
suggested that TTS is within the normal
bounds of physiological variability and
tolerance and does not represent
physical injury (e.g., Ward, 1997).
Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS
to constitute auditory injury.
Relationships between TTS and PTS
thresholds have not been studied in
marine mammals—PTS data exists only
for a single harbor seal (Kastak et al.,
2008)—but are assumed to be similar to
those in humans and other terrestrial
mammals. PTS typically occurs at
exposure levels at least several decibels
above (a 40-dB threshold shift
approximates PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et
al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing
mild TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall
et al., 2007). Based on data from
terrestrial mammals, a precautionary
assumption is that the PTS thresholds
for impulse sounds (such as impact pile
driving pulses as received close to the
source) are at least six dB higher than
the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure
basis and PTS cumulative sound
exposure level (SEL) thresholds are 15
to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative
SEL thresholds (Southall et al., 2007).
Temporary Threshold Shift—TTS is
the mildest form of hearing impairment
that can occur during exposure to sound
(Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS,
the hearing threshold rises, and a sound
must be at a higher level in order to be
heard. In terrestrial and marine
mammals, TTS can last from minutes or
hours to days (in cases of strong TTS).
In many cases, hearing sensitivity
recovers rapidly after exposure to the
sound ends.
Marine mammal hearing plays a
critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of
environmental cues for purposes such
as predator avoidance and prey capture.
Depending on the degree (elevation of
threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery
time), and frequency range of TTS, and
the context in which it is experienced,
TTS can have effects on marine
mammals ranging from discountable to
serious. For example, a marine mammal
may be able to readily compensate for
a brief, relatively small amount of TTS
in a non-critical frequency range that
occurs during a time where ambient
noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present.
Alternatively, a larger amount and
longer duration of TTS sustained during
time when communication is critical for
successful mother/calf interactions
could have more serious impacts.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four
species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale,
harbor porpoise (Phocoeona phocoena),
and Yangtze finless porpoise
(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) and
three species of pinnipeds (northern
elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris),
harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), and
California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus)) exposed to a limited
number of sound sources (i.e., mostly
tones and octave-band noise) in
laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015).
TTS was not observed in trained spotted
and ringed seals exposed to impulsive
noise at levels matching previous
predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et
al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and
harbor porpoises have a lower TTS
onset than other measured pinniped or
cetacean species. Additionally, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
existing marine mammal TTS data come
from a limited number of individuals
within these species. For example, there
are no data available on noise-induced
hearing loss for mysticetes. For
summaries of data on TTS in marine
mammals or for further discussion of
TTS onset thresholds, please see
Southall et al., (2007), Finneran and
Jenkins (2012), and Finneran (2015).
Behavioral effects—Behavioral
disturbance may include a variety of
effects, including subtle changes in
behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance
of an area or changes in vocalizations),
more conspicuous changes in similar
behavioral activities, and more
sustained and/or potentially severe
reactions, such as displacement from or
abandonment of high-quality habitat.
Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific and
any reactions depend on numerous
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g.,
species, state of maturity, experience,
current activity, reproductive state,
auditory sensitivity, time of day), as
well as the interplay between factors
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et
al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart,
2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral
reactions can vary not only among
individuals but also within an
individual, depending on previous
experience with a sound source,
context, and numerous other factors
(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary
depending on characteristics associated
with the sound source (e.g., whether it
is moving or stationary, number of
sources, distance from the source).
Please see Appendices B–C of Southall
et al., (2007) for a review of studies
involving marine mammal behavioral
responses to sound.
Habituation can occur when an
animal’s response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the
absence of unpleasant associated events
(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most
likely to habituate to sounds that are
predictable and unvarying. It is
important to note that habituation is
appropriately considered as a
‘‘progressive reduction in response to
stimuli that are perceived as neither
aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as,
more generally, moderation in response
to human disturbance (Bejder et al.,
2009). The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant
experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of
avoidance, at a lower level of exposure.
As noted, behavioral state may affect the
type of response. For example, animals
that are resting may show greater
behavioral change in response to
disturbing sound levels than animals
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47077
that are highly motivated to remain in
an area for feeding (Richardson et al.,
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003).
Controlled experiments with captive
marine mammals have showed
pronounced behavioral reactions,
including avoidance of loud sound
sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran
et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild
marine mammals to loud impulsive
sound sources (typically seismic airguns
or acoustic harassment devices) have
been varied but often consist of
avoidance behavior or other behavioral
changes suggesting discomfort (Morton
and Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson
et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).
Available studies show wide variation
in response to underwater sound;
therefore, it is difficult to predict
specifically how any given sound in a
particular instance might affect marine
mammals perceiving the signal. If a
marine mammal does react briefly to an
underwater sound by changing its
behavior or moving a small distance, the
impacts of the change are unlikely to be
significant to the individual, let alone
the stock or population. However, if a
sound source displaces marine
mammals from an important feeding or
breeding area for a prolonged period,
impacts on individuals and populations
could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and
Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC,
2003). However, there are broad
categories of potential response, which
we describe in greater detail here, that
include alteration of dive behavior,
alteration of foraging behavior, effects to
breathing, interference with or alteration
of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
Changes in dive behavior can vary
widely, and may consist of increased or
decreased dive times and surface
intervals as well as changes in the rates
of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g.,
Frankel and Clark, 2000; Costa et al.,
2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et
al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013).
Variations in dive behavior may reflect
interruptions in biologically significant
activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be
of little biological significance. The
impact of an alteration to dive behavior
resulting from an acoustic exposure
depends on what the animal is doing at
the time of the exposure and the type
and magnitude of the response.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be
difficult to correlate with anthropogenic
sound exposure, so it is usually inferred
by observed displacement from known
foraging areas, the appearance of
secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets
or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of
behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
47078
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
presentation, as well as differences in
species sensitivity, are likely
contributing factors to differences in
response in any given circumstance
(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.;
2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et
al., 2007). A determination of whether
foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require
information on or estimates of the
energetic requirements of the affected
individuals and the relationship
between prey availability, foraging effort
and success, and the life history stage of
the animal.
Variations in respiration naturally
vary with different behaviors and
alterations to breathing rate as a
function of acoustic exposure can be
expected to co-occur with other
behavioral reactions, such as a flight
response or an alteration in diving.
However, respiration rates in and of
themselves may be representative of
annoyance or an acute stress response.
Various studies have shown that
respiration rates may either be
unaffected or could increase, depending
on the species and signal characteristics,
again highlighting the importance in
understanding species differences in the
tolerance of underwater noise when
determining the potential for impacts
resulting from anthropogenic sound
exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001,
2005, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007).
Marine mammals vocalize for
different purposes and across multiple
modes, such as whistling, echolocation
click production, calling, and singing.
Changes in vocalization behavior in
response to anthropogenic noise can
occur for any of these modes and may
result from a need to compete with an
increase in background noise or may
reflect increased vigilance or a startle
response. For example, in the presence
of potentially masking signals,
humpback whales and killer whales
have been observed to increase the
length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000;
Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004),
while right whales have been observed
to shift the frequency content of their
calls upward while reducing the rate of
calling in areas of increased
anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007).
In some cases, animals may cease sound
production during production of
aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).
Avoidance is the displacement of an
individual from an area or migration
path as a result of the presence of a
sound or other stressors, and is one of
the most obvious manifestations of
disturbance in marine mammals
(Richardson et al., 1995). For example,
gray whales are known to change
direction—deflecting from customary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
migratory paths—in order to avoid noise
from seismic surveys (Malme et al.,
1984). Avoidance may be short-term,
with animals returning to the area once
the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al.,
1994; Goold, 1996; Morton and
Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007).
Longer-term displacement is possible,
however, which may lead to changes in
abundance or distribution patterns of
the affected species in the affected
region if habituation to the presence of
the sound does not occur (e.g.,
Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al.,
2006).
A flight response is a dramatic change
in normal movement to a directed and
rapid movement away from the
perceived location of a sound source.
The flight response differs from other
avoidance responses in the intensity of
the response (e.g., directed movement,
rate of travel). Relatively little
information on flight responses of
marine mammals to anthropogenic
signals exist, although observations of
flight responses to the presence of
predators have occurred (Connor and
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight
response could range from brief,
temporary exertion and displacement
from the area where the signal provokes
flight to, in extreme cases, marine
mammal strandings (Evans and
England, 2001). However, it should be
noted that response to a perceived
predator does not necessarily invoke
flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and
whether individuals are solitary or in
groups may influence the response.
Behavioral disturbance can also
impact marine mammals in more subtle
ways. Increased vigilance may result in
costs related to diversion of focus and
attention (i.e., when a response consists
of increased vigilance, it may come at
the cost of decreased attention to other
critical behaviors such as foraging or
resting). These effects have generally not
been observed in marine mammals, but
studies involving fish and terrestrial
animals have shown that increased
vigilance may substantially reduce
feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and
Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser
and Radford, 2011). In addition, chronic
disturbance can cause population
declines through reduction of fitness
(e.g., decline in body condition) and
subsequent reduction in reproductive
success, survival, or both (e.g.,
Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan et
al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998).
However, Ridgway et al., (2006)
reported that increased vigilance in
bottlenose dolphins exposed to sound
over a five-day period did not cause any
sleep deprivation or stress effects.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Many animals perform vital functions,
such as feeding, resting, traveling, and
socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour
cycle). Disruption of such functions
resulting from reactions to stressors
such as sound exposure are more likely
to be significant if they last more than
one diel cycle or recur on subsequent
days (Southall et al., 2007).
Consequently, a behavioral response
lasting less than one day and not
recurring on subsequent days is not
considered particularly severe unless it
could directly affect reproduction or
survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that
there is a difference between multi-day
substantive behavioral reactions and
multi-day anthropogenic activities. For
example, just because an activity lasts
for multiple days does not necessarily
mean that individual animals are either
exposed to activity-related stressors for
multiple days or, further, exposed in a
manner resulting in sustained multi-day
substantive behavioral responses.
To assess the strength of behavioral
changes and responses to external
sounds and SPLs associated with
changes in behavior, Southall et al.,
(2007) developed and utilized a severity
scale, which is a 10 point scale ranging
from no effect (labeled 0), effects not
likely to influence vital rates (labeled
from 1 to 3), effects that could affect
vital rates (labeled 4 to 6), to effects that
were thought likely to influence vital
rates (labeled 7 to 9). For non-impulsive
sounds (i.e., similar to the sources used
during the proposed action), data
suggest that exposures of pinnipeds to
sources between 90 and 140 dB re 1 mPa
do not elicit strong behavioral
responses; no data were available for
exposures at higher received levels for
Southall et al., (2007) to include in the
severity scale analysis. Reactions of
harbor seals were the only available data
for which the responses could be ranked
on the severity scale. For reactions that
were recorded, the majority (17 of 18
individuals/groups) were ranked on the
severity scale as a 4 (defined as
moderate change in movement, brief
shift in group distribution, or moderate
change in vocal behavior) or lower; the
remaining response was ranked as a 6
(defined as minor or moderate
avoidance of the sound source).
Additional data on hooded seals
(Cystophora cristata) indicate avoidance
responses to signals above 160–170 dB
re 1 mPa (Kvadsheim et al., 2010), and
data on grey (Halichoerus grypus) and
harbor seals indicate avoidance
response at received levels of 135–144
dB re 1 mPa (Go¨tz et al., 2010). In each
instance where food was available,
which provided the seals motivation to
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
remain near the source, habituation to
the signals occurred rapidly. In the same
study, it was noted that habituation was
not apparent in wild seals where no
food source was available (Go¨tz et al.,
2010). This implies that the motivation
of the animal is necessary to consider in
determining the potential for a reaction.
In one study to investigate the under-ice
movements and sensory cues associated
with under-ice navigation of ice seals,
acoustic transmitters (60–69 kHz at 159
dB re 1 mPa at 1 m) were attached to
ringed seals (Wartzok et al., 1992a;
Wartzok et al., 1992b). An acoustic
tracking system then was installed in
the ice to receive the acoustic signals
and provide real-time tracking of ice
seal movements. Although the
frequencies used in this study are at the
upper limit of ringed seal hearing, the
ringed seals appeared unaffected by the
acoustic transmissions, as they were
able to maintain normal behaviors (e.g.,
finding breathing holes).
Seals exposed to non-impulsive
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 sources in
the proposed 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) (Kelly et al., 1988d).
Some behavioral response studies
have been conducted on odontocete
responses to sonar. In studies that
examined sperm whales (Physeter
macrocephalus) and false killer whales
(Pseudorca crassidens) (both in the midfrequency cetacean hearing group), the
marine mammals showed temporary
cessation of calling and avoidance of
sonar sources (Akamatsu et al., 1993;
Watkins and Schevill, 1975). Sperm
whales resumed calling and
communication approximately two
minutes after the pings stopped
(Watkins and Schevill, 1975). False
killer whales moved away from the
sound source but returned to the area
between 0 and 10 minutes after the end
of transmissions (Akamatsu et al., 1993).
Many of the contextual factors resulting
from the behavioral response studies
(e.g., close approaches by multiple
vessels or tagging) would not occur
during the proposed action. Odontocete
behavioral responses to acoustic
transmissions from non-impulsive
sources used during the proposed action
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
would likely be a result of the animal’s
behavioral state and prior experience
rather than external variables such as
ship proximity; thus, if significant
behavioral responses occur they would
likely be short term. In fact, no
significant behavioral responses such as
panic, stranding, or other severe
reactions have been observed during
monitoring of actual training exercises
(Department of the Navy 2011, 2014;
Smultea and Mobley, 2009; Watwood et
al., 2012).
Ringed seals on pack ice showed
various behaviors when approached by
an icebreaking vessel. A majority of
seals dove underwater when the ship
was within 0.5 nm (0.93 km) while
others remained on the ice. However, as
icebreaking vessels came closer to the
seals, most dove underwater. Ringed
seals have also been observed foraging
in the wake of an icebreaking vessel
(Richardson et al., 1995). In studies by
Alliston (1980; 1981), there was no
observed change in the density of ringed
seals in areas that had been subject to
icebreaking. Alternatively, ringed seals
may have preferentially established
breathing holes in the ship tracks after
the icebreaker moved through the area.
Although icebreaking will not be
occurring during this proposed action,
previous observations and studies using
icebreaking ships provide a greater
understanding in how seal behavior
may be affected by a vessel transiting
through the area.
Adult ringed seals spend up to 20
percent of the time in subnivean lairs
during the winter season (Kelly et al.,
2010b). Ringed seal pups spend about
50 percent of their time in the lair
during the nursing period (Lydersen and
Hammill, 1993). During the warm
season ringed seals haul out on the ice.
In a study of ringed seal haul out
activity by Born et al., (2002), ringed
seals spent 25–57 percent of their time
hauled out in June, which is during
their molting season. Ringed seal lairs
are typically used by individual seals
(haulout lairs) or by a mother with a
pup (birthing lairs); large lairs used by
many seals for hauling out are rare
(Smith and Stirling, 1975). If the nonimpulsive acoustic transmissions are
heard and are perceived as a threat,
ringed seals within subnivean lairs
could react to the sound in a similar
fashion to their reaction to other threats,
such as polar bears (their primary
predators), although the type of sound
would be novel to them. Responses of
ringed seals to a variety of humaninduced sounds (e.g., helicopter noise,
snowmobiles, dogs, people, and seismic
activity) have been variable; some seals
entered the water and some seals
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47079
remained in the lair. However, in all
instances in which observed seals
departed lairs in response to noise
disturbance, they subsequently
reoccupied the lair (Kelly et al., 1988d).
Ringed seal mothers have a strong
bond with their pups and may
physically move their pups from the
birth lair to an alternate lair to avoid
predation, sometimes risking their lives
to defend their pups from potential
predators (Smith, 1987). If a ringed seal
mother perceives the proposed acoustic
sources as a threat, the network of
multiple birth and haulout lairs allows
the mother and pup to move to a new
lair (Smith and Hammill, 1981; Smith
and Stirling, 1975). The acoustic sources
from this proposed action are not likely
to impede a ringed seal from finding a
breathing hole or lair, as captive seals
have been found to primarily use vision
to locate breathing holes and no effect
to ringed seal vision would occur from
the acoustic disturbance (Elsner et al.,
1989; Wartzok et al., 1992a). It is
anticipated that a ringed seal would be
able to relocate to a different breathing
hole relatively easily without impacting
their normal behavior patterns.
Stress responses—An animal’s
perception of a threat may be sufficient
to trigger stress responses consisting of
some combination of behavioral
responses, autonomic nervous system
responses, neuroendocrine responses, or
immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950;
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an
animal’s first and sometimes most
economical (in terms of energetic costs)
response is behavioral avoidance of the
potential stressor. Autonomic nervous
system responses to stress typically
involve changes in heart rate, blood
pressure, and gastrointestinal activity.
These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a
significant long-term effect on an
animal’s fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often
involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all
neuroendocrine functions that are
affected by stress—including immune
competence, reproduction, metabolism,
and behavior—are regulated by pituitary
hormones. Stress-induced changes in
the secretion of pituitary hormones have
been implicated in failed reproduction,
altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance
(e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000).
Increases in the circulation of
glucocorticoids are also equated with
stress (Romano et al., 2004).
The primary distinction between
stress (which is adaptive and does not
normally place an animal at risk) and
‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response.
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
47080
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
During a stress response, an animal uses
glycogen stores that can be quickly
replenished once the stress is alleviated.
In such circumstances, the cost of the
stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when
an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic
costs of a stress response, energy
resources must be diverted from other
functions. This state of distress will last
until the animal replenishes its
energetic reserves sufficient to restore
normal function.
Relationships between these
physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress
responses are well studied through
controlled experiments and for both
laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al.,
1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et
al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress
responses due to exposure to
anthropogenic sounds or other stressors
and their effects on marine mammals
have also been reviewed (Fair and
Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b)
and, more rarely, studied in wild
populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a).
These and other studies lead to a
reasonable expectation that some
marine mammals will experience
physiological stress responses upon
exposure to acoustic stressors and that
it is possible that some of these would
be classified as ‘‘distress.’’ In addition,
any animal experiencing TTS would
likely also experience stress responses
(NRC, 2003).
Auditory masking—Sound can
disrupt behavior through masking, or
interfering with, an animal’s ability to
detect, recognize, or discriminate
between acoustic signals of interest (e.g.,
those used for intraspecific
communication and social interactions,
prey detection, predator avoidance,
navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995).
Masking occurs when the receipt of a
sound is interfered with by another
coincident sound at similar frequencies
and at similar or higher intensity, and
may occur whether the sound is natural
(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g.,
shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in
origin. The ability of a noise source to
mask biologically important sounds
depends on the characteristics of both
the noise source and the signal of
interest (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio,
temporal variability, direction), in
relation to each other and to an animal’s
hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity,
frequency range, critical ratios,
frequency discrimination, directional
discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
and existing ambient noise and
propagation conditions.
Under certain circumstances, marine
mammals experiencing significant
masking could also be impaired from
maximizing their performance fitness in
survival and reproduction. Therefore,
when the coincident (masking) sound is
anthropogenic, it may be considered
harassment when disrupting or altering
critical behaviors. It is important to
distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist
after the sound exposure, from masking,
which occurs during the sound
exposure. Because masking (without
resulting in TS) is not associated with
abnormal physiological function, it is
not considered a physiological effect,
but rather a potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially
masking sound is important in
determining any potential behavioral
impacts. For example, low-frequency
signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds
produced by odontocetes but are more
likely to affect detection of mysticete
communication calls and other
potentially important natural sounds
such as those produced by surf and
some prey species. The masking of
communication signals by
anthropogenic noise may be considered
as a reduction in the communication
space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009)
and may result in energetic or other
costs as animals change their
vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al.,
2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al.,
2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et
al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in
situations where the signal and noise
come from different directions
(Richardson et al., 1995), through
amplitude modulation of the signal, or
through other compensatory behaviors
(Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can
be tested directly in captive species
(e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild
populations it must be either modeled
or inferred from evidence of masking
compensation. There are few studies
addressing real-world masking sounds
likely to be experienced by marine
mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et
al., 2013).
Masking affects both senders and
receivers of acoustic signals and can
potentially have long-term chronic
effects on marine mammals at the
population level as well as at the
individual level. Low-frequency
ambient sound levels have increased by
as much as 20 dB (more than three times
in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean
from pre-industrial periods, with most
of the increase from distant commercial
shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All
anthropogenic sound sources, but
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
especially chronic and lower-frequency
signals (e.g., from vessel traffic),
contribute to elevated ambient sound
levels, thus intensifying masking.
Potential Effects on Prey—The marine
mammal species in the study area feed
on marine invertebrates and fish.
Studies of sound energy effects on
invertebrates are few, and primarily
identify behavioral responses. It is
expected that most marine invertebrates
would not sense the frequencies of the
acoustic transmissions from the acoustic
sources associated with the proposed
action. Although acoustic sources used
during the proposed action may briefly
impact individuals, intermittent
exposures to non-impulsive acoustic
sources are not expected to impact
survival, growth, recruitment, or
reproduction of widespread marine
invertebrate populations.
The fish species residing in the study
area include those that are closely
associated with the deep ocean habitat
of the Beaufort Sea. Nearly 250 marine
fish species have been described in the
Arctic, excluding the larger parts of the
sub-Arctic Bering, Barents, and
Norwegian Seas (Mecklenburg et al.,
2011). However, only about 30 are
known to occur in the Arctic waters of
the Beaufort Sea (Christiansen and
Reist, 2013). Although hearing
capability data only exist for fewer than
100 of the 32,000 named fish species,
current data suggest that most species of
fish detect sounds from 50 to 100 Hz,
with few fish hearing sounds above 4
kHz (Popper, 2008). It is believed that
most fish have the best hearing
sensitivity from 100 to 400 Hz (Popper,
2003). Fish species in the study area are
expected to hear the low-frequency
sources associated with the proposed
action, but most are not expected to
detect sound from the mid-frequency
sources. Human generated sound could
alter the behavior of a fish in a manner
than would affect its way of living, such
as where it tries to locate food or how
well it could find a mate. Behavioral
responses to loud noise could include a
startle response, such as the fish
swimming away from the source, the
fish ‘‘freezing’’ and staying in place, or
scattering (Popper, 2003). Misund
(1997) found that fish ahead of a ship
showed avoidance reactions at ranges of
160 to 489 ft (49 to 149 m). Avoidance
behavior of vessels, vertically or
horizontally in the water column, has
been reported for cod and herring, and
was attributed to vessel noise. While
acoustic sources associated with the
proposed action may influence the
behavior of some fish species, other fish
species may be equally unresponsive.
Overall effects to fish from the proposed
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
action would be localized, temporary,
and infrequent.
Effects to Physical and Foraging
Habitat—Ringed seals haul out on pack
ice during the spring and summer to
molt (Reeves et al., 2002; Born et al.,
2002). Additionally, some studies
(Alliston, 1980; 1981) suggested that
ringed seals might preferentially
establish breathing holes in ship tracks
after vessels move through the area. The
amount of ice habitat disturbed by
activities is small relative to the amount
of overall habitat available. There will
be no permanent loss or modification of
physical ice habitat used by ringed
seals. Vessel movement would have no
effect on physical beluga habitat as
beluga habitat is solely within the water
column. Furthermore, any testing of
towed sources would be limited in
duration and the deployed sources that
would remain in use after the vessels
have left the survey area have low duty
cycles and lower source levels. There
would not be an expected habitatrelated effects from acoustic sources that
could impact the in-water habitat of
ringed seals or beluga whale foraging
habitat.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes proposed
for authorization through the IHA,
which will inform both NMFS’
consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and
the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take
expected to result from these activities.
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 the 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 for
individual marine mammals resulting
from exposure to acoustic
transmissions. No Level A harassment is
estimated to occur. Therefore, Level A
harassment is neither anticipated nor
proposed to be authorized.
As described previously, no mortality
is anticipated or proposed to be
authorized for this activity. Below we
describe how the take is estimated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 the
proposed IHA, ONR employed an
advanced 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 proposed take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of
acoustic thresholds that identify the
received level of underwater sound
above which exposed marine mammals
would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level
B harassment) or to incur PTS of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive
sources—Though significantly driven by
received level, the onset of behavioral
disturbance from anthropogenic noise
exposure is also informed to varying
degrees by other factors related to the
source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g.,
bathymetry), and the receiving animals
(e.g., hearing, motivation, experience,
demography, behavioral context) and
can be difficult to predict (Southall et
al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on
what the available science indicates and
the practical need to use a threshold
based on a factor that is both predictable
and measurable for most activities,
NMFS typically uses a generalized
acoustic threshold based on received
level to estimate the onset of behavioral
harassment. NMFS typical generalized
acoustic thresholds are received levels
of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for continuous
(e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and
above 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic
airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific
sonar) sources. In this case, NMFS is
proposing to adopt the Navy’s approach
to estimating incidental take by Level B
harassment from the active acoustic
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47081
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. Multiyear 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), and more
recently Southall et al., (2019),
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; Southall et al., 2019). 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.
Phocid seals showed avoidance
reactions at or below 190 dB re 1 mPa
at 1m; thus, seals may actually receive
levels adequate to produce TTS before
avoiding the source.
Odontocete behavioral criteria for
non-impulsive 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 kHz up- and down-sweeps
and 6–7 kHz up-sweeps; source levels
were ramped up from 152–158 dB re 1
mPa to a maximum of 198–214 re 1 mPa
at 1 m. Sonar signals were ramped up
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
47082
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
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 (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) 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
(Halichoerus grypus), 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 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. Additionally, distance cutoffs (10
km for pinnipeds) were applied to
exclude exposures beyond which the
potential of significant behavioral
responses is considered to be unlikely.
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 proposed activities
involve only non-impulsive sources.
These thresholds are provided in
Table 5 below. The references, analysis,
and methodology used in the
development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS 2018 Technical
Guidance, which may be accessed at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance.
TABLE 5—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT
PTS onset acoustic thresholds *
(received level)
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 thresholds 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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Quantitative Modeling
The Navy performed a quantitative
analysis to estimate the number of
marine mammals that could be exposed
to underwater acoustic transmissions
above the previously described
threshold criteria during the proposed
action. Inputs to the quantitative
analysis included marine mammal
density estimates obtained from the
Navy Marine Species Density Database,
marine mammal depth occurrence
distributions (U.S. Department of the
Navy, 2017b), 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
of potential animal exposures. The
model calculates sound energy
propagation from the proposed nonimpulsive acoustic sources, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
their location in the water column. A
fully three-dimensional environment is
used for calculating sound propagation
and animat exposure in NAEMO. Sitespecific 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
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
47083
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
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
is independent of all others, and
therefore, the same individual marine
mammal (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
proposed study location, 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 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.
Because of these inherent model
limitations and simplifications, modelestimated results should be 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.
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 6 provides range to effects for
noise produced through use of the
proposed sources to mid-frequency
cetacean and pinniped-specific criteria.
Range to effects is important
information in predicting non-impulsive
acoustic impacts. Therefore, the ranges
in Table 6 provide realistic maximum
distances over which the specific effects
from the use of non-impulsive sources
during the proposed action would be
possible.
TABLE 6—RANGE TO PTS, TTS, AND BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS IN THE PROJECT AREA BASED ON CUTOFF DISTANCES FOR
NON-IMPULSIVE ACOUSTIC SOURCES
Range to behavioral effects
(meters)
Source type
MF cetacean
sources b
On-site drifting
..........................
Fixed sources ...........................................
Range to TTS effects
(meters) c
pinniped
MF cetacean
a 10,000
a 10,000
a 20,000
a 5,000
Range to PTS effects
(meters) c
pinniped
0
0
MF cetacean
0
0
0
0
pinniped
0
0
a Cutoff
distance applied (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a).
under the assumption that some of the on-site drifting sources would become closer together.
effect (and therefore, no distance from source) is anticipated based on the NAEMO modeling.
b Assessed
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
c No
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). In a 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
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). These data
suggest that most odontocetes (not
including beaked whales (Family
Ziphiidae) 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 this
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proposed action (U.S. Department of the
Navy, 2017a). NMFS proposes to adopt
this approach in support of this
proposed IHA.
Southall et al., (2007) reported 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 used a distance
cutoff of 2.7 nm (5 km) for moderate
source level, single platform training
and testing events, and 5.4 nm (10 km)
for all other events, including the
proposed Arctic Research Activities
(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a).
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
47084
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
NMFS proposes to adopt this approach
in support of this proposed IHA.
Regardless of the received level at the
cutoff distances described above, take is
not estimated to occur beyond 10 and 20
km from the source for pinnipeds and
cetaceans, respectively. No instances of
PTS were modeled for any species or
stock; as such, no take by Level A
harassment is anticipated or proposed to
be authorized. Further information on
cutoff distances can be found in Section
6.5.1 in ONR’s 2021–2022 IHA
application on NMFS’ website: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities.
The marine mammal density numbers
utilized for quantitative modeling are
from the Navy Marine Species Density
Database (U.S. Department of the Navy,
2014). Density estimates are based on
habitat-based modeling by Kaschner et
al., (2006) and Kaschner (2004). While
density estimates for the two stocks of
beluga whales are equal (Kaschner et al.,
2006; Kaschner 2004), take has been
apportioned to each stock proportional
to the abundance of each stock. Table 7
shows the exposures expected for the
beluga whale and ringed seal based on
NAEMO modeled results.
TABLE 7—QUANTITATIVE MODELING RESULTS OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES
Density
(animals/km2)
Species
Level B
harassment
(behavioral)
Level B
harassment
(TTS)
Total
proposed
take
Percentage
of stock
taken 1
Cetacean (odontocete)
Beluga Whale (Beaufort Sea stock) 1 ..................................
Beluga Whale (Chukchi Sea stock) 1 ...................................
0.0087
375
125
0
0
375
125
0.96
0.94
6,050
0
6,050
3.53
Pinniped (phocid)
Ringed Seal .........................................................................
0.3958
1 Acoustic
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
exposures to beluga whales were not modeled at the stock level. Take of beluga whales in each stock was based on the proportion
of each stock in relation to the total number of beluga whales. Therefore, 75 percent of the calculated take was apportioned to the Beaufort Sea
stock, and 25 percent of the calculated take was apportioned to the Eastern Chukchi Sea stock.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the permissible methods of
taking pursuant to the activity, and
other means of effecting the least
practicable impact on the species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock
for taking for certain subsistence uses.
NMFS regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include
information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological)
of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting the activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or
stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)). 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 (1–3 knots
in ice; <10 knots in open ice-free waters)
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
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
prevailing circumstances and
conditions.
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.
While underway, watch personnel must
be alert at all times and have access to
binoculars.
During mooring or UUV deployment,
visual observation would start 15
minutes prior to and continue
throughout the deployment within an
exclusion zone of 180 ft (55 m, roughly
one ship length) 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.
Ships would avoid approaching
marine mammals head-on and would
maneuver to maintain an exclusion zone
of 500 yards (yd; 457 m) around
observed whales, and 200 ft (183 m)
around all other marine mammals,
provided it is safe to do so in ice-free
waters.
All personnel conducting on-ice
experiments, as well as all aircraft
operating in the study area, are required
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
to maintain a separation distance of
1,000 ft (305 m) from any observed
marine mammal.
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 that 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).
Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s
proposed measures, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the
proposed mitigation measures provide
the means effecting the least practicable
impact on the affected species or stocks
and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock
for subsistence uses.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an
activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking.
The MMPA implementing regulations at
50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that
requests for authorizations must include
the suggested means of accomplishing
the necessary monitoring and reporting
that will result in increased knowledge
of the species and of the level of taking
or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Effective reporting is critical, both to
compliance as well as to ensure that the
most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species or stocks in the area in which
take is anticipated (e.g., presence,
abundance, distribution, density).
• Nature, scope, or context of likely
marine mammal exposure to potential
stressors/impacts (individual or
cumulative, acute or chronic), through
better understanding of: (1) Action or
environment (e.g., source
characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life
history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 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). Additionally, watch
personnel have taken the Navy’s Marine
Species Awareness Training. 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) (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2011). The
ICMP has been developed in direct
response to Navy permitting
requirements established through
various environmental compliance
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47085
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 source operations and source
deployments, in contrast to the large
majority (greater than 95 percent) of
time that the sources will be left behind
and operate autonomously. Therefore, a
dedicated monitoring project is not
warranted. However, ONR will record
all observations of marine mammals,
including the marine mammal’s location
(latitude and longitude), behavior, and
distance from project activities.
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 2021–2022 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.,
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 proposed
activity. The draft exercise monitoring
report will include data regarding
acoustic source use and any mammal
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
47086
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
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., populationlevel 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 seals and ringed
seals in the form of behavioral
disturbances. No serious injury,
mortality, or Level A harassment are
anticipated to result from these
described activities.
Effects on individuals that are taken
by Level B harassment could include
alteration of dive behavior, alteration of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 acoustic 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 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 proposed
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. 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 preliminary 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;
• Impacts would be limited to Level
B harassment only;
• TTS is not expected or predicted to
occur; only temporary behavioral
modifications are expected to result
from these proposed activities; 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
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds
that the total marine mammal take from
the proposed activity will have a
negligible impact on all affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must
find that the specified activity will not
have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’
on the subsistence uses of the affected
marine mammal species or stocks by
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined
‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR
216.103 as an impact resulting from the
specified activity: (1) That is likely to
reduce the availability of the species to
a level insufficient for a harvest to meet
subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the
marine mammals to abandon or avoid
hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing
subsistence users; or (iii) Placing
physical barriers between the marine
mammals and the subsistence hunters;
and (2) That cannot be sufficiently
mitigated by other measures to increase
the availability of marine mammals to
allow subsistence needs to be met.
Subsistence hunting is important for
many Alaska Native communities. A
study of the North Slope villages of
Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Utqiag˙vik
(formally 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). Ringed seals
and beluga whales are likely located
within the project area during this
proposed action. However, the
permitted sources would be placed
outside of the range for subsistence
hunting and ONR has been
communicating with the Native
communities about the proposed action.
The closest active acoustic source (fixed
or drifting) within the proposed project
site that is likely to cause Level B take
is approximately 110 nm (204 km) from
land and outside of known subsistence
use areas. However, almost all leavebehind sources that would constitute
most of the Level B take would be
approximately 240 mi (386 km) from
shore. In comparison with IHAs issued
to ONR for their previous Arctic
Research Activities, this project is
further north; therefore, there is no
spatial overlap between known
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Notices
subsistence harvest sites and the
proposed activities contained herein.
Furthermore, and as stated above, the
range to effects for non-impulsive
acoustic sources in this experiment is
much smaller than the distance from
shore, with acoustic sources that could
constitute take being located far away
from known subsistence hunting areas.
Lastly, the proposed action would not
remove individuals from the
population.
Based on the description of the
specified activity, the measures
described to minimize adverse effects
on the availability of marine mammals
for subsistence purposes, and the
proposed mitigation and monitoring
measures, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that there will not be an
unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses from ONR’s proposed
activities.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal
agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the issuance of
IHAs, NMFS consults internally
whenever we propose to authorize take
for endangered or threatened species, in
this case with the NMFS Alaska
Regional Office (AKR).
NMFS is proposing to authorize take
of ringed seals, which are listed under
the ESA. The Office of Protected
Resources has requested initiation of
Section 7 consultation with AKR for the
issuance of this IHA. NMFS will
conclude the ESA consultation prior to
reaching a determination regarding the
proposed issuance of the authorization.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, NMFS proposes to issue
an IHA to ONR for conducting their
fourth year of Arctic Research Activities
in the Beaufort and eastern Chukchi
Seas from October 2021–October 2022,
provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated. A draft
of the proposed IHA can be found at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizations-militaryreadiness-activities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Aug 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses,
the proposed authorization, and any
other aspect of this notice of proposed
IHA for the proposed fourth year of
Arctic Research Activities. We also
request at this time comment on the
potential renewal of this proposed IHA
as described in the paragraph below.
Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to
help inform decisions on the request for
this proposed IHA or a subsequent
renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may
issue a one-time, one-year renewal IHA
following notice to the public providing
an additional 15 days for public
comments when (1) up to another year
of identical or nearly identical, or nearly
identical, activities as described in the
Description of Proposed Activities
section of this notice is planned or (2)
the activities as described in the
Description of Proposed Activities
section of this notice would not be
completed by the time the IHA expires
and a renewal would allow for
completion of the activities beyond that
described in the Dates and Duration
section of this notice, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no
later than 60 days prior to the needed
renewal IHA effective date (recognizing
that the renewal IHA expiration date
cannot extend beyond one year from
expiration of the initial IHA);
• The request for renewal must
include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities
to be conducted under the requested
renewal IHA are identical to the
activities analyzed under the initial
IHA, are a subset of the activities, or
include changes so minor (e.g.,
reduction in pile size) that the changes
do not affect the previous analyses,
mitigation and monitoring
requirements, or take estimates (with
the exception of reducing the type or
amount of take); and
(2) A preliminary monitoring report
showing the results of the required
monitoring to date and an explanation
showing that the monitoring results do
not indicate impacts of a scale or nature
not previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for
renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other
pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than
minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures
will remain the same and appropriate,
and the findings in the initial IHA
remain valid.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47087
Dated: August 18, 2021.
Angela Somma,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–18070 Filed 8–20–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew
Collection 3038–0033, Notification of
Pending Legal Proceedings
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or
‘‘Commission’’) is announcing an
opportunity for public comments on the
proposed extension of a collection of
certain information by the agency.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(‘‘PRA’’), Federal agencies are required
to publish notice in the Federal Register
concerning each proposed collection of
information, including each proposed
extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for
public comment. This notice solicits
comments on the information collection
requirements concerning notification of
pending legal proceedings.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before October 22, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by OMB Control No. 3038–
0033 by any of the following methods:
• The Agency’s website, at https://
comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
through the website.
• Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission,
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,
1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC
20581.
• Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail
above.
Please submit your comments using
only one method. All comments must be
submitted in English, or if not,
accompanied by an English translation.
Comments will be posted as received to
https://www.cftc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Chiang, Senior Assistant
General Counsel, Office of the General
Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, (202) 418–5578; email:
mchiang@cftc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 160 (Monday, August 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47065-47087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18070]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XB239]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Office of Naval Research's
Arctic Research Activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (Year 4)
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Office of Naval Research
(ONR) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to Arctic
Research Activities in the Beaufort Sea and eastern Chukchi Sea.
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting
comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment
authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the
specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible
one-time, one-year renewal that could be issued under certain
circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request
for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider
public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of
the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be
summarized in the final notice of our decision. ONR's activities are
considered military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as
amended by the National
[[Page 47066]]
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (NDAA).
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than
September 22, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to
[email protected].
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments, including all attachments, must
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. All comments received are a part of
the public record and will generally be posted online at
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelsey Potlock, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the 2021-2022 IHA
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 United States (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 the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth.
The 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 is being requested addressed here qualifies as a military
readiness activity. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory
terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA)
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
In 2018, the U.S. Navy prepared an Overseas Environmental
Assessment (OEA; referred to as an EA in this document) analyzing the
project. Prior to issuing the IHA for the first year of this project,
we reviewed the 2018 EA and the public comments received, determined
that a separate NEPA analysis was not necessary, and subsequently
adopted the document and issued our own Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) in support of the issuance of an IHA (83 FR 48799;
September 27, 2018).
In 2019, the U.S. Navy prepared a supplemental EA. Prior to issuing
the IHA in 2019, we reviewed the supplemental EA and the public
comments received, determined that a separate NEPA analysis was not
necessary, and subsequently adopted the document and issued our own
FONSI in support of the issuance of an IHA (84 FR 50007; September 24,
2019).
In 2020, the Navy submitted a request for a renewal of the 2019
IHA. Prior to issuing the renewal IHA, NMFS reviewed ONR's application
and determined that the proposed action was identical to that
considered in the previous IHA. Because no significantly new
circumstances or information relevant to any environmental concerns had
been identified, NMFS determined that the preparation of a new or
supplemental NEPA document was not necessary and relied on the
supplement EA and FONSI from 2019 when issuing the renewal IHA in 2020
(85 FR 41560; July 10, 2020).
For this proposed action, NMFS plans to adopt the Navy's 2021
supplemental EA provided our independent evaluation of the document
finds that it includes adequate information analyzing the effects on
the human environment of issuing the IHA. The Navy's supplemental EA is
available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the
IHA request.
Summary of Request
On June 4, 2021, NMFS received a request from ONR for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to Arctic Research Activities in the
Beaufort and eastern Chukchi Seas. ONR's 2021-2022 IHA application was
deemed adequate and complete on August 4, 2021. ONR's request is for
take of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas; two stocks) 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 proposed IHA would cover the fourth year of a larger project
for which ONR obtained prior IHAs (83 FR 48799, September 27, 2018; 84
FR 50007, September 24, 2019; 85 FR 53333, August 28, 2020) and may
request take authorization for subsequent facets of the overall
project. This IHA would be valid for a period of one year from the date
of issuance (early October 2021 to early October 2022). The larger
project involves several scientific objectives that support the Arctic
and Global Prediction Program, as well as the Ocean Acoustic Program
and the Naval Research Laboratory, for which ONR is the parent command.
ONR has complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHAs (83 FR 48799, September
27, 2018; 84 FR 50007, September 24, 2019; 85 FR 53333, August 28,
2020).
[[Page 47067]]
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
ONR's Arctic Research Activities include scientific experiments to
be conducted in support of the programs named above. Specifically, the
project includes the Arctic Mobile Observing System (AMOS), Ocean
Acoustics field work, and Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) experiments
in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Project activities involve acoustic
testing during cruises (two planned) and a multi-frequency navigation
system concept test using left-behind active acoustic sources. More
specifically, these experiments involve the deployment of moored,
drifting, and ice-tethered active acoustic sources as well as a towed
source (see details below on the Shallow Water Integrate Mapping
System) from the Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq and another vessel,
most likely the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) HEALY. Underwater sound
from the acoustic sources may result in behavioral harassment of marine
mammals.
Dates and Duration
This proposed action would occur from early October 2021 through
early October 2022. The activities analyzed in this proposed IHA would
begin in early October 2021, with a tentative sail date of October 3,
2021 using the R/V Sikuliaq for the first cruise. During this first
cruise, several acoustic sources would be deployed from the ship.
Limited at-sea testing of sources would occur. Around the same time,
some of the sources previously deployed during past projects would be
reactivated. These sources would stay active for around two months and
then would be deactivated via satellite. In the spring of 2022, new NRL
acoustic sources would be deployed by aircraft (likely a fixed-wing
Twin Otter or another single-engine aircraft) and subsequently
activated. These would remain active for approximately five months and
then would be deactivated via satellite. During the fall of 2022,
another research cruise would begin (likely using the CGC HEALY). The
most likely months for this cruise would be September or October 2022.
The cruise utilizing the R/V Sikuliaq is estimated to consist of
approximately 30 days (October 2021--October 2021) at sea. The second
vessel (likely the CGC HEALY) would operate in the fall of 2022 for
approximately six weeks within a two-month period (September or October
2022). However, this proposed action, if finalized, would only be valid
for a period of one year, from approximately October 2021-October 2022.
During the scope of this proposed project, other activities may
occur at different intervals that would assist ONR in meeting the
scientific objectives of the various projects discussed above. However,
these activities are designated as de minimis sources in ONR's 2021-
2022 IHA application (consistent with analyses presented in support of
previous Navy ONR IHAs), or would not produce sounds detectable by
marine mammals (see discussion on de minimis sources below). These
include the coring of bottom sediments within the project area, the
deployment of weather balloons, the deployment of on-ice measurement
systems to collect weather data, the deployment and use of unmanned
aerial systems (UAS), the mooring and use of fixed receiving arrays
(passive acoustic arrays) and oceanographic sensors, and the use and
deployment of drifting oceanographic sensors.
Specific Geographic Region
This proposed action would occur across the U.S. Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) in both the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, partially in the high
seas north of Alaska, the Global Commons, and within a part of the
Canadian EEZ (in which the appropriate permits would be obtained by the
Navy). This proposed project area is further north from the project
area that was previously considered in the first IHA (83 FR 48799,
September 27, 2018), the second IHA (84 FR 50007, September 24, 2019),
and the subsequent renewal to the second IHA (85 FR 53333, August 28,
2020). The proposed action would occur primarily in the Beaufort Sea;
however, the Navy has included the Chukchi Sea in their 2021-2022 IHA
application and analysis to account for any drifting of buoys with
active sources.
The study area consists of a deep-water area approximately 110
nautical miles (nm; 204 kilometers (km)) north of the Alaska coastline.
The total area of the proposed project site is 294,975 square miles
(mi\2\; 763,981 square kilometers (km\2\)). The closest distance of any
leave-behind source (where a majority of the take associated with this
proposed action could occur) is 240 mi (386 km) or more from the Alaska
coastline. This is exclusive to any de minimis sources described below
in the Detailed Description of Specific Activity. Some other
activities, such as the use of gliders, unmanned undersea vehicles
(UUVs), or some on-site activities could occur closer to Alaska, around
110 mi (177 km) from the coastline; however, little take and impacts
are attributed to these as they are primarily de minimis acoustic
sources. A map of the proposed project area and the locations of the
moored and deployed buoys is shown in Figure 1.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 47068]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23AU21.003
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
The ONR Arctic and Global Prediction Program supports two major
projects: Stratified Ocean Dynamics of the Arctic (SODA) and AMOS. The
SODA and AMOS projects have been previously discussed in association
with previously issued IHAs (see 83 FR 40234, August 14, 2018; 84 FR
37240, July 31, 2019). However, only activities relating to the AMOS
project will occur during the period covered by this proposed action.
[[Page 47069]]
The AMOS project constitutes the development of a new system
involving very low (35 hertz (Hz)), low (900 Hz), and mid-frequency
transmissions (10 kilohertz (kHz)). The AMOS project would utilize
acoustic sources and receivers to provide a means of performing under-
ice navigation for gliders and UUVs. This would allow for the
possibility of year-round scientific observations of the environment in
the Arctic. As an environment that is particularly affected by climate
change, year-round observations under a variety of ice conditions are
required to study the effects of this changing environment for military
readiness, as well as the implications of environmental change to
humans and animals. Very-low frequency technology is an important
method of observing ocean warming, and the continued development of
these types of acoustic sources would allow for characterization of
larger areas. The technology also has the potential to allow for
development and use of navigational systems that would not be heard by
some marine mammal species, and therefore would be less impactful
overall.
Additional leave-behind sources would be deployed by aircraft and
would support the NRL project for rapid environmental characterization.
This project would use groups of drifting buoys with sources and
receivers communicating oceanographic information to a satellite in
near real time. These sources would employ low-frequency transmissions
only (900 Hz). NRL currently has four active buoys covered under the
current IHA that is active until September 13, 2021 (85 FR 53333;
August 28, 2020). The proposed action described herein would allow ONR
to re-activate these buoys for observation in the far north from
October to December 2021, as well as a deployment of additional sources
to be active from March to August 2022.
ONR is also supporting a project called UpTempO that would use two
drifting buoys to observe oceanographic conditions in the seasonal ice
zone. These buoys would not have any active acoustic sources and no
take is expected to occur in association with the project. They would
be deployed by ONR during the October 2021 and fall 2022 cruises.
In contrast to past IHA applications for ONR Arctic Research
Activities, icebreaking would not occur as part of this proposed
action. The manner of deployment (by ships, buoys, UUVs, or other
related methods) as well as the transit of the vessels is not expected
to contribute to take. ONR's proposed action would only utilize non-
impulsive acoustic sources, although not all sources will cause take of
marine mammals. Furthermore, any marine mammal takes would only arise
from the operation of non-impulsive active sources.
Below are descriptions of the equipment and platforms that would be
deployed at different times during the proposed action.
Research Vessels
The R/V Sikuliaq would perform the research cruise in October 2021,
and conduct testing of acoustic sources during the cruise, as well as
leave sources behind to operate as a year-round navigation system
observation. The ship to be used in the fall of 2022 is yet to be
determined. The most probable option would be the CGC HEALY, so that
ship is described below.
The R/V Sikuliaq has a maximum speed of approximately 12 knots with
a cruising speed of 11 knots (University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2014).
The R/V Sikuliaq is not an ice-breaking ship, but an ice-strengthened
ship. The CGC HEALY travels at a maximum speed of 17 knots with a
cruising speed of 12 knots (United States Coast Guard, 2013), and a
maximum speed of 3 knots when traveling through 3.5 feet (ft; 1.37
meters (m)) of sea ice (Murphy, 2010). No icebreaking activity is
anticipated to occur during this proposed action. Both vessels would
depart from and return to Nome, Alaska.
The R/V Sikuliaq, CGC HEALY, or any other vessel operating a
research cruise associated with the proposed action may perform the
following activities during their research cruises:
Deployment of moored and/or ice-tethered passive sensors
(oceanographic measurement devices, acoustic receivers);
Deployment of moored and/or ice-tethered active acoustic
sources to transmit acoustic signals;
Deployment of unmanned surface, underwater, and air
vehicles;
Deployment of drifting buoys, with or without acoustic
sources; or,
Recovery of equipment.
Additional oceanographic measurements would be made using ship-
based systems, including the following:
Modular Microstructure Profiler, a tethered profiler that
would measure oceanographic parameters within the top 984 ft (300 m) of
the water column;
Shallow Water Integrate Mapping System, a winched towed
body with a Conductivity Temperature Depth sensor, upward and downward
looking Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs), and a temperature
sensor within the top 328 ft (100 m) of the water column;
Three dimensional Sonic Anemometer, which would measure
wind stress from the foremast of the ship; and,
Surface Wave Instrument Float with Tracking are freely
drifting buoys measuring winds, waves, and other parameters with
deployments spanning from hours to days.
Moored and Drifting Acoustic Sources
AMOS Project (ONR)--During the October 2021 cruise, acoustic
sources would be deployed from the ship on UUVs or drifting buoys. This
would be done for intermittent testing of the system components. The
total amount of active source testing for ship-deployed sources used
during the cruise would be 120 hours. The testing would take place near
the seven source locations on Figure 1, with UUVs running tracks within
the designated box. During this testing, 35 Hz and 900 Hz acoustic
signals, as well as acoustic modems would be employed.
Up to seven fixed acoustic navigation sources transmitting at 900
Hz would remain in place for a year. These moorings would be anchored
on the seabed and held in the water column with subsurface buoys. All
sources would be deployed by shipboard winches, which would lower
sources and receivers in a controlled manner. Anchors would be steel
``wagon wheels'' typically used for this type of deployment. All
navigation sources would be recovered. The purpose of the navigation
sources is to orient UUVs and gliders in situations when they are under
ice and cannot communicate with satellites. For the purposes of this
proposed action, activities potentially resulting in take would not be
included in the fall 2022 cruise; a subsequent application would be
provided by ONR depending on the scientific plan associated with that
cruise.
Rapid Environmental Characterization (NRL)--NRL deployed six
drifting sources under the current 2020 IHA for ONR Arctic Research
Activities (85 FR 53333; August 28, 2020). A maximum of three may still
be available for reactivation in October 2021 and transmission until
December 2021. The purpose of these sources is near-real time
environmental characterization, which is accomplished by communicating
information from the drifting buoys to a satellite. These buoys were
deployed in the ice (via fixed-wing aircraft) for purposes of buoy
stability, but eventually drift in open water. An additional set of
five buoys would be deployed on the ice in March 2022
[[Page 47070]]
using fixed- or rotary-wing aircraft and transmit until August 2022.
The sources can be turned on or off remotely in accordance with
permitting requirements (i.e., outside of periods with an active IHA as
to not cause potential unauthorized take of marine mammals), or when
they drift outside of the project location.
The acoustic parameters of sources for the AMOS and NRL projects
discussed for this proposed action are given in Table 1. A distinction
is made between sources that would have limited testing when the ship
is on-site, and leave behind sources that would transmit for the full
year.
Table 1--Characteristics of the Modeled Acoustic Sources Used During the Proposed Action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound
pressure level
Source name Frequency (Hz) (dB re 1 Pulse length Duty cycle Source type Usage
[micro]Pa at 1 (seconds) (percent)
m) \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMOS Navigation Sources (LF) [leave 900-950 180 30 <1 Moored...................... 7 sources
behind]. transmitting 30
seconds every 4
hours.
AMOS Navigation sources (LF) [on- 900-950 180 30 4 Moving...................... 2 sources,
site; UUV and ship]. transmitting 5 times
an hour with 30 sec
pulse length.
AMOS Navigation sources (LF) 900-950 180 30 <1 Drifting.................... 1 source,
[onsite; buoy]. transmitting every 4
hours.
AMOS VLF Navigation Sources........ 35 190 600 1 Ship-deployed............... 2 times per day.
NRL Real-Time Sensing Sources 900-1,000 184 30 <1 Drifting.................... 3 sources
(2021). transmitting 30
seconds every 6
hours.
NRL Real-Time Sensing Sources 850-1,050 184 60 <1 Drifting.................... 5 sources
(2022). transmitting 1
minute every 8
hours.
WHOI \2\ micromodem (on-site; UUV). 8-14 kHz 185 4 10 Moving...................... Medium duty cycle
acoustic
communications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ dB re 1 [micro]Pa at 1 m= decibels referenced to 1 micropascal at 1 meter.
\2\ WHOI = Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Activities Not Likely To Result in Take
The following in-water activities have been determined to be
unlikely to result in take of marine mammals. These activities are
described here but they are not discussed further in this document.
De minimis Sources--De minimis sources have the following
parameters: Low source levels, narrow beams, downward directed
transmission, short pulse lengths, frequencies outside known marine
mammal hearing ranges, or some combination of these factors (Department
of the Navy, 2013b). The drifting oceanographic sensors described below
use only de minimis sources and are not anticipated to have the
potential for impacts on marine mammals or their habitat. Descriptions
of some de minimis sources are discussed below and in Table 2. More
detailed descriptions of these de minimis sources can be found in ONR's
IHA application under Section 1.1.1.2.
Table 2--Parameters for de Minimis Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound pressure
level (dB re 1 Pulse length Duty cycle De minimis
Source name Frequency range (kHz) [micro]Pa at 1 (seconds) (percent) Beamwidth Justification
m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PIES......................... 12............................. 170-180 0.006 <0.01 45..................... Extremely low
duty cycle,
low source
level, very
short pulse
length.
ADCP......................... >200, 150, or 75............... 190 <0.001 <0.1 2.2.................... Very low pulse
length, narrow
beam, moderate
source level.
Chirp sonar.................. 2-16........................... 200 0.02 <1 narrow................. Very short
pulse length,
low duty
cycle, narrow
beam width.
EMATT........................ 700-1,100 Hz and 1100-4,000 Hz. <150 N/A 25-100 Omni................... Very low source
level.
Coring system................ 25-200......................... 158-162 <0.001 16 Omni................... Very low source
level.\2\
CTD \1\ attached Echosounder. 5-20........................... 160 0.004 2 Omni................... Very low source
level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CTD = Conductivity Temperature Depth.
\2\ Within sediment; not within the water column.
[[Page 47071]]
Drifting Oceanographic Sensors--Observations of ocean-ice
interactions require the use of sensors that are moored and embedded in
the ice. For the proposed action, it will not be required to break ice
to do this, as deployments can be performed in areas of low ice-
coverage or free-floating ice. Sensors are deployed within a few dozen
meters of each other on the same ice floe. Three types of sensors would
be used: Autonomous ocean flux buoys, Integrated Autonomous Drifters,
and Ice Tethered Profilers. The autonomous ocean flux buoys measure
oceanographic properties just below the ocean-ice interface. The
autonomous ocean flux buoys would have ADCPs and temperature chains
attached, to measure temperature, salinity, and other ocean parameters
in the top 20 ft (6 m) of the water column. The Integrated Autonomous
Drifters would have a long temperate string extending down to 656 ft
(200 m) depth and would incorporate meteorological sensors, and a
temperature spring to estimate ice thickness. The Ice Tethered
Profilers would collect information on ocean temperature, salinity and
velocity down to 820 ft (250 m) depth.
Fifteen autonomous floats (Air-Launched Autonomous Micro Observer)
would be deployed during the proposed action to measure seasonal
evolution of the ocean temperature and salinity, as well as currents.
They would be deployed on the eastern edge of the Chukchi Sea in water
less than 3,280 ft (1,000 m) deep. Three autonomous floats would act as
virtual moorings by originating on the seafloor, then moving up the
water column to the surface and returning to the seafloor. The other 12
autonomous floats would sit on the seafloor and at intervals begin to
move towards the surface. At programmed intervals, a subset of the
floats would release anchors and begin their profiling mission. Up to
15 additional floats may be deployed by ships of opportunity in the
Beaufort Gyre.
The UpTempO project would deploy two surface buoys. There is a
conductivity-temperature sensor pair attached to the hull to measure
sea surface temperature and sea surface salinity.
The drifting oceanographic sensors described above use only de
minimis sources and are therefore not anticipated to have the potential
for impacts on marine mammals or their habitat.
Moored Oceanographic Sensors--Moored sensors would capture a range
of ice, ocean, and atmospheric conditions on a year-round basis. These
would be bottom anchored, sub-surface moorings measuring velocity,
temperature, and salinity in the upper 1,640 ft (500 m) of the water
column. The moorings also collect high-resolution acoustic measurements
of the ice using the ice profilers described above. Ice velocity and
surface waves would be measured by 500 kHz multi-beam sonars.
Additionally, Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project moorings BGOS-A and
BGOS-B would be augmented with McLane Moored Profilers. BGOS-A and
BGOS-B would be placed on existing Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
(WHOI) moorings. The two BGOS moorings would provide measurements near
the Northwind Ridge, with considerable latitudinal distribution.
Existing deployments of Nortek Acoustic Wave and Current Profilers on
BGOS-A and BGOS-B would also be continued as part of the proposed
action.
The moored oceanographic sensors described above use only de
minimis sources and are therefore not anticipated to have the potential
for impacts on marine mammals or their habitat.
Fixed Receiving Arrays--Horizontal and vertical arrays may be used
to receive acoustic signals, if they are available. Examples are the
Single Hydrophone Recording Units and Autonomous Multichannel Acoustic
Recorder. Such arrays would be moored to the seafloor and remain in
place throughout the activity.
These are passive acoustic sensors and therefore are not
anticipated to have the potential for impacts on marine mammals or
their habitat.
Activities Involving Aircraft and Unmanned Air Vehicles--The
deployment of the NRL sources in 2022 would be accomplished by using
aircraft that would land on the ice. Flights would be conducted with a
Twin Otter aircraft or a single engine alternative that would be
quieter. Flights would transit at 1,500 ft or 10,000 ft (457 m or 3,048
m) above sea level. Twin Otters have flight speeds of 80 to 160 knots
(148 to 296 kilometers per hour (kph)), a typical survey speed of 90 to
110 knots (167 to 204 kph), 66 ft (20 m) wingspan, and a total length
of 26 ft (8 m) (U.S. Department of Commerce and National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration, 2015). At a distance of 2,152 ft (656
m) away, the received pressure levels of a Twin Otter range from 80 to
98.5 A[hyphen]weighted decibels (expression of the relative loudness in
the air as perceived by the human ear) and frequency levels ranging
from 20 Hz to 10 kHz, though they are more typically in the 500 Hz
range (Metzger, 1995). Once on the floating ice, the team would drill
holes with up to a 10-inch (in; 25.4 centimeters (cm)) diameter to
deploy scientific equipment (e.g., source, hydrophone array, EMATT)
into the water column.
The proposed action includes the use of an Unmanned Aerial System
(UAS). The UAS would be utilized for aid of navigation and to confirm
and study ice cover. The UAS would be deployed ahead of the ship to
ensure a clear passage for the vessel and would have a maximum flight
time of 20 minutes. The UAS would not be used for marine mammal
observations or hover close to the ice near marine mammals. There would
be no videotaping or picture taking of marine mammals as part of this
proposed action. The UAS that would be used during the proposed action
is a small commercially available system that generates low sound
levels and is smaller than military grade systems. The dimensions of
the proposed UAS are, 11.4 in, (29 cm) by 11.4 in (29 cm) by 7.1 in (18
cm) and weighs only 2.5 pounds (lbs.; 1.13 kilograms (kg)). The UAS can
operate up to 984 ft (300 m) away, which would keep the device in close
proximity to the ship. The planned operation of the UAS is to fly it
vertically above the ship to examine the ice conditions in the path of
the ship and around the area (i.e., not flown at low altitudes around
the vessel). Currently acoustic parameters are not available for the
proposed models of UASs to be utilized in the proposed action. As
stated above these systems are very small and are similar to a remote
control helicopter. It is likely marine mammals would not hear the
device since the noise generated would likely not be audible from
greater than 5 ft (1.5 m) away (Christiansen et al., 2016).
All aircraft (manned and unmanned) would be required to maintain a
minimum separation distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from any pinnipeds
hauled out on the ice. Therefore, no take of marine mammals is
anticipated from these activities.
On-Ice Measurement Systems--On-ice measurement systems would be
used to collect weather data. These would include an Autonomous Weather
Station and an Ice Mass Balance Buoy. The Autonomous Weather Station
would be deployed on a tripod; the tripod has insulated foot platforms
that are frozen into the ice. The system would consist of an
anemometer, humidity sensor, and pressure sensor. The Autonomous
Weather Station also includes an altimeter that is de minimis due to
its very high frequency (200 kHz). The Ice Mass Balance Buoy is a 20
[[Page 47072]]
ft (6 m) sensor string, which is deployed through a 2 in (5 cm) hole
drilled into the ice. The string is weighted by a 2.2 lbs. (1 kg) lead
weight, and is supported by a tripod. The buoy contains a de minimis
200 kHz altimeter and snow depth sensor. Autonomous Weather Stations
and Ice Mass Balance Buoys will be deployed, and will drift with the
ice, making measurements, until their host ice floes melt, thus
destroying the instruments (likely in summer, roughly one year after
deployment). After the on-ice instruments are destroyed they cannot be
recovered, and would sink to the seafloor as their host ice floes
melted.
All personnel conducting experiments on the ice would be required
to maintain a minimum separation distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from any
pinnipeds hauled out on the ice. Therefore, no take of marine mammals
is anticipated from these activities.
Bottom Interaction Systems--Coring of bottom sediment could occur
anywhere within the project location to obtain a more complete
understanding of the Arctic environment. Coring equipment would take up
to 50 samples of the ocean bottom in the study location annually. The
samples would be roughly cylindrical, with a 3.1 in (8 cm) diameter
cross-section area; the corings would be between 10 and 20 ft (3 and 6
m) long. Coring would only occur during research cruises, during the
summer or early fall. The coring equipment moves very slowly through
the muddy bottom, at a speed of approximately 1 m per hour, and would
not create any detectable acoustic signal within the water column,
though very low levels of acoustic transmissions may be created in the
mud (refer back to Table 2). The source levels of the coring equipment
are so low that take of marine mammals from acoustic exposure is not
considered a potential outcome of this activity.
Weather Balloons--To support weather observations, up to forty
Kevlar or latex balloons would be launched per year for the duration of
the proposed actions. These balloons and associated radiosondes (a
sensor package that is suspended below the balloon) are similar to
those that have been deployed by the National Weather Service since the
late 1930s. When released, the balloon is approximately 5 to 6 ft (1.5
to 1.8 m) in diameter and gradually expands as it rises owing to the
decrease in air pressure. When the balloon reaches a diameter of 13 to
22 ft (4 to 7 m), it bursts and a parachute is deployed to slow the
descent of the associated radiosonde. Weather balloons would not be
recovered.
The deployment of weather balloons does not include the use of
active acoustics and therefore, is not anticipated to have the
potential for impacts on marine mammals or their habitat.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the 2021-2022 IHA application summarize
available information regarding status and trends, distribution and
habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially
affected species. Additional information regarding population trends
and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about
these species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found
on NMFS's website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 3 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
proposed to be authorized for this action, and summarizes information
related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under
the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological
removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on
Taxonomy (2021). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of
animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS'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 2020 Alaska SARs (Muto et al., 2021). All values presented in
Table 3 are the most recent available at the time of publication and
are available in the 2020 SARs (Muto et al., 2021) and available online
at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.
Table 3--Species Expected To Occur 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--Cetacean--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Monodontidae:
Beluga whale.................... Delphinapterus leucas.. Beaufort Sea \4\....... -,-; N 39,258 (0.229, N/A, \4\ UND 102
1992).
Beluga whale.................... Delphinapterus leucas.. Eastern Chukchi........ -,-; N 13,305 (0.51, 8,875, 178 55
2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Ringed seal \5\................. Pusa hispida hispida... Arctic................. T, D; Y 171,418............... 5,100 6,459
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
[[Page 47073]]
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\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\ Abundance and associated values for ringed seals are for the U.S. population in the Bering Sea only.
Activities conducted during this proposed action are expected to
cause harassment, as defined by the MMPA as it applies to military
readiness, to the beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas; of the Beaufort
and eastern Chukchi Sea stocks) and the ringed seal (Pusa hispida
hispida). As indicated above in Table 3, both species (with three
managed stocks) temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to
the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have
proposed authorizing it. While bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus),
gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), bearded seals (Erignathus
barbatus), spotted seals (Phoca largha), and ribbon seals (Histiophoca
fasciata) have been documented in the area, the temporal and spatial
occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur,
and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided
here.
Due to the location of the study area (i.e., northern offshore,
deep water), there were no calculated exposures for the bowhead whale,
gray whale, spotted seal, bearded seal, and ribbon seal from
quantitative modeling of acoustic sources. Bowhead and gray whales are
closely associated with the shallow waters of the continental shelf in
the Beaufort Sea and are unlikely to be exposed to acoustic harassment
(Carretta et al., 2017; Muto et al., 2018). Similarly, spotted seals
tend to prefer pack ice areas with water depths less than 200 m during
the spring and move to coastal habitats in the summer and fall, found
as far north as 69-72[deg] N (Muto et al., 2018). Although the study
area includes some waters south of 72[deg] N, the acoustic sources with
the potential to result in take of marine mammals are not found below
that latitude and spotted seals are not expected to be exposed. Ribbon
seals are found year-round in the Bering Sea but may seasonally range
into the Chukchi Sea (Muto et al., 2018). The proposed action occurs
primarily in the Beaufort Sea, outside of the core range of ribbon
seals, thus ribbon seals are not expected to be behaviorally harassed.
Narwhals (Monodon monoceros) are considered extralimital in the project
area and are not expected to be encountered. As no harassment is
expected of the bowhead whale, gray whale, spotted seal, bearded seal,
narwhal, and ribbon seal, these species will not be discussed further
in this proposed notice.
Ringed seals lack a reliable population estimate for the entire
stock. Conn et al., (2014) calculated an abundance estimate of 171,418
ringed seals (95 percent CI: 141,588-201,090) using a sub-sample of
data collected from the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea in 2012.
Researchers plan to combine these results with those from spring
surveys of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas once complete. During the
summer months, ringed seals forage along ice edges or in open water
areas of high productivity and have been observed in the northern
Beaufort Sea during summer months (Harwood and Stirling, 1992; Freitas
et al., 2008; Kelly et al., 2010a; Harwood et al., 2015). This open
water movement becomes limited with the onset of ice in the fall
forcing the seals to move west and south as ice packs advance,
dispersing the animals throughout the Chukchi and Bering Seas, with
only a portion remaining in the Beaufort Sea (Frost and Lowry, 1984;
Crawford et al., 2012; Harwood et al., 2012). In a telemetry study,
ringed seals tagged showed preference for Continental Shelf waters over
96 percent of tracking days, where near-continuous foraging activities
were noted (Von Duyke et al., 2020).
The Navy has utilized Kelly et al., (2010a) in their IHA
application to determine the abundance estimate for ringed seals, which
is based on surveys conducted by Bengtson et al., (2005) and Frost et
al., (2004) in the 1990s and 2000 (300,000 ringed seals). NMFS 2013
Alaska SAR (Allen & Angliss, 2013) has noted that this value is likely
an underestimate as it is based on surveys that are older than eight
years and that make up a portion of the known range of the ringed seal.
Conn et al., (2014) determined a different abundance estimate from
Kelly et al., 2010a (171,418), which is noted in NMFS's 2020 Alaska SAR
(Muto et al., 2021) to also be inaccurate due to the lack of accounting
for availability bias for seals that were in the water at the time of
the surveys as well as not including seals located within the shorefast
ice zone. Muto et al., (2021) notes that an accurate population
estimate is likely larger by a factor of two or more. However, no
accepted population estimate is present for Arctic ringed seals.
Therefore, in the interest in making conservative decisions, NMFS will
adopt the Conn et al., (2014) abundance estimate (171,418) for further
analyses and discussions on this proposed action by ONR.
In addition, the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) and Pacific walrus
(Odobenus rosmarus) may be found both on sea ice and/or in the water
within the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea. These species are managed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are not considered
further in this document.
Beluga Whale
Beluga whales are distributed throughout seasonally ice-covered
arctic and subarctic waters of the Northern Hemisphere (Gurevich,
1980), and are closely associated with open leads and polynyas in ice-
covered regions (Hazard, 1988). Belugas are both migratory and
residential (non-migratory), depending on the population. Seasonal
distribution is affected by ice cover, tidal conditions, access to
prey, temperature, and human interaction (Frost et al., 1985).
There are five beluga stocks recognized within U.S. waters: Cook
Inlet, Bristol Bay, eastern Bering Sea, eastern Chukchi Sea, and
Beaufort Sea. Two stocks, the Beaufort Sea and eastern Chukchi Sea
stocks, have the potential to occur in the location of this proposed
action.
There are two migration areas used by Beaufort Sea belugas that
overlap the proposed project site. One, located in the Eastern Chukchi
and Alaskan Beaufort Sea, is a migration area in use from April to May.
The second, located in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, is used by migrating
belugas from September to October (Calambokidis et al., 2015). During
the winter, they can be found foraging in offshore waters associated
with pack ice. When the sea ice melts in summer, they move to warmer
river estuaries and coastal areas for molting and calving (Muto et al.,
2017). Annual migrations can span over thousands of kilometers. The
residential Beaufort Sea populations participate in short distance
movements within their range throughout the year. Based on satellite
tags (Suydam et al., 2001) there is some overlap in distribution with
the eastern Chukchi Sea beluga whale stock.
[[Page 47074]]
During the winter, eastern Chukchi Sea belugas occur in offshore
waters associated with pack ice. In the spring, they migrate to warmer
coastal estuaries, bays, and rivers where they may molt (Finley, 1982;
Suydam, 2009), give birth to, and care for their calves (Sergeant and
Brodie, 1969). Eastern Chukchi Sea belugas move into coastal areas,
including Kasegaluk Lagoon (outside of the proposed project site), in
late June and animals are sighted in the area until about mid-July
(Frost and Lowry, 1990; Frost et al., 1993). Satellite tags attached to
eastern Chukchi Sea belugas captured in Kasegaluk Lagoon during the
summer showed these whales traveled 593 nm (1,100 km) north of the
Alaska coastline, into the Canadian Beaufort Sea within three months
(Suydam et al., 2001). Satellite telemetry data from 23 whales tagged
during 1998-2007 suggest variation in movement patterns for different
age and/or sex classes during July-September (Suydam et al., 2005).
Adult males used deeper waters and remained there for the duration of
the summer; all belugas that moved into the Arctic Ocean (north of
75[deg] N) were males, and males traveled through 90 percent pack ice
cover to reach deeper waters in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean (79-
80[deg] N) by late July/early August. Adult and immature female belugas
remained at or near the shelf break in the south through the eastern
Bering Strait into the northern Bering Sea, remaining north of Saint
Lawrence Island over the winter. A whale tagged in the eastern Chukchi
Sea in 2007 overwintered in the waters north of Saint Lawrence Island
during 2007/2008 and moved to near King Island in April and May before
moving north through the Bering Strait in late May and early June
(Suydam, 2009).
Ringed Seal
Ringed seals are the most common pinniped in the proposed project
site and have wide distribution in seasonally and permanently ice-
covered waters of the Northern Hemisphere (North Atlantic Marine Mammal
Commission, 2004). Throughout their range, ringed seals have an
affinity for ice-covered waters and are well adapted to occupying both
shore-fast and pack ice (Kelly, 1988c). Ringed seals can be found
further offshore than other pinnipeds since they can maintain breathing
holes in ice thickness greater than 6.6 ft (2 m) (Smith and Stirling,
1975). The breathing holes are maintained by ringed seals using their
sharp teeth and claws found on their fore flippers. They remain in
contact with ice most of the year and use it as a platform for molting
in late spring to early summer, for pupping and nursing in late winter
to early spring, and for resting at other times of the year (Muto et
al., 2017).
Ringed seals have at least two distinct types of subnivean lairs:
Haulout lairs and birthing lairs (Smith and Stirling, 1975). Haul-out
lairs are typically single-chambered and offer protection from
predators and cold weather. Birthing lairs are larger, multi-chambered
areas that are used for pupping in addition to protection from
predators. Ringed seals pup on both land-fast ice as well as stable
pack ice. Lentfer (1972) found that ringed seals north of
Utqia[gdot]vik, Alaska (formally known as Barrow, Alaska) build their
subnivean lairs on the pack ice near pressure ridges. Since subnivean
lairs were found north of Utqia[gdot]vik, Alaska, in pack ice, they are
also assumed to be found within the sea ice in the proposed project
site. Ringed seals excavate subnivean lairs in drifts over their
breathing holes in the ice, in which they rest, give birth, and nurse
their pups for 5-9 weeks during late winter and spring (Chapskii, 1940;
McLaren, 1958; Smith and Stirling, 1975). Ringed seals require snow
depths of at least 20-26 in (50-65 cm) for functional birth lairs
(Kelly, 1988b; Lydersen, 1998; Lydersen and Gjertz, 1986; Smith and
Stirling, 1975). Such depths typically are found only where 8-12 in
(20-30 cm) or more of snow has accumulated on flat ice and then drifted
along pressure ridges or ice hummocks (Hammill, 2008; Lydersen et al.,
1990; Lydersen and Ryg, 1991; Smith and Lydersen, 1991). Ringed seals
are born beginning in March, but the majority of births occur in early
April. About a month after parturition, mating begins in late April and
early May.
In Alaskan waters, during winter and early spring when sea ice is
at its maximum extent, ringed seals are abundant in the northern Bering
Sea, Norton and Kotzebue Sounds, and throughout the Chukchi and
Beaufort seas (Frost, 1985; Kelly, 1988c). Passive acoustic monitoring
of ringed seals from a high frequency recording package deployed at a
depth of 787 ft (240 m) in the Chukchi Sea 65 nmi (120 km) north-
northwest of Utqia[gdot]vik, Alaska detected ringed seals in the area
between mid-December and late May over the 4 year study (Jones et al.,
2014). With the onset of fall freeze, ringed seal movements become
increasingly restricted and seals will either move west and south with
the advancing ice pack with many seals dispersing throughout the
Chukchi and Bering Seas, or remaining in the Beaufort Sea (Crawford et
al., 2012; Frost and Lowry, 1984; Harwood et al., 2012). Kelly et al.,
(2010a) tracked home ranges for ringed seals in the subnivean period
(using shore-fast ice); the size of the home ranges varied from less
than 1 up to 279 km\2\ (median is 0.62 km\2\ for adult males and 0.65
km\2\ for adult females). Most (94 percent) of the home ranges were
less than 3 km\2\ during the subnivean period (Kelly et al., 2010a).
Near large polynyas, ringed seals maintain ranges, up to 7,000 km\2\
during winter and 2,100 km\2\ during spring (Born et al., 2004). Some
adult ringed seals return to the same small home ranges they occupied
during the previous winter (Kelly et al., 2010a). The size of winter
home ranges can vary by up to a factor of 10 depending on the amount of
fast ice; seal movements were more restricted during winters with
extensive fast ice, and were much less restricted where fast ice did
not form at high levels (Harwood et al., 2015).
Most taxonomists recognize five subspecies of ringed seals. The
Arctic ringed seal subspecies occurs in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea
and is the only stock that occurs in U.S. waters (referred to as the
Arctic stock). NMFS listed the Arctic ringed seal subspecies as
threatened under the ESA on December 28, 2012 (77 FR 76706), primarily
due to anticipated loss of sea ice through the end of the 21st century.
Ice Seal Unusual Mortality Event (UME)
Since June 1, 2018, elevated strandings of ringed seals, bearded
seals, spotted seals, and several unidentified seals have occurred in
the Bering and Chukchi Seas. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), as of September 2019, have declared this event
an Unusual Mortality Event (UME). A UME is defined under the MMPA as a
stranding that is unexpected, involves a significant die-off of any
marine mammal population, and demands immediate response. From June 1,
2018 to February 9, 2020, there have been 278 dead seals reported, with
112 stranding in 2018, 165 in 2019, and one in 2020, which is nearly
five times the average number of strandings of about 29 seals annually.
All age classes of seals have been reported stranded, and a subset of
seals have been sampled for genetics and harmful algal bloom exposure,
with a few having histopathology collected. Results are pending, and
the cause of the UME remains unknown.
There was a previous UME involving ice seals from 2011 to 2016,
which was most active in 2011-2012. A minimum of 657 seals were
affected. The UME investigation determined that some of the clinical
signs were due to an abnormal molt, but a definitive cause of death for
the UME was never
[[Page 47075]]
determined. The number of stranded ice seals involved in this UME, and
their physical characteristics, is not at all similar to the 2011-2016
UME, as the seals in 2018-2020 have not been exhibiting hair loss or
skin lesions, which were a primary finding in the 2011-2016 UME. The
investigation into the cause of the most recent UME is ongoing.
As of July 2021, the current number of animals counted as part of
the UME is 316. However, while no ice seals have stranded in 2021, at
the time of this publication, the UME is still considered ongoing. More
detailed information is available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2018-2019-ice-seal-unusual-mortality-event-alaska.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect
this, Southall et al., (2007) recommended that marine mammals be
divided into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or
estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response
data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques,
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al., (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 4.
Table 4--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups (NMFS, 2018)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
(sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al., (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Two marine mammal species (one cetacean (odontocete species) and one
pinniped (phocid species)) have the reasonable potential to co-occur
with the proposed survey activities. Beluga whales are classified as
mid-frequency odontocete cetaceans. Please refer back to Table 3.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The Estimated Take section later in this document
includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are
expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the content of this section, the
Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those
impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or
stocks.
Description of Sound Sources
Here, we first provide background information on marine mammal
hearing before discussing the potential effects of the use of active
acoustic sources on marine mammals.
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and
is measured in Hz or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance
between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have longer
wavelengths than higher frequency sounds and attenuate (decrease) more
rapidly in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound
pressure wave or the `loudness' of a sound and is typically measured
using the dB scale. A dB is the ratio between a measured pressure (with
sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a constant pressure,
established by scientific standards). It is a logarithmic unit that
accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, relatively small
changes in dB ratings correspond to large changes in sound pressure.
When referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force per unit
area), sound is referenced in the context of underwater sound pressure
to one micropascal (1 [mu]Pa). One pascal is the pressure resulting
from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter.
The source level (SL) represents the sound level at a distance of 1 m
from the source (referenced to 1 [mu]Pa). The received level is the
sound level at the listener's position. Note that all underwater sound
levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 1 [micro]Pa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over
the duration of an impulse. RMS is calculated by squaring all of the
sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square
root of the average (Urick, 1983). RMS accounts for both positive and
negative values;
[[Page 47076]]
squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be
accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper,
2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing
behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often
result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged
units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all
directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a
pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The
compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are
detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound
receptors such as hydrophones.
The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and
anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing
sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many
sources both near and far (ANSI, 1995). The sound level of an area is
defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and
unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., waves, wind,
precipitation, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. Because of the dependence on a large
number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary
widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound
levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day
to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that, depending on the
source type and its intensity, sound from the specified activity may be
a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a
distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals.
Underwater sounds fall into one of two general sound types:
impulsive and non-impulsive (defined in the following paragraphs). The
distinction between these two sound types is important because they
have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with
regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). Please
see Southall et al., (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these
concepts.
Impulsive sound sources (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms,
impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients
(ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003; ANSI, 2005) and
occur either as isolated events or repeated in some succession.
Impulsive sounds are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from
ambient pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay
period that may include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal
and minimal pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to
induce physical injury as compared with sounds that lack these
features. However and as previously noted, no impulsive acoustic
sources will be used during ONR's proposed action.
Non-impulsive sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief
or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI,
1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-impulsive sounds can be transient
signals of short duration but without the essential properties of
pulses (e.g., rapid rise time). Examples of non-impulsive sounds
include those produced by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such
as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar
sources that intentionally direct a sound signal at a target that is
reflected back in order to discern physical details about the target.
These active sources are used in navigation, military training and
testing, and other research activities such as the activities planned
by ONR as part of the proposed action. The duration of such sounds, as
received at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant
environment.
Acoustic Impacts
Please refer to the information given previously regarding sound,
characteristics of sound types, and metrics used in this document.
Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range of frequencies and sound
levels and can have a range of highly variable impacts on marine life,
from none or minor to potentially severe responses, depending on
received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and various
other factors. The potential effects of underwater sound from active
acoustic sources can potentially result in one or more of the
following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory
physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and
masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2003; Nowacek et al.,
2007; Southall et al., 2007; Gotz et al., 2009). The degree of effect
is intrinsically related to the signal characteristics, received level,
distance from the source, and duration of the sound exposure. In
general, sudden, high level sounds can cause hearing loss, as can
longer exposures to lower level sounds. Temporary or permanent loss of
hearing will occur almost exclusively for noise within an animal's
hearing range. In this section, we first describe specific
manifestations of acoustic effects before providing discussion specific
to the proposed activities in the next section.
Permanent Threshold Shift--Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity
sound, or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can
experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing
sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be
permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not
fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's
hearing threshold would recover over time (Southall et al., 2007).
Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. In severe
cases of PTS, there can be total or partial deafness, while in most
cases the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific
frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in
the ear (i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS represents primarily tissue
fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other
investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of
physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical
injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to
constitute auditory injury.
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied
in marine mammals--PTS data exists only for a single harbor seal
(Kastak et al., 2008)--but are assumed to be similar to those in humans
and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels
at least several decibels above (a 40-dB threshold shift approximates
PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing mild
TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift
[[Page 47077]]
approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall et al., 2007). Based on data
from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS
thresholds for impulse sounds (such as impact pile driving pulses as
received close to the source) are at least six dB higher than the TTS
threshold on a peak-pressure basis and PTS cumulative sound exposure
level (SEL) thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative SEL
thresholds (Southall et al., 2007).
Temporary Threshold Shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing
impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985).
While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must
be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine
mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong
TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after
exposure to the sound ends.
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to
serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate
for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency
range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there
are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could
have more serious impacts.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans
(bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale, harbor porpoise
(Phocoeona phocoena), and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena
asiaeorientalis)) and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant
seal (Mirounga angustirostris), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), and
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus)) exposed to a limited
number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in
laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained
spotted and ringed seals exposed to impulsive noise at levels matching
previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general,
harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other
measured pinniped or cetacean species. Additionally, the existing
marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within
these species. For example, there are no data available on noise-
induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in
marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds,
please see Southall et al., (2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), and
Finneran (2015).
Behavioral effects--Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of
effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief
avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous
changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or
potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment
of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly
variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of maturity,
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity,
time of day), as well as the interplay between factors (e.g.,
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007;
Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not
only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on
previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other
factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on
characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is
moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source).
Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al., (2007) for a review of
studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of
exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response.
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al.,
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with
captive marine mammals have showed pronounced behavioral reactions,
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997;
Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to
loud impulsive sound sources (typically seismic airguns or acoustic
harassment devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance
behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and
Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given
sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving
the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater
sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts
of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let
alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces
marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a
prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC,
2003). However, there are broad categories of potential response, which
we describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive
behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing,
interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel
and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et
al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013). Variations in dive behavior may
reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g.,
foraging) or they may be of little biological significance. The impact
of an alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure
depends on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the
type and magnitude of the response.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal
[[Page 47078]]
presentation, as well as differences in species sensitivity, are likely
contributing factors to differences in response in any given
circumstance (e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.; 2004; Madsen et
al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 2007). A determination of whether foraging
disruptions incur fitness consequences would require information on or
estimates of the energetic requirements of the affected individuals and
the relationship between prey availability, foraging effort and
success, and the life history stage of the animal.
Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors
and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure
can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute
stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may
either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and
signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in
understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise
when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic
sound exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 2005, 2006; Gailey et
al., 2007).
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple
modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and
singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic
noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to
compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased
vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of
potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have
been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al.,
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales
have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward
while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic
noise (Parks et al., 2007). In some cases, animals may cease sound
production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other
stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales
are known to change direction--deflecting from customary migratory
paths--in order to avoid noise from seismic surveys (Malme et al.,
1984). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area
once the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996;
Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007). Longer-term
displacement is possible, however, which may lead to changes in
abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species in the
affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does not
occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006).
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, rate of
travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine
mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight
responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight response could range from
brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the
signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings
(Evans and England, 2001). However, it should be noted that response to
a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and
Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may
influence the response.
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more
subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to
diversion of focus and attention (i.e., when a response consists of
increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to
other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects
have generally not been observed in marine mammals, but studies
involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased
vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and
Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford, 2011). In
addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through
reduction of fitness (e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent
reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington
and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However,
Ridgway et al., (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose
dolphins exposed to sound over a five-day period did not cause any
sleep deprivation or stress effects.
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting,
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound
exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007).
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further,
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive
behavioral responses.
To assess the strength of behavioral changes and responses to
external sounds and SPLs associated with changes in behavior, Southall
et al., (2007) developed and utilized a severity scale, which is a 10
point scale ranging from no effect (labeled 0), effects not likely to
influence vital rates (labeled from 1 to 3), effects that could affect
vital rates (labeled 4 to 6), to effects that were thought likely to
influence vital rates (labeled 7 to 9). For non-impulsive sounds (i.e.,
similar to the sources used during the proposed action), data suggest
that exposures of pinnipeds to sources between 90 and 140 dB re 1
[mu]Pa do not elicit strong behavioral responses; no data were
available for exposures at higher received levels for Southall et al.,
(2007) to include in the severity scale analysis. Reactions of harbor
seals were the only available data for which the responses could be
ranked on the severity scale. For reactions that were recorded, the
majority (17 of 18 individuals/groups) were ranked on the severity
scale as a 4 (defined as moderate change in movement, brief shift in
group distribution, or moderate change in vocal behavior) or lower; the
remaining response was ranked as a 6 (defined as minor or moderate
avoidance of the sound source). Additional data on hooded seals
(Cystophora cristata) indicate avoidance responses to signals above
160-170 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (Kvadsheim et al., 2010), and data on grey
(Halichoerus grypus) and harbor seals indicate avoidance response at
received levels of 135-144 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (G[ouml]tz et al., 2010). In
each instance where food was available, which provided the seals
motivation to
[[Page 47079]]
remain near the source, habituation to the signals occurred rapidly. In
the same study, it was noted that habituation was not apparent in wild
seals where no food source was available (G[ouml]tz et al., 2010). This
implies that the motivation of the animal is necessary to consider in
determining the potential for a reaction. In one study to investigate
the under-ice movements and sensory cues associated with under-ice
navigation of ice seals, acoustic transmitters (60-69 kHz at 159 dB re
1 [mu]Pa at 1 m) were attached to ringed seals (Wartzok et al., 1992a;
Wartzok et al., 1992b). An acoustic tracking system then was installed
in the ice to receive the acoustic signals and provide real-time
tracking of ice seal movements. Although the frequencies used in this
study are at the upper limit of ringed seal hearing, the ringed seals
appeared unaffected by the acoustic transmissions, as they were able to
maintain normal behaviors (e.g., finding breathing holes).
Seals exposed to non-impulsive sources with a received sound
pressure level within the range of calculated exposures (142-193 dB re
1 [mu]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 sources in the proposed 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) (Kelly et al., 1988d).
Some behavioral response studies have been conducted on odontocete
responses to sonar. In studies that examined sperm whales (Physeter
macrocephalus) and false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) (both in
the mid-frequency cetacean hearing group), the marine mammals showed
temporary cessation of calling and avoidance of sonar sources (Akamatsu
et al., 1993; Watkins and Schevill, 1975). Sperm whales resumed calling
and communication approximately two minutes after the pings stopped
(Watkins and Schevill, 1975). False killer whales moved away from the
sound source but returned to the area between 0 and 10 minutes after
the end of transmissions (Akamatsu et al., 1993). Many of the
contextual factors resulting from the behavioral response studies
(e.g., close approaches by multiple vessels or tagging) would not occur
during the proposed action. Odontocete behavioral responses to acoustic
transmissions from non-impulsive sources used during the proposed
action would likely be a result of the animal's behavioral state and
prior experience rather than external variables such as ship proximity;
thus, if significant behavioral responses occur they would likely be
short term. In fact, no significant behavioral responses such as panic,
stranding, or other severe reactions have been observed during
monitoring of actual training exercises (Department of the Navy 2011,
2014; Smultea and Mobley, 2009; Watwood et al., 2012).
Ringed seals on pack ice showed various behaviors when approached
by an icebreaking vessel. A majority of seals dove underwater when the
ship was within 0.5 nm (0.93 km) while others remained on the ice.
However, as icebreaking vessels came closer to the seals, most dove
underwater. Ringed seals have also been observed foraging in the wake
of an icebreaking vessel (Richardson et al., 1995). In studies by
Alliston (1980; 1981), there was no observed change in the density of
ringed seals in areas that had been subject to icebreaking.
Alternatively, ringed seals may have preferentially established
breathing holes in the ship tracks after the icebreaker moved through
the area. Although icebreaking will not be occurring during this
proposed action, previous observations and studies using icebreaking
ships provide a greater understanding in how seal behavior may be
affected by a vessel transiting through the area.
Adult ringed seals spend up to 20 percent of the time in subnivean
lairs during the winter season (Kelly et al., 2010b). Ringed seal pups
spend about 50 percent of their time in the lair during the nursing
period (Lydersen and Hammill, 1993). During the warm season ringed
seals haul out on the ice. In a study of ringed seal haul out activity
by Born et al., (2002), ringed seals spent 25-57 percent of their time
hauled out in June, which is during their molting season. Ringed seal
lairs are typically used by individual seals (haulout lairs) or by a
mother with a pup (birthing lairs); large lairs used by many seals for
hauling out are rare (Smith and Stirling, 1975). If the non-impulsive
acoustic transmissions are heard and are perceived as a threat, ringed
seals within subnivean lairs could react to the sound in a similar
fashion to their reaction to other threats, such as polar bears (their
primary predators), although the type of sound would be novel to them.
Responses of ringed seals to a variety of human-induced sounds (e.g.,
helicopter noise, snowmobiles, dogs, people, and seismic activity) have
been variable; some seals entered the water and some seals remained in
the lair. However, in all instances in which observed seals departed
lairs in response to noise disturbance, they subsequently reoccupied
the lair (Kelly et al., 1988d).
Ringed seal mothers have a strong bond with their pups and may
physically move their pups from the birth lair to an alternate lair to
avoid predation, sometimes risking their lives to defend their pups
from potential predators (Smith, 1987). If a ringed seal mother
perceives the proposed acoustic sources as a threat, the network of
multiple birth and haulout lairs allows the mother and pup to move to a
new lair (Smith and Hammill, 1981; Smith and Stirling, 1975). The
acoustic sources from this proposed action are not likely to impede a
ringed seal from finding a breathing hole or lair, as captive seals
have been found to primarily use vision to locate breathing holes and
no effect to ringed seal vision would occur from the acoustic
disturbance (Elsner et al., 1989; Wartzok et al., 1992a). It is
anticipated that a ringed seal would be able to relocate to a different
breathing hole relatively easily without impacting their normal
behavior patterns.
Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950;
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most
economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral
avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses
to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an
animal's fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction,
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha,
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of
the response.
[[Page 47080]]
During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be
quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response,
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves
sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well studied through
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003;
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000;
Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations
(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). These and other studies lead to a
reasonable expectation that some marine mammals will experience
physiological stress responses upon exposure to acoustic stressors and
that it is possible that some of these would be classified as
``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS would likely
also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003).
Auditory masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or
interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or
discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for
intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection,
predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking
occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another
coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher
intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping
shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., shipping,
sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to
mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of
both the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range,
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination,
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation
conditions.
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing
significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their
performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the
coincident (masking) sound is anthropogenic, it may be considered
harassment when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is
important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound
exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because
masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal
physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect,
but rather a potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important
in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-
frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation
sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection
of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important
natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species.
The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be
considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (e.g.,
Clark et al., 2009) and may result in energetic or other costs as
animals change their vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 2000;
Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt
et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal
and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995),
through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other
compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can be tested
directly in captive species (e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild populations
it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking
compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world masking
sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild (e.g.,
Branstetter et al., 2013).
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and
can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the
population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency
ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than
three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial
periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping
(Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially
chronic and lower-frequency signals (e.g., from vessel traffic),
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
Potential Effects on Prey--The marine mammal species in the study
area feed on marine invertebrates and fish. Studies of sound energy
effects on invertebrates are few, and primarily identify behavioral
responses. It is expected that most marine invertebrates would not
sense the frequencies of the acoustic transmissions from the acoustic
sources associated with the proposed action. Although acoustic sources
used during the proposed action may briefly impact individuals,
intermittent exposures to non-impulsive acoustic sources are not
expected to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of
widespread marine invertebrate populations.
The fish species residing in the study area include those that are
closely associated with the deep ocean habitat of the Beaufort Sea.
Nearly 250 marine fish species have been described in the Arctic,
excluding the larger parts of the sub-Arctic Bering, Barents, and
Norwegian Seas (Mecklenburg et al., 2011). However, only about 30 are
known to occur in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea (Christiansen
and Reist, 2013). Although hearing capability data only exist for fewer
than 100 of the 32,000 named fish species, current data suggest that
most species of fish detect sounds from 50 to 100 Hz, with few fish
hearing sounds above 4 kHz (Popper, 2008). It is believed that most
fish have the best hearing sensitivity from 100 to 400 Hz (Popper,
2003). Fish species in the study area are expected to hear the low-
frequency sources associated with the proposed action, but most are not
expected to detect sound from the mid-frequency sources. Human
generated sound could alter the behavior of a fish in a manner than
would affect its way of living, such as where it tries to locate food
or how well it could find a mate. Behavioral responses to loud noise
could include a startle response, such as the fish swimming away from
the source, the fish ``freezing'' and staying in place, or scattering
(Popper, 2003). Misund (1997) found that fish ahead of a ship showed
avoidance reactions at ranges of 160 to 489 ft (49 to 149 m). Avoidance
behavior of vessels, vertically or horizontally in the water column,
has been reported for cod and herring, and was attributed to vessel
noise. While acoustic sources associated with the proposed action may
influence the behavior of some fish species, other fish species may be
equally unresponsive. Overall effects to fish from the proposed
[[Page 47081]]
action would be localized, temporary, and infrequent.
Effects to Physical and Foraging Habitat--Ringed seals haul out on
pack ice during the spring and summer to molt (Reeves et al., 2002;
Born et al., 2002). Additionally, some studies (Alliston, 1980; 1981)
suggested that ringed seals might preferentially establish breathing
holes in ship tracks after vessels move through the area. The amount of
ice habitat disturbed by activities is small relative to the amount of
overall habitat available. There will be no permanent loss or
modification of physical ice habitat used by ringed seals. Vessel
movement would have no effect on physical beluga habitat as beluga
habitat is solely within the water column. Furthermore, any testing of
towed sources would be limited in duration and the deployed sources
that would remain in use after the vessels have left the survey area
have low duty cycles and lower source levels. There would not be an
expected habitat-related effects from acoustic sources that could
impact the in-water habitat of ringed seals or beluga whale foraging
habitat.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact
determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. 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 the 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 for individual marine mammals
resulting from exposure to acoustic transmissions. No Level A
harassment is estimated to occur. Therefore, Level A harassment is
neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to
be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is
estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic
thresholds 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 the proposed IHA, ONR
employed an advanced 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
proposed take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the
received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals
would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to
Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A
harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (e.g., hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS typically
uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to
estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS typical generalized
acoustic thresholds are received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for
continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re
1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or
intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources. In this case, NMFS is
proposing to adopt 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. 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), and more recently Southall et al., (2019),
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;
Southall et al., 2019). 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. Phocid
seals showed avoidance reactions at or below 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1m;
thus, seals may actually receive levels adequate to produce TTS before
avoiding the source.
Odontocete behavioral criteria for non-impulsive 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 kHz up-
and down-sweeps and 6-7 kHz up-sweeps; source levels were ramped up
from 152-158 dB re 1 [micro]Pa to a maximum of 198-214 re 1 [micro]Pa
at 1 m. Sonar signals were ramped up
[[Page 47082]]
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 (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) 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 (Halichoerus grypus), 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. Additionally, distance cutoffs (10 km for pinnipeds) were
applied to exclude exposures beyond which the potential of significant
behavioral responses is considered to be unlikely.
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 proposed activities involve only
non-impulsive sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 5 below. The references,
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Table 5--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
a reference value of 1 [mu]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 exposed to underwater acoustic
transmissions above the previously described threshold criteria during
the proposed action. Inputs to the quantitative analysis included
marine mammal density estimates obtained from the Navy Marine Species
Density Database, marine mammal depth occurrence distributions (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017b), 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 proposed non-impulsive acoustic sources, 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
[[Page 47083]]
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 is independent of all others, and therefore, the same
individual marine mammal (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 proposed study location, 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.
Because of these inherent model limitations and simplifications,
model-estimated results should be 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.
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 6 provides range to effects for noise produced through use of
the proposed sources to mid-frequency cetacean and pinniped-specific
criteria. Range to effects is important information in predicting non-
impulsive acoustic impacts. Therefore, the ranges in Table 6 provide
realistic maximum distances over which the specific effects from the
use of non-impulsive sources during the proposed action would be
possible.
Table 6--Range to PTS, TTS, and Behavioral Effects in the Project Area Based on Cutoff Distances for Non-Impulsive Acoustic Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range to behavioral effects Range to TTS effects (meters) Range to PTS effects (meters)
(meters) \c\ \c\
Source type -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MF cetacean pinniped MF cetacean pinniped MF cetacean pinniped
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-site drifting sources \b\............................ \a\ 10,000 \a\ 10,000 0 0 0 0
Fixed sources........................................... \a\ 20,000 \a\ 5,000 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Cutoff distance applied (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a).
\b\ Assessed under the assumption that some of the on-site drifting sources would become closer together.
\c\ No effect (and therefore, no distance from source) is anticipated based on the NAEMO modeling.
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). In a 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). These data suggest that most odontocetes (not including beaked
whales (Family Ziphiidae) 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
this proposed action (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a). NMFS
proposes to adopt this approach in support of this proposed IHA.
Southall et al., (2007) reported 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 used a distance cutoff of 2.7
nm (5 km) for moderate source level, single platform training and
testing events, and 5.4 nm (10 km) for all other events, including the
proposed Arctic Research Activities (U.S. Department of the Navy,
2017a).
[[Page 47084]]
NMFS proposes to adopt this approach in support of this proposed IHA.
Regardless of the received level at the cutoff distances described
above, take is not estimated to occur beyond 10 and 20 km from the
source for pinnipeds and cetaceans, respectively. No instances of PTS
were modeled for any species or stock; as such, no take by Level A
harassment is anticipated or proposed to be authorized. Further
information on cutoff distances can be found in Section 6.5.1 in ONR's
2021-2022 IHA application on NMFS' website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities.
The marine mammal density numbers utilized for quantitative
modeling are from the Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2014). Density estimates are based on habitat-
based modeling by Kaschner et al., (2006) and Kaschner (2004). While
density estimates for the two stocks of beluga whales are equal
(Kaschner et al., 2006; Kaschner 2004), take has been apportioned to
each stock proportional to the abundance of each stock. Table 7 shows
the exposures expected for the beluga whale and ringed seal based on
NAEMO modeled results.
Table 7--Quantitative Modeling Results of Potential Exposures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density Level B Level B Percentage of
Species (animals/ harassment harassment Total proposed stock taken
km\2\) (behavioral) (TTS) take \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cetacean (odontocete)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga Whale (Beaufort Sea 0.0087 375 0 375 0.96
stock) \1\.....................
Beluga Whale (Chukchi Sea stock) 125 0 125 0.94
\1\............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinniped (phocid)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ringed Seal..................... 0.3958 6,050 0 6,050 3.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Acoustic exposures to beluga whales were not modeled at the stock level. Take of beluga whales in each stock
was based on the proportion of each stock in relation to the total number of beluga whales. Therefore, 75
percent of the calculated take was apportioned to the Beaufort Sea stock, and 25 percent of the calculated
take was apportioned to the Eastern Chukchi Sea stock.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental
take authorizations to include information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and
manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and
their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). 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
(1-3 knots in ice; <10 knots in open ice-free waters) 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.
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. While
underway, watch personnel must be alert at all times and have access to
binoculars.
During mooring or UUV deployment, visual observation would start 15
minutes prior to and continue throughout the deployment within an
exclusion zone of 180 ft (55 m, roughly one ship length) 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.
Ships would avoid approaching marine mammals head-on and would
maneuver to maintain an exclusion zone of 500 yards (yd; 457 m) around
observed whales, and 200 ft (183 m) around all other marine mammals,
provided it is safe to do so in ice-free waters.
All personnel conducting on-ice experiments, as well as all
aircraft operating in the study area, are required
[[Page 47085]]
to maintain a separation distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from any observed
marine mammal.
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 that
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).
Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide
the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected
species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical, both to
compliance as well as to ensure that the most value is obtained from
the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks.
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat).
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
While underway, the ships (including non-Navy ships operating on
behalf of the Navy) utilizing active acoustics 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). Additionally, watch personnel
have taken the Navy's Marine Species Awareness Training. 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) (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2011). The ICMP has been 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 source operations and source deployments, in contrast to the
large majority (greater than 95 percent) of time that the sources will
be left behind and operate autonomously. Therefore, a dedicated
monitoring project is not warranted. However, ONR will record all
observations of marine mammals, including the marine mammal's location
(latitude and longitude), behavior, and distance from project
activities.
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 2021-2022 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., 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 proposed activity. The draft
exercise monitoring report will include data regarding acoustic source
use and any mammal
[[Page 47086]]
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-
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 seals and ringed seals in the
form of behavioral disturbances. No serious injury, mortality, or Level
A harassment are anticipated to result from these described activities.
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 acoustic 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 [mu]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 proposed 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. 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 preliminary 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;
Impacts would be limited to Level B harassment only;
TTS is not expected or predicted to occur; only temporary
behavioral modifications are expected to result from these proposed
activities; 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 proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50
CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1)
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing
the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly
displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
Subsistence hunting is important for many Alaska Native
communities. A study of the North Slope villages of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik,
and Utqia[gdot]vik (formally 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). Ringed seals
and beluga whales are likely located within the project area during
this proposed action. However, the permitted sources would be placed
outside of the range for subsistence hunting and ONR has been
communicating with the Native communities about the proposed action.
The closest active acoustic source (fixed or drifting) within the
proposed project site that is likely to cause Level B take is
approximately 110 nm (204 km) from land and outside of known
subsistence use areas. However, almost all leave-behind sources that
would constitute most of the Level B take would be approximately 240 mi
(386 km) from shore. In comparison with IHAs issued to ONR for their
previous Arctic Research Activities, this project is further north;
therefore, there is no spatial overlap between known
[[Page 47087]]
subsistence harvest sites and the proposed activities contained herein.
Furthermore, and as stated above, the range to effects for non-
impulsive acoustic sources in this experiment is much smaller than the
distance from shore, with acoustic sources that could constitute take
being located far away from known subsistence hunting areas. Lastly,
the proposed action would not remove individuals from the population.
Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures
described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine
mammals for subsistence purposes, and the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will
not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from ONR's
proposed activities.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species, in this case with the NMFS Alaska
Regional Office (AKR).
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of ringed seals, which are
listed under the ESA. The Office of Protected Resources has requested
initiation of Section 7 consultation with AKR for the issuance of this
IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a
determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to ONR for conducting their fourth year of Arctic Research
Activities in the Beaufort and eastern Chukchi Seas from October 2021-
October 2022, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring,
and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed
IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed fourth
year of Arctic Research Activities. We also request at this time
comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in
the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting
data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request
for this proposed IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, one-year
renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15
days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or
nearly identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the
Description of Proposed Activities section of this notice is planned or
(2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed
Activities section of this notice would not be completed by the time
the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the
activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section of
this notice, provided all of the following conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the
renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from
expiration of the initial IHA);
The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the
requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take);
and
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines
that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Dated: August 18, 2021.
Angela Somma,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-18070 Filed 8-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P