[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6237-6239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-3222]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement
for North Pacific Acoustic Laboratory Project
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.
ACTION: Notice of record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. section 4321 et seq., the
regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality that implement NEPA
procedures, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and Navy regulations implementing
NEPA procedures (31 CFR 775); the Department of the Navy announces its
decision to conduct the North Pacific Acoustic Laboratory (NPAL)
project, which will entail resumption of transmissions from a sound
source off the north coast of Kauai for five years. The action will be
accomplished as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement's
(FEIS) preferred alternative, denoted ``Continued Operation of the
Kauai Sound Source.'' The Navy was the lead agency and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was a cooperating agency in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process.
Background: The action will be conducted by Scripps Institution of
Oceanography of the University of California, San Diego (Scripps),
which carried out the first phase of Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean
Climate (ATOC) feasibility research, and by the Applied Physics
Laboratory of the University of Washington. Funding will be provided by
the Office of Naval Research (ONR). Based on the success of the ATOC
effort, the Navy recognizes the opportunity to transition into a second
phase of research, NPAL, which will use the same acoustic source that
was used in the Kauai ATOC program.
The purposes of the NPAL project are to study the feasibility and
value of large scale acoustic thermometry; to study the behavior of
sound transmissions in the ocean over long distances; and to study the
possible long-term effects of sound transmission on marine life.
Under this action, the seabed power cable and sound source will
remain in their present locations, and transmissions will continue with
approximately the same signal parameters and transmission schedule used
in the ATOC project. NPAL transmissions will consist of six 20-minute
transmissions (one every four hours), every fourth day, with each
transmission preceded by a five minute ramp-up period during which the
signal intensity will be gradually increased. This represents an
average duty cycle of two percent. With the possible exception of short
duration testing with duty cycles of up to eight percent, or equipment
failure, this schedule will continue for a period of five years. The
signals transmitted by the source will have a center frequency of 75
Hertz (Hz) and a bandwidth of approximately 35 Hz. Approximately 260
watts of acoustic power will be radiated during transmission. At one
meter from the source, the sound intensity will be about 195 decibels
(dB) referenced to the intensity of a signal with a sound pressure
level of one microPascal on a ``water standard'' basis. These signal
[[Page 6238]]
parameters and source level were found during the ATOC project to
provide adequate, but not excessive, signal-to-noise ratios at the
receiver ranges of interest.
At the conclusion of the five-year period, the seabed power cable
will be abandoned in place. This will have the benefits of avoiding
disturbance of sensitive military instrumentation in the vicinity and
the benthic environment. The source will also be abandoned in place
unless it appears to be in sufficiently good condition to warrant
recovery.
Alternatives: A screening process, based upon criteria set in the
EIS, was conducted to identify a reasonable range of alternatives that
would satisfy the Navy's purpose and need, while minimizing
environmental impacts.
Seven alternatives were initially considered: (1) The preferred
alternative described above; (2) a no-action alternative; (3)
additionally restricting source transmission times and modifying source
operational characteristics; (4) using an alternate site for the
project; (5) using a moored autonomous sound source; (6) the use of
alternate sensors such as satellites; and (7) use computer modeling
without collection of real-world data. Four of these alternatives,
additionally restricting source transmission times and modifying source
operational characteristics, moored autonomous source, alternate
sensors, and modeling, were eliminated because they would not have met
the desired research objectives. The other three alternatives, the
preferred alternative, no action, and an alternate project site (Midway
Island), were analyzed in detail.
The preferred alternative involves the continued operation for five
additional years of the low frequency sound source (including the
seabed power cable) previously installed off the north shore of Kauai,
Hawaii, for use in the ATOC research, as described in detail above.
This alternative best meets the project objectives for the three
components of NPAL. The sound source at Kauai would provide superior
acoustic capability for study of both large scale acoustic thermometry
and long-range underwater sound transmission. In addition, further
studies of the marine mammal species in the vicinity of the Kauai
source would be able to build on the data collected during the Kauai
ATOC Marine Mammal Research Program (MMRP). A sound source at Midway
(alternate project site--Midway Island alternative) would have a more
limited acoustic capability and limited baseline marine animal data
while the no action alternative would offer no possibility for a long-
term research project exploring underwater sound transmission and the
natural and man-made changes in the ocean environment. Therefore,
continued operation of the Kauai source (preferred alternative) best
meets the project objectives.
The preferred alternative is considered the most environmentally
benign alternative. As described in detail in the EIS, the environment
includes the following major resources: physical, biological, economic,
and social. Physical effects include those from construction and/or
removal of facilities and potential increases in ambient noise. The
physical installations at Midway Island, as part of the Midway
alternative would be relatively minor and generally are benign from an
environmental standpoint. The no action and Midway alternatives would
involve the removal of the sound source and cable presently in place
off northern Kauai. Removing the cable is likely to disrupt the
seafloor environment and any new coral that may have begun to grow on
the cable. The preferred and Midway alternatives would add somewhat to
the ambient noise levels during transmission periods. The comparative
potential biological effects of the preferred and Midway alternatives
depend on the relative abundance of sensitive animals at the respective
locations. For source transmissions, these differences would be
minimal. However, there exists the potential at Midway for disturbance
of breeding and pupping of highly endangered Hawaiian monk seals during
installation of the power cable. The preferred and Midway alternatives
would have comparable socioeconomic effects. The no action alternative
would not have any socioeconomic effects. Therefore, the preferred
alternative is the most environmentally benign alternative.
Environmental Impacts: Potential environmental impacts of
continuing transmission of the sound source installed north of Kauai
were analyzed in the Environmental Consequences section of the EIS.
Several potential effects due to source transmissions were discussed,
including the potential for physical auditory effects, behavioral
disruption, habituation, masking, long-term effects, and indirect
effects. Analysis of potential effects on marine mammals was
accomplished with results from the California and Hawaii ATOC MMRPs and
a program of underwater acoustical modeling. Neither MMRP observed any
overt or obvious short-term changes in behavior, abundance,
distribution, or vocalization in the marine mammal species studied.
Intense statistical analyses revealed some subtle changes in the
distance and time between successive humpback whale surfacings, and in
the distribution of humpback whales away from the Kauai source and
humpback (and possibly sperm) whales away from the California source
during transmission periods. Bioacoustic experts concluded that these
subtle effects would not adversely affect the survival of an individual
whale or the status of the North Pacific humpback whale population
(Frankel and Clark, 2000).
Mitigation: The following mitigation measures discussed in the FEIS
will be employed to minimize the potential effects of the NPAL sound
source:
1. Sound source will operate at the minimum duty cycle necessary to
support the large-scale acoustic thermometry and long-range propagation
objectives.
2. Any increases in the duty cycle beyond the two percent, with a
maximum of eight percent, will not occur during the peak season for
humpback whale presence in the vicinity of the Kauai sound source.
(January-April).
3. Sound source will operate at the minimum power level necessary
to support large-scale acoustic thermometry and long-range sound
transmission objectives.
4. Transmissions from the NPAL sound source will be preceded by a
five-minute ramp-up of the source power.
5. All NPAL vessels and aircraft will be equipped with required air
pollution controls.
6. The source cable and possibly the sound source, will not be
removed at the end of the experiment.
The feasibility and desirability of limiting sound transmissions to
times when potentially vulnerable species are not present in the
vicinity of the source and modifying source characteristics to
potentially reduce effects on marine animals was considered as an
initial alternative. Limiting source transmissions to seasons when
humpback whales, the most abundant of the potentially vulnerable
species in the Kauai area, are not present would severely reduce the
utility of both the acoustic thermometry and long-range propagation
studies, as well as make it essentially impossible to study the
possible long-term effects of low frequency sound transmissions on
marine life. Operational characteristics important to potential effects
on marine animals include frequency, source power level, waveform, and
sound signal transmission length. Each of these characteristics has
been selected for the
[[Page 6239]]
least potential environmental impact and the maximum scientific
utility. Results from the ATOC study demonstrate that these source
characteristics provide adequate, but not excessive, signal-to-noise
ratios at the receiver ranges of interest.
Because subtle effects detected by the ATOC MMRPs were found only
after intense statistical analysis, the conduct of further marine
mammal monitoring studies is based on the advancement of the
understanding of the potential for long-term effects from acoustic
transmissions. The following monitoring measures will be in place:
1. Conduct eight aerial surveys from February through early April,
eight days apart, to match the NPAL transmission schedule. Annual
reports of the monitoring and studies will include numbers and
locations of marine mammal and sea turtle sightings, which would be
submitted to NMFS, with copies to the Hawaii Department of Land and
Natural Resources, the Office of Planning and the Hawaiian Island
Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. The effort will continue to
monitor for acute short-term effects, although none were observed
during the ATOC MMRPs.
2. Monitor marine mammal data by coordinating with the local marine
mammal stranding network to detect any long-term trends.
In the Biological Opinion (BO), NMFS recommended investigating the
effects of masking by low frequency anthropogenic sounds on baleen
whales through studies of similar species that are sensitive to low
frequency sound, as a conservation recommendation. The only marine
mammal species that regularly occur off Hawaii and vocalizes in the
same frequency range as the NPAL transmissions, and thus could
potentially be masked if positioned close to the acoustic source, is
the humpback whale. Since it is nearly impossible to capture a humpback
whale or another baleen whale and conduct masking studies, and there
are no other similar species that are sensitive to low frequency sound
that regularly occur off Hawaii, the NPAL project will not focus its
marine mammal monitoring and studies on this issue. However, the Navy
has sponsored and is continuing to sponsor, other researchers whose
work focuses on clarifying the potential effects of anthropogenic
sounds on marine mammals, including the effects of masking by low
frequency sounds (e.g., Nachtigall et al., 2001; Schlundt et al., 2000;
Kastak and Schusterman, 1998).
Coordination and Consultation With NMFS: In addition to acting as a
cooperating agency in the EIS process, NMFS has a regulatory role in
its jurisdiction over issues related to endangered species and marine
mammals. The potential effect upon listed species required consultation
with NMFS under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. ONR initiated
interagency consultation on June 23, 2000 by submitting a Biological
Assessment to NMFS. Consultation concluded with NMFS' issuance of a BO
on April 26, 2001. Based on the status of the species, environmental
baseline, effects of the action, and cumulative effects, NMFS concluded
that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the endangered humpback, fin, sei, blue, right, and sperm
whales or the Hawaiian monk seal, or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat considered in the BO.
NMFS also administers the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Scripps, in
coordination with NMFS, is pursuing a Letter Of Authorization (LOA) for
incidental taking by harassment under 16 U.S.C. 1371. With the
publication of the draft EIS, Scripps began the process of applying for
a LOA. NMFS published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
August 24, 2000 (65 FR 51584), and a Proposed Rule on December 22, 2000
(65 FR 80815). A Final Rule was published on August 17, 2001 (66 FR
43442).
Response to Comments Received Regarding the FEIS: After the FEIS
was distributed for a 30-day public review period which ended June 25,
2001, Scripps/ONR received 3 letters. From the state of Hawaii
Department of Land and Natural Resources was a letter concurring with
the ``no effect'' determination regarding National Historic
Preservation Act Review, section 106 Compliance. There was a ``no
additional comment'' letter from the Department of the Army, U.S. Army
Engineer District of Honolulu. The third comment pertained to a
different Navy proposed action, the Low Frequency Active sonar, an
action unrelated to the NPAL project.
Conclusion: Continued use of the previously installed sound source
off the northern coast of Kauai is the alternative that best meets the
project's purpose and need for large-scale acoustic thermometry and
long-range underwater sound transmission studies. Selection of this,
the preferred alternative, also best facilitates the planned marine
mammal monitoring and studies, and also minimizes environmental
impacts.
Based on the analysis contained in the FEIS, the administrative
record, and other factors discussed above, I select the preferred
alternative, Continued Operation of the Kauai Source, to implement the
proposed action.
Dated: January 23, 2002.
Donald Schregardus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (Environment).
[FR Doc. 02-3222 Filed 2-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P