[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48799-48809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21070]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG030


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy's Office of Naval 
Research Arctic Research Activities

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given 
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 
the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research (ONR) to incidentally harass, 
by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during research activities 
associated with the Arctic Research Activities project in the Beaufort 
and Chukchi Seas. The Navy's activities are considered military 
readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (NDAA).

DATES: This Authorization is effective from September 20, 2018, through 
September 19, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Fowler, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application 
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in 
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities. In case of problems 
accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain 
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a 
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified 
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations 
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a 
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public 
for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses 
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods 
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable 
[adverse] impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, 
paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 
similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks 
for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and 
reporting of such takings.
    The NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the ``small numbers'' and 
``specified geographical region'' limitations indicated above and 
amended the definition of ``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military 
readiness activity.'' The activity for which incidental take of marine 
mammals has been authorized qualifies as a military readiness activity. 
The Navy's action constitutes a military readiness activity because 
these scientific research activities directly support the adequate and 
realistic testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors 
for proper operation and suitability for combat use by providing 
critical data on the changing natural and physical environment in which 
such materiel will be assessed and deployed. This scientific research 
also directly supports fleet training and operations by providing up to 
date information and data on the natural and physical environment 
essential to training and operations. The definitions of all applicable 
MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections 
below.

Summary of Request

    On April 6, 2018, NMFS received a request from ONR for an IHA to 
take marine mammals incidental to Arctic Research Activities in the 
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. ONR's application was determined adequate 
and complete on August 7, 2018. ONR's request is for take of beluga 
whales (Delphinapterus leucas), bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus), 
and ringed seals (Pusa hispida hispida) by Level B harassment only. 
Neither ONR nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from 
this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
    This IHA covers one year of a larger project for which ONR intends 
to request take authorization for subsequent facets of the project. 
This IHA is valid from September 20, 2018, through September 19, 2019. 
The larger three-year project involves several scientific objectives 
which support the Arctic and Global Prediction Program, as well as the 
Ocean Acoustics Program and the Naval Research Laboratory, for which 
ONR is the parent command.

Description of Activity

Overview

    ONR's Arctic Research Activities involve scientific experiments 
conducted in support of the Arctic and Global Prediction Program, the

[[Page 48800]]

Stratified Ocean Dynamics of the Arctic (SODA), Arctic Mobile Observing 
System (AMOS), Ocean Acoustics field work, and Naval Research 
Laboratory (NRL) in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in 2018 and 2019. The 
study area for the Arctic Research Activities is located in the U.S. 
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the high seas north of Alaska (see 
Figure 1-1 in the IHA application). The total area of the study area is 
257,723 square miles (mi\2\) (667,500 square kilometers (km\2\)).
    Beginning in late September 2018, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) 
HEALY and the Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq will be used to tow and 
deploy acoustic sources. CGC HEALY may also be required to perform 
icebreaking to deploy the moored and ice-tethered acoustic sources. A 
maximum of four research cruises (one cruise per vessel in each 
calendar year) of up to 30 days are expected. Each vessel may tow 
sources for up to 8 hours per day for 15 days during each cruise in 
open water or marginal ice. Once deployed, moored and drifting sources 
would operate intermittently each day for up to three years (only the 
first year is authorized by this IHA). Icebreaking may occur on up to 4 
days.
    A detailed description of the planned Arctic Research Activities 
project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA 
(83 FR 40234; August 14, 2018). Since that time, no changes have been 
made to the planned Arctic Research Activities. Therefore, a detailed 
description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register 
notice for the description of the specified activity.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to ONR was published in 
the Federal Register on August 14, 2018 (83 FR 40234). That notice 
described, in detail, ONR's activity, the marine mammal species that 
may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine 
mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received a 
comment from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).
    Comment 1: The Commission noted that the Navy used cutoff distances 
instead of relying on Bayesian biphasic dose response functions (BRFs) 
to inform take estimates. The Commission asserted that the cutoff 
distances used by the Navy are unsubstantiated and that the Navy 
arbitrarily set a cutoff distance of 10 kilometers (km) for pinnipeds, 
which could effectively eliminate a large portion of the estimated 
number of takes. The Commission, therefore, recommended that the Navy 
refrain from using cut-off distances in conjunction with the Bayesian 
BRFs.
    Response: We disagree with the Navy's recommendation. The 
derivation of the behavioral response functions and associated cutoff 
distances is provided in the Navy's Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. 
Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) technical 
report (Navy 2017a). The consideration of proximity (distance cutoff) 
was part of criteria developed in consultation with NMFS and was 
applied within the Navy's BRF. Distance cutoffs beyond which the 
potential of significant behavioral responses were considered to be 
unlikely were used in conducting analysis for ONR's Arctic Research 
Activities. The Navy's BRF applied within these distances is an 
appropriate method for providing a realistic (but still conservative 
where some uncertainties exist) estimate of impact and potential take 
for these activities.
    Comment 2: The Commission also noted that a standard requirement 
for coordinating vessel presence in the Beaufort Sea with the Alaska 
Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) to ensure that ONR vessels do not 
disrupt subsistence hunting was left out of the proposed IHA.
    Response: NMFS has included this requirement to coordinate with the 
AEWC in the final authorization.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information 
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and 
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. 
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be 
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region) and more general information about 
these species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found 
on NMFS's website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
the study area and summarizes information related to the population or 
stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. 
For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). PBR is defined by 
the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural 
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while 
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable 
population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is 
anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and 
mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross 
indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS's U.S. 2017 SARs (e.g., Muto et al., 2018, Carretta et al., 2018). 
All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the 
time of publication and are available in the 2017 SARs (Muto et al., 
2018; Carretta et al., 2018).

                                         Table 1--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present in the Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA status;    Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\          abundance survey) \2\               SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray whale......................  Eschrichtius robustus..  Eastern North Pacific..  -/-; N              20,900 (0.05, 20,125,         624       4.25
                                                                                                             2011).
Family Balaenidae:

[[Page 48801]]

 
    Bowhead whale...................  Balaena mysticetus.....  Western Arctic.........  E/D; Y              16,820 (0.052, 16,100,        161         43
                                                                                                             2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Beluga whale....................  Delphinapterus leucas..  Beaufort Sea...........  -/-; N              39,258 (0.229, N/A,     Undet.\4\        139
                                                                                                             1992).
    Beluga whale....................  Delphinapterus leucas..  Eastern Chukchi Sea....  -/-; N              20,752 (0.70, 12.194,         244         67
                                                                                                             2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Bearded seal \5\................  Erignathus barbatus....  Alaska.................  T/D; Y              299,174 (-, 273,676,        8,210        391
                                                                                                             2013).
    Ribbon seal.....................  Histriophoca fasciata..  Alaska.................  -/-; N              184,000 (-, 163,086,        9,785        3.8
                                                                                                             2013).
    Ringed seal \5\.................  Pusa hispida hispida...  Alaska.................  T/D; Y              170,000 (-, 170,000,        5,100      1,054
                                                                                                             2013).
    Spotted seal....................  Phoca largha...........  Alaska.................  -/-; N              461,625 (-, 423,237,       12,697        329
                                                                                                             2013).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
  associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ The 2016 guidelines for preparing SARs state that abundance estimates older than 8 years should not be used to calculate PBR due to a decline in the
  reliability of an aged estimate. Therefore, the PBR for this stock is considered undetermined.
\5\ Abundances and associated values for bearded and ringed seals are for the U.S. population in the Bering Sea only.
Note--Italicized species are not expected or authorized to be taken.

    A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the 
Arctic Research Activities, including brief information regarding 
population trends and threats, and information regarding local 
occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice for the 
proposed IHA (83 FR 40234; August 14, 2018). Since that time, we are 
not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks; 
therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to 
that Federal Register notice for those descriptions. Please also refer 
to NMFS' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for 
generalized species accounts.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    The effects of underwater noise from the towed and deployed 
acoustic sources, as well as icebreaking, have the potential to result 
in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the study 
area. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 40234; 
August 14, 2018) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic 
noise on marine mammals and their habitat, therefore that information 
is not repeated here; please refer to the Federal Register notice (83 
FR 40234; August 14, 2018) for that information.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration 
of the negligible impact determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines 
``harassment'' as: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
(Level A harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to 
disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited 
to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to 
a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly 
altered (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form 
of disruption of behavioral patterns and temporary threshold shift 
(TTS) for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to acoustic 
transmissions and icebreaking noise. Based on the nature of the 
activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science 
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some 
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water 
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or 
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) 
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic 
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial 
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively 
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous 
monitoring results or average group size). For this IHA, ONR employed a 
sophisticated model known as the Navy Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO) 
for assessing the impacts of underwater sound. Below, we describe the 
factors considered here in more detail and present the authorized 
takes.

[[Page 48802]]

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed or incur TTS of some degree (equated to Level B 
harassment) or to incur a permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some 
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--In coordination with 
NMFS, the Navy developed behavioral thresholds to support environmental 
analyses for the Navy's testing and training military readiness 
activities utilizing active sonar sources; these behavioral harassment 
thresholds are used here to evaluate the potential effects of the 
active sonar components of the planned action. The response of a marine 
mammal to an anthropogenic sound will depend on the frequency, 
duration, temporal pattern and amplitude of the sound as well as the 
animal's prior experience with the sound and the context in which the 
sound is encountered (i.e., what the animal is doing at the time of the 
exposure). The distance from the sound source and whether it is 
perceived as approaching or moving away can also affect the way an 
animal responds to a sound (Wartzok et al. 2003). For marine mammals, a 
review of responses to anthropogenic sound was first conducted by 
Richardson et al. (1995). Reviews by Nowacek et al. (2007) and Southall 
et al. (2007) addressed additional studies and focus on observations 
where the received sound level of the exposed marine mammal(s) was 
known or could be estimated. Multi-year research efforts have conducted 
sonar exposure studies for odontocetes and mysticetes (Miller et al. 
2012; Sivle et al. 2012). Several studies with captive animals have 
provided data under controlled circumstances for odontocetes and 
pinnipeds (Houser et al. 2013a; Houser et al. 2013b). Moretti et al. 
(2014) published a beaked whale dose-response curve based on passive 
acoustic monitoring of beaked whales during U.S. Navy training activity 
at Atlantic Underwater Test and Evaluation Center during actual Anti-
Submarine Warfare exercises. This new information necessitated the 
update of the behavioral response criteria for the U.S. Navy's 
environmental analyses.
    Southall et al. (2007) synthesized data from many past behavioral 
studies and observations to determine the likelihood of behavioral 
reactions at specific sound levels. While in general, the louder the 
sound source the more intense the behavioral response, it was clear 
that the proximity of a sound source and the animal's experience, 
motivation, and conditioning were also critical factors influencing the 
response (Southall et al. 2007). After examining all of the available 
data, the authors felt that the derivation of thresholds for behavioral 
response based solely on exposure level was not supported because 
context of the animal at the time of sound exposure was an important 
factor in estimating response. Nonetheless, in some conditions, 
consistent avoidance reactions were noted at higher sound levels 
depending on the marine mammal species or group, allowing conclusions 
to be drawn.
    Odontocete behavioral criteria for U.S. Navy non-impulsive, 
intermittent sources were updated based on controlled exposure studies 
for dolphins and sea mammals, sonar, and safety (3S) studies where 
odontocete behavioral responses were reported after exposure to sonar 
(Antunes et al., 2014; Houser et al., 2013b); Miller et al., 2011; 
Miller et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2012). For the 3S study the sonar 
outputs included 1-2 kilohertz (kHz) up- and down-sweeps and 6-7 kHz 
up-sweeps; source levels were ramped up from 152-158 decibels (dB) re 1 
microPascal ([micro]Pa) to a maximum of 198-214 re 1 [micro]Pa at 1 m. 
Sonar signals were ramped up over several pings while the vessel 
approached the mammals. The study did include some control passes of 
ships with the sonar off to discern the behavioral responses of the 
mammals to vessel presence alone versus active sonar. The controlled 
exposure studies included exposing the Navy's trained bottlenose 
dolphins to mid-frequency sonar while they were in a pen. Mid-frequency 
sonar was played at 6 different exposure levels from 125-185 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa (root mean square (rms)). The behavioral response function 
for odontocetes resulting from the studies described above has a 50 
percent probability of response at 157 dB re 1 [micro]Pa. Additionally, 
distance cutoffs (20 km for MF cetaceans and 10 km for pinnipeds) were 
applied to exclude exposures beyond which the potential of significant 
behavioral responses is considered to be unlikely.
    The pinniped behavioral threshold was updated based on controlled 
exposure experiments on the following captive animals: hooded seal, 
gray seal, and California sea lion (G[ouml]tz et al. 2010; Houser et 
al. 2013a; Kvadsheim et al. 2010). Hooded seals were exposed to 
increasing levels of sonar until an avoidance response was observed, 
while the grey seals were exposed first to a single received level 
multiple times, then an increasing received level. Each individual 
California sea lion was exposed to the same received level ten times. 
These exposure sessions were combined into a single response value, 
with an overall response assumed if an animal responded in any single 
session. The resulting behavioral response function for pinnipeds has a 
50 percent probability of response at 166 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. Additional 
details regarding these criteria may be found in the technical report, 
Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects 
Analysis (2017a) which may be found at: http://aftteis.com/Portals/3/docs/newdocs/Criteria%20and%20Thresholds_TR_Submittal_05262017.pdf. 
This technical report was included as part of the Navy's Atlantic Fleet 
Training and Testing Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) (Navy 2017b) which is located 
at: http://www.aftteis.com/.
    NMFS adopted the Navy's approach to estimating incidental take by 
Level B harassment from the active acoustic sources for this action, 
which includes use of these dose response functions. The Navy's dose 
response functions were developed to estimate take from sonar and 
similar transducers and are not applicable to icebreaking. NMFS 
predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in 
a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater 
anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling, icebreaking) 
and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., 
seismic airguns) or non-impulsive, intermittent (e.g., scientific 
sonar) sources. Thus, take of marine mammals by Level B harassment due 
to icebreaking has been calculated using the Navy's NAEMO model using 
the 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) received level threshold for behavioral 
response.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual 
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five 
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a 
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources 
(impulsive or non-impulsive). ONR's planned activities involve only 
non-impulsive sources.
    These thresholds are provided in Table 2 below. The references, 
analysis,

[[Page 48803]]

and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described 
in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

                             Table 2--Injury (PTS) Thresholds for Underwater Sounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             PTS onset acoustic thresholds *
             Hearing group              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Impulsive                         Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans...........  Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB;   Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
                                          LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans...........  Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB;   Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
                                          LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans..........  Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB;   Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
                                          LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater).....  Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB;   Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
                                          LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater)....  Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB;   Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
                                          LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
  calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
  threshold associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
  has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
  Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
  frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
  being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
  hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
  designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
  that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
  exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
  is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
  exceeded.

Quantitative Modeling

    The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number 
of marine mammals that could be harassed by the underwater acoustic 
transmissions during the planned action. Inputs to the quantitative 
analysis included marine mammal density estimates, marine mammal depth 
occurrence distributions (Navy 2017a), oceanographic and environmental 
data, marine mammal hearing data, and criteria and thresholds for 
levels of potential effects. The quantitative analysis consists of 
computer modeled estimates and a post-model analysis to determine the 
number of potential animal exposures. The model calculates sound energy 
propagation from the planned non-impulsive acoustic sources and 
icebreaking, the sound received by animat (virtual animal) dosimeters 
representing marine mammals distributed in the area around the modeled 
activity, and whether the sound received by animats exceeds the 
thresholds for effects.
    The Navy developed a set of software tools and compiled data for 
estimating acoustic effects on marine mammals without consideration of 
behavioral avoidance or mitigation. These tools and data sets serve as 
integral components of NAEMO. In NAEMO, animats are distributed non-
uniformly based on species-specific density, depth distribution, and 
group size information and animats record energy received at their 
location in the water column. A fully three-dimensional environment is 
used for calculating sound propagation and animat exposure in NAEMO. 
Site-specific bathymetry, sound speed profiles, wind speed, and bottom 
properties are incorporated into the propagation modeling process. 
NAEMO calculates the likely propagation for various levels of energy 
(sound or pressure) resulting from each source used during the training 
event.
    NAEMO then records the energy received by each animat within the 
energy footprint of the event and calculates the number of animats 
having received levels of energy exposures that fall within defined 
impact thresholds. Predicted effects on the animats within a scenario 
are then tallied and the highest order effect (based on severity of 
criteria; e.g., PTS over TTS) predicted for a given animat is assumed. 
Each scenario, or each 24-hour period for scenarios lasting greater 
than 24 hours (which NMFS recommends in order to ensure more consistent 
quantification of take across actions), is independent of all others, 
and therefore, the same individual marine animal (as represented by an 
animat in the model environment) could be impacted during each 
independent scenario or 24-hour period. In few instances, although the 
activities themselves all occur within the study area, sound may 
propagate beyond the boundary of the study area. Any exposures 
occurring outside the boundary of the study area are counted as if they 
occurred within the study area boundary. NAEMO provides the initial 
estimated impacts on marine species with a static horizontal 
distribution (i.e., animats in the model environment do not move 
horizontally).
    There are limitations to the data used in the acoustic effects 
model, and the results must be interpreted within this context. While 
the best available data and appropriate input assumptions have been 
used in the modeling, when there is a lack of definitive data to 
support an aspect of the modeling, conservative modeling assumptions 
have been chosen (i.e., assumptions that may result in an overestimate 
of acoustic exposures):
     Animats are modeled as being underwater, stationary, and 
facing the source and therefore always predicted to receive the maximum 
potential sound level at a given location (i.e., no porpoising or 
pinnipeds' heads above water);
     Animats do not move horizontally (but change their 
position vertically within the water column), which may overestimate 
physiological effects such as hearing loss, especially for slow moving 
or stationary sound sources in the model;
     Animats are stationary horizontally and therefore do not 
avoid the sound source, unlike in the wild where animals would most 
often avoid exposures at higher sound levels, especially those 
exposures that may result in PTS;
     Multiple exposures within any 24-hour period are 
considered one continuous exposure for the purposes of calculating 
potential threshold shift, because there are not sufficient data to 
estimate a hearing recovery function for the time between exposures; 
and
     Mitigation measures were not considered in the model. In 
reality, sound-producing activities would be reduced, stopped, or 
delayed if marine mammals are detected by visual monitoring.

[[Page 48804]]

    Because of these inherent model limitations and simplifications, 
model-estimated results were further analyzed, considering such factors 
as the range to specific effects, avoidance, and the likelihood of 
successfully implementing mitigation measures. This analysis uses a 
number of factors in addition to the acoustic model results to predict 
acoustic effects on marine mammals.
    The underwater radiated noise signature for icebreaking in the 
central Arctic Ocean by CGC HEALY during different types of ice cover 
was characterized in Roth et al. (2013). The radiated noise signatures 
were characterized for various fractions of ice cover (represented as 
the proportion of ice out of 10, with 10/10 being total ice coverage). 
For modeling, the 8/10 and 3/10 ice cover were used based on the data 
available. Each modeled day of icebreaking consisted of 16 hours of 8/
10 ice cover and 8 hours of 3/10 ice cover, which was considered a 
fairly conservative way of representing the expected ice cover based on 
what is known. Icebreaking was modeled for 4 days each year. The sound 
signature of each of the ice coverage levels was broken into 1-octave 
bins (Table 3). In the model, each bin was included as a separate 
source on the modeled vessel. When these independent sources go active 
concurrently, they simulate the sound signature of CGC HEALY. The 
modeled source level summed across these bins was 196.2 dB for the 8/10 
signature and 189.3 dB for the 3/10 ice signature. These source levels 
are a good approximation of the icebreaker's observed source level 
(Roth et al., 2013). Each frequency and source level was modeled as an 
independent source, and applied simultaneously to all of the animats 
within the model environment. Each second was summed across frequency 
to estimate sound pressure level (SPLrms). This value was 
incorporated into NAEMO using NMFS' 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa continuous 
sound source threshold to estimate Level B harassment. For PTS and TTS 
determinations, sound exposure levels were summed over the duration of 
the test and the transit to the deep water deployment level.

 Table 3--Modeled Bins for Icebreaking in Fractional Ice Coverage on CGC
                                  HEALY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         8/10 Ice           3/10 Ice
                                     coverage  (full        coverage
                                          power)        (quarter power)
          Frequency  (Hz)          -------------------------------------
                                       Source level       Source level
                                           (dB)               (dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25................................                189                187
50................................                188                182
100...............................                189                179
200...............................                190                177
400...............................                188                175
800...............................                183                170
1,600.............................                177                166
3,200.............................                176                171
6,400.............................                172                168
12,800............................                167                164
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the other non-impulsive sources, NAEMO calculates the SPL and 
SEL for each active emission during an event. This is done by taking 
the following factors into account over the propagation paths: 
Bathymetric relief and bottom types, sound speed, and attenuation 
contributors such as absorption, bottom loss, and surface loss. 
Platforms such as a ship using one or more sound sources are modeled in 
accordance with relevant vehicle dynamics and time durations by moving 
them across an area whose size is representative of the testing event's 
operational area. Table 4 provides range to effects for non-impulsive 
sources and icebreaking noise planned for the Arctic research 
activities to mid-frequency cetacean and pinniped specific criteria. 
Marine mammals within these ranges would be predicted to receive the 
associated effect. Range to effects is important information in not 
only predicting non-impulsive acoustic impacts, but also in verifying 
the accuracy of model results against real-world situations and 
determining adequate mitigation ranges to avoid higher level effects, 
especially physiological effects in marine mammals. Therefore, the 
ranges in Table 4 provide realistic maximum distances over which the 
specific effects from the use of non-impulsive sources during the 
planned action would be possible.

                                          Table 4--Range to PTS, TTS, and Behavioral Effects in the Study Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Range to behavioral effects      Range to TTS effects (m)        Range to PTS effects (m)
                                                                        (m)              ---------------------------------------------------------------
                         Source                          --------------------------------
                                                            MF cetacean      Pinniped       MF cetacean      Pinniped       MF cetacean      Pinniped
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LF4 towed source........................................          20,000          10,000               0               1               0               0
LF5 towed source........................................          20,000          10,000               0               1               0               0
MF9 towed source........................................          20,000          10,000               4              50               0               4
Navigation and real-time sensing sources................          20,000          10,000               0               6               0               0
Tomography sources......................................          20,000          10,000               0               2               0               0
Spherical Wave source...................................          20,000          10,000               0               0               0               0
Icebreaking noise.......................................           4,275           4,525               3              12               0               0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 48805]]

    A behavioral response study conducted on and around the Navy range 
in Southern California (SOCAL BRS) observed reactions to sonar and 
similar sound sources by several marine mammal species, including 
Risso's dolphins (Grampus griseus), a mid-frequency cetacean (DeRuiter 
et al., 2013; Goldbogen et al., 2013; Southall et al., 2011; Southall 
et al., 2012; Southall et al., 2013; Southall et al., 2014). In 
preliminary analysis, none of the Risso's dolphins exposed to simulated 
or real mid-frequency sonar demonstrated any overt or obvious responses 
(Southall et al., 2012, Southall et al., 2013). In general, although 
the responses to the simulated sonar were varied across individuals and 
species, none of the animals exposed to real Navy sonar responded; 
these exposures occurred at distances beyond 10 km, and were up to 100 
km away (DeRuiter et al., 2013; B. Southall pers. comm.). These data 
suggest that most odontocetes (not including beaked whales and harbor 
porpoises) likely do not exhibit significant behavioral reactions to 
sonar and other transducers beyond approximately 10 km. Therefore, the 
Navy uses a cutoff distance for odontocetes of 10 km for moderate 
source level, single platform training and testing events, and 20 km 
for all other events, including the planned Arctic Research Activities 
(Navy 2017a).
    Southall et al. (2007) report that pinnipeds do not exhibit strong 
reactions to SPLs up to 140 dB re 1 [micro]Pa from non-impulsive 
sources. While there are limited data on pinniped behavioral responses 
beyond about 3 km in the water, the Navy uses a distance cutoff of 5 km 
for moderate source level, single platform training and testing events, 
and 10 km for all other events, including the planned Arctic Research 
Activities (Navy 2017a).
    NMFS and the Navy conservatively implemented a distance cutoff of 
5.4 nmi (10 km) for pinnipeds, and 10.8 nmi (20 km) for mid-frequency 
cetaceans (Navy 2017a). Regardless of the received level at that 
distance, take is not estimated to occur beyond 10 and 20 km from the 
source for pinnipeds and cetaceans, respectively. Not all sources are 
likely to result in TTS or PTS for pinnipeds or MF cetaceans. These 
sources show a range to effects of 0 m (Table 4).
    As discussed above, within NAEMO animats do not move horizontally 
or react in any way to avoid sound. Furthermore, mitigation measures 
that reduce the likelihood of physiological impacts are not considered 
in quantitative analysis. Therefore, the model may overestimate 
acoustic impacts, especially physiological impacts near the sound 
source. The behavioral criteria used as a part of this analysis 
acknowledges that a behavioral reaction is likely to occur at levels 
below those required to cause hearing loss. At close ranges and high 
sound levels approaching those that could cause PTS, avoidance of the 
area immediately around the sound source is the assumed behavioral 
response for most cases.
    In previous environmental analyses, the Navy has implemented 
analytical factors to account for avoidance behavior and the 
implementation of mitigation measures. The application of avoidance and 
mitigation factors has only been applied to model-estimated PTS 
exposures given the short distance over which PTS is estimated. Given 
that no PTS exposures were estimated during the modeling process for 
this planned action, the quantitative consideration of avoidance and 
mitigation factors were not included in this analysis.
    If exposure were to occur, beluga whales, bearded seals, and ringed 
seals could exhibit behavioral responses. Additionally, ringed seals 
may exhibit a TTS. For the reasons included above, Level A harassment 
is not anticipated for any of the exposed species or stocks.
    Table 5 shows the exposures expected for the beluga whale, bearded 
seal, and ringed seal based on NAEMO modeled results. While density 
estimates for the two stocks of beluga whales are equal (Kaschner et 
al., 2006; Kaschner 2004), take of the Eastern Chukchi Sea beluga whale 
stock has been reduced to account for the lower overlap of this stock's 
range with the study area.

                                                                Table 5--Authorized Takes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Density
                                                             estimate         Level B         Level B
                                                           within study     harassment      harassment        Level A          Total       Percentage of
                         Species                           area (animals  from towed and       from         harassment      authorized      stock taken
                                                          per square km)     deployed       icebreaking                        take
                                                                \1\           sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga Whale (Beaufort Sea Stock).......................          0.0087              60              24               0              84            0.21
Beluga Whale (Eastern Chukchi Sea stock)................          0.0087               6               2               0               8            0.04
Bearded Seal............................................          0.0332               5               0               0               5           <0.01
Ringed Seal.............................................          0.3760           1,826           1,245               0           3,071            1.81
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kaschner et al. (2006); Kaschner (2004).

Effects of Specified Activities on Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals

    Subsistence hunting is important for many Alaska Native 
communities. A study of the North Slope villages of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, 
and Barrow identified the primary resources used for subsistence and 
the locations for harvest (Stephen R. Braund & Associates 2010), 
including terrestrial mammals (caribou, moose, wolf, and wolverine), 
birds (geese and eider), fish (Arctic cisco, Arctic char/Dolly Varden 
trout, and broad whitefish), and marine mammals (bowhead whale, ringed 
seal, bearded seal, and walrus). Bearded seals, ringed seals, and 
beluga whales are located within the study area during the planned 
action. The permitted sources would be placed outside of the range for 
subsistence hunting and the study plans have been communicated to the 
Native communities. The closest active acoustic source within the study 
area (aside from the de minimis sources), is approximately 141 mi (227 
km) from land. As stated above, the range to effects for acoustic 
sources in this experiment is relatively small (20 km). In addition, 
the planned action would not remove individuals from the population. 
Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by this action to the 
availability of bearded seal, ringed seal, or beluga whale for 
subsistence hunting. Therefore, subsistence uses of marine mammals 
would not be impacted by the planned action.

Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and

[[Page 48806]]

other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species 
or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the 
availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses. (As explained above, subsistence uses of marine 
mammals will not be affected.) NMFS regulations require applicants for 
incidental take authorizations to include information about the 
availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, 
methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of 
effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected 
species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). The NDAA 
for FY 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness 
activities and the incidental take authorization process such that 
``least practicable impact'' shall include consideration of personnel 
safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness 
of the military readiness activity.
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, as 
well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential 
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further 
considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if 
implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if 
implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation 
(probability implemented as planned); and
    (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

    Ships operated by or for the Navy have personnel assigned to stand 
watch at all times, day and night, when moving through the water. While 
in transit, ships must use extreme caution and proceed at a safe speed 
such that the ship can take proper and effective action to avoid a 
collision with any marine mammal and can be stopped within a distance 
appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
    Exclusion zones for active acoustics involve turning off towed 
sources when a marine mammal is sighted within 200 yards (yd; 183 m) 
from the source. Active transmission will re-commence if any one of the 
following conditions are met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the 
exclusion zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the exclusion 
zone based on its course and speed and relative motion between the 
animal and the source, (3) the exclusion zone has been clear from any 
additional sightings for a period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 30 
minutes for cetaceans, or (4) the ship has transited more than 400 yd 
(366 m) beyond the location of the last sighting.
    During mooring deployment, visual observation must start 30 minutes 
prior to and continue throughout the deployment within an exclusion 
zone of 60 yd (55 m) around the deployed mooring. Deployment will stop 
if a marine mammal is visually detected within the exclusion zone. 
Deployment will re-commence if any one of the following conditions are 
met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the exclusion zone, (2) the 
animal is thought to have exited the exclusion zone based on its course 
and speed, or (3) the exclusion zone has been clear from any additional 
sightings for a period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 30 minutes for 
cetaceans. Visual monitoring will continue through 30 minutes following 
the deployment of sources.
    Ships must avoid approaching marine mammals head on and maneuver to 
maintain an exclusion zone of 500 yd (457 m) around observed whales, 
and 200 yd (183 m) around all other marine mammals, provided it is safe 
to do so in ice free waters.
    Moored and drifting sources are left in place and cannot be turned 
off until the following year during ice free months. Once they are 
programmed, they will operate at the specified pulse lengths and duty 
cycles until they are either turned off the following year or there is 
failure of the battery and are not able to operate. Due to the ice 
covered nature of the Arctic, it is not possible to recover the sources 
or interfere with their transmit operations in the middle of the year.
    These requirements do not apply if a vessel's safety is at risk, 
such as when a change of course would create an imminent and serious 
threat to safety, person, vessel, or aircraft, and to the extent 
vessels are restricted in their ability to maneuver. No further action 
is necessary if a marine mammal other than a whale continues to 
approach the vessel after there has already been one maneuver and/or 
speed change to avoid the animal. Avoidance measures should continue 
for any observed whale in order to maintain an exclusion zone of 500 yd 
(457 m).
    All personnel conducting on-ice experiments, as well as all 
aircraft operating in the study area, are required to maintain a 
separation distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from any sighted pinniped.
    All ships are required to coordinate with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 
Commission (AEWC) using established check-in and communication 
procedures when vessels approach subsistence hunting areas.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, NMFS 
has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or 
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the 
availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, ``requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well 
as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required 
monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density).
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient

[[Page 48807]]

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) 
co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) 
biological or behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 
feeding areas).
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks.
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat).
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
    While underway, the ships (including non-Navy ships operating on 
behalf of the Navy) utilizing active acoustics and towed in-water 
devices will have at least one watch person during activities. Watch 
personnel undertake extensive training in accordance with the U.S. Navy 
Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent, including on the job 
instruction and a formal Personal Qualification Standard program (or 
equivalent program for supporting contractors or civilians), to certify 
that they have demonstrated all necessary skills (such as detection and 
reporting of floating or partially submerged objects). Their duties may 
be performed in conjunction with other job responsibilities, such as 
navigating the ship or supervising other personnel. While on watch, 
personnel employ visual search techniques, including the use of 
binoculars, using a scanning method in accordance with the U.S. Navy 
Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent. A primary duty of 
watch personnel is to detect and report all objects and disturbances 
sighted in the water that may be indicative of a threat to the ship and 
its crew, such as debris, or surface disturbance. Per safety 
requirements, watch personnel also report any marine mammals sighted 
that have the potential to be in the direct path of the ship as a 
standard collision avoidance procedure.
    The U.S. Navy has coordinated with NMFS to develop an overarching 
program plan in which specific monitoring would occur. This plan is 
called the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) (Navy 
2011). The ICMP was developed in direct response to Navy permitting 
requirements established through various environmental compliance 
efforts. As a framework document, the ICMP applies by regulation to 
those activities on ranges and operating areas for which the Navy is 
seeking or has sought incidental take authorizations. The ICMP is 
intended to coordinate monitoring efforts across all regions and to 
allocate the most appropriate level and type of effort based on a set 
of standardized research goals, and in acknowledgement of regional 
scientific value and resource availability.
    The ICMP is focused on Navy training and testing ranges where the 
majority of Navy activities occur regularly as those areas have the 
greatest potential for being impacted. ONR's Arctic Research Activities 
in comparison is a less intensive test with little human activity 
present in the Arctic. Human presence is limited to a minimal amount of 
days for possible towed source operations and source deployments, in 
contrast to the large majority (>95%) of time that the sources will be 
left behind and operate autonomously. Therefore, a dedicated monitoring 
project is not warranted.
    ONR previously conducted experiments in the Beaufort Sea as part of 
the Canadian Basin Acoustic Propagation Experiments (CANAPE) project in 
2016 and 2017. The goal of the CANAPE project was to determine the 
fundamental limits to the use of acoustic methods and signal processing 
imposed by ice and ocean processes in the changing Arctic. The CANAPE 
project included ten moored receiver arrays (frequencies ranging from 
200 Hz to 16 kHz) that recorded 24 hours per day for one year. 
Recordings from the CANAPE arrays are currently being compiled and 
analyzed by Defense Research and Development Canada, University of 
Delaware, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI). Researchers 
from WHOI are planning to do marine mammal analysis of the recordings, 
including density estimation. ONR is planning to release the marine 
mammal data collected from the CANAPE receivers to other researchers.
    As part of the planned Arctic Research Activities, ONR is deploying 
a moored receiver array similar to those used in CANAPE. The receiver 
array would be deployed during the SODA research cruises in 2018 and be 
recovered one year later. While a single array is a modest effort 
compared to the ten arrays used in CANAPE, it would provide new marine 
mammal monitoring data for the 2018-2019 time frame. The array would be 
deployed at one of the locations labeled on Figure 1-1 in the IHA 
application. There would be no active sources associated with the 
array. Once the array is recovered, the recordings would be shared 
alongside the CANAPE data.
    The Navy is committed to documenting and reporting relevant aspects 
of research and testing activities to verify implementation of 
mitigation, comply with permits, and improve future environmental 
assessments. If any injury or death of a marine mammal is observed 
during the 2018-19 Arctic Research Activities, the Navy will 
immediately halt the activity and report the incident to the Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding 
Coordinator, NMFS. The following information must be provided:
     Time, date, and location of the discovery;
     Species identification (if known) or description of the 
animal(s) involved;
     Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if 
the animal is dead);
     Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
     If available, photographs or video footage of the 
animal(s); and
     General circumstances under which the animal(s) was 
discovered (e.g., during use of towed acoustic sources, deployment of 
moored or drifting sources, during on-ice experiments, or by transiting 
vessel).
    ONR will provide NMFS with a draft exercise monitoring report 
within 90 days of the conclusion of the planned activity. The draft 
exercise monitoring report will include data regarding acoustic source 
use and any mammal sightings or detection will be documented. The 
report will include the estimated number of marine mammals taken during 
the activity. The report will also include information on the number of 
shutdowns recorded. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 
days of submission of the draft final report, the draft final report 
will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final 
report must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as ``an impact resulting from 
the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). 
A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-

[[Page 48808]]

level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    Underwater acoustic transmissions associated with the Arctic 
Research Activities, as outlined previously, have the potential to 
result in Level B harassment of beluga whales, ringed seals, and 
bearded seals in the form of TTS and behavioral disturbance. No serious 
injury, mortality, or Level A harassment are anticipated to result from 
this activity.
    Minimal takes of marine mammals by Level B harassment would be due 
to TTS since the range to TTS effects is small at only 50 m or less 
while the behavioral effects range is significantly larger extending up 
to 20 km (Table 4). TTS is a temporary impairment of hearing and can 
last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many 
cases, however, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to 
the sound ends. Though TTS may occur in a single ringed seal, the 
overall fitness of the individual seal is unlikely to be affected and 
negative impacts to the entire stock of ringed seals are not 
anticipated.
    Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment could 
include alteration of dive behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, 
effects to breathing rates, interference with or alteration of 
vocalization, avoidance, and flight. More severe behavioral responses 
are not anticipated due to the localized, intermittent use of active 
acoustic sources. Most likely, individuals will simply be temporarily 
displaced by moving away from the sound source. As described previously 
in the behavioral effects section, seals exposed to non-impulsive 
sources with a received sound pressure level within the range of 
calculated exposures (142-193 dB re 1 [micro]Pa), have been shown to 
change their behavior by modifying diving activity and avoidance of the 
sound source (G[ouml]tz et al., 2010; Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Although 
a minor change to a behavior may occur as a result of exposure to the 
sound sources associated with the planned action, these changes would 
be within the normal range of behaviors for the animal (e.g., the use 
of a breathing hole further from the source, rather than one closer to 
the source, would be within the normal range of behavior). Thus, even 
repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of the overall stock 
is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness 
for the affected individuals, and would not result in any adverse 
impact to the stock as a whole.
    The project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on 
marine mammal habitat. While the activities may cause some fish to 
leave the area of disturbance, temporarily impacting marine mammals' 
foraging opportunities, this would encompass a relatively small area of 
habitat leaving large areas of existing fish and marine mammal foraging 
habitat unaffected. Icebreaking may temporarily affect the availability 
of pack ice for seals to haul out but the proportion of ice disturbed 
is small relative to the overall amount of available ice habitat. 
Icebreaking will not occur during the time of year when ringed seals 
are expected to be within subnivean lairs or pupping (Chapskii 1940; 
McLaren 1958; Smith and Stirling 1975). As such, the impacts to marine 
mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term 
negative consequences.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity 
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated or 
authorized;
     Behavioral Impacts will be limited to Level B harassment 
of a relatively minor nature;
     Minimal takes by Level B harassment will be due to TTS; 
and
     There will be no permanent or significant loss or 
modification of marine mammal prey or habitat.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation 
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned 
activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal 
species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    Impacts to subsistence uses of marine mammals resulting from the 
planned action are not anticipated. The closest active acoustic source 
within the study area is approximately 141 mi (227 km) from land, 
outside of known subsistence use areas. Based on this information, NMFS 
has determined that there will be no unmitigable adverse impact on 
subsistence uses from ONR's planned activities.

National Environmental Policy Act

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published 
by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the 
Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental 
Assessment (EA/OEA) to consider the direct, indirect and cumulative 
effects to the human environment resulting from the Arctic Research 
Activities project. NMFS made the Navy's EA/OEA available to the public 
for review and comment, concurrently with the publication of the 
proposed IHA, on the NMFS website (at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities), in relation to its suitability for 
adoption by NMFS in order to assess the impacts to the human 
environment of issuance of an IHA to ONR. Also in compliance with NEPA 
and the CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, 
NMFS has reviewed the Navy's EA/OEA, determined it to be sufficient, 
and adopted that EA/OEA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI) on September 20, 2018.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, 
funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To 
ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults 
internally, in this case with the NMFS Alaska Regional Office (AKR) 
whenever we propose to

[[Page 48809]]

authorize take for endangered or threatened species.
    The AKR issued a Biological Opinion on September 7, 2018, which 
concluded that ONR's Arctic Research Activities and NMFS's issuance of 
an IHA for those activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of the Beringia DPS bearded seal or Arctic ringed seal or 
adversely modify any designated critical habitat.

Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the 
U.S. Navy's ONR for the Arctic Research Activities in the Beaufort and 
Chukchi Seas from September 20, 2018, through September 19, 2019, 
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: September 24, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-21070 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P