[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50007-50017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20605]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XR023
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to 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 Office of Naval Research (ONR) to incidentally harass, by Level B
harassment only, marine mammals during Arctic Research Activities in
the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. ONR'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 10, 2019 through
September 9, 2020.
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/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. 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 mitigation,
monitoring
[[Page 50008]]
and reporting of such 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 has been 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. The
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.
Summary of Request
On April 25, 2019, NMFS received a request from ONR for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to Arctic Research Activities in the
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The application was deemed adequate and
complete on July 16, 2019. ONR's request was for take of a small number
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 the second year of a larger project for which ONR
obtained a prior IHA and intends to request take authorization for
subsequent facets of the project. 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. ONR
complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting) of the previous IHA (83 FR 48799; September 27, 2019).
Description of Activity
Overview
ONR's Arctic Research Activities include scientific experiments to
be conducted in support of the Stratified Ocean Dynamics of the Arctic
(SODA), Arctic Mobile Observing System (AMOS), Ocean Acoustics field
work (including the Coordinated Arctic Active Tomography Experiment
(CAATEX)), and Naval Research Laboratory experiments in the Beaufort
and Chukchi Seas. 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 835,860 square kilometers (km\2\) (322,727 square
miles (mi\2\)).
These experiments involve deployment of moored and ice-tethered
active acoustic sources, primarily from the U.S Coast Guard Cutter
(CGC) HEALY. CGC HEALY may also be required to perform icebreaking to
deploy the acoustic sources in deep water. CGC HEALY will perform a
research cruise for up to 60 days in September and October 2019 to
deploy acoustic sources. A second, non-icebreaking ship may also
perform a cruise of up to 30 days to deploy any remaining sources in
the fall of 2019. A total of eight days of icebreaking are anticipated
within the effective dates of this IHA to deploy and/or retrieve the
northernmost sources. A subsequent research cruise of up to 60 days
beginning in August 2020 to deploy and retrieve sources.
A detailed description of the planned Arctic Research Activities is
provided in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (84 FR
37240; July 31, 2019). Since that time, no changes have been made to
the planned 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 July 31, 2019 (84 FR 37240). 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 Commission'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 informally noted that the potential for
marine mammals to become entangled in the weather balloon parachutes
was not addressed in the Federal Register notice of proposed IHA and
should have been discounted appropriately.
Response: The weather balloons being released could introduce the
potential for entanglement following their descent; these balloons
would consist of shredded debris from bursting balloons, a parachute
used to slow the descent of the radiosonde, and all of the ropes and
twine used to keep all of the components together (the radiosonde would
be suspended 82-115 ft (25-35 m) below the balloon). The components
from the weather balloons present the highest risk of entanglement.
Balloon fragments would temporarily be deposited on the ice, until the
ice melts and the materials would sink to the seafloor.
Although there is a potential for entanglement from an expended
material, the amount of materials expended will be low. Additionally,
marine mammals are very mobile within the water column and are capable
of avoiding debris. Although it is unknown whether animals will avoid
this debris, a recent stranding report found that out of the 21
reported seal strandings that occurred from human interaction in the
Arctic regions, none were documented to be from entanglement (Savage
2017). Therefore, based on the lack of evidence of previous pinniped
entanglements in
[[Page 50009]]
this region and the very low amount of project materials capable of
resulting in entanglement, the probability of marine mammals becoming
entangled in project-related materials is extremely small, and thus
take from entanglement in balloon materials is unlikely to occur.
Comment 3: The Commission questioned whether the public notice
provisions for IHA renewals fully satisfy the public notice and comment
provision in the MMPA and discussed the potential burden on reviewers
of reviewing key documents and developing comments quickly.
Additionally, the Commission recommended that NMFS use the IHA Renewal
process sparingly and selectively for activities expected to have the
lowest levels of impacts to marine mammals and that require less
complex analysis.
Response: NMFS has responded to this comment in full in our Federal
Register notice announcing the issuance of an IHA to Avangrid
Renewables, and we refer the reader to that response (84 FR 31035; June
28, 2019).
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 (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 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 ESA and potential
biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow
Committee on Taxonomy (2018). 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. 2018 SARs (e.g., Muto et al., 2019, Carretta et al., 2019).
All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the
time of publication and are available in the 2018 SARs (Muto et al.,
2019; Carretta et al., 2019).
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 26960 (0.05, 25,849, 801 135
2016).
Family Balaenidae:
Bowhead whale................... Balaena mysticetus..... Western Arctic......... E/D; Y 16,820 (0.052, 16,100, 161 46
2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Beluga whale.................... Delphinapterus leucas.. Beaufort Sea........... -/-; N 39,258 (0.229, N/A, \4\ 139
1992). Undet.
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, 8,210 557
2013).
Ribbon seal..................... Histriophoca fasciata.. Alaska................. -/-; N 184,697 (-, 163,086, 9,785 3.9
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.
[[Page 50010]]
\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 to be taken and take is not authorized.
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 (84 FR 37240; July 31, 2019). 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.
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 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 2.
Table 2--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.
Three marine mammal species (one cetacean and two pinniped (both
phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the
planned survey activities. Please refer to Table 1. Beluga whales are
classified as mid-frequency cetaceans.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from the 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 84 FR 37240; July 31,
2019) 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 (84 FR
37240; July 31, 2019) for that information.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration
of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. 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 are by Level B harassment only, in the form of
disruption of behavioral patterns and 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.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or 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
[[Page 50011]]
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 take.
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 (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur 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) address studies conducted since 1995 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. Phocid seals showed avoidance reactions at or below 190 dB re
1 [micro]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 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, 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 [micro]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.
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 [micro]Pa
(rms) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling,
icebreaking) and above 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) for non-explosive
impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or 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 with a
step-function at 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) received level 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
[[Page 50012]]
exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or
non-impulsive). ONR's activities involve only non-impulsive sources.
These thresholds are provided in the table 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 3--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 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa\2\s. 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 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
[[Page 50013]]
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.
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. For modeling,
the 8/10 ice cover was used. Each modeled day of icebreaking consisted
of 6 hours of 8/10 ice cover. Icebreaking was modeled for eight days
for each of the 2019 and 2020 cruises. For each cruise, this includes
four days of icebreaking for the deployment (or recovery) of the VLF
source and four days of icebreaking for the deployment (or recovery) of
the northernmost navigation sources. Since ice forecasting cannot be
predicted more than a few weeks in advance it is unknown if icebreaking
would be needed to deploy or retrieve the sources after one year of
transmitting. Therefore, icebreaking was conservatively analyzed within
this IHA. Figure 5a and 5b in Roth et al. (2013) depicts the source
spectrum level versus frequency for 8/10 ice cover. The sound signature
of the ice coverage level was broken into 1-octave bins (Table 4). 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 ice
signature. These source levels are a good approximation of the
icebreaker's observed source level (provided in Figure 4b of Roth et
al. (2013)). Each frequency and source level was modeled as an
independent source, and applied simultaneously to all of the animats
within NAEMO. Each second was summed across frequency to estimate sound
pressure level (root mean square (SPLRMS)). For PTS and TTS
determinations, sound exposure levels were summed over the duration of
the test and the transit to the deployment area. The method of
quantitative modeling for icebreaking is considered to be a
conservative approach; therefore, the number of takes estimated for
icebreaking are likely an over-estimate and would not be expected.
Table 4--Modeled Bins for Icebreaking in 8/10 Ice Coverage on CGC HEALY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source level
Frequency (Hz) (dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25...................................................... 189
50...................................................... 188
100..................................................... 189
200..................................................... 190
400..................................................... 188
800..................................................... 183
1600.................................................... 177
3200.................................................... 176
6400.................................................... 172
12800................................................... 167
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 5 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 5 provide realistic maximum distances over which the
specific effects from the use of non-impulsive sources during the
planned action would be possible.
Table 5--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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navigation and real-time sensing sources................ \a\ 20,000 \a\ 10,000 0 6 0 0
Spiral Wave Beacon source............................... \a\ 20,000 \a\ 10,000 0 0 0 0
Icebreaking noise....................................... 4,275 4,525 3 12 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Cutoff distances applied.
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
[[Page 50014]]
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 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 Arctic Research
Activities (Navy 2017a).
NMFS and the Navy conservatively implemented a distance cutoff of
10 km for pinnipeds, and 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. Sources that show a range of zero do not
rise to the specified level of effects (i.e., there is no chance of PTS
for either MF cetaceans or pinnipeds from any of the sources). No
instances of PTS were modeled for any species or stock; as such, no
take by Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized.
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.
The marine mammal density numbers utilized for quantitative
modeling are from the Navy Marine Species Density Database (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 6 shows the exposures expected for the
beluga whale, bearded seal, and ringed seal based on NAEMO modeled
results.
Table 6--Quantitative Modeling Results of Potential Exposures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
estimate Level B Level B
within study harassment harassment Level A Total Percentage of
Species area (animals from deployed from harassment authorized stock taken
per square sources icebreaking take
km) \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga Whale (Beaufort Sea Stock)....................... 0.0087 331 32 0 363 0.92
Beluga Whale (Eastern Chukchi Sea stock)................ 0.0087 178 18 0 196 0.94
Bearded Seal............................................ 0.0332 0 0 0 \b\ 5 <0.01
Ringed Seal............................................. 0.3760 6,773 1,072 0 7,845 2.17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Kaschner et al. (2006); Kaschner (2004).
\b\ Quantitative modeling yielded zero takes of bearded seals. However, in an abundance of caution, we are proposing to authorize five takes of bearded
seals by Level B harassment.
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
communities and tribes in the area, including the Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission (AEWC) and the Arctic Waterways Safety Committee (AWSC). The
closest active acoustic source within the study area (aside from the de
minimis sources), is approximately 145 mi (233 km) from land. As stated
above, the range to effects for non-impulsive acoustic sources in this
experiment is much smaller than the distance from shore. 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 are
not expected to 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 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. NMFS
[[Page 50015]]
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.
During navigational source deployments, visual observation must
start 30 minutes prior to and continue throughout the deployment within
an exclusion zone of 55 m (180 ft, roughly one ship length) around the
deployed mooring. Deployment must 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
must continue through 30 minutes following the deployment of sources.
Once deployed, the spiral wave beacon would transmit for five days.
The ship will maintain position near the moored source and must monitor
the surrounding area for marine mammals. Transmission must cease if a
marine mammal enters a 55-m (180 ft) exclusion zone. 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, 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. The
spiral wave beacon source will only transmit during daylight hours.
Ships must avoid approaching marine mammals head on and would
maneuver to maintain an exclusion zone of 1,500 ft (457 m) around
observed mysticete whales, and 600 ft (183 m) around all other marine
mammals, provided it is safe to do so in ice free waters.
With the exception of the spiral wave beacon, moored/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 deployment.
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 1,500
ft (457 m).
All ships are required to coordinate with the AEWC using
established check-in and communication procedures when vessels approach
subsistence hunting areas.
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 marine mammal.
NMFS has determined that the 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, 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 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);
[[Page 50016]]
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
While underway, the ships (including non-Navy ships operating on
behalf of the Navy) utilizing active acoustics must 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) (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 (>95%) of time that the sources will be left behind and
operate autonomously. Therefore, a dedicated monitoring project is not
warranted. However, ONR is required to record all observations of
marine mammals, including the marine mammal's location (latitude and
longitude), behavior, and distance from project activities, including
icebreaking.
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 2019-20 Arctic Research Activities, the Navy must
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 is required to provide NMFS with a draft exercise monitoring
report within 90 days of the conclusion of the planned activity. The
draft exercise monitoring report must include data regarding acoustic
source use, the number of shutdowns during monitoring, any marine
mammal sightings (including the marine mammal's location (latitude and
longitude)), and the number of individuals of each species observed
during source deployment and operation, their behavior and distance
from project activities (including icebreaking), and estimates of the
total number of marine mammals taken, by species (including takes that
occurred beyond the observable area). 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 whales, ringed seals, and
bearded seals in the form of TTS and behavioral disturbance. No serious
injury, mortality, or Level A
[[Page 50017]]
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 12 m or less
while the behavioral effects range is significantly larger extending up
to 20 km (Table 5). 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, which is expected here, given the anticipated magnitude
and duration of any potential exposures. No takes from TTS were
modeled, but if TTS did occur, the overall fitness of the individual is
unlikely to be affected and negative impacts to the relevant stock 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. The planned project and associated impacts do not
occur in any known Biologically Important Areas (BIAs). 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 mortality is anticipated or authorized;
Impacts will be limited to Level B harassment;
Takes by Level B harassment will primarily be in the form
of low level behavioral disturbance over a short duration;
The project and associated impacts are not occurring in
any known BIAs; 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 required 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 145 mi (233 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 (NEPA) of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations
published by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ; 40 CFR parts
1500-1508), ONR prepared an Overseas Environmental Assessment (OEA) to
consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the human
environment resulting from the Arctic Research Activities. NMFS made
ONR's 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/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act), 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 ONR's OEA, determined it to be sufficient, and
adopted that EA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
on September 9, 2019.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act 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 authorize take for endangered or
threatened species.
The AKR issued a Biological Opinion on August 27, 2019, 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 conducting Arctic Research Activities in the
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: September 18, 2019.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-20605 Filed 9-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P