[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6518-6527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02167]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XR067]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy 2020 Ice Exercise 
Activities in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization 
(IHA).

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given 
that NMFS has issued an IHA to the United States Department of the Navy 
(Navy) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine 
mammals during submarine training and testing activities associated 
with Ice Exercise 2020 (ICEX20) north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. 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 February 1, 2020, through 
January 31, 2021.

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 the species or stocks for 
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and 
reporting of the takings must be set forth.
    The NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the ``small numbers'' and 
``specified geographical region'' limitations indicated above and 
amended the definition of ``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military 
readiness activity.'' The activity for which incidental take of marine 
mammals is being requested addressed here qualifies as a military 
readiness activity. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory 
terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.

Summary of Request

    On July 3, 2019, NMFS received a request from the Navy for an IHA 
to take marine mammals incidental to submarine training and testing 
activities, including establishment of a tracking range on an ice floe 
in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The 
application was deemed adequate and complete on November 22, 2019. The 
Navy's request was for take of ringed seals (Pusa hispida hispida) and 
bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) by Level B harassment. Neither the 
Navy nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this 
activity. Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
    NMFS previously issued an IHA to the Navy for similar activities 
conducted in 2018 (83 FR 6522; February 14, 2018). The Navy complied 
with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) 
of the previous IHA and information regarding their monitoring results 
may be found in the Estimated Take section.

Description of Proposed Activity

    The Navy proposes to conduct submarine training and testing 
activities from an ice camp established on an ice floe in the Beaufort 
Sea and Arctic Ocean for approximately six weeks beginning in February 
2020. The ice camp would be established approximately 100-200 nautical 
miles (nmi) north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The submarine training and 
testing activities would occur over approximately four weeks during the 
six-week period. Submarine active acoustic transmissions may result in 
occurrence of temporary hearing impairment (temporary threshold shift 
(TTS)) and behavioral harassment (Level B harassment) of ringed and 
bearded seals.
    A detailed description of ICEX20 activities is provided in the 
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR 68886; December 17, 
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 
specific activity.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to the Navy was 
published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2019 (84 FR 68886). 
That notice described, in detail, the Navy'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 letter 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.

[[Page 6519]]

    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 ICEX20. 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: The Commission recommended that NMFS stipulate that an IHA 
Renewal is a one-time opportunity in all Federal Register notices 
requesting comments on possibility of a Renewal, on its web page 
detailing the Renewal process, and in all draft and final 
authorizations that include a term and condition for Renewal.
    Response: NMFS' website indicates that Renewals are good for ``up 
to another year of the activities covered in the initial IHA.'' NMFS 
has never issued a Renewal for more than one year, and in no place have 
we implied that Renewals are available for more than one year. Any 
given Federal Register notice considering a Renewal clearly indicates 
that it is only being considered for one year. Accordingly, changes to 
the Renewal language on the website, Federal Register notices, or 
authorizations is not necessary.

Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA

    NMFS has added specific elements that must be reported in the 
Navy's post-activity monitoring report. These requirements are detailed 
in the Monitoring and Reporting section of this notice.

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 ringed and bearded seals. 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 project 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 or serious injury 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 notice 
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 
comprise 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. Alaska SARs (Muto 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 Alaska SARs (Muto et al., 2019).

                                         Table 1--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present in the Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Stock abundance
                                                                                 ESA/ MMPA status;     (CV, Nmin, most                         Annual M/
           Common name                Scientific name            Stock          strategic (Y/N) \1\    recent abundance           PBR            SI \3\
                                                                                                         survey) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
                                                                    Family Balaenidai
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale....................  Balaena mysticetus..  Western Arctic......  E/D;Y                 16,982 (0.058,       161................         44
                                                                                                      16,091, 2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
                                                                   Family Delphinidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale.....................  Delphinapterus        Beaufort Sea........  -/-;N                 39,258 (0.229,       649................        166
                                    leucas.                                                           32,453, 1992).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
                                                             Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ringed seal......................  Pusa hispida hispida  Alaska..............  T/D;Y                 170,000 (-,          5,100 (Bering Sea-       1,054
                                                                                                      170,000, 2013)       U.S. portion only).
                                                                                                      (Bering Sea and
                                                                                                      Sea of Okhotsk
                                                                                                      only).
Bearded seal.....................  Erignathus barbatus.  Alaska..............  T/D;Y                 299,174 (-,          8,210 (Bering Sea-         557
                                                                                                      273,676, 2012)       U.S. portion only).
                                                                                                      (Bering Sea-U.S.
                                                                                                      portion only).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
  stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.

[[Page 6520]]

 
\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.
NOTE: Italicized species are not expected to be taken.

    All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey 
areas are included in Table 1. However, the temporal and/or spatial 
occurrence of bowhead whales and beluga whales is such that take is not 
expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the 
explanation provided here. Bowhead whales migrate annually from 
wintering areas (December to March) in the northern Bering Sea, through 
the Chukchi Sea in the spring (April through May), to the eastern 
Beaufort Sea, where they spend much of the summer (June through early 
to mid-October) before returning again to the Bering Sea (Muto et al., 
2017). They are unlikely to be found in the ICEX20 study area during 
the February through April ICEX20 timeframe. Beluga whales follow a 
similar pattern, as they tend to spend winter months in the Bering Sea 
and migrate north to the eastern Beaufort Sea during the summer months.
    In addition, the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) may be found in the 
project area. However, polar bears are managed by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.
    A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by 
ICEX20, including brief introductions to the species and relevant 
stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and 
threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in 
the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR 68886; December 
17, 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 
these descriptions. Please also refer to NFMS's 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 submarine training and testing 
activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of 
marine mammals in the vicinity of the study area. The notice of 
proposed IHA (84 FR 68886; December 17, 2019) included a discussion of 
the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential 
effects of underwater noise from ICEX20 activities on marine mammals 
and their habitat. That information and analysis is incorporated by 
reference in to this final IHA determination and is not repeated here; 
please refer to the notice of proposed IHA (84 FR 68886; December 17, 
2019).

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
authorized through this IHA, which will inform NMFS' negligible impact 
determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines 
harassment as (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential 
to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A 
harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption 
of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, 
migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a 
point where the behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly 
altered (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes 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. Based on the 
nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor 
authorized, and as described previously, no serious injury or mortality 
is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how 
the take is estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take from exposure to sound 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. For 
this IHA, the Navy employed a sophisticated model known as the Navy 
Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO) for assessing the impacts of underwater 
sound.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS applies 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 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 proposed 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

[[Page 6521]]

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 decibels (dB) referenced to 1 microPascal 
([mu]Pa) @1 m; thus, seals may actually receive levels adequate to 
produce TTS before avoiding the source.
    The Navy's Phase III proposed pinniped behavioral threshold has 
been 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). 
Overall exposure levels were 110-170 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for hooded seals, 
140-180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for gray seals and 125-185 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for 
California sea lions; responses occurred at received levels ranging 
from 125 to 185 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. However, the means of the response data 
were between 159 and 170 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. 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 10 times. 
These exposure sessions were combined into a single response value, 
with an overall response assumed if an animal responded in any single 
session. Because these data represent a dose-response type relationship 
between received level and a response, and because the means were all 
tightly clustered, the Bayesian biphasic Behavioral Response Function 
for pinnipeds most closely resembles a traditional sigmoidal dose-
response function at the upper received levels and has a 50 percent 
probability of response at 166 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. Additionally, to account 
for proximity to the source discussed above and based on the best 
scientific information, a conservative distance of 10 km is used beyond 
which exposures would not constitute a take under the military 
readiness definition. NMFS used this dose response function to predict 
behavioral harassment of pinnipeds for this activity.
    Level A harassment and TTS--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).
    These thresholds were developed by compiling the best available 
science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and 
peer reviewers to inform the final product. The references, analysis, 
and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described 
in the Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
    The Navy's PTS/TTS analyses begins with mathematical modeling to 
predict the sound transmission patterns from Navy sources, including 
sonar. These data are then coupled with marine species distribution and 
abundance data to determine the sound levels likely to be received by 
various marine species. These criteria and thresholds are applied to 
estimate specific effects that animals exposed to Navy-generated sound 
may experience. For weighting function derivation, the most critical 
data required are TTS onset exposure levels as a function of exposure 
frequency. These values can be estimated from published literature by 
examining TTS as a function of sound exposure level (SEL) for various 
frequencies.
    To estimate TTS onset values, only TTS data from behavioral hearing 
tests were used. To determine TTS onset for each subject, the amount of 
TTS observed after exposures with different sound pressure levels 
(SPLs) and durations were combined to create a single TTS growth curve 
as a function of SEL. The use of (cumulative) SEL is a simplifying 
assumption to accommodate sounds of various SPLs, durations, and duty 
cycles. This is referred to as an ``equal energy'' approach, since SEL 
is related to the energy of the sound and this approach assumes 
exposures with equal SEL result in equal effects, regardless of the 
duration or duty cycle of the sound. It is well known that the equal 
energy rule will over-estimate the effects of intermittent noise, since 
the quiet periods between noise exposures will allow some recovery of 
hearing compared to noise that is continuously present with the same 
total SEL (Ward 1997). For continuous exposures with the same SEL but 
different durations, the exposure with the longer duration will also 
tend to produce more TTS (Finneran et al., 2010; Kastak et al., 2007; 
Mooney et al., 2009a).
    As in previous acoustic effects analysis (Finneran and Jenkins 
2012; Southall et al., 2007), the shape of the PTS exposure function 
for each species group is assumed to be identical to the TTS exposure 
function for each group. A difference of 20 dB between TTS onset and 
PTS onset is used for all marine mammals including pinnipeds. This is 
based on estimates of exposure levels actually required for PTS (i.e., 
40 dB of TTS) from the marine mammal TTS growth curves, which show 
differences of 13 to 37 dB between TTS and PTS onset in marine mammals. 
Details regarding these criteria and thresholds can be found in NMFS' 
Technical Guidance (NMFS 2016).
    Table 2 below provides the weighted criteria and thresholds used in 
this analysis for estimating quantitative acoustic exposures of marine 
mammals from the proposed action.

            Table 2--Injury (PTS) and Disturbance (TTS, Behavioral) Thresholds for Underwater Sounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Physiological criteria
              Group                     Species           Behavioral     ---------------------------------------
                                                           criteria            Onset TTS           Onset PTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phocid (in water)...............  Ringed/Bearded      Pinniped Dose       181 dB SEL          201 dB SEL
                                   seal.               Response Function.  cumulative.         cumulative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 6522]]

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 proposed action. Inputs to the quantitative 
analysis included marine mammal density estimates, marine mammal depth 
occurrence distributions (U.S Department of the Navy, in prep), 
oceanographic and environmental data, marine mammal hearing data, and 
criteria and thresholds for levels of potential effects.
    The density estimate used to estimate take is derived from habitat-
based modeling by Kaschner et al., (2006) and Kaschner (2004). The area 
of the Arctic where the planned action will occur (100-200 nm north of 
Prudhoe Bay, Alaska) has not been surveyed in a manner that supports 
quantifiable density estimation of marine mammals. In the absence of 
empirical survey data, information on known or inferred associations 
between marine habitat features and (the likelihood of) the presence of 
specific species have been used to predict densities using model-based 
approaches. These habitat suitability models include relative 
environmental suitability (RES) models. Habitat suitability models can 
be used to understand the possible extent and relative expected 
concentration of a marine species distribution. These models are 
derived from an assessment of the species occurrence in association 
with evaluated environmental explanatory variables that results in 
defining the RES suitability of a given environment. A fitted model 
that quantitatively describes the relationship of occurrence with the 
environmental variables can be used to estimate unknown occurrence in 
conjunction with known habitat suitability. Abundance can thus be 
estimated for each RES value based on the values of the environmental 
variables, providing a means to estimate density for areas that have 
not been surveyed. Use of the Kaschner's RES model resulted in a value 
of 0.3957 ringed seals per km\2\ in the cold season (defined as 
December through May) and a maximum value of 0.0332 bearded seals per 
km\2\ in the cold and warm seasons. The density numbers are assumed 
static throughout the ice camp action area for this species. The 
density data generated for this species was based on environmental 
variables known to exist within the ice camp action area during the 
late winter/early springtime period.
    The quantitative analysis consists of computer modeled estimates 
and a post-model analysis to determine the number of potential animal 
exposures. The model calculates sound energy propagation from the 
proposed sonars, 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 a marine mammal 
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 Navy's standard mitigations. These tools and 
data sets serve are 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 is independent of all others, and therefore, the same 
individual marine animal 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.
    There are limitations to the data used in the acoustic effects 
model, and the results must be interpreted within these context. While 
the most accurate data and input assumptions have been used in the 
modeling, when there is a lack of definitive data to support an aspect 
of the modeling, modeling assumptions believed to overestimate the 
number of exposures have been chosen:
     Animats are modeled as being underwater, stationary, and 
facing the source and therefore always predicted to receive the maximum 
sound level (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 the 
temporary or permanent hearing loss, because there are not sufficient 
data to estimate a hearing recovery function for the time between 
exposures; and
     Mitigation measures that are implemented were not 
considered in the model. In reality, sound-producing activities would 
be reduced, stopped, or delayed if marine mammals are detected by 
submarines via passive acoustic monitoring.
    Because of these inherent model limitations and simplifications, 
model-estimated results must 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 
effects on marine mammals.
    For non-impulsive sources, NAEMO calculates the sound pressure 
level (SPL) and sound exposure level (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 training event's operational area. Table 3 
provides range to effects for active acoustic sources proposed for 
ICEX20 to phocid pinniped specific criteria. Phocids within these 
ranges would be predicted to receive the associated effect. Range to

[[Page 6523]]

effects is important information in not only predicting 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 to marine 
mammals.

                    Table 3--Range to Behavioral Effects, TTS, and PTS in the ICEX Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Range to effects (m)
                       Source/exercise                        --------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Behavioral          TTS              PTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine Exercise...........................................      10,000 \a\            4,025               15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Empirical evidence has not shown responses to sonar that would constitute take beyond a few km from an
  acoustic source, which is why NMFS and Navy conservatively set a distance cutoff of 10 km. Regardless of the
  source level at that distance, take is not estimated to occur beyond 10 km from the source.

    As discussed above, within NAEMO animats do not move horizontally 
or react in any way to avoid sound. Furthermore, mitigation measures 
that are implemented during training or testing activities that reduce 
the likelihood of physiological impacts are not considered in 
quantitative analysis. Therefore, the current model overestimates 
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 (TTS or PTS). 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 proposed action, the implementation of avoidance and mitigation 
factors were not included in this analysis.
    Table 4 shows the exposures expected for bearded and ringed seals 
based on NAEMO modeled results.

                                  Table 4--Authorized Take for ICEX Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Level B harassment
                     Species                     --------------------------------     Level A          Total
                                                    Behavioral          TTS         harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bearded seal....................................               3               1               0               4
Ringed seal.....................................           1,395              11               0           1,406
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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). Of these species, only bearded and 
ringed seals would be located within the study area during the proposed 
action.
    The study area is at least 100-150 mi (161-241 km) from land, well 
seaward of known subsistence use areas and the planned activities would 
conclude prior to the start of the summer months, during which the 
majority of subsistence hunting would occur. In addition, the specified 
activity would not remove individuals from the population, therefore 
there would be no impacts caused by this action to the availability of 
bearded seals or ringed seals for subsistence hunting. Therefore, 
subsistence uses of marine mammals would not be impacted by this 
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 the 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental 
take authorizations to include information about the availability and 
feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and 
manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least 
practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and 
their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). The NDAA for FY 2004 amended the 
MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities and the incidental 
take authorization process such that ``least practicable impact'' shall 
include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of 
implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military 
readiness activity.
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, as 
well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential 
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further 
considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if 
implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if 
implemented as planned), the

[[Page 6524]]

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

    The following general mitigation actions are required for ICEX20 to 
minimize impacts on ringed and bearded seals on the ice floe:
     Camp deployment will begin in mid-February and must be 
completed by March 15. Based on the best available science, Arctic 
ringed seal whelping is not expected to occur prior to mid-March. 
Construction of the ice camp would be completed prior to whelping in 
the area of ICEX20. As such, pups are not anticipated to be in the 
vicinity of the camp at commencement, and mothers would not need to 
move newborn pups due to construction of the camp. Additionally, if a 
seal had a lair in the area they would be able to relocate. Completing 
camp deployment before ringed seal pupping begins will allow ringed 
seals to avoid the camp area prior to pupping and mating seasons, 
reducing potential impacts;
     Camp location will not be in proximity to pressure ridges 
in order to allow camp deployment and operation of an aircraft runway. 
This will minimize physical impacts to subnivean lairs;
     Camp deployment will gradually increase over five days, 
allowing seals to relocate to lairs that are not in the immediate 
vicinity of the camp;
     Personnel on all on-ice vehicles must observe for marine 
and terrestrial animals; any marine or terrestrial animal observed on 
the ice must be avoided by 328 ft (100 m). On-ice vehicles would not be 
used to follow any animal, with the exception of actively deterring 
polar bears if the situation requires;
     Personnel operating on-ice vehicles must avoid areas of 
deep snowdrifts near pressure ridges, which are preferred areas for 
subnivean lair development; and
     All material (e.g., tents, unused food, excess fuel) and 
wastes (e.g., solid waste, hazardous waste) must be removed from the 
ice floe upon completion of ICEX20.
    The following mitigation actions are required for ICEX20 activities 
involving acoustic transmissions:
     For activities involving active acoustic transmissions 
from submarines and torpedoes, passive acoustic sensors on the 
submarines must listen for vocalizing marine mammals for 15 minutes 
prior to the initiation of exercise activities. If a marine mammal is 
detected, the submarine must delay active transmissions, and not 
restart until after 15 minutes have passed with no marine mammal 
detections. If there are no animal detections, it may be assumed that 
the vocalizing animal is no longer in the immediate area and is 
unlikely to be subject to harassment. Ramp up procedures are not 
proposed as Navy determined, and NMFS accepts, that they would result 
in an unacceptable impact on readiness and on the realism of training.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the 
required mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least 
practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, 
paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 
similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock 
for subsistence uses.

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to 
compliance as well as 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).
     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.
    The U.S. Navy has coordinated with NMFS to develop an overarching 
program plan in which specific monitoring would occur. This plan is 
called the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) (U.S. 
Department of the Navy 2011). The ICMP was created in direct response 
to Navy permitting requirements established in various MMPA rules, ESA 
consultations, and applicable regulations. 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 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. ICEX20 in comparison is a short 
duration exercise that occurs approximately every other year. Due to 
the location and expeditionary nature of the ice camp, the number of 
personnel onsite is extremely limited and is constrained by the 
requirement to be able to evacuate all personnel in a single day with 
small planes. As such, a dedicated monitoring project would not be 
feasible as it would require additional personnel and equipment to 
locate, tag and monitor the seals.
    The Navy is committed to documenting and reporting relevant

[[Page 6525]]

aspects of training and research activities to verify implementation of 
mitigation, comply with current permits, and improve future 
environmental assessments. All sonar usage will be collected via the 
Navy's Sonar Positional Reporting System database and reported. If any 
injury or death of a marine mammal is observed during the ICEX20 
activity, 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 submarine activities, observed on ice floe, or 
by transiting vessel).
    The Navy will provide NMFS with a draft exercise monitoring report 
within 90 days of the conclusion of the planned activity. The proposed 
IHA required the monitoring report to include data regarding sonar use 
and any mammal sightings or detection will be documented. The report 
would also include information on the number of sonar shutdowns 
recorded. NMFS has revised this requirement since the notice of 
proposed IHA was published to specify that the draft exercise 
monitoring report must include the number of marine mammals sighted, by 
species, and any other available information about the sighting(s) such 
as date, time, and approximate location (latitude and longitude). The 
draft report must be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the end of 
ICEX20 activities. 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. As the 
information is classified, the Navy must also provide data regarding 
sonar use and the number of shutdowns during monitoring in the Atlantic 
Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Letter of Authorization annual 
classified report due in February 2021. The Navy must also analyze any 
declassified underwater recordings collected during ICEX20 for marine 
mammal vocalizations and report that information to NMFS, including the 
types and natures of sounds heard (e.g., clicks, whistles, creaks, 
burst pulses, continuous, sporadic, strength of signal) and the species 
or taxonomic group (if determinable). This information must be 
submitted to NMFS with the annual AFTT declassified monitoring report 
due in April 2021.

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 ICEX20, as 
outlined previously, have the potential to result in Level B harassment 
of ringed and bearded seals in the form of TTS and behavioral 
disturbance. No serious injury, mortality or Level A takes are 
anticipated to result from this activity. At close ranges and high 
sound levels approaching those that could cause PTS, avoidance of the 
area immediately around the sound source would be seals' likely 
behavioral response.
    NMFS estimates 11 takes of ringed seals and 1 take of bearded seals 
due to TTS from the submarine activities. TTS is a temporary impairment 
of hearing and TTS 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. This activity has the 
potential to result in only minor levels of TTS, and hearing 
sensitivity of affected animals would be expected to recover quickly. 
Though TTS may occur in up to 11 ringed seals and 1 bearded seal, the 
overall fitness of these individuals is unlikely to be affected and 
negative impacts to the entire stocks 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, 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 and mitigation by passive acoustic monitoring which will limit 
exposure to sound sources. Most likely, individuals will 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 [mu]Pa), have been shown to 
change their behavior by modifying diving activity and avoidance of the 
sound source (G[ouml]tz et al., 2010; Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Although 
a minor change to a behavior may occur as a result of exposure to the 
sound sources associated with the 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 Navy's planned activities are localized and of relatively short 
duration. While the total project area is large, the Navy expects that 
most activities will occur within the ice camp action area in 
relatively close proximity to the ice camp. The larger study area 
depicts the range where submarines may maneuver during the exercise. 
The ice camp will be in existence for up to six weeks with acoustic 
transmission occurring intermittently over approximately four weeks.

[[Page 6526]]

    The project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on 
marine mammal habitat. The project activities are limited in time and 
would not modify physical marine mammal habitat. While the activities 
may cause some fish to leave a specific area ensonified by acoustic 
transmissions, temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging 
opportunities, these fish would likely return to the affected area. As 
such, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause 
significant or long-term negative consequences.
    For on-ice activity, serious injury and mortality are not 
anticipated. Level B harassment could occur but is unlikely due to 
mitigation measures followed during the exercise. Foot and snowmobile 
movement on the ice will be designed to avoid pressure ridges, where 
ringed seals build their lairs; runways will be built in areas without 
pressure ridges; snowmobiles will follow established routes; and camp 
buildup is gradual, with activity increasing over the first five days 
providing seals the opportunity to move to a different lair outside the 
ice camp area. The Navy will also employ its standard 100-m avoidance 
distance from any arctic animals. Implementation of these measures 
should ensure that ringed seal lairs are not crushed or damaged during 
ICEX20 activities and minimize the potential for seals and pups to 
abandon lairs and relocate.
    The ringed seal pupping season on the ice lasts for five to nine 
weeks during late winter and spring. Ice camp deployment would begin in 
mid-February and be completed by March 15, before the pupping season. 
This will allow ringed seals to avoid the ice camp area once the 
pupping season begins, thereby reducing potential impacts to nursing 
mothers and pups. Furthermore, ringed seal mothers are known to 
physically move pups from the birth lair to an alternate lair to avoid 
predation. If a ringed seal mother perceives the acoustic transmissions 
as a threat, the local network of multiple birth and haulout lairs 
would allow the mother and pup to move to a new lair.
    There is an ongoing unusual mortality event (UME) for ice seals, 
including ringed and bearded seals. Elevated strandings have occurred 
in the Bering and Chukchi Seas since June 2018. Though elevated numbers 
of seals have stranded during this UME, this event does not provide 
cause for concern regarding population-level impacts, as the population 
abundance estimates for each of the affected species number in the 
hundreds of thousands. The study area for ICEX20 activities is in the 
Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean, well north and east of the primary area 
where seals have stranded along the western coast of Alaska (see map of 
strandings at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2018-2019-ice-seal-unusual-mortality-event-alaska). The 
location of the ICEX20 activities, combined with the short duration and 
low-level potential effects on marine mammals, suggest that the planned 
activities are not expected to contribute to the ongoing UME.
    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 serious injury or mortality is anticipated or 
authorized;
     Impacts will be limited to Level B harassment, primarily 
in the form of behavioral disturbance;
     Anticipated TTS is only of a low degree, and expected to 
affect only a limited number of animals;
     The numbers of takes proposed to be authorized are low 
relative to the estimated abundances of the affected stocks;
     There will be no loss or modification of ringed or bearded 
seal habitat and minimal, temporary impacts on prey;
     Physical impacts to ringed seal subnivean lairs will be 
avoided; and
     Mitigation requirements for ice camp activities would 
minimize impacts to animals during the pupping season.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from 
the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected 
marine mammal species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    Impacts to subsistence uses of marine mammals resulting from the 
planned action are not anticipated. The planned action would occur 
outside of the primary subsistence use season (i.e., summer months), 
and the study area is 100-150 mi (161-241 km) seaward of known 
subsistence use areas. Harvest locations for ringed seals extend up to 
80 nmi (148 km) from shore during the summer months while winter 
harvest of ringed seals typically occurs closer to shore. Additionally, 
no mortality or serious injury is expected or authorized, and therefore 
no marine mammals would be removed from availability for subsistence. 
Based on this information, NMFS has determined that there will not be 
an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from the Navy's 
activities.

National Environmental Policy Act

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA; 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), the Navy prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment/
Overseas Environmental Assessment (Supplemental EA/OEA) to consider the 
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the human environment 
resulting from ICEX20. NMFS provided a link to the Navy's Supplemental 
EA/OEA (at http://www.nepa.navy.mil/icex) for the public to review and 
comment, concurrently with the publication of the proposed IHA, 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 the Navy. 
Also in compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA 
Administrative Order 216-6, NMFS has reviewed the Navy's Supplemental 
EA/OEA, determined it to be sufficient, and adopted that Supplemental 
EA/OEA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on January 
30, 2020.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, 
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the NMFS Alaska Regional 
Office (AKR), whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or 
threatened species.
    There are two marine mammal species (ringed seals and bearded 
seals) with confirmed presence in the project area that are listed 
under the ESA. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office Protected Resources 
Division issued a Biological Opinion on January 27, 2020, which 
concluded that the Navy's activities and NMFS's issuance of an IHA are 
not likely to jeopardize the continued

[[Page 6527]]

existence of the Arctic ringed seal or Beringia DPS bearded seal.

Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the 
Navy for conducting submarine training and testing activities in the 
Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean beginning in February 2020, provided the 
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements 
are incorporated.

    Dated: January 30, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-02167 Filed 2-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P