40234 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before October 15, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 

14th and Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

internet at pracomments@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Kent LaBorde, 301–427– 

8364 or Kent.laborde@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

United States (U.S.) vessels that fish 

on the high seas (waters beyond the U.S. 

exclusive economic zone) are required 

to possess a permit issued under the 

High Seas Fishing Compliance Act. 

Applicants for this permit must submit 

information to identify their vessels, 

owners and operators of the vessels, and 

intended fishing areas. The application 

information is used to process permits 

and to maintain a register of vessels 

authorized to fish on the high seas. 

The HSFCA also requires vessels be 

marked for identification and 

enforcement purposes. Vessels must be 

marked in three locations (port and 

starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, 

and on a weatherdeck) with their 

official number or radio call sign. 

These requirements apply to all 

vessels fishing on the high seas. 

II. Method of Collection 

Owners or operators of high seas 

fishing vessels must submit paper 

permit application forms and paper 

logbook pages to NMFS. No information 

is submitted for the vessel marking 

requirement. The markings are only 

displayed on the vessel. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: 0648–0304. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission 

(extension of a currently approved 

information collection). 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

600. 

Estimated Time per Response: 30 

minutes per application form; for 

logbook reports, 6 minutes per day for 

days fish are caught, 1 minute per day 

for days when fish are not caught; 45 

minutes (15 minutes for each of 3 

locations) for vessel markings. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 539. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $183,876. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: August 9, 2018. 

Sarah Brabson, 

NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17398 Filed 8–13–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG030 

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; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval 

Research (ONR) for authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to Arctic 

Research Activities in the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas. Pursuant to the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

is requesting comments on its proposal 

to issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS will consider public 

comments prior to making any final 

decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. ONR’s 

activities are considered military 

readiness activities pursuant to the 

MMPA, as amended by the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (NDAA). 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than September 13, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Physical 

comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

and electronic comments should be sent 

to ITP.Fowler@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-militaryreadiness-activities without change. All 

personal identifying information (e.g., 

name, address) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter may be publicly 

accessible. Do not submit confidential 

business information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Fowler, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities. In case of problems accessing 

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40235 

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 

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 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. 

The proposed action constitutes a 

military readiness activity because these 

proposed 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 

proposed 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. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

NMFS plans to adopt the Navy’s 

Environmental Assessment/Overseas 

Environmental Assessment (EA/OEA), 

provided our independent evaluation of 

the document finds that it includes 

adequate information analyzing the 

effects on the human environment of 

issuing the IHA. The Navy’s OEA is 

available at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On April 6, 2018, NMFS received a 

request from ONR for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to Arctic 

Research Activities in the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas. ONR’s application was 

determined adequate and complete on 

May 1, 2018. ONR’s request is for take 

of beluga whales (Delphinapterus 

leucas), bearded seals (Erignathus 

barbatus), and ringed seals (Pusa 

hispida hispida) by Level B harassment 

only. Neither ONR nor NMFS expects 

serious injury or mortality to result from 

this activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

This proposed IHA would cover one 

year of a larger project for which ONR 

intends to request take authorization for 

subsequent facets of the project. This 

IHA would be valid from September 15, 

2018 through September 14, 2019. The 

larger three-year project involves several 

scientific objectives which support the 

Arctic and Global Prediction Program, 

as well as the Ocean Acoustics Program 

and the Naval Research Laboratory, for 

which ONR is the parent command. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

ONR’s Arctic Research Activities 

include scientific experiments to be 

conducted in support of the Arctic and 

Global Prediction Program, the Ocean 

Acoustics Program, and the Naval 

Research Laboratory, for which ONR is 

the parent command. Specifically, the 

project includes the Stratified Ocean 

Dynamics of the Arctic (SODA), Arctic 

Mobile Observing System (AMOS), 

Ocean Acoustics field work, and Naval 

Research Laboratory (NRL) experiments 

in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. These 

experiments involve deployment of 

moored and ice-tethered active acoustic 

sources as well as towed acoustic 

sources from the U.S. Coast Guard 

Cutter (CGC) HEALY and the Research 

Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq. CGC HEALY may 

also be required to perform icebreaking 

to deploy the moored and ice-tethered 

sources in deep water. Increased 

underwater sound from the acoustic 

sources and icebreaking may result in 

behavioral harassment of marine 

mammals. 

Dates and Duration 

ONR’s Arctic Research Activities are 

proposed to begin in August 2018, but 

these activities include use of 

autonomous gliders that do not have the 

potential to result in take of marine 

mammals. Activities with the potential 

to result in take of marine mammals 

(i.e., use of acoustic sources and 

icebreaking) would begin in September 

2018. A maximum of four research 

cruises (one cruise per vessel in each 

calendar year) of up to 30 days are 

proposed. Each vessel may tow sources 

for up to 8 hours per day for 15 days 

during each cruise in open water or 

marginal ice. Once deployed, moored 

and drifting sources would operate 

intermittently each day for up to three 

years. Icebreaking may occur on up to 

4 days. This IHA would authorize take 

for the first year of the proposed project. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The proposed actions would occur in 

either the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) or the high seas north of 

Alaska (see Figure 1–1 in the IHA 

application). The study area consists of 

a deep water area and a shallow water 

area on the continental shelf. The total 

area of the study area is 257,723 square 

mi (667,500 square kilometers (km2)). 

All activities, except for the transit of 

ships, would take place outside U.S. 

territorial waters. The closest active 

acoustic source (aside from de minimis 

sources described below) within the 

study area is approximately 141 miles 

(mi; 227 kilometers (km)) from land. 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

The ONR Arctic and Global 

Prediction Program supports two major 

projects (SODA and AMOS). Of those, 

only the SODA project will occur during 

the time period covered by this IHA. 

The SODA project would begin field 

work in August 2018 with research 

cruises and the deployment of 

autonomous measurement devices for 

year-round observation of water 

properties (temperature and salinity) 

and the associated stratification and 

circulation. These physical processes 

are related to the ice cover and as the 

properties of the ice cover change, the 

water properties will change as well. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40236 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

Warm water feeding into the Arctic 

Ocean also plays an important role in 

changing the environment. Observations 

of these phenomena require 

geographical sampling of areas of 

varying ice cover and temperature 

profile, and year-round temporal 

sampling to understand what happens 

during different parts of the year. 

Autonomous systems are needed for this 

type of year-round observation of a 

representative sample of active waters. 

Geolocation of autonomous platforms 

requires the use of acoustic navigation 

signals, and therefore, year-long use of 

active acoustic signals. The deployment 

of navigational sources (shown by the 

12 red dots in Figure 1–1 of the IHA 

application) would occur in the deep 

water area of the study area off of the 

continental shelf. 

The ONR Ocean Acoustics Program 

also supports Arctic field work. The 

emphasis of the Ocean Acoustics 

Program field efforts is to understand 

how the changing environment affects 

acoustic propagation and the noise 

environment. These experiments are 

also spatially and temporally 

dependent, so observations in different 

locations on a year-round basis would 

be required. The potential for 

understanding the large-scale (range and 

depth) temperature structure of the 

ocean requires the use of long-range 

acoustic transmissions. The use of 

specialized waveforms and acoustic 

arrays allows signals to be received over 

100 km from a source, while only 

requiring moderate source levels. The 

Ocean Acoustics Program may perform 

these experiments in conjunction with 

the Arctic and Global Prediction 

Program by operating in the same 

location and with the same research 

vessels. 

NRL would also conduct Arctic 

research in the same timeframe with the 

same general scientific purpose as the 

Arctic and Global Prediction and Ocean 

Acoustics Programs. NRL’s field work 

would begin in March 2019 at the 

earliest. NRL’s field work would include 

measurements of ice with aircraft and 

the deployment of sources using 

helicopters. Up to 10 ice-tethered 

acoustic buoys are expected to be 

deployed for real-time environmental 

sensing and mid-frequency sonar 

performance predictions. Real-time 

assimilation of acoustic data into an 

ocean model is also planned. The icetethered acoustic buoys are designed to 

be operational for up to two years. In 

addition, the NRL Acoustics Division 

has sources designed for long-range 

transmissions in the Arctic and can 

perform acoustic experiments in 

conjunction with other ongoing 

experiments. 

Below are descriptions of the 

equipment and platforms that would be 

deployed at different times during the 

proposed action. 

Research Vessels 

CGC HEALY and/or the R/V Sikuliaq 

would be the two primary vessels to 

perform research cruises as part of the 

proposed action. Research cruises are 

proposed for 2018 and 2019 calendar 

years. The R/V Sikuliaq has a maximum 

speed of 12 knots (University of Alaska 

Fairbanks 2014) and a nominal tow 

speed of 4 knots (Naval Sea Systems 

Command 2015). CGC HEALY has a 

maximum speed of 17 knots and a 

cruising speed of 12 knots (U.S. Coast 

Guard 2013) but a maximum speed of 3 

knots when traveling through 3.5 feet 

(ft; 1.07 meters (m)) of ice (Murphy 

2010). CGC HEALY may be required to 

perform icebreaking to deploy the 

moored and ice-tethered acoustic 

sources in deep water. Icebreaking 

would only occur during the warm 

season, presumably in the August 

through October timeframe. CGC 

HEALY is capable of breaking ice up to 

8 ft (2.4 m) thick while backing and 

ramming (Roth et al., 2013). A study in 

the western Arctic Ocean was 

conducted while CGC HEALY was 

mapping the seafloor north of the 

Chukchi Cap in August 2008. During 

this study, CGC HEALY icebreaker 

events generated signals with center 

frequencies near 10, 50, and 100 Hertz 

(Hz) with maximum source levels of 190 

to 200 decibels (dB) re 1 microPascal 

(mPa) at 1 m (Roth et al., 2013). 

Icebreaking would only occur in the 

deep water portion of the study area 

while deploying moored and icetethered sources.. 

The R/V Sikuliaq and CGC HEALY 

may perform the activities listed below 

during their research cruises (some of 

these activities may result in take of 

marine mammals, while others may not, 

as described further below): 

• Towing of active acoustic sources 

(see below); 

• Deployment of moored and/or icetethered passive sensors (e.g., 

oceanographic measurement devices, 

acoustic receivers); 

• Deployment of moored and/or icetethered active acoustic sources to 

transmit acoustic signals for up to three 

years after deployment. Transmissions 

could be terminated during ice-free 

periods (August to October) each year if 

needed; 

• Deployment of unmanned surface, 

underwater, and air vehicles; and 

• Recovery of equipment. 

Additional oceanographic 

measurements would be made using 

ship-based systems, including the 

following: 

• Modular Microstructure Profiler, a 

tethered profiler that would measure 

oceanographic parameters within the 

top 984 ft (300 m) of the water column; 

• Shallow Water Integrated Mapping 

System, a winched towed body with a 

Conductivity Temperature Depth 

sensor, upward and downward looking 

Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers 

(ADCPs), and a temperature sensor 

within the top 328 ft (100 m) of the 

water column; 

• Three-dimensional Sonic 

Anemometer, which would measure 

wind stress from the foremast of the 

ship; 

• Surface Wave Instrument Float with 

Tracking (SWIFTs) buoys are freely 

drifting buoys measuring winds, waves, 

and other parameters with deployments 

spanning from hours to days; and 

• A single mooring would be 

deployed to perform measurements of 

currents with an ADCP. 

Towed Active Acoustic Sources 

CGC HEALY and/or R/V Sikuliaq may 

tow active acoustic sources in transit to 

deploying moored or ice-tethered 

acoustic sources. Each vessel may tow 

sources for up to 15 days in the deep 

area during each cruise only in open 

water or marginal ice. Towing cannot be 

conducted while icebreaking. Navy 

acoustic sources are categorized into 

‘‘bins’’ based on frequency, source level, 

and mode of usage (Department of the 

Navy 2013a). The towed sources 

associated with the proposed action fall 

within bins LF4, LF5, and MF9 (Table 

1). LF4 sources are characterized as lowfrequency sources (signals less than 1 

kHz) with source levels equal to 180 dB 

up to 200 dB. LF5 sources are lowfrequency sources with source levels 

below 180 dB. MF9 sources are midfrequency sources (tactical and nontactical sources with signals between 1 

and 10 kHz) with source levels equal to 

180 dB up to 200 dB. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40237 

TABLE 1—SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS OF MODELED ACOUSTIC SOURCES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

Source name Number 

deployed 

Frequency range 

(Hz) 

Sound 

pressure 

level 

(dB re 1 

μPa 

at 1 m) 

Pulse 

length 

(milliseconds) 

Duty 

cycle 

(percent) 

Source type Usage 

LF4 towed source .................... N/A .................. 100 to 1,000 .............. 200 10,000 50 Towed .................. 4 hours per day for 15 days. 

LF5 towed source .................... N/A .................. 100 to 1,000 .............. 180 10,000 50 Towed .................. 4 hours per day for 15 days. 

MF9 towed source ................... N/A .................. 1,000 to 10,000 ......... 200 10,000 50 Towed .................. 8 hours per day for 15 days. 

Spiral Wave Source ................. Up to 3 ............ 2,500 .......................... 183 50 <1 Moored ................ 24 hours per day for 7 days. 

Navigation and real-time sensing sources.Up to 15 .......... 700 ............................. 185 60,000 <1 Moored or Drifting 1 minute every 4 hours, up to 

3 years.1

Tomography sources ............... Up to 6 ............ 250 ............................. 185 135,000 <1 Moored ................ 2.25 minutes every 4 hours, 

up to 3 years.1

1For the purposes of this proposed IHA, the deployment period would be for one year, which may be continued under subsequent IHAs. 

Moored and Drifting Acoustic Sources 

Moored and drifting acoustic sources 

would be deployed from either CGC 

HEALY or the R/V Sikuliaq in the deep 

water area. Each vessel may deploy up 

to three moored spiral wave sources that 

would operate for up to seven days per 

year (Table 1). The spiral wave sources 

would be separated by distances similar 

to the deep water source locations in 

Figure 1–1 of the IHA application 

(approximately 35 mi (56 km)). The two 

vessels (combined) would deploy a 

maximum of 15 acoustic navigation 

sources (moored and/or drifting) in the 

deep water area during September 2018 

at the deep water source locations 

shown in Figure 1–1 of the IHA 

application. Source transmits would be 

offset by 15 minutes from each other 

(i.e., sources would not be transmitting 

at the same time). During the initial 

cruise it is unlikely that all 15 sources 

would be deployed. Subsequent cruises 

would continue to deploy the 

navigation sources until the maximum 

number of 15 sources is reached. The 

navigation sources would also be used 

for rapid environmental characterization 

in addition to the SODA project. 

CGC HEALY and R/V Sikuliaq 

(combined) would deploy a maximum 

of six moored tomography sources in 

the deep water area during September 

2018 at the six SODA source locations 

closest to the coast (see Figure 1–1 of 

the IHA application). Source transmits 

would be offset by six minutes from 

each other (i.e., sources would not be 

transmitting at the same time). When 

the acoustic navigation sources and 

tomography sources are both 

transmitting they would be offset from 

each other by at least three minutes. 

All moorings would be anchored on 

the seabed and held in the water 

column with subsurface buoys. All 

sources would be deployed by 

shipboard winches, which would lower 

sources and receivers in a controlled 

manner. Anchors would be steel 

‘‘wagon wheels’’ typically used for this 

type of deployment. All moored and 

drifting sources would be recovered. 

Activities Not Likely To Result in Take 

The following in-water activities have 

been determined to be unlikely to result 

in take of marine mammals. These 

activities are described here but their 

effects are not described further in this 

document. 

Glider Surveys—The proposed action 

would begin in August 2018 with the 

deployment of gliders from a small 

vessel outside U.S. territorial waters. All 

gliders would be recovered during the 

cruises of the CGC HEALY and/or R/V 

Sikuliaq. Although the Navy is not 

requesting an IHA for these activities as 

they involve only passive oceanographic 

measurements with slow-moving gliders 

that do not have the potential to result 

in take of marine mammals, they are 

mentioned here because they are the 

start of ONR’s research activities in the 

Arctic. 

De minimis Sources—De minimis 

sources have the following parameters: 

Low source levels, narrow beams, 

downward directed transmission, short 

pulse lengths, frequencies outside 

known marine mammal hearing ranges, 

or some combination of these factors 

(Department of the Navy 2013b). For 

further detail regarding the de minimis 

sources planned for use by the Navy, 

which are not quantitatively analyzed, 

please see the Navy’s application. 

Descriptions of example sources are 

provided below and in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—PARAMETERS FOR DE MINIMIS SOURCES

Source name Frequency range 

(kHz) 

Sound 

pressure 

level 

(dB re 1 

μPa at 

1 m) 

Pulse 

length 

(milliseconds) 

Duty 

cycle 

(percent) 

Beamwidth 

(degree) De minimis justification 

PIES ................................................. 12 ..................................................... 170–180 6 <0.01 45 ............... Extremely low duty cycle, low 

source level, very short pulse 

length. 

ADCP ................................................ >200, 150, or 75 .............................. 190 <1 <0.1 2.2 .............. Very short pulse length, narrow 

beamwidth, moderate source 

level. 

Chirp sonar ....................................... 2–16 ................................................. 200 20 <1 Narrow ........ Very short pulse length, low duty 

cycle, narrow beamwidth. 

EMATT ............................................. 700–1100 Hz and 1100–4000 Hz ... <150 N/A 25–100 Omni ........... Low source level. 

Coring system .................................. 25–200 ............................................. 158–162 <1 16 Omni ........... Low source level.1

Conductivity Temperature Depth attached Echosounder.5–20 ................................................. 160 4 2 Omni ........... Low source level. 

1Within sediment, not within the water column. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40238 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

Drifting Oceanographic Sensors— 

Observations of ocean-ice interactions 

require the use of sensors which are 

moored and embedded in the ice. 

Sensors are deployed within a few 

dozen meters of each other on the same 

ice floe. Their initial locations are 

depicted as the yellow arrow symbols in 

Figure 1–1 of the IHA application. Three 

types of sensors would be used: 

Autonomous Ocean Flux Buoys, 

Integrated Autonomous Drifters, and Ice 

Tethered Profilers. The autonomous 

ocean flux buoys measure 

oceanographic properties just below the 

ocean-ice interface. The autonomous 

ocean flux buoys would have ADCPs 

and temperature chains attached, to 

measure temperature, salinity, and other 

ocean parameters in the top 20 ft (6 m) 

of the water column. Integrated 

Autonomous Drifters would have a long 

temperature string extending down to 

656 ft (200 m) depth and would 

incorporate meteorological sensors, and 

a temperature string to estimate ice 

thickness. The Ice Tethered Profilers 

would collect information on ocean 

temperature, salinity, and velocity down 

to 820 ft (250 m) depth. 

Fifteen autonomous floats (AirLaunched Autonomous Micro 

Observers) would be deployed during 

the proposed action to measure seasonal 

evolution of the ocean temperature and 

salinity, as well as currents. They would 

be deployed on the eastern edge of the 

Chukchi Sea in water less than 3,280 ft 

(1,000 m) deep. Three autonomous 

floats would act as virtual moorings by 

originating on the seafloor, then moving 

up the water column to the surface and 

returning to the seafloor. The other 12 

autonomous floats would sit on the sea 

floor and at intervals begin to move 

toward the surface. At programmed 

intervals, a subset of the floats would 

release anchors and begin their profiling 

mission. Up to 15 additional floats may 

be deployed by ships of opportunity in 

the Beaufort Gyre. The general locations 

for the autonomous floats are depicted 

by the blue squares in Figure 1–1 of the 

IHA application. 

The drifting oceanographic sensors 

described above use only de minimis 

sources and are therefore not 

anticipated to have the potential for 

impacts on marine mammals or their 

habitat. 

Moored Oceanographic Sensors— 

Moored sensors would capture a range 

of ice, ocean, and atmospheric 

conditions on a year-round basis. The 

location of the bottom-anchored subsurface moorings are depicted by the 

purple stars in Figure 1–1 of the IHA 

application. These would be bottomanchored, sub-surface moorings 

measuring velocity, temperature, and 

salinity in the upper 1,640 ft (500 m) of 

the water column. The moorings also 

collect high-resolution acoustic 

measurements of the ice using the ice 

profilers described above. Ice velocity 

and surface waves would be measured 

by 500 kHz multibeam sonars. 

Additionally, Beaufort Gyre 

Exploration Project moorings BGOS–A 

and BGOS–B (depicted by the black 

plus signs in Figure 1–1 of the IHA 

application) would be augmented with 

McLane Moored Profilers. BGOS–A and 

BGOS–B would provide measurements 

near the Northwind Ridge, with 

considerable latitudinal distribution. 

Existing deployments of Nortek 

Acoustic Wave and Current Profilers on 

BGOS–A and BGOS–B would also be 

continued as part of the proposed 

action. 

The moored oceanographic sensors 

described above use only de minimis 

sources and are therefore not 

anticipated to have the potential for 

impacts on marine mammals or their 

habitat. 

Fixed and Towed Receiving Arrays— 

Horizontal and vertical arrays may be 

used to receive acoustic signals. The 

Distributed Vertical Line Array is a long 

line acoustic receiver that would be 

deployed within the SODA sensor 

locations. The Distributed Vertical Line 

Array would be moored to the seafloor 

by a 1,940 pound (lb) (880 kilograms 

(kg)) anchor. An array (horizontal and 

vertical) may also be placed on the 

seabed in the shallow water area over 

the continental shelf. Other receiving 

arrays are the Single Hydrophone 

Recording Units and Autonomous 

Multichannel Acoustic Recorder. All 

these arrays would be moored to the 

seafloor and remain in place throughout 

the activity. CGC HEALY and R/V 

Sikuliaq may also tow arrays of acoustic 

receivers. These are passive acoustic 

sensors and therefore are not anticipated 

to have the potential for impacts on 

marine mammals or their habitat. 

Activities Involving Aircraft and 

Unmanned Air Vehicles—Naval 

Research Laboratory would be 

conducting flights to characterize the ice 

structure and character, ice edge and 

wave heights across the open water and 

marginal ice zone to the ice. Up to 4 

flights, lasting approximately 3 hours in 

duration would be conducted over a 10 

day period during February or March for 

ice structure and character 

measurements and during late summer/ 

early fall for ice edge and wave height 

studies. Flights would be conducted 

with a Twin Otter aircraft over the 

seafloor mounted acoustic sources and 

receivers. Most flights would transit at 

1,500 ft or 10,000 ft (457 or 3,048 m) 

above sea level. Twin Otters have a 

typical survey speed of 90 to 110 knots, 

66 ft (20 m) wing span, and a total 

length of 26 ft (8 m) (U.S. Department 

of Commerce and NOAA 2015). At a 

distance of 2,152 ft (656 m) away, the 

received pressure levels of a Twin Otter 

range from 80 to 98.5 A-weighted dB 

(expression of the relative loudness in 

the air as perceived by the human ear) 

and frequency levels ranging from 20 Hz 

to 10 kHz, though they are more 

typically in the 500 Hz range (Metzger 

1995). The objective of the flights is to 

characterize thickness and physical 

properties of the ice mass overlying the 

experiment area. 

Rotary wing aircraft may also be used 

during the activity. Helicopter transit 

would be no longer than two hours to 

and from the ice location. A twin engine 

helicopter may be used to transit 

scientists from land to an offshore 

floating ice location. Once on the 

floating ice, the team would drill holes 

with up to a 10 inch (in; 25.4 centimeter 

(cm)) diameter to deploy scientific 

equipment (e.g., source, hydrophone 

array, EMATT) into the water column. 

The science team would depart the area 

and return to land after three hours of 

data collection and leave the equipment 

behind for a later recovery. 

The proposed action includes the use 

of an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS). 

The UAS would be deployed ahead of 

the ship to ensure a clear passage for the 

vessel and would have a maximum 

flight time of 20 minutes. The UAS 

would not be used for marine mammal 

observations or hover close to the ice 

near marine mammals. The UAS that 

would be used during the proposed 

action is a small commercially available 

system that generates low sound levels 

and is smaller than military grade 

systems. The dimensions of the 

proposed UAS are, 11.4 in (29 cm) by 

11.4 in (29 cm) by 7.1 in (18 cm) and 

weighs 2.5 lb (1.13 kg). The UAS can 

operate up to 984 ft (300 m) away, 

which would keep the device in close 

proximity to the ship. The planned 

operation of the UAS is to fly it 

vertically above the ship to examine the 

ice conditions in the path of the ship 

and around the area (i.e., not flown at 

low altitudes around the vessel). 

Currently acoustic parameters are not 

available for the proposed models of 

UASs to be used. As stated previously, 

these systems are small and are similar 

to a remote control helicopter. It is 

likely marine mammals would not hear 

the device since the noise generated 

would likely not be audible from greater 

than 5 ft (1.5 m) away (Christiansen et 

al., 2016). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40239 

All aircraft (manned and unmanned) 

would be required to maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 1,000 ft 

(305 m) from any pinnipeds hauled out 

on the ice. Therefore, no take of marine 

mammals is anticipated from these 

activities. 

On-Ice Measurement Systems—On-ice 

measurement systems would be used to 

collect weather data. These would 

include an Autonomous Weather 

Station and an Ice Mass Balance Buoy. 

The Autonomous Weather Station 

would be deployed on a tripod; the 

tripod has insulated foot platforms that 

are frozen into the ice. The system 

would consist of an anemometer, 

humidity sensor, and pressure sensor. 

The Autonomous Weather Station also 

includes an altimeter that is de minimis 

due to its very high frequency (200 

kHz). The Ice Mass Balance Buoy is a 20 

ft (6 m) sensor string, which is deployed 

through a 2 in (5 cm) hole drilled into 

the ice. The string is weighted by a 2.2 

lb (1 kg) lead weight, and is supported 

by a tripod. The buoy contains a de 

minimis 200 kHz altimeter and snow 

depth sensor. Autonomous Weather 

Stations and Ice Mass Balance Buoys 

will be deployed in fall 2018, and will 

drift with the ice, making 

measurements, until their host ice floes 

melt, thus destroying the instruments 

(likely in summer, roughly one year 

after deployment). After the on-ice 

instruments are destroyed they cannot 

be recovered, and would sink to the 

seafloor as their host ice floes melted. 

All personnel conducting experiments 

on the ice would be required to 

maintain a minimum separation 

distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from any 

pinnipeds hauled out on the ice. 

Therefore, no take of marine mammals 

is anticipated from these activities. 

Bottom Interaction Systems—Coring 

of bottom sediment could occur 

anywhere within the study area to 

obtain a more complete understanding 

of the Arctic environment. Coring 

equipment would take up to 50 samples 

of the ocean bottom in the study area 

annually. The samples would be 

roughly cylindrical, with a 3.1 in (8 cm) 

diameter cross-sectional area; the 

corings would be between 10 and 20 ft 

(3 and 6 m) long. Coring would only 

occur while the research vessel or the 

CGC HEALY are deployed, during the 

summer or early fall. The coring 

equipment moves very slowly through 

the muddy bottom, at a speed of 

approximately 1 m per hour, and would 

not create any detectable acoustic signal 

within the water column, though very 

low levels of acoustic transmissions 

may be created in the mud (Table 2). 

The source levels of the coring 

equipment are so low that take of 

marine mammals as a result of acoustic 

exposure is not considered a potential 

outcome of the activity. 

Weather Balloons—To support 

weather observations, up to 40 Kevlar or 

latex balloons would be launched per 

year for the duration of the proposed 

action. These balloons and associated 

radiosondes (a sensor package that is 

suspended below the balloon) are 

similar to those that have been deployed 

by the National Weather Service since 

the late 1930s. When released, the 

balloon is approximately 5 to 6 ft (1.5– 

1.8 m) in diameter and gradually 

expands as it rises due to the decrease 

in air pressure. When the balloon 

reaches a diameter of 13–22 ft (4–7 m), 

it bursts and a parachute is deployed to 

slow the descent of the associated 

radiosonde. Weather balloons would not 

be recovered. 

The deployment of weather balloons 

does not include the use of active 

acoustics and is therefore not 

anticipated to have the potential for 

impacts on marine mammals or their 

habitat. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ and ‘‘Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting’’). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessment-reportsregion) and more general information 

about these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’s website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Table 3 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the study 

area and summarizes information 

related to the population or stock, 

including regulatory status under the 

MMPA and the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’s 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s U.S. 2017 SARs (e.g., Muto et 

al., 2018, Carretta et al., 2018). All 

values presented in Table 3 are the most 

recent available at the time of 

publication and are available in the 

2017 SARs (Muto et al., 2018; Carretta 

et al., 2018). 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock 

abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray whale ....................... Eschrichtius robustus ............. Eastern North Pacific ............. -/- ; N 20,900 (0.05, 20,125, 2011) .. 624 4.25 

Family Balaenidae: 

Bowhead whale ................ Balaena mysticetus ................ Western Arctic ........................ E/D ; Y 16,820 (0.052, 16,100, 2011) 161 43 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40240 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock 

abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Beluga whale ................... Delphinapterus leucas ............ Beaufort Sea .......................... -/- ; N 39,258 (0.229, N/A, 1992) ..... Undet.4 139 

Beluga whale ................... Delphinapterus leucas ............ Eastern Chukchi Sea ............. -/- ; N 20,752 (0.70, 12.194, 2012) .. 244 67 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Bearded seal 5 .................. Erignathus barbatus ............... Alaska ..................................... T/D ; Y 299,174 (-, 273,676, 2013) .... 8,210 391 

Ribbon seal ...................... Histriophoca fasciata .............. Alaska ..................................... -/- ; N 184,000 (-, 163,086, 2013) .... 9,785 3.8 

Ringed seal 5 .................... Pusa hispida hispida .............. Alaska ..................................... T/D ; Y 170,000 (-, 170,000, 2013) .... 5,100 1,054 

Spotted seal ..................... Phoca largha .......................... Alaska ..................................... -/- ; N 461,625 (-, 423,237, 2013) .... 12,697 329 

1Endangered 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-assessmentreports-region/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 3These 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. 4The 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. 5Abundances 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 or proposed for authorization. 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed survey areas are 

included in Table 3. Activities 

conducted during the proposed action 

are expected to cause harassment, as 

defined by the MMPA as it applies to 

military readiness, to the beluga whale 

(of the Beaufort and Eastern Chukchi 

Sea stocks), bearded seal, and ringed 

seal. Due to the location of the study 

area (i.e., northern offshore, deep water), 

there were no calculated exposures for 

the bowhead whale, gray whale, spotted 

seal, and ribbon seal from quantitative 

modeling of non-impulsive acoustic and 

icebreaking sources. Bowhead and gray 

whales remain closely associated with 

the shallow waters of the continental 

shelf in the Beaufort Sea and are 

unlikely to be exposed to acoustic 

harassment (Carretta et al., 2017; Muto 

et al., 2018). Similarly, spotted seals 

tend to prefer pack ice areas with water 

depths less than 200 m during the 

spring and move to coastal habitats in 

the summer and fall, found as far north 

as 69–72° N (Muto et al., 2018). 

Although the study area includes waters 

south of 72° N, the acoustic sources 

with the potential to result in take of 

marine mammals are not found below 

that latitude and spotted seals are not 

expected to be exposed. Ribbon seals are 

found year-round in the Bering Sea but 

may seasonally range into the Chukchi 

Sea (Muto et al., 2018). The proposed 

action occurs primarily in the Beaufort 

Sea, outside of the core range of ribbon 

seals, thus ribbon seals are not expected 

to be behaviorally harassed. Narwhals 

are considered extralimital in the 

project area and are not expected to be 

encountered or taken. As no harassment 

is expected of bowhead whales, gray 

whales, spotted seals, and ribbon seals, 

these species will not be discussed 

further in this IHA. 

Beluga Whale 

Beluga whales are distributed 

throughout seasonally ice-covered arctic 

and subarctic waters of the Northern 

Hemisphere (Gurevich 1980), and are 

closely associated with open leads and 

polynyas in ice-covered regions (Hazard 

1988). Belugas are both migratory and 

residential (non-migratory), depending 

on the population. Seasonal distribution 

is affected by ice cover, tidal conditions, 

access to prey, temperature, and human 

interaction (Frost et al., 1985). 

There are five beluga stocks 

recognized within U.S. waters: Cook 

Inlet, Bristol Bay, eastern Bering Sea, 

eastern Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea. 

Two stocks, the Beaufort Sea and 

eastern Chukchi Sea stocks, have the 

potential to occur in the Study Area. 

There are two migration areas used by 

Beaufort Sea belugas that overlap the 

Study Area. One, located in the Eastern 

Chukchi and Alaskan Beaufort Sea, is a 

migration area in use from April to May. 

The second, located in the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea, is used by migrating 

belugas from September to October 

(Calambokidis et al., 2015). During the 

winter, they can be found foraging in 

offshore waters associated with pack 

ice. When the sea ice melts in summer, 

they move to warmer river estuaries and 

coastal areas for molting and calving 

(Muto et al., 2017). Annual migrations 

can span over thousands of kilometers. 

The residential Beaufort Sea 

populations participate in short distance 

movements within their range 

throughout the year. Based on satellite 

tags (Suydam et al., 2001) there is some 

overlap in distribution with the eastern 

Chukchi Sea beluga whale stock. 

During the winter, eastern Chukchi 

Sea belugas occur in offshore waters 

associated with pack ice. In the spring, 

they migrate to warmer coastal 

estuaries, bays, and rivers where they 

may molt (Finley 1982; Suydam 2009) 

and give birth to and care for their 

calves (Sergeant and Brodie 1969). 

Eastern Chukchi Sea belugas move into 

coastal areas, including Kasegaluk 

Lagoon (outside of the Study Area), in 

late June and animals are sighted in the 

area until about mid-July (Frost and 

Lowry 1990; Frost et al., 1993). Satellite 

tags attached to eastern Chukchi Sea 

belugas captured in Kaseguluk Lagoon 

during the summer showed these 

whales traveled 593 nm (1,100 km) 

north of the Alaska coastline, into the 

Canadian Beaufort Sea within three 

months (Suydam et al., 2001). Satellite 

telemetry data from 23 whales tagged 

during 1998–2007 suggest variation in 

movement patterns for different age 

and/or sex classes during July– 

September (Suydam et al., 2005). Adult 

males used deeper waters and remained 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40241 

there for the duration of the summer; all 

belugas that moved into the Arctic 

Ocean (north of 75° N) were males, and 

males traveled through 90 percent pack 

ice cover to reach deeper waters in the 

Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean (79–80° 

N) by late July/early August. Adult and 

immature female belugas remained at or 

near the shelf break in the south through 

the eastern Bering Strait into the 

northern Bering Sea, remaining north of 

Saint Lawrence Island over the winter. 

A whale tagged in the eastern Chukchi 

Sea in 2007 overwintered in the waters 

north of Saint Lawrence Island during 

2007/2008 and moved to near King 

Island in April and May before moving 

north through the Bering Strait in late 

May and early June (Suydam 2009). 

Bearded Seal 

Bearded seals are a boreoarctic 

species with circumpolar distribution 

(Burns 1967; Burns 1981; Burns and 

Frost 1979; Fedoseev 1965; Johnson et 

al., 1966; Kelly 1988a; Smith 1981). 

Their normal range extends from the 

Arctic Ocean (85° N) south to Sakhalin 

Island (45° N) in the Pacific and south 

to Hudson Bay (55° N) in the Atlantic 

(Allen 1880; King 1983; Ognev 1935). 

Bearded seals are widely distributed 

throughout the northern Bering, 

Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas and are 

most abundant north of the ice edge 

zone (MacIntyre et al., 2013). Bearded 

seals inhabit the seasonally ice-covered 

seas of the Northern Hemisphere, where 

they whelp and rear their pups and molt 

their coats on the ice in the spring and 

early summer. The overall summer 

distribution is quite broad, with seals 

rarely hauled out on land, and some 

seals, mostly juveniles, may not follow 

the ice northward but remain near the 

coasts of Bering and Chukchi seas 

(Burns 1967; Burns 1981; Heptner et al., 

Nelson 1981). As the ice forms again in 

the fall and winter, most seals move 

south with the advancing ice edge 

through the Bering Strait into the Bering 

Sea where they spend the winter 

(Boveng and Cameron 2013; Burns and 

Frost 1979; Cameron and Boveng 2007; 

Cameron and Boveng 2009; Frost et al., 

2005; Frost et al., 2008). This southward 

migration is less noticeable and 

predictable than the northward 

movements in late spring and early 

summer (Burns 1981; Burns and Frost 

1979; Kelly 1988a). During winter, the 

central and northern parts of the Bering 

Sea shelf have the highest densities of 

bearded seals (Braham et al., 1981; 

Burns 1981; Burns and Frost 1979; Fay 

1974; Heptner et al., 1976; Nelson et al., 

1984). In late winter and early spring, 

bearded seals are widely but not 

uniformly distributed in the broken, 

drifting pack ice ranging from the 

Chukchi Sea south to the ice front in the 

Bering Sea. In these areas, they tend to 

avoid the coasts and areas of fast ice 

(Burns 1967; Burns and Frost 1979). 

Bearded seals along the Alaskan coast 

tend to prefer areas where sea ice covers 

70 to 90 percent of the surface, and are 

most abundant 20 to 100 nautical miles 

(nmi) (37 to 185 (km) offshore during 

the spring season (Bengston et al., 2000; 

Bengston et al., 2005; Simpkins et al., 

2003). In spring, bearded seals may also 

concentrate in nearshore pack ice 

habitats, where females give birth on the 

most stable areas of ice (Reeves et al., 

2003) and generally prefer to be near 

polynyas (areas of open water 

surrounded by sea ice) and other natural 

openings in the sea ice for breathing, 

hauling out, and prey access (Nelson et 

al., 1984; Stirling 1997). While molting 

between April and August, bearded 

seals spend substantially more time 

hauled out than at other times of the 

year (Reeves et al., 2002). 

In their explorations of the Canada 

Basin, Harwood et al. (2005) observed 

bearded seals in waters of less than 656 

ft (200 m) during the months from 

August to September. These sightings 

were east of 140° W. The Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management conducted 

an aerial survey from June through 

October that covered the shallow 

Beaufort and Chukchi Sea shelf waters, 

and observed bearded seals from Point 

Barrow to the border of Canada (Clarke 

et al., 2014). The farthest from shore that 

bearded seals were observed was the 

waters of the continental slope. 

On December 28, 2012, NMFS listed 

both the Okhotsk and the Beringia 

distinct population segments (DPSs) of 

bearded seals as threatened under the 

ESA (77 FR 76740). The Alaska stock of 

bearded seals consists of only Beringia 

DPS seals. 

Ringed Seal 

Ringed seals are the most common 

pinniped in the Study Area and have 

wide distribution in seasonally and 

permanently ice-covered waters of the 

Northern Hemisphere (North Atlantic 

Marine Mammal Commission 2004). 

Throughout their range, ringed seals 

have an affinity for ice-covered waters 

and are well adapted to occupying both 

shore-fast and pack ice (Kelly 1988c). 

Ringed seals can be found further 

offshore than other pinnipeds since they 

can maintain breathing holes in ice 

thickness greater than 6.6 ft (2 m) 

(Smith and Stirling 1975). Breathing 

holes are maintained by ringed seals’ 

sharp teeth and claws on their fore 

flippers. They remain in contact with 

ice most of the year and use it as a 

platform for molting in late spring to 

early summer, for pupping and nursing 

in late winter to early spring, and for 

resting at other times of the year (Muto 

et al., 2017). 

Ringed seals have at least two distinct 

types of subnivean lairs: Haulout lairs 

and birthing lairs (Smith and Stirling 

1975). Haulout lairs are typically singlechambered and offer protection from 

predators and cold weather. Birthing 

lairs are larger, multi-chambered areas 

that are used for pupping in addition to 

protection from predators. Ringed seals 

pup on both land-fast ice as well as 

stable pack ice. Lentfer (1972) found 

that ringed seals north of Barrow, 

Alaska build their subnivean lairs on 

the pack ice near pressure ridges. Since 

subnivean lairs were found north of 

Barrow, Alaska, in pack ice, they are 

also assumed to be found within the sea 

ice in the Study Area. Ringed seals 

excavate subnivean lairs in drifts over 

their breathing holes in the ice, in 

which they rest, give birth, and nurse 

their pups for 5–9 weeks during late 

winter and spring (Chapskii 1940; 

McLaren 1958; Smith and Stirling 

1975). Snow depths of at least 20–26 in 

(50–65 cm) are required for functional 

birth lairs (Kelly 1988b; Lydersen 1998; 

Lydersen and Gjertz 1986; Smith and 

Stirling 1975), and such depths 

typically are found only where 8–12 in 

(20–30 cm) or more of snow has 

accumulated on flat ice and then drifted 

along pressure ridges or ice hummocks 

(Hammill 2008; Lydersen et al., 1990; 

Lydersen and Ryg 1991; Smith and 

Lydersen 1991). Ringed seals are born 

beginning in March, but the majority of 

births occur in early April. About a 

month after parturition, mating begins 

in late April and early May. 

In Alaska waters, during winter and 

early spring when sea ice is at its 

maximum extent, ringed seals are 

abundant in the northern Bering Sea, 

Norton and Kotzebue Sounds, and 

throughout the Chukchi and Beaufort 

seas (Frost 1985; Kelly 1988c). Passive 

acoustic monitoring of ringed seals from 

a high frequency recording package 

deployed at a depth of 787 ft (240 m) in 

the Chukchi Sea 65 nmi (120 km) northnorthwest of Barrow, Alaska detected 

ringed seals in the area between midDecember and late May over the 4 year 

study (Jones et al., 2014). With the onset 

of fall freeze, ringed seal movements 

become increasingly restricted and seals 

will either move west and south with 

the advancing ice pack with many seals 

dispersing throughout the Chukchi and 

Bering Seas, or remaining in the 

Beaufort Sea (Crawford et al., 2012; 

Frost and Lowry 1984; Harwood et al., 

2012). Kelly et al. (2010a) tracked home 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40242 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

ranges for ringed seals in the subnivean 

period (using shore-fast ice); the size of 

the home ranges varied from less than 

1 up to 279 km2 (median is 0.62 km2 for 

adult males and 0.65 km2 for adult 

females). Most (94 percent) of the home 

ranges were less than 3 km2 during the 

subnivean period (Kelly et al., 2010a). 

Near large polynyas, ringed seals 

maintain ranges, up to 7,000 km2 during 

winter and 2,100 km2 during spring 

(Born et al., 2004). Some adult ringed 

seals return to the same small home 

ranges they occupied during the 

previous winter (Kelly et al., 2010a). 

The size of winter home ranges can, 

however, vary by up to a factor of 10 

depending on the amount of fast ice; 

seal movements were more restricted 

during winters with extensive fast ice, 

and were much less restricted where 

fast ice did not form at high levels 

(Harwood et al., 2015). 

Most taxonomists recognize five 

subspecies of ringed seals. The Arctic 

ringed seal subspecies occurs in the 

Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea and is the 

only stock that occurs in U.S. waters 

(referred to as the Alaska stock). NMFS 

listed the Arctic ringed seal subspecies 

as threatened under the ESA on 

December 28, 2012 (77 FR 76706), 

primarily due to anticipated loss of sea 

ice through the end of the 21st century. 

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 (2016) 

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 lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that these frequency ranges correspond 

to the range for the composite group, 

with the entire range not necessarily 

reflecting the capabilities of every 

species within that group): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; including two 

members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, 

on the basis of recent echolocation data 

and genetic data): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz. 

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 Hz 

to 86 kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz. 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2016) for a review of 

available information. Three marine 

mammal species (one cetacean and two 

pinniped (both phocid)) have the 

reasonable potential to co-occur with 

the proposed survey activities. Please 

refer to Table 3. Beluga whales are 

classified as mid-frequency cetaceans. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination’’ section 

considers the content of this section, the 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, and the ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation’’ section to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of these 

activities on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and how 

those impacts on individuals are likely 

to impact marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Description of Sound Sources 

Here, we first provide background 

information on marine mammal hearing 

before discussing the potential effects of 

the use of active acoustic sources on 

marine mammals. 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in Hz or 

cycles per second. Wavelength is the 

distance between two peaks of a sound 

wave; lower frequency sounds have 

longer wavelengths than higher 

frequency sounds and attenuate 

(decrease) more rapidly in shallower 

water. Amplitude is the height of the 

sound pressure wave or the ‘loudness’ 

of a sound and is typically measured 

using the dB scale. A dB is the ratio 

between a measured pressure (with 

sound) and a reference pressure (sound 

at a constant pressure, established by 

scientific standards). It is a logarithmic 

unit that accounts for large variations in 

amplitude; therefore, relatively small 

changes in dB ratings correspond to 

large changes in sound pressure. When 

referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; 

the sound force per unit area), sound is 

referenced in the context of underwater 

sound pressure to 1 mPa. One pascal is 

the pressure resulting from a force of 

one newton exerted over an area of one 

square meter. The source level (SL) 

represents the sound level at a distance 

of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 

mPa). The received level is the sound 

level at the listener’s position. Note that 

all underwater sound levels in this 

document are referenced to a pressure of 

1 mPa. 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. RMS is 

calculated by squaring all of the sound 

amplitudes, averaging the squares, and 

then taking the square root of the 

average (Urick 1983). RMS accounts for 

both positive and negative values; 

squaring the pressures makes all values 

positive so that they may be accounted 

for in the summation of pressure levels 

(Hastings and Popper 2005). This 

measurement is often used in the 

context of discussing behavioral effects, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40243 

in part because behavioral effects, 

which often result from auditory cues, 

may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in all directions 

away from the source (similar to ripples 

on the surface of a pond), except in 

cases where the source is directional. 

The compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound. Ambient sound is 

defined as environmental background 

sound levels lacking a single source or 

point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the 

sound level of a region is defined by the 

total acoustical energy being generated 

by known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric 

sound), biological (e.g., sounds 

produced by marine mammals, fish, and 

invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound 

(e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, 

construction). A number of sources 

contribute to ambient sound, including 

the following (Richardson et al., 1995): 

• Wind and waves: The complex 

interactions between wind and water 

surface, including processes such as 

breaking waves and wave-induced 

bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient noise for frequencies between 

200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). 

Under sea ice, noise generated by ice 

deformation and ice fracturing may be 

caused by thermal, wind, drift and 

current stresses (Roth et al., 2012); 

• Precipitation: Sound from rain and 

hail impacting the water surface can 

become an important component of total 

noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and 

possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 

times. In the ice-covered study area, 

precipitation is unlikely to impact 

ambient sound; 

• Biological: Marine mammals can 

contribute significantly to ambient noise 

levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The 

frequency band for biological 

contributions is from approximately 12 

Hz to over 100 kHz; and 

• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient 

noise related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels and 

aircraft), dredging and construction, oil 

and gas drilling and production, seismic 

surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean 

acoustic studies. Shipping noise 

typically dominates the total ambient 

noise for frequencies between 20 and 

300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of 

anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 

and, if higher frequency sound levels 

are created, they attenuate rapidly 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from 

identifiable anthropogenic sources other 

than the activity of interest (e.g., a 

passing vessel) is sometimes termed 

background sound, as opposed to 

ambient sound. Anthropogenic sources 

are unlikely to significantly contribute 

to ambient underwater noise during the 

late winter and early spring in the study 

area as most anthropogenic activities 

will not be active due to ice cover (e.g. 

seismic surveys, shipping) (Roth et al., 

2012). 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ 

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

Underwater sounds fall into one of 

two general sound types: Impulsive and 

non-impulsive (defined in the following 

paragraphs). The distinction between 

these two sound types is important 

because they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in 

Southall et al., 2007). Please see 

Southall et al., (2007) for an in-depth 

discussion of these concepts. 

Impulsive sound sources (e.g., 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI 1986; Harris 1998; 

NIOSH 1998; ISO 2003; ANSI 2005) and 

occur either as isolated events or 

repeated in some succession. Impulsive 

sounds are all characterized by a 

relatively rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to a maximal pressure value 

followed by a rapid decay period that 

may include a period of diminishing, 

oscillating maximal and minimal 

pressures, and generally have an 

increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-impulsive sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or non-continuous (ANSI 

1995; NIOSH 1998). Some of these nonimpulsive sounds can be transient 

signals of short duration but without the 

essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid 

rise time). Examples of non-impulsive 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar sources 

that intentionally direct a sound signal 

at a target that is reflected back in order 

to discern physical details about the 

target. These active sources are used in 

navigation, military training and testing, 

and other research activities such as the 

activities planned by the U.S. Navy as 

part of the proposed action. Icebreaking 

is also considered a non-impulsive 

sound. The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

Acoustic Impacts 

Please refer to the information given 

previously regarding sound, 

characteristics of sound types, and 

metrics used in this document. 

Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad 

range of frequencies and sound levels 

and can have a range of highly variable 

impacts on marine life, from none or 

minor to potentially severe responses, 

depending on received levels, duration 

of exposure, behavioral context, and 

various other factors. The potential 

effects of underwater sound from active 

acoustic sources can potentially result 

in one or more of the following: 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment, non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects, behavioral 

disturbance, stress, and masking 

(Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 

2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et 

al., 2007; Gotz et al., 2009). The degree 

of effect is intrinsically related to the 

signal characteristics, received level, 

distance from the source, and duration 

of the sound exposure. In general, 

sudden, high level sounds can cause 

hearing loss, as can longer exposures to 

lower level sounds. Temporary or 

permanent loss of hearing will occur 

almost exclusively for noise within an 

animal’s hearing range. In this section, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40244 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

we first describe specific manifestations 

of acoustic effects before providing 

discussion specific to the proposed 

activities in the next section. 

Permanent Threshold Shift —Marine 

mammals exposed to high-intensity 

sound, or to lower-intensity sound for 

prolonged periods, can experience 

hearing threshold shift (TS), which is 

the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain 

frequency ranges (Finneran 2015). TS 

can be permanent (PTS), in which case 

the loss of hearing sensitivity is not 

fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in 

which case the animal’s hearing 

threshold would recover over time 

(Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound 

exposure that leads to TTS could cause 

PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can 

be total or partial deafness, while in 

most cases the animal has an impaired 

ability to hear sounds in specific 

frequency ranges (Kryter 1985). 

When PTS occurs, there is physical 

damage to the sound receptors in the ear 

(i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS 

represents primarily tissue fatigue and 

is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In 

addition, other investigators have 

suggested that TTS is within the normal 

bounds of physiological variability and 

tolerance and does not represent 

physical injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). 

Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS 

to constitute auditory injury. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals—PTS data exists only 

for a single harbor seal (Kastak et al., 

2008)—but are assumed to be similar to 

those in humans and other terrestrial 

mammals. PTS typically occurs at 

exposure levels at least several decibels 

above (a 40-dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et 

al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing 

mild TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift 

approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007). Based on data from 

terrestrial mammals, a precautionary 

assumption is that the PTS thresholds 

for impulse sounds (such as impact pile 

driving pulses as received close to the 

source) are at least six dB higher than 

the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure 

basis and PTS cumulative sound 

exposure level (SEL) thresholds are 15 

to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative 

SEL thresholds (Southall et al., 2007). 

Temporary Threshold Shift—TTS is 

the mildest form of hearing impairment 

that can occur during exposure to sound 

(Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, 

the hearing threshold rises, and a sound 

must be at a higher level in order to be 

heard. In terrestrial and marine 

mammals, TTS can last from minutes or 

hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). 

In many cases, hearing sensitivity 

recovers rapidly after exposure to the 

sound ends. 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery 

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious. For example, a marine mammal 

may be able to readily compensate for 

a brief, relatively small amount of TTS 

in a non-critical frequency range that 

occurs during a time where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale, 

harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless 

porpoise (Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) 

and three species of pinnipeds (northern 

elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), 

harbor seal, and California sea lion 

(Zalophus californianus)) exposed to a 

limited number of sound sources (i.e., 

mostly tones and octave-band noise) in 

laboratory settings (Finneran 2015). TTS 

was not observed in trained spotted and 

ringed seals exposed to impulsive noise 

at levels matching previous predictions 

of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). 

In general, harbor seals and harbor 

porpoises have a lower TTS onset than 

other measured pinniped or cetacean 

species. Additionally, the existing 

marine mammal TTS data come from a 

limited number of individuals within 

these species. There are no data 

available on noise-induced hearing loss 

for mysticetes. For summaries of data on 

TTS in marine mammals or for further 

discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 

please see Southall et al. (2007), 

Finneran and Jenkins (2012), and 

Finneran (2015). 

Behavioral Effects—Behavioral 

disturbance may include a variety of 

effects, including subtle changes in 

behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance 

of an area or changes in vocalizations), 

more conspicuous changes in similar 

behavioral activities, and more 

sustained and/or potentially severe 

reactions, such as displacement from or 

abandonment of high-quality habitat. 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et 

al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary 

depending on characteristics associated 

with the sound source (e.g., whether it 

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). 

Please see Appendices B–C of Southall 

et al. (2007) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most 

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. It is 

important to note that habituation is 

appropriately considered as a 

‘‘progressive reduction in response to 

stimuli that are perceived as neither 

aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, 

more generally, moderation in response 

to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 

2009). The opposite process is 

sensitization, when an unpleasant 

experience leads to subsequent 

responses, often in the form of 

avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. 

As noted, behavioral state may affect the 

type of response. For example, animals 

that are resting may show greater 

behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al. 

1995; NRC 2003; Wartzok et al. 2003). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have showed 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al. 1997; Finneran 

et al. 2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud impulsive 

sound sources (typically seismic airguns 

or acoustic harassment devices) have 

been varied but often consist of 

avoidance behavior or other behavioral 

changes suggesting discomfort (Morton 

and Symonds 2002; see also Richardson 

et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007). 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40245 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2003). 

However, there are broad categories of 

potential response, which we describe 

in greater detail here, that include 

alteration of dive behavior, alteration of 

foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 

interference with or alteration of 

vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely, and may consist of increased or 

decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., 

Frankel and Clark 2000; Costa et al., 

2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et 

al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013). 

Variations in dive behavior may reflect 

interruptions in biologically significant 

activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be 

of little biological significance. The 

impact of an alteration to dive behavior 

resulting from an acoustic exposure 

depends on what the animal is doing at 

the time of the exposure and the type 

and magnitude of the response. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.; 

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Variations in respiration naturally 

vary with different behaviors and 

alterations to breathing rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Various studies have shown that 

respiration rates may either be 

unaffected or could increase, depending 

on the species and signal characteristics, 

again highlighting the importance in 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 

2005b, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007). 

Marine mammals vocalize for 

different purposes and across multiple 

modes, such as whistling, echolocation 

click production, calling, and singing. 

Changes in vocalization behavior in 

response to anthropogenic noise can 

occur for any of these modes and may 

result from a need to compete with an 

increase in background noise or may 

reflect increased vigilance or a startle 

response. For example, in the presence 

of potentially masking signals, 

humpback whales and killer whales 

have been observed to increase the 

length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; 

Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), 

while right whales have been observed 

to shift the frequency content of their 

calls upward while reducing the rate of 

calling in areas of increased 

anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 

2007b). In some cases, animals may 

cease sound production during 

production of aversive signals (Bowles 

et al., 1994). 

Avoidance is the displacement of an 

individual from an area or migration 

path as a result of the presence of a 

sound or other stressors, and is one of 

the most obvious manifestations of 

disturbance in marine mammals 

(Richardson et al., 1995). For example, 

gray whales are known to change 

direction—deflecting from customary 

migratory paths—in order to avoid noise 

from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 

1984). Avoidance may be short-term, 

with animals returning to the area once 

the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 

1994; Goold, 1996; Morton and 

Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007). 

Longer-term displacement is possible, 

however, which may lead to changes in 

abundance or distribution patterns of 

the affected species in the affected 

region if habituation to the presence of 

the sound does not occur (e.g., 

Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 

2006). 

A flight response is a dramatic change 

in normal movement to a directed and 

rapid movement away from the 

perceived location of a sound source. 

The flight response differs from other 

avoidance responses in the intensity of 

the response (e.g., directed movement, 

rate of travel). Relatively little 

information on flight responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

signals exist, although observations of 

flight responses to the presence of 

predators have occurred (Connor and 

Heithaus 1996). The result of a flight 

response could range from brief, 

temporary exertion and displacement 

from the area where the signal provokes 

flight to, in extreme cases, marine 

mammal strandings (Evans and England 

2001). However, it should be noted that 

response to a perceived predator does 

not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and 

Reeves 2008), and whether individuals 

are solitary or in groups may influence 

the response. 

Behavioral disturbance can also 

impact marine mammals in more subtle 

ways. Increased vigilance may result in 

costs related to diversion of focus and 

attention (i.e., when a response consists 

of increased vigilance, it may come at 

the cost of decreased attention to other 

critical behaviors such as foraging or 

resting). These effects have generally not 

been demonstrated for marine 

mammals, but studies involving fish 

and terrestrial animals have shown that 

increased vigilance may substantially 

reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp 

and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; 

Purser and Radford 2011). In addition, 

chronic disturbance can cause 

population declines through reduction 

of fitness (e.g., decline in body 

condition) and subsequent reduction in 

reproductive success, survival, or both 

(e.g., Harrington and Veitch 1992; Daan 

et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). 

However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported 

that increased vigilance in bottlenose 

dolphins exposed to sound over a fiveday period did not cause any sleep 

deprivation or stress effects. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour 

cycle). Disruption of such functions 

resulting from reactions to stressors 

such as sound exposure are more likely 

to be significant if they last more than 

one diel cycle or recur on subsequent 

days (Southall et al., 2007). 

Consequently, a behavioral response 

lasting less than one day and not 

recurring on subsequent days is not 

considered particularly severe unless it 

could directly affect reproduction or 

survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that 

there is a difference between multi-day 

substantive behavioral reactions and 

multi-day anthropogenic activities. For 

example, just because an activity lasts 

for multiple days does not necessarily 

mean that individual animals are either 

exposed to activity-related stressors for 

multiple days or, further, exposed in a 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40246 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

manner resulting in sustained multi-day 

substantive behavioral responses. 

For non-impulsive sounds (i.e., 

similar to the sources used during the 

proposed action), data suggest that 

exposures of pinnipeds to sources 

between 90 and 140 dB re 1 mPa do not 

elicit strong behavioral responses; no 

data were available for exposures at 

higher received levels for Southall et al. 

(2007) to include in the severity scale 

analysis. Reactions of harbor seals were 

the only available data for which the 

responses could be ranked on the 

severity scale. For reactions that were 

recorded, the majority (17 of 18 

individuals/groups) were ranked on the 

severity scale as a 4 (defined as 

moderate change in movement, brief 

shift in group distribution, or moderate 

change in vocal behavior) or lower; the 

remaining response was ranked as a 6 

(defined as minor or moderate 

avoidance of the sound source). 

Additional data on hooded seals 

(Cystophora cristata) indicate avoidance 

responses to signals above 160–170 dB 

re 1 mPa (Kvadsheim et al., 2010), and 

data on grey (Halichoerus grypus) and 

harbor seals indicate avoidance 

response at received levels of 135–144 

dB re 1 mPa (Go ̈tz et al., 2010). In each 

instance where food was available, 

which provided the seals motivation to 

remain near the source, habituation to 

the signals occurred rapidly. In the same 

study, it was noted that habituation was 

not apparent in wild seals where no 

food source was available (Go ̈tz et al. 

2010). This implies that the motivation 

of the animal is necessary to consider in 

determining the potential for a reaction. 

In one study aimed to investigate the 

under-ice movements and sensory cues 

associated with under-ice navigation of 

ice seals, acoustic transmitters (60–69 

kHz at 159 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m) were 

attached to ringed seals (Wartzok et al., 

1992a; Wartzok et al., 1992b). An 

acoustic tracking system then was 

installed in the ice to receive the 

acoustic signals and provide real-time 

tracking of ice seal movements. 

Although the frequencies used in this 

study are at the upper limit of ringed 

seal hearing, the ringed seals appeared 

unaffected by the acoustic 

transmissions, as they were able to 

maintain normal behaviors (e.g., finding 

breathing holes). 

Seals exposed to non-impulsive 

sources with a received sound pressure 

level within the range of calculated 

exposures (142–193 dB re 1 mPa), have 

been shown to change their behavior by 

modifying diving activity and avoidance 

of the sound source (Go ̈tz et al., 2010; 

Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Although a 

minor change to a behavior may occur 

as a result of exposure to the sources in 

the proposed action, these changes 

would be within the normal range of 

behaviors for the animal (e.g., the use of 

a breathing hole further from the source, 

rather than one closer to the source, 

would be within the normal range of 

behavior) (Kelly et al. 1988). 

Some behavioral response studies 

have been conducted on odontocete 

responses to sonar. In studies that 

examined sperm whales (Physeter 

macrocephalus) and false killer whales 

(Pseudorca crassidens) (both in the midfrequency cetacean hearing group), the 

marine mammals showed temporary 

cessation of calling and avoidance of 

sonar sources (Akamatsu et al., 1993; 

Watkins and Schevill 1975). Sperm 

whales resumed calling and 

communication approximately two 

minutes after the pings stopped 

(Watkins and Schevill 1975). False killer 

whales moved away from the sound 

source but returned to the area between 

0 and 10 minutes after the end of 

transmissions (Akamatsu et al., 1993). 

Many of the contextual factors resulting 

from the behavioral response studies 

(e.g., close approaches by multiple 

vessels or tagging) would not occur 

during the proposed action. Odontocete 

behavioral responses to acoustic 

transmissions from non-impulsive 

sources used during the proposed action 

would likely be a result of the animal’s 

behavioral state and prior experience 

rather than external variables such as 

ship proximity; thus, if significant 

behavioral responses occur they would 

likely be short term. In fact, no 

significant behavioral responses such as 

panic, stranding, or other severe 

reactions have been observed during 

monitoring of actual training exercises 

(Department of the Navy 2011, 2014; 

Smultea and Mobley 2009; Watwood et 

al., 2012). 

Icebreaking noise has the potential to 

disturb marine mammals and elicit an 

alerting, avoidance, or other behavioral 

reaction (Huntington et al., 2015; Pirotta 

et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2014). 

Icebreaking in fast ice during the spring 

can cause behavioral reactions in beluga 

whales. However, icebreaking 

associated with the proposed action 

would only occur from August through 

October, which lessens the probability 

of a whale encountering the vessel (in 

comparison to other sources in the 

proposed action that would be active 

year-round). 

Ringed seals and bearded seals on 

pack ice showed various behaviors 

when approached by an icebreaking 

vessel. A majority of seals dove 

underwater when the ship was within 

0.5 nautical miles (0.93 km) while 

others remained on the ice. However, as 

icebreaking vessels came closer to the 

seals, most dove underwater. Ringed 

seals have also been observed foraging 

in the wake of an icebreaking vessel 

(Richardson et al., 1995). In studies by 

Alliston (1980; 1981), there was no 

observed change in the density of ringed 

seals in areas that had been subject to 

icebreaking. Alternatively, ringed seals 

may have preferentially established 

breathing holes in the ship tracks after 

the icebreaker moved through the area. 

Due to the time of year of the activity 

(August through October), ringed seals 

are not expected to be within the 

subnivean lairs nor pupping (Chapskii 

1940; McLaren 1958; Smith and Stirling 

1975). 

Adult ringed seals spend up to 20 

percent of the time in subnivean lairs 

during the winter season (Kelly et al., 

2010a). Ringed seal pups spend about 

50 percent of their time in the lair 

during the nursing period (Lydersen and 

Hammill 1993). During the warm season 

both bearded seals and ringed seals haul 

out on the ice. In a study of ringed seal 

haul out activity by Born et al. (2002), 

ringed seals spent 25–57 percent of their 

time hauled out in June which is during 

their molting season. Bearded seals also 

spend a large amount of time hauled out 

during the molting season between 

April and August (Reeves et al., 2002). 

Ringed seal lairs are typically used by 

individual seals (haulout lairs) or by a 

mother with a pup (birthing lairs); large 

lairs used by many seals for hauling out 

are rare (Smith and Stirling 1975). If the 

non-impulsive acoustic transmissions 

are heard and are perceived as a threat, 

ringed seals within subnivean lairs 

could react to the sound in a similar 

fashion to their reaction to other threats, 

such as polar bears (their primary 

predators), although the type of sound 

would be novel to them. Responses of 

ringed seals to a variety of humaninduced sounds (e.g., helicopter noise, 

snowmobiles, dogs, people, and seismic 

activity) have been variable; some seals 

entered the water and some seals 

remained in the lair. However, in all 

instances in which observed seals 

departed lairs in response to noise 

disturbance, they subsequently 

reoccupied the lair (Kelly et al., 1988). 

Ringed seal mothers have a strong 

bond with their pups and may 

physically move their pups from the 

birth lair to an alternate lair to avoid 

predation, sometimes risking their lives 

to defend their pups from potential 

predators (Smith 1987). If a ringed seal 

mother perceives the proposed acoustic 

sources as a threat, the network of 

multiple birth and haulout lairs allows 

the mother and pup to move to a new 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40247 

lair (Smith and Hammill 1981; Smith 

and Stirling 1975). The acoustic sources 

and icebreaking noise from this 

proposed action are not likely to impede 

a ringed seal from finding a breathing 

hole or lair, as captive seals have been 

found to primarily use vision to locate 

breathing holes and no effect to ringed 

seal vision would occur from the 

acoustic disturbance (Elsner et al., 1989; 

Wartzok et al., 1992a). It is anticipated 

that a ringed seal would be able to 

relocate to a different breathing hole 

relatively easily without impacting their 

normal behavior patterns. 

Stress responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; 

Moberg 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

(e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response. 

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well-studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress 

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) 

and, more rarely, studied in wild 

populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). 

These and other studies lead to a 

reasonable expectation that some 

marine mammals will experience 

physiological stress responses upon 

exposure to acoustic stressors and that 

it is possible that some of these would 

be classified as ‘‘distress.’’ In addition, 

any animal experiencing TTS would 

likely also experience stress responses 

(NRC, 2003). 

Auditory masking—Sound can 

disrupt behavior through masking, or 

interfering with, an animal’s ability to 

detect, recognize, or discriminate 

between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., 

those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, 

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in 

origin. The ability of a noise source to 

mask biologically important sounds 

depends on the characteristics of both 

the noise source and the signal of 

interest (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, 

temporal variability, direction), in 

relation to each other and to an animal’s 

hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, 

frequency range, critical ratios, 

frequency discrimination, directional 

discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 

and existing ambient noise and 

propagation conditions. 

Under certain circumstances, marine 

mammals experiencing significant 

masking could also be impaired from 

maximizing their performance fitness in 

survival and reproduction. Therefore, 

when the coincident (masking) sound is 

anthropogenic, it may be considered 

harassment when disrupting or altering 

critical behaviors. It is important to 

distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist 

after the sound exposure, from masking, 

which occurs during the sound 

exposure. Because masking (without 

resulting in TS) is not associated with 

abnormal physiological function, it is 

not considered a physiological effect, 

but rather a potential behavioral effect. 

The frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. For example, low-frequency 

signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds 

produced by odontocetes but are more 

likely to affect detection of mysticete 

communication calls and other 

potentially important natural sounds 

such as those produced by surf and 

some prey species. The masking of 

communication signals by 

anthropogenic noise may be considered 

as a reduction in the communication 

space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) 

and may result in energetic or other 

costs as animals change their 

vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 

2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 

2007b; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et 

al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in 

situations where the signal and noise 

come from different directions 

(Richardson et al., 1995), through 

amplitude modulation of the signal, or 

through other compensatory behaviors 

(Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can 

be tested directly in captive species 

(e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild 

populations it must be either modeled 

or inferred from evidence of masking 

compensation. There are few studies 

addressing real-world masking sounds 

likely to be experienced by marine 

mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et 

al., 2013). 

Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of acoustic signals and can 

potentially have long-term chronic 

effects on marine mammals at the 

population level as well as at the 

individual level. Low-frequency 

ambient sound levels have increased by 

as much as 20 dB (more than three times 

in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean 

from pre-industrial periods, with most 

of the increase from distant commercial 

shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All 

anthropogenic sound sources, but 

especially chronic and lower-frequency 

signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 

contribute to elevated ambient sound 

levels, thus intensifying masking. 

Potential Effects on Prey—The marine 

mammal species in the study area feed 

on marine invertebrates and fish. 

Studies of sound energy effects on 

invertebrates are few, and primarily 

identify behavioral responses. It is 

expected that most marine invertebrates 

would not sense the frequencies of the 

acoustic transmissions from the acoustic 

sources associated with the proposed 

action. Although acoustic sources used 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40248 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

during the proposed action may briefly 

impact individuals, intermittent 

exposures to non-impulsive acoustic 

sources are not expected to impact 

survival, growth, recruitment, or 

reproduction of widespread marine 

invertebrate populations. Impacts to 

invertebrates from icebreaking noise is 

unknown, but it is likely that some 

species including crustaceans and 

cephalopods would be able to perceive 

the low frequency sounds generated 

from icebreaking. Icebreaking associated 

with the proposed action would be 

short-term and temporary as the vessel 

moves through an area, and it is not 

anticipated that this short-term noise 

would result in significant harm, nor is 

it expected to result in more than a 

temporary behavioral reaction of marine 

invertebrates in the vicinity of the 

icebreaking event. 

The fish species residing in the study 

area include those that are closely 

associated with the deep ocean habitat 

of the Beaufort Sea. Nearly 250 marine 

fish species have been described in the 

Arctic, excluding the larger parts of the 

sub-Arctic Bering, Barents, and 

Norwegian Seas (Mecklenburg et al., 

2011). However, only about 30 are 

known to occur in the Arctic waters of 

the Beaufort Sea (Christiansen and Reist 

2013). Although hearing capability data 

only exist for fewer than 100 of the 

32,000 named fish species, current data 

suggest that most species of fish detect 

sounds from 50 to 100 Hz, with few fish 

hearing sounds above 4 kHz (Popper 

2008). It is believed that most fish have 

the best hearing sensitivity from 100 to 

400 Hz (Popper 2003). Fish species in 

the study area are expected to hear the 

low-frequency sources associated with 

the proposed action, but most are not 

expected to detect sound from the midfrequency sources. Human generated 

sound could alter the behavior of a fish 

in a manner than would affect its way 

of living, such as where it tries to locate 

food or how well it could find a mate. 

Behavioral responses to loud noise 

could include a startle response, such as 

the fish swimming away from the 

source, the fish ‘‘freezing’’ and staying 

in place, or scattering (Popper 2003). 

Icebreaking noise has the potential to 

expose fish to both sound and general 

disturbance, which could result in 

short-term behavioral or physiological 

responses (e.g., avoidance, stress, 

increased heart rate). Misund (1997) 

found that fish ahead of a ship showed 

avoidance reactions at ranges of 160 to 

489 ft (49 to 149 m). Avoidance 

behavior of vessels, vertically or 

horizontally in the water column, has 

been reported for cod and herring, and 

was attributed to vessel noise. While 

acoustic sources and icebreaking 

associated with the proposed action 

may influence the behavior of some fish 

species, other fish species may be 

equally unresponsive. Overall effects to 

fish from the proposed action would be 

localized, temporary, and infrequent. 

Effects to Physical and Foraging 

Habitat—Icebreaking activities include 

the physical pushing or moving of ice to 

allow vessels to proceed through icecovered waters. Breaking of pack ice 

that contains hauled out seals may 

result in the animals becoming startled 

and entering the water, but such effects 

would be brief. Bearded and ringed 

seals haul out on pack ice during the 

spring and summer to molt (Reeves et 

al. 2002; Born et al., 2002). Due to the 

time of year of the icebreaking activity 

(August through October), ringed seals 

are not expected to be within the 

subnivean lairs nor pupping (Chapskii 

1940; McLaren 1958; Smith and Stirling 

1975). Additionally, studies by Alliston 

(Alliston 1980; Alliston 1981) suggested 

that ringed seals may preferentially 

establish breathing holes in ship tracks 

after icebreakers move through the area. 

The amount of ice habitat disturbed by 

icebreaking activities is small relative to 

the amount of overall habitat available. 

There will be no permanent loss or 

modification of physical ice habitat 

used by bearded or ringed seals. 

Icebreaking would have no effect on 

physical beluga habitat as beluga habitat 

is solely within the water column. 

Testing of towed sources and 

icebreaking noise would be limited in 

duration and the deployed sources that 

would remain in use after the vessels 

have left the survey area have low duty 

cycles and lower source levels. There 

would not be any expected habitatrelated effects from non-impulsive 

acoustic sources or icebreaking noise 

that could impact the in-water habitat of 

ringed seal, bearded seal, or beluga 

whale foraging habitat. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization 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 would be 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 proposed to be 

authorized. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or proposed to be 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: 1) acoustic 

thresholds above which NMFS believes 

the best available science indicates 

marine mammals will be behaviorally 

harassed or incur some degree of 

permanent hearing impairment; 2) the 

area or volume of water that will be 

ensonified above these levels in a day; 

3) the density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, 4) and the number of days of 

activities. For the proposed IHA, ONR 

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 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). 

The thresholds used to predict 

occurrences of each type of take are 

described below. 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40249 

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 AntiSubmarine Warfare exercises. This new 

information necessitated the update of 

the behavioral response criteria for the 

U.S. Navy’s environmental analyses. 

Southall et al. (2007) synthesized data 

from many past behavioral studies and 

observations to determine the likelihood 

of behavioral reactions at specific sound 

levels. While in general, the louder the 

sound source the more intense the 

behavioral response, it was clear that 

the proximity of a sound source and the 

animal’s experience, motivation, and 

conditioning were also critical factors 

influencing the response (Southall et al. 

2007). After examining all of the 

available data, the authors felt that the 

derivation of thresholds for behavioral 

response based solely on exposure level 

was not supported because context of 

the animal at the time of sound 

exposure was an important factor in 

estimating response. Nonetheless, in 

some conditions, consistent avoidance 

reactions were noted at higher sound 

levels depending on the marine 

mammal species or group, allowing 

conclusions to be drawn. 

Odontocete behavioral criteria for 

non-impulsive sources were updated 

based on controlled exposure studies for 

dolphins and sea mammals, sonar, and 

safety (3S) studies where odontocete 

behavioral responses were reported after 

exposure to sonar (Antunes et al., 2014; 

Houser et al., 2013b); Miller et al., 2011; 

Miller et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2012). 

For the 3S study the sonar outputs 

included 1–2 kHz up- and down-sweeps 

and 6–7 kHz up-sweeps; source levels 

were ramped up from 152–158 dB re 1 

mPa to a maximum of 198–214 re 1 mPa 

at 1 m. Sonar signals were ramped up 

over several pings while the vessel 

approached the mammals. The study 

did include some control passes of ships 

with the sonar off to discern the 

behavioral responses of the mammals to 

vessel presence alone versus active 

sonar. The controlled exposure studies 

included exposing the Navy’s trained 

bottlenose dolphins to mid-frequency 

sonar while they were in a pen. Midfrequency sonar was played at 6 

different exposure levels from 125–185 

dB re 1 mPa (rms). The behavioral 

response function for odontocetes 

resulting from the studies described 

above has a 50 percent probability of 

response at 157 dB re 1 mPa. 

Additionally, distance cutoffs (20 km for 

MF cetaceans and 10 km for pinnipeds) 

were applied to exclude exposures 

beyond which the potential of 

significant behavioral responses is 

considered to be unlikely. 

The pinniped behavioral threshold 

was updated based on controlled 

exposure experiments on the following 

captive animals: Hooded seal, gray seal, 

and California sea lion (Go ̈tz et al. 2010; 

Houser et al. 2013a; Kvadsheim et al. 

2010). Hooded seals were exposed to 

increasing levels of sonar until an 

avoidance response was observed, while 

the grey seals were exposed first to a 

single received level multiple times, 

then an increasing received level. Each 

individual California sea lion was 

exposed to the same received level ten 

times. These exposure sessions were 

combined into a single response value, 

with an overall response assumed if an 

animal responded in any single session. 

The resulting behavioral response 

function for pinnipeds has a 50 percent 

probability of response at 166 dB re 1 

mPa. Additional details regarding these 

criteria may be found in the technical 

report, Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. 

Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects 

Analysis (2017a) which may be found 

at: http://aftteis.com/Portals/3/docs/ 

newdocs/Criteria%20and%

20Thresholds_TR_Submittal_

05262017.pdf. This technical report was 

included as part of the Navy’s Atlantic 

Fleet Training and Testing Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS/OEIS) (Navy 2017b) 

which is located at: http://

www.aftteis.com/. 

NMFS is proposing to adopt the 

Navy’s approach to estimating 

incidental take by Level B harassment 

from the active acoustic sources for this 

action, which includes use of these dose 

response functions. The Navy’s dose 

response functions were developed to 

estimate take from sonar and similar 

transducers 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 mPa (rms) 

for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling, icebreaking) and above 

160 dB re 1 mPa (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 stepfunction at 120 dB re 1 mPa (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 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). ONR’s proposed activities 

involve only non-impulsive sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 4 below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40250 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 4—INJURY (PTS) THRESHOLDS FOR UNDERWATER SOUNDS

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ....................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ......................... Cell 6: LE,MF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) .............................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) .............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ........................ Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If non-impulsive 

sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also 

be considered. 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 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, 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 proposed 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 

proposed 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. Sitespecific bathymetry, sound speed 

profiles, wind speed, and bottom 

properties are incorporated into the 

propagation modeling process. NAEMO 

calculates the likely propagation for 

various levels of energy (sound or 

pressure) resulting from each source 

used during the training event. 

NAEMO then records the energy 

received by each animat within the 

energy footprint of the event and 

calculates the number of animats having 

received levels of energy exposures that 

fall within defined impact thresholds. 

Predicted effects on the animats within 

a scenario are then tallied and the 

highest order effect (based on severity of 

criteria; e.g., PTS over TTS) predicted 

for a given animat is assumed. Each 

scenario, or each 24-hour period for 

scenarios lasting greater than 24 hours 

(which NMFS recommends in order to 

ensure more consistent quantification of 

take across actions), is independent of 

all others, and therefore, the same 

individual marine animal (as 

represented by an animat in the model 

environment) could be impacted during 

each independent scenario or 24-hour 

period. In few instances, although the 

activities themselves all occur within 

the study area, sound may propagate 

beyond the boundary of the study area. 

Any exposures occurring outside the 

boundary of the study area are counted 

as if they occurred within the study area 

boundary. NAEMO provides the initial 

estimated impacts on marine species 

with a static horizontal distribution (i.e., 

animats in the model environment do 

not move horizontally). 

There are limitations to the data used 

in the acoustic effects model, and the 

results must be interpreted within this 

context. While the best available data 

and appropriate input assumptions have 

been used in the modeling, when there 

is a lack of definitive data to support an 

aspect of the modeling, conservative 

modeling assumptions have been 

chosen (i.e., assumptions that may 

result in an overestimate of acoustic 

exposures): 

• Animats are modeled as being 

underwater, stationary, and facing the 

source and therefore always predicted to 

receive the maximum potential sound 

level at a given location (i.e., no 

porpoising or pinnipeds’ heads above 

water); 

• Animats do not move horizontally 

(but change their position vertically 

within the water column), which may 

overestimate physiological effects such 

as hearing loss, especially for slow 

moving or stationary sound sources in 

the model; 

• Animats are stationary horizontally 

and therefore do not avoid the sound 

source, unlike in the wild where 

animals would most often avoid 

exposures at higher sound levels, 

especially those exposures that may 

result in PTS; 

• Multiple exposures within any 24- 

hour period are considered one 

continuous exposure for the purposes of 

calculating potential threshold shift, 

because there are not sufficient data to 

estimate a hearing recovery function for 

the time between exposures; and 

• Mitigation measures were not 

considered in the model. In reality, 

sound-producing activities would be 

reduced, stopped, or delayed if marine 

mammals are detected by visual 

monitoring. 

Because of these inherent model 

limitations and simplifications, modelestimated results should be further 

analyzed, considering such factors as 

the range to specific effects, avoidance, 

and the likelihood of successfully 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40251 

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 (out of 10). For modeling, the 

8/10 and 3/10 ice cover were used based 

on the data available. Each modeled day 

of icebreaking consisted of 16 hours of 

8/10 ice cover and 8 hours of 3/10 ice 

cover, which was considered a fairly 

conservative way of representing the 

expected ice cover based on what is 

known. Icebreaking was modeled for 4 

days each year. The sound signature of 

each of the ice coverage levels was 

broken into 1-octave bins (Table 5). In 

the model, each bin was included as a 

separate source on the modeled vessel. 

When these independent sources go 

active concurrently, they simulate the 

sound signature of CGC HEALY. The 

modeled source level summed across 

these bins was 196.2 dB for the 8/10 

signature and 189.3 dB for the 3/10 ice 

signature. These source levels are a good 

approximation of the icebreaker’s 

observed source level (Roth et al., 2013). 

Each frequency and source level was 

modeled as an independent source, and 

applied simultaneously to all of the 

animats within the model environment. 

Each second was summed across 

frequency to estimate sound pressure 

level (SPLrms). This value was 

incorporated into NAEMO using NMFS’ 

120 dB re 1 mPa continuous sound 

source threshold to estimate Level B 

harassment. For PTS and TTS 

determinations, sound exposure levels 

were summed over the duration of the 

test and the transit to the deep water 

deployment level. 

TABLE 5—MODELED BINS FOR

ICEBREAKING IN FRACTIONAL ICE

COVERAGE ON CGC HEALY 

Frequency 

(Hz) 

8/10 ice 

coverage 

(full 

power) 

3/10 ice 

coverage 

(quarter 

power) 

Source level 

(dB) 

Source level 

(dB) 

25 .............. 189 187 

50 .............. 188 182 

100 ............ 189 179 

200 ............ 190 177 

400 ............ 188 175 

800 ............ 183 170 

1600 .......... 177 166 

3200 .......... 176 171 

6400 .......... 172 168 

12800 ........ 167 164 

For the other non-impulsive sources, 

NAEMO calculates the SPL and SEL for 

each active emission during an event. 

This is done by taking the following 

factors into account over the 

propagation paths: Bathymetric relief 

and bottom types, sound speed, and 

attenuation contributors such as 

absorption, bottom loss, and surface 

loss. Platforms such as a ship using one 

or more sound sources are modeled in 

accordance with relevant vehicle 

dynamics and time durations by moving 

them across an area whose size is 

representative of the testing event’s 

operational area. Table 6 provides range 

to effects for non-impulsive sources and 

icebreaking noise proposed for the 

Arctic research activities to midfrequency 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 realworld situations and determining 

adequate mitigation ranges to avoid 

higher level effects, especially 

physiological effects in marine 

mammals. Therefore, the ranges in 

Table 6 provide realistic maximum 

distances over which the specific effects 

from the use of non-impulsive sources 

during the proposed action would be 

possible. 

TABLE 6—RANGE TO PTS, TTS, AND BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS IN THE STUDY AREA

Source 

Range to behavioral effects 

(m) 

Range to TTS effects (m) Range to PTS effects (m) 

MF Cetacean Pinniped MF Cetacean Pinniped MF Cetacean Pinniped 

LF4 towed source .................................... 20,000 10,000 0 1 0 0 

LF5 towed source .................................... 20,000 10,000 0 1 0 0 

MF9 towed source ................................... 20,000 10,000 4 50 0 4 

Navigation and real-time sensing sources 20,000 10,000 0 6 0 0 

Tomography sources ............................... 20,000 10,000 0 2 0 0 

Spherical Wave source ............................ 20,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 

Icebreaking noise ..................................... 4,275 4,525 3 12 0 0 

A behavioral response study 

conducted on and around the Navy 

range in Southern California (SOCAL 

BRS) observed reactions to sonar and 

similar sound sources by several marine 

mammal species, including Risso’s 

dolphins (Grampus griseus), a midfrequency cetacean (DeRuiter et al., 

2013; Goldbogen et al., 2013; Southall et 

al., 2011; Southall et al., 2012; Southall 

et al., 2013; Southall et al., 2014). In 

preliminary analysis, none of the Risso’s 

dolphins exposed to simulated or real 

mid-frequency sonar demonstrated any 

overt or obvious responses (Southall et 

al., 2012, Southall et al., 2013). In 

general, although the responses to the 

simulated sonar were varied across 

individuals and species, none of the 

animals exposed to real Navy sonar 

responded; these exposures occurred at 

distances beyond 10 km, and were up to 

100 km away (DeRuiter et al., 2013; B. 

Southall pers. comm.). These data 

suggest that most odontocetes (not 

including beaked whales and harbor 

porpoises) likely do not exhibit 

significant behavioral reactions to sonar 

and other transducers beyond 

approximately 10 km. Therefore, the 

Navy uses a cutoff distance for 

odontocetes of 10 km for moderate 

source level, single platform training 

and testing events, and 20 km for all 

other events, including the proposed 

Arctic Research Activities (Navy 2017a). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40252 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

Southall et al., (2007) report that 

pinnipeds do not exhibit strong 

reactions to SPLs up to 140 dB re 1 mPa 

from non-impulsive sources. While 

there are limited data on pinniped 

behavioral responses beyond about 3 km 

in the water, the Navy 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 proposed Arctic Research 

Activities (Navy 2017a). 

NMFS and the Navy conservatively 

propose a distance cutoff of 5.4 nmi (10 

km) for pinnipeds, and 10.8 nmi (20 km) 

for mid-frequency cetaceans (Navy 

2017a). Regardless of the received level 

at that distance, take is not estimated to 

occur beyond 10 and 20 km from the 

source for pinnipeds and cetaceans, 

respectively. Sources that show a range 

of zero do not rise to the specified level 

of effects (e.g., there is no chance of PTS 

for beluga whales from the navigation 

source). 

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 

proposed action, the quantitative 

consideration of avoidance and 

mitigation factors were not included in 

this analysis. 

If exposure were to occur, beluga 

whales, bearded seals, and ringed seals 

could exhibit behavioral responses such 

as avoidance, increased swimming 

speeds, increased surfacing time, or 

decreased foraging. Additionally, ringed 

seals may exhibit a TTS. Most likely, 

animals affected by non-impulsive 

acoustic sources or icebreaking noise 

resulting from the proposed action 

would move away from the sound 

source and be temporarily displaced 

from their foraging, migration, or 

breeding areas or haulout sites within 

the study area. For the reasons included 

above, Level A harassment is not 

anticipated for any of the exposed 

species or stocks. 

Table 7 shows the exposures expected 

for the beluga whale, bearded seal, and 

ringed seal based on NAEMO modeled 

results. While density estimates for the 

two stocks of beluga whales are equal 

(Kaschner et al., 2006; Kaschner 2004), 

take of the Eastern Chukchi Sea beluga 

whale stock has been reduced to 

account for the lower likelihood of this 

stock being present in the study area. 

TABLE 7—QUANTITATIVE MODELING RESULTS OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES

Species 

Density estimate within 

study area 

(animals per 

square km) 1

Level B 

harassment 

from towed 

and deployed 

sources 

Level B 

harassment 

from 

icebreaking 

Level A 

harassment 

Total proposed 

take 

Percentage 

of stock 

taken 

Beluga Whale (Beaufort Sea Stock) ........ 0.0087 60 24 0 84 0.21 

Beluga Whale (Eastern Chukchi Sea 

stock) .................................................... 0.0087 6 2 0 8 0.04 

Bearded Seal ........................................... 0.0332 1 0 0 1 < 0.01 

Ringed Seal ............................................. 0.3760 1,826 1,245 0 3,071 1.81 

1Kaschner et al. (2006); Kaschner (2004). 

Effects of Specified Activities on 

Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals 

Subsistence hunting is important for 

many Alaska Native communities. A 

study of the North Slope villages of 

Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Barrow 

identified the primary resources used 

for subsistence and the locations for 

harvest (Stephen R. Braund & Associates 

2010), including terrestrial mammals 

(caribou, moose, wolf, and wolverine), 

birds (geese and eider), fish (Arctic 

cisco, Arctic char/Dolly Varden trout, 

and broad whitefish), and marine 

mammals (bowhead whale, ringed seal, 

bearded seal, and walrus). Bearded 

seals, ringed seals, and beluga whales 

are located within the study area during 

the proposed action. The permitted 

sources would be placed outside of the 

range for subsistence hunting and the 

study plans have been communicated to 

the Native communities. The closest 

active acoustic source within the study 

area (aside from the de minimis 

sources), is approximately 141 mi (227 

km) from land. As stated above, the 

range to effects for non-impulsive 

acoustic sources in this experiment is 

relatively small (20 km). In addition, the 

proposed action would not remove 

individuals from the population. 

Therefore, there would be no impacts 

caused by this action to the availability 

of bearded seal, ringed seal, or beluga 

whale for subsistence hunting. 

Therefore, subsistence uses of marine 

mammals would not be impacted by the 

proposed action. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to 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 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40253 

safety, practicality of implementation, 

and impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses. This considers the 

nature of the potential adverse impact 

being mitigated (likelihood, scope, 

range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned); and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

Ships operated by or for the Navy 

have personnel assigned to stand watch 

at all times, day and night, when 

moving through the water. While in 

transit, ships must use extreme caution 

and proceed at a safe speed such that 

the ship can take proper and effective 

action to avoid a collision with any 

marine mammal and can be stopped 

within a distance appropriate to the 

prevailing circumstances and 

conditions. 

Exclusion zones for active acoustics 

involve turning off towed sources when 

a marine mammal is sighted within 200 

yards (yd; 183 m) from the source. 

Active transmission will re-commence if 

any one of the following conditions are 

met: (1) The animal is observed exiting 

the exclusion zone, (2) the animal is 

thought to have exited the exclusion 

zone based on its course and speed and 

relative motion between the animal and 

the source, (3) the exclusion zone has 

been clear from any additional sightings 

for a period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds 

and 30 minutes for cetaceans, or (4) the 

ship has transited more than 400 yd 

(366 m) beyond the location of the last 

sighting. 

During mooring deployment, visual 

observation would start 30 minutes 

prior to and continue throughout the 

deployment within an exclusion zone of 

60 yd (55 m) around the deployed 

mooring. Deployment will stop if a 

marine mammal is visually detected 

within the exclusion zone. Deployment 

will re-commence if any one of the 

following conditions are met: (1) The 

animal is observed exiting the exclusion 

zone, (2) the animal is thought to have 

exited the exclusion zone based on its 

course and speed, or (3) the exclusion 

zone has been clear from any additional 

sightings for a period of 15 minutes for 

pinnipeds and 30 minutes for cetaceans. 

Visual monitoring will continue through 

30 minutes following the deployment of 

sources. 

Ships would avoid approaching 

marine mammals head on and would 

maneuver to maintain an exclusion zone 

of 500 yd (457 m) around observed 

whales, and 200 yd (183 m) around all 

other marine mammals, provided it is 

safe to do so in ice free waters. 

Moored and drifting sources are left in 

place and cannot be turned off until the 

following year during ice free months. 

Once they are programmed, they will 

operate at the specified pulse lengths 

and duty cycles until they are either 

turned off the following year or there is 

failure of the battery and are not able to 

operate. Due to the ice covered nature 

of the Arctic, it is not possible to recover 

the sources or interfere with their 

transmit operations in the middle of the 

year. 

These requirements do not apply if a 

vessel’s safety is at risk, such as when 

a change of course would create an 

imminent and serious threat to safety, 

person, vessel, or aircraft, and to the 

extent vessels are restricted in their 

ability to maneuver. No further action is 

necessary if a marine mammal other 

than a whale continues to approach the 

vessel after there has already been one 

maneuver and/or speed change to avoid 

the animal. Avoidance measures should 

continue for any observed whale in 

order to maintain an exclusion zone of 

500 yd (457 m). 

All personnel conducting on-ice 

experiments, as well as all aircraft 

operating in the study area, are required 

to maintain a separation distance of 

1,000 ft (305 m) from any sighted 

pinniped. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means effecting the least practicable 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for subsistence uses. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as 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); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

While underway, the ships (including 

non-Navy ships operating on behalf of 

the Navy) utilizing active acoustics and 

towed in-water devices will have at 

least one watch person during activities. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40254 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

Watch personnel undertake extensive 

training in accordance with the U.S. 

Navy Lookout Training Handbook or 

civilian equivalent, including on the job 

instruction and a formal Personal 

Qualification Standard program (or 

equivalent program for supporting 

contractors or civilians), to certify that 

they have demonstrated all necessary 

skills (such as detection and reporting of 

floating or partially submerged objects). 

Their duties may be performed in 

conjunction with other job 

responsibilities, such as navigating the 

ship or supervising other personnel. 

While on watch, personnel employ 

visual search techniques, including the 

use of binoculars, using a scanning 

method in accordance with the U.S. 

Navy Lookout Training Handbook or 

civilian equivalent. A primary duty of 

watch personnel is to detect and report 

all objects and disturbances sighted in 

the water that may be indicative of a 

threat to the ship and its crew, such as 

debris, or surface disturbance. Per safety 

requirements, watch personnel also 

report any marine mammals sighted that 

have the potential to be in the direct 

path of the ship as a standard collision 

avoidance procedure. 

The U.S. Navy has coordinated with 

NMFS to develop an overarching 

program plan in which specific 

monitoring would occur. This plan is 

called the Integrated Comprehensive 

Monitoring Program (ICMP) (Navy 

2011). The ICMP 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 set of 

standardized research goals, and in 

acknowledgement of regional scientific 

value and resource availability. 

The ICMP is focused on Navy training 

and testing ranges where the majority of 

Navy activities occur regularly as those 

areas have the greatest potential for 

being impacted. ONR’s Arctic Research 

Activities in comparison is a less 

intensive test with little human activity 

present in the Arctic. Human presence 

is limited to a minimal amount of days 

for possible towed source operations 

and source deployments, in contrast to 

the large majority (≤95%) of time that 

the sources will be left behind and 

operate autonomously. Therefore, a 

dedicated monitoring project is not 

warranted. 

ONR previously conducted 

experiments in the Beaufort Sea as part 

of the Canadian Basin Acoustic 

Propagation Experiments (CANAPE) 

project in 2016 and 2017. The goal of 

the CANAPE project was to determine 

the fundamental limits to the use of 

acoustic methods and signal processing 

imposed by ice and ocean processes in 

the changing Arctic. The CANAPE 

project included ten moored receiver 

arrays (frequencies ranging from 200 Hz 

to 16 kHz) that recorded 24 hours per 

day for one year. Recordings from the 

CANAPE arrays are currently being 

compiled and analyzed by Defense 

Research and Development Canada, 

University of Delaware, and Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI). 

Researchers from WHOI are planning to 

do marine mammal analysis of the 

recordings, including density 

estimation. ONR is planning to release 

the marine mammal data collected from 

the CANAPE receivers to other 

researchers. 

As part of the proposed Arctic 

Research Activities, ONR is considering 

deploying a moored receiver array 

similar to those used in CANAPE. The 

receiver array would be deployed 

during the SODA research cruises in 

2018 and be recovered one year later. 

While a single array is a modest effort 

compared to the ten arrays used in 

CANAPE, it would provide new marine 

mammal monitoring data for the 2018– 

2019 time frame. The array would be 

deployed at one of the locations labeled 

on Figure 1–1 of the IHA application. 

There would be no active sources 

associated with the array. The 

deployment of the single array in 2018 

depends on the load capacity of the 

dock used by ONR and is not yet 

certain. If ONR is able to deploy the 

array in 2018, the recordings would be 

shared alongside the CANAPE data. 

The Navy is committed to 

documenting and reporting relevant 

aspects of research and testing activities 

to verify implementation of mitigation, 

comply with permits, and improve 

future environmental assessments. If 

any injury or death of a marine mammal 

is observed during the 2018–19 Arctic 

Research Activities, the Navy will 

immediately halt the activity and report 

the incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. 

The following information must be 

provided: 

• Time, date, and location of the 

discovery; 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal(s) was discovered (e.g., 

during use of towed acoustic sources, 

deployment of moored or drifting 

sources, during on-ice experiments, or 

by transiting vessel). 

ONR will provide NMFS with a draft 

exercise monitoring report within 90 

days of the conclusion of the proposed 

activity. The draft exercise monitoring 

report will include data regarding 

acoustic source use and any mammal 

sightings or detection will be 

documented. The report will include 

the estimated number of marine 

mammals taken during the activity. The 

report will also include information on 

the number of shutdowns recorded. If 

no comments are received from NMFS 

within 30 days of submission of the 

draft final report, the draft final report 

will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

must be submitted within 30 days after 

receipt of comments. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as ‘‘an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40255 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Underwater acoustic transmissions 

associated with the Arctic Research 

Activities, as outlined previously, have 

the potential to result in Level B 

harassment of beluga whales, ringed 

seals, and bearded seals in the form of 

TTS and behavioral disturbance. No 

serious injury, mortality, or Level A 

harassment are anticipated to result 

from this activity. 

Minimal takes of marine mammals by 

Level B harassment would be due to 

TTS since the range to TTS effects is 

small at only 50 m or less while the 

behavioral effects range is significantly 

larger extending up to 20 km (Table 6). 

TTS is a temporary impairment of 

hearing and can last from minutes or 

hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). 

In many cases, however, hearing 

sensitivity recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the sound ends. Though 

TTS may occur in a single ringed seal, 

the overall fitness of the individual seal 

is unlikely to be affected and negative 

impacts to the entire stock of ringed 

seals are not anticipated. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment could include 

alteration of dive behavior, alteration of 

foraging behavior, effects to breathing 

rates, interference with or alteration of 

vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

More severe behavioral responses are 

not anticipated due to the localized, 

intermittent use of active acoustic 

sources. Most likely, individuals will 

simply be temporarily displaced by 

moving away from the sound source. As 

described previously in the behavioral 

effects section, seals exposed to nonimpulsive sources with a received 

sound pressure level within the range of 

calculated exposures (142–193 dB re 1 

mPa), have been shown to change their 

behavior by modifying diving activity 

and avoidance of the sound source (Go ̈tz 

et al., 2010; Kvadsheim et al., 2010). 

Although a minor change to a behavior 

may occur as a result of exposure to the 

sound sources associated with the 

proposed action, these changes would 

be within the normal range of behaviors 

for the animal (e.g., the use of a 

breathing hole further from the source, 

rather than one closer to the source, 

would be within the normal range of 

behavior). Thus, even repeated Level B 

harassment of some small subset of the 

overall stock is unlikely to result in any 

significant realized decrease in fitness 

for the affected individuals, and would 

not result in any adverse impact to the 

stock as a whole. 

The project is not expected to have 

significant adverse effects on marine 

mammal habitat. While the activities 

may cause some fish to leave the area 

of disturbance, temporarily impacting 

marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities, this would encompass a 

relatively small area of habitat leaving 

large areas of existing fish and marine 

mammal foraging habitat unaffected. 

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 preliminary 

determination that the impacts resulting 

from this activity are not expected to 

adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival: 

• No injury, serious injury, or 

mortality is anticipated or authorized; 

• Impacts will be limited to Level B 

harassment; 

• Minimal takes by Level B 

harassment will be due to TTS; and 

• There will be no permanent or 

significant loss or modification of 

marine mammal prey or habitat. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

Impacts to subsistence uses of marine 

mammals resulting from the proposed 

action are not anticipated. The closest 

active acoustic source within the study 

area is approximately 141 mi (227 km) 

from land, outside of known subsistence 

use areas. Based on this information, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that there will be no unmitigable 

adverse impact on subsistence uses from 

ONR’s proposed activities. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each 

Federal agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the NMFS Alaska Regional 

Office (AKR), whenever we propose to 

authorize take for endangered or 

threatened species. 

NMFS is proposing to authorize take 

of ringed seals and bearded seals, which 

are listed under the ESA. The Permits 

and Conservation Division has 

requested initiation of Section 7 

consultation with the Protected 

Resources Division of AKR for the 

issuance of this IHA. NMFS will 

conclude the ESA consultation prior to 

reaching a determination regarding the 

proposed issuance of the authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to ONR for conducting Arctic 

Research Activities in the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

This section contains a draft of the IHA 

itself. The wording contained in this 

section is proposed for inclusion in the 

IHA (if issued). 

1. This Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) is valid from 

September 15, 2018 through September 

14, 2019. 

2. This IHA is valid only for use of 

active acoustic sources and icebreaking 

associated with the Arctic Research 

Activities project in the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas. 

3. General Conditions. 

(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the 

possession of the ONR, its designees, 

and work crew personnel operating 

under the authority of this IHA. 

(b) The incidental taking of marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment only, 

is limited to the following species and 

associated authorized take numbers 

shown below: 

(i) 92 beluga whales (Delphinapterus 

leucas); 

(ii) 1 bearded seal (Erignathus 

barbatus); 

(iii) 3,071 ringed seals (Pusa hispida 

hispida). 

(c) The taking by injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or death of 

any of the species listed in condition 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40256 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

3(b) of the Authorization or any taking 

of any other species of marine mammal 

is prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension, or revocation 

of this IHA. 

4. Mitigation Measures. 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to implement the following 

mitigation measures: 

(a) All ships operated by or for the 

Navy are required to have personnel 

assigned to stand watch at all times 

while underway. 

(b) For all towed active acoustic 

sources, ONR must implement a 

minimum shutdown zone of 200 yards 

(183 meters (m)) radius from the source. 

If a marine mammal comes within or 

approaches the shutdown zone, such 

operations must cease. 

(i) Active transmission may 

recommence if any one of the following 

conditions are met: 

A. The animal is observed exiting the 

shutdown zone; 

B. The animal is thought to have 

exited the shutdown zone based on its 

course and speed and relative motion 

between the animal and the source; 

C. The shutdown zone has been clear 

from any additional sightings for a 

period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds or 30 

minutes for cetaceans; or 

D. The ship has transited more than 

400 yards (366 m) beyond the location 

of the last sighting. 

(c) During mooring deployment, ONR 

is required to implement a shutdown 

zone of 60 yards (55 m) around the 

deployed mooring. Deployment must 

cease if a marine mammal comes within 

or approaches the shutdown zone. 

(i) Deployment may recommence if 

any one of the following conditions are 

met: 

A. The animal is observed exiting the 

shutdown zone; 

B. The animal is thought to have 

exited the shutdown zone based on its 

course and speed; or 

C. The shutdown zone has been clear 

from any additional sightings for a 

period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds or 30 

minutes for cetaceans. 

(d) Ships must avoid approaching 

marine mammals head-on and must 

maneuver to maintain an exclusion zone 

of 500 yards (457 m) around observed 

whales and 200 yards (183 m) from 

observed pinnipeds, provided it is safe 

to do so. 

(e) All personnel conducting on-ice 

experiments, as well as all aircraft 

operating in the study area, must 

maintain a separation distance of 1,000 

ft (305 m) from any sighted pinniped. 

(f) If a species for which authorization 

has not been granted or for which 

authorization has been granted but the 

take limit has been met approaches or 

enters the Level B harassment zone, 

activities must cease and the Navy must 

contact the Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS. 

5. Monitoring. 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to conduct marine mammal 

monitoring during Arctic Research 

Activities. 

(a) While underway, all ships 

utilizing active acoustics and towed inwater devices are required to have at 

least one person on watch during all 

activities. 

(b) During deployment of moored 

sources, visual observation must begin 

30 minutes prior to deployment and 

continue through 30 minutes after the 

source deployment. 

6. Reporting. 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to: 

(a) Submit a draft report on all 

monitoring conducted under the IHA 

within 90 calendar days of the 

completion of marine mammal 

monitoring. The report must include 

data regarding acoustic source use and 

any marine mammal sightings, as well 

as the total number of marine mammals 

taken during the activity. 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. 

(b) Report injured or dead marine 

mammals. In the unanticipated event 

that the specified activity clearly causes 

the take of a marine mammal in a 

manner prohibited by this IHA, such as 

an injury (Level A harassment), serious 

injury, or mortality, ONR must 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, NMFS. The Navy must 

provide NMFS with the following 

information: 

A. Time, date, and location of the 

discovery; 

B. Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

C. Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

D. Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

E. If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

F. 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). 

7. This Authorization may be 

modified, suspended or withdrawn if 

the holder fails to abide by the 

conditions prescribed herein, or if 

NMFS determines the authorized taking 

is having more than a negligible impact 

on the species or stock of affected 

marine mammals. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this Notice of Proposed 

IHA for the proposed Arctic Research 

Activities. We also request comment on 

the potential for renewal of this 

proposed IHA as described in the 

paragraph below. Please include with 

your comments any supporting data or 

literature citations to help inform our 

final decision on the request for MMPA 

authorization. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a second one-year IHA without 

additional notice when (1) another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Specified Activities 

section is planned or (2) the activities 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and a second IHA would 

allow for completion of the activities 

beyond that described in the Dates and 

Duration section, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to expiration of 

the current IHA; 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted beyond the initial dates 

either are identical to the previously 

analyzed activities or include changes 

so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) 

that the changes do not affect the 

previous analyses, take estimates, or 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements; and 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

• Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

remain the same and appropriate, and 

the original findings remain valid. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40257 

Dated: August 7, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17227 Filed 8–13–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG133 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Port of Kalama 

Expansion Project on the Lower 

Columbia River 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS received a request from 

the Port of Kalama (POK) to issue an 

incidental harassment authorization 

(IHA) previously issued to the POK to 

incidentally take three species of marine 

mammal, by Level B harassment only, 

during construction activities associated 

with an expansion project at the Port of 

Kalama on the Lower Columbia River, 

Washington. The current IHA was 

issued in 2017 and is in effect until 

August 31, 2018 (2017–2018 IHA). 

However, the project has been delayed 

such that none of the work covered by 

the 2017–2018 IHA has been initiated 

and, therefore, the POK requested that 

an IHA be issued to conduct their work 

beginning on or about September 1, 

2018 (2018–2019 IHA). NMFS is seeking 

public comment on its proposal to issue 

the 2018–2019 IHA to cover the 

incidental take analyzed and authorized 

in the 2017–2018 IHA. Pursuant to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an IHA to POK 

to incidentally take, by Level B 

harassment, small numbers of marine 

mammals during the specified activities. 

The authorized take numbers and 

related analyses would be the same as 

for the 2017–2018 IHA, and the required 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

would remain the same as authorized in 

the 2017–2018 IHA referenced above. 

NMFS will consider public comments 

prior to making any final decision on 

the issuance of the requested MMPA 

authorization and agency responses will 

be summarized in the final notice of our 

decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than September 13, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Physical 

comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

and electronic comments should be sent 

to ITP.Youngkin@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 

25-megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. 

An electronic copy of the proposed 

and final Authorization issued in 2017 

and supporting material along with an 

updated IHA request memo from POK 

may be obtained by visiting https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing 

these documents, please call the contact 

listed below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale 

Youngkin, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

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 

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 definitions of all 

applicable MMPA statutory terms cited 

above are included in the relevant 

sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by 

the regulations published by the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508), NMFS prepared 

an Environmental Assessment (EA) to 

consider the direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects to the human 

environment resulting from our action 

(issuance of an IHA for incidental take 

of marine mammals due to the POK 

Expansion project). NMFS made the EA 

available to the public for review and 

comment in order to assess the impacts 

to the human environment of issuance 

of the 2017–2018 IHA to the POK. Also 

in compliance with NEPA and the CEQ 

regulations, as well as NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6, NMFS 

signed a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) on October 24, 2016 for 

issuance of the 2017–2018 IHA. These 

NEPA documents are available at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities. 

Since this IHA covers the same work 

covered in the 2017–2018 IHA, NMFS 

has reviewed our previous EA and 

FONSI, and has preliminarily 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1