Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 77089 

this notice for two years from the 

deadline to fill any vacancies. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit application 

information by email to TTAB@

trade.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Aguinaga, National Travel and 

Tourism Office, U.S. Department of 

Commerce; telephone: 202–482–2404; 

email: TTAB@trade.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The Board was 

established pursuant to Section 607 of 

the Visit America Act, Subtitle A of title 

VI of division BB of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 

117–328, and in accordance with the 

provisions of the FACA, 5 U.S.C. 1001 

et seq. The Board (1) serves as the 

advisory body to the Secretary of 

Commerce (Secretary) on matters 

relating to the travel and tourism 

industry in the United States; (2) 

advises the Secretary on government 

policies and programs that affect the 

U.S. travel and tourism industry; (3) 

offers counsel on current and emerging 

issues; (4) provides a forum for 

discussing and proposing solutions to 

problems related to the travel and 

tourism industry; and (5) provides 

advice regarding the domestic travel and 

tourism industry as an economic engine. 

Membership: The National Travel and 

Tourism Office is accepting applications 

for Board members. Members of the 

Board will be selected in accordance 

with applicable Department of 

Commerce guidelines based on their 

ability to carry out the objectives of the 

Board as set forth in the Board’s charter 

and in a manner that ensures that the 

Board is balanced in terms of geographic 

diversity, diversity in size of company 

or organization to be represented, and 

representation of a broad range of 

services in the travel and tourism 

industry. Each member shall serve for 

two years from the date of the 

appointment and at the pleasure of the 

Secretary of Commerce. 

Members shall be Chief Executive 

Officers or senior executives from U.S. 

companies, U.S. organizations, or U.S. 

entities in the travel and tourism sectors 

representing a broad range of products 

and services, company sizes, and 

geographic locations. 

Members serve in a representative 

capacity, representing the views and 

interests of their business sector, and 

not as Special Government employees. 

Members will receive no compensation 

for their participation in Board 

activities. Members participating in 

Board meetings and events will be 

responsible for their travel, living, and 

other personal expenses. Meetings will 

be held regularly and, to the extent 

practical, not less than twice annually, 

usually in Washington, DC or virtually. 

Request for Nominations: All 

nominations for membership on the 

Board should provide the following 

information: 

1. Sponsor letter on the company’s or 

organization’s letterhead containing the 

name, title, and relevant contact 

information (including phone number 

and email address) of the individual 

who is applying or being nominated, 

and containing a brief description of 

why the nominee should be considered 

for membership; 

2. Short biography of nominee, 

including credentials; 

3. Brief description of the U.S. 

company or U.S. organization to be 

represented and its business activities 

and company size (number of 

employees and annual sales); 

4. An affirmative statement that the 

nominee meets all Board eligibility 

requirements for representative 

members, including that the applicant 

represents a U.S. company or U.S. 

organization and that the applicant is 

not required to register as a foreign 

agent under the Foreign Agents 

Registration Act of 1938; and 

5. An affirmative statement that the 

nominee will be able to meet the 

expected time commitments of the work 

of the Board, which includes: (1) a 

commitment to attend quarterly Board 

meetings (typically, two in-person 

meetings and two-to-three virtual 

meetings), (2) undertaking additional 

work outside of full Board meetings 

including regular participation in 

virtual subcommittee meetings, and (3) 

frequently drafting, preparing, or 

commenting on proposed 

recommendations to be evaluated at 

Board meetings. 

For eligibility purposes, a ‘‘U.S. 

company’’ is a for-profit firm that is 

incorporated in the United States (or an 

unincorporated U.S. firm with its 

principal place of business in the 

United States) that is controlled by U.S. 

citizens or by other U.S. companies. A 

company is not a U.S. company if 50 

percent plus one share of its stock (if a 

corporation, or a similar ownership 

interest of an unincorporated entity) is 

known to be controlled, directly or 

indirectly, by non-U.S. citizens or nonU.S. companies. For eligibility 

purposes, a ‘‘U.S. organization’’ is an 

organization, including trade 

associations and nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs), established under 

the laws of the United States, that is 

controlled by U.S. citizens, by another 

U.S. organization (or organizations), or 

by a U.S. company (or companies), as 

determined based on its board of 

directors (or comparable governing 

body), membership, and funding 

sources, as applicable. For eligibility 

purposes, a U.S. entity is a tourismrelated entity that can demonstrate U.S. 

ownership or control, including but not 

limited to state and local tourism 

marketing entities, state government 

tourism offices, state and/or local 

government-supported tourism 

marketing entities, and multi-state 

tourism marketing entities. 

Nominations should be emailed to 

TTAB@trade.gov. 

Brian Beall, 

Director, National Travel and Tourism Office. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21499 Filed 9–19–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XE202] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Office of 

Naval Research’s Arctic Research 

Activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

Seas (Year 7) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

Office of Naval Research (ONR) to 

incidentally harass marine mammals 

during Arctic Research Activities (ARA) 

in the Beaufort Sea and eastern Chukchi 

Sea. The ONR’s activities are considered 

military readiness activities pursuant to 

the MMPA, as amended by the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (2004 NDAA). 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from September 14, 2024, through 

September 13, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: 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-mammalprotection/incidental-takeauthorizations-military-readinessactivities. In case of problems accessing 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77090 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 

these documents, please call the contact 

listed below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alyssa Clevenstine, 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 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA 

is provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of the takings. The definitions 

of all applicable MMPA statutory terms 

cited above are included in the relevant 

sections below. 

The 2004 NDAA (Pub. L. 108–136) 

removed the ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

‘‘specified geographical region’’ 

limitations indicated above and 

amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ 

as applied to a ‘‘military readiness 

activity.’’ The activity for which 

incidental take of marine mammals is 

being requested qualifies as a military 

readiness activity. 

Summary of Request 

On March 29, 2024, NMFS received a 

request from the ONR for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to ARA in 

the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. 

Following NMFS’ review of the 

application, the ONR submitted a 

revised version on July 23, 2024. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on August 5, 2024. The ONR’s 

request is for take of beluga whales and 

ringed seals by Level B harassment only. 

Neither the ONR nor NMFS expect 

serious injury or mortality to result from 

this activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

This IHA will cover the seventh year 

of a larger project for which ONR 

obtained prior IHAs and renewal IHAs 

(83 FR 48799, September 27, 2018; 84 

FR 50007, September 24, 2019; 85 FR 

53333, August 28, 2020; 86 FR 54931, 

October 5, 2021; 87 FR 57458, 

September 20, 2022; 88 FR 65657, 

September 18, 2023). ONR has complied 

with all the requirements (e.g., 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of 

the previous IHAs. There are no changes 

from the proposed IHA to the final IHA. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

The ONR plans to conduct scientific 

experiments in support of ARA using 

active acoustic sources within the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Project 

activities involve acoustic testing and a 

multi-frequency navigation system 

concept test using left-behind active 

acoustic sources. The planned 

experiments involve the deployment of 

moored, drifting, and ice-tethered active 

acoustic sources from the Research 

Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq. Recovery of 

equipment may be from R/V Sikuliaq, 

U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) HEALY, 

or another vessel, and icebreaking may 

be required. Underwater sound from the 

active acoustic sources and noise from 

icebreaking may result in Level B 

harassment of marine mammals. 

Dates and Duration 

The planned action will occur from 

September 2024 through September 

2025 and include up to two research 

cruises. Acoustic testing will take place 

during the cruises, with the first cruise 

beginning September 2024, and a 

potential second cruise occurring in 

summer or fall 2025, which may include 

up to 8 days of icebreaking activities. 

Geographic Region 

The planned action will occur across 

the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, 

partially in the high seas north of 

Alaska, the Global Commons, and 

within a part of the Canadian EEZ (in 

which the appropriate permits will be 

obtained by the Navy) (figure 1). The 

planned action will primarily occur in 

the Beaufort Sea but the analysis 

considers the drifting of active sources 

on buoys into the eastern portion of the 

Chukchi Sea. The closest point of the 

study area to the Alaska coast is 204 

kilometers (km; 110 nautical miles 

(nmi)). The study area is approximately 

639,267 square kilometers (km2). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 77091 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activity 

A detailed description of the planned 

ARA is provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (89 FR 

66068, August 14, 2024). Since that 

time, no changes have been made to the 

planned activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not provided here. Please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

the description of the specific activity. 

Planned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Mitigation and Monitoring and 

Reporting). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA to ONR was published in the 

Federal Register on August 14, 2024 (89 

FR 66068). That notice described, in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1EN20SE24.006</GPH>

160'0'0''1: 170'0'0"E 180'0'0' 

160'0'0"W 

0 AMOS Mooring LoeatiOn 

VLF Mooring Location 

ARA study Area 

160'0'0"W 140'0'0"W 

150'0'0"W 

i20'0'0'W 110'0'0"W 100"0'0"W 90'0'0''W 

140'Q'O"W 130'0'0"W 

1: 12,500,000 Nautical Miles 

0 50 100 150 200 

Kilometers 

e ' 0 100 200 300 

Date: 18 March 2024 Data Si:lurce: ESR!,VL!Z, ONR Coordinate S tem: WGS 1984, North Pole LAEAAlaska 

Figure 1 - Arctic Research Activities Study Area and Mooring Locations 

-
77092 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 

detail, ONR’s activity, the marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the activity, and the anticipated effects 

on marine mammals. In that notice, we 

requested public input on the request 

for authorization described therein, our 

analyses, the proposed authorization, 

and any other aspect of the notice of 

proposed IHA, and requested that 

interested persons submit relevant 

information, suggestions, and 

comments. This proposed notice was 

available for a 30-day public comment 

period. 

In total, NMFS received two 

comments from one private citizen and 

from a state government department 

(Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 

One comment was out-of-scope or not 

applicable to the project and is not 

described herein or discussed further. 

We do not specifically address 

comments expressing general 

opposition to military readiness 

activities or respond to comments that 

are out of scope of the proposed IHA (89 

FR 66068, August 14, 2024). 

All comments received during the 

public comment period which 

contained relevant points were 

considered by NMFS and are described 

and responded to below. All relevant 

comment letters are available on NMFS’ 

website (https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/action/incidental-takeauthorization-office-naval-researchsarctic-research-activities-year-7). 

Comment: A commenter expressed 

concern that bowhead whales were not 

included as a potential species in the 

area and provided a publication by 

George and Thewissen (2020), 

specifically referencing a satellite 

telemetry study where multiple 

bowhead whales were detected north of 

75 degrees N during the months of July, 

September, and October. The 

commenter indicated that the mitigation 

measures in the proposed IHA (89 FR 

66068, August 14, 2024) would 

minimize disturbance to bowhead 

whales, but that the proposal should 

have discussed bowhead whales in 

more detail. 

Response: NMFS refers the 

commenter to the Description of Marine 

Mammals in the Area of Specified 

Activities section of the proposed IHA 

(89 FR 66068, August 14, 2024), which 

indicates bowhead whales are expected 

in the ARA Study Area during the 

planned action and were considered in 

the applicant’s quantitative modeling of 

potential effects of acoustic sources on 

marine mammals expected within the 

study area. The modeling resulted in no 

calculated exposures for the bowhead 

whale due to either active acoustic 

sources or icebreaking and, as no 

harassment of the bowhead whale is 

expected, the species was not discussed 

further. 

In addition to the references used by 

the applicant in their request for an 

IHA, the Overseas Environmental 

Assessment for Office of Naval Research 

Arctic Research Activities in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 2022–2025, 

provided on the project website (https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-officenaval-researchs-arctic-researchactivities-year-7), includes information 

on the distribution of bowhead whales, 

specifically that their range can expand 

and contract beyond 75 degrees N 

depending on ice cover and access to 

Arctic straits (Rugh et al., 2003),’’ which 

is in agreement with the information 

provided by the commenter. 

Importantly, the commenter does not 

suggest that incidental take of bowhead 

whales is likely, and following review of 

the comments and cited information 

NMFS has determined that no new 

information is presented and that the 

commenter’s evaluation is consistent 

with NMFS’. No changes have been 

made as a result of this comment. 

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. NMFS fully considered 

all of this information, and we refer the 

reader to these descriptions, instead of 

reprinting the information. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’ 

Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments) 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’ website (https://

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

Table 1 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and authorized 

for this activity and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. 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’ SARs). While no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality (M/SI) from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species or stocks 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’ 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’ U.S. Alaska SARs (Young et al., 

2023). All values presented in table 1 

are the most recent available at the time 

of publication and are available online 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments. 

TABLE 1—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES 1

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 2

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 3

PBR Annual 

M/SI 4

Beluga Whale .......................... Delphinapterus leucas ............ Beaufort Sea .......................... -, -, N 39,258 (0.229, N/A, 1992) ..... UND 104 

Beluga Whale .......................... Delphinapterus leucas ............ Eastern Chukchi ..................... -, -, N 13,305 (0.51, 8,875, 2017) .... 178 56 

Ringed Seal ............................. Pusa hispida ........................... Arctic ...................................... T, D, Y UND 5 (UND, UND, 2013) ..... UND 6,459 

1 Information on the classification of marine mammal species can be found on the web page for The Society for Marine Mammalogy’s Committee on Taxonomy 

(https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 77093 

2ESA 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. 3 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. 4These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, vessel 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. 5A reliable population estimate for the entire stock is not available. Using a sub-sample of data collected from the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea, an abundance estimate of 171,418 ringed seals has been calculated, but this estimate does not account for availability bias due to seals in the water or in the shore-fast ice zone at 

the time of the survey. The actual number of ringed seals in the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea is likely much higher. Using the Nmin based upon this negatively biased population estimate, the PBR is calculated to be 4,755 seals, although this is also a negatively biased estimate. 

As indicated above, both species 

(with three managed stocks) in table 1 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur. While 

bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus), 

gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), 

bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus), 

spotted seals (Phoca largha), and ribbon 

seals (Histriophoca fasciata) have been 

documented in the area, the temporal 

and/or spatial occurrence of these 

species is such that take is not expected 

to occur, and they are not discussed 

further. 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by the ARA, 

including brief introductions to the 

species and relevant stocks as well as 

available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

were provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (89 FR 

66068, August 14, 2024); since that 

time, we are not aware of any changes 

in the status of these species and stocks; 

therefore, detailed descriptions are not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for these 

descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS’ 

website (https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/find-species) for generalized 

species accounts. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. 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) and Southall et al. (2019) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into hearing groups based on 

directly measured (behavioral or 

auditory evoked potential techniques) or 

estimated hearing ranges (behavioral 

response data, anatomical modeling, 

etc.). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(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. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in table 2. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing range * 

Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ......................................................................................................... 7 Hz to 35 kHz. 

Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) .............................. 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus 

cruciger & L. australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ....................................................................................................... 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .................................................................................. 60 Hz to 39 kHz. 

* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ 

hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on approximately 65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth et al., 2013). This 

division between phocid and otariid 

pinnipeds is now reflected in the 

updated hearing groups proposed in 

Southall et al. (2019). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

ONR’s ARA have the potential to result 

in behavioral harassment of marine 

mammals in the vicinity of the study 

area. The notice of proposed IHA (89 FR 

66068, August 14, 2024) included a 

discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from ONR’s ARA on 

marine mammals and their habitat. That 

information and analysis is referenced 

in this final IHA determination and is 

not repeated here; please refer to the 

notice of proposed IHA (89 FR 66068, 

August 14, 2024). 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through the IHA, which will 

inform NMFS’ consideration of the 

negligible impact determinations and 

impacts on subsistence uses. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77094 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 

disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of natural 

behavioral patterns, including, but not 

limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a 

point where the behavioral patterns are 

abandoned or significantly altered 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes will be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of direct 

behavioral disturbances and/or 

temporary threshold shift (TTS) for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to active acoustic 

transmissions and icebreaking. Based on 

the nature of the activity, Level A 

harassment is neither anticipated nor 

authorized. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the authorized take 

numbers are estimated. 

For acoustic impacts, generally 

speaking, we estimate take by 

considering: (1) acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) the number of days of activities. 

We note that while these factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of potential 

takes, additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the authorized take estimates. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur permanent 

threshold shift (PTS) of some degree 

(equated to Level A harassment). 

Thresholds have also been developed 

identifying the received level of in-air 

sound above which exposed pinnipeds 

would likely be behaviorally harassed. 

Level B Harassment 

Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source or exposure context (e.g., 

frequency, predictability, duty cycle, 

duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise 

ratio, distance to the source), the 

environment (e.g., bathymetry, other 

noises in the area, predators in the area), 

and the receiving animals (hearing, 

motivation, experience, demography, 

life stage, depth) and can be difficult to 

predict (e.g., Southall et al., 2007; 

Southall et al., 2021; Ellison et al., 

2012). Based on what the available 

science indicates and the practical need 

to use a threshold based on a metric that 

is both predictable and measurable for 

most activities, NMFS typically uses a 

generalized acoustic threshold based on 

received level to estimate the onset of 

behavioral harassment. NMFS generally 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

considered to be Level B harassment 

when exposed to underwater 

anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS 

SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 

microPascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous 

(e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and 

above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 mPa for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. Generally speaking, 

Level B harassment estimates based on 

these behavioral harassment thresholds 

are expected to include any likely takes 

by TTS as, in most cases, the likelihood 

of TTS occurs at distances from the 

source less than those at which 

behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of 

a sufficient degree can manifest as 

behavioral harassment, as reduced 

hearing sensitivity and the potential 

reduced opportunities to detect 

important signals (conspecific 

communication, predators, prey) may 

result in changes in behavior patterns 

that would not otherwise occur. 

In this case, NMFS is proposing to 

adopt the ONR’s approach to estimating 

incidental take by Level B harassment 

from the active acoustic sources for this 

action, which includes use of dose 

response functions. The ONR’s dose 

response functions were developed to 

estimate take from sonar and similar 

transducers, but are not applicable to 

icebreaking. 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., 2013b; Houser 

et al., 2013a). Moretti et al. (2014) 

published a beaked whale doseresponse 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. 

Southall et al. (2007), and more 

recently (Southall et al., 2019), 

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; Southall et al., 2019). After 

examining all of the available data, the 

authors felt that the derivation of 

thresholds for behavioral response 

based solely on exposure level was not 

supported because context of the animal 

at the time of sound exposure was an 

important factor in estimating response. 

Nonetheless, in some conditions, 

consistent avoidance reactions were 

noted at higher sound levels depending 

on the marine mammal species or group 

allowing conclusions to be drawn. 

Phocid seals showed avoidance 

reactions at or below 190 dB re 1 mPa 

at 1 m; thus, seals may actually receive 

levels adequate to produce TTS before 

avoiding the source. 

Odontocete behavioral criteria for 

non-impulsive sources are 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 (Miller et al., 2011; Miller et al., 

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

2014; Houser et al., 2013b). For the 3S 

study, the sonar outputs included 1–2 

kilohertz (kHz) up- and down-sweeps 

and 6–7 kHz up-sweeps; source levels 

were ramped up from 152–158 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 

vessels 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 six 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 77095 

MF cetaceans) were applied to exclude 

exposures beyond which the potential 

of significant behavioral responses is 

considered to be unlikely. 

The pinniped behavioral threshold 

are based on controlled exposure 

experiments on the following captive 

animals: hooded seal (Cystophora 

cristata), gray seal (Halichoerus grypus), 

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. Additionally, distance cutoffs (10 

km for pinnipeds) were applied to 

exclude exposures beyond which the 

potential of significant behavioral 

responses is considered unlikely. For 

additional information regarding marine 

mammal thresholds for PTS and TTS 

onset, please see NMFS (2018) and table 

4. 

Empirical evidence has not shown 

responses to non-impulsive acoustic 

sources that will constitute take beyond 

a few km from a non-impulsive acoustic 

source, which is why NMFS and the 

Navy conservatively set distance cutoffs 

for pinnipeds and mid-frequency 

cetaceans (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2017a). The cutoff distances for fixed 

sources are different from those for 

moving sources, as they are treated as 

individual sources in ONR’s modeling 

given that the distance between them is 

significantly greater than the range to 

which environmental effects can occur. 

Fixed source cutoff distances used were 

5 km (2.7 nmi) for pinnipeds and 10 km 

(5.4 nmi) for beluga whales (table 3). As 

some of the on-site drifting sources 

could come closer together, the drifting 

source cutoffs applied were 10 km (5.4 

nmi) for pinnipeds and 20 km (10.8 

nmi) for beluga whales (table 3). 

Regardless of the received level at that 

distance, take is not estimated to occur 

beyond these cutoff distances. Range to 

thresholds were calculated for the noise 

associated with icebreaking in the study 

area. These all fall within the same 

cutoff distances as non-impulsive active 

acoustic sources; range to behavioral 

threshold for both beluga whales and 

ringed seal were under 5 km (2.7 nmi), 

and range to TTS threshold for both 

under 15 m (49.2 ft) (table 3). 

TABLE 3—CUTOFF DISTANCES AND ACOUSTIC THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE, TTS, 

AND PTS FOR NON-IMPULSIVE SOUND SOURCES

Hearing group Species 

Fixed source 

behavioral 

threshold 

cutoff 

distance a

Drifting 

source 

behavioral 

threshold 

cutoff 

distance a

Behavioral criteria: 

non-impulsive acoustic 

sources 

Icebreaking 

source 

behavioral 

threshold 

cutoff 

distance a b

Behavioral 

criteria: 

icebreaking 

sources 

Physiological 

criteria: 

onset TTS 

Physiological 

criteria: 

onset PTS 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans.

Beluga whale 10 km (5.4 

nmi).

20 km (10.8 

nmi).

Mid-frequency BRF 

dose-response function *.

5 km (2.7 nmi) 120 dB re 1 

μPa step 

function.

178 dB 

SELcum.

198 dB 

SELcum. 

Phocidae (in water) Ringed seal .. 5 km (2.7 

nmi).

10 km (5.4 

nmi).

Pinniped dose-response function *.5 km (2.7 nmi) 120 dB re 1 

μPa step 

function.

181 dB 

SELcum.

201 dB 

SELcum. 

Note: The threshold values provided are assumed for when the source is within the animal’s best hearing sensitivity. The exact threshold varies based on the overlap of the source and the frequency weighting (see figure 6–1 in IHA application). aTake is not estimated to occur beyond these cutoff distances, regardless of the received level. 

b Range to TTS threshold for both hearing groups for the noise associated with icebreaking in the study area is under 15 m (49.2 ft). 

Level A Harassment 

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). The ONR’s action includes 

the use of non-impulsive (active sonar 

and icebreaking) sources; however, 

Level A harassment is not expected as 

a result of the activities based on 

modeling, as described below, nor is it 

authorized by NMFS. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS’ 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

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,HF,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 a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should 

also be considered. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77096 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 

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

In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 

Quantitative Modeling 

The Navy performed a quantitative 

analysis to estimate the number of 

marine mammals likely to be exposed to 

underwater acoustic transmissions 

above the previously described 

threshold criteria during the planned 

action. Inputs to the quantitative 

analysis included marine mammal 

density estimates obtained from the 

Kaschner et al. (2006) habitat suitability 

model and (Can ̃ adas et al., 2020), 

marine mammal depth occurrence (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2017b), 

oceanographic and mammal hearing 

data, and criteria and thresholds for 

levels of potential effects. The 

quantitative analysis consists of 

computer modeled estimates and a postmodel analysis to determine the number 

of potential animal exposures. The 

model calculates sound energy 

propagation from the non-impulsive 

acoustic sources, 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 and 

we note that these tools do not include 

any quantitative adjustments to account 

for the fact that marine mammals are 

likely to avoid loud sources to some 

degree, or that the successful 

implementation of mitigation would be 

expected to reduce the probability or 

severity of some impacts. These tools 

and data sets serve as integral 

components of the Navy Acoustic 

Effects Model (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 

is independent of all others, and 

therefore, the same individual marine 

mammal (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 

location, 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 will be 

reduced, stopped, or delayed if marine 

mammals are detected by visual 

monitoring. 

Due to 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 

implementing mitigation measures. This 

analysis uses a number of factors in 

addition to the acoustic model results to 

predict acoustic effects on marine 

mammals, as described below in the 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Estimation section. 

The underwater radiated noise 

signature for icebreaking in the central 

Arctic Ocean by CGC HEALY during 

different types of ice-cover was 

characterized in Roth et al. (2013). The 

radiated noise signatures were 

characterized for various fractions of ice 

cover. For modeling, the 8/10 and 3/10 

ice cover were used. Each modeled day 

of icebreaking consisted of 16 hours of 

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

cover. Icebreaking was modeled for 8 

days total. Since ice forecasting cannot 

be predicted more than a few weeks in 

advance, it is unknown if icebreaking 

will be needed to deploy or retrieve the 

sources after 1 year of transmitting. 

Therefore, the potential for an 

icebreaking cruise on CGC HEALY was 

conservatively analyzed within the 

ONR’s request for an IHA. As the R/V 

Sikuliaq is not capable of icebreaking, 

acoustic noise created by icebreaking is 

only modeled for the CGC HEALY. 

Figures 5a and 5b in Roth et al. (2013) 

depict the source spectrum level versus 

frequency for 8/10 and 3/10 ice cover, 

respectively. The sound signature of 

each of the ice coverage levels was 

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


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 77097 

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 (provided in 

figure 4b of Roth et al. (2013). Each 

frequency and source level was modeled 

as an independent source, and applied 

simultaneously to all of the animats 

within NAEMO. Each second was 

summed across frequency to estimate 

SPLRMS. Any animat exposed to sound 

levels greater than 120 dB was 

considered a take by 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 area. The method of 

quantitative modeling for icebreaking is 

considered to be a conservative 

approach; therefore, the number of takes 

estimated for icebreaking are likely an 

overestimate and are not expected to 

reach that level. 

TABLE 5—MODELED BINS FOR 8/10 ICE COVERAGE (FULL POWER) AND 3/10 ICE COVERAGE (QUARTER POWER) 

ICEBREAKING ON CGC HEALY 

Frequency 

(Hz) 

8/10 source level 

(dB) 

3/10 source level 

(dB) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1,600 ................................................................................................................................................ 177 166 

3,200 ................................................................................................................................................ 176 171 

6,400 ................................................................................................................................................ 172 168 

12,800 .............................................................................................................................................. 167 164 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Estimation 

In this section we provide information 

about the occurrence of marine 

mammals, including density or other 

relevant information which will inform 

the take calculations. We also describe 

how the marine mammal occurrence 

information is synthesized to produce a 

quantitative estimate of the take that is 

reasonably likely to occur and is 

authorized. 

The beluga whale density numbers 

utilized for quantitative acoustic 

modeling are from the Navy Marine 

Species Density Database (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2014). Where 

available (i.e., June through 15 October 

over the continental shelf primarily), 

density estimates used were from Duke 

density modeling based upon linetransect surveys (Can ̃ adas et al., 2020). 

The remaining seasons and geographic 

area were based on the habitat-based 

modeling by Kaschner (2004) and 

Kaschner et al. (2006). Density for 

beluga whales was not distinguished by 

stock and varied throughout the project 

area geographically and monthly; the 

range of densities in the study area is 

shown in table 6. The density estimates 

for ringed seals are based on the habitat 

suitability modeling by Kaschner (2004) 

and Kaschner et al. (2006) and shown in 

table 6. 

TABLE 6—DENSITY ESTIMATES OF IMPACTED SPECIES

Common name Stock Density 

(animals/km2) 

Beluga whale ...................................................................... Beaufort Sea ...................................................................... 0.000506 to 0.5176. 

Beluga whale ...................................................................... Eastern Chukchi Sea ......................................................... 0.000506 to 0.5176. 

Ringed seal ......................................................................... Arctic .................................................................................. 0.1108 to 0.3562. 

Take of all species will occur by Level 

B harassment only. NAEMO was 

previously used to produce a qualitative 

estimate of PTS, TTS, and behavioral 

exposures for ringed seals. For this 

action, a new approach that utilizes 

sighting data from previous surveys 

conducted within the study area was 

used to estimate Level B harassment 

associated with non-impulsive active 

acoustic sources for ringed seals (see 

section 6.4.3 of the IHA application). 

Of historical sightings registered in 

the Ocean Biodiversity Information 

System Spatial Ecological Analysis of 

Megavertebrate Populations (OBIS– 

SEAMAP database) (Halpin et al., 2009) 

in the ARA study area, nearly all (99 

percent) occurred in summer and fall 

seasons. However, there is no 

documentation to prove that this is 

because ringed seals will all move out 

of the study area during the cold season, 

or if the lack of sightings is due to the 

harsh environment and ringed seal 

behavior being prohibitive factors for 

cold season surveying. OBIS–SEAMAP 

reports 542 animals sighted over 150 

records in the ARA study area across all 

years and seasons. Taking the average of 

542 animals in 150 records aligns with 

survey data from previous ARA cruises 

that show up to 3 ringed seals (or small, 

unidentified pinnipeds assumed to be 

ringed seals) per day sighted in the 

study area. To account for any 

unsighted animals, that number was 

rounded up to 4. Assuming that four 

animals will be present in the study 

area, a rough estimate of density can be 

calculated using the overall study area 

size: 

4 ringed seals ÷ 48,725 km2 = 

0.00008209 ringed seals/km2

The Level B harassment zone 

surrounding each moored source will be 

78.5 km2, and the Level B harassment 

zone surrounding each drifting source 

will be 314 km2. The total Level B 

harassment zone on any given day from 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77098 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 

non-impulsive acoustic sources will be 

942 km2. The number of ringed seals 

that could be taken daily can be 

calculated: 

0.00008209 ringed seals/km2 × 942 km2

= 0.077 ringed seals/day 

To be conservative, the ONR assumed 

1 ringed seal will be exposed to acoustic 

transmissions above the threshold for 

Level B harassment, and that each will 

be exposed each day of the planned 

action (365 days total). Unlike the 

NAEMO modeling approach used to 

estimate ringed seal takes in previous 

ARA IHAs, the occurrence method used 

in this ARA IHA request does not 

support the differentiation between 

behavioral or TTS exposures. Therefore, 

all takes are classified as Level B 

harassment and not further 

distinguished. Modeling for all previous 

years of ARA activities did not result in 

any estimated Level A harassment. 

NMFS has no reason to expect that the 

ARA activities during the effective dates 

of this IHA will be more likely to result 

in Level A harassment. Therefore, no 

Level A harassment is anticipated due 

to the planned action. 

NAEMO modeling is still used to 

provide estimated takes of beluga 

whales associated with non-impulsive 

acoustic sources, as well as provide take 

estimations associated with icebreaking 

for both species. Table 7 shows the total 

number of requested takes by Level B 

harassment that NMFS has authorized 

for both beluga whale stocks and the 

Arctic ringed seal stock. 

Density estimates for beluga whales 

are equal as estimates were not 

distinguished by stock (Kaschner, 2004; 

Kaschner et al., 2006). The ranges of the 

Beaufort Sea and Eastern Chukchi Sea 

beluga whales vary within the study 

area throughout the year (Hauser et al., 

2014). Based upon the limited 

information available regarding the 

expected spatial distributions of each 

stock within the study area, take has 

been apportioned equally to each stock 

(table 7). In addition, in NAEMO, 

animats do not move horizontally or 

react in any way to avoid sound, 

therefore, the current model may 

overestimate non-impulsive acoustic 

impacts. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED TAKE NUMBERS AND TOTAL TAKE AUTHORIZED

Species Stock Active 

acoustics 

Icebreaking 

(behavioral) 

Icebreaking 

(TTS) 

Total take 

authorized 

SAR 

abundance 

Percentage 

of population 

Beluga whale .................... Beaufort Sea ................... a 177 a 21 0 99 39,258 .............................. <1 

Beluga whale .................... Chukchi Sea .................... a 177 a 21 0 99 13,305 .............................. <1 

Ringed seal ....................... Arctic ................................ 365 538 1 904 UND (171, 418) b ............. <1 

aAcoustic and icebreaking exposures to beluga whales were not modeled at the stock level as the density value is not distinguished by stock in the Arctic for 

beluga whales (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014). Estimated take of beluga whales due to active acoustics is 177 and 21 due to icebreaking activities, totaling 198 

takes of beluga whales. The total take was evenly distributed among the two stocks. bA reliable population estimate for the entire Arctic stock of ringed seals is not available and NMFS SAR lists it as Undetermined (UND). Using a sub-sample of 

data collected from the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea (Conn et al., 2014), an abundance estimate of 171,418 ringed seals has been calculated but this estimate does 

not account for availability bias due to seals in the water or in the shore-fast ice zone at the time of the survey. The actual number of ringed seals in the U.S. portion 

of the Bering Sea is likely much higher. Using the minimum population size (Nmin = 158,507) based upon this negatively biased population estimate, the PBR is calculated to be 4,755 seals, although this is also a negatively biased estimate. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses. 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). The 2004 NDAA 

amended the MMPA as it relates to 

military readiness activities and the 

incidental take authorization process 

such that ‘‘least practicable impact’’ 

shall include consideration of personnel 

safety, practicality of implementation, 

and impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS considers 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. 

The following measures are required 

in this IHA: 

• All vessels operated by or for the 

Navy must have personnel assigned to 

stand watch at all times while 

underway. Watch personnel must 

employ visual search techniques using 

binoculars. While underway and while 

using active acoustic sources/towed inwater devices, at least one person with 

access to binoculars is required to be on 

watch at all times. 

• Vessel captains and vessel 

personnel must remain alert at all times, 

proceed with extreme caution, and 

operate at a safe speed so that the vessel 

can take proper and effective action to 

avoid any collisions with marine 

mammals. 

• During moored and drifting 

acoustic source deployment and 

recovery, ONR must implement a 

mitigation zone of 55 m (180 ft) around 

the deployed source. Deployment and 

recovery must cease if a marine 

mammal is visually deterred within the 

mitigation zone. Deployment and 

recovery may recommence if any one of 

the following conditions are met: 

Æ The animal is observed exiting the 

mitigation zone; 

Æ The animal is thought to have 

exited the mitigation zone based on a 

determination of its course, speed, and 

movement relative to the sound source; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 77099 

Æ The mitigation zone has been clear 

from any additional sightings for a 

period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 

30 minutes for cetaceans. 

• Vessels must avoid approaching 

marine mammals head-on and must 

maneuver to maintain a mitigation zone 

of 457 m (500 yards) around all 

observed cetaceans and 183 m (200 

yards) around all other observed marine 

mammals, provided it is safe to do so. 

• Activities must cease if a marine 

mammal species for which take was not 

authorized, or a species for which 

authorization was granted but the 

authorized number of takes have been 

met, is observed approaching or within 

the mitigation zone (table 8). Activities 

must not resume until the animal is 

confirmed to have left the area. 

• Vessel captains must maintain atsea communication with subsistence 

hunters to avoid conflict of vessel 

transit with hunting activity. 

TABLE 8—MITIGATION ZONES

Activity and/or effort type Species Mitigation zone 

Acoustic source deployment and recovery, stationary ...................................... Beluga whale ...................................... 55 m (180 ft). 

Acoustic source deployment and recovery, stationary ...................................... Ringed seal ......................................... 55 m (180 ft). 

Transit ................................................................................................................ Beluga whale ...................................... 457 m (500 yards). 

Transit ................................................................................................................ Ringed seal ......................................... 183 m (200 yards). 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s planned measures, NMFS 

has determined that the mitigation 

measures provide the means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

subsistence uses. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present while conducting the activities. 

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 

activity; 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. 

The Navy has coordinated with NMFS 

to develop an overarching program plan 

in which specific monitoring will occur. 

This plan is called the Integrated 

Comprehensive Monitoring Program 

(ICMP) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2011). The ICMP has been developed in 

direct response to Navy permitting 

requirements established through 

various environmental compliance 

efforts. As a framework document, the 

ICMP applies by regulation to those 

activities on ranges and operating areas 

for which the Navy is seeking or has 

sought incidental take authorizations. 

The ICMP is intended to coordinate 

monitoring efforts across all regions and 

to allocate the most appropriate level 

and type of effort based on a set of 

standardized research goals, and in 

acknowledgement of regional scientific 

value and resource availability. 

The ICMP is focused on Navy training 

and testing ranges where the majority of 

Navy activities occur regularly as those 

areas have the greatest potential for 

being impacted. ONR’s ARA in 

comparison is a less intensive test with 

little human activity present in the 

Arctic. Human presence is limited to the 

deployment of sources that will take 

place over several weeks. Additionally, 

due to the location and nature of the 

testing, vessels and personnel will not 

be within the study area for an extended 

period of time. As such, more extensive 

monitoring requirements beyond the 

basic information being collected will 

not be feasible as it would require 

additional personnel and equipment to 

locate seals and a presence in the Arctic 

during a period of time other then what 

is planned for source deployment. 

However, ONR will record all 

observations of marine mammals, 

including the marine mammal’s species 

identification, location (latitude/ 

longitude), behavior, and distance from 

project activities. ONR will also record 

date and time of sighting. This 

information is valuable in an area with 

few recorded observations. 

Marine mammal monitoring must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

Navy’s ICMP and the IHA: 

• While underway, all vessels must 

have at least one person trained through 

the U.S. Navy Marine Species 

Awareness Training Program on watch 

during all activities; 

• Watch personnel must use 

standardized data collection forms, 

whether hard copy or electronic. Watch 

personnel must distinguish between 

sightings that occur during transit or 

during deployment or recovery of 

acoustic sources. Data must be recorded 

on all days of activities, even if marine 

mammals are not sighted; 

• At minimum, the following 

information must be recorded: 

Æ Vessel name; 

Æ Watch personnel names and 

affiliation; 

Æ Effort type (i.e., transit, 

deployment, recovery); and 

Æ Environmental conditions (at the 

beginning of watch stander shift and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77100 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 

whenever conditions change 

significantly), including Beaufort Sea 

State (BSS) and any other relevant 

weather conditions, including cloud 

cover, fog, sun glare, and overall 

visibility to the horizon. 

• Upon visual observation of any 

marine mammal, the following 

information must be recorded: 

Æ Date/time of sighting; 

Æ Identification of animal (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified) and 

the composition of the group if there is 

a mix of species; 

Æ Location (latitude/longitude) of 

sighting; 

Æ Estimated number of animals (high/ 

low/best); 

Æ Description (as many 

distinguishing features as possible of 

each individual seen, including length, 

shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, 

shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of 

head, and blow characteristics); 

Æ Detailed behavior observations 

(e.g., number of blows/breaths, number 

of surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, 

diving, feeding, traveling; as explicit 

and detailed as possible; length of time 

observed in the mitigation zone, note 

any observed changes in behavior); 

Æ Distance from vessel to animal; 

Æ Direction of animal’s travel relative 

to the vessel; 

Æ Platform activity at time of sighting 

(i.e., transit, deployment, recovery); and 

Æ Weather conditions (i.e., BSS, 

cloud cover). 

Æ During icebreaking, the following 

information must be recorded: 

Æ Start and end time of icebreaking; 

and 

Æ Ice cover conditions. 

• During deployment and recovery of 

acoustic sources or unmanned undersea 

vehicles, visual observation must begin 

30 minutes prior to deployment or 

recovery and continue through 30 

minutes following the source 

deployment or recovery. 

• The ONR must submit its draft 

report(s) on all monitoring conducted 

under the IHA within 90 calendar days 

of the completion of monitoring or 60 

calendar days prior to the requested 

issuance of any subsequent IHA for 

research activities at the same location, 

whichever comes first. A final report 

must be prepared and submitted within 

30 calendar days following receipt of 

any NMFS comments on the draft 

report. If no comments are received 

from NMFS within 30 calendar days of 

receipt of the draft report, the report 

shall be considered final. 

• All draft and final monitoring 

reports must be submitted to 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and ITP.clevenstine@noaa.gov. 

• The marine mammal report, at 

minimum, must include: 

Æ Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

Æ Acoustic source use or icebreaking; 

Æ Watch stander location(s) during 

marine mammal monitoring; 

Æ Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of watch standing shift and 

whenever conditions change 

significantly), including BSS and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance; 

Æ Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information: 

D Name of watch stander who sighted 

the animal(s), the watch stander 

location, and activity at time of sighting; 

D Time of sighting; 

D Identification of the animal(s) (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified), watch 

stander confidence in identification, 

and the composition of the group if 

there is a mix of species; 

D Distance and location of each 

observed marine mammal relative to the 

acoustic source or icebreaking for each 

sighting; 

D Estimated number of animals (min/ 

max/best estimate); 

D Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, 

group composition, etc.); 

D Animal’s closest point of approach 

and estimated time spent within the 

harassment zone; and 

D Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

the activity (e.g., no response or changes 

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing, or 

breaching. 

Æ Number of shutdowns during 

monitoring, if any; 

Æ Marine mammal sightings 

(including the marine mammal’s 

location (latitude/longitude)); 

Æ Number of individuals of each 

species observed during source 

deployment, operation, and recovery; 

and 

Æ Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation (e.g., 

shutdowns, delays), a description of 

specific actions that ensued, and 

resulting changes in behavior of the 

animal(s), if any. 

• The ONR must submit all watch 

stander data electronically in a format 

that can be queried, such as a 

spreadsheet or database (i.e., digital 

images of data sheets are not sufficient). 

• Reporting injured or dead marine 

mammals: 

Æ In the event that personnel 

involved in the specified activities 

discover an injured or dead marine 

mammal, the ONR must report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR), NMFS 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and ITP.clevenstine@noaa.gov) and to 

the Alaska regional stranding network 

(877–925–7773) as soon as feasible. If 

the death or injury was clearly caused 

by the specified activity, the ONR must 

immediately cease the activities until 

NMFS OPR is able to review the 

circumstances of the incident and 

determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the terms of this IHA. 

The ONR must not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

Æ The report must include the 

following information: 

D Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

D Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

D Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

D Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

D If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

D General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

• Vessel Strike: In the event of a 

vessel strike of a marine mammal by any 

vessel involved in the activities covered 

by the authorization, the ONR shall 

report the incident to OPR, NMFS and 

to the Alaska regional stranding 

coordinator (877–925–7773) as soon as 

feasible. The report must include the 

following information: 

Æ Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

Æ Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

Æ Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

Æ Vessel’s course/heading and what 

operations were being conducted (if 

applicable); 

Æ Status of all sound sources in use; 

Æ Description of avoidance measures/ 

requirements that were in place at the 

time of the strike and what additional 

measures were taken, if any, to avoid 

strike; 

Æ Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, BSS, cloud 

cover, visibility) immediately preceding 

the strike; 

Æ Estimated size and length of animal 

that was struck; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 77101 

Æ Description of the behavior of the 

marine mammal immediately preceding 

and following the strike; 

Æ If available, description of the 

presence and behavior of any other 

marine mammals immediately 

preceding the strike; 

Æ Estimated fate of the animal (e.g., 

dead, injured but alive, injured and 

moving, blood or tissue observed in the 

water, status unknown, disappeared); 

and 

Æ To the extent practicable, 

photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

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 impacts or responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

impacts or responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, foraging 

impacts affecting energetics), 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’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the 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). 

To avoid repetition, the discussion of 

our analysis applies to beluga whales 

and ringed seals, given that the 

anticipated effects of this activity on 

these different marine mammal stocks 

are expected to be similar. Where there 

are meaningful differences between 

species or stocks, or groups of species, 

in anticipated individual responses to 

activities, impact of expected take on 

the population due to differences in 

population status, or impacts on habitat, 

they are described independently in the 

analysis below. 

Underwater acoustic transmissions 

associated with the ARA, as outlined 

previously, have the potential to result 

in Level B harassment of beluga seals 

and ringed seals in the form of 

behavioral disturbances. No serious 

injury, mortality, or Level A harassment 

are anticipated to result from these 

described activities. Effects on 

individual belugas or ringed seals taken 

by Level B harassment could include 

alteration of dive behavior and/or 

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. Exposure duration is likely to 

be short-term and individuals will, most 

likely, simply be temporarily displaced 

by moving away from the acoustic 

source. Exposures are, therefore, 

unlikely to result in any significant 

realized decrease in fitness for affected 

individuals or adverse impacts to stocks 

as a whole. 

Arctic ringed seals are listed as 

threatened under the ESA. The primary 

concern for Arctic ringed seals is the 

ongoing and anticipated loss of sea ice 

and snow cover resulting from climate 

change, which is expected to pose a 

significant threat to ringed seals in the 

future (Muto et al., 2021). In addition, 

Arctic ringed seals have also been 

experiencing an Unusual Mortality 

Event (UME) since 2019 although the 

cause of the UME is currently 

undetermined. As mentioned earlier, no 

mortality or serious injury to ringed 

seals is authorized. Due to the shortterm duration of expected exposures 

and required mitigation measures to 

reduce adverse impacts, we do not 

expect the ARA to compound or 

exacerbate the impacts of the ongoing 

UME. 

A small portion of the study area 

overlaps with ringed seal critical 

habitat. Although this habitat contains 

features necessary for ringed seal 

formation and maintenance of 

subnivean birth lairs, basking and 

molting, and foraging, these features are 

also available throughout the rest of the 

designated critical habitat area. Any 

potential limited displacement of ringed 

seals from the ARA study area is not 

expected to interfere with their ability to 

access necessary habitat features, given 

the availability of similar necessary 

habitat features nearby. 

The study area also overlaps with 

beluga whale migratory and feeding 

biologically important areas (BIAs). Due 

to the small amount of overlap between 

the BIAs and the ARA study area as well 

as the low intensity and short-term 

duration of acoustic sources and 

required mitigation measures, we expect 

minimal impacts to migrating or feeding 

belugas. Shutdown zones are expected 

to avoid the potential for Level A 

harassment of belugas and ringed seals, 

and to minimize the severity of any 

Level B harassment. The requirements 

of trained dedicated watch personnel 

and speed restrictions will also reduce 

the likelihood of any vessel strikes to 

migrating belugas. 

In all, the planned activities are 

expected to have minimal 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 

will encompass a relatively small area of 

habitat leaving large areas of existing 

fish and marine mammal foraging 

habitat unaffected. As such, the impacts 

to marine mammal habitat are not 

expected to impact the health or fitness 

of any marine mammals. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect any of the 

species or stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Impacts will be limited to Level B 

harassment only; 

• Only temporary and relatively lowlevel behavioral disturbances are 

expected to result from these activities; 

and 

• Impacts to marine mammal prey or 

habitat will be minimal and short term. 

The authorized take is not expected to 

impact the reproduction or survival of 

any individual marine mammals, much 

less rates of recruitment or survival. 

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 planned 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the planned activity 

will have a negligible impact on all 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must 

find that the specified activity will not 

have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

on the subsistence uses of the affected 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77102 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity: (1) That is likely to 

reduce the availability of the species to 

a level insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing 

subsistence users; or (iii) Placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and (2) That cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

Subsistence hunting is important for 

many Alaska Native communities. A 

study of the North Slope villages of 

Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Utqiag ̇vik 

identified the primary resources used 

for subsistence and the locations for 

harvest (Stephen R. Braund & 

Associates, 2010), including terrestrial 

mammals, birds, fish, and marine 

mammals (bowhead whale, ringed seal, 

bearded seal, and walrus). Ringed seals 

and beluga whales are likely located 

within the project area during this 

action, yet the action will not remove 

individuals from the population nor 

behaviorally disturb them in a manner 

that will affect their behavior more than 

100 km farther inshore where 

subsistence hunting occurs. The 

acoustic sources will be placed far 

outside of the range for subsistence 

hunting. The closest active acoustic 

source (fixed or drifting) within the 

study area that is likely to cause Level 

B harassment is approximately 204 km 

(110 nmi) from land. This ensures a 

significant standoff distance from any 

subsistence hunting area. The closest 

distance to subsistence hunting (130 km 

(70 nmi)) is well beyond the largest 

distance from the sound sources in use 

at which behavioral harassment will be 

expected to occur (20 km (10.8 nmi)) 

described above. Furthermore, there is 

no reason to believe that any behavioral 

disturbance of beluga whales or ringed 

seals that occurs far offshore (we do not 

anticipate any Level A harassment) will 

affect their subsequent behavior in a 

manner that will interfere with 

subsistence uses should those animals 

later interact with hunters. 

In addition, ONR has been 

communicating with the Native 

communities about the planned action. 

The ONR-sponsored chief scientist for 

AMOS gave a briefing on ONR research 

planned for 2024–2025 Alaska Eskimo 

Whaling Commission (AEWC) meeting 

on December 15, 2023 in Anchorage, 

Alaska. No questions were asked from 

the commissioners during the brief or in 

subsequent weeks afterwards. The 

AEWC consists of representatives from 

11 whaling villages (Wainwright, 

Utqiag ̇vik, Savoonga, Point Lay, Nuiqut, 

Kivalina, Kaktovik, Wales, Point Hope, 

Little Diomede, and Gambell). These 

briefings have communicated the lack of 

any effect on subsistence hunting due to 

the distance of the sources from hunting 

areas. ONR-supported scientists also 

attend Arctic Waterways Safety 

Committee (AWSC) and AEWC 

meetings on a regular basis to discuss 

past, present, and future research 

activities. While no take is anticipated 

to result during transit, points of contact 

for at-sea communication will also be 

established between vessel captains and 

subsistence hunters to avoid any 

conflict of vessel transit with hunting 

activity. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, distance of the study 

area from subsistence hunting grounds, 

the measures described to minimize 

adverse effects on the availability of 

marine mammals for subsistence 

purposes, and the planned mitigation 

and monitoring measures, NMFS has 

determined that there will not be an 

unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from ONR’s ARA. 

Peer Review of the Monitoring Plan 

The MMPA requires that monitoring 

plans be independently peer reviewed 

where the activity may affect the 

availability of a species or stock for 

taking for subsistence uses (16 U.S.C. 

1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Given the factors 

discussed above, NMFS has also 

determined that the activity is not likely 

to affect the availability of any marine 

mammal species or stock for taking for 

subsistence uses, and therefore, peer 

review of the monitoring plan is not 

warranted for this project. 

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 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the Alaska Regional 

Office (AKR). 

There is one marine mammal species 

(Arctic ringed seal) with confirmed 

occurrence in the study area that is 

listed as threatened under the ESA. The 

NMFS AKR Protected Resources 

Division issued a Biological Opinion on 

September 13, 2022, under section 7 of 

the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to 

ONR under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA by the NMFS Permits and 

Conservation Division. The 2022 

Biological Opinion is based on a 

Biological Evaluation that covers ONR’s 

ARA from 2022–2025. Therefore, NMFS 

has determined that issuance of this 

IHA is covered by the 2022 Biological 

Opinion and that further consultation is 

unnecessary. The Biological Opinion 

concluded that the action is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

Arctic ringed seals, and is not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify Arctic 

ringed seal critical habitat. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

implemented by the regulations 

published by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ; 40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508), the ONR prepared an 

Overseas Environmental Assessment 

(OEA) to consider the direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects to the human 

environment resulting from the ARA 

project. NMFS made the ONR’s OEA 

available to the public for review and 

comment, concurrently with the 

publication of the proposed IHA, on the 

NMFS website (at https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/incidental-takeauthorizations-military-readinessactivities), in relation to its suitability 

for adoption by NMFS in order to assess 

the impacts to the human environment 

of issuance of an IHA to ONR. Also in 

compliance with NEPA and the CEQ 

regulations, as well as NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, NMFS 

has reviewed ONR’s OEA, determined it 

to be sufficient, and adopted that OEA 

and signed a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) on September 14, 2024. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to ONR for 

the potential harassment of two marine 

mammal species incidental to 

conducting a seventh year of ARA in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas that includes 

the previously explained mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements. 

Dated: September 17, 2024. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21561 Filed 9–19–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1