Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 7803 

may send an email to Mr. Kris 

Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@

noaa.gov) or contact him at (503) 820– 

2412 for technical assistance. 

Council address: Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, 

OR 97220–1384. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Kit Dahl, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; 

telephone: (503) 820–2422. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Drs. 

Harvey and Garfield of the NMFS 

Northwest and Southwest Fisheries 

Science Centers lead NOAA’s CCIEA 

Team, which produces the Ecosystem 

Status Report. It is presented to the 

Pacific Council annually at its March 

meeting. This annual reporting process 

was established through the Pacific 

Council’s Fishery Ecosystem Plan. 

These annual reports present a summary 

of environmental, biological, economic, 

and social indicators that give a 

snapshot of current ecosystem health. 

This information provides context for 

fishery management decisions taken by 

the Pacific Council throughout the year. 

The Pacific Council also regularly 

provides feedback to the CCIEA Team 

on potential improvements to the 

Report. This presentation is aimed at a 

broad audience of Council members, 

advisory body members, and the public. 

The CCIEA Team may follow up with 

more targeted discussions with advisory 

bodies during their March meetings, 

upon request. Drs. Harvey and Garfield 

will also brief the Council directly at its 

March meeting. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agenda may be 

discussed, those issues may not be the 

subject of formal action during this 

meeting. Action will be restricted to 

those issues specifically listed in this 

document and any issues arising after 

publication of this document that 

require emergency action under section 

305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

provided the public has been notified of 

the intent to take final action to address 

the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Mr. Kris 

Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@

noaa.gov; (503) 820–2412) at least 10 

days prior to the meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: February 7, 2022. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02842 Filed 2–9–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB657] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy 2022 

Ice Exercise Activities in the Arctic 

Ocean 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

U.S. Navy (Navy) to incidentally harass, 

by Level B harassment only, marine 

mammals during submarine training 

and testing activities including 

establishment of a tracking range on an 

ice floe in the Arctic Ocean, north of 

Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The Navy’s 

activities are considered military 

readiness activities pursuant to the 

MMPA, as amended by the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (2004 NDAA). 

DATES: This Authorization is effective 

from February 4, 2022 through April 30, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leah Davis, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

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

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

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 

incidental harassment authorization 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 mitigation, monitoring, 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

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 here qualifies as a 

military readiness activity. The 

definitions of all applicable MMPA 

statutory terms cited above are included 

in the relevant sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On August 26, 2021, NMFS received 

a request from the Navy for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to 

submarine training and testing activities 

including establishment of a tracking 

range on an ice floe in the Arctic Ocean, 

north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on November 4, 2021. The 

Navy’s request is for take of ringed seals 

(Pusa hispida) by Level B harassment 

only. Neither the Navy nor NMFS 

expects serious injury or mortality to 

result from this activity and, therefore, 

an IHA is appropriate. 

NMFS previously issued IHAs to the 

Navy for similar activities (83 FR 6522; 

February 14, 2018, 85 FR 6518; February 

5, 2020). The Navy complied with all 

the requirements (e.g., mitigation, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
7804 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 

monitoring, and reporting) of the 

previous IHAs and information 

regarding their monitoring results may 

be found below, in the Estimated Take 

section. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

The Navy proposes to conduct 

submarine training and testing 

activities, which includes the 

establishment of a tracking range and 

temporary ice camp, and research in the 

Arctic Ocean for six weeks beginning in 

February 2022. Submarine active 

acoustic transmissions may result in 

occurrence of Level B harassment, 

including temporary hearing 

impairment (temporary threshold shift 

(TTS)) and behavioral harassment, of 

ringed seals. A detailed description of 

the planned 2022 Ice Exercise (ICEX22) 

activities is provided in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (86 

FR 70451; December 10, 2021). Since 

that time, no changes have been made 

to the planned ICEX22 activities. 

Therefore, a detailed description is not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for the 

description of the specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue 

an IHA to the Navy was published in 

the Federal Register on December 10, 

2021 (86 FR 70451). That notice 

described, in detail, the Navy’s activity, 

the marine mammal species that may be 

affected by the activity, and the 

anticipated effects on marine mammals. 

During the 30-day public comment 

period, NMFS received comments from 

the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) 

and a member of the general public. 

Please see the CBD’s letter for full 

details regarding their recommendations 

and rationale. The letter is available 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities. A summary of all substantive 

comments as well as NMFS’ responses 

is below. 

Comment 1: CBD asserted that annual 

mortality and serious injury [for ringed 

seals] already exceeds Potential 

Biological Removal (PBR) and therefore 

additional take is not negligible and 

thus should not be authorized. CBD 

stated that the rationale that the stock’s 

population estimate is an underestimate 

because it is only a partial stock 

abundance is insufficient, and NMFS 

must therefore determine what the 

appropriate stock abundance and PBR 

are. 

Response: PBR is defined in section 3 

of 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’’ and, 

although not controlling, can be one 

measure considered among other factors 

when evaluating the effects of morality 

and serious injury (M/SI) on a marine 

mammal species or stock during the 

section 101(a)(5)(A) process. As stated 

in Muto et al. (2021), PBR ‘‘is defined 

as the product of the minimum 

population estimate, one-half the 

maximum theoretical net productivity 

rate, and a recovery factor: PBR = NMIN 

× 0.5RMAX × FR.’’ 

No serious injury or mortality is 

expected or authorized in this IHA and 

neither is the take by harassment 

expected to accrue in a manner that will 

impact the reproduction or survival of 

any individual marine mammals. 

Therefore, it is neither required nor 

appropriate to directly and/or 

quantitatively consider PBR in the 

negligible impact analysis of the take, by 

harassment only, authorized in this 

IHA. Rather, PBR, and the number of 

known mortalities per year are 

qualitatively considered as a gross 

indicator of stock status in the baseline 

of this analysis. Below, we reemphasize 

the basis for the negligible impact 

determination and, as a secondary 

matter, we further explain that the PBR 

values for this stock are likely 

significantly underestimated. 

Given that the calculation is based 

upon the minimum population estimate, 

if a minimum population estimate is 

negatively biased, the resulting PBR 

would be negatively biased as well. The 

PBR for the Alaska stock of ringed seals 

is based upon a minimum population 

estimate which is expected to be an 

underestimate for multiple reasons. 

First, the minimum and best population 

estimates for the stock reflect the Bering 

Sea population only, as reliable 

abundance estimates for the Chukchi 

Sea and Beaufort Sea, which are also 

included in the stock’s range, are not 

available. Further, the available 

abundance estimate for the Bering Sea 

population was not adjusted for seals in 

the water at the time of the surveys, nor 

does it include ringed seals in the 

shorefast ice zone; therefore, the partial 

abundance that is available, for the 

Bering Sea only, is an underestimate 

even for the Bering Sea portion of the 

stock alone. Therefore, the minimum 

population estimate (and best 

population estimate) and PBR for the 

Alaska stock of ringed seals are 

negatively biased (i.e., underestimates). 

PBR and information on annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources was presented in 

the notice of proposed IHA and is 

presented again in this notice of final 

IHA as gross indicators of the status of 

the Alaska stock of ringed seals, even 

though for the reasons discussed above 

and below, respectively, these numbers 

do not accurately reflect certain aspects 

of the status of the stock. 

As noted by the commenter, the 

abundance estimate and PBR considered 

by NMFS and included in the notice of 

proposed IHA (86 FR 70451, December 

10, 2021) and this final IHA, is a partial 

abundance, as reported in the 2020 

Alaska Stock Assessment Report (SAR; 

Muto et al. 2021). As stated above, the 

partial abundance estimate reflects the 

Bering Sea population only, as reliable 

abundance estimates for the Chukchi 

Sea and Beaufort Sea, which are also 

included in the stock’s range, are not 

available. Further, the available 

abundance estimate for the Bering Sea 

population was not adjusted for seals in 

the water at the time of the surveys, nor 

does it include ringed seals in the 

shorefast ice zone; therefore, the partial 

abundance that is available, for the 

Bering Sea only, is an underestimate 

even for the Bering Sea portion of the 

stock alone. And so, if a more accurate 

PBR were available, it would be higher, 

as it would be based on a higher, moreaccurate minimum abundance estimate. 

Muto et al. (2021) state that ‘‘researchers 

expect to provide a population estimate, 

corrected for availability bias, for the 

entire U.S. portion of the ringed seal 

stock once the final Bering Sea results 

are combined with the results from 

spring surveys of the Chukchi Sea 

(conducted in 2016) and Beaufort Sea 

(planned for 2020).’’ In the meantime, 

given the limited available information 

at this time, NMFS is not able to 

produce a stock abundance estimate and 

PBR that are more accurate than what 

NMFS included in the proposed IHA. 

No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized in this IHA. 

Even if serious injury and mortality 

from other sources (in this case, nearly 

all from Alaska Native subsistence 

harvest) exceeded what was accepted as 

a more accurate PBR, that would not 

inherently indicate that take by Level B 

harassment at the numbers and level 

authorized in this IHA would have more 

than a negligible impact on the stock, as 

implied by the commenter. (See further 

discussion below.) However, in this 

case, given that the abundance estimate 

and PBR are negatively biased for the 

reasons discussed above, it is unlikely 

that mortality and serious injury 

actually exceed the maximum number 

of animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 7805 

the Alaska ringed seal stock while 

allowing the stock to reach or maintain 

its optimum sustainable population. 

Regarding the number of takes 

authorized in this IHA in comparison to 

the population status, while we do 

typically assess the number, intensity, 

and context of estimated takes by 

evaluating this information relative to 

population status, as stated in the 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination section, NMFS also 

considers other factors, such as the 

likely nature of any responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

responses (e.g., critical reproductive 

time or location, migration), as well as 

effects on habitat, and the likely 

effectiveness of the mitigation. Further, 

consistent with the 1989 preamble for 

NMFS’s implementing regulations (54 

FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the 

impacts from other past and ongoing 

anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). PBR is one 

consideration included in this baseline 

as a gross indicator of stock status. 

Explicit quantitative consideration of 

PBR in the analysis was neither required 

nor appropriate, given that no serious 

injury or mortality was included in the 

proposed IHA, and none is authorized 

in this final IHA. NMFS’ preliminary 

and final negligible impact 

determinations do not depend solely on 

the stock abundance provided in the 

2020 Alaska SAR (and the accuracy of 

that abundance estimate). An accurate 

abundance estimate (and minimum 

population estimate) for the entire stock, 

which would include the unknown 

number of animals in the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas, in addition to the Bering 

Sea population which is reported in the 

2020 Alaska SAR, as well as adjust for 

uncounted animals in the water and 

animals in the shorefast ice zone at the 

time of the Bering Sea survey, is not 

necessary to make the negligible impact 

determination. (Though if a complete 

stock abundance were available, the 

number of takes authorized in this IHA 

in comparison to that abundance would 

be even lower than described in NMFS’ 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination herein, given that the 

stock abundance would be larger.) 

As described in the Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination section of 

the notice of the proposed IHA (86 FR 

70451; December 10, 2021) and this 

notice, the following factors primarily 

support our negligible impact 

determination: 

• No Level A harassment (injury), 

serious injury, or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Impacts will be limited to Level B 

harassment, primarily in the form of 

behavioral disturbance that results in 

minor changes in behavior; 

• TTS is expected to affect only a 

limited number of animals 

(approximately 0.5 percent of the partial 

stock abundance described in Table 1) 

and TTS is expected to be minor and 

short term; 

• The number of authorized takes is 

low relative to the estimated 

abundances of the affected stock, even 

given the extent to which abundance is 

significantly underestimated; 

• Submarine training and testing 

activities will occur over only 4 weeks 

of the total 6-week activity period; 

• There will be no loss or 

modification of ringed seal habitat and 

minimal, temporary impacts on prey; 

• Physical impacts to ringed seal 

subnivean lairs will be avoided; and 

• Mitigation requirements for ice 

camp activities will prevent impacts to 

ringed seals during the pupping season. 

Comment 2: CBD stated that the take 

estimates from modeling likely 

underestimate or incorrectly estimate 

take. NMFS relies on Navy’s modeling 

and a density of 0.3957 ringed seals per 

km2. It is unclear if this assumes an 

even distribution of seals throughout the 

Study Area, which would fail to account 

for concentrated activities near the Ice 

Camp Study Area. NMFS stated that 

‘‘[w]hile the total ICEX22 Study Area is 

large, the Navy expects that most 

activities would occur within the Ice 

Camp Study Area in relatively close 

proximity to the ice camp.’’ The density 

of ringed seals for this area has not been 

determined, and thus the modeling does 

not accurately estimate take. CBD 

asserted that there are likely more 

ringed seals near the Ice Camp Study 

Area than across the entire Study Area 

because they are in their home ranges 

near their subnivean lairs. 

Response: The Navy estimated take 

using the density of 0.3957 ringed seals 

per km2 as noted by the commenter, and 

NMFS concurs that this is currently the 

best available information. Information 

regarding the density of ice seals (which 

include ringed seals) in the Arctic 

Ocean is sparse. While the commenter 

suggests that NMFS and the Navy 

should use density data that is specific 

to the Ice Camp Study Area and the area 

in close proximity to the ice camp, 

given that most of the activities will 

occur there, NMFS and the Navy are not 

aware of any such data, and the 

commenter did not provide or reference 

any data which it thinks would be more 

appropriate than that used by the Navy 

and NMFS. Further, the statement that 

animals occur in their home ranges near 

their subnivean lairs does not support 

an assertion that there are likely more 

ringed seals near the Ice Camp Study 

Area than in other areas across the 

entire Study Area, as an animal’s home 

range is a separate concept from the 

density of animals in any given area. 

Comment 3: CBD stated that the 

assumption that having activities 

ongoing at the ice camp will dissuade 

ringed seals from pupping near the area 

should not be considered to mitigate 

harassment, and instead should be 

counted as additional take. Ringed seals 

build their subnivean lairs in habitat 

like that where the ice camp will be 

constructed. The proposed activities are 

planned during the season that the 

ringed seals give birth and raise their 

pups. Further, CBD stated that the 

assumption that a ringed seal may be 

able to relocate its pup or find another 

breathing hole due to human 

disturbance is naı ̈ve and fails to 

consider the energetic cost as well as 

predation risk that these seals may face. 

Response: Regarding the potential 

displacement of ringed seals to other 

pupping sites, NMFS would not 

consider it as mitigating harassment, 

rather, in the case of ICEX, we consider 

it unlikely to occur. As a general matter, 

on-ice activities could cause a seal that 

would have otherwise built a lair in the 

area of an activity to be displaced and 

therefore, construct a lair in a different 

area outside of an activity area, or a seal 

could choose to relocate to a different 

existing lair outside of an activity area. 

However, in the case of the ice camp 

associated with ICEX22, displacement 

of seal lair construction or relocation to 

existing lairs outside of the ice camp 

area is unlikely, given the low average 

density of lairs (the average ringed seal 

lair density in the vicinity of Prudhoe 

Bay, Alaska is 1.58 lairs per km2 (Table 

3 of the notice of the proposed IHA; 86 

FR 70451, December 10, 2021)), the 

relative footprint of the Navy’s planned 

ice camp (2 km2), the lack of previous 

ringed seal observations on the ice 

during ICEX activities, and mitigation 

requirements that require the Navy to 

construct the ice camp and runway on 

first-year or multi-year ice without 

pressure ridges and require personnel to 

avoid areas of deep snow drift or 

pressure ridges. We have clarified this 

explanation in the Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination section of 

this final notice. While the commenter 

is correct that ringed seals build their 

subnivean lairs in habitat similar to that 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
7806 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 

where the ice camp will be constructed, 

given that mitigation measures require 

that the ice camp and runway be 

established on first-year or multi-year 

ice without pressure ridges, where 

ringed seals tend to build their lairs, it 

is extremely unlikely that a ringed seal 

would build a lair in the vicinity of the 

ice camp. This measure, in combination 

with the other mitigation measures 

required for operation of the ice camp 

are expected to avoid impacts to the 

construction and use of ringed seal 

subnivean lairs, particularly given the 

already low average density of lairs, as 

described above. 

Regarding the commenter’s assertion 

that the assumption that a ringed seal 

may be able to relocate its pup or find 

another breathing hole due to human 

disturbance fails to consider the 

associated energetic cost and predation 

risk, NMFS has clarified in this 

response that for the reasons stated 

above, ringed seal lairs are not expected 

to occur in the ice camp study area, and 

therefore, NMFS does not expect ringed 

seals to relocate pups due to human 

disturbance from ice camp activities. 

Use of a breathing hole farther from the 

sound source, rather than one closer to 

the sound source, would be within the 

normal range of behavior (Kelly et al. 

1988), and would not necessarily have 

an increased energetic cost. While 

relocating to a different breathing hole 

could change predation risk, such a risk 

is scenario-specific and speculative, and 

it is not possible to determine such risk. 

Comment 4: CBD states that NMFS 

failed to provide an adequate 

explanation for discounting the impacts 

of the unusual mortality event (UME) on 

the cumulative effects of the proposed 

activities. New research about the event 

(that focused on spotted and ribbon 

seals) found that the body condition of 

the seals had declined, likely due to 

climate-related impacts on prey (Boveng 

et al., 2020). This long-lasting unusual 

mortality event cannot simply be 

ignored in the authorization of 

additional take of ice seals. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

commenter that we ‘‘discounted’’ the 

impacts of the ice seal UME (which 

includes ringed seals, bearded seals, and 

spotted seals), and we have not ignored 

it. Rather, NMFS stated that the take 

proposed for authorization (and now 

authorized here) does not provide a 

concern for ringed seals when 

considered in the context of these 

UMEs, especially given that the 

anticipated low-level and short-term 

take by Level B harassment is unlikely 

to affect the reproduction or survival of 

any individuals. That continues to be 

our conclusion. In addition, the ICEX22 

Study Area is in the Arctic Ocean, well 

north and east of the primary area where 

seals have stranded along the western 

coast of Alaska (see map of strandings 

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

alaska/marine-life-distress/2018-2022- 

ice-seal-unusual-mortality-eventalaska). No Level A harassment, serious 

injury, or mortality is expected or 

authorized, and take by Level B 

harassment of ringed seals will be 

reduced to the level of least practicable 

adverse impact through the 

incorporation of mitigation measures. 

As such, the authorized takes by Level 

B harassment of ringed seals are not 

expected to exacerbate or compound the 

ongoing UME. 

NOAA is investigating the UME, and 

has assembled an independent team of 

scientists to coordinate with the 

Working Group on Marine Mammal 

Unusual Mortality Events to review the 

data collected, sample stranded seals, 

and determine the next steps for the 

investigation. However, the study 

referenced by the commenter took place 

in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, 

far from the Navy’s proposed activity, 

and was conducted on spotted seals, 

ribbon seals, and harbor seals, none of 

which are authorized for taking through 

this IHA. (The current UME does not 

include harbor seals or ribbon seals, 

though as noted above, it does include 

spotted seals). 

Comment 5: CBD asserted that NMFS 

should consider new and additional 

information on marine mammal 

exposure criteria (Southall et al. 2019; 

2021). Additionally, CBD stated that 

NMFS relies on an ‘‘unsubstantiated’’ 

cut-off distance of 10 km that according 

to the Marine Mammal Commission 

‘‘contradicts the data underlying the 

Bayesian Behavioral Response 

Functions (BRFs), negates the intent of 

the functions themselves, and 

underestimates the numbers of takes’’ 

(Thomas, 2020). CBD states that NMFS 

should consider that at received levels 

of less than or equal to 140 dB (decibel) 

re 1 mPa (microPascal) some pinnipeds 

had strong reactions (Thomas, 2020). 

Response: As discussed further below, 

neither is the 10-km cut-off distance 

unsubstantiated nor does it contradict 

the BRFs. Received level and distance 

have been shown to independently 

affect how marine mammals respond to 

sound—the BRFs and the cut-off 

distances work together to consider how 

these two factors, respectively, can 

predict marine mammal responses. 

Separately, given the extensive 

development process, it is unreasonable 

to revise and update the criteria and risk 

functions every time a new paper is 

published, though both NMFS and the 

Navy review and consider the 

implications of any new papers as they 

arise. Further, we note that NMFS and 

the Navy are currently considering new 

information in development of the next 

version (Phase IV) of the Navy’s Criteria 

and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic 

and Explosive Effects Analysis. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

assertion that the 10 km cutoff distance 

is unsubstantiated, as we disagreed with 

the Marine Mammal Commission’s 

initial comment, cited by CBD in its 

letter. The derivation of the behavioral 

response functions and associated cutoff 

distances is provided in the Navy’s 

Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy 

Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis 

(Phase III) technical report (Navy 

2017a). The consideration of proximity 

(distance cutoff) was part of criteria 

developed in consultation with NMFS 

and was applied within the Navy’s BRF. 

Cutoffs representing the distances 

beyond which the potential of 

significant behavioral responses were 

considered to be unlikely were used in 

conducting analysis for ICEX22. The 

Navy’s BRF applied within these 

distances is an appropriate method for 

providing a realistic (but still 

conservative where some uncertainties 

exist) estimate of impact and potential 

take for these activities. 

Regarding consideration of pinniped 

reactions at received levels of less than 

or equal to 140 dB re 1 mPa, the current 

criteria (Phase III) use a slightly 

modified version of the Southall et al. 

(2007) severity scaling when 

considering pinniped reactions, 

including to exposures less than 140 dB 

SPL (sound pressure level), given that 

Southall et al. (2007) did not meet the 

criteria for inclusion (i.e., received level 

paired with observation of response). 

Pinniped data included in the Phase III 

BRFs did include reactions in grey seals 

slightly below 140 dB SPL, but these 

were captive studies conducted in a 

pool where the sound sources were 

within a few meters of the animal (Go ̈tz 

and Janik 2011). Therefore, the context 

(i.e., proximity to the source) was likely 

an important factor mediating the seals 

reactions. Significant behavioral 

reactions in pinnipeds have not been 

observed beyond a few kilometers. The 

Navy’s Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. 

Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects 

Analysis (Phase III), summarizes grey 

seal reactions on pg. 61, and individual 

experimental trials from Go ̈tz and Janik 

(2011) are summarized in Appendix B, 

starting on pg. 157, including several 

significant behavioral reactions. Go ̈tz 

(2008) and Gotz and Janik (2010) were 

not included in development of the 

criteria because they did not include 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 7807 

observations specific enough to pair 

received levels with behavioral 

reactions. 

Comment 6: CBD stated that NMFS 

discounts impacts from aircraft or 

incorrectly assumes complete 

mitigation. CBD asserted that some 

pinnipeds are equally susceptible to 

noise in air as in water (Kastak et al. 

2007). Southall (2019) provides in-air 

PTS (154 dB SEL) and TTS (134 dB SEL) 

thresholds for pinnipeds. Ice seals are 

sensitive to out-of-water noise, 

including hauling out in response to 

aircraft noise (Bradford et al. 1999). 

Response: While NMFS agrees with 

the commenter that in some situations 

in-air noise can result in take of marine 

mammals, NMFS assessed the impacts 

of aircraft for the Navy’s ICEX22 

activities and does not expect aircraft 

noise from this project to take marine 

mammals given the required mitigation 

included in the IHA. Born et al. (1999) 

analyzed ‘‘escape responses’’ (i.e., 

hauled out ringed seals entering the 

water) from an aircraft and a helicopter 

flying at an altitude of 150 m (164 yd). 

The results of the study indicated that 

if the aircraft do not approach the seals 

closer than 500 m (547 yd) at that 

altitude, the risk of flushing the seals 

into the water can be greatly reduced. In 

a separate paper, Bradford and Weller 

(2005) noted that helicopter presence 

resulted in flushing of most of the 

hauled out seals during observations, 

though they did not note specific 

distances of the helicopter at which 

flushing occurred. 

The final IHA requires that fixed wing 

aircraft must operate at the highest 

altitudes practicable taking into account 

safety of personnel, meteorological 

conditions, and need to support safe 

operations of a drifting ice camp. 

Aircraft must not reduce altitude if a 

seal is observed on the ice. In general, 

cruising elevation must be 305 m (1,000 

ft) or higher. This altitude is 

significantly higher than the 150 m (164 

yd) aircraft and helicopter altitudes 

analyzed in Born et al. (1999). 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

must maintain a minimum altitude of at 

least 15.2 m (50 ft) above the ice. They 

must not be used to track or follow 

marine mammals. Further, helicopter 

flights must use prescribed transit 

corridors when traveling to or from 

Prudhoe Bay and the ice camp. 

Helicopters must not hover or circle 

above marine mammals or within 457 m 

(1,500 ft) of marine mammals, and 

aircraft must maintain a minimum 

separation distance of 1.6 km (1 mi) 

from groups of 5 or more seals and must 

not land on ice within 800 m (0.5 mi) 

of hauled-out seals. These measures are 

expected to prevent the take of marine 

mammals from aircraft and UASs, and 

the commenter has not offered data that 

suggests otherwise. 

Comment 7: CBD asserted that the 

proposed mitigation fails to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact. First, 

the proposed IHA does not include any 

mitigation for the sonar. There are 

several additional mitigation measures 

that would reduce the potential for 

harassment of marine mammals 

including: 

• Placing a cap on the overall use of 

sonar to ensure the lowest level of 

marine mammal disturbance; 

• Requiring that activities conclude 

before April when bowhead whales 

migrate into the area; 

• Requiring passive acoustic and/or 

thermal monitoring and restricting sonar 

in the presence of marine mammals or 

aggregations of marine mammals; and 

• Limiting the number of aircraft 

transits and prohibiting dipping sonar. 

Response: The commenter appears to 

have overlooked required mitigation 

measures for sonar that were included 

in the proposed IHA and are included 

in the final IHA. The mitigation 

measures ‘‘for activities involving 

acoustic transmissions’’ described in the 

proposed and final IHAs apply to sonar. 

These measures include the following: 

(1) Personnel must begin passive 

acoustic monitoring (PAM) for 

vocalizing marine mammals 15 minutes 

prior to the start of activities involving 

active acoustic transmissions from 

submarines and exercise weapons. (2) 

Personnel must delay active acoustic 

transmissions and exercise weapon 

launches if a marine mammal is 

detected during pre-activity PAM and 

must shutdown active acoustic 

transmissions if a marine mammal is 

detected during acoustic transmissions. 

(3) Personnel must not restart acoustic 

transmissions or exercise weapon 

launches until 15 minutes have passed 

with no marine mammal detections. 

Regarding the commenter’s 

recommendation that NMFS place a 

‘‘cap’’ on the overall use of sonar to 

ensure the lowest level of marine 

mammal disturbance, the Navy must 

use the amount of sonar required to 

successfully conduct the activity, and 

such a limit set by NMFS is, therefore, 

not practicable. Unlike incidental take 

authorizations in other Navy training 

and testing areas that include limits on 

sonar use in certain areas during certain 

times, such as in the Navy’s Northwest 

Training and Testing Area, ICEX22 is 

limited in duration and scope, and there 

are no known Biologically Important 

Areas or other factors that warrant a 

time/area restriction in the ICEX22 Navy 

Activity Study Area. 

Regarding the commenter’s 

recommendation that NMFS require that 

activities conclude before April when 

bowhead whales migrate into the area, 

NMFS has, by default, required that the 

Navy’s activities that have the potential 

to harass marine mammals conclude by 

the end of April, as that is when the IHA 

expires. Please see Comment 11 for 

additional information regarding NMFS’ 

conclusion that bowhead whales are not 

likely to be in the Navy Activity Study 

Area before the end of April, and 

therefore will not be taken during 

ICEX22. 

Regarding the commenter’s 

recommendation that NMFS require 

PAM and/or thermal monitoring and 

restrict sonar use in the presence of 

marine mammals or aggregations of 

marine mammals, NMFS had already 

included such measures in the proposed 

IHA, and has included them in this final 

IHA, as described in the first paragraph 

of this comment response. 

Regarding the commenter’s 

recommendation that NMFS limit the 

number of aircraft transits and prohibit 

dipping sonar, the Navy is already 

minimizing the number of aircraft 

transits to only those that are necessary 

for successful completion of the ICEX22 

activity, and therefore, an additional 

limit set by NMFS is not practicable. 

(See Sections 2.1.3 (Prudhoe Bay) and 

2.2.2 (Aircraft) of the 2022 ICEX EA/ 

OEA for additional information 

regarding planned aircraft use in 

ICEX22.) Dipping sonar is not a part of 

the Navy’s planned ICEX22 activities 

(see the Navy’s ICEX22 IHA 

application), nor has the Navy utilized 

dipping sonar in 2018 or 2020 ICEX 

activities. Therefore, a prohibition on 

dipping sonar is not warranted. 

Comment 8: CBD stated that the 

mitigation for ice camps, while good, 

could be more robust to ensure that 

ringed seals are not disturbed. For 

example, there are not any mitigation 

measures designed for ringed seals that 

may be present in the ice camp area or 

for pupping ice seals. 

Response: The mitigation measures 

included in the proposed IHA, and this 

final IHA, include measures to avoid 

impacts to ringed seal subnivean lairs, 

which is where ringed seals would be 

expected to occur in the area if they 

were out of the water during the 

February to April timeframe. 

It is unclear what the commenter 

means by its suggested inclusion of 

‘‘mitigation measures designed for 

ringed seals that may be present in the 

ice camp area or for pupping ice seals’’ 

and the commenter has not suggested 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
7808 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 

any additional measures that would 

satisfy this vague recommendation, 

beyond what NMFS has already 

included in the proposed and final IHA. 

As discussed in the response to 

Comment 3, given the expected density 

of ringed seal lairs in the Ice Camp 

Study Area, the relative footprint of the 

Navy’s planned ice camp (2 km2), the 

lack of previous ringed seal observations 

on the ice during ICEX activities, and 

mitigation requirements that require the 

Navy to construct the ice camp and 

runway on first-year or multi-year ice 

without pressure ridges and require 

personnel to avoid areas of deep snow 

drift or pressure ridges, ringed seal pups 

are not anticipated to occur in the 

vicinity of the ice camp at the 

commencement of and during ICEX22 

activities. 

Comment 9: CBD stated that the 

monitoring provisions are woefully 

insufficient by only requiring reporting 

of dead and injured seals, and stated 

that there should, at minimum, also be 

monitoring and reporting of harassment 

of any marine mammals. 

Response: The Navy is required to 

conduct far more monitoring and 

reporting than just reporting 

observations of injured and dead marine 

mammals. As stated in the proposed 

IHA, and in this final IHA, in addition 

to reporting observations of injured or 

dead marine mammals, the Navy is 

required to submit an exercise 

monitoring report which will include 

the number of marine mammals sighted, 

by species, and any other available 

information about the sighting(s) such 

as date, time, and approximate location 

(latitude and longitude). The Navy must 

also report data regarding sonar use and 

the number of shutdowns during 

ICEX22 activities in the Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing (AFTT) Letter of 

Authorization 2023 annual classified 

report. The Navy is also required to 

analyze any declassified underwater 

recordings collected during ICEX22 for 

marine mammal vocalizations and 

report that information to NMFS, 

including the types and natures of 

sounds heard (e.g., clicks, whistles, 

creaks, burst pulses, continuous, 

sporadic, strength of signal) and the 

species or taxonomic group (if 

determinable). This information will 

also be submitted to NMFS with the 

2023 annual AFTT declassified 

monitoring report. Further, as stated in 

the Monitoring and Reporting section of 

this notice, the Navy is also now 

exploring the potential of implementing 

an environmental DNA (eDNA) study on 

ice seals. 

Comment 10: CBD stated that there 

cannot be a renewal of this 

authorization because the renewal 

process violates section 101(a)(5)(D) of 

the MMPA. Also, this authorization 

should not be eligible for a renewal 

because the activities are supposed to 

finish in April, and thus are far less than 

would need to be continued next year. 

The activities must be concluded on 

time to avoid additional take of 

bowhead whales and other protected 

species. Additionally, CBD stated that 

the Navy only conducts ICEX every 2 or 

3 years; and therefore, even if the 

activity is similar next time, it is not 

eligible for a one-year renewal. 

Response: In prior responses to 

comments about IHA renewals (e.g., 84 

FR 52464; October 02, 2019 and 85 FR 

53342, August 28, 2020), NMFS has 

explained how the renewal process, as 

implemented, is consistent with the 

statutory requirements contained in 

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

provides additional efficiencies beyond 

the use of abbreviated notices and, 

further, promotes NMFS’ goals of 

improving conservation of marine 

mammals and increasing efficiency in 

the MMPA compliance process. 

Therefore, we intend to continue 

implementing the renewal process. 

Regarding the commenters assertion 

that this particular activity does not 

qualify for a renewal IHA, NMFS 

considers renewals on a case-by-case 

basis, and would consider the eligibility 

of a request for a renewal if and when 

such a request is received from the 

Navy. 

Regarding the commenter’s statement 

that the activities must be concluded on 

time to avoid take of bowhead whales 

and other protected species, the Navy’s 

authorization, which authorizes take of 

ringed seals only, expires April 30, 

2022. Therefore, activities which may 

result in the take of marine mammals 

must be completed by that date. The 

final IHA explicitly prohibits the take of 

any other species of marine mammal, 

other than ringed seals as authorized. 

Please also refer to the response to 

Comment 11, which describes why 

bowhead whales are not expected to 

occur in the Study Area during the 

Navy’s ICEX22 activities. 

Comment 11: CBD stated that the 

determination that there will be no take 

of other marine mammals within NMFS’ 

jurisdiction seems insufficiently 

supported. NMFS acknowledges that 

bearded seals are present in the area 

during the project timeframe; however, 

it discounts the potential impact on 

bearded seals because they are unlikely 

to be near the ice camp or where 

submarine activities would be 

conducted. This fails to consider that 

noise from sonar can travel great 

distances, and that even if a bearded 

seal does not dive to 800 m or would 

prefer other habitat with benthic 

organisms, this does not preclude 

harassment impacts from more distant 

submarine activities. 

CBD also stated that endangered 

bowhead whales migrate through the 

area and may be present during the end 

of the ICEX activities. 

Response: Regarding bearded seals, 

although acoustic data indicate that 

some bearded seals remain in the 

Beaufort Sea year round (MacIntyre et 

al. 2013, 2015; Jones et al. 2014), 

satellite tagging data (Boveng and 

Cameron 2013; ADF&G 2017) show that 

large numbers of bearded seals move 

south in fall/winter with the advancing 

ice edge to spend the winter in the 

Bering Sea, confirming previous visual 

observations (Burns and Frost 1979; 

Frost et al. 2008; Cameron and Boveng 

2009). The southward movement of 

bearded seals in the fall means that very 

few individuals are expected to occur 

along the Beaufort Sea continental shelf 

in February through April, the 

timeframe ICEX22 activities. The 

northward spring migration through the 

Bering Strait, begins in mid-April 

(Burns and Frost 1979). 

In the event some bearded seals were 

to remain in the Beaufort Sea during the 

season when ICEX22 activities will 

occur, the most probable area in which 

bearded seals might occur during winter 

months is along the continental shelf. 

Bearded seals feed extensively on 

benthic invertebrates (e.g., clams, 

gastropods, crabs, shrimp, bottomdwelling fish; Quakenbush et al. 2011; 

Cameron et al. 2010) and are typically 

found in water depths of 200 m (656 ft) 

or less (Burns 1970). The Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 

conducted an aerial survey from June 

through October that covered the 

shallow Beaufort and Chukchi Sea shelf 

waters, and observed bearded seals from 

Point Barrow to the border of Canada 

(Clarke et al. 2015). The farthest from 

shore that bearded seals were observed 

was the waters of the continental slope 

(though this study was conducted 

outside of the ICEX22 time frame). The 

Navy anticipates that the ice camp will 

be established 185–370 km (100–200 

nmi) north of Prudhoe Bay in water 

depths of 800 m (2,625 ft) or more. The 

continental shelf near Prudhoe Bay is 

approximately 55 nmi (100 km) wide. 

Therefore, even if the ice camp were 

established at the closest estimated 

distance (100 nmi from Prudhoe Bay), it 

would still be approximately 45 nmi (83 

km) distant from habitat potentially 

occupied by bearded seals. Empirical 

evidence has not shown responses to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 7809 

sonar that would constitute take beyond 

a few km from an acoustic source, and 

therefore, NMFS and the Navy 

conservatively set a distance cutoff of 10 

km. Regardless of the source level at 

that distance, take is not estimated to 

occur beyond 10 km from the source. 

Although bearded seals are found 20 to 

100 nmi (37 to 185 km) offshore during 

spring (Simpkins et al. 2003, Bengtson 

et al. 2005), during the winter we expect 

bearded seals to select habitats where 

food is abundant and easily accessible 

to minimize the energy required to 

forage and maximize energy reserves in 

preparation for whelping, lactation, 

mating, and molting. Bearded seals are 

not known to dive to 800 m to forage 

and it is highly unlikely that they would 

occur near the ice camp or where the 

research activities will be conducted. 

This conclusion is supported by the fact 

that the Navy did not visually observe 

or acoustically detect bearded seals 

during required PAM during the 2020 

ice exercises. 

Regarding bowhead whales, NMFS 

provided a detailed description of their 

migratory route and the typical timing 

of their northward migration in the 

notice of the proposed IHA (86 FR 

70451; December 10, 2021). As 

explained in that notice, bowhead 

whales are unlikely to occur in the Navy 

Activity Study Area between February 

and April, as they spend winter 

(December to March) in the northern 

Bering Sea and southern Chukchi Sea, 

and migrate north through the Chukchi 

Sea and Beaufort Sea during April and 

May (Muto et al. 2021). On their spring 

migration, the earliest that bowhead 

whales reach Point Hope in the Chukchi 

Sea, well south of Point Barrow, is late 

March to mid-April (Braham et al. 

1980). Although the ice camp location is 

not known with certainty, the distance 

between Point Barrow and the closest 

edge of the Ice Camp Study Area is over 

200 km. The distance between Point 

Barrow and the closest edge of the Navy 

Activity Study Area is over 50 km, and 

the distance between Point Barrow and 

Point Hope is an additional 525 km 

(straight line distance); accordingly, 

bowhead whales are unlikely to occur in 

the ICEX22 Study Area before ICEX22 

activities conclude. NMFS is not aware 

of, nor has the commenter provided, 

information that suggests that bowhead 

whales would be present in the Navy 

Activity Study Area during the planned 

ICEX22 activities. 

Comment 12: CBD stated that NMFS 

should better analyze the potential 

impacts on subsistence harvest. CBD 

asserted that because serious injury and 

mortality are already over PBR, 

authorization of additional take from 

sources other than subsistence harvest 

may reduce availability of ice seals. 

NMFS must either provide more data 

and support its assumption that the 

population estimate for the stock is 

wrong or provide a more robust analysis 

of the potential impacts on subsistence 

harvest. 

Response: See the response to 

Comment 1 for discussion of PBR. 

Further, NMFS’ unmitigable adverse 

impact determination is not based upon 

the abundance estimate for the Alaska 

stock of ringed seals. 

Impacts to marine mammals from the 

specified activity will mostly include 

limited, temporary behavioral 

disturbances of ringed seals; however, 

some TTS is also anticipated. No Level 

A harassment (injury), serious injury, or 

mortality of marine mammals is 

expected or authorized, and the 

activities are not expected to have any 

impacts on the reproduction or survival 

of any animals. NMFS’ determination is 

based on the anticipated effects to 

marine mammals (take by Level B 

harassment only), the short-term, 

temporary nature of the ICEX22 

activities which will occur outside of 

the primary subsistence hunting seas, 

and the distance offshore from known 

subsistence hunting areas. (The Study 

Area boundary is seaward of subsistence 

hunting areas, approximately 50 km 

from shore at the closest point, though 

exercises will occur farther offshore.) 

Further, the Navy plans to provide 

advance public notice to local residents 

and other users of the Prudhoe Bay 

region of Navy activities and measures 

used to reduce impacts on resources. 

This includes notification to local 

Alaska Natives who hunt marine 

mammals for subsistence. If any Alaska 

Natives express concerns regarding 

project impacts to subsistence hunting 

of marine mammals, the Navy will 

further communicate with the 

concerned individuals or community. 

The Navy will provide project 

information and clarification of any 

mitigation measures that may reduce 

impacts to marine mammals. While it 

seems clear that ringed seals generally 

are an important subsistence species for 

Alaska Natives, no concerns specific to 

this activity have been expressed so far. 

Apart from clarifying that the 

unmitigable adverse impact 

determination is not based upon the 

abundance estimate for the Alaska stock 

of ringed seals, it is unclear what the 

commenter would consider a ‘‘better’’ 

analysis of the potential impacts on 

subsistence harvest. 

Comment 13: CBD asserted that 

because of the impacts on threatened 

and endangered species and their 

critical habitat, the Finding of No 

Significant Impact is arbitrary, and the 

Navy should have prepared an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

Response: The Navy has drafted the 

EA to analyze the full scope of ICEX22 

activities, given that conducting the 

ICEX22 activities is their proposed 

action. NMFS’ authority is limited to the 

issuance, if appropriate, of an IHA for 

the take of marine mammals that it 

manages. However, NMFS concurs with 

the analysis presented in the 2022 ICEX 

EA. Regarding issuance of an IHA to the 

Navy, given the scope of the impacts of 

the Navy’s activity on marine mammals 

that NMFS manages, NMFS finds that 

the 2022 ICEX EA fully supports NMFS’ 

Finding of No Significant Impact, which 

was made following finalization of the 

EA. Given that the comment is directed 

at the Navy and NMFS’ role in 

managing the resources analyzed in the 

EA is limited, NMFS provided this 

comment to the Navy to consider for the 

final EA. 

In response, the Navy has explained 

that in accordance with requirements of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and Executive Order 12114, the 

Navy analyzed all potential impacts 

resulting from the proposed action and 

found that the short-term effects, the 

absence of injury or mortality, and the 

planned mitigation implementation 

resulted in no significant impact or 

significant harm to the resources. The 

Navy’s consultations with NMFS and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also 

support these findings and therefore, an 

EIS is not required. 

Separately, of note, as stated in the 

Endangered Species Act section of this 

notice, NMFS’ Alaska Regional Office 

Protected Resources Division issued a 

Biological Opinion on January 31, 2022, 

which concluded that the Navy’s 

activities and NMFS’ issuance of an IHA 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the Arctic stock 

of ringed seals. As described in the 

notice of the proposed IHA, NMFS has 

proposed Designation of Critical Habitat 

for the Arctic Subspecies of the Ringed 

Seal (86 FR 1452; January 8, 2021). 

However, this proposed critical habitat 

has not been finalized. 

Comment 14: CBD stated that the 

2022 ICEX EA fails to analyze any 

alternatives beyond the no-action 

alternative. CBD stated that NMFS 

should consider an alternative that 

incorporates additional mitigation 

measures such as limits on sonar, time 

restrictions, passive acoustic and/or 

thermal monitoring, and limits on 

aircraft. 

Response: As discussed in the 

response to Comment 13, NMFS 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
7810 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 

considers the analysis in the 2022 ICEX 

EA, including its discussion of 

alternatives, sufficient to support a 

Finding of No Significant Impact with 

respect to the issuance of an IHA. As 

discussed in NMFS’ response to 

Comment 7, the proposed and final 

IHAs require that the Navy conduct 

PAM for marine mammals, and that the 

Navy delay or shut down active acoustic 

transmissions if a marine mammal is 

detected during pre-activity PAM or 

during acoustic transmissions, 

respectively. These measures are 

considered as part of the proposed 

action in the EA. However, an 

alternative that incorporated the 

additional mitigation measures 

identified by the commenter would not 

be viable. The limits on aircraft and 

sonar recommended by the commenter 

for inclusion in a new alternative in the 

2022 ICEX EA cannot be implemented 

by the Navy for the reasons described in 

the response to Comment 7. It is unclear 

what the commenter means by its 

suggested time restrictions, however, 

the Navy has selected the February to 

April time period due to the 

environmental conditions required to 

successfully complete the exercises. 

Comment 15: CBD stated that NMFS, 

which is charged with protecting marine 

mammals, cannot adopt the Navy’s 

purpose and need for military activities 

such as evaluating the employment and 

tactics of submarine operability in 

Arctic conditions. 

Response: Section 1.2 of the 2022 

ICEX Draft EA and the Final EA state 

NMFS’ purpose and need, which are 

separate from that of the Navy. As stated 

in Section 1.2, NMFS’ purpose is to 

evaluate the Navy’s Proposed Action 

pursuant to NMFS’ authority under the 

MMPA, and to make a determination 

whether to issue an IHA, including any 

conditions or mitigation measures along 

with monitoring and reporting 

requirements needed to meet the 

statutory requirements of the MMPA. As 

also stated in Section 1.2, the need for 

NMFS’ proposed action is to consider 

the impacts of the Navy’s activities on 

marine mammals and meet NMFS’ 

obligations under the MMPA. 

Comment 16: CBD states that the EA 

fails to adequately examine important 

environmental effects, and that it suffers 

from some of the same flaws as the 

negligible impact determination. For 

example, it underestimates the potential 

impact of the activities on ringed seals, 

the impacts of sonar, and discounts all 

impacts on wildlife other than ice seals. 

The EA assumes that avoidance and 

displacement of ringed seals will 

mitigate impacts, but instead they 

displace ringed seals from preferred 

habitat and constitute a taking. 

Response: Please see Comment 1 for 

NMFS’ response to the alleged ‘‘flaws’’ 

identified by the commenter in the 

negligible impact determination, and 

see Comment 3 for NMFS’ response to 

the commenter’s concerns regarding 

potential avoidance and displacement of 

ringed seals. Those responses also 

address analysis of the impacts of the 

Navy’s activity on ringed seals, 

including impacts of sonar and the 

potential for avoidance and 

displacement of ringed seals in the EA. 

Otherwise, NMFS has provided this 

comment to the Navy to consider as it 

relates to the impacts of sonar and 

impacts on wildlife other than ice seals 

for which NMFS does not have 

management authority. 

In response, the Navy has explained 

that the 2022 ICEX EA analyzed all 

resources and all potential affects as a 

result of its Proposed Action. The Navy 

consulted with NMFS regarding impacts 

to bearded seals and ringed seals, and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

regarding polar bears. The effects of 

sonar were analyzed using the best 

available science and the Navy 

conducted extensive modeling to 

determine potential effects, which 

resulted in the Navy requesting an IHA 

from NMFS. 

Comment 17: CBD stated that it finds 

the assumption that polar bears will not 

be harassed, displaced, or disturbed by 

the proposed activities particularly 

troubling. CBD referenced instances of 

disturbance of polar bears by snow 

machine noise, and raised concerns 

about impacts of noise on denning polar 

bears. 

Response: Polar bears are managed by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rather 

than NMFS. Therefore, NMFS has 

provided this comment to the Navy to 

consider for the final EA. 

Comment 18: CBD states that the EA 

fails to adequately consider the impacts 

of climate change both on the proposed 

activities as well as the additional 

pressure that the activities exert on 

arctic wildlife that is already threatened 

by climate change. The commenter 

stated that the primary threat facing 

ringed seals is habitat alteration flowing 

from climate change due to its effects on 

sea ice and snow cover, which ringed 

seals depend on for pupping, nursing, 

molting, and resting (Andersen, Kovacs 

and Lydersen, N.D.; Boucher 2018; 

Boucher 2019; Crain et al. 2021; 

Crawford et al. 2019; Fauchald et al. 

2017; Ferguson et al. 2017, 2020; Hezel 

et al. 2012; Hamilton et al. 2015, 2018, 

2019; Hamilton, Kovacs and Lydersen 

2019; Harwood et al. 2020; Karpovich, 

Horstmann and Polasek 2020; Lone et 

al. 2019; Lydersen et al. 2017; MartinezBakker et al. 2013; Reimer et al. 2019; 

Ritchie 2018; Von Duyke et al. 2020; 

Yurkowski, David J., et al. 2019). The 

commenter states that ocean warming 

and acidification resulting from 

increased CO2 emissions also alter prey 

populations and other ecosystem 

dynamics important to the listed ringed 

seals (77 FR 76708, December 28, 2012; 

Andersen, Kovacs and Lydersen, N.D.; 

Beltran et al. 2016; Boucher 2018; 

Hamilton et al. 2016; Lowther et al. 

2017; Matley, Fisk and Dick 2015; Wang 

et al. 2016a, 2016b; Young and Ferguson 

2013, 2014).CBD further stated that the 

proposed activities deepen the 

imperilment of climate-threatened ice 

seals, polar bears, and other wildlife, 

and that the cursory cumulative impacts 

analysis lacks any substance or 

discussion of other actions in the area 

such as oil and gas, shipping, and 

fishing activities (77 FR 76712, 

December 28, 2012; Andersen, Kovacs 

and Lydersen, N.D.; Lomac-Macnair, 

Andrade and Esteves 2019; Muto 2021; 

Siddon, Zador and Hunt Jr. 2020; Von 

Duyke et al. 2020; Yurkowski et al. 

2019). 

Response: NMFS has considered 

CBD’s comments regarding the impacts 

of climate change on ringed seals, and 

additional analysis has been added to 

the final 2022 ICEX EA/OEA. As stated 

in the final 2022 ICEX EA/OEA, the 

habitat of Arctic species has been 

altered by the warming climate, and 

scientific consensus projects continued 

and accelerated warming in the 

foreseeable future. This continued 

warming will decrease sea ice and snow 

cover that seals and polar bears rely on 

throughout their lifecycle. Ringed seals 

use sea ice for resting, whelping, and 

molting, while polar bears primarily use 

it for hunting, mating, and maternity 

denning. Climate change has caused a 

reduction in the distribution, 

abundance, and body condition of 

Arctic species. Additionally, ocean 

warming and acidification alter prey 

populations that marine mammal 

species rely on, and increase 

competition with subarctic species 

(Laidre et al. 2008). Although climate 

change is a continuing threat to Arctic 

species, activities conducted during 

ICEX will have an inconsequential 

additional impact since they are 

temporary, and planned mitigation 

measures are expected to reduce 

impacts to protected species during the 

activities. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 7811 

Changes From the Proposed IHA to 

Final IHA 

NMFS slightly modified the IHA start 

date. The proposed IHA reflected a start 

date of February 1, 2022, while the final 

IHA becomes effective February 4, 2022. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’ SARs (https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-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, 

and summarizes information related to 

the population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and potential 

biological removal (PBR), where known. 

For taxonomy, we follow Committee on 

Taxonomy (2021). 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 from 

anthropogenic sources are included in 

Table 1 as gross indicators of the status 

of the species and other threats. That 

said, in this case for the Arctic stock of 

ringed seals and as explained in 

footnotes 6 and 7 of Table 1, the lack of 

complete population information 

significantly impacts the usefulness of 

PBR in considering the status of the 

stock, as explained below. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

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’s U.S. Alaska SARs (Muto et al. 

2021). All values presented in Table 1 

are the most recent available at the time 

of publication and are available in the 

2020 Alaska SAR (Muto et al. 2021) and 

draft 2021 Alaska SAR (available online 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

draft-marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports). However, for the 

same reason noted above and as 

described in footnotes 4 and 5 of Table 

1, the lack of complete population 

information for the Arctic stock of 

ringed seals impacts the usefulness of 

these numbers in considering the 

impacts of the anticipated take on the 

stock. 

TABLE 1—SPECIES THAT SPATIALLY CO-OCCUR WITH THE ACTIVITY TO THE DEGREE THAT TAKE IS REASONABLY LIKELY

TO OCCUR

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV; Nmin; most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Ringed seal ......................... Pusa hispida ............................. Arctic ......................................... T/D;Y 171,418 4 5, (N/A, 

158,507 4 5; 2013).

6 4,755 7 6,459 

1ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused 

mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under 

the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 3This value, found in NMFS’ SARs, represents annual levels of human-caused mortality (M) plus serious injury (SI) from all sources combined (e.g., commercial 

fisheries, ship strike). 4These estimates reflect the Bering Sea population only, as reliable abundance estimates for the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea are not available. 

5This is expected to be an underestimate of ringed seals in the Bering Sea, as the estimate was not adjusted for seals in the water at the time of the surveys, nor 

does it include ringed seals in the shorefast ice zone. 6The PBR value for this stock is based on a partial stock abundance estimate, and is therefore an underestimate for the full stock. 7The majority of the M/SI for this stock (6,454 of 6,459 animals) is a result of the Alaska Native subsistence harvest. While M/SI appears to exceed PBR, given 

that the reported PBR is based on a partial stock abundance estimate, and is therefore an underestimate for the full stock, M/SI likely does not exceed PBR. 

As indicated in Table 1, ringed seals 

(with one managed stock) temporally 

and spatially co-occur with the activity 

to the degree that take is reasonably 

likely to occur, and we have authorized 

such take. A detailed description of the 

Arctic stock of ringed seals, including 

brief introductions to the species and 

stock, available information regarding 

population trends and threats, 

information regarding local occurrence, 

proposed ESA-designated Critical 

Habitat, and information regarding a 

current UME were provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (86 FR 70451; December 10, 2021). 

Since that time, we are not aware of any 

changes in the status of the Arctic stock 

of ringed seals, and 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. 

As described in footnotes 4, 5, 6, and 

7 of Table 1, the lack of complete 

population information significantly 

impacts the usefulness of abundance 

estimates and PBR for this stock. The 

PBR for the Alaska stock of ringed seals 

is based upon a minimum population 

estimate that is expected to be an 

underestimate, as it is an estimate for 

just a portion of the stock’s range, and 

that estimate was also not corrected for 

seals in the water or shorefast ice zone 

during the survey. Therefore, the 

minimum population estimate (and best 

population estimate) and PBR for the 

Alaska stock of ringed seals are 

negatively biased (i.e., underestimates). 

These metrics are considered as gross 

indicators of the stock status; however, 

an accurate abundance estimate and 

PBR for the entire stock is not necessary 

to make the negligible impact 

determination. For the full discussion 

on this issue, see our response to 

Comment 1. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
7812 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 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 and 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 ∼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 and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Only ringed seals 

(a phocid pinniped species) have the 

reasonable potential to co-occur with 

the planned ICEX22 activities. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The underwater noise from the Navy’s 

submarine training and testing activities 

has the potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the ICEX22 Study Area. The 

notice of the proposed IHA (86 FR 

70451; December 10, 2021) included a 

discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from the Navy’s 

activities on marine mammals and their 

habitat. That information and analysis is 

incorporated by reference into this final 

IHA determination and is not repeated 

here; please refer to the notice of 

proposed IHA (86 FR 70451; December 

10, 2021). 

Estimated Take 

This section provides the number of 

incidental takes estimated to occur, 

which will inform NMFS’ analysis for 

the negligible impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

For this military readiness activity, the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as (i) Any 

act that injures or has the significant 

potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild (Level 

A harassment); or (ii) Any act that 

disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of natural 

behavioral patterns, including, but not 

limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a 

point where the behavioral patterns are 

abandoned or significantly altered 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes for the Navy’s 

ICEX22 activities are by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns and/or 

TTS for individual marine mammals 

resulting from exposure to acoustic 

transmissions. Based on the nature of 

the activity, Level A harassment is 

neither anticipated nor authorized. As 

described previously, no mortality or 

serious injury is anticipated or 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the incidental take is 

estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally disturbed 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. For this 

IHA, the Navy employed a sophisticated 

model known as the Navy Acoustic 

Effects Model (NAEMO) to assess the 

estimated impacts of underwater sound. 

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 disturbed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur permanent 

threshold shift (PTS) of some degree 

(equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment by behavioral 

disturbance for non-explosive sources— 

In coordination with NMFS, the Navy 

developed behavioral thresholds to 

support environmental analyses for the 

Navy’s testing and training military 

readiness activities utilizing active 

sonar sources; these behavioral 

harassment thresholds are used here to 

evaluate the potential effects of the 

active sonar components of the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 7813 

specified activities. The behavioral 

response of a marine mammal to an 

anthropogenic sound will depend on 

the frequency, duration, temporal 

pattern, and amplitude of the sound as 

well as the animal’s prior experience 

with the sound and the context in 

which the sound is encountered (i.e., 

what the animal is doing at the time of 

the exposure). The distance from the 

sound source and whether it is 

perceived as approaching or moving 

away can also affect the way an animal 

responds to a sound (Wartzok et al. 

2003). For marine mammals, a review of 

responses to anthropogenic sound was 

first conducted by Richardson et al. 

(1995). Reviews by Nowacek et al. 

(2007) and Southall et al. (2007) address 

studies conducted since 1995 and focus 

on observations where the received 

sound level of the exposed marine 

mammal(s) was known or could be 

estimated. 

Multi-year research efforts have 

conducted sonar exposure studies for 

odontocetes and mysticetes (Miller et al. 

2012; Sivle et al. 2012). Several studies 

with captive animals have provided 

data under controlled circumstances for 

odontocetes and pinnipeds (Houser et 

al. 2013a; Houser et al. 2013b). Moretti 

et al. (2014) published a beaked whale 

dose-response curve based on PAM of 

beaked whales during Navy training 

activity at Atlantic Underwater Test and 

Evaluation Center during actual AntiSubmarine Warfare exercises. This new 

information necessitated the update of 

the behavioral response criteria for the 

Navy’s environmental analyses. 

Southall et al. (2007) synthesized data 

from many past behavioral studies and 

observations to determine the likelihood 

of behavioral reactions at specific sound 

levels. While in general, the louder the 

sound source the more intense the 

behavioral response, it was clear that 

the proximity of a sound source and the 

animal’s experience, motivation, and 

conditioning were also critical factors 

influencing the response (Southall et al. 

2007). After examining all of the 

available data, the authors felt that the 

derivation of thresholds for behavioral 

response based solely on exposure level 

was not supported because context of 

the animal at the time of sound 

exposure was an important factor in 

estimating response. Nonetheless, in 

some conditions, consistent avoidance 

reactions were noted at higher sound 

levels depending on the marine 

mammal species or group, allowing 

conclusions to be drawn. Phocid seals 

showed avoidance reactions at or below 

190 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m; thus, seals may 

actually receive levels adequate to 

produce TTS before avoiding the source. 

The Navy’s Phase III pinniped 

behavioral threshold was updated based 

on controlled exposure experiments on 

the following captive animals: Hooded 

seal, gray seal, and California sea lion 

(Go ̈tz et al. 2010; Houser et al. 2013a; 

Kvadsheim et al. 2010). Overall 

exposure levels were 110–170 dB re 1 

mPa for hooded seals, 140–180 dB re 1 

mPa for gray seals, and 125–185 dB re 1 

mPa for California sea lions; responses 

occurred at received levels ranging from 

125 to 185 dB re 1 mPa. However, the 

means of the response data were 

between 159 and 170 dB re 1 mPa. 

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. 

Because these data represent a doseresponse type relationship between 

received level and a response, and 

because the means were all tightly 

clustered, the Bayesian biphasic 

Behavioral Response Function for 

pinnipeds most closely resembles a 

traditional sigmoidal dose-response 

function at the upper received levels 

and has a 50 percent probability of 

response at 166 dB re 1 mPa. 

Additionally, to account for proximity 

to the source discussed above and based 

on the best scientific information, a 

conservative distance of 10 km is used 

beyond which exposures would not 

constitute a take under the military 

readiness definition of Level B 

harassment. The Navy proposed, and 

NMFS concurs with, the use of this dose 

response function to predict behavioral 

harassment of pinnipeds for this 

activity. 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment by threshold shift for nonexplosive sources—NMFS’ Technical 

Guidance for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0; 

Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling the best available science and 

soliciting input multiple times from 

both the public and peer reviewers to 

inform the final product. The references, 

analysis, and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

The Navy’s PTS/TTS analysis begins 

with mathematical modeling to predict 

the sound transmission patterns from 

Navy sources, including sonar. These 

data are then coupled with marine 

species distribution and abundance data 

to determine the sound levels likely to 

be received by various marine species. 

These criteria and thresholds are 

applied to estimate specific effects that 

animals exposed to Navy-generated 

sound may experience. For weighting 

function derivation, the most critical 

data required are TTS onset exposure 

levels as a function of exposure 

frequency. These values can be 

estimated from published literature by 

examining TTS as a function of sound 

exposure level (SEL) for various 

frequencies. 

To estimate TTS onset values, only 

TTS data from behavioral hearing tests 

were used. To determine TTS onset for 

each subject, the amount of TTS 

observed after exposures with different 

SPLs and durations were combined to 

create a single TTS growth curve as a 

function of SEL. The use of (cumulative) 

SEL is a simplifying assumption to 

accommodate sounds of various SPLs, 

durations, and duty cycles. This is 

referred to as an ‘‘equal energy’’ 

approach, since SEL is related to the 

energy of the sound and this approach 

assumes exposures with equal SEL 

result in equal effects, regardless of the 

duration or duty cycle of the sound. It 

is well known that the equal energy rule 

will over-estimate the effects of 

intermittent noise, since the quiet 

periods between noise exposures will 

allow some recovery of hearing 

compared to noise that is continuously 

present with the same total SEL (Ward 

1997). For continuous exposures with 

the same SEL but different durations, 

the exposure with the longer duration 

will also tend to produce more TTS 

(Finneran et al. 2010; Kastak et al. 2007; 

Mooney et al. 2009a). 

As in previous acoustic effects 

analysis (Finneran and Jenkins 2012; 

Southall et al. 2007), the shape of the 

PTS exposure function for each species 

group is assumed to be identical to the 

TTS exposure function for each group. 

A difference of 20 dB between TTS 

onset and PTS onset is used for all 

marine mammals including pinnipeds. 

This is based on estimates of exposure 

levels actually required for PTS (i.e., 40 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
7814 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 

dB of TTS) from the marine mammal 

TTS growth curves, which show 

differences of 13 to 37 dB between TTS 

and PTS onset in marine mammals. 

Details regarding these criteria and 

thresholds can be found in NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance (NMFS 2018). 

Table 3 below provides the weighted 

criteria and thresholds used in this 

analysis for estimating quantitative 

acoustic exposures of marine mammals 

from the specified activities. 

TABLE 3—ACOUSTIC THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE, TTS, AND PTS FOR NONIMPULSIVE SOUND SOURCES 1

Functional hearing group Species Behavioral criteria 

Physiological criteria 

TTS threshold SEL 

(weighted) 

PTS threshold SEL 

(weighted) 

Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater).Ringed seal ....................... Pinniped Dose Response 

Function 2.

181 dB SEL cumulative .... 201 dB SEL cumulative. 

1The 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. 2See Figure 6–1 in the Navy’s IHA application. 

NOTE: SEL thresholds in dB re: 1 μPa2s 

Quantitative Modeling 

The Navy performed a quantitative 

analysis to estimate the number of 

marine mammals that could be harassed 

by the underwater acoustic 

transmissions during the specified 

activities. Inputs to the quantitative 

analysis included marine mammal 

density estimates, marine mammal 

depth occurrence distributions (U.S 

Department of the Navy, 2017), 

oceanographic and environmental data, 

marine mammal hearing data, and 

criteria and thresholds for levels of 

potential effects. 

The density estimate used to estimate 

take is derived from habitat-based 

modeling by Kaschner et al. (2006) and 

Kaschner (2004). The area of the Arctic 

where the specified activities will occur 

(185–370 km (100–200 nmi) north of 

Prudhoe Bay, Alaska) has not been 

surveyed in a manner that supports 

quantifiable density estimation of 

marine mammals. In the absence of 

empirical survey data, information on 

known or inferred associations between 

marine habitat features and (the 

likelihood of) the presence of specific 

species have been used to predict 

densities using model-based 

approaches. These habitat suitability 

models include relative environmental 

suitability (RES) models. Habitat 

suitability models can be used to 

understand the possible extent and 

relative expected concentration of a 

marine species distribution. These 

models are derived from an assessment 

of the species occurrence in association 

with evaluated environmental 

explanatory variables that results in 

defining the RES suitability of a given 

environment. A fitted model that 

quantitatively describes the relationship 

of occurrence with the environmental 

variables can be used to estimate 

unknown occurrence in conjunction 

with known habitat suitability. 

Abundance can thus be estimated for 

each RES value based on the values of 

the environmental variables, providing a 

means to estimate density for areas that 

have not been surveyed. Use of the 

Kaschner’s RES model resulted in a 

value of 0.3957 ringed seals per km2 in 

the cold season (defined as December 

through May). 

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 planned sonars, 

the sound received by animat (virtual 

animal) dosimeters representing marine 

mammals distributed in the area around 

the modeled activity, and whether the 

sound received by a marine mammal 

exceeds the thresholds for effects. 

The Navy developed a set of software 

tools and compiled data for estimating 

acoustic effects on marine mammals 

without consideration of behavioral 

avoidance or Navy’s standard 

mitigations (Lookouts, safety zones, 

avoidance zones, etc.). These tools and 

data sets are integral components of 

NAEMO. In NAEMO, animats are 

distributed non-uniformly based on 

species-specific density, depth 

distribution, and group size 

information, and animats record energy 

received at their location in the water 

column. A fully three-dimensional 

environment is used for calculating 

sound propagation and animat exposure 

in NAEMO. Site-specific bathymetry, 

sound speed profiles, wind speed, and 

bottom properties are incorporated into 

the propagation modeling process. 

NAEMO calculates the likely 

propagation for various levels of energy 

(sound or pressure) resulting from each 

source used during the training or 

testing 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 

animat could be impacted during each 

independent scenario or 24-hour period. 

In a few instances for the modeling of 

the specified activities here, although 

the activities themselves all occur 

within the ICEX22 Study Area, sound 

may propagate beyond the boundary of 

the ICEX22 Study Area. Any exposures 

occurring outside the boundary of the 

study area are counted as if they 

occurred within the ICEX22 Study Area 

boundary. NAEMO provides the initial 

estimated impacts on marine species 

with a static horizontal distribution. 

There are limitations to the data used 

in the acoustic effects model, and the 

results must be interpreted within this 

context. While the most accurate data 

and input assumptions have been used 

in the modeling, when there is a lack of 

definitive data to support an aspect of 

the modeling, modeling assumptions 

believed to overestimate the number of 

exposures have been chosen: 

• Animats are modeled as being 

underwater, stationary, and facing the 

source and therefore always predicted to 

receive the maximum sound level (i.e., 

no porpoising or pinnipeds’ heads 

above water); 

• Animats do not move horizontally 

(but do change their position vertically 

within the water column), which may 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 7815 

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 will most often avoid exposures 

at higher sound levels, especially those 

exposures that may result in PTS; 

• Multiple exposures within any 24- 

hour period are considered one 

continuous exposure for the purposes of 

calculating the temporary or permanent 

hearing loss, because there are not 

sufficient data to estimate a hearing 

recovery function for the time between 

exposures; and 

• Mitigation measures that will be 

implemented are not considered in the 

model. In reality, sound-producing 

activities will be reduced, stopped, or 

delayed if marine mammals are detected 

by submarines via PAM. 

Because of these inherent model 

limitations and simplifications, modelestimated results must be further 

analyzed, considering such factors as 

the range to specific effects, avoidance, 

and typically the likelihood of 

successfully implementing mitigation 

measures. This analysis uses a number 

of factors in addition to the acoustic 

model results to predict effects on 

marine mammals. 

For non-impulsive sources, NAEMO 

calculates the sound pressure level 

(SPL) and sound exposure level (SEL) 

for each active emission during an 

event. This is done by taking the 

following factors into account over the 

propagation paths: Bathymetric relief 

and bottom types, sound speed, and 

attenuation contributors such as 

absorption, bottom loss, and surface 

loss. Platforms such as a ship using one 

or more sound sources are modeled in 

accordance with relevant vehicle 

dynamics and time durations by moving 

them across an area whose size is 

representative of the training event’s 

operational area. Table 4 provides range 

to effects for active acoustic sources 

planned for ICEX22 to phocid pinnipedspecific criteria. Phocids within these 

ranges will be predicted to receive the 

associated effect. Range to effects is 

important information in not only 

predicting acoustic impacts, but also in 

verifying the accuracy of model results 

against real-world situations and 

determining adequate mitigation ranges 

to avoid higher level effects, especially 

physiological effects, to marine 

mammals. 

TABLE 4—RANGE TO BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE, TTS, AND PTS IN THE ICEX22 STUDY AREA

Source/exercise 

Range to effects 

(m) 

Behavioral 

disturbance TTS PTS 

Submarine Exercise ..................................................................................................................... a 10,000 3,025 130 

aEmpirical evidence has not shown responses to sonar that would constitute take beyond a few km from an acoustic source, which is why 

NMFS and the Navy conservatively set a distance cutoff of 10 km. Regardless of the source level at that distance, take is not estimated to occur 

beyond 10 km from the source. 

As discussed above, within NAEMO, 

animats do not move horizontally or 

react in any way to avoid sound. 

Furthermore, mitigation measures that 

are implemented during training or 

testing activities that reduce the 

likelihood of physiological impacts are 

not considered in quantitative analysis. 

Therefore, the current model 

overestimates acoustic impacts, 

especially physiological impacts near 

the sound source. The behavioral 

criteria used as a part of this analysis 

acknowledges that a behavioral reaction 

is likely to occur at levels below those 

required to cause hearing loss (TTS or 

PTS). At close ranges and high sound 

levels approaching those that could 

cause PTS, avoidance of the area 

immediately around the sound source is 

the assumed behavioral response for 

most cases. 

In previous environmental analyses, 

the Navy has implemented analytical 

factors to account for avoidance 

behavior and the implementation of 

mitigation measures. The application of 

avoidance and mitigation factors has 

only been applied to model-estimated 

PTS exposures given the short distance 

over which PTS is estimated. Given that 

no PTS exposures were estimated 

during the modeling process for these 

specified activities, the implementation 

of avoidance and mitigation factors were 

not included in this analysis. 

Table 5 shows the exposures expected 

for ringed seals based on NAEMO 

modeled results. 

TABLE 5—QUANTITATIVE MODELING RESULTS OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FOR ICEX ACTIVITIES

Species 

Level B harassment 

Level A 

harassment Total Behavioral 

disturbance TTS 

Ringed seal ...................................................................................................... 3,976 910 0 4,886 

During monitoring for the 2018 IHA 

covering similar military readiness 

activities in the ICEX22 Study Area, the 

Navy did not visually observe or 

acoustically detect any marine 

mammals (U.S. Navy, 2018). During 

monitoring for the 2020 IHA covering 

similar military readiness activities in 

the ICEX22 Study Area, the Navy also 

did not visually observe any marine 

mammals (U.S. Navy, 2020). Acoustic 

monitoring associated with the 2020 

IHA did not detect any discernible 

marine mammal vocalizations 

(Henderson et al. 2021). The monitoring 

report states that ‘‘there were a few very 

faint sounds that could have been 

[ringed seal] barks or yelps.’’ However, 

these were likely not from ringed seals, 

given that ringed seal vocalizations are 

generally produced in series (Jones et al. 

2014). Henderson et al. (2021) expect 

that these sounds were likely iceassociated or perhaps anthropogenic. 

Mitigation Measures 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
7816 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 

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, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses. This considers the 

nature of the potential adverse impact 

being mitigated (likelihood, scope, 

range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) and the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

Appropriate personnel (including 

civilian personnel) involved in 

mitigation and training or testing 

activity reporting under the specified 

activities must complete Arctic 

Environmental and Safety Awareness 

Training. Modules include: Arctic 

Species Awareness and Mitigations, 

Environmental Considerations, 

Hazardous Materials Management, and 

General Safety. 

Further, the following general 

mitigation measures are required to 

prevent incidental take of ringed seals 

on the ice floe associated with the ice 

camp (further explanation of certain 

mitigation measures is provided in 

parentheses following the measure): 

• The ice camp and runway must be 

established on first-year and multi-year 

ice without pressure ridges. (This will 

minimize physical impacts to subnivean 

lairs and impacts to sea ice habitat 

suitable for lairs.); 

• Ice camp deployment must begin no 

later than mid-February 2022, and be 

gradual, with activity increasing over 

the first 5 days. Camp deployment must 

be completed by March 15, 2022. (Given 

that mitigation measures require that the 

ice camp and runway be established on 

first-year or multi-year ice without 

pressure ridges where ringed seals tend 

to build their lairs, as well as the 

average ringed seal lair density in the 

area, and the relative footprint of the 

Navy’s planned ice camp (2 km2), it is 

extremely unlikely that a ringed seal 

would build a lair in the vicinity of the 

ice camp. Additionally, based on the 

best available science, Arctic ringed seal 

whelping is not expected to occur prior 

to mid-March, and therefore, 

construction of the ice camp will be 

completed prior to whelping in the area 

of ICEX22. Further, as noted above, 

ringed seal lairs are not expected to 

occur in the ice camp study area, and 

therefore, NMFS does not expect ringed 

seals to relocate pups due to human 

disturbance from ice camp activities, 

including construction.); 

• Personnel on all on-ice vehicles 

must observe for marine and terrestrial 

animals; 

• Snowmobiles must follow 

established routes, when available. Onice vehicles must not be used to follow 

any animal, with the exception of 

actively deterring polar bears if the 

situation requires; 

• Personnel on foot and operating onice vehicles must avoid areas of deep 

snowdrifts near pressure ridges. (These 

areas are preferred areas for subnivean 

lair development.); 

• Personnel must maintain a 100 m 

(328 ft) avoidance distance from all 

observed marine mammals; and 

• All material (e.g., tents, unused 

food, excess fuel) and wastes (e.g., solid 

waste, hazardous waste) must be 

removed from the ice floe upon 

completion of ICEX22 activities. 

The following mitigation measures are 

required for activities involving acoustic 

transmissions (further explanation of 

certain mitigation measures is provided 

in parentheses following the measure): 

• Personnel must begin passive 

acoustic monitoring (PAM) for 

vocalizing marine mammals 15 minutes 

prior to the start of activities involving 

active acoustic transmissions from 

submarines and exercise weapons. 

• Personnel must delay active 

acoustic transmissions and exercise 

weapon launches if a marine mammal is 

detected during pre-activity PAM and 

must shutdown active acoustic 

transmissions if a marine mammal is 

detected during acoustic transmissions. 

• Personnel must not restart acoustic 

transmissions or exercise weapon 

launches until 15 minutes have passed 

with no marine mammal detections. 

Ramp up procedures for acoustic 

transmissions are not required as the 

Navy determined, and NMFS concurs, 

that they would result in impacts on 

military readiness and on the realism of 

training that would be impracticable. 

The following mitigation measures are 

required for aircraft activities to prevent 

incidental take of marine mammals due 

to the presence of aircraft and associated 

noise. 

• Fixed wing aircraft must operate at 

the highest altitudes practicable taking 

into account safety of personnel, 

meteorological conditions, and need to 

support safe operations of a drifting ice 

camp. Aircraft must not reduce altitude 

if a seal is observed on the ice. In 

general, cruising elevation must be 305 

m (1,000 ft) or higher. 

• Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

must maintain a minimum altitude of at 

least 15.2 m (50 ft) above the ice. They 

must not be used to track or follow 

marine mammals. 

• Helicopter flights must use 

prescribed transit corridors when 

traveling to or from Prudhoe Bay and 

the ice camp. Helicopters must not 

hover or circle above marine mammals 

or within 457 m (1,500 ft) of marine 

mammals. 

• Aircraft must maintain a minimum 

separation distance of 1.6 km (1 mi) 

from groups of 5 or more seals. 

• Aircraft must not land on ice within 

800 m (0.5 mi) of hauled-out seals. 

Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s 

proposed mitigation measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has determined that the required 

mitigation measures provide the means 

of effecting the least practicable impact 

on the affected species or stocks and 

their habitat, paying particular attention 

to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas 

of similar significance. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 7817 

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) require requests 

for authorizations to include the 

suggested means of accomplishing the 

necessary monitoring and reporting that 

will result in increased knowledge of 

the species and of the level of taking or 

impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the area of the specified 

activity. Effective reporting is critical 

both to compliance as well as ensuring 

that the most value is obtained from the 

required monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving, or 

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

The Navy has coordinated with NMFS 

to develop an overarching program, the 

Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring 

Program (ICMP), intended to coordinate 

marine species monitoring efforts across 

all regions and to allocate the most 

appropriate level and type of effort for 

each range complex based on a set of 

standardized objectives, and in 

acknowledgement of regional expertise 

and resource availability. The ICMP was 

created in direct response to Navy 

requirements established in various 

MMPA regulations and ESA 

consultations. 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 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 by the Navy’s activities. 

In comparison, ICEX is a short duration 

exercise that occurs approximately 

every other year. Due to the location and 

expeditionary nature of the ice camp, 

the number of personnel onsite is 

extremely limited and is constrained by 

the requirement to be able to evacuate 

all personnel in a single day with small 

planes. As such, the Navy asserts that a 

dedicated ICMP monitoring project is 

not feasible as it would require 

additional personnel and equipment, 

and NMFS concurs. However, the Navy 

is exploring the potential of 

implementing an environmental DNA 

(eDNA) study on ice seals. 

Nonetheless, the Navy must conduct 

the following monitoring and reporting 

under the IHA. Ice camp personnel must 

generally monitor for marine mammals 

in the vicinity of the ice camp and 

record all observations of marine 

mammals, regardless of distance from 

the ice camp, as well as the additional 

data indicated below. Additionally, 

Navy personnel must conduct PAM 

during all active sonar use. Ice camp 

personnel must also maintain an 

awareness of the surrounding 

environment and document any 

observed marine mammals. 

In addition, the Navy is required to 

provide NMFS with a draft exercise 

monitoring report within 90 days of the 

conclusion of the specified activity. 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. The report, at 

minimum, must include: 

• Marine mammal monitoring effort 

(dedicated hours); 

• Ice camp activities occurring during 

each monitoring period (e.g., 

construction, demobilization, safety 

watch, field parties); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected; 

• Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, record the following 

information: 

Æ Environmental conditions when 

animal was observed, including relevant 

weather conditions such as cloud cover, 

snow, sun glare, and overall visibility, 

and estimated observable distance; 

Æ Lookout location and ice camp 

activity at time of sighting (or location 

and activity of personnel who made 

observation, if observed outside of 

designated monitoring periods); 

Æ Time and approximate location of 

sighting; 

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

seal, or unidentified), also noting any 

identifying features; 

Æ Distance and location of each 

observed marine mammal relative to the 

ice camp location for each sighting; 

Æ Estimated number of animals (min/ 

max/best estimate); 

Æ Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as 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). 

Also, all sonar usage will be collected 

via the Navy’s Sonar Positional 

Reporting System database. The Navy is 

required to provide data regarding sonar 

use and the number of shutdowns 

during ICEX22 activities in the Atlantic 

Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) 

Letter of Authorization 2023 annual 

classified report. The Navy is also 

required to analyze any declassified 

underwater recordings collected during 

ICEX22 for marine mammal 

vocalizations and report that 

information to NMFS, including the 

types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., 

clicks, whistles, creaks, burst pulses, 

continuous, sporadic, strength of signal) 

and the species or taxonomic group (if 

determinable). This information will 

also be submitted to NMFS with the 

2023 annual AFTT declassified 

monitoring report. 

Finally, in the event that personnel 

discover an injured or dead marine 

mammal, personnel must report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR), NMFS and to the 

Alaska regional stranding network as 

soon as feasible. The report must 

include the following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
7818 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

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

during submarine activities, observed 

on ice floe, or by transiting aircraft). 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Underwater acoustic transmissions 

associated with ICEX22, as outlined 

previously, have the potential to result 

in Level B harassment of ringed seals in 

the form of TTS and behavioral 

disturbance. No take by Level A 

harassment, serious injury, or mortality 

are anticipated to result from this 

activity. Further, at close ranges and 

high sound levels approaching those 

that could cause PTS, seals will likely 

avoid the area immediately around the 

sound source. 

NMFS estimates 910 takes of ringed 

seals by TTS from the submarine 

activities. TTS is a temporary 

impairment of hearing and can last from 

minutes or hours to days (in cases of 

strong TTS). In many cases, however, 

hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the sound ends. This 

activity has the potential to result in 

only minor levels of TTS, and hearing 

sensitivity of affected animals would be 

expected to recover quickly. Though 

TTS may occur as indicated, the overall 

fitness of the impacted individuals is 

unlikely to be affected given the 

temporary nature of TTS and the minor 

levels of TTS expected from these 

activities. Negative impacts on the 

reproduction or survival of affected 

ringed seals as well as impacts on the 

stock are not anticipated. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment by behavioral 

disturbance could include alteration of 

dive behavior, alteration of foraging 

behavior, effects to breathing, 

interference with or alteration of 

vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

More severe behavioral responses are 

not anticipated due to the localized, 

intermittent use of active acoustic 

sources and mitigation using PAM, 

which will limit exposure to active 

acoustic sources. Most likely, 

individuals will be temporarily 

displaced by moving away from the 

sound source. As described in the 

Acoustic Impacts section of the notice of 

proposed IHA (86 FR 70451; December 

10, 2021), seals exposed to nonimpulsive sources with a received 

sound pressure level within the range of 

calculated exposures, (142–193 dB re 1 

mPa), have been shown to change their 

behavior by modifying diving activity 

and avoidance of the sound source (Go ̈tz 

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

Although a minor change to a behavior 

may occur as a result of exposure to the 

sound sources associated with the 

specified activity, these changes will be 

within the normal range of behaviors for 

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

hole further from the source, rather than 

one closer to the source). Thus, even 

repeated Level B harassment of some 

small subset of the overall stock is 

unlikely to result in any significant 

realized decrease in fitness for the 

affected individuals, and will not result 

in any adverse impact on reproduction 

or survival of affected individuals or to 

the stock as a whole. 

The Navy’s planned activities are 

localized and of relatively short 

duration. While the total ICEX22 Study 

Area is large, the Navy expects that most 

activities will occur within the Ice 

Camp Study Area in relatively close 

proximity to the ice camp. The larger 

Navy Activity Study Area depicts the 

range where submarines may maneuver 

during the exercise. The ice camp will 

be in existence for up to six weeks with 

acoustic transmission occurring 

intermittently over approximately 4 

weeks. 

The project is not expected to have 

significant adverse effects on marine 

mammal habitat. The project activities 

are limited in time and will not modify 

physical marine mammal habitat. While 

the activities may cause some fish to 

leave a specific area ensonified by 

acoustic transmissions, temporarily 

impacting marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities, these fish will likely 

return to the affected area. As such, the 

impacts to marine mammal habitat are 

not expected to cause significant or 

long-term negative consequences. 

For on-ice activity, Level A 

harassment, Level B harassment, serious 

injury, and mortality are not 

anticipated, given the nature of the 

activities, the lack of previous ringed 

seal observations, and the mitigation 

measures NMFS has included in the 

IHA. The ringed seal pupping season on 

the ice lasts for five to nine weeks 

during late winter and spring. As 

discussed in the Potential Effects of 

Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and Their Habitat section, 

March 1 is generally expected to be the 

onset of ice seal lairing season. The ice 

camp and runway will be established on 

first-year or multi-year ice without 

pressure ridges, as ringed seals tend to 

build their lairs near pressure ridges. Ice 

camp deployment will begin no later 

than mid-February, and be gradual, with 

activity increasing over the first 5 days. 

Ice camp deployment will be completed 

by March 15, before the pupping season. 

Displacement of seal lair construction or 

relocation to existing lairs outside of the 

ice camp area is unlikely, given the low 

average density of lairs (the average 

ringed seal lair density in the vicinity of 

Prudhoe Bay, Alaska is 1.58 lairs per 

km2 (Table 3 of the notice of the 

proposed IHA; 86 FR 70451, December 

10, 2021)), the relative footprint of the 

Navy’s planned ice camp (2 km2), the 

lack of previous ringed seal observations 

on the ice during ICEX activities, and 

mitigation requirements that require the 

Navy to construct the ice camp and 

runway on first-year or multi-year ice 

without pressure ridges and require 

personnel to avoid areas of deep snow 

drift or pressure ridges. Given that 

mitigation measures require that the ice 

camp and runway be established on 

first-year or multi-year ice without 

pressure ridges, where ringed seals tend 

to build their lairs, it is extremely 

unlikely that a ringed seal would build 

a lair in the vicinity of the ice camp. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 7819 

This measure, in combination with the 

other mitigation measures required for 

operation of the ice camp are expected 

to avoid impacts to the construction and 

use of ringed seal subnivean lairs, 

particularly given the already low 

average density of lairs, as described 

above. Given that ringed seal lairs are 

not expected to occur in the ice camp 

study area, NMFS does not expect 

ringed seals to relocate pups due to 

human disturbance from ice camp 

activities. 

Additional mitigation measures will 

also prevent damage to and disturbance 

of ringed seals and their lairs that could 

otherwise result from on-ice activities. 

Personnel on on-ice vehicles will 

observe for marine mammals, and will 

follow established routes when 

available, to avoid potential damage to 

or disturbance of lairs. Personnel on foot 

and operating on-ice vehicles will avoid 

deep snow drifts near pressure ridges, 

also to avoid potential damage to or 

disturbance of lairs. Further, personnel 

will maintain a 100 m (328 ft) distance 

from all observed marine mammals to 

avoid disturbing the animals due to the 

personnel’s presence. Implementation of 

these measures will also prevent ringed 

seal lairs from being crushed or 

damaged during ICEX22 activities. 

There is an ongoing UME for ice seals, 

including ringed seals. Elevated 

strandings have occurred in the Bering 

and Chukchi Seas since June 2018. As 

of November 17, 2021, 95 ringed seal 

strandings have occurred, which is well 

below the partial abundance estimate of 

171,418 ringed seals in the Arctic stock. 

The take authorized here does not 

provide a concern for any of these 

populations when considered in the 

context of these UMEs, especially given 

that the anticipated Level B harassment 

is unlikely to affect the reproduction or 

survival of any individuals. In addition, 

the ICEX22 Study Area is in the Arctic 

Ocean, well north and east of the 

primary area where seals have stranded 

along the western coast of Alaska (see 

map of strandings at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marinelife-distress/2018-2021-ice-seal-unusualmortality-event-alaska). No Level A 

harassment, serious injury, or mortality 

is expected or authorized here, and take 

by Level B harassment of ringed seals 

will be reduced to the level of least 

practicable impact through the 

incorporation of mitigation measures. 

As such, the authorized takes by Level 

B harassment of ringed seals are not 

expected to exacerbate or compound the 

ongoing UME. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No Level A harassment (injury), 

serious injury, or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Impacts will be limited to Level B 

harassment, primarily in the form of 

behavioral disturbance that results in 

minor changes in behavior; 

• TTS is expected to affect only a 

limited number of animals 

(approximately 0.5 percent of the partial 

stock abundance described in Table 1) 

and TTS is expected to be minor and 

short term; 

• The number of authorized takes is 

low relative to the estimated 

abundances of the affected stock, even 

given the extent to which abundance is 

significantly underestimated; 

• Submarine training and testing 

activities will occur over only 4 weeks 

of the total 6-week activity period; 

• There will be no loss or 

modification of ringed seal habitat and 

minimal, temporary impacts on prey; 

• Physical impacts to ringed seal 

subnivean lairs will be avoided; and 

• Mitigation requirements for ice 

camp activities will prevent impacts to 

ringed seals during the pupping season. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from the specified 

activity will have a negligible impact on 

the Arctic stock of ringed seals. 

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 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaska 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. 

Impacts to marine mammals from the 

specified activity will mostly include 

limited, temporary behavioral 

disturbances of ringed seals; however, 

some TTS is also anticipated. No Level 

A harassment (injury), serious injury, or 

mortality of marine mammals is 

expected or authorized, and the 

activities are not expected to have any 

impacts on reproductive or survival 

rates of any marine mammal species. 

The specified activity and associated 

harassment of ringed seals are not 

expected to impact marine mammals in 

numbers or locations sufficient to 

reduce their availability for subsistence 

harvest given the short-term, temporary 

nature of the activities, and the distance 

offshore from known subsistence 

hunting areas. The specified activity 

will occur for a brief period of time 

outside of the primary subsistence 

hunting season, and though seals are 

harvested for subsistence uses off the 

North Slope of Alaska, the ICEX22 

Study Area is seaward of known 

subsistence hunting areas. (The Study 

Area boundary is approximately 50 km 

from shore at the closest point, though 

exercises will occur farther offshore.) 

The Navy plans to provide advance 

public notice to local residents and 

other users of the Prudhoe Bay region of 

Navy activities and measures used to 

reduce impacts on resources. This 

includes notification to local Alaska 

Natives who hunt marine mammals for 

subsistence. If any Alaska Natives 

express concerns regarding project 

impacts to subsistence hunting of 

marine mammals, the Navy will further 

communicate with the concerned 

individuals or community. The Navy 

will provide project information and 

clarification of the mitigation measures 

that will reduce impacts to marine 

mammals. 

Based on the description and location 

of the specified activity, and the 

required mitigation and monitoring 

measures, NMFS has determined that 

there will not be an unmitigable adverse 

impact on subsistence uses from the 

Navy’s specified activities. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

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

the regulations published by the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508), the Navy 

prepared an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) to consider the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects to the human 

environment resulting from the ICEX22 

project. The Navy’s EA was made 

available for public comment at https:// 

www.nepa.navy.mil/icex/ for 28 days 

beginning November 24, 2021. The 

public comment period was reopened 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
7820 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 

from January 5 to January 28 due to a 

delay in publication of a notice to the 

public in the Arctic Sounder newspaper. 

In the notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 

70451; December 10, 2021), NMFS 

described its plan to adopt the Navy’s 

EA, provided our independent 

evaluation of the document found that 

it includes adequate information 

analyzing the effects on the human 

environment of issuing the IHA. In 

compliance with NEPA and the CEQ 

regulations, as well as NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6, NMFS has 

reviewed the Navy’s EA and determined 

it to be sufficient. NMFS adopted that 

EA and signed a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) on February 

4, 2022. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with NMFS’ Alaska Regional 

Office (AKRO). 

The NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR) is authorizing take of 

ringed seals, which are listed under the 

ESA. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office 

Protected Resources Division issued a 

Biological Opinion on January 31, 2022, 

which concluded that the Navy’s 

activities and NMFS’ issuance of an IHA 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the Arctic stock 

of ringed seals. There is no ESA 

designated critical habitat for ringed 

seals. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the Navy 

for conducting submarine training and 

testing activities in the ICEX22 Study 

Area of the Arctic Ocean beginning in 

February 2022 that includes the 

previously explained mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements. 

Dated: February 4, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02800 Filed 2–9–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB792] 

Marine Mammals and Endangered 

Species 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permits, 

permit amendments, and permit 

modifications. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

permits, permit amendments, and 

permit modifications have been issued 

to the following entities under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) and the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA), as applicable. 

ADDRESSES: The permits and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request via email to 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D. (Permit Nos. 

20646–01 and 25885); Courtney Smith, 

Ph.D. (Permit No. 21143–01); Erin 

Markin, Ph.D. (Permit No. 23200–01); 

Carrie Hubard (Permit No. 25900); and 

Malcolm Mohead (Permit Nos. 19641– 

03 and 25864); at (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notices 

were published in the Federal Register 

on the dates listed below that requests 

for a permit, permit amendment, or 

permit modification had been submitted 

by the below-named applicants. To 

locate the Federal Register notice that 

announced our receipt of the 

application and a complete description 

of the activities, go to 

www.federalregister.gov and search on 

the permit number provided in Table 1 

below. 

TABLE 1—ISSUED PERMITS, PERMIT AMENDMENTS, AND PERMIT MODIFICATIONS

Permit No. RTID Applicant Previous Federal 

Register notice Issuance date 

20646–01 0648–XF213 Morgridge Institute for Research, 330 North Orchard 

Street, Madison, WI 53715 (Responsible Party: 

James Thomson, Ph.D.).

82 FR 29053; June 27, 

2017.

January 4, 2022. 

23200–01 0648–SB500 University of North Carolina, Wilmington, 601 South 

College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403 (Responsible 

Party: Frederick Scharf, Ph.D.).

86 FR 56692; October 12, 

2021.

January 24, 2022. 

25885 0648–XB610 Peter Thielen, D. Eng., Johns Hopkins University, 

Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns Hopkins 

Road, Laurel, MD 20723.

86 FR 67036; November 

24, 2021.

January 18, 2022. 

21143–01 0648–XF500 Jeremy Kiszka, Ph.D., Florida International University, 3000 NE 151st Street, Marine Science Building, Room 250D, North Miami, FL 33181.82 FR 31950; July 11, 

2017.

January 27, 2022. 

25900 0648–XB547 Echo Pictures Ltd., St Nicholas House, 31–34 High 

Street, Bristol, BS1 2AW, United Kingdom (Responsible Party: Joe Stevens).

86 FR 69622; December 

8, 2021.

January 24, 2022. 

25864 0648–SB500 Gregg Poulakis, Ph.D., Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 585 Prineville Street, Port 

Charlotte, FL 33954.

86 FR 56692; October 12, 

2021.

January 24, 2022. 

19641–03 0648–SB500 Tom Savoy, Connecticut Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection, P.O. Box 719, Old 

Lyme, CT 06371.

86 FR 56692; October 12, 

2021.

January 24, 2022. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final 

determination has been made that the 

activities proposed are categorically 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1