Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 48683 

1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 30833 

(July 3, 2017). 

2See Letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Request for Administrative 

Review,’’ dated July 31, 2017. 

3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 

42974 (September 13, 2017). 

4See Letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Withdrawal of Request for 

Administrative Review,’’ dated September 29, 2017. 

2016.1 On July 31, 2017, the Department 

received a timely request from 

Zekelman Industries (the petitioner) to 

conduct an administrative review of this 

CVD order.2 Pursuant to this request 

and in accordance with section 751(a) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), on September 13, 2017, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review of the CVD order 

on CWP covering the period of January 

1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, 

with respect to 20 individually-named 

companies.3 No other party requested 

an administrative review. On September 

29, 2017, the petitioner withdrew its 

request for an administrative review.4

Rescission of Administrative Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if a party 

who requested the review withdraws 

the request within 90 days of the date 

of publication of notice of initiation of 

the requested review. The petitioner 

timely withdrew its request for an 

administrative review by the 90-day 

deadline. No other parties requested an 

administrative review of the order. 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the 

administrative review of the CVD order 

on CWP from the PRC covering the 

period January 1, 2016, through 

December 31, 2016. 

Assessment 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

assess countervailing duties on all 

appropriate entries at rates equal to the 

cash deposit of estimated countervailing 

duties required at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protection Order 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or the 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751 of the Act, 

and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: October 13, 2017. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22685 Filed 10–18–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF470 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy 2018 

Ice Exercise Activities in the Beaufort 

Sea and Arctic Ocean 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA); request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the United States Department of 

the Navy (Navy) for authorization to 

take marine mammals incidental to Ice 

Exercise 2018 (ICEX18) activities 

proposed within the Beaufort Sea and 

Arctic Ocean north of Prudhoe Bay, 

Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS will consider public 

comments prior to making any final 

decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. The 

Navy’s activities are considered a 

military readiness activity pursuant to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), as amended by the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (NDAA). 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than November 20, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Physical 

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

and electronic comments should be sent 

to ITP.Pauline@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental/military.htm without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob 

Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8408. 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: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental/military.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
48684 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 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. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

The MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: 

Any act of pursuit, torment, or 

annoyance which (i) has the potential to 

injure a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild (Level A 

harassment); or (ii) has the potential to 

disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, 

including, but not limited to, migration, 

breathing, nursing, breeding, or 

sheltering (Level B harassment).The 

NDAA (Pub. L. 108–136) removed the 

‘‘small numbers’’ and ‘‘specified 

geographical region’’ limitations 

indicated above and amended the 

definition of ‘‘harassment’’ as it applies 

to a ‘‘military readiness activity’’ to read 

as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the 

MMPA): (i) Any act that injures or has 

the significant potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); 

or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering, to a point where 

such behavioral patterns are abandoned 

or significantly altered (Level B 

Harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to environmental 

consequences on the human 

environment. 

The Navy is currently preparing an 

environmental assessment (EA) titled 

Environmental Assessment/Overseas 

Environmental Assessment for Ice 

Exercise. Once the EA is finalized, 

NMFS plans to adopt the Navy’s EA, 

provided our independent evaluation of 

the document finds that it includes 

adequate information analyzing the 

effects on the human environment of 

issuing the IHA. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On April 12, 2017, NMFS received a 

request from the Navy for the taking of 

marine mammals incidental to 

submarine training and testing activities 

including establishment of a tracking 

range on an ice floe in the Beaufort Sea 

and Arctic Ocean north of Prudhoe Bay, 

Alaska. The Navy’s request is for take of 

ringed seals (Pusa hispida hispida) by 

Level B harassment. Neither the Navy 

nor NMFS expects Level A take or 

mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The Navy proposes to conduct 

submarine training and testing activities 

from an ice camp stationed on an ice 

floe in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic 

Ocean for six weeks between February 

and April 2018. Active acoustic 

transmissions (low, mid, and highfrequency) may result in the occurrence 

of temporary hearing impairment 

(temporary threshold shift (TTS)) and 

behavioral harassment of ringed seals. 

Dates and Duration 

The proposed action would occur 

over approximately a six-week period 

from February through April 2018, 

including deployment and 

demobilization of the ice camp. The 

submarine training and testing activities 

would occur over approximately four 

weeks during the six-week period. The 

proposed IHA would be valid from 

February 1, 2018 through May 1, 2018. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The ice camp would be established 

approximately 100–200 nmi (185–370 

kilometers (km)) north of Prudhoe Bay, 

Alaska. The exact location cannot be 

identified ahead of time as required 

conditions (e.g., ice cover) cannot be 

forecasted until exercises are expected 

to commence. The vast majority of 

submarine training and testing would 

occur near the ice camp. The ice camp 

action area is comprised of 27,171 

square miles (mi2) or 70,374 square 

kilometers (km2) of ice and open water. 

However, limited submarine training 

and testing may occur intermittently 

throughout the deep Arctic Ocean basin 

near the North Pole, within the total 

study area of 1,109,858 mi2 (2,874,520 

km2) as shown in Figure 2–1 in the 

Application). The ice camp itself will be 

no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in diameter 

and 0.77 mi2 (2 km2) in area. 

Detailed Description of Specific 

Activities 

ICEX18 includes the deployment of a 

temporary camp situated on an ice floe. 

The camp will consist of a series of 

portable tents. In the past, the Navy 

would construct temporary wooden 

structures at ICEX camps, but they no 

longer do so. A portable tracking range 

for submarine training and testing 

would be installed near the ice camp. 

Eight hydrophones, located on the ice 

and extending to 30 meters (m) below 

the ice, would be deployed by drilling 

holes in the ice and lowering the cable 

down into the water column. Four 

hydrophones would be physically 

connected to the command hut via 

cables (Figure 1–2 in Application) while 

the remaining four would transmit data 

via radio frequencies. Additionally, 

tracking pingers would be configured 

aboard each submarine to continuously 

monitor the location of the submarines. 

Acoustic communications with the 

submarines would be used to coordinate 

the training and testing schedule with 

the submarines; an underwater 

telephone would be used as a backup to 

the acoustic communications. 

Submarine activities associated with 

ICEX18 are classified, but generally 

entail safety maneuvers, active sonar 

use and exercise torpedo use. These 

maneuvers and sonar use are similar to 

submarine activities conducted in other 

undersea environments. They are being 

conducted in the Arctic to test their 

performance in a cold environment. 

Submarine training and testing 

activities generate acoustic 

transmissions that may impact marine 

mammals. Some acoustic sources either 

are above the known hearing range of 

marine species or have narrow beam 

widths and short pulse lengths that 

would not result in effects to marine 

species. Potential effects from these de 

minimis sources are analyzed 

qualitatively in accordance with current 

Navy policy. Navy acoustic sources are 

categorized into ‘‘bins’’ based on 

frequency, source level, and mode of 

usage, as previously established by the 

Navy (Department of the Navy 2015). 

The acoustic transmissions associated 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 48685 

with submarine training fall within bins 

HF1 (hull-mounted submarine sonars 

that produce high-frequency (greater 

than 10 kilohertz (kHz) but less than 200 

kHz) signals)), M3 (mid-frequency (1–10 

kHz) acoustic modems greater than 190 

decibel (dB) re 1micropascal (mPa)), and 

TORP2 (heavyweight torpedo). As, 

described below, transmissions are 

associated with discrete events that may 

last up to 24 hours. Time between 

events would not have acoustic 

transmissions. 

Active buoys and moored sources 

would be used during ICEX18. One 

active buoy would be the Autonomous 

Reverberation Measurement System, 

which would be attached to the bottom 

of the ice and may be active for up to 

30 days of ICEX18. Additionally, a 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology/ 

Lincoln Lab vertical line array would be 

deployed through a hole in the ice to a 

source depth of 150 meters (m). This 

array would have continuous wave and 

chirp transmission capability. The 

continuous wave and chirp 

transmissions would both be active for 

no more than 8 days during ICEX18. 

Over one day of testing (i.e., 24-hour 

period), he continuous wave source will 

continuously transmit for 4 hours, the 

chirp will then transmit for 15 seconds 

on and 45 seconds off for 4 hours, and 

the sources will then be silent for 16 

hours. 

The Naval Research Laboratory would 

also utilize an unmanned underwater 

vehicle for the deployment of a 

synthetic aperture source (SAS), which 

would transmit for 24 hours per day for 

up to 4 days. The SAS would be used 

to make measurements of the acoustic 

interaction with the ice/water interface. 

Source parameters, including active 

sonar transmissions from submarines 

and torpedoes, are classified. Additional 

details for the active sources described 

above can be found in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—ACTIVE ACOUSTIC PARAMETERS FOR ICEX18 TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES

Command or research institution Source name Frequency 

range (kHz) 

Source level 

(dB) 

Pulse 

length 

(milliseconds) 

Duty cycle 

(percent) Source type 

U.S. Fleet Forces .......................... Exercise Torpedo ......................... Classified. 

Office of Naval Research .............. Autonomous Reverberation Measurement System.3 to 6 200 1,000 ........ 1.67 Moored. 

Naval Research Laboratory .......... SAS .............................................. Classified Unmanned Underwater Vehicle 

(UUV). 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Lincoln Labs.Continuous Wave * .......................

Chirp * ...........................................

0.20 to 1.2 

0.25 to 1.2 

190 

190 

continuous 

15,000 ......

100 

25 

Moored. 

Moored. 

* Both sources are located on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Lincoln Labs deployed vertical line array. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ and ‘‘Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting’’). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of ringed seals (Pusa 

hispida hispida), which is the only 

potentially affected species. Other 

marine mammal species that may occur 

in the study area include bowhead 

whales (Balaena mysticetus), beluga 

whales (Delphinapterus leucas), and 

bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus). 

Bowhead whales migrate annually from 

wintering areas (December to March) in 

the northern Bering Sea, through the 

Chukchi Sea in the spring (April 

through May), to the eastern Beaufort 

Sea, where they spend much of the 

summer (June through early to midOctober) before returning again to the 

Bering Sea (Muto et al., 2017). They are 

unlikely to be found in the ICEX18 

study area during the February through 

April ICEX18 timeframe. Beluga whales 

follow a similar pattern, as they tend to 

spend winter months in the Bering Sea 

and migrate north to the eastern 

Beaufort Sea during the summer 

months. In the fall and winter, Bearded 

seals also move south with the 

advancing ice edge through the Bering 

Strait into the Bering Sea where they 

spend the winter (Muto et al. 2016). 

While these species are often observed 

in areas of sea ice, they require access 

to some open water (e.g. leads, 

polynyas) in order to breath. The Navy 

proposes to establish its ice camp and 

conduct operations in late winter when 

the extent and thickness of the Arctic 

ice pack is peaking. The ice camp will 

be located on a multi-year ice floe 

without cracks or leads that can support 

a runway for aircraft. Only ringed seals 

are able to create and maintain their 

own breathing holes and, therefore, may 

inhabit areas featuring thick multi-year 

ice. Additional information regarding 

population trends and threats may be 

found in NMFS’s Stock Assessment 

Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

sars/) and more general information 

about this species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’s Web site 

(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ 

mammals/). 

Table 2 lists all of the species that 

could occur in the project area and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR). Only 

the ringed seal, however, is expected to 

occur in the project area during the time 

of year when project activities would 

take place. For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is 

defined by the MMPA as the maximum 

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain 

its optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’s SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species and other 

threats. 

The marine mammal abundance 

estimates presented in this document 

represents the total number of 

individuals that make up a given stock 

or the total number estimated within a 

particular study or survey area. NMFS’s 

stock abundance estimates for most 

species represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. The 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
48686 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 

managed stocks in this region are 

assessed in NMFS’s U.S. Alaska SARs 

(Muto et al., 2017). All values presented 

in Table 2 are the most recent available 

at the time of publication and are 

available in the 2016 SARs (Muto et al., 

2017) (available online at: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) 

The only species that could 

potentially occur in the proposed survey 

area is the ringed seal. Total sea ice 

coverage is expected across the study 

area during the study period which 

precludes the presence of other arctic 

marine mammal species. As described 

below, ringed seals temporally and 

spatially co-occur with the activity to 

the degree that take is reasonably likely 

to occur, and therefore we have 

proposed authorizing take. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenidai 

Bowhead whale ................ Balaena mysticetus ......... Western Arctic ................. E/D;Y 16,982 (0.058, 16,091, 

2011).

161 .................................. 44 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae 

Beluga whale ................... Delphinapterus leucas .... Beaufort Sea ................... -/-;N 39,258 (0.229, 32,453, 

1992).

649 .................................. 166 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Ringed seal ...................... Pusa hispida hispida ....... Alaska ............................. -/-;N 170,000 (Bering Sea and 

Sea of Okhotsk only)— 

2013).

5,100 (Bearing Sea-U.S. 

portion only).

1,054 

Bearded seal .................... Erignathus barbatus 

nauticus.

Alaska ............................. -/-;N 299,174 (–,273,676, 

2012) (Bearing Sea— 

U.S. portion only).

8,210 ...............................

(Bearing Sea—U.S. portion only).

1.4 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

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

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock 

abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable [explain if this is the case] 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated 

mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

Note: Italicized species are not expected to be taken or proposed for authorization. 

Ringed Seal 

Ringed seals are found in seasonally 

and permanently ice-covered waters of 

the Northern Hemisphere (North 

Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission 

2004). The Alaska stock of ringed seals 

is found in the study area. Though a 

reliable population estimate for the 

entire Alaska stock is not available, 

research programs have recently 

developed new survey methods and 

partial, but useful, abundance estimates. 

In spring of 2012 and 2013, U.S. and 

Russian researchers conducted aerial 

abundance and distribution surveys of 

the entire Bering Sea and Sea of 

Okhotsk (Moreland et al., 2013). The 

data from these image-based surveys are 

still being analyzed, but Conn et al. 

(2014), using a very limited sub-sample 

of the data collected from the U.S. 

portion of the Bering Sea in 2012, 

calculated an abundance estimate of 

about 170,000 ringed seals in the U.S. 

EEZ of the Bering Sea in late April. This 

estimate does did not account for 

availability bias, and did not include 

ringed seals in the shorefast ice zone, 

which were surveyed using a different 

method. Thus, the actual number of 

ringed seals in the U.S. sector of the 

Bering Sea is likely much higher, 

perhaps by a factor of two or more. 

Using data from surveys by Bengtson et 

al. (2005) and Frost et al. (2004) in the 

late 1990s and 2000, Kelly et al. (2010) 

estimated the total population in the 

Alaska Chukchi and Beaufort seas to be 

at least 300,000 ringed seals (Muto et al., 

2017). This is likely an underestimate 

since the Beaufort Sea surveys were 

limited to within 40 km of shore. 

Current and reliable data on trends in 

population abundance for the Alaska 

stock of ringed seals are unavailable. A 

minimum population estimate (Nmin) 

and PBR value are also unavailable. A 

PBR for only those ringed seals in the 

U.S. portion of the Bering Sea is 5,100 

ringed seals. The total estimated annual 

level of human-caused mortality and 

serious injury is 1,062 (Muto et al., 

2016). Since the level of human-caused 

mortality is considerably less than the 

PBR, the stock is not likely to be 

declining due to direct human actions 

(e.g. subsistence hunting) and the stock 

is not listed under the MMPA as 

strategic. Note, however, that other nonanthropogenic factors (e.g. disease, 

decline is sea ice coverage) may 

influence overall stock abundance and 

population trends. 

Throughout their range, ringed seals 

have an affinity for ice-covered waters 

and are well adapted to occupying both 

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

Ringed seals can be found further 

offshore than other pinnipeds since they 

can maintain breathing holes in ice 

thickness greater than 2 m (Smith and 

Stirling 1975). Breathing holes are 

maintained by ringed seals’ sharp teeth 

and claws on their fore flippers. They 

remain in contact with ice most of the 

year and use it as a platform for molting 

in late spring to early summer, for 

pupping and nursing in late winter to 

early spring, and for resting at other 

times of the year. 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 48687 

Ringed seals have at least two distinct 

types of subnivean lairs: haul-out lairs 

and birthing lairs (Smith and Stirling 

1975). Haul-out lairs are typically 

single-chambered and offer protection 

from predators and cold weather. 

Birthing lairs are larger, multichambered areas that are used for 

pupping in addition to protection from 

predators. Ringed seal populations pup 

on both land-fast ice as well as stable 

pack ice. Lentfer (1972) found that 

ringed seals north of Barrow, Alaska 

(west of the ice camp), build their 

subnivean lairs on the pack ice near 

pressure ridges. Since subnivean lairs 

were found north of Barrow, Alaska, in 

pack ice, they are also assumed to be 

found within the sea ice in the ice camp 

proposed action area. Ringed seals 

excavate subnivean lairs in drifts over 

their breathing holes in the ice, in 

which they rest, give birth, and nurse 

their pups for 5–9 weeks during late 

winter and spring (Chapskii 1940; 

McLaren 1958; Smith and Stirling 

1975). Snow depths of at least 50–65 

centimeters (cm) are required for 

functional birth lairs (Kelly 1988a; 

Lydersen 1998; Lydersen and Gjertz 

1986; Smith and Stirling 1975), and 

such depths typically are found only 

where 20–30 cm or more of snow has 

accumulated on flat ice and then drifted 

along pressure ridges or ice hummocks 

(Hammill 2008; Lydersen et al., 1990; 

Lydersen and Ryg 1991; Smith and 

Lydersen 1991). Ringed seals are born 

beginning in March, but the majority of 

births occur in early April. About a 

month after parturition, mating begins 

in late April and early May. 

In Alaskan waters, during winter and 

early spring when sea ice is at its 

maximal extent, ringed seals are 

abundant in the northern Bering Sea, 

Norton and Kotzebue Sounds, and 

throughout the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas (Frost 1985; Kelly 1988b) and, 

therefore, are found in the study area 

(Figure 2–1 in Application). Passive 

acoustic monitoring of ringed seals from 

a high frequency recording package 

deployed at a depth of 240 m in the 

Chukchi Sea 120 km north- northwest of 

Barrow, Alaska, detected ringed seals in 

the area between mid- December and 

late May over the four year study (Jones 

et al., 2014). With the onset of the fall 

freeze, ringed seal movements become 

increasingly restricted and seals will 

either move west and south with the 

advancing ice pack with many seals 

dispersing throughout the Chukchi and 

Bering Seas, or remain in the Beaufort 

Sea (Crawford et al., 2012; Frost and 

Lowry 1984; Harwood et al., 2012). 

Kelly et al, (2010) tracked home ranges 

for ringed seals in the subnivean period 

(using shorefast ice); the size of the 

home ranges varied from less than 1 up 

to 27.9 km2; (median is 0.62 km2 for 

adult males and 0.65 km2 for adult 

females). Most (94 percent) of the home 

ranges were less than 3 km2 during the 

subnivean period (Kelly et al., 2010). 

Near large polynyas, ringed seals 

maintain ranges up to 7,000 km2 during 

winter and 2,100 km2 during spring 

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

seals return to the same small home 

ranges they occupied during the 

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

size of winter home ranges can, 

however, vary by up to a factor of 10 

depending on the amount of fast ice; 

seal movements were more restricted 

during winters with extensive fast ice, 

and were much less restricted where 

fast ice did not form at high levels. 

Ringed seals may occur within the study 

area throughout the year and during the 

proposed action. 

In general, ringed seals prey on fish 

and crustaceans. Ringed seals are 

known to consume up to 72 different 

species in their diet; their preferred prey 

species is the polar cod (Jefferson et al., 

2008). Ringed seals also prey upon a 

variety of other members of the cod 

family, including Arctic cod (Holst et 

al., 2001) and saffron cod, with the latter 

being particularly important during the 

summer months in Alaskan waters 

(Lowry et al., 1980). Invertebrate prey 

seems to become prevalent in the ringed 

seals diet during the open-water season 

and often dominates the diet of young 

animals (Holst et al., 2001; Lowry et al., 

1980). Large amphipods (e.g., Themisto 

libellula), krill (e.g., Thysanoessa 

inermis), mysids (e.g., Mysis oculata), 

shrimps (e.g., Pandalus spp., Eualus 

spp., Lebbeus polaris, and Crangon 

septemspinosa), and cephalopods (e.g., 

Gonatus spp.) are also consumed by 

ringed seals. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 dB 

threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that these frequency ranges correspond 

to the range for the composite group, 

with the entire range not necessarily 

reflecting the capabilities of every 

species within that group): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with 

best hearing estimated to be from 100 

Hz to 8 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, 

with best hearing from 10 to less than 

100 kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; including two 

members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, 

on the basis of recent echolocation data 

and genetic data): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 Hz 

to 86 kHz, with best hearing between 1– 

50 kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, 

with best hearing between 2–48 kHz. 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009b; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2016) for a review of 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
48688 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 

available information. As noted 

previously a single phocid species, 

ringed seal, has the reasonable potential 

to co-occur with the proposed survey 

activities. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document will include a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination’’ section 

considers the content of this section, the 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, and the ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation’’ section, to draw 

conclusions regarding the likely impacts 

of these activities on the reproductive 

success or survivorship of individuals 

and how those impacts on individuals 

are likely to impact marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

Description of Sound Sources 

Here, we first provide background 

information on marine mammal hearing 

before discussing the potential effects of 

the use of active acoustic sources on 

marine mammals. 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in hertz 

(Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is 

the distance between two peaks of a 

sound wave; lower frequency sounds 

have longer wavelengths than higher 

frequency sounds and attenuate 

(decrease) more rapidly in shallower 

water. Amplitude is the height of the 

sound pressure wave or the ‘loudness’ 

of a sound and is typically measured 

using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the 

ratio between a measured pressure (with 

sound) and a reference pressure (sound 

at a constant pressure, established by 

scientific standards). It is a logarithmic 

unit that accounts for large variations in 

amplitude; therefore, relatively small 

changes in dB ratings correspond to 

large changes in sound pressure. When 

referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; 

the sound force per unit area), sound is 

referenced in the context of underwater 

sound pressure to 1 microPascal (mPa). 

One pascal is the pressure resulting 

from a force of one newton exerted over 

an area of one square meter. The source 

level (SL) represents the sound level at 

a distance of 1 m from the source 

(referenced to 1 mPa). The received level 

is the sound level at the listener’s 

position. Note that all underwater sound 

levels in this document are referenced 

to a pressure of 1 mPa and all airborne 

sound levels in this document are 

referenced to a pressure of 20 mPa. 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. RMS is 

calculated by squaring all of the sound 

amplitudes, averaging the squares, and 

then taking the square root of the 

average (Urick 1983). Rms accounts for 

both positive and negative values; 

squaring the pressures makes all values 

positive so that they may be accounted 

for in the summation of pressure levels 

(Hastings and Popper 2005). This 

measurement is often used in the 

context of discussing behavioral effects, 

in part because behavioral effects, 

which often result from auditory cues, 

may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in all directions 

away from the source (similar to ripples 

on the surface of a pond), except in 

cases where the source is directional. 

The compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound. Ambient sound is 

defined as environmental background 

sound levels lacking a single source or 

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

sound level of a region is defined by the 

total acoustical energy being generated 

by known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric 

sound), biological (e.g., sounds 

produced by marine mammals, fish, and 

invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound 

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

construction). A number of sources 

contribute to ambient sound, including 

the following (Richardson et al., 1995): 

• Wind and waves: The complex 

interactions between wind and water 

surface, including processes such as 

breaking waves and wave-induced 

bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient noise for frequencies between 

200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). 

Under sea ice, noise generated by ice 

deformation and ice fracturing may be 

caused by thermal, wind, drift and 

current stresses (Roth et al., 2012). 

• Precipitation: Sound from rain and 

hail impacting the water surface can 

become an important component of total 

noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and 

possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 

times. In the ice-covered study area, 

precipitation is unlikely to impact 

ambient sound. 

• Biological: Marine mammals can 

contribute significantly to ambient noise 

levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The 

frequency band for biological 

contributions is from approximately 12 

Hz to over 100 kHz. 

• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient 

noise related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels and 

aircraft), dredging and construction, oil 

and gas drilling and production, seismic 

surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean 

acoustic studies. Shipping noise 

typically dominates the total ambient 

noise for frequencies between 20 and 

300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of 

anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 

and, if higher frequency sound levels 

are created, they attenuate rapidly 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from 

identifiable anthropogenic sources other 

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

passing vessel) is sometimes termed 

background sound, as opposed to 

ambient sound. Anthropogenic sources 

are unlikely to significantly contribute 

to ambient underwater noise during the 

late winter and early spring in the study 

area as most anthropogenic activities 

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

seismic surveys, shipping) (Roth et al., 

2012). 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

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

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

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

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 48689 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

Underwater sounds fall into one of 

two general sound types: Pulsed and 

non-pulsed (defined in the following 

paragraphs). The distinction between 

these two sound types is important 

because they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

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

Southall et al., 2007). Please see 

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

discussion of these concepts. 

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI 1986; Harris 1998; 

NIOSH 1998; ISO 2003; ANSI 2005) and 

occur either as isolated events or 

repeated in some succession. Pulsed 

sounds are all characterized by a 

relatively rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to a maximal pressure value 

followed by a rapid decay period that 

may include a period of diminishing, 

oscillating maximal and minimal 

pressures, and generally have an 

increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. There are no pulsed 

sound sources associated with any 

planned ICEX18 activities. 

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or non-continuous (ANSI 

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

of short duration but without the 

essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid 

rise time). Examples of non-pulsed 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems 

such as those planned for use by the 

U.S. Navy as part of the proposed 

action. The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

Modern sonar technology includes a 

variety of sonar sensor and processing 

systems. In concept, the simplest active 

sonar emits sound waves, or ‘‘pings,’’ 

sent out in multiple directions, and the 

sound waves then reflect off of the target 

object in multiple directions. The sonar 

source calculates the time it takes for 

the reflected sound waves to return; this 

calculation determines the distance to 

the target object. More sophisticated 

active sonar systems emit a ping and 

then rapidly scan or listen to the sound 

waves in a specific area. This provides 

both distance to the target and 

directional information. Even more 

advanced sonar systems use multiple 

receivers to listen to echoes from several 

directions simultaneously and provide 

efficient detection of both direction and 

distance. In general, when sonar is in 

use, the sonar ‘pings’ occur at intervals, 

referred to as a duty cycle, and the 

signals themselves are very short in 

duration. For example, sonar that emits 

a 1-second ping every 10 seconds has a 

10 percent duty cycle. The Navy’s most 

powerful hull-mounted mid-frequency 

sonar source typically emits a 1-second 

ping every 50 seconds representing a 2 

percent duty cycle. The Navy utilizes 

sonar systems and other acoustic 

sensors in support of a variety of 

mission requirements. 

Acoustic Impacts 

Please refer to the information given 

previously regarding sound, 

characteristics of sound types, and 

metrics used in this document. 

Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad 

range of frequencies and sound levels 

and can have a range of highly variable 

impacts on marine life, from none or 

minor to potentially severe responses, 

depending on received levels, duration 

of exposure, behavioral context, and 

various other factors. The potential 

effects of underwater sound from active 

acoustic sources can potentially result 

in one or more of the following: 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment, non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects, behavioral 

disturbance, stress, and masking 

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

2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et 

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

of effect is intrinsically related to the 

signal characteristics, received level, 

distance from the source, and duration 

of the sound exposure. In general, 

sudden, high level sounds can cause 

hearing loss, as can longer exposures to 

lower level sounds. Temporary or 

permanent loss of hearing will occur 

almost exclusively for noise within an 

animal’s hearing range. In this section, 

we first describe specific manifestations 

of acoustic effects before providing 

discussion specific to the proposed 

activities in the next section. 

Permanent Threshold Shift—Marine 

mammals exposed to high-intensity 

sound, or to lower-intensity sound for 

prolonged periods, can experience 

hearing threshold shift (TS), which is 

the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain 

frequency ranges (Finneran 2015). TS 

can be permanent (PTS), in which case 

the loss of hearing sensitivity is not 

fully recoverable, or (TTS, in which case 

the animal’s hearing threshold would 

recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). 

Repeated sound exposure that leads to 

TTS could cause PTS. In severe cases of 

PTS, there can be total or partial 

deafness, while in most cases the animal 

has an impaired ability to hear sounds 

in specific frequency ranges (Kryter 

1985). 

When PTS occurs, there is physical 

damage to the sound receptors in the ear 

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

represents primarily tissue fatigue and 

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

addition, other investigators have 

suggested that TTS is within the normal 

bounds of physiological variability and 

tolerance and does not represent 

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

Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS 

to constitute auditory injury. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals—PTS data exists only 

for a single harbor seal (Kastak et al., 

2008)—but are assumed to be similar to 

those in humans and other terrestrial 

mammals. PTS typically occurs at 

exposure levels at least several decibels 

above (a 40-dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et 

al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing 

mild TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift 

approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007). Based on data from 

terrestrial mammals, a precautionary 

assumption is that the PTS thresholds 

for impulse sounds (such as impact pile 

driving pulses as received close to the 

source) are at least six dB higher than 

the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure 

basis and PTS cumulative sound 

exposure level thresholds are 15 to 20 

dB higher than TTS cumulative sound 

exposure level thresholds (Southall et 

al., 2007). 

Temporary threshold shift—TTS is 

the mildest form of hearing impairment 

that can occur during exposure to sound 

(Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, 

the hearing threshold rises, and a sound 

must be at a higher level in order to be 

heard. In terrestrial and marine 

mammals, TTS can last from minutes or 

hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). 

In many cases, hearing sensitivity 

recovers rapidly after exposure to the 

sound ends. 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious. For example, a marine mammal 

may be able to readily compensate for 

a brief, relatively small amount of TTS 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
48690 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 

in a non-critical frequency range that 

occurs during a time where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas), harbor 

porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise 

(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) and 

three species of pinnipeds (northern 

elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), 

harbor seal, and California sea lion 

(Zalophus californianus)) exposed to a 

limited number of sound sources (i.e., 

mostly tones and octave-band noise) in 

laboratory settings (Finneran 2015). In 

general, harbor seals and harbor 

porpoises have a lower TTS onset than 

other measured pinniped or cetacean 

species. Additionally, the existing 

marine mammal TTS data come from a 

limited number of individuals within 

these species. There are no data 

available on noise-induced hearing loss 

for mysticetes. For summaries of data on 

TTS in marine mammals or for further 

discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 

please see Southall et al. (2007), 

Finneran and Jenkins (2012), and 

Finneran et al. (2015). 

Behavioral effects—Behavioral 

disturbance may include a variety of 

effects, including subtle changes in 

behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance 

of an area or changes in vocalizations), 

more conspicuous changes in similar 

behavioral activities, and more 

sustained and/or potentially severe 

reactions, such as displacement from or 

abandonment of high-quality habitat. 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

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

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

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

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

depending on characteristics associated 

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

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). 

Please see Appendices B–C of Southall 

et al. (2007) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

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

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. It is 

important to note that habituation is 

appropriately considered as a 

‘‘progressive reduction in response to 

stimuli that are perceived as neither 

aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, 

more generally, moderation in response 

to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 

2009). The opposite process is 

sensitization, when an unpleasant 

experience leads to subsequent 

responses, often in the form of 

avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. 

As noted, behavioral state may affect the 

type of response. For example, animals 

that are resting may show greater 

behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al. 

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

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have showed 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al. 1997; Finneran 

et al. 2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud pulsed sound 

sources (typically seismic airguns or 

acoustic harassment devices) have been 

varied but often consist of avoidance 

behavior or other behavioral changes 

suggesting discomfort (Morton and 

Symonds 2002; see also Richardson et 

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

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2003). 

However, there are broad categories of 

potential response, which we describe 

in greater detail here, that include 

alteration of dive behavior, alteration of 

foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 

interference with or alteration of 

vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely, and may consist of increased or 

decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

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

Frankel and Clark 2000; Costa et al., 

2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et 

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

Variations in dive behavior may reflect 

interruptions in biologically significant 

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

of little biological significance. The 

impact of an alteration to dive behavior 

resulting from an acoustic exposure 

depends on what the animal is doing at 

the time of the exposure and the type 

and magnitude of the response. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

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

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Variations in respiration naturally 

vary with different behaviors and 

alterations to breathing rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Various studies have shown that 

respiration rates may either be 

unaffected or could increase, depending 

on the species and signal characteristics, 

again highlighting the importance in 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

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

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

Marine mammals vocalize for 

different purposes and across multiple 

modes, such as whistling, echolocation 

click production, calling, and singing. 

Changes in vocalization behavior in 

response to anthropogenic noise can 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 48691 

occur for any of these modes and may 

result from a need to compete with an 

increase in background noise or may 

reflect increased vigilance or a startle 

response. For example, in the presence 

of potentially masking signals, 

humpback whales and killer whales 

have been observed to increase the 

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

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

while right whales have been observed 

to shift the frequency content of their 

calls upward while reducing the rate of 

calling in areas of increased 

anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 

2007b). In some cases, animals may 

cease sound production during 

production of aversive signals (Bowles 

et al., 1994). 

Avoidance is the displacement of an 

individual from an area or migration 

path as a result of the presence of a 

sound or other stressors, and is one of 

the most obvious manifestations of 

disturbance in marine mammals 

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

gray whales are known to change 

direction—deflecting from customary 

migratory paths—in order to avoid noise 

from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 

1984). Avoidance may be short-term, 

with animals returning to the area once 

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

1994; Goold, 1996; Morton and 

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

Longer-term displacement is possible, 

however, which may lead to changes in 

abundance or distribution patterns of 

the affected species in the affected 

region if habituation to the presence of 

the sound does not occur (e.g., 

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

2006). 

A flight response is a dramatic change 

in normal movement to a directed and 

rapid movement away from the 

perceived location of a sound source. 

The flight response differs from other 

avoidance responses in the intensity of 

the response (e.g., directed movement, 

rate of travel). Relatively little 

information on flight responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

signals exist, although observations of 

flight responses to the presence of 

predators have occurred (Connor and 

Heithaus 1996). The result of a flight 

response could range from brief, 

temporary exertion and displacement 

from the area where the signal provokes 

flight to, in extreme cases, marine 

mammal strandings (Evans and England 

2001). However, it should be noted that 

response to a perceived predator does 

not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and 

Reeves 2008), and whether individuals 

are solitary or in groups may influence 

the response. 

Behavioral disturbance can also 

impact marine mammals in more subtle 

ways. Increased vigilance may result in 

costs related to diversion of focus and 

attention (i.e., when a response consists 

of increased vigilance, it may come at 

the cost of decreased attention to other 

critical behaviors such as foraging or 

resting). These effects have generally not 

been demonstrated for marine 

mammals, but studies involving fish 

and terrestrial animals have shown that 

increased vigilance may substantially 

reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp 

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

Purser and Radford 2011). In addition, 

chronic disturbance can cause 

population declines through reduction 

of fitness (e.g., decline in body 

condition) and subsequent reduction in 

reproductive success, survival, or both 

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

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

However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported 

that increased vigilance in bottlenose 

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

deprivation or stress effects. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour 

cycle). Disruption of such functions 

resulting from reactions to stressors 

such as sound exposure are more likely 

to be significant if they last more than 

one diel cycle or recur on subsequent 

days (Southall et al., 2007). 

Consequently, a behavioral response 

lasting less than one day and not 

recurring on subsequent days is not 

considered particularly severe unless it 

could directly affect reproduction or 

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

there is a difference between multi-day 

substantive behavioral reactions and 

multi-day anthropogenic activities. For 

example, just because an activity lasts 

for multiple days does not necessarily 

mean that individual animals are either 

exposed to activity-related stressors for 

multiple days or, further, exposed in a 

manner resulting in sustained multi-day 

substantive behavioral responses. 

For non-impulsive sounds (i.e., 

similar to the sources used during the 

proposed action), data suggest that 

exposures of pinnipeds to sources 

between 90 and 140 dB re 1 mPa do not 

elicit strong behavioral responses; no 

data were available for exposures at 

higher received levels for Southall et al. 

(2007) to include in the severity scale 

analysis. Reactions of harbor seals were 

the only available data for which the 

responses could be ranked on the 

severity scale. For reactions that were 

recorded, the majority (17 of 18 

individuals/groups) were ranked on the 

severity scale as a 4 (defined as 

moderate change in movement, brief 

shift in group distribution, or moderate 

change in vocal behavior) or lower; the 

remaining response was ranked as a 6 

(defined as minor or moderate 

avoidance of the sound source). 

Additional data on hooded seals 

(Cystophora cristata) indicate avoidance 

responses to signals above 160–170 dB 

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

data on grey (Halichoerus grypus) and 

harbor seals indicate avoidance 

response at received levels of 135–144 

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

instance where food was available, 

which provided the seals motivation to 

remain near the source, habituation to 

the signals occurred rapidly. In the same 

study, it was noted that habituation was 

not apparent in wild seals where no 

food source was available (Go ̈tz et al. 

2010). This implies that the motivation 

of the animal is necessary to consider in 

determining the potential for a reaction. 

In one study aimed to investigate the 

under-ice movements and sensory cues 

associated with under-ice navigation of 

ice seals, acoustic transmitters (60–69 

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

attached to ringed seals (Wartzok et al., 

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

acoustic tracking system then was 

installed in the ice to receive the 

acoustic signals and provide real-time 

tracking of ice seal movements. 

Although the frequencies used in this 

study are at the upper limit of ringed 

seal hearing, the ringed seals appeared 

unaffected by the acoustic 

transmissions, as they were able to 

maintain normal behaviors (e.g., finding 

breathing holes). 

Seals exposed to non-impulsive 

sources with a received sound pressure 

level within the range of calculated 

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

been shown to change their behavior by 

modifying diving activity and avoidance 

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

Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Although a 

minor change to a behavior may occur 

as a result of exposure to the sources in 

the Proposed Action, these changes 

would be within the normal range of 

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

a breathing hole further from the source, 

rather than one closer to the source, 

would be within the normal range of 

behavior) (Kelly et al. 1988). 

Adult ringed seals spend up to 20 

percent of the time in subnivean lairs 

during the timeframe of the proposed 

action (Kelly et al., 2010a). Ringed seal 

pups spend about 50 percent of their 

time in the lair during the nursing 

period (Lydersen and Hammill 1993). 

Ringed seal lairs are typically used by 

individual seals (haul-out lairs) or by a 

mother with a pup (birthing lairs); large 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
48692 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 

lairs used by many seals for hauling out 

are rare (Smith and Stirling 1975). 

Although the exact amount of 

transmission loss of sound traveling 

through ice and snow is unknown, it is 

clear that sound attenuation would 

occur due to the environment itself. Due 

to the significant attenuation of sound 

through the water (ice)/air interface, any 

potential sound entering a lair would be 

below the behavioral threshold and 

would not result in take. In-air (i.e., in 

the subnivean lair), the best hearing 

sensitivity for ringed seals has been 

documented between 3 and 5 kHz; at 

higher frequencies, the hearing 

threshold rapidly increases (Sills et al., 

2015). 

If the acoustic transmissions are heard 

and are perceived as a threat, ringed 

seals within subnivean lairs could react 

to the sound in a similar fashion to their 

reaction to other threats, such as polar 

bears (Ursus maritimus) and Arctic 

foxes (Vulpes lagopus), although the 

type of sound would be novel to them. 

Responses of ringed seals to a variety of 

human-induced noises (e.g., helicopter 

noise, snowmobiles, dogs, people, and 

seismic activity) have been variable; 

some seals entered the water and some 

seals remained in the lair (Kelly et al., 

1988). However, in all instances in 

which observed seals departed lairs in 

response to noise disturbance, they 

subsequently reoccupied the lair (Kelly 

et al., 1988). 

Ringed seal mothers have a strong 

bond with their pups and may 

physically move their pups from the 

birth lair to an alternate lair to avoid 

predation, sometimes risking their lives 

to defend their pups from potential 

predators (Smith 1987). Additionally, it 

is not unusual to find up to three birth 

lairs within 100 m of each other, 

probably made by the same female seal, 

as well as one or more haul-out lairs in 

the immediate area (Smith et al., 1991). 

If a ringed seal mother perceives the 

acoustic transmissions as a threat, the 

network of multiple birth and haul-out 

lairs allows the mother and pup to move 

to a new lair (Smith and Hammill 1981; 

Smith and Stirling 1975). However, the 

acoustic transmissions are unlike the 

low frequency sounds and vibrations 

felt from approaching predators. 

Additionally, the acoustic transmissions 

are not likely to impede a ringed seal 

from finding a breathing hole or lair, as 

captive seals have been found to 

primarily use vision to locate breathing 

holes and no effect to ringed seal vision 

would occur from the acoustic 

transmissions (Elsner et al., 1989; 

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

that a ringed seal would be able to 

relocate to a different breathing hole 

relatively easily without impacting their 

normal behavior patterns. 

Stress responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; 

Moberg 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

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

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

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

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well-studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

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

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

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

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

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

and, more rarely, studied in wild 

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

These and other studies lead to a 

reasonable expectation that some 

marine mammals will experience 

physiological stress responses upon 

exposure to acoustic stressors and that 

it is possible that some of these would 

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

any animal experiencing TTS would 

likely also experience stress responses 

(NRC, 2003). 

Auditory masking—Sound can 

disrupt behavior through masking, or 

interfering with, an animal’s ability to 

detect, recognize, or discriminate 

between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., 

those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

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

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in 

origin. The ability of a noise source to 

mask biologically important sounds 

depends on the characteristics of both 

the noise source and the signal of 

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

temporal variability, direction), in 

relation to each other and to an animal’s 

hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, 

frequency range, critical ratios, 

frequency discrimination, directional 

discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 

and existing ambient noise and 

propagation conditions. 

Under certain circumstances, marine 

mammals experiencing significant 

masking could also be impaired from 

maximizing their performance fitness in 

survival and reproduction. Therefore, 

when the coincident (masking) sound is 

man-made, it may be considered 

harassment when disrupting or altering 

critical behaviors. It is important to 

distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist 

after the sound exposure, from masking, 

which occurs during the sound 

exposure. Because masking (without 

resulting in TS) is not associated with 

abnormal physiological function, it is 

not considered a physiological effect, 

but rather a potential behavioral effect. 

The frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. For example, low-frequency 

signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds 

produced by odontocetes but are more 

likely to affect detection of mysticete 

communication calls and other 

potentially important natural sounds 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 48693 

such as those produced by surf and 

some prey species. The masking of 

communication signals by 

anthropogenic noise may be considered 

as a reduction in the communication 

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

and may result in energetic or other 

costs as animals change their 

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

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

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

al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in 

situations where the signal and noise 

come from different directions 

(Richardson et al., 1995), through 

amplitude modulation of the signal, or 

through other compensatory behaviors 

(Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can 

be tested directly in captive species 

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

populations it must be either modeled 

or inferred from evidence of masking 

compensation. There are few studies 

addressing real-world masking sounds 

likely to be experienced by marine 

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

al., 2013). 

Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of acoustic signals and can 

potentially have long-term chronic 

effects on marine mammals at the 

population level as well as at the 

individual level. Low-frequency 

ambient sound levels have increased by 

as much as 20 dB (more than three times 

in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean 

from pre-industrial periods, with most 

of the increase from distant commercial 

shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All 

anthropogenic sound sources, but 

especially chronic and lower-frequency 

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

contribute to elevated ambient sound 

levels, thus intensifying masking. 

Potential Effects of Sonar on Prey— 

Ringed seals feed on marine 

invertebrates and fish. Marine 

invertebrates occur in the world’s 

oceans, from warm shallow waters to 

cold deep waters, and are the dominant 

animals in all habitats of the study area. 

Although most species are found within 

the benthic zone, marine invertebrates 

can be found in all zones (sympagic 

(within the sea ice), pelagic (open 

ocean), or benthic (bottom dwelling)) of 

the Beaufort Sea (Josefson et al., 2013). 

The diverse range of species include 

oysters, crabs, worms, ghost shrimp, 

snails, sponges, sea fans, isopods, and 

stony corals (Chess and Hobson 1997; 

Dugan et al., 2000; Proctor et al., 1980). 

Hearing capabilities of invertebrates 

are largely unknown (Lovell et al., 2005; 

Popper and Schilt 2008). Outside of 

studies conducted to test the sensitivity 

of invertebrates to vibrations, very little 

is known on the effects of anthropogenic 

underwater noise on invertebrates 

(Edmonds et al., 2016). While data are 

limited, research suggests that some of 

the major cephalopods and decapods 

may have limited hearing capabilities 

(Hanlon 1987; Offutt 1970), and may 

hear only low-frequency (less than 1 

kHz) sources (Offutt 1970), which is 

most likely within the frequency band 

of biological signals (Hill 2009). In a 

review of crustacean sensitivity of high 

amplitude underwater noise by 

Edmonds et al. (2016), crustaceans may 

be able to hear the frequencies at which 

they produce sound, but it remains 

unclear which noises are incidentally 

produced and if there are any negative 

effects from masking them. Acoustic 

signals produced by crustaceans range 

from low frequency rumbles (20–60 Hz) 

to high frequency signals (20–55 kHz) 

(Henninger and Watson 2005; Patek and 

Caldwell 2006; Staaterman et al., 2016). 

Aquatic invertebrates that can sense 

local water movements with ciliated 

cells include cnidarians, flatworms, 

segmented worms, urochordates 

(tunicates), mollusks, and arthropods 

(Budelmann 1992a, 1992b; Popper et al., 

2001). Some aquatic invertebrates have 

specialized organs called statocysts for 

determination of equilibrium and, in 

some cases, linear or angular 

acceleration. Statocysts allow an animal 

to sense movement and may enable 

some species, such as cephalopods and 

crustaceans, to be sensitive to water 

particle movements associated with 

sound (Goodall et al., 1990; Hu et al., 

2009; Kaifu et al., 2008; Montgomery et 

al., 2006; Popper et al., 2001; Roberts 

and Breithaupt 2016; Salmon 1971). 

Because any acoustic sensory 

capabilities, if present at all, are limited 

to detecting water motion, and water 

particle motion near a sound source 

falls off rapidly with distance, aquatic 

invertebrates are probably limited to 

detecting nearby sound sources rather 

than sound caused by pressure waves 

from distant sources. 

Studies of sound energy effects on 

invertebrates are few, and identify only 

behavioral responses. Non-auditory 

injury, permanent threshold shift, 

temporary threshold shift, and masking 

studies have not been conducted for 

invertebrates. Both behavioral and 

auditory brainstem response studies 

suggest that crustaceans may sense 

frequencies up to 3 kHz, but best 

sensitivity is likely below 200 Hz 

(Goodall et al., 1990; Lovell et al., 2005; 

Lovell et al., 2006). Most cephalopods 

likely sense low-frequency sound below 

1 kHz, with best sensitivities at lower 

frequencies (Budelmann 2010; Mooney 

et al., 2010; Offutt 1970). A few 

cephalopods may sense higher 

frequencies up to 1,500 Hz (Hu et al., 

2009). 

It is expected that most marine 

invertebrates would not sense the 

frequencies of the sonar associated with 

the proposed action. Most marine 

invertebrates would not be close enough 

to active sonar systems to potentially 

experience impacts to sensory 

structures. Any marine invertebrate 

capable of sensing sound may alter its 

behavior if exposed to sonar. Although 

acoustic transmissions produced during 

the proposed action may briefly impact 

individuals, intermittent exposures to 

sonar are not expected to impact 

survival, growth, recruitment, or 

reproduction of widespread marine 

invertebrate populations. 

The fish species located in the study 

area include those that are closely 

associated with the deep ocean habitat 

of the Beaufort Sea. Nearly 250 marine 

fish species have been described in the 

Arctic, excluding the larger parts of the 

sub-Arctic Bering, Barents, and 

Norwegian Seas (Mecklenburg et al., 

2011). However, only about 30 are 

known to occur in the Arctic waters of 

the Beaufort Sea (Christiansen and Reist 

2013). Largely because of the difficulty 

of sampling in remote, ice-covered seas, 

many high-Arctic fish species are 

known only from rare or geographically 

patchy records (Mecklenburg et al., 

2011). Aquatic systems of the Arctic 

undergo extended seasonal periods of 

ice cover and other harsh environmental 

conditions. Fish inhabiting such 

systems must be biologically and 

ecologically adapted to surviving such 

conditions. Important environmental 

factors that Arctic fish must contend 

with include reduced light, seasonal 

darkness, ice cover, low biodiversity, 

and low seasonal productivity. 

All fish have two sensory systems to 

detect sound in the water: The inner ear, 

which functions very much like the 

inner ear in other vertebrates, and the 

lateral line, which consists of a series of 

receptors along the fish’s body (Popper 

and Fay 2010; Popper et al., 2014). The 

inner ear generally detects relatively 

higher-frequency sounds, while the 

lateral line detects water motion at low 

frequencies (below a few hundred Hz) 

(Hastings and Popper 2005). Lateral line 

receptors respond to the relative motion 

between the body surface and 

surrounding water; this relative motion, 

however, only takes place very close to 

sound sources and most fish are unable 

to detect this motion at more than one 

to two body lengths distance away 

(Popper et al., 2014). Although hearing 

capability data only exist for fewer than 

100 of the 32,000 fish species, current 

data suggest that most species of fish 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
48694 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 

detect sounds from 50 to 1,000 Hz, with 

few fish hearing sounds above 4 kHz 

(Popper 2008). It is believed that most 

fish have their best hearing sensitivity 

from 100 to 400 Hz (Popper 2003). 

Permanent hearing loss has not been 

documented in fish. A study by 

Halvorsen et al. (2012) found that for 

temporary hearing loss or similar 

negative impacts to occur, the noise 

needed to be within the fish’s 

individual hearing frequency range; 

external factors, such as developmental 

history of the fish or environmental 

factors, may result in differing impacts 

to sound exposure in fish of the same 

species. The sensory hair cells of the 

inner ear in fish can regenerate after 

they are damaged, unlike in mammals 

where sensory hair cells loss is 

permanent (Lombarte et al., 1993; Smith 

et al., 2006). As a consequence, any 

hearing loss in fish may be as temporary 

as the timeframe required to repair or 

replace the sensory cells that were 

damaged or destroyed (Smith et al., 

2006), and no permanent loss of hearing 

in fish would result from exposure to 

sound. 

Fish species in the study area are 

expected to hear the low-frequency 

sources associated with the proposed 

action, but most are not expected to 

detect sounds above this threshold. 

Only a few fish species are able to detect 

mid-frequency sonar above 1 kHz and 

could have behavioral reactions or 

experience auditory masking during 

these activities. These effects are 

expected to be transient and long-term 

consequences for the population are not 

expected. Fish with hearing 

specializations capable of detecting 

high-frequency sounds are not expected 

to be within the study area. If hearing 

specialists were present, they would 

have to be in close vicinity to the source 

to experience effects from the acoustic 

transmission. Human-generated sound 

could alter the behavior of a fish in a 

manner that would affect its way of 

living, such as where it tries to locate 

food or how well it can locate a 

potential mate; behavioral responses to 

loud noise could include a startle 

response, such as the fish swimming 

away from the source, the fish 

‘‘freezing’’ and staying in place, or 

scattering (Popper 2003). Auditory 

masking could also interfere with a 

fish’s ability to hear biologically 

relevant sounds, inhibiting the ability to 

detect both predators and prey, and 

impacting schooling, mating, and 

navigating (Popper 2003). If an 

individual fish comes into contact with 

low-frequency acoustic transmissions 

and is able to perceive the 

transmissions, they are expected to 

exhibit short-term behavioral reactions, 

when initially exposed to acoustic 

transmissions, which would not 

significantly alter breeding, foraging, or 

populations. Overall effects to fish from 

active sonar sources would be localized, 

temporary, and infrequent. 

Effects to Physical and Foraging 

Habitat—Unless the sound source is 

stationary and/or continuous over a long 

duration in one area, neither of which 

applies to ICEX18 activities, the effects 

of the introduction of sound into the 

environment are generally considered to 

have a less severe impact on marine 

mammal habitat compared to any 

physical alteration of the habitat. 

Acoustic exposures are not expected to 

result in long-term physical alteration of 

the water column or bottom topography 

as the occurrences are of limited 

duration and would occur 

intermittently. Acoustic transmissions 

also would have no structural impact to 

subnivean lairs in the ice. Furthermore, 

since ice dampens acoustic 

transmissions (Richardson et al., 1995) 

the level of sound energy that reaches 

the interior of a subnivean lair will be 

less than that ensonifying water under 

surrounding ice. 

Non-acoustic Impacts—Deployment 

of the ice camp could potentially affect 

ringed seal habitat by physically 

damaging or crushing subnivean lairs. 

These non-acoustic impacts could result 

in ringed seal injury or mortality. 

However, seals usually choose to locate 

lairs near pressure ridges and the ice 

camp will be deployed in an area 

without pressure ridges in order to 

allow operation of an aircraft runway. 

Further, portable tents will be erected 

for lodging and operations purposes. 

Tents do not require building materials 

or typical construction methods. The 

tents are relatively easy to mobilize and 

will not be situated near areas featuring 

pressure ridges. Finally, the camp 

buildup will be gradual, with activity 

increasing over the first five days. This 

approach allows seals to move to 

different lair locations outside the ice 

camp area. Based on this information, 

we do not anticipate any damage to 

subnivean lairs that could result in 

ringed seal injury or mortality. 

ICEX18 personnel will be actively 

conducting testing and training 

operations on the sea ice and will travel 

around the camp area, including the 

runway, on snowmobiles. Although the 

Navy does not anticipate observing any 

seals on the ice, it is possible that the 

presence of active humans could 

behaviorally disturb ringed seals that 

are in lairs or on the ice. As discussed 

above, the camp will not be deployed in 

areas with pressure ridges and seals will 

have opportunity to move away from 

disturbances associated with human 

activity. Furthermore, camp personnel 

will maintain a 100-meter avoidance 

distance for all marine mammals on the 

ice. Based on this information, we do 

not believe the presence of humans on 

ice will result in take. 

Our preliminary determination of 

effects to the physical environment 

includes minimal possible impacts to 

ringed seals and ringed seal habitat from 

camp operation or deployment 

activities. In summary, given the 

relatively short duration of submarine 

testing and training activities, relatively 

small area that would be affected, and 

lack of physical impacts to habitat, the 

proposed actions are not likely to have 

a permanent, adverse effect on 

populations of prey species or marine 

mammal habitat. Therefore, any impacts 

to marine mammal habitat are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm consequences for individual ringed 

seals or their populations. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform the negligible impact 

determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

For this military readiness activity, the 

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

act that injures or has the significant 

potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild (Level 

A Harassment); or (ii) Any act that 

disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of natural 

behavioral patterns, including, but not 

limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a 

point where such behavioral patterns 

are abandoned or significantly altered 

(Level B Harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns and 

TTS, for individual marine mammals 

resulting from exposure to acoustic 

transmissions. Based on the nature of 

the activity, Level A harassment is 

neither anticipated nor proposed to be 

authorized. However, as described 

previously, no serious injury or 

mortality is anticipated or proposed to 

be authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 48695 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

these levels in a day; (3) the density or 

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 

number of days of activities. For the 

proposed IHA, the Navy employed a 

sophisticated model known as the Navy 

Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO) for 

assessing the impacts of underwater 

sound. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS recommends acoustic thresholds 

that identify the received level of 

underwater sound above which exposed 

marine mammals would be reasonably 

expected to incur PTS of some degree 

(equated to Level A harassment), TTS, 

or behavioral harassment (Level B 

harassment). The thresholds used to 

predict occurrences of each type of take 

are described below. 

Behavioral harassment—In 

coordination with NMFS, the Navy 

developed behavioral harassment 

thresholds to support Phase III 

environmental analyses and MMPA 

Letter of Authorization renewals for the 

Navy’s testing and training military 

readiness activities; these behavioral 

harassment thresholds are being 

proposed for use here to evaluate the 

potential effects of this proposed action. 

The response of a marine mammal to an 

anthropogenic sound will depend on 

the frequency, duration, temporal 

pattern and amplitude of the sound as 

well as the animal’s prior experience 

with the sound and the context in 

which the sound is encountered (i.e., 

what the animal is doing at the time of 

the exposure). The distance from the 

sound source and whether it is 

perceived as approaching or moving 

away can also affect the way an animal 

responds to a sound (Wartzok et al. 

2003). For marine mammals, a review of 

responses to anthropogenic sound was 

first conducted by Richardson et al. 

(1995). Reviews by Nowacek et al. 

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

studies conducted since 1995 and focus 

on observations where the received 

sound level of the exposed marine 

mammal(s) was known or could be 

estimated. Multi-year research efforts 

have conducted sonar exposure studies 

for odontocetes and mysticetes (Miller 

et al. 2012; Sivle et al. 2012). Several 

studies with captive animals have 

provided data under controlled 

circumstances for odontocetes and 

pinnipeds (Houser et al. 2013a; Houser 

et al. 2013b). Moretti et al. (2014) 

published a beaked whale doseresponse curve based on passive 

acoustic monitoring of beaked whales 

during U.S. Navy training activity at 

Atlantic Underwater Test and 

Evaluation Center during actual AntiSubmarine Warfare exercises. This new 

information necessitated the update of 

the Navy’s behavioral response criteria 

for the Phase III 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 @1m; thus, seals may 

actually receive levels adequate to 

produce TTS before avoiding the source. 

The Navy’s Phase III proposed 

pinniped behavioral threshold has been 

updated based on controlled exposure 

experiments on the following captive 

animals: Hooded seal, gray seal, and 

California sea lion (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% probability of response 

at 166 dB re 1 mPa. Additional details 

regarding the Phase III criteria may be 

found in the technical report, Criteria 

and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic 

and Explosive Effects Analysis (2017a) 

which may be found at: http://

aftteis.com/Portals/3/docs/newdocs/ 

Criteria%20and%20Thresholds_TR_

Submittal_05262017.pdf. This technical 

report was as part of the Navy’s Atlantic 

Fleet Training and Testing Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS/OEIS) (Navy 2017b) 

which is located at: http://

www.aftteis.com/. NMFS is proposing 

the use of this dose response function to 

predict behavioral harassment of 

pinnipeds for this activity. 

Level A harassment and TTS—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical 

Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria 

to assess auditory injury (Level A 

harassment) to five different marine 

mammal groups (based on hearing 

sensitivity) as a result of exposure to 

noise from two different types of 

sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling and synthesizing 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 

2016 Technical Guidance, which may 

be accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.

gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm. 

The PTS/TTS analyses begins with 

mathematical modeling to predict the 

sound transmission patterns from Navy 

sources, including sonar. These data are 

then coupled with marine species 

distribution and abundance data to 

determine the sound levels likely to be 

received by various marine species. 

These criteria and thresholds are 

applied to estimate specific effects that 

animals exposed to Navy-generated 

sound may experience. For weighting 

function derivation, the most critical 

data required are TTS onset exposure 

levels as a function of exposure 

frequency. These values can be 

estimated from published literature by 

examining TTS as a function of sound 

exposure level (SEL) for various 

frequencies. 

To estimate TTS onset values, only 

TTS data from behavioral hearing tests 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
48696 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 

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 

dB of TTS) from the marine mammal 

TTS growth curves, which show 

differences of 13 to 37 dB between TTS 

and PTS onset in marine mammals. 

Details regarding these criteria and 

thresholds can be found in NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance (NMFS 2016). 

Table 3 below provides the weighted 

criteria and thresholds used in this 

analysis for estimating quantitative 

acoustic exposures of marine mammals 

from the proposed action. 

TABLE 3—INJURY (PTS) AND DISTURBANCE (TTS, BEHAVIORAL) THRESHOLDS FOR UNDERWATER SOUNDS

Group Species Behavioral criteria 

Physiological criteria 

Onset TTS Onset PTS 

Phocid (in water) .................... Ringed seal .................... Pinniped Dose Response 

Function.

181 dB SEL cumulative 201 dB SEL cumulative. 

Quantitative Modeling 

The Navy performed a quantitative 

analysis to estimate the number of 

mammals that could be harassed by the 

underwater acoustic transmissions 

during the proposed action. Inputs to 

the quantitative analysis included 

marine mammal density estimates, 

marine mammal depth occurrence 

distributions (Navy 2017a), 

oceanographic and environmental data, 

marine mammal hearing data, and 

criteria and thresholds for levels of 

potential effects. 

The 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 proposed action will occur 

(100–200 nm north of Prudhoe Bay, 

Alaska) has not been surveyed in a 

manner that supports quantifiable 

density estimation of marine mammals. 

In the absence of empirical survey data, 

information on known or inferred 

associations between marine habitat 

features and (the likelihood of) the 

presence of specific species have been 

used to predict densities using modelbased 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 animals per km2 in the 

cold season (defined as December 

through May). The density numbers are 

assumed static throughout the ice camp 

proposed action area for this species. 

The density data generated for this 

species was based on environmental 

variables known to exist within the 

proposed ice camp action area during 

the late winter/early springtime period. 

Note that while other surveys by Frost 

et al. (2004) and Bengston et al. (2005) 

provided ringed seal density estimates 

for areas near or within the Beaufort 

Sea, the Navy felt that those findings 

were not applicable to the proposed 

action area. Frost et al. (2004) only 

surveyed ringed seals out to 40 km from 

shore in the Beaufort Sea. A small 

portion of the surveys from Bengston et 

al. (2005) were out to a maximum extent 

of 185 km (100 nm) from shore, but the 

surveys were located within the 

Chukchi Sea, not the Beaufort Sea. Frost 

et al. (2004) also stated the highest 

densities of ringed seals were in water 

depths from 5–25 m (1–1.33 seals per 

km2). Lower densities were seen in 

waters greater than 35 m in depth (0– 

0.77 seals per km2).The proposed action 

area where acoustic transmissions 

would occur is 3,000 to 4,000 m deep 

(International Bathymetric Chart of the 

Arctic Ocean 2015), which makes the 

bathymetric nature of the areas different 

enough to be non-comparable. 

Furthermore, the ice camp is located on 

multi-year ice and would not be located 

near the ice edge. Frost et al. (2004), and 

Bengston et al. (2005) both had a high 

percentage of fast or pack ice in their 

survey area which would not be present 

in the proposed action area. 

Additionally, there were areas of 

cracked ice that were part of the 

surveys. As previously noted, the ice 

camp needs to be situated in an area 

without cracks in the ice. After 

reviewing both Frost et al. (2004) and 

Bengston et al. (2005) NMFS agrees with 

the Navy that the density data from the 

RES model provides the most 

appropriate density values to be 

assessed for acoustic transmissions 

during ICEX18. 

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 proposed active 

acoustic sources, the sound received by 

animat (virtual animal) dosimeters 

representing marine mammals 

distributed in the area around the 

modeled activity, and whether the 

sound received by a marine mammal 

exceeds the thresholds for effects. 

The Navy developed a set of software 

tools and compiled data for estimating 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 48697 

acoustic effects on marine mammals 

without consideration of behavioral 

avoidance or Navy’s standard 

mitigations. These tools and data sets 

serve are integral components of 

NAEMO. In NAEMO, animats are 

distributed nonuniformly based on 

species-specific density, depth 

distribution, and group size information 

and animats record energy received at 

their location in the water column. A 

fully three-dimensional environment is 

used for calculating sound propagation 

and animat exposure in NAEMO. Sitespecific bathymetry, sound speed 

profiles, wind speed, and bottom 

properties are incorporated into the 

propagation modeling process. NAEMO 

calculates the likely propagation for 

various levels of energy (sound or 

pressure) resulting from each source 

used during the training event. 

NAEMO then records the energy 

received by each animat within the 

energy footprint of the event and 

calculates the number of animats having 

received levels of energy exposures that 

fall within defined impact thresholds. 

Predicted effects on the animats within 

a scenario are then tallied and the 

highest order effect (based on severity of 

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

for a given animat is assumed. Each 

scenario or each 24-hour period for 

scenarios lasting greater than 24 hours 

is independent of all others, and 

therefore, the same individual marine 

animal could be impacted during each 

independent scenario or 24-hour period. 

In few instances, although the activities 

themselves all occur within the study 

area, sound may propagate beyond the 

boundary of the study area. Any 

exposures occurring outside the 

boundary of the study area are counted 

as if they occurred within the study area 

boundary. NAEMO provides the initial 

estimated impacts on marine species 

with a static horizontal distribution. 

There are limitations to the data used 

in the acoustic effects model, and the 

results must be interpreted within these 

context. While the most accurate data 

and input assumptions have been used 

in the modeling, when there is a lack of 

definitive data to support an aspect of 

the modeling, modeling assumptions 

believed to overestimate the number of 

exposures have been chosen: 

• Animats are modeled as being 

underwater, stationary, and facing the 

source and therefore always predicted to 

receive the maximum sound level (i.e., 

no porpoising or pinnipeds’ heads 

above water); 

• Animats do not move horizontally 

(but change their position vertically 

within the water column), which may 

overestimate physiological effects such 

as hearing loss, especially for slow 

moving or stationary sound sources in 

the model; 

• Animats are stationary horizontally 

and therefore do not avoid the sound 

source, unlike in the wild where 

animals would most often avoid 

exposures at higher sound levels, 

especially those exposures that may 

result in PTS; 

• Multiple exposures within any 24- 

hour period are considered one 

continuous exposure for the purposes of 

calculating the temporary or permanent 

hearing loss, because there are not 

sufficient data to estimate a hearing 

recovery function for the time between 

exposures; and 

• Mitigation measures that are 

implemented were not considered in the 

model. In reality, sound-producing 

activities would be reduced, stopped, or 

delayed if marine mammals are detected 

by submarines via passive acoustic 

monitoring. 

Because of these inherent model 

limitations and simplifications, modelestimated results must be further 

analyzed, considering such factors as 

the range to specific effects, avoidance, 

and the likelihood of successfully 

implementing mitigation measures. This 

analysis uses a number of factors in 

addition to the acoustic model results to 

predict acoustic effects on marine 

mammals. 

For non-impulsive sources, NAEMO 

calculates the sound pressure level 

(SPL) and SEL for each active emission 

over the entire duration of an event. 

These data are then processed using a 

bootstrapping routine to compute the 

number of animats exposed to SPL and 

SEL in 1 dB bins across all track 

iterations and population draws. 

(Bootstrapping is a type of resampling 

where large numbers of smaller samples 

of the same size are repeatedly drawn, 

with replacement, from a single original 

sample.) SEL is checked during this 

process to ensure that all animats are 

grouped in either an SPL or SEL 

category. A mean number of SPL and 

SEL exposures are computed for each 1 

dB bin. The mean value is based on the 

number of animats exposed at that dB 

level from each track iteration and 

population draw. The behavioral risk 

function curve is applied to each 1 dB 

bin to compute the number of 

behaviorally exposed animats per bin. 

The number of behaviorally exposed 

animats per bin is summed to produce 

the total number of behavior exposures. 

Mean 1 dB bin SEL exposures are 

then summed to determine the number 

of PTS and TTS exposures. PTS 

exposures represent the cumulative 

number of animats exposed at or above 

the PTS threshold. The number of TTS 

exposures represents the cumulative 

number of animats exposed at or above 

the TTS threshold and below the PTS 

threshold. Animats exposed below the 

TTS threshold were grouped in the SPL 

category. 

Platforms such as a submarine 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. For analysis purposes, 

the Navy uses distance cutoffs, which is 

the maximum distance a Level B take 

would occur, beyond which the 

potential for significant behavioral 

responses is considered unlikely. For 

animals located beyond the range to 

effects, no significant behavioral 

responses are predicted. This is based 

on the Navy’s Phase III environmental 

analysis (Navy 2017a). The Navy 

referenced Southall et al. (2007) who 

reported that pinnipeds do not exhibit 

strong reactions to SPLs up to 140 dB 

re 1 mPa from steady state (nonimpulsive) sources. In some cases, 

pinnipeds tolerate impulsive exposures 

up to 180 dB re 1 mPa with limited 

avoidance noted (Southall et al., 2007), 

and no avoidance noted at distances as 

close as 42 m (Jacobs & Terhune 2002). 

While limited data exists on pinniped 

behavioral responses beyond 3 km in 

the water, the data that is available 

suggest that most pinnipeds likely do 

not exhibit significant behavioral 

reactions to sonar and other transducers 

beyond a few kilometers, independent 

of received levels of sound (Navy 

2017a). Therefore, in the Navy’s Phase 

III environmental analysis, the range to 

effects for pinnipeds is set at 5 km for 

moderate source level, single platform 

training and testing events and 10 km 

for all other events with multiple sonar 

platforms or sonar with source levels at 

or exceeding 215 dB re 1 mPa @1 m. 

Regardless of the source level, take 

beyond 10 km is not anticipated. These 

ranges are expected to reasonably 

contain the anticipated effects predicted 

by the behavioral response dose curve 

threshold reference above. 

For ICEX18 unclassified sources (i.e. 

Autonomous Reverberation 

Measurement System and MIT/Lincoln 

Labs continuous wave/chirp), the Navy 

models calculated a propagation loss 

measurement of 13.5 km from the 

source to the 120 dB re 1 mPa SPL 

isopleth; 1.5 km from the source to the 

130 dB re 1 mPa SPL isopleth; and 400 

m from the source to the 140 dB dB re 

1 mPa SPL isopleth. Propagation loss 

measurements cannot be provided for 

classified sources. However, the ranges 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
48698 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 

in Table 4 provide realistic maximum 

distances over which the specific effects 

from the use of all active acoustic 

sources during the proposed action 

would be possible. Based on the 

information provided, NMFS is 

confident that the 10km zone safely 

encompasses the area in which Level B 

harassment can be expected from all 

active acoustic sources. 

TABLE 4—RANGE TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT AND BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS IN THE ICEX18 STUDY AREA

Source/exercise 

Maximum range to Level B 

takes cold season (m) 

Behavioral TTS 

Submarine Exercise ................................................................................................................................................. 10,000 100 

Autonomous Reverberation Measurement System ................................................................................................. 10,000 <50 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Lincoln Labs Continuous Wave/chirp ....................................................... 10,000 <50 

Naval Research Laboratory Synthetic Aperture Sonar ........................................................................................... 10,000 90 

As discussed above, within NAEMO 

animats do not move horizontally or 

react in any way to avoid sound. 

Furthermore, mitigation measures that 

are implemented during training or 

testing activities that reduce the 

likelihood of physiological impacts are 

not considered in quantitative analysis. 

Therefore, the current model 

overestimates acoustic impacts, 

especially physiological impacts near 

the sound source. The behavioral 

criteria used as a part of this analysis 

acknowledges that a behavioral reaction 

is likely to occur at levels below those 

required to cause hearing loss (TTS or 

PTS). At close ranges and high sound 

levels approaching those that could 

cause PTS, avoidance of the area 

immediately around the sound source is 

the assumed behavioral response for 

most cases. 

In previous environmental analyses, 

the Navy has implemented analytical 

factors to account for avoidance 

behavior and the implementation of 

mitigation measures. The application of 

avoidance and mitigation factors has 

only been applied to model-estimated 

PTS exposures given the short distance 

over which PTS is estimated. Given that 

no PTS exposures were estimated 

during the modeling process for this 

proposed action, the implementation of 

avoidance and mitigation factors were 

not included in this analysis. 

Utilizing the NAEMO model, the 

Navy projected that there will be 1,665 

behavioral Level B harassment takes and 

an additional 11 Level B takes due to 

TTS for a total of 1,676 takes of ringed 

seals. All takes would be underwater. 

Note that these quantitative results 

should be regarded as conservative 

estimates that are strongly influenced by 

limited marine mammal population 

data. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

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

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, ‘‘and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking’’ for 

certain subsistence uses. NMFS’ 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

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

amended the MMPA as it relates to 

military readiness activities and the 

incidental take authorization process 

such that ‘‘least practicable adverse 

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, we 

carefully weigh two primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, implementation of the 

measure(s) is expected to reduce 

impacts to marine mammal species or 

stocks, their habitat, and their 

availability for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). This analysis will consider 

such things as the nature of the 

potential adverse impact (such as 

likelihood, scope, and range), the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented, and the 

likelihood of successful 

implementation; and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation. 

Practicability of implementation may 

consider such things as cost, impact on 

operations, and, in the case of a military 

readiness activity, specifically considers 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(ii)). 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

The following general mitigation 

actions are proposed for ICEX18 to 

avoid any take of ringed seals on the ice 

floe: 

• Camp deployment would begin in 

mid-February and would be completed 

by March 15, which is well before 

ringed seal pupping season begins. Pups 

are weaned and then mating occurs in 

April and May. Completing camp 

deployment before ringed seal pupping 

begins will allow ringed seals to avoid 

the camp area prior to pupping and 

mating seasons, reducing potential 

impacts. 

• Camp location will not be in 

proximity to pressure ridges in order to 

allow camp deployment and operation 

of an aircraft runway. This will 

minimize physical impacts to subnivean 

lairs. 

• Camp deployment will gradually 

increase over five days, allowing seals to 

relocate to lairs that are not in the 

immediate vicinity of the camp. 

• Passengers on all on-ice vehicles 

would observe for marine and terrestrial 

animals; any marine or terrestrial 

animal observed on the ice would be 

avoided by 328 ft (100 m). On-ice 

vehicles would not be used to follow 

any animal, with the exception of 

actively deterring polar bears if the 

situation requires. 

• Personnel operating on-ice vehicles 

would avoid areas of deep snowdrifts 

near pressure ridges, which are 

preferred areas for subnivean lair 

development. 

• All material (e.g., tents, unused 

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

waste, hazardous waste) would be 

removed from the ice floe upon 

completion of ICEX18. 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 48699 

The following mitigation actions are 

proposed for ICEX18 activities involving 

acoustic transmissions: 

• For activities involving active 

acoustic transmissions from submarines 

and torpedoes, passive acoustic sensors 

on the submarines will listen for 

vocalizing marine mammals prior to the 

initiation of exercise activities. If a 

marine mammal is detected, the 

submarine will delay active 

transmissions, including the launching 

of torpedoes, and not restart until after 

15 minutes have passed with no marine 

mammal detections. If there are no 

animal detections, it is assumed that the 

vocalizing animal is no longer in the 

immediate area and is unlikely to be 

subject to harassment. Ramp up 

procedures will not be required as they 

would result in an unacceptable impact 

on readiness and on the realism of 

training. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means effecting the least practicable 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for authorizations 

must include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the proposed 

action area. Effective reporting is critical 

both to compliance as well as to 

ensuring that the most value is obtained 

from the required monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

The U.S. Navy has coordinated with 

NMFS to develop an overarching 

program plan in which specific 

monitoring would occur. This plan is 

called the Integrated Comprehensive 

Monitoring Program (ICMP) (U.S. 

Department of the Navy 2011). The 

ICMP has been created in direct 

response to Navy permitting 

requirements established in various 

MMPA Final Rules, ESA consultations, 

Biological Opinions, and applicable 

regulations. As a framework document, 

the ICMP applies by regulation to those 

activities on ranges and operating areas 

for which the Navy is seeking or has 

sought incidental take authorizations. 

The ICMP is intended to coordinate 

monitoring efforts across all regions and 

to allocate the most appropriate level 

and type of effort based on set of 

standardized research goals, and in 

acknowledgement of regional scientific 

value and resource availability. 

The ICMP is focused on Navy training 

and testing ranges where the majority of 

Navy activities occur regularly as those 

areas have the greatest potential for 

being impacted. ICEX18 in comparison 

is a short duration exercise that occurs 

approximately every other year. Due to 

the location and expeditionary nature of 

the ice camp, the number of personnel 

onsite is extremely limited and is 

constrained by the requirement to be 

able to evacuate all personnel in a single 

day with small planes. As such, a 

dedicated monitoring project would not 

be feasible as it would require 

additional personnel and equipment to 

locate, tag and monitor the seals. 

The Navy is committed to 

documenting and reporting relevant 

aspects of training and research 

activities to verify implementation of 

mitigation, comply with current 

permits, and improve future 

environmental assessments. All sonar 

usage will be collected via the Navy’s 

Sonar Positional Reporting System 

database and reported. If any injury or 

death of a marine mammal is observed 

during the ICEX18 activity, the Navy 

will immediately halt the activity and 

report the incident consistent with the 

stranding and reporting protocol in the 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

stranding response plan (Navy 2013). 

This approach is also consistent with 

other Navy documents including the 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

The Navy will provide NMFS with a 

draft exercise monitoring report within 

90 days of the conclusion of the 

proposed activity. The draft exercise 

monitoring report will include data 

regarding sonar use and any mammal 

sightings or detection will be 

documented. The report will also 

include information on the number of 

sonar shutdowns recorded. If no 

comments are received from NMFS 

within 30 days of submission of the 

draft final report, the draft final report 

will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

must be submitted within 30 days after 

receipt of comments. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as ‘‘an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
48700 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 

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 ICEX18, as outlined 

previously, have the potential to result 

in Level B harassment of ringed seals in 

the form of TTS and behavioral 

disturbance. No serious injury, mortality 

or Level A takes are anticipated to result 

from this activity. At close ranges and 

high sound levels approaching those 

that could cause PTS, avoidance of the 

area immediately around the sound 

source would be ringed seals’ likely 

behavioral response. NMFS anticipates 

that there will be 11 Level B takes due 

to TTS and 1,665 behavioral Level B 

harassment takes, for a total of 1,676 

ringed seal takes. 

Note that there are only 11 Level B 

takes due to TTS since the TTS range to 

effects is small at only 100 meters or 

less while the behavioral effects range is 

significantly larger extending up to 10 

km. TTS is a temporary impairment of 

hearing and TTS can last from minutes 

or hours to days (in cases of strong 

TTS). In many cases, however, hearing 

sensitivity recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the sound ends. Though 

TTS may occur in up to 11 animals, the 

overall fitness of these individuals is 

unlikely to be affected and negative 

impacts to the entire stock are not 

anticipated. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment could include 

alteration of dive behavior, alteration of 

foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 

interference with or alteration of 

vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

More severe behavioral responses are 

not anticipated due to the localized, 

intermittent use of active acoustic 

sources and mitigation by passive 

acoustic monitoring which will limit 

exposure to sound sources. Most likely, 

individuals will simply be temporarily 

displaced by moving away from the 

sound source. As described previously 

in the behavioral effects section seals 

exposed to non-impulsive sources with 

a received sound pressure level within 

the range of calculated exposures, (142– 

193 dB re 1 mPa), have been shown to 

change their behavior by modifying 

diving activity and avoidance of the 

sound source (Go ̈tz et al., 2010; 

Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Although a 

minor change to a behavior may occur 

as a result of exposure to the sound 

sources associated with the proposed 

action, these changes would be within 

the normal range of behaviors for the 

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

further from the source, rather than one 

closer to the source, would be within 

the normal range of behavior). Thus, 

even repeated Level B harassment of 

some small subset of the overall stock is 

unlikely to result in any significant 

realized decrease in fitness for the 

affected individuals, and would not 

result in any adverse impact to the stock 

as a whole. 

The Navy’s proposed activities are 

localized and of relatively short 

duration. While the total project area is 

large, the Navy expects that most 

activities will occur within the ice camp 

action area in relatively close proximity 

to the ice camp. The larger study area 

depicts the range where submarines 

may maneuver during the exercise. The 

ice camp will be in existence for up to 

six weeks with acoustic transmission 

occurring intermittently over four 

weeks. The Autonomous Reverberation 

Measurement System would be active 

for up to 30 days; the vertical line array 

would be active for up to four hours per 

day for no more than eight days, and; 

the unmanned underwater vehicle used 

for the deployment of a synthetic 

aperture source would transmit for 24 

hours per day for up to eight days. 

The project is not expected to have 

significant adverse effects on marine 

mammal habitat. The project activities 

are limited in time and would not 

modify physical marine mammal 

habitat. While the activities may cause 

some fish to leave the area of 

disturbance, temporarily impacting 

marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities, this would encompass a 

relatively small area of habitat leaving 

large areas of existing fish and marine 

mammal foraging habitat unaffected. As 

such, the impacts to marine mammal 

habitat are not expected to cause 

significant or long-term negative 

consequences. 

For on-ice activity, neither take nor 

mortality of seals are expected due to 

measures followed during the exercise. 

Foot and snowmobile movement on the 

ice will be designed to avoid pressure 

ridges, where ringed seals build their 

lairs; runways will be built in areas 

without pressure ridges; snowmobiles 

will follow established routes; and camp 

buildup is gradual, with activity 

increasing over the first five days 

providing seals the opportunity to move 

to a different lair outside the ice camp 

area. The Navy will also employ its 

standard 100-meter avoidance distance 

from any arctic animals. 

Implementation of these measures 

should ensure that ringed seal lairs are 

not crushed or damaged during ICEX18 

activities. 

The ringed seal pupping season on 

the ice lasts for five to nine weeks 

during late winter and spring. Ice camp 

deployment would begin in midFebruary and be completed by March 

15, before the pupping season. This will 

allow ringed seals to avoid the ice camp 

area once the pupping season begins, 

thereby reducing potential impacts to 

nursing mothers and pups. Furthermore, 

ringed seal mothers are known to 

physically move pups from the birth lair 

to an alternate lair to avoid predation. 

If a ringed seal mother perceives the 

acoustic transmissions as a threat, the 

local network of multiple birth and 

haul-out lairs would allow the mother 

and pup to move to a new lair. 

The estimated population of the 

Alaska stock of ringed seals in the 

Bering Sea is 170,000 animals (Muto et 

al., 2016). The estimated population in 

the Alaska Chukchi and Beaufort Seas is 

at least 300,000 ringed seals, which is 

likely an underestimate since the 

Beaufort Sea surveys were limited to 

within 40 km from shore (Kelly et al., 

2010). Given these population estimates, 

only a limited percent of the stock 

affected would be taken (i.e. between 

0.98 and 0.56 percent). 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Impacts will be limited to Level B 

harassment; 

• A small percentage (<1 percent) of 

the Alaska stock of ringed seals would 

be subject to Level B harassment; 

• TTS is expected to affect only a 

limited number of animals; 

• There will be no loss or 

modification of ringed seal prey or 

habitat; 

• Physical impacts to ringed seal 

subnivean lairs will be avoided; and 

• Ice camp activities would not affect 

animals during the pupping season. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 48701 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

Impacts to subsistence uses of marine 

mammals resulting from the proposed 

action are not anticipated. The proposed 

action would occur outside of the 

primary subsistence use season (i.e., 

summer months), and the study area is 

100–200 nmi seaward of known 

subsistence use areas. Harvest locations 

for ringed seals extend up to 80 nmi 

from shore during the summer months 

while winter harvest of ringed seals 

typically occurs closer to shore. Based 

on this information, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that there will 

not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from the Navy’s 

proposed activities. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

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

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

Federal agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally with 

our ESA Interagency Cooperation 

Division whenever we propose to 

authorize take for endangered or 

threatened species. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is proposed for authorization or 

expected to result from this activity. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

formal consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA is not required for this action. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to the Navy for conducting 

submarine training and testing provided 

the previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. This section contains 

a draft of the IHA itself. The wording 

contained in this section is proposed for 

inclusion in the IHA (if issued). 

1. This Authorization is valid from 

February 1, 2018 through May 1, 2018. 

2. This Authorization is valid only for 

activities associated with submarine 

training and testing in the Beaufort Sea 

and Arctic Ocean. 

3. General Conditions. 

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

possession of the Navy, its designees, 

and work crew personnel operating 

under the authority of this IHA. 

(b) The number of animals and 

species authorized for taking by Level B 

harassment is 1,676 ringed seals. 

4. Prohibitions. 

(a) The taking, by incidental 

harassment only, is limited to the 

species and number listed under 

condition 3(b). The taking by death of 

these species or the taking by 

harassment, injury or death of any other 

species of marine mammal is prohibited 

and may result in the modification, 

suspension, or revocation of this 

Authorization. 

5. Mitigation Measures. 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to implement the following 

mitigation measures. 

(a) Shutdown Measures. 

(i) The Navy shall implement 

shutdown measures if a marine mammal 

is detected by submarines via passive 

acoustics during use of active sonar 

transmissions from submarines and 

torpedoes. 

(ii) The Navy shall not restart acoustic 

transmissions until after 15 minutes 

have passed with no marine mammal 

detections. 

(b) The Navy shall avoid on-ice take 

by implementing the following: 

(i) Foot and snowmobile movement 

shall avoid pressure ridges; 

(ii) The ice camp, including runway, 

shall be built on multi-year ice without 

pressure ridges; 

(iii) Snowmobiles shall follow 

established routes; 

(iv) Camp deployment shall be 

gradual with activity increasing over the 

first five days and shall be completed by 

March 15, 2018. 

(vi) Implementation of 100-meter 

avoidance distance of all marine 

mammals. 

6. Reporting. 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to: 

(a) Submit a draft exercise monitoring 

report within 90 days of the completion 

of proposed training and testing 

activities. 

(b) The draft exercise monitoring 

report will include data regarding sonar 

use and any marine mammal sightings 

or detection. It will also include 

information on the number of sonarrelated shutdowns recorded. 

(c) If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days of submission of 

the draft final report, the draft final 

report will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

must be submitted within 30 days after 

receipt of comments. 

(d) Reporting injured or dead marine 

mammals: 

(i) In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by this IHA, such as an 

injury (Level A harassment), serious 

injury, or mortality, the Navy shall 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, NMFS. The Navy shall 

adhere to protocols outlined in the 

Stranding Response Plan for Atlantic 

Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) 

Study Area (November 2013). 

7. This Authorization may be 

modified, suspended or withdrawn if 

the holder fails to abide by the 

conditions prescribed herein, or if 

NMFS determines the authorized taking 

is having more than a negligible impact 

on the species or stock of affected 

marine mammals. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the draft authorization, and any other 

aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA 

for the Navy’s proposed ICEX18 training 

and testing activities. Please include 

with your comments any supporting 

data or literature citations to help 

inform our final decision on the request 

for MMPA authorization. 

Dated: October 13, 2017. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22637 Filed 10–18–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF745 

Pacific Fishery Management Council; 

Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting 

(webinar). 

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s (Pacific Council) 

Coastal Pelagic Species Management 

Team (CPSMT) and Coastal Pelagic 

Species Advisory Subpanel (CPSAS) 

will hold a webinar meeting that is open 

to the public. 

DATES: The webinar will be held 

Tuesday, November 7, 2017, from 1 p.m. 

to 4 p.m., or until business has been 

completed. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held 

via webinar. A public listening station 

is available at the Pacific Council office 

(address below). To attend the webinar, 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES