83 FR 48799 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research Arctic Research Activities

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 188 (September 27, 2018)

Page Range		48799-48809
FR Document		2018-21070

In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research (ONR) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during research activities associated with the Arctic Research Activities project in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The Navy's activities are considered military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (NDAA).

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48799-48809]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21070]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG030

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy's Office of Naval
Research Arctic Research Activities

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research (ONR) to incidentally harass,
by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during research activities
associated with the Arctic Research Activities project in the Beaufort
and Chukchi Seas. The Navy's activities are considered military
readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (NDAA).

DATES: This Authorization is effective from September 20, 2018, through
September 19, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Fowler, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities. In case of problems
accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public
for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable
[adverse] impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat,
paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks
for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and
reporting of such takings.
The NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the ``small numbers'' and
``specified geographical region'' limitations indicated above and
amended the definition of ``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military
readiness activity.'' The activity for which incidental take of marine
mammals has been authorized qualifies as a military readiness activity.
The Navy's action constitutes a military readiness activity because
these scientific research activities directly support the adequate and
realistic testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors
for proper operation and suitability for combat use by providing
critical data on the changing natural and physical environment in which
such materiel will be assessed and deployed. This scientific research
also directly supports fleet training and operations by providing up to
date information and data on the natural and physical environment
essential to training and operations. The definitions of all applicable
MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections
below.

Summary of Request

On April 6, 2018, NMFS received a request from ONR for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to Arctic Research Activities in the
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. ONR's application was determined adequate
and complete on August 7, 2018. ONR's request is for take of beluga
whales (Delphinapterus leucas), bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus),
and ringed seals (Pusa hispida hispida) by Level B harassment only.
Neither ONR nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from
this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
This IHA covers one year of a larger project for which ONR intends
to request take authorization for subsequent facets of the project.
This IHA is valid from September 20, 2018, through September 19, 2019.
The larger three-year project involves several scientific objectives
which support the Arctic and Global Prediction Program, as well as the
Ocean Acoustics Program and the Naval Research Laboratory, for which
ONR is the parent command.

Description of Activity

Overview

ONR's Arctic Research Activities involve scientific experiments
conducted in support of the Arctic and Global Prediction Program, the

[[Page 48800]]

Stratified Ocean Dynamics of the Arctic (SODA), Arctic Mobile Observing
System (AMOS), Ocean Acoustics field work, and Naval Research
Laboratory (NRL) in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in 2018 and 2019. The
study area for the Arctic Research Activities is located in the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the high seas north of Alaska (see
Figure 1-1 in the IHA application). The total area of the study area is
257,723 square miles (mi\2\) (667,500 square kilometers (km\2\)).
Beginning in late September 2018, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (CGC)
HEALY and the Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq will be used to tow and
deploy acoustic sources. CGC HEALY may also be required to perform
icebreaking to deploy the moored and ice-tethered acoustic sources. A
maximum of four research cruises (one cruise per vessel in each
calendar year) of up to 30 days are expected. Each vessel may tow
sources for up to 8 hours per day for 15 days during each cruise in
open water or marginal ice. Once deployed, moored and drifting sources
would operate intermittently each day for up to three years (only the
first year is authorized by this IHA). Icebreaking may occur on up to 4
days.
A detailed description of the planned Arctic Research Activities
project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA
(83 FR 40234; August 14, 2018). Since that time, no changes have been
made to the planned Arctic Research Activities. Therefore, a detailed
description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register
notice for the description of the specified activity.

Comments and Responses

A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to ONR was published in
the Federal Register on August 14, 2018 (83 FR 40234). That notice
described, in detail, ONR's activity, the marine mammal species that
may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine
mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received a
comment from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).
Comment 1: The Commission noted that the Navy used cutoff distances
instead of relying on Bayesian biphasic dose response functions (BRFs)
to inform take estimates. The Commission asserted that the cutoff
distances used by the Navy are unsubstantiated and that the Navy
arbitrarily set a cutoff distance of 10 kilometers (km) for pinnipeds,
which could effectively eliminate a large portion of the estimated
number of takes. The Commission, therefore, recommended that the Navy
refrain from using cut-off distances in conjunction with the Bayesian
BRFs.
Response: We disagree with the Navy's recommendation. The
derivation of the behavioral response functions and associated cutoff
distances is provided in the Navy's Criteria and Thresholds for U.S.
Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) technical
report (Navy 2017a). The consideration of proximity (distance cutoff)
was part of criteria developed in consultation with NMFS and was
applied within the Navy's BRF. Distance cutoffs beyond which the
potential of significant behavioral responses were considered to be
unlikely were used in conducting analysis for ONR's Arctic Research
Activities. The Navy's BRF applied within these distances is an
appropriate method for providing a realistic (but still conservative
where some uncertainties exist) estimate of impact and potential take
for these activities.
Comment 2: The Commission also noted that a standard requirement
for coordinating vessel presence in the Beaufort Sea with the Alaska
Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) to ensure that ONR vessels do not
disrupt subsistence hunting was left out of the proposed IHA.
Response: NMFS has included this requirement to coordinate with the
AEWC in the final authorization.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region) and more general information about
these species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found
on NMFS's website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
the study area and summarizes information related to the population or
stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known.
For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). PBR is defined by
the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is
anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and
mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross
indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS's U.S. 2017 SARs (e.g., Muto et al., 2018, Carretta et al., 2018).
All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the
time of publication and are available in the 2017 SARs (Muto et al.,
2018; Carretta et al., 2018).

Table 1--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present in the Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale...................... Eschrichtius robustus.. Eastern North Pacific.. -/-; N 20,900 (0.05, 20,125, 624 4.25
2011).
Family Balaenidae:

[[Page 48801]]

Bowhead whale................... Balaena mysticetus..... Western Arctic......... E/D; Y 16,820 (0.052, 16,100, 161 43
2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Beluga whale.................... Delphinapterus leucas.. Beaufort Sea........... -/-; N 39,258 (0.229, N/A, Undet.\4\ 139
1992).
Beluga whale.................... Delphinapterus leucas.. Eastern Chukchi Sea.... -/-; N 20,752 (0.70, 12.194, 244 67
2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Bearded seal \5\................ Erignathus barbatus.... Alaska................. T/D; Y 299,174 (-, 273,676, 8,210 391
2013).
Ribbon seal..................... Histriophoca fasciata.. Alaska................. -/-; N 184,000 (-, 163,086, 9,785 3.8
2013).
Ringed seal \5\................. Pusa hispida hispida... Alaska................. T/D; Y 170,000 (-, 170,000, 5,100 1,054
2013).
Spotted seal.................... Phoca largha........... Alaska................. -/-; N 461,625 (-, 423,237, 12,697 329
2013).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ The 2016 guidelines for preparing SARs state that abundance estimates older than 8 years should not be used to calculate PBR due to a decline in the
reliability of an aged estimate. Therefore, the PBR for this stock is considered undetermined.
\5\ Abundances and associated values for bearded and ringed seals are for the U.S. population in the Bering Sea only.
Note--Italicized species are not expected or authorized to be taken.

A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the
Arctic Research Activities, including brief information regarding
population trends and threats, and information regarding local
occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice for the
proposed IHA (83 FR 40234; August 14, 2018). Since that time, we are
not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks;
therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to
that Federal Register notice for those descriptions. Please also refer
to NMFS' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for
generalized species accounts.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat

The effects of underwater noise from the towed and deployed
acoustic sources, as well as icebreaking, have the potential to result
in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the study
area. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 40234;
August 14, 2018) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic
noise on marine mammals and their habitat, therefore that information
is not repeated here; please refer to the Federal Register notice (83
FR 40234; August 14, 2018) for that information.

Estimated Take

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration
of 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 temporary threshold shift
(TTS) for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to acoustic
transmissions and icebreaking noise. Based on the nature of the
activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4)
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group size). For this IHA, ONR employed a
sophisticated model known as the Navy Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO)
for assessing the impacts of underwater sound. Below, we describe the
factors considered here in more detail and present the authorized
takes.

[[Page 48802]]

Acoustic Thresholds

Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed or incur TTS of some degree (equated to Level B
harassment) or to incur a permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--In coordination with
NMFS, the Navy developed behavioral thresholds to support environmental
analyses for the Navy's testing and training military readiness
activities utilizing active sonar sources; these behavioral harassment
thresholds are used here to evaluate the potential effects of the
active sonar components of the planned 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) addressed additional studies and focus on observations
where the received sound level of the exposed marine mammal(s) was
known or could be estimated. Multi-year research efforts have conducted
sonar exposure studies for odontocetes and mysticetes (Miller et al.
2012; Sivle et al. 2012). Several studies with captive animals have
provided data under controlled circumstances for odontocetes and
pinnipeds (Houser et al. 2013a; Houser et al. 2013b). Moretti et al.
(2014) published a beaked whale dose-response curve based on passive
acoustic monitoring of beaked whales during U.S. Navy training activity
at Atlantic Underwater Test and Evaluation Center during actual Anti-
Submarine Warfare exercises. This new information necessitated the
update of the behavioral response criteria for the U.S. Navy's
environmental analyses.
Southall et al. (2007) synthesized data from many past behavioral
studies and observations to determine the likelihood of behavioral
reactions at specific sound levels. While in general, the louder the
sound source the more intense the behavioral response, it was clear
that the proximity of a sound source and the animal's experience,
motivation, and conditioning were also critical factors influencing the
response (Southall et al. 2007). After examining all of the available
data, the authors felt that the derivation of thresholds for behavioral
response based solely on exposure level was not supported because
context of the animal at the time of sound exposure was an important
factor in estimating response. Nonetheless, in some conditions,
consistent avoidance reactions were noted at higher sound levels
depending on the marine mammal species or group, allowing conclusions
to be drawn.
Odontocete behavioral criteria for U.S. Navy non-impulsive,
intermittent sources were updated based on controlled exposure studies
for dolphins and sea mammals, sonar, and safety (3S) studies where
odontocete behavioral responses were reported after exposure to sonar
(Antunes et al., 2014; Houser et al., 2013b); Miller et al., 2011;
Miller et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2012). For the 3S study the sonar
outputs included 1-2 kilohertz (kHz) up- and down-sweeps and 6-7 kHz
up-sweeps; source levels were ramped up from 152-158 decibels (dB) re 1
microPascal ([micro]Pa) to a maximum of 198-214 re 1 [micro]Pa at 1 m.
Sonar signals were ramped up over several pings while the vessel
approached the mammals. The study did include some control passes of
ships with the sonar off to discern the behavioral responses of the
mammals to vessel presence alone versus active sonar. The controlled
exposure studies included exposing the Navy's trained bottlenose
dolphins to mid-frequency sonar while they were in a pen. Mid-frequency
sonar was played at 6 different exposure levels from 125-185 dB re 1
[micro]Pa (root mean square (rms)). The behavioral response function
for odontocetes resulting from the studies described above has a 50
percent probability of response at 157 dB re 1 [micro]Pa. Additionally,
distance cutoffs (20 km for MF cetaceans and 10 km for pinnipeds) were
applied to exclude exposures beyond which the potential of significant
behavioral responses is considered to be unlikely.
The pinniped behavioral threshold was updated based on controlled
exposure experiments on the following captive animals: hooded seal,
gray seal, and California sea lion (G[ouml]tz et al. 2010; Houser et
al. 2013a; Kvadsheim et al. 2010). Hooded seals were exposed to
increasing levels of sonar until an avoidance response was observed,
while the grey seals were exposed first to a single received level
multiple times, then an increasing received level. Each individual
California sea lion was exposed to the same received level ten times.
These exposure sessions were combined into a single response value,
with an overall response assumed if an animal responded in any single
session. The resulting behavioral response function for pinnipeds has a
50 percent probability of response at 166 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. Additional
details regarding these criteria may be found in the technical report,
Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects
Analysis (2017a) which may be found at: http://aftteis.com/Portals/3/docs/newdocs/Criteria%20and%20Thresholds_TR_Submittal_05262017.pdf.
This technical report was included as part of the Navy's Atlantic Fleet
Training and Testing Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) (Navy 2017b) which is located
at: http://www.aftteis.com/.
NMFS adopted the Navy's approach to estimating incidental take by
Level B harassment from the active acoustic sources for this action,
which includes use of these dose response functions. The Navy's dose
response functions were developed to estimate take from sonar and
similar transducers and are not applicable to icebreaking. NMFS
predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in
a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater
anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling, icebreaking)
and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g.,
seismic airguns) or non-impulsive, intermittent (e.g., scientific
sonar) sources. Thus, take of marine mammals by Level B harassment due
to icebreaking has been calculated using the Navy's NAEMO model using
the 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) received level threshold for behavioral
response.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources
(impulsive or non-impulsive). ONR's planned activities involve only
non-impulsive sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 2 below. The references,
analysis,

[[Page 48803]]

and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described
in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

Table 2--Injury (PTS) Thresholds for Underwater Sounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds *
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
threshold associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.

Quantitative Modeling

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number
of marine mammals that could be harassed by the underwater acoustic
transmissions during the planned action. Inputs to the quantitative
analysis included marine mammal density estimates, marine mammal depth
occurrence distributions (Navy 2017a), oceanographic and environmental
data, marine mammal hearing data, and criteria and thresholds for
levels of potential effects. The quantitative analysis consists of
computer modeled estimates and a post-model analysis to determine the
number of potential animal exposures. The model calculates sound energy
propagation from the planned non-impulsive acoustic sources and
icebreaking, the sound received by animat (virtual animal) dosimeters
representing marine mammals distributed in the area around the modeled
activity, and whether the sound received by animats exceeds the
thresholds for effects.
The Navy developed a set of software tools and compiled data for
estimating acoustic effects on marine mammals without consideration of
behavioral avoidance or mitigation. These tools and data sets serve as
integral components of NAEMO. In NAEMO, animats are distributed non-
uniformly based on species-specific density, depth distribution, and
group size information and animats record energy received at their
location in the water column. A fully three-dimensional environment is
used for calculating sound propagation and animat exposure in NAEMO.
Site-specific bathymetry, sound speed profiles, wind speed, and bottom
properties are incorporated into the propagation modeling process.
NAEMO calculates the likely propagation for various levels of energy
(sound or pressure) resulting from each source used during the training
event.
NAEMO then records the energy received by each animat within the
energy footprint of the event and calculates the number of animats
having received levels of energy exposures that fall within defined
impact thresholds. Predicted effects on the animats within a scenario
are then tallied and the highest order effect (based on severity of
criteria; e.g., PTS over TTS) predicted for a given animat is assumed.
Each scenario, or each 24-hour period for scenarios lasting greater
than 24 hours (which NMFS recommends in order to ensure more consistent
quantification of take across actions), is independent of all others,
and therefore, the same individual marine animal (as represented by an
animat in the model environment) could be impacted during each
independent scenario or 24-hour period. In few instances, although the
activities themselves all occur within the study area, sound may
propagate beyond the boundary of the study area. Any exposures
occurring outside the boundary of the study area are counted as if they
occurred within the study area boundary. NAEMO provides the initial
estimated impacts on marine species with a static horizontal
distribution (i.e., animats in the model environment do not move
horizontally).
There are limitations to the data used in the acoustic effects
model, and the results must be interpreted within this context. While
the best available data and appropriate input assumptions have been
used in the modeling, when there is a lack of definitive data to
support an aspect of the modeling, conservative modeling assumptions
have been chosen (i.e., assumptions that may result in an overestimate
of acoustic exposures):
Animats are modeled as being underwater, stationary, and
facing the source and therefore always predicted to receive the maximum
potential sound level at a given location (i.e., no porpoising or
pinnipeds' heads above water);
Animats do not move horizontally (but change their
position vertically within the water column), which may overestimate
physiological effects such as hearing loss, especially for slow moving
or stationary sound sources in the model;
Animats are stationary horizontally and therefore do not
avoid the sound source, unlike in the wild where animals would most
often avoid exposures at higher sound levels, especially those
exposures that may result in PTS;
Multiple exposures within any 24-hour period are
considered one continuous exposure for the purposes of calculating
potential threshold shift, because there are not sufficient data to
estimate a hearing recovery function for the time between exposures;
and
Mitigation measures were not considered in the model. In
reality, sound-producing activities would be reduced, stopped, or
delayed if marine mammals are detected by visual monitoring.

[[Page 48804]]

Because of these inherent model limitations and simplifications,
model-estimated results were 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.
The underwater radiated noise signature for icebreaking in the
central Arctic Ocean by CGC HEALY during different types of ice cover
was characterized in Roth et al. (2013). The radiated noise signatures
were characterized for various fractions of ice cover (represented as
the proportion of ice out of 10, with 10/10 being total ice coverage).
For modeling, the 8/10 and 3/10 ice cover were used based on the data
available. Each modeled day of icebreaking consisted of 16 hours of 8/
10 ice cover and 8 hours of 3/10 ice cover, which was considered a
fairly conservative way of representing the expected ice cover based on
what is known. Icebreaking was modeled for 4 days each year. The sound
signature of each of the ice coverage levels was broken into 1-octave
bins (Table 3). In the model, each bin was included as a separate
source on the modeled vessel. When these independent sources go active
concurrently, they simulate the sound signature of CGC HEALY. The
modeled source level summed across these bins was 196.2 dB for the 8/10
signature and 189.3 dB for the 3/10 ice signature. These source levels
are a good approximation of the icebreaker's observed source level
(Roth et al., 2013). Each frequency and source level was modeled as an
independent source, and applied simultaneously to all of the animats
within the model environment. Each second was summed across frequency
to estimate sound pressure level (SPLrms). This value was
incorporated into NAEMO using NMFS' 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa continuous
sound source threshold to estimate Level B harassment. For PTS and TTS
determinations, sound exposure levels were summed over the duration of
the test and the transit to the deep water deployment level.

Table 3--Modeled Bins for Icebreaking in Fractional Ice Coverage on CGC
HEALY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/10 Ice 3/10 Ice
coverage (full coverage
power) (quarter power)
Frequency (Hz) -------------------------------------
Source level Source level
(dB) (dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25................................ 189 187
50................................ 188 182
100............................... 189 179
200............................... 190 177
400............................... 188 175
800............................... 183 170
1,600............................. 177 166
3,200............................. 176 171
6,400............................. 172 168
12,800............................ 167 164
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the other non-impulsive sources, NAEMO calculates the SPL and
SEL for each active emission during an event. This is done by taking
the following factors into account over the propagation paths:
Bathymetric relief and bottom types, sound speed, and attenuation
contributors such as absorption, bottom loss, and surface loss.
Platforms such as a ship using one or more sound sources are modeled in
accordance with relevant vehicle dynamics and time durations by moving
them across an area whose size is representative of the testing event's
operational area. Table 4 provides range to effects for non-impulsive
sources and icebreaking noise planned for the Arctic research
activities to mid-frequency cetacean and pinniped specific criteria.
Marine mammals within these ranges would be predicted to receive the
associated effect. Range to effects is important information in not
only predicting non-impulsive acoustic impacts, but also in verifying
the accuracy of model results against real-world situations and
determining adequate mitigation ranges to avoid higher level effects,
especially physiological effects in marine mammals. Therefore, the
ranges in Table 4 provide realistic maximum distances over which the
specific effects from the use of non-impulsive sources during the
planned action would be possible.

Table 4--Range to PTS, TTS, and Behavioral Effects in the Study Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range to behavioral effects Range to TTS effects (m) Range to PTS effects (m)
(m) ---------------------------------------------------------------
Source --------------------------------
MF cetacean Pinniped MF cetacean Pinniped MF cetacean Pinniped
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LF4 towed source........................................ 20,000 10,000 0 1 0 0
LF5 towed source........................................ 20,000 10,000 0 1 0 0
MF9 towed source........................................ 20,000 10,000 4 50 0 4
Navigation and real-time sensing sources................ 20,000 10,000 0 6 0 0
Tomography sources...................................... 20,000 10,000 0 2 0 0
Spherical Wave source................................... 20,000 10,000 0 0 0 0
Icebreaking noise....................................... 4,275 4,525 3 12 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 48805]]

A behavioral response study conducted on and around the Navy range
in Southern California (SOCAL BRS) observed reactions to sonar and
similar sound sources by several marine mammal species, including
Risso's dolphins (Grampus griseus), a mid-frequency cetacean (DeRuiter
et al., 2013; Goldbogen et al., 2013; Southall et al., 2011; Southall
et al., 2012; Southall et al., 2013; Southall et al., 2014). In
preliminary analysis, none of the Risso's dolphins exposed to simulated
or real mid-frequency sonar demonstrated any overt or obvious responses
(Southall et al., 2012, Southall et al., 2013). In general, although
the responses to the simulated sonar were varied across individuals and
species, none of the animals exposed to real Navy sonar responded;
these exposures occurred at distances beyond 10 km, and were up to 100
km away (DeRuiter et al., 2013; B. Southall pers. comm.). These data
suggest that most odontocetes (not including beaked whales and harbor
porpoises) likely do not exhibit significant behavioral reactions to
sonar and other transducers beyond approximately 10 km. Therefore, the
Navy uses a cutoff distance for odontocetes of 10 km for moderate
source level, single platform training and testing events, and 20 km
for all other events, including the planned Arctic Research Activities
(Navy 2017a).
Southall et al. (2007) report that pinnipeds do not exhibit strong
reactions to SPLs up to 140 dB re 1 [micro]Pa from non-impulsive
sources. While there are limited data on pinniped behavioral responses
beyond about 3 km in the water, the Navy uses a distance cutoff of 5 km
for moderate source level, single platform training and testing events,
and 10 km for all other events, including the planned Arctic Research
Activities (Navy 2017a).
NMFS and the Navy conservatively implemented a distance cutoff of
5.4 nmi (10 km) for pinnipeds, and 10.8 nmi (20 km) for mid-frequency
cetaceans (Navy 2017a). Regardless of the received level at that
distance, take is not estimated to occur beyond 10 and 20 km from the
source for pinnipeds and cetaceans, respectively. Not all sources are
likely to result in TTS or PTS for pinnipeds or MF cetaceans. These
sources show a range to effects of 0 m (Table 4).
As discussed above, within NAEMO animats do not move horizontally
or react in any way to avoid sound. Furthermore, mitigation measures
that reduce the likelihood of physiological impacts are not considered
in quantitative analysis. Therefore, the model may overestimate
acoustic impacts, especially physiological impacts near the sound
source. The behavioral criteria used as a part of this analysis
acknowledges that a behavioral reaction is likely to occur at levels
below those required to cause hearing loss. At close ranges and high
sound levels approaching those that could cause PTS, avoidance of the
area immediately around the sound source is the assumed behavioral
response for most cases.
In previous environmental analyses, the Navy has implemented
analytical factors to account for avoidance behavior and the
implementation of mitigation measures. The application of avoidance and
mitigation factors has only been applied to model-estimated PTS
exposures given the short distance over which PTS is estimated. Given
that no PTS exposures were estimated during the modeling process for
this planned action, the quantitative consideration of avoidance and
mitigation factors were not included in this analysis.
If exposure were to occur, beluga whales, bearded seals, and ringed
seals could exhibit behavioral responses. Additionally, ringed seals
may exhibit a TTS. For the reasons included above, Level A harassment
is not anticipated for any of the exposed species or stocks.
Table 5 shows the exposures expected for the beluga whale, bearded
seal, and ringed seal based on NAEMO modeled results. While density
estimates for the two stocks of beluga whales are equal (Kaschner et
al., 2006; Kaschner 2004), take of the Eastern Chukchi Sea beluga whale
stock has been reduced to account for the lower overlap of this stock's
range with the study area.

Table 5--Authorized Takes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
estimate Level B Level B
within study harassment harassment Level A Total Percentage of
Species area (animals from towed and from harassment authorized stock taken
per square km) deployed icebreaking take
\1\ sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga Whale (Beaufort Sea Stock)....................... 0.0087 60 24 0 84 0.21
Beluga Whale (Eastern Chukchi Sea stock)................ 0.0087 6 2 0 8 0.04
Bearded Seal............................................ 0.0332 5 0 0 5 <0.01
Ringed Seal............................................. 0.3760 1,826 1,245 0 3,071 1.81
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kaschner et al. (2006); Kaschner (2004).

Effects of Specified Activities on Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals

Subsistence hunting is important for many Alaska Native
communities. A study of the North Slope villages of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik,
and Barrow identified the primary resources used for subsistence and
the locations for harvest (Stephen R. Braund & Associates 2010),
including terrestrial mammals (caribou, moose, wolf, and wolverine),
birds (geese and eider), fish (Arctic cisco, Arctic char/Dolly Varden
trout, and broad whitefish), and marine mammals (bowhead whale, ringed
seal, bearded seal, and walrus). Bearded seals, ringed seals, and
beluga whales are located within the study area during the planned
action. The permitted sources would be placed outside of the range for
subsistence hunting and the study plans have been communicated to the
Native communities. The closest active acoustic source within the study
area (aside from the de minimis sources), is approximately 141 mi (227
km) from land. As stated above, the range to effects for acoustic
sources in this experiment is relatively small (20 km). In addition,
the planned action would not remove individuals from the population.
Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by this action to the
availability of bearded seal, ringed seal, or beluga whale for
subsistence hunting. Therefore, subsistence uses of marine mammals
would not be impacted by the planned action.

Mitigation

In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and

[[Page 48806]]

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. (As explained above, subsistence uses of marine
mammals will not be affected.) NMFS regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include information about the
availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment,
methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected
species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). The NDAA
for FY 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness
activities and the incidental take authorization process such that
``least practicable impact'' shall include consideration of personnel
safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness
of the military readiness activity.
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further
considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if
implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation
(probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

Ships operated by or for the Navy have personnel assigned to stand
watch at all times, day and night, when moving through the water. While
in transit, ships must use extreme caution and proceed at a safe speed
such that the ship can take proper and effective action to avoid a
collision with any marine mammal and can be stopped within a distance
appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
Exclusion zones for active acoustics involve turning off towed
sources when a marine mammal is sighted within 200 yards (yd; 183 m)
from the source. Active transmission will re-commence if any one of the
following conditions are met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the
exclusion zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the exclusion
zone based on its course and speed and relative motion between the
animal and the source, (3) the exclusion zone has been clear from any
additional sightings for a period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 30
minutes for cetaceans, or (4) the ship has transited more than 400 yd
(366 m) beyond the location of the last sighting.
During mooring deployment, visual observation must start 30 minutes
prior to and continue throughout the deployment within an exclusion
zone of 60 yd (55 m) around the deployed mooring. Deployment will stop
if a marine mammal is visually detected within the exclusion zone.
Deployment will re-commence if any one of the following conditions are
met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the exclusion zone, (2) the
animal is thought to have exited the exclusion zone based on its course
and speed, or (3) the exclusion zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for a period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 30 minutes for
cetaceans. Visual monitoring will continue through 30 minutes following
the deployment of sources.
Ships must avoid approaching marine mammals head on and maneuver to
maintain an exclusion zone of 500 yd (457 m) around observed whales,
and 200 yd (183 m) around all other marine mammals, provided it is safe
to do so in ice free waters.
Moored and drifting sources are left in place and cannot be turned
off until the following year during ice free months. Once they are
programmed, they will operate at the specified pulse lengths and duty
cycles until they are either turned off the following year or there is
failure of the battery and are not able to operate. Due to the ice
covered nature of the Arctic, it is not possible to recover the sources
or interfere with their transmit operations in the middle of the year.
These requirements do not apply if a vessel's safety is at risk,
such as when a change of course would create an imminent and serious
threat to safety, person, vessel, or aircraft, and to the extent
vessels are restricted in their ability to maneuver. No further action
is necessary if a marine mammal other than a whale continues to
approach the vessel after there has already been one maneuver and/or
speed change to avoid the animal. Avoidance measures should continue
for any observed whale in order to maintain an exclusion zone of 500 yd
(457 m).
All personnel conducting on-ice experiments, as well as all
aircraft operating in the study area, are required to maintain a
separation distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from any sighted pinniped.
All ships are required to coordinate with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission (AEWC) using established check-in and communication
procedures when vessels approach subsistence hunting areas.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, NMFS
has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.

Monitoring and Reporting

In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well
as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient

[[Page 48807]]

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3)
co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action; or (4)
biological or behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas).
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks.
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat).
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
While underway, the ships (including non-Navy ships operating on
behalf of the Navy) utilizing active acoustics and towed in-water
devices will have at least one watch person during activities. Watch
personnel undertake extensive training in accordance with the U.S. Navy
Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent, including on the job
instruction and a formal Personal Qualification Standard program (or
equivalent program for supporting contractors or civilians), to certify
that they have demonstrated all necessary skills (such as detection and
reporting of floating or partially submerged objects). Their duties may
be performed in conjunction with other job responsibilities, such as
navigating the ship or supervising other personnel. While on watch,
personnel employ visual search techniques, including the use of
binoculars, using a scanning method in accordance with the U.S. Navy
Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent. A primary duty of
watch personnel is to detect and report all objects and disturbances
sighted in the water that may be indicative of a threat to the ship and
its crew, such as debris, or surface disturbance. Per safety
requirements, watch personnel also report any marine mammals sighted
that have the potential to be in the direct path of the ship as a
standard collision avoidance procedure.
The U.S. Navy has coordinated with NMFS to develop an overarching
program plan in which specific monitoring would occur. This plan is
called the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) (Navy
2011). The ICMP was developed in direct response to Navy permitting
requirements established through various environmental compliance
efforts. As a framework document, the ICMP applies by regulation to
those activities on ranges and operating areas for which the Navy is
seeking or has sought incidental take authorizations. The ICMP is
intended to coordinate monitoring efforts across all regions and to
allocate the most appropriate level and type of effort based on a set
of standardized research goals, and in acknowledgement of regional
scientific value and resource availability.
The ICMP is focused on Navy training and testing ranges where the
majority of Navy activities occur regularly as those areas have the
greatest potential for being impacted. ONR's Arctic Research Activities
in comparison is a less intensive test with little human activity
present in the Arctic. Human presence is limited to a minimal amount of
days for possible towed source operations and source deployments, in
contrast to the large majority (>95%) of time that the sources will be
left behind and operate autonomously. Therefore, a dedicated monitoring
project is not warranted.
ONR previously conducted experiments in the Beaufort Sea as part of
the Canadian Basin Acoustic Propagation Experiments (CANAPE) project in
2016 and 2017. The goal of the CANAPE project was to determine the
fundamental limits to the use of acoustic methods and signal processing
imposed by ice and ocean processes in the changing Arctic. The CANAPE
project included ten moored receiver arrays (frequencies ranging from
200 Hz to 16 kHz) that recorded 24 hours per day for one year.
Recordings from the CANAPE arrays are currently being compiled and
analyzed by Defense Research and Development Canada, University of
Delaware, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI). Researchers
from WHOI are planning to do marine mammal analysis of the recordings,
including density estimation. ONR is planning to release the marine
mammal data collected from the CANAPE receivers to other researchers.
As part of the planned Arctic Research Activities, ONR is deploying
a moored receiver array similar to those used in CANAPE. The receiver
array would be deployed during the SODA research cruises in 2018 and be
recovered one year later. While a single array is a modest effort
compared to the ten arrays used in CANAPE, it would provide new marine
mammal monitoring data for the 2018-2019 time frame. The array would be
deployed at one of the locations labeled on Figure 1-1 in the IHA
application. There would be no active sources associated with the
array. Once the array is recovered, the recordings would be shared
alongside the CANAPE data.
The Navy is committed to documenting and reporting relevant aspects
of research and testing activities to verify implementation of
mitigation, comply with permits, and improve future environmental
assessments. If any injury or death of a marine mammal is observed
during the 2018-19 Arctic Research Activities, the Navy will
immediately halt the activity and report the incident to the Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding
Coordinator, NMFS. The following information must be provided:
Time, date, and location of the discovery;
Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
If available, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s); and
General circumstances under which the animal(s) was
discovered (e.g., during use of towed acoustic sources, deployment of
moored or drifting sources, during on-ice experiments, or by transiting
vessel).
ONR will provide NMFS with a draft exercise monitoring report
within 90 days of the conclusion of the planned activity. The draft
exercise monitoring report will include data regarding acoustic source
use and any mammal sightings or detection will be documented. The
report will include the estimated number of marine mammals taken during
the activity. The report will also include information on the number of
shutdowns recorded. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30
days of submission of the draft final report, the draft final report
will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final
report must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

NMFS has defined negligible impact as ``an impact resulting from
the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103).
A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-

[[Page 48808]]

level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
Underwater acoustic transmissions associated with the Arctic
Research Activities, as outlined previously, have the potential to
result in Level B harassment of beluga whales, ringed seals, and
bearded seals in the form of TTS and behavioral disturbance. No serious
injury, mortality, or Level A harassment are anticipated to result from
this activity.
Minimal takes of marine mammals by Level B harassment would be due
to TTS since the range to TTS effects is small at only 50 m or less
while the behavioral effects range is significantly larger extending up
to 20 km (Table 4). TTS is a temporary impairment of hearing and can
last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many
cases, however, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to
the sound ends. Though TTS may occur in a single ringed seal, the
overall fitness of the individual seal is unlikely to be affected and
negative impacts to the entire stock of ringed seals are not
anticipated.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment could
include alteration of dive behavior, alteration of foraging behavior,
effects to breathing rates, interference with or alteration of
vocalization, avoidance, and flight. More severe behavioral responses
are not anticipated due to the localized, intermittent use of active
acoustic sources. Most likely, individuals will simply be temporarily
displaced by moving away from the sound source. As described previously
in the behavioral effects section, seals exposed to non-impulsive
sources with a received sound pressure level within the range of
calculated exposures (142-193 dB re 1 [micro]Pa), have been shown to
change their behavior by modifying diving activity and avoidance of the
sound source (G[ouml]tz et al., 2010; Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Although
a minor change to a behavior may occur as a result of exposure to the
sound sources associated with the planned action, these changes would
be within the normal range of behaviors for the animal (e.g., the use
of a breathing hole further from the source, rather than one closer to
the source, would be within the normal range of behavior). Thus, even
repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of the overall stock
is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness
for the affected individuals, and would not result in any adverse
impact to the stock as a whole.
The project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on
marine mammal habitat. While the activities may cause some fish to
leave the area of disturbance, temporarily impacting marine mammals'
foraging opportunities, this would encompass a relatively small area of
habitat leaving large areas of existing fish and marine mammal foraging
habitat unaffected. Icebreaking may temporarily affect the availability
of pack ice for seals to haul out but the proportion of ice disturbed
is small relative to the overall amount of available ice habitat.
Icebreaking will not occur during the time of year when ringed seals
are expected to be within subnivean lairs or pupping (Chapskii 1940;
McLaren 1958; Smith and Stirling 1975). As such, the impacts to marine
mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term
negative consequences.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
Behavioral Impacts will be limited to Level B harassment
of a relatively minor nature;
Minimal takes by Level B harassment will be due to TTS;
and
There will be no permanent or significant loss or
modification of marine mammal prey or habitat.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned
activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal
species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

Impacts to subsistence uses of marine mammals resulting from the
planned action are not anticipated. The closest active acoustic source
within the study area is approximately 141 mi (227 km) from land,
outside of known subsistence use areas. Based on this information, NMFS
has determined that there will be no unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses from ONR's planned activities.

National Environmental Policy Act

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published
by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the
Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental
Assessment (EA/OEA) to consider the direct, indirect and cumulative
effects to the human environment resulting from the Arctic Research
Activities project. NMFS made the Navy's EA/OEA available to the public
for review and comment, concurrently with the publication of the
proposed IHA, on the NMFS website (at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities), in relation to its suitability for
adoption by NMFS in order to assess the impacts to the human
environment of issuance of an IHA to ONR. Also in compliance with NEPA
and the CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA Administrative Order 216-6,
NMFS has reviewed the Navy's EA/OEA, determined it to be sufficient,
and adopted that EA/OEA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) on September 20, 2018.

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, in this case with the NMFS Alaska Regional Office (AKR)
whenever we propose to

[[Page 48809]]

authorize take for endangered or threatened species.
The AKR issued a Biological Opinion on September 7, 2018, which
concluded that ONR's Arctic Research Activities and NMFS's issuance of
an IHA for those activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the Beringia DPS bearded seal or Arctic ringed seal or
adversely modify any designated critical habitat.

Authorization

As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the
U.S. Navy's ONR for the Arctic Research Activities in the Beaufort and
Chukchi Seas from September 20, 2018, through September 19, 2019,
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.

Dated: September 24, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-21070 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices 48801

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA—Continued
Stock
ESA/ abundance
MMPA (CV, Nmin, Annual
Common name Scientific name Stock status; most recent
PBR M/SI 3
strategic abundance
(Y/N) 1 survey) 2

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

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)

Family Delphinidae:
Beluga whale ...................... Delphinapterus leucas .............. Beaufort Sea ............................. -/-; N 39,258 (0.229, N/A, Undet.4 139
1992).
Beluga whale ...................... Delphinapterus leucas .............. Eastern Chukchi Sea ................ -/-; N 20,752 (0.70, 12.194, 244 67
2012).

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia

Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Bearded seal 5 .................... Erignathus barbatus .................. Alaska ....................................... T/D; Y 299,174 (-, 273,676, 8,210 391
2013).
Ribbon seal ......................... Histriophoca fasciata ................ Alaska ....................................... -/-; N 184,000 (-, 163,086, 9,785 3.8
2013).
Ringed seal 5 ....................... Pusa hispida hispida ................. Alaska ....................................... T/D; Y 170,000 (-, 170,000, 5,100 1,054
2013).
Spotted seal ........................ Phoca largha ............................. Alaska ....................................... -/-; N 461,625 (-, 423,237, 12,697 329
2013).
1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the
ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically
designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-
reports-region/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
3 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fish-
eries, 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.
4 The 2016 guidelines for preparing SARs state that abundance estimates older than 8 years should not be used to calculate PBR due to a decline in the reliability
of an aged estimate. Therefore, the PBR for this stock is considered undetermined.
5 Abundances and associated values for bearded and ringed seals are for the U.S. population in the Bering Sea only.
Note—Italicized species are not expected or authorized to be taken.

A detailed description of the species please refer to the Federal Register from exposure to acoustic transmissions
likely to be affected by the Arctic notice (83 FR 40234; August 14, 2018) and icebreaking noise. Based on the
Research Activities, including brief for that information. nature of the activity, Level A
information regarding population trends harassment is neither anticipated nor
Estimated Take
and threats, and information regarding authorized.
local occurrence, were provided in the This section provides an estimate of Generally speaking, we estimate take
Federal Register notice for the proposed the number of incidental takes by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds
IHA (83 FR 40234; August 14, 2018). authorized through this IHA, which will above which NMFS believes the best
Since that time, we are not aware of any inform both NMFS’ consideration of the available science indicates marine
changes in the status of these species negligible impact determination. mammals will be behaviorally harassed
and stocks; therefore, detailed Harassment is the only type of take or incur some degree of permanent
descriptions are not provided here. expected to result from these activities. hearing impairment; (2) the area or
Please refer to that Federal Register For this military readiness activity, the volume of water that will be ensonified
notice for those descriptions. Please also MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: (i) Any above these levels in a day; (3) the
refer to NMFS’ website (https:// act that injures or has the significant density or occurrence of marine
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for potential to injure a marine mammal or mammals within these ensonified areas;
generalized species accounts. marine mammal stock in the wild (Level and, (4) and the number of days of
Potential Effects of Specified Activities A harassment); or (ii) Any act that activities. We note that while these
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine basic factors can contribute to a basic
mammal or marine mammal stock in the calculation to provide an initial
The effects of underwater noise from wild by causing disruption of natural prediction of takes, additional
the towed and deployed acoustic behavioral patterns, including, but not information that can qualitatively
sources, as well as icebreaking, have the limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, inform take estimates is also sometimes
potential to result in behavioral breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a available (e.g., previous monitoring
harassment of marine mammals in the point where such behavioral patterns results or average group size). For this
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

vicinity of the study area. The Federal are abandoned or significantly altered IHA, ONR employed a sophisticated
Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 (Level B harassment). model known as the Navy Acoustic
FR 40234; August 14, 2018) included a Authorized takes would be by Level B Effects Model (NAEMO) for assessing
discussion of the effects of harassment only, in the form of the impacts of underwater sound.
anthropogenic noise on marine disruption of behavioral patterns and Below, we describe the factors
mammals and their habitat, therefore temporary threshold shift (TTS) for considered here in more detail and
that information is not repeated here; individual marine mammals resulting present the authorized takes.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:20 Sep 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1

48802 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices

Acoustic Thresholds sound source the more intense the single received level multiple times,
Using the best available science, behavioral response, it was clear that then an increasing received level. Each
NMFS has developed acoustic the proximity of a sound source and the individual California sea lion was
thresholds that identify the received animal’s experience, motivation, and exposed to the same received level ten
level of underwater sound above which conditioning were also critical factors times. These exposure sessions were
exposed marine mammals would be influencing the response (Southall et al. combined into a single response value,
reasonably expected to be behaviorally 2007). After examining all of the with an overall response assumed if an
harassed or incur TTS of some degree available data, the authors felt that the animal responded in any single session.
(equated to Level B harassment) or to derivation of thresholds for behavioral The resulting behavioral response
incur a permanent threshold shift (PTS) response based solely on exposure level function for pinnipeds has a 50 percent
of some degree (equated to Level A was not supported because context of probability of response at 166 dB re 1
harassment). the animal at the time of sound mPa. Additional details regarding these
Level B Harassment for non-explosive exposure was an important factor in criteria may be found in the technical
sources—In coordination with NMFS, estimating response. Nonetheless, in report, Criteria and Thresholds for U.S.
the Navy developed behavioral some conditions, consistent avoidance Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects
thresholds to support environmental reactions were noted at higher sound Analysis (2017a) which may be
analyses for the Navy’s testing and levels depending on the marine found at: http://aftteis.com/Portals/3/
training military readiness activities mammal species or group, allowing docs/newdocs/
utilizing active sonar sources; these conclusions to be drawn. Criteria%20and%20Thresholds_TR_
Odontocete behavioral criteria for Submittal_05262017.pdf. This technical
behavioral harassment thresholds are
U.S. Navy non-impulsive, intermittent report was included as part of the
used here to evaluate the potential
sources were updated based on Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Training and
effects of the active sonar components of controlled exposure studies for dolphins Testing Draft Environmental Impact
the planned action. The response of a and sea mammals, sonar, and safety (3S) Statement/Overseas Environmental
marine mammal to an anthropogenic studies where odontocete behavioral Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) (Navy
sound will depend on the frequency, responses were reported after exposure 2017b) which is located at: http://
duration, temporal pattern and to sonar (Antunes et al., 2014; Houser et www.aftteis.com/.
amplitude of the sound as well as the al., 2013b); Miller et al., 2011; Miller et NMFS adopted the Navy’s approach
animal’s prior experience with the al., 2014; Miller et al., 2012). For the 3S to estimating incidental take by Level B
sound and the context in which the study the sonar outputs included 1–2 harassment from the active acoustic
sound is encountered (i.e., what the kilohertz (kHz) up- and down-sweeps sources for this action, which includes
animal is doing at the time of the and 6–7 kHz up-sweeps; source levels use of these dose response functions.
exposure). The distance from the sound were ramped up from 152–158 decibels The Navy’s dose response functions
source and whether it is perceived as (dB) re 1 microPascal (mPa) to a were developed to estimate take from
approaching or moving away can also maximum of 198–214 re 1 mPa at 1 m. sonar and similar transducers and are
affect the way an animal responds to a Sonar signals were ramped up over not applicable to icebreaking. NMFS
sound (Wartzok et al. 2003). For marine several pings while the vessel predicts that marine mammals are likely
mammals, a review of responses to approached the mammals. The study to be behaviorally harassed in a manner
anthropogenic sound was first did include some control passes of ships we consider Level B harassment when
conducted by Richardson et al. (1995). with the sonar off to discern the exposed to underwater anthropogenic
Reviews by Nowacek et al. (2007) and behavioral responses of the mammals to noise above received levels of 120 dB re
Southall et al. (2007) addressed vessel presence alone versus active 1 mPa (rms) for continuous (e.g.,
additional studies and focus on sonar. The controlled exposure studies vibratory pile-driving, drilling,
observations where the received sound included exposing the Navy’s trained icebreaking) and above 160 dB re 1 mPa
level of the exposed marine mammal(s) bottlenose dolphins to mid-frequency (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g.,
was known or could be estimated. sonar while they were in a pen. Mid- seismic airguns) or non-impulsive,
Multi-year research efforts have frequency sonar was played at 6 intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar)
conducted sonar exposure studies for different exposure levels from 125–185 sources. Thus, take of marine mammals
odontocetes and mysticetes (Miller et al. dB re 1 mPa (root mean square (rms)). by Level B harassment due to
2012; Sivle et al. 2012). Several studies The behavioral response function for icebreaking has been calculated using
with captive animals have provided odontocetes resulting from the studies the Navy’s NAEMO model using the 120
data under controlled circumstances for described above has a 50 percent dB re 1 mPa (rms) received level
odontocetes and pinnipeds (Houser et probability of response at 157 dB re 1 threshold for behavioral response.
al. 2013a; Houser et al. 2013b). Moretti mPa. Additionally, distance cutoffs (20 Level A harassment for non-explosive
et al. (2014) published a beaked whale km for MF cetaceans and 10 km for sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance
dose-response curve based on passive pinnipeds) were applied to exclude for Assessing the Effects of
acoustic monitoring of beaked whales exposures beyond which the potential Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
during U.S. Navy training activity at of significant behavioral responses is Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0)
Atlantic Underwater Test and considered to be unlikely. (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies
Evaluation Center during actual Anti- The pinniped behavioral threshold dual criteria to assess auditory injury
Submarine Warfare exercises. This new was updated based on controlled (Level A harassment) to five different
information necessitated the update of exposure experiments on the following marine mammal groups (based on
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

the behavioral response criteria for the captive animals: hooded seal, gray seal, hearing sensitivity) as a result of
U.S. Navy’s environmental analyses. and California sea lion (Götz et al. 2010; exposure to noise from two different
Southall et al. (2007) synthesized data Houser et al. 2013a; Kvadsheim et al. types of sources (impulsive or non-
from many past behavioral studies and 2010). Hooded seals were exposed to impulsive). ONR’s planned activities
observations to determine the likelihood increasing levels of sonar until an involve only non-impulsive sources.
of behavioral reactions at specific sound avoidance response was observed, while These thresholds are provided in
levels. While in general, the louder the the grey seals were exposed first to a Table 2 below. The references, analysis,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:20 Sep 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices 48803

and methodology used in the Guidance, which may be accessed at: marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-
development of the thresholds are https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ guidance.
described in NMFS 2018 Technical national/marine-mammal-protection/

TABLE 2—INJURY (PTS) THRESHOLDS FOR UNDERWATER SOUNDS
PTS onset acoustic thresholds *
Hearing group
Impulsive Non-impulsive

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impul-
sive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level threshold associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should
also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1 μPa2s.
In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure
is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being
included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated
with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF
cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level
thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for
action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.

Quantitative Modeling specific bathymetry, sound speed results must be interpreted within this
The Navy performed a quantitative profiles, wind speed, and bottom context. While the best available data
analysis to estimate the number of properties are incorporated into the and appropriate input assumptions have
marine mammals that could be harassed propagation modeling process. NAEMO been used in the modeling, when there
by the underwater acoustic calculates the likely propagation for is a lack of definitive data to support an
transmissions during the planned various levels of energy (sound or aspect of the modeling, conservative
action. Inputs to the quantitative pressure) resulting from each source modeling assumptions have been
used during the training event. chosen (i.e., assumptions that may
analysis included marine mammal
NAEMO then records the energy result in an overestimate of acoustic
density estimates, marine mammal
received by each animat within the exposures):
depth occurrence distributions (Navy • Animats are modeled as being
2017a), oceanographic and energy footprint of the event and
calculates the number of animats having underwater, stationary, and facing the
environmental data, marine mammal source and therefore always predicted to
hearing data, and criteria and thresholds received levels of energy exposures that
fall within defined impact thresholds. receive the maximum potential sound
for levels of potential effects. The level at a given location (i.e., no
quantitative analysis consists of Predicted effects on the animats within
a scenario are then tallied and the porpoising or pinnipeds’ heads above
computer modeled estimates and a post- water);
model analysis to determine the number highest order effect (based on severity of
• Animats do not move horizontally
of potential animal exposures. The criteria; e.g., PTS over TTS) predicted
(but change their position vertically
model calculates sound energy for a given animat is assumed. Each
within the water column), which may
propagation from the planned non- scenario, or each 24-hour period for
overestimate physiological effects such
impulsive acoustic sources and scenarios lasting greater than 24 hours
as hearing loss, especially for slow
icebreaking, the sound received by (which NMFS recommends in order to
moving or stationary sound sources in
animat (virtual animal) dosimeters ensure more consistent quantification of the model;
representing marine mammals take across actions), is independent of • Animats are stationary horizontally
distributed in the area around the all others, and therefore, the same and therefore do not avoid the sound
modeled activity, and whether the individual marine animal (as source, unlike in the wild where
sound received by animats exceeds the represented by an animat in the model animals would most often avoid
thresholds for effects. environment) could be impacted during exposures at higher sound levels,
The Navy developed a set of software each independent scenario or 24-hour especially those exposures that may
tools and compiled data for estimating period. In few instances, although the result in PTS;
acoustic effects on marine mammals activities themselves all occur within • Multiple exposures within any 24-
without consideration of behavioral the study area, sound may propagate hour period are considered one
avoidance or mitigation. These tools and beyond the boundary of the study area. continuous exposure for the purposes of
data sets serve as integral components of Any exposures occurring outside the calculating potential threshold shift,
NAEMO. In NAEMO, animats are boundary of the study area are counted because there are not sufficient data to
distributed non-uniformly based on as if they occurred within the study area estimate a hearing recovery function for
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

species-specific density, depth boundary. NAEMO provides the initial the time between exposures; and
distribution, and group size information estimated impacts on marine species • Mitigation measures were not
and animats record energy received at with a static horizontal distribution (i.e., considered in the model. In reality,
their location in the water column. A animats in the model environment do sound-producing activities would be
fully three-dimensional environment is not move horizontally). reduced, stopped, or delayed if marine
used for calculating sound propagation There are limitations to the data used mammals are detected by visual
and animat exposure in NAEMO. Site- in the acoustic effects model, and the monitoring.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:20 Sep 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1

48804 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices

Because of these inherent model coverage). For modeling, the 8/10 and signature and 189.3 dB for the 3/10 ice
limitations and simplifications, model- 3/10 ice cover were used based on the signature. These source levels are a good
estimated results were further analyzed, data available. Each modeled day of approximation of the icebreaker’s
considering such factors as the range to icebreaking consisted of 16 hours of observed source level (Roth et al., 2013).
specific effects, avoidance, and the 8/10 ice cover and 8 hours of 3/10 ice Each frequency and source level was
likelihood of successfully implementing cover, which was considered a fairly modeled as an independent source, and
mitigation measures. This analysis uses conservative way of representing the applied simultaneously to all of the
a number of factors in addition to the expected ice cover based on what is animats within the model environment.
acoustic model results to predict known. Icebreaking was modeled for 4 Each second was summed across
acoustic effects on marine mammals. days each year. The sound signature of frequency to estimate sound pressure
The underwater radiated noise each of the ice coverage levels was level (SPLrms). This value was
signature for icebreaking in the central broken into 1-octave bins (Table 3). In incorporated into NAEMO using NMFS’
Arctic Ocean by CGC HEALY during the model, each bin was included as a 120 dB re 1 mPa continuous sound
different types of ice cover was separate source on the modeled vessel. source threshold to estimate Level B
characterized in Roth et al. (2013). The When these independent sources go harassment. For PTS and TTS
radiated noise signatures were active concurrently, they simulate the determinations, sound exposure levels
characterized for various fractions of ice sound signature of CGC HEALY. The were summed over the duration of the
cover (represented as the proportion of modeled source level summed across test and the transit to the deep water
ice out of 10, with 10/10 being total ice these bins was 196.2 dB for the 8/10 deployment level.

TABLE 3—MODELED BINS FOR ICEBREAKING IN FRACTIONAL ICE COVERAGE ON CGC HEALY
8/10 Ice 3/10 Ice
coverage coverage
Frequency (full power) (quarter power)
(Hz)
Source level Source level
(dB) (dB)

25 ................................................................................................................................................................. 189 187
50 ................................................................................................................................................................. 188 182
100 ............................................................................................................................................................... 189 179
200 ............................................................................................................................................................... 190 177
400 ............................................................................................................................................................... 188 175
800 ............................................................................................................................................................... 183 170
1,600 ............................................................................................................................................................ 177 166
3,200 ............................................................................................................................................................ 176 171
6,400 ............................................................................................................................................................ 172 168
12,800 .......................................................................................................................................................... 167 164

For the other non-impulsive sources, them across an area whose size is accuracy of model results against real-
NAEMO calculates the SPL and SEL for representative of the testing event’s world situations and determining
each active emission during an event. operational area. Table 4 provides range adequate mitigation ranges to avoid
This is done by taking the following to effects for non-impulsive sources and higher level effects, especially
factors into account over the icebreaking noise planned for the Arctic physiological effects in marine
propagation paths: Bathymetric relief research activities to mid-frequency mammals. Therefore, the ranges in
and bottom types, sound speed, and cetacean and pinniped specific criteria. Table 4 provide realistic maximum
attenuation contributors such as Marine mammals within these ranges distances over which the specific effects
absorption, bottom loss, and surface would be predicted to receive the from the use of non-impulsive sources
loss. Platforms such as a ship using one associated effect. Range to effects is during the planned action would be
or more sound sources are modeled in important information in not only possible.
accordance with relevant vehicle predicting non-impulsive acoustic
dynamics and time durations by moving impacts, but also in verifying the

TABLE 4—RANGE TO PTS, TTS, AND BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS IN THE STUDY AREA
Range to behavioral effects (m) Range to TTS effects (m) Range to PTS effects (m)
Source
MF cetacean Pinniped MF cetacean Pinniped MF cetacean Pinniped

LF4 towed source .................................... 20,000 10,000 0 1 0 0
LF5 towed source .................................... 20,000 10,000 0 1 0 0
MF9 towed source ................................... 20,000 10,000 4 50 0 4
Navigation and real-time sensing sources 20,000 10,000 0 6 0 0
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

Tomography sources ............................... 20,000 10,000 0 2 0 0
Spherical Wave source ............................ 20,000 10,000 0 0 0 0
Icebreaking noise ..................................... 4,275 4,525 3 12 0 0

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:20 Sep 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1

48806 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices

other means of effecting the least action to avoid a collision with any ability to maneuver. No further action is
practicable impact on such species or marine mammal and can be stopped necessary if a marine mammal other
stock and its habitat, paying particular within a distance appropriate to the than a whale continues to approach the
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, prevailing circumstances and vessel after there has already been one
and areas of similar significance, and on conditions. maneuver and/or speed change to avoid
the availability of such species or stock Exclusion zones for active acoustics the animal. Avoidance measures should
for taking for certain subsistence uses. involve turning off towed sources when continue for any observed whale in
(As explained above, subsistence uses of a marine mammal is sighted within 200 order to maintain an exclusion zone of
marine mammals will not be affected.) yards (yd; 183 m) from the source. 500 yd (457 m).
NMFS regulations require applicants for Active transmission will re-commence if All personnel conducting on-ice
incidental take authorizations to include any one of the following conditions are experiments, as well as all aircraft
information about the availability and met: (1) The animal is observed exiting operating in the study area, are required
feasibility (economic and technological) the exclusion zone, (2) the animal is to maintain a separation distance of
of equipment, methods, and manner of thought to have exited the exclusion 1,000 ft (305 m) from any sighted
conducting such activity or other means zone based on its course and speed and pinniped.
of effecting the least practicable adverse relative motion between the animal and All ships are required to coordinate
impact upon the affected species or the source, (3) the exclusion zone has with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling
stocks and their habitat (50 CFR been clear from any additional sightings Commission (AEWC) using established
216.104(a)(11)). The NDAA for FY 2004 for a period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds check-in and communication
amended the MMPA as it relates to and 30 minutes for cetaceans, or (4) the procedures when vessels approach
military readiness activities and the ship has transited more than 400 yd subsistence hunting areas.
incidental take authorization process (366 m) beyond the location of the last Based on our evaluation of the
such that ‘‘least practicable impact’’ sighting. applicant’s planned measures, NMFS
shall include consideration of personnel During mooring deployment, visual has determined that the mitigation
safety, practicality of implementation, observation must start 30 minutes prior measures provide the means of effecting
and impact on the effectiveness of the to and continue throughout the the least practicable impact on the
military readiness activity. deployment within an exclusion zone of affected species or stocks and their
In evaluating how mitigation may or 60 yd (55 m) around the deployed habitat, paying particular attention to
may not be appropriate to ensure the mooring. Deployment will stop if a rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal is visually detected similar significance, and on the
species or stocks and their habitat, as within the exclusion zone. Deployment availability of such species or stock for
well as subsistence uses where will re-commence if any one of the subsistence uses.
applicable, we carefully consider two following conditions are met: (1) The
animal is observed exiting the exclusion Monitoring and Reporting
primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the zone, (2) the animal is thought to have In order to issue an IHA for an
degree to which, the successful exited the exclusion zone based on its activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
implementation of the measure(s) is course and speed, or (3) the exclusion MMPA states that NMFS must set forth,
expected to reduce impacts to marine zone has been clear from any additional ‘‘requirements pertaining to the
mammals, marine mammal species or sightings for a period of 15 minutes for monitoring and reporting of such
stocks, and their habitat, as well as pinnipeds and 30 minutes for cetaceans. taking.’’ The MMPA implementing
subsistence uses. This considers the Visual monitoring will continue through regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13)
nature of the potential adverse impact 30 minutes following the deployment of indicate that requests for authorizations
being mitigated (likelihood, scope, sources. must include the suggested means of
range). It further considers the Ships must avoid approaching marine accomplishing the necessary monitoring
likelihood that the measure will be mammals head on and maneuver to and reporting that will result in
effective if implemented (probability of maintain an exclusion zone of 500 yd increased knowledge of the species and
accomplishing the mitigating result if (457 m) around observed whales, and of the level of taking or impacts on
implemented as planned) the likelihood 200 yd (183 m) around all other marine populations of marine mammals that are
of effective implementation (probability mammals, provided it is safe to do so in expected to be present in the action
implemented as planned); and ice free waters. area. Effective reporting is critical both
(2) The practicability of the measures Moored and drifting sources are left in to compliance as well as ensuring that
for applicant implementation, which place and cannot be turned off until the the most value is obtained from the
may consider such things as cost, following year during ice free months. required monitoring.
impact on operations, and, in the case Once they are programmed, they will Monitoring and reporting
of a military readiness activity, operate at the specified pulse lengths requirements prescribed by NMFS
personnel safety, practicality of and duty cycles until they are either should contribute to improved
implementation, and impact on the turned off the following year or there is understanding of one or more of the
effectiveness of the military readiness failure of the battery and are not able to following:
activity. operate. Due to the ice covered nature • Occurrence of marine mammal
of the Arctic, it is not possible to recover species or stocks in the area in which
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and the sources or interfere with their take is anticipated (e.g., presence,
Their Habitat transmit operations in the middle of the abundance, distribution, density).
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

Ships operated by or for the Navy year. • Nature, scope, or context of likely
have personnel assigned to stand watch These requirements do not apply if a marine mammal exposure to potential
at all times, day and night, when vessel’s safety is at risk, such as when stressors/impacts (individual or
moving through the water. While in a change of course would create an cumulative, acute or chronic), through
transit, ships must use extreme caution imminent and serious threat to safety, better understanding of: (1) Action or
and proceed at a safe speed such that person, vessel, or aircraft, and to the environment (e.g., source
the ship can take proper and effective extent vessels are restricted in their characterization, propagation, ambient

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:20 Sep 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1

48808 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices

level effects). An estimate of the number effects section, seals exposed to non- monitoring and mitigation measures,
of takes alone is not enough information impulsive sources with a received NMFS finds that the total marine
on which to base an impact sound pressure level within the range of mammal take from the planned activity
determination. In addition to calculated exposures (142–193 dB re 1 will have a negligible impact on all
considering estimates of the number of mPa), have been shown to change their affected marine mammal species or
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ behavior by modifying diving activity stocks.
through harassment, NMFS considers and avoidance of the sound source (Götz
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
other factors, such as the likely nature et al., 2010; Kvadsheim et al., 2010).
and Determination
of any responses (e.g., intensity, Although a minor change to a behavior
duration), the context of any responses may occur as a result of exposure to the Impacts to subsistence uses of marine
(e.g., critical reproductive time or sound sources associated with the mammals resulting from the planned
location, migration), as well as effects planned action, these changes would be action are not anticipated. The closest
on habitat, and the likely effectiveness within the normal range of behaviors for active acoustic source within the study
of the mitigation. We also assess the the animal (e.g., the use of a breathing area is approximately 141 mi (227 km)
number, intensity, and context of hole further from the source, rather than from land, outside of known subsistence
estimated takes by evaluating this one closer to the source, would be use areas. Based on this information,
information relative to population within the normal range of behavior). NMFS has determined that there will be
status. Consistent with the 1989 Thus, even repeated Level B harassment no unmitigable adverse impact on
preamble for NMFS’s implementing of some small subset of the overall stock subsistence uses from ONR’s planned
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, is unlikely to result in any significant activities.
1989), the impacts from other past and realized decrease in fitness for the National Environmental Policy Act
ongoing anthropogenic activities are affected individuals, and would not
incorporated into this analysis via their result in any adverse impact to the stock In compliance with the National
impacts on the environmental baseline as a whole. Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status The project is not expected to have U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by
of the species, population size and significant adverse effects on marine the regulations published by the
growth rate where known, ongoing mammal habitat. While the activities Council on Environmental Quality (40
sources of human-caused mortality, or may cause some fish to leave the area CFR parts 1500–1508), the Navy
ambient noise levels). of disturbance, temporarily impacting prepared an Environmental Assessment/
Underwater acoustic transmissions marine mammals’ foraging Overseas Environmental Assessment
associated with the Arctic Research opportunities, this would encompass a (EA/OEA) to consider the direct,
Activities, as outlined previously, have relatively small area of habitat leaving indirect and cumulative effects to the
the potential to result in Level B large areas of existing fish and marine human environment resulting from the
harassment of beluga whales, ringed mammal foraging habitat unaffected. Arctic Research Activities project.
seals, and bearded seals in the form of Icebreaking may temporarily affect the NMFS made the Navy’s EA/OEA
TTS and behavioral disturbance. No availability of pack ice for seals to haul available to the public for review and
serious injury, mortality, or Level A out but the proportion of ice disturbed comment, concurrently with the
harassment are anticipated to result is small relative to the overall amount publication of the proposed IHA, on the
from this activity. of available ice habitat. Icebreaking will NMFS website (at https://
Minimal takes of marine mammals by not occur during the time of year when www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
Level B harassment would be due to ringed seals are expected to be within marine-mammal-protection/incidental-
TTS since the range to TTS effects is subnivean lairs or pupping (Chapskii take-authorizations-military-readiness-
small at only 50 m or less while the 1940; McLaren 1958; Smith and Stirling activities), in relation to its suitability
behavioral effects range is significantly 1975). As such, the impacts to marine for adoption by NMFS in order to assess
larger extending up to 20 km (Table 4). mammal habitat are not expected to the impacts to the human environment
TTS is a temporary impairment of cause significant or long-term negative of issuance of an IHA to ONR. Also in
hearing and can last from minutes or consequences. compliance with NEPA and the CEQ
hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In summary and as described above, regulations, as well as NOAA
In many cases, however, hearing the following factors primarily support Administrative Order 216–6, NMFS has
sensitivity recovers rapidly after our determination that the impacts reviewed the Navy’s EA/OEA,
exposure to the sound ends. Though resulting from this activity are not determined it to be sufficient, and
TTS may occur in a single ringed seal, expected to adversely affect the species adopted that EA/OEA and signed a
the overall fitness of the individual seal or stock through effects on annual rates Finding of No Significant Impact
is unlikely to be affected and negative of recruitment or survival: (FONSI) on September 20, 2018.
impacts to the entire stock of ringed • No injury, serious injury, or Endangered Species Act (ESA)
seals are not anticipated. mortality is anticipated or authorized;
Effects on individuals that are taken • Behavioral Impacts will be limited Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16
by Level B harassment could include to Level B harassment of a relatively U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each
alteration of dive behavior, alteration of minor nature; Federal agency insure that any action it
foraging behavior, effects to breathing • Minimal takes by Level B authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
rates, interference with or alteration of harassment will be due to TTS; and likely to jeopardize the continued
vocalization, avoidance, and flight. • There will be no permanent or existence of any endangered or
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

More severe behavioral responses are significant loss or modification of threatened species or result in the
not anticipated due to the localized, marine mammal prey or habitat. destruction or adverse modification of
intermittent use of active acoustic Based on the analysis contained designated critical habitat. To ensure
sources. Most likely, individuals will herein of the likely effects of the ESA compliance for the issuance of
simply be temporarily displaced by specified activity on marine mammals IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this
moving away from the sound source. As and their habitat, and taking into case with the NMFS Alaska Regional
described previously in the behavioral consideration the implementation of the Office (AKR) whenever we propose to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:20 Sep 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices 48809

authorize take for endangered or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This facilitate high educational standards
threatened species. system of records was temporary and and cost effective operations. The Board
The AKR issued a Biological Opinion was decommissioned on June 30, 2014 will be focusing primarily on the
on September 7, 2018, which concluded when responsibility for access and internal procedures of Marine Corps
that ONR’s Arctic Research Activities security for wedge 1, corridors 3 and 4 University. All sessions of the meeting
and NMFS’s issuance of an IHA for at the Pentagon were transferred to will be open to the public.
those activities are not likely to PFPA. Continued access by personnel DATES: The meeting will be held on
jeopardize the continued existence of originally covered by PEGASYS Thursday, 18 Oct. 2018, from 8:00 a.m.
the Beringia DPS bearded seal or Arctic CARDKEY is now addressed by the to 4:30 p.m. and Friday, 19 Oct. 2018,
ringed seal or adversely modify any Pentagon Facilities Access Control from 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Eastern
designated critical habitat. System, DPFPA 01 (May 13, 2011, 76 FR Time Zone.
28001). ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
Authorization
The Office of the Secretary of Defense Marine Corps University in Quantico,
As a result of these determinations, system of records notices subject to the Virginia. The address is: 2076 South
NMFS has issued an IHA to the U.S. Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, have Street, Quantico, VA 22134.
Navy’s ONR for the Arctic Research been published in the Federal Register FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi and are available from the address in the Dr. Kim Florich, Director of Faculty
Seas from September 20, 2018, through FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Development and Outreach, Marine
September 19, 2019, provided the section or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Corps University Board of Visitors, 2076
previously mentioned mitigation, Liberties, and Transparency Division South Street, Quantico, Virginia 22134,
monitoring, and reporting requirements website at http://defense.gov/privacy. 703–432–4682.
are incorporated. The proposed systems reports, as Dated: September 24, 2018.
Dated: September 24, 2018. required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as
Meredith Steingold Werner,
Donna S. Wieting, amended, were submitted on August 9,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
2018, to the House Committee on
General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register
National Marine Fisheries Service. Oversight and Government Reform, the Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018–21070 Filed 9–26–18; 8:45 am]
Senate Committee on Homeland
[FR Doc. 2018–21045 Filed 9–26–18; 8:45 am]
Security and Governmental Affairs, and
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) pursuant to Section 6 to OMB
Circular No. A–108, ‘‘Federal Agency
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
and Publication under the Privacy Act,’’ Federal Energy Regulatory
Office of the Secretary revised December 23, 2016 (December Commission
[Docket ID: DoD–2018–OS–0068] 23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).
[Project No. 6470–006]
SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:
Privacy Act of 1974; System of
PEGASYS CARDKEY, DWHS D02 Winooski Hydroelectric Company;
Records
Notice of Intent To File License
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. HISTORY: Application, Filing of Pre-Application
ACTION: Rescindment of a system of November 14, 2011, 76 FR 70425; Document, and Approving Use of the
records notice. March 18, 2010, 75 FR 13088. Traditional Licensing Process
Dated: September 20, 2018. a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to
SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of
Shelly E. Finke, File License Application and Request to
Defense (OSD) proposes to rescind a Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
system of records, PEGASYS CARDKEY, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense. b. Project No.: 6470–006.
DWHS D02. This system was used to c. Date Filed: July 31, 2018.
[FR Doc. 2018–21082 Filed 9–26–18; 8:45 am]
maintain a list of individuals granted d. Submitted By: Winooski
room access to areas of the Pentagon BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
Hydroelectric Company.
temporarily under the control of e. Name of Project: Winooski 8
Washington Headquarters Services Hydroelectric Project.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
(WHS). f. Location: On the Winooski River in
DATES: This action will be effective Department of the Navy Washington County, Vermont. No
September 27, 2018. This system was federal lands are occupied by the project
decommissioned on June 30, 2014 when Meeting of the Board of Visitors of works or located within the project
the Pentagon Force Protection Agency Marine Corps University boundary.
g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the
(PFPA) accepted access control AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. Commission’s regulations.
responsibility for these areas. The h. Potential Applicant Contact:
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
Pentagon Facilities Access Control Mathew Rubin, General Partner,
System, DPFPA 01 applies to those SUMMARY: The Board of Visitors of the Winooski Hydroelectric Company, 26
individuals who continue to require Marine Corps University (BOV MCU) State Street, Montpelier, Vermont
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

access to these spaces. will meet to review, develop and 05602; (802) 793–5939; or email at
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: provide recommendations on all aspects m@mrubin.biz.
Ms. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, of the academic and administrative i. FERC Contact: Mike Tust at (202)
Privacy and Declassification Division policies of the University; examine all 502–6522; or email at michael.tust@
(RPDD), 1155 Defense Pentagon, aspects of professional military ferc.gov.
Washington, DC 20301–1155, or by education operations; and provide such j. Winooski Hydroelectric Company
phone at (571) 372–0478. oversight and advice, as is necessary, to (Winooski Hydro) filed its request to use

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Sep 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1

Document Created: 2018-09-27 01:04:31
Document Modified: 2018-09-27 01:04:31

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
Dates		This Authorization is effective from September 20, 2018, through September 19, 2019.
Contact		Amy Fowler, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental- take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.
FR Citation		83 FR 48799
RIN Number		0648-XG03

83 FR 48799 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research Arctic Research Activities

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 188 (September 27, 2018)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration