Notice2022-02800
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy 2022 Ice Exercise Activities in the Arctic Ocean
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 10, 2022
Effective
February 4, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the U.S. Navy (Navy) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during submarine training and testing activities including establishment of a tracking range on an ice floe in the Arctic Ocean, north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The Navy's activities are considered military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7803-7820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02800]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XB657]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy 2022 Ice Exercise
Activities in the Arctic Ocean
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
the U.S. Navy (Navy) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment
only, marine mammals during submarine training and testing activities
including establishment of a tracking range on an ice floe in the
Arctic Ocean, north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The Navy's activities are
considered military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as
amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
(2004 NDAA).
DATES: This Authorization is effective from February 4, 2022 through
April 30, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leah Davis, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities</a>. In case of problems
accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed incidental harassment authorization is provided to the public
for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting of the takings are set forth.
The 2004 NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the ``small numbers'' and
``specified geographical region'' limitations indicated above and
amended the definition of ``harassment'' as applied to a ``military
readiness activity.'' The activity for which incidental take of marine
mammals is being requested here qualifies as a military readiness
activity. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited
above are included in the relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On August 26, 2021, NMFS received a request from the Navy for an
IHA to take marine mammals incidental to submarine training and testing
activities including establishment of a tracking range on an ice floe
in the Arctic Ocean, north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The application was
deemed adequate and complete on November 4, 2021. The Navy's request is
for take of ringed seals (Pusa hispida) by Level B harassment only.
Neither the Navy nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result
from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued IHAs to the Navy for similar activities (83
FR 6522; February 14, 2018, 85 FR 6518; February 5, 2020). The Navy
complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation,
[[Page 7804]]
monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHAs and information
regarding their monitoring results may be found below, in the Estimated
Take section.
Description of the Specified Activity
The Navy proposes to conduct submarine training and testing
activities, which includes the establishment of a tracking range and
temporary ice camp, and research in the Arctic Ocean for six weeks
beginning in February 2022. Submarine active acoustic transmissions may
result in occurrence of Level B harassment, including temporary hearing
impairment (temporary threshold shift (TTS)) and behavioral harassment,
of ringed seals. A detailed description of the planned 2022 Ice
Exercise (ICEX22) activities is provided in the Federal Register notice
for the proposed IHA (86 FR 70451; December 10, 2021). Since that time,
no changes have been made to the planned ICEX22 activities. Therefore,
a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that
Federal Register notice for the description of the specific activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to the Navy was
published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70451).
That notice described, in detail, the Navy's activity, the marine
mammal species that may be affected by the activity, and the
anticipated effects on marine mammals. During the 30-day public comment
period, NMFS received comments from the Center for Biological Diversity
(CBD) and a member of the general public. Please see the CBD's letter
for full details regarding their recommendations and rationale. The
letter is available online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities</a>. A summary of all substantive comments as well as
NMFS' responses is below.
Comment 1: CBD asserted that annual mortality and serious injury
[for ringed seals] already exceeds Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
and therefore additional take is not negligible and thus should not be
authorized. CBD stated that the rationale that the stock's population
estimate is an underestimate because it is only a partial stock
abundance is insufficient, and NMFS must therefore determine what the
appropriate stock abundance and PBR are.
Response: PBR is defined in section 3 of the MMPA as ``the maximum
number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be
removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its optimum sustainable population'' and, although not
controlling, can be one measure considered among other factors when
evaluating the effects of morality and serious injury (M/SI) on a
marine mammal species or stock during the section 101(a)(5)(A) process.
As stated in Muto et al. (2021), PBR ``is defined as the product of the
minimum population estimate, one-half the maximum theoretical net
productivity rate, and a recovery factor: PBR = NMIN x 0.5RMAX x FR.''
No serious injury or mortality is expected or authorized in this
IHA and neither is the take by harassment expected to accrue in a
manner that will impact the reproduction or survival of any individual
marine mammals. Therefore, it is neither required nor appropriate to
directly and/or quantitatively consider PBR in the negligible impact
analysis of the take, by harassment only, authorized in this IHA.
Rather, PBR, and the number of known mortalities per year are
qualitatively considered as a gross indicator of stock status in the
baseline of this analysis. Below, we reemphasize the basis for the
negligible impact determination and, as a secondary matter, we further
explain that the PBR values for this stock are likely significantly
underestimated.
Given that the calculation is based upon the minimum population
estimate, if a minimum population estimate is negatively biased, the
resulting PBR would be negatively biased as well. The PBR for the
Alaska stock of ringed seals is based upon a minimum population
estimate which is expected to be an underestimate for multiple reasons.
First, the minimum and best population estimates for the stock reflect
the Bering Sea population only, as reliable abundance estimates for the
Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea, which are also included in the stock's
range, are not available. Further, the available abundance estimate for
the Bering Sea population was not adjusted for seals in the water at
the time of the surveys, nor does it include ringed seals in the
shorefast ice zone; therefore, the partial abundance that is available,
for the Bering Sea only, is an underestimate even for the Bering Sea
portion of the stock alone. Therefore, the minimum population estimate
(and best population estimate) and PBR for the Alaska stock of ringed
seals are negatively biased (i.e., underestimates).
PBR and information on annual serious injury and mortality from
anthropogenic sources was presented in the notice of proposed IHA and
is presented again in this notice of final IHA as gross indicators of
the status of the Alaska stock of ringed seals, even though for the
reasons discussed above and below, respectively, these numbers do not
accurately reflect certain aspects of the status of the stock.
As noted by the commenter, the abundance estimate and PBR
considered by NMFS and included in the notice of proposed IHA (86 FR
70451, December 10, 2021) and this final IHA, is a partial abundance,
as reported in the 2020 Alaska Stock Assessment Report (SAR; Muto et
al. 2021). As stated above, the partial abundance estimate reflects the
Bering Sea population only, as reliable abundance estimates for the
Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea, which are also included in the stock's
range, are not available. Further, the available abundance estimate for
the Bering Sea population was not adjusted for seals in the water at
the time of the surveys, nor does it include ringed seals in the
shorefast ice zone; therefore, the partial abundance that is available,
for the Bering Sea only, is an underestimate even for the Bering Sea
portion of the stock alone. And so, if a more accurate PBR were
available, it would be higher, as it would be based on a higher, more-
accurate minimum abundance estimate. Muto et al. (2021) state that
``researchers expect to provide a population estimate, corrected for
availability bias, for the entire U.S. portion of the ringed seal stock
once the final Bering Sea results are combined with the results from
spring surveys of the Chukchi Sea (conducted in 2016) and Beaufort Sea
(planned for 2020).'' In the meantime, given the limited available
information at this time, NMFS is not able to produce a stock abundance
estimate and PBR that are more accurate than what NMFS included in the
proposed IHA.
No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized in this
IHA. Even if serious injury and mortality from other sources (in this
case, nearly all from Alaska Native subsistence harvest) exceeded what
was accepted as a more accurate PBR, that would not inherently indicate
that take by Level B harassment at the numbers and level authorized in
this IHA would have more than a negligible impact on the stock, as
implied by the commenter. (See further discussion below.) However, in
this case, given that the abundance estimate and PBR are negatively
biased for the reasons discussed above, it is unlikely that mortality
and serious injury actually exceed the maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortalities, that may be removed from
[[Page 7805]]
the Alaska ringed seal stock while allowing the stock to reach or
maintain its optimum sustainable population.
Regarding the number of takes authorized in this IHA in comparison
to the population status, while we do typically assess the number,
intensity, and context of estimated takes by evaluating this
information relative to population status, as stated in the Negligible
Impact Analysis and Determination section, NMFS also considers other
factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity,
duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive
time or location, migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the
likely effectiveness of the mitigation. Further, consistent with the
1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations (54 FR 40338;
September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the
regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where
known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise
levels). PBR is one consideration included in this baseline as a gross
indicator of stock status. Explicit quantitative consideration of PBR
in the analysis was neither required nor appropriate, given that no
serious injury or mortality was included in the proposed IHA, and none
is authorized in this final IHA. NMFS' preliminary and final negligible
impact determinations do not depend solely on the stock abundance
provided in the 2020 Alaska SAR (and the accuracy of that abundance
estimate). An accurate abundance estimate (and minimum population
estimate) for the entire stock, which would include the unknown number
of animals in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, in addition to the Bering
Sea population which is reported in the 2020 Alaska SAR, as well as
adjust for uncounted animals in the water and animals in the shorefast
ice zone at the time of the Bering Sea survey, is not necessary to make
the negligible impact determination. (Though if a complete stock
abundance were available, the number of takes authorized in this IHA in
comparison to that abundance would be even lower than described in
NMFS' Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination herein, given that
the stock abundance would be larger.)
As described in the Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
section of the notice of the proposed IHA (86 FR 70451; December 10,
2021) and this notice, the following factors primarily support our
negligible impact determination:
<bullet> No Level A harassment (injury), serious injury, or
mortality is anticipated or authorized;
<bullet> Impacts will be limited to Level B harassment, primarily
in the form of behavioral disturbance that results in minor changes in
behavior;
<bullet> TTS is expected to affect only a limited number of animals
(approximately 0.5 percent of the partial stock abundance described in
Table 1) and TTS is expected to be minor and short term;
<bullet> The number of authorized takes is low relative to the
estimated abundances of the affected stock, even given the extent to
which abundance is significantly underestimated;
<bullet> Submarine training and testing activities will occur over
only 4 weeks of the total 6-week activity period;
<bullet> There will be no loss or modification of ringed seal
habitat and minimal, temporary impacts on prey;
<bullet> Physical impacts to ringed seal subnivean lairs will be
avoided; and
<bullet> Mitigation requirements for ice camp activities will
prevent impacts to ringed seals during the pupping season.
Comment 2: CBD stated that the take estimates from modeling likely
underestimate or incorrectly estimate take. NMFS relies on Navy's
modeling and a density of 0.3957 ringed seals per km\2\. It is unclear
if this assumes an even distribution of seals throughout the Study
Area, which would fail to account for concentrated activities near the
Ice Camp Study Area. NMFS stated that ``[w]hile the total ICEX22 Study
Area is large, the Navy expects that most activities would occur within
the Ice Camp Study Area in relatively close proximity to the ice
camp.'' The density of ringed seals for this area has not been
determined, and thus the modeling does not accurately estimate take.
CBD asserted that there are likely more ringed seals near the Ice Camp
Study Area than across the entire Study Area because they are in their
home ranges near their subnivean lairs.
Response: The Navy estimated take using the density of 0.3957
ringed seals per km\2\ as noted by the commenter, and NMFS concurs that
this is currently the best available information. Information regarding
the density of ice seals (which include ringed seals) in the Arctic
Ocean is sparse. While the commenter suggests that NMFS and the Navy
should use density data that is specific to the Ice Camp Study Area and
the area in close proximity to the ice camp, given that most of the
activities will occur there, NMFS and the Navy are not aware of any
such data, and the commenter did not provide or reference any data
which it thinks would be more appropriate than that used by the Navy
and NMFS. Further, the statement that animals occur in their home
ranges near their subnivean lairs does not support an assertion that
there are likely more ringed seals near the Ice Camp Study Area than in
other areas across the entire Study Area, as an animal's home range is
a separate concept from the density of animals in any given area.
Comment 3: CBD stated that the assumption that having activities
ongoing at the ice camp will dissuade ringed seals from pupping near
the area should not be considered to mitigate harassment, and instead
should be counted as additional take. Ringed seals build their
subnivean lairs in habitat like that where the ice camp will be
constructed. The proposed activities are planned during the season that
the ringed seals give birth and raise their pups. Further, CBD stated
that the assumption that a ringed seal may be able to relocate its pup
or find another breathing hole due to human disturbance is na[iuml]ve
and fails to consider the energetic cost as well as predation risk that
these seals may face.
Response: Regarding the potential displacement of ringed seals to
other pupping sites, NMFS would not consider it as mitigating
harassment, rather, in the case of ICEX, we consider it unlikely to
occur. As a general matter, on-ice activities could cause a seal that
would have otherwise built a lair in the area of an activity to be
displaced and therefore, construct a lair in a different area outside
of an activity area, or a seal could choose to relocate to a different
existing lair outside of an activity area. However, in the case of the
ice camp associated with ICEX22, displacement of seal lair construction
or relocation to existing lairs outside of the ice camp area is
unlikely, given the low average density of lairs (the average ringed
seal lair density in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska is 1.58 lairs
per km\2\ (Table 3 of the notice of the proposed IHA; 86 FR 70451,
December 10, 2021)), the relative footprint of the Navy's planned ice
camp (2 km\2\), the lack of previous ringed seal observations on the
ice during ICEX activities, and mitigation requirements that require
the Navy to construct the ice camp and runway on first-year or multi-
year ice without pressure ridges and require personnel to avoid areas
of deep snow drift or pressure ridges. We have clarified this
explanation in the Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section
of this final notice. While the commenter is correct that ringed seals
build their subnivean lairs in habitat similar to that
[[Page 7806]]
where the ice camp will be constructed, given that mitigation measures
require that the ice camp and runway be established on first-year or
multi-year ice without pressure ridges, where ringed seals tend to
build their lairs, it is extremely unlikely that a ringed seal would
build a lair in the vicinity of the ice camp. This measure, in
combination with the other mitigation measures required for operation
of the ice camp are expected to avoid impacts to the construction and
use of ringed seal subnivean lairs, particularly given the already low
average density of lairs, as described above.
Regarding the commenter's assertion that the assumption that a
ringed seal may be able to relocate its pup or find another breathing
hole due to human disturbance fails to consider the associated
energetic cost and predation risk, NMFS has clarified in this response
that for the reasons stated above, ringed seal lairs are not expected
to occur in the ice camp study area, and therefore, NMFS does not
expect ringed seals to relocate pups due to human disturbance from ice
camp activities. Use of a breathing hole farther from the sound source,
rather than one closer to the sound source, would be within the normal
range of behavior (Kelly et al. 1988), and would not necessarily have
an increased energetic cost. While relocating to a different breathing
hole could change predation risk, such a risk is scenario-specific and
speculative, and it is not possible to determine such risk.
Comment 4: CBD states that NMFS failed to provide an adequate
explanation for discounting the impacts of the unusual mortality event
(UME) on the cumulative effects of the proposed activities. New
research about the event (that focused on spotted and ribbon seals)
found that the body condition of the seals had declined, likely due to
climate-related impacts on prey (Boveng et al., 2020). This long-
lasting unusual mortality event cannot simply be ignored in the
authorization of additional take of ice seals.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenter that we ``discounted''
the impacts of the ice seal UME (which includes ringed seals, bearded
seals, and spotted seals), and we have not ignored it. Rather, NMFS
stated that the take proposed for authorization (and now authorized
here) does not provide a concern for ringed seals when considered in
the context of these UMEs, especially given that the anticipated low-
level and short-term take by Level B harassment is unlikely to affect
the reproduction or survival of any individuals. That continues to be
our conclusion. In addition, the ICEX22 Study Area is in the Arctic
Ocean, well north and east of the primary area where seals have
stranded along the western coast of Alaska (see map of strandings at:
<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-life-distress/2018-2022-ice-seal-unusual-mortality-event-alaska">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-life-distress/2018-2022-ice-seal-unusual-mortality-event-alaska</a>). No Level A harassment,
serious injury, or mortality is expected or authorized, and take by
Level B harassment of ringed seals will be reduced to the level of
least practicable adverse impact through the incorporation of
mitigation measures. As such, the authorized takes by Level B
harassment of ringed seals are not expected to exacerbate or compound
the ongoing UME.
NOAA is investigating the UME, and has assembled an independent
team of scientists to coordinate with the Working Group on Marine
Mammal Unusual Mortality Events to review the data collected, sample
stranded seals, and determine the next steps for the investigation.
However, the study referenced by the commenter took place in the Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands, far from the Navy's proposed activity, and
was conducted on spotted seals, ribbon seals, and harbor seals, none of
which are authorized for taking through this IHA. (The current UME does
not include harbor seals or ribbon seals, though as noted above, it
does include spotted seals).
Comment 5: CBD asserted that NMFS should consider new and
additional information on marine mammal exposure criteria (Southall et
al. 2019; 2021). Additionally, CBD stated that NMFS relies on an
``unsubstantiated'' cut-off distance of 10 km that according to the
Marine Mammal Commission ``contradicts the data underlying the Bayesian
Behavioral Response Functions (BRFs), negates the intent of the
functions themselves, and underestimates the numbers of takes''
(Thomas, 2020). CBD states that NMFS should consider that at received
levels of less than or equal to 140 dB (decibel) re 1 [mu]Pa
(microPascal) some pinnipeds had strong reactions (Thomas, 2020).
Response: As discussed further below, neither is the 10-km cut-off
distance unsubstantiated nor does it contradict the BRFs. Received
level and distance have been shown to independently affect how marine
mammals respond to sound--the BRFs and the cut-off distances work
together to consider how these two factors, respectively, can predict
marine mammal responses. Separately, given the extensive development
process, it is unreasonable to revise and update the criteria and risk
functions every time a new paper is published, though both NMFS and the
Navy review and consider the implications of any new papers as they
arise. Further, we note that NMFS and the Navy are currently
considering new information in development of the next version (Phase
IV) of the Navy's Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and
Explosive Effects Analysis.
We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the 10 km cutoff
distance is unsubstantiated, as we disagreed with the Marine Mammal
Commission's initial comment, cited by CBD in its letter. The
derivation of the behavioral response functions and associated cutoff
distances is provided in the Navy's Criteria and Thresholds for U.S.
Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) technical
report (Navy 2017a). The consideration of proximity (distance cutoff)
was part of criteria developed in consultation with NMFS and was
applied within the Navy's BRF. Cutoffs representing the distances
beyond which the potential of significant behavioral responses were
considered to be unlikely were used in conducting analysis for ICEX22.
The Navy's BRF applied within these distances is an appropriate method
for providing a realistic (but still conservative where some
uncertainties exist) estimate of impact and potential take for these
activities.
Regarding consideration of pinniped reactions at received levels of
less than or equal to 140 dB re 1 [mu]Pa, the current criteria (Phase
III) use a slightly modified version of the Southall et al. (2007)
severity scaling when considering pinniped reactions, including to
exposures less than 140 dB SPL (sound pressure level), given that
Southall et al. (2007) did not meet the criteria for inclusion (i.e.,
received level paired with observation of response). Pinniped data
included in the Phase III BRFs did include reactions in grey seals
slightly below 140 dB SPL, but these were captive studies conducted in
a pool where the sound sources were within a few meters of the animal
(G[ouml]tz and Janik 2011). Therefore, the context (i.e., proximity to
the source) was likely an important factor mediating the seals
reactions. Significant behavioral reactions in pinnipeds have not been
observed beyond a few kilometers. The Navy's Criteria and Thresholds
for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III),
summarizes grey seal reactions on pg. 61, and individual experimental
trials from G[ouml]tz and Janik (2011) are summarized in Appendix B,
starting on pg. 157, including several significant behavioral
reactions. G[ouml]tz (2008) and Gotz and Janik (2010) were not included
in development of the criteria because they did not include
[[Page 7807]]
observations specific enough to pair received levels with behavioral
reactions.
Comment 6: CBD stated that NMFS discounts impacts from aircraft or
incorrectly assumes complete mitigation. CBD asserted that some
pinnipeds are equally susceptible to noise in air as in water (Kastak
et al. 2007). Southall (2019) provides in-air PTS (154 dB SEL) and TTS
(134 dB SEL) thresholds for pinnipeds. Ice seals are sensitive to out-
of-water noise, including hauling out in response to aircraft noise
(Bradford et al. 1999).
Response: While NMFS agrees with the commenter that in some
situations in-air noise can result in take of marine mammals, NMFS
assessed the impacts of aircraft for the Navy's ICEX22 activities and
does not expect aircraft noise from this project to take marine mammals
given the required mitigation included in the IHA. Born et al. (1999)
analyzed ``escape responses'' (i.e., hauled out ringed seals entering
the water) from an aircraft and a helicopter flying at an altitude of
150 m (164 yd). The results of the study indicated that if the aircraft
do not approach the seals closer than 500 m (547 yd) at that altitude,
the risk of flushing the seals into the water can be greatly reduced.
In a separate paper, Bradford and Weller (2005) noted that helicopter
presence resulted in flushing of most of the hauled out seals during
observations, though they did not note specific distances of the
helicopter at which flushing occurred.
The final IHA requires that fixed wing aircraft must operate at the
highest altitudes practicable taking into account safety of personnel,
meteorological conditions, and need to support safe operations of a
drifting ice camp. Aircraft must not reduce altitude if a seal is
observed on the ice. In general, cruising elevation must be 305 m
(1,000 ft) or higher. This altitude is significantly higher than the
150 m (164 yd) aircraft and helicopter altitudes analyzed in Born et
al. (1999). Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) must maintain a minimum
altitude of at least 15.2 m (50 ft) above the ice. They must not be
used to track or follow marine mammals. Further, helicopter flights
must use prescribed transit corridors when traveling to or from Prudhoe
Bay and the ice camp. Helicopters must not hover or circle above marine
mammals or within 457 m (1,500 ft) of marine mammals, and aircraft must
maintain a minimum separation distance of 1.6 km (1 mi) from groups of
5 or more seals and must not land on ice within 800 m (0.5 mi) of
hauled-out seals. These measures are expected to prevent the take of
marine mammals from aircraft and UASs, and the commenter has not
offered data that suggests otherwise.
Comment 7: CBD asserted that the proposed mitigation fails to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact. First, the proposed IHA
does not include any mitigation for the sonar. There are several
additional mitigation measures that would reduce the potential for
harassment of marine mammals including:
<bullet> Placing a cap on the overall use of sonar to ensure the
lowest level of marine mammal disturbance;
<bullet> Requiring that activities conclude before April when
bowhead whales migrate into the area;
<bullet> Requiring passive acoustic and/or thermal monitoring and
restricting sonar in the presence of marine mammals or aggregations of
marine mammals; and
<bullet> Limiting the number of aircraft transits and prohibiting
dipping sonar.
Response: The commenter appears to have overlooked required
mitigation measures for sonar that were included in the proposed IHA
and are included in the final IHA. The mitigation measures ``for
activities involving acoustic transmissions'' described in the proposed
and final IHAs apply to sonar. These measures include the following:
(1) Personnel must begin passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) for
vocalizing marine mammals 15 minutes prior to the start of activities
involving active acoustic transmissions from submarines and exercise
weapons. (2) Personnel must delay active acoustic transmissions and
exercise weapon launches if a marine mammal is detected during pre-
activity PAM and must shutdown active acoustic transmissions if a
marine mammal is detected during acoustic transmissions. (3) Personnel
must not restart acoustic transmissions or exercise weapon launches
until 15 minutes have passed with no marine mammal detections.
Regarding the commenter's recommendation that NMFS place a ``cap''
on the overall use of sonar to ensure the lowest level of marine mammal
disturbance, the Navy must use the amount of sonar required to
successfully conduct the activity, and such a limit set by NMFS is,
therefore, not practicable. Unlike incidental take authorizations in
other Navy training and testing areas that include limits on sonar use
in certain areas during certain times, such as in the Navy's Northwest
Training and Testing Area, ICEX22 is limited in duration and scope, and
there are no known Biologically Important Areas or other factors that
warrant a time/area restriction in the ICEX22 Navy Activity Study Area.
Regarding the commenter's recommendation that NMFS require that
activities conclude before April when bowhead whales migrate into the
area, NMFS has, by default, required that the Navy's activities that
have the potential to harass marine mammals conclude by the end of
April, as that is when the IHA expires. Please see Comment 11 for
additional information regarding NMFS' conclusion that bowhead whales
are not likely to be in the Navy Activity Study Area before the end of
April, and therefore will not be taken during ICEX22.
Regarding the commenter's recommendation that NMFS require PAM and/
or thermal monitoring and restrict sonar use in the presence of marine
mammals or aggregations of marine mammals, NMFS had already included
such measures in the proposed IHA, and has included them in this final
IHA, as described in the first paragraph of this comment response.
Regarding the commenter's recommendation that NMFS limit the number
of aircraft transits and prohibit dipping sonar, the Navy is already
minimizing the number of aircraft transits to only those that are
necessary for successful completion of the ICEX22 activity, and
therefore, an additional limit set by NMFS is not practicable. (See
Sections 2.1.3 (Prudhoe Bay) and 2.2.2 (Aircraft) of the 2022 ICEX EA/
OEA for additional information regarding planned aircraft use in
ICEX22.) Dipping sonar is not a part of the Navy's planned ICEX22
activities (see the Navy's ICEX22 IHA application), nor has the Navy
utilized dipping sonar in 2018 or 2020 ICEX activities. Therefore, a
prohibition on dipping sonar is not warranted.
Comment 8: CBD stated that the mitigation for ice camps, while
good, could be more robust to ensure that ringed seals are not
disturbed. For example, there are not any mitigation measures designed
for ringed seals that may be present in the ice camp area or for
pupping ice seals.
Response: The mitigation measures included in the proposed IHA, and
this final IHA, include measures to avoid impacts to ringed seal
subnivean lairs, which is where ringed seals would be expected to occur
in the area if they were out of the water during the February to April
timeframe.
It is unclear what the commenter means by its suggested inclusion
of ``mitigation measures designed for ringed seals that may be present
in the ice camp area or for pupping ice seals'' and the commenter has
not suggested
[[Page 7808]]
any additional measures that would satisfy this vague recommendation,
beyond what NMFS has already included in the proposed and final IHA. As
discussed in the response to Comment 3, given the expected density of
ringed seal lairs in the Ice Camp Study Area, the relative footprint of
the Navy's planned ice camp (2 km\2\), the lack of previous ringed seal
observations on the ice during ICEX activities, and mitigation
requirements that require the Navy to construct the ice camp and runway
on first-year or multi-year ice without pressure ridges and require
personnel to avoid areas of deep snow drift or pressure ridges, ringed
seal pups are not anticipated to occur in the vicinity of the ice camp
at the commencement of and during ICEX22 activities.
Comment 9: CBD stated that the monitoring provisions are woefully
insufficient by only requiring reporting of dead and injured seals, and
stated that there should, at minimum, also be monitoring and reporting
of harassment of any marine mammals.
Response: The Navy is required to conduct far more monitoring and
reporting than just reporting observations of injured and dead marine
mammals. As stated in the proposed IHA, and in this final IHA, in
addition to reporting observations of injured or dead marine mammals,
the Navy is required to submit an exercise monitoring report which will
include the number of marine mammals sighted, by species, and any other
available information about the sighting(s) such as date, time, and
approximate location (latitude and longitude). The Navy must also
report data regarding sonar use and the number of shutdowns during
ICEX22 activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT)
Letter of Authorization 2023 annual classified report. The Navy is also
required to analyze any declassified underwater recordings collected
during ICEX22 for marine mammal vocalizations and report that
information to NMFS, including the types and natures of sounds heard
(e.g., clicks, whistles, creaks, burst pulses, continuous, sporadic,
strength of signal) and the species or taxonomic group (if
determinable). This information will also be submitted to NMFS with the
2023 annual AFTT declassified monitoring report. Further, as stated in
the Monitoring and Reporting section of this notice, the Navy is also
now exploring the potential of implementing an environmental DNA (eDNA)
study on ice seals.
Comment 10: CBD stated that there cannot be a renewal of this
authorization because the renewal process violates section 101(a)(5)(D)
of the MMPA. Also, this authorization should not be eligible for a
renewal because the activities are supposed to finish in April, and
thus are far less than would need to be continued next year. The
activities must be concluded on time to avoid additional take of
bowhead whales and other protected species. Additionally, CBD stated
that the Navy only conducts ICEX every 2 or 3 years; and therefore,
even if the activity is similar next time, it is not eligible for a
one-year renewal.
Response: In prior responses to comments about IHA renewals (e.g.,
84 FR 52464; October 02, 2019 and 85 FR 53342, August 28, 2020), NMFS
has explained how the renewal process, as implemented, is consistent
with the statutory requirements contained in section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA, provides additional efficiencies beyond the use of
abbreviated notices and, further, promotes NMFS' goals of improving
conservation of marine mammals and increasing efficiency in the MMPA
compliance process. Therefore, we intend to continue implementing the
renewal process.
Regarding the commenters assertion that this particular activity
does not qualify for a renewal IHA, NMFS considers renewals on a case-
by-case basis, and would consider the eligibility of a request for a
renewal if and when such a request is received from the Navy.
Regarding the commenter's statement that the activities must be
concluded on time to avoid take of bowhead whales and other protected
species, the Navy's authorization, which authorizes take of ringed
seals only, expires April 30, 2022. Therefore, activities which may
result in the take of marine mammals must be completed by that date.
The final IHA explicitly prohibits the take of any other species of
marine mammal, other than ringed seals as authorized. Please also refer
to the response to Comment 11, which describes why bowhead whales are
not expected to occur in the Study Area during the Navy's ICEX22
activities.
Comment 11: CBD stated that the determination that there will be no
take of other marine mammals within NMFS' jurisdiction seems
insufficiently supported. NMFS acknowledges that bearded seals are
present in the area during the project timeframe; however, it discounts
the potential impact on bearded seals because they are unlikely to be
near the ice camp or where submarine activities would be conducted.
This fails to consider that noise from sonar can travel great
distances, and that even if a bearded seal does not dive to 800 m or
would prefer other habitat with benthic organisms, this does not
preclude harassment impacts from more distant submarine activities.
CBD also stated that endangered bowhead whales migrate through the
area and may be present during the end of the ICEX activities.
Response: Regarding bearded seals, although acoustic data indicate
that some bearded seals remain in the Beaufort Sea year round
(MacIntyre et al. 2013, 2015; Jones et al. 2014), satellite tagging
data (Boveng and Cameron 2013; ADF&G 2017) show that large numbers of
bearded seals move south in fall/winter with the advancing ice edge to
spend the winter in the Bering Sea, confirming previous visual
observations (Burns and Frost 1979; Frost et al. 2008; Cameron and
Boveng 2009). The southward movement of bearded seals in the fall means
that very few individuals are expected to occur along the Beaufort Sea
continental shelf in February through April, the timeframe ICEX22
activities. The northward spring migration through the Bering Strait,
begins in mid-April (Burns and Frost 1979).
In the event some bearded seals were to remain in the Beaufort Sea
during the season when ICEX22 activities will occur, the most probable
area in which bearded seals might occur during winter months is along
the continental shelf. Bearded seals feed extensively on benthic
invertebrates (e.g., clams, gastropods, crabs, shrimp, bottom-dwelling
fish; Quakenbush et al. 2011; Cameron et al. 2010) and are typically
found in water depths of 200 m (656 ft) or less (Burns 1970). The
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) conducted an aerial survey
from June through October that covered the shallow Beaufort and Chukchi
Sea shelf waters, and observed bearded seals from Point Barrow to the
border of Canada (Clarke et al. 2015). The farthest from shore that
bearded seals were observed was the waters of the continental slope
(though this study was conducted outside of the ICEX22 time frame). The
Navy anticipates that the ice camp will be established 185-370 km (100-
200 nmi) north of Prudhoe Bay in water depths of 800 m (2,625 ft) or
more. The continental shelf near Prudhoe Bay is approximately 55 nmi
(100 km) wide. Therefore, even if the ice camp were established at the
closest estimated distance (100 nmi from Prudhoe Bay), it would still
be approximately 45 nmi (83 km) distant from habitat potentially
occupied by bearded seals. Empirical evidence has not shown responses
to
[[Page 7809]]
sonar that would constitute take beyond a few km from an acoustic
source, and therefore, NMFS and the Navy conservatively set a distance
cutoff of 10 km. Regardless of the source level at that distance, take
is not estimated to occur beyond 10 km from the source. Although
bearded seals are found 20 to 100 nmi (37 to 185 km) offshore during
spring (Simpkins et al. 2003, Bengtson et al. 2005), during the winter
we expect bearded seals to select habitats where food is abundant and
easily accessible to minimize the energy required to forage and
maximize energy reserves in preparation for whelping, lactation,
mating, and molting. Bearded seals are not known to dive to 800 m to
forage and it is highly unlikely that they would occur near the ice
camp or where the research activities will be conducted. This
conclusion is supported by the fact that the Navy did not visually
observe or acoustically detect bearded seals during required PAM during
the 2020 ice exercises.
Regarding bowhead whales, NMFS provided a detailed description of
their migratory route and the typical timing of their northward
migration in the notice of the proposed IHA (86 FR 70451; December 10,
2021). As explained in that notice, bowhead whales are unlikely to
occur in the Navy Activity Study Area between February and April, as
they spend winter (December to March) in the northern Bering Sea and
southern Chukchi Sea, and migrate north through the Chukchi Sea and
Beaufort Sea during April and May (Muto et al. 2021). On their spring
migration, the earliest that bowhead whales reach Point Hope in the
Chukchi Sea, well south of Point Barrow, is late March to mid-April
(Braham et al. 1980). Although the ice camp location is not known with
certainty, the distance between Point Barrow and the closest edge of
the Ice Camp Study Area is over 200 km. The distance between Point
Barrow and the closest edge of the Navy Activity Study Area is over 50
km, and the distance between Point Barrow and Point Hope is an
additional 525 km (straight line distance); accordingly, bowhead whales
are unlikely to occur in the ICEX22 Study Area before ICEX22 activities
conclude. NMFS is not aware of, nor has the commenter provided,
information that suggests that bowhead whales would be present in the
Navy Activity Study Area during the planned ICEX22 activities.
Comment 12: CBD stated that NMFS should better analyze the
potential impacts on subsistence harvest. CBD asserted that because
serious injury and mortality are already over PBR, authorization of
additional take from sources other than subsistence harvest may reduce
availability of ice seals. NMFS must either provide more data and
support its assumption that the population estimate for the stock is
wrong or provide a more robust analysis of the potential impacts on
subsistence harvest.
Response: See the response to Comment 1 for discussion of PBR.
Further, NMFS' unmitigable adverse impact determination is not based
upon the abundance estimate for the Alaska stock of ringed seals.
Impacts to marine mammals from the specified activity will mostly
include limited, temporary behavioral disturbances of ringed seals;
however, some TTS is also anticipated. No Level A harassment (injury),
serious injury, or mortality of marine mammals is expected or
authorized, and the activities are not expected to have any impacts on
the reproduction or survival of any animals. NMFS' determination is
based on the anticipated effects to marine mammals (take by Level B
harassment only), the short-term, temporary nature of the ICEX22
activities which will occur outside of the primary subsistence hunting
seas, and the distance offshore from known subsistence hunting areas.
(The Study Area boundary is seaward of subsistence hunting areas,
approximately 50 km from shore at the closest point, though exercises
will occur farther offshore.) Further, the Navy plans to provide
advance public notice to local residents and other users of the Prudhoe
Bay region of Navy activities and measures used to reduce impacts on
resources. This includes notification to local Alaska Natives who hunt
marine mammals for subsistence. If any Alaska Natives express concerns
regarding project impacts to subsistence hunting of marine mammals, the
Navy will further communicate with the concerned individuals or
community. The Navy will provide project information and clarification
of any mitigation measures that may reduce impacts to marine mammals.
While it seems clear that ringed seals generally are an important
subsistence species for Alaska Natives, no concerns specific to this
activity have been expressed so far. Apart from clarifying that the
unmitigable adverse impact determination is not based upon the
abundance estimate for the Alaska stock of ringed seals, it is unclear
what the commenter would consider a ``better'' analysis of the
potential impacts on subsistence harvest.
Comment 13: CBD asserted that because of the impacts on threatened
and endangered species and their critical habitat, the Finding of No
Significant Impact is arbitrary, and the Navy should have prepared an
Environmental Impact Statement.
Response: The Navy has drafted the EA to analyze the full scope of
ICEX22 activities, given that conducting the ICEX22 activities is their
proposed action. NMFS' authority is limited to the issuance, if
appropriate, of an IHA for the take of marine mammals that it manages.
However, NMFS concurs with the analysis presented in the 2022 ICEX EA.
Regarding issuance of an IHA to the Navy, given the scope of the
impacts of the Navy's activity on marine mammals that NMFS manages,
NMFS finds that the 2022 ICEX EA fully supports NMFS' Finding of No
Significant Impact, which was made following finalization of the EA.
Given that the comment is directed at the Navy and NMFS' role in
managing the resources analyzed in the EA is limited, NMFS provided
this comment to the Navy to consider for the final EA.
In response, the Navy has explained that in accordance with
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
Executive Order 12114, the Navy analyzed all potential impacts
resulting from the proposed action and found that the short-term
effects, the absence of injury or mortality, and the planned mitigation
implementation resulted in no significant impact or significant harm to
the resources. The Navy's consultations with NMFS and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service also support these findings and therefore, an EIS is
not required.
Separately, of note, as stated in the Endangered Species Act
section of this notice, NMFS' Alaska Regional Office Protected
Resources Division issued a Biological Opinion on January 31, 2022,
which concluded that the Navy's activities and NMFS' issuance of an IHA
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Arctic
stock of ringed seals. As described in the notice of the proposed IHA,
NMFS has proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arctic
Subspecies of the Ringed Seal (86 FR 1452; January 8, 2021). However,
this proposed critical habitat has not been finalized.
Comment 14: CBD stated that the 2022 ICEX EA fails to analyze any
alternatives beyond the no-action alternative. CBD stated that NMFS
should consider an alternative that incorporates additional mitigation
measures such as limits on sonar, time restrictions, passive acoustic
and/or thermal monitoring, and limits on aircraft.
Response: As discussed in the response to Comment 13, NMFS
[[Page 7810]]
considers the analysis in the 2022 ICEX EA, including its discussion of
alternatives, sufficient to support a Finding of No Significant Impact
with respect to the issuance of an IHA. As discussed in NMFS' response
to Comment 7, the proposed and final IHAs require that the Navy conduct
PAM for marine mammals, and that the Navy delay or shut down active
acoustic transmissions if a marine mammal is detected during pre-
activity PAM or during acoustic transmissions, respectively. These
measures are considered as part of the proposed action in the EA.
However, an alternative that incorporated the additional mitigation
measures identified by the commenter would not be viable. The limits on
aircraft and sonar recommended by the commenter for inclusion in a new
alternative in the 2022 ICEX EA cannot be implemented by the Navy for
the reasons described in the response to Comment 7. It is unclear what
the commenter means by its suggested time restrictions, however, the
Navy has selected the February to April time period due to the
environmental conditions required to successfully complete the
exercises.
Comment 15: CBD stated that NMFS, which is charged with protecting
marine mammals, cannot adopt the Navy's purpose and need for military
activities such as evaluating the employment and tactics of submarine
operability in Arctic conditions.
Response: Section 1.2 of the 2022 ICEX Draft EA and the Final EA
state NMFS' purpose and need, which are separate from that of the Navy.
As stated in Section 1.2, NMFS' purpose is to evaluate the Navy's
Proposed Action pursuant to NMFS' authority under the MMPA, and to make
a determination whether to issue an IHA, including any conditions or
mitigation measures along with monitoring and reporting requirements
needed to meet the statutory requirements of the MMPA. As also stated
in Section 1.2, the need for NMFS' proposed action is to consider the
impacts of the Navy's activities on marine mammals and meet NMFS'
obligations under the MMPA.
Comment 16: CBD states that the EA fails to adequately examine
important environmental effects, and that it suffers from some of the
same flaws as the negligible impact determination. For example, it
underestimates the potential impact of the activities on ringed seals,
the impacts of sonar, and discounts all impacts on wildlife other than
ice seals. The EA assumes that avoidance and displacement of ringed
seals will mitigate impacts, but instead they displace ringed seals
from preferred habitat and constitute a taking.
Response: Please see Comment 1 for NMFS' response to the alleged
``flaws'' identified by the commenter in the negligible impact
determination, and see Comment 3 for NMFS' response to the commenter's
concerns regarding potential avoidance and displacement of ringed
seals. Those responses also address analysis of the impacts of the
Navy's activity on ringed seals, including impacts of sonar and the
potential for avoidance and displacement of ringed seals in the EA.
Otherwise, NMFS has provided this comment to the Navy to consider as it
relates to the impacts of sonar and impacts on wildlife other than ice
seals for which NMFS does not have management authority.
In response, the Navy has explained that the 2022 ICEX EA analyzed
all resources and all potential affects as a result of its Proposed
Action. The Navy consulted with NMFS regarding impacts to bearded seals
and ringed seals, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding
polar bears. The effects of sonar were analyzed using the best
available science and the Navy conducted extensive modeling to
determine potential effects, which resulted in the Navy requesting an
IHA from NMFS.
Comment 17: CBD stated that it finds the assumption that polar
bears will not be harassed, displaced, or disturbed by the proposed
activities particularly troubling. CBD referenced instances of
disturbance of polar bears by snow machine noise, and raised concerns
about impacts of noise on denning polar bears.
Response: Polar bears are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service rather than NMFS. Therefore, NMFS has provided this comment to
the Navy to consider for the final EA.
Comment 18: CBD states that the EA fails to adequately consider the
impacts of climate change both on the proposed activities as well as
the additional pressure that the activities exert on arctic wildlife
that is already threatened by climate change. The commenter stated that
the primary threat facing ringed seals is habitat alteration flowing
from climate change due to its effects on sea ice and snow cover, which
ringed seals depend on for pupping, nursing, molting, and resting
(Andersen, Kovacs and Lydersen, N.D.; Boucher 2018; Boucher 2019; Crain
et al. 2021; Crawford et al. 2019; Fauchald et al. 2017; Ferguson et
al. 2017, 2020; Hezel et al. 2012; Hamilton et al. 2015, 2018, 2019;
Hamilton, Kovacs and Lydersen 2019; Harwood et al. 2020; Karpovich,
Horstmann and Polasek 2020; Lone et al. 2019; Lydersen et al. 2017;
Martinez-Bakker et al. 2013; Reimer et al. 2019; Ritchie 2018; Von
Duyke et al. 2020; Yurkowski, David J., et al. 2019). The commenter
states that ocean warming and acidification resulting from increased
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions also alter prey populations and other
ecosystem dynamics important to the listed ringed seals (77 FR 76708,
December 28, 2012; Andersen, Kovacs and Lydersen, N.D.; Beltran et al.
2016; Boucher 2018; Hamilton et al. 2016; Lowther et al. 2017; Matley,
Fisk and Dick 2015; Wang et al. 2016a, 2016b; Young and Ferguson 2013,
2014).CBD further stated that the proposed activities deepen the
imperilment of climate-threatened ice seals, polar bears, and other
wildlife, and that the cursory cumulative impacts analysis lacks any
substance or discussion of other actions in the area such as oil and
gas, shipping, and fishing activities (77 FR 76712, December 28, 2012;
Andersen, Kovacs and Lydersen, N.D.; Lomac-Macnair, Andrade and Esteves
2019; Muto 2021; Siddon, Zador and Hunt Jr. 2020; Von Duyke et al.
2020; Yurkowski et al. 2019).
Response: NMFS has considered CBD's comments regarding the impacts
of climate change on ringed seals, and additional analysis has been
added to the final 2022 ICEX EA/OEA. As stated in the final 2022 ICEX
EA/OEA, the habitat of Arctic species has been altered by the warming
climate, and scientific consensus projects continued and accelerated
warming in the foreseeable future. This continued warming will decrease
sea ice and snow cover that seals and polar bears rely on throughout
their lifecycle. Ringed seals use sea ice for resting, whelping, and
molting, while polar bears primarily use it for hunting, mating, and
maternity denning. Climate change has caused a reduction in the
distribution, abundance, and body condition of Arctic species.
Additionally, ocean warming and acidification alter prey populations
that marine mammal species rely on, and increase competition with
subarctic species (Laidre et al. 2008). Although climate change is a
continuing threat to Arctic species, activities conducted during ICEX
will have an inconsequential additional impact since they are
temporary, and planned mitigation measures are expected to reduce
impacts to protected species during the activities.
[[Page 7811]]
Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA
NMFS slightly modified the IHA start date. The proposed IHA
reflected a start date of February 1, 2022, while the final IHA becomes
effective February 4, 2022.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS' SARs (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>) and more general
information about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral
descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>).
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
authorized, and summarizes information related to the population or
stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and the Endangered
Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and potential biological
removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on
Taxonomy (2021). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of
animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no
serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and
annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are
included in Table 1 as gross indicators of the status of the species
and other threats. That said, in this case for the Arctic stock of
ringed seals and as explained in footnotes 6 and 7 of Table 1, the lack
of complete population information significantly impacts the usefulness
of PBR in considering the status of the stock, as explained below.
Marine mammal abundance estimates represent the total number of
individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated
within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance
estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals
within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For
some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All
managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Alaska SARs
(Muto et al. 2021). All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent
available at the time of publication and are available in the 2020
Alaska SAR (Muto et al. 2021) and draft 2021 Alaska SAR (available
online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports</a>). However, for
the same reason noted above and as described in footnotes 4 and 5 of
Table 1, the lack of complete population information for the Arctic
stock of ringed seals impacts the usefulness of these numbers in
considering the impacts of the anticipated take on the stock.
Table 1--Species That Spatially Co-Occur With the Activity to the Degree That Take Is Reasonably Likely To Occur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Ringed seal..................... Pusa hispida........... Arctic................. T/D;Y 171,418 4 5, (N/A, \6\ 4,755 \7\ 6,459
158,507 4 5; 2013).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-
caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species
or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a> assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
\3\ This value, found in NMFS' SARs, represents annual levels of human-caused mortality (M) plus serious injury (SI) from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike).
\4\ These estimates reflect the Bering Sea population only, as reliable abundance estimates for the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea are not available.
\5\ This is expected to be an underestimate of ringed seals in the Bering Sea, as the estimate was not adjusted for seals in the water at the time of
the surveys, nor does it include ringed seals in the shorefast ice zone.
\6\ The PBR value for this stock is based on a partial stock abundance estimate, and is therefore an underestimate for the full stock.
\7\ The majority of the M/SI for this stock (6,454 of 6,459 animals) is a result of the Alaska Native subsistence harvest. While M/SI appears to exceed
PBR, given that the reported PBR is based on a partial stock abundance estimate, and is therefore an underestimate for the full stock, M/SI likely
does not exceed PBR.
As indicated in Table 1, ringed seals (with one managed stock)
temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that
take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have authorized such take. A
detailed description of the Arctic stock of ringed seals, including
brief introductions to the species and stock, available information
regarding population trends and threats, information regarding local
occurrence, proposed ESA-designated Critical Habitat, and information
regarding a current UME were provided in the Federal Register notice
for the proposed IHA (86 FR 70451; December 10, 2021). Since that time,
we are not aware of any changes in the status of the Arctic stock of
ringed seals, and therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided
here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for these
descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>) for generalized species accounts.
As described in footnotes 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Table 1, the lack of
complete population information significantly impacts the usefulness of
abundance estimates and PBR for this stock. The PBR for the Alaska
stock of ringed seals is based upon a minimum population estimate that
is expected to be an underestimate, as it is an estimate for just a
portion of the stock's range, and that estimate was also not corrected
for seals in the water or shorefast ice zone during the survey.
Therefore, the minimum population estimate (and best population
estimate) and PBR for the Alaska stock of ringed seals are negatively
biased (i.e., underestimates). These metrics are considered as gross
indicators of the stock status; however, an accurate abundance estimate
and PBR for the entire stock is not necessary to make the negligible
impact determination. For the full discussion on this issue, see our
response to Comment 1.
[[Page 7812]]
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al.
1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data,
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques,
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 2.
Table 2--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger and L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
(sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al. 2006; Kastelein et al. 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Only ringed seals (a phocid pinniped species) have the reasonable
potential to co-occur with the planned ICEX22 activities.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
The underwater noise from the Navy's submarine training and testing
activities has the potential to result in behavioral harassment of
marine mammals in the vicinity of the ICEX22 Study Area. The notice of
the proposed IHA (86 FR 70451; December 10, 2021) included a discussion
of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the
potential effects of underwater noise from the Navy's activities on
marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is
incorporated by reference into this final IHA determination and is not
repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 70451;
December 10, 2021).
Estimated Take
This section provides the number of incidental takes estimated to
occur, which will inform NMFS' analysis for the negligible impact
determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines
``harassment'' as (i) Any act that injures or has the significant
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
(Level A harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to
disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited
to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to
a point where the behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly
altered (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes for the Navy's ICEX22 activities are by Level B
harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns and/
or TTS for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to
acoustic transmissions. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A
harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized. As described
previously, no mortality or serious injury is anticipated or authorized
for this activity. Below we describe how the incidental take is
estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic
thresholds above which the best available science indicates marine
mammals will be behaviorally disturbed or incur some degree of
permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will
be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and (4) the
number of days of activities. For this IHA, the Navy employed a
sophisticated model known as the Navy Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO) to
assess the estimated impacts of underwater sound.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the
received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals
would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally disturbed (equated to
Level B harassment) or to incur permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment by behavioral disturbance for non-explosive
sources--In coordination with NMFS, the Navy developed behavioral
thresholds to support environmental analyses for the Navy's testing and
training military readiness activities utilizing active sonar sources;
these behavioral harassment thresholds are used here to evaluate the
potential effects of the active sonar components of the
[[Page 7813]]
specified activities. The behavioral response of a marine mammal to an
anthropogenic sound will depend on the frequency, duration, temporal
pattern, and amplitude of the sound as well as the animal's prior
experience with the sound and the context in which the sound is
encountered (i.e., what the animal is doing at the time of the
exposure). The distance from the sound source and whether it is
perceived as approaching or moving away can also affect the way an
animal responds to a sound (Wartzok et al. 2003). For marine mammals, a
review of responses to anthropogenic sound was first conducted by
Richardson et al. (1995). Reviews by Nowacek et al. (2007) and Southall
et al. (2007) address studies conducted since 1995 and focus on
observations where the received sound level of the exposed marine
mammal(s) was known or could be estimated.
Multi-year research efforts have conducted sonar exposure studies
for odontocetes and mysticetes (Miller et al. 2012; Sivle et al. 2012).
Several studies with captive animals have provided data under
controlled circumstances for odontocetes and pinnipeds (Houser et al.
2013a; Houser et al. 2013b). Moretti et al. (2014) published a beaked
whale dose-response curve based on PAM of beaked whales during Navy
training activity at Atlantic Underwater Test and Evaluation Center
during actual Anti-Submarine Warfare exercises. This new information
necessitated the update of the behavioral response criteria for the
Navy's environmental analyses.
Southall et al. (2007) synthesized data from many past behavioral
studies and observations to determine the likelihood of behavioral
reactions at specific sound levels. While in general, the louder the
sound source the more intense the behavioral response, it was clear
that the proximity of a sound source and the animal's experience,
motivation, and conditioning were also critical factors influencing the
response (Southall et al. 2007). After examining all of the available
data, the authors felt that the derivation of thresholds for behavioral
response based solely on exposure level was not supported because
context of the animal at the time of sound exposure was an important
factor in estimating response. Nonetheless, in some conditions,
consistent avoidance reactions were noted at higher sound levels
depending on the marine mammal species or group, allowing conclusions
to be drawn. Phocid seals showed avoidance reactions at or below 190 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m; thus, seals may actually receive levels adequate to
produce TTS before avoiding the source.
The Navy's Phase III pinniped behavioral threshold was updated
based on controlled exposure experiments on the following captive
animals: Hooded seal, gray seal, and California sea lion (G[ouml]tz et
al. 2010; Houser et al. 2013a; Kvadsheim et al. 2010). Overall exposure
levels were 110-170 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for hooded seals, 140-180 dB re 1
[mu]Pa for gray seals, and 125-185 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for California sea
lions; responses occurred at received levels ranging from 125 to 185 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa. However, the means of the response data were between 159
and 170 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. Hooded seals were exposed to increasing levels
of sonar until an avoidance response was observed, while the grey seals
were exposed first to a single received level multiple times, then an
increasing received level. Each individual California sea lion was
exposed to the same received level ten times. These exposure sessions
were combined into a single response value, with an overall response
assumed if an animal responded in any single session. Because these
data represent a dose-response type relationship between received level
and a response, and because the means were all tightly clustered, the
Bayesian biphasic Behavioral Response Function for pinnipeds most
closely resembles a traditional sigmoidal dose-response function at the
upper received levels and has a 50 percent probability of response at
166 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. Additionally, to account for proximity to the
source discussed above and based on the best scientific information, a
conservative distance of 10 km is used beyond which exposures would not
constitute a take under the military readiness definition of Level B
harassment. The Navy proposed, and NMFS concurs with, the use of this
dose response function to predict behavioral harassment of pinnipeds
for this activity.
Level A harassment and Level B harassment by threshold shift for
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).
These thresholds were developed by compiling the best available
science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and
peer reviewers to inform the final product. The references, analysis,
and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described
in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance</a>.
The Navy's PTS/TTS analysis begins with mathematical modeling to
predict the sound transmission patterns from Navy sources, including
sonar. These data are then coupled with marine species distribution and
abundance data to determine the sound levels likely to be received by
various marine species. These criteria and thresholds are applied to
estimate specific effects that animals exposed to Navy-generated sound
may experience. For weighting function derivation, the most critical
data required are TTS onset exposure levels as a function of exposure
frequency. These values can be estimated from published literature by
examining TTS as a function of sound exposure level (SEL) for various
frequencies.
To estimate TTS onset values, only TTS data from behavioral hearing
tests were used. To determine TTS onset for each subject, the amount of
TTS observed after exposures with different SPLs and durations were
combined to create a single TTS growth curve as a function of SEL. The
use of (cumulative) SEL is a simplifying assumption to accommodate
sounds of various SPLs, durations, and duty cycles. This is referred to
as an ``equal energy'' approach, since SEL is related to the energy of
the sound and this approach assumes exposures with equal SEL result in
equal effects, regardless of the duration or duty cycle of the sound.
It is well known that the equal energy rule will over-estimate the
effects of intermittent noise, since the quiet periods between noise
exposures will allow some recovery of hearing compared to noise that is
continuously present with the same total SEL (Ward 1997). For
continuous exposures with the same SEL but different durations, the
exposure with the longer duration will also tend to produce more TTS
(Finneran et al. 2010; Kastak et al. 2007; Mooney et al. 2009a).
As in previous acoustic effects analysis (Finneran and Jenkins
2012; Southall et al. 2007), the shape of the PTS exposure function for
each species group is assumed to be identical to the TTS exposure
function for each group. A difference of 20 dB between TTS onset and
PTS onset is used for all marine mammals including pinnipeds. This is
based on estimates of exposure levels actually required for PTS (i.e.,
40
[[Page 7814]]
dB of TTS) from the marine mammal TTS growth curves, which show
differences of 13 to 37 dB between TTS and PTS onset in marine mammals.
Details regarding these criteria and thresholds can be found in NMFS'
Technical Guidance (NMFS 2018).
Table 3 below provides the weighted criteria and thresholds used in
this analysis for estimating quantitative acoustic exposures of marine
mammals from the specified activities.
Table 3--Acoustic Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Behavioral Disturbance, TTS, and PTS for Non-Impulsive
Sound Sources \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physiological criteria
Behavioral ---------------------------------------
Functional hearing group Species criteria TTS threshold SEL PTS threshold SEL
(weighted) (weighted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater)... Ringed seal....... Pinniped Dose 181 dB SEL 201 dB SEL
Response Function cumulative. cumulative.
\2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The threshold values provided are assumed for when the source is within the animal's best hearing
sensitivity. The exact threshold varies based on the overlap of the source and the frequency weighting.
\2\ See Figure 6-1 in the Navy's IHA application.
Note: SEL thresholds in dB re: 1 [mu]Pa\2\s
Quantitative Modeling
The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number
of marine mammals that could be harassed by the underwater acoustic
transmissions during the specified activities. Inputs to the
quantitative analysis included marine mammal density estimates, marine
mammal depth occurrence distributions (U.S Department of the Navy,
2017), oceanographic and environmental data, marine mammal hearing
data, and criteria and thresholds for levels of potential effects.
The density estimate used to estimate take is derived from habitat-
based modeling by Kaschner et al. (2006) and Kaschner (2004). The area
of the Arctic where the specified activities will occur (185-370 km
(100-200 nmi) north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska) has not been surveyed in a
manner that supports quantifiable density estimation of marine mammals.
In the absence of empirical survey data, information on known or
inferred associations between marine habitat features and (the
likelihood of) the presence of specific species have been used to
predict densities using model-based approaches. These habitat
suitability models include relative environmental suitability (RES)
models. Habitat suitability models can be used to understand the
possible extent and relative expected concentration of a marine species
distribution. These models are derived from an assessment of the
species occurrence in association with evaluated environmental
explanatory variables that results in defining the RES suitability of a
given environment. A fitted model that quantitatively describes the
relationship of occurrence with the environmental variables can be used
to estimate unknown occurrence in conjunction with known habitat
suitability. Abundance can thus be estimated for each RES value based
on the values of the environmental variables, providing a means to
estimate density for areas that have not been surveyed. Use of the
Kaschner's RES model resulted in a value of 0.3957 ringed seals per
km\2\ in the cold season (defined as December through May).
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 sonars, the sound received by animat (virtual animal)
dosimeters representing marine mammals distributed in the area around
the modeled activity, and whether the sound received by a marine mammal
exceeds the thresholds for effects.
The Navy developed a set of software tools and compiled data for
estimating acoustic effects on marine mammals without consideration of
behavioral avoidance or Navy's standard mitigations (Lookouts, safety
zones, avoidance zones, etc.). These tools and data sets are integral
components of NAEMO. In NAEMO, animats are distributed non-uniformly
based on species-specific density, depth distribution, and group size
information, and animats record energy received at their location in
the water column. A fully three-dimensional environment is used for
calculating sound propagation and animat exposure in NAEMO. Site-
specific bathymetry, sound speed profiles, wind speed, and bottom
properties are incorporated into the propagation modeling process.
NAEMO calculates the likely propagation for various levels of energy
(sound or pressure) resulting from each source used during the training
or testing event.
NAEMO then records the energy received by each animat within the
energy footprint of the event and calculates the number of animats
having received levels of energy exposures that fall within defined
impact thresholds. Predicted effects on the animats within a scenario
are then tallied and the highest order effect (based on severity of
criteria; e.g., PTS over TTS) predicted for a given animat is assumed.
Each scenario or each 24-hour period for scenarios lasting greater than
24 hours is independent of all others, and therefore, the same
individual marine animat could be impacted during each independent
scenario or 24-hour period. In a few instances for the modeling of the
specified activities here, although the activities themselves all occur
within the ICEX22 Study Area, sound may propagate beyond the boundary
of the ICEX22 Study Area. Any exposures occurring outside the boundary
of the study area are counted as if they occurred within the ICEX22
Study Area boundary. NAEMO provides the initial estimated impacts on
marine species with a static horizontal distribution.
There are limitations to the data used in the acoustic effects
model, and the results must be interpreted within this context. While
the most accurate data and input assumptions have been used in the
modeling, when there is a lack of definitive data to support an aspect
of the modeling, modeling assumptions believed to overestimate the
number of exposures have been chosen:
<bullet> Animats are modeled as being underwater, stationary, and
facing the source and therefore always predicted to receive the maximum
sound level (i.e., no porpoising or pinnipeds' heads above water);
<bullet> Animats do not move horizontally (but do change their
position vertically within the water column), which may
[[Page 7815]]
overestimate physiological effects such as hearing loss, especially for
slow moving or stationary sound sources in the model;
<bullet> Animats are stationary horizontally and therefore do not
avoid the sound source, unlike in the wild where animals will most
often avoid exposures at higher sound levels, especially those
exposures that may result in PTS;
<bullet> Multiple exposures within any 24-hour period are
considered one continuous exposure for the purposes of calculating the
temporary or permanent hearing loss, because there are not sufficient
data to estimate a hearing recovery function for the time between
exposures; and
<bullet> Mitigation measures that will be implemented are not
considered in the model. In reality, sound-producing activities will be
reduced, stopped, or delayed if marine mammals are detected by
submarines via PAM.
Because of these inherent model limitations and simplifications,
model-estimated results must be further analyzed, considering such
factors as the range to specific effects, avoidance, and typically the
likelihood of successfully implementing mitigation measures. This
analysis uses a number of factors in addition to the acoustic model
results to predict effects on marine mammals.
For non-impulsive sources, NAEMO calculates the sound pressure
level (SPL) and sound exposure level (SEL) for each active emission
during an event. This is done by taking the following factors into
account over the propagation paths: Bathymetric relief and bottom
types, sound speed, and attenuation contributors such as absorption,
bottom loss, and surface loss. Platforms such as a ship using one or
more sound sources are modeled in accordance with relevant vehicle
dynamics and time durations by moving them across an area whose size is
representative of the training event's operational area. Table 4
provides range to effects for active acoustic sources planned for
ICEX22 to phocid pinniped-specific criteria. Phocids within these
ranges will be predicted to receive the associated effect. Range to
effects is important information in not only predicting acoustic
impacts, but also in verifying the accuracy of model results against
real-world situations and determining adequate mitigation ranges to
avoid higher level effects, especially physiological effects, to marine
mammals.
Table 4--Range to Behavioral Disturbance, TTS, and PTS in the ICEX22 Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range to effects (m)
--------------------------------------------------
Source/exercise Behavioral
disturbance TTS PTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine Exercise........................................... \a\ 10,000 3,025 130
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Empirical evidence has not shown responses to sonar that would constitute take beyond a few km from an
acoustic source, which is why NMFS and the Navy conservatively set a distance cutoff of 10 km. Regardless of
the source level at that distance, take is not estimated to occur beyond 10 km from the source.
As discussed above, within NAEMO, animats do not move horizontally
or react in any way to avoid sound. Furthermore, mitigation measures
that are implemented during training or testing activities that reduce
the likelihood of physiological impacts are not considered in
quantitative analysis. Therefore, the current model overestimates
acoustic impacts, especially physiological impacts near the sound
source. The behavioral criteria used as a part of this analysis
acknowledges that a behavioral reaction is likely to occur at levels
below those required to cause hearing loss (TTS or PTS). At close
ranges and high sound levels approaching those that could cause PTS,
avoidance of the area immediately around the sound source is the
assumed behavioral response for most cases.
In previous environmental analyses, the Navy has implemented
analytical factors to account for avoidance behavior and the
implementation of mitigation measures. The application of avoidance and
mitigation factors has only been applied to model-estimated PTS
exposures given the short distance over which PTS is estimated. Given
that no PTS exposures were estimated during the modeling process for
these specified activities, the implementation of avoidance and
mitigation factors were not included in this analysis.
Table 5 shows the exposures expected for ringed seals based on
NAEMO modeled results.
Table 5--Quantitative Modeling Results of Potential Exposures for ICEX Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B harassment
---------------------------------- Level A
Species Behavioral harassment Total
disturbance TTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ringed seal................................. 3,976 910 0 4,886
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During monitoring for the 2018 IHA covering similar military
readiness activities in the ICEX22 Study Area, the Navy did not
visually observe or acoustically detect any marine mammals (U.S. Navy,
2018). During monitoring for the 2020 IHA covering similar military
readiness activities in the ICEX22 Study Area, the Navy also did not
visually observe any marine mammals (U.S. Navy, 2020). Acoustic
monitoring associated with the 2020 IHA did not detect any discernible
marine mammal vocalizations (Henderson et al. 2021). The monitoring
report states that ``there were a few very faint sounds that could have
been [ringed seal] barks or yelps.'' However, these were likely not
from ringed seals, given that ringed seal vocalizations are generally
produced in series (Jones et al. 2014). Henderson et al. (2021) expect
that these sounds were likely ice-associated or perhaps anthropogenic.
Mitigation Measures
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and
[[Page 7816]]
other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of
the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses. NMFS
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)). The 2004 NDAA amended the MMPA as it relates to
military readiness activities and the incidental take authorization
process such that ``least practicable impact'' shall include
consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further
considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if
implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned) and the likelihood of effective implementation
(probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
Appropriate personnel (including civilian personnel) involved in
mitigation and training or testing activity reporting under the
specified activities must complete Arctic Environmental and Safety
Awareness Training. Modules include: Arctic Species Awareness and
Mitigations, Environmental Considerations, Hazardous Materials
Management, and General Safety.
Further, the following general mitigation measures are required to
prevent incidental take of ringed seals on the ice floe associated with
the ice camp (further explanation of certain mitigation measures is
provided in parentheses following the measure):
<bullet> The ice camp and runway must be established on first-year
and multi-year ice without pressure ridges. (This will minimize
physical impacts to subnivean lairs and impacts to sea ice habitat
suitable for lairs.);
<bullet> Ice camp deployment must begin no later than mid-February
2022, and be gradual, with activity increasing over the first 5 days.
Camp deployment must be completed by March 15, 2022. (Given that
mitigation measures require that the ice camp and runway be established
on first-year or multi-year ice without pressure ridges where ringed
seals tend to build their lairs, as well as the average ringed seal
lair density in the area, and the relative footprint of the Navy's
planned ice camp (2 km\2\), it is extremely unlikely that a ringed seal
would build a lair in the vicinity of the ice camp. Additionally, based
on the best available science, Arctic ringed seal whelping is not
expected to occur prior to mid-March, and therefore, construction of
the ice camp will be completed prior to whelping in the area of ICEX22.
Further, as noted above, ringed seal lairs are not expected to occur in
the ice camp study area, and therefore, NMFS does not expect ringed
seals to relocate pups due to human disturbance from ice camp
activities, including construction.);
<bullet> Personnel on all on-ice vehicles must observe for marine
and terrestrial animals;
<bullet> Snowmobiles must follow established routes, when
available. On-ice vehicles must not be used to follow any animal, with
the exception of actively deterring polar bears if the situation
requires;
<bullet> Personnel on foot and operating on-ice vehicles must avoid
areas of deep snowdrifts near pressure ridges. (These areas are
preferred areas for subnivean lair development.);
<bullet> Personnel must maintain a 100 m (328 ft) avoidance
distance from all observed marine mammals; and
<bullet> All material (e.g., tents, unused food, excess fuel) and
wastes (e.g., solid waste, hazardous waste) must be removed from the
ice floe upon completion of ICEX22 activities.
The following mitigation measures are required for activities
involving acoustic transmissions (further explanation of certain
mitigation measures is provided in parentheses following the measure):
<bullet> Personnel must begin passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) for
vocalizing marine mammals 15 minutes prior to the start of activities
involving active acoustic transmissions from submarines and exercise
weapons.
<bullet> Personnel must delay active acoustic transmissions and
exercise weapon launches if a marine mammal is detected during pre-
activity PAM and must shutdown active acoustic transmissions if a
marine mammal is detected during acoustic transmissions.
<bullet> Personnel must not restart acoustic transmissions or
exercise weapon launches until 15 minutes have passed with no marine
mammal detections.
Ramp up procedures for acoustic transmissions are not required as
the Navy determined, and NMFS concurs, that they would result in
impacts on military readiness and on the realism of training that would
be impracticable.
The following mitigation measures are required for aircraft
activities to prevent incidental take of marine mammals due to the
presence of aircraft and associated noise.
<bullet> Fixed wing aircraft must operate at the highest altitudes
practicable taking into account safety of personnel, meteorological
conditions, and need to support safe operations of a drifting ice camp.
Aircraft must not reduce altitude if a seal is observed on the ice. In
general, cruising elevation must be 305 m (1,000 ft) or higher.
<bullet> Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) must maintain a minimum
altitude of at least 15.2 m (50 ft) above the ice. They must not be
used to track or follow marine mammals.
<bullet> Helicopter flights must use prescribed transit corridors
when traveling to or from Prudhoe Bay and the ice camp. Helicopters
must not hover or circle above marine mammals or within 457 m (1,500
ft) of marine mammals.
<bullet> Aircraft must maintain a minimum separation distance of
1.6 km (1 mi) from groups of 5 or more seals.
<bullet> Aircraft must not land on ice within 800 m (0.5 mi) of
hauled-out seals.
Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed mitigation measures,
as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that
the required mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the
least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance.
[[Page 7817]]
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) require requests for
authorizations to include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
area of the specified activity. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
<bullet> Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density).
<bullet> Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving, or feeding areas).
<bullet> Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
<bullet> How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks.
<bullet> Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat).
<bullet> Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The Navy has coordinated with NMFS to develop an overarching
program, the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP),
intended to coordinate marine species monitoring efforts across all
regions and to allocate the most appropriate level and type of effort
for each range complex based on a set of standardized objectives, and
in acknowledgement of regional expertise and resource availability. The
ICMP was created in direct response to Navy requirements established in
various MMPA regulations and ESA consultations. As a framework
document, the ICMP applies by regulation to those activities on ranges
and operating areas for which the Navy is seeking or has sought
incidental take authorizations.
The ICMP is focused on Navy training and testing ranges where the
majority of Navy activities occur regularly, as those areas have the
greatest potential for being impacted by the Navy's activities. In
comparison, ICEX is a short duration exercise that occurs approximately
every other year. Due to the location and expeditionary nature of the
ice camp, the number of personnel onsite is extremely limited and is
constrained by the requirement to be able to evacuate all personnel in
a single day with small planes. As such, the Navy asserts that a
dedicated ICMP monitoring project is not feasible as it would require
additional personnel and equipment, and NMFS concurs. However, the Navy
is exploring the potential of implementing an environmental DNA (eDNA)
study on ice seals.
Nonetheless, the Navy must conduct the following monitoring and
reporting under the IHA. Ice camp personnel must generally monitor for
marine mammals in the vicinity of the ice camp and record all
observations of marine mammals, regardless of distance from the ice
camp, as well as the additional data indicated below. Additionally,
Navy personnel must conduct PAM during all active sonar use. Ice camp
personnel must also maintain an awareness of the surrounding
environment and document any observed marine mammals.
In addition, the Navy is required to provide NMFS with a draft
exercise monitoring report within 90 days of the conclusion of the
specified activity. A final report must be prepared and submitted
within 30 calendar days following receipt of any NMFS comments on the
draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 calendar
days of receipt of the draft report, the report shall be considered
final. The report, at minimum, must include:
<bullet> Marine mammal monitoring effort (dedicated hours);
<bullet> Ice camp activities occurring during each monitoring
period (e.g., construction, demobilization, safety watch, field
parties);
<bullet> Number of marine mammals detected;
<bullet> Upon observation of a marine mammal, record the following
information:
[cir] Environmental conditions when animal was observed, including
relevant weather conditions such as cloud cover, snow, sun glare, and
overall visibility, and estimated observable distance;
[cir] Lookout location and ice camp activity at time of sighting
(or location and activity of personnel who made observation, if
observed outside of designated monitoring periods);
[cir] Time and approximate location of sighting;
[cir] Identification of the animal(s) (e.g., seal, or
unidentified), also noting any identifying features;
[cir] Distance and location of each observed marine mammal relative
to the ice camp location for each sighting;
[cir] Estimated number of animals (min/max/best estimate);
[cir] Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations
(e.g., observed behaviors such as traveling), including an assessment
of behavioral responses thought to have resulted from the activity
(e.g., no response or changes in behavioral state such as ceasing
feeding, changing direction, flushing).
Also, all sonar usage will be collected via the Navy's Sonar
Positional Reporting System database. The Navy is required to provide
data regarding sonar use and the number of shutdowns during ICEX22
activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Letter of
Authorization 2023 annual classified report. The Navy is also required
to analyze any declassified underwater recordings collected during
ICEX22 for marine mammal vocalizations and report that information to
NMFS, including the types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., clicks,
whistles, creaks, burst pulses, continuous, sporadic, strength of
signal) and the species or taxonomic group (if determinable). This
information will also be submitted to NMFS with the 2023 annual AFTT
declassified monitoring report.
Finally, in the event that personnel discover an injured or dead
marine mammal, personnel must report the incident to the Office of
Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to the Alaska regional stranding
network as soon as feasible. The report must include the following
information:
<bullet> Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
<bullet> Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
[[Page 7818]]
<bullet> Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
<bullet> Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
<bullet> If available, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s); and
<bullet> General circumstances under which the animal(s) was
discovered (e.g., during submarine activities, observed on ice floe, or
by transiting aircraft).
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
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' implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
Underwater acoustic transmissions associated with ICEX22, as
outlined previously, have the potential to result in Level B harassment
of ringed seals in the form of TTS and behavioral disturbance. No take
by Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality are anticipated to
result from this activity. Further, at close ranges and high sound
levels approaching those that could cause PTS, seals will likely avoid
the area immediately around the sound source.
NMFS estimates 910 takes of ringed seals by TTS from the submarine
activities. TTS is a temporary impairment of hearing and can last from
minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases,
however, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the
sound ends. This activity has the potential to result in only minor
levels of TTS, and hearing sensitivity of affected animals would be
expected to recover quickly. Though TTS may occur as indicated, the
overall fitness of the impacted individuals is unlikely to be affected
given the temporary nature of TTS and the minor levels of TTS expected
from these activities. Negative impacts on the reproduction or survival
of affected ringed seals as well as impacts on the stock are not
anticipated.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment by
behavioral disturbance could include alteration of dive behavior,
alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, interference
with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight. More severe
behavioral responses are not anticipated due to the localized,
intermittent use of active acoustic sources and mitigation using PAM,
which will limit exposure to active acoustic sources. Most likely,
individuals will be temporarily displaced by moving away from the sound
source. As described in the Acoustic Impacts section of the notice of
proposed IHA (86 FR 70451; December 10, 2021), seals exposed to non-
impulsive sources with a received sound pressure level within the range
of calculated exposures, (142-193 dB re 1 [mu]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 specified activity, these changes
will be within the normal range of behaviors for the animal (e.g., the
use of a breathing hole further from the source, rather than one closer
to the source). Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small
subset of the overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant
realized decrease in fitness for the affected individuals, and will not
result in any adverse impact on reproduction or survival of affected
individuals or to the stock as a whole.
The Navy's planned activities are localized and of relatively short
duration. While the total ICEX22 Study Area is large, the Navy expects
that most activities will occur within the Ice Camp Study Area in
relatively close proximity to the ice camp. The larger Navy Activity
Study Area depicts the range where submarines may maneuver during the
exercise. The ice camp will be in existence for up to six weeks with
acoustic transmission occurring intermittently over approximately 4
weeks.
The project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on
marine mammal habitat. The project activities are limited in time and
will not modify physical marine mammal habitat. While the activities
may cause some fish to leave a specific area ensonified by acoustic
transmissions, temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging
opportunities, these fish will likely return to the affected area. As
such, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause
significant or long-term negative consequences.
For on-ice activity, Level A harassment, Level B harassment,
serious injury, and mortality are not anticipated, given the nature of
the activities, the lack of previous ringed seal observations, and the
mitigation measures NMFS has included in the IHA. The ringed seal
pupping season on the ice lasts for five to nine weeks during late
winter and spring. As discussed in the Potential Effects of Specified
Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section, March 1 is
generally expected to be the onset of ice seal lairing season. The ice
camp and runway will be established on first-year or multi-year ice
without pressure ridges, as ringed seals tend to build their lairs near
pressure ridges. Ice camp deployment will begin no later than mid-
February, and be gradual, with activity increasing over the first 5
days. Ice camp deployment will be completed by March 15, before the
pupping season. Displacement of seal lair construction or relocation to
existing lairs outside of the ice camp area is unlikely, given the low
average density of lairs (the average ringed seal lair density in the
vicinity of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska is 1.58 lairs per km\2\ (Table 3 of the
notice of the proposed IHA; 86 FR 70451, December 10, 2021)), the
relative footprint of the Navy's planned ice camp (2 km\2\), the lack
of previous ringed seal observations on the ice during ICEX activities,
and mitigation requirements that require the Navy to construct the ice
camp and runway on first-year or multi-year ice without pressure ridges
and require personnel to avoid areas of deep snow drift or pressure
ridges. Given that mitigation measures require that the ice camp and
runway be established on first-year or multi-year ice without pressure
ridges, where ringed seals tend to build their lairs, it is extremely
unlikely that a ringed seal would build a lair in the vicinity of the
ice camp.
[[Page 7819]]
This measure, in combination with the other mitigation measures
required for operation of the ice camp are expected to avoid impacts to
the construction and use of ringed seal subnivean lairs, particularly
given the already low average density of lairs, as described above.
Given that ringed seal lairs are not expected to occur in the ice camp
study area, NMFS does not expect ringed seals to relocate pups due to
human disturbance from ice camp activities.
Additional mitigation measures will also prevent damage to and
disturbance of ringed seals and their lairs that could otherwise result
from on-ice activities. Personnel on on-ice vehicles will observe for
marine mammals, and will follow established routes when available, to
avoid potential damage to or disturbance of lairs. Personnel on foot
and operating on-ice vehicles will avoid deep snow drifts near pressure
ridges, also to avoid potential damage to or disturbance of lairs.
Further, personnel will maintain a 100 m (328 ft) distance from all
observed marine mammals to avoid disturbing the animals due to the
personnel's presence. Implementation of these measures will also
prevent ringed seal lairs from being crushed or damaged during ICEX22
activities.
There is an ongoing UME for ice seals, including ringed seals.
Elevated strandings have occurred in the Bering and Chukchi Seas since
June 2018. As of November 17, 2021, 95 ringed seal strandings have
occurred, which is well below the partial abundance estimate of 171,418
ringed seals in the Arctic stock. The take authorized here does not
provide a concern for any of these populations when considered in the
context of these UMEs, especially given that the anticipated Level B
harassment is unlikely to affect the reproduction or survival of any
individuals. In addition, the ICEX22 Study Area is in the Arctic Ocean,
well north and east of the primary area where seals have stranded along
the western coast of Alaska (see map of strandings at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-life-distress/2018-2021-ice-seal-unusual-mortality-event-alaska">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-life-distress/2018-2021-ice-seal-unusual-mortality-event-alaska</a>). No Level A harassment, serious injury,
or mortality is expected or authorized here, and take by Level B
harassment of ringed seals will be reduced to the level of least
practicable impact through the incorporation of mitigation measures. As
such, the authorized takes by Level B harassment of ringed seals are
not expected to exacerbate or compound the ongoing UME.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
<bullet> No Level A harassment (injury), serious injury, or
mortality is anticipated or authorized;
<bullet> Impacts will be limited to Level B harassment, primarily
in the form of behavioral disturbance that results in minor changes in
behavior;
<bullet> TTS is expected to affect only a limited number of animals
(approximately 0.5 percent of the partial stock abundance described in
Table 1) and TTS is expected to be minor and short term;
<bullet> The number of authorized takes is low relative to the
estimated abundances of the affected stock, even given the extent to
which abundance is significantly underestimated;
<bullet> Submarine training and testing activities will occur over
only 4 weeks of the total 6-week activity period;
<bullet> There will be no loss or modification of ringed seal
habitat and minimal, temporary impacts on prey;
<bullet> Physical impacts to ringed seal subnivean lairs will be
avoided; and
<bullet> Mitigation requirements for ice camp activities will
prevent impacts to ringed seals during the pupping season.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the required monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from
the specified activity will have a negligible impact on the Arctic
stock of ringed seals.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by
Alaska Natives. NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50
CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1)
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing
the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly
displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
Impacts to marine mammals from the specified activity will mostly
include limited, temporary behavioral disturbances of ringed seals;
however, some TTS is also anticipated. No Level A harassment (injury),
serious injury, or mortality of marine mammals is expected or
authorized, and the activities are not expected to have any impacts on
reproductive or survival rates of any marine mammal species.
The specified activity and associated harassment of ringed seals
are not expected to impact marine mammals in numbers or locations
sufficient to reduce their availability for subsistence harvest given
the short-term, temporary nature of the activities, and the distance
offshore from known subsistence hunting areas. The specified activity
will occur for a brief period of time outside of the primary
subsistence hunting season, and though seals are harvested for
subsistence uses off the North Slope of Alaska, the ICEX22 Study Area
is seaward of known subsistence hunting areas. (The Study Area boundary
is approximately 50 km from shore at the closest point, though
exercises will occur farther offshore.)
The Navy plans to provide advance public notice to local residents
and other users of the Prudhoe Bay region of Navy activities and
measures used to reduce impacts on resources. This includes
notification to local Alaska Natives who hunt marine mammals for
subsistence. If any Alaska Natives express concerns regarding project
impacts to subsistence hunting of marine mammals, the Navy will further
communicate with the concerned individuals or community. The Navy will
provide project information and clarification of the mitigation
measures that will reduce impacts to marine mammals.
Based on the description and location of the specified activity,
and the required mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has
determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses from the Navy's specified activities.
National Environmental Policy Act
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published
by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the
Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting
from the ICEX22 project. The Navy's EA was made available for public
comment at <a href="https://www.nepa.navy.mil/icex/">https://www.nepa.navy.mil/icex/</a> for 28 days beginning
November 24, 2021. The public comment period was reopened
[[Page 7820]]
from January 5 to January 28 due to a delay in publication of a notice
to the public in the Arctic Sounder newspaper. In the notice of
proposed IHA (86 FR 70451; December 10, 2021), NMFS described its plan
to adopt the Navy's EA, provided our independent evaluation of the
document found that it includes adequate information analyzing the
effects on the human environment of issuing the IHA. In compliance with
NEPA and the CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6, NMFS has reviewed the Navy's EA and determined it to be sufficient.
NMFS adopted that EA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) on February 4, 2022.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species, in this case with NMFS' Alaska
Regional Office (AKRO).
The NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) is authorizing take of
ringed seals, which are listed under the ESA. The NMFS Alaska Regional
Office Protected Resources Division issued a Biological Opinion on
January 31, 2022, which concluded that the Navy's activities and NMFS'
issuance of an IHA are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of the Arctic stock of ringed seals. There is no ESA designated
critical habitat for ringed seals.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to the Navy for conducting submarine
training and testing activities in the ICEX22 Study Area of the Arctic
Ocean beginning in February 2022 that includes the previously explained
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
Dated: February 4, 2022.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-02800 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 10, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.