[Federal Register: January 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 7)]
[Notices]
[Page 1871-1875]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11ja05-33]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
I.D. 060804F
Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
ACTION: Notice of Public Scoping and Intent (NOI) to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); request for written comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS will be preparing an EIS to analyze the potential impacts
of applying new criteria in guidelines to determine what constitutes a
``take'' of a marine mammal under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a result of exposure to
anthropogenic noise in the marine environment. This notice describes
the proposed action and possible alternatives and also describes the
proposed scoping process.
DATES: NMFS will hold 4 public meetings to obtain comments on the scope
of issues to be addressed in the EIS. The locations of the meetings are
San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; Boston, MA; and Silver Spring, MD. See
Supplementary Information for
[[Page 1872]]
meetings dates and locations. In addition to obtaining comments in the
public scoping meetings, NMFS will also accept written and electronic
comments. Comments must be received by March 14, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS and requests to
participate in the public scoping meetings should be submitted to P.
Michael Payne, Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS (F/PR2), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910. Written comments may also be submitted by email to
AcousticEIS.Comments@noaa.gov or by facsimile (fax) to (301) 427-2581.
Include in the subject line the following identifier: I.D. 060804F.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Southall, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910;
Telephone (301) 713-2322. Additional information is available at
(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Acoustics_Program). For information
regarding the EIS process, contact Michael Payne at the above
referenced contact information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Meetings Dates and Locations
The San Francisco, CA scoping meeting: January 18, 2005, 5 p.m. - 8
p.m. The meeting location is Hilton Fisherman's Wharf, 2620 Jones
Street, San Francisco, CA, 94133,
telephone: 415-885-4700.
The Seattle, WA scoping meeting: January 20, 2005,
5p.m. - 8p.m. The meeting location is NOAA's Western Regional
Center, Building 9 Auditorium, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA,
98115.
The Boston, MA scoping meeting: January 25, 2005,
5p.m. - 8p.m. The meeting location is the New England Aquarium,
Conference Center, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110.
The Silver Spring, MD scoping meeting: January 27, 2005, 5p.m. -
8p.m. The meeting location is the NOAA's Auditorium, 1301 East West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Background
Section 3(18)(A) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as:
...any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
[Level B harassment].
The National Defense Authorization Act, enacted in November 2003,
altered the definition of marine mammal harassment for ``military
readiness activities'' and ``scientific research activities conducted
by or on behalf of the Federal Government consistent with section 104
(c)(3)'' of the MMPA, as follows:
(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];
(ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of
natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to
a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or
significantly altered [Level B harassment].
NMFS has been using generic sound exposure thresholds since 1997 to
determine when an activity in the ocean that produces sound might
result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by harassment
might occur (an 'acoustic' take). NMFS is developing new science-based
thresholds to improve and replace the current generic exposure level
thresholds that have been used since 1997.
Proposed Action
NMFS will be proposing to replace the current Level A and Level B
harassment thresholds with guidelines based on exposure characteristics
that are derived from empirical data and are tailored to particular
species groups and sound types. These guidelines will identify
exposures levels and durations that may produce either temporary or
permanent shifts in hearing sensitivity thereby providing a more
scientific basis for defining the threshold levels that might result in
marine mammal harassment. Such information would be of use to industry
(oil and gas, marine construction), researchers, academic, government,
military and shipping activities.
As currently envisioned, the noise exposure guidelines would be
based on the following sets of criteria. They would divide marine
mammals into five functional hearing groups: low-frequency cetaceans
(all mysticetes or baleen whales); mid-frequency cetaceans (all
odontocete species (dolphins and porpoises) not included in the low or
high frequency groups); high-frequency cetaceans (harbor and Dall s
porpoise, river dolphins); pinnipeds under water (seals, fur seals and
sea lions); and pinnipeds out of water. Each of the functional hearing
groups has somewhat different hearing capabilities. Consequently,
frequency-specific thresholds are being developed based on what is
known about these differences.
The criteria would also categorize all anthropogenic sounds into
four different types: single pulses (brief sounds with a fast rise
time); single non-pulses (all other sounds); multiple pulses in a
series; and multiple non-pulses in a series. Each of the five
functional hearing groups would then be paired against the four sound
types resulting in a matrix of values. These values would represent the
noise-exposure criteria that NMFS would use, at least in part, to guide
determinations of when an anthropogenic sound results in an acoustic
``take'' by harassment under the MMPA or ESA for each of the different
marine mammal hearing groups. All threshold values would be expressed
in terms of either a sound pressure level value that the animal
receives, or as a measure of exposure that incorporates both sound
pressures and time as a dimension where it is appropriate. This is
referred to as the sound exposure, or energy flux density level. Energy
levels are not directly comparable to pressure levels because of the
time dimension.
A number of assumptions will be made in developing the acoustic
matrix of threshold levels. For example, in most cells within the
matrix, the criteria assume that all species in a functional hearing
group have the same threshold apply to all species in the group. In
reality, some species are so different from others in their functional
hearing group that separate threshold criteria are appropriate for
them. Further, there are no direct data on the effects of many kinds of
sounds on many species of marine mammals. For now, therefore, it is
necessary to extrapolate making reasonably conservative criteria from
existing data to cover cases of missing data. An example of an
extrapolation is the use of data from dolphins or beluga whales for
other cetaceans. Most data on the effects of noise on marine mammals
come from mid-frequency dolphins, especially bottlenose dolphins and
beluga whales. The results of studies on these species are applied
directly to low- and high-frequency cetaceans (for which data are
sparse or non existent) without adjustment. This substitution is likely
conservative for low frequency cetaceans because the mid-frequency
cetacean ear is almost certainly more sensitive. The substitution is
also likely satisfactory for high-frequency cetaceans. In the absence
of data for marine mammals, in some cases, data from terrestrial
mammals are used in determining exposure criteria.
[[Page 1873]]
Purpose of the Action
NMFS will prepare an EIS to assess the potential impacts of the
proposed framework for developing and implementing science-based
environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed
noise exposure criteria to determine acoustic-based harassment of
marine mammals, and alternative noise exposure criteria.
The areas of interest for evaluation of environmental and
socioeconomic effects will be U.S. and international waters.
Use of the Noise Exposure Criteria
The noise exposure criteria would be used to inform NMFS guidelines
as to what characteristics of human sound exposure (e.g., exposure
frequency, level, and duration) might result in harassment and
``take'' might be considered to have occurred whenever the sound that
the animal receives exceeds the exposures defined by the criteria. The
noise exposure criteria would also provide guidance with respect to
what type of take might result from exposure to sound - one for Level A
harassment and one for Level B harassment.
Scope of the Action
The scope of the EIS will identify and evaluate all relevant
impacts, conditions, and issues associated with the proposed framework
for the development and implementation of these criteria, and
alternatives, in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality=s
(CEQ) Regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 - 1508, and NOAA=s procedures
for implementing NEPA found in NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6,
Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, dated May 20, 1999.
The EIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts of
implementation of the proposed framework and noise exposure criteria to
determine acoustic ``takes'' of marine mammals, and alternative
frameworks for developing and implementing noise exposure criteria. The
EIS must meet the requirements of NEPA and the analyses must also
document compliance with the related environmental impact analysis
requirements of other statutes and executive orders. These include, but
are not limited to, the MMPA, Coastal Zone Management Act, ESA, and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Alternatives
The EIS will consider several alternatives for determining the
acoustic threshold at which both Level A and Level B harassment takes
might occur: 1) maintaining the status quo (the no action alternative);
2) using a precautionary approach and very conservative interpretations
of data on marine mammals based on considering human noise exposures
relative to ambient noise conditions; 3) defining a Level A harassment
take as that exposure which results in a temporary shift in hearing
sensitivity (TTS) and a Level B harassment take as that exposure
estimated to result in a 50 percent behavioral avoidance for each
species or group of species; 4) defining Level A harassment take as
that exposure which results in a Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) minus
6 decibels (dB) and defining a Level B harassment take as a level 6 dB
below that exposure estimated to causes TTS; 5) defining a Level A
harassment take as noise exposure consistent with estimated PTS onset
and a level B harassment take as TTS onset; and 6) defining a Level A
harassment take as occurring at the PTS onset plus 6 dB and level B
harassment take as 6 dB below the estimated point of PTS onset (see
Table 1).
Table 1: Acoustic Criterion for each of the Proposed Alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Level A Criterion Level B Criterion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I (Status Quo) 180 dBrms re: 1microPa 160 dBrms re: 1microPa (impulse)
120 dBrms re: 1microPa (continuous)
II Highest average lowest possible natural ambientambient
III TTS Onset 50% Behavioral Avoidance
IV PTS Onset-6dB TTS Onset-6dB
V PTS Onset TTS Onset
VI PTS Onset+6dB PTS Onset-6dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative I: A no action alternative would perpetuate the use of
the existing thresholds for Level A harassment (sound pressure level of
180 dBrms re: 1microPa) (hereafter dB SPL), and Level B harassment (160
dB SPL for impulse noise and 120 dB SPL for continuous sound) that have
been used for the past six years. The advantages of this alternative
are that the public is familiar with this approach, and safety zones
can easily be calculated from standard sound propagation models. A
disadvantage is that this considers only the sound pressure level of an
exposure but not its other attributes, such as duration, frequency, or
repetition rate, all of which are critical for assessing impacts on
marine mammals. For example, a sound of 181 dB SPL lasting for two
seconds would be identified as a Level A harassment take, but a
potentially more harmful sound of 179 dB SPL lasting two days is
currently considered a Level B harassment take. It also assumes a
consistent relationship between rms (root-mean-square) and peak
pressure values for impulse sounds, which is known to be inaccurate
under certain (many) conditions.
Alternative II: A second alternative is based on very conservative
behavioral response data for marine mammals. Under this alternative
takes would occur at the SPL at which the most sensitive species first
begin to show a behavioral response. Level A harassment would occur if
the received noise from a human source exceeded the highest average
ambient noise level in the area of operation. Level B harassment would
occur if the received noise from a human source exceeded the lowest
possible ambient noise condition. Criteria based largely on behavioral
responses to noise just above ambient level would be extremely
conservative. Under this alternative, a behavioral response may, and
behavioral avoidance would, constitute Level B harassment.
Alternative III: A third alternative would define a Level A
harassment take as occurring at that level of exposure which results in
a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity (TTS) but which is fully
recoverable. This approach is also conservative because scientific
experts in this field do not consider TTS to
[[Page 1874]]
result in harm or injury because no irreversible cell damage is
involved. A Level B harassment take would be defined as that level of
noise exposure known or estimated to result in 50 percent behavioral
avoidance of a sound source for each species or animal group. There are
a small number of these types of empirical data available for certain
conditions, but some of the level B criteria constructed in this manner
would require extrapolations and assumptions, particularly in the above
context of how biological significance is defined. Generally this
alternative would be less conservative than the previous alternative.
Alternative IV: A fourth alternative would determine that a Level A
harassment take occurs at that level of noise exposure which results in
a permanent loss of hearing sensitivity (PTS) due to non-recoverable
cell damage, minus some ``safety'' factor. This alternative would be
more conservative than federal workplace standards for humans which
permit exposures that result in some degree of PTS over a lifetime for
some individuals. A doubling of absolute sound pressure magnitude (in
microPa) represents a 6 dB increase in SPL. A proposed ``safety''
factor to ensure that exposures do not result in permanent injury is to
set the Level A harassment criteria 6 dB below that noise exposure
estimated to cause PTS onset for each animal group. The proposed Level
B harassment take criteria for alternative 4 are those exposures
resulting in TTS onset minus a ``safety'' factor of 6 dB.
Alternative V: A fifth alternative defines a Level A harassment
take as noise exposures estimated to result in PTS onset and Level B
harassment take as noise exposures consistent with TTS onset for each
animal group. This alternative would allow Level A harassment criteria
levels that are higher than either TTS (Alternative III) or PTS minus
some safety factor (Alternative IV); Level A harassment criteria would
be based on those exposures that are believed to result in irreversible
tissue damage. The Level B harassment criteria under Alternative V
would set the take threshold slightly higher than Alternative IV but
considerably below those in Alternative 6.
Alternative VI: A sixth alternative defines a Level A harassment
take based on estimated PTS onset (as in Alternatives 4 and 5), but
requires a higher probability of exposed animals experiencing a
meaningful change in hearing sensitivity above merely the onset of
tissue injury, such as 6 dB of PTS. Under Alternative VI, Level B
harassment take would be defined as exposures estimated as 6 dB below
those required to cause PTS onset. This alternative would result in
noise threshold levels that are greater than any of the other proposed
alternatives.
The noise exposure criteria are based on research available for all
species of marine mammals, plus some data from terrestrial mammals and
humans. Using data from one species of mammals to set criteria for
another species is acceptable for injury because the anatomy of the
inner ear of all mammals is extremely similar. As an example, certain
human hearing standards are based in part on extrapolations from the
effects of noise on the chinchilla ear. Table 2 provides an example of
noise exposure criteria that would result under each of the proposed
alternatives for gray whales. Gray whales were selected as an example
because some data on behavioral reactions exist and are used (in
Alternative III), but setting criteria based on TTS or PTS rely on
extrapolations from other cetacean species (Alternatives III-VI). The
use of direct information combined with reasonable extrapolation is
representative of how such criteria would be established under any of
the alternatives.
Table 2: Example of Noise Exposure Criteria for Gray Whales for each of the Proposed Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Level A Criterion Level B Criterion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I 180 dBrms re: 1microPa 160 dBrms re: 1microPa
(impulse)
120 dBrms re: 1microPa
(continuous)
II Both criteria variable depending on environment
III 195 dB re: 1microPa\2\(s) 160 dBrms re: 1microPa
IV 209 dB re: 1microPa\2\(s) 189 dB re: 1microPa\2\(s)
V 215 dB re: 1microPa\2\(s) 195 dB re: 1microPa\2\(s)
VI 221 dB re: 1microPa\2\(s) 209 dB re: 1microPa\2\(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative I indicates the status quo criteria already in place.
Alternative II criteria are established based on ambient noise
conditions experienced by animals in the area of operation. Since these
conditions may be dominated by either natural or human noise and are
quite variable depending on many spatial and temporal factors, the
criteria for determining both Level A and Level B harassment are
variable depending on the operational environment.In Alternative III,
the Level A criterion is set at noise exposures estimated to cause TTS
[195 dB re: 1microPa2(s). This is the estimated point of TTS onset for
cetaceans based on Finneran et al. (2002)]. For Alternative III, Level
B criteria are based on behavioral avoidance data for migrating gray
whales (Malme et al., 1983; 1984). These are, in fact, the same data
upon which the status quo (Alternative I) Level B data are based.
An additional extrapolation is made in Alternative IV to estimate
PTS. The level of noise exposure required to induce PTS in marine
mammals is unknown, but may be estimated using the TTS onset data and
extrapolations based on terrestrial mammals. Using the slope of the
function relating increases in noise exposure and TTS, and using a
relatively conservative estimate of PTS as 40 dB of TTS, it is
estimated that an additional 20 dB of noise exposure is required above
TTS onset to induce PTS. Thus, for Alternative IV, the Level A
harassment criterion is estimated TTS onset (195 dB re: 1microPa\2\(s))
plus 20 dB to equal PTS onset (215 dB re: 1microPa2(s)) minus 6 dB, or
209 dB re: 1microPa\2\(s). The Level B harassment criterion for
Alternative IV is estimated TTS onset (195 dB re: 1microPa\2\(s)) minus
6 dB, or 189 dB re: 1microPa\2\(s).
For Alternative V, the Level A harassment criterion is the
estimated PTS onset (215 dB re: 1microPa2(s) as described above) and
the Level B harassment criterion is estimated TTS onset (195 dB re:
1microPa\2\(s)). In Alternative VI, the Level A harassment criterion is
6 dB above estimated PTS onset (or 221 dB re: 1microPa2(s)) while the
Level B harassment criterion is 6 dB below estimated PTS onset (or, 209
dB re: 1microPa\2\(s)).
[[Page 1875]]
Public Involvement and the Scoping Process
NMFS' intent is to afford an opportunity for the public, including
interested citizens and environmental organizations; any affected low-
income or minority populations; affected local, state and Federal
agencies; and any other agencies with jurisdiction or special expertise
concerning the environmental impacts to be addressed in the EIS to
participate in this process.
NMFS will hold public scoping meetings and accept oral and written
comments (See ADDRESSES) to determine the issues of concern with
respect to practical considerations involved in applying these criteria
and to determine whether NMFS is addressing the appropriate range of
alternatives. In addition to comments on other aspects of the scope of
this EIS, NMFS is particularly interested in comments regarding real-
world application of the science-based noise exposure criteria. The
public, as well as Federal, state, and local agencies, are encouraged
to participate in this scoping process. The dates and locations of
these meetings appear in this Federal Register notice (See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
NMFS is also seeking written comments on the scope of issues that
should be addressed in the EIS. The agency also invites the public to
submit data, new information, and comments by e-mail, mail, or fax (See
ADDRESSES) identifying relevant environmental and socioeconomic issues
to be addressed in the environmental analysis.
Dated: January 6, 2005.
P. Michael Payne,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05-525 Filed 1-6-05; 3:17 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S