Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training Activities in the Gulf of Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities Area, 19530-19607 [2017-08424]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19530
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Statement (FSEIS/OEIS) for the GOA
TMAA Study Area, which also contains
a list of the references used in this
document, may be viewed at https://
www.goaeis.com. Documents cited in
this notice may also be viewed, by
appointment, during regular business
hours, at the aforementioned address
(see ADDRESSES).
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 218
[Docket No. 141125997–7365–02]
RIN 0648–BE67
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training
Activities in the Gulf of Alaska
Temporary Maritime Activities Area
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Upon application from the
U.S. Navy (Navy), we (NMFS) are
issuing regulations under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to
govern the unintentional taking of
marine mammals incidental to the
training activities conducted in the Gulf
of Alaska (GOA) Temporary Maritime
Activities Area (TMAA) Study Area
(hereafter referred to the Study Area)
from May 2017 through May 2022.
These regulations allow us to issue a
Letter of Authorization (LOA) for the
incidental take of marine mammals
during the Navy’s specified activities
and timeframes, set forth the
permissible methods of taking, set forth
other means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on marine
mammal species or stocks and their
habitat, and set forth requirements
pertaining to the monitoring and
reporting of the incidental take.
DATES: Effective April 26, 2017, through
April 26, 2022.
ADDRESSES: To obtain an electronic
copy of the Navy’s LOA application or
other referenced documents, visit the
internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/permits/incidental/military.htm.
Documents cited in this notice may also
be viewed, by appointment, during
regular business hours, at 1315 EastWest Highway, SSMC III, Silver Spring,
MD 20912.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie
Harrison, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 427–8477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
Availability
A copy of the Navy’s LOA application
may be obtained by visiting the internet
at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/military.htm. The
Navy’s Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement/
Overseas Environmental Impact
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce to allow,
upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public
for review.
Authorization for incidental takings
shall be granted if NMFS finds that the
taking will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock(s), will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
subsistence uses (where relevant), and if
the Secretary sets forth permissible
methods of taking and other means of
effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat.
NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’
in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an impact
resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’
The National Defense Authorization
Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108–136)
removed the ‘‘small numbers’’ and
‘‘specified geographical region’’
limitations indicated above and
amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’
as applies to a ‘‘military readiness
activity’’ to read as follows (section
3(18)(B) of the MMPA, 16 U.S.C.
1362(18)(B)): ‘‘(i) Any act that injures or
has the significant potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild’’ (Level A
Harassment); or ‘‘(ii) Any act that
disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of natural
behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a
point where such behavioral patterns
are abandoned or significantly altered’’
(Level B Harassment).
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Summary of Request
On July 28, 2014, NMFS received an
application from the Navy requesting an
LOA for the take of 19 species of marine
mammals, representing 27 stocks,
incidental to Navy training activities to
be conducted in the Study Area over 5
years. On October 14, 2014, the Navy
submitted a revised LOA application to
reflect minor changes in the number and
types of training activities. To address
minor inconsistencies with the draft
SEIS/OEIS (DSEIS/OEIS), the Navy
submitted a final revision to the LOA
application (hereafter referred to as the
LOA application) on January 21, 2015.
In November 2016, the Navy requested
that the final rule and LOA be issued for
the training activities addressed by
Alternative 1 of the FSEIS/OEIS. The
Navy’s LOA application was based on
the training activities addressed by
Alternative 2 of the DSEIS/OEIS;
therefore, our proposed rule (81 FR
9950; February 26, 2016) analyzed the
level of activities as described by
Alternative 2. Pursuant to the Navy’s
November 2016 request, the final rule
now reflects the training activities
addressed by Alternative 1 of the FSEIS/
OEIS, which include a subset of the
activities analyzed in the proposed rule.
The change from Alternative 2 to
Alternative 1 results in a significant
reduction in proposed training activities
(see ‘‘Training’’ and ‘‘Summary of
Impulsive and Non-Impulsive
Sources’’), lessening the number of the
Carrier Strike Group Events from 2 to 1
per year, and the number of SINKEXs
from 2 to 0 per year, which means that
several types of explosives will no
longer be used and there will be no live
MISSILEX. This significantly decreases
the number of anticipated and
authorized takes for this activity (see
‘‘Take Request’’) compared to what was
presented in the proposed rule.
The Navy is requesting a five-year
LOA for training activities to be
conducted from May 2017 through May
2022. The Study Area is a polygon
roughly the shape of a 300 nm by 150
nm rectangle oriented northwest to
southeast in the long direction, located
south of Prince William Sound and east
of Kodiak Island, Alaska (see Figure 1–
1 of the LOA application for a map of
the Study Area). The activities
conducted within the Study Area are
classified as military readiness
activities. The Navy states that these
activities may expose some of the
marine mammals present within the
Study Area to sound from underwater
acoustic sources and explosives. The
Navy’s request for authorization is for
the incidental take of individuals of 19
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
species of marine mammals,
representing 27 stocks, by Level B
harassment and one species of marine
mammal (Dall’s porpoise) by Level A
harassment. The Navy is not requesting
mortality takes for any species.
The LOA application, proposed rule
(81 FR 9950; February 26, 2016), and
GOA FSEIS/OEIS contain acoustic
thresholds that, in some instances,
represent changes from what NMFS has
used to evaluate the Navy’s activities for
previous authorizations. These
thresholds, which the Navy developed
in coordination with NMFS, are based
on the evaluation and inclusion of new
information from recent scientific
studies; a detailed explanation of how
they were derived is provided in the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS Criteria and
Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and
Explosive Effects Analysis Technical
Report (available at https://
www.goaeis.com).
On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its
Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on
Marine Mammal Hearing (new
Guidance). This new Guidance
established new thresholds and
associated weighting functions for
predicting auditory injury, or permanent
threshold shift (PTS), which equates to
Level A harassment under the MMPA,
and temporary threshold shift (TTS),
which is considered Level B harassment
under the MMPA. In the August 4, 2016,
Federal Register notice announcing the
new Guidance (81 FR 51694), NMFS
explained the approach it would take
during a transition period, during which
we will balance the need to consider
this new best available science with the
fact that some applicants have already
committed time and resources to the
development of analyses based on our
previous thresholds and have
constraints that preclude the
recalculation of take estimates, as well
as consideration of where the action is
in the agency’s decision-making
‘‘pipeline.’’ In that notice, we included
a non-exhaustive list of factors that
would inform the most appropriate
approach for considering the new
Guidance, including: How far in the
process the application or prospective
application has progressed; when the
activity is scheduled to begin or other
timing constraints; the complexity of the
analyses and the cost and practicality of
redoing them; the temporal and spatial
scope of anticipated effects; and the
relative degree to which the new
Guidance is expected to affect the
results of the acoustic impact analyses.
In developing the new Guidance,
NMFS compiled, interpreted, and
synthesized scientific information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
currently available on the effects of
anthropogenic sound on marine
mammals, including a recent Technical
Report by Dr. James Finneran (U.S.
Navy-SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific)
that proposed new weighting functions
and thresholds for predicting the onset
of both PTS and temporary threshold
shifts (TTS) in marine mammals
(Finneran, 2016). The methodologies
presented within this paper (and in
NMFS’ new Guidance) build upon the
methodologies used to develop the
criteria applied within the proposed
rule and Navy’s GOA FSEIS/OEIS
(Finneran and Jenkins, 2012), and
incorporate relevant auditory research
made available since 2012 (e.g.,
Kastelein et al., 2012a; Kastelein et al.,
2012b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2013;
Kastelein et al., 2013a; Kastelein et al.,
2013b; Popov et al., 2013; Kastelein et
al., 2014a; Kastelein et al., 2014b; Popov
et al., 2014; Finneran et al., 2015;
Kastelein et al., 2015a; Kastelein et al.,
2015b; Popov et al., 2015). In light of
limited data at the time, Finneran and
Jenkins (2012) presented a conservative
approach to development of auditory
weighting functions. In 2016, with the
benefit of newly-available data,
Finneran was able to synthesize a wide
range of auditory data, including newlyavailable studies, to predict refined
auditory weighting functions and
corresponding TTS and PTS thresholds
across the complete hearing ranges of
functional hearing groups. At the time
of the release of the proposed rule and
GOA FSEIS/OEIS, NMFS’ new
Guidance had not been issued. Further,
the new criteria were not available for
the Navy’s acoustic effects modeling
used to calculate distances to
harassment thresholds and resulting
take estimates. Therefore, the Navy did
not directly use the new auditory
weighting functions and PTS/TTS
criteria in its GOA FSEIS/OEIS.
In addition to the fact that it was
possible to address the new Guidance
adequately without remodeling it would
have been impractical for the Navy to
entirely re-model its proposed action
based on the new Guidance. The Navy
committed substantial time and
resources to the development of
acoustic analyses based on previous
acoustic thresholds. Data and
information (e.g., on marine species
density) gathering for this second GOA
rule (Phase II, 2017–2022) modeling
began in November 2011 and
subsequent modeling occurred over a
20-month period from October 2012 to
June 2014. The contract costs for
modeling GOA events were significant,
as was Navy Pacific Fleet staff labor.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19531
The underlying science contained
within Finneran (2016) (upon which
NMFS’ new Guidance is based) has been
addressed qualitatively within the
applicable sections of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS and this final rulemaking. Further,
although the writers of the base code for
the model used for Phase II were not
available to recode the model with the
updated impulsive criteria in terms of
weighting functions, the Navy was able
to use the model to reprocess
anticipated explosive ranges to effects
for PTS based on the criteria presented
in the new Guidance to assess if the new
criteria could result in any additional
species-specific injury exposures. In
short, the Navy quantitatively
reanalyzed PTS ranges and exposures
from explosive sources using the new
Guidance, from which TTS and
behavioral exposures could be
estimated, but the sonar exposures were
not remodeled because a qualitative
assessment of the new Guidance and the
activities showed that it was not
necessary in order to support the
analysis, in addition to being
impractical.
For the sonar exposure estimates, if
the new Guidance was quantitatively
applied to the GOA TMAA effects
analysis and new modeling conducted,
predicted numbers of PTS and/or TTS
would change to some small degree
(even if only by fractions of a take).
However, because the new Guidance
relies on much of the same data as the
auditory criteria presented in the
proposed rule and the Navy’s GOA
FSEIS/OEIS, these changes would not
be substantial (as described in more
detail below), and in most cases would
result in a reduction in the predicted
impacts.
Onset PTS thresholds for nonimpulsive sound (sonar) are largely
lower (i.e., are more conservative) in
Finneran and Jenkins 2012 (used in
GOA FSEIS/OEIS) compared to the new
Guidance, while updated auditory
weighting functions for most marine
mammal hearing groups have changed
minimally in the new Guidance. This
means that the predicted ranges to PTS
and TTS in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and
this final rule for non-impulsive sources
would change only minimally (and for
the most part are larger than what
would result) if NMFS’ new Guidance
were quantitatively applied and new
modeling conducted (i.e., estimated
numbers of takes resulting in PTS and
TTS from sonar are, for the most part,
larger in this final rule than would be
expected if the Navy’s activities were remodeled using the new Guidance).
Specifically, PTS thresholds for nonimpulsive sources for all taxa went up
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19532
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
(i.e., are less conservative), except for
Otariids, for which they went down by
one dB. Given that the PTS range to
effects for Otariids was previously 10m,
a 1 dB change in the PTS threshold
would not change the PTS range to
effects by more than a couple of meters
for any acoustic source. For TTS, the
onset thresholds for cetaceans in the
new Guidance all went up (i.e., are less
conservative) or stayed the same (i.e.,
ranges to effects and take estimates for
TTS would go down or stay the same for
cetaceans if the Navy’s activities were
re-modeled using the new Guidance).
The onset thresholds for TTS for
Phocids and Otariids went down by 2
dB and 7 dB, respectively. The previous
range to effects was 70–1720m for
Phocids and 230–570m for Otariids for
the largest source (53C). If spherical
spreading were conservatively
considered, applying the new Guidance,
the range to TTS for Phocids would
likely be no more than approximately
100–2,200m and the range for Otariids
would likely be no more than
approximately 500–1,300m. The
originally modeled TTS for pinnipeds
was zero for all but one species. When
the lower likelihood of overlap of most
pinniped species (those with 0 TTS
estimates) with these activities is
considered in combination with their
densities and the change in the size of
the ensonified zone, our analysis still
suggests that TTS take is not likely to
occur, and those Level B take estimates
have not been changed. Further, any
small changes to predicted TTS takes for
Northern elephant seals that might
result from applying the new guidance,
and specifically considering the slightly
larger ensonified volume resulting from
the 2 dB decrease in the threshold,
would be expected to be in the form of
changing a modeled behavioral
harassment to a TTS, resulting in no net
change in the Level B harassment take
estimates.
For impulsive sound (explosives), the
Navy was able to reprocess anticipated
ranges to effects for Level A harassment
(PTS), and subsequently ranges to
effects for TTS and behavioral
exposures, based on the new Guidance
to assess if the new impulsive criteria
could result in any additional speciesspecific takes. The conclusion from that
analysis was that the new impulsive
criteria would not change previous
species-specific quantities of impulsive
PTS, TTS, or behavioral exposures for
any species except Dall’s porpoise, and
the mitigation zones described in the
proposed rule (as shown in Mitigation
Zones) for each type of explosives
training activity remain sufficiently
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
protective (i.e., mitigation zones
encompass newly calculated PTS zones
for all explosive types and hearing
groups). Consideration of the new
Guidance results in an increase in take
for Dall’s porpoise by 3 Level A and 149
Level B harassment takes (12 TTS and
137 behavioral reactions) above what is
described in Alternative 1 of the FEIS/
OEIS. These updated take numbers are
included in the ‘‘Take Request’’ section.
In summary, NMFS’ consideration of
the new Guidance does not substantially
alter our assessment of the likely
responses of marine mammals to
acoustic sources employed by the Navy
in the GOA TMAA Study Area (though
take numbers have been altered slightly
where appropriate as described above
and in the Estimated Take section), or
the likely fitness consequences of those
responses. Overall, predicted auditory
effects within this rulemaking would
not change significantly. As described,
application of the new Guidance
represents only minor changes in take
estimates, and would not change NMFS’
final analysis and negligible impact
determination. Further, the robust
monitoring and mitigation measures in
this final rule satisfy the ‘‘least
practicable adverse impact’’ standard.
Of additional note, the definition of
an ‘‘Unusual Mortality Event,’’ which is
necessary to the implementation of the
Navy’s Stranding Response Plan, has
been added to the final regulations. This
addition corrects an oversight in the
proposed rule and does not represent a
significant change.
Background of Request
The Navy’s mission is to organize,
train, equip, and maintain combat-ready
naval forces capable of winning wars,
deterring aggression, and maintaining
freedom of the seas. Consistent with this
mission, 10 U.S.C. 5062 mandates that
naval forces be trained and equipped for
prompt and sustained combat incident
to operations at sea, and that naval
forces be prepared for the effective
prosecution of war.1 The Navy executes
this responsibility by establishing and
executing training programs, including
at-sea training and exercises, and
ensuring naval forces have access to the
ranges, operating areas (OPAREAs), and
airspace needed to develop and
maintain skills for conducting military
readiness activities.
The Navy proposes to continue
conducting training activities within the
Study Area, which have been ongoing
since the 1990s. The tempo and types of
training activities have evolved and
fluctuated to some degree because of the
1 Title
PO 00000
10, Section 5062 of the U.S.C.
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
introduction of new technologies, the
dynamic nature of international events,
advances in war fighting doctrine and
procedures, and force structure
(organization of ships, submarines,
aircraft, weapons, and personnel)
changes. Such developments influence
the frequency, duration, intensity, and
location of required training activities,
but the essential character and basic
level of the military readiness activities
conducted in the Study Area has
remained largely unchanged. The
Navy’s LOA request covers training
activities that would occur over a fiveyear period beginning in May 2017.
NMFS’ previous MMPA incidental take
authorization for the GOA TMAA
expired in May 2016.
Description of the Specified Activity
The proposed rule (81 FR 9950;
February 26, 2016) and GOA FSEIS/
OEIS include a complete description of
the Navy’s specified training activities
incidental to which NMFS is
authorizing take of marine mammals in
this final rule. Sonar use and
underwater detonations are the stressors
most likely to result in impacts on
marine mammals that could rise to the
level of harassment. Detailed
descriptions of these activities are
provided in the FSEIS/OEIS and in the
LOA application (https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/military.htm) and are
summarized here.
Overview of Training Activities
The Navy routinely trains in the
Study Area in preparation for national
defense missions. Training activities
and exercises covered in the Navy’s
LOA request are briefly described
below, and in more detail within
chapter 2 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. Each
military training activity described
meets a requirement that can be traced
ultimately to requirements set forth by
the National Command Authority.2
The Navy categorizes training
activities into eight functional warfare
areas called primary mission areas:
Anti-air warfare; amphibious warfare;
strike warfare; Anti-surface warfare
(ASUW); anti-submarine warfare (ASW);
electronic warfare; mine warfare (MIW);
and naval special warfare (NSW). Most
training activities are categorized under
one of these primary mission areas;
those activities that do not fall within
one of these areas are in a separate
2 ‘‘National Command Authority’’ is a term used
by the United States military and government to
refer to the ultimate lawful source of military
orders. The term refers collectively to the President
of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and
the United States Secretary of Defense.
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘other’’ category. Each warfare
community (surface, subsurface,
aviation, and special warfare) may train
within some or all of these primary
mission areas. However, not all primary
mission areas are conducted within the
Study Area.
The Navy described and analyzed the
effects of its training activities within
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. In its assessment,
the Navy concluded that of the activities
conducted within the Study Area, sonar
use and underwater detonations were
the stressors resulting in impacts on
marine mammals that could rise to the
level of harassment as defined under the
MMPA. Therefore, the LOA application
provides the Navy’s assessment of
potential effects from these stressors.
The specific acoustic sources used in
the LOA application are contained in
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and are presented
in the following sections based on the
primary mission areas.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)
The mission of ASUW is to defend
against enemy ships or boats. In the
conduct of ASUW, aircraft use cannons,
air-launched cruise missiles or other
precision-guided munitions; ships
employ torpedoes, naval guns, and
surface-to-surface (S–S) missiles; and
submarines attack surface ships using
torpedoes or submarine-launched, antiship cruise missiles.
Anti-surface warfare training in the
Study Area includes S–S gunnery and
missile exercises (GUNEX and
MISSILEX) and air-to-surface (A–S)
bombing exercises (BOMBEX), GUNEX,
and MISSILEX. Of note, the MISSILEX
in GOA does not expend ordnance.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
The mission of ASW is to locate,
neutralize, and defeat hostile submarine
threats to surface forces. ASW is based
on the principle of a layered defense of
surveillance and attack aircraft, ships,
and submarines all searching for hostile
submarines. These forces operate
together or independently to gain early
warning and detection, and to localize,
track, target, and attack hostile
submarine threats.
Anti-submarine warfare training
addresses basic skills such as detection
and classification of submarines,
distinguishing between sounds made by
enemy submarines and those of friendly
submarines, ships, and marine life.
ASW training evaluates the ability of
fleet assets to use systems, for example,
active and passive sonar and torpedo
systems to counter hostile submarine
threats. More advanced, integrated ASW
training exercises are conducted in
coordinated, at-sea training events
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
involving submarines, ships, and
aircraft. This training integrates the full
spectrum of ASW from detecting and
tracking a submarine to attacking a
target using simulated weapons.
Description of Sonar, Ordnance,
Targets, and Other Systems
The Navy uses a variety of sensors,
platforms, weapons, and other devices
to meet its mission. Training with these
systems and devices may introduce
acoustic (sound) energy into the
environment. The Navy’s current LOA
application describes underwater sound
as one of two types: Impulsive and nonimpulsive. Sonar and similar sound
producing systems are categorized as
non-impulsive sound sources.
Underwater detonations of explosives
and other percussive events are
impulsive sounds.
Sonar and Other Active Acoustic
Sources
Modern sonar technology includes a
variety of sonar sensor and processing
systems. In concept, the simplest active
sonar emits sound waves, or ‘‘pings,’’
sent out in multiple directions, and the
sound waves then reflect off of the target
object in multiple directions. The sonar
source calculates the time it takes for
the reflected sound waves to return; this
calculation determines the distance to
the target object. More sophisticated
active sonar systems emit a ping and
then rapidly scan or listen to the sound
waves in a specific area. This provides
both distance to the target and
directional information. Even more
advanced sonar systems use multiple
receivers to listen to echoes from several
directions simultaneously and provide
efficient detection of both direction and
distance. Active sonar is rarely used
continuously throughout the listed
activities. In general, when sonar is in
use, the sonar ‘‘pings’’ occur at
intervals, referred to as a duty cycle, and
the signals themselves are very short in
duration. For example, sonar that emits
a 1-second ping every 10 seconds has a
10 percent duty cycle. The Navy’s
largest hull-mounted mid-frequency
sonar source typically emits a 1-second
ping every 50 seconds representing a 2
percent duty cycle. The Navy utilizes
sonar systems and other acoustic
sensors in support of a variety of
mission requirements. Primary uses
include the detection of and defense
against submarines (ASW) and mines
(MIW); safe navigation and effective
communications; use of unmanned
undersea vehicles; and oceanographic
surveys. Sources of sonar and other
active acoustic sources include surface
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19533
ship sonar, sonobuoys, torpedoes, and
unmanned underwater vehicles.
Ordnance and Munitions
Most ordnance and munitions used
during training events fall into three
basic categories: Projectiles (such as gun
rounds), missiles (including rockets),
and bombs. Ordnance can be further
defined by their net explosive weight
(NEW), which considers the type and
quantity of the explosive substance
without the packaging, casings, bullets,
etc. NEW is the trinitrotoluene (TNT)
equivalent of energetic material, which
is the standard measure of strength of
bombs and other explosives. For
example, a 5-inch shell fired from a
Navy gun is analyzed at approximately
9.5 pounds (lb.) (4.3 kilograms (kg)) of
NEW. The Navy also uses non-explosive
ordnance in place of explosive ordnance
in many training and testing events.
Non-explosive ordnance look and
perform similarly to explosive
ordnance, but lack the main explosive
charge.
Defense Countermeasures
Naval forces depend on effective
defensive countermeasures to protect
themselves against missile and torpedo
attack. Defensive countermeasures are
devices designed to confuse, distract,
and confound precision-guided
munitions. Defensive countermeasures
analyzed in this LOA application
include acoustic countermeasures,
which are used by surface ships and
submarines to defend against torpedo
attack. Acoustic countermeasures are
either released from ships and
submarines, or towed at a distance
behind the ship.
Classification of Non-Impulsive and
Impulsive Sources Analyzed
In order to better organize and
facilitate the analysis of approximately
300 individual sources of underwater
acoustic sound or explosive energy, a
series of source classifications, or source
bins, were developed by the Navy. The
use of source classification bins
provides the following benefits:
• Provides the ability for new sensors or
munitions to be covered under existing
regulatory authorizations, as long as those
sources fall within the parameters of a ‘‘bin’’;
• Simplifies the source utilization data
collection and reporting requirements
anticipated under the MMPA;
• Ensures a conservative approach to all
impact analysis, as all sources in a single bin
are modeled as the loudest source (e.g.,
lowest frequency, highest source level (the
term ‘‘source level’’ refers to the loudness of
a sound at its source), longest duty cycle, or
largest NEW) within that bin, which:
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
19534
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Æ Allows analysis to be conducted more
efficiently, without compromising the
results; and
Æ Provides a framework to support the
reallocation of source usage (hours/
explosives) between different source bins, as
long as the total number and severity of
marine mammal takes remain within the
overall analyzed and authorized limits. This
flexibility is required to support evolving
Navy training requirements, which are linked
to real world events.
There are two primary types of
acoustic sources: Impulsive and nonimpulsive. A description of each source
classification is provided in Tables 1
and 2. Impulsive source class bins are
based on the NEW of the munitions or
explosive devices or the source level for
air and water guns. Non-impulsive
acoustic sources are grouped into source
class bins based on the frequency,3
source level,4 and, when warranted, the
application in which the source would
be used. The following factors further
describe the considerations associated
with the development of non-impulsive
source bins.
• Frequency of the non-impulsive source:
Æ Low-frequency sources operate below 1
kilohertz (kHz);
Æ Mid-frequency sources operate at and
above 1 kHz, up to and including 10 kHz;
Æ High-frequency sources operate above 10
kHz, up to and including 100 kHz;
Æ Very high-frequency sources operate
above 100 kHz but below 200 kHz.
• Source level of the non-impulsive
source;
Æ Greater than 160 decibels (dB), but less
than 180 dB;
Æ Equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB;
Æ Greater than 200 dB.
• Application in which the source would
be used;
Æ How a sensor is employed supports how
the sensor’s acoustic emissions are analyzed;
Æ Factors considered include pulse length
(time source is on); beam pattern (whether
sound is emitted as a narrow, focused beam
or, as with most explosives, in all directions);
and duty cycle (how often or how many
times a transmission occurs in a given time
period during an event).
As described in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS,
non-impulsive acoustic sources that
have low source levels (not loud),
narrow beam widths, downward
directed transmission, short pulse
lengths, frequencies beyond known
hearing ranges of marine mammals, or
some combination of these
characteristics, are not anticipated to
result in takes of protected species and
therefore were not modeled. These
sources generally meet one of the
following criteria, are considered de
mimimis sources, and are qualitatively
analyzed in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS:
• Acoustic sources with frequencies
greater than 200 kHz (based on known
marine mammal hearing ranges); and
• Sources with source levels less than
160 dB.
Source Classes Analyzed for Training
Table 1 shows the impulsive sources
(e.g., underwater explosives) associated
with training activities analyzed in the
Study Area, as proposed in the Navy’s
LOA request and described in the
proposed rule. Alternative 1 of the
FSEIS/OEIS, the specific activity for
which the incidental taking of marine
mammals is authorized pursuant to this
final rule, includes zero detonations
from the E6, E7, E8, and E11 source
bins, as indicated in Table 1. Table 2
shows non-impulsive sources (e.g.,
sonar) associated with training activities
analyzed in the Study Area, as proposed
in the Navy’s LOA request and
described in the proposed rule.
Alternative 1 of the FSEIS/OEIS
includes zero torpedoes from the TORP2
category, as indicated in Table 2.
Additionally, Alternative 1 does not
include live MISSILEX exercises, which
were included in the proposed rule.
TABLE 1—IMPULSIVE (EXPLOSIVE) TRAINING SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED QUANTITATIVELY
Net explosive
weight
(lbs.)
Source class
Representative munitions
E5 ...................................
E6 * .................................
E7 * .................................
E8 * .................................
E9 ...................................
E10 .................................
E11 * ...............................
E12 .................................
5-inch projectiles ....................................................................................................................................
AGM–114 Hellfire missile .......................................................................................................................
AGM–88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile ..........................................................................................
250 lb. bomb ..........................................................................................................................................
500 lb. bomb ..........................................................................................................................................
1,000 lb. bomb .......................................................................................................................................
MK–48 torpedo .......................................................................................................................................
2,000 lb. bomb .......................................................................................................................................
>5–10
>10–20
>20–60
>60–100
>100–250
>250–500
>500–650
>650–1,000
* Note—these bins are not covered by this final rule, since Navy reduced their proposed activity in their incidental take request.
TABLE 2—NON-IMPULSIVE TRAINING SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED QUANTITATIVELY
Source
class
Source class category
Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that
produce mid-frequency (1–10 kHz) signals.
MF1
HF1
Hull-mounted surface ship sonar (e.g., AN/SQS–53C and AN/
SQS–60).
Hull-mounted submarine sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ–10).
Helicopter-deployed dipping sonar (e.g., AN/AQS–22 and AN/
AQS–13).
Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g., DICASS).
Active underwater sound signal devices (e.g., MK–84).
Hull-mounted surface ship sonar with an active duty cycle greater
than 80%.
Hull-mounted submarine sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ–10).
HF6
Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB).
MF3
MF4
MF5
MF6
MF11
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Description of representative sources
High-Frequency (HF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that
produce high-frequency (greater than 10 kHz but less than 100
kHz) signals.
3 Bins are based on the typical center frequency
of the source. Although harmonics may be present,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
those harmonics would be several decibels (dB)
lower than the primary frequency.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
4 Source decibel levels are expressed in terms of
sound pressure level (SPL) and are values given in
dB referenced to 1 micropascal at 1 meter.
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
19535
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—NON-IMPULSIVE TRAINING SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED QUANTITATIVELY—Continued
Source
class
Source class category
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources such as active
sonobuoys and acoustic countermeasures systems used during
the conduct of ASW training activities.
Description of representative sources
ASW2
Mid-frequency Multistatic Active Coherent sonobuoy (e.g., AN/
SSQ–125).
ASW3
Mid-frequency towed active acoustic countermeasure systems
(e.g., AN/SLQ–25).
Mid-frequency expendable active acoustic device countermeasures (e.g., MK–3).
Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK–48, electric vehicles).
ASW4
* Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes associated with the active
acoustic signals produced by torpedoes.
TORP2
Notes: dB = decibels, DICASS = Directional Command Activated Sonobuoy System, kHz = kilohertz.
* TORP not covered by this rule since Navy reduced their activities.
Training
The training activities with potential
impacts to marine mammals that the
Navy proposes to conduct in the Study
Area are described in Table 3. The table
is organized according to primary
mission areas and includes the activity
name, associated stressor(s), description
of the activity, the primary platform
used (e.g., ship or aircraft type),
duration of activity, type of nonimpulsive or impulsive sources used in
the activity, and the number of activities
per year. More detailed activity
descriptions can be found in chapter 2
of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. The Navy’s
activities are anticipated to meet
training needs in the years 2017–2022.
TABLE 3—TRAINING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA. ACTIVITIES NOW REFLECT NAVY’S ALTERNATIVE 1, WHICH NO
LONGER INCLUDES SINKING EXERCISES AND INCLUDES ONE, INSTEAD OF TWO, CSG EXERCISES
Category
Training activity
Description
Weapons/rounds/sound source
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)
Impulsive ..................
Impulsive ..................
Gunnery Exercise, Surface-toSurface (Ship) (GUNEX–S–S
(Ship)).
Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (BOMBEX (A–S)).
Ship crews engage surface targets with
ship’s small-, medium-, and large-caliber guns.
Fixed-wing aircrews deliver bombs against
surface targets.
Small-, Medium-, and Large-caliber high
explosive rounds.
High explosive bombs.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
Non-impulsive ..........
Non-impulsive ..........
Non-impulsive ..........
Non-impulsive ..........
Non-impulsive ..........
Tracking Exercise—Submarine
(TRACKEX—Sub).
Tracking
Exercise—Surface
(TRACKEX—Surface).
Submarine searches for, detects, and
tracks submarine(s) and surface ship(s).
Surface ship searches for, tracks, and detects submarine(s).
Tracking Exercise—Helicopter
(TRACKEX—Helo).
Tracking
Exercise—Maritime
Patrol Aircraft (TRACKEX—
MPA).
Tracking
Exercise—Maritime
Patrol
Aircraft
(MAC
Sonobuoys).
Helicopter searches, tracks, and detects
submarine(s).
Maritime patrol aircraft use sonobuoys to
search for, detect, and track submarine(s).
Maritime patrol aircraft crews search for,
detect and track submarines using MAC
sonobuoys.
Mid- and high-frequency submarine sonar.
Mid-frequency surface ship sonar, acoustic countermeasures, and high-frequency active sources.
Mid-frequency dipping sonar systems and
sonobuoys.
Sonobuoys, such as DICASS sonobuoys.
mid-frequency MAC sonobuoys.
Notes: DICASS = Directional Command Activated Sonobuoy System; MAC=Multistatic Active Coherent.
Summary of Impulsive and NonImpulsive Sources
Table 4 provides a quantitative annual
summary of training activities by sonar
and other active acoustic source class
analyzed in the Navy’s LOA request.
Annual use has been updated since
publication of the notice for the
proposed rule and now reflects Navy’s
Alternative 1, which results in a
reduction of annual use by about half.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
TABLE 4—ANNUAL HOURS AND UNITS OF SONAR AND OTHER ACTIVE ACOUSTIC SOURCES USED DURING TRAINING
WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Source
class
Source class category
Mid-Frequency (MF) ..............................................................................................................................
Active sources from 1 to 10 kHz ...........................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
MF1
MF3
MF4
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
Units
Hours .............
Hours .............
Hours .............
Annual use
271
24
26
19536
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—ANNUAL HOURS AND UNITS OF SONAR AND OTHER ACTIVE ACOUSTIC SOURCES USED DURING TRAINING
WITHIN THE STUDY AREA—Continued
Source
class
Source class category
High-Frequency (HF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce signals greater than 10 kHz
but less than 100 kHz.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) .............................................................................................................
Active ASW sources ..............................................................................................................................
Torpedoes (TORP) Source classes associated with active acoustic signals produced by torpedoes
Units
MF5 *
MF6
MF11
HF1
HF6
ASW2
ASW3
ASW4 *
TORP2
Items ..............
Items ..............
Items ..............
Hours .............
Hours .............
Hours .............
Hours .............
Items ..............
Items ..............
Annual use
126
11
39
12
40
40
273
6
0
* Annual use for MF5 and ASW4 was incorrectly identified in the proposed rule as 25 and 4, respectively. Annual use for these source classes
is 252 and 12, respectively, for Alternative 2—but is half that here, reflecting Alternative 1.
Duration and Location
TMAA and a warning area in the Gulf
of Alaska. The Navy uses ‘‘at-sea’’ to
include its training activities in the
Study Area that occur (1) on the ocean
surface, (2) beneath the ocean surface,
and (3) in the air above the ocean
surface. Navy training activities
occurring on or over the land outside
the GOA TMAA are covered under
previously prepared environmental
documentation prepared by the U.S. Air
Force and the U.S. Army. Gulf of Alaska
Temporary Maritime Activities Area
(GOA TMAA)
The GOA TMAA is a temporary area
established in conjunction with the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
for one exercise period of up to 21 days,
that is a surface, undersea space, and
airspace maneuver area within the Gulf
of Alaska for ships, submarines, and
aircraft to conduct required training
activities. The GOA TMAA is a polygon
roughly resembling a rectangle oriented
from northwest to southeast,
approximately 300 nautical miles (nm)
in length by 150 nm in width, located
south of Prince William Sound and east
of Kodiak Island.
Training activities would be
conducted in the Study Area during one
exercise of up to 21 days per year
between the months of April and
October to support a major joint training
exercise in Alaska and off the Alaskan
coast that involves the Departments of
the Navy, the Army, Air Force, and the
U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard). The
Service participants report to a unified
or joint commander who coordinates the
activities planned to demonstrate and
evaluate the ability of the services to
engage in a conflict and carry out plans
in response to a threat to national
security. Take incidental to the annual
exercise would be authorized between
May 2017 and May 2022.
The Study Area (see Figure 1–1 of the
LOA application) is entirely at sea and
is composed of the established GOA
Airspace of the GOA TMAA
The airspace of the GOA TMAA
overlies the surface and subsurface
training area and is called an Altitude
Reservation (ALTRV). This ALTRV is a
temporary airspace designation,
typically requested by the Alaskan
Command (ALCOM) and coordinated
through the FAA for the duration of the
exercise. This overwater airspace
supports the majority of aircraft training
activities conducted by Navy and Joint
aircraft throughout the joint training
exercise. The ALTRV over the GOA
TMAA typically extends from the ocean
surface to 60,000 feet (ft) (18,288 meters
(m)) above mean sea level and
encompasses 42,146 square nautical
miles (nm2) of airspace. For safety
considerations, ALTRV information is
sent via Notice to Airmen (NOTAM)/
Table 5 provides a quantitative annual
summary of training explosive source
classes analyzed in the Navy’s LOA
request. Annual number of in-water
detonations has been updated since
publication of the notice for the
proposed rule and now reflects Navy’s
Alternative 1, which results in a
reduction of detonations by at least half.
TABLE 5—ANNUAL NUMBER OF TRAINING EXPLOSIVE SOURCE DETONATIONS
USED DURING TRAINING
WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Explosive class
net explosive weight
(pounds (lb.))
Annual
in-water
detonations
training
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
E5 (≤5–10 lb.) .......................
E6 (≤10–20 lb.) .....................
E7 (≤20–60 lb.) .....................
E8 (≤60–100 lb.) ...................
E9 (≤100–250 lb.) .................
E10 (≤250–500 lb.) ...............
E11 (≤500–650 lb.) ...............
E12 (≤650–1,000 lb.) ............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
56
0
0
0
64
6
0
2
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
International NOTAM so that all pilots
are aware of the area and that Air Traffic
Control will keep known Instrument
Flight Rules aircraft clear of the area.
Additionally, the GOA TMAA
overlies a majority of Warning Area W–
612 (W–612) located over Blying Sound,
towards the northwestern quadrant of
the GOA TMAA. When not included as
part of the GOA TMAA, W–612
provides 2,256 nm2 of special use
airspace for the Air Force and Coast
Guard to fulfill some of their training
requirements. Air Force, Army, National
Guard, and Coast Guard activities
conducted as part of at-sea joint training
within the GOA TMAA are included in
the FSEIS/OEIS analysis. No Navy
training activities analyzed in this final
rule occur in the area of W–612 that is
outside of the GOA TMAA (see Figure
1–1 of the LOA application).
Sea and Undersea Space of the GOA
TMAA
The GOA TMAA surface and
subsurface areas are also depicted in
Figure 1–1 of the LOA application. Total
surface area of the GOA TMAA is
42,146 nm2. Due to weather conditions,
annual joint training activities are
typically conducted during the summer
months (April–October). The GOA
TMAA undersea area lies beneath the
surface area as depicted in Figure 1–1 of
the LOA application. The undersea area
extends to the seafloor.
The complex bathymetric and
oceanographic conditions, including a
continental shelf, submarine canyons,
numerous seamounts, and fresh water
infusions from multiple sources, create
a challenging environment in which to
search for and detect submarines in
ASW training activities. In the summer,
the GOA TMAA provides a safe coldwater training environment that
resembles other areas where Navy may
need to operate in a real-world scenario.
The GOA TMAA meets large-scale
joint exercise training objectives to
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
support naval and joint operational
readiness by providing a
‘‘geographically realistic’’ training area
for U.S. Pacific Command, Joint Task
Force Commander scenario-based
training, and supports the mission
requirement of Alaskan Command
(ALCOM) to conduct joint training for
Alaska-based forces. The strategic vision
of the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet is
that the training area supports naval
operational readiness by providing a
realistic, live-training environment for
forces assigned to the Pacific Fleet and
other users with the capability and
capacity to support current, emerging,
and future training requirements.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activities
Twenty-two marine mammal species
have confirmed or possible occurrence
within or adjacent to the Study Area,
including seven species of baleen
whales (mysticetes), eight species of
toothed whales (odontocetes), six
species of seals (pinnipeds), and the sea
otter (mustelid). Three of these species
(gray whale, sea otter, and ribbon seal)
are not expected to be taken by the
training activities, as discussed in
Chapter 4 of the LOA application. Nine
of these species are listed under the
ESA: Blue whale, fin whale, humpback
whale (Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) and Western North Pacific DPS),
sei whale, sperm whale, gray whale
(Western North Pacific stock), North
Pacific right whale, Steller sea lion
(Western U.S. stock), and sea otter. The
‘‘Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activities’’ section
was included in the proposed rule (81
FR 9950, 9956–57; February 26, 2016).
These descriptions have not changed,
with the exception of the humpback
whale. On September 8, 2016, NMFS
revised the ESA listing for humpback
whales to identify 14 DPSs, listing one
as threatened, four as endangered, and
identifying nine others as not warranted
for listing (81 FR 40870). Humpback
whales from the threatened Mexico
DPS, endangered Western North Pacific
DPS, and Hawaii DPS, which was
identified as not warranted for listing,
could all occur in the Study Area.
Table 6 of the proposed rule provided
a list of marine mammals with possible
or confirmed occurrence within the
GOA TMAA Study Area, including
stock, abundance, and status.
Information on the status, distribution,
abundance, and vocalizations of marine
mammal species in the Study Area may
also be viewed in Chapter 4 of the LOA
application (https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/permits/incidental/military.htm).
Additional information on the general
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
biology and ecology of marine mammals
is included in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. In
addition, NMFS annually publishes
Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) for all
marine mammals in U.S. EEZ waters,
including stocks that occur within the
Study Area (U.S. Pacific Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments, Carretta et
al., 2015; Alaska Marine Mammal Stock
Assessments, Muto and Angliss, 2015).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals
In the ‘‘Potential Effects of Specified
Activities on Marine Mammals’’ section
of the proposed rule (81 FR 9950; 9961–
78; February 26, 2016), we included a
qualitative discussion of the different
ways that Navy training activities may
potentially affect marine mammals
without consideration of mitigation and
monitoring measures. With the
exception of the new information
related to thresholds for auditory injury
described earlier in this document, that
information has not changed in a
manner that would affect our analysis or
findings and is not repeated here.
Mitigation
Under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA, NMFS must set forth the
‘‘permissible methods of taking
pursuant to such activity, and other
means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on such species or stock
and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock
for subsistence uses’’ (‘‘least practicable
adverse impact’’). NMFS does not have
a regulatory definition for least
practicable adverse impact. The NDAA
for FY 2004 amended the MMPA as it
relates to military readiness activities
and the incidental take authorization
process such that ‘‘least practicable
adverse impact’’ shall include
consideration of personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the
‘‘military readiness activity.’’
As discussed in the proposed rule, in
Conservation Council for Hawaii v.
National Marine Fisheries Service, 97 F.
Supp.3d 1210, 1229 (D. Haw. Mar. 31,
2015), the court stated that NMFS
‘‘appear[s] to think [it] satisf[ies] the
statutory ‘least practicable adverse
impact’ requirement with a ‘negligible
impact’ finding.’’ Following publication
of the proposed rule, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Pritzker, 828 F.3d
1125, 1134 (9th Cir. July 15, 2016),
expressing similar concerns in a
challenge to our last SURTASS LFA
sonar incidental take rule, stated,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19537
‘‘Compliance with the ‘negligible
impact’ requirement does not mean
there [is] compliance with the ‘least
practicable adverse impact standard
[. . .] .’’ As the Ninth Circuit noted in
its opinion, however, the court was
interpreting the statute without the
benefit of NMFS’ formal interpretation.
We state here explicitly, as we have said
in the past, that NMFS is in full
agreement that the ‘‘negligible impact’’
and ‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’
requirements are distinct, even though
both statutory standards refer to species
and stocks. With that in mind, we
provide further explanation of our
interpretation of least practicable
adverse impact, and explain what
distinguishes it from the negligible
impact standard. This discussion is
consistent with, and expands upon,
previous rules we have issued and the
explanation provided in the proposed
rule.
Before NMFS can issue incidental
take regulations under section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, it must make
a finding that the total taking will have
a ‘‘negligible impact’’ on the affected
‘‘species or stocks’’ of marine mammals.
NMFS’ and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s joint implementing regulations
for section 101(a)(5)(A) define
‘‘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 and 50 CFR 18.27(c).
Recruitment (i.e., reproduction) and
survival rates are used to determine
population growth rates 5 and, therefore
are considered in evaluating population
level impacts.
As we stated in the preamble to the
final rule for the joint implementing
regulations, not every population-level
impact violates the negligible impact
requirement. The negligible impact
standard does not require a finding that
the anticipated take will have ‘‘no
effect’’ on population numbers or
growth rates: ‘‘The statutory standard
does not require that the same recovery
rate be maintained, rather that no
significant effect on annual rates of
recruitment or survival occurs [. . .] .
[T]he key factor is the significance of the
level of impact on rates of recruitment
or survival.’’ See 54 FR 40338, 40341–
42 (September 29, 1989).
While some level of impact on
population numbers or growth rates of
a species or stock may occur and still
satisfy the negligible impact
requirement—even without
5A
growth rate can be positive, negative, or flat.
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
19538
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
consideration of mitigation—the least
practicable adverse impact provision
separately requires NMFS to prescribe
the means of ‘‘effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on such
species or stock and its habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar
significance [. . .].’’ 6 7
The negligible impact and least
practicable adverse impact standards in
the statute share a common reference to
‘‘species or stocks.’’ A ‘‘species’’ is
defined as a group of animals or plants
that are similar and can produce young
animals or plants: a group of related
animals or plants that is smaller than a
genus (https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/species).
‘‘Population stock’’ or ‘‘stock’’ means ‘‘a
group of marine mammals of the same
species or smaller taxa in a common
spatial arrangement, that interbreed
when mature.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1362(11). We
believe those terms indisputably refer to
populations of animals, and that it is
therefore appropriate to view both
MMPA provisions as having a
population-level focus. This is
consistent with both the language of the
statute and Congress’ overarching
conservation objective in enacting the
MMPA. See 16 U.S.C. 1361 (Congress’
findings reflecting policy concerns
about the extinction or depletion of
certain marine mammal species or
stocks and the goal of ensuring they are
functioning elements of their
ecosystems).
Recognizing this common focus of the
two provisions on ‘‘species or stock’’
does not mean we conflate the
standards; despite some common
statutory language, we recognize the two
provisions are different in other ways
and have different functions.8 First, a
negligible impact finding is required
before NMFS can issue an incidental
take authorization. Although it is
acceptable to use mitigation to reach a
negligible impact finding, 50 CFR
216.104(c), no amount of mitigation can
enable NMFS to issue an incidental take
authorization for an activity that still
6 For purposes of this discussion we omit
reference to the language in the standard for least
practicable adverse impact that says we also must
mitigate for subsistence impacts because they are
not at issue in this action.
7 NMFS’ incidental take actions routinely refer to
the least practicable adverse impact requirement in
shorthand as ‘‘mitigation,’’ a concept that broadly
encompasses measures or practices that are
reasonably designed to avoid, reduce, or minimize
impacts.
8 See also CBD v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 893 (9th Cir.
2012) (finding that some overlap between FWS’
factors for determining negligible impact and small
numbers was not an improper conflation of the two
standards where the agency also considered other
factors in reaching its conclusions).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
would not meet the negligible impact
standard. Moreover, even where NMFS
can reach a negligible impact finding—
which we emphasize does allow for the
possibility of some ‘‘negligible’’
population-level impact—the agency
must still prescribe practicable
measures that will effect the least
amount of adverse impact upon the
affected species or stock.
Further, section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II)
requires NMFS to issue, in conjunction
with its authorization, binding—and
enforceable—restrictions (in the form of
regulations) setting forth how the
activity must be conducted, thus
ensuring the activity has the ‘‘least
practicable adverse impact’’ on the
affected species or stocks. In situations
where mitigation is needed to reach a
negligible impact determination, section
101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) also provides a
mechanism for ensuring compliance
with the ‘‘negligible impact’’
requirement. Finally, we also reiterate
that the ‘‘least practicable adverse
impact’’ standard requires mitigation for
marine mammal habitat, with particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and other areas of similar significance,
and for mitigating subsistence impacts;
whereas the negligible impact standard
is concerned with conclusions about the
impact of an activity on the affected
populations.9
In NRDC v. Pritzker, the court stated,
‘‘[t]he statute is properly read to mean
that even if population levels are not
threatened significantly, still the agency
must adopt mitigation measures aimed
at protecting marine mammals to the
greatest extent practicable in light of
military readiness needs.’’ Id. at 1134
(emphasis added). This statement is
consistent with our understanding
stated above that even when the effects
of an action satisfy the negligible impact
standard (i.e., in the court’s words,
‘‘population levels are not threatened
significantly’’), still the agency must
prescribe mitigation under the least
practicable adverse impact standard.
However, as the statute indicates, the
focus of both standards is ultimately the
impact on the affected ‘‘species or
stock,’’ and not solely focused on/
directed at the impact on individual
marine mammals.
We have carefully reviewed and
considered the Ninth Circuit’s opinion
in NRDC v. Pritzker in its entirety.
While the court’s reference to ‘‘marine
mammals’’ rather than ‘‘marine mammal
species or stocks’’ in the italicized
9 Outside of the military readiness context,
mitigation may also be appropriate to ensure
compliance with the ‘‘small numbers’’ language in
MMPA sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
language above might be construed as a
holding that the least practicable
adverse impact standard applies at the
individual ‘‘marine mammal’’ level, i.e.,
that NMFS must require mitigation to
minimize impacts to each individual
marine mammal unless impracticable,
we believe such an interpretation
reflects an incomplete appreciation of
the court’s holding. In our view, the
opinion as a whole turned on the court’s
determination that NMFS had not given
separate and independent meaning to
the least practicable adverse impact
standard apart from the negligible
impact standard, and further that the
court’s use of the term ‘‘marine
mammals’’ was not addressing the
question of whether the standard
applies to individual animals as
opposed to the species or stock as a
whole. We recognize that while
consideration of mitigation can play a
role in a negligible impact
determination, consideration of
mitigation extends beyond that analysis.
In evaluating what mitigation is
appropriate, NMFS considers the
impacts of the proposed action, the
availability of measures to minimize
those potential impacts, and the
practicability of implementing those
measures, as we describe below.
Implementation of Least Practicable
Adverse Impact
Given this most recent court decision,
we further clarify how we determine
whether a measure or set of measures
meets the ‘‘least practicable adverse
impact’’ standard. Our evaluation of
potential mitigation measures includes
consideration of two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, implementation of the
measure(s) is expected to reduce
impacts to marine mammal species or
stocks, their habitat, and their
availability for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Among other things, this
analysis will consider the nature of the
potential adverse impact (such as
likelihood, scope, and range), the
likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented, and the
likelihood of successful
implementation.
(2) The practicability of the measures
for applicant implementation.
Practicability of implementation may
consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military
readiness activity, personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity. 16 U.S.C.
1371(a)(5)(A)(ii).
While the language of the least
practicable adverse impact standard
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
calls for minimizing impacts to affected
species or stocks, we recognize that the
reduction of impacts to those species or
stocks accrues through the application
of mitigation measures that limit
impacts to individual animals.
Accordingly, NMFS’ analysis will focus
on measures designed to avoid or
minimize impacts on marine mammals
from activities that are likely to increase
the probability or severity of
population-level effects. While direct
evidence of impacts to species or stocks
from a specified activity is rarely
available, and additional study is still
needed to describe how specific
disturbance events affect the fitness of
individuals of certain species, there
have been improvements in
understanding the process by which
disturbance effects are translated to the
population. With recent scientific
advancements (both marine mammal
energetic research and the development
of energetic frameworks), the relative
likelihood or degree of impacts on
species or stocks may often be inferred
given a detailed understanding of the
activity, the environment, and the
affected species or stocks. This same
information is used in the development
of mitigation measures and helps us
understand how mitigation measures
contribute to lessening species or stock
effects.
In the evaluation of specific measures,
the details of the specified activity will
necessarily inform each of the two
factors and will be carefully considered
to determine the types of mitigation that
are appropriate under the least
practicable adverse impact standard.
The greater the likelihood that a
measure will contribute to reducing the
probability or severity of adverse
impacts to the species or stock, the
greater the weight that measure(s) is
given when considered in combination
with practicability to determine the
appropriateness of the mitigation
measure(s), and vice versa.
Below we discuss how these factors
are considered.
1. Reduction of adverse impacts to
species or stock. The emphasis given to
a measure’s ability to reduce the
impacts on a species or stock considers
the degree, likelihood, and context of
the anticipated reduction of impacts to
individuals as well as the status of the
species or stock.
The ultimate impact on any
individual from a disturbance event
(which informs the likelihood of
adverse species or stock-level effects) is
dependent on the circumstances and
associated contextual factors, such as
duration of exposure to stressors.
Though any proposed mitigation needs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
to be evaluated in the context of the
specific activity and the species or
stocks affected, measures with the
following types of goals are often
applied to reduce the likelihood or
severity of adverse species or stock-level
impacts: Avoiding or minimizing injury
or mortality; limiting interruption of
known feeding, breeding, mother/
young, or resting behaviors; minimizing
the abandonment of important habitat
(temporally and spatially); minimizing
the number of individuals subjected to
these types of disruptions; and limiting
degradation of habitat. Mitigating these
types of effects is intended to reduce the
likelihood that the activity will result in
energetic or other types of impacts that
are more likely to result in reduced
reproductive success or survivorship. It
is also important to consider the degree
of impacts that were expected in the
absence of mitigation in order to assess
the added value of any potential
measures.
The status of the species or stock is
also relevant in evaluating the
appropriateness of certain mitigation
measures in the context of least
practicable adverse impact. The
following are examples of factors that
may (either alone, or in combination)
result in greater emphasis on the
importance of a mitigation measure in
reducing impacts on a species or stock:
The stock is known to be decreasing or
status is unknown, but believed to be
declining; the known annual mortality
(from any source) is approaching or
exceeding the potential biological
removal (PBR) level (as defined in 16
U.S.C. 1362(20)); the affected species or
stock is a small, resident population; or
the stock is involved in an unusual
mortality event (UME) or has other
known vulnerabilities, such as
recovering from an oil spill.
Reduction of habitat impacts. Habitat
mitigation, particularly as it relates to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, is also relevant and
can include measures, such as reducing
impacts of the activity on known prey
utilized in the activity area or reducing
impacts on physical habitat.
Likely effectiveness of the measure.
We consider available information
indicating the likelihood of any measure
to accomplish its objective. If evidence
shows that a measure has not typically
been effective or successful, then either
that measure should be modified, or the
potential value of the measure to reduce
effects is lowered.
2. Practicability. Factors considered
may include cost, impact on operations,
and, in the case of a military readiness
activity, personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19539
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity. 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(ii).
The above section describes the
factors considered in making a least
practicable adverse impact finding. In
summary, NMFS will carefully balance
the likelihood and degree to which a
measure(s) will reduce adverse impacts
on species or stocks with the measure’s
practicability in determining
appropriate mitigation measures.
NMFS reviewed the proposed
activities and the proposed mitigation
measures as described in the Navy’s
LOA application to determine if they
would result in the least practicable
adverse effect on marine mammal
species or stocks. NMFS described the
Navy’s proposed mitigation measures in
detail in the proposed rule (81 FR 9950,
9978–86; February 26, 2016). As
described below and in responses to
comments, and in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS,
some additional measures were also
considered and analyzed. Time/area
specific mitigation measures considered
by the Navy and NMFS for the Navy’s
low use of hull-mounted mid-frequency
active sonar and explosives activities in
certain areas of particular importance to
specific marine mammals have been
clarified and described below (see
‘‘Consideration of Time/Area
Limitations’’) and in the ‘‘Comments
and Responses’’ section of this rule.
This final rule includes the adoption of
a new ‘‘Cautionary Area’’ for North
Pacific right whales. This additional
time/area specific measure is also
included in the regulatory text (see
§ 218.154 Mitigation) at the end of this
rule. Other additional mitigation
measures were considered but
ultimately not chosen for
implementation because they were
unlikely to reduce impacts to marine
mammals or implementation was
considered unacceptable with regard to
personal safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity. Separately, as mentioned
previously, live MISSILEX exercises
were eliminated from the Navy’s
proposed activities covered under this
Final Rule and, therefore, the associated
mitigation measures for live MISSILEX
exercises that were included in the
proposed rule have been removed from
the Final Rule. In addition, further
details were added to one of the
mitigation zones regarding close
approaches to marine mammals by
vessels to clarify when it is applicable.
Below are the mitigation measures as
agreed upon by the Navy and NMFS.
For additional details regarding the
Navy’s mitigation measures, see the
‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ section of the
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
19540
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 9978–86;
February 26, 2016) and Chapter 5 in the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS.
Lookouts
The Navy shall have two types of
Lookouts for the purposes of conducting
visual observations: Those positioned
on ships; and those positioned ashore,
in aircraft, or on small boats. Lookouts
positioned on ships shall diligently
observe the air and surface of the water.
They shall have multiple observation
objectives, which include but are not
limited to detecting the presence of
biological resources and recreational or
fishing boats, observing the mitigation
zones, and monitoring for vessel and
personnel safety concerns.
Due to manning and space restrictions
on aircraft, small boats, and some Navy
ships, Lookouts for these platforms may
be supplemented by the aircraft crew or
pilot, boat crew, range site personnel, or
shore-side personnel. Lookouts
positioned in minimally manned
platforms may be responsible for tasks
in addition to observing the air or
surface of the water (e.g., navigation of
a helicopter or small boat). However, all
Lookouts shall, considering personnel
safety, practicality of implementation,
and impact on the effectiveness of the
activity, comply with the observation
objectives described above for Lookouts
positioned on ships.
The procedural measures described in
the remainder of this section primarily
consist of having Lookouts during
specific training activities.
All personnel standing watch on the
bridge, Commanding Officers, Executive
Officers, maritime patrol aircraft
aircrews, anti-submarine warfare
helicopter crews, civilian equivalents,
and Lookouts shall successfully
complete the United States Navy Marine
Species Awareness Training prior to
standing watch or serving as a Lookout.
Additional details on the Navy’s Marine
Species Awareness Training can be
found in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. The
Navy shall use one or more Lookouts
during the training activities described
below, which are organized by stressor
category.
Non-Impulsive Sound
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Hull Mounted Mid-Frequency Active
Sonar (MFAS)
The Navy’s previous Lookout
mitigation measures during training
activities involving hull-mounted MFAS
in the GOA TMAA included
requirements such as the number of
personnel on watch and the manner in
which personnel are to visually search
the area in the vicinity of the ongoing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
activity. The Navy shall maintain the
number of Lookouts required by the
Phase I incidental take rule and LOA for
the GOA TMAA for ships using hullmounted MFAS.
Ships using hull-mounted MFAS
sources associated with ASW activities
at sea (with the exception of ships less
than 65 ft (20 m) in length, which are
minimally manned) will have two
Lookouts at the forward position. While
using hull-mounted MFAS sources
underway, vessels less than 65 ft (20 m)
in length and ships that are minimally
manned shall have one Lookout at the
forward position due to space and
manning restrictions.
High-Frequency and Non-Hull-Mounted
Mid-Frequency Active Sonar
The Navy plans to conduct activities
using high-frequency and non-hullmounted MFAS in the Study Area. Nonhull-mounted MFAS training activities
include the use of aircraft deployed
sonobuoys, helicopter dipping sonar,
and submarine sonar. During those
activities, the Navy shall employ the
following mitigation measures regarding
Lookout procedures:
• Navy aircraft participating in
exercises at sea shall conduct and
maintain, when operationally feasible
and safe, surveillance for marine species
of concern as long as it does not violate
safety constraints or interfere with the
accomplishment of primary operational
duties.
• Helicopters shall observe/survey
the vicinity of an ASW training event
for 10 minutes before the first
deployment of active (dipping) sonar in
the water.
The Navy shall continue to use the
number of Lookouts (one) required by
the Phase I incidental take rule and LOA
for the GOA TMAA for ships or aircraft
conducting non-hull-mounted MFA
sonar activities.
The Phase I incidental take rule and
LOA for the GOA TMAA did not
include mitigation measures for other
high-frequency active sonar activities
associated with ASW, or for new
platforms; therefore, the Navy shall add
a new Lookout and other measures for
these activities and on these platforms
when conducted in the Study Area. The
measure is: The Navy shall have one
Lookout on ships conducting highfrequency or non-hull mounted midfrequency active sonar activities
associated with ASW activities at sea.
Explosives and Impulsive Sound
Improved Extended Echo Ranging
Sonobuoys
The Navy is not proposing use of
Improved Extended Echo Ranging
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Sonobuoys during the GOA TMAA
training activities.
Explosive Signal Underwater Sound
Buoys Using >0.5–2.5 Pound Net
Explosive Weight
The previous, and first, incidental
take rule and LOA (Phase I) for the GOA
TMAA did not include lookout
measures for explosive signal
underwater sound (SUS) buoy activities
using >0.5–2.5 pound (lb.) NEW. The
Navy shall add this measure. Aircraft
conducting SUS activities using >0.5–
2.5 lb. NEW will have one Lookout.
Gunnery Exercises—Small-, Medium-,
and Large-Caliber Using a Surface
Target
The following Lookout procedures
during gunnery exercises are included:
• From the intended firing position,
trained Lookouts shall survey the
mitigation zone for marine mammals
prior to commencement and during the
exercise as long as practicable.
• Target towing vessels shall
maintain a Lookout. If a marine
mammal is sighted in the vicinity of the
exercise, the tow vessel shall
immediately notify the firing vessel in
order to secure gunnery firing until the
area is clear.
The Navy shall continue using these
Lookout procedures previously
implemented for this activity. The Navy
shall have one Lookout on the vessel or
aircraft conducting small-, medium-, or
large-caliber gunnery exercises against a
surface target. Towing vessels shall also
maintain one Lookout.
Missile Exercises Using a Surface Target
The following Lookout procedures
during missile exercises are included:
• Aircraft shall visually survey the
target area for marine mammals. Visual
inspection of the target area shall be
made by flying at 1,500 ft (457 m) or
lower, if safe to do so, and at slowest
safe speed.
• Firing or range clearance aircraft
must be able to actually see ordnance
impact areas.
The Navy shall continue using the
Lookout procedures previously
implemented for this activity. When
aircraft are conducting missile exercises
against a surface target, the Navy shall
have one Lookout positioned in an
aircraft.
Bombing Exercises (Explosive)
The following Lookout procedures
during bombing exercises are included:
• If surface vessels are involved,
Lookouts shall survey for floating kelp
and marine mammals.
• Aircraft shall visually survey the
target and mitigation zone for marine
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
mammals prior to and during the
exercise. The survey of the impact area
shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft (460
m) or lower, if safe to do so, and at the
slowest safe speed. Release of ordnance
through cloud cover is prohibited:
aircraft must be able to actually see
ordnance impact areas. Survey aircraft
should employ most effective search
tactics and capabilities.
The Navy shall continue
implementing these measures for
bombing exercises, and shall have one
Lookout positioned in an aircraft
conducting bombing exercises, and
trained Lookouts in any surface vessels
involved.
Weapons Firing Noise During Gunnery
Exercises
The Navy shall continue using the
number of Lookouts previously required
by the Phase I GOA incidental take rule
and LOA for gunnery exercises. The
Navy shall have one Lookout on the
ship conducting explosive and nonexplosive gunnery exercises. This may
be the same Lookout described for
Gunnery Exercises—Small-, Medium-,
and Large-Caliber Using a Surface
Target when that activity is conducted
from a ship against a surface target.
Physical Disturbance and Strike
Vessels
The Navy shall employ the following
Lookout procedures to avoid physical
disturbance and strike of marine
mammals during at-sea training:
• While underway, surface vessels
shall have at least one Lookout with
binoculars, and surfaced submarines
shall have at least one Lookout with
binoculars. Lookouts already posted for
safety of navigation and man-overboard
precautions may be used to fill this
requirement. As part of their regular
duties, Lookouts will watch for and
report to the Officer of the Deck the
presence of marine mammals.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Non-Explosive Practice Munitions
Gunnery Exercises—Small-, Medium-,
and Large-Caliber Using a Surface
Target
The Navy employs the same
mitigation measures for non-explosive
practice munitions—small-, medium-,
and large-caliber gunnery exercises—as
described above for Gunnery
Exercises—Small-, Medium-, and LargeCaliber Using a Surface Target.
The Navy shall continue using the
number of Lookouts previously
implemented for these activities
pursuant to the Phase I incidental take
rule and LOA for the GOA TMAA. The
Navy shall have one Lookout during
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
activities involving non-explosive
practice munitions (e.g., small-,
medium-, and large-caliber gunnery
exercises) against a surface target.
Missile Exercises Using a Surface Target
No MISSILEX using live ordnance
will be conducted in GOA. When
aircraft are conducting non-explosive
missile exercises (including exercises
using rockets) against a surface target,
the Navy shall have one Lookout
positioned in an aircraft.
Bombing Exercises (Non-explosive)
The Navy employs the same
mitigation measures for non-explosive
bombing exercises as described for
Bombing Exercises (Explosive).
The Navy shall continue using the
same Lookout procedures previously
implemented for these activities
pursuant to the Phase I incidental take
rule and LOA for the GOA TMAA. The
Navy will have one Lookout positioned
in an aircraft during non-explosive
bombing exercises, and trained
Lookouts in any surface vessels
involved.
Mitigation Zones
The Navy shall use mitigation zones
to reduce the potential impacts to
marine mammals from training
activities. Mitigation zones are
measured as the radius from a source.
Unique to each activity category, each
radius represents a distance that the
Navy will visually observe to help
reduce injury to marine species. Visual
detections of applicable marine species
will be communicated immediately to
the appropriate watch station for
information dissemination and
appropriate action. If the presence of
marine mammals is detected
acoustically, Lookouts posted in aircraft
and on surface vessels will increase the
vigilance of their visual surveillance. As
a reference, aerial surveys are typically
made by flying at 1,500 ft (457 m)
altitude or lower at the slowest safe
speed.
Many of the proposed activities have
mitigation measures that were
implemented during the Navy’s Phase I
activities in the GOA TMAA as required
by previous environmental documents
or consultations. Most of the mitigation
zones for activities that involve the use
of impulsive and non-impulsive sources
were originally designed to reduce the
potential for onset of TTS. For the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS and the LOA application,
the Navy updated the acoustic
propagation modeling to incorporate
updated hearing threshold metrics (i.e.,
upper and lower frequency limits),
updated density data for marine
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19541
mammals, and factors such as an
animal’s likely presence at various
depths. An explanation of the acoustic
propagation modeling process can be
found in the Determination of Acoustic
Effects on Marine Mammals for the Gulf
of Alaska Training SEIS/OEIS Technical
Report (Marine Species Modeling Team,
2015). Additionally, since publication of
the proposed rule, the Navy reevaluated the range to effects in
consideration of the acoustic thresholds
in NMFS’ new Guidance, which
resulted in larger ranges for some
explosive sources.
As a result of the updates described
above, in some cases the ranges to onset
of TTS effects are much larger than
previous model outputs (i.e., those used
in the first GOA rule (76 FR 25480; May
4, 2011)). Due to the ineffectiveness and
unacceptable operational impacts
associated with enlarging the mitigation
zones to alleviate impacts in these larger
areas, the Navy is unable to mitigate for
onset of TTS for every activity. For this
GOA TMAA analysis, the Navy
developed each recommended
mitigation zone to avoid or reduce the
potential for onset PTS, out to the
predicted maximum range. In some
cases, where the ranges to effects are
smaller than previous models estimated,
the mitigation zones were adjusted
accordingly to provide consistency
across the measures. Mitigating to the
predicted maximum range to PTS
consequently also mitigates to the
predicted maximum range to onset
mortality (1 percent mortality), onset
slight lung injury, and onset slight
gastrointestinal tract injury, since the
maximum range to effects for these
criteria are shorter than for PTS.
Furthermore, in most cases, the
predicted maximum range to PTS also
consequently covers the predicted
average range to TTS. Table 6
summarizes the predicted average range
to TTS, average range to PTS, maximum
range to PTS, and recommended
mitigation zone for each activity
category, based on the Navy’s acoustic
propagation modeling results and
updated by consideration of the new
acoustic guidance.
The activity-specific mitigation zones
are based on the longest range for all the
functional hearing groups. The
mitigation zone for a majority of
activities is driven by either the highfrequency cetaceans or the sea turtles
functional hearing groups. Therefore,
the mitigation zones are even more
protective for the remaining functional
hearing groups (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, and
pinnipeds), and likely cover a larger
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
19542
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
portion of the potential range to onset of
TTS.
Table 6 includes explosive ranges to
TTS and the onset of auditory injury,
non-auditory injury, slight lung injury,
and mortality. For every source but one
proposed for use by the Navy, the
mitigation zones included in Table 6
exceed each of these ranges. The TTS
range for BOMBEX is larger than the
mitigation zone. The mitigation zones
and their associated assessments are
provided throughout the remainder of
this section.
TABLE 6—PREDICTED RANGES TO EFFECTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ZONES FOR EACH ACTIVITY CATEGORY
Representative
source
(Bin) 1
Activity
category
Predicted
(longest)
average range
to TTS
Predicted
(longest)
average range
to PTS
Predicted
maximum
range to PTS
Mitigation zone 2
Non-Impulse Sound
Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency Active Sonar.
SQS–53 ASW
hull-mounted
sonar (MF1).
3,821 yd. (3,493
m) for one
ping.
100 yd. (91 m)
for one ping.
Not applicable ..
High-Frequency and Non-Hull
Mounted Mid-Frequency Active
Sonar.
AQS–22 ASW
dipping sonar
(MF4).
230 yd. (210 m)
for one ping.
20 yd. (18 m)
for one ping.
Not applicable ..
6 dB power down at 1,000 yd.
(914 m); 4 dB power down at
500 yd. (457 m); and shutdown at 200 yd. (183 m).
200 yd. (183 m).
Explosive and Impulse Sound
Signal Underwater Sound (SUS)
buoys using >0.5–2.5 lb. NEW.
Gunnery Exercises—Small- and
Medium-Caliber (Surface Target).
Gunnery Exercises—Large-Caliber (Surface Target) 3.
Bombing Exercises 4 ...................
Explosive sonobuoy (E3).
40 mm projectiles (E2).
290 yd. (265 m)
113 yd. (103 m)
309 yd. (283 m)
350 yd. (320 m).
190 yd. (174 m)
83 yd. (76 m) ...
182 yd. (167 m)
200 yd. (183 m).
5 in. projectiles
(E5).
MK–84 2,000 lb.
(E12).
771 yd. (705 m)
327 yd. (299 m)
327 yd. (299 m)
600 yd. (549 m).
5,430 yd. (4,965
m).
1,772 yd. (1,620
m).
1,851 yd. (1,693
m).
2,500 yd. (2,286 m).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
1 This table does not provide an inclusive list of all sources in a given bins; bins presented here represent the source bin with the largest range
to effects within the given activity category.
2 Recommended mitigation zones are larger than the modeled injury zones to account for multiple types of sources or charges being used.
See Section 5.3.2 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and Section 11.2 of the LOA application (Mitigation Zone Procedural Measures) for a general discussion of mitigation zones, how they are implemented, and the potential effects they are designed to reduce; see Chapter 11 of the LOA application for a discussion of the biological effectiveness and operational assessments for each activity’s recommended mitigation zone.
3 Bin E5 TTS Value corrected from Proposed Rule table to reflect correct GOA-specific value for average TTS (Table 3.8–18 of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS). PTS re-assessed using NOAA’s August 2016 revised explosive acoustic criteria applicable to the most sensitive functional hearing
group. PTS value for bin E5 was lower than previously modeled range, so TTS not recalculated and TTS value from previous model shown as
conservative (over predictive) value. Lower weight bins re-assessed similarly did not result in any values larger than existing values shown.
4 Bin E12 PTS and TTS re-assessed using NOAA’s August 2016 revised explosive acoustic criteria applicable to the most sensitive functional
hearing group.
Notes: lb. = pounds, m = meters, yd. = yards; PTS = Permanent Threshold Shift, TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift.
For some activities specified
throughout the remainder of this
section, Lookouts may be required to
observe for concentrations of detached
floating vegetation (Sargassum or kelp
paddies), which are indicators of
potential marine mammal presence
within the mitigation zone. Those
specified activities will not commence if
floating vegetation (Sargassum or kelp
paddies) is observed within the
mitigation zone prior to the initial start
of the activity. If floating vegetation is
observed prior to the initial start of the
activity, the activity will be relocated to
an area where no floating vegetation is
observed. Training will not cease as a
result of floating vegetation entering the
mitigation zone after activities have
commenced. This measure is intended
only for floating vegetation detached
from the seafloor.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Non-Impulsive Sound
Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency Active
Sonar
Activities that involve the use of hullmounted MFA sonar will use Lookouts
for visual observation from a ship
immediately before and during the
activity. Mitigation zones for these
activities involve powering down the
sonar by 6 dB when a marine mammal
is sighted within 1,000 yd (914 m) of the
sonar dome, and by an additional 4 dB
when sighted within 500 yd (457 m)
from the source, for a total reduction of
10 dB. Active transmissions will cease
if a marine mammal is sighted within
200 yd (183 m). Active transmission
will recommence if any one of the
following conditions is met: (1) The
animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone, (2) the animal is
thought to have exited the mitigation
zone based on its course and speed, (3)
the mitigation zone has been clear from
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
any additional sightings for a period of
30 minutes, (4) the ship has transited
more than 2,000 yd (1.8 km) beyond the
location of the last sighting, or (5) the
ship concludes that dolphins are
deliberately closing in on the ship to
ride the ship’s bow wave (and there are
no other marine mammal sightings
within the mitigation zone). Active
transmission may resume when
dolphins are bow riding because they
are out of the main transmission axis of
the active sonar while in the shallowwave area of the ship bow.
High-Frequency and Non-Hull-Mounted
Mid-Frequency Active Sonar
Mitigation will include visual
observation from a vessel or aircraft
(with the exception of platforms
operating at high altitudes) immediately
before and during active transmission
within a mitigation zone of 200 yd (183
m) from the active sonar source. For
activities involving helicopter deployed
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
dipping sonar, visual observation will
commence 10 minutes before the first
deployment of active dipping sonar.
Helicopter dipping and sonobuoy
deployment will not begin if
concentrations of floating vegetation
(kelp paddies), are observed in the
mitigation zone. If the source can be
turned off during the activity, active
transmission will cease if a marine
mammal is sighted within the
mitigation zone. Active transmission
will recommence if any one of the
following conditions is met: (1) The
animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone, (2) the animal is
thought to have exited the mitigation
zone based on its course and speed, (3)
the mitigation zone has been clear from
any additional sightings for a period of
10 minutes for an aircraft-deployed
source, (4) the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 30 minutes for a vesseldeployed source, (5) the vessel or
aircraft has repositioned itself more than
400 yd (370 m) away from the location
of the last sighting, or (6) the vessel
concludes that dolphins are deliberately
closing in to ride the vessel’s bow wave
(and there are no other marine mammal
sightings within the mitigation zone).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Explosives and Impulsive Sound
Explosive Signal Underwater Sound
Buoys Using >0.5–2.5 Pound Net
Explosive Weight
Mitigation will include pre-exercise
aerial monitoring during deployment
within a mitigation zone of 350 yd (320
m) around an explosive SUS buoy.
Explosive SUS buoys will not be
deployed if concentrations of floating
vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed
in the mitigation zone (around the
intended deployment location). SUS
deployment will cease if a marine
mammal is sighted within the
mitigation zone. Deployment will
recommence if any one of the following
conditions is met: (1) The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2)
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has
been clear from any additional sightings
for a period of 10 minutes.
Passive acoustic monitoring will also
be conducted with Navy assets, such as
sonobuoys, already participating in the
activity. These assets would only detect
vocalizing marine mammals within the
frequency bands monitored by Navy
personnel. Passive acoustic detections
would not provide range or bearing to
detected animals, and therefore cannot
provide locations of these animals.
Passive acoustic detections would be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
reported to Lookouts posted in aircraft
in order to increase vigilance of their
visual surveillance.
Gunnery Exercises—Small- and
Medium-Caliber Using a Surface Target
Mitigation will include visual
observation from a vessel or aircraft
immediately before and during the
exercise within a mitigation zone of 200
yd (183 m) around the intended impact
location. Vessels will observe the
mitigation zone from the firing position.
When aircraft are firing, the aircrew will
maintain visual watch of the mitigation
zone during the activity. The exercise
will not commence if concentrations of
floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are
observed in the mitigation zone. Firing
will cease if a marine mammal is
sighted within the mitigation zone.
Firing will recommence if any one of
the following conditions is met: (1) The
animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone, (2) the animal is
thought to have exited the mitigation
zone based on its course and speed, (3)
the mitigation zone has been clear from
any additional sightings for a period of
10 minutes for a firing aircraft, (4) the
mitigation zone has been clear from any
additional sightings for a period of 30
minutes for a firing ship, or (5) the
intended target location has been
repositioned more than 400 yd (366 m)
away from the location of the last
sighting.
Gunnery Exercises—Large-Caliber
Explosive Rounds Using a Surface
Target
Mitigation will include visual
observation from a ship immediately
before and during the exercise within a
mitigation zone of 600 yd (549 m)
around the intended impact location.
Ships will observe the mitigation zone
from the firing position. The exercise
will not commence if concentrations of
floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are
observed in the mitigation zone. Firing
will cease if a marine mammal is
sighted within the mitigation zone.
Firing will recommence if any one of
the following conditions is met: (1) The
animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone, (2) the animal is
thought to have exited the mitigation
zone based on its course and speed, or
(3) the mitigation zone has been clear
from any additional sightings for a
period of 30 minutes.
Bombing Exercises (Explosive)
During Phase I activities, the Navy
employed the following mitigation zone
procedures during bombing exercises:
• Explosive ordnance shall not be
targeted to impact within 2,500 yd (2.3
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19543
km) of known or observed floating kelp
or marine mammals.
• A 2,500 yd (2.3 km) radius
mitigation zone shall be established
around the intended target.
• The exercise will be conducted only
if marine mammals are not visible
within the mitigation zone.
The Navy will (1) maintain the
previously required mitigation zone to
be used for non-explosive bombing
activities, (2) revise the mitigation zone
procedures to account for predicted
ranges to impacts to marine species
when high explosive bombs are used,
and (3) add a requirement to visually
observe for kelp paddies.
Mitigation will include visual
observation from the aircraft
immediately before the exercise and
during target approach within a
mitigation zone of 2,500 yd (2.3 km)
around the intended impact location for
explosive bombs and 1,000 yd (920 m)
for non-explosive bombs. The exercise
will not commence if concentrations of
floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are
observed in the mitigation zone.
Bombing will cease if a marine mammal
is sighted within the mitigation zone.
Bombing will recommence if any one of
the following conditions is met: (1) The
animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone, (2) the animal is
thought to have exited the mitigation
zone based on its course and speed, or
(3) the mitigation zone has been clear
from any additional sightings for a
period of 10 minutes.
Weapons Firing Noise During Gunnery
Exercises—Large-Caliber
The Navy employed no mitigation
zone procedures for this activity in the
Study Area during Phase I training
activities in the GOA TMAA.
For Phase II activities, the Navy will
adopt measures currently used during
Navy gunnery exercises in other ranges
outside of the Study Area. For all
explosive and non-explosive largecaliber gunnery exercises conducted
from a ship, mitigation will include
visual observation immediately before
and during the exercise within a
mitigation zone of 70 yd (64 m) within
30 degrees on either side of the gun
target line on the firing side. The
exercise will not commence if
concentrations of floating vegetation
(kelp paddies) are observed in the
mitigation zone. Firing will cease if a
marine mammal is sighted within the
mitigation zone. Firing will
recommence if any one of the following
conditions is met: (1) The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2)
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on its course and
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
19544
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
speed, (3) the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 30 minutes, or (4) the vessel
has repositioned itself more than 140 yd
(128 m) away from the location of the
last sighting.
Physical Disturbance and Strike
Vessels
The Navy will use a 500 yd (457 m)
mitigation zone for whales, and a 200 yd
(183 m) mitigation zone for all other
marine mammals. Vessels will avoid
approaching marine mammals head on
and will maneuver to maintain a
mitigation zone of 500 yd (457 m)
around observed whales and 200 yd
(183 m) around all other marine
mammals (except bow-riding dolphins),
providing it is safe to do so. These
requirements will not apply if a vessel’s
safety is threatened, such as when
change of course will create an
imminent and serious threat to a person,
vessel, or aircraft, and to the extent
vessels are restricted in their ability to
maneuver. Restricted maneuverability
includes, but is not limited to, situations
when vessels are engaged in dredging,
submerged activities, launching and
recovering aircraft or landing craft,
minesweeping activities, replenishment
while underway, and towing activities
that severely restrict a vessel’s ability to
deviate course. While in transit, Navy
vessels shall be alert at all times, use
extreme caution, and proceed at a ‘‘safe
speed’’ so that the vessel can take
proper and effective action to avoid a
collision with any sighted object or
disturbance, including any marine
mammal or sea turtle, and can be
stopped within a distance appropriate to
the prevailing circumstances and
conditions.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Towed In-Water Devices
The Navy employed no mitigation
zone procedures for this activity in the
Study Area during Phase I training
activities in the GOA TMAA.
During Phase II activities in the GOA
TMAA, the Navy will adopt measures
currently used in other ranges outside of
the Study Area during activities
involving towed in-water devices. The
Navy will ensure that towed in-water
devices being towed from manned
platforms avoid coming within a
mitigation zone of 250 yd (229 m)
around any observed marine mammal,
providing it is safe to do so.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Non-Explosive Practice Munitions
Gunnery Exercises—Small-, Medium-,
and Large-Caliber Using a Surface
Target
The Navy will employ the same
mitigation measures for non-explosive
gunnery exercises as described above for
Gunnery Exercises—Small-, Medium-,
and Large-Caliber Using a Surface
Target.
Mitigation will include visual
observation from a vessel or aircraft
immediately before and during the
exercise within a mitigation zone of 200
yd (183 m) around the intended impact
location. The exercise will not
commence if concentrations of floating
vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed
in the mitigation zone. Firing will cease
if a marine mammal is sighted within
the mitigation zone. Firing will
recommence if any one of the following
conditions is met: (1) The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2)
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, (3) the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 10 minutes for a firing aircraft,
(4) the mitigation zone has been clear
from any additional sightings for a
period of 30 minutes for a firing ship,
or (5) the intended target location has
been repositioned more than 400 yd
(366 m) away from the location of the
last sighting.
Bombing Exercises (Non-explosive)
Mitigation will include visual
observation from the aircraft
immediately before the exercise and
during target approach within a
mitigation zone of 1,000 yd (914 m)
around the intended impact location.
The exercise will not commence if
concentrations of floating vegetation
(kelp paddies) are observed in the
mitigation zone. Bombing will cease if
a marine mammal is sighted within the
mitigation zone. Bombing will
recommence if any one of the following
conditions is met: (1) The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2)
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has
been clear from any additional sightings
for a period of 10 minutes.
Consideration of Time/Area Limitations
Biologically Important Areas
The Navy’s and NMFS’ analysis of
effects to marine mammals considers
the best available science regarding
locations where cetaceans are known to
engage in specific activities (e.g.,
feeding, breeding/calving, or migration)
at certain times of the year that are
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
important to individual animals as well
as populations of marine mammals or
where small resident populations may
be found (see discussion in Van Parijs,
2015). Where data were available, Van
Parijs (2015) identified areas that are
important in this way and named the
areas Biologically Important Areas
(BIAs). It is important to note that the
BIAs were not meant to define
exclusionary zones, nor were they
meant to be locations that serve as
sanctuaries from human activity, or
areas analogous to marine protected
areas (see Ferguson et al. (2015a)
regarding the envisioned purpose for the
BIA designations). NMFS’ recognition of
an area as biologically important for
some species activity is not equivalent
to designation of critical habitat under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Furthermore, the BIAs identified by
NMFS in and around the Study Area do
not represent the totality of important
habitat throughout the marine
mammals’ full range. The delineation of
BIAs does not have direct or immediate
regulatory consequences, although it is
appropriate to consider them as part of
the body of science that may inform
mitigation decisions, depending on the
circumstances. The intention was that
the BIAs would serve as resource
management tools and that they be
considered along with, and not to the
exclusion of, ‘‘existing density
estimates, range-wide distribution data,
information on population trends and
life history parameters, known threats to
the population, and other relevant
information’’ (Van Parijs, 2015). The
Navy and NMFS have supported and
will continue to support the Cetacean
and Sound Mapping project, including
representation on the Cetacean Density
and distribution Working Group
(CetMap), which informed NMFS’
identification of BIAs. The same marine
mammal density data present in the
Navy’s Marine Species Density Database
Technical Report (U.S. Department of
the Navy, 2014) and used in the analysis
for the GOA SEIS/OEIS was used in the
development of BIAs. The final
products, including the Gulf of Alaska
BIAs, from this mapping effort were
completed and published in March 2015
(Aquatic Mammals, 2015; Calambokidis
et al., 2015; Ferguson et al., 2015a,
2015b; Van Parijs, 2015). 131 BIAs for
24 marine mammal species, stocks, or
populations in seven regions within
U.S. waters were identified (Ferguson et
al., 2015a). BIAs have been identified in
the Gulf of Alaska and include
migration and feeding areas for gray
whale and North Pacific right whale,
respectively. Fin whale feeding areas
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
(east, west, and southwest of Kodiak
Island) occur to the west of the GOA
TMAA and gray whale feeding areas
occur both east (Southeast Alaska) and
west (Kodiak Island) of the GOA TMAA;
however, these feeding areas are located
well outside of (>20 nautical miles) the
Study Area and beyond the Navy’s
estimated range to effects for Level A
and B harassment.
NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources
routinely considers available
information about marine mammal
habitat use to inform discussions with
applicants regarding potential spatiotemporal limitations on their activities
that might help effect the least
practicable adverse impact on species or
stocks and their habitat. BIAs are useful
tools for planning and impact
assessments and are being provided to
the public via this Web site:
www.cetsound.noaa.gov. While these
BIAs are useful tools for analysts, any
decisions regarding protective measures
based on these areas must go through
the normal MMPA evaluation process
(or any other statutory process that the
BIAs are used to inform); the
identification of a BIA does not presuppose any specific management
decision associated with those areas,
nor does it have direct or immediate
regulatory consequences. NMFS and the
Navy have discussed the BIAs listed
above, what Navy activities take place
in these areas (in the context of what
their effects on marine mammals might
be or whether additional mitigation is
necessary), and what measures could be
implemented to reduce impacts in these
areas (in the context of their potential to
reduce marine mammal species or
stock-level impacts and their
practicability). An assessment of the
potential spatio-temporal and activity
overlap of Navy training activities with
the Gulf of Alaska BIAs listed above is
included below and in Chapter 3.8 of
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. If, through the
adaptive management process or
otherwise, it becomes apparent that
certain other time-area measures are
warranted or are practicable, NMFS and
Navy will evaluate these measures
within the context of the least
practicable impact requirement.
Spatial and Temporal Overlap with
North Pacific Right Whale Feeding
Area—The feeding area for North
Pacific right whales (see Ferguson et al.,
2015b) overlaps slightly with the GOA
TMAA’s southwestern corner. This
feeding area is applicable from June to
September so there is temporal overlap
with the proposed Navy training but
there is minimal spatial overlap
between this feeding area and the GOA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
TMAA (see Figure 3.8–2 of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS).
Given their current extremely low
population numbers (the North Pacific
right whale is one of the most
endangered whale species in the world
with approximately 31 individuals) and
the general lack of sightings in the Gulf
of Alaska, the occurrence of right
whales in the GOA TMAA is considered
rare. North Pacific right whales have not
been visually detected in the GOA
TMAA since at least the 1960s and there
are no current known detections in the
portion of the feeding area that overlaps
with the GOA TMAA. The Quinn
Seamount passive acoustic detections in
ˇ
´
summer 2013 (Sirovic et al., 2014) are
the only known potential occurrence
records of this species in the GOA
TMAA in recent years. The Navy’s
effects analysis predicts the potential for
up to only three Level B behavioral
takes annually to North Pacific right
whales. These takes are reflected in this
final rule. This analysis was based on
assigning a nominal North Pacific right
whale density to the entire GOA TMAA
to account for historic and potential
future occurrence in all areas of the
TMAA both onshelf and offshelf, and
not just associated with the feeding area.
However, as discussed above, North
Pacific right whales have only
potentially been detected in a small
portion of the GOA TMAA. Therefore,
this predicted level of take is highly
conservative.
Spatial and Temporal Overlap with
Gray Whale Migratory Area—The
migration area for gray whales, which
was bounded by the extent of the
continental shelf (as provided in
Ferguson et al., 2015b), has slight
(approximately 1 percent) overlap with
the GOA TMAA at its northernmost
corner and western edge (see Ferguson
et al., 2015b; See Figure 3.8–4 of the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS). However, this
migration area is applicable only
between March to May (Spring) and
November to January (Fall) (Ferguson et
al., 2015b). This gray whale migration
area would not be applicable during the
months when training has historically
occurred (June/July) and would have
minimal temporal overlap with most of
the proposed timeframe (April to
October; summer) for Navy training in
the GOA TMAA. The Navy’s acoustic
analysis did not predict any takes of
gray whales in the GOA TMAA based
on acoustic effects modeling that
considered gray whale occurrence and
density as well as the types and
quantities of Navy training being
authorized, and NMFS is not
authorizing any takes of this species (see
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19545
Group and Species-Specific Analysis
section later in this final rule).
Analysis of Potential Training
Overlap with BIAs—The Location of the
GOA TMAA affords aircraft from Navy
carrier strike groups supporting joint
exercises with the Air Force ability to
reach inland established Air Force and
Army instrumented land ranges where
they conduct air to air ground training.
The location of the GOA TMAA also
allows appropriate distance limitations
to support Air Force aircraft reaching
the TMAA without needing to refuel to
conduct training at sea with the carrier
strike group. Therefore, the GOA TMAA
as currently sited is dependent on these
location-specific factors to satisfy safety
and practicality concerns. However, it is
unlikely that Navy training using hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar or
explosives training would occur in these
nearshore locations adjacent to the GOA
TMAA boundary where the overlap
with BIAs occurs. To ensure that the
Navy is able to conduct realistic
training, Navy units must maintain
sufficient room to maneuver. Therefore,
training activities using sonar and
explosives will typically take place
some distance away from an operating
area boundary to ensure sufficient sea or
air space is available for tactical
maneuvers within an approved
operating area such as the GOA TMAA.
The Navy also does not typically train
next to any limiting boundary of the
GOA TMAA because it precludes
tactical consideration of the adjacent sea
space and airspace beyond the boundary
from being a potential threat axis during
activities such as anti-submarine
warfare training. It is also the case that
Navy training activities will generally
not be located where it is likely there
would be interference from civilian
vessels and aircraft that are not
participating in the training activity.
The nearshore boundary of the GOA
TMAA is the location for multiple
commercial vessel transit lanes, ship
traffic, and low-altitude air routes,
which all pass through the feeding area
and the migration area (see Figure 3.8–
9 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS). This level of
civilian activity may otherwise conflict
with Navy training activities if those
Navy activities were located at that
margin of the GOA TMAA and as a
result such an area is generally avoided.
There are northeastern and
northwestern areas of the GOA TMAA,
portions of which overlap the BIAs, that
could be used for other non-acoustic
and non-explosive Navy training events,
including vessel movements. As
detailed in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, these
could include up to 24 Visit, Board,
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19546
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Search, and Seizure training activities
and 28 Maritime Interdiction training
activities which often interact with
participating contracted commercial
vessels homeported out Gulf of Alaska
ports (e.g., Kodiak, Homer, etc.).
Conclusion for North Pacific Right
Whale BIA—After evaluating the
potential training overlap with the
North Pacific right whale BIA and the
activities expected to result in the take
of this species, the endangered status of
the species, the extremely small
numbers of North Pacific right whales,
and the practicability of
implementation, NMFS is requiring—
and Navy has agreed to—a North Pacific
right whale ‘‘Cautionary Area’’ between
June and September in the overlapping
2,051 km2 portion of the North Pacific
right whale feeding area (See Figure
3.8–4 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS), in
which the Navy would agree no hullmounted sonar or explosives would be
used within the portion of the feeding
area that overlaps the Navy’s GOA
TMAA during those months. In the
event of national security needs, the
Navy would be required to seek
approval in advance from the
Commander, U.S. Third Fleet prior to
conducting training activities using
sonar or explosives. NMFS believes that
implementation of this North Pacific
right whale Cautionary Area within the
GOA TMAA may provide additional
protection of this species and stock
beyond the mitigation measures already
proposed by the Navy in the proposed
rule and GOA FSEIS/OEIS, especially
when factoring in their small population
size, the status and abundance of the
stock (well below its Optimum
Sustainable Population (Muto et al.,
2016)), and the extremely limited
current information about this species.
NMFS believes that this additional
mitigation measure may contribute to
reducing the number of individual
North Pacific right whales taken through
exposure to MFAS/HFAS or underwater
detonations in an area/time that is
important for feeding, which could
contribute to a reduction in the
probability or severity of adverse
impacts on the species or stock or their
habitat.
Conclusion for Gray Whale BIA—In
the case of the gray whale migratory
area, given the extremely minimal
geographic and temporal overlap with
Navy training activities in the GOA
TMAA, coupled with the fact that no
takes of gray whale are predicted to
occur with the proposed level of
training effort, NMFS has determined
that additional mitigation measures
related to time/area limitations of Navy
training activities within the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
overlapping portion of the migratory
area would not contribute to any
lessening of the likelihood of adverse
impacts on the species or stocks or their
habitat, and are therefore not warranted
in the context of the least practicable
impact standard.
Marine Protected Areas
Marine protected areas (MPAs) in the
National System of MPAs potentially
occurring within the Study Area are
listed and described in Section 6.1.2 of
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Marine Protected
Areas, Table 6.1–2). As shown in Figure
6.1–1 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS very few
MPA are located within the GOA
TMAA. MPAs vary widely in purpose,
level of protection, and restrictions on
human uses. As discussed in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS, MPAs in the vicinity of the
GOA TMAA generally focus on natural
heritage, fishery management, and
sustainable production. The GOA
FSEIS/OEIS has been prepared in
accordance with the requirements to
avoid harm to the natural and cultural
resources of existing National System
MPAs. The identified impacts and
purpose for the designation of these
areas is to limit or restrict specific
fishing activities. Navy activities,
should they occur within or near a
MPA, would fully abide by the
regulations of the individual MPA,
including designated fishery
management habitat protection areas,
and relevant resources (in the case of
the GOA TMAA, mainly restrictions on
commercial and recreational fishing)
(see Table 6.1–2 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
for more information). Further, NMFS’
issuance of an authorization to the Navy
to take marine mammals would not
conflict with the management,
protection, or conservation objectives of
these MPAs. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that Navy avoidance of
these areas is not warranted, nor would
it contribute to the least practicable
impact standard or any lessening of the
likelihood of adverse impacts on species
or stocks or their habitat.
Seamounts
As with previous Navy Phase II
proposed rulemakings, commenters
have requested that the Navy avoid
training activities in the vicinity of
seamounts or seamount chains, which
represent potentially important habitat
for marine species. Numerous
seamounts are located partially or
wholly within the TMAA, including
seamount habitat protection areas
designated by the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council to help maintain
productivity of fishery resources.
However, NMFS does not believe that
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Navy avoidance of these areas is
warranted, or will contribute to the least
practicable impact standard or any
lessening of the likelihood of adverse
impacts on marine mammal species or
stocks for the following reasons:
If marine mammals are known to
prefer certain types of areas (as opposed
to specific areas) for certain functions,
such as beaked whale use of seamounts
or marine mammal use of other
productive areas, it is less effective to
require avoidance or limited use of a
specific area because marine mammals
may or may not be present. NMFS
recognizes the generally biologically
productive nature of seamounts;
however, there are no data to suggest
that biologically important or speciesspecific marine mammal habitat
(rookeries, reproductive, feeding) exists
along seamounts within the GOA
TMAA. While seamounts may represent
important habitat for multiple species,
the major seamounts located within the
TMAA (e.g., Dall, Quinn, and Giacomini
seamounts) have been designated by
NOAA as Gulf of Alaska Seamount
Habitat Protection Areas specifically to
help maintain productivity of fisheries
resources through restrictions on bottom
fishing. Moreover, NMFS’ review of the
passive acoustic monitoring results in
the Navy’s annual monitoring reports
(2011–2015, available at the Navy’s
Marine Species Monitoring web portal
(https://www.navymarinespecies
monitoring.us/)) for GOA generally does
not suggest significantly greater use of
these seamounts by marine mammals (at
least for those where high-frequency
acoustic recording packages (HARPs)
were deployed; it is also important to
note that an animal may be located
several miles away from where it is
detected) compared to other locations
(shelf and slope) where detections were
recorded. Navy monitoring efforts
indicate that beaked whales appear to
use both shelf and seamount sites,
although detections were generally low
at the monitored seamount sites within
the TMAA and may be more prevalent
at the slope site. During a summer 2013
visual and passive acoustic survey of
the entire GOA TMAA, beaked whale
passive acoustic detections were just as
frequent over deep water abyssal plain
areas of the TMAA as compared to
slopes and seamounts (Rone et al.,
2014). Fin and humpback callings
peaked in winter when Navy activities
are not proposed to occur. Fin and
sperm whale detections were generally
more prevalent at shelf and slope sites,
respectively, while blue whale calls
were detected at all sites. North Pacific
right whale calls were last detected in
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
2013, on the Quinn Seamount site;
however, analysis of these detections
indicated that the calls were detected
from ranges on the order of roughly up
to 50 nm to the east of the site; the
calling animal was not in the vicinity of
Quinn Seamount (Debich et al., 2014;
ˇ
´
Sirovic et al., 2014).
The Navy has been training with
sonar and other systems for decades in
locations having seamounts or slope
areas, or that are adjacent to continental
shelfs where, to date, there has been no
evidence of any long-term consequences
for individuals or populations of marine
mammals generally or around
seamounts. This finding is based on
years of research and monitoring that
show, for example, higher densities and
long-term residency by species such as
beaked whales in Southern California,
where the Navy trains and tests, than in
other adjacent areas (Falcone et al.,
2009; Falcone and Schorr, 2012, 2014;
Hildebrand and McDonald, 2009).
Further, the Navy has identified the
need to train in varied bathymetric
conditions, including around seamounts
specifically, to afford realistic training.
Restricting Navy maneuvering or sonar/
explosives training in these areas would
alter realistic training to a degree that
could impede ability to have sufficient
sea or air space for the necessary tactical
maneuvers.
When the impact on the effectiveness
of the training is considered along with
the facts described above (i.e., the fact
that Navy monitoring has not indicated
a strong preference for the GOA TMAA
seamounts by marine mammal species,
indicating only limited potential to
reduce impacts to marine mammal
species or stocks and their habitat), we
determined that avoidance of seamounts
in the GOA TMAA is not warranted in
this particular circumstance.
Stranding Response Plan
NMFS and the Navy developed a
Stranding Response Plan for GOA
TMAA in 2011 as part of the previous
(2011–2016) MMPA authorization and
rulemaking process for the Study Area.
The Stranding Response Plan is
specifically intended to outline the
applicable requirements in the event
that a marine mammal stranding is
reported in the complexes during a
major training exercise. NMFS considers
all plausible causes within the course of
a stranding investigation and this plan
in no way presumes that any strandings
are related to, or caused by, Navy
training activities, absent a
determination made during
investigation. The plan is designed to
address mitigation, monitoring, and
compliance. NMFS has updated the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Stranding Response Plan for the GOA
TMAA for 2017–2022 training activities.
The updated Stranding Response Plan
can be found at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/military.htm#navy_goa2021.
In addition, modifications to the
Stranding Response Plan may also be
made through the adaptive management
process.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated the
Navy’s proposed mitigation measures—
many of which were developed with
NMFS’ input during the first phase of
incidental take authorizations for the
Navy’s training activities—and
considered a broad range of other
measures in the context of ensuring that
NMFS prescribes the means of effecting
the least practicable adverse impact on
the affected marine mammal species
and stocks and their habitat. Our
evaluation of potential measures
included 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, their habitat, and their
availability for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Among other things, this
analysis considered the nature of the
potential adverse impact (likelihood,
scope, range), the likelihood that a
measure would be effective if
implemented, and the likelihood of
effective successful implementation.
Our evaluation of potential measures
also considered the practicability of the
measures for applicant implementation.
Practicability of implementation
includes consideration of 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.
Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s
proposed measures, as well as other
measures considered by NMFS, NMFS
has determined that the mitigation
measures required by this rule are
adequate means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impacts on marine
mammals species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, while also
considering personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity.
Monitoring
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA
states that in order to issue an ITA for
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19547
an activity, NMFS must set forth
‘‘requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such
taking’’. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13)
indicate that requests for LOAs must
include the suggested means of
accomplishing the necessary monitoring
and reporting that will result in
increased knowledge of the species and
of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are
expected to be present.
Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring
Program (ICMP)
The Navy’s ICMP is intended to
coordinate 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 is
designed to be flexible, scalable, and
adaptable through the adaptive
management and strategic planning
processes to periodically assess progress
and reevaluate objectives. Although the
ICMP does not specify actual
monitoring field work or projects, it
does establish top-level goals that have
been developed in coordination with
NMFS. As the ICMP is implemented,
detailed and specific studies will be
developed which support the Navy’s
top-level monitoring goals. In essence,
the ICMP directs that monitoring
activities relating to the effects of Navy
training and testing activities on marine
species should be designed to contribute
towards one or more of the following
top-level goals:
• An increase in our understanding of the
likely occurrence of marine mammals and/or
ESA-listed marine species in the vicinity of
the action (i.e., presence, abundance,
distribution, and/or density of species);
• An increase in our understanding of the
nature, scope, or context of the likely
exposure of marine mammals and/or ESAlisted species to any of the potential
stressor(s) associated with the action (e.g.,
tonal and impulsive sound), through better
understanding of one or more of the
following: (1) The action and the
environment in which it occurs (e.g., sound
source characterization, propagation, and
ambient noise levels); (2) the affected species
(e.g., life history or dive patterns); (3) the
likely co-occurrence of marine mammals
and/or ESA-listed marine species with the
action (in whole or part) associated with
specific adverse effects; and/or (4) the likely
biological or behavioral context of exposure
to the stressor for the marine mammal and/
or ESA-listed marine species (e.g., age class
of exposed animals or known pupping,
calving or feeding areas);
• An increase in our understanding of how
individual marine mammals or ESA-listed
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
19548
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
marine species respond (behaviorally or
physiologically) to the specific stressors
associated with the action (in specific
contexts, where possible, e.g., at what
distance or received level);
• An increase in our understanding of how
anticipated individual responses, to
individual stressors or anticipated
combinations of stressors, may impact either:
(1) The long-term fitness and survival of an
individual; or (2) the population, species, or
stock (e.g., through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival);
• An increase in our understanding of the
effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring
measures;
• A better understanding and record of the
manner in which the authorized entity
complies with the ITA and Incidental Take
Statement; and
• An increase in the probability of
detecting marine mammals (through
improved technology or methods), both
specifically within the safety zone (thus
allowing for more effective implementation
of the mitigation) and in general, to better
achieve the above goals.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Monitoring would address the ICMP
top-level goals through a collection of
specific regional and ocean basin
studies based on scientific objectives.
Quantitative metrics of monitoring effort
(e.g., 20 days of aerial surveys) would
not be a specific requirement. The
adaptive management process and
reporting requirements would serve as
the basis for evaluating performance and
compliance, primarily considering the
quality of the work and results
produced, as well as peer review and
publications, and public dissemination
of information, reports, and data. Details
of the ICMP are available online
(https://www.navymarinespecies
monitoring.us/).
Strategic Planning Process for Marine
Species Monitoring
The Navy also developed the Strategic
Planning Process for Marine Species
Monitoring, which establishes the
guidelines and processes necessary to
develop, evaluate, and fund individual
projects based on objective scientific
study questions. The process uses an
underlying framework designed around
top-level goals, a conceptual framework
incorporating a progression of
knowledge, and in consultation with a
Scientific Advisory Group and other
regional experts. The Strategic Planning
Process for Marine Species Monitoring
would be used to set intermediate
scientific objectives, identify potential
species of interest at a regional scale,
and evaluate and select specific
monitoring projects to fund or continue
supporting for a given fiscal year. This
process would also address relative
investments to different range
complexes based on goals across all
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
range complexes, and monitoring would
leverage multiple techniques for data
acquisition and analysis whenever
possible. The Strategic Planning Process
for Marine Species Monitoring is also
available online (https://www.navy
marinespeciesmonitoring.us/).
Past and Current Monitoring in the
Study Area
NMFS has received multiple years’
worth of annual exercise and
monitoring reports addressing active
sonar use and explosive detonations
within the GOA TMAA and other Navy
range complexes. The data and
information contained in these reports
have been considered in developing
mitigation and monitoring measures for
the proposed training activities within
the Study Area. The Navy’s annual
exercise and monitoring reports may be
viewed at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/permits/incidental/military.htm and
https://www.navymarinespecies
monitoring.us.
This section is a summary of Navyfunded compliance monitoring in the
GOA TMAA since 2011. Additional
Navy-funded monitoring outside of and
in addition to the Navy’s commitments
to NMFS is provided later in this
section.
Gulf of Alaska Study Area Monitoring,
2011–2015—During the LOA
development process for the 2011 GOA
FEIS/OEIS, the Navy and NMFS agreed
that monitoring in the Gulf of Alaska
should focus on augmenting existing
baseline data, since regional data on
species occurrence and density are
extremely limited. There have been
several reports to date covering work in
the Gulf of Alaska (U.S. Department of
the Navy, 2011c, 2011d, 2012, 2013f,
2014d, and 2015). Collecting baseline
data was deemed a priority prior to
focusing on exercise monitoring and
behavioral response as is now being
done in other Navy OPAREAs and
ranges. There have been no previous
dedicated monitoring efforts during
Navy training activities in the GOA
TMAA with the exception of deployed
high-frequency acoustic recording
packages (HARPs).
In July 2011, the Navy funded
deployment of two long-term bottommounted passive acoustic monitoring
buoys by Scripps Institute of
Oceanography (Scripps). These HARPs
were deployed southeast of Kenai
Peninsula in the GOA TMAA with one
on the shelf approximately 50 nm from
land (in 111 fathoms (203 m) depth) and
on the shelf-break slope approximately
100 nm from land (in 492 fathoms (900
m) depth). Intended to be collected
annually, results from the first
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
deployment (July 2011–May 2012)
included over 5,756 hours of passive
acoustic data (Baumann-Pickering et al.,
2012b). Identification of marine
mammal sounds included four baleen
whale species (blue whales, fin whales,
gray whales, and humpback whales) and
at least six species of odontocetes (killer
whale, sperm whale, Stejneger’s beaked
whale, Baird’s beaked whale, Cuvier’s
beaked whale, and an unidentified
porpoise presumed to be Dall’s
porpoise; Baumann-Pickering et al.,
2012b). Researchers also noted the
detection of anthropogenic sound from
commercial shipping. There were no
Navy activities or vessels in the area at
any time during the recording period.
Analysis of the passive acoustic
detections made from May 2012 to June
2013 were presented in BaumannPickering et al. (2013), Debich et al.
(2013), Debich et al. (2014), and the
Navy’s 2012, 2013, and 2014 GOA
TMAA annual monitoring report
submitted to NMFS (U.S. Department of
the Navy, 2012, 2013f, 2014d). Three
baleen whale species were detected:
blue whales, fin whales, and humpback
whales. No North Pacific right whale
calls were detected at either site during
this monitoring period. At least seven
species of odontocetes were detected:
Risso’s dolphins, killer whales, sperm
whales, Baird’s beaked whales, Cuvier’s
beaked whales, Stejneger’s beaked
whales, and unidentified porpoises
(likely Dall’s porpoise). Focused
analysis of beaked whale echolocation
recordings were presented in BaumannPickering et al. (2013).
As also presented in Debich et al.
(2013) and U.S. Department of the Navy
(2013f), broadband ship noise was
found to be more common at the slope
and Pratt Seamount monitoring sites
within the GOA TMAA than at the
nearshore (on shelf) site. Sonar (a
variety of frequencies, most likely
fathometers and fish-finders), were more
common on the shelf and slope sites.
Very few explosions were recorded at
any of the sites throughout the
monitoring period. Origin of the few
explosions detected are unknown, but
there was no Navy explosive use in the
GOA TMAA during this period, so these
explosive-like events may be related to
fisheries activity, lightning strikes, or
some other unidentified source. There
were no detections of Navy midfrequency sonar use in the recordings
(Debich et al., 2013, 2014; U.S.
Department of the Navy 2013f, 2014d).
In September 2012, an additional HARP
buoy was deployed at Pratt Seamount
(near the east end of the GOA TMAA)
and in June 2013 two additional buoys
were deployed in the GOA TMAA: One
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
at the shelf-break near the southwest
corner of the GOA TMAA and one at
Quinn Seamount (the approximate
middle of the GOA TMAA’s southeast
boundary). This constitutes a total of
five Navy-funded concurrent long-term
passive acoustic monitoring packages
present in the GOA TMAA through fall
of 2014. Debich et al. (2013) reported
the first detection of a North Pacific
right whale at the Quinn Seamount site.
Over two days between June and August
2013, the Quinn seamount HARP
detected three hours of North Pacific
right whale calls (Debich et al., 2014,
ˇ
´
Sirovic et al., in press). Given the
recording device location near the
southwest border of the GOA TMAA,
inability of the device as configured to
determine call directionality, and likely
signal propagation of several 10s of
miles, it remains uncertain if the
detected calls originated within or
outside of the GOA TMAA. Previous
related Navy funded monitoring at
multiple sites within the Study Area
reported no North Pacific right whale
detections (Baumann-Pickering et al.,
2012b, Debich et al., 2013).
Additional monitoring conducted in
the GOA TMAA through spring/summer
2015 included the deployment of five
HARPs to detect marine mammals and
anthropogenic sounds (Rice et al.,
2015), and a passive acoustic sensormounted Kongsberg SeagliderTM
deployment along the continental slope
within the TMAA (marine mammal
vocalization and echolocation
detections from the Seaglider
deployment are still undergoing
analysis and the technical report will be
posted to the Navy’s monitoring Web
site: https://www.navymarinespecies
monitoring.us/). Four baleen whale
species were recorded during the HARP
deployment: Blue whales, fin whales,
gray whales, and humpback whales. No
North Pacific right whale calls were
recorded. Across all sites, blue whales,
fin whales, and humpback whales were
commonly detected throughout the
recordings, with fin whale detections
generally more prevalent at the shelf
site. Humpback whales were one of the
most commonly detected baleen whales
throughout the recordings. Blue whale
calls were most prevalent during the
summer and fall, while humpback
detections were highest from December
through March. Fin whale 20 Hz calls
were the dominant call type, peaking
from September to December, while 40
Hz calls peaked in the summer months.
Signals from three known odontocete
species were recorded: sperm whales,
Cuvier’s beaked whales, and Stejneger’s
beaked whales. Sperm whales were
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
detected at every site, but were most
prevalent at the continental slope site,
with peak detections from June through
late November 2014 and again in April
to May 2015. Cuvier’s beaked whales
were detected in low numbers at the
seamount sites. Stejneger’s beaked
whales were detected at the continental
slope site, and the seamount sites, with
most detections occurring at the
continental slope site. The only
anthropogenic sounds detected in the
recordings were explosions, which Rice
et al. (2015) attributed to fishery-related
seal bombs based on the spectral
properties of the signals.
During review of Rice et al. (2015),
personnel from NMFS’ Alaska Fisheries
Science Center questioned if some of the
seal bomb-like passive acoustic
explosive detections could not have
been a variation of a North Pacific right
whale ‘‘gunshot’’ call. Further
explanation was subsequently provided
by Scripps: the explosions recorded in
the Gulf of Alaska and reported in Rice
et al. (2015), as well as previous year’s
reports were broadband, impulsive
sounds with a distinctive low frequency
rumble. The signal parameters are very
similar to seal bomb explosions detect
in passive acoustic data from Southern
California and the Pacific Northwest.
Additionally, Scripps confirmed that
from their experience with the detection
of seal bombs signals in acoustic data
from multiple locations including those
outside of Alaska, seal bombs are
frequently deployed in a sequence over
a period of time, which may be similar
to North Pacific right whale bouts.
Therefore, Scripps remains confident
that the overall patterns and
distributions of this signal represent
explosives (seal bombs) used in this
region and that the likelihood of these
explosions being North Pacific right
whales is extremely low, even if they
cannot absolutely fully discount the
possibility that some of their reported
explosions may in fact be ‘‘gunshot’’
calls.
No mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar
events were detected throughout the
2014–2015 HARP recordings. Future
monitoring will include varying
numbers of HARPs or other passive
acoustic technologies based on annual
adaptive management and monitoring
meeting discussions with NMFS.
In the Gulf of Alaska, the Navy has
also funded two previous marine
mammal surveys to gather occurrence
and density data. Although there was no
regulatory requirement for the Navy to
undertake either survey, the Navy
funded the data collection to first
support analysis of potential effects for
the 2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS and again
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19549
recently to support the current GOA
SEIS/OEIS. The first Navy-funded
survey (GOALS) was conducted by
NMFS in April 2009 (see Rone et al.,
2009). Line-transect survey visual data
was gathered to support distance
sampling statistics and acoustic data
were collected over a 10-day period
both within and outside the GOA
TMAA. This survey resulted in
sightings of several species and allowed
for the derivation of densities for fin and
humpback whale that supplemented
multiple previous survey efforts in the
vicinity (Rone et al., 2009). In summer
2013, the Navy funded an additional
visual line-transect survey (Gulf of
Alaska Line-Transect Survey (GOALS
II)) in the offshore waters of the Gulf of
Alaska (Rone et al., 2014). The GOALS
II survey was a 30-day visual linetransect survey supplemented by use of
passive acoustics and was a follow-on
effort to the previously Navy-funded
GOALS survey in 2009. The primary
objective for the GOALS II survey was
to acquire baseline data to increase
understanding of the likely occurrence
(i.e., presence, abundance, distribution
and/or density of species) of beaked
whales and ESA-listed marine mammals
in the Gulf of Alaska. Specific research
objectives were:
• Assess the abundance, spatial
distribution and/or density of marine
mammals, with a focus on beaked whales
and ESA-listed cetacean species through
visual line-transect surveys and passive
acoustics using a towed hydrophone array
and sonobuoys.
• Increase knowledge of species’ vocal
repertoire by linking visual sightings to
vocally active cetaceans, in order to improve
the effectiveness of passive acoustic
monitoring.
• Attempt to photo-identify and biopsy
sample individual whales opportunistically
for analysis of population structure, genetics
and habitat use.
• Attempt to locate whales for
opportunistic satellite tagging using visual
and passive acoustic methodology in order to
provide information on both large- and finescale movements and habitat use of
cetaceans.
The Navy-funded GOALS II survey
also sampled four distinct habitat areas
(shelf, slope, offshore, and seamounts)
which were partitioned into four strata.
The survey design was intended to
provide uniform coverage within the
Gulf of Alaska. However, given the
overall limited knowledge of beaked
whales within the Gulf of Alaska, the
survey was also designed to provide
coverage of potential beaked whale
habitat and resulted in 13 encounters
with beaked whales numbering 67
individual animals (Rone et al., 2014).
The following additional details are
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19550
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
summarized from the presentation in
Rone et al. (2014). The visual survey
consisted of 4,504 km (2,431 nm) of
‘full-effort’ and included 349 km (188
nm) of ‘transit-effort.’ There was an
additional 375 km (202 nm) of ‘fogeffort’ (transect and transit). Based on
total effort, there were 802 sightings
(1,998 individuals) identified to species,
with an additional 162 sightings (228
individuals) of unidentified cetaceans
and pinnipeds. Acoustic surveying was
conducted round-the-clock with a
towed-hydrophone array for 6,304 km
(3,997 nm) of line-transect effort totaling
426 hours of ‘standard’ monitoring, with
an additional 374 km (202 nm) of
approximately 30 hours of ‘nonstandard’ and ‘chase’ effort. There were
379 acoustic detections and 267
localizations of 6 identified cetacean
species. Additionally, 186 acoustic
sonobuoys were deployed with 7
identified cetacean species detected.
Two satellite transmitter tags were
deployed; a tag on a blue whale (B.
musculus) transmitted for 9 days and a
tag on a Baird’s beaked whale (Berardius
bairdii) transmitted for 15 days. Based
on photo-identification matches, the
tagged blue whale had been previously
identified off Baja California, Mexico, in
2005. Photographs of five cetacean
species were collected for photoidentification purposes: Fin, humpback,
blue, killer (Orcinus orca), and Baird’s
beaked whales. The estimates of
abundance and density for five species
were obtained for the first time for the
central Gulf of Alaska. Overall, the Navy
funded GOALS II survey provided one
of the most comprehensive datasets on
marine mammal occurrence, abundance,
and distribution within that rarely
surveyed area (Rone et al., 2014).
Pacific Northwest Cetacean Tagging—
A Navy-funded effort in the Pacific
Northwest is ongoing and involves
attaching long-term satellite tracking
tags to migrating gray whales off the
coast of Oregon and northern California
(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013e).
This study is being conducted by the
University of Oregon and has also
included tagging of other large whale
species such as humpback whales, fin
whales, and killer whales when
encountered. This effort is not
programmed, affiliated, or managed as
part of the GOA TMAA monitoring, and
is a separate regional project, but has
provided information on marine
mammals and their movements that has
application to the Gulf of Alaska.
In one effort between May 2010 and
May 2013, satellite tracking tags were
placed on three gray whales, 11 fin
whales, five humpback whales, and two
killer whales off the Washington coast
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
(Schorr et al., 2013). One tag on an
Eastern North Pacific Offshore stock
killer whale, in a pod encountered off
Washington at Grays Harbor Canyon,
remained attached and continued to
transmit for approximately three
months. In this period, the animal
transited a distance of approximately
4,700 nm, which included time spent in
the nearshore margins of the TMAA in
the Gulf of Alaska where it would be
considered part of the Offshore stock
(for stock designations, see Muto and
Angliss, 2015). In a second effort
between 2012 and 2013, tags were
attached to 11 Pacific Coast Feeding
Group gray whales near Crescent City,
California; in general, the tag-reported
positions indicated these whales were
moving southward at this time of year
(Mate, 2013). The Navy’s 2013 annual
monitoring report for the Northwest
Training and Testing Range contains the
details of the findings from both
research efforts described above (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2013e).
Monitoring for the GOA TMAA Study
Area 2017–2022
Based on the NMFS-Navy adaptive
management meeting in June 2015 and
the annual monitoring meeting in March
2016, future Navy compliance
monitoring, including ongoing
monitoring, will address ICMP top-level
goals through a series of regional and
ocean basin study questions with a
prioritization and funding focus on
species of interest as identified for each
range complex. The ICMP will also
address relative investments to different
range complexes based on goals across
all range complexes, and monitoring
will leverage multiple techniques for
data acquisition and analysis whenever
possible.
Within the GOA TMAA Study Area,
the Navy’s monitoring for GOA TMAA
under this LOA authorization and
concurrently in other areas of the Pacific
Ocean will therefore be structured to
address region-specific species-specific
study questions in consultation with
NMFS. The 2015 annual monitoring
report submitted by the Navy to NMFS
concludes the Navy’s monitoring within
the GOA TMAA under the 2011–2016
MMPA authorization. The HARPs used
as part of that monitoring effort are
currently being retrieved and returned
to Scripps Institution of Oceanography
for refurbishment. In consultation with
NMFS during the June 2015 adaptive
management meeting, the Navy and
NMFS agreed that Navy-funded
monitoring within the GOA TMAA
would be revisited during subsequent
adaptive management meetings in 2017
and 2018. Given four years of constant
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
24/7 passive acoustic marine mammal
baseline monitoring through the years
2011–2015, scientifically significant
ambient background data for a region
used infrequently by the Navy has been
sufficiently obtained under the 2011–
2016 authorization. Therefore, the Navy,
with NMFS’ concurrence, did not fund
GOA TMAA marine mammal
monitoring in 2016.
For 2017, Navy will deploy minimum
of two bottom-mounted passive acoustic
devices with an option for third deepwater buoy passive acoustic device.
Devices will be High-frequency acoustic
recording packages (HARP) and, for
consistency and comparison with past
efforts, will be deployed at the same
sites as previously. The third planned
option consists of a new deep-water
open ocean site, on line with the
shallower sites, and will include
deployment of both a HARP and a new
buoy. Scripps will conduct postdeployment of marine mammal
vocalizations, ambient sounds and
anthropogenic sounds.
Additional Navy monitoring projects
proposed during the 2017–2022 GOA
TMAA rulemaking period will be
posted on the Navy’s marine species
monitoring Web site (https://www.navy
marinespeciesmonitoring.us/regions/
pacific/current-projects/). NMFS has
acknowledged that the Navy’s GOA
TMAA monitoring will enhance
understanding of marine mammal
vocalizations and distributions within
the offshore waters of the Gulf of
Alaska. Additionally, information
gained from the Navy’s monitoring may
be used in the adaptive management of
monitoring measures in subsequent
NMFS authorizations, if appropriate and
in consultation with NMFS. The Navy is
committed to structuring the Navysponsored research and monitoring
program to address both NMFS’
regulatory requirements as part of any
MMPA authorizations while at the same
time making significant contributions to
the greater body of marine mammal
science (see U.S. Department of the
Navy, 2013f).
Ongoing Navy Research
The U.S. Navy is one of the world’s
leading organizations in assessing the
effects of human activities on the
marine environment including marine
mammals. From 2004 through 2013, the
Navy has funded over $240 million
specifically for marine mammal
research. Navy scientists work
cooperatively with other government
researchers and scientists, universities,
industry, and non-governmental
conservation organizations in collecting,
evaluating, and modeling information
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
on marine resources. They also develop
approaches to ensure that these
resources are minimally impacted by
existing and future Navy operations. It
is imperative that the Navy’s research
and development (R&D) efforts related
to marine mammals are conducted in an
open, transparent manner with
validated study needs and requirements.
The goal of the Navy’s R&D program is
to enable collection and publication of
scientifically valid research as well as
development of techniques and tools for
Navy, academic, and commercial use.
Historically, R&D programs are funded
and developed by the Navy’s Chief of
Naval Operations Energy and
Environmental Readiness Division
(OPNAV N45) and Office of Naval
Research (ONR), Code 322 Marine
Mammals and Biological Oceanography
Program. The primary focus of these
programs since the 1990s is on
understanding the effects of sound on
marine mammals, including
physiological, behavioral, and
ecological effects.
ONR’s current Marine Mammals and
Biology Program thrusts include, but are
not limited to: (1) Monitoring and
detection research, (2) integrated
ecosystem research including sensor
and tag development, (3) effects of
sound on marine life (such as hearing,
behavioral response studies, physiology
(diving and stress), and population
consequences of acoustic disturbance
(PCAD)), and (4) models and databases
for environmental compliance.
To manage some of the Navy’s marine
mammal research programmatic
elements, OPNAV N45 developed in
2011 a new Living Marine Resources
(LMR) Research and Development
Program (https://www.lmr.navy.mil/).
The goal of the LMR Research and
Development Program is to identify and
fill knowledge gaps and to demonstrate,
validate, and integrate new processes
and technologies to minimize potential
effects to marine mammals and other
marine resources. Key elements of the
LMR program include:
• Providing science-based information to
support Navy environmental effects
assessments for research, development,
acquisition, testing and evaluation as well as
Fleet at-sea training, exercises, maintenance,
and support activities.
• Improving knowledge of the status and
trends of marine species of concern and the
ecosystems of which they are a part.
• Developing the scientific basis for the
criteria and thresholds to measure the effects
of Navy generated sound.
• Improving understanding of underwater
sound and sound field characterization
unique to assessing the biological
consequences resulting from underwater
sound (as opposed to tactical applications of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
underwater sound or propagation loss
modeling for military communications or
tactical applications).
• Developing technologies and methods to
monitor and, where possible, mitigate
biologically significant consequences to
living marine resources resulting from naval
activities, emphasizing those consequences
that are most likely to be biologically
significant.
19551
changes are appropriate. NMFS and the
Navy would meet to discuss the
monitoring reports, Navy R&D
developments, and current science and
whether mitigation or monitoring
modifications are appropriate. The use
of adaptive management allows NMFS
to consider new information from
different sources to determine (with
input from the Navy regarding
Navy Research and Development
practicability) on an annual or biennial
Navy Funded—Both the LMR and
basis if mitigation or monitoring
ONR Research and Development
measures should be modified (including
Programs periodically fund projects
additions or deletions). Mitigation
within the Study Area. Some data and
measures could be modified if new data
results, when available from these R&D
suggests that such modifications would
projects, are typically summarized in
have a reasonable likelihood of reducing
the Navy’s annual range complex
adverse effects to marine mammal
Monitoring Reports that are currently
species or stocks and their habitat and
submitted to NMFS each year. In
if the measures are practicable.
addition, the Navy’s Range Complex
The following are some of the
monitoring during training and testing
possible sources of applicable data to be
activities is coordinated with the R&D
considered through the adaptive
monitoring in a given region to leverage management process: (1) Results from
research objectives, assets, and studies
monitoring and exercises reports, as
where possible under the ICMP.
required by MMPA authorizations; (2)
The integration between the Navy’s
compiled results of Navy funded R&D
new LMR Research and Development
studies; (3) results from specific
Program and related range complex
stranding investigations; (4) results from
monitoring will continue and improve
general marine mammal and sound
during this LOA application period with research; and (5) any information which
applicable results presented in GOA
reveals that marine mammals may have
TMAA annual monitoring reports.
been taken in a manner, extent, or
Other National Department of Defense number not authorized by these
Funded Initiatives—Strategic
regulations or subsequent LOA.
Environmental Research and
Reporting
Development Program (SERDP) and
In order to issue an ITA for an
Environmental Security Technology
activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
Certification Program (ESTCP) are the
DoD’s environmental research programs, MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
‘‘requirements pertaining to the
harnessing the latest science and
monitoring and reporting of such
technology to improve environmental
performance, reduce costs, and enhance taking.’’ Effective reporting is critical
both to compliance as well as ensuring
and sustain mission capabilities. The
that the most value is obtained from the
Programs respond to environmental
required monitoring. NMFS described
technology requirements that are
the proposed Navy reporting
common to all of the military Services,
requirements in the proposed rule (81
complementing the Services’ research
FR 9950, 9991–92; February 26, 2016).
programs. SERDP and ESTCP promote
Reports from individual monitoring
partnerships and collaboration among
events, results of analyses, publications,
academia, industry, the military
and periodic progress reports for
Services, and other Federal agencies.
specific monitoring projects will be
They are independent programs
posted to the Navy’s Marine Species
managed from a joint office to
Monitoring web portal: https://www.navy
coordinate the full spectrum of efforts,
from basic and applied research to field marinespeciesmonitoring.us and NMFS’
Web site: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
demonstration and validation.
permits/incidental/military.htm. There
Adaptive Management
are several different reporting
requirements that are further detailed in
The final regulations governing the
the regulatory text at the end of this
take of marine mammals incidental to
document and summarized below. Of
Navy training activities in the Study
note, a notification requirement for
Area contain an adaptive management
Major Training Exercises that was
component, as did previous
included in the proposed rule has been
authorizations. The reporting
modified to be a 72-hour pre-notice,
requirements associated with this final
rule are designed to provide NMFS with which aligns better with requirements
in other training areas and better
monitoring data from the previous year
to allow NMFS to consider whether any supports NMFS’ management needs.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
19552
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
General Notification of Injured or Dead
Marine Mammals
Navy personnel will ensure that
NMFS (the appropriate Regional
Stranding Coordinator) is notified
immediately (or as soon as clearance
procedures allow) if an injured or dead
marine mammal is found during or
shortly after, and in the vicinity of, any
Navy training exercise utilizing MFAS,
HFAS, or underwater explosive
detonations. The Navy will provide
NMFS with species identification or a
description of the animal(s), the
condition of the animal(s) (including
carcass condition if the animal is dead),
location, time of first discovery,
observed behaviors (if alive), and
photographs or video (if available). The
Navy shall consult the Stranding
Response Plan to obtain more specific
reporting requirements for specific
circumstances.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Vessel Strike
NMFS has developed the following
language to address monitoring and
reporting measures specific to vessel
strike. Most of this language comes
directly from the Stranding Response
Plan for other Navy training and testing
rulemakings. This section has also been
included in the regulatory text at the
end of this final rule. Vessel strike
during Navy training activities in the
Study Area is not anticipated; however,
in the event that a Navy vessel strikes
a whale, the Navy shall do the
following:
Immediately report to NMFS (pursuant to
the established Communication Protocol) the:
• Species identification (if known);
• Location (latitude/longitude) of the
animal (or location of the strike if the animal
has disappeared);
• Whether the animal is alive or dead (or
unknown); and
• The time of the strike.
As soon as feasible, the Navy shall report
to or provide to NMFS, the:
• Size, length, and description (critical if
species is not known) of animal;
• An estimate of the injury status (e.g.,
dead, injured but alive, injured and moving,
blood or tissue observed in the water, status
unknown, disappeared, etc.);
• Description of the behavior of the whale
during event, immediately after the strike,
and following the strike (until the report is
made or the animal is no longer sighted);
• Vessel class/type and operational status;
• Vessel length;
• Vessel speed and heading; and
• To the best extent possible, obtain a
photo or video of the struck animal, if the
animal is still in view.
Within 2 weeks of the strike, provide
NMFS:
• A detailed description of the specific
actions of the vessel in the 30-minute
timeframe immediately preceding the strike,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
during the event, and immediately after the
strike (e.g., the speed and changes in speed,
the direction and changes in direction, other
maneuvers, sonar use, etc., if not classified);
and
• A narrative description of marine
mammal sightings during the event and
immediately after, and any information as to
sightings prior to the strike, if available; and
use established Navy shipboard procedures
to make a camera available to attempt to
capture photographs following a ship strike.
NMFS and the Navy will coordinate
to determine the services the Navy may
provide to assist NMFS with the
investigation of the strike. The response
and support activities to be provided by
the Navy are dependent on resource
availability, must be consistent with
military security, and must be
logistically feasible without
compromising Navy personnel safety.
Assistance requested and provided may
vary based on distance of strike from
shore, the nature of the vessel that hit
the whale, available nearby Navy
resources, operational and installation
commitments, or other factors.
Annual GOA TMAA Monitoring Report
The Navy shall submit an annual
report of the GOA TMAA monitoring
describing the implementation and
results from the previous calendar year.
Data collection methods will be
standardized across range complexes
and study areas to allow for comparison
in different geographic locations.
Although additional information will be
gathered, Navy Lookouts collecting
marine mammal data pursuant to the
GOA TMAA monitoring plan shall, at a
minimum, provide the same marine
mammal observation data required in
§ 218.155. The report shall be submitted
either 90 days after the calendar year, or
90 days after the conclusion of the
monitoring year to be determined by the
adaptive management process. The GOA
TMAA Monitoring Report may be
provided to NMFS within a larger report
that includes the required Monitoring
Plan reports from multiple range
complexes and study areas (the multiRange Complex Annual Monitoring
Report). Such a report would describe
progress of knowledge made with
respect to monitoring plan study
questions across all Navy ranges
associated with the Integrated
Comprehensive Monitoring Program.
Similar study questions shall be treated
together so that progress on each topic
shall be summarized across all Navy
ranges. The report need not include
analyses and content that does not
provide direct assessment of cumulative
progress on the monitoring plan study
questions.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Annual GOA TMAA Exercise Report
Each year, the Navy shall submit a
preliminary report detailing the status of
authorized sound sources within 21
days after the anniversary of the date of
issuance of the LOA. Each year, the
Navy shall submit a detailed report
within 3 months after the anniversary of
the date of issuance of the LOA. The
annual report shall contain information
on Major Training Exercises (MTEs),
and a summary of all sound sources
used (total hours or quantity (per the
LOA) of each bin of sonar or other nonimpulsive source; total annual number
of each type of explosive exercises; and
total annual expended/detonated
rounds (missiles, bombs, etc.) for each
explosive bin). The analysis in the
detailed report will be based on the
accumulation of data from the current
year’s report and data collected from
previous reports for the rule.
Information included in the classified
annual reports may be used to inform
future adaptive management of
activities within the GOA TMAA.
Sonar Exercise Notification
MTE Prior Notification. The Navy
shall submit to NMFS (contact as
specified in the LOA and Stranding
Plan) an electronic notice of pending
MTEs 72 hours prior to the start of the
MTE indicating: Location of the
exercise, beginning and end dates of the
exercise, type of exercise.
Five-Year Close-Out Exercise Report
This report will be included as part of
the 2022 annual exercise report. This
report will provide the annual totals for
each sound source bin with a
comparison to the annual allowance and
the 5-year total for each sound source
bin with a comparison to the 5-year
allowance. Additionally, if there were
any changes to the sound source
allowance, this report will include a
discussion of why the change was made
and include the analysis to support how
the change did or did not result in a
change in the SEIS and final rule
determinations. The report will be
submitted 3 months after the expiration
of the rule. NMFS will submit
comments on the draft close-out report,
if any, within 3 months of receipt. The
report will be considered final after the
Navy has addressed NMFS’ comments,
or 3 months after the submittal of the
draft if NMFS does not provide
comments.
Comments and Responses
On February 26, 2016, NMFS
published a proposed rule (81 FR 9950)
in response to the Navy’s request to take
marine mammals incidental to training
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
activities in the GOA TMAA Study Area
and requested comments, information,
and suggestions concerning the request.
During the 30-day public comment
period, NMFS received comments from
the Marine Mammal Commission
(Commission), non-governmental
organizations, and private citizens.
Numerous comments were collectively
submitted in a letter on behalf of the
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), Animal Welfare Institute,
Center for Biological Diversity, Cetacean
Society International, Cook Inletkeeper,
Copper River Watershed Project,
Defenders of Wildlife, Eyak Preservation
Council, Eye of the Whale Research, The
Humane Society of the United States,
International Fund for Animal Welfare,
Oasis Earth, Ocean Conservation
Research, OceanCare, Peaceful Skies
Coalition, Prince William Soundkeeper,
Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER), Tucson Forward,
Inc., West Coast Action Alliance, and
Whale and Dolphin Conservation
(hereinafter referred to as NRDC et al.).
Several of NRDC et al.’s comments,
specifically those related to mitigation
recommendations (see Comment 23–49),
were the same or similar to comments
made on the proposed rule for Navy
training and testing in the Northwest
Training and Testing (NWTT) Study
Area and which were addressed by
NMFS in the final rule for NWTT (80 FR
73556, 73575–98; November 24, 2015,
Comments and Responses). NMFS also
received an online petition, titled ‘‘Stop
Sonar and Underwater Explosions in
Gulf of Alaska,’’ which originated from
a non-governmental organization (Eye of
the Whale Research) and was circulated
by MoveOn.org petitions. The petition
contained 58 signatures at the close of
the comment period. NMFS has
responded to the petition below.
Comments specific to section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and NMFS’
analysis of impacts to marine mammals
are summarized, sorted into general
topic areas, and addressed below and/or
throughout the final rule. Comments
specific to the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, which
NMFS participated in developing as a
cooperating agency and adopted, or that
were also submitted to the Navy during
the GOA DSEIS/OEIS public comment
period are addressed in Appendix D
(Public Participation) of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS. Some commenters
presented technical comments on the
general behavioral risk function that are
largely identical to those posed during
the comment period for proposed rules
for the Atlantic Fleet Training and
Testing (AFTT), Hawaii-Southern
California Training and Testing (HSTT),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Mariana Islands Training and Testing
(MITT), and NWTT study areas—Phase
II predecessors to the GOA TMAA rule.
The behavioral risk function remains
unchanged since then, and here we
incorporate our responses to those
initial technical comments (78 FR
73010, 73038 (December 3, 2013),
Acoustic Thresholds; 78 FR 78106,
78129 (December 24, 2013), Acoustic
Thresholds; 80 FR 46112, 46146 (August
3, 2015), Criteria and Thresholds; 80 FR
73556, 73579 (November 24, 2015)).
Full copies of the comment letters may
be accessed at https://
www.regulations.gov.
General Opposition
Comment 1: The vast majority of
comments received by NMFS were from
commenters expressing general
opposition to Navy training activities in
the GOA TMAA and NMFS’ issuance of
an MMPA authorization. Many
commenters claimed that the Navy’s
activities would result in the ‘‘killing,’’
‘‘blowing up,’’ or ‘‘deaths’’ of marine
mammals during GOA training activities
using sonar.
Response: NMFS appreciates the
commenters’ concern for the marine
environment. However, the
commenters’ assertion that the Navy’s
activities in the GOA TMAA Study Area
will result in the killing or deaths of
marine mammals is incorrect. As
discussed throughout this rule and in
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the vast majority
of predicted takes are by Level B
harassment (behavioral reactions and
TTS), and there are no mortality takes
predicted or authorized for any training
activities in the Study area. Further, any
impacts from the Navy’s activities are
expected to be short term and would not
result in significant changes in behavior,
growth, survival, annual reproductive
success, lifetime reproductive success
(fitness), or species recruitment. The
Navy has conducted active sonar
training activities in the Study Area for
years, and there is no evidence that
routine Navy training and testing has
negatively impacted marine mammal
populations in the Study Area or at any
Navy Range Complex. As described in
more detail later in this document,
based on the best available science,
NMFS has determined that the Navy’s
training activities will have a negligible
impact on the affected species or stocks
and, therefore, we plan to issue the
requested MMPA authorization.
Comment 2: An online petition, titled
‘‘Stop Sonar and Underwater Explosions
in Gulf of Alaska,’’ was created by Eye
of the Whale Research and circulated
via MoveOn.org petitions. The petition
is for NMFS’ denial of the Navy’s LOA
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19553
application based on sonar and
explosives use that could potentially
hurt marine mammals in Alaska waters.
Response: The Navy and NMFS are
aware that even with implemented
mitigations, Navy training in the GOA
TMAA Study Area will result in
behavioral impacts to a number of
marine mammals of multiple species
and injurious impacts to a small number
of Dall’s porpoises, which is precisely
why those predicted effects are
quantified and have been requested
pursuant to the MMPA and ESA.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA
directs the Secretary of Commerce to
allow, upon request, the incidental
taking of small numbers of marine
mammals if certain findings are made
and regulations are issued. NMFS has
made the requisite findings and
therefore must issue regulations and an
LOA for the Navy’s activities.
Activity
Comment 3: Several commenters
pointed out the importance of salmonid
and other fisheries resources in Alaska
and expressed concerns with Navy
training impacts to commercial,
recreational, and subsistence fishing in
the Study Area.
Response: Regarding impacts to
salmon, fish in general, and the
commercial fishers, as presented in
Section 3.6 (Fish) and Section 3.12
(Socioeconomics) of the 2011 GOA
FEIS/OEIS and the GOA FSEIS/OEIS,
NMFS and the Navy are aware of the
importance of fisheries in Alaska. The
proposed training activities are
predicted to have no impact on fish
populations, the health of fisheries, or
socioeconomic conditions in Alaska.
Regarding concerns over subsistence
resources, the proposed action is the
continuation of the types of training
activities that have been ongoing for
more than a decade. No impacts to
traditional subsistence practices or
resources are predicted to result from
the proposed activities. Further, after
consultations with Alaska Native tribes
from the Kodiak and Kenai Peninsula
region, the Navy has confirmed that
training events in the TMAA would not
involve the use of any explosives in one
particular and well-defined fishing area
known as Portlock Bank.
Also note that as described in the
2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS, sonar use is
unlikely to disturb fish since most fish
cannot hear sonar at the frequencies in
the proposed action and science
indicates that the few fish that can hear
in those frequencies have no significant,
if any, reaction to sonar. Please also see
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.5
(Summary of Observations During
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19554
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Previous Navy Activities), where over
eight years of monitoring effort has
found no evidence that Navy training
activities have had any impact on fish
populations in the Pacific in areas such
as Southern California or Hawaii where
Navy training has been occurring yearround for decades.
Additionally, the effects on marine
mammal prey species were addressed in
the proposed rule and deemed not to be
significant and, further, NMFS’
biological opinion analyzing the Navy’s
activities found that they were not likely
to jeopardize any listed fish species or
destroy or adversely modify any
designated critical habitat for ESA-listed
fish.
Comment 4: Some commenters
expressed concern with potential Navy
training impacts to endangered or
threatened species within the Study
Area.
Response: As discussed in the
proposed rule, there are eight marine
mammal species under NMFS’
jurisdiction that are listed as
endangered or threatened under the
ESA with confirmed or possible
occurrence in the Study Area: Blue
whale, fin whale, humpback whale
(Mexico DPS and Western North Pacific
DPS), sei whale, sperm whale, gray
whale (Western North Pacific stock),
North Pacific right whale, and Steller
sea lion (Western U.S. stock). Pursuant
to the MMPA, NMFS found that the take
authorized for the Navy’s training
activities in the GOA TMAA would
have a negligible impact on these ESAlisted species. Further, the Navy
consulted with NMFS pursuant to
section 7 of the ESA, and NMFS also
consulted internally on the issuance of
a rule and LOA under section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for GOA
activities. NMFS issued a Biological
Opinion concluding that the issuance of
the rule and subsequent LOA are likely
to adversely affect, but are not likely to
jeopardize, the continued existence of
the threatened and endangered species
under NMFS’ jurisdiction and are not
likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat
in the GOA TMAA Study Area. The
Biological Opinion for this action is
available on NMFS’ Web site (https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/military.htm).
Additionally, we note here that since
the publication of the proposed rule, the
Navy chose to reduce the proposed
amount of activity significantly,
lessening the number of the Carrier
Strike Group Events from two to one per
year, and the number of SINKEXs from
two to zero per year. This significantly
decreases (by about half) the number of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
anticipated and authorized takes for this
activity.
Comment 5: Several commenters
requested that the Navy change the
timing of operations from summer
(April to October) to winter (November
to March), in order to minimize effects
on migratory whales and fisheries in the
area in summer.
Response: Comments that suggest
restricting or scheduling the training so
it will occur in the winter provide as
partial rationale that the mitigation is
needed to avoid whales that migrate to
Alaska. Navy training is proposed to
occur between April to October for the
safety of the exercise participants and
due to the severe conditions in the
winter months. Due to the high sea
states and cloud cover in the TMAA
during winter months, training in the
TMAA has historically occurred in the
summer (June–July). These factors were
a consideration in the Alternatives
Development of the 2011 GOA FEIS/
OEIS (Chapter 2, Section 2.3). As
detailed in Section 3.8 (Marine
Mammals) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS,
there are marine mammals present yearround in the Gulf of Alaska (e.g.,
humpback whales, blue whales, fin
whales, gray whales, and pinnipeds).
Additionally, the majority of the
migratory species and many of the
species feeding in the area in the
summer (e.g., fin whale, humpback
whales, gray whales) are typically found
in high numbers much closer to shore
than in the waters that constitute the
majority of the TMAA (see Ferguson et
al., 2015; Rone et al., 2014; Witteveen,
2014). Generally, Navy training
activities are not likely to affect animals
in nearshore locations given that the
TMAA boundary nearest to land is
approximately 25 nm from the Kenai
Peninsula and the center of the TMAA
is approximately 140 nm offshore. Any
effects to whales in Alaska from Navy
training are most likely to result from
acoustic sources associated with events
occurring in the deep water areas and
away from the edges of the TMAA
boundary. It is also important to note
that the available scientific information
does not provide evidence that exposure
to acoustic stressors from Navy training
activities are likely to impact the fitness
of individual whales and are not likely
to result in adverse population level or
species level impacts. For the reasons
outlined above, training in the winter
would not be expected to meaningfully
reduce impacts to marine mammal
species or stocks and their habitat,
while it would be impracticable and
would unnecessarily increase risk and
threaten the safety of Navy personnel
engaged in training.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comments suggesting not holding the
training activities during the summer
period have also been predicated on
avoiding impacts to fisheries during the
fishing season and the livelihood of
fishermen and fishing communities. As
detailed in Section 3.6 (Fish) of the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS, based on the best
available science, the continuation of
training in the GOA TMAA would not
have an impact on populations of fish,
the health of the fisheries, or the ability
of fishermen to fish. It is also important
to note that training has been conducted
for many years in the GOA TMAA and
there have been no reported impacts to
any fish populations or fishery
activities. Therefore, training in the
winter would not be practicable and
would not be effective in avoiding
impacts to fish or fisheries but would
unnecessarily increase risk and threaten
the safety of the Navy personnel
engaged in training.
NMFS is charged with promulgating
regulations and issuing LOAs for the
requested activity, provided we find
that the authorized take will have a
negligible impact on the effected marine
mammal species or stock and that we
ensure that measures are required that
ensure the least practicable adverse
impact on the species or stocks and
their habitat—which we have. The
specific activity that the Navy requested
was to conduct these activities for 21
days (initially two times, now lowered
to one time) between the months of
April and October—requiring them to
conduct the exercise outside of these
dates is not mitigation within the
context of the requested action, but
rather asking them to change their
requested activity.
Comment 6: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS’ proposed rule ‘‘green-lights
dangerous levels of harm, including
population-level harm, to marine
mammals in the face of both increased
scientific certainty related to the
sensitivity of marine mammals to Navy
sonar and increased scientific concern
regarding the population-level, longterm, and ecosystem effects of Navy
sonar on marine mammal species.’’
NRDC et al. also comment that Navy
training activities would subject
¨
relatively naıve marine mammal species
to sonar and explosives effects. Beaked
whales are provided as an example of
species that may be particularly at risk,
and NRDC et al. references welldocumented beaked whale stranding
events in their assertion that beaked
whales may be particularly vulnerable
to the effects of active sonar. NRDC et
al. and other commenters also expressed
concern with the potential for overlap
between Navy activities within the GOA
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
TMAA and important feeding areas for
endangered North Pacific right whale
and migratory and feeding areas for gray
whale.
Response: The Navy has been
conducting largely the same training
activities using the same type of
equipment in the GOA TMAA Study
Area for over a decade, and has been
authorized to use sonar in training
events in the Study Area since 2011,
without any evidence of harm to marine
species as a result of those activities.
The activities will occur over the course
of no more than 21 days per year. No
mortality is anticipated or authorized
and only a small number (4) of level A
Harassment takes (PTS) are authorized
for one species (Dall’s porpoise). As
described in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and
this final rule, the overwhelming
majority of takes predicted for all
species are expected to be short-term
behavioral responses to relatively shortterm activities (Level B harassment).
The takes authorized by this rule are
less than (i.e., reduced by half with
Alternative 1) what was previously
authorized for the same training
activities that have been occurring for
years in the Study Area, and are far less
than what is authorized in other Navy
training and testing areas (e.g., AFTT,
HSTT, NWTT). In particular, see
Section 3.8.5 (Summary of Observations
During Previous Navy Activities) of the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS and the ‘‘Long Term
Consequences’’ section of this rule
regarding the likely long-term
consequences from those activities.
NMFS notes that legislative history
suggests that Congress intended that
Level B harassment be limited to
behavioral disturbances that have
‘‘demographic consequences to
reproduction or survivability of the
species.’’ H.R. Conf. Rep. 108–354
(2003), 108th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted
in 2004 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1407, 1447.
However, no methodology currently
exists that would allow the Navy to
estimate each type of potential response
to sonar, predict any long-term
consequences for the affected mammals,
and limit its take request to only the
most severe responses that would have
demographic consequences to
reproduction or survivability of the
species. Therefore, as described in the
‘‘Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination’’ section of this rule, the
Navy’s take estimates capture a wider
range of less significant effects. NMFS
considers the available scientific
evidence to determine the likely nature
of the modeled behavioral responses
and the potential fitness consequences
for affected individuals in evaluating
whether the proposed activities will
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
have a negligible impact on the affected
marine mammal species or stocks. As
analyzed in the ‘‘Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination’’
section of this final rule, the majority of
the authorized Level B harassment takes
are expected to be in the form of milder
responses (i.e., lower-level exposures
that still rise to the level of take, but
would be less severe in the ranges of
responses that qualify as a take), and are
not expected to have deleterious
impacts on the fitness of any
individuals or long-term consequences
to populations of marine mammals.
Effects on marine mammals will be
minimized through the Navy’s
implementation of the following
mitigation measures (among others): (1)
The use of lookouts to monitor for
marine mammals and begin powerdown
and shutdown of sonar when marine
mammals are detected within ranges
where the received sound level is likely
to result in PTS or other injury; (2) the
use of mitigation zones that avoid
exposing marine mammals to levels of
explosives likely to result in injury or
death of marine mammals; (3) vessel
maneuvering protocols; and (4)
operational restrictions in a North
Pacific right whale Cautionary Area.
NMFS and the Navy have also worked
to develop a robust monitoring plan to
improve our understanding of the
environmental effects resulting from the
use of active sonar and underwater
explosives. Additionally, the final rule
includes an adaptive management
component that allows for timely
modification of mitigation or monitoring
measures based on new information,
when appropriate.
Given the number of commercial and
private vessels using sonar for fishing,
navigation, and research in the Gulf of
Alaska and the Navy’s authorized use of
sonar in training events since 2011, it is
unlikely that there are ‘‘marine mammal
populations in the Gulf of Alaska that
¨
are naıve to an acoustic stressor,’’
especially in the Navy’s historically
used GOA TMAA.
The facts regarding the beaked whales
found stranded in 2004 were presented
in the 2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS and are also
presented in the referenced technical
report accompanying the FSEIS/OEIS.
In 2004, between June 27 and July 19,
five beaked whales were discovered
stranded at various locations along
1,600 mi (2,625 km) of the Alaskan
coastline and one was found floating
(dead) at sea. Sonar training events had
not been part of an exercise which took
place in that general timeframe in the
TMAA and there are no Navy vessels
stationed in Alaska or otherwise using
those waters for training purposes.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19555
Beaked whale strandings do occur
routinely in Alaska waters and NMFS
did not consider these strandings
unusual or otherwise declare them to be
a UME.
Regarding the presence of North
Pacific right whale and gray whale and
associated biologically important habitat
adjacent to, and within, the GOA
TMAA, please refer to the
‘‘Consideration of Time/Area
Limitations’’ section of this rule for a
complete discussion and evaluation of
the spatio-temporal overlap of Navy
activities and important feeding and
migratory areas for these species. NMFS’
consideration of additional mitigation
(time/area closures) in these areas is
also discussed in that section, and later
in the ‘‘Response to Comments’’ section.
To summarize, NMFS is requiring a
North Pacific right whale ‘‘Cautionary
Area’’ between June and September in
the overlapping 2,051 km2 portion of
the North Pacific right whale feeding
area, in which no hull-mounted sonar or
explosives would be used within the
portion of the feeding area that overlaps
the Navy’s GOA TMAA during those
months, except when required by
national security needs. In the event of
national security needs, the Navy would
be required to seek approval in advance
from the Commander, U.S. Third Fleet
prior to conducting training activities
using sonar or explosives. NMFS
believes that implementation of this
North Pacific Right Whale Cautionary
Area within the GOA TMAA may
provide additional protection of this
species and stock beyond the mitigation
measures already proposed by the Navy.
In the case of the gray whale migratory
area, given the extremely minimal
geographic and temporal overlap with
Navy training activities in the GOA
TMAA, coupled with the fact that no
takes of gray whale are predicted to
occur with the proposed level of
training effort, NMFS has determined
that additional mitigation measures
related to time/area limitations of Navy
training activities within the
overlapping portion of the migratory
area would not contribute to any
lessening of the likelihood of adverse
impacts on the species or stocks or their
habitat, and are therefore not warranted
in the context of the least practicable
impact standard.
Marine Mammal Density Estimates
Comment 7: The Commission
recommended that if the Navy requests
authorization to conduct training
activities from April to October, then it
include the appropriate environmental
parameters in its acoustic modeling
based on those months rather than
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19556
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
assuming the activities would occur
only during July.
Response: The factor having the most
effect on the modeling is marine
mammal density. Detailed information
on the Navy’s selection protocol,
datasets, and specific density values, is
presented in Section 3.8.2.5 (Marine
Mammal Density Estimates) in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS and the Pacific Navy
Marine Species Density Database GOA
Technical Report (U.S. Department of
the Navy, 2014). In some cases, use of
multiple surveys may provide the best
density estimates. For example, data
from Rone et al. (2009), consisting of an
April 2009 marine mammal survey
conducted by NMFS in the Study Area,
was one data source. Another NMFS
survey was conducted from June to July
2013 (Rone et al., 2014) and was also
incorporated. Data from both surveys
were used to derive marine mammal
densities and vetted through NMFS
subject matter experts. As noted in the
Technical Report, density estimates
used in the modeling were more heavily
influenced by the 2013 survey, where
greater effort was conducted over a
better representative stratified area
(Rone et al., 2014). More sightings of
more species were obtained in the June–
July 2013 survey verses the April 2009
survey. NMFS or other academic
agencies have not done extensive
surveys within the Study Area at other
times of the year and monthly or subseason sighting data are not available for
the entire suite of marine mammal
species potentially present. The data
provided for GOA modeling are the best
available density estimates and
sufficiently representative for the
summer period.
Because the proposed training
(Northern Edge) has historically
occurred in the May to July timeframe,
the proposed training in the GOA
TMAA is different from other Navy
range complexes such as the Northwest
Training and Testing Range Complex,
where there is year-round unit level
training. Therefore, a seasonal analysis
is called for in modeling activities in the
GOA TMAA; modeling for GOA was not
done for year-round continuous activity
because the Navy’s training activities do
not occur year-round in the GOA
TMAA. To provide for future flexibility
if needed, the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
indicated that the proposed activities
could occur during the summer months
(April–October); however, they are most
likely to occur in the May–July
timeframe. Overall, any monthly
differences in marine mammal densities
from July to October is likely to be very
similar to the July data used for density
derivation in the GOA analysis. Five
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
years (2011–2015) of year-round Navy
funded passive acoustic monitoring in
GOA found higher likelihood for more
species, including ESA listed marine
mammals, in mid-summer to late
summer (July–October) as compared to
early summer (May–June). Therefore,
the current density estimates used for
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS are equivalent for
species abundance in the July to
October timeframe, and likely over
predictive for the more probably time in
which an actual Northern Edge exercise
would be expected to occur (May–July).
The use of these densities is
scientifically valid, representative of
expected densities for all species over
the proposed date range, and based on
the best available science. Monthly
seasonal densities are not available for
the Study Area, and even if they were,
they would not likely change any of the
conclusions in the FSEIS/OEIS or this
final rule.
Comment 8: The Commission stated
that it was unsure how the Navy
determined that extrapolated densities
better represent expected densities than
densities from relevant environmental
suitability (RES) models in the absence
of density data. The Commission
recommended that NMFS require the
Navy to (1) account for uncertainty in
extrapolated density estimates for all
species by using the upper limit of the
95 percent confidence interval or the
arithmetic mean plus two standard
deviations and (2) then re-estimate the
numbers of takes accordingly.
Response: The Navy coordinated with
scientists at the Northwest Fisheries
Science Center (NWFSC) and the
National Marine Mammal Laboratory
(NMML) to help identify the best
available density estimates for marine
mammals occurring in the Study Area.
As the commenter points out, there is
uncertainty in estimating marine
mammal densities, and for some species
very little data are available. See the
previous comment response for an
explanation of why the density data
collected in July (Rone et al., 2014) is
scientifically valid, representative of
expected densities for all species over
the proposed date range, and based on
the best available science.
Using the mean value to estimate
densities is a reasonable and
scientifically acceptable approach.
While the mean may underestimate a
species’ density, by definition, it is
equally probable that it could
overestimate a species’ density. The
mean density estimate is the best value
to use as input into the Navy’s acoustic
effects model to minimize the influence
of uncertainty inherent in the science.
Also, the future application of this
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
survey data as representative for yearround densities has no bearing on the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS, because the proposed
action does not occur year-round.
Furthermore, the use of the mean
density estimate is consistent with the
approach taken by NMFS to estimate
and report the populations of marine
mammals in NMFS’ Stock Assessment
Reports. For these reasons, the mean
density estimate is thus considered the
‘‘best available data.’’
Using the upper limit of the 95
percent confidence interval or adjusting
the mean estimates as suggested would
result in unreasonable and unrealistic
estimates of species densities,
particularly given the very high
coefficients of variation (CVs) associated
with most marine mammal density
estimates. A confidence interval is only
meant to be an indication of the
uncertainty associated with a point
estimate, and should not be used to
derive any absolute number within the
confidence interval. Using the upper
limit of the range as an input would do
nothing to decrease the level of
uncertainty. Implementing the
recommendation would result in an
unrepresentative overestimate of the
expected effects (takes) from the
proposed action. Further, as detailed in
Section 3.8.3.1.6.3 (Navy Acoustic
Effects Model) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS,
the Navy’s acoustic model already
includes conservative assumptions (e.g.,
assumes that the animals do not move
horizontally, assumes they are always
head-on to the sound source so that they
receive the maximum amount of energy,
etc.), resulting in a more conservative
(i.e., greater) assessment of potential
impacts.
Comment 9: The Commission
commented that the Rone et al. (2014)
data used by the Navy to estimate
densities of northern fur seals likely
under-represent densities for the
summer timeframe in which training
activities are likely to occur. The
Commission believes that the densities
would be underestimated even if the
Navy incorporated the CVs from the
Rone et al. (2014) data.
Response: The Navy consulted with
scientists from the NWFSC and NMML
to help identify the best available
density estimates for marine mammals
occurring in the Study Area. The
timeframe for when the activities have
historically occurred, and for when they
would be expected to occur
predominantly over the course of the
rule, are well represented by the June to
July timeframe. Data collected from
Rone et al. (2014) in the summer of 2014
resulting in 69 on-effort northern fur
seal sightings (74 individuals) in the
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Study Area is representative of the
presence of northern fur seals in the
Study Area. The Rone et al. (2014)
survey occurred in approximately the
same month when previous Navy
training events have occurred and are
most likely to occur in the future. The
Rone et al. (2014) data is therefore the
most representative for use in the
assessment of impacts. As noted in the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS, tagging data
presented by Ream et al. (2005) indicate
the main foraging areas and the main
migration route through the Gulf of
Alaska are located far to the west of the
Study Area, so the movement of animals
involving the larger expanse of the Gulf
of Alaska at other times of the year and
outside the Study Area are not relevant.
Further, we note that although
modeled take estimates are our best
attempt at quantifying the impacts of the
proposed action, they do not represent
the entirety of our analysis. For the Gulf
of Alaska specifically, we have
described elsewhere the context and
nature of the anticipated impacts on
marine mammals, which are expected to
be of short duration and a comparatively
small degree—meaning that a small
number of additional Level B
harassment takes would not be expected
to change our assessment of the effects
on the population.
Comment 10: The Commission
recommended that NMFS require the
Navy to (1) revise its Steller sea lion
abundance estimate to include updated
abundance data from Allen and Angliss
(2015) (the Navy used abundance data
from Allen and Angliss (2009) to
estimate Steller sea lion densities) and
consult with scientists at NMML
regarding unpublished data to revise its
Steller sea lion densities, and (2) revise
its northern elephant seal abundance
estimate to include both updated
abundance data from Allen and Angliss
(2015) and data for female elephant
seals and incorporate data from
Robinson et al. (2012) into its estimates
of northern elephant seal densities.
Response: We note, first, that Allen
and Angliss (2015) was published
approximately a year after GOA
densities were derived and modeled for
the GOA SEIS/OEIS. Prior to that, the
Navy coordinated with scientists at
NMML to help identify the best
available density estimates for marine
mammals occurring in the Study Area at
the beginning of the density derivation
process. For Steller sea lions, rookeries
on both sides of the 144 °W longitude
line dividing the two stocks (DPSs) were
used in the estimate of density, with
Allen and Angliss (2009) and associated
references consulted. The abundance
increase in the Stock Assessment Report
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
(Allen and Angliss, 2015) is a trend
characterizing the 12-year period
between 2000 and 2012. The most
recent Alaska Stock Assessment Report
(Muto et al., 2016, which cites Johnson
and Fritz 2014, Fritz et al., 2015)
continued the trend analysis to 2014.
While Muto et al. (2016) and associated
references allude to a small percent
increase in some regional Steller sea
lion abundances after the date range
used by the Navy for GOA densities, the
increases are relatively small and also
subject to variation by region.
Furthermore, given the way modeling
occurs in NAEMO, slight increases to
density for a species do not always lead
to corresponding linear increase in
modeled takes because there are other
statistical factors of the model as well
(see Navy’s Acoustic Effects 2015
Technical Report).
As currently modeled, the estimated
takes of the two DPSs of Steller sea lions
are relatively small compared to
estimated takes for other species under
Alternative 1 (i.e., a total of 621 takes for
the two Steller sea lion DPSs). The
potential addition of a small number of
additional Level B harassment takes
based on small density changes would
not be significant. Modeled take
estimates are our best attempt at
quantifying the impacts of the proposed
action, but they do not represent the
entirety of our analysis. For the Gulf of
Alaska specifically, we have described
elsewhere the context and nature of the
anticipated impacts on marine
mammals, which are expected to be of
short duration and a comparatively
small degree—meaning that a small
number of additional Level B
harassment takes would not be expected
to change our assessment of the effects
on the population.
For elephant seals, the text presented
in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS does not
indicate absolute geographic presence or
absence of elephant seals, but is
presented as a generalization based on
findings presented in the three
references cited (Le Boeuf et al., 2000;
Stewart and DeLong, 1995; and Stewart
and Huber, 1993). Tag data from
Robinson et al. (2012) was considered in
the analysis and clearly shows that the
females mostly range east to about 173
°W, between the latitudes of 40 °N and
45 °N, consistent with the presentation
in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. The kernel
density distribution presented by
Robinson et al. (2012) confirms most of
the tagged elephant seals foraged
outside of the Study Area. Furthermore,
Robinson et al. (2012) provides density
only in relative terms of high or low,
and not with the statistical calculations
needed to derive exact at-sea densities
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19557
as required by NMFS. By and large, the
presence of elephant seals in the Study
Area would likely be limited and
transitory. The derived density of
elephant seals in the Study Area as
explained in the Navy’s density
technical report therefore remains a
conservative over-estimate for purposes
of acoustic effect modeling.
Criteria and Thresholds
Comment 11: The Commission
recommended that NMFS require the
Navy to update Finneran and Jenkins
(2012) to include the appropriate
justification for its use of the 6-dB
extrapolation factor between explosive
and acoustic sources; use 151 dB rather
than 152 dB re 1 mPa2-sec as the TTS
threshold for high-frequency cetaceans
exposed to acoustic sources; use 145 dB
rather than 146 dB re 1 mPa2-sec as the
TTS threshold for high-frequency
cetaceans for explosive sources; and
based on these changes to the TTS
thresholds, adjust the PTS thresholds
for high-frequency cetaceans by
increasing the amended TTS threshold
by 20 dB for acoustic sources and 15 dB
for explosive sources, and adjust the
behavioral thresholds by decreasing the
amended TTS thresholds by 5 dB for
explosive sources.
Response: NMFS participated in the
development of the acoustic thresholds
used in the FSEIS/OEIS. As detailed in
Finneran and Jenkins (2012), the
thresholds presented in the FSEIS/OEIS
incorporate new findings since the
publication of Southall et al. (2007) and
the evolution of scientific
understanding since that time. Dr.
Finneran was one of the authors for
Southall et al. (2007) and, as such, is
familiar with the older conclusions
present in the 2007 publication and
therefore was able to integrate that
knowledge into the development of the
refined approach that was presented in
Finneran and Jenkins (2012) and based
on evolving science since 2007. Details
regarding the process are provided in
Section 3.8.3.1.6 (Quantitative Analysis)
of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. Also, see the
summary of the thresholds used in the
analysis as presented in Section
3.8.3.1.4 (Thresholds and Criteria for
Predicting Acoustic and Explosive
Impacts on Marine Mammals).
Briefly, the original experimental data
is weighted using the prescribed
weighting function to determine the
numerical threshold value. The
Commission did not consider the
appropriate weighting schemes when
comparing thresholds presented in
Southall et al. (2007) and those
presented in Finneran and Jenkins
(2012). TTS thresholds presented in
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19558
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Finneran and Jenkins (2012) are
appropriate when the applicable
weighting function (Type II) is applied
to the original TTS data; TTS thresholds
in Southall et al. (2007) were based on
M-weighting. For example, while it is
true that there is an unweighted 12-dB
difference for onset-TTS between beluga
watergun (Finneran et al., 2002) and
tonal exposures (Schlundt et al., 2000),
the difference after weighting with the
Type II MF-cet weighting function (from
Finneran and Jenkins, 2012) is 6 dB.
The Commission has confused (a) the 6
dB difference in PTS and TTS
thresholds based on peak pressure
described in Southall et al., 2007 with
(b) the difference between impulsive
and non-impulsive thresholds in
Finneran and Jenkins (2012), which is
coincidentally 6 dB. In summary, the
values derived for impulsive and nonimpulsive TTS and for determining PTS
and impulsive behavior thresholds from
TTS thresholds are correct based on the
data presented.
More importantly, the Navy and
NMFS have continued to revise acoustic
thresholds based on emergent research.
In August 2016, NOAA released its
Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on
Marine Mammal Hearing, which
established new thresholds for
predicting auditory injury (i.e., PTS). In
developing the new Guidance, NMFS
compiled, interpreted, and synthesized
scientific information currently
available on the effects of anthropogenic
sound on marine mammals, including a
recent Technical Report by Dr. James
Finneran (U.S. Navy-SPAWAR Systems
Center Pacific) that proposed new
weighting functions and thresholds for
predicting the onset of both PTS and
TTS in marine mammals (Finneran,
2016). The methodologies presented
within this paper build upon the
methodologies used to develop the
criteria applied within the proposed
rule and Navy’s GOA FSEIS/OEIS
(Finneran and Jenkins, 2012), and
incorporate relevant auditory research
made available since 2012 (e.g.,
Kastelein et al., 2012a; Kastelein et al.,
2012b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2013;
Kastelein et al., 2013a; Kastelein et al.,
2013b; Popov et al., 2013; Kastelein et
al., 2014a; Kastelein et al., 2014b; Popov
et al., 2014; Finneran et al., 2015;
Kastelein et al., 2015a; Kastelein et al.,
2015b; Popov et al., 2015). In light of
limited data at the time, Finneran and
Jenkins (2012) presented a conservative
approach to development of auditory
weighting functions. In 2016, with the
benefit of newly-available data,
Finneran was able to synthesize a wide
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
range of auditory data, including newlyavailable studies, to predict refined
auditory weighting functions and
corresponding TTS thresholds across
the complete hearing ranges of
functional hearing groups.
The specific recommendations made
by the Commission in its comments on
the proposed rule were overcome by
events when Finneran (2016) was
published and adopted by NMFS in its
new Guidance. All the methods used for
synthesizing and interpreting new data
sets into thresholds data were shared
with the public and all comments were
addressed prior to finalizing the
Guidance. NMFS’ new Guidance uses
153 dB for TTS for HF species from nonimpulsive sources (1 dB less
conservative than Finneran (2012) and 2
dB less conservative than the
Commission recommended) and uses
140 dB for TTS for HF species from
impulsive sources (6 dB more
conservative than Finneran (2012) and 5
dB more conservative than the
Commission recommends). Further, as
recommended, 20 dB was added to the
TTS value to get the PTS value for the
non-impulsive sources, and 15 dB was
added for the explosive source
threshold.
At the time of the release of the
proposed rule and GOA FSEIS/OEIS,
NMFS’ final Guidance had not been
issued. Further, the new criteria were
not available for the Navy’s acoustic
effects modeling used to calculate
distances to harassment thresholds and
resulting take estimates. Therefore, the
Navy did not use the new auditory
weighting functions and PTS/TTS
criteria in its GOA FSEIS/OEIS.
However, the underlying science
contained within Finneran (2016) has
been addressed qualitatively within the
applicable sections of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS and this final rulemaking. Further,
although the writers of the base code for
the model used for Phase II were not
available to recode the model with the
updated impulsive criteria in terms of
weighting functions, the Navy was able
to use the model to reprocess
anticipated explosive ranges to effects
for PTS based on the criteria presented
in the new Guidance, from which TTS
and behavioral exposures could be
estimated, to assess if the new criteria
could result in any additional speciesspecific injury exposures. For more
information on this analysis, see the
‘‘Summary of Request’’ section in this
final rule.
Comment 12: NRDC et al. commented
that the Navy and NMFS failed to set
proper thresholds for threshold shift
and injury. They assert the following as
reasons, referencing several articles, for
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
their belief that the thresholds are
improper: First, NMFS’ direct
extrapolation of data from bottlenose
dolphins and belugas to low-frequency
cetaceans is not justifiable and
insufficiently conservative. Second,
NMFS makes no attempt to account for
the potential bias in Space and Naval
Warfare Systems Command’s
(SPAWAR) bottlenose dolphin data,
particularly the age of the subjects used
in these influential studies and their
situation for years within a noisy bay.
Third, NMFS’ weighting curve for highfrequency cetaceans is not sufficiently
conservative in light of ongoing studies,
as by Ron Kastelein. Fourth, NMFS’
analysis fails to incorporate empirical
data on both humans and marine
mammals indicating that PTS can occur
at levels previously thought to cause
temporary threshold shift only.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The
criteria and thresholds for determining
potential effects on marine species used
in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the LOA
application, and the proposed rule were
developed based on best available
science. See the cited Finneran and
Jenkins (2012; Criteria and Thresholds
for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive
Effects Analysis Technical Report),
which can be found at https://
www.goaeis.com. Moreover, as
described previously, the thresholds
outlined in Finneran and Jenkins (2012)
(and used in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS) were
updated with new data in Finneran
(2016), which was adopted by NMFS for
use in its new Guidance, following an
opportunity for public comment in
which NMFS addressed all comments
on data and methods (including points
that are raised here, such as the
reference to Wright (2015)).
As described in the ‘‘Summary of
Request’’ section of this rule, NMFS and
the Navy assessed the training activities
in the GOA TMAA in the context of the
new Guidance and all of the associated
new data that support it (see previous
comment response) and made changes
to the take estimates where appropriate.
As described, although most thresholds
changed a little in one direction or the
other (including going down for LF and
HF species by 4 and 6 dB, respectively,
for explosives), and the weighting
functions for all taxa changed, when
considered together and in the context
of the proposed activities, the changes
in the take estimates were relatively
small (increasing takes only for Dall’s
porpoise, by 3 Level A and 149 Level B
harassments). In short, much of this
comment has been overcome by events,
but nonetheless, we address some of the
details below. Although the commenter
is not specifically commenting on it
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
here, we note that some similar issues
were raised in the context of the new
2016 Acoustic Guidance, and NMFS
responded to those concerns in our
Federal Register notice announcing the
finalization of the Guidance (81 FR
51693; August 4, 2016; https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2016/08/04/2016–18462/technicalguidance-for-assessing-the-effects-ofanthropogenic-sound-on-marinemammal).
Regarding the commenters’ first point,
NMFS disagrees that the thresholds are
unjustified and insufficiently
conservative. The discussion presented
in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section
3.8.2.3.3 (Low-Frequency Cetaceans)
and Section 3.8.3.1.11 (Frequency
Weighting) describes the derivation of
the thresholds and criteria for low
frequency cetaceans that were used in
take calculations in the proposed rule.
Specifically, it was the low- and highfrequency cetacean weighting functions
(see Southall et al., 2007) that were
extrapolated from the dolphin data
because of the suspected similarities of
greatest susceptibility at best
frequencies of hearing consistent with
the best available science. The Navy
used experimentally derived midfrequency cetacean thresholds to assess
PTS and TTS for low-frequency
cetaceans, since mid-frequency
cetaceans are the most similar to the low
frequency group (see Southall et al.,
2007; Finneran and Jenkins, 2012).
Although the mid-frequency criteria and
thresholds are applied to low frequency
cetaceans, exposures and threshold
sound exposure levels are weighted
using the low frequency cetacean
weighting function rather than the midfrequency, which provides higher
susceptibility to low frequency sound,
consistent with their inferred
frequencies of best hearing. Data for low
frequency cetaceans considered in the
analysis also includes that from Ketten
(2014) for blue whales and minke
whales, Ketten and Mountain (2014) for
humpback whales, and Cranford and
Krysl (2015) for fin whales. Observed
vocalization frequencies, observed
reactions to playback of sounds,
anatomical analyses of the auditory
system (Cranford and Krysl, 2015;
Houser et al., 2001; Ketten, 2014; Ketten
and Mountain, 2014; Parks et al., 2007),
and a general understanding of
mammalian hearing are the reasons and
science behind why the methodology in
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and the proposed
rule is justifiable. NMFS disagrees that
the approach was not conservative given
that low frequency cetaceans do not
echolocate and that the physiology of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
mysticetes indicates a lack of sensitivity
to high frequency sound.
NMFS disagrees with the
commenters’ second point, as the data
used in the Navy’s and NMFS’ analyses
included many animals and species at
multiple experimental facilities around
the world as well as auditory
measurements on wild animals that had
stranded, in addition to anatomical
analyses of the auditory system of
mysticetes (Cranford and Krysl, 2015;
Houser et al., 2001; Ketten, 2014; Ketten
and Mountain, 2014; Parks et al., 2007).
Direct measurement of hearing
sensitivity exists for approximately 25
species of marine mammals, including
the following cetacean species: Atlantic
white-sided dolphins (Houser et al.,
2010a), common dolphins (Houser,
Dankiewicz-Talmadge et al., 2010),
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Johnson,
1967), Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins
(Houseret et al., 2010a), Black Sea
bottlenose dolphins (Popov et al., 2007),
striped dolphins (Kastelein et al., 2003),
white-beaked dolphins (Nachtigall et
al., 2008), Risso’s dolphins (Nachtigall
et al., 2005), belugas (Finneran et al.,
2005; White et al., 1977), long-finned
pilot whales (Pacini et al., 2010), false
killer whales (Yuen et al., 2005), killer
whales (Szymanski et al., 1999),
Gervais’ beaked whales (Finneran et al.,
2009), and Blainville’s beaked whales
(Pacini et al., 2011).
Regarding the commenters’ third
point, the most recent publications by
Dr. Kastelein are cited and were
considered in the analysis presented in
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (see Kastelein et
al., 2014a, 2014b, 2015). In reference to
the most recent publication involving
non-pulse sources (sonar) from
Kastelein et al. (2015), the authors found
that the threshold shift criteria proposed
by Southall et al. (2007) for cetaceans
echolocating at high frequency (SEL 215
dB re 1 lPa2s) was too high for the
harbor porpoise when considering high
duty cycle sonars. Kastelein et al. (2015)
documented fatiguing sounds at duty
cycles of 10 percent (one sonar ping
every 10 seconds) and 100 percent (one
ping immediately followed by another).
The high duty cycle sonar used in
Kastelein’s study were a different
frequency (6–7 kHz) and produce sound
at a higher rate than the Navy’s hullmounted mid-frequency anti-submarine
sonar, which nominally produces one
ping every 45 seconds. Therefore, the
Kastelein (2015) study and its findings
do not relate to the Navy’s proposed
action or the sonar sources proposed for
use in the GOA TMAA Study Area.
Additionally, TTS represents a
physiological metric for a behavioral
reaction and an exposure resulting in
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19559
TTS has been and is considered an
MMPA Level B harassment take. As
presented in Section 3.8.3.1.5 (Sonar
and Other Active Acoustic Sources,
Subsection Harbor Porpoises) of the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the Navy and NMFS
are aware of the sensitivity of harbor
porpoises and have established a sound
pressure level of 120 dB re 1 mPa as a
threshold for predicting behavioral
responses in harbor porpoises and Level
B harassment takes pursuant to the
MMPA.
The reference to Tougaard et al.
(2014) cited by the commenters has
been considered in the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS. The point raised in that reference
was that the Southall et al. (2007)
weighting functions need updating
given there have been new studies that
have since become available. The
Navy’s analysis is in fact based on an
update to Southall et al. (2007) as
detailed in Finneran and Jenkins (2012).
In the opinion of the authors, the net
result from revisions to the weighting
functions like that used by the Navy
(Finneran and Jenkins, 2012) is that they
are not guaranteed to be conservative
enough specifically with regard to
sound sources such as pile driving,
‘‘seal scarers,’’ and high-frequency
pingers. With the exception of high
frequency pingers, these sources are not
part of the Navy’s proposed action. As
detailed in Section 3.8.3.1.2.3 (Hearing
Loss; see reference to Finneran (2015))
in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the Navy and
NMFS are in the process of reviewing
the latest and best available science to
further refine future acoustic analyses
using weighting functions.
Regarding the commenters’ fourth
point, NMFS and the Navy have
incorporated empirical data on humans
(see the GOA FSEIS/OEIS citations to
Ward et al., 1958, 1959a, b; and Miller
et al., 1963).
With regard to the references cited by
the commenters: Kastak et al. (2008)
reported PTS in a harbor seal after an
exposure of 202 dB SEL at 4.1 kHz. This
exposure level is 5 dB above the PTS
onset criteria used by the Navy in its
Phase II modeling, and thus the Navy
would have predicted PTS for this
exposure. The Kastak et al. (2008) data
are therefore consistent with the criteria
and thresholds used by the Navy (as
described in the FSEIS/OEIS). Kujawa
and Liberman (2009) reported TTS in
mice of 40 dB measured 24 hours after
exposure. Thresholds were found to
recover completely (thus there was no
PTS) but other signs of auditory damage
were found, such as neural degeneration
and a decrease in suprathreshold
evoked response amplitudes. A similar
study by Lin et al. (2011) with guinea
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19560
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
pigs found similar results after TTS of
greater than 50 dB measured 24 hours
after exposure. Since no lower level
exposures were utilized, it is not known
if the suite of auditory damage observed
by Kujawa and Liberman (2009) and Lin
et al. (2011) would have occurred with
lesser exposures. The Navy’s analyses
assumed PTS (and thus injury) would
occur after exposures producing TTS of
40 dB or more measured approximately
4 minutes after exposure. Therefore, the
exposures used by Kujawa and
Liberman (2009) and Lin et al. (2011)
would have been considered injurious
by the Navy criteria. Therefore, both the
Kastak et al. (2008) and Kujawa and
Liberman (2009) studies are consistent
with the Navy’s use of TTS of 40 dB,
measured approximately 4 minutes after
exposure, as an indicator for auditory
injury.
Comment 13: NRDC et al. provided
several comments, which were
originally set forth in a detailed critique
by Dr. David Bain, that were critical of
the acoustic risk function used by the
Navy and NMFS to estimate the
probability of behavioral effects that
NMFS would classify as harassment.
The commenters assert that these risk
functions are flawed and underestimate
take.
Response: Dr. Bain’s critique is not
directly relevant to the proposed action
in the GOA TMAA Study Area. It is in
reference to older Navy EISs (2007
Hawaii Range Complex (HRC) Navy
DEIS/OEIS; 2006 Undersea Warfare
Training Range (USWTR) DEIS/OEIS)
that analyze different actions in another
geographic location, and is no longer
current as the science has evolved over
the last nine years. The criteria and
thresholds for determining potential
effects on marine species used in the
Navy’s GOA FSEIS/OEIS and related
consultation documents have been
appropriately revised based on the best
available science since the 2006 and
2007 Draft EISs, which Dr. Bain
reviewed (see Finneran and Jenkins,
2012). Dr. Bain’s critique is therefore
dated and not directly relevant to the
proposed rule or the Navy’s analysis for
the GOA TMAA Study Area as
presented in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS.
Please also note that all comments from
Dr. Bain’s critique were previously
responded to in the 2009 Hawaii Range
Complex FEIS/OEIS and in more recent
Navy FEIS/OEISs. Particular aspects of
Dr. Bain’s critique highlighted by the
commenters are discussed in Comments
and Responses 14 through 18.
Comment 14: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS and the Navy rely on studies
of temporary threshold shift in captive
animals for one of their primary sources
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
of data for the development of
behavioral thresholds.
Response: As described in the FSEIS/
OEIS section 3.8.3.1.5, the captive
behavioral data gathered while
conducting TTS studies is one of three
data sources used to inform the
behavioral response function generated
to predict takes by Level B harassment—
the other two studies are based on
observations in the wild of killer whales
and North Atlantic right whales. In
order to generate a quantitative curve to
predict behavioral responses, very
specific information is needed regarding
what levels of sound were received that
are associated with the specific
behavioral changes observed. While not
appropriate to use to the exclusion of
wild data, captive studies provide
valuable insight into behavioral
response and support the types of
precise acoustic measurements that are
necessary for generating behavioral
response functions. Comparatively few
field studies documenting marine
mammal responses to MFAS include the
specificity of data needed to
appropriately inform a quantitative
curve. Some field studies with
informative results have been conducted
subsequent to the generation of the
behavioral response function used here
to estimate take, and these studies have
been assessed qualitatively in our
analysis and NMFS and Navy have
determined that the behavioral response
curve used here still represents a
reasonable mechanism for estimating
behavioral responses that rise to the
level of take given the body of science
available at this time.
Comment 15: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS and the Navy appear to have
misused data garnered from the Haro
Strait incident by including only those
levels of sound received by the ‘‘J’’ pod
of killer whales when the USS Shoup
was at its closest approach. They further
request the Navy’s propagation analysis
for the Haro Strait event.
Response: Details of the analysis of
the Haro Strait event were presented in
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.2.6
(Behavioral Reactions to Sonar and
Other Active Acoustic Sources;
Subsection Odontocetes). The
propagation analysis is available from
the Navy upon request. The Navy and
NMFS reviewed testimony, video, and
all field notes from the time of the
event, and have accurately used that
documented data in the analysis for the
GOA activities and the Navy addressed
this identical comment in more detail in
its response to comments on the Hawaii
Range Complex in 2007. That data
clearly indicated that the behaviors
observed were within the species’
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
normal range of behaviors and there
were no immediate or general overt
negative behavioral reactions observed
at the time of the exposure.
Furthermore, the presence of numerous
small motor vessels maneuvering in
close proximity to the orca further
complicated the assessment of possible
reactions related to sonar from a vessel
and, specifically, the agencies
determined that it was most appropriate
to use the received levels at the closest
approach of the USS Shoup because the
effects when the whales were farther
from the Shoup could not be
deconflicted from the effects of the
nearby whale-watching boats.
Comment 16: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS and the Navy exclude a
substantial body of controlled exposure
research and opportunistic studies on
wild animals (and some research on
other experimental animals as well,
within a behavioral experimental
protocol). For example, NMFS and the
Navy fail to include data from the July
2004 Hanalei Bay event, in which 150–
200 melon-headed whales were
embayed for more than 24 hours during
the Navy’s Rim of the Pacific exercise.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The
studies cited by the commenters are
cited in the proposed rule and in the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS and were fully
considered in the analysis. Section 3.4
of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS contains
citations to additional controlled
exposure research on wild animals
including, for example, DeRuiter et al.
(2013a, b), Defence Science and
Technology Laboratory (2007); Claridge
and Durban (2009); McCarthy et al.
(2011); Melcon et al., 2012); Miller et al.
(2011, 2012); Moretti et al. (2009);
Southhall et al. (2011, 2012a, 2012b,
2013, 2014); Stimpert et al. (2014); and
Tyack et al. (2011). As noted previously,
not all studies contain the level of
detailed data to be quantitatively
incorporated into a behavioral response
curve, and some of these studies
occurred after the Navy began its
modeling. However, all of the
referenced studies have been considered
qualitatively in the agency’s analyses
and our impact analyses and
determinations are supported by the
body of science on this topic.
Regarding the Hanalei Bay event,
NMFS included an extensive analysis of
this event in the ‘‘Stranding and
Mortality’’ section of the proposed rule
(81 FR 9950, 9970–76; February 26,
2016). Please see that section for further
information regarding NMFS’
assessment and consideration of that
event. It should be noted that NMFS
considered active sonar transmissions a
plausible, if not likely, contributing
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
factor in the Hanalei stranding in what
may have been a ‘‘confluence of
events,’’ including a unique interaction
of biological and physical factor—most
of which are not expected to occur in
the Study Area or during GOA
activities. The biological factors may
have included the presence of an
apparently uncommon, deep-diving
cetacean species (and possibly an
offshore, non-resident group), social
interactions among the animals before
or after they entered the Bay, and/or
unknown predator or prey conditions.
The physical factors may have included
the presence of nearby deep water,
multiple vessels transiting in a directed
manner while transmitting active sonar
over a sustained period, the presence of
surface sound ducting conditions, and/
or intermittent and random human
interactions while the animals were in
the Bay.
Comment 17: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS and the Navy also fail to
incorporate data on harbor porpoises
and beaked whales in their dataset.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the
commenters’ assessment. The Navy and
NMFS have used studies on harbor
porpoises and beaked whales in the data
sets used for analysis. Please see Section
3.8.3.1.5 (Sonar and Other Active
Acoustic Source) of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS where this information is
presented. The analysis includes, for
example, data from both captive and
wild harbor porpoises (see Kastelein et
al. (2000, 2005b) and Johnston (2002))
and behavioral responses from a wild
population of beaked whales as
documented by Tyack et al. (2011).
Please also refer to the cited Finneran
and Jenkins (2012) for additional
details. Finally, please see the
discussions presented in Section
3.8.3.1.6.4 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
(Model Assumptions and Limitations),
which describes the numerous
conservative assumptions incorporated
into the Navy’s model.
Last, in further and more specific
quantitative acknowledgement of the
sensitivity of these species, more
conservative step functions are used to
evaluate behavioral disturbance (i.e.,
estimate take) to beaked whales and
harbor porpoises (140 and 120 dB,
respectively).
Comment 18: NRDC et al. commented
that the risk function should have taken
into account the social ecology of some
marine mammal species.
Response: The Navy and NMFS have
taken these factors into account to the
best extent practical given limitations in
the model and available science.
Although the state of science is not
complete in terms of group response by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
species, life stage, or even behavioral
context in which an individual or group
experiences an anthropogenic sound, as
detailed in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
Section 3.8.3.1.6.3 (Navy Acoustic
Effects Model) and the Navy’s
Determination of Acoustic Effects
Technical Report (Marine Species
Modeling Team, 2015), group size is
accounted for in the modeling of
acoustic effects, not in the risk function.
The risk function predicts the
percentage of the number of individuals
exposed above a given level that will be
taken. The model deals with the
distribution of animats (virtual
representations of animals) derived from
density, associated group size, and
depth distribution, and, therefore, the
model is where group size can be
addressed. Furthermore, just as one
¨
could hypothesize a naıve animal on its
own could potentially influence the
behavior of the whole group with
negative effect (resulting in a group
behavioral reaction), so might an
experienced individual influence the
behavior of the whole group with
positive effect and calm the pod so there
is no reaction rising to the level of a take
in any individual or the pod as a whole.
In summary, the current model process
(risk function, modeling) does the best
job of averaging multiple inputs as well
as estimating the most representative
take possible.
Comment 19: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS’ threshold is applied in such
a way as to preclude any assessment of
long-term behavioral impacts on marine
mammals. It does not account, to any
degree, for the problem of repetition:
The way that apparently insignificant
impacts, such as subtle changes in dive
times or vocalization patterns, can
become significant if experienced
repeatedly or over time.
Response: NMFS disagrees.
Specifically, NMFS’ thresholds are not
designed to analyze long-term impacts
or repetition; they are designed to
predict individual acute behavioral
responses. Assessments of long-term
impacts are addressed qualitatively in
the narrative. This analysis is presented
in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS in Section
3.8.3.1.3 (Long-Term Consequences to
the Individual and the Population) and
Section 3.8.4 (Summary of Impacts
(Combined Impacts of all Stressors) on
Marine Mammals) where cumulative
impacts are addressed, as well as in the
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section of this rule.
Assessment of long-term cumulative
impacts to species and stocks is also
represented by the discussion in Section
3.8.5 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Summary
of Observations During Previous Navy
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19561
Activities). Of note, NMFS finds that the
vast majority of impacts expected from
sonar exposure and underwater
detonations will be behavioral in nature,
temporary and comparatively short in
duration, relatively infrequent, and
specifically not of the type or severity
that would be expected to be additive
for the small portion of the stocks and
species likely to be exposed.
This analysis is further corroborated
by the healthy, and in some locations,
increasing marine mammal populations,
where sonar use has been occurring for
decades and is frequently in use on an
annual basis, such as on instrumented
ranges. As noted previously, there is no
evidence that Navy activities have had
or are having any long-term impact on
marine mammal populations or stocks.
For more information, see the LongTerm Consequences discussion in the
‘‘Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination’’ section of this rule.
Finally, the proposed Navy training
activities will occur over a short period
of time (up to 21 days) once a year.
Further, with the change in preferred
alternative to Alternative 1, the Navy
activities, and resulting predicted takes,
have essentially been reduced by half
and consist of mainly low-level
behavioral responses and occasional
occurrences of TTS, with only 4 Level
A harassment takes estimated for one
species. As a result, long-term
behavioral impacts on marine mammals
within the GOA TMAA during the
Northern Edge exercise are unlikely to
occur.
Comment 20: NRDC et al. commented
that while NMFS and the Navy have
assigned a specific threshold to beaked
whales, in light of Tyack et al. (2011),
it is clear that some beaked whales are
taken on exposure to mid frequency
sonar at levels below 140 decibels (SPL).
Response: The Navy and NMFS
specifically considered the Tyack et al.
(2011) study, which was cited in the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS and proposed rule,
and its findings were incorporated into
the threshold for beaked whales (see the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.4.3.1.6
(Behavioral Reactions)). During Tyack et
al.’s (2011) research at the Navy’s fixed
tracking range in the Bahamas, animals
were observed to leave the immediate
area of the anti-submarine warfare
training exercise (avoiding the sonar
acoustic footprint at a distance where
the received level was ‘‘around 140 dB’’
SPL. Further, Moretti et al. (2014)
recently derived an empirical risk
function for Blainville’s beaked whale
that predicts there is a 0.5 probability of
disturbance at a received level of 150 dB
SPL, suggesting that in some cases the
current step function may over-estimate
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19562
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
the effects of an activity using sonar on
beaked whales. Therefore, NMFS has
concluded that, based on the best
available science, 140 dB re 1mPa (root
mean square) is a conservative and
appropriate threshold for predicting
potential behavioral effects on beaked
whales from sonar signals.
Comment 21: NRDC et al. commented
that there are additional flaws in the
Navy’s acoustic effects modeling, which
include: a lack of any indication that the
Navy has accounted for reverberation
effects in its modeling, or that its
modeling sufficiently represents areas in
which the risk of reverberation is
greatest; and a failure to consider the
possible synergistic effects on marine
mammal physiology and behavior of
using multiple acoustic sources in
spatial and temporal proximity.
Response: NMFS disagrees. As
presented in the Section 3.8.3.1.6.3
(Navy Acoustic Effects Model) of the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS and in the referenced
modeling technical report (Marine
Species Modeling Team, 2015), the
Navy’s acoustic effects modeling
incorporates the most up to date marine
mammal density data and
oceanographic data for the
quantification of predicted acoustic
impacts to marine mammals. Contrary
to the assertions in the comment, the
model does account for a fully threedimensional environment in calculating
sound propagation and exposures
incorporating site-specific bathymetry,
sound speed profiles, wind speed, and
bottom properties into the propagation
modeling process. As noted in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS, the modeling accounts for
all sources within a scenario
simultaneously, so this modeling
approach specifically accounts for the
combined (additive) effects from using
multiple acoustic sources in spatial and
temporal proximity (i.e., the cumulative
SEL is a composite of all sources
received by the animat). Multiple
conservative assumptions are
incorporated into the model.
Comment 22: The Commission
recommended that NMFS require the
Navy to provide the predicted average
and maximum ranges for all impact
criteria (i.e., behavioral response, TTS,
PTS, onset slight lung injury, onset
slight gastrointestinal injury, and onset
mortality), for all activities (i.e., based
on the activity category and
representative source bins and
including ranges for more than 1 ping),
and for all functional hearing groups of
marine mammals within the GOA
TMAA.
Response: Ranges to effects for all
criteria and functional hearing groups
are provided for representative active
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
sonars and explosives (Section
3.8.3.3.1.1, Range to Effects) in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS. Table 6 in this rule
provides updated ranges to PTS and
TTS for the major activity types in the
context of the applicable mitigation
measures. Changes for different taxa
were described in more detail in the
‘‘Summary of Request’’ section of this
Notice. See the ‘‘Summary of Request’’
section for further detail.
Generally speaking, for the modeled
ranges, the representative sources
include the most powerful active sonar
source and the charge with the largest
net explosive weight analyzed. NMFS
believes that these representative
sources provide adequate information to
analyze potential effects on marine
mammals. Because the Navy conducts
training in a variety of environments
having variable acoustic propagation
conditions, variations in acoustic
propagation conditions are considered
in the Navy’s acoustic modeling and the
quantitative analysis of acoustic
impacts. Average ranges to effect are
provided in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS to
show the reader typical zones of impact
around representative sources rather
than an inclusive list of source bins. As
presented in Chapter 5 of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS, the mitigation is the same
for all bins within the activity category.
The presentation of a maximum range
based on a worst case analysis under
extreme conditions would fail to be
representative and therefore potentially
confuse readers by presentation of a
range to effects that are extremely
unlikely to ever be present in actual real
world conditions.
Because the ranges to PTS for acoustic
sources are relatively short, the ranges
to PTS presented in the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS are representative of the ranges for
purposes of the discussion. In short, the
information provided in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS (and updated in Table 6
here) should be considered applicable to
the GOA TMAA Study Area. The
approximate maximum ranges to TTS
provided in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Table
3.8–12) are also representative of the
ranges to effect and are provided in the
FSEIS/OEIS to show the typical zones of
impact around representative sources.
As explained in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
in Section 3.8.3.3.1.1 (Range to Effects),
there is no reason to show a PTS range
for more than one ping because of the
short distances over which a PTS has
the potential to occur. For the case of
the most powerful hull-mounted source
(hull-mounted mid-frequency antisubmarine warfare sonar) the ship
moves beyond the PTS zone for each
successive ping and there is no
difference in magnitude of successive
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
pings. Refer to Section 3.8.3.1.1 (Nonimpulsive and Impulsive Sound
Sources) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. Pings
occur approximately every 50 seconds,
and each subsequent ping has the same
approximate range to PTS from the bow
of the ship as the first ping. Therefore,
there is not sufficient overlapping
energy from one ping to the next to
make presentation of multiple pings
useful. As noted in the comment and
presented in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, an
animal would have to be exposed at the
TTS level by the first ping and then
continue parallel to the ship within
close proximity for 50 seconds to
receive a second ping, potentially
resulting in a PTS level exposure. Given
the science detailed in the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS (see Section 3.8.3.1.7, Marine
Mammal Avoidance of Sound
Exposures) indicating that marine
mammals will behaviorally avoid high
levels of sound, the assumption that a
marine mammal would not remain
alongside a pinging vessel is a simple
but reasonable assumption. The GOA
FSEIS/OEIS and this final rule conclude
that it is unlikely for an animal to
maintain a speed of 10 knots and stay
in close proximity to a vessel using
active sonar. As presented in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS (see Section 3.8.3.3.1.1,
Range to Effects), while 10 knots was
the ship’s speed used in the model, a
ship engaged in anti-submarine warfare
training could be moving at between 10
and 15 knots. For a Navy vessel moving
at a nominal 10 knots, it is unlikely a
marine mammal could maintain the
speed to parallel the ship and receive
adequate energy over successive pings
to result in a PTS exposure.
Mitigation and Monitoring
Comment 23: The Commission and
other commenters recommended that
NMFS require the Navy to use passive
and active acoustics, whenever
practicable, to supplement visual
monitoring during the implementation
of its mitigation measures for all
activities that could cause PTS, injury,
or mortality beyond those explosive
activities for which passive acoustics
already was proposed (commenters also
specifically suggested modifying
sonobuoys for this purpose). NRDC et
al. also suggested use of dedicated
passive acoustic monitoring to detect
vocalizing species, through established
and portable range instrumentation and
the use of hydrophone arrays off
instrumented ranges. The Commission
also questioned why passive and active
acoustic monitoring used during the
Navy’s Surveillance Towed Array
Sensory System Low Frequency Active
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
(SURTASS LFA) activities is not
applied here.
Response: The primary purpose of the
mitigation shutdowns is to avoid injury,
most TTS, and more severe instances of
behavioral disturbance. We note that in
the current mitigation paradigm,
without additional PAM or active
acoustic detection as recommended by
the Commission and other commenters,
only four individual Dall’s porpoises are
anticipated to incur PTS, Level B
harassment resulting in TTS is
anticipated for a small number of
marine mammals from a few species,
and modeling predicts that zero percent
of the Level B harassment takes result
from exposure at closer than 1,825 m
(less than 1–2 percent at closer than 4
km), which is where the mitigation
shutdowns would apply. For the
reasons described below, when the
minimal potential likelihood of
reducing impacts to marine mammal
species or stocks and their habitat is
weighed along with the degree of
impracticability for implementing the
measures suggested by commenters,
NMFS finds that requiring such
additional mitigation is unwarranted.
Passive acoustic monitoring is already
and will continue to be implemented.
As mentioned in Chapter 5 (Standard
Operating Procedures, Mitigation, and
Monitoring) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
and the ‘‘Mitigation’’ section of this
final rule, passive acoustic monitoring
would be conducted with Navy assets,
such as passive ships sonar systems or
sonobuoys, already participating in the
activity. The Navy does not have the
resources to construct and maintain
passive acoustic monitoring (PAM)
systems for each training and testing
activity. Discussion in the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS Section 5.3.3.1.11 (Increasing
Visual and Passive Acoustic
Observations) further articulates why
increased use of passive acoustics for
the purpose of mitigation would be
impractical with regard to
implementation of military readiness
activities and result in an unacceptable
impact on readiness. Additionally,
mitigation measures were developed
based on predicted potential impacts;
therefore, the use of acoustic monitoring
is not always warranted, nor practicable
from an operational standpoint (GOA
FSEIS/OEIS Section 5.3.2.1, Acoustic
Stressors). The Navy’s visual mitigation
has been demonstrated to be effective
over the 8 years of monitoring
associated with Navy training and
testing at sea as reflected in publically
available reports submitted to NMFS
since 2006 and accessible on the NMFS
Office of Protected Resources Web site
(https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
incidental/military.htm) (see Section
3.8.5, Summary of Observations During
Previous Navy Activities, of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS, for more information in
this regard).
Regarding its effectiveness, passive,
and active in specific cases, acoustic
detection can increase the likelihood of
detecting marine mammals for the
purposes of implementing mitigation,
although passive acoustic detection can
only be effective when animals are
vocalizing, and when they are
vocalizing at a level and in a direction
that will be detected and recognized by
the sensor (only a subset of the time).
Also, with the exception of the largest
sound sources, the size of any
ensonified zone combined with the
density of marine mammals and the
likelihood that they avoid loud sounds,
there is only a relatively small number
of times (compared to overall scope of
exercises) that we would predict that
animals would come within distances
that require shutdowns (as noted above),
and that would be further improved by
the use of PAM. Additionally,
sophisticated use of multiple sensors is
needed in order to predict the distance
and bearing of the vocalizing animals
that is needed to justify implementing a
shutdown. The effectiveness of PAM for
mitigation implementation is somewhat
further impeded by fast moving sources
because of the constantly changing
location of the marine mammal in
relation to the moving source combined
with the inability to detect the direction
of movement of the animal in the
moment it is detected. PAM is
expensive and operationally challenging
(or impossible) to implement in many
cases and the Navy uses thousands of
sound sources across its exercises. As
described above, Navy uses PAM in
certain activities where the risk is
higher (e.g., explosives or some hullmounted sonar), and/or where it is
notably much more practicable to use
(e.g., for stationary sources such as the
Improved Extending Echo-ranging
(IEER) system, which is a field of
multiple sources). However, given the
limited added conservation value added
by using PAM to implement mitigation,
combined with the impracticability of
doing so in many cases, NMFS does not
believe that additional use of PAM is
warranted for all sources and we believe
that the PAM use required by these
regulations contributes to ensuring the
least practicable adverse impact on the
effected marine mammal species and
stocks and their habitat.
The SURTASS LFA platforms are
slow moving and deploy a high
frequency active sonar (HF/M3) to
identify marine mammals in close
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19563
proximity (2 km) to the SURTASS LFA
vessel. The active sonar system used by
SURTASS LFA is built into the system’s
vertical array and can only be employed
in this fashion from a slow-moving or
stationary platform. It is not possible to
employ this system on the types of
vessels used for the GOA training
activities because a vertical array cannot
be used on other ship classes whose
mission includes speed and tactical
movement while protecting aircraft
carriers and other high value units.
Further, in addition to the difficulty in
implementation, NMFS does not
generally support the use of active
acoustic monitoring except in cases
where it is mitigating an effect of
potentially very high or singular
severity and there is a high likelihood
of successful use (stationery or slowmoving platforms), as it essentially
equates to harassing marine mammals
by putting the active detection signal in
the water in order to prevent harassing
marine mammals with the main sound
source for which takes are being
authorized. NMFS has only previously
considered the use of active acoustic
detection in a few situations, one for
SURTASS LFA (actually implemented),
in which the HF active acoustics are
used from a slow-moving platform to
implement mitigation and avoid
impacts from a very high-level LF
source, and two other situations that
were never implemented—one from a
dock for testing a very loud source in
port, and one from a large piece of
heavy machinery wherein bodily injury
was a possibility.
Modifying sonobuoys to increase their
bandwidth is considered impractical for
the Navy because it would require
significant modification to the sonobuoy
receiving equipment at a substantial
cost and reduce the effectiveness of the
sonobuoy system’s ability to detect
submarines. See section 5.3.3.1.13 of the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Increasing Visual and
Passive Acoustic Observations) for
further information regarding the use of
passive sensors.
Comment 24: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS should restrict the Navy’s
active sonar and explosives training
activities around certain important
habitat areas—specifically, marine
protected areas (MPAs) and recently
identified and published biologically
important areas (see Ferguson et al.,
2015) located within or in close
proximity to the GOA TMAA. NRDC et
al. also recommended that NMFS
identify other time/area closures as
informed by the following: (1)
Temporally and spatially well-defined
phytoplankton blooms occurring in
portions of the TMAA and driven by the
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19564
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
tides, bathymetry, and eddy systems of
the northern and central Gulf of Alaska;
(2) relative densities of large whales
within the April to October period as
informed by BIA and call rate data; (3)
temporal and spatial differences in the
depth of the mixed layer and the sonic
layer which can create different surface
ducting conditions; and (4) review of
major seamounts, representing
potentially biologically important
habitat for multiple species, within the
GOA TMAA.
Other commenters recommended
similar time/area-specific mitigation for
Navy training activities, including
avoidance of seamounts and BIAs, and
restriction of training during the spring/
summer time period.
Response: Mitigation measures that
include spatio-temporal avoidance of
biologically important areas, MPAs, and
other marine species habitat (e.g.,
seamounts) within the GOA TMAA
Study Area were fully considered and
are discussed in the ‘‘Consideration of
Time/Area Limitations’’ section of this
final rule.
As discussed in the proposed and
final rules and in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS,
biologically important feeding areas for
North Pacific right whale and migration
areas for gray whale (Ferguson et al.,
2015) overlap small portions of the
western edge/corners of the TMAA. The
overlap is small both spatially for both,
and temporally for gray whale migration
(November through January and March
through May; Navy activities within the
TMAA have historically occurred in
summer months). As discussed in
‘‘Consideration of Time/Area
Limitations,’’ it is unlikely that Navy
explosive and sonar training would
occur in these nearshore locations
adjacent to the GOA TMAA boundary
where the overlap with BIAs occurs.
Therefore, North Pacific right whales
and gray whales in the feeding or
migration areas at these boundaries of
the GOA TMAA are unlikely to have
their feeding or migration activities
affected by Navy training activities
using sonar and other active acoustic
sources. However, after considering the
small population size of North Pacific
right whales, the rarity of their
detections and general lack of sightings
within the GOA TMAA, and the
extremely limited current information
about this species, NMFS is requiring a
North Pacific right whale ‘‘Cautionary
Area’’ between June and September in
the overlapping 2,051 km2 portion of
the North Pacific right whale feeding
area (See Figure 3.8–4 of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS), in which no hull-mounted
sonar or explosives would be used
within the portion of the feeding area
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
that overlaps the Navy’s GOA TMAA
during those months, except when
required by national security needs. In
the event of national security needs, the
Navy would be required to seek
approval in advance from the
Commander, U.S. Third Fleet prior to
conducting training activities using
sonar or explosives. NMFS believes that
implementation of this North Pacific
right whale Cautionary Area within the
GOA TMAA may provide additional
protection of this species and stock
beyond the mitigation measures already
proposed by the Navy in the proposed
rule and GOA FSEIS/OEIS. In the case
of the gray whale migratory area, given
the extremely minimal spatio-temporal
overlap with Navy training activities in
the GOA TMAA, coupled with the fact
that no takes of gray whale are predicted
to occur with the proposed level of
training effort, NMFS has determined
that additional mitigation measures
related to time/area limitations of Navy
training activities within the
overlapping portion of the migratory
area are not warranted, nor would
avoidance of this area contribute to the
least practicable impact standard or any
lessening of the likelihood of adverse
impacts on the species or stocks.
Very few MPAs are located near or
within the GOA TMAA. MPAs vary
widely in purpose, level of protection,
and restrictions on human uses. As
discussed in ‘‘Consideration of Time/
Area Limitations’’ and in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS, MPAs in the vicinity of the
GOA TMAA generally focus on natural
heritage, fishery management, and
sustainable production. The identified
impacts and purpose for the designation
of these areas is to limit or restrict
specific fishing activities, and the Navy
would fully abide by the regulations
(mainly restrictions on commercial and
recreational fishing) of the individual
MPA and relevant resources. Since the
Navy does not engage in fishing
activities, restricting Navy training
activities in these areas would be
ineffective at preventing the identified
impacts caused by fishing. Our issuance
of an authorization to take marine
mammals would not conflict with the
management, protection, or
conservation objectives of these MPAs.
Therefore, NMFS has determined that
Navy avoidance of these areas is not
warranted, nor would it contribute to
the least practicable impact standard or
any lessening of the likelihood of
adverse impacts on species or stocks.
While seamounts may represent
important habitat for multiple species
(including marine mammals), the major
seamounts located within the TMAA
(e.g., Dall, Quinn, and Giacomini
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
seamounts) have been designated by
NOAA as Gulf of Alaska Seamount
Habitat Protection Areas specifically to
help maintain productivity of fisheries
resources through restrictions on bottom
fishing. Moreover, NMFS’ review of the
passive acoustic monitoring results in
the Navy’s annual monitoring reports
(2011–2015) for GOA generally does not
suggest significantly greater use of these
seamounts by marine mammals (at least
for those where HARPS were deployed;
it is also important to note that an
animal may be located several miles
away from where it is detected)
compared to other locations (shelf and
slope) where detections were recorded.
Navy monitoring efforts indicate that
beaked whales appear to use both shelf
and seamount sites, although detections
were generally low at the monitored
seamount sites within the TMAA and
may in fact be more prevalent at the
slope site. Fin and humpback callings
peaked in winter when Navy activities
are not proposed to occur. Fin and
sperm whale detections were generally
more prevalent at shelf and slope sites,
respectively. Blue whale calls were
detected at all sites. North Pacific right
whale calls were last detected in 2013,
on the Quinn Seamount site; however,
analysis of these detections indicated
that the calls were detected from ranges
on the order of roughly up to 50 nm to
the east of the site; the calling animal
was not in the vicinity of Quinn
ˇ
´
Seamount (Debich et al., 2014; Sirovic
et al., 2014). The Navy has been training
with sonar and other systems for
decades in locations having seamounts
or slope areas, or that are adjacent to
continental shelfs where, to date, there
has been no evidence of any long-term
consequences for individuals or
populations of marine mammals. This
finding is based on years of research and
monitoring that show, for example,
higher densities and long-term
residency by species such as beaked
whales in Southern California, where
the Navy trains and tests, than in other
adjacent areas. Further, the Navy has
identified the need to train in varied
bathymetric conditions, including
around seamounts specifically.
Restricting Navy training to areas away
from these bathymetric features would
eliminate the ability to train as needed
in these complex environments and
would reduce the realism of the military
readiness activity, while simultaneously
providing limited protective value.
It is not practicable to require limited
activity during phytoplankton blooms.
The key consideration is these features
are highly variable temporally and
spatially throughout the entire Gulf of
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Alaska both inside and outside of the
TMAA. Monthly, annual, inter-annual,
and decadal oceanographic conditions
will drive the establishment and
disestablishment of these areas which
cannot be predicted in terms of the GOA
TMAA authorization. In review of 15
years of oceanographic data from 1992–
2006, Henson and Thomas (2008) for
instance discuss how anticyclonic
oceanographic eddies that pull most of
the near shelf nutrients into offshore
waters can have substantial inter-annual
variability in number and propagation
paths from east to west. These eddy
zones and entrained nutrients would
highly influence phytoplankton blooms.
Henson and Thomas (2008) also showed
seasonal patterns with strongest spring
and summer eddy zones likely to be in
the north-northeast slope area of the
Gulf of Alaska, in areas outside of the
GOA TMAA. Late spring and early
summer (May to July) is the most likely
period for any Navy major training
event. Given this degree of variability, it
would be impractical to consider on an
annual basis which areas would likely
contain the presence of these
phytoplankton blooms, or how long a
given bloom would persist even if an
eddy were present.
NMFS notes that the call rate data
cited by the commenters, as well as the
Navy’s more recent and more robust
passive acoustic data from 2011–2015,
only provide occurrence specifically for
that part of a given species’ population
that may be calling at a particular time.
The Navy data set alone represents over
58,953 hours or 2,456 days’ worth of
passive acoustic data that has been
collected, analyzed, and results
reported. The science of density and
relative density estimation from passive
acoustic data is still being researched
under funding from several different
Navy programs. For example, the
current Navy funded research is
focusing on aspects such as the proper
characterization of calling rates, range of
detection, and group size, all of which
can vary by species, region, time of
year/day, sex, etc. All of these variables
can impact the resulting density
estimate, and therefore the method of
incorporating these variables needs to
be investigated further. Meanwhile, the
best available density data (available at
https://www.goaeis.com/Documents/
SupplementalEISOEISDocumentsand
References/SupportingTechnical
Documents.aspx), which was used in
the Navy’s FSEIS/OEIS and this rule to
calculate take, does not support the
designation of restricted areas within
the TMAA. First, density estimates for
many of the species are uniform across
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
the entire TMAA (e.g., Cuvier’s beaked
whales, Minke whales, gray whales) and
other species have simple models with
only a few strata (meaning that there is
one uniform density value in a zone,
with a few zones: Typically shelf, slope,
deep, and sometimes a differential at the
southern edge of the deep water that is
closer to the sea mounts), but different
strata are high-density for different
species. For example, fin whales are
densest on the shelf, decreasing in slope
strata, with lowest density in deep
water, while sei whales are densest in
the deep waters and least dense on the
shelf. This means that restricting
activities in one area that is important
to one species would intensify activities
in an area that is important to another
species. Additionally, the Navy has
specifically noted the importance of
training across these multiple
bathymetric features, so creating a time/
area closure that mirrors a bathymetric
strata (e.g., the whole slope, or the
whole shelf) is inherently detrimental to
the Navy’s mission. Separately, though,
the Navy has also noted in the
description of its action that more
hazardous activities, such as those that
use explosives, are generally not
conducted on the edges of the TMAA,
due to safety and proximity to coastal
areas.
With respect to surface ducting
conditions, environmental conditions in
the Gulf of Alaska during the timeframe
when Navy training activities would
generally occur do not support surface
ducting conditions. A surface duct
requires cold water at the surface with
warmer water at deeper depths which is
highly unlikely during the warmer
summer months in the Gulf of Alaska
when training has historically occurred.
In addition, there has been no
indication that mixed layer depth has
any direct influence on marine mammal
behavior or response to anthropogenic
sounds.
Regarding the benefits of the proposed
time/area limitations that NMFS has
decided not to require, it is possible that
the application of one or more of these
areas could potentially decrease the
number of takes of one species or
another, depending on when and where
the exercise ended up taking place.
However, as we have explained, due to
the nature of the exercise (short
duration) and the effectiveness of the
existing mitigation measures, the
anticipated impacts are already
expected to be primarily lower-level
behavioral responses and are not
anticipated to occur in times or places
where impacts would be more likely to
lead to fitness effects on individuals.
When the limited anticipated potential
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19565
benefit to marine mammal species and
stocks of applying these measures is
combined with the impracticability of
implementation, NMFS has concluded
that requiring these measures is not
warranted. NMFS has determined that
the mitigation measures required by this
rule, including those clarified or
updated above (see ‘‘Consideration of
Time/Area Limitation’’), are adequate
means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impacts on marine mammals
species or stocks and their habitat,
paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, while also considering
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity.
NMFS agrees with NRDC and other
commenters that there continues to be a
need to better understand the spatial
distribution and occurrence of marine
mammals within the Gulf of Alaska,
including the use of potentially
important habitat areas within the GOA
TMAA. Therefore, NMFS envisions a
more focused monitoring effort in the
GOA TMAA during the Phase II training
activities. Objectives of any future
monitoring in the GOA TMAA will be
discussed during upcoming NMFS-Navy
adaptive management meetings in 2017.
Comment 25: NRDC et al. suggested
the use of sonar and other active
acoustic systems at the lowest
practicable source level, with clear
standards and reporting requirements
for different testing and training
scenarios.
Response: The Navy uses active sonar
at the lowest practicable source level
consistent with mission requirements.
See Section 5.3.3.1.3 of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS (Reducing Sonar Source Levels
and Total Number of Hours) for further
information.
Comment 26: NRDC et al. suggested
expansion of the marine species ‘‘safety
zone’’ to a 4 km shutdown, reflecting
international best practice, or 2 km,
reflecting the standard prescribed by the
California Coastal Commission for
similar activities in Southern California.
Response: Section 5.3.3.1.14 of the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Increasing the Size of
Observed Mitigation Zones) discusses
mitigation zone expansion. See also
Section 5.3.3.1.16 of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS (Adopting Mitigation Measures of
Foreign Navies). There is no
internationally recognized best practice
with regard to mitigation zone distance.
The Navy developed activity-specific
mitigation zones based on the Navy’s
acoustic propagation model. As
described previously, each
recommended mitigation zone is
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19566
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
intended to avoid or reduce the
potential for onset of the lowest level of
injury, PTS, out to the predicted
maximum range. Mitigating to the
predicted maximum range to PTS
consequently also mitigates to the
predicted maximum range to onset
mortality (1 percent mortality), onset
slight lung injury, and onset slight
gastrointestinal tract injury, since the
maximum range to effects for these
criteria are shorter than for PTS.
Furthermore, in many cases, the
mitigation zone actually covers the TTS
zone.
Implementation of mitigation
measures is most effective when the
mitigation zone is appropriately sized to
be realistically observed. The mitigation
zones contained in this final rule
represent the maximum area the Navy
can effectively observe based on the
platform of observation, number of
personnel that will be involved, and the
number and type of assets and resources
available. As mitigation zone sizes
increase, the potential for reducing
impacts decreases. For instance, if a
mitigation zone increases from 1,000 to
4,000 yd (914 to 3,658 m), the area that
must be observed increases sixteen-fold,
which is not practicable. The Navy does
not have the resources to maintain
additional Lookouts or observer
platforms that would be needed to
effectively observe mitigation zones of
increased size. The mitigation zones
contained in this final rule balance the
need to reduce potential impacts with
the Navy’s ability to provide effective
observations throughout a given area.
Comment 27: NRDC et al. suggested
that the Navy delay or relocate activities
when beaked whales are detected
through passive acoustic monitoring
and when significant aggregations of
any species or particularly vulnerable or
endangered species (or even sightings of
single North Pacific right whales) are
detected by any means in the vicinity of
an exercise, even if potentially
occurring beyond the established
mitigation zone.
Response: Mitigation will be
implemented within the mitigation zone
for all marine mammals regardless of
species or numbers of animals if they
approach or enter a mitigation zone.
NMFS disagrees that it is necessary to
delay or relocate activities when beaked
whales, North Pacific right whales,
other sensitive species, or significant
aggregations of marine mammals are
detected outside the mitigation zones.
For the GOA activities, the Navy
developed each recommended
mitigation zone to avoid or reduce the
potential for onset of the lowest level of
injury, PTS, out to the predicted
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
maximum range. Furthermore, in many
cases, the predicted maximum range to
PTS also consequently covers the
predicted average range to TTS and
further alleviates the likelihood of more
severe behavioral responses that might
be anticipated at higher level exposures.
The activity-specific mitigation zones
are based on the longest range for all the
functional hearing groups. The
mitigation zone for a majority of
activities is driven by either the highfrequency cetaceans or the sea turtle
functional hearing groups. Therefore,
the mitigation zones are even more
protective for the remaining functional
hearing groups (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, and
pinnipeds). The predicted ranges are
based on local environmental
conditions and are unique to the GOA
TMAA Study Area.
With respect to passive acoustic
monitoring, all passive acoustic
detections will be reported to Lookouts
to increase vigilance of the visual
surveillance. However, as stated
previously, passive acoustic monitoring
can neither provide range or bearing to
detected animals, and therefore cannot
provide locations of these animals.
As described previously, Navy
watchstanders report both inanimate
objects and marine mammals. Although
they attend training to understand more
about marine mammals, they are not
expected to be able to identify animals
at the species level and they report only
with the specificity that they can
(typically whether the marine mammal
observed was a whale, dolphin, or
pinniped). Therefore, they would not be
able to implement mitigation measures
that require identification of specific
species (and we have described
previously why the Navy cannot utilize
non-Navy trained observers). Moreover,
the 2011 and 2015 exercise reports for
GOA indicate that during these previous
training exercises, watchstanders had a
total of 4 and 31 sightings, respectively
(10 and 68 marine mammals). Only 2
sightings occurred when sonar was
operating. Only 5 sightings included
more than 3 animals, and the vast
majority were of a single animal. This
data suggests that shutting down for
aggregations would not actually occur
with any regularity and would not,
therefore, be expected to contribute to
any meaningful reduction of impacts on
marine mammals.
The additional mitigation measure
recommended by commenters is
designed to further reduce the numbers
of takes by Level B harassment, focusing
on aggregations or endangered species.
One point that is often overlooked is
that when a training exercise is
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
interrupted for a shutdown, it does not
just start back up; training exercises
often involve a series of actions and
movements that develop over a period
of time. Also, the effectiveness of some
of the exercises involving certain types
of targets with a limited battery life can
be jeopardized if restarts result in the
exercise length exceeding the needed
battery life. It is difficult to predict how
much of an exercise will need to be
redone, but it is safe to say that shutting
down will typically result in a longer
total duration of sound source operation
as operators reacquire targets or
otherwise get back to where they were
before the shutdown—potentially
increasing impacts.
In short, the existing mitigation
measures for marine mammals
minimize the likelihood of PTS, TTS, or
more severe behavioral responses and,
with the addition of the North Pacific
Right Whale Cautionary Area, ensure
that takes are not occurring in
particularly important areas or times
that would be more likely to result in
impacts on individual fitness.
Additionally, as explained throughout
this final rule, the predicted Level B
harassment authorized is expected to be
of a lower level type of effect, of short
duration, and unlikely to adversely
impact reproductive success or
survivorship of any individuals (the
type of effects that would lead to
population-level impacts). Further,
there are comparatively low numbers of
Level B harassment authorized for
endangered and threatened whales, and
only three annual takes of North Pacific
right whales. In addition to the fact that
the current watchstander requirements
do not support the implementation of
any measures that require species
identification, shutdowns beyond those
currently recommended to minimize
more severe effects will have limited, if
any, ability to reduce impacts on marine
mammal species or stocks and their
habitat, while being disruptive to Navy
training and potentially lengthening the
overall time that sound sources are
operating. For these reasons, NMFS
does not believe that these measures are
warranted.
Comment 28: NRDC et al. suggested
use of simulated geography (and other
work-arounds) to reduce or eliminate
chokepoint exercises in near-coastal
environments, particularly within
canyons and channels, and use of other
important habitat. Other commenters
recommended Navy simulation of
training activities as well.
Response: There are no chokepoint
exercises in the Study Area. Further, the
Navy does have a particular set of
monitoring measures (intended to help
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
reduce the chance of a stranding) that
would be applied if a combination of
circumstances exist that are thought to
make a stranding more likely (e.g., steep
bathymetry, multiple vessels using
sonar in a single area over an extended
period of time, constricted channels or
embayments). However, a combination
of these environmental and operational
features is not present in the GOA
TMAA Study Area.
As discussed in Section 2.3.2.4
(Simulated Training) of the 2011 GOA
FEIS/OEIS and Section 5.3.3.1.2
(Replacing Training with Simulated
Activities) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the
Navy uses computer simulation for
training whenever possible. However,
training in near-coastal environments is
an essential component to maintaining
military readiness. Computer simulation
can provide familiarity and complement
live training; however, it cannot provide
the fidelity and level of training
necessary to prepare naval forces for
deployment. Sound propagates
differently in shallower water and
operators must learn to train in this
environment. Additionally, submarines
have become quieter through the use of
improved technology and have learned
to hide in the higher ambient noise
levels of the shallow waters of coastal
environments. In real world events, it is
highly likely Sailors would be working
in, and therefore must train in, these
types of areas. The littoral water space
is also the most challenging area to
operate in due to a diverse acoustic
environment. It is not realistic or
practicable to refrain from training in
the areas that are the most challenging
and operationally important. Operating
in near-costal environments is essential
in order to provide realistic training on
real world combat conditions with
regard to shallow water sound
propagation.
Comment 29: NRDC et al. suggested
avoidance or reduction of training
during months with historically
significant surface ducting conditions;
delay of activities or use of powerdowns during significant surface
ducting conditions; and use of
additional power-downs when
significant surface ducting conditions
coincide with other conditions that
elevate risk.
Response: As discussed in a previous
response to comments above,
environmental conditions in the Gulf of
Alaska during the timeframe when Navy
training activities would generally occur
do not support surface ducting
conditions. A surface duct requires cold
water at the surface with warmer water
at deeper depths which is highly
unlikely during the warmer summer
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
months in the Gulf of Alaska when
training has historically occurred. In
addition, although it is possible that a
higher number of animals might be
taken by Level B harassment in those
moments when Navy training overlaps
with surface ducting condition or be
exposed to slightly higher levels than
otherwise as the sound from nearby
sources might propagate farther, there
has been no indication that mixed layer
depth has any direct influence on
marine mammal behavior or response to
anthropogenic sounds.
NMFS also notes that avoiding or
reducing active sonar during surface
ducts for the purpose of mitigation
would increase safety risks to personnel,
be impractical with regard to
implementation of military readiness
activities, and result in unacceptable
impacts on readiness for the following
reasons: The Navy must train in the
same manner as it will fight.
Submarines have long been known to
exploit the phenomena associated with
surface ducting. Therefore, training in
surface ducting conditions is a critical
component to military readiness
because sonar operators need to learn
how sonar transmissions are altered due
to surface ducting, how submarines may
take advantage of them, and how to
operate sonar effectively in this
environment. Avoiding activities during
periods with surface ducting conditions
or requiring the use of power-downs
during surface ducting conditions
would reduce a sonar operator’s ability
to effectively operate in a real world
combat situation, thereby resulting in an
unacceptable increased risk to
personnel safety and the ability to
achieve military readiness. Furthermore,
avoiding surface ducting would be
impractical to implement because ocean
conditions contributing to surface
ducting change frequently, and surface
ducts can be of varying duration. See
section 5.3.3.1.9 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
for more information on avoiding or
reducing activities during surface
ducting conditions.
In conclusion, in the case of a Navy
operation overlapping with a surface
duct, it is possible that some higher
number of animals might be taken by
Level B harassment in those moments,
or exposed to slightly higher levels than
otherwise as the sound from nearby
sources might propagate farther—and
therefore, numbers of Level B
harassment might be lowered slightly by
avoiding a surface duct. However, a
slight reduction in takes of this sort
would not be expected to contribute
meaningfully to a reduction in adverse
impacts on species or stocks given the
already low number and level of takes
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19567
anticipated and the fact that the existing
measures are expected to minimize the
likelihood of injury, TTS or more severe
behavioral responses, and impacts to
North Pacific Right Whales in a known
feeding area. When the minimal
potential likelihood of reducing impacts
to marine mammal species or stocks and
their habitat is weighed along with the
degree of impracticability for
implementing this measure, NMFS finds
that requiring it is unwarranted.
Comment 30: NRDC et al. suggested
that the Navy plan their ship tracks to
avoid embayments and provide escape
routes for marine mammals.
Response: First, the GOA TMAA is an
open water area that does not include
any embayments and, therefore,
operations are not expected to block
escape routes for marine mammals.
Further, NMFS notes that the Navy has
a particular set of monitoring measures
(intended to help reduce the chance of
a stranding) that would be applied if a
combination of circumstances exist that
are thought to make a stranding more
likely (e.g., steep bathymetry, multiple
vessels in a single area over an extended
period of time, and in areas of
constricted channels or embayments).
However, a combination of these
environmental and operational features
is not present in the GOA TMAA Study
Area.
The majority of Navy training
activities involving ‘‘ship tracks’’ would
occur in the offshore portion of the
Study Area and therefore would not
involve embayments. In inland waters
where there may be areas that could be
considered embayments, ship tracks are
generally constrained by the vessel
traffic separation scheme, safety of
operation, and mission requirements.
See Section 5.3.3.1.6 of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS (Limiting Access to Training
Locations) for further information
regarding limiting the location of
activities.
Comment 31: Several commenters
suggested that the Navy limit their
activities to periods of good visibility.
More specifically, NRDC et al. suggested
that all weapons firing in missile and
bombing exercises involving
detonations exceeding 20 lb. net
explosive weight take place during the
period 1 hour after sunrise to 30
minutes before sunset.
Response: NMFS believes that
effective mitigation measures are
already in place to address missile and
bombing exercises. Specifically,
explosive activities are already expected
to only result in small amounts of take
of one species (Dall’s porpoise). Further,
since the proposed rule, Navy has
eliminated two SINKEXs from the
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19568
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
proposed actions and MISSILEX in the
GOA TMAA do not utilize live
ordnance.
The Navy must train at night and in
low-visibility conditions to ensure
personnel may operate in similar
conditions when required for actual
operations. After sunset and prior to
sunrise, watch personnel employ night
visual search techniques, which could
include the use of night vision devices.
Please see the ‘‘Mitigation’’ section of
the rule for further information. Section
5.3.3.1.8 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
(Avoiding or Reducing Active Sonar at
Night and During Periods of Low
Visibility) also discusses activities
conducted during varying
environmental conditions.
In conclusion, the anticipated impacts
from explosives are already low and
there are detection techniques in place
that are expected to avoid some of the
nighttime exposures of marine
mammals. It is difficult to predict the
added value of avoiding nighttime
explosive exercises completely above
the exposures that will be avoided by
implementing nighttime detection
techniques—and further, how this might
translate to any reduction in the already
low explosive take numbers for Dall’s
porpoise. At any rate, when this small
potential benefit is weighed against the
impracticability of the Navy being
unable to train in realistic
environments, NMFS finds that this
measure is unwarranted.
Comment 32: NRDC et al. suggested
suspension or postponement of
chokepoint exercises during surface
ducting conditions and scheduling of
such exercises during daylight hours.
Response: There are no chokepoint
exercises in the GOA TMAA Study
Area. See our response to the comment
above regarding avoiding or reducing
activities during surface ducting
conditions. Also, see our response to the
comment above regarding avoidance of
activities at night.
Comment 33: NRDC et al. suggested
use of dedicated aerial monitors during
chokepoint exercises, major exercises,
and near-coastal exercises.
Response: There are no chokepoints
proposed for the Study Area. Please
refer to Section 2 of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS for a detailed description of the
action. As described throughout Chapter
5 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and in this
rule (see ‘‘Mitigation’’ section), visual
observation (aerial and vessel-based)
would be conducted in association with
Navy activities. With respect to the
potential benefits of specific aerial
monitoring, the point of such
monitoring would be to augment
detection of marine mammals for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
implementation of shutdown measures,
which are designed to prevent PTS,
minimize TTS, and minimize more
severe behavioral responses. NMFS’
response to Comment 23 describes the
minimal additional reduction of adverse
impacts to marine mammal species or
stocks that is likely to be gained by
further increasing the effectiveness of
shutdown measures. In short, zero
percent of Level B harassment takes are
expected to occur within approximately
1,825 m (which encompasses the
shutdown area), and only 4 injurious
(PTS) takes are expected to occur to one
species.
With respect to practicability, specific
aerial monitoring is not typically
feasible given the limited duration of
typical monitoring flights (less than four
hours). In addition, there are significant
flight safety considerations and airspace
restrictions during many Navy exercises
when larger groups of military aircraft
are present in high numbers at various
altitudes. When the minimal potential
benefit of this measure is weighed along
with the impracticability, NMFS
believes that the measure is not
warranted.
Comment 34: NRDC et al. suggested
use of aerial surveys and ship-based
surveys before, during, and after multiunit exercises.
Response: As described throughout
Chapter 5 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and
in the ‘‘Mitigation’’ section of this rule,
visual observation (aerial and vesselbased) would be conducted in
association with Navy activities. The
commenter did not describe what the
purpose of these surveys would be (e.g.,
to collect information, to delay or
shutdown activities, etc.) and therefore
it is difficult to evaluate how these
suggested measures may or may not
reduce adverse impacts to marine
mammal species or stocks. However,
please see other comment responses
addressing the limited value of
augmenting detection to facilitate
shutdowns.
With respect to practicability, specific
aerial monitoring is not typically
effective or feasible given the limited
duration of typical monitoring flights
(less than four hours). In addition, there
are significant flight safety
considerations and airspace restrictions
during Navy training when military
aircraft are present in high numbers at
various altitudes. Ship-based surveys
before, during, and after multi-unit
exercises are impractical due to the
large amount of resources required and
the significant impact such a
requirement would have on readiness.
In addition to the mitigation and
monitoring required by this rule, which
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
have proven to be effective, the Navy is
also committed to a robust marine
mammal monitoring program designed
to answer specific questions about the
effects of the Navy’s activities on marine
mammals.
Comment 35: NRDC et al. suggested
use of all available range assets for
marine mammal monitoring.
Response: The commenter did not
specify the purpose of this monitoring
or the specific assets referred to, so it is
difficult to evaluate any potential
benefits to marine mammal species or
stocks along with any specific
practicability issues; however, please
see responses to other comments in this
section recommending methods for
augmenting detection. NMFS has
worked with the Navy over the years to
help develop the most effective
mitigation protocols using the platforms
and assets that are available for
monitoring. The required mitigation
measures in this document represent the
maximum level of effort (e.g., numbers
of Lookouts and passive sonobuoys) that
the Navy can commit to observing
mitigation zones given the number of
personnel that will be involved and the
number and type of assets and resources
available. Furthermore, there are no
permanent Navy range assets or
supporting infrastructure established in
or near the GOA TMAA, which is a
temporarily used area only.
Comment 36: Some commenters
believe that using Lookouts as the
primary strategy for limiting potential
impacts from Navy activities is
inadequate. NRDC et al. suggested the
use of additional Lookouts, and the use
of NMFS-certified observers for marine
mammal detection. Other commenters
recommended use of independent
observers on all Navy vessels. Several
commenters requested further
information on the Navy’s Lookout
effectiveness study. More specifically,
NRDC et al. suggested that the Navy
complete a Lookout effectiveness study
comparing the abilities of Navy vesselbased Lookouts and experienced marine
mammal observers (MMOs), and a
requirement for NMFS-certified
lookouts or other monitoring
enhancements if Navy observers are
significantly less likely to detect marine
mammals.
Response: One key component of the
monitoring and mitigation required by
this rule is the shipboard Lookouts (also
known as watchstanders), who are part
of the standard operating procedure that
ships use to detect objects (including
marine mammals) within a specific area
around the ship during events. The
Lookouts are an element of the Navy’s
monitoring plan, as required by NMFS
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
and specified in the LOA. The goal of
Lookouts is to detect marine mammals
entering ranges of 200, 500, and 1,000
yd (183, 457, and 914 m) around the
vessel, which correspond to distances at
which various mitigation actions should
be performed. In addition to the
Lookouts, officers on the bridge search
visually and sonar operators listen for
marine mammal vocalizations.
NMFS disagrees that using Lookouts
as the primary strategy for limiting
potential impacts from Navy activities is
inadequate. Navy Lookouts are qualified
and experienced observers of the marine
environment. All Lookouts take part in
Marine Species Awareness Training so
that they are better prepared to spot
marine mammals. Their duties require
that they report all objects sighted in the
water to the Office of the Deck (OOD)
and all disturbances that may be
indicative of a threat to the vessel and
its crew. Lookouts are on duty at all
times, day and night, when a ship or
surfaced submarine is moving through
the water. Visual detections of marine
mammals would be communicated
immediately to a watch station for
information disseminations and
appropriate mitigation action. The
number of Lookouts required for each
activity represents the maximum level
of effort (e.g., numbers of Lookouts and
passive sonobuoys) that the Navy can
commit to observing mitigation zones
given the number of personnel that will
be involved in an activity and the
number and type of assets and resources
available. The number of Lookouts that
the Navy uses for each activity often
represents the maximum capacity based
on limited resources (e.g., space and
manning restrictions). NMFS has
carefully considered Navy’s use of
Lookouts and determined that, in
combination with the other mitigation
measures identified, the Navy’s
mitigation plan will effect the least
practicable adverse impacts on marine
mammal species or stocks and their
habitat.
Navy personnel are extensively
trained in spotting items on or near the
water surface. The use of third-party
observers (e.g., NMFS-certified
protected species observers) in air or on
surface platforms in lieu of or in
addition to existing Navy Lookouts for
the purposes of mitigation is impractical
for the following reasons: The use of
third-party observers would
compromise security for some activities
involving active sonar due to the
requirement to provide advance
notification of specific times and
locations of Navy platforms; reliance on
the availability of third-party personnel
could impact training and testing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
flexibility; the presence of additional
aircraft in the vicinity of naval activities
would raise safety concerns; and there
is limited space aboard Navy vessels.
In 2010, the Navy initiated a study
designed to evaluate the effectiveness of
the Navy Lookout team versus
experienced MMOs. The University of
St. Andrews, Scotland, under contract
to the Navy, developed an initial data
collection protocol for use during the
study. Between 2010 and 2012, trained
Navy marine mammal observers
collected data during nine field trials as
part of a ‘‘proof of concept’’ phase. The
goal of the proof of concept phase was
to develop a statistically valid protocol
for quantitatively analyzing the
effectiveness of Lookouts during Navy
training exercises. Field trials were
conducted in the HRC, SOCAL Range
Complex, and Jacksonville Range
Complex onboard one frigate, one
cruiser, and seven destroyers.
Preliminary analysis of the proof of
concept data is ongoing. The Navy is
also working to finalize the data
collection process for use during the
next phase of the study. While data was
collected as part of this proof of concept
phase, those data are not fairly
comparable because protocols were
being changed and assessed, nor are
those data statistically significant.
Therefore, it is improper to use these
data to draw any conclusions on the
effectiveness of Navy Lookouts at this
time.
Comment 37: NRDC et al. suggested
the use of dedicated aerial monitoring
for all Navy explosive activities using
time-delay firing devices and/or all
activities involving explosives greater
than 20 lb net explosive weight.
Response: There are no time-delay
devices proposed for use in the Study
Area. More importantly, with the
existing mitigation, only one species
(Dall’s porpoise) is expected to be taken
by exposure to explosives, and for that
species only 4 takes resulting in PTS are
expected, leaving very few impacts that
could potentially be mitigated. In
addition, it is difficult to know what
additional value will be added by the
aerial observers beyond the existing
ship-based observers. When the
potential benefits of this measure are
considered along with the cost, safety,
and impracticality issues laid out in
response to Comment 33, NMFS does
not believe this measure is warranted.
Comment 38: NRDC et al. suggested
the use of gliders or other platforms for
pre-activity monitoring to avoid
significant aggregations of marine
mammals.
Response: The development of
passive acoustic detectors on gliders
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19569
and other platforms is still in the
research and development stages under
funding from the Office of Naval
Research and the Navy’s Living Marine
Resources programs. While promising,
many of the various technologies are
still being tested and not ready for
transition to compliance monitoring
where a higher degree of performance is
needed. Gliders, even if able to report in
real-time or delayed near real-time,
would only be able to document the
presence of marine mammals, not the
distance of the marine mammals from
the glider or individual animal
movement, and therefore would not be
fully effective in supporting mitigation
that results in delayed operations or
shutdowns. Moreover, gliders would
only provide an indication that animals
are in the area, but these same animals
could easily move substantial distances
over the course of just a few hours. In
some cases, use of gliders in and around
where Navy submarines also operate is
an underwater safety hazard to the
submarine and to the glider. Gliders and
other passive acoustic platforms,
therefore, are more appropriate for
broad area searches within Navy ranges
to document marine mammal seasonal
occurrence, but are not practical as a
mitigation tool.
Additionally, as noted previously, the
higher level effects that shutdowns
mitigate (PTS, TTS, and more severe
behavioral effects) are already minimal
as modeled. Further, in the two
previous exercises for which we have
reports (2011 and 2015), only two
observations of marine mammals
occurred when sonar was in operation,
suggesting that augmentation of
detection capabilities would not
necessarily result in fewer exposures to
marine mammals. For these reasons,
NMFS has not required the use of these
additional platforms.
Comment 39: NRDC et al.
recommended that the Navy comply
with underwater detonation and
gunnery exercise mitigation measures as
set forth in NMFS’ 2009 final rule (74
FR 3882; January 21, 2009) for the
SOCAL Range Complex.
Response: The commenters do not
elaborate on why the mitigation
measures for underwater explosives and
gunnery exercises—which are unrelated
activities—for the SOCAL Range
Complex would be more protective than
those currently proposed for similar
activities in the GOA TMAA Study
Area. Moreover, mitigation measures
designed for training and testing
activities in the SOCAL Range Complex
are not directly applicable to GOA
activities. Mitigation measures for
underwater detonations and gunnery
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19570
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
exercises for GOA are described in the
‘‘Mitigation section’’ and regulatory text
of this rule. NMFS has determined that
these mitigation measures are adequate
means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impacts on marine mammal
species or stocks and their habitat
Comment 40: NRDC et al.
recommended avoidance and reduction
in the use of timer delays in favor of
explosives with positive controls.
Response: There are no time-delay
devices proposed for use in the Study
Area. Please see Chapter 2 of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS for a detailed description of
the action.
Comment 41: NRDC et al.
recommended application of ship-speed
restriction (e.g., of 10 knots) for support
vessels and/or other vessels while
transiting high-value habitat for baleen
whales and endangered species, or other
areas of biological significance, and/or
shipping lanes.
Response: The Navy typically chooses
to run vessels at slower speeds for
efficiency to conserve fuel when
possible, which may include speeds less
than 5 knots or completely stopped for
launching small boats, certain tactical
maneuvers, target launch, or retrievals
of unmanned underwater vehicles, etc.
However, some operational
requirements mean that Navy vessels
must exceed 10 knots due to unique
training, testing, or safety requirements
for a given event. Further, imposing an
artificial speed restriction only on Navy
vessels, which represent an extremely
small percentage of ship traffic,
particularly in areas of high commercial
traffic where no other limits exist, could
create safety or navigation concerns
where Navy vessels are not traveling at
speeds consistent with surrounding
traffic.
As discussed earlier in this rule in the
‘‘Mitigation’’ section and in Section
5.3.2.2 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
(Physical Disturbance and Strike), the
Navy’s speed protocol is as follows:
While in transit, Navy vessels shall be
alert at all times, use extreme caution,
and proceed at a ‘‘safe speed’’ so that
the vessel can take proper and effective
action to avoid a collision with any
sighted object or disturbance, including
any marine mammal or sea turtle and
can be stopped within a distance
appropriate to the prevailing
circumstances and conditions. Other
mitigation measures will be
implemented to avoid vessel strikes,
such as maneuvering to keep at least
500 yards from whales observed in a
vessel’s path, and not approaching
whales head-on, provided it is safe to do
so. The Navy will also be required to
report any vessel strike.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Navy ship speed has not been
implicated in impacts to marine
mammals in the GOA TMAA Study
Area. As discussed in the ‘‘Take
Request’’ section and elsewhere in this
rule, there has never been a recorded
vessel strike of marine mammals during
any training activities in the Study Area.
The Navy’s proposed actions would not
result in any appreciable changes in
locations or frequency of vessel activity
in the GOA TMAA. The manner in
which the Navy has trained would
remain consistent with the range of
variability observed over the last
decade, so neither the Navy nor NMFS
anticipate that vessel strikes would
occur within the Study Area during
training events, and NMFS has not
authorized take by ship strike.
While NMFS would never say that a
ship strike is absolutely impossible
where vessels are in use, the probability
here given historical data in the region
and the comparatively small number of
vessels is considered to so small as to
be discountable. Therefore, ship speed
restrictions would not be expected to
reduce adverse impacts on marine
mammal species or stocks and their
habitat in any measurable manner.
When this is coupled with the
operational challenges of reducing
speed (navigational and safety hazards
or training impacts), the measure is not
warranted.
Comment 42: NRDC et al.
recommended application of mitigation
prescribed by state regulators, by the
courts, by other navies or research
centers, or by the U.S. Navy in the past
or in other contexts.
Response: NRDC did not mention any
specific measures and therefore this
recommendation cannot be evaluated in
the context of the least practicable
adverse impact standard. NMFS and the
Navy worked together on developing a
comprehensive set of mitigation
measures to reduce the impacts from
Navy training and testing activities on
marine mammal species or stocks and
their habitat. During the process of
developing mitigation measures, NMFS
and the Navy considered all potentially
applicable mitigation measures.
Evaluation of past and present Navy
mitigation measures, alternative
mitigation measures, and mitigation
measures of foreign navies is discussed
in Chapter 5 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. As
discussed in the Mitigation section,
NMFS has determined that the
mitigation measures required by this
rule are adequate means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impacts on
marine mammal species or stocks and
their habitat, paying particular attention
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of similar significance, while also
considering personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity.
Comment 43: NRDC et al.
recommended avoidance of fish
spawning grounds and of important
habitat for fish species potentially
vulnerable to significant behavioral
change, such as wide-scale
displacement within the water column
or changes in breeding behavior.
Response: NMFS considered impacts
to marine mammal prey species as a
component of marine mammal habitat.
Please see the ‘‘Marine Mammal
Habitat’’ section of the proposed rule,
which included an extensive discussion
of the potential impact of the Navy’s
activities on fish. In summary, long-term
consequences to fish populations are
not expected. Impacts to fish spawning
grounds and habitat use are also
considered under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act as it relates to
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The effect
of the Navy’s activities on threatened
and endangered fish was also addressed
in NMFS’ Biological Opinion, which
concluded that the Navy’s activities
would not reasonably be expected to
reduce appreciably the likelihood of the
survival and recovery of any listed fish
species.
Section 5.3.1.1.11 of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS (Avoiding Marine Species Habitats
and Biologically Important Areas)
discusses habitat avoidance. Section 3.6
of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Fish) provides
the effects determinations on fish. As
noted in Section 3.6 of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS, the current science regarding
behavioral impacts to fish from sonar is
that the potential for effects within the
near field (within few tens of meters of
the source), intermediate, or far
distances is low (Popper et al., 2014).
For explosives, the potential for
behavioral effects is high within a few
tens of meters from the source, moderate
to high within intermediate distances
(hundreds of meters from the source),
and low within the far field (thousands
of meters from the source) (Popper et al.,
2014). Therefore, the type of wide-scale
displacement being described by the
commenter is unlikely to occur based on
the current state of the science.
In short, NMFS does not anticipate
serious, focused, or long-term effects on
any species of fish, especially in the
context of their importance to marine
mammal species or stocks and their
habitat. Therefore, NMFS does not
expect the effects of Navy activities on
marine mammal prey to result in effects
on feeding that would have negative
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
energetic impacts on individuals that
would be expected to negatively affect
reproductive success or survivorship.
NRDC did not recommend protection of
any particular areas, rendering this
recommendation difficult to assess.
NMFS has described in responses to
other comments the practicability
concerns associated with avoiding
training activities during certain areas
and times. When the limited likelihood
of reducing adverse effects on marine
mammal species or stocks is considered
in combination with the practicability
challenges of implementing the
recommendation, NMFS finds that the
measure is not warranted.
Comment 44: NRDC et al.
recommended evaluating before each
multi-unit exercise whether reductions
in sonar use are possible, given the
readiness status of the units involved.
Response: The Navy uses active sonar
at the lowest practicable source level
consistent with mission requirements.
See Section 5.3.3.1.3 of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS (Reducing Sonar Source Levels
and Total Number of Hours) for more
information.
Comment 45: NRDC et al.
recommended dedicated research and
development of technology to reduce
impacts of active acoustic sources on
marine mammals.
Response: The Navy has provided a
significant amount of funding for
marine mammal research. For example,
from 2004 to 2012, the Navy provided
over $230 million for marine species
research and currently sponsors 70
percent of all U.S. research concerning
the effects of human-generated sound on
marine mammals and 50 percent of such
research conducted worldwide. The
Navy’s research and development efforts
have significantly improved our
understanding of the effects of Navygenerated sound in the marine
environment. These studies have
supported the modification of acoustic
criteria to more accurately assess
behavioral impacts to beaked whales
and the thresholds for auditory injury
for all species, and the adjustment of
mitigation zones to better avoid injury.
In addition, Navy scientists work
cooperatively with other government
researchers and scientists, universities,
industry, and non-governmental
conservation organizations in collecting,
evaluating, and modeling information
on marine resources. Navy scientists
work cooperatively with other
government researchers and scientists,
universities, industry, and
nongovernmental conservation
organizations in collecting, evaluating,
and modeling information on marine
resources. Further, the adaptive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
management process required by this
rule regularly considers and evaluates
the development and use of new science
and technologies for Navy applications.
For additional information on the
Navy’s marine mammal monitoring
efforts, see https://www.navymarine
speciesmonitoring.us/. For the Navy’s
Living Marine Resources Applied
Research Program see https://
www.lmr.navy.mil. For the Office of
Naval Research’s Marine Mammals and
Biology Basic Research Program see
https://www.onr.navy.mil/ScienceTechnology/Departments/Code-32/AllPrograms/Atmosphere-Research-322/
Marine-Mammals-Biology.aspx.
Comment 46: NRDC et al.
recommended establishment of a plan
and a timetable for maximizing
synthetic training in order to reduce the
use of active sonar training.
Response: Section 5.3.3.1.2 of the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Replacing Training
with Simulated Activities) discusses
simulated activities. As described in the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the Navy currently
uses computer simulation for training
whenever possible. Computer
simulation can provide familiarity and
complement live training and testing;
however, it cannot provide the fidelity
and level of training necessary to
prepare naval forces for deployment.
The Navy is required to provide a ready
and capable force. In doing so, the Navy
must operationally test major platforms,
systems, and components of these
platforms and systems in realistic
combat conditions before full-scale
production can occur. Substituting
simulation for live training and testing
fails to meet the Navy’s statutory
requirement to properly prepare forces
for national defense.
Comment 47: NRDC et al.
recommended prescription of specific
mitigation requirements for individual
classes (or sub-classes) of testing and
training activities, in order to maximize
mitigation given varying sets of
operational needs.
Response: The Navy and NMFS have
already developed mitigation
requirements by activity type. Chapter 5
of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and the
‘‘Mitigation’’ section of this final rule
discuss these mitigation measures.
NMFS has determined that the
mitigation measures contained in this
rule are adequate means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impacts on
marine mammal species or stocks and
their habitat, paying particular attention
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas
of similar significance, while also
considering personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19571
impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity.
Comment 48: NRDC et al.
recommended timely, regular reporting
to NOAA, state coastal management
authorities, and the public to describe
and verify use of mitigation measures
during testing and training activities.
Response: NMFS has long required
the Navy to submit timely, regular
reports regarding the use of mitigation
measures during training and testing
activities. Section 3.8.5 (Summary of
Observations During Previous Navy
Activities) provides the results from
regular reporting that has occurred since
2006. These reports are publically
available at the Navy Web site (https://
www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/)
and at the NMFS Office of Protected
Resources Web site
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/military.htm). Navy reporting
requirements, including exercise and
monitoring reporting, are described in
the ‘‘Monitoring’’ and ‘‘Reporting’’
sections of this final rule and in Section
5.5 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Monitoring
and Reporting).
Comment 49: NRDC et al. and other
commenters recommended that the
Navy agree to additional clean-up and
retrieval of discarded debris and
expended materials associated with its
proposed activities.
Response: The Navy conducted a full
analysis of the potential impacts of
military expended materials on marine
mammals and will implement several
mitigation measures to help avoid or
reduce those impacts. As presented in
the 2011 GOA Final EIS/OEIS (Section
3.2 Expended Materials), no biologically
meaningful impacts related to expended
materials would occur as a result of the
proposed action and the way those
materials are used. There are numerous
studies involving the fate of expended
munitions, including locations where
the expended materials are much more
concentrated and have been in place for
many decades. Those studies do not
indicate there is any significant impact
on the environment or the sea life living
in proximity to those materials.
The Navy has standard operating
procedures in place to reduce the
amount of military expended materials
to the maximum extent practical,
including recovering targets and
associated parachutes (see Section 5.1 of
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Standard
Operating Procedures).
Effects Analysis/Takes
Comment 50: The Commission
recommended that NMFS require the
Navy to request the total numbers of
model-estimated Level A harassment
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19572
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
and mortality takes rather than reducing
the estimated numbers of Level A
harassment and mortality takes based on
the Navy’s proposed post-model
analysis. Other commenters, including
NRDC et al., were also critical of the
Navy’s post-model analysis, claiming
that post-model adjustments in takes
resulted in underrepresented total takes.
NRDC et al. and other commenters
requested further explanation of, or
more information on, the post-model
reduction process. Both the Commission
and NRDC et al. expressed concern with
observer effectiveness in the Navy’s
development of mitigation effectiveness
scores or g(0) values.
Response: See Section 3.8.3.1.6
(Behavioral Reactions) of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS for the discussion of the
science regarding the avoidance of
sound sources by marine mammals.
With regard to concerns over long term
consequences, Section 3.8.3.1.3. (LongTerm Consequences to the Individual
and the Population) and Section 3.8.5
(Summary of Observations During
Previous Navy Activities) in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS provide a discussion on
this topic and the reasons why the Navy
does not expect marine mammals to
abandon important habitat on a longterm or permanent basis. In addition,
the Post-Model Quantitative Analysis of
Animal Avoidance Behavior and
Mitigation Effectiveness for GOA
Training Activities Technical Report,
available at https://www.goaeis.com,
provides additional details regarding
how the avoidance and mitigation
factors were used and provides
scientific support from peer-reviewed
research. A comprehensive discussion
of the Navy’s quantitative analysis of
acoustic impacts, including the postmodel analysis to account for mitigation
and avoidance, is also presented in
Chapter 6 of the LOA application.
NMFS believes that the post-modeling
analysis is an effective method for
quantifying the implementation of
mitigation measures to reduce impacts
on marine mammals and the science
regarding the avoidance of sound
sources by marine mammals which
cannot be captured within the modeling
process itself, and that the resulting
exposure estimates are, nevertheless, a
conservative estimate of impacts on
marine mammals from the Navy’s
proposed activities. As explained in the
above-referenced documents, as part of
the post-modeling analysis the Navy
reduced some predicted Level A (PTS)
exposures based on the potential for
marine mammals to be detected and
mitigation implemented, and the
potential for marine mammals to avoid
a sound source. Given this potential, not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
taking into account some possible
reduction in Level A exposures would
result in a less realistic, overestimation
of possible Level A harassment takes, as
if there were no mitigation measures
implemented. For example, with respect
to mitigation effectiveness, the period of
time between clearing the impact area of
any non-participants or marine
mammals and weapons release is on the
order of minutes, making it highly
unlikely that a marine mammal would
enter the mitigation zone. Information
provided in Section 3.8.3.1.8
(Implementing Mitigation to Reduce
Sound Exposures) of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS indicates how much of a reduction
each factor represents for specific
activities. As explained in the
documents referenced above, the
adjustments move a percentage of the
model predicted Level A (PTS) effects at
close range to more likely behavioral
effects (Level B harassment) and do not
conclude that all modeled mortalities or
non-PTS injuries will be avoided. This
process represents peer-reviewed and
accepted scientific process.
The assignment of mitigation
effectiveness scores and the
appropriateness of consideration of
sightability using detection probability,
g(0), when assessing the mitigation in
the quantitative analysis of acoustic
impacts is discussed in the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS (Section 3.8.3.1.8, Implementing
Mitigation to Reduce Sound Exposures).
Additionally, the activity category,
mitigation zone size, and number of
Lookouts are provided in the proposed
rule (81 FR 9950, 9978–87; February 26,
2016) and GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Section 5,
Tables 5.3–2 and 5.4–1). In addition to
the information already contained
within the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the PostModel Quantitative Analysis of Animal
Avoidance Behavior and Mitigation
Effectiveness for GOA Training
Activities Technical Report (https://
www.goateis.com) and Chapter 6 of the
Navy’s LOA application describe the
process for the post-modeling analysis
in further detail. There is also
information on visual detection leading
to the implementation of mitigation in
the annual exercise reports provided to
NMFS and briefed annually to NMFS
and the Commission. These annual
exercise reports have been made
available and can be found at https://
www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/
in addition to https://www.nmfs.noaa/pr/
permits/incidental.
The Navy is in the process of
assessing Lookout effectiveness at
detecting marine mammals during Navy
exercises. Lookouts will not always be
effective at avoiding impacts on all
species. However, Lookouts are
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
expected to increase the overall
likelihood that certain marine mammal
species and some sea turtles will be
detected at the surface of the water,
when compared to the likelihood that
these same species would be detected if
Lookouts are not used. The continued
use of Lookouts contributes to helping
reduce potential impacts on these
species from training and testing
activities. Results from the Lookout
effectiveness study will be reviewed and
any recommendations for improving
Lookout effectiveness will be
considered at that time. In summary,
NMFS and the Navy believe that
consideration of marine mammal
sightability and activity-specific
mitigation effectiveness is appropriate
in the Navy’s quantitative analysis in
order to provide decision makers a
reasonable assessment of potential
impacts from the Navy’s proposed
activities.
Comment 51: The Commission
commented on possible errors in the
take tables for Dall’s and harbor
porpoise provided in the Navy’s GOA
DSEIS/OEIS, LOA application, and
Pacific Navy Marine Species Density
Database GOA Technical Report (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2014) that
includes the actual modeled data. The
Commission suggested one possible
explanation that the Navy used the
behavioral response functions (BRF1(for
low-frequency cetaceans) and BRF2 (for
mid- and high-frequency cetaceans—
excluding beaked whales and harbor
porpoises—and pinnipeds)) from
Finneran and Jenkins (2012) without
updating them with the new weighted
TTS thresholds.
Response: NMFS notes that the final
authorized take estimates for Dall’s
porpoises changed slightly from what
was presented in the GOA DSEIS/OEIS
based on consideration of NMFS’ new
Guidance. However, the take estimates
contained in the Navy’s LOA
application and GOA DSEIS/OEIS were
not in error for Dall’s and harbor
porpoise. Most of the differences in
takes between the two species can be
directly tied to the differences in both
species-specific densities as well as how
that density was distributed within the
GOA TMAA (U.S. Department of the
Navy, 2014). Basically, Dall’s porpoise
density is higher than harbor porpoise
and spread by strata over all of the GOA
TMAA. Based on how acoustic impact
modeling was done for the GOA TMAA
(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2015),
more Dall’s porpoise would conceivably
be exposed to sonar training events at
closer range than harbor porpoise with
resulting higher Dall’s porpoise
potential takes. Harbor porpoises on the
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
other hand have a documented coastal
and at most a limited on shelf
occurrence which is reflected in the
harbor porpoise densities for the GOA
TMAA (U.S. Department of the Navy,
2014). These harbor porpoise density
areas are sufficiently distant from likely
Navy sonar training as reflected in the
modeling areas used (U.S. Department
of the Navy, 2015) that only a limited
number of behavioral exposures could
occur.
Comment 52: The Commission
recommended that NMFS require the
Navy to: (1) Describe the upper limit of
BRF1 and BRF2, including whether it
assumed a 1-sec ping for all sources; (2)
explain how 0 TTS and up to 7,000
behavioral takes were model-estimated
for harbor porpoises; (3) adjust BRF1
and BRF2 with appropriate K and A
parameters based on the basement
parameter and the weighted TTS
thresholds; and (4) recalculate its
behavioral take estimates for all marine
mammals exposed to acoustic sources
based on those revised BRFs.
Response: The Navy has described the
derivation of the BRF in Section
3.8.3.1.5 (Behavioral Responses) of the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS and in Finneran and
Jenkins (2012). The upper end of the
BRFs (at levels approaching 100 percent
probability of response) are not
correlated or anchored at any TTS
threshold. The values used in the BRFs
are based on correlations of behavioral
reactions with highest received sound
pressure level from the three sources of
data discussed in Finneran and Jenkins
(2012). The ping lengths used within the
Navy’s model to assess potential
impacts are representative of the
different sonars and modalities and are
not necessarily one second. The
predicted higher order effect (i.e. TTS
over behavioral) is what is reported in
the impact analysis; however, it is
important to note that both TTS and
behavioral harassment are considered
Level B under MMPA.
After consideration of the frequency
weighting, the functional TTS threshold
for high frequency cetaceans (which
includes both harbor porpoise and
Dall’s porpoise) at 3.5 kHz is a sound
exposure level of 169 dB re 1mPa2·s. For
harbor porpoises the behavioral
threshold is a step function of sound
pressure level 120 dB re 1mPa; the effect
is predicted based on the loudest
received ping regardless of individual
ping duration or the number of pings
received. From a SQS–53 with a
nominal source level of 235 dB re 1mPa,
the range to 169 dB re 1mPa2·s varies
with ping duration and the number of
pings received by an animal, but is on
the order of a few kilometers. On the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
other hand, the range to the 120 dB re
1mPa behavioral threshold from a SQS–
53 source can be greater than 100 km.
The GOA TMAA itself, where Navy
activities are modeled/analyzed,
contains very low to no harbor porpoise
densities (0.0000 to 0.0259 animals/
km2) and is greater than 50 km from
areas on the continental shelf that
contain higher densities of harbor
porpoise. Based on the range to TTS
versus behavioral responses, and the
fact that sonar training activities within
the GOA TMAA are greater than 50 km
from harbor porpoise habitat, 7,000
predicted behavioral responses and no
TTS is a valid result. Behavioral
response for Dall’s porpoise is based on
BRF2 which predicts a decreasing
probability of response to a basement
level of 120 dB re 1mPa. Densities of
Dall’s porpoise within the TMAA are up
to 0.1854 animals/km2. Therefore, the
sonar sources within the proposed
activities would be within range to TTS
for Dall’s porpoise.
NMFS does not agree with the
Commission that the Navy should adjust
behavioral response functions based on
TTS thresholds as there is no consistent
correlation between sound levels known
to induce hearing loss and those with a
specific probability of behavioral
reaction. Therefore, the take estimates in
the Navy’s GOA SEIS/OEIS and LOA
application are correct based on species
densities used, species occurrence
distribution within the TMAA, and
modeling results.
Comment 53: The Commission
recommended that NMFS require the
Navy to round its takes based on modelestimated takes to the nearest whole
number or zero in all of its take tables.
Response: In April 2011 at the start of
Phase II process, the Navy and NMFS
(as a cooperating agency for NEPA
purposes) had a meeting at NMFS
headquarters and agreed to the rounding
process presented in the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS, and other Phase II EISs. The final
modeling numbers presented in the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS were rounded down
at the sub-total stage so those totals in
the GOA SEIS/OEIS based on the
various effect criteria and the totals
presented in the LOA application based
on Level A and Level B harassment as
grand totals would sum consistently.
Specifically, all fractional postprocessed exposures for a species/stock
across all events within each category
sub-total (Impulse and Non-Impulse) are
summed to provide an annual total
predicted number of effects. The options
for rounding had been to round up, to
round down, or to manually change the
conventionally rounded numbers so that
the sub-total and grand totals matched.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19573
Given the conservative factors in the
modeling (described in the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.6.3 (Navy Acoustic
Effects Model, sub-section Model
Assumptions and Limitations)) that
produce an overestimate in the
predicted effects, using the Microsoft
Excel rounddown function at this final
stage of number presentation was
considered to be the most consistent
and representative means of producing
the final numbers presented in the
analyses. More importantly, the
differences in alternative rounding
procedures would be negligible and
would have no consequences related to
the analysis of impacts to populations of
marine mammals or the likely long term
consequences resulting from the
proposed action.
Comment 54: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS failed to properly analyze
the potential for serious injury and
mortality, particularly with regard to
sonar-related injury and mortality (i.e.,
strandings) during the Navy’s use of
mid-frequency active sources and other
sources. The commenters cited several
stranding events (e.g., Bahamas, 2000;
Washington State, 2003) that they assert
occurred coincident with military midfrequency sonar use. NRDC et al.
commented that these events have
involved beaked whales, minke whales,
kogia, and harbor porpoises, and states
that most beaked whale casualties are
likely to go undetected.
Response: NMFS uses the best
available science to analyze the Navy’s
activities. The ‘‘Stranding and
Mortality’’ section of the proposed rule
(81 FR 9950, 9970–76; February 26,
2016) summarized the stranding events
referenced in NRDC et al.’s comment,
including the association between
stranding events and exposure to MFAS.
Also, see the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section
3.8.3.1.2.8 (Stranding) and the U.S.
Department of the Navy (2013c)
‘‘Marine Mammal Strandings Associated
with U.S. Navy Sonar Activities’’
technical report available at https://
www.goaeis.com. The modeling of
acoustic effects takes into consideration
all applicable environmental factors and
all applicable sound sources to predict
the likely effects to beaked whales and
all other species. Please also see
Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and
Jenkins (2012), and the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.4.1 (Frequency
Weighting) to understand the
implementation of frequency weighting
as it applies to the analysis of effects
from mid-frequency and high frequency
sound sources.
The environmental conditions in the
GOA TMAA Study Area and the types
of activities proposed in the GOA
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19574
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
FSEIS/OEIS have no relationship to
those present in the Bahamas incident
fourteen years ago in unique and warm
tropical waters. The environmental
conditions otherwise differentiating the
Atlantic tropical Bahamas environment
present in 2000 from the GOA TMAA
Study Area include the unique
bathymetry of the Bahamas Providence
Channels that are steep sided, narrow,
and very deep—ranging from
approximately 2,000 to 12,000 in depth.
On that day in 2000 in the Bahamas,
there was also a 200-meter-thick layer of
near constant water temperature, calm
seas, as well as the presence of beaked
whales.
With regard to the harbor porpoise
strandings in Washington State (2003),
NMFS has since determined that these
strandings were unrelated to Navy sonar
use. There was a lack of evidence of any
acoustic trauma among the harbor
porpoises, and the identification of
probable causes (e.g., entanglement in a
fishing net, disease processes) of
stranding or death in several animals
supports the conclusion that the harbor
porpoise strandings were unrelated to
the sonar activities by the USS SHOUP.
Refer to the discussion in the
‘‘Stranding and Mortality’’ section of the
proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 9970–79;
February 26, 2016) and the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.2.8 (Stranding) and
the U.S. Department of the Navy (2013c)
‘‘Marine Mammal Strandings Associated
with U.S. Navy Sonar Activities’’
technical report (available at https://
www.goaeis.com) for a discussion of
other previous strandings and note that
the other stranding events in this
comment did not occur in, and were not
associated with, the GOA TMAA Study
Area and did not involve any of the
training scenarios proposed for the GOA
TMAA Study Area.
Lastly, while not referenced by the
commenters and not related to active
sonar exposure, NMFS considered an
investigation into a long-finned pilot
whale mass stranding event at Kyle of
Durness, Scotland, on July 22, 2011
(Brownlow et al., 2015). The
investigation considered unexploded
ordnance detonation activities at a
Ministry of Defense bombing range,
conducted by the Royal Navy prior to
and during the strandings, as a plausible
contributing factor in the mass stranding
event. While Brownlow et al. (2015)
concluded that the serial detonations of
underwater ordnance were an
influential factor in the mass stranding
event (along with presence of a
potentially compromised animal and
navigational error in a topographically
complex region) they also suggest that
mitigation measures—which included
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
observations from a zodiac only and by
personnel not experienced in marine
mammal observation, among other
deficiencies—were likely insufficient to
assess if cetaceans were in the vicinity
of the detonations. The authors also cite
information from the Ministry of
Defense indicating ‘‘an extraordinarily
high level of activity’’ (i.e., frequency
and intensity of underwater explosions)
on the range in the days leading up to
the stranding.
The GOA FSEIS/OEIS provides an
analysis of potential impacts occurring
in the GOA TMAA Study Area. While
most of the world’s coastlines lack
coverage by a stranding network, the
Navy’s analysis of impacts has focused
on scientific data collected in and
around the Navy range complexes,
which are the proposed locations for the
continuation of historically occurring
training and testing activities including
the use of sonar. A summary of the
compendium of the research in that
regard is presented in the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS in Section 3.8.5 (Summary of
Observations During Previous Navy
Activities). Unlike the rest of the
world’s oceans, there has not been an
absence of observation where the U.S.
Navy has been routinely training and
testing for years. In particular, and as
ongoing for approximately the last 8
years, the Navy, NMFS, and an
independent group of scientists have
been engaged in implementing a
comprehensive monitoring program and
associated research that includes
monitoring before, during, and after
Navy activities on U.S. Navy range
complexes. In short, the research and
monitoring associated with Navy
training and testing activities makes the
Navy range complexes different than the
remainder of the world’s oceans.
There have been no mortalities or
strandings associated with Navy sonar
use during the past approximately 8
years of monitoring, but to the contrary
there has been overwhelming evidence
from research and monitoring indicating
the continued presence or residence of
individuals and populations in Navy
range complexes and no clear evidence
indicating long-term effects from Navy
training and testing in those locations.
For example, photographic records
spanning more than two decades
demonstrated re-sightings of individual
beaked whales (from two species:
Cuvier’s and Blainville’s beaked
whales), suggesting long-term site
fidelity to the area west of the Island of
Hawaii where intensive swept-channel
exercises historically occurred
(McSweeney et al., 2007). In the most
intensively used training and testing
ranges in the Pacific, photo
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
identification of animals associated with
the SOCAL Range Complex have
identified approximately 100 individual
Cuvier’s beaked whale individuals with
40 percent having been seen in one or
more prior years, with re-sightings up to
7 years apart (Falcone and Schorr,
2014). Data from visual surveys
documenting the presence of Cuvier’s
beaked whales for the ocean basin west
of San Clemente Island (Falcone et al.,
2009; Falcone and Schorr, 2012, 2014;
Smultea and Jefferson, 2014) is also
consistent with concurrent results from
passive acoustic monitoring that
estimated regional Cuvier’s beaked
whale densities were higher than
indicated by NMFS’ broad scale visual
surveys for the United States west coast
(Hildebrand and McDonald, 2009).
Falcone and Schorr (2012) suggested
that these beaked whales may have
population sub-units with higher than
expected residency to the Navy’s
instrumented Southern California AntiSubmarine Warfare Range in particular.
For over three decades, this ocean area
west of San Clemente has been the
location of the Navy’s instrumented
training range and is one of the most
intensively used training and testing
areas in the Pacific, given the proximity
to the Naval installations in San Diego.
In summary, the best available science
indicates the Navy’s continued use of
Navy range complexes have not
precluded beaked whales from also
continuing to inhabit areas where sonar
use has been occurring, and there is no
evidence to suggest that undocumented
mortalities are occurring in the GOA
TMAA or on the range complexes where
the U.S. Navy routinely conducts
training and testing activities.
In the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the
sensitivity of beaked whales is taken
into consideration both in the
application of Level B harassment
thresholds and in how beaked whales
are expected to avoid sonar sources at
higher levels. No beaked whales were
predicted in the acoustic analysis to be
exposed to sound levels associated with
PTS, other injury, or mortality (note:
There is no data from which to develop
or set a mortality criterion and there is
no evidence that sonar can lead to a
direct mortality due to lack of a shock
wave). After years of the Navy
conducting similar activities in the
Study Area without incident, NMFS
does not expect strandings, injury, or
mortality of beaked whales or any other
species to occur as a result of training
activities. Additionally, through the
MMPA rulemaking (which allows for
adaptive management), NMFS and the
Navy will determine the appropriate
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
way to proceed in the event that a
causal relationship were to be found
between Navy activities and a future
stranding.
NMFS has considered the body of
science regarding strandings that have
occurred coincident with Naval training
exercises, paying particular attention to
the few instances where scientific
review has concluded that the exercises
may have had a causal contribution. In
short, the strandings that have been
more conclusively linked to Naval
activities in some way have largely been
associated with certain environmental
and/or operational factors that the Navy
has addressed through preventative
monitoring measures to be implemented
when the factors may be present in an
operational area. In general, there seems
to be a low probability that strandings
could occur in any Navy training areas,
and in the GOA this probability is
considered discountable because none
of the complicating environment factors
are present, because of short duration
and comparatively low volume of
potential tactical sonar use, and because
of the historical absence of Navyassociated strandings in the area. NMFS
and the Navy have adequately
considered the science on this topic and
applied it to actions where appropriate.
Comment 55: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS dismisses the leading
explanation about the mechanism of
sonar-related injuries—that whales
suffer from bubble growth in organs that
is similar to decompression sickness, or
‘‘the bends’’ in human divers—as one of
several controversial hypotheses. They
cite numerous papers in support of this
explanation.
Response: NMFS explicitly addresses
acoustically mediated bubble growth in
the Potential Effects section of the
proposed rule. Additionally, please see
the Navy’s GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section
3.8.3.1.2.1 (Direct Injury) in general and
specifically Section 3.8.3.1.2.2 (Nitrogen
Decompression) where the latest
scientific findings have been presented.
As noted above, NMFS and the Navy
have reviewed the body of science on
this topic and applied it, where
applicable, to the proposed action.
Comment 56: Citing several
references, NRDC et al. commented that
the Navy and NMFS failed to adequately
assess the impacts of stress on marine
mammals.
Response: NMFS fully considered in
the proposed rule the potential for
physiological responses, particularly
stress responses, that could potentially
result from exposure to MFAS/HFAS or
underwater explosive detonations (see
Stress Response in the ‘‘Potential
Effects’’ section of the proposed rule).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
NMFS’ analysis identifies the
probability of lethal responses, physical
trauma, sensory impairment (permanent
and temporary threshold shifts and
acoustic masking), physiological
responses (including stress responses),
behavioral disturbance (that rises to the
level of harassment), and social
responses (effects to social
relationships) that would be classified
as a take and whether such take would
have a negligible impact on such species
or stocks. This analysis is included in
the Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination in this final rule, and
results of the analysis of physiological
stress responses are summarized below.
The Navy’s analysis also considered
secondary and indirect impacts,
including impacts from stress (see the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8 (Marine
Mammals)). See for example, Section
3.8.3.1.2.5 (Physiological Stress)
presenting Rolland et al. (2012) and
other similar research regarding chronic
stressors, and Section 3.8.3.1.3 (LongTerm Consequences to the Individual
and the Population). For a discussion of
biotoxins, see Section 3.8.2.4 (General
Threats).
The referenced studies of North
Atlantic right whales (e.g., Rolland et
al., 2012) impacted by chronic noise
were cited and considered in the Navy’s
and NMFS’ analysis, as well as similar
studies such as Hatch et al. (2012) and
Parks et al. (2007) (see Section 3.8.3.1,
Acoustic Stressors in the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS; see ‘‘Potential Effects of Specified
Activities’’ on Marine Mammals in the
proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 9961–78;
February 26, 2016)). Similar findings for
blue whales from the Pacific (Melcon et
al., 2012) were also considered for
mysticetes, as well as similar findings
for other marine mammal groups with
regard to potential chronic stressors.
Note, however, that these studies (and
similar studies from the Pacific
Northwest such as Williams et al.
(2013)) involve chronic noise resulting
from the pervasive presence of
commercial vessels. The Navy activities
in the GOA TMAA Study Area
involving active sonar or underwater
detonations are infrequent and shortterm. Even though an animal’s exposure
to active sonar may be more than one
time, the intermittent nature of the
sonar signal, its low duty cycle, and the
fact that both the vessel and animal are
moving provide a very small chance that
exposure to active sonar for individual
animals and stocks would be repeated
over extended periods of time. Since the
impact from noise exposure and the
Navy’s training events in general should
be transitory given the movement of the
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19575
participants, any stress responses
should be short in duration and have
less than biologically significant
consequences. Consequently, NMFS has
determined that the Navy’s activities in
the GOA TMAA Study Area do not
create conditions of chronic, continuous
underwater noise and are unlikely to
lead to habitat abandonment or longterm hormonal or physiological stress
responses in marine mammals.
The opinion on how stress affects
individuals and more importantly
marine mammal stocks or populations is
still under scientific review and
research. The Navy via the ONR basic
research program is a leading sponsor of
ongoing stress related studies. These
include but are not limited to:
Development and Validation of a
Technique for Detection of Stress and
Pregnancy in Large Whales (multiple
academic performers); Validating the
Novel Method of Measuring Cortisol
Levels in Cetacean Skin by Use of an
ACTH Challenge in Bottlenose Dolphins
(Aarhus University); Measuring and
Validating Levels of Steroid Hormones
in the Skin of Bottlenose Dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) (Aarhus
University); Quantifying Stress in
Marine Mammals: Measuring
Biologically Active Cortisol in
Cetaceans and Pinnipeds (University of
Toronto Scarborough); Behavioral and
Physiological Response of Baleen
Whales to Ships and Ship Noise
(multiple performers); Stress Hormones
and their Regulation in a Captive
Dolphin Population (National Marine
Mammal Foundation); Molecular
Indicators of Chronic Stress in a Model
Pinniped—the Northern Elephant Seal
(National Marine Mammal Foundation);
Variability of Hormonal Stress Markers
and Stress Responses in a Large CrossSectional Sample of Elephant Seals
(Sonoma State University);
Development of Novel Noninvasive
Methods of Stress Assessment in Baleen
Whales (New England Aquarium);
Understanding the Onset of Health
Impacts Caused by Disturbance
(University of Aberdeen); Tag-based
Heart Rate Measurements of Harbor
Porpoises During Normal and Noiseexposed Dives to Study Stress
Responses (Aarhus University); Markers
of Decompression Stress of Mass
Stranded/Live Caught and Released vs.
Single Stranded Marine Mammals
(Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution); Investigation of the
Molecular Response in Blood and Skin
of Belugas in Response to ‘‘Stressors’’
(Sea Research Foundation, Inc.);
Assessing Stress Responses in Beaked
and Sperm Whales in the Bahamas
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19576
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
(New England Aquarium/Bahamas
Marine Mammal Research
Organization); and Determining
Baseline Stress-Related Hormone Values
in Large Cetaceans (Baylor University).
This body of work is ongoing and will
be supplemented by new studies in
future years.
NMFS and the Navy have reviewed
the large body of science on this issue
and summarized the more salient
articles in the proposed rule and the
FSEIS/OEIS. We address the known
risks of stress impacts and highlight the
need for more work on the subject,
while acknowledging that there are no
specific actions (beyond the sorts of
mitigation already included) that would
be expected to effectively reduce these
risks.
Comment 57: NRDC et al. commented
that the Navy would release a host of
toxic chemicals, hazardous materials
and waste into the marine environment
that could pose a threat to marine
mammals over the life of the range.
They also commented that the Navy
plans to abandon cables, wires, and
other items including parachutes that
could entangle marine wildlife.
Response: Please see the 2011 GOA
FEIS/OEIS for analysis of impacts other
than acoustic stressors. The GOA FEIS/
OEIS analysis concluded that most of
the material expended during training
would be inert and degrade slowly. A
small amount of chemicals would be
considered hazardous—predominantly
residual explosives, which break down
slowly—but any small amount of
leaching sediment would be dispersed
quickly by the currents. The GOA
FSEIS/OEIS analysis concluded that the
material expended during training
would not result in water or sediment
toxicity, and that no adverse effects on
marine organisms would be expected.
Please see the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section
3.2 (Expended Material) for details in
this regard.
Comment 58: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS failed to evaluate and
authorize vessel strike with large
cetaceans or the potential harassment of
harbor porpoises by vessel noise. NRDC
et al. further commented that not only
are whales at risk of being struck by
Navy vessels in the normal course of
activities, but also that the use of active
acoustics exacerbates the potential for
collision. NRDC et al. comments that the
failure to examine the risk of ship
strikes is particularly troubling given
the Large Whale UME underway in the
Western Gulf of Alaska.
Response: Please see Section 3.8.2.4
(General Threats) of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS for a discussion of the potential for
ship strike in general. Individual
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
species-specific analyses in Section
3.8.2 (Affected Environment) of the
FSEIS/OEIS also discuss the threat of
ship strikes on a species level. To date,
there has not been a Navy ship strike in
the GOA over 20 years of infrequent use
of the GOA TMAA. Navy ships always
move at the safest practical speed based
on a given training objective and
schedule, operational need, and safety
of navigation. The Navy has had a
longstanding policy that requires ships
to report any ship strikes to NMFS. With
respect to the Navy’s proposed activities
for 2017 to 2022, there is no large
increase in training activities proposed
over and above historic use. Therefore,
past real-world results (no strikes) is just
as valid, if not more so than speculative
modeling.
Navy vessels operate differently from
commercial vessels in ways important
to the prevention of whale collisions.
Surface ships operated by or for the
Navy have personnel assigned to stand
watch at all times, day and night, when
a ship or surfaced submarine is moving
through the water (underway). A
primary duty of personnel standing
watch on surface ships is to detect and
report all objects and disturbances
sighted in the water that may indicate
a threat to the vessel and its crew, such
as debris, a periscope, surfaced
submarine, or surface disturbance. Per
vessel safety requirements, personnel
standing watch also report any marine
mammals sighted in the path of the
vessel as a standard collision avoidance
procedure. All vessels use extreme
caution and proceed at a safe speed so
they can take proper and effective action
to avoid a collision with any sighted
object or disturbance, and can be
stopped within a distance appropriate to
the prevailing circumstances and
conditions. Further, this rule requires
vessels to avoid approaching marine
mammals head on and to maneuver to
maintain a mitigation zone of 500 yd
(457 m) around observed whales and
200 yd (183 m) around all other marine
mammals (except bow-riding dolphins),
providing it is safe to do so.
The research by Nowacek et al. (2004)
cited by NRDC et al. is discussed in the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS in the context of
behavioral reactions to vessels and in
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.2.6
(Behavioral Reactions). Nowacek et al.
(2004) used an alarm signal
purposefully designed to provoke a
response from the whales. The signal,
which was long in duration, lasting
several minutes, was intended to protect
the whales from ship strikes. The
frequency, duration, and temporal
pattern of sound sources affected the
whale’s responses. The right whales did
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
not respond to playbacks of either right
whale social sounds or vessel noise,
highlighting the importance of the
sound characteristics, species
differences, and individual sensitivity
in producing a behavioral reaction.
Navy activities using sonar would not
be used in the same way as the sound
source used by Nowacek et al. (2004),
and similar reactions occurring miles
from the sound source are not
anticipated.
In addition, there is no scientific basis
for the suggestion that animals exposed
to sonar would have ‘‘greater
susceptibility to vessel strike.’’ Navy
sonar is used intermittently for short
durations, and is not aimed at or
designed to be an alarm signal for low
frequency mysticetes or other cetaceans.
Further, studies where experimental
sound source are used have had an
extremely different frequency, duration,
and temporal pattern of signal
presentation from anything used by or
proposed for use by the Navy. Of note,
and in contrast to the comment’s
assertion, an equally plausible
interpretation of the study is that an
active mid-frequency sound source
could potentially alert marine mammals
to the presence of a Navy vessel and
therefore reduce the potential for ship
strikes. There has never been any
association with Navy sonar use and
ship strikes in over 30 years of
worldwide Navy ship strike reporting to
NMFS. Therefore, it is erroneous to
assume Navy sonar use in the GOA
TMAA would increase marine mammal
vulnerability to Navy ship strike.
Further, there has been no indication
from more frequent Navy sonar use in
other areas of the Pacific outside of the
GOA TMAA of significant large whale
reactions such that ship strike risk
would increase.
Unusual Mortality Events (see
‘‘Strandings in the GOA TMAA’’ in the
proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 9976;
February 26, 2016)) and any ship strikes
that have been reported in and outside
of the GOA are not from Navy activities.
The 2015 GOA strandings discussed in
the proposed rule may be correlated
with Pacific coast wide toxic algal
poisoning. The large whale UME in the
GOA is still under investigation, with
the causes currently listed as
‘‘undetermined, possible ecological
causes.’’
In summary, both NMFS and the
Navy fully evaluated the potential
effects of ship strike. While the
possibility of ship strike can never by
fully ruled out where vessels are
involved, the history and limited use of
Navy vessels in the GOA, combined
with the training, safety, and mitigation
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
protocols, makes the probability of a
ship strike so small as to be
discountable, and no ship strikes are
anticipated or authorized in the final
rule.
Regarding vessel noise, both NMFS
and the Navy have considered, and
addressed in the proposed rule and the
FSEIS/OEIS, the body of science
indicating that harbor porpoises are
generally more sensitive to sound
exposure than other species, typically
avoid human activities at larger
distances than other species, and have
been documented responding to vessel
noise. Because of this, we use a lower
behavioral threshold, 120dB, to predict
when harbor porpoises will be taken by
Level B harassment by Navy’s sound
sources. We believe that this approach
allows for us to fully capture the extent
of meaningful effects and take of harbor
porpoises resulting from Navy activities.
Comment 59: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS does not adequately analyze
the potential for and impact of oil spills
(the commenters make reference to the
Exxon Valdez and Cosco Busan oil spill
incidents)., including the potential for
collisions between Navy vessels and oil
tankers.
Response: The Navy’s proposed
action would not transport large
amounts of oil, as did those ships
involved in prior spills in Alaska, or
interact with the production or
transportation of oil for commercial sale
while training in the TMAA. Moreover,
the Exxon Valdez spill occurred as a
result of improper ship manning and
handling, and the Cosco Busan incident
that occurred in San Francisco resulted
from an impaired pilot. Neither incident
is connected to Navy training or testing.
Nevertheless, oil spill prevention is a
high priority for the Navy. Throughout
its spill prevention program, the Navy
concentrates on the entire spectrum of
oil handling. The Navy maintains in
house capability to respond to spills of
all sizes. Every ship is equipped with an
oil spill kit that is designed to prevent
spills from entering the water. Navy
activities report oil spills through the
Navy chain to the National Response
Center. Navy personnel are highly
trained in containment and cleanup of
spills and equipment is pre-staged
worldwide should it be necessary. The
Navy conducts periodic training with all
response agencies, federal, state, and
local. A search of the USCG’s National
Response Center Annual reports
indicates that out of the countless
number of reported spills in the state of
Alaska, from small amounts of oil sheen
to large spills, there have been very few
from government vessels
(predominately USCG vessels) in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Alaska. The probability of a Navy ship
oil spill is extremely minimal given
standard operating procedures.
Regarding the potential for collision
with oil tankers, the Navy does not
restrict commercial vessel traffic in the
TMAA during exercises but it does
publish Notices to Mariners (NTMs)
prior to an exercise alerting vessels to
the presence of Navy ships for the
exercise. While the Navy does not
publish daily NTMs, USCG District 17,
Juneau, Alaska, communicates any
active Navy training activity to shipping
vessels through broadcast NTMs on
VHF–FM Channel 16 and 22A (Navy
2016. During the exercise, consistent
with standard practice for Navy training
worldwide, the Navy avoids areas, to
the extent practicable, with high
concentrations of commercial vessels
(e.g., shipping lanes). The Navy has
extensive experience and procedures
(radar, lookouts, etc.) during training
and transit in avoiding commercial
vessels, fishing boats, and recreational
boats. For instance, in other Pacific
range areas, some of which serve as the
homeport concentrations for the
majority of Navy ships (e.g., San Diego,
Pearl Harbor), there have been no such
collisions with any commercial
shipping vessels. Therefore, the
probability of such an incident (Navycivilian ship strike) in the TMAA is
extremely remote, further reduced by
the low level of Navy activities (one
exercise per year). Furthermore, the
actual quantity of Navy surface ships
participating in an individual GOA
exercise is typically rather small (0–4).
These Navy ships are present in the
TMAA for only short durations up to
21-days, with shorter periods being
more typical (10–14 days).
Comment 60: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS’ analysis cannot be limited
only to direct effects, i.e., effects that
occur at the same time and place as the
training exercises that would be
authorized, but must also take into
account the activity’s indirect effects.
The commenters assert that this
requirement is critical given the
potential for sonar exercises to cause
significant long-term impacts not clearly
observable in the short term.
Response: NMFS and the Navy
analyzed both direct and indirect effects
from Navy training activities. A
discussion of potential indirect effects
may be found in the proposed rule (81
FR 9950, 9961–78; February 26, 2016)
(see ‘‘Potential Effects of Specified
Activities on Marine Mammals’’ and the
‘‘Habitat’’ section) and this final rule
(see ‘‘Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination’’). As discussed in
Section 3.8.3.1.3 (Long-Term
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19577
Consequences to the Individual and the
Population) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the
Navy’s analysis also considers all
potential impacts resulting from
exposure to acoustic sources, including
indirect effects. With respect to longterm impacts, see the discussion in
Section 3.8.3.1.3 of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS (Long-Term Consequences to the
Individual and the Population) and the
Long-Term Consequences section of this
rule. For marine mammals in particular,
see the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.4
(Summary of Impacts (Combined
Impacts of All Stressors) on Marine
Mammals) and Section 3.8.5 (Summary
of Observations During Previous Navy
Activities), presenting the evidence
collected from the intensive monitoring
of Navy training and testing at range
complexes nationwide since 2006
which provides support for the
conclusions that it is unlikely there
would be any population level or longterm consequences resulting from the
proposed training activities and
implementation of this final rule. The
scientific authorities presented in the
comment (the National Research
Council) are discussed in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS, and do not support the
contention that there is a link between
the use of sonar and any populationlevel effects. For example, the number
of blue whales has been increasing at 3
percent annual rate in the Southern
California waters where the most
frequent and intensive sonar use occurs
in the Pacific (Calambokidis et al.,
2009a).
Comment 61: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS failed to adequately assess
the cumulative impacts of the Navy’s
activities in its negligible impact
determination. More specifically, see
the commenters’ four comments (62–65)
below.
Response: Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA requires NMFS to make a
determination that the take incidental to
a specified activity will have a
negligible impact on the affected species
or stocks of marine mammals, and will
not result in an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of marine
mammals for taking for subsistence
uses. Neither the MMPA nor NMFS’
implementing regulations specify how
to consider other activities and their
impacts on the same populations.
However, consistent with the preamble
for NMFS’ implementing regulations (54
FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the
impacts from other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into the negligible impact
analysis via their impacts on the
environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the density/distribution and
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19578
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
status of the species, population size
and growth rate, and ambient noise).
As discussed in the ‘‘Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination’’
section of this final rule, Chapter 4 of
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS contains a
comprehensive assessment of potential
cumulative impacts, including
analyzing the potential for cumulatively
significant impacts to the marine
environment and marine mammals. The
Navy used the best available science
and a comprehensive review of past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable
actions to develop a robust cumulative
impacts analysis. The cumulative
impacts analysis focused on impacts
that are ‘‘truly meaningful.’’ This was
accomplished by reviewing the direct
and indirect impacts that have the
potential to occur on each resource
under each of the alternatives. Key
factors considered were the current
status and sensitivity of the resource
and the intensity, duration, and spatial
extent of the impacts of each potential
stressor. In general, long-term rather
than short-term impacts and widespread
rather than localized impacts were
considered more likely to contribute to
cumulative impacts. As required under
NEPA, the level and scope of the
analysis are commensurate with the
potential impacts of the action as
reflected in the resource-specific
discussions in Chapter 3 of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS. The GOA FSEIS/OEIS
considered its activities alongside those
of other activities in the region whose
impacts are truly meaningful to the
analysis.
In addition, NMFS’ Biological
Opinion concludes that NMFS’
proposed rulemaking and LOA and any
take associated with activities
authorized by the rulemaking and LOA
are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of threatened or
endangered species (or species proposed
for listing) in the action area during any
single year or as a result of the
cumulative impacts of a 5-year
authorization.
Comment 62: NRDC et al. assert that
there is a lack of any population
analysis or quantitative assessment of
long-term effects in the proposed rule.
Response: NMFS and the Navy fully
considered potential long-term and
population-level effects. Analysis of
these effects is presented in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS in Section 3.8.3.1.3 (LongTerm Consequences to the Individual
and the Population) and in the
‘‘Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination’’ section in this final rule
(see Long-Term Consequences and Final
Determination sections). NMFS’
assessment is that the Navy training
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
activities involving active sonar or
underwater detonations are infrequent
and short-term (as a reminder, the GOA
TMAA training activities will not occur
continuously throughout the year, but
rather, for a maximum of 21 days
annually). Consequently, the Navy’s
activities do not create conditions of
chronic, continuous underwater noise
and are unlikely to lead to habitat
abandonment or long-term hormonal or
physiological stress responses in marine
mammals. Based on the findings from
research efforts and monitoring before,
during, and after training and testing
events across the Navy since 2006,
NMFS’ assessment is that it is unlikely
there would be impacts to populations
of marine mammals having any longterm consequences as a result of the
proposed continuation of training and
testing in the ocean areas historically
used by the Navy, including the GOA
TMAA Study Area. NMFS concludes
that exposures to marine mammal
species and stocks due to GOA training
activities would result in primarily
short-term (temporary and short in
duration) and relatively infrequent
Level B harassment of most individuals
exposed, and not of the type or severity
that would be expected to be additive
for the portion of the stocks and species
likely to be exposed. Level A
harassment, of a small degree, could be
incurred by no more than 4 Dall’s
porpoise.
Additionally, NMFS notes that, even
in areas where the Navy uses sonar
frequently, such as instrumented ranges,
marine mammal populations are
present, not diminishing, and in some
cases, thriving. NMFS and the Navy
relied on actual trends in marine
mammal populations and the best
available science regarding marine
mammals, including behavioral
response studies and the satellite
tracking of tagged marine mammals in
areas of higher sonar use.
NMFS has reporting and monitoring
data from the Navy on training and
testing events occurring around the U.S.
since 2006. For example, results from 2
years (2009–2010) of intensive
monitoring by independent scientists
and Navy observers in Southern
California Range Complex and Hawaii
Range Complex recorded an estimated
161,894 marine mammals with no
evidence of distress or unusual behavior
observed during Navy activities.
Additional information and data
summarized in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
Section 3.8.5 (Summary of Observations
During Previous Navy Activities)
provide support for the conclusions that
it is unlikely there would be any
population level or long-term
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
consequences resulting from
implementation of this final rule.
Comment 63: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS does not consider the
potential for acute synergistic effects
from multiple Navy activities taking
place at one time, or from Navy
activities in combination with other
actions. As an example, the commenters
state that NMFS does not consider the
greater susceptibility to vessel strike of
animals that have been temporarily
harassed or disoriented. The
commenters cite a Nowacek et al. (2004)
study in which exposure to a midfrequency sound source provoked
interruption of foraging dives and the
surfacing of five North Atlantic right
whales and presumably increased risk
of vessel strike.
Response: As presented in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.4.2
(Summation of Energy from Multiple
Sources) the Navy’s and NMFS’ analysis
and acoustic impact modeling does
consider and quantify the potential for
additive effects from multiple activities
involving acoustic stressors. Unlike the
method used previously that modeled
acoustic sources individually, the
Navy’s acoustic effects model (NAEMO)
has the capability to run all sound
sources within a scenario
simultaneously, which accounts for
accumulative sound and provides a
more realistic depiction of the additive
effects from using multiple acoustic
sources in spatial and temporal
proximity (i.e., the cumulative SEL is a
composite of all sources received by the
animat) (See Section 3.8.3.1.6.3 (Navy
Acoustic Effects Model) of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS). Additionally, Section
3.8.3.1.7 (Marine Mammal Avoidance of
Sound Exposures) and the following
sub-sections of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
consider likely marine mammal
behavior in the analysis of impacts.
In addition, and as explained in
response to a previous comment above,
there is no scientific basis for the
suggestion that animals taken by
harassment would have ‘‘greater
susceptibility to vessel strike.’’ NMFS
considered Nowacek et al. (2004), cited
by the commenters, which is discussed
in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Section
3.8.3.1.2.6, Behavioral Reactions).
Nowacek et al. (2004) used an alarm
signal purposefully designed to provoke
a response from the whales. The signal,
which was long in duration, lasting
several minutes, was intended to protect
the whales from ship strikes. The
frequency, duration, and temporal
pattern of sound sources affected the
whale’s responses. The right whales did
not respond to playbacks of either right
whale social sounds or vessel noise,
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
highlighting the importance of the
sound characteristics, species
differences, and individual sensitivity
in producing a behavioral reaction.
Navy activities using sonar would not
be used in the same way as the sound
source used by Nowacek et al. (2004),
and similar reactions occurring miles
from the sound source are not
anticipated. Of note, and in contrast to
the comment’s assertion, an equally
plausible interpretation of the study is
that an active mid-frequency sound
source could potentially alert marine
mammals to the presence of a Navy
vessel and therefore reduce the potential
for ship strikes.
Comment 64: NRDC et al. commented
that the proposed rule makes no attempt
to analyze the cumulative and
synergistic effects of mortality, injury,
masking, energetic costs, stress, hearing
loss, or any mechanism of cumulative
impact, whether for its proposed
training or for its training combined
with other activities affecting the same
marine mammal species and
populations; and NMFS makes no
attempt to incorporate the effects of
reasonably foreseeable activities
impacting the same species and
populations into its impact analysis.
Response: Noting our response to
Comment 63 regarding the cumulative
effects of the Navy activity in
combination with other activities,
please see the Analysis and Negligible
Impact Determination section of this
final rule, which addresses all of the
combined anticipated impacts from the
Navy’s GOA activities. Also, see Chapter
4 (Cumulative Impacts) of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS and the response above
regarding assessing the impacts of stress
on marine mammals. In particular, and
to understand the potential for
population-level impact, see Section
3.8.5 (Summary of Observations During
Previous Navy Activities) of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS. For masking effects see the
discussion in Section 3.8.3.1.2.4
(Auditory Masking), and for energetic
models, foraging, chronic noise and
stress, see the discussion in 3.8.3.1.2.5
(Physiological Stress) in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS. The proposed actions are
very limited in time and space and will
not constitute ‘‘chronic noise and
stress’’ analogous or comparable to the
citations presented in the comment
involving commercial shipping, seismic
surveys, or whale watching.
The Navy’s acoustic impact modeling
does consider and quantify the potential
for additive effects from multiple
activities involving acoustic stressors by
modeling all sound sources within a
scenario simultaneously, which
accounts for accumulative sound and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
provides a more realistic depiction of
the potential effects of an activity.
Further, as explained throughout this
rule, NMFS’ assessment is that the
cumulative impacts of active sonar
would be extremely small because the
exercises would occur for relatively
short periods of time; the sources of
active sonar would most often not be
stationary; and the effects of any LF/
MFAS/HFAS exposure would stop
when transmissions stop. Additionally,
the vast majority of impacts expected
from sonar exposure and underwater
detonations are behavioral in nature,
temporary and comparatively short in
duration, relatively infrequent, and not
of the type or severity that would be
expected to be additive for the portion
of the stocks and species likely to be
exposed. NMFS’ final rule is specifically
designed to reduce the effects of the
Navy’s activity on marine mammal
species and stocks to the least
practicable impact, through the
inclusion of appropriate mitigation and
monitoring measures, and the issuance
of an Authorization with those
conditions does not result in significant
cumulative impacts when considered
with all other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects.
Chapter 4 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
contains a comprehensive assessment of
potential cumulative impacts, including
analyzing the potential for cumulatively
significant impacts to the marine
environment and marine mammals.
Specifically, the Navy concluded, and
NMFS concurs, that its proposed action
is likely to result in generally no more
than temporary changes to the noise
environment and sediment and water
quality. Therefore, there is limited
potential for those effects to interact
cumulatively with the effects of other
past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects. Implementation of
the proposed action, in conjunction
with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions, would not be
expected to result in significant
cumulative impacts to the environment.
As such, the proposed action will not
result in cumulative adverse effects that
could have a substantial effect on
species and populations in the action
area.
In addition, we note that the Navy has
been training in the same relative area
for years using substantially similar
training systems, and coupled with the
multitude of other activities taking place
in the area, there is no evidence of long
term consequences to marine mammal
populations or stocks.
Comment 65: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS must account for the
additive impact of its activities in light
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19579
of entanglement, harmful algal blooms,
and changing ocean conditions.
Response: Please see the response
above to comments 61–64 regarding
how NMFS and the Navy have
considered cumulative effects, such as
those from entanglements, algal blooms,
or other stressors resulting from actions
other than the Navy’s training. NMFS
and the Navy have considered changing
ocean conditions. As discussed in the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.4 (Marine
Mammals), NMFS and the Navy are
aware that marine mammals will shift
their habitat based on changing ocean
conditions. Please see specifically
Section 3.8.2.5 (Marine Mammal
Density Estimates) of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS discussing the integration of
habitat modeling into the analysis; also
see the Navy’s Pacific Marine Species
Density Database Technical Report. The
predictive habitat models reflect the
interannual variability and associated
redistribution of marine mammals as a
result of changing environmental
conditions during the survey years used
to develop the models. The analysis
presented in the Navy’ Pacific Marine
Species Density Database Technical
Report includes density data for periods
of warmer water and potentially shifting
ranges of marine mammals as a result of
those conditions.
While climate change may result in
changes in the distribution of marine
mammals, it is currently not possible to
predict how or under what conditions
such changes might occur without
engaging in unsupported conjecture.
Therefore, it is not possible to
reasonably determine what hypothetical
future marine mammal distributions
may look like as a result of climate
change or otherwise factor such changes
into an analysis of resulting potential
effects and impacts from Navy activities.
Comment 66: NRDC et al. commented
that the proposed rule does not
adequately assess impacts to EFH and
other habitat, fish, and other prey
species. NRDC et al. also commented
that the proposed rule is inconsistent
with NMFS’ findings in its MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA) consultation
with the Navy.
Response: The commenters refer to
the Navy’s analysis of potential impacts
to fish and EFH contained in the GOA
2011 FEIS/OEIS. It is important to note
that the analysis referred to was
conducted in the context of the MSA,
the ESA, and Executive Order 12114.
The factors used to assess the
significance of effects vary under these
Acts, and are also different from those
applied to the MMPA’s effects analysis.
The purpose of this comment period
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19580
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
was for the public to provide comments
on the proposed rule, which is being
promulgated under the authority of the
MMPA. NMFS fully considered impacts
to fish and other prey species as a
component of marine mammal habitat.
Please see the ‘‘Marine Mammal
Habitat’’ section of the proposed rule
(81 FR 9950, 10000–03; February 26,
2016), which included an extensive
discussion of the potential impact of the
Navy’s activities on fish and
invertebrates. Potential impacts to
marine mammal food resources within
the GOA TMAA are negligible given
both the lack of hearing sensitivity to
mid-frequency sonar, the very limited
spatial and temporal scope of most Navy
activities at sea including underwater
detonations, and the high biological
productivity of these resources. NMFS
concludes that no short- or long-term
effects to marine mammal food
resources from Navy activities are
anticipated within the GOA TMAA. The
effect of the Navy’s activities on
threatened and endangered fish was also
addressed in NMFS’ Biological Opinion,
which concluded that the Navy’s
activities would not reasonably be
expected to reduce appreciably the
likelihood of the survival and recovery
of any listed fish species.
Section 5.3.1.1.11 of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS (Avoiding Marine Species Habitats
and Biologically Important Areas)
discusses habitat avoidance. Section 3.6
of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Fish) provides
the effects determinations on fish. As
noted in Chapter 3.6 of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS, the current science regarding
behavioral impacts to fish from sonar is
that the potential for effects within the
near field (within few tens of meters of
the source), intermediate, or far
distances is low (Popper et al., 2014).
For explosives, the potential for
behavioral effects is high within a few
tens of meters from the source, moderate
to high within intermediate distances
(100s of meters from the source), and
low within the far field (thousands of
meters from the source) (Popper et al.,
2014).
As described in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS,
there is updated information such as
fish stock assessment reports and
information on fish hearing since the
publication of the 2011 FEIS/OEIS.
However, upon a comprehensive review
of this new information, there are no
changes to the affected environment
(e.g. species present) or to the impact
conclusions, which forms the
environmental baseline of the fish
analysis in the 2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS.
Instead, a review of best available
science on fish hearing indicates that
most species are less likely to be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
affected than previously thought. The
Navy and NMFS reviewed Popper et al.
(2014) and other sources of best
available science in the fall of 2015 and
determined sonar and explosive criteria
for fishes based on taxonomy which
represents all fish species including
salmon (refer to ‘‘Navy’s Northwest
Training and Testing Phase II Sonar and
Explosive Criteria for Fishes’’ in the
NWTT FEIS/OEIS). In summary, salmon
and the majority of other fish species
cannot hear mid-frequency sonar and
therefore would not elicit a behavioral
response. For fish species that can hear
mid-frequency sonar, such as herring, a
recent study concluded that the use of
naval sonar poses little to no risk to
populations of herring regardless of
season, even when an entire population
is aggregated during sonar exposure
(Sivle et al., 2015). Therefore, effects
from sonar are not likely to any fish
species, even those who have the ability
to hear mid-frequency sonar. Sonar has
not been known to cause mortality,
mortal injury, or recoverable injury in
the wild due to lack of fast rise times,
lack of high peak pressures, and lack of
high acoustic impulse. In addition, the
potential for exposure to high levels is
unlikely due to the very small area of
effect around the source, and the
inability for individuals or schools of
fish to remain in that zone of effect
while simultaneously maintaining a
swim speed that can match ship speed
for a long enough duration of time to
accumulate energy. Effects from
explosives are limited to the surface
waters and the area in the immediate
vicinity of the explosion. Deep water
fish would not be affected based on
their distance from the source and the
lack of a developed swim bladder. No
spawning areas or early life stages
would be affected as they are not
located in or near the TMAA. Finally,
effects to habitat from temporal sound
does not render the habitat unsuitable to
support fish populations. In conclusion,
the small scale of the potential effects
on fish (including disturbance, injury,
or mortality) are not expected to have
any meaningful impact on the ability of
marine mammals to acquire the prey
that they need or fish populations in
general.
Negligible Impact Determination and
Analysis
Comment 67: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS should set the following
research priorities with the Navy to
address data gaps and to better inform
its analysis and negligible impact
determination: (1) Increased data
collection and survey efforts to derive
abundance estimates and improve
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
knowledge on year-round and seasonal
distribution; (2) research into sonar
signal modifications; (3) thermal
detection systems; and (4) research on
Navy ship speeds during transit.
Response: Increased data collection
and survey efforts—NMFS relied on the
best available science to make all
required findings under the MMPA
prior to issuing an incidental take
authorization to the Navy for training
activities in the GOA TMAA. To be
supportive of NMFS’ mission, the Navy
funded two previous GOA surveys, a
visual line transect survey in 2009, and
a visual and passive acoustic linetransect survey in 2013 (estimated cost
$1.1 million for 2013 survey). With only
3-years between surveys (2009, 2013),
this periodicity is more frequent than
what NMFS schedules for almost any
other area of the Pacific having equal
limited data at present.
Visual line-transect surveys using
medium to large oceanographic vessels
is the current scientific gold standard
promoted by NMFS for deriving marine
mammal density. Successive data
collection from these vessels is highly
dependent on sea state with limited
sightings available during higher sea
states. This limitation means bad
weather, a significant potential anytime
in the offshore waters of GOA, can
serious degrade the amount of data
collected. For instance, the 2013 GOA
line-transect survey was scheduled in
July, the most optimum at-sea time in
which to survey the GOA. However,
only 59 percent (4,504) of the proposed
pre-survey proposed tracks (7,644 km)
could be realized. Additional future
vessel use for visual surveys and towed
passive acoustic surveys would likely
have similar limitations.
The Navy-funded 2013 GOA survey
provided the most current scientific
sighting and density data available for
GOA marine mammals. Over 164,953
km2 of GOA were surveyed including
strata reflecting specific oceanographic
and biological regimes (shelf, slope,
offshore, and seamounts). The strata
development and sampling design
presented by Rone et al. (2014) was
generated and approved by NMFS’
Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The
scale of strata is representative of how
NMFS designs all large area surveys to
balance scientific need and at-sea
survey costs as compared to available
funding. Similar spatial survey scales
are found in almost all NMFS offshore
visual line-transect surveys for the
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In fact,
Rone et al. (2014) was more novel than
many NMFS surveys in use of four
unique biogeographic areas within the
GOA. Given the large ranges that
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
constitute most offshore marine
mammal distributions at daily, seasonal,
and between year intervals, very small
scale surveys and associated density
estimation could conceivably: (a) Not
provide enough species-specific
sightings over a given survey or even a
group of similar surveys that meet the
statistical requirements for deriving
density, and: (b) May not adequately
represent a given species’ total range. In
general, visual or passive acoustic
detection of some individuals of a
species in one area does not necessarily
preclude that all individuals or even a
substantial part of a stock or species use
the same small geographic area. During
the survey, there were 964 visual
detections of 2,266 individual marine
mammals from 13 species. In addition,
there were 345 passive acoustic
detections of marine mammals from
nine species. This sighting data from the
2013 survey was used to update marine
mammal density by strata for those
animals with sufficient sightings from
which a statistically valid calculation
could be determined (seven species).
Densities derived from these sightings
were in turn used in the Navy’s impact
assessment for GOA training.
The Navy has already funded over
$2.6 million in new marine mammal
monitoring within the GOA from 2011–
2015. This included a 2013 visual linetransect and passive acoustic survey, up
to five long-term (365 days/year)
bottom-mounted passive acoustic
devices on the shelf, slope, and
seamounts, and a slope deployment of
an underwater glider with passive
acoustic sensors. The bottom-mounted
devices deployed year-round have
contributed valuable new science as to
the occurrence and seasonality of GOA
marine mammals, including blue
whales, fin whales, gray whales,
humpback whales, sperm whales, and
beaked whales. To date, over 58,953
hours or 2,456 days’ worth of passive
acoustic data over all seasons have been
collected, analyzed, and results reported
through annual monitoring reports.
The Navy and NMFS believe that
marine mammal density estimation
from passive acoustic monitoring data is
a promising field, which is why the
Navy is a leader in funding new
research to advance the state of the
science. The Office of Naval Research
(ONR) and the Living Marine Resources
(LMR) program are currently funding
multiple projects focused on the
development and validation of
statistical tools and analysis processes.
To date, this field is very much in its
infancy, and there are a number of
unresolved issues that the current
research is working to address. For
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
example, the current Navy-funded
research is focusing on aspects such as
the proper characterization of calling
rates, range of detection, and group size,
all of which can vary by species, region,
time of year/day, sex, etc. All of these
variables can impact the resulting
density estimate, and therefore the
method of incorporating these variables
needs to be investigated further. Once
these methods are further developed
and validated, marine mammal density
estimation from passive acoustic
monitoring data will be a promising tool
to help characterize population
abundance and distribution. Therefore,
with few exceptions, universal density
derivation from additional passive
acoustic monitoring in the GOA over the
next 3–5 years is premature given the
science underlying this protocol is still
in development.
The Navy currently has an ongoing
satellite tagging project for blue and fin
whales on the US West Coast (2014–
2017). These are long-term tags
reporting individual movement for a
period of several weeks in a worst case
scenario, and up to a year in a best case
scenario. These are highly mobile
species that could conceivably move
through portions of the GOA TMAA and
if applicable, those results will be
highlighted in the Navy’s future GOA
monitoring reports. There has already
been non-Navy funded satellite tagging
of select Gulf of Alaska species separate
and unrelated to Navy funded
monitoring in the same region. Pacific
Life Foundation funded the Marine
Mammal Institute of Oregon State
University to attach long-term satellite
tracking tags to humpback whales
adjacent to the Gulf of Alaska from 2014
to 2015. To date, 40 animals have been
tagged and results are currently under
analysis. Tagged humpback whales have
been successfully tracked whales across
the Gulf of Alaska to winter
reproductive areas around Hawaii and
through more coastal routes along the
eastern North Pacific (including the
Gulf) to the tip of Baja and nearshore
regions off mainland Mexico.
See the ‘‘Monitoring’’ section of this
final rule for more information on
monitoring activities planned for 2017
to 2022. Through the adaptive
management process, NMFS and Navy
will work together to define future GOA
TMAA monitoring in consideration of
achievable scientific objectives, and in
terms of logistical considerations
including but not limited to funding
availability, applicability of one
technology in GOA vs. another, and
other Navy monitoring commitments in
other regions of the Pacific.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19581
Sonar signal modifications—The
Navy’s suite of sonar systems have been
designed and optimized for submarine
and mine detection over 50 years of
research and actual application.
Individual signal characteristics are
used because they are proven to work,
otherwise the system would not be in
use and would hamper Navy’s
effectiveness in capabilities to find and
locate adversary submarines and to also
protect Navy ships and submarines.
Unwarranted signal modifications are
impractical to implement, and would
not allow the Navy to meet its Title 10
national defense obligations.
Thermal detection systems—The
German Federal Ministry of Education
and Research funded initial
development of a cryogenically cooled
thermal imaging device mounted on a
stabilized gimbal and associated
computer software (designed and built
by Ocean Acoustics Lab, Alfred
Wegener Institute Helmholtz-Zentrum
for Polar and Marine Research and
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg,
Erlangen, Germany). The camera and
detection software was initially field
tested in the Arctic and Southern Ocean
(Zitterbart et al., 2013). In a follow-on
project, the Navy’s Office of Naval
Research has continued funding
development, at-sea testing and
validation of this system from 2014–
2016 in temperate waters off Australia
and tropical waters off Hawaii.
However, this system is still in an
intermediate stage of development and
not ready for a full-fledged sea trial of
the commercially available stand-alone
system. In addition, costs just for the
camera system itself are still
exceedingly large, on the order of
$980,000, making the system better
suited for future monitoring
applications.
Integration of a non-Navy designed
system into the sensor suite of a modern
Navy ship is not a trivial task, and given
the complexity of this or similar thermal
imaging systems, would not be practical
as a Navy surface ship mitigation. There
are issues of quantity available to
account for the several hundred Navy
ships stationed in the Pacific, the
overall costs for that many units, the
concerns with lifecycle maintenance
and upkeep with a system on ships
deployed for long periods of time,
ability to keep spare parts and critical
components in stock and supplied as
needed, and the issue of electromagnetic
interference and engineering
considerations when any new
technology is proposed for a Navy ship.
Some new technologies can take five to
ten years to resolve all these issues, and
in some cased may never be safely or
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19582
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
logistically integrated for just some of
the above considerations.
Navy ship speeds during transit—To
date, there has not been a Navy ship
strike in the GOA over 20 years of
infrequent use of the GOA TMAA. Navy
ships always move at the safest practical
speed based on a given training
objective and schedule, operational
need, and safety of navigation. Navy
ships are required to report ship strikes
to NMFS. Slow speeds are just as likely
as and more probable than high speed
maneuvers by surface vessels in many of
the exercise event scenarios.
Vessel operators need to be able to
react to changing tactical situations and
evaluate system capabilities in training
as they would in actual combat.
Widespread speed restrictions would
not allow the Navy to properly test
vessel capabilities or train to react to
these situations. Speed restrictions
during some activities (e.g., flight
operations, underway replenishment,
etc.) would also add unacceptable risk
and decrease safety of personnel and
vessels.
Collection of Navy ship speed data
would not inform or improve the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS analysis or NMFS’
negligible impact determination for the
GOA TMAA given the relative different
speeds of vessels depending on
activities and the lack of such impacts
in the past that would suggest ship
strikes are reasonably likely to occur.
Navy vessels operate differently from
commercial vessels in ways important
to the prevention of whale collisions.
Surface ships operated by or for the
Navy have personnel assigned to stand
watch at all times, day and night, when
a ship or surfaced submarine is moving
through the water (underway). A
primary duty of personnel standing
watch on surface ships is to detect and
report all objects and disturbances
sighted in the water that may indicate
a threat to the vessel and its crew, such
as debris, a periscope, surfaced
submarine, or surface disturbance. Per
vessel safety requirements, personnel
standing watch also report any marine
mammals sighted in the path of the
vessel as a standard collision avoidance
procedure. All vessels use extreme
caution and proceed at a safe speed so
they can take proper and effective action
to avoid a collision with any sighted
object or disturbance, and can be
stopped within a distance appropriate to
the prevailing circumstances and
conditions.
Comment 68: NRDC comments that
our negligible impact determination is
unsupported because of the lack of
abundance data for certain species,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
including minke whales, sperm whales,
and several species of beaked whales.
Response: NMFS is responsible for
making a finding based on the best
available science. The lack of recent
abundance data for the species
identified by the commenters does not
preclude us from making the necessary
findings for these species. As described
in the Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section, the nature and
duration of the activities, combined
with the mitigation requirements, are
such that we anticipate only short-term
and lower-level Level B harassment of
the affected individuals. In short, there
is very little likelihood that any
individuals will suffer fitness-level
effects that threaten their reproductive
success or survivorship. Because of the
anticipated lack of fitness-level effects
to any individuals, species or stock
abundance is less of a factor in the
analysis of population-level effects.
Nonetheless, information has been
added to the negligible impact analysis
section that describes the abundance
information we do have for species
without recent abundance estimates,
which allows for at least a broad-scale
relative understanding of abundance.
NEPA
Comment 69: NRDC et al. commented
that NMFS cannot rely on adoption of
the Navy’s GOA FSEIS/OEIS to fulfill its
obligation under NEPA due to the
inadequacy of the document.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the
commenters’ assertion that the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS is inadequate for our
adoption and to meet our
responsibilities under NEPA for the
issuance of regulations and LOA, or that
NMFS has not fulfilled its NEPA
obligations. NMFS notes that comments
submitted on the GOA DSEIS/OEIS
during its public comment period are
addressed by the Navy in Appendix D
of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS.
NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources
has thoroughly reviewed the Navy’s
GOA FSEIS/OEIS and concluded that
the impacts evaluated by the Navy are
substantially the same as the impacts of
NMFS’ proposed action to issue
regulations (and associated LOA)
governing the take of marine mammals
incidental to Navy training activities in
the GOA TMAA Study Area from May
2017 through May 2022. In addition, the
Office of Protected Resources has
evaluated the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and
found that it includes all required
components for adoption by NOAA
including: A discussion of the purpose
and need for the action; a listing of the
alternatives to the proposed action; a
description of the affected environment;
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
a succinct description of the
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and alternatives, including
cumulative impacts; and a listing of
agencies and persons consulted, and to
whom copies of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
are sent.
Per the cooperating agency
commitment, the Navy provided NMFS
with early preliminary drafts of the
GOA DSEIS/OEIS and the FSEIS/OEIS
and a designated (and adequate)
timeframe within which NMFS could
provide comments. The Office of
Protected Resources circulated the
Navy’s preliminary NEPA documents to
other interested NOAA line offices and
NMFS’ regional and science center
offices, compiled any comments
received, and submitted them to the
Navy. Subsequently, the Navy and
NMFS participated in comment
resolution meetings, in which the Navy
addressed NMFS’ comments, and in
which any outstanding issues were
resolved. The Navy has incorporated the
majority of NMFS’ comments into the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS, and adequately
addressed those comments that were not
incorporated. As a result of this review,
the Office of Protected Resources has
determined that it is not necessary to
prepare a separate Environmental
Assessment or EIS to issue regulations
or LOA authorizing the incidental take
of marine mammals pursuant to the
MMPA, and that adoption of the Navy’s
GOA FSEIS/OEIS is appropriate. Based
on NMFS’ review of the FSEIS, NMFS
has adopted the FSEIS under the
Council on Environmental Quality’s
Regulations for Implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act (40
CFR 1506.3). Furthermore, in
accordance with NEPA, its
implementing regulations, and the
NOAA’s Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A and Companion Manual, we
have prepared a Record of Decision
(ROD) which addresses NMFS’
determination to issue regulations and
LOA to the Navy pursuant to section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, for the taking
of marine mammals incidental to the
conduct of the Navy’s training activities.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
In the ‘‘Estimated Take of Marine
Mammals’’ section of the proposed rule,
NMFS described the potential effects to
marine mammals from active sonar and
underwater detonations in relation to
the MMPA regulatory definitions of
Level A and Level B harassment (81 FR
9950, 9992–97; February 26, 2016).
Much of that information has not
changed and is not repeated here;
however, two changes to the input into
take estimates have occurred and are
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
described both in the ‘‘Summary of
Request’’ and the ‘‘Take Request’’
immediately below.
It is important to note that, as Level
B harassment is interpreted here and
quantified by the behavioral thresholds
described below, the fact that a single
behavioral pattern (of unspecified
duration) is abandoned or significantly
altered and classified as a Level B
harassment take does not mean,
necessarily, that the fitness of the
harassed individual is affected either at
all or significantly, or that, for example,
a preferred habitat area is abandoned.
Further analysis of context and duration
of likely exposures and effects is
necessary to determine the impacts of
the estimated effects on individuals and
how those may translate to populationlevel impacts, and is included in the
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination.
Tables 7 and 8 provide a summary of
non-impulsive and impulsive
thresholds to TTS and PTS for marine
mammals, reflecting the acoustic
thresholds used by the Navy for its
acoustic effects model (NAEMO) in the
Navy’s FEIS/OEIS and reflected in the
proposed rule. Behavioral thresholds for
impulsive sources are summarized in
19583
Table 9. A detailed explanation of how
these thresholds were derived is
provided in the Criteria and Thresholds
Technical Report (Finneran and Jenkins,
2012) and summarized in Chapter 6 of
the LOA application (https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/military.htm). As described
in detail elsewhere, NMFS’ new
Acoustic Guidance, and the associated
thresholds (https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/acoustics/Acoustic%20
Guidance%20Files/opr-55_acoustic_
guidance_tech_memo.pdf) have also
been considered in this final rule.
TABLE 7—ONSET TTS AND PTS THRESHOLDS FOR NON-IMPULSE SOUND
Group
Species
Onset TTS
Low-Frequency Cetaceans ..............................
All mysticetes ..................................................
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans ...............................
High-Frequency Cetaceans ..............................
Most delphinids, beaked whales, medium and
large toothed whales.
Porpoises, Kogia spp ......................................
Phocidae In-water ............................................
Harbor, Hawaiian monk, elephant seals .........
Otariidae & Obodenidae In-water ....................
Sea lions and fur seals ...................................
Mustelidae In-water ..........................................
Sea otters.
178 dB re 1μPa2sec(LFII).
178 dB re 1μPa2sec(MFII).
152 dB re 1μPa2sec(HFII).
183 dB re 1μPa2sec(PWI).
206 dB re 1μPa2sec(OWI).
Onset PTS
198 dB re 1μPa2sec(LFII).
198 dB re 1μPa2sec(MFII).
172 dB re 1μPa2secSEL (HFII).
197 dB re 1μPa2sec(PWI).
220 dB re 1μPa2sec(OWI).
LFII, MFII, HFII: New compound Type II weighting functions; PWI, OWI: Original Type I (Southall et al., 2007) for pinniped and mustelid in water.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
19584
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Impulsive behavioral threshold for >2 pulses/
24 hours
Hearing group
Low-Frequency Cetaceans ................................
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans .................................
High-Frequency Cetaceans ...............................
Phocid Seals (in water) .....................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
167
167
141
172
PO 00000
dB
dB
dB
dB
SEL
SEL
SEL
SEL
Frm 00056
(LFII) .............................................
(MFII).
(HFII) ............................................
(PWI) .............................................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Onset TTS
172 dB SEL (MFII) or 224 dB Peak SPL.
146 dB SEL (HFII) or 195 dB Peak SPL.
177 dB SEL (PWI) or 212 dB Peak SPL.
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
ER27AP17.004</GPH>
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
TABLE 9—BEHAVIORAL THRESHOLDS FOR IMPULSIVE SOUND
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
19585
TABLE 9—BEHAVIORAL THRESHOLDS FOR IMPULSIVE SOUND—Continued
Hearing group
Impulsive behavioral threshold for >2 pulses/
24 hours
Otariidae & Mustelidae (in water) ......................
195 dB SEL (OWI) ............................................
Onset TTS
200 dB SEL (OWI) or 212 dB Peak SPL.
Notes: (1) LFII, MFII, HFII are New compound Type II weighting functions; PWI, OWI = Original Type I (Southall et al., 2007) for pinniped and
mustelid in water (see Finneran and Jenkins 2012). (2) SEL = re 1 μPa2-s; SPL = re 1 μPa, SEL = Sound Exposure Level, dB = decibel, SPL =
Sound Pressure Level.
Take Request
The GOA FSEIS/OEIS considered all
training activities proposed to occur in
the Study Area that have the potential
to result in the take of marine mammals
as defined by the MMPA. The stressors
associated with these activities included
the following:
• Acoustic (sonar and other active nonimpulse sources, explosives, swimmer
defense airguns, weapons firing, launch and
impact noise, vessel noise, aircraft noise);
• Energy (electromagnetic devices);
• Physical disturbance or strikes (vessels,
in-water devices, military expended
materials, seafloor devices);
• Entanglement (fiber optic cables,
guidance wires, parachutes);
• Ingestion (munitions, military expended
materials other than munitions); and
• Secondary stressors (sediments and
water quality).
unlikely to result in the incidental
taking of marine mammals is provided
in the FSEIS/OEIS and the proposed
rule.
The Navy determined, and NMFS
agrees, that two stressors could
potentially result in the incidental
taking of marine mammals from training
activities within the Study Area: (1)
Non-impulsive stressors (sonar and
other active acoustic sources) and (2)
impulsive stressors (explosives). Nonimpulsive and impulsive stressors have
the potential to result in incidental takes
of marine mammals by harassment,
injury, or mortality. Explanation of why
the other stressors listed above are
Training Activities
Based on the Navy’s model and postmodel analysis, modified as described
below, Table 10 summarizes the Navy’s
final take request for training activities
for a year (1 exercise occurring over a
7-month period (April–October) and the
summation over a 5-year period (1
exercise occurring over a 7-month
period (April–October) for a total of 5
exercises).
TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL AND 5-YEAR TAKE REQUESTS FOR GOA TMAA TRAINING ACTIVITIES
Training activities
MMPA
category
Source
Mortality ........
Level A .........
Explosives ................................................
Sonar and other active acoustic sources;
explosives.
Sonar and other active acoustic sources;
explosives.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Level B .........
Annual authorization sought
Impulsive and Non-Impulsive Sources
Table 11 provides details on the
Navy’s final take request for training
activities by species from the acoustic
effects modeling estimates. There are no
mortalities predicted for any species
incidental to the proposed training
activities. Only four Level A harassment
takes are predicted to occur for one
species (i.e., Dall’s porpoises).
Derivations of the numbers presented
in Table 11 are described in more detail
within Chapter 6 of the LOA
application, but modified as described
in the ‘‘Summary of Request’’ section.
As described in that section, take
estimates have changed since
publication of proposed rule based on
the following:
(1) The Navy modified its incidental
take request to reflect the level of
activities described by Alternative 1 of
the FSEIS/OEIS (as opposed to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
5-Year authorization sought
0 ...............................................................
4 (Dall’s porpoise only as shown in Table
11).
18,250 (Species specific data shown in
Table 11).
0.
20 (Dall’s porpoise only as shown in
Table 11).
91,250 (Species specific data shown in
Table 11).
Alternative 2) following a reassessment
of reasonably foreseeable training
requirements for the GOA TMAA. This
change in alternative will reduce the
total anticipated amount of annual
training activities by reducing the
number of annual Carrier Strike Group
Exercises from 2 to 1 and the number of
SINKEXs from 2 to 0 (see ‘‘Summary of
Request’’), ultimately reducing the take
authorized. Thus, the take estimates
shown in Table 11 reflect those
presented for Alternative 1 in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS and are greatly reduced
from what was presented in the
proposed rule and the Navy’s
application.
(2) Level A and Level B harassment
takes shown in Table 11 are slightly
different for one species (i.e., for Dall’s
porpoise only) from what is described in
Alternative 1 of the FSEIS/OEIS. This
change is a result of the Navy’s
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reprocessing of anticipated explosive
ranges to effects for Level A and Level
B harassment based on NMFS’ new
Guidance to assess if the new acoustic
thresholds in the Guidance could result
in any additional species-specific injury
exposures when applied to GOA Phase
II training activities. The Navy’s
analysis found that applying the new
thresholds to the training activities
addressed by Alternative 1 would result
in an additional three Dall’s porpoise
Level A harassment (PTS) takes from
explosives and an additional 149 Level
B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
responses) compared to the take
numbers presented in Alternative 1 of
the FSEIS/OEIS. The Navy’s analysis
concluded that applying the new
acoustic criteria would result in no
additional anticipated explosive takes to
any other species.
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
19586
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 11—SPECIES-SPECIFIC TAKE REQUESTS FROM MODELING ESTIMATES OF IMPULSIVE AND NON-IMPULSIVE SOURCE
EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES
Annual
Species
Level B
North Pacific right whale
Humpback whale * .........
5-year
Stock
Level A
Level B
Level A
Eastern North Pacific ...........................................
Central North Pacific ...........................................
California, Washington, Oregon ..........................
Western North Pacific ..........................................
Eastern North Pacific ...........................................
Central North Pacific ...........................................
Northeast Pacific .................................................
Eastern North Pacific ...........................................
Alaska ..................................................................
Eastern North Pacific ...........................................
Western North Pacific ..........................................
North Pacific ........................................................
Alaska Resident ...................................................
Eastern North Pacific Offshore ............................
AT1 Transient ......................................................
GOA, Aleutian Island, and Bearing Sea Transient.
North Pacific ........................................................
3
61
7
1
47
0
1,291
6
43
0
0
98
281
26
0
72
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
305
35
5
235
0
6,455
30
215
0
0
490
1,405
130
0
360
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
981
0
4,905
0
Gulf of Alaska ......................................................
Southeast Alaska .................................................
Alaska ..................................................................
Alaska ..................................................................
Alaska ..................................................................
Alaska ..................................................................
2,742
963
8,270
1,271
200
576
0
0
** 4
0
0
0
13,710
4,815
41,350
6,355
1,000
2,880
0
0
20
0
0
0
Ribbon seal ....................
Eastern U.S. ........................................................
Western U.S. .......................................................
U.S. ......................................................................
Eastern Pacific-Alaska .........................................
California Breeding ..............................................
Aleutian Islands ...................................................
Pribilof Islands .....................................................
Bristol Bay ...........................................................
North Kodiak ........................................................
South Kodiak .......................................................
Prince William Sound ..........................................
Cook Inlet/Shelikof ...............................................
Glacier Bay/Icy Strait ...........................................
Sitka/Chatham .....................................................
Dixon/Cape Decision ...........................................
Alaska ..................................................................
335
286
2
713
122
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,675
1,430
10
3,565
610
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals ......................
..............................................................................
18,250
4
91,250
20
Blue whale .....................
Fin whale .......................
Sei whale .......................
Minke whale ...................
Gray whale ....................
Sperm whale ..................
Killer whale ....................
Pacific white-sided dolphin.
Harbor porpoise .............
Dall’s porpoise ** ............
Cuvier’s beaked whale ..
Baird’s beaked whale ....
Stejneger’s beaked
whale.
Steller sea lion ...............
California sea lion ..........
Northern fur seal ............
Northern elephant seal ..
Harbor seal ....................
* Since the publication of the proposed rule, NMFS requested that the Navy include an additional ESA-listed stock of humpback whale (CA/OR/
WA stock) that could have some elements of its population in or transiting the GOA TMAA. NMFS agreed with the Navy’s assessment that the
most accurate approach would be to re-proportion total modeled humpback whale takes to all three stocks based on best available science. The
Navy prorated existing modeled humpback whale takes into three parts based on relative abundance between the Central North Pacific stock,
the CA/OR/WA stock, and the Western North Pacific stock as detailed in scientific sighting and genetic studies (Calambokidis et al., 2008). Thus,
Table 11 shows the revised prorated breakdown of Level B harassment takes by humpback whale stocks. Total number of takes does not differ
from what was determined for the proposed rule, nor does our negligible impact determination for this species change, as discussed below.
** The Navy, at NMFS’ request, provided a quantitative analysis of how explosive takes could change if the new NMFS acoustic criteria were
applied retroactively to GOA Phase II results. The Navy’s analysis concluded that changes in the take estimate would occur for only one species
(Dall’s porpoise) under this assessment (+3 Level A PTS and +149 Level B (TTS and behavior) takes as compared to Alternative 1 of the
FSEIS/OEIS).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Marine Mammal Habitat
The Navy’s proposed training
activities could potentially affect marine
mammal habitat through the
introduction of sound into the water
column, impacts to the prey species of
marine mammals, bottom disturbance,
or changes in water quality. Each of
these components was considered in
Chapter 3 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Based on the information in the ‘‘Marine
Mammal Habitat’’ section of the
proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 10000–03;
February 26, 2016) and the supporting
information included in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS, NMFS has determined that
training activities would not have
adverse or long-term impacts on marine
mammal habitat. In summary, expected
effects to marine mammal habitat will
include transitory elevated levels of
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
anthropogenic sound in the water
column; short-term physical alteration
of the water column or bottom
topography; brief disturbances to marine
invertebrates; localized and infrequent
disturbance to fish; a limited number of
fish mortalities; and temporary marine
mammal avoidance.
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination (NID)
Negligible impact is ‘‘an impact
resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival’’
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of takes, alone, is not enough
information on which to base an impact
determination, as the severity of
harassment may vary greatly depending
on the context and duration of the
behavioral response, many of which
would not be expected to have
deleterious impacts on the fitness of any
individuals. In determining whether the
expected takes will have a negligible
impact, in addition to considering
estimates of the number of marine
mammals that might be ‘‘taken,’’ NMFS
must consider other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (their
intensity, duration, etc.), the context of
any responses (critical reproductive
time or location, migration, etc.), as well
as the number and nature (e.g., severity)
of estimated Level A harassment takes,
the number of estimated mortalities, and
the status of the species. As a reminder,
the GOA TMAA training activities will
not occur continuously throughout the
year, but rather, for a maximum of 21
days once annually between April and
October.
The Navy’s specified activities have
been described based on best estimates
of the maximum amount of sonar and
other acoustic source use or detonations
that the Navy would conduct. There
may be some flexibility in that the exact
number of hours, items, or detonations
may vary from year to year, but the total
amount of incidental take is not
authorized to exceed the 5-year totals
indicated in Table 11. We base our
analysis and NID on the maximum
number of takes authorized, although, as
stated before, the number of takes are
only a part of the analysis, which
includes extensive qualitative
consideration of other contextual factors
that influence the degree of impact of
the takes on the effected individuals. To
avoid repetition, we provide some
general analysis immediately below that
applies to all the species listed in Table
11, given that some of the anticipated
effects (or lack thereof) of the Navy’s
training activities on marine mammals
are expected to be relatively similar in
nature. However, below that, we break
our analysis into species, or groups of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
species where relevant similarities exist,
to provide more specific information
related to the anticipated effects on
individuals or where there is
information about the status or structure
of any species that would lead to a
differing assessment of the effects on the
population.
The Navy’s take request is based on
its model and post-model analysis,
modified as described in the ‘‘Summary
of Request’’ and ‘‘Take Request’’
sections. In the discussions below, the
‘‘acoustic analysis’’ refers to the Navy’s
modeling results and post-model
analysis. The model calculates sound
energy propagation from sonar, other
active acoustic sources, and explosives
during naval activities; the sound or
impulse received by animat dosimeters
representing marine mammals
distributed in the area around the
modeled activity; and whether the
sound or impulse received by a marine
mammal exceeds the thresholds for
effects. The model estimates are then
further analyzed to consider animal
avoidance and implementation of highly
effective mitigation measures to prevent
Level A harassment, resulting in final
estimates of effects due to Navy training.
NMFS provided input to the Navy on
this process and the Navy’s qualitative
analysis is described in detail in
Chapter 6 of its LOA application (https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/militry.htm).
Generally speaking, and especially
with other factors being equal, the Navy
and NMFS anticipate more severe
effects from takes resulting from
exposure to higher received levels
(although this is in no way a strictly
linear relationship throughout species,
individuals, or circumstances) and less
severe effects from takes resulting from
exposure to lower received levels. The
requested number of Level B harassment
takes does not equate to the number of
individual animals the Navy expects to
harass (which is lower), but rather to the
instances of take (i.e., exposures above
the Level B harassment threshold) that
would occur. These instances may
represent either a very brief exposure
(seconds) or, in some cases, longer
durations of exposure within a day.
Depending on the location, duration,
and frequency of activities, along with
the distribution and movement of
marine mammals, individual animals
may be exposed to impulse or nonimpulse sounds at or above the Level B
harassment threshold on multiple days.
However, the Navy is currently unable
to estimate the number of individuals
that may be taken during training
activities. Therefore, the model results
estimate the total number of takes that
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19587
may occur to a smaller number of
individuals. While the model shows
that an increased number of exposures
may take place due to an increase in
events/activities and ordnance, the
types and severity of individual
responses to training and activities are
not expected to change.
Behavioral Responses
As discussed in the proposed rule,
marine mammals can respond to LF/
MFAS/HFAS in many different ways, a
subset of which qualifies as Level B
harassment. As described in the
proposed rule, the Navy uses the
behavioral response function to quantify
the number of behavioral responses that
would qualify as Level B harassment
under the MMPA. As the statutory
definition is currently applied, a wide
range of behavioral reactions may
qualify as Level B harassment under the
MMPA, including but not limited to
avoidance of the sound source,
temporary changes in vocalizations or
dive patterns, temporary avoidance of
an area, or temporary disruption of
feeding, migrating, or reproductive
behaviors. The estimates calculated
using the behavioral response function
do not differentiate between the
different types of potential reactions.
Nor do the estimates provide
information regarding the potential
fitness or other biological consequences
of the reactions on the affected
individuals. We therefore consider the
available scientific evidence to
determine the likely nature of the
modeled behavioral responses and the
potential fitness consequences for
affected individuals.
For LF/MFAS/HFAS use in the GOA
TMAA, the Navy provided information
(Table 12) estimating the percentage of
Level B harassment that would occur
within the 6-dB bins (without
considering mitigation or avoidance). As
mentioned above, an animal’s exposure
to a higher received level is more likely
to result in a behavioral response that is
more likely to adversely affect the
health of the animal. As illustrated
below, the majority (including about
65–72 percent for the most powerful
ASW hull-mounted sonar, which is
responsible for a large portion of the
sonar takes) of calculated takes from
MFAS result from exposures less than
162 dB and more than 20km away. Less
than 1–2 percent of the takes are
expected to result from exposures above
168 dB or closer than 4km. Specifically,
given a range of behavioral responses
that may be classified as Level B
harassment, to the degree that higher
received levels are expected to result in
more severe behavioral responses, only
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
19588
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
a small percentage of the anticipated
Level B harassment from Navy activities
might necessarily be expected to
potentially result in more severe
responses, especially when the distance
from the source at which the levels
below are received is considered (see
Table 12). Marine mammals are able to
discern the distance of a given sound
source, and given other equal factors
(including received level), they have
been reported to respond more to
sounds that are closer (DeRuiter et al.,
2013). Further, the estimated number of
responses do not reflect either the
duration or context of those anticipated
responses, some of which will be of very
short duration, and other factors should
be considered when predicting how the
estimated takes may affect individual
fitness. A recent study by Moore and
Barlow (2013) emphasizes the
importance of context (e.g., behavioral
state of the animals, distance from the
sound source, etc.) in evaluating
behavioral responses of marine
mammals to acoustic sources.
TABLE 12—NON-IMPULSIVE RANGES TO RECEIVED SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS IN 6-dB BINS AND PERCENTAGE OF LEVEL
B HARASSMENTS FOR THREE REPRESENTATIVE SONAR SYSTEMS
Sonar Bin MF1
(e.g., SQS–53; ASW hull mounted
sonar)
Received level
Distance at which
levels occur within
radius of source
(m)
Sonar Bin MF4
(e.g., AQS–22; ASW dipping sonar)
Percentage of
behavioral
harassments
occurring at
given levels
Percentage of
behavioral
harassments
occurring at
given levels
Distance at which
levels occur within
radius of source
(m)
Sonar Bin MF5
(e.g., SSQ–62; ASW sonobuoy)
Distance at which
levels occur within
radius of source
(m)
Percentage of
behavioral
harassments
occurring at
given levels
Low Frequency Cetaceans
120
126
132
138
144
150
156
162
168
174
180
186
192
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
126
132
138
144
150
156
162
168
174
180
186
192
198
185,400–160,325
160,325–138,400
138,400–118,100
118,100–85,400
85,400–61,288
61,288–42,750
42,750–20,813
20,813–4,375
4,375–1,825
1,825–750
750–375
375–200
200–100
0
0
0
2
7
19
43
26
1
0
0
0
0
91,363–70,650
70,650–49,125
49,125–28,950
28,950–10,800
10,800–4,250
4,250–2,013
2,013–638
638–200
200–100
100–<50
<50
<50
<50
0
0
4
29
29
19
16
3
0
0
0
0
0
20,463–12,725
12,725–7,575
7,575–3,813
3,813–2,200
2,200–638
638–250
250–100
100–<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
0
0
5
15
51
18
9
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
14
25
24
28
7
1
0
0
0
0
21,288–14,200
14,200–8,238
8,238–4,350
4,350–2,425
2,425–1,213
1,213–250
250–150
150–<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
0
0
1
6
24
54
7
9
0
0
0
0
0
Odontocetes and Pinnipeds
120
126
132
138
144
150
156
162
168
174
180
186
192
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
SPL
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
126
132
138
144
150
156
162
168
174
180
186
192
198
185,450–160,475
160,475–138,750
138,750–123,113
123,113–85,450
85,450–61,363
61,363–42,763
42,763–21,025
21,025–4,475
4,475–1,850
1,850–763
763–400
400–200
200–100
0
0
0
1
4
14
44
35
2
0
0
0
0
93,075–71,275
71,275–50938
50,938–29,075
29,075–11,050
11,050–4,250
4,250–2,013
2,013–638
638–200
200–100
100–<50
<50
<50
<50
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Notes: (1) ASW = anti-submarine warfare, m = meters, SPL = sound pressure level; (2) Odontocete behavioral response function is also used
for high-frequency cetaceans, phocid seals, otariid seals and sea lions, and sea otters.
Although the Navy has been
monitoring to discern the effects of LF/
MFAS/HFAS on marine mammals since
2006, and research on the effects of
MFAS is advancing, our understanding
of exactly how marine mammals in the
Study Area will respond to LF/MFAS/
HFAS is still improving. However, the
Navy has submitted more than 80
reports, including Major Exercise
Reports, Annual Exercise Reports, and
Monitoring Reports, documenting
hundreds of thousands of marine
mammals across Navy range complexes,
and there are only two instances of overt
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
behavioral disturbances that have been
observed. One cannot conclude from
these results that marine mammals were
not harassed from MFAS/HFAS, as a
portion of animals within the area of
concern were not seen (especially those
more cryptic, deep-diving species, such
as beaked whales or Kogia spp.), the full
series of behaviors that would more
accurately show an important change is
not typically seen (i.e., only the surface
behaviors are observed), and some of the
non-biologist watchstanders might not
be well-qualified to characterize
behaviors. However, one can say that
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the animals that were observed did not
respond in any of the obviously more
severe ways, such as panic, aggression,
or anti-predator response.
Some of the lower level physiological
stress responses discussed in the
Potential Effects section of the proposed
rule would also likely co-occur with the
predicted harassments, although these
responses are more difficult to detect
and fewer data exist relating these
responses to specific received levels of
sound. Level B harassment takes, then,
may have a stress-related physiological
component as well; however, we would
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
not expect the Navy’s generally shortterm, intermittent, and (in the case of
sonar) transitory activities to create
conditions of long-term, continuous
noise leading to long-term physiological
stress responses in marine mammals.
Diel Cycle
As noted in the Potential Effects
section of the proposed rule, many
animals perform vital functions, such as
feeding, resting, traveling, and
socializing on a diel cycle (24-hour
cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise
exposure (when taking place in a
biologically important context, such as
disruption of critical life functions,
displacement, or avoidance of important
habitat) are more likely to be significant
if they last more than one diel cycle or
recur on subsequent days (Southall et
al., 2007). Consequently, a behavioral
response lasting less than one day and
not recurring on subsequent days is not
considered severe unless it could
directly affect reproduction or survival
(Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is
a difference between multiple-day
substantive behavioral reactions and
multiple-day anthropogenic activities.
For example, just because an at-sea
exercise lasts for multiple days does not
necessarily mean that individual
animals are either exposed to those
exercises for multiple days or, further,
exposed in a manner resulting in a
sustained multiple day substantive
behavioral response. Large multi-day
Navy exercises, such as those proposed
in the GOA TMAA, typically include
vessels that are continuously moving at
speeds typically 10–15 knots, or higher,
and likely cover large areas that are
relatively far from shore, in addition to
the fact that marine mammals are
moving as well, which would make it
unlikely that the same animal could
remain in the immediate vicinity of the
ship for the entire duration of the
exercise. Additionally, the Navy does
not necessarily operate active sonar the
entire time during an exercise (though
exercise reports are classified, the
unclassified report for the 2011 training
events indicated that sonar was
operated for a total of 67 minutes in the
12-day exercise). While it is certainly
possible that these sorts of exercises
could overlap with individual marine
mammals multiple days in a row at
levels above those anticipated to result
in a take, because of the factors
mentioned above, it is considered
unlikely for the majority of takes. Even
if an exercise overlaps with an
individual marine mammal multiple
days in a rule, this does not mean that
a behavioral response is necessarily
sustained for multiple days, but instead
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
necessitates the consideration of likely
duration and context to assess any
effects on the individual’s fitness.
Durations for non-impulsive activities
utilizing tactical sonar sources vary and
are fully described in Appendix A of the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS. ASW training
exercises using MFAS/HFAS proposed
for the GOA TMAA generally last for
2–16 hours, and may have intervals of
non-activity in between. Because of the
need to train in a large variety of
situations (in the case of the GOA
TMAA, complex bathymetric and
oceanographic conditions include a
continental shelf, submarine canyons,
seamounts, and fresh water infusions
from multiple sources), the Navy does
not typically conduct successive ASW
exercises in the same locations. Given
the average length of ASW exercises
(times of continuous sonar use) and
typical vessel speed, combined with the
fact that the majority of the cetaceans in
the GOA TMAA Study Area would not
likely remain in an area for successive
days, it is unlikely that an animal would
be exposed to MFAS/HFAS at levels
likely to result in a substantive response
that would then be carried on for more
than one day or on successive days.
Planned explosive exercises for the
GOA TMAA are of a short duration (1–
6 hours). Although explosive exercises
may sometimes be conducted in the
same general areas repeatedly, because
of their short duration and the fact that
they are in the open ocean and animals
can easily move away, it is similarly
unlikely that animals would be exposed
for long, continuous amounts of time.
Temporary Threshold Shifts (TTS)
As mentioned previously, TTS can
last from a few minutes to days, be of
varying degree, and occur across various
frequency bandwidths, all of which
determine the severity of the impacts on
the affected individual, which can range
from minor to more severe. The TTS
sustained by an animal is primarily
classified by three characteristics:
1. Frequency—Available data (of midfrequency hearing specialists exposed to
mid- or high-frequency sounds; Southall
et al., 2007) suggest that most TTS
occurs in the frequency range of the
source up to one octave higher than the
source (with the maximum TTS at 1⁄2
octave above). The more powerful MF
sources used have center frequencies
between 3.5 and 8 kHz and the other
unidentified MF sources are, by
definition, less than 10 kHz, which
suggests that TTS induced by any of
these MF sources would be in a
frequency band somewhere between
approximately 2 and 20 kHz. There are
fewer hours of HF source use and the
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19589
sounds would attenuate more quickly.
They also have lower source levels, but
if an animal were to incur TTS from
these sources, it would cover a higher
frequency range (sources are between 20
and 100 kHz, which means that TTS
could range up to 200 kHz; however, HF
systems are typically used less
frequently and for shorter time periods
than surface ship and aircraft MF
systems, so TTS from these sources is
even less likely). TTS from explosives
would be broadband. Vocalization data
for each species, which would inform
how TTS might specifically potentially
interfere with communications with
conspecifics, was provided in the LOA
application.
2. Degree of the shift (i.e., by how
many dB the sensitivity of the hearing
is reduced)—Generally, both the degree
of TTS and the duration of TTS will be
greater if the marine mammal is exposed
to a higher level of energy (which would
occur when the peak dB level is higher
or the duration is longer). The threshold
for the onset of TTS was discussed
previously in this final rule. An animal
would have to approach closer to the
source or remain in the vicinity of the
sound source appreciably longer to
increase the received SEL, which would
be difficult considering the Lookouts
and the nominal speed of an active
sonar vessel (10–15 knots). In the TTS
studies (see Threshold Shift section of
the proposed rule), some using
exposures of almost an hour in duration
or up to 217 SEL, most of the TTS
induced was 15 dB or less, though
Finneran et al. (2007) induced 43 dB of
TTS with a 64-second exposure to a 20
kHz source. However, MFAS emits a
short ping typically every 50 seconds,
and TTS incurred from these activities
would likely be of smaller degree and
shorter duration.
3. Duration of TTS (recovery time)—
In the TTS laboratory studies (see
Threshold Shift section of the proposed
rule), some using exposures of almost an
hour in duration or up to 217 SEL,
almost all individuals recovered within
1 day (or less, often in minutes),
although in one study (Finneran et al.,
2007), recovery took 4 days. In this case,
because of the likely SEL exposure, TTS
incurred would be expected to be less
and recovery time would be shorter.
Based on the range of degree and
duration of TTS reportedly induced by
exposures to non-pulse sounds of
energy higher than that to which freeswimming marine mammals in the field
are likely to be exposed during MFAS/
HFAS training exercises in the GOA
TMAA, it is unlikely that marine
mammals would ever sustain a TTS
from MFAS that alters their sensitivity
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
19590
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
by more than 20 dB for more than a few
days (and any incident of TTS would
likely be far less severe due to the short
duration of the majority of the exercises
and the speed of a typical vessel). Also,
for the same reasons discussed in the
Diel Cycle section, and because of the
short distance within which animals
would need to approach the sound
source, it is unlikely that animals would
be exposed to the levels necessary to
induce TTS in subsequent time periods
such that their recovery is impeded.
Additionally, though the frequency
range of TTS that marine mammals
might sustain would overlap with some
of the frequency ranges of their
vocalization types, the frequency range
of TTS from MFAS (the source from
which TTS would most likely be
sustained because the higher source
level and slower attenuation make it
more likely that an animal would be
exposed to a higher received level)
would not usually span the entire
frequency range of one vocalization
type, much less span all types of
vocalizations or other critical auditory
cues. If impaired, marine mammals
would typically be aware of their
impairment and are sometimes able to
implement behaviors to compensate (see
Acoustic Masking or Communication
Impairment section), though these
compensations may incur energetic
costs. Because of the low levels and
short duration of TTS expected to result
from these activities, little, if any,
energetic costs would be expected to be
incurred.
Acoustic Masking or Communication
Impairment
Masking only occurs during the time
of the signal (and potential secondary
arrivals of indirect rays), versus TTS,
which continues beyond the duration of
the signal. Standard MFAS typically
pings every 50 seconds for hullmounted sources. For the sources for
which we know the pulse length, most
are significantly shorter than hullmounted active sonar, on the order of
several microseconds to tens of
microseconds. For hull-mounted active
sonar, though some of the vocalizations
that marine mammals make are less
than one second long, there is only a 1
in 50 chance that they would occur
exactly when the ping was received, and
when vocalizations are longer than one
second, only parts of them are masked.
Alternately, when the pulses are only
several microseconds long, the majority
of most animals’ vocalizations would
not be masked. Masking effects from
MFAS/HFAS are expected to be
minimal. If masking or communication
impairment were to occur briefly, it
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
would be in the frequency range of
MFAS, which overlaps with some
marine mammal vocalizations; however,
it would likely not mask the entirety of
any particular vocalization,
communication series, or other critical
auditory cue, because the signal length,
frequency, and duty cycle of the MFAS/
HFAS signal does not perfectly mimic
the characteristics of any marine
mammal’s vocalizations. The other
sources used in Navy training, many of
either higher frequencies (meaning that
the sounds generated attenuate even
closer to the source) or lower amounts
of operation, are similarly not expected
to result in masking.
PTS, Injury, or Mortality
NMFS believes that many marine
mammals would deliberately avoid
exposing themselves to the received
levels of active sonar necessary to
induce injury by moving away from or
at least modifying their path to avoid a
close approach. Additionally, in the
unlikely event that an animal
approaches the sonar vessel at a close
distance, NMFS believes that the
mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown/
powerdown zones for MFAS/HFAS)
would typically ensure that animals
would not be exposed to injurious levels
of sound. As discussed previously, the
Navy utilizes both aerial (when
available) and passive acoustic
monitoring (during all ASW exercises)
in addition to watchstanders on vessels
to detect marine mammals for
mitigation implementation. There was
no modeled prediction of mortality to
any species that occurs in the Study
Area as a result of the Navy’s training
activities.
If a marine mammal is able to
approach a surface vessel within the
distance necessary to incur PTS, the
likely speed of the vessel (nominal 10–
15 knots) would make it very difficult
for the animal to remain in range long
enough to accumulate enough energy to
result in more than a mild case of PTS.
As mentioned previously and in relation
to TTS, the likely consequences to the
health of an individual that incurs PTS
can range from mild to more serious
dependent upon the degree of PTS and
the frequency band it is in, and many
animals are able to compensate for the
shift, although it may include energetic
costs. Because of the small degree of
PTS that would likely result, if it occurs,
any energetic costs incurred by four
Dall’s porpoises would be expected to
be relatively small.
No Level A harassment takes are
predicted to occur to any species from
exposure to non-impulsive sound. As
mentioned previously, the Navy
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reprocessed anticipated ranges to PTS
for impulsive sources (explosives) based
on NMFS’ new Guidance to assess if the
new acoustic criteria could result in any
additional species-specific injury
exposures. The Navy did not reprocess
anticipated sonar ranges to effects for
PTS because the acoustic thresholds
used in the Navy’s modeling are largely
more conservative that the new
Guidance, and NMFS and the Navy
qualitatively evaluated (described
earlier) the effects the change would
have on our analyses. The Navy’s
analysis concluded that only four Level
A (PTS) takes per year to one species
(Dall’s porpoise) are predicted to occur
from GOA training activities. No species
other than Dall’s porpoise would be
expected to incur PTS from explosives
if the new Guidance was applied to the
Navy’s activities.
We assume that the acoustic
exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS
(or TTS) would be accompanied by
behavioral responses and/or
physiological stress responses, although
the sound characteristics that correlate
with specific stress responses in marine
mammals are poorly understood.
However, as discussed above in the
‘‘Behavioral Responses’’ section, we
would not expect the Navy’s generally
short-term, intermittent, and (in the case
of sonar) transitory activities to create
conditions of long-term, continuous
noise leading to long-term physiological
stress responses in marine mammals.
As discussed previously, marine
mammals (especially beaked whales)
could potentially respond to MFAS at a
received level lower than the injury
threshold in a manner that indirectly
results in the animals stranding. The
exact mechanism of this potential
response, behavioral or physiological, is
not known. When naval exercises have
been associated with strandings in the
past, it has typically been when three or
more vessels are operating
simultaneously, in the presence of a
strong surface duct, and in areas of
constricted channels, semi-enclosed
areas, and/or steep bathymetry. While
these features certainly do not define
the only factors that can contribute to a
stranding, and while they need not all
be present in their aggregate to increase
the likelihood of a stranding, it is worth
noting that they are not all present in
the GOA TMAA, which only has a
strong surface duct present during the
winter, and does not have bathymetry or
constricted channels of the type that
have been present in the sonar
associated strandings. When this is
combined with consideration of the
number of hours of active sonar training
that will be conducted and the total
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
duration of all training exercises (a
maximum of 21 days once a year), we
believe that the probability that this will
occur is small and we have not
authorized this type of take to occur.
Lastly, an active sonar shutdown
protocol for strandings involving live
animals milling in the water minimizes
the chances that these types of events
turn into mortalities.
As stated previously, there have been
no recorded Navy vessel strikes of any
marine mammals during training in the
GOA Study Area to date, nor were takes
by injury or mortality resulting from
vessel strike predicted in the Navy’s
analysis.
Group and Species-Specific Analysis
Predicted effects on marine mammals
from exposures to sonar and other active
acoustic sources and explosions during
annual training activities are shown in
Table 11. The vast majority of predicted
exposures (greater than 99 percent) are
expected to be Level B harassment (noninjurious TTS and behavioral reactions)
from sonar and other active acoustic
sources at relatively low received levels
(Table 12). The acoustic analysis
predicts the majority of marine mammal
species in the Study Area would not be
exposed to explosive (impulsive)
sources associated with training
activities. Only Dall’s porpoise is
predicted to have Level B (TTS)
exposures resulting from explosives,
and only a limited number (4) of Dall’s
porpoise are expected to have injurious
take (PTS), which are from explosions.
There are no lethal takes predicted for
any marine mammal species for the
GOA activities.
The analysis below may in some cases
(e.g., mysticetes, porpoises, pinnipeds)
address species collectively if they
occupy the same functional hearing
group (i.e., low, mid, and highfrequency cetaceans and pinnipeds in
water), have similar hearing capabilities,
and/or are known to generally
behaviorally respond similarly to
acoustic stressors. Where there are
meaningful differences between species
or stocks in anticipated individual
responses to activities, impact of
expected take on the population due to
differences in population status, or
impacts on habitat, they will either be
described within the section or the
species will be included as a separate
sub-section.
Mysticetes—The Navy’s acoustic
analysis predicts that 2,923 instances of
Level B harassment of mysticete whales
may occur in the Study Area each year
from sonar and other active acoustic
sources during training activities.
Annual species-specific take estimates
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
are as follows: 3 North Pacific right
whales (Eastern North Pacific stock), 69
humpback whales (Central North
Pacific, Western North Pacific, and CA/
OR/WA stocks), 47 blue whales (Eastern
North Pacific stock), 1,291 fin whales
(Northeast Pacific stock), 6 sei whales
(Eastern North Pacific stock), and 43
minke whales (Alaska stock). Of these
species, humpback (Western North
Pacific DPS and Mexico DPS), blue, fin,
sei, and North Pacific right whales are
listed as threatened or endangered
under the ESA and depleted under the
MMPA. NMFS issued a Biological
Opinion concluding that the issuance of
the rule and subsequent LOA are likely
to adversely affect, but are not likely to
jeopardize, the continued existence of
the threatened and endangered species
under NMFS’ jurisdiction and are not
likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat
in the GOA TMAA Study Area (there is
no designated critical habitat for
mysticetes in the Study Area.). Based on
the distribution information presented
in the LOA application, it is highly
unlikely that gray whales would be
encountered in the Study Area during
events involving use of sonar and other
active acoustic sources. The acoustic
analysis did not predict any takes of
gray whales and NMFS is not
authorizing any takes of this species.
Generally, these represent a limited
number of takes relative to population
estimates for most mysticete stocks in
the Study Area. When the numbers of
behavioral takes are compared to the
estimated stock abundance and if one
assumes that each take happens to a
separate animal, less than
approximately 10 percent of each of
these stocks, with the exception of the
Northeast Pacific stock of fin whale and
the Alaska stock of minke whale, would
be behaviorally harassed during the
course of a year. There currently are no
reliable population estimates for the
Northeast Pacific stock of fin whale and
the Alaska stock of minke whale
because only portions of the stocks’
range have been surveyed (Muto and
Angliss, 2016). However, NMFS
believes the portion of these stocks
expected to be taken is relatively small.
Older provisional surveys in small
subsets of the Minke range (Bering shelf
and shelf and nearshore waters from
Kenai Fjords to the Aleutians) showed
partial abundances or 389–2,020 and
1,233, respectively, suggesting numbers
larger than the sum of those if all areas
in the Alaska range were surveyed. A
provisional estimate of the minimum
population of portion of the fin whale
range west of the Kenai peninsula
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19591
(about a third of the range) is 1,368 and
earlier estimates of multiple subsets of
the portion of the population east of the
Kenai peninsula were in the thousands,
suggesting that the abundance of the full
population is at least more than several
thousand. Because the estimates given
above represent the total number of
exposures and not necessarily the
number of individuals exposed, it is
more likely that fewer individuals
would be taken, but a subset would be
taken more than one time per year. In
the ocean, the use of sonar and other
active acoustic sources is transient and
is unlikely to repeatedly expose the
same population of animals over a short
period.
Level B harassment takes are
anticipated to be in the form of TTS and
behavioral reactions and no injurious
takes of North Pacific right, humpback,
blue, fin, minke, or sei whales from
sonar and other active acoustic stressors
or explosives are expected. The majority
of acoustic effects to mysticetes from
sonar and other active sound sources
during training activities would be
primarily from anti-submarine warfare
events involving surface ships and hull
mounted sonar. Research and
observations show that if mysticetes are
exposed to sonar or other active acoustic
sources they may react in a number of
ways depending on the characteristics
of the sound source, their experience
with the sound source, and whether
they are migrating or on seasonal
grounds (i.e., breeding or feeding).
Reactions may include alerting,
breaking off feeding dives and surfacing,
diving or swimming away, or no
response at all (Richardson, 1995;
Nowacek, 2007; Southall et al., 2007;
Finneran and Jenkins, 2012).
Richardson et al. (1995) noted that
avoidance (temporary displacement of
an individual from an area) reactions are
the most obvious manifestations of
disturbance in marine mammals.
Avoidance is qualitatively different
from the startle or flight response, but
also differs in the magnitude of the
response (i.e., directed movement, rate
of travel, etc.). Oftentimes avoidance is
temporary, and animals return to the
area once the noise has ceased.
Additionally, migrating animals may
ignore a sound source, or divert around
the source if it is in their path.
Specific to U.S. Navy systems using
low frequency sound, studies were
undertaken in 1997–98 pursuant to the
Navy’s Low Frequency Sound Scientific
Research Program. These studies found
only short-term responses to low
frequency sound by mysticetes (fin,
blue, and humpback whales) including
changes in vocal activity and avoidance
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19592
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
of the source vessel (Clark, 2001; Miller
et al., 2000; Croll et al., 2001; Fristrup
et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007).
Baleen whales exposed to moderate
low-frequency signals demonstrated no
variation in foraging activity (Croll et
al., 2001). Low-frequency signals of the
Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean
Climate sound source were not found to
affect dive times of humpback whales in
Hawaiian waters (Frankel and Clark,
2000).
Specific to mid-frequency sound,
´
studies by Melcon et al. (2012) in the
Southern California Bight found that the
likelihood of blue whale low-frequency
calling (usually associated with feeding
behavior) decreased with an increased
level of MFAS, beginning at a SPL of
approximately 110–120 dB re 1 mPa.
However, it is not known whether the
lower rates of calling actually indicated
a reduction in feeding behavior or social
contact since the study used data from
remotely deployed, passive acoustic
monitoring buoys. Results from a
behavioral response study in Southern
California waters indicated that in some
cases and at low received levels, tagged
blue whales responded to MFAS but
that those responses were mild and
there was a quick return to their
baseline activity (Southall et al., 2011;
Southall et al., 2012b). Blue whales
responded to a mid-frequency sound
source, with a source level between 160
and 210 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m and a
received sound level up to 160 dB re 1
mPa, by exhibiting generalized
avoidance responses and changes to
dive behavior during the exposure
experiments (CEE) (Goldbogen et al.,
2013). However, reactions were not
consistent across individuals based on
received sound levels alone, and likely
were the result of a complex interaction
between sound exposure factors such as
proximity to sound source and sound
type (MFAS simulation vs. pseudorandom noise), environmental
conditions, and behavioral state. Surface
feeding whales did not show a change
in behavior during CEEs, but deep
feeding and non-feeding whales showed
temporary reactions that quickly abated
after sound exposure. Distances of the
sound source from the whales during
CEEs were sometimes less than a mile.
Blue whales have been documented
exhibiting a range of foraging strategies
for maximizing feeding dependent on
the density of their prey at a given
location (Goldbogen et al., 2015), so it
may be that a temporary behavioral
reaction or avoidance of a location
where feeding was occurring is not
meaningful to the life history of an
animal. The findings from Goldbogen et
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
´
al. (2013) and Melcon et al. (2012) are
generally consistent with the Navy’s
criteria and thresholds for predicting
behavioral effects to mysticetes from
sonar and other active acoustic sources
used in the quantitative acoustic effects
analysis for GOA. The Navy’s behavioral
response function predicts the
probability of a behavioral response that
rises to a Level B harassment take for
individuals exposed to a received SPL
of 120 dB re 1 mPa or greater, with an
increasing probability of reaction with
increased received level as
´
demonstrated in Melcon et al. (2012).
High-frequency systems are notably
outside of mysticetes’ ideal hearing and
vocalization range. Therefore,
mysticetes are unlikely to be able to
detect higher-frequency systems and
these systems would not interfere with
their communication or detection of
biologically relevant sounds or cause a
significant behavioral reaction.
Most Level B harassments to
mysticetes from sonar in the Study Area
would result from received levels less
than 156 dB SPL. Therefore, the
majority of Level B harassment takes are
expected to be in the form of milder
responses (i.e., lower-level exposures
that still rise to the level of take, but
would likely be less severe in the range
of responses that qualify as take) of a
generally short duration. As mentioned
earlier in this section, we anticipate
more severe effects from takes when
animals are exposed to higher received
levels. Most low-frequency (mysticetes)
cetaceans observed in studies usually
avoided sound sources at levels of less
than or equal to 160 dB re 1mPa.
Occasional milder behavioral reactions
are unlikely to cause long-term
consequences for individual animals or
populations. Even if sound exposure
were to be concentrated in a relatively
small geographic area over a long period
of time (e.g., days or weeks during major
training exercises), we would expect
that some individual whales would
avoid areas where exposures to acoustic
stressors are at higher levels. For
example, Goldbogen et al. (2013)
indicated some horizontal displacement
of deep foraging blue whales in
response to simulated MFA sonar.
Given these animals’ mobility and large
ranges, we would expect these
individuals to temporarily select
alternative foraging sites nearby until
the exposure levels in their initially
selected foraging area have decreased.
Therefore, even temporary displacement
from initially selected foraging habitat is
not expected to impact the fitness of any
individual animals because we would
expect equivalent foraging to be
available in close proximity. Because we
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
do not expect any fitness consequences
any individual animals, we do not
expect any population level effects from
these behavioral responses.
As explained above, recovery from a
threshold shift (TTS) can take a few
minutes to a few days, depending on the
exposure duration, sound exposure
level, and the magnitude of the initial
shift, with larger threshold shifts and
longer exposure durations requiring
longer recovery times (Finneran et al.,
2005; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010;
Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al.,
2009b). However, any threshold shifts
experienced would be expected to be
relatively small because of the
unlikelihood that animals will remain
within the ensonified area (due to the
short duration of the majority of
exercises, the speed of the vessels, and
the short distance within which the
animal would need to approach the
sound source) at high levels for the
duration necessary to induce larger
threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not
necessarily affect all hearing frequencies
equally, so some threshold shifts may
not interfere with an animal’s hearing of
biologically relevant sounds.
Furthermore, the implementation of
mitigation and the sightability of
mysticetes (due to their large size)
reduces the potential for a significant
behavioral reaction or a threshold shift
to occur.
Overall, the number of predicted
behavioral reactions is low and
occasional behavioral reactions are
unlikely to cause long-term
consequences for individual animals or
populations. This assessment of longterm consequences is based in part on
findings from ocean areas where the
Navy has been intensively training and
testing with sonar and other active
acoustic sources for decades. While
there are many factors such as the end
of large-scale commercial whaling
complicating any analysis, there is no
data suggesting any long-term
consequences to mysticetes from
exposure to sonar and other active
acoustic sources. On the contrary, there
are findings suggesting mysticete
populations are increasing in the two
primary locations (Southern California
and Hawaii) where the Navy’s most
intensively used range complexes are
located. These findings include: (1)
Calambokidis et al. (2009b) indicating a
significant upward trend in abundance
of blue whales in Southern California;
(2) the recovery of gray whales that
migrate through the Navy’s SOCAL
Range Complex twice a year; (3) work
by Moore and Barlow (2011) indicating
evidence of increasing fin whale
abundance in the California Current
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
area, which includes the SOCAL Range
Complex; (4) the range expansion and
increasing presence of Bryde’s whales
south of Point Conception in Southern
California (Kerosky et al., 2012); and (5)
the ocean area contained within the
Hawaii Range Complex continuing to
function as a critical breeding, calving,
and nursing area to the point at which
the overall humpback whale population
in the North Pacific is now greater than
some prior estimates of pre-whaling
abundance (Barlow et al., 2011).
As discussed in the ‘‘Consideration of
Time/Area Limitations’’ section of this
rule, a biologically important feeding
area has been identified for North
Pacific right whale (feeding area) within
a small portion of the GOA TMAA
(Ferguson et al., 2015). The Navy and
NMFS anticipate that proposed training
activities likely would have temporal
overlap but limited spatial overlap with
this BIA. Given the limited spatial
overlap, it is unlikely that Navy training
would have any biologically meaningful
effect on North Pacific right whale
feeding behavior in these areas.
However, given their small population
size, the rarity of their detections and
general lack of sightings within the GOA
TMAA, and the extremely limited
current information about this species,
NMFS is requiring a North Pacific right
whale ‘‘Cautionary Area’’ between June
and September in the overlapping 2,051
km2 portion of the North Pacific right
whale feeding area, in which no hullmounted sonar or explosives would be
used within the portion of the feeding
area that overlaps the Navy’s GOA
TMAA during those months. In the
event of national security needs, the
Navy would be required to seek
approval in advance from the
Commander, U.S. Third Fleet prior to
conducting training activities using
sonar or explosives. NMFS believes that
implementation of this North Pacific
right whale Cautionary Area within the
GOA TMAA may provide additional
protection of this species and stock
beyond the mitigation measures already
proposed by the Navy, potentially
lessening the anticipated impacts even
further.
In summary, the GOA TMAA
activities are not expected to adversely
impact annual rates of recruitment or
survival of mysticete whales.
Sperm Whales—The Navy’s acoustic
analysis indicates that 98 instances of
Level B harassment of sperm whales
(North Pacific stock) may occur in the
Study Area each year from sonar or
other active acoustic stressors during
training activities. Sperm whales are
listed as endangered under the ESA and
depleted under the MMPA. There are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
currently no reliable abundance
estimates for this stock (Muto and
Angliss, 2016). Although they believed
it to be positively biased, the last
estimate (Kato and Miyashita (1998))
was 102,112 sperms whales in the
western North Pacific; the number in
Alaska waters is unknown. These Level
B harassment takes are anticipated to be
in the form of TTS and behavioral
reactions and no injurious takes of
sperm whales from sonar and other
active acoustic stressors or explosives
were requested or authorized. Sperm
whales have shown resilience to
acoustic and human disturbance,
although they may react to sound
sources and activities within a few
kilometers. Sperm whales that are
exposed to activities that involve the
use of sonar and other active acoustic
sources may alert, ignore the stimulus,
avoid the area by swimming away or
diving, or display aggressive behavior
(Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007;
Southall et al., 2007; Finneran and
Jenkins, 2012). Some (but not all) sperm
whale vocalizations might overlap with
the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range,
which could temporarily decrease an
animal’s sensitivity to the calls of
conspecifics or returning echolocation
signals. However, as noted previously,
NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a long
duration or severe degree to occur as a
result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS.
Recovery from a threshold shift (TTS)
can take a few minutes to a few days,
depending on the exposure duration,
sound exposure level, and the
magnitude of the initial shift, with
larger threshold shifts and longer
exposure durations requiring longer
recovery times (Finneran et al., 2005;
Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al.,
2009b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010).
Here, any threshold shifts experienced
would be expected to be relatively small
because of the unlikelihood that animals
will remain within the ensonified area
(due to the short duration of the
majority of exercises, the speed of the
vessels, and the short distance within
which the animal would need to
approach the sound source) at high
levels for the duration necessary to
induce larger threshold shifts.
Threshold shifts do not necessarily
affect all hearing frequencies equally, so
some threshold shifts may not interfere
with an animal’s hearing of biologically
relevant sounds. No sperm whales are
predicted to be exposed to MFAS/HFAS
sound levels associated with PTS or
injury.
The majority of Level B harassment
takes are expected to be in the form of
mild responses (low-level exposures)
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19593
and of a generally short duration.
Relative to the last known population
size, the number of anticipated Level B
harassment takes is very limited.
Because the estimates given above
represent the total number of exposures
and not necessarily the number of
individuals exposed, it is more likely
that fewer individuals would be taken,
but a subset would be taken more than
one time per year. In the ocean, the use
of sonar and other active acoustic
sources is transient and is unlikely to
repeatedly expose the same population
of animals over a short period. Overall,
the number and nature of predicted
behavioral reactions are unlikely to
cause long-term consequences for
individual animals or populations. The
GOA activities are not expected to occur
in an area/time of specific importance
for reproductive, feeding, or other
known critical behaviors for sperm
whales, and there is no designated
critical habitat in the Study Area.
Consequently, the activities are not
expected to adversely impact annual
rates of recruitment or survival of sperm
whales.
Dolphins and Small Whales—The
Navy’s acoustic analysis predicts the
following instances of Level B
harassment of delphinids (dolphins and
small whales) each year from sonar,
other active acoustic sources, and
explosives associated with training
activities in the Study Area: 389 killer
whales (Alaska Resident; Eastern North
Pacific Offshore; AT1 Transient; and
GOA, Aleutian Island, and Bearing Sea
Transient stocks) and 981 Pacific whitesided dolphins (North Pacific stock).
These represent a limited number of
takes relative to population estimates for
delphinid stocks in the Study Area.
When the numbers of behavioral takes
are compared to the estimated stock
abundance and if one assumes that each
take happens to a separate animal, less
than 15 percent of each of the killer
whale stocks and less than 5 percent of
the North Pacific stock of Pacific whitesided dolphin would be behaviorally
harassed during the course of a year.
More likely, slightly fewer individuals
would be harassed, but a subset would
be harassed more than one time during
the course of the year.
All of these takes are anticipated to be
in the form of Level B harassment (TTS
and behavioral reaction) and no
injurious takes of delphinids from sonar
and other active acoustic stressors or
explosives are requested or proposed for
authorization. Further, the majority of
takes are anticipated to be by Level B
harassment in the form of mild
responses. Research and observations
show that if delphinids are exposed to
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19594
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sonar or other active acoustic sources
they may react in a number of ways
depending on their experience with the
sound source and what activity they are
engaged in at the time of the acoustic
exposure. Delphinids may not react at
all until the sound source is
approaching within a few hundred
meters to within a few kilometers
depending on the environmental
conditions and species. Delphinids that
are exposed to activities that involve the
use of sonar and other active acoustic
sources may alert, ignore the stimulus,
change their behaviors or vocalizations,
avoid the sound source by swimming
away or diving, or be attracted to the
sound source (Richardson, 1995;
Nowacek, 2007; Southall et al., 2007;
Finneran and Jenkins, 2012).
Research has demonstrated that
Alaska Resident killer whales may
routinely move over long large distances
(Andrews and Matkin, 2014; Fearnbach
et al., 2013). In a similar documented
long-distance movement, an Eastern
North Pacific Offshore stock killer
whale tagged off San Clemente Island,
California, moved (over a period of 147
days) to waters off northern Mexico,
then north to Cook Inlet, Alaska, and
finally (when the tag ceased
transmitting) to coastal waters off
Southeast Alaska (Falcone and Schorr,
2014). Given these findings, temporary
displacement due to avoidance of
training activities is therefore unlikely
to have biological significance to
individual animals.
Delphinid species generally travel in
large pods and should be visible from a
distance, allowing for a high level of
mitigation effectiveness, which has been
considered quantitatively in the
calculation of Level A harassment take,
but is also expected to potentially
reduce the occurrences of more severe
behavioral impacts resulting from
higher level exposures. Many of the
recorded delphinid vocalizations
overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS
frequency range (2–20 kHz); however, as
noted above, NMFS does not anticipate
TTS of a serious degree or extended
duration to occur as a result of exposure
to MFAS/HFAS. Recovery from a
threshold shift (TTS) can take a few
minutes to a few days, depending on the
exposure duration, sound exposure
level, and the magnitude of the initial
shift, with larger threshold shifts and
longer exposure durations requiring
longer recovery times (Finneran et al.,
2005; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010;
Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al.,
2009b). Here, any threshold shifts
experienced would be expected to be
relatively small because of the
unlikelihood that animals will remain
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
within the ensonified area (due to the
short duration of the majority of
exercises, the speed of the vessels, and
the short distance within which the
animal would need to approach the
sound source) at high levels for the
duration necessary to induce larger
threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not
necessarily affect all hearing frequencies
equally, so some threshold shifts may
not interfere with an animal’s hearing of
biologically relevant sounds.
The predicted effects to delphinids
are unlikely to cause long-term
consequences for individual animals or
populations. The GOA TMAA activities
are not expected to occur in an area/
time of specific importance for
reproductive, feeding, or other known
critical behaviors for delphinids. Stocks
of delphinid species found in the Study
Area are not depleted under the MMPA,
nor are they listed under the ESA.
Consequently, the activities are not
expected to adversely impact rates of
recruitment or survival of delphinid
species.
Porpoises—The Navy’s acoustic
analysis predicts that 8,270 instances of
Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral
reactions) of Dall’s porpoise (Alaska
stock) and 3,705 instances of Level B
harassment of harbor porpoise (GOA
and Southeast Alaska stocks) may occur
each year from sonar and other active
acoustic sources and explosives
associated with training activities in the
Study Area. Acoustic analysis also
predicted that 4 Dall’s porpoises might
be exposed to sound levels from sonar
and other active acoustic stressors and
explosives likely to result in PTS or
injury (Level A harassment). These
represent a limited number of takes
relative to population estimates for
porpoise stocks in the Study Area (Table
6 of the proposed rule (81 FR 9957)).
When the numbers of takes for Dall’s
and harbor porpoise are compared to
their respective estimated stock
abundances and if one assumes that
each take happens to a separate animal,
less than 10 percent of the Alaska stock
of Dall’s porpoise, and less than 10
percent of the GOA and Southeast
Alaska stocks of harbor porpoise would
be harassed (behaviorally) during the
course of a year. Because the estimates
given above represent the total number
of exposures and not necessarily the
number of individuals exposed, it is
more likely that fewer individuals
would be taken, but a subset would be
taken more than one time per year.
Behavioral responses can range from
a mild orienting response, or a shifting
of attention, to flight and panic
(Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007;
Southall et al., 2007). The number of
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Dall’s and harbor porpoise behaviorally
harassed by exposure to MFAS/HFAS in
the Study Area is generally higher than
the other species. For Dall’s porpoise,
this is due to their high density in the
area. For harbor porpoises, this is due to
the low Level B harassment threshold
(we assume for the purpose of
estimating take that all harbor porpoises
exposed to 120 dB or higher MFAS/
HFAS will be taken by Level B
harassment), which essentially makes
the ensonified area of effects
significantly larger than for the other
species. However, the fact that the
threshold is a step function and not a
curve (and assuming uniform density)
means that the vast majority of the takes
occur in the very lowest levels that
exceed the threshold (it is estimated that
approximately 80 percent of the takes
are from exposures to 120 dB–126 dB),
which means that anticipated
behavioral effects are not expected to be
severe (e.g., temporary avoidance). As
mentioned above, an animal’s exposure
to a higher received level is more likely
to result in a behavioral response that is
more likely to adversely affect the
health of an animal. Animals that do not
exhibit a significant behavioral reaction
would likely recover from any incurred
costs, which reduces the likelihood of
long-term consequences, such as
reduced fitness, for the individual or
population.
Animals that experience hearing loss
(TTS or PTS) may have reduced ability
to detect relevant sounds such as
predators, prey, or social vocalizations.
Some porpoise vocalizations might
overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS
frequency range (2–20 kHz). Recovery
from a threshold shift (TTS; partial
hearing loss) can take a few minutes to
a few days, depending on the exposure
duration, sound exposure level, and the
magnitude of the initial shift, with
larger threshold shifts and longer
exposure durations requiring longer
recovery times (Finneran et al., 2005;
Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al.,
2009b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010).
More severe shifts may not fully recover
and thus would be considered PTS.
However, here, any threshold shifts
experienced would be expected to be
relatively small because of the
unlikelihood that animals will remain
within the ensonified area (due to the
short duration of the majority of
exercises, the speed of the vessels, and
the short distance within which the
animal would need to approach the
sound source) at high levels for the
duration necessary to induce larger
threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not
necessarily affect all hearing frequencies
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
equally, so some threshold shifts may
not interfere with an animal hearing
biologically relevant sounds. The likely
consequences to the health of an
individual that incurs PTS can range
from mild to more serious, depending
upon the degree of PTS and the
frequency band it is in, and many
animals are able to compensate for the
shift, although it may include energetic
costs. Furthermore, likely avoidance of
intense activity and sound coupled with
mitigation measures would further
reduce the potential for severe PTS
exposures to occur. If a marine mammal
is able to approach a surface vessel
within the distance necessary to incur
PTS, the likely speed of the vessel
(nominal 10–15 knots) would make it
very difficult for the animal to remain
in range long enough to accumulate
enough energy to result in more than a
mild case of PTS.
Harbor porpoises have been observed
to be especially sensitive to human
activity (Tyack et al., 2011; Pirotta et al.,
2012). The information currently
available regarding harbor porpoises
suggests a very low threshold level of
response for both captive (Kastelein et
al., 2000; Kastelein et al., 2005) and
wild (Johnston, 2002) animals. Southall
et al. (2007) concluded that harbor
porpoises are likely sensitive to a wide
range of anthropogenic sounds at low
received levels (approximately 90 to 120
dB). Research and observations of
harbor porpoises for other locations
show that this small species is wary of
human activity and will display
profound avoidance behavior for
anthropogenic sound sources in many
situations at levels down to 120 dB re
1 mPa (Southall, 2007). Harbor porpoises
routinely avoid and swim away from
large motorized vessels (Barlow et al.,
1988; Evans et al., 1994; Palka and
Hammond, 2001; Polacheck and
Thorpe, 1990). The vaquita, which is
closely related to the harbor porpoise in
the Study Area, appears to avoid large
vessels at about 2,995 ft (913 m)
(Jaramillo-Legorreta et al., 1999). The
assumption is that the harbor porpoise
would respond similarly to large Navy
vessels, possibly prior to
commencement of sonar or explosive
activity (i.e., pre-activity avoidance).
Harbor porpoises may startle and
temporarily leave the immediate area of
the training until after the event ends.
ASW training exercises using MFAS/
HFAS generally last for 2–16 hours, and
may have intervals of non-activity in
between. In addition, the Navy does not
typically conduct ASW exercises in the
same locations. Given the average length
of ASW exercises (times of continuous
sonar use) and typical vessel speed,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
combined with the fact that the majority
of porpoises in the Study Area would
not likely remain in an area for
successive days, it is unlikely that an
animal would be exposed to MFAS/
HFAS at levels likely to result in a
substantive response (e.g., interruption
of feeding) that would then be carried
on for more than one day or on
successive days. Thompson et al. (2013)
showed that seismic surveys conducted
over a 10-day period in the North Sea
did not result in the broad-scale
displacement of harbor porpoises away
from preferred habitat. The harbor
porpoises were observed to leave the
area at the onset of survey, but returned
within a few hours, and the overall
response of the porpoises decreased
over the 10-day period.
Considering the information above,
the predicted effects to Dall’s and harbor
porpoise are unlikely to cause
significant long-term consequences for
individual animals or the population
(the 4 potential takes by PTS for Dall’s
porpoise are anticipated to be of a small
degree in a narrow frequency band that
that would not have significant impacts
on individual fitness). The Navy’s
training activities in the GOA TMAA are
not expected to occur in an area/time of
specific importance for reproductive,
feeding, or other known critical
behaviors for Dall’s and harbor
porpoise. Stocks of Dall’s and harbor
porpoise are not listed as depleted
under the MMPA. Consequently, the
activities are not expected to adversely
impact annual rates of recruitment or
survival of porpoises.
Beaked Whales—Acoustic analysis
predicts that 200 Baird’s beaked whales
(Alaska stock), 1,271 Cuvier’s beaked
whales (Alaska stock), and 576
Stejneger’s beaked whales (Alaska stock)
will be taken annually by Level B
harassment from exposure to sonar and
other active acoustic stressors. These
takes are anticipated to be in the form
of Level B harassment (mainly all
behavioral reaction and only 2 TTS
(Cuvier’s beaked whale)) and no
injurious takes of beaked whales from
sonar and other active acoustic stressors
or explosives are requested or
authorized. Because the estimates given
above represent the total number of
exposures and not necessarily the
number of individuals exposed, it is
more likely that fewer individuals
would be taken, but a subset would be
taken more than one time per year.
There are currently no reliable
abundance estimates for Alaska stocks
of Baird’s, Cuvier’s, and Stejner’s
beaked whales (Muto and Angliss,
2016). However, the ranges of all three
stocks are very large compared to the
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19595
TMAA (Cuvier’s is the smallest,
occupying all of the GOA and south of
the Canadian border and west past the
southern edge of the Kenai peninsula,
while Baird’s and Stejner’s range even
farther south and also cross north over
the Kenai peninsula), which means that
the impacts anticipated within a
miniscule portion of the stocks’ ranges
and accrued over no more than 21 days
would be expected to be relatively small
compared to the population.
As is the case with harbor porpoises,
beaked whales have been shown to be
particularly sensitive to sound and
therefore have been assigned a lower
harassment threshold based on
observations of wild animals by
McCarthy et al. (2011) and Tyack et al.
(2011). The fact that the Level B
harassment threshold is a step function
(the Navy has adopted an unweighted
140 dB re 1 mPa SPL threshold for
significant behavioral effects for all
beaked whales) and not a curve (and
assuming uniform density) means that
the vast majority of the takes expected
to occur in the very lowest levels that
exceed the threshold (it is estimated that
approximately 80 percent of the takes
are from exposures to 140 dB to 146 dB),
which means that the anticipated effects
for the majority of exposures are not
expected to be severe (as mentioned
above, an animal’s exposure to a higher
received level is more likely to result in
a behavioral response that is more likely
to adversely affect the health of an
animal). Further, Moretti et al. (2014)
recently derived an empirical risk
function for Blainville’s beaked whale
that predicts there is a 0.5 probability of
disturbance at a received level of 150 dB
(confidence interval: 144–155),
suggesting that in some cases the
current Navy step function may overestimate the effects of an activity using
sonar on beaked whales. Irrespective of
the Moretti et al. (2014) risk function,
NMFS’ analysis assumes that all of the
beaked whale Level B harassment takes
that were proposed for authorization
will occur, and we base our negligible
impact determination, in part, on the
fact that these exposures would mainly
occur at the very lowest end of the 140dB Level B harassment threshold where
behavioral effects are expected to be
much less severe and generally
temporary in nature.
Behavioral responses can range from
a mild orienting response, or a shifting
of attention, to flight and panic
(Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007;
Southall et al., 2007; Finneran and
Jenkins, 2012). Research has also shown
that beaked whales are especially
sensitive to the presence of human
activity (Tyack et al., 2011; Pirotta et al.,
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19596
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
2012). Beaked whales have been
documented to exhibit avoidance of
human activity or respond to vessel
presence (Pirotta et al., 2012). Beaked
whales were observed to react
negatively to survey vessels or low
altitude aircraft by quick diving and
other avoidance maneuvers, and none
were observed to approach vessels
(Wursig et al., 1998). Some beaked
whale vocalizations may overlap with
the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range
(2–20 kHz); however, as noted above,
NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a
serious degree or extended duration to
occur as a result of exposure to MFA/
HFAS. Recovery from a threshold shift
(TTS) can take a few minutes to a few
days, depending on the exposure
duration, sound exposure level, and the
magnitude of the initial shift, with
larger threshold shifts and longer
exposure durations requiring longer
recovery times (Finneran et al., 2005;
Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al.,
2009b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010).
Here, any threshold shifts experienced
would be expected to be relatively small
because of the unlikelihood that animals
will remain within the ensonified area
(due to the short duration of the
majority of exercises, the speed of the
vessels, and the short distance within
which the animal would need to
approach the sound source) at high
levels for the duration necessary to
induce larger threshold shifts.
Threshold shifts do not necessarily
affect all hearing frequencies equally, so
some threshold shifts may not interfere
with an animal’s hearing of biologically
relevant sounds.
It has been speculated for some time
that beaked whales might have unusual
sensitivities to sonar sound due to their
likelihood of stranding in conjunction
with MFAS use. Research and
observations show that if beaked whales
are exposed to sonar or other active
acoustic sources they may startle, break
off feeding dives, and avoid the area of
the sound source to levels of 157 dB re
1 mPa, or below (McCarthy et al., 2011).
Acoustic monitoring during actual sonar
exercises revealed some beaked whales
continuing to forage at levels up to 157
dB re 1 mPa (Tyack et al., 2011).
Stimpert et al. (2014) tagged a Baird’s
beaked whale, which was subsequently
exposed to simulated MFAS. Changes in
the animal’s dive behavior and
locomotion were observed when
received level reached 127 dB re 1mPa.
However, Manzano-Roth et al. (2013)
found that for beaked whale dives that
continued to occur during MFAS
activity, differences from normal dive
profiles and click rates were not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
detected with estimated received levels
up to 137 dB re 1 mPa while the animals
were at depth during their dives. And in
research done at the Navy’s fixed
tracking range in the Bahamas, animals
were observed to leave the immediate
area of the anti-submarine warfare
training exercise (avoiding the sonar
acoustic footprint at a distance where
the received level was ‘‘around 140 dB’’
SPL, according to Tyack et al. (2011))
but return within a few days after the
event ended (Claridge and Durban,
2009; Moretti et al., 2009, 2010; Tyack
et al., 2010, 2011; McCarthy et al.,
2011). Tyack et al. (2011) report that, in
reaction to sonar playbacks, most
beaked whales stopped echolocating,
made long slow ascent to the surface,
and moved away from the sound. A
similar behavioral response study
conducted in Southern California waters
during the 2010–2011 field season
found that Cuvier’s beaked whales
exposed to MFAS displayed behavior
ranging from initial orientation changes
to avoidance responses characterized by
energetic fluking and swimming away
from the source (DeRuiter et al., 2013b).
However, the authors did not detect
similar responses to incidental exposure
to distant naval sonar exercises at
comparable received levels, indicating
that context of the exposures (e.g.,
source proximity, controlled source
ramp-up) may have been a significant
factor. The study itself found the results
inconclusive and meriting further
investigation. Cuvier’s beaked whale
responses suggested particular
sensitivity to sound exposure as
consistent with results for Blainville’s
beaked whale.
Populations of beaked whales and
other odontocetes on the Bahamas and
other Navy fixed ranges that have been
operating for decades, appear to be
stable. Behavioral reactions (avoidance
of the area of Navy activity) seem likely
in most cases if beaked whales are
exposed to anti-submarine sonar within
a few tens of kilometers, especially for
prolonged periods (a few hours or more)
since this is one of the most sensitive
marine mammal groups to
anthropogenic sound of any species or
group studied to date and research
indicates beaked whales will leave an
area where anthropogenic sound is
present (Tyack et al., 2011; De Ruiter et
al., 2013; Manzano-Roth et al., 2013;
Moretti et al., 2014). Research involving
tagged Cuvier’s beaked whales in the
SOCAL Range Complex reported on by
Falcone and Schorr (2012, 2014)
indicates year-round prolonged use of
the Navy’s training and testing area by
these beaked whales and has
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
documented movements in excess of
hundreds of kilometers by some of those
animals. Given that some of these
animals may routinely move hundreds
of kilometers as part of their normal
pattern, leaving an area where sonar or
other anthropogenic sound is present
may have little, if any, cost to such an
animal. Photo identification studies in
the SOCAL Range Complex, a Navy
range that is utilized for training and
testing more frequently than the GOA
TMAA Study Area, have identified
approximately 100 individual Cuvier’s
beaked whale individuals with 40
percent having been seen in one or more
prior years, with re-sightings up to 7
years apart (Falcone and Schorr, 2014).
These results indicate long-term
residency by individuals in an
intensively used Navy training and
testing area, which may also suggest a
lack of long-term consequences as a
result of exposure to Navy training and
testing activities.
Based on the findings above, it is clear
that the Navy’s long-term ongoing use of
sonar and other active acoustic sources
has not precluded beaked whales from
also continuing to inhabit those areas. In
summary, based on the best available
science, the Navy and NMFS believe
that any TTS or behavioral responses of
beaked whales due to sonar and other
active acoustic training activities would
generally not have long-term
consequences for individuals or
populations. NMFS notes that Claridge
(2013) speculated that sonar use in a
Bahamas range could have ‘‘a possible
population-level effect’’ on beaked
whales based on lower abundance in
comparison to control sites. In
summary, Claridge suggested that lower
reproductive rates observed at the
Navy’s Atlantic Undersea Test and
Evaluation Center (AUTEC), when
compared to a control site, were due to
stressors associated with frequent and
repeated use of Navy sonar. However, it
is important to note that there were
some relevant shortcomings of this
study. For example, all of the re-sighted
whales during the 5-year study at both
sites were female, which Claridge
acknowledged can lead to a negative
bias in the abundance estimation. There
was also a reduced effort and shorter
overall study period at the AUTEC site
that failed to capture some of the
emigration/immigration trends
identified at the control site.
Furthermore, Claridge assumed that the
two sites were identical and therefore
should have equal potential
abundances, when in reality, there were
notable physical differences. The author
also acknowledged that ‘‘information
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
currently available cannot provide a
quantitative answer to whether frequent
sonar use at (the Bahamas range) is
causing stress to resident beaked
whales,’’ and cautioned that the
outcome of ongoing studies ‘‘is a critical
component to understanding if there are
population-level effects.’’ It is also
worth noting that the frequency and
intensity of sonar activity at the
Bahamas range is greater than in the
GOA TMAA, and the bathymetry and
other physical characteristics of the
training area are different.
Moore and Barlow (2013) have noted
a decline in beaked whale populations
in a broad area of the Pacific Ocean area
out to 300 nm from the coast and
extending from the Canadian-U.S.
border to the tip of Baja Mexico. There
are scientific caveats and limitations to
the data used for that analysis, as well
as oceanographic and species
assemblage changes on the U.S. Pacific
coast not thoroughly addressed.
Although Moore and Barlow (2013)
have noted a decline in the overall
beaked whale population along the
Pacific coast, in the small fraction of
that area where the Navy has been
training and testing with sonar and
other systems for decades (the Navy’s
SOCAL Range Complex), higher
densities and long-term residency by
individual Cuvier’s beaked whales
suggest that the decline noted elsewhere
is not apparent where Navy sonar use is
most intense. Navy sonar training and
testing is not conducted along a large
part of the U.S. west coast from which
Moore and Barlow (2013) drew their
survey data. In Southern California,
based on a series of surveys from 2006
to 2008 and a high number encounter
rate, Falcone et al. (2009) suggested the
ocean basin west of San Clemente Island
may be an important region for Cuvier’s
beaked whales given the number of
animals encountered there. Follow-up
research (Falcone and Schorr, 2012,
2014) in this same location suggests that
Cuvier’s beaked whales may have
population sub-units with higher than
expected residency, particularly in the
Navy’s instrumented Southern
California Anti-Submarine Warfare
Range. Encounters with multiple groups
of Cuvier’s and Baird’s beaked whales
indicated not only that they were
prevalent on the range where Navy
routinely trains and tests, but also that
they were potentially present in much
higher densities than had been reported
for anywhere along the U.S. west coast
(Falcone et al., 2009, Falcone and
Schorr, 2012). This finding is also
consistent with concurrent results from
passive acoustic monitoring that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
estimated regional Cuvier’s beaked
whale densities were higher where Navy
trains in the SOCAL training and testing
area than indicated by NMFS’ broad
scale visual surveys for the U.S. west
coast (Hildebrand and McDonald, 2009).
NMFS also considered New et al.
(2013) and their mathematical model
simulating a functional link between
foraging energetics and requirements for
survival and reproduction for 21 species
of beaked whales. However, NMFS
concluded that the New et al. (2013)
model lacks critical data and accurate
inputs necessary to form valid
conclusions specifically about impacts
of anthropogenic sound from Navy
activities on beaked whale populations.
The study itself notes the need for
‘‘future research,’’ identifies ‘‘key data
needs’’ relating to input parameters that
‘‘particularly affected’’ the model
results, and states only that the use of
the model ‘‘in combination with more
detailed research’’ could help predict
the effects of management actions on
beaked whale species. In short,
information is not currently available to
specifically support the use of this
model in a project-specific evaluation of
the effects of Navy activities on the
impacted beaked whale species in GOA.
No beaked whales are predicted in the
acoustic analysis to be exposed to sound
levels associated with PTS, other injury,
or mortality. After years of the Navy
conducting similar activities in the GOA
Study Area without incident, NMFS
does not expect strandings, injury, or
mortality of beaked whales to occur as
a result of training activities. Stranding
events coincident with Navy MFAS use
in which exposure to sonar is believed
to have been a contributing factor were
detailed in the ‘‘Stranding and
Mortality’’ section of the proposed rule
(81 FR 9950, 9970–76; February 26,
2016). However, for some of these
stranding events, a causal relationship
between sonar exposure and the
stranding could not be clearly
established (Cox et al., 2006). In other
instances, sonar was considered only
one of several factors that, in their
aggregate, may have contributed to the
stranding event (Freitas, 2004; Cox et
al., 2006). Because of the association
between tactical MFAS use and a small
number of marine mammal strandings,
the Navy and NMFS have been
considering and addressing the
potential for strandings in association
with Navy activities for years. In
addition to effective mitigation
measures intended to more broadly
minimize impacts to marine mammals,
the reporting requirements set forth in
this rule ensure that NMFS is notified
immediately (or as soon as clearance
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19597
procedures allow) if a stranded marine
mammal is found during or shortly
after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy
training exercise utilizing MFAS, HFAS,
or underwater explosive detonations
(see General Notification of Injured or
Dead Marine Mammals and the
Stranding Response Plan in the
regulatory text below). Additionally,
through the MMPA process (which
allows for adaptive management),
NMFS and the Navy will determine the
appropriate way to proceed in the event
that a causal relationship were to be
found between Navy activities and a
future stranding.
The GOA training activities are not
expected to occur in an area/time of
specific importance for reproductive,
feeding, or other known critical
behaviors for beaked whales. None of
the Pacific stocks for beaked whale
species found in the Study Area are
depleted under the MMPA. The degree
of predicted Level B harassment is
expected to be mild, and no beaked
whales are predicted in the acoustic
analysis to be exposed to sound levels
associated with PTS, other injury, or
mortality. Consequently, the activities
are not expected to adversely impact
annual rates of recruitment or survival
of beaked whales.
Pinnipeds—The Navy’s acoustic
analysis predicts that the following
numbers of Level B harassment (TTS
and behavioral reaction) may occur
annually from sonar and other active
acoustic stressors associated with
training activities: 621 Steller sea lions
(Eastern U.S. and Western U.S. stocks);
5 California sea lions (U.S. stock); 713
northern fur seals (Eastern Pacific
stock); 122 northern elephant seals
(California Breeding stock); and 2 harbor
seals (South Kodiak, and Prince William
Sound stocks). These represent a limited
number of takes relative to population
estimates for pinniped stocks in the
Study Area. When the numbers of
behavioral takes are compared to the
estimated stock abundances, less than 1
percent of each of these stocks would be
behaviorally harassed during the course
of a year. These estimates represent the
total number of exposures and not
necessarily the number of individuals
exposed, as a single individual may be
exposed multiple times over the course
of a year. Based on the distribution
information presented in the LOA
application, it is highly unlikely that
ribbon seals would be encountered in
the Study Area during events involving
use of sonar and other active acoustic
sources or explosives. The acoustic
analysis did not predict any takes of
ribbon seals and NMFS is not
authorizing any takes of this species.
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19598
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Research has demonstrated that for
pinnipeds, as for other mammals,
recovery from a threshold shift (TTS)
can take a few minutes to a few days,
depending on the exposure duration,
sound exposure level, and the
magnitude of the initial shift, with
larger threshold shifts and longer
exposure durations requiring longer
recovery times (Finneran et al., 2005;
Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Mooney
et al., 2009a; Mooney et al., 2009b).
However, here, any threshold shifts
experienced would be expected to be
relatively small because of the
unlikelihood that animals will remain
within the ensonified area (due to the
short duration of the majority of
exercises, the speed of the vessels, and
the short distance within which the
animal would need to approach the
sound source) at high levels for the
duration necessary to induce larger
threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not
necessarily affect all hearing frequencies
equally, so threshold shifts may not
necessarily interfere with an animal’s
ability to hear biologically relevant
sounds.
Research and observations show that
pinnipeds in the water may be tolerant
of anthropogenic noise and activity (a
review of behavioral reactions by
pinnipeds to impulsive and nonimpulsive noise can be found in
Richardson et al., 1995 and Southall et
al., 2007). Available data, though
limited, suggest that exposures between
approximately 90 and 140 dB SPL do
not appear to induce strong behavioral
responses in pinnipeds exposed to
nonpulse sounds in water (Jacobs and
Terhune, 2002; Costa et al., 2003;
Kastelein et al., 2006c). Based on the
limited data on pinnipeds in the water
exposed to multiple pulses (small
explosives, impact pile driving, and
seismic sources), exposures in the
approximately 150 to 180 dB SPL range
generally have limited potential to
induce avoidance behavior in pinnipeds
(Harris et al., 2001; Blackwell et al.,
2004; Miller et al., 2004). Zero percent
of the takes estimated incidental to the
Navy’s training activities in the GOA
TMAA are expected to result from
exposures above 180 dB.
If pinnipeds are exposed to sonar or
other active acoustic sources they may
react in a number of ways depending on
their experience with the sound source
and what activity they are engaged in at
the time of the acoustic exposure.
Pinnipeds may not react at all until the
sound source is approaching within a
few hundred meters and then may alert,
ignore the stimulus, change their
behaviors, or avoid the immediate area
by swimming away or diving. Houser et
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
al. (2013) performed a controlled
exposure study involving California sea
lions exposed to a simulated MFAS
signal. The purpose of this Navysponsored study was to determine the
probability and magnitude of behavioral
responses by California sea lions
exposed to differing intensities of
simulated MFAS signals. Behavioral
reactions included increased respiration
rates, prolonged submergence, and
refusal to participate, among others.
Younger animals were more likely to
respond than older animals, while some
sea lions did not respond consistently at
any level. Houser et al.’s findings are
consistent with current scientific
studies and criteria development
concerning marine mammal reactions to
MFAS. Effects on pinnipeds in the
Study Area that are taken by Level B
harassment, on the basis of reports in
the literature as well as Navy
monitoring from past activities, will
likely be limited to reactions such as
increased swimming speeds, increased
surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if
such activity were occurring). Most
likely, individuals will simply move
away from the sound source and be
temporarily displaced from those areas,
or not respond at all.
Although less of an issue here because
of the short duration of the activity, it
is still worth noting that in areas of
repeated and frequent acoustic
disturbance, some pinnipeds may
habituate or learn to tolerate the new
baseline or fluctuations in noise level.
Habituation can occur when an animal’s
response to a stimulus wanes with
repeated exposure, usually in the
absence of unpleasant associated events
(Wartzok et al., 2003). While some
animals may not return to an area, or
may begin using an area differently due
to training and testing activities, most
animals are expected to return to their
usual locations and behavior. Given
their documented tolerance of
anthropogenic sound (Richardson et al.,
1995 and Southall et al., 2007), repeated
exposures of individuals (e.g., harbor
seals) to levels of sound that may cause
Level B harassment are unlikely to
result in hearing impairment or to
significantly disrupt foraging behavior.
As stated above, pinnipeds may
habituate to or become tolerant of
repeated exposures over time, learning
to ignore a stimulus that in the past has
not accompanied any overt threat.
Thus, even repeated Level B
harassment of some small subset of an
overall stock is unlikely to result in any
significant realized decrease in fitness to
those individuals, and would not result
in any adverse impact to the stock as a
whole. Evidence from areas where the
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Navy extensively trains and tests
provides some indication of the possible
consequences resulting from those
proposed activities. In the confined
waters of Washington State’s Hood
Canal where the Navy has been training
and intensively testing for decades and
harbor seals are present year-round, the
population level has remained stable
suggesting the area’s carrying capacity
likely has been reached (Jeffries et al.,
2003; Gaydos et al., 2013). Within Puget
Sound there are several locations where
pinnipeds use Navy structures (e.g.,
submarines, security barriers) for
haulouts. Given that animals continue
to choose these areas for their resting
behavior, it would appear there are no
long-term effects or consequences to
those animals as a result of ongoing and
routine Navy activities.
Generally speaking, most pinniped
stocks in the Study Area are thought to
be stable or increasing (Carretta et al.,
2014, 2015). No areas of specific
importance for reproduction or feeding
for pinnipeds have been identified in
the Study Area. Western U.S. stocks of
Steller sea lions are listed as endangered
under the ESA; however, there is no
designated critical habitat for Steller sea
lions in the Study Area. As a
conservative measure, the GOA TMAA
boundary zone was specifically drawn
to exclude any nearby critical habitat
and associated terrestrial, air, or aquatic
zones.
In summary, the activities are not
expected to adversely impact annual
rates of recruitment or survival of
pinniped species.
Long-Term Consequences
The best assessment of long-term
consequences from training activities
will be to monitor the populations over
time within a given Navy range
complex. A U.S. workshop on Marine
Mammals and Sound (Fitch et al., 2011)
indicated a critical need for baseline
biological data on marine mammal
abundance, distribution, habitat, and
behavior over sufficient time and space
to evaluate impacts from humangenerated activities on long-term
population survival. The Navy has
developed monitoring plans for
protected marine mammals occurring on
Navy ranges with the goal of assessing
the impacts of training and testing
activities on marine species and the
effectiveness of the Navy’s current
mitigation practices. Continued
monitoring efforts over time will be
necessary to completely evaluate the
long-term consequences of exposure to
noise sources.
Since 2006 across all Navy range
complexes (in the Atlantic, Gulf of
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Mexico, and the Pacific), there have
been more than 80 reports, including
Major Exercise Reports, Annual Exercise
Reports, and Monitoring Reports. For
the Pacific since 2011, there have been
29 monitoring and exercise reports
submitted to NMFS to further research
goals aimed at understanding the Navy’s
impact on the environment as it carries
out its mission to train and test.
In addition to this multi-year record
of reports from across the Navy, there
have also been ongoing Behavioral
Response Study research efforts (in
Southern California and the Bahamas)
specifically focused on determining the
potential effects from Navy midfrequency sonar (Southall et al., 2011,
2012; McCarthy et al., 2011; Tyack et
al., 2011; DeRuiter et al., 2013b;
Goldbogen et al., 2013; Moretti et al.,
2014). This multi-year compendium of
monitoring, observation, study, and
broad scientific research is informative
with regard to assessing the effects of
Navy training and testing in general.
Given that this record involves many of
the same Navy training activities being
considered for the Study Area and
because it includes all the marine
mammal taxonomic families and many
of the same species, this compendium of
Navy reporting is directly applicable to
assessing locations such as the GOA
TMAA.
In the Hawaii and Southern California
Navy training and testing ranges from
2009 to 2012, Navy-funded marine
mammal monitoring research completed
over 5,000 hours of visual survey effort
covering over 65,000 nautical miles,
sighted over 256,000 individual marine
mammals, took over 45,600 digital
photos and 36 hours of digital video,
attached 70 satellite tracking tags to
individual marine mammals, and
collected over 40,000 hours of passive
acoustic recordings. In Hawaii alone
between 2006 and 2012, there were 21
scientific marine mammal surveys
conducted before, during, or after major
exercises. This monitoring effort is
consistent with other research from
these areas in that there have been no
direct evidence demonstration that
routine Navy training and testing has
negatively impacted marine mammal
populations inhabiting these Navy
ranges. Continued monitoring efforts
over time will be necessary to
completely evaluate the long-term
consequences of exposure to noise
sources. Other research findings related
to the general topic of long-term impacts
are discussed above in the SpeciesSpecific Analysis.
Based on monitoring conducted
before, during, and after Navy training
and testing events since 2006, NMFS’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
assessment is that it is unlikely there
will be impacts having any long-term
consequences to populations of marine
mammals as a result of the proposed
continuation of training activities in the
Study Area. In addition to the analysis
presented above, this assessment of
likelihood is based on four indicators
from areas in the Pacific where Navy
training and testing has been ongoing
for decades: (1) Evidence suggesting or
documenting increases in the numbers
of marine mammals present
(Calambokidis and Barlow, 2004;
Falcone et al., 2009; Hildebrand and
McDonald, 2009; Falcone and Shorr,
2012; Calambokidis et al., 2009a;
Berman-Kowalewski et al., 2010; Moore
and Barlow, 2011; Barlow et al., 2011;
Kerosky et al., 2012; Smultea et al.,
ˇ
´
2013; Sirovic et al., 2015), (2) examples
of documented presence and site
fidelity of species and long-term
residence by individual animals of some
species (Hooker et al., 2002;
McSweeney et al., 2007; McSweeney et
al., 2010; Martin and Kok, 2011;
Baumann-Pickering et al., 2012; Falcone
and Schorr, 2014), (3) use of training
and testing areas for breeding and
nursing activities (Littnan, 2010), and
(4) 6 years of comprehensive monitoring
data indicating a lack of any observable
effects to marine mammal populations
as a result of Navy training and testing
activities.
To summarize, while the evidence
covers most marine mammal taxonomic
suborders, it is limited to a few species
and only suggestive of the general
viability of those species in intensively
used Navy training and testing areas
(Barlow et al., 2011; Calambokidis et al.,
2009b; Falcone et al., 2009; Littnan,
2011; Martin and Kok, 2011; McCarthy
et al., 2011; McSweeney et al., 2007;
McSweeney et al., 2009; Moore and
Barlow, 2011; Tyack et al., 2011;
Southall et al., 2012a; Melcon, 2012;
Goldbogen, 2013; Baird et al., 2013).
However, there is no direct evidence
that routine Navy training and testing
spanning decades has negatively
impacted marine mammal populations
at any Navy Range Complex. Although
there have been a few strandings
associated with use of sonar in other
locations (see U.S. Department of the
Navy, 2013b), Ketten (2012) has recently
summarized, ‘‘to date, there has been no
demonstrable evidence of acute,
traumatic, disruptive, or profound
auditory damage in any marine mammal
as the result of anthropogenic noise
exposures, including sonar.’’ Therefore,
based on the best available science
(Barlow et al., 2011; Carretta et al., 2011;
Falcone et al., 2009; Falcone and
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19599
Schorr, 2012, 2014; Jeffries et al., 2003;
Littnan, 2011; Martin and Kok, 2011;
McCarthy et al., 2011; McSweeney et
al., 2007; McSweeney et al., 2009;
Moore and Barlow, 2011; Tyack et al.,
2011; Southall et al., 2012, 2013, 2014;
Manzano-Roth et al., 2013; DeRuiter et
al., 2013b; Goldbogen et al., 2013;
Moretti et al., 2014; Smultea and
ˇ
´
Jefferson, 2014; Sirovic et al., 2015),
including data developed in the series
of more than 80 reports submitted to
NMFS, we believe that long-term
consequences for individuals or
populations are unlikely to result from
Navy training activities in the Study
Area.
Final Determination
Training activities proposed in the
GOA TMAA Study Area would result in
mainly Level B and a very small number
of Level A harassment takes (for one
species), as summarized in Tables 10
and 11. Based on best available science,
NMFS concludes that exposures to
sound by marine mammal species or
stocks due to GOA TMAA activities
would result in individuals
experiencing primarily short-term
(temporary and short in duration) and
relatively infrequent effects of the type
or severity not expected to be additive.
In addition, only a generally small
portion of the stocks and species are
likely to be exposed.
Marine mammal takes from Navy
activities are not expected to impact
annual rates of recruitment or survival
and will therefore not result in
population-level impacts for the
following reasons, in summary:
• No mortality is anticipated or
authorized, only 4 instances of Level A
harassment (resulting in low-level PTS) to
Dall’s porpoise are likely to occur, and
remaining impacts would be within the noninjurious TTS or behavioral effects zones
(Level B harassment consisting of generally
temporary modifications in behavior).
• As mentioned earlier, an animal’s
exposure to a higher received level is more
likely to result in a behavioral response that
is more likely to adversely affect the health
of the animal. For low frequency cetaceans
(mysticetes) in the Study Area, the majority
(73%) of Level B exposures from hullmounted sonar (which is responsible for
most of the take) will occur at received levels
less than 162 dB and from sources over 20km
away. Only less than 1% of the takes are
expected to result from exposures above 174
dB and closer than 4 km. The majority (63%)
of estimated odontocete and pinniped takes
from hull-mounted MFAS/HFAS result from
exposures to received levels less than 162 dB
and from sources over 20 km away. Only less
than 2% of the takes are expected to result
from exposures above 174 dB and closer than
4 km. For other sonar sources, 98% of the
takes result from exposures below 168 dB for
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19600
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
all taxa. As noted previously, in addition to
received level, the context of exposures (such
as the distance) influences how animals
respond—for example, beaked whales
exposed to the same received level at a
greater distance exhibited a lesser behavioral
response (DeRuiter et al., 2012). In short,
primarily because of the lower levels and
greater distances over which most animals
are exposed, the majority of Level B
harassment takes are expected to be in the
form of milder responses (i.e., lower-level
exposures that still rise to the level of a take,
but would likely be in the less severe range
of responses that qualify as a take), and are
not expected to have deleterious impacts on
the fitness of any individuals.
• Acoustic disturbances caused by Navy
sonar and explosives are short-term,
intermittent, and (in the case of sonar)
transitory. Even when an animal may be
exposed to active sonar more than one time,
the intermittent nature of the sonar signal,
the signal’s low duty cycle (MFAS has a
typical ping of every 50 seconds), and the
fact that both the vessel and animal are
moving, provide only a very small chance
that exposure to active sonar for individual
animals and stocks would be repeated over
extended periods of time. Additionally, the
exercises will not last more than a total of 21
days annually. Consequently, we would not
expect the Navy’s activities to create
conditions of long-term, continuous
underwater noise leading to habitat
abandonment or long-term hormonal or
physiological stress responses in marine
mammal species or stocks.
• Range complexes where intensive
training and testing have been occurring for
decades have populations of multiple species
with strong site fidelity (including highly
sensitive resident beaked whales at some
locations) and increases in the number of
some species. Populations of beaked whales
and other odontocetes in the Bahamas, and
in other Navy fixed ranges that have been
operating for tens of years, appear to be
stable.
• Navy monitoring of Navy-wide activities
since 2006 has documented hundreds of
thousands of marine mammals on the range
complexes and there are only two instances
of overt behavioral change that have been
observed.
• Navy monitoring of Navy-wide activities
since 2006 has documented no demonstrable
instances of injury to marine mammal
species or stocks as a result of non-impulsive
acoustic sources.
• In at least three decades of similar Navy
activities, only one instance of injury to one
species type of marine mammal (In March
2011; three long-beaked common dolphins
off Southern California) has occurred as a
known result of training or testing using an
impulsive source (underwater explosion). Of
note, the time-delay firing underwater
explosive training activity implicated in the
March 2011 incident was not proposed for
the training activities in the GOA Study Area.
• The protective measures described in the
‘‘Mitigation’’ section above are designed, and
expected, to avoid vessel strike, sound
exposures that may cause serious injury,
minimize the likelihood of PTS, TTS, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
more severe behavioral responses, further
minimize the likelihood of take of North
Pacific Right Whales in important feeding
areas, and overall to result in the least
practicable adverse effect on marine mammal
species or stocks.
Based on this analysis of the likely
effects of the specified activity on
marine mammal species or stocks and
their habitat, which includes
consideration of the materials provided
in the Navy’s LOA application and GOA
FSEIS/OEIS, and dependent upon the
implementation of the mitigation and
monitoring measures, NMFS finds that
the total marine mammal take from the
Navy’s training activities in the GOA
Study Area will have a negligible
impact on the affected marine mammal
species or stocks through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
NMFS is issuing regulations for these
activities in order to prescribe the
means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on marine mammal
species or stocks and their habitat, and
to set forth requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of that
taking.
Subsistence Harvest of Marine
Mammals
The Tribes nearest the GOA TMAA
include the Sun’aq Tribe of Kodiak, the
Native Village of Eyak, and the Yakutat
Tlingit Tribe; however, these Tribes do
not use the TMAA for subsistence. In
January 2013, the Navy sent letters to 12
Alaska Native federally-recognized
Tribes, including those listed above,
with the assistance of the Alaskan
Command’s Tribal liaison, requesting
government-to-government consultation
pursuant to Executive Order 13175. The
Navy conducted a government-togovernment consultation with the
Native Village of Eyak and addressed
many of the Village’s concerns regarding
the potential impacts from training
activities. All 12 Tribes were also
provided a copy of the GOA DSEIS/
OEIS for review and comment.
Comments on the GOA DSEIS/OEIS
were received from the Native Village of
Eyak Tribe. In July 2016, Navy held
government-to-government consultation
with five (5) Alaska Native Tribes in the
Kodiak area regarding tribal comments
and concerns of the Proposed Action.
The Navy considered the concerns of
the five Tribes regarding fishery
resources and agreed to include a
mitigation that precludes the use of
ordnance in the Portlock Bank area. The
Navy will continue to keep the Tribes
informed of the timeframes of future
joint training exercises.
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of marine mammals implicated by this
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
action. None of the training activities in
the Study Area occur where traditional
Arctic subsistence hunting exists.
Therefore, NMFS has determined that
the total taking would not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of such species or stocks for
taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act
There are eight marine mammal
species under NMFS jurisdiction that
are listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA with confirmed or
possible occurrence in the Study Area:
Blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale
(Western North Pacific DPS and Mexico
DPS), sei whale, sperm whale, gray
whale (Western North Pacific stock),
North Pacific right whale, and Steller
sea lion (Western U.S. stock). The Navy
consulted with NMFS pursuant to
section 7 of the ESA, and NMFS also
consulted internally on the issuance of
a rule and LOA under section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for GOA
activities. NMFS issued a Biological
Opinion concluding that the issuance of
the rule and subsequent LOA are likely
to adversely affect, but are not likely to
jeopardize, the continued existence of
the threatened and endangered species
under NMFS’ jurisdiction and are not
likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat
in the GOA TMAA Study Area. The
Biological Opinion for this action is
available on NMFS’ Web site (https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/military.htm).
National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS participated as a cooperating
agency on the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, which
was published on July 9, 2016, and is
available on the Navy’s Web site: https://
www.goaeis.com. NMFS determined
that the GOA FSEIS/OEIS is adequate
and appropriate to meet our
responsibilities under NEPA for the
issuance of regulations and LOA and
adopted the Navy’s GOA FSEIS/OEIS.
Classification
The Office of Management and Budget
has determined that this final rule is not
significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for
Regulation of the Department of
Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration at the proposed rule
stage that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Navy is the sole entity that would
be affected by this rulemaking, and the
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Navy is not a small governmental
jurisdiction, small organization, or small
business, as defined by the RFA. Any
requirements imposed by an LOA
issued pursuant to these regulations,
and any monitoring or reporting
requirements imposed by these
regulations, would be applicable only to
the Navy. NMFS does not expect the
issuance of these regulations or the
associated LOA to result in any impacts
to small entities pursuant to the RFA.
Because this action directly affects the
Navy and not a small entity, NMFS
concludes the action will not result in
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. No
comments were received regarding this
certification. As a result, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required and
none has been prepared.
The Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries has determined that there is
good cause under the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C 553(d)(3)) to
waive the 30-day delay in the effective
date of the measures contained in the
final rule. NMFS is unable to
accommodate the 30-day delay of
effectiveness due to delays resulting
from: Late changes in the action
(reductions in activity levels), the need
for new impact analyses to address
policy changes initiated by NMFS (new
Acoustic Guidance), and the need to
analyze a recent Ninth Circuit opinion
regarding section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA. The Navy is the only entity
subject to the regulations, and it has
informed NMFS that it requests that this
final rule take effect by April 2017 to
accommodate a Navy training exercise
in the GOA planned for May 1, 2017. A
waiver of the 30-day delay of the
effective date of the final rule will allow
the Navy to finalize operational
procedures to ensure compliance with
required mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements, and have
MMPA authorization in place to support
at-sea joint exercises in the GOA
scheduled for May 2017. Any delay of
enacting the final rule would result in
either: (1) A suspension of planned
naval training, which would disrupt
vital training essential to national
security; or (2) the Navy’s procedural
non-compliance with the MMPA
(should the Navy conduct training
without an LOA), thereby resulting in
the potential for unauthorized takes of
marine mammals. Moreover, the Navy is
ready to implement the rule
immediately. For these reasons, the
Assistant Administrator finds good
cause to waive the 30-day delay in the
effective date.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218
Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental
take, Indians, Labeling, Marine
mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Seafood, Sonar, Transportation.
Dated: April 21, 2017.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For reasons set forth in the preamble,
50 CFR part 218 is amended as follows:
PART 218—REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE TAKING AND
IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS
1. The authority citation for part 218
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. Subpart P is added to part 218 to
read as follows:
■
Subpart P—Taking and Importing
Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Gulf of
Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities
Area (GOA TMAA) Study Area
Sec.
218.150 Specified activity and specified
geographical region.
218.151 Effective dates and definitions.
218.152 Permissible methods of taking.
218.153 Prohibitions.
218.154 Mitigation.
218.155 Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
218.156 Applications for letters of
authorization (LOA).
218.157 Letters of authorization (LOA).
218.158 Renewal and modifications of
letters of authorization (LOA) and
adaptive management.
Subpart P—Taking and Importing
Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Gulf of
Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities
Area (GOA TMAA) Study Area
§ 218.150 Specified activity and specified
geographical region.
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply
only to the U.S. Navy for the taking of
marine mammals that occurs in the area
outlined in paragraph (b) of this section
and that occurs incidental to the
activities described in paragraph (c) of
this section.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by
the Navy is only authorized if it occurs
within the GOA TMAA Study Area,
which is bounded by a hexagon with the
following six corners: 57°30′° N. lat.,
141°30′° W. long.; 59°36′° N. lat.,
148°10′° W. long.; 58°57′° N. lat.,
150°04′° W. long.; 58°20′° N. lat.,
151°00′° W. long.; 57°16′° N. lat.,
151°00′° W. long.; and 55°30′° N. lat.,
142°00′° W. long.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19601
(c) The taking of marine mammals by
the Navy is only authorized if it occurs
incidental to the following activities:
(1) Sonar and other active sources
used during training—(i) Mid-frequency
(MF) source classes. (A) MF1—an
average of 271 hours per year.
(B) MF3—an average of 24 hours per
year.
(C) MF4—an average of 26 hours per
year.
(D) MF5—an average of 126 items per
year.
(E) MF6—an average of 11 items per
year.
(F) MF11—an average of 39 hours per
year.
(ii) High-frequency (HF) source
classes. (A) HF1—an average of 12
hours per year.
(B) HF6—an average of 40 items per
year.
(iii) Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
source classes. (A) ASW2—an average
of 40 hours per year.
(B) ASW3—an average of 273 hours
per year.
(C) ASW4—an average 6 items per
year.
(iv) Torpedoes (TORP). (A) TORP2—
an average of 0 items per year.
(B) [Reserved]
(2) Impulsive source detonations
during training—(i) Explosive classes.
(A) E5 (>5 to 10 pound (lb) net
explosive weight (NEW))—an average of
56 detonations per year.
(B) E9 (>100 to 250 lb NEW)—an
average of 64 detonations per year.
(C) E10 (>250 to 500 lb NEW)—an
average of 6 detonations per year.
(D) E12 (>650 to 1,000 lb NEW)—an
average of 2 detonations per year.
(ii) [Reserved]
§ 218.151
Effective dates and definitions.
(a) Regulations in this subpart are
effective April 26, 2017 through April
26, 2022.
(b) The following definitions are
utilized in these regulations:
(1) Uncommon Stranding Event
(USE). A stranding event that takes
place during a Major Training Exercise
(MTE) and involves any one of the
following:
(i) Two or more individuals of any
cetacean species (i.e., could be two
different species, but not including
mother/calf pairs, unless of species of
concern listed in next bullet) found
dead or live on shore within a three- to
four-day period and within 10 miles of
one another.
(ii) A single individual or mother/calf
pair of any of the following marine
mammals of concern: beaked whale of
any species, North Pacific right whale,
humpback whale, sperm whale, blue
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
19602
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
whale, fin whale, sei whale, Cook Inlet
beluga whale, Northern fur seal, and
Steller sea lion.
(iii) A group of two or more cetaceans
of any species exhibiting indicators of
distress.
(2) [Reserved]
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
§ 218.152
Permissible methods of taking.
(a) Under letter of authorization
(LOA) issued pursuant to § 216.106 of
this chapter and § 218.157, the holder of
the LOA may incidentally, but not
intentionally, take marine mammals
within the area described in § 218.150,
provided the activity is in compliance
with all terms, conditions, and
requirements of these regulations and
the LOA.
(b) The activities identified in
§ 218.150(c) must be conducted in a
manner that minimizes, to the greatest
extent practicable, any adverse impacts
on marine mammal species or stocks
and their habitat.
(c) The incidental take of marine
mammals under the activities identified
in § 218.150(c) is limited to the
following species, by the identified
method of take and the indicated
number of times:
(1) Level B harassment for all training
activities—(i) Mysticetes. (A) Blue whale
(Balaenoptera musculus), Eastern North
Pacific—235 (an average of 47 per year).
(B) Fin whale (Balaenoptera
physalus), Northeast Pacific—6,455 (an
average of 1,291 per year).
(C) Humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae), Central North Pacific—
305 (an average of 61 per year).
(D) Humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae), Western North Pacific—5
(an average of 1 per year).
(E) Humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae), CA/OR/WA—35 (an
average of 7 per year).
(F) Minke whale (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata), Alaska—215 (an average
of 43 per year).
(G) North Pacific right whale
(Eubalaena japonica), Eastern North
Pacific—15 (an average of 3 per year).
(H) Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis),
Eastern North Pacific—30 (an average of
6 per year).
(ii) Odontocetes. (A) Baird’s beaked
whale (Berardius bairdii), Alaska—1,000
(an average of 200 per year).
(B) Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius
cavirostris), Alaska—6,355 (an average
of 1,271 per year).
(C) Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoidea
dalli), Alaska—41,350 (an average of
8,270 per year).
(D) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena), GOA—13,710 (an average of
2,742 per year).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
(E) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena), Southeast Alaska—4,815 (an
average of 963 per year).
(F) Killer whale (Orcinus orca),
Alaska Resident—1,405 (an average of
281 per year).
(G) Killer whale (Orcinus orca),
Eastern North Pacific Offshore—130 (an
average of 26 per year).
(H) Killer whale (Orcinus orca), GOA,
Aleutian Island, and Bearing Sea
Transient—360 (an average of 72 per
year).
(I) Pacific white-sided dolphin
(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), North
Pacific—4,905 (an average of 981 per
year).
(J) Stejneger’s beaked whale
(Mesoplodon stejnegeri), Alaska—2,880
(an average of 576 per year).
(K) Sperm whale (Physeter
macrocephalus), North Pacific—490 (an
average of 98 per year).
(iii) Pinnipeds. (A) California sea lion
(Zalophus californianus), U.S.—10 (an
average of 2 per year).
(B) Steller sea lion (Eumetopias
jubatus), Eastern U.S.—1,675 (an
average of 335 per year).
(C) Steller sea lion (Eumetopias
jubatus), Western U.S.—1,430 (an
average of 286 per year).
(D) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina),
South Kodiak—5 (an average of 1 per
year).
(E) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina),
Prince William Sound—5 (an average of
1 per year).
(F) Northern elephant seal (Mirounga
angustirostris), California Breeding—
610 (an average of 122 per year).
(G) Northern fur seal (Callorhinus
ursinus), Eastern Pacific—3,565 (an
average of 713 per year).
(2) Level A harassment for all training
activities—(i) Odontocetes. (A) Dall’s
porpoise (Phocoenoidea dalli), Alaska—
12 (an average of 4 per year).
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
§ 218.153
Prohibitions.
Notwithstanding takings
contemplated in § 218.152 and
authorized by an LOA issued under
§ 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.157,
no person in connection with the
activities described in § 218.150 may:
(a) Take any marine mammal not
specified in § 218.152(c);
(b) Take any marine mammal
specified in § 218.152(c) other than by
incidental take as specified in
§ 218.152(c);
(c) Take a marine mammal specified
in § 218.152(c) if such taking results in
more than a negligible impact on the
species or stocks of such marine
mammal; or
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the
terms, conditions, and requirements of
these regulations or an LOA issued
under § 216.106 of this chapter and
§ 218.157.
§ 218.154
Mitigation.
(a) After review of best available
science, the following mitigation was
determined to result in the least
practicable adverse effect on marine
mammal species or stocks. When
conducting training activities, as
identified in § 218.150, the mitigation
measures contained in the LOA issued
under § 216.106 of this chapter and
§ 218.157 must be implemented. These
mitigation measures include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Lookouts. The Navy shall have two
types of lookouts for the purposes of
conducting visual observations: Those
positioned on ships; and those
positioned ashore, in aircraft, or on
boats. The following are protective
measures concerning the use of
lookouts.
(i) Lookouts positioned on surface
ships shall be dedicated solely to
diligent observation of the air and
surface of the water. Their observation
objectives shall include, but are not
limited to, detecting the presence of
biological resources and recreational or
fishing boats, observing mitigation
zones, and monitoring for vessel and
personnel safety concerns.
(ii) Due to manning and space
restrictions on aircraft, small boats, and
some Navy ships, lookouts for these
platforms may be supplemented by the
aircraft crew or pilot, boat crew, range
site personnel, or shore-side personnel.
Lookouts positioned in minimally
manned platforms may be responsible
for tasks in addition to observing the air
or surface of the water (e.g., navigation
of a helicopter or small boat). However,
all lookouts shall, considering personnel
safety, practicality of implementation,
and impact on the effectiveness of the
activity, comply with the observation
objectives described in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section for lookouts
positioned on ships.
(iii) All personnel standing watch on
the bridge, Commanding Officers,
Executive Officers, maritime patrol
aircraft aircrews, anti-submarine warfare
helicopter crews, civilian equivalents,
and lookouts shall successfully
complete the United States Navy Marine
Species Awareness Training prior to
standing watch or serving as a lookout.
(iv) Lookout measures for nonimpulsive sound. (A) With the exception
of vessels less than 65 ft (20 m) in
length, ships using hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar sources
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
associated with anti-submarine warfare
activities at sea shall have two Lookouts
at the forward position of the vessel.
(B) While using hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar sources
associated with anti-submarine warfare
activities at sea, vessels less than 65 ft
(20 m) in length shall have one lookout
at the forward position of the vessel due
to space and manning restrictions.
(C) During non-hull mounted midfrequency active sonar training
activities, Navy aircraft participating in
exercises at sea shall conduct and
maintain, when operationally feasible
and safe, surveillance for marine species
of concern as long as it does not violate
safety constraints or interfere with the
accomplishment of primary operational
duties. Helicopters shall observe/survey
the vicinity of an anti-submarine
warfare training event for 10 minutes
before the first deployment of active
(dipping) sonar in the water.
(D) Ships or aircraft conducting nonhull-mounted mid-frequency active
sonar, such as helicopter dipping sonar
systems, shall maintain one lookout.
(E) Ships conducting high-frequency
active sonar shall maintain one lookout.
(v) Lookout measures for explosives
and impulsive sound. (A) Aircraft
conducting explosive signal underwater
sound buoy activities using >0.5–2.5 lb.
NEW shall have one lookout.
(B) Surface vessels or aircraft
conducting small-, medium-, or largecaliber gunnery exercises against a
surface target shall have one Lookout.
From the intended firing position,
trained Lookouts shall survey the
mitigation zone for marine mammals
prior to commencement and during the
exercise as long as practicable. Towing
vessels, if applicable, shall also
maintain one Lookout. If a marine
mammal is sighted in the vicinity of the
exercise, the tow vessel shall
immediately notify the firing vessel in
order to secure gunnery firing until the
area is clear.
(C) Aircraft conducting explosive
bombing exercises shall have one
lookout and any surface vessels
involved shall have trained Lookouts. If
surface vessels are involved, Lookouts
shall survey for floating kelp and marine
mammals. Aircraft shall visually survey
the target and buffer zone for marine
mammals prior to and during the
exercise. The survey of the impact area
shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft (460
m) or lower, if safe to do so, and at the
slowest safe speed. Release of ordnance
through cloud cover is prohibited:
Aircraft must be able to actually see
ordnance impact areas. Survey aircraft
should employ most effective search
tactics and capabilities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
(D) When aircraft are conducting
missile exercises against a surface target,
the Navy shall have one Lookout
positioned in an aircraft. Aircraft shall
visually survey the target area for
marine mammals. Visual inspection of
the target area shall be made by flying
at 1,500 ft (457 m) or lower, if safe to
do so, and at the slowest safe speed.
Firing or range clearance aircraft must
be able to actually see ordnance impact
areas.
(E) Ships conducting explosive and
non-explosive gunnery exercises shall
have one Lookout on the ship. This may
be the same lookout described in
paragraph (a)(1)(v)(B) of this section for
surface vessels conducting small-,
medium-, or large-caliber gunnery
exercises when that activity is
conducted from a ship against a surface
target.
(vi) Lookout measures for physical
strike and disturbance. (A) While
underway, surface ships shall have at
least one Lookout with binoculars, and
surfaced submarines shall have at least
one Lookout with binoculars. Lookouts
already posted for safety of navigation
and man-overboard precautions may be
used to fill this requirement. As part of
their regular duties, Lookouts will
watch for and report to the Officer of the
Deck the presence of marine mammals.
(B) [Reserved]
(vii) Lookout measures for nonexplosive practice munitions. (A)
Gunnery exercises using non-explosive
practice munitions (e.g., small-,
medium-, and large-caliber) using a
surface target shall have one Lookout.
(B) During non-explosive bombing
exercises one Lookout shall be
positioned in an aircraft and trained
lookouts shall be positioned in any
surface vessels involved.
(C) When aircraft are conducting nonexplosive missile exercises (including
exercises using rockets) against a surface
target, the Navy shall have one Lookout
positioned in an aircraft.
(2) Mitigation zones. The following
are protective measures concerning the
implementation of mitigation zones.
(i) Mitigation zones shall be measured
as the radius from a source and
represent a distance to be monitored.
(ii) Visual detections of marine
mammals or sea turtles within a
mitigation zone shall be communicated
immediately to a watch station for
information dissemination and
appropriate action.
(iii) Mitigation zones for nonimpulsive sound. (A) The Navy shall
ensure that hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar transmission
levels are limited to at least 6 dB below
normal operating levels if any detected
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19603
marine mammals or sea turtles are
within 1,000 yd (914 m) of the sonar
dome (the bow).
(B) The Navy shall ensure that hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar
transmissions are limited to at least 10
dB below the equipment’s normal
operating level if any detected marine
mammals or sea turtles are within 500
yd (457 m) of the sonar dome.
(C) The Navy shall ensure that hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar
transmissions are ceased if any detected
cetaceans or sea turtles are within 200
yd (183 m) and pinnipeds are within
100 yd (90 m) of the sonar dome.
Transmissions shall not resume until
the marine mammal has been observed
exiting the mitigation zone, is thought to
have exited the mitigation zone based
on its course and speed, has not been
detected for 30 minutes, the vessel has
transited more than 2,000 yd (1830 m)
beyond the location of the last
detection, or the ship concludes that
dolphins are deliberately closing in on
the ship to ride the ship’s bow wave
(and there are no other marine mammal
sightings within the mitigation zone).
Active transmission may resume when
dolphins are bow riding because they
are out of the main transmission axis of
the active sonar while in the shallowwave area of the ship bow.
(D) The Navy shall ensure that highfrequency and non-hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar transmission
levels are ceased if any detected
cetaceans are within 200 yd (183 m) and
pinnipeds are within 100 yd (90 m) of
the source. Transmissions shall not
resume until the marine mammal has
been observed exiting the mitigation
zone, is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 10 minutes for an aircraftdeployed source, the mitigation zone
has been clear from any additional
sightings for a period of 30 minutes for
a vessel-deployed source, the vessel or
aircraft has repositioned itself more than
400 yd (370 m) away from the location
of the last sighting, or the vessel
concludes that dolphins are deliberately
closing in to ride the vessel’s bow wave
(and there are no other marine mammal
sightings within the mitigation zone).
(iv) Mitigation zones for explosive and
impulsive sound. (A) A mitigation zone
with a radius of 350 yd (320 m) shall be
established for explosive signal
underwater sonobuoys using >0.5 to 2.5
lb NEW. Explosive signal underwater
sonobuoys shall not be deployed if
concentrations of floating vegetation
(kelp paddies) are observed in the
mitigation zone (around the intended
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19604
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
deployment location). Explosive signal
underwater sonobuoy deployment shall
cease if a marine mammal is sighted
within the mitigation zone. Detonations
shall recommence if any one of the
following conditions is met: The animal
is observed exiting the mitigation zone,
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, or the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 10 minutes. Passive acoustic
monitoring shall also be conducted with
Navy assets, such as sonobuoys, already
participating in the activity. These
assets would only detect vocalizing
marine mammals within the frequency
bands monitored by Navy personnel.
Passive acoustic detections would not
provide range or bearing to detected
animals, and therefore cannot provide
locations of these animals. Passive
acoustic detections would be reported to
Lookouts posted in aircraft in order to
increase vigilance of their visual
surveillance.
(B) A mitigation zone with a radius of
200 yd (183 m) shall be established for
small- and medium-caliber gunnery
exercises with a surface target. The
exercise shall not commence if
concentrations of floating vegetation
(kelp paddies) are observed in the
mitigation zone. Firing shall cease if a
marine mammal is sighted within the
mitigation zone. Firing shall
recommence if any one of the following
conditions is met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone,
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 10 minutes for a firing aircraft,
the mitigation zone has been clear from
any additional sightings for a period of
30 minutes for a firing ship, or the
intended target location has been
repositioned more than 400 yd (370 m)
away from the location of the last
sighting.
(C) A mitigation zone with a radius of
600 yd (549 m) shall be established for
large-caliber gunnery exercises with a
surface target. The exercise shall not
commence if concentrations of floating
vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed
in the mitigation zone. Firing shall cease
if a marine mammal is sighted within
the mitigation zone. Firing shall
recommence if any one of the following
conditions is met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone,
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, or the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 30 minutes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
(D) A mitigation zone with a radius of
2,500 yd (2.3 km) around the intended
impact location for explosive bombs and
1000 yd (920 m) for non-explosive
bombs shall be established for bombing
exercises. The exercise shall not
commence if concentrations of floating
vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed
in the mitigation zone. Bombing shall
cease if a marine mammal is sighted
within the mitigation zone. Bombing
shall recommence if any one of the
following conditions is met: The animal
is observed exiting the mitigation zone,
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, or the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 10 minutes.
(E) A mitigation zone of 70 yd (64 m)
shall be established for all explosive
large-caliber gunnery exercises
conducted from a ship. The exercise
shall not commence if concentrations of
floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are
observed in the mitigation zone. Firing
shall cease if a marine mammal is
sighted within the mitigation zone.
Firing shall recommence if any one of
the following conditions is met: The
animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone, the animal is thought to
have exited the mitigation zone based
on its course and speed, the mitigation
zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for a period of 30 minutes, or
the vessel has repositioned itself more
than 140 yd (128 m) away from the
location of the last sighting.
(v) Mitigation zones for vessels and
in-water devices. (A) Vessels shall avoid
approaching marine mammals head on
and shall maneuver to keep at least 500
yd (457 m) away from observed whales
and 200 yd (183 m) away from all other
marine mammals (except bow riding
dolphins), providing it is safe to do so.
These requirements shall not apply if a
vessel’s safety is threatened and to the
extent that vessels are restricted in their
ability to maneuver. Restricted
maneuverability includes, but is not
limited to, situations when vessels are
engaged in dredging, submerged
activities, launching and recovering
aircraft or landing craft, minesweeping
activities, replenishment while
underway and towing activities that
severely restrict a vessel’s ability to
deviate course.
(B) A mitigation zone of 250 yd (229
m) shall be established for all towed inwater devices, providing it is safe to do
so.
(vi) Mitigation zones for nonexplosive practice munitions. (A) A
mitigation zone of 200 yd (183 m) shall
be established for small-, medium-, and
large-caliber gunnery exercises using a
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
surface target. The exercise shall not
commence if concentrations of floating
vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed
in the mitigation zone. Firing shall cease
if a marine mammal is sighted within
the mitigation zone. Firing shall
recommence if any one of the following
conditions is met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone,
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 10 minutes for a firing aircraft,
the mitigation zone has been clear from
any additional sightings for a period of
30 minutes for a firing ship, or the
intended target location has been
repositioned more than 400 yd (370 m)
away from the location of the last
sighting.
(B) A mitigation zone of 1,000 yd (920
m) shall be established for bombing
exercises. Bombing shall cease if a
marine mammal is sighted within the
mitigation zone. The exercise shall not
commence if concentrations of floating
vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed
in the mitigation zone. Bombing shall
recommence if any one of the following
conditions is met: the animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone,
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, or the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 10 minutes.
(3) Cautionary Areas. The following
are additional measures the Navy shall
comply with when conducting training
activities in the GOA TMAA Study
Area:
(i) The Navy shall avoid training
activities using hull-mounted surface
ship active sonar and explosive
detonations within the North Pacific
Right Whale Cautionary Area, defined
as the portion of the NMFS-identified
biologically important feeding area for
North Pacific right whale overlapping
the GOA TMAA, except when required
by national security needs.
(ii) In the event of national security
needs, the Navy shall seek approval in
advance from the Commander, U.S.
Third Fleet, prior to conducting training
activities using hull-mounted active
sonar or explosive detonations within
the Cautionary Area.
(4) Stranding response plan. (i) The
Navy shall abide by the letter of the
‘‘Stranding Response Plan for the Gulf
of Alaska Temporary Maritime
Activities Area,’’ to include the
following measures:
(A) Shutdown procedures. When an
Uncommon Stranding Event (USE—
defined in § 218.151) occurs during an
MTE in the Study Area, the Navy shall
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
implement the procedures described in
paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A)(1) through (4) of
this section:
(1) The Navy shall implement a
shutdown when advised by a NMFS
Office of Protected Resources
Headquarters Senior Official designated
in the GOA TMAA Study Area
Stranding Communication Protocol that
a USE involving live animals has been
identified and that at least one live
animal is located in the water. NMFS
and the Navy shall maintain a dialogue,
as needed, regarding the identification
of the USE and the potential need to
implement shutdown procedures.
(2) Any shutdown in a given area
shall remain in effect in that area until
NMFS advises the Navy that the
subject(s) of the USE at that area die or
are euthanized, or that all live animals
involved in the USE at that area have
left the area (either of their own volition
or herded).
(3) If the Navy finds an injured or
dead animal floating at sea during an
MTE, the Navy shall notify NMFS
immediately or as soon as operational
security considerations allow. The Navy
shall provide NMFS with species or
description of the animal(s), the
condition of the animal(s), including
carcass condition if the animal(s) is/are
dead, location, time of first discovery,
observed behavior (if alive), and photo
or video (if available). Based on the
information provided, NFMS shall
determine if, and advise the Navy
whether a modified shutdown is
appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
(4) In the event, following a USE, that
qualified individuals are attempting to
herd animals back out to the open ocean
and animals are not willing to leave, or
animals are seen repeatedly heading for
the open ocean but turning back to
shore, NMFS and the Navy shall
coordinate (including an investigation
of other potential anthropogenic
stressors in the area) to determine if the
proximity of mid-frequency active sonar
training activities or explosive
detonations, though farther than 14
nautical miles from the distressed
animal(s), is likely contributing to the
animals’ refusal to return to the open
water. If so, NMFS and the Navy shall
further coordinate to determine what
measures are necessary to improve the
probability that the animals will return
to open water and implement those
measures as appropriate.
(B) Within 72 hours of NMFS
notifying the Navy of the presence of a
USE, the Navy shall provide available
information to NMFS (per the GOA
TMAA Study Area Communication
Protocol) regarding the location, number
and types of acoustic/explosive sources,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
direction and speed of units using midfrequency active sonar, and marine
mammal sightings information
associated with training activities
occurring within 80 nautical miles (148
km) and 72 hours prior to the USE
event. Information not initially available
regarding the 80-nautical miles (148km), 72-hour period prior to the event
shall be provided as soon as it becomes
available. The Navy shall provide NMFS
investigative teams with additional
relevant unclassified information as
requested, if available.
(ii) [Reserved]
(b) [Reserved]
§ 218.155 Requirements for monitoring
and reporting.
(a) The Holder of the Authorization
must notify NMFS immediately (or as
soon as operational security
considerations allow) if the specified
activity identified in § 218.150 is
thought to have resulted in the mortality
or injury of any marine mammals, or in
any take of marine mammals not
identified in § 218.152(c).
(b) The Holder of the LOA must
conduct all monitoring and required
reporting under the LOA, including
abiding by the GOA TMAA monitoring
plan.
(c) General notification of injured or
dead marine mammals. Navy personnel
shall ensure that NMFS (regional
stranding coordinator) is notified
immediately (or as soon as operational
security considerations allow) if an
injured or dead marine mammal is
found by Navy personnel during or
shortly after, and in the vicinity of, a
Navy training activity utilizing mid- or
high-frequency active sonar, or
underwater explosive detonations. The
Navy shall provide NMFS with species
or description of the animal(s), the
condition of the animal(s) (including
carcass condition if the animal is dead),
location, time of first discovery,
observed behaviors (if alive), and photo
or video (if available). In the event that
an injured, stranded, or dead marine
mammal is found by the Navy that is
not in the vicinity of, or during or
shortly after, MFAS, HFAS, or
underwater explosive detonations, the
Navy shall report the same information
as listed in this paragraph (c) as soon as
operationally feasible and clearance
procedures allow.
(d) General notification of ship strike.
In the event of a ship strike by any Navy
vessel, at any time or place, the Navy
shall do the following:
(1) Immediately report to NMFS the
species identification (if known),
location (lat/long) of the animal (or the
strike if the animal has disappeared),
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19605
and whether the animal is alive or dead
(or unknown), and the time of the strike.
(2) Report to NMFS as soon as
operationally feasible the size and
length of animal, an estimate of the
injury status (ex., dead, injured but
alive, injured and moving, unknown,
etc.), vessel class/type and operational
status.
(3) Report to NMFS the vessel length,
speed, and heading as soon as feasible.
(4) Provide NMFS a photo or video, if
equipment is available.
(5) Within 2 weeks of the strike,
provide NMFS with a detailed
description of the specific actions of the
vessel in the 30-minute timeframe
immediately preceding the strike,
during the event, and immediately after
the strike (e.g., the speed and changes in
speed, the direction and changes in
direction, other maneuvers, sonar use,
etc., if not classified); a narrative
description of marine mammal sightings
during the event and immediately after,
and any information as to sightings
prior to the strike, if available; and use
established Navy shipboard procedures
to make a camera available to attempt to
capture photographs following a ship
strike.
(e) Communication plan. The Navy
and NMFS shall develop a
communication plan that will include
all of the communication protocols
(phone trees, etc.) and associated
contact information required for NMFS
and the Navy to carry out the necessary
expeditious communication required in
the event of a stranding or ship strike,
including information described in the
notification measures in paragraphs (c)
and (d) of this section.
(f) Annual GOA TMAA monitoring
report. The Navy shall submit an annual
report of the GOA TMAA monitoring
describing the implementation and
results from the previous calendar year.
Data collection methods shall be
standardized across range complexes
and study areas to allow for comparison
in different geographic locations. The
report shall be submitted either 90 days
after the calendar year, or 90 days after
the conclusion of the monitoring year to
be determined by the adaptive
management process. The GOA TMAA
Monitoring Report may be provided to
NMFS within a larger report that
includes the required Monitoring Plan
reports from multiple range complexes
and study areas (the multi-Range
Complex Annual Monitoring Report).
Such a report would describe progress
of knowledge made with respect to
monitoring plan study questions across
all Navy ranges associated with the
Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring
Program. Similar study questions shall
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
19606
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
be treated together so that progress on
each topic shall be summarized across
all Navy ranges. The report need not
include analyses and content that does
not provide direct assessment of
cumulative progress on the monitoring
plan study questions.
(g) Annual GOA TMAA exercise
reports. Each year, the Navy shall
submit a preliminary report detailing
the status of authorized sound sources
within 21 days after the anniversary of
the date of issuance of the LOA. Each
year, the Navy shall submit a detailed
report within 3 months after the
anniversary of the date of issuance of
the LOA. The annual report shall
contain information on Major Training
Exercises (MTEs) and a summary of all
sound sources used, as described in
paragraph (g)(3) of this section. The
analysis in the detailed report shall be
based on the accumulation of data from
the current year’s report and data
collected from previous the report. The
detailed reports shall contain
information identified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) MFAS/HFAS Major Training
Exercises. This section shall contain the
following information for Major
Training Exercises conducted in the
GOA TMAA:
(i) Exercise Information (for each
MTE):
(A) Exercise designator.
(B) Date that exercise began and
ended.
(C) Location.
(D) Number and types of active
sources used in the exercise.
(E) Number and types of passive
acoustic sources used in exercise.
(F) Number and types of vessels,
aircraft, etc., participating in exercise.
(G) Total hours of observation by
lookouts.
(H) Total hours of all active sonar
source operation.
(I) Total hours of each active sonar
source bin.
(J) Wave height (high, low, and
average during exercise).
(ii) Individual marine mammal
sighting information for each sighting in
each exercise when mitigation occurred:
(A) Date/Time/Location of sighting.
(B) Species (if not possible, indication
of whale/dolphin/pinniped).
(C) Number of individuals.
(D) Initial Detection Sensor.
(E) Indication of specific type of
platform observation made from
(including, for example, what type of
surface vessel or testing platform).
(F) Length of time observers
maintained visual contact with marine
mammal.
(G) Sea state.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
(H) Visibility.
(I) Sound source in use at the time of
sighting.
(J) Indication of whether animal is
<200 yd, 200 to 500 yd, 500 to 1,000 yd,
1,000 to 2,000 yd, or >2,000 yd from
sonar source.
(K) Mitigation implementation.
Whether operation of sonar sensor was
delayed, or sonar was powered or shut
down, and how long the delay was.
(L) If source in use is hull-mounted,
true bearing of animal from ship, true
direction of ship’s travel, and estimation
of animal’s motion relative to ship
(opening, closing, parallel).
(M) Observed behavior. Lookouts
shall report, in plain language and
without trying to categorize in any way,
the observed behavior of the animals
(such as animal closing to bow ride,
paralleling course/speed, floating on
surface and not swimming, etc.) and if
any calves present.
(iii) An evaluation (based on data
gathered during all of the MTEs) of the
effectiveness of mitigation measures
designed to minimize the received level
to which marine mammals may be
exposed. This evaluation shall identify
the specific observations that support
any conclusions the Navy reaches about
the effectiveness of the mitigation.
(2) Summary of sources used. (i) This
section shall include the following
information summarized from the
authorized sound sources used in all
training events:
(A) Total annual hours or quantity
(per the LOA) of each bin of sonar or
other non-impulsive source; and
(B) Total annual number of each type
of explosive exercises and total annual
expended/detonated rounds (missiles,
bombs, sonobuoys, etc.) for each
explosive bin.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) Geographic information
presentation. The reports shall present
an annual (and seasonal, where
practical) depiction of training exercises
and testing bin usage geographically
across the Study Area.
(h) MTE prior notification. The Navy
shall submit to NMFS (contact as
specified in the LOA and Stranding
Plan) an electronic notice of pending
MTEs 72 hours prior to the start of the
MTE indicating:
(1) Location of the exercise.
(2) Beginning and end dates of the
exercise.
(3) Type of exercise.
(i) Five-year close-out exercise report.
This report shall be included as part of
the 2021 annual exercise report. This
report shall provide the annual totals for
each sound source bin with a
comparison to the annual allowance and
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the 5-year total for each sound source
bin with a comparison to the 5-year
allowance. Additionally, if there were
any changes to the sound source
allowance, this report shall include a
discussion of why the change was made
and include the analysis to support how
the change did or did not result in a
change in the SEIS and final rule
determinations. The report shall be
submitted 3 months after the expiration
of this subpart. NMFS shall submit
comments on the draft close-out report,
if any, within 3 months of receipt. The
report shall be considered final after the
Navy has addressed NMFS’ comments,
or 3 months after the submittal of the
draft if NMFS does not provide
comments.
§ 218.156 Applications for letters of
authorization (LOA).
To incidentally take marine mammals
pursuant to the regulations in this
subpart, the U.S. citizen (as defined by
§ 216.106 of this chapter) conducting
the activity identified in § 218.150(c)
(the U.S. Navy) must apply for and
obtain either an initial LOA in
accordance with § 218.157 or a renewal
under § 218.158.
§ 218.157
Letters of authorization (LOA).
(a) An LOA, unless suspended or
revoked, shall be valid for a period of
time not to exceed the period of validity
of this subpart.
(b) Each LOA shall set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental
taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on the
species, its habitat, and on the
availability of the species for
subsistence uses (i.e., mitigation); and
(3) Requirements for mitigation,
monitoring and reporting.
(c) Issuance and renewal of the LOA
shall be based on a determination that
the total number of marine mammals
taken by the activity as a whole shall
have no more than a negligible impact
on the affected species or stock of
marine mammal(s).
§ 218.158 Renewals and modifications of
letters of authorization (LOA) and adaptive
management.
(a) A letter of authorization issued
under § 216.106 of this chapter and
§ 218.157 for the activity identified in
§ 218.150(c) shall be renewed or
modified upon request of the applicant,
provided that:
(1) The proposed specified activity
and mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures, as well as the
anticipated impacts, are the same as
those described and analyzed for these
regulations (excluding changes made
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
pursuant to the adaptive management
provision of this chapter); and
(2) NMFS determines that the
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures required by the previous LOA
under these regulations were
implemented.
(b) For LOA modification or renewal
requests by the applicant that include
changes to the activity or the mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting (excluding
changes made pursuant to the adaptive
management provision of this chapter)
that do not change the findings made for
the regulations or result in no more than
a minor change in the total estimated
number of takes (or distribution by
species or years), NMFS may publish a
notice of proposed LOA in the Federal
Register, including the associated
analysis illustrating the change, and
solicit public comment before issuing
the LOA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
(c) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of
this chapter and § 218.157 for the
activity identified in § 218.154 may be
modified by NMFS under the following
circumstances:
(1) Adaptive management. NMFS may
modify and augment the existing
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting
measures (after consulting with the
Navy regarding the practicability of the
modifications) if doing so creates a
reasonable likelihood of more
effectively accomplishing the goals of
the mitigation and monitoring.
(i) Possible sources of data that could
contribute to the decision to modify the
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures in an LOA:
(A) Results from Navy’s monitoring
from the previous year(s);
(B) Results from other marine
mammal and/or sound research or
studies; or
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
19607
(C) Any information that reveals
marine mammals may have been taken
in a manner, extent, or number not
authorized by these regulations or
subsequent LOA.
(ii) If, through adaptive management,
the modifications to the mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting measures are
substantial, NMFS would publish a
notice of proposed LOA in the Federal
Register and solicit public comment.
(2) Emergencies. If NMFS determines
that an emergency exists that poses a
significant risk to the well-being of the
species or stocks of marine mammals
specified in § 218.152(c), an LOA may
be modified without prior notification
and an opportunity for public comment.
Notification would be published in the
Federal Register within 30 days of the
action.
[FR Doc. 2017–08424 Filed 4–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM
27APR2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 80 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19530-19607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08424]
[[Page 19529]]
Vol. 82
Thursday,
No. 80
April 27, 2017
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 218
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy
Training Activities in the Gulf of Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities
Area; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 19530]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 218
[Docket No. 141125997-7365-02]
RIN 0648-BE67
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S.
Navy Training Activities in the Gulf of Alaska Temporary Maritime
Activities Area
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Upon application from the U.S. Navy (Navy), we (NMFS) are
issuing regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to
govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to the
training activities conducted in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Temporary
Maritime Activities Area (TMAA) Study Area (hereafter referred to the
Study Area) from May 2017 through May 2022. These regulations allow us
to issue a Letter of Authorization (LOA) for the incidental take of
marine mammals during the Navy's specified activities and timeframes,
set forth the permissible methods of taking, set forth other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species
or stocks and their habitat, and set forth requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of the incidental take.
DATES: Effective April 26, 2017, through April 26, 2022.
ADDRESSES: To obtain an electronic copy of the Navy's LOA application
or other referenced documents, visit the internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm. Documents cited
in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular
business hours, at 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC III, Silver Spring, MD
20912.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie Harrison, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
A copy of the Navy's LOA application may be obtained by visiting
the internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm. The Navy's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS/OEIS) for the
GOA TMAA Study Area, which also contains a list of the references used
in this document, may be viewed at https://www.goaeis.com. Documents
cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular
business hours, at the aforementioned address (see ADDRESSES).
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the Secretary sets forth permissible methods of
taking and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the
species or stock and its habitat. NMFS has defined ``negligible
impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.''
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108-
136) removed the ``small numbers'' and ``specified geographical
region'' limitations indicated above and amended the definition of
``harassment'' as applies to a ``military readiness activity'' to read
as follows (section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(B)): ``(i)
Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild'' (Level A
Harassment); or ``(ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption
of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a
point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly
altered'' (Level B Harassment).
Summary of Request
On July 28, 2014, NMFS received an application from the Navy
requesting an LOA for the take of 19 species of marine mammals,
representing 27 stocks, incidental to Navy training activities to be
conducted in the Study Area over 5 years. On October 14, 2014, the Navy
submitted a revised LOA application to reflect minor changes in the
number and types of training activities. To address minor
inconsistencies with the draft SEIS/OEIS (DSEIS/OEIS), the Navy
submitted a final revision to the LOA application (hereafter referred
to as the LOA application) on January 21, 2015. In November 2016, the
Navy requested that the final rule and LOA be issued for the training
activities addressed by Alternative 1 of the FSEIS/OEIS. The Navy's LOA
application was based on the training activities addressed by
Alternative 2 of the DSEIS/OEIS; therefore, our proposed rule (81 FR
9950; February 26, 2016) analyzed the level of activities as described
by Alternative 2. Pursuant to the Navy's November 2016 request, the
final rule now reflects the training activities addressed by
Alternative 1 of the FSEIS/OEIS, which include a subset of the
activities analyzed in the proposed rule. The change from Alternative 2
to Alternative 1 results in a significant reduction in proposed
training activities (see ``Training'' and ``Summary of Impulsive and
Non-Impulsive Sources''), lessening the number of the Carrier Strike
Group Events from 2 to 1 per year, and the number of SINKEXs from 2 to
0 per year, which means that several types of explosives will no longer
be used and there will be no live MISSILEX. This significantly
decreases the number of anticipated and authorized takes for this
activity (see ``Take Request'') compared to what was presented in the
proposed rule.
The Navy is requesting a five-year LOA for training activities to
be conducted from May 2017 through May 2022. The Study Area is a
polygon roughly the shape of a 300 nm by 150 nm rectangle oriented
northwest to southeast in the long direction, located south of Prince
William Sound and east of Kodiak Island, Alaska (see Figure 1-1 of the
LOA application for a map of the Study Area). The activities conducted
within the Study Area are classified as military readiness activities.
The Navy states that these activities may expose some of the marine
mammals present within the Study Area to sound from underwater acoustic
sources and explosives. The Navy's request for authorization is for the
incidental take of individuals of 19
[[Page 19531]]
species of marine mammals, representing 27 stocks, by Level B
harassment and one species of marine mammal (Dall's porpoise) by Level
A harassment. The Navy is not requesting mortality takes for any
species.
The LOA application, proposed rule (81 FR 9950; February 26, 2016),
and GOA FSEIS/OEIS contain acoustic thresholds that, in some instances,
represent changes from what NMFS has used to evaluate the Navy's
activities for previous authorizations. These thresholds, which the
Navy developed in coordination with NMFS, are based on the evaluation
and inclusion of new information from recent scientific studies; a
detailed explanation of how they were derived is provided in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive
Effects Analysis Technical Report (available at https://www.goaeis.com).
On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for
Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing
(new Guidance). This new Guidance established new thresholds and
associated weighting functions for predicting auditory injury, or
permanent threshold shift (PTS), which equates to Level A harassment
under the MMPA, and temporary threshold shift (TTS), which is
considered Level B harassment under the MMPA. In the August 4, 2016,
Federal Register notice announcing the new Guidance (81 FR 51694), NMFS
explained the approach it would take during a transition period, during
which we will balance the need to consider this new best available
science with the fact that some applicants have already committed time
and resources to the development of analyses based on our previous
thresholds and have constraints that preclude the recalculation of take
estimates, as well as consideration of where the action is in the
agency's decision-making ``pipeline.'' In that notice, we included a
non-exhaustive list of factors that would inform the most appropriate
approach for considering the new Guidance, including: How far in the
process the application or prospective application has progressed; when
the activity is scheduled to begin or other timing constraints; the
complexity of the analyses and the cost and practicality of redoing
them; the temporal and spatial scope of anticipated effects; and the
relative degree to which the new Guidance is expected to affect the
results of the acoustic impact analyses.
In developing the new Guidance, NMFS compiled, interpreted, and
synthesized scientific information currently available on the effects
of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals, including a recent Technical
Report by Dr. James Finneran (U.S. Navy-SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific)
that proposed new weighting functions and thresholds for predicting the
onset of both PTS and temporary threshold shifts (TTS) in marine
mammals (Finneran, 2016). The methodologies presented within this paper
(and in NMFS' new Guidance) build upon the methodologies used to
develop the criteria applied within the proposed rule and Navy's GOA
FSEIS/OEIS (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012), and incorporate relevant
auditory research made available since 2012 (e.g., Kastelein et al.,
2012a; Kastelein et al., 2012b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2013; Kastelein
et al., 2013a; Kastelein et al., 2013b; Popov et al., 2013; Kastelein
et al., 2014a; Kastelein et al., 2014b; Popov et al., 2014; Finneran et
al., 2015; Kastelein et al., 2015a; Kastelein et al., 2015b; Popov et
al., 2015). In light of limited data at the time, Finneran and Jenkins
(2012) presented a conservative approach to development of auditory
weighting functions. In 2016, with the benefit of newly-available data,
Finneran was able to synthesize a wide range of auditory data,
including newly-available studies, to predict refined auditory
weighting functions and corresponding TTS and PTS thresholds across the
complete hearing ranges of functional hearing groups. At the time of
the release of the proposed rule and GOA FSEIS/OEIS, NMFS' new Guidance
had not been issued. Further, the new criteria were not available for
the Navy's acoustic effects modeling used to calculate distances to
harassment thresholds and resulting take estimates. Therefore, the Navy
did not directly use the new auditory weighting functions and PTS/TTS
criteria in its GOA FSEIS/OEIS.
In addition to the fact that it was possible to address the new
Guidance adequately without remodeling it would have been impractical
for the Navy to entirely re-model its proposed action based on the new
Guidance. The Navy committed substantial time and resources to the
development of acoustic analyses based on previous acoustic thresholds.
Data and information (e.g., on marine species density) gathering for
this second GOA rule (Phase II, 2017-2022) modeling began in November
2011 and subsequent modeling occurred over a 20-month period from
October 2012 to June 2014. The contract costs for modeling GOA events
were significant, as was Navy Pacific Fleet staff labor. The underlying
science contained within Finneran (2016) (upon which NMFS' new Guidance
is based) has been addressed qualitatively within the applicable
sections of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and this final rulemaking. Further,
although the writers of the base code for the model used for Phase II
were not available to recode the model with the updated impulsive
criteria in terms of weighting functions, the Navy was able to use the
model to reprocess anticipated explosive ranges to effects for PTS
based on the criteria presented in the new Guidance to assess if the
new criteria could result in any additional species-specific injury
exposures. In short, the Navy quantitatively reanalyzed PTS ranges and
exposures from explosive sources using the new Guidance, from which TTS
and behavioral exposures could be estimated, but the sonar exposures
were not remodeled because a qualitative assessment of the new Guidance
and the activities showed that it was not necessary in order to support
the analysis, in addition to being impractical.
For the sonar exposure estimates, if the new Guidance was
quantitatively applied to the GOA TMAA effects analysis and new
modeling conducted, predicted numbers of PTS and/or TTS would change to
some small degree (even if only by fractions of a take). However,
because the new Guidance relies on much of the same data as the
auditory criteria presented in the proposed rule and the Navy's GOA
FSEIS/OEIS, these changes would not be substantial (as described in
more detail below), and in most cases would result in a reduction in
the predicted impacts.
Onset PTS thresholds for non-impulsive sound (sonar) are largely
lower (i.e., are more conservative) in Finneran and Jenkins 2012 (used
in GOA FSEIS/OEIS) compared to the new Guidance, while updated auditory
weighting functions for most marine mammal hearing groups have changed
minimally in the new Guidance. This means that the predicted ranges to
PTS and TTS in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and this final rule for non-impulsive
sources would change only minimally (and for the most part are larger
than what would result) if NMFS' new Guidance were quantitatively
applied and new modeling conducted (i.e., estimated numbers of takes
resulting in PTS and TTS from sonar are, for the most part, larger in
this final rule than would be expected if the Navy's activities were
re-modeled using the new Guidance). Specifically, PTS thresholds for
non-impulsive sources for all taxa went up
[[Page 19532]]
(i.e., are less conservative), except for Otariids, for which they went
down by one dB. Given that the PTS range to effects for Otariids was
previously 10m, a 1 dB change in the PTS threshold would not change the
PTS range to effects by more than a couple of meters for any acoustic
source. For TTS, the onset thresholds for cetaceans in the new Guidance
all went up (i.e., are less conservative) or stayed the same (i.e.,
ranges to effects and take estimates for TTS would go down or stay the
same for cetaceans if the Navy's activities were re-modeled using the
new Guidance). The onset thresholds for TTS for Phocids and Otariids
went down by 2 dB and 7 dB, respectively. The previous range to effects
was 70-1720m for Phocids and 230-570m for Otariids for the largest
source (53C). If spherical spreading were conservatively considered,
applying the new Guidance, the range to TTS for Phocids would likely be
no more than approximately 100-2,200m and the range for Otariids would
likely be no more than approximately 500-1,300m. The originally modeled
TTS for pinnipeds was zero for all but one species. When the lower
likelihood of overlap of most pinniped species (those with 0 TTS
estimates) with these activities is considered in combination with
their densities and the change in the size of the ensonified zone, our
analysis still suggests that TTS take is not likely to occur, and those
Level B take estimates have not been changed. Further, any small
changes to predicted TTS takes for Northern elephant seals that might
result from applying the new guidance, and specifically considering the
slightly larger ensonified volume resulting from the 2 dB decrease in
the threshold, would be expected to be in the form of changing a
modeled behavioral harassment to a TTS, resulting in no net change in
the Level B harassment take estimates.
For impulsive sound (explosives), the Navy was able to reprocess
anticipated ranges to effects for Level A harassment (PTS), and
subsequently ranges to effects for TTS and behavioral exposures, based
on the new Guidance to assess if the new impulsive criteria could
result in any additional species-specific takes. The conclusion from
that analysis was that the new impulsive criteria would not change
previous species-specific quantities of impulsive PTS, TTS, or
behavioral exposures for any species except Dall's porpoise, and the
mitigation zones described in the proposed rule (as shown in Mitigation
Zones) for each type of explosives training activity remain
sufficiently protective (i.e., mitigation zones encompass newly
calculated PTS zones for all explosive types and hearing groups).
Consideration of the new Guidance results in an increase in take for
Dall's porpoise by 3 Level A and 149 Level B harassment takes (12 TTS
and 137 behavioral reactions) above what is described in Alternative 1
of the FEIS/OEIS. These updated take numbers are included in the ``Take
Request'' section.
In summary, NMFS' consideration of the new Guidance does not
substantially alter our assessment of the likely responses of marine
mammals to acoustic sources employed by the Navy in the GOA TMAA Study
Area (though take numbers have been altered slightly where appropriate
as described above and in the Estimated Take section), or the likely
fitness consequences of those responses. Overall, predicted auditory
effects within this rulemaking would not change significantly. As
described, application of the new Guidance represents only minor
changes in take estimates, and would not change NMFS' final analysis
and negligible impact determination. Further, the robust monitoring and
mitigation measures in this final rule satisfy the ``least practicable
adverse impact'' standard.
Of additional note, the definition of an ``Unusual Mortality
Event,'' which is necessary to the implementation of the Navy's
Stranding Response Plan, has been added to the final regulations. This
addition corrects an oversight in the proposed rule and does not
represent a significant change.
Background of Request
The Navy's mission is to organize, train, equip, and maintain
combat-ready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring
aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas. Consistent with this
mission, 10 U.S.C. 5062 mandates that naval forces be trained and
equipped for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea,
and that naval forces be prepared for the effective prosecution of
war.\1\ The Navy executes this responsibility by establishing and
executing training programs, including at-sea training and exercises,
and ensuring naval forces have access to the ranges, operating areas
(OPAREAs), and airspace needed to develop and maintain skills for
conducting military readiness activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Title 10, Section 5062 of the U.S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navy proposes to continue conducting training activities within
the Study Area, which have been ongoing since the 1990s. The tempo and
types of training activities have evolved and fluctuated to some degree
because of the introduction of new technologies, the dynamic nature of
international events, advances in war fighting doctrine and procedures,
and force structure (organization of ships, submarines, aircraft,
weapons, and personnel) changes. Such developments influence the
frequency, duration, intensity, and location of required training
activities, but the essential character and basic level of the military
readiness activities conducted in the Study Area has remained largely
unchanged. The Navy's LOA request covers training activities that would
occur over a five-year period beginning in May 2017. NMFS' previous
MMPA incidental take authorization for the GOA TMAA expired in May
2016.
Description of the Specified Activity
The proposed rule (81 FR 9950; February 26, 2016) and GOA FSEIS/
OEIS include a complete description of the Navy's specified training
activities incidental to which NMFS is authorizing take of marine
mammals in this final rule. Sonar use and underwater detonations are
the stressors most likely to result in impacts on marine mammals that
could rise to the level of harassment. Detailed descriptions of these
activities are provided in the FSEIS/OEIS and in the LOA application
(https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm) and are
summarized here.
Overview of Training Activities
The Navy routinely trains in the Study Area in preparation for
national defense missions. Training activities and exercises covered in
the Navy's LOA request are briefly described below, and in more detail
within chapter 2 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. Each military training activity
described meets a requirement that can be traced ultimately to
requirements set forth by the National Command Authority.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``National Command Authority'' is a term used by the United
States military and government to refer to the ultimate lawful
source of military orders. The term refers collectively to the
President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the
United States Secretary of Defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navy categorizes training activities into eight functional
warfare areas called primary mission areas: Anti-air warfare;
amphibious warfare; strike warfare; Anti-surface warfare (ASUW); anti-
submarine warfare (ASW); electronic warfare; mine warfare (MIW); and
naval special warfare (NSW). Most training activities are categorized
under one of these primary mission areas; those activities that do not
fall within one of these areas are in a separate
[[Page 19533]]
``other'' category. Each warfare community (surface, subsurface,
aviation, and special warfare) may train within some or all of these
primary mission areas. However, not all primary mission areas are
conducted within the Study Area.
The Navy described and analyzed the effects of its training
activities within the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. In its assessment, the Navy
concluded that of the activities conducted within the Study Area, sonar
use and underwater detonations were the stressors resulting in impacts
on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment as defined
under the MMPA. Therefore, the LOA application provides the Navy's
assessment of potential effects from these stressors. The specific
acoustic sources used in the LOA application are contained in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS and are presented in the following sections based on the
primary mission areas.
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)
The mission of ASUW is to defend against enemy ships or boats. In
the conduct of ASUW, aircraft use cannons, air-launched cruise missiles
or other precision-guided munitions; ships employ torpedoes, naval
guns, and surface-to-surface (S-S) missiles; and submarines attack
surface ships using torpedoes or submarine-launched, anti-ship cruise
missiles.
Anti-surface warfare training in the Study Area includes S-S
gunnery and missile exercises (GUNEX and MISSILEX) and air-to-surface
(A-S) bombing exercises (BOMBEX), GUNEX, and MISSILEX. Of note, the
MISSILEX in GOA does not expend ordnance.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
The mission of ASW is to locate, neutralize, and defeat hostile
submarine threats to surface forces. ASW is based on the principle of a
layered defense of surveillance and attack aircraft, ships, and
submarines all searching for hostile submarines. These forces operate
together or independently to gain early warning and detection, and to
localize, track, target, and attack hostile submarine threats.
Anti-submarine warfare training addresses basic skills such as
detection and classification of submarines, distinguishing between
sounds made by enemy submarines and those of friendly submarines,
ships, and marine life. ASW training evaluates the ability of fleet
assets to use systems, for example, active and passive sonar and
torpedo systems to counter hostile submarine threats. More advanced,
integrated ASW training exercises are conducted in coordinated, at-sea
training events involving submarines, ships, and aircraft. This
training integrates the full spectrum of ASW from detecting and
tracking a submarine to attacking a target using simulated weapons.
Description of Sonar, Ordnance, Targets, and Other Systems
The Navy uses a variety of sensors, platforms, weapons, and other
devices to meet its mission. Training with these systems and devices
may introduce acoustic (sound) energy into the environment. The Navy's
current LOA application describes underwater sound as one of two types:
Impulsive and non-impulsive. Sonar and similar sound producing systems
are categorized as non-impulsive sound sources. Underwater detonations
of explosives and other percussive events are impulsive sounds.
Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources
Modern sonar technology includes a variety of sonar sensor and
processing systems. In concept, the simplest active sonar emits sound
waves, or ``pings,'' sent out in multiple directions, and the sound
waves then reflect off of the target object in multiple directions. The
sonar source calculates the time it takes for the reflected sound waves
to return; this calculation determines the distance to the target
object. More sophisticated active sonar systems emit a ping and then
rapidly scan or listen to the sound waves in a specific area. This
provides both distance to the target and directional information. Even
more advanced sonar systems use multiple receivers to listen to echoes
from several directions simultaneously and provide efficient detection
of both direction and distance. Active sonar is rarely used
continuously throughout the listed activities. In general, when sonar
is in use, the sonar ``pings'' occur at intervals, referred to as a
duty cycle, and the signals themselves are very short in duration. For
example, sonar that emits a 1-second ping every 10 seconds has a 10
percent duty cycle. The Navy's largest hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar
source typically emits a 1-second ping every 50 seconds representing a
2 percent duty cycle. The Navy utilizes sonar systems and other
acoustic sensors in support of a variety of mission requirements.
Primary uses include the detection of and defense against submarines
(ASW) and mines (MIW); safe navigation and effective communications;
use of unmanned undersea vehicles; and oceanographic surveys. Sources
of sonar and other active acoustic sources include surface ship sonar,
sonobuoys, torpedoes, and unmanned underwater vehicles.
Ordnance and Munitions
Most ordnance and munitions used during training events fall into
three basic categories: Projectiles (such as gun rounds), missiles
(including rockets), and bombs. Ordnance can be further defined by
their net explosive weight (NEW), which considers the type and quantity
of the explosive substance without the packaging, casings, bullets,
etc. NEW is the trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent of energetic material,
which is the standard measure of strength of bombs and other
explosives. For example, a 5-inch shell fired from a Navy gun is
analyzed at approximately 9.5 pounds (lb.) (4.3 kilograms (kg)) of NEW.
The Navy also uses non-explosive ordnance in place of explosive
ordnance in many training and testing events. Non-explosive ordnance
look and perform similarly to explosive ordnance, but lack the main
explosive charge.
Defense Countermeasures
Naval forces depend on effective defensive countermeasures to
protect themselves against missile and torpedo attack. Defensive
countermeasures are devices designed to confuse, distract, and confound
precision-guided munitions. Defensive countermeasures analyzed in this
LOA application include acoustic countermeasures, which are used by
surface ships and submarines to defend against torpedo attack. Acoustic
countermeasures are either released from ships and submarines, or towed
at a distance behind the ship.
Classification of Non-Impulsive and Impulsive Sources Analyzed
In order to better organize and facilitate the analysis of
approximately 300 individual sources of underwater acoustic sound or
explosive energy, a series of source classifications, or source bins,
were developed by the Navy. The use of source classification bins
provides the following benefits:
Provides the ability for new sensors or munitions to be
covered under existing regulatory authorizations, as long as those
sources fall within the parameters of a ``bin'';
Simplifies the source utilization data collection and
reporting requirements anticipated under the MMPA;
Ensures a conservative approach to all impact analysis,
as all sources in a single bin are modeled as the loudest source
(e.g., lowest frequency, highest source level (the term ``source
level'' refers to the loudness of a sound at its source), longest
duty cycle, or largest NEW) within that bin, which:
[[Page 19534]]
[cir] Allows analysis to be conducted more efficiently, without
compromising the results; and
[cir] Provides a framework to support the reallocation of source
usage (hours/explosives) between different source bins, as long as
the total number and severity of marine mammal takes remain within
the overall analyzed and authorized limits. This flexibility is
required to support evolving Navy training requirements, which are
linked to real world events.
There are two primary types of acoustic sources: Impulsive and non-
impulsive. A description of each source classification is provided in
Tables 1 and 2. Impulsive source class bins are based on the NEW of the
munitions or explosive devices or the source level for air and water
guns. Non-impulsive acoustic sources are grouped into source class bins
based on the frequency,\3\ source level,\4\ and, when warranted, the
application in which the source would be used. The following factors
further describe the considerations associated with the development of
non-impulsive source bins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Bins are based on the typical center frequency of the
source. Although harmonics may be present, those harmonics would be
several decibels (dB) lower than the primary frequency.
\4\ Source decibel levels are expressed in terms of sound
pressure level (SPL) and are values given in dB referenced to 1
micropascal at 1 meter.
Frequency of the non-impulsive source:
[cir] Low-frequency sources operate below 1 kilohertz (kHz);
[cir] Mid-frequency sources operate at and above 1 kHz, up to
and including 10 kHz;
[cir] High-frequency sources operate above 10 kHz, up to and
including 100 kHz;
[cir] Very high-frequency sources operate above 100 kHz but
below 200 kHz.
Source level of the non-impulsive source;
[cir] Greater than 160 decibels (dB), but less than 180 dB;
[cir] Equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB;
[cir] Greater than 200 dB.
Application in which the source would be used;
[cir] How a sensor is employed supports how the sensor's
acoustic emissions are analyzed;
[cir] Factors considered include pulse length (time source is
on); beam pattern (whether sound is emitted as a narrow, focused
beam or, as with most explosives, in all directions); and duty cycle
(how often or how many times a transmission occurs in a given time
period during an event).
As described in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, non-impulsive acoustic sources
that have low source levels (not loud), narrow beam widths, downward
directed transmission, short pulse lengths, frequencies beyond known
hearing ranges of marine mammals, or some combination of these
characteristics, are not anticipated to result in takes of protected
species and therefore were not modeled. These sources generally meet
one of the following criteria, are considered de mimimis sources, and
are qualitatively analyzed in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS:
Acoustic sources with frequencies greater than 200 kHz
(based on known marine mammal hearing ranges); and
Sources with source levels less than 160 dB.
Source Classes Analyzed for Training
Table 1 shows the impulsive sources (e.g., underwater explosives)
associated with training activities analyzed in the Study Area, as
proposed in the Navy's LOA request and described in the proposed rule.
Alternative 1 of the FSEIS/OEIS, the specific activity for which the
incidental taking of marine mammals is authorized pursuant to this
final rule, includes zero detonations from the E6, E7, E8, and E11
source bins, as indicated in Table 1. Table 2 shows non-impulsive
sources (e.g., sonar) associated with training activities analyzed in
the Study Area, as proposed in the Navy's LOA request and described in
the proposed rule. Alternative 1 of the FSEIS/OEIS includes zero
torpedoes from the TORP2 category, as indicated in Table 2.
Additionally, Alternative 1 does not include live MISSILEX exercises,
which were included in the proposed rule.
Table 1--Impulsive (Explosive) Training Source Classes Analyzed
Quantitatively
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Net explosive
Source class munitions weight (lbs.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E5........................... 5-inch projectiles... >5-10
E6 *......................... AGM-114 Hellfire >10-20
missile.
E7 *......................... AGM-88 High-speed >20-60
Anti-Radiation
Missile.
E8 *......................... 250 lb. bomb......... >60-100
E9........................... 500 lb. bomb......... >100-250
E10.......................... 1,000 lb. bomb....... >250-500
E11 *........................ MK-48 torpedo........ >500-650
E12.......................... 2,000 lb. bomb....... >650-1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note--these bins are not covered by this final rule, since Navy
reduced their proposed activity in their incidental take request.
Table 2--Non-Impulsive Training Source Classes Analyzed Quantitatively
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of
Source class category Source class representative sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and MF1 Hull-mounted surface
non-tactical sources that ship sonar (e.g., AN/
produce mid-frequency (1-10 SQS-53C and AN/SQS-
kHz) signals. 60).
MF3 Hull-mounted submarine
sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ-
10).
MF4 Helicopter-deployed
dipping sonar (e.g.,
AN/AQS-22 and AN/AQS-
13).
MF5 Active acoustic
sonobuoys (e.g.,
DICASS).
MF6 Active underwater sound
signal devices (e.g.,
MK-84).
MF11 Hull-mounted surface
ship sonar with an
active duty cycle
greater than 80%.
High-Frequency (HF): Tactical HF1 Hull-mounted submarine
and non-tactical sources that sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ-
produce high[dash]frequency 10).
(greater than 10 kHz but less
than 100 kHz) signals.
HF6 Active sources (equal
to 180 dB and up to
200 dB).
[[Page 19535]]
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): ASW2 Mid-frequency
Tactical sources such as active Multistatic Active
sonobuoys and acoustic Coherent sonobuoy
countermeasures systems used (e.g., AN/SSQ-125).
during the conduct of ASW
training activities.
ASW3 Mid-frequency towed
active acoustic
countermeasure systems
(e.g., AN/SLQ-25).
ASW4 Mid-frequency
expendable active
acoustic device
countermeasures (e.g.,
MK-3).
* Torpedoes (TORP): Source TORP2 Heavyweight torpedo
classes associated with the (e.g., MK-48, electric
active acoustic signals vehicles).
produced by torpedoes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: dB = decibels, DICASS = Directional Command Activated Sonobuoy
System, kHz = kilohertz.
* TORP not covered by this rule since Navy reduced their activities.
Training
The training activities with potential impacts to marine mammals
that the Navy proposes to conduct in the Study Area are described in
Table 3. The table is organized according to primary mission areas and
includes the activity name, associated stressor(s), description of the
activity, the primary platform used (e.g., ship or aircraft type),
duration of activity, type of non-impulsive or impulsive sources used
in the activity, and the number of activities per year. More detailed
activity descriptions can be found in chapter 2 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS.
The Navy's activities are anticipated to meet training needs in the
years 2017-2022.
Table 3--Training Activities Within the Study Area. Activities Now Reflect Navy's Alternative 1, Which No Longer
Includes Sinking Exercises and Includes One, Instead of Two, CSG Exercises
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons/rounds/sound
Category Training activity Description source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive......................... Gunnery Exercise, Ship crews engage surface Small-, Medium-, and
Surface-to-Surface targets with ship's small- Large-caliber high
(Ship) (GUNEX-S-S , medium-, and large- explosive rounds.
(Ship)). caliber guns.
Impulsive......................... Bombing Exercise (Air- Fixed-wing aircrews High explosive bombs.
to-Surface) (BOMBEX deliver bombs against
(A-S)). surface targets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-impulsive..................... Tracking Exercise-- Submarine searches for, Mid- and high-frequency
Submarine (TRACKEX-- detects, and tracks submarine sonar.
Sub). submarine(s) and surface
ship(s).
Non-impulsive..................... Tracking Exercise-- Surface ship searches for, Mid-frequency surface
Surface (TRACKEX-- tracks, and detects ship sonar, acoustic
Surface). submarine(s). countermeasures, and
high-frequency active
sources.
Non-impulsive..................... Tracking Exercise-- Helicopter searches, Mid-frequency dipping
Helicopter (TRACKEX-- tracks, and detects sonar systems and
Helo). submarine(s). sonobuoys.
Non-impulsive..................... Tracking Exercise-- Maritime patrol aircraft Sonobuoys, such as DICASS
Maritime Patrol use sonobuoys to search sonobuoys.
Aircraft (TRACKEX-- for, detect, and track
MPA). submarine(s).
Non-impulsive..................... Tracking Exercise-- Maritime patrol aircraft mid-frequency MAC
Maritime Patrol crews search for, detect sonobuoys.
Aircraft (MAC and track submarines
Sonobuoys). using MAC sonobuoys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: DICASS = Directional Command Activated Sonobuoy System; MAC=Multistatic Active Coherent.
Summary of Impulsive and Non-Impulsive Sources
Table 4 provides a quantitative annual summary of training
activities by sonar and other active acoustic source class analyzed in
the Navy's LOA request. Annual use has been updated since publication
of the notice for the proposed rule and now reflects Navy's Alternative
1, which results in a reduction of annual use by about half.
Table 4--Annual Hours and Units of Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources Used During Training Within the Study
Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source class category Source class Units Annual use
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Frequency (MF)...................... MF1 Hours......................... 271
Active sources from 1 to 10 kHz......... MF3 Hours......................... 24
MF4 Hours......................... 26
[[Page 19536]]
MF5 * Items......................... 126
MF6 Items......................... 11
MF11 Items......................... 39
High-Frequency (HF): Tactical and non- HF1 Hours......................... 12
tactical sources that produce signals HF6 Hours......................... 40
greater than 10 kHz but less than 100
kHz.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)............ ASW2 Hours......................... 40
Active ASW sources...................... ASW3 Hours......................... 273
ASW4 * Items......................... 6
Torpedoes (TORP) Source classes TORP2 Items......................... 0
associated with active acoustic signals
produced by torpedoes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Annual use for MF5 and ASW4 was incorrectly identified in the proposed rule as 25 and 4, respectively. Annual
use for these source classes is 252 and 12, respectively, for Alternative 2--but is half that here, reflecting
Alternative 1.
Table 5 provides a quantitative annual summary of training
explosive source classes analyzed in the Navy's LOA request. Annual
number of in-water detonations has been updated since publication of
the notice for the proposed rule and now reflects Navy's Alternative 1,
which results in a reduction of detonations by at least half.
Table 5--Annual Number of Training Explosive Source Detonations Used
During Training Within the Study Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual in-
water
Explosive class net explosive weight (pounds (lb.)) detonations
training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E5 (>5-10 lb.).......................................... 56
E6 (>10-20 lb.)......................................... 0
E7 (>20-60 lb.)......................................... 0
E8 (>60-100 lb.)........................................ 0
E9 (>100-250 lb.)....................................... 64
E10 (>250-500 lb.)...................................... 6
E11 (>500-650 lb.)...................................... 0
E12 (>650-1,000 lb.).................................... 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration and Location
Training activities would be conducted in the Study Area during one
exercise of up to 21 days per year between the months of April and
October to support a major joint training exercise in Alaska and off
the Alaskan coast that involves the Departments of the Navy, the Army,
Air Force, and the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard). The Service
participants report to a unified or joint commander who coordinates the
activities planned to demonstrate and evaluate the ability of the
services to engage in a conflict and carry out plans in response to a
threat to national security. Take incidental to the annual exercise
would be authorized between May 2017 and May 2022.
The Study Area (see Figure 1-1 of the LOA application) is entirely
at sea and is composed of the established GOA TMAA and a warning area
in the Gulf of Alaska. The Navy uses ``at-sea'' to include its training
activities in the Study Area that occur (1) on the ocean surface, (2)
beneath the ocean surface, and (3) in the air above the ocean surface.
Navy training activities occurring on or over the land outside the GOA
TMAA are covered under previously prepared environmental documentation
prepared by the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Army. Gulf of Alaska
Temporary Maritime Activities Area (GOA TMAA)
The GOA TMAA is a temporary area established in conjunction with
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for one exercise period of up
to 21 days, that is a surface, undersea space, and airspace maneuver
area within the Gulf of Alaska for ships, submarines, and aircraft to
conduct required training activities. The GOA TMAA is a polygon roughly
resembling a rectangle oriented from northwest to southeast,
approximately 300 nautical miles (nm) in length by 150 nm in width,
located south of Prince William Sound and east of Kodiak Island.
Airspace of the GOA TMAA
The airspace of the GOA TMAA overlies the surface and subsurface
training area and is called an Altitude Reservation (ALTRV). This ALTRV
is a temporary airspace designation, typically requested by the Alaskan
Command (ALCOM) and coordinated through the FAA for the duration of the
exercise. This overwater airspace supports the majority of aircraft
training activities conducted by Navy and Joint aircraft throughout the
joint training exercise. The ALTRV over the GOA TMAA typically extends
from the ocean surface to 60,000 feet (ft) (18,288 meters (m)) above
mean sea level and encompasses 42,146 square nautical miles (nm\2\) of
airspace. For safety considerations, ALTRV information is sent via
Notice to Airmen (NOTAM)/International NOTAM so that all pilots are
aware of the area and that Air Traffic Control will keep known
Instrument Flight Rules aircraft clear of the area.
Additionally, the GOA TMAA overlies a majority of Warning Area W-
612 (W-612) located over Blying Sound, towards the northwestern
quadrant of the GOA TMAA. When not included as part of the GOA TMAA, W-
612 provides 2,256 nm\2\ of special use airspace for the Air Force and
Coast Guard to fulfill some of their training requirements. Air Force,
Army, National Guard, and Coast Guard activities conducted as part of
at-sea joint training within the GOA TMAA are included in the FSEIS/
OEIS analysis. No Navy training activities analyzed in this final rule
occur in the area of W-612 that is outside of the GOA TMAA (see Figure
1-1 of the LOA application).
Sea and Undersea Space of the GOA TMAA
The GOA TMAA surface and subsurface areas are also depicted in
Figure 1-1 of the LOA application. Total surface area of the GOA TMAA
is 42,146 nm\2\. Due to weather conditions, annual joint training
activities are typically conducted during the summer months (April-
October). The GOA TMAA undersea area lies beneath the surface area as
depicted in Figure 1-1 of the LOA application. The undersea area
extends to the seafloor.
The complex bathymetric and oceanographic conditions, including a
continental shelf, submarine canyons, numerous seamounts, and fresh
water infusions from multiple sources, create a challenging environment
in which to search for and detect submarines in ASW training
activities. In the summer, the GOA TMAA provides a safe cold-water
training environment that resembles other areas where Navy may need to
operate in a real-world scenario.
The GOA TMAA meets large-scale joint exercise training objectives
to
[[Page 19537]]
support naval and joint operational readiness by providing a
``geographically realistic'' training area for U.S. Pacific Command,
Joint Task Force Commander scenario-based training, and supports the
mission requirement of Alaskan Command (ALCOM) to conduct joint
training for Alaska-based forces. The strategic vision of the
Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet is that the training area supports naval
operational readiness by providing a realistic, live-training
environment for forces assigned to the Pacific Fleet and other users
with the capability and capacity to support current, emerging, and
future training requirements.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities
Twenty-two marine mammal species have confirmed or possible
occurrence within or adjacent to the Study Area, including seven
species of baleen whales (mysticetes), eight species of toothed whales
(odontocetes), six species of seals (pinnipeds), and the sea otter
(mustelid). Three of these species (gray whale, sea otter, and ribbon
seal) are not expected to be taken by the training activities, as
discussed in Chapter 4 of the LOA application. Nine of these species
are listed under the ESA: Blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale
(Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and Western North Pacific DPS), sei
whale, sperm whale, gray whale (Western North Pacific stock), North
Pacific right whale, Steller sea lion (Western U.S. stock), and sea
otter. The ``Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified
Activities'' section was included in the proposed rule (81 FR 9950,
9956-57; February 26, 2016). These descriptions have not changed, with
the exception of the humpback whale. On September 8, 2016, NMFS revised
the ESA listing for humpback whales to identify 14 DPSs, listing one as
threatened, four as endangered, and identifying nine others as not
warranted for listing (81 FR 40870). Humpback whales from the
threatened Mexico DPS, endangered Western North Pacific DPS, and Hawaii
DPS, which was identified as not warranted for listing, could all occur
in the Study Area.
Table 6 of the proposed rule provided a list of marine mammals with
possible or confirmed occurrence within the GOA TMAA Study Area,
including stock, abundance, and status. Information on the status,
distribution, abundance, and vocalizations of marine mammal species in
the Study Area may also be viewed in Chapter 4 of the LOA application
(https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm).
Additional information on the general biology and ecology of marine
mammals is included in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. In addition, NMFS annually
publishes Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) for all marine mammals in
U.S. EEZ waters, including stocks that occur within the Study Area
(U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, Carretta et al., 2015;
Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, Muto and Angliss, 2015).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals
In the ``Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals'' section of the proposed rule (81 FR 9950; 9961-78; February
26, 2016), we included a qualitative discussion of the different ways
that Navy training activities may potentially affect marine mammals
without consideration of mitigation and monitoring measures. With the
exception of the new information related to thresholds for auditory
injury described earlier in this document, that information has not
changed in a manner that would affect our analysis or findings and is
not repeated here.
Mitigation
Under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the
``permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other
means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species
or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses'' (``least
practicable adverse impact''). NMFS does not have a regulatory
definition for least practicable adverse impact. The NDAA for FY 2004
amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities and the
incidental take authorization process such that ``least practicable
adverse impact'' shall include consideration of personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the
``military readiness activity.''
As discussed in the proposed rule, in Conservation Council for
Hawaii v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 97 F. Supp.3d 1210, 1229
(D. Haw. Mar. 31, 2015), the court stated that NMFS ``appear[s] to
think [it] satisf[ies] the statutory `least practicable adverse impact'
requirement with a `negligible impact' finding.'' Following publication
of the proposed rule, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Pritzker, 828 F.3d 1125, 1134 (9th Cir.
July 15, 2016), expressing similar concerns in a challenge to our last
SURTASS LFA sonar incidental take rule, stated, ``Compliance with the
`negligible impact' requirement does not mean there [is] compliance
with the `least practicable adverse impact standard [. . .] .'' As the
Ninth Circuit noted in its opinion, however, the court was interpreting
the statute without the benefit of NMFS' formal interpretation. We
state here explicitly, as we have said in the past, that NMFS is in
full agreement that the ``negligible impact'' and ``least practicable
adverse impact'' requirements are distinct, even though both statutory
standards refer to species and stocks. With that in mind, we provide
further explanation of our interpretation of least practicable adverse
impact, and explain what distinguishes it from the negligible impact
standard. This discussion is consistent with, and expands upon,
previous rules we have issued and the explanation provided in the
proposed rule.
Before NMFS can issue incidental take regulations under section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, it must make a finding that the total taking
will have a ``negligible impact'' on the affected ``species or stocks''
of marine mammals. NMFS' and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's joint
implementing regulations for section 101(a)(5)(A) define ``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 and 50 CFR 18.27(c).
Recruitment (i.e., reproduction) and survival rates are used to
determine population growth rates \5\ and, therefore are considered in
evaluating population level impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A growth rate can be positive, negative, or flat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we stated in the preamble to the final rule for the joint
implementing regulations, not every population-level impact violates
the negligible impact requirement. The negligible impact standard does
not require a finding that the anticipated take will have ``no effect''
on population numbers or growth rates: ``The statutory standard does
not require that the same recovery rate be maintained, rather that no
significant effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival occurs [.
. .] . [T]he key factor is the significance of the level of impact on
rates of recruitment or survival.'' See 54 FR 40338, 40341-42
(September 29, 1989).
While some level of impact on population numbers or growth rates of
a species or stock may occur and still satisfy the negligible impact
requirement--even without
[[Page 19538]]
consideration of mitigation--the least practicable adverse impact
provision separately requires NMFS to prescribe the means of
``effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar significance [. . .].'' 6 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For purposes of this discussion we omit reference to the
language in the standard for least practicable adverse impact that
says we also must mitigate for subsistence impacts because they are
not at issue in this action.
\7\ NMFS' incidental take actions routinely refer to the least
practicable adverse impact requirement in shorthand as
``mitigation,'' a concept that broadly encompasses measures or
practices that are reasonably designed to avoid, reduce, or minimize
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The negligible impact and least practicable adverse impact
standards in the statute share a common reference to ``species or
stocks.'' A ``species'' is defined as a group of animals or plants that
are similar and can produce young animals or plants: a group of related
animals or plants that is smaller than a genus (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species). ``Population stock'' or ``stock''
means ``a group of marine mammals of the same species or smaller taxa
in a common spatial arrangement, that interbreed when mature.'' 16
U.S.C. 1362(11). We believe those terms indisputably refer to
populations of animals, and that it is therefore appropriate to view
both MMPA provisions as having a population-level focus. This is
consistent with both the language of the statute and Congress'
overarching conservation objective in enacting the MMPA. See 16 U.S.C.
1361 (Congress' findings reflecting policy concerns about the
extinction or depletion of certain marine mammal species or stocks and
the goal of ensuring they are functioning elements of their
ecosystems).
Recognizing this common focus of the two provisions on ``species or
stock'' does not mean we conflate the standards; despite some common
statutory language, we recognize the two provisions are different in
other ways and have different functions.\8\ First, a negligible impact
finding is required before NMFS can issue an incidental take
authorization. Although it is acceptable to use mitigation to reach a
negligible impact finding, 50 CFR 216.104(c), no amount of mitigation
can enable NMFS to issue an incidental take authorization for an
activity that still would not meet the negligible impact standard.
Moreover, even where NMFS can reach a negligible impact finding--which
we emphasize does allow for the possibility of some ``negligible''
population-level impact--the agency must still prescribe practicable
measures that will effect the least amount of adverse impact upon the
affected species or stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See also CBD v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2012)
(finding that some overlap between FWS' factors for determining
negligible impact and small numbers was not an improper conflation
of the two standards where the agency also considered other factors
in reaching its conclusions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) requires NMFS to issue, in
conjunction with its authorization, binding--and enforceable--
restrictions (in the form of regulations) setting forth how the
activity must be conducted, thus ensuring the activity has the ``least
practicable adverse impact'' on the affected species or stocks. In
situations where mitigation is needed to reach a negligible impact
determination, section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) also provides a mechanism
for ensuring compliance with the ``negligible impact'' requirement.
Finally, we also reiterate that the ``least practicable adverse
impact'' standard requires mitigation for marine mammal habitat, with
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and other areas of
similar significance, and for mitigating subsistence impacts; whereas
the negligible impact standard is concerned with conclusions about the
impact of an activity on the affected populations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Outside of the military readiness context, mitigation may
also be appropriate to ensure compliance with the ``small numbers''
language in MMPA sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In NRDC v. Pritzker, the court stated, ``[t]he statute is properly
read to mean that even if population levels are not threatened
significantly, still the agency must adopt mitigation measures aimed at
protecting marine mammals to the greatest extent practicable in light
of military readiness needs.'' Id. at 1134 (emphasis added). This
statement is consistent with our understanding stated above that even
when the effects of an action satisfy the negligible impact standard
(i.e., in the court's words, ``population levels are not threatened
significantly''), still the agency must prescribe mitigation under the
least practicable adverse impact standard. However, as the statute
indicates, the focus of both standards is ultimately the impact on the
affected ``species or stock,'' and not solely focused on/directed at
the impact on individual marine mammals.
We have carefully reviewed and considered the Ninth Circuit's
opinion in NRDC v. Pritzker in its entirety. While the court's
reference to ``marine mammals'' rather than ``marine mammal species or
stocks'' in the italicized language above might be construed as a
holding that the least practicable adverse impact standard applies at
the individual ``marine mammal'' level, i.e., that NMFS must require
mitigation to minimize impacts to each individual marine mammal unless
impracticable, we believe such an interpretation reflects an incomplete
appreciation of the court's holding. In our view, the opinion as a
whole turned on the court's determination that NMFS had not given
separate and independent meaning to the least practicable adverse
impact standard apart from the negligible impact standard, and further
that the court's use of the term ``marine mammals'' was not addressing
the question of whether the standard applies to individual animals as
opposed to the species or stock as a whole. We recognize that while
consideration of mitigation can play a role in a negligible impact
determination, consideration of mitigation extends beyond that
analysis. In evaluating what mitigation is appropriate, NMFS considers
the impacts of the proposed action, the availability of measures to
minimize those potential impacts, and the practicability of
implementing those measures, as we describe below.
Implementation of Least Practicable Adverse Impact
Given this most recent court decision, we further clarify how we
determine whether a measure or set of measures meets the ``least
practicable adverse impact'' standard. Our evaluation of potential
mitigation measures includes consideration of two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, implementation of
the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammal species
or stocks, their habitat, and their availability for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Among other things, this analysis will consider the
nature of the potential adverse impact (such as likelihood, scope, and
range), the likelihood that the measure will be effective if
implemented, and the likelihood of successful implementation.
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation. Practicability of implementation may consider such
things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military
readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation,
and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity. 16
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(ii).
While the language of the least practicable adverse impact standard
[[Page 19539]]
calls for minimizing impacts to affected species or stocks, we
recognize that the reduction of impacts to those species or stocks
accrues through the application of mitigation measures that limit
impacts to individual animals. Accordingly, NMFS' analysis will focus
on measures designed to avoid or minimize impacts on marine mammals
from activities that are likely to increase the probability or severity
of population-level effects. While direct evidence of impacts to
species or stocks from a specified activity is rarely available, and
additional study is still needed to describe how specific disturbance
events affect the fitness of individuals of certain species, there have
been improvements in understanding the process by which disturbance
effects are translated to the population. With recent scientific
advancements (both marine mammal energetic research and the development
of energetic frameworks), the relative likelihood or degree of impacts
on species or stocks may often be inferred given a detailed
understanding of the activity, the environment, and the affected
species or stocks. This same information is used in the development of
mitigation measures and helps us understand how mitigation measures
contribute to lessening species or stock effects.
In the evaluation of specific measures, the details of the
specified activity will necessarily inform each of the two factors and
will be carefully considered to determine the types of mitigation that
are appropriate under the least practicable adverse impact standard.
The greater the likelihood that a measure will contribute to reducing
the probability or severity of adverse impacts to the species or stock,
the greater the weight that measure(s) is given when considered in
combination with practicability to determine the appropriateness of the
mitigation measure(s), and vice versa.
Below we discuss how these factors are considered.
1. Reduction of adverse impacts to species or stock. The emphasis
given to a measure's ability to reduce the impacts on a species or
stock considers the degree, likelihood, and context of the anticipated
reduction of impacts to individuals as well as the status of the
species or stock.
The ultimate impact on any individual from a disturbance event
(which informs the likelihood of adverse species or stock-level
effects) is dependent on the circumstances and associated contextual
factors, such as duration of exposure to stressors. Though any proposed
mitigation needs to be evaluated in the context of the specific
activity and the species or stocks affected, measures with the
following types of goals are often applied to reduce the likelihood or
severity of adverse species or stock-level impacts: Avoiding or
minimizing injury or mortality; limiting interruption of known feeding,
breeding, mother/young, or resting behaviors; minimizing the
abandonment of important habitat (temporally and spatially); minimizing
the number of individuals subjected to these types of disruptions; and
limiting degradation of habitat. Mitigating these types of effects is
intended to reduce the likelihood that the activity will result in
energetic or other types of impacts that are more likely to result in
reduced reproductive success or survivorship. It is also important to
consider the degree of impacts that were expected in the absence of
mitigation in order to assess the added value of any potential
measures.
The status of the species or stock is also relevant in evaluating
the appropriateness of certain mitigation measures in the context of
least practicable adverse impact. The following are examples of factors
that may (either alone, or in combination) result in greater emphasis
on the importance of a mitigation measure in reducing impacts on a
species or stock: The stock is known to be decreasing or status is
unknown, but believed to be declining; the known annual mortality (from
any source) is approaching or exceeding the potential biological
removal (PBR) level (as defined in 16 U.S.C. 1362(20)); the affected
species or stock is a small, resident population; or the stock is
involved in an unusual mortality event (UME) or has other known
vulnerabilities, such as recovering from an oil spill.
Reduction of habitat impacts. Habitat mitigation, particularly as
it relates to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, is also relevant and can include measures, such as
reducing impacts of the activity on known prey utilized in the activity
area or reducing impacts on physical habitat.
Likely effectiveness of the measure. We consider available
information indicating the likelihood of any measure to accomplish its
objective. If evidence shows that a measure has not typically been
effective or successful, then either that measure should be modified,
or the potential value of the measure to reduce effects is lowered.
2. Practicability. Factors considered may include 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. 16 U.S.C.
1371(a)(5)(A)(ii).
The above section describes the factors considered in making a
least practicable adverse impact finding. In summary, NMFS will
carefully balance the likelihood and degree to which a measure(s) will
reduce adverse impacts on species or stocks with the measure's
practicability in determining appropriate mitigation measures.
NMFS reviewed the proposed activities and the proposed mitigation
measures as described in the Navy's LOA application to determine if
they would result in the least practicable adverse effect on marine
mammal species or stocks. NMFS described the Navy's proposed mitigation
measures in detail in the proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 9978-86; February
26, 2016). As described below and in responses to comments, and in the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS, some additional measures were also considered and
analyzed. Time/area specific mitigation measures considered by the Navy
and NMFS for the Navy's low use of hull-mounted mid-frequency active
sonar and explosives activities in certain areas of particular
importance to specific marine mammals have been clarified and described
below (see ``Consideration of Time/Area Limitations'') and in the
``Comments and Responses'' section of this rule. This final rule
includes the adoption of a new ``Cautionary Area'' for North Pacific
right whales. This additional time/area specific measure is also
included in the regulatory text (see Sec. 218.154 Mitigation) at the
end of this rule. Other additional mitigation measures were considered
but ultimately not chosen for implementation because they were unlikely
to reduce impacts to marine mammals or implementation was considered
unacceptable with regard to personal safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on effectiveness of the military readiness
activity. Separately, as mentioned previously, live MISSILEX exercises
were eliminated from the Navy's proposed activities covered under this
Final Rule and, therefore, the associated mitigation measures for live
MISSILEX exercises that were included in the proposed rule have been
removed from the Final Rule. In addition, further details were added to
one of the mitigation zones regarding close approaches to marine
mammals by vessels to clarify when it is applicable.
Below are the mitigation measures as agreed upon by the Navy and
NMFS. For additional details regarding the Navy's mitigation measures,
see the ``Proposed Mitigation'' section of the
[[Page 19540]]
proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 9978-86; February 26, 2016) and Chapter 5 in
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS.
Lookouts
The Navy shall have two types of Lookouts for the purposes of
conducting visual observations: Those positioned on ships; and those
positioned ashore, in aircraft, or on small boats. Lookouts positioned
on ships shall diligently observe the air and surface of the water.
They shall have multiple observation objectives, which include but are
not limited to detecting the presence of biological resources and
recreational or fishing boats, observing the mitigation zones, and
monitoring for vessel and personnel safety concerns.
Due to manning and space restrictions on aircraft, small boats, and
some Navy ships, Lookouts for these platforms may be supplemented by
the aircraft crew or pilot, boat crew, range site personnel, or shore-
side personnel. Lookouts positioned in minimally manned platforms may
be responsible for tasks in addition to observing the air or surface of
the water (e.g., navigation of a helicopter or small boat). However,
all Lookouts shall, considering personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the activity, comply
with the observation objectives described above for Lookouts positioned
on ships.
The procedural measures described in the remainder of this section
primarily consist of having Lookouts during specific training
activities.
All personnel standing watch on the bridge, Commanding Officers,
Executive Officers, maritime patrol aircraft aircrews, anti-submarine
warfare helicopter crews, civilian equivalents, and Lookouts shall
successfully complete the United States Navy Marine Species Awareness
Training prior to standing watch or serving as a Lookout. Additional
details on the Navy's Marine Species Awareness Training can be found in
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. The Navy shall use one or more Lookouts during the
training activities described below, which are organized by stressor
category.
Non-Impulsive Sound
Hull Mounted Mid-Frequency Active Sonar (MFAS)
The Navy's previous Lookout mitigation measures during training
activities involving hull-mounted MFAS in the GOA TMAA included
requirements such as the number of personnel on watch and the manner in
which personnel are to visually search the area in the vicinity of the
ongoing activity. The Navy shall maintain the number of Lookouts
required by the Phase I incidental take rule and LOA for the GOA TMAA
for ships using hull-mounted MFAS.
Ships using hull-mounted MFAS sources associated with ASW
activities at sea (with the exception of ships less than 65 ft (20 m)
in length, which are minimally manned) will have two Lookouts at the
forward position. While using hull-mounted MFAS sources underway,
vessels less than 65 ft (20 m) in length and ships that are minimally
manned shall have one Lookout at the forward position due to space and
manning restrictions.
High-Frequency and Non-Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency Active Sonar
The Navy plans to conduct activities using high-frequency and non-
hull-mounted MFAS in the Study Area. Non-hull-mounted MFAS training
activities include the use of aircraft deployed sonobuoys, helicopter
dipping sonar, and submarine sonar. During those activities, the Navy
shall employ the following mitigation measures regarding Lookout
procedures:
Navy aircraft participating in exercises at sea shall
conduct and maintain, when operationally feasible and safe,
surveillance for marine species of concern as long as it does not
violate safety constraints or interfere with the accomplishment of
primary operational duties.
Helicopters shall observe/survey the vicinity of an ASW
training event for 10 minutes before the first deployment of active
(dipping) sonar in the water.
The Navy shall continue to use the number of Lookouts (one)
required by the Phase I incidental take rule and LOA for the GOA TMAA
for ships or aircraft conducting non-hull-mounted MFA sonar activities.
The Phase I incidental take rule and LOA for the GOA TMAA did not
include mitigation measures for other high-frequency active sonar
activities associated with ASW, or for new platforms; therefore, the
Navy shall add a new Lookout and other measures for these activities
and on these platforms when conducted in the Study Area. The measure
is: The Navy shall have one Lookout on ships conducting high-frequency
or non-hull mounted mid-frequency active sonar activities associated
with ASW activities at sea.
Explosives and Impulsive Sound
Improved Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoys
The Navy is not proposing use of Improved Extended Echo Ranging
Sonobuoys during the GOA TMAA training activities.
Explosive Signal Underwater Sound Buoys Using >0.5-2.5 Pound Net
Explosive Weight
The previous, and first, incidental take rule and LOA (Phase I) for
the GOA TMAA did not include lookout measures for explosive signal
underwater sound (SUS) buoy activities using >0.5-2.5 pound (lb.) NEW.
The Navy shall add this measure. Aircraft conducting SUS activities
using >0.5-2.5 lb. NEW will have one Lookout.
Gunnery Exercises--Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Using a Surface
Target
The following Lookout procedures during gunnery exercises are
included:
From the intended firing position, trained Lookouts shall
survey the mitigation zone for marine mammals prior to commencement and
during the exercise as long as practicable.
Target towing vessels shall maintain a Lookout. If a
marine mammal is sighted in the vicinity of the exercise, the tow
vessel shall immediately notify the firing vessel in order to secure
gunnery firing until the area is clear.
The Navy shall continue using these Lookout procedures previously
implemented for this activity. The Navy shall have one Lookout on the
vessel or aircraft conducting small-, medium-, or large-caliber gunnery
exercises against a surface target. Towing vessels shall also maintain
one Lookout.
Missile Exercises Using a Surface Target
The following Lookout procedures during missile exercises are
included:
Aircraft shall visually survey the target area for marine
mammals. Visual inspection of the target area shall be made by flying
at 1,500 ft (457 m) or lower, if safe to do so, and at slowest safe
speed.
Firing or range clearance aircraft must be able to
actually see ordnance impact areas.
The Navy shall continue using the Lookout procedures previously
implemented for this activity. When aircraft are conducting missile
exercises against a surface target, the Navy shall have one Lookout
positioned in an aircraft.
Bombing Exercises (Explosive)
The following Lookout procedures during bombing exercises are
included:
If surface vessels are involved, Lookouts shall survey for
floating kelp and marine mammals.
Aircraft shall visually survey the target and mitigation
zone for marine
[[Page 19541]]
mammals prior to and during the exercise. The survey of the impact area
shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft (460 m) or lower, if safe to do so,
and at the slowest safe speed. Release of ordnance through cloud cover
is prohibited: aircraft must be able to actually see ordnance impact
areas. Survey aircraft should employ most effective search tactics and
capabilities.
The Navy shall continue implementing these measures for bombing
exercises, and shall have one Lookout positioned in an aircraft
conducting bombing exercises, and trained Lookouts in any surface
vessels involved.
Weapons Firing Noise During Gunnery Exercises
The Navy shall continue using the number of Lookouts previously
required by the Phase I GOA incidental take rule and LOA for gunnery
exercises. The Navy shall have one Lookout on the ship conducting
explosive and non-explosive gunnery exercises. This may be the same
Lookout described for Gunnery Exercises--Small-, Medium-, and Large-
Caliber Using a Surface Target when that activity is conducted from a
ship against a surface target.
Physical Disturbance and Strike
Vessels
The Navy shall employ the following Lookout procedures to avoid
physical disturbance and strike of marine mammals during at-sea
training:
While underway, surface vessels shall have at least one
Lookout with binoculars, and surfaced submarines shall have at least
one Lookout with binoculars. Lookouts already posted for safety of
navigation and man-overboard precautions may be used to fill this
requirement. As part of their regular duties, Lookouts will watch for
and report to the Officer of the Deck the presence of marine mammals.
Non-Explosive Practice Munitions
Gunnery Exercises--Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Using a Surface
Target
The Navy employs the same mitigation measures for non-explosive
practice munitions--small-, medium-, and large-caliber gunnery
exercises--as described above for Gunnery Exercises--Small-, Medium-,
and Large-Caliber Using a Surface Target.
The Navy shall continue using the number of Lookouts previously
implemented for these activities pursuant to the Phase I incidental
take rule and LOA for the GOA TMAA. The Navy shall have one Lookout
during activities involving non-explosive practice munitions (e.g.,
small-, medium-, and large-caliber gunnery exercises) against a surface
target.
Missile Exercises Using a Surface Target
No MISSILEX using live ordnance will be conducted in GOA. When
aircraft are conducting non-explosive missile exercises (including
exercises using rockets) against a surface target, the Navy shall have
one Lookout positioned in an aircraft.
Bombing Exercises (Non-explosive)
The Navy employs the same mitigation measures for non-explosive
bombing exercises as described for Bombing Exercises (Explosive).
The Navy shall continue using the same Lookout procedures
previously implemented for these activities pursuant to the Phase I
incidental take rule and LOA for the GOA TMAA. The Navy will have one
Lookout positioned in an aircraft during non-explosive bombing
exercises, and trained Lookouts in any surface vessels involved.
Mitigation Zones
The Navy shall use mitigation zones to reduce the potential impacts
to marine mammals from training activities. Mitigation zones are
measured as the radius from a source. Unique to each activity category,
each radius represents a distance that the Navy will visually observe
to help reduce injury to marine species. Visual detections of
applicable marine species will be communicated immediately to the
appropriate watch station for information dissemination and appropriate
action. If the presence of marine mammals is detected acoustically,
Lookouts posted in aircraft and on surface vessels will increase the
vigilance of their visual surveillance. As a reference, aerial surveys
are typically made by flying at 1,500 ft (457 m) altitude or lower at
the slowest safe speed.
Many of the proposed activities have mitigation measures that were
implemented during the Navy's Phase I activities in the GOA TMAA as
required by previous environmental documents or consultations. Most of
the mitigation zones for activities that involve the use of impulsive
and non-impulsive sources were originally designed to reduce the
potential for onset of TTS. For the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and the LOA
application, the Navy updated the acoustic propagation modeling to
incorporate updated hearing threshold metrics (i.e., upper and lower
frequency limits), updated density data for marine mammals, and factors
such as an animal's likely presence at various depths. An explanation
of the acoustic propagation modeling process can be found in the
Determination of Acoustic Effects on Marine Mammals for the Gulf of
Alaska Training SEIS/OEIS Technical Report (Marine Species Modeling
Team, 2015). Additionally, since publication of the proposed rule, the
Navy re-evaluated the range to effects in consideration of the acoustic
thresholds in NMFS' new Guidance, which resulted in larger ranges for
some explosive sources.
As a result of the updates described above, in some cases the
ranges to onset of TTS effects are much larger than previous model
outputs (i.e., those used in the first GOA rule (76 FR 25480; May 4,
2011)). Due to the ineffectiveness and unacceptable operational impacts
associated with enlarging the mitigation zones to alleviate impacts in
these larger areas, the Navy is unable to mitigate for onset of TTS for
every activity. For this GOA TMAA analysis, the Navy developed each
recommended mitigation zone to avoid or reduce the potential for onset
PTS, out to the predicted maximum range. In some cases, where the
ranges to effects are smaller than previous models estimated, the
mitigation zones were adjusted accordingly to provide consistency
across the measures. Mitigating to the predicted maximum range to PTS
consequently also mitigates to the predicted maximum range to onset
mortality (1 percent mortality), onset slight lung injury, and onset
slight gastrointestinal tract injury, since the maximum range to
effects for these criteria are shorter than for PTS. Furthermore, in
most cases, the predicted maximum range to PTS also consequently covers
the predicted average range to TTS. Table 6 summarizes the predicted
average range to TTS, average range to PTS, maximum range to PTS, and
recommended mitigation zone for each activity category, based on the
Navy's acoustic propagation modeling results and updated by
consideration of the new acoustic guidance.
The activity-specific mitigation zones are based on the longest
range for all the functional hearing groups. The mitigation zone for a
majority of activities is driven by either the high-frequency cetaceans
or the sea turtles functional hearing groups. Therefore, the mitigation
zones are even more protective for the remaining functional hearing
groups (i.e., low-frequency cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, and
pinnipeds), and likely cover a larger
[[Page 19542]]
portion of the potential range to onset of TTS.
Table 6 includes explosive ranges to TTS and the onset of auditory
injury, non-auditory injury, slight lung injury, and mortality. For
every source but one proposed for use by the Navy, the mitigation zones
included in Table 6 exceed each of these ranges. The TTS range for
BOMBEX is larger than the mitigation zone. The mitigation zones and
their associated assessments are provided throughout the remainder of
this section.
Table 6--Predicted Ranges to Effects and Recommended Mitigation Zones for Each Activity Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative source Predicted (longest) Predicted (longest) Predicted maximum
Activity category (Bin) \1\ average range to TTS average range to PTS range to PTS Mitigation zone \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Impulse Sound
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency Active SQS-53 ASW hull- 3,821 yd. (3,493 m) 100 yd. (91 m) for Not applicable....... 6 dB power down at
Sonar. mounted sonar (MF1). for one ping. one ping. 1,000 yd. (914 m); 4
dB power down at 500
yd. (457 m); and
shutdown at 200 yd.
(183 m).
High-Frequency and Non-Hull Mounted AQS-22 ASW dipping 230 yd. (210 m) for 20 yd. (18 m) for one Not applicable....... 200 yd. (183 m).
Mid-Frequency Active Sonar. sonar (MF4). one ping. ping.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosive and Impulse Sound
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Underwater Sound (SUS) buoys Explosive sonobuoy 290 yd. (265 m)....... 113 yd. (103 m)...... 309 yd. (283 m)...... 350 yd. (320 m).
using >0.5-2.5 lb. NEW. (E3).
Gunnery Exercises--Small- and 40 mm projectiles (E2) 190 yd. (174 m)....... 83 yd. (76 m)........ 182 yd. (167 m)...... 200 yd. (183 m).
Medium-Caliber (Surface Target).
Gunnery Exercises--Large-Caliber 5 in. projectiles (E5) 771 yd. (705 m)....... 327 yd. (299 m)...... 327 yd. (299 m)...... 600 yd. (549 m).
(Surface Target) \3\.
Bombing Exercises \4\.............. MK-84 2,000 lb. (E12). 5,430 yd. (4,965 m)... 1,772 yd. (1,620 m).. 1,851 yd. (1,693 m).. 2,500 yd. (2,286 m).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table does not provide an inclusive list of all sources in a given bins; bins presented here represent the source bin with the largest range to
effects within the given activity category.
\2\ Recommended mitigation zones are larger than the modeled injury zones to account for multiple types of sources or charges being used. See Section
5.3.2 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and Section 11.2 of the LOA application (Mitigation Zone Procedural Measures) for a general discussion of mitigation
zones, how they are implemented, and the potential effects they are designed to reduce; see Chapter 11 of the LOA application for a discussion of the
biological effectiveness and operational assessments for each activity's recommended mitigation zone.
\3\ Bin E5 TTS Value corrected from Proposed Rule table to reflect correct GOA-specific value for average TTS (Table 3.8-18 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS). PTS
re-assessed using NOAA's August 2016 revised explosive acoustic criteria applicable to the most sensitive functional hearing group. PTS value for bin
E5 was lower than previously modeled range, so TTS not recalculated and TTS value from previous model shown as conservative (over predictive) value.
Lower weight bins re-assessed similarly did not result in any values larger than existing values shown.
\4\ Bin E12 PTS and TTS re-assessed using NOAA's August 2016 revised explosive acoustic criteria applicable to the most sensitive functional hearing
group.
Notes: lb. = pounds, m = meters, yd. = yards; PTS = Permanent Threshold Shift, TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift.
For some activities specified throughout the remainder of this
section, Lookouts may be required to observe for concentrations of
detached floating vegetation (Sargassum or kelp paddies), which are
indicators of potential marine mammal presence within the mitigation
zone. Those specified activities will not commence if floating
vegetation (Sargassum or kelp paddies) is observed within the
mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity. If floating
vegetation is observed prior to the initial start of the activity, the
activity will be relocated to an area where no floating vegetation is
observed. Training will not cease as a result of floating vegetation
entering the mitigation zone after activities have commenced. This
measure is intended only for floating vegetation detached from the
seafloor.
Non-Impulsive Sound
Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency Active Sonar
Activities that involve the use of hull-mounted MFA sonar will use
Lookouts for visual observation from a ship immediately before and
during the activity. Mitigation zones for these activities involve
powering down the sonar by 6 dB when a marine mammal is sighted within
1,000 yd (914 m) of the sonar dome, and by an additional 4 dB when
sighted within 500 yd (457 m) from the source, for a total reduction of
10 dB. Active transmissions will cease if a marine mammal is sighted
within 200 yd (183 m). Active transmission will recommence if any one
of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting
the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on its course and speed, (3) the mitigation zone
has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30
minutes, (4) the ship has transited more than 2,000 yd (1.8 km) beyond
the location of the last sighting, or (5) the ship concludes that
dolphins are deliberately closing in on the ship to ride the ship's bow
wave (and there are no other marine mammal sightings within the
mitigation zone). Active transmission may resume when dolphins are bow
riding because they are out of the main transmission axis of the active
sonar while in the shallow-wave area of the ship bow.
High-Frequency and Non-Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency Active Sonar
Mitigation will include visual observation from a vessel or
aircraft (with the exception of platforms operating at high altitudes)
immediately before and during active transmission within a mitigation
zone of 200 yd (183 m) from the active sonar source. For activities
involving helicopter deployed
[[Page 19543]]
dipping sonar, visual observation will commence 10 minutes before the
first deployment of active dipping sonar. Helicopter dipping and
sonobuoy deployment will not begin if concentrations of floating
vegetation (kelp paddies), are observed in the mitigation zone. If the
source can be turned off during the activity, active transmission will
cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Active
transmission will recommence if any one of the following conditions is
met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its
course and speed, (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any
additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes for an aircraft-
deployed source, (4) the mitigation zone has been clear from any
additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes for a vessel-deployed
source, (5) the vessel or aircraft has repositioned itself more than
400 yd (370 m) away from the location of the last sighting, or (6) the
vessel concludes that dolphins are deliberately closing in to ride the
vessel's bow wave (and there are no other marine mammal sightings
within the mitigation zone).
Explosives and Impulsive Sound
Explosive Signal Underwater Sound Buoys Using >0.5-2.5 Pound Net
Explosive Weight
Mitigation will include pre-exercise aerial monitoring during
deployment within a mitigation zone of 350 yd (320 m) around an
explosive SUS buoy. Explosive SUS buoys will not be deployed if
concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in
the mitigation zone (around the intended deployment location). SUS
deployment will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the
mitigation zone. Deployment will recommence if any one of the following
conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation
zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone
based on its course and speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes.
Passive acoustic monitoring will also be conducted with Navy
assets, such as sonobuoys, already participating in the activity. These
assets would only detect vocalizing marine mammals within the frequency
bands monitored by Navy personnel. Passive acoustic detections would
not provide range or bearing to detected animals, and therefore cannot
provide locations of these animals. Passive acoustic detections would
be reported to Lookouts posted in aircraft in order to increase
vigilance of their visual surveillance.
Gunnery Exercises--Small- and Medium-Caliber Using a Surface Target
Mitigation will include visual observation from a vessel or
aircraft immediately before and during the exercise within a mitigation
zone of 200 yd (183 m) around the intended impact location. Vessels
will observe the mitigation zone from the firing position. When
aircraft are firing, the aircrew will maintain visual watch of the
mitigation zone during the activity. The exercise will not commence if
concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in
the mitigation zone. Firing will cease if a marine mammal is sighted
within the mitigation zone. Firing will recommence if any one of the
following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on its course and speed, (3) the mitigation zone
has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes
for a firing aircraft, (4) the mitigation zone has been clear from any
additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes for a firing ship, or
(5) the intended target location has been repositioned more than 400 yd
(366 m) away from the location of the last sighting.
Gunnery Exercises--Large-Caliber Explosive Rounds Using a Surface
Target
Mitigation will include visual observation from a ship immediately
before and during the exercise within a mitigation zone of 600 yd (549
m) around the intended impact location. Ships will observe the
mitigation zone from the firing position. The exercise will not
commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are
observed in the mitigation zone. Firing will cease if a marine mammal
is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing will recommence if any
one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed
exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited
the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or (3) the
mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 30 minutes.
Bombing Exercises (Explosive)
During Phase I activities, the Navy employed the following
mitigation zone procedures during bombing exercises:
Explosive ordnance shall not be targeted to impact within
2,500 yd (2.3 km) of known or observed floating kelp or marine mammals.
A 2,500 yd (2.3 km) radius mitigation zone shall be
established around the intended target.
The exercise will be conducted only if marine mammals are
not visible within the mitigation zone.
The Navy will (1) maintain the previously required mitigation zone
to be used for non-explosive bombing activities, (2) revise the
mitigation zone procedures to account for predicted ranges to impacts
to marine species when high explosive bombs are used, and (3) add a
requirement to visually observe for kelp paddies.
Mitigation will include visual observation from the aircraft
immediately before the exercise and during target approach within a
mitigation zone of 2,500 yd (2.3 km) around the intended impact
location for explosive bombs and 1,000 yd (920 m) for non-explosive
bombs. The exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating
vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Bombing
will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone.
Bombing will recommence if any one of the following conditions is met:
(1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal
is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for a period of 10 minutes.
Weapons Firing Noise During Gunnery Exercises--Large-Caliber
The Navy employed no mitigation zone procedures for this activity
in the Study Area during Phase I training activities in the GOA TMAA.
For Phase II activities, the Navy will adopt measures currently
used during Navy gunnery exercises in other ranges outside of the Study
Area. For all explosive and non-explosive large-caliber gunnery
exercises conducted from a ship, mitigation will include visual
observation immediately before and during the exercise within a
mitigation zone of 70 yd (64 m) within 30 degrees on either side of the
gun target line on the firing side. The exercise will not commence if
concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in
the mitigation zone. Firing will cease if a marine mammal is sighted
within the mitigation zone. Firing will recommence if any one of the
following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on its course and
[[Page 19544]]
speed, (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for a period of 30 minutes, or (4) the vessel has
repositioned itself more than 140 yd (128 m) away from the location of
the last sighting.
Physical Disturbance and Strike
Vessels
The Navy will use a 500 yd (457 m) mitigation zone for whales, and
a 200 yd (183 m) mitigation zone for all other marine mammals. Vessels
will avoid approaching marine mammals head on and will maneuver to
maintain a mitigation zone of 500 yd (457 m) around observed whales and
200 yd (183 m) around all other marine mammals (except bow-riding
dolphins), providing it is safe to do so. These requirements will not
apply if a vessel's safety is threatened, such as when change of course
will create an imminent and serious threat to a person, vessel, or
aircraft, and to the extent vessels are restricted in their ability to
maneuver. Restricted maneuverability includes, but is not limited to,
situations when vessels are engaged in dredging, submerged activities,
launching and recovering aircraft or landing craft, minesweeping
activities, replenishment while underway, and towing activities that
severely restrict a vessel's ability to deviate course. While in
transit, Navy vessels shall be alert at all times, use extreme caution,
and proceed at a ``safe speed'' so that the vessel can take proper and
effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or
disturbance, including any marine mammal or sea turtle, and can be
stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances
and conditions.
Towed In-Water Devices
The Navy employed no mitigation zone procedures for this activity
in the Study Area during Phase I training activities in the GOA TMAA.
During Phase II activities in the GOA TMAA, the Navy will adopt
measures currently used in other ranges outside of the Study Area
during activities involving towed in-water devices. The Navy will
ensure that towed in-water devices being towed from manned platforms
avoid coming within a mitigation zone of 250 yd (229 m) around any
observed marine mammal, providing it is safe to do so.
Non-Explosive Practice Munitions
Gunnery Exercises--Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Using a Surface
Target
The Navy will employ the same mitigation measures for non-explosive
gunnery exercises as described above for Gunnery Exercises--Small-,
Medium-, and Large-Caliber Using a Surface Target.
Mitigation will include visual observation from a vessel or
aircraft immediately before and during the exercise within a mitigation
zone of 200 yd (183 m) around the intended impact location. The
exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation
(kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing will cease
if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing will
recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: (1) The
animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is
thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for a period of 10 minutes for a firing aircraft, (4) the
mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 30 minutes for a firing ship, or (5) the intended target
location has been repositioned more than 400 yd (366 m) away from the
location of the last sighting.
Bombing Exercises (Non-explosive)
Mitigation will include visual observation from the aircraft
immediately before the exercise and during target approach within a
mitigation zone of 1,000 yd (914 m) around the intended impact
location. The exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating
vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Bombing
will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone.
Bombing will recommence if any one of the following conditions is met:
(1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal
is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for a period of 10 minutes.
Consideration of Time/Area Limitations
Biologically Important Areas
The Navy's and NMFS' analysis of effects to marine mammals
considers the best available science regarding locations where
cetaceans are known to engage in specific activities (e.g., feeding,
breeding/calving, or migration) at certain times of the year that are
important to individual animals as well as populations of marine
mammals or where small resident populations may be found (see
discussion in Van Parijs, 2015). Where data were available, Van Parijs
(2015) identified areas that are important in this way and named the
areas Biologically Important Areas (BIAs). It is important to note that
the BIAs were not meant to define exclusionary zones, nor were they
meant to be locations that serve as sanctuaries from human activity, or
areas analogous to marine protected areas (see Ferguson et al. (2015a)
regarding the envisioned purpose for the BIA designations). NMFS'
recognition of an area as biologically important for some species
activity is not equivalent to designation of critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Furthermore, the BIAs identified by NMFS
in and around the Study Area do not represent the totality of important
habitat throughout the marine mammals' full range. The delineation of
BIAs does not have direct or immediate regulatory consequences,
although it is appropriate to consider them as part of the body of
science that may inform mitigation decisions, depending on the
circumstances. The intention was that the BIAs would serve as resource
management tools and that they be considered along with, and not to the
exclusion of, ``existing density estimates, range-wide distribution
data, information on population trends and life history parameters,
known threats to the population, and other relevant information'' (Van
Parijs, 2015). The Navy and NMFS have supported and will continue to
support the Cetacean and Sound Mapping project, including
representation on the Cetacean Density and distribution Working Group
(CetMap), which informed NMFS' identification of BIAs. The same marine
mammal density data present in the Navy's Marine Species Density
Database Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014) and used
in the analysis for the GOA SEIS/OEIS was used in the development of
BIAs. The final products, including the Gulf of Alaska BIAs, from this
mapping effort were completed and published in March 2015 (Aquatic
Mammals, 2015; Calambokidis et al., 2015; Ferguson et al., 2015a,
2015b; Van Parijs, 2015). 131 BIAs for 24 marine mammal species,
stocks, or populations in seven regions within U.S. waters were
identified (Ferguson et al., 2015a). BIAs have been identified in the
Gulf of Alaska and include migration and feeding areas for gray whale
and North Pacific right whale, respectively. Fin whale feeding areas
[[Page 19545]]
(east, west, and southwest of Kodiak Island) occur to the west of the
GOA TMAA and gray whale feeding areas occur both east (Southeast
Alaska) and west (Kodiak Island) of the GOA TMAA; however, these
feeding areas are located well outside of (>20 nautical miles) the
Study Area and beyond the Navy's estimated range to effects for Level A
and B harassment.
NMFS' Office of Protected Resources routinely considers available
information about marine mammal habitat use to inform discussions with
applicants regarding potential spatio-temporal limitations on their
activities that might help effect the least practicable adverse impact
on species or stocks and their habitat. BIAs are useful tools for
planning and impact assessments and are being provided to the public
via this Web site: www.cetsound.noaa.gov. While these BIAs are useful
tools for analysts, any decisions regarding protective measures based
on these areas must go through the normal MMPA evaluation process (or
any other statutory process that the BIAs are used to inform); the
identification of a BIA does not pre-suppose any specific management
decision associated with those areas, nor does it have direct or
immediate regulatory consequences. NMFS and the Navy have discussed the
BIAs listed above, what Navy activities take place in these areas (in
the context of what their effects on marine mammals might be or whether
additional mitigation is necessary), and what measures could be
implemented to reduce impacts in these areas (in the context of their
potential to reduce marine mammal species or stock-level impacts and
their practicability). An assessment of the potential spatio-temporal
and activity overlap of Navy training activities with the Gulf of
Alaska BIAs listed above is included below and in Chapter 3.8 of the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS. If, through the adaptive management process or
otherwise, it becomes apparent that certain other time-area measures
are warranted or are practicable, NMFS and Navy will evaluate these
measures within the context of the least practicable impact
requirement.
Spatial and Temporal Overlap with North Pacific Right Whale Feeding
Area--The feeding area for North Pacific right whales (see Ferguson et
al., 2015b) overlaps slightly with the GOA TMAA's southwestern corner.
This feeding area is applicable from June to September so there is
temporal overlap with the proposed Navy training but there is minimal
spatial overlap between this feeding area and the GOA TMAA (see Figure
3.8-2 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS).
Given their current extremely low population numbers (the North
Pacific right whale is one of the most endangered whale species in the
world with approximately 31 individuals) and the general lack of
sightings in the Gulf of Alaska, the occurrence of right whales in the
GOA TMAA is considered rare. North Pacific right whales have not been
visually detected in the GOA TMAA since at least the 1960s and there
are no current known detections in the portion of the feeding area that
overlaps with the GOA TMAA. The Quinn Seamount passive acoustic
detections in summer 2013 ([Scaron]irovi[cacute] et al., 2014) are the
only known potential occurrence records of this species in the GOA TMAA
in recent years. The Navy's effects analysis predicts the potential for
up to only three Level B behavioral takes annually to North Pacific
right whales. These takes are reflected in this final rule. This
analysis was based on assigning a nominal North Pacific right whale
density to the entire GOA TMAA to account for historic and potential
future occurrence in all areas of the TMAA both onshelf and offshelf,
and not just associated with the feeding area. However, as discussed
above, North Pacific right whales have only potentially been detected
in a small portion of the GOA TMAA. Therefore, this predicted level of
take is highly conservative.
Spatial and Temporal Overlap with Gray Whale Migratory Area--The
migration area for gray whales, which was bounded by the extent of the
continental shelf (as provided in Ferguson et al., 2015b), has slight
(approximately 1 percent) overlap with the GOA TMAA at its northernmost
corner and western edge (see Ferguson et al., 2015b; See Figure 3.8-4
of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS). However, this migration area is applicable only
between March to May (Spring) and November to January (Fall) (Ferguson
et al., 2015b). This gray whale migration area would not be applicable
during the months when training has historically occurred (June/July)
and would have minimal temporal overlap with most of the proposed
timeframe (April to October; summer) for Navy training in the GOA TMAA.
The Navy's acoustic analysis did not predict any takes of gray whales
in the GOA TMAA based on acoustic effects modeling that considered gray
whale occurrence and density as well as the types and quantities of
Navy training being authorized, and NMFS is not authorizing any takes
of this species (see Group and Species-Specific Analysis section later
in this final rule).
Analysis of Potential Training Overlap with BIAs--The Location of
the GOA TMAA affords aircraft from Navy carrier strike groups
supporting joint exercises with the Air Force ability to reach inland
established Air Force and Army instrumented land ranges where they
conduct air to air ground training. The location of the GOA TMAA also
allows appropriate distance limitations to support Air Force aircraft
reaching the TMAA without needing to refuel to conduct training at sea
with the carrier strike group. Therefore, the GOA TMAA as currently
sited is dependent on these location-specific factors to satisfy safety
and practicality concerns. However, it is unlikely that Navy training
using hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or explosives training
would occur in these nearshore locations adjacent to the GOA TMAA
boundary where the overlap with BIAs occurs. To ensure that the Navy is
able to conduct realistic training, Navy units must maintain sufficient
room to maneuver. Therefore, training activities using sonar and
explosives will typically take place some distance away from an
operating area boundary to ensure sufficient sea or air space is
available for tactical maneuvers within an approved operating area such
as the GOA TMAA. The Navy also does not typically train next to any
limiting boundary of the GOA TMAA because it precludes tactical
consideration of the adjacent sea space and airspace beyond the
boundary from being a potential threat axis during activities such as
anti-submarine warfare training. It is also the case that Navy training
activities will generally not be located where it is likely there would
be interference from civilian vessels and aircraft that are not
participating in the training activity. The nearshore boundary of the
GOA TMAA is the location for multiple commercial vessel transit lanes,
ship traffic, and low-altitude air routes, which all pass through the
feeding area and the migration area (see Figure 3.8-9 of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS). This level of civilian activity may otherwise conflict with Navy
training activities if those Navy activities were located at that
margin of the GOA TMAA and as a result such an area is generally
avoided. There are northeastern and northwestern areas of the GOA TMAA,
portions of which overlap the BIAs, that could be used for other non-
acoustic and non-explosive Navy training events, including vessel
movements. As detailed in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, these could include up to
24 Visit, Board,
[[Page 19546]]
Search, and Seizure training activities and 28 Maritime Interdiction
training activities which often interact with participating contracted
commercial vessels homeported out Gulf of Alaska ports (e.g., Kodiak,
Homer, etc.).
Conclusion for North Pacific Right Whale BIA--After evaluating the
potential training overlap with the North Pacific right whale BIA and
the activities expected to result in the take of this species, the
endangered status of the species, the extremely small numbers of North
Pacific right whales, and the practicability of implementation, NMFS is
requiring--and Navy has agreed to--a North Pacific right whale
``Cautionary Area'' between June and September in the overlapping 2,051
km\2\ portion of the North Pacific right whale feeding area (See Figure
3.8-4 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS), in which the Navy would agree no hull-
mounted sonar or explosives would be used within the portion of the
feeding area that overlaps the Navy's GOA TMAA during those months. In
the event of national security needs, the Navy would be required to
seek approval in advance from the Commander, U.S. Third Fleet prior to
conducting training activities using sonar or explosives. NMFS believes
that implementation of this North Pacific right whale Cautionary Area
within the GOA TMAA may provide additional protection of this species
and stock beyond the mitigation measures already proposed by the Navy
in the proposed rule and GOA FSEIS/OEIS, especially when factoring in
their small population size, the status and abundance of the stock
(well below its Optimum Sustainable Population (Muto et al., 2016)),
and the extremely limited current information about this species. NMFS
believes that this additional mitigation measure may contribute to
reducing the number of individual North Pacific right whales taken
through exposure to MFAS/HFAS or underwater detonations in an area/time
that is important for feeding, which could contribute to a reduction in
the probability or severity of adverse impacts on the species or stock
or their habitat.
Conclusion for Gray Whale BIA--In the case of the gray whale
migratory area, given the extremely minimal geographic and temporal
overlap with Navy training activities in the GOA TMAA, coupled with the
fact that no takes of gray whale are predicted to occur with the
proposed level of training effort, NMFS has determined that additional
mitigation measures related to time/area limitations of Navy training
activities within the overlapping portion of the migratory area would
not contribute to any lessening of the likelihood of adverse impacts on
the species or stocks or their habitat, and are therefore not warranted
in the context of the least practicable impact standard.
Marine Protected Areas
Marine protected areas (MPAs) in the National System of MPAs
potentially occurring within the Study Area are listed and described in
Section 6.1.2 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Marine Protected Areas, Table 6.1-
2). As shown in Figure 6.1-1 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS very few MPA are
located within the GOA TMAA. MPAs vary widely in purpose, level of
protection, and restrictions on human uses. As discussed in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS, MPAs in the vicinity of the GOA TMAA generally focus on
natural heritage, fishery management, and sustainable production. The
GOA FSEIS/OEIS has been prepared in accordance with the requirements to
avoid harm to the natural and cultural resources of existing National
System MPAs. The identified impacts and purpose for the designation of
these areas is to limit or restrict specific fishing activities. Navy
activities, should they occur within or near a MPA, would fully abide
by the regulations of the individual MPA, including designated fishery
management habitat protection areas, and relevant resources (in the
case of the GOA TMAA, mainly restrictions on commercial and
recreational fishing) (see Table 6.1-2 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS for more
information). Further, NMFS' issuance of an authorization to the Navy
to take marine mammals would not conflict with the management,
protection, or conservation objectives of these MPAs. Therefore, NMFS
has determined that Navy avoidance of these areas is not warranted, nor
would it contribute to the least practicable impact standard or any
lessening of the likelihood of adverse impacts on species or stocks or
their habitat.
Seamounts
As with previous Navy Phase II proposed rulemakings, commenters
have requested that the Navy avoid training activities in the vicinity
of seamounts or seamount chains, which represent potentially important
habitat for marine species. Numerous seamounts are located partially or
wholly within the TMAA, including seamount habitat protection areas
designated by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to help
maintain productivity of fishery resources. However, NMFS does not
believe that Navy avoidance of these areas is warranted, or will
contribute to the least practicable impact standard or any lessening of
the likelihood of adverse impacts on marine mammal species or stocks
for the following reasons:
If marine mammals are known to prefer certain types of areas (as
opposed to specific areas) for certain functions, such as beaked whale
use of seamounts or marine mammal use of other productive areas, it is
less effective to require avoidance or limited use of a specific area
because marine mammals may or may not be present. NMFS recognizes the
generally biologically productive nature of seamounts; however, there
are no data to suggest that biologically important or species-specific
marine mammal habitat (rookeries, reproductive, feeding) exists along
seamounts within the GOA TMAA. While seamounts may represent important
habitat for multiple species, the major seamounts located within the
TMAA (e.g., Dall, Quinn, and Giacomini seamounts) have been designated
by NOAA as Gulf of Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Areas
specifically to help maintain productivity of fisheries resources
through restrictions on bottom fishing. Moreover, NMFS' review of the
passive acoustic monitoring results in the Navy's annual monitoring
reports (2011-2015, available at the Navy's Marine Species Monitoring
web portal (https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/)) for GOA
generally does not suggest significantly greater use of these seamounts
by marine mammals (at least for those where high-frequency acoustic
recording packages (HARPs) were deployed; it is also important to note
that an animal may be located several miles away from where it is
detected) compared to other locations (shelf and slope) where
detections were recorded. Navy monitoring efforts indicate that beaked
whales appear to use both shelf and seamount sites, although detections
were generally low at the monitored seamount sites within the TMAA and
may be more prevalent at the slope site. During a summer 2013 visual
and passive acoustic survey of the entire GOA TMAA, beaked whale
passive acoustic detections were just as frequent over deep water
abyssal plain areas of the TMAA as compared to slopes and seamounts
(Rone et al., 2014). Fin and humpback callings peaked in winter when
Navy activities are not proposed to occur. Fin and sperm whale
detections were generally more prevalent at shelf and slope sites,
respectively, while blue whale calls were detected at all sites. North
Pacific right whale calls were last detected in
[[Page 19547]]
2013, on the Quinn Seamount site; however, analysis of these detections
indicated that the calls were detected from ranges on the order of
roughly up to 50 nm to the east of the site; the calling animal was not
in the vicinity of Quinn Seamount (Debich et al., 2014;
[Scaron]irovi[cacute] et al., 2014).
The Navy has been training with sonar and other systems for decades
in locations having seamounts or slope areas, or that are adjacent to
continental shelfs where, to date, there has been no evidence of any
long-term consequences for individuals or populations of marine mammals
generally or around seamounts. This finding is based on years of
research and monitoring that show, for example, higher densities and
long-term residency by species such as beaked whales in Southern
California, where the Navy trains and tests, than in other adjacent
areas (Falcone et al., 2009; Falcone and Schorr, 2012, 2014; Hildebrand
and McDonald, 2009). Further, the Navy has identified the need to train
in varied bathymetric conditions, including around seamounts
specifically, to afford realistic training. Restricting Navy
maneuvering or sonar/explosives training in these areas would alter
realistic training to a degree that could impede ability to have
sufficient sea or air space for the necessary tactical maneuvers.
When the impact on the effectiveness of the training is considered
along with the facts described above (i.e., the fact that Navy
monitoring has not indicated a strong preference for the GOA TMAA
seamounts by marine mammal species, indicating only limited potential
to reduce impacts to marine mammal species or stocks and their
habitat), we determined that avoidance of seamounts in the GOA TMAA is
not warranted in this particular circumstance.
Stranding Response Plan
NMFS and the Navy developed a Stranding Response Plan for GOA TMAA
in 2011 as part of the previous (2011-2016) MMPA authorization and
rulemaking process for the Study Area. The Stranding Response Plan is
specifically intended to outline the applicable requirements in the
event that a marine mammal stranding is reported in the complexes
during a major training exercise. NMFS considers all plausible causes
within the course of a stranding investigation and this plan in no way
presumes that any strandings are related to, or caused by, Navy
training activities, absent a determination made during investigation.
The plan is designed to address mitigation, monitoring, and compliance.
NMFS has updated the Stranding Response Plan for the GOA TMAA for 2017-
2022 training activities. The updated Stranding Response Plan can be
found at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm#navy_goa2021. In addition, modifications to the Stranding
Response Plan may also be made through the adaptive management process.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation
measures--many of which were developed with NMFS' input during the
first phase of incidental take authorizations for the Navy's training
activities--and considered a broad range of other measures in the
context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species
and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures
included 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, their habitat, and
their availability for subsistence uses (where relevant). Among other
things, this analysis considered the nature of the potential adverse
impact (likelihood, scope, range), the likelihood that a measure would
be effective if implemented, and the likelihood of effective successful
implementation. Our evaluation of potential measures also considered
the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation.
Practicability of implementation includes consideration of 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.
Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, as well as
other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the
mitigation measures required by this rule are adequate means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammals
species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, while
also considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Monitoring
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that in order to issue an
ITA for an activity, NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking''. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for LOAs
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be present.
Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP)
The Navy's ICMP is intended to coordinate 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 is designed to be flexible, scalable, and
adaptable through the adaptive management and strategic planning
processes to periodically assess progress and reevaluate objectives.
Although the ICMP does not specify actual monitoring field work or
projects, it does establish top-level goals that have been developed in
coordination with NMFS. As the ICMP is implemented, detailed and
specific studies will be developed which support the Navy's top-level
monitoring goals. In essence, the ICMP directs that monitoring
activities relating to the effects of Navy training and testing
activities on marine species should be designed to contribute towards
one or more of the following top-level goals:
An increase in our understanding of the likely
occurrence of marine mammals and/or ESA-listed marine species in the
vicinity of the action (i.e., presence, abundance, distribution,
and/or density of species);
An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope,
or context of the likely exposure of marine mammals and/or ESA-
listed species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with
the action (e.g., tonal and impulsive sound), through better
understanding of one or more of the following: (1) The action and
the environment in which it occurs (e.g., sound source
characterization, propagation, and ambient noise levels); (2) the
affected species (e.g., life history or dive patterns); (3) the
likely co-occurrence of marine mammals and/or ESA-listed marine
species with the action (in whole or part) associated with specific
adverse effects; and/or (4) the likely biological or behavioral
context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal and/or
ESA-listed marine species (e.g., age class of exposed animals or
known pupping, calving or feeding areas);
An increase in our understanding of how individual
marine mammals or ESA-listed
[[Page 19548]]
marine species respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the
specific stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts,
where possible, e.g., at what distance or received level);
An increase in our understanding of how anticipated
individual responses, to individual stressors or anticipated
combinations of stressors, may impact either: (1) The long-term
fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) the population,
species, or stock (e.g., through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival);
An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness
of mitigation and monitoring measures;
A better understanding and record of the manner in
which the authorized entity complies with the ITA and Incidental
Take Statement; and
An increase in the probability of detecting marine
mammals (through improved technology or methods), both specifically
within the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective
implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve
the above goals.
Monitoring would address the ICMP top-level goals through a
collection of specific regional and ocean basin studies based on
scientific objectives. Quantitative metrics of monitoring effort (e.g.,
20 days of aerial surveys) would not be a specific requirement. The
adaptive management process and reporting requirements would serve as
the basis for evaluating performance and compliance, primarily
considering the quality of the work and results produced, as well as
peer review and publications, and public dissemination of information,
reports, and data. Details of the ICMP are available online (https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/).
Strategic Planning Process for Marine Species Monitoring
The Navy also developed the Strategic Planning Process for Marine
Species Monitoring, which establishes the guidelines and processes
necessary to develop, evaluate, and fund individual projects based on
objective scientific study questions. The process uses an underlying
framework designed around top-level goals, a conceptual framework
incorporating a progression of knowledge, and in consultation with a
Scientific Advisory Group and other regional experts. The Strategic
Planning Process for Marine Species Monitoring would be used to set
intermediate scientific objectives, identify potential species of
interest at a regional scale, and evaluate and select specific
monitoring projects to fund or continue supporting for a given fiscal
year. This process would also address relative investments to different
range complexes based on goals across all range complexes, and
monitoring would leverage multiple techniques for data acquisition and
analysis whenever possible. The Strategic Planning Process for Marine
Species Monitoring is also available online (https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/).
Past and Current Monitoring in the Study Area
NMFS has received multiple years' worth of annual exercise and
monitoring reports addressing active sonar use and explosive
detonations within the GOA TMAA and other Navy range complexes. The
data and information contained in these reports have been considered in
developing mitigation and monitoring measures for the proposed training
activities within the Study Area. The Navy's annual exercise and
monitoring reports may be viewed at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm and https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us.
This section is a summary of Navy-funded compliance monitoring in
the GOA TMAA since 2011. Additional Navy-funded monitoring outside of
and in addition to the Navy's commitments to NMFS is provided later in
this section.
Gulf of Alaska Study Area Monitoring, 2011-2015--During the LOA
development process for the 2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS, the Navy and NMFS
agreed that monitoring in the Gulf of Alaska should focus on augmenting
existing baseline data, since regional data on species occurrence and
density are extremely limited. There have been several reports to date
covering work in the Gulf of Alaska (U.S. Department of the Navy,
2011c, 2011d, 2012, 2013f, 2014d, and 2015). Collecting baseline data
was deemed a priority prior to focusing on exercise monitoring and
behavioral response as is now being done in other Navy OPAREAs and
ranges. There have been no previous dedicated monitoring efforts during
Navy training activities in the GOA TMAA with the exception of deployed
high-frequency acoustic recording packages (HARPs).
In July 2011, the Navy funded deployment of two long-term bottom-
mounted passive acoustic monitoring buoys by Scripps Institute of
Oceanography (Scripps). These HARPs were deployed southeast of Kenai
Peninsula in the GOA TMAA with one on the shelf approximately 50 nm
from land (in 111 fathoms (203 m) depth) and on the shelf-break slope
approximately 100 nm from land (in 492 fathoms (900 m) depth). Intended
to be collected annually, results from the first deployment (July 2011-
May 2012) included over 5,756 hours of passive acoustic data (Baumann-
Pickering et al., 2012b). Identification of marine mammal sounds
included four baleen whale species (blue whales, fin whales, gray
whales, and humpback whales) and at least six species of odontocetes
(killer whale, sperm whale, Stejneger's beaked whale, Baird's beaked
whale, Cuvier's beaked whale, and an unidentified porpoise presumed to
be Dall's porpoise; Baumann-Pickering et al., 2012b). Researchers also
noted the detection of anthropogenic sound from commercial shipping.
There were no Navy activities or vessels in the area at any time during
the recording period.
Analysis of the passive acoustic detections made from May 2012 to
June 2013 were presented in Baumann-Pickering et al. (2013), Debich et
al. (2013), Debich et al. (2014), and the Navy's 2012, 2013, and 2014
GOA TMAA annual monitoring report submitted to NMFS (U.S. Department of
the Navy, 2012, 2013f, 2014d). Three baleen whale species were
detected: blue whales, fin whales, and humpback whales. No North
Pacific right whale calls were detected at either site during this
monitoring period. At least seven species of odontocetes were detected:
Risso's dolphins, killer whales, sperm whales, Baird's beaked whales,
Cuvier's beaked whales, Stejneger's beaked whales, and unidentified
porpoises (likely Dall's porpoise). Focused analysis of beaked whale
echolocation recordings were presented in Baumann-Pickering et al.
(2013).
As also presented in Debich et al. (2013) and U.S. Department of
the Navy (2013f), broadband ship noise was found to be more common at
the slope and Pratt Seamount monitoring sites within the GOA TMAA than
at the nearshore (on shelf) site. Sonar (a variety of frequencies, most
likely fathometers and fish-finders), were more common on the shelf and
slope sites. Very few explosions were recorded at any of the sites
throughout the monitoring period. Origin of the few explosions detected
are unknown, but there was no Navy explosive use in the GOA TMAA during
this period, so these explosive-like events may be related to fisheries
activity, lightning strikes, or some other unidentified source. There
were no detections of Navy mid-frequency sonar use in the recordings
(Debich et al., 2013, 2014; U.S. Department of the Navy 2013f, 2014d).
In September 2012, an additional HARP buoy was deployed at Pratt
Seamount (near the east end of the GOA TMAA) and in June 2013 two
additional buoys were deployed in the GOA TMAA: One
[[Page 19549]]
at the shelf-break near the southwest corner of the GOA TMAA and one at
Quinn Seamount (the approximate middle of the GOA TMAA's southeast
boundary). This constitutes a total of five Navy-funded concurrent
long-term passive acoustic monitoring packages present in the GOA TMAA
through fall of 2014. Debich et al. (2013) reported the first detection
of a North Pacific right whale at the Quinn Seamount site. Over two
days between June and August 2013, the Quinn seamount HARP detected
three hours of North Pacific right whale calls (Debich et al., 2014,
[Scaron]irovi[cacute] et al., in press). Given the recording device
location near the southwest border of the GOA TMAA, inability of the
device as configured to determine call directionality, and likely
signal propagation of several 10s of miles, it remains uncertain if the
detected calls originated within or outside of the GOA TMAA. Previous
related Navy funded monitoring at multiple sites within the Study Area
reported no North Pacific right whale detections (Baumann-Pickering et
al., 2012b, Debich et al., 2013).
Additional monitoring conducted in the GOA TMAA through spring/
summer 2015 included the deployment of five HARPs to detect marine
mammals and anthropogenic sounds (Rice et al., 2015), and a passive
acoustic sensor-mounted Kongsberg SeagliderTM deployment
along the continental slope within the TMAA (marine mammal vocalization
and echolocation detections from the Seaglider deployment are still
undergoing analysis and the technical report will be posted to the
Navy's monitoring Web site: https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/
). Four baleen whale species were recorded during the HARP deployment:
Blue whales, fin whales, gray whales, and humpback whales. No North
Pacific right whale calls were recorded. Across all sites, blue whales,
fin whales, and humpback whales were commonly detected throughout the
recordings, with fin whale detections generally more prevalent at the
shelf site. Humpback whales were one of the most commonly detected
baleen whales throughout the recordings. Blue whale calls were most
prevalent during the summer and fall, while humpback detections were
highest from December through March. Fin whale 20 Hz calls were the
dominant call type, peaking from September to December, while 40 Hz
calls peaked in the summer months. Signals from three known odontocete
species were recorded: sperm whales, Cuvier's beaked whales, and
Stejneger's beaked whales. Sperm whales were detected at every site,
but were most prevalent at the continental slope site, with peak
detections from June through late November 2014 and again in April to
May 2015. Cuvier's beaked whales were detected in low numbers at the
seamount sites. Stejneger's beaked whales were detected at the
continental slope site, and the seamount sites, with most detections
occurring at the continental slope site. The only anthropogenic sounds
detected in the recordings were explosions, which Rice et al. (2015)
attributed to fishery-related seal bombs based on the spectral
properties of the signals.
During review of Rice et al. (2015), personnel from NMFS' Alaska
Fisheries Science Center questioned if some of the seal bomb-like
passive acoustic explosive detections could not have been a variation
of a North Pacific right whale ``gunshot'' call. Further explanation
was subsequently provided by Scripps: the explosions recorded in the
Gulf of Alaska and reported in Rice et al. (2015), as well as previous
year's reports were broadband, impulsive sounds with a distinctive low
frequency rumble. The signal parameters are very similar to seal bomb
explosions detect in passive acoustic data from Southern California and
the Pacific Northwest. Additionally, Scripps confirmed that from their
experience with the detection of seal bombs signals in acoustic data
from multiple locations including those outside of Alaska, seal bombs
are frequently deployed in a sequence over a period of time, which may
be similar to North Pacific right whale bouts. Therefore, Scripps
remains confident that the overall patterns and distributions of this
signal represent explosives (seal bombs) used in this region and that
the likelihood of these explosions being North Pacific right whales is
extremely low, even if they cannot absolutely fully discount the
possibility that some of their reported explosions may in fact be
``gunshot'' calls.
No mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar events were detected throughout
the 2014-2015 HARP recordings. Future monitoring will include varying
numbers of HARPs or other passive acoustic technologies based on annual
adaptive management and monitoring meeting discussions with NMFS.
In the Gulf of Alaska, the Navy has also funded two previous marine
mammal surveys to gather occurrence and density data. Although there
was no regulatory requirement for the Navy to undertake either survey,
the Navy funded the data collection to first support analysis of
potential effects for the 2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS and again recently to
support the current GOA SEIS/OEIS. The first Navy-funded survey (GOALS)
was conducted by NMFS in April 2009 (see Rone et al., 2009). Line-
transect survey visual data was gathered to support distance sampling
statistics and acoustic data were collected over a 10-day period both
within and outside the GOA TMAA. This survey resulted in sightings of
several species and allowed for the derivation of densities for fin and
humpback whale that supplemented multiple previous survey efforts in
the vicinity (Rone et al., 2009). In summer 2013, the Navy funded an
additional visual line-transect survey (Gulf of Alaska Line-Transect
Survey (GOALS II)) in the offshore waters of the Gulf of Alaska (Rone
et al., 2014). The GOALS II survey was a 30-day visual line-transect
survey supplemented by use of passive acoustics and was a follow-on
effort to the previously Navy-funded GOALS survey in 2009. The primary
objective for the GOALS II survey was to acquire baseline data to
increase understanding of the likely occurrence (i.e., presence,
abundance, distribution and/or density of species) of beaked whales and
ESA-listed marine mammals in the Gulf of Alaska. Specific research
objectives were:
Assess the abundance, spatial distribution and/or
density of marine mammals, with a focus on beaked whales and ESA-
listed cetacean species through visual line-transect surveys and
passive acoustics using a towed hydrophone array and sonobuoys.
Increase knowledge of species' vocal repertoire by
linking visual sightings to vocally active cetaceans, in order to
improve the effectiveness of passive acoustic monitoring.
Attempt to photo-identify and biopsy sample individual
whales opportunistically for analysis of population structure,
genetics and habitat use.
Attempt to locate whales for opportunistic satellite
tagging using visual and passive acoustic methodology in order to
provide information on both large- and fine-scale movements and
habitat use of cetaceans.
The Navy-funded GOALS II survey also sampled four distinct habitat
areas (shelf, slope, offshore, and seamounts) which were partitioned
into four strata. The survey design was intended to provide uniform
coverage within the Gulf of Alaska. However, given the overall limited
knowledge of beaked whales within the Gulf of Alaska, the survey was
also designed to provide coverage of potential beaked whale habitat and
resulted in 13 encounters with beaked whales numbering 67 individual
animals (Rone et al., 2014). The following additional details are
[[Page 19550]]
summarized from the presentation in Rone et al. (2014). The visual
survey consisted of 4,504 km (2,431 nm) of `full-effort' and included
349 km (188 nm) of `transit-effort.' There was an additional 375 km
(202 nm) of `fog-effort' (transect and transit). Based on total effort,
there were 802 sightings (1,998 individuals) identified to species,
with an additional 162 sightings (228 individuals) of unidentified
cetaceans and pinnipeds. Acoustic surveying was conducted round-the-
clock with a towed-hydrophone array for 6,304 km (3,997 nm) of line-
transect effort totaling 426 hours of `standard' monitoring, with an
additional 374 km (202 nm) of approximately 30 hours of `non-standard'
and `chase' effort. There were 379 acoustic detections and 267
localizations of 6 identified cetacean species. Additionally, 186
acoustic sonobuoys were deployed with 7 identified cetacean species
detected. Two satellite transmitter tags were deployed; a tag on a blue
whale (B. musculus) transmitted for 9 days and a tag on a Baird's
beaked whale (Berardius bairdii) transmitted for 15 days. Based on
photo-identification matches, the tagged blue whale had been previously
identified off Baja California, Mexico, in 2005. Photographs of five
cetacean species were collected for photo-identification purposes: Fin,
humpback, blue, killer (Orcinus orca), and Baird's beaked whales. The
estimates of abundance and density for five species were obtained for
the first time for the central Gulf of Alaska. Overall, the Navy funded
GOALS II survey provided one of the most comprehensive datasets on
marine mammal occurrence, abundance, and distribution within that
rarely surveyed area (Rone et al., 2014).
Pacific Northwest Cetacean Tagging--A Navy-funded effort in the
Pacific Northwest is ongoing and involves attaching long-term satellite
tracking tags to migrating gray whales off the coast of Oregon and
northern California (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013e). This study is
being conducted by the University of Oregon and has also included
tagging of other large whale species such as humpback whales, fin
whales, and killer whales when encountered. This effort is not
programmed, affiliated, or managed as part of the GOA TMAA monitoring,
and is a separate regional project, but has provided information on
marine mammals and their movements that has application to the Gulf of
Alaska.
In one effort between May 2010 and May 2013, satellite tracking
tags were placed on three gray whales, 11 fin whales, five humpback
whales, and two killer whales off the Washington coast (Schorr et al.,
2013). One tag on an Eastern North Pacific Offshore stock killer whale,
in a pod encountered off Washington at Grays Harbor Canyon, remained
attached and continued to transmit for approximately three months. In
this period, the animal transited a distance of approximately 4,700 nm,
which included time spent in the nearshore margins of the TMAA in the
Gulf of Alaska where it would be considered part of the Offshore stock
(for stock designations, see Muto and Angliss, 2015). In a second
effort between 2012 and 2013, tags were attached to 11 Pacific Coast
Feeding Group gray whales near Crescent City, California; in general,
the tag-reported positions indicated these whales were moving southward
at this time of year (Mate, 2013). The Navy's 2013 annual monitoring
report for the Northwest Training and Testing Range contains the
details of the findings from both research efforts described above
(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013e).
Monitoring for the GOA TMAA Study Area 2017-2022
Based on the NMFS-Navy adaptive management meeting in June 2015 and
the annual monitoring meeting in March 2016, future Navy compliance
monitoring, including ongoing monitoring, will address ICMP top-level
goals through a series of regional and ocean basin study questions with
a prioritization and funding focus on species of interest as identified
for each range complex. The ICMP will also address relative investments
to different range complexes based on goals across all range complexes,
and monitoring will leverage multiple techniques for data acquisition
and analysis whenever possible.
Within the GOA TMAA Study Area, the Navy's monitoring for GOA TMAA
under this LOA authorization and concurrently in other areas of the
Pacific Ocean will therefore be structured to address region-specific
species-specific study questions in consultation with NMFS. The 2015
annual monitoring report submitted by the Navy to NMFS concludes the
Navy's monitoring within the GOA TMAA under the 2011-2016 MMPA
authorization. The HARPs used as part of that monitoring effort are
currently being retrieved and returned to Scripps Institution of
Oceanography for refurbishment. In consultation with NMFS during the
June 2015 adaptive management meeting, the Navy and NMFS agreed that
Navy-funded monitoring within the GOA TMAA would be revisited during
subsequent adaptive management meetings in 2017 and 2018. Given four
years of constant 24/7 passive acoustic marine mammal baseline
monitoring through the years 2011-2015, scientifically significant
ambient background data for a region used infrequently by the Navy has
been sufficiently obtained under the 2011-2016 authorization.
Therefore, the Navy, with NMFS' concurrence, did not fund GOA TMAA
marine mammal monitoring in 2016.
For 2017, Navy will deploy minimum of two bottom-mounted passive
acoustic devices with an option for third deep-water buoy passive
acoustic device. Devices will be High-frequency acoustic recording
packages (HARP) and, for consistency and comparison with past efforts,
will be deployed at the same sites as previously. The third planned
option consists of a new deep-water open ocean site, on line with the
shallower sites, and will include deployment of both a HARP and a new
buoy. Scripps will conduct post-deployment of marine mammal
vocalizations, ambient sounds and anthropogenic sounds.
Additional Navy monitoring projects proposed during the 2017-2022
GOA TMAA rulemaking period will be posted on the Navy's marine species
monitoring Web site (https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/regions/pacific/current-projects/). NMFS has acknowledged that the Navy's GOA
TMAA monitoring will enhance understanding of marine mammal
vocalizations and distributions within the offshore waters of the Gulf
of Alaska. Additionally, information gained from the Navy's monitoring
may be used in the adaptive management of monitoring measures in
subsequent NMFS authorizations, if appropriate and in consultation with
NMFS. The Navy is committed to structuring the Navy-sponsored research
and monitoring program to address both NMFS' regulatory requirements as
part of any MMPA authorizations while at the same time making
significant contributions to the greater body of marine mammal science
(see U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013f).
Ongoing Navy Research
The U.S. Navy is one of the world's leading organizations in
assessing the effects of human activities on the marine environment
including marine mammals. From 2004 through 2013, the Navy has funded
over $240 million specifically for marine mammal research. Navy
scientists work cooperatively with other government researchers and
scientists, universities, industry, and non-governmental conservation
organizations in collecting, evaluating, and modeling information
[[Page 19551]]
on marine resources. They also develop approaches to ensure that these
resources are minimally impacted by existing and future Navy
operations. It is imperative that the Navy's research and development
(R&D) efforts related to marine mammals are conducted in an open,
transparent manner with validated study needs and requirements. The
goal of the Navy's R&D program is to enable collection and publication
of scientifically valid research as well as development of techniques
and tools for Navy, academic, and commercial use. Historically, R&D
programs are funded and developed by the Navy's Chief of Naval
Operations Energy and Environmental Readiness Division (OPNAV N45) and
Office of Naval Research (ONR), Code 322 Marine Mammals and Biological
Oceanography Program. The primary focus of these programs since the
1990s is on understanding the effects of sound on marine mammals,
including physiological, behavioral, and ecological effects.
ONR's current Marine Mammals and Biology Program thrusts include,
but are not limited to: (1) Monitoring and detection research, (2)
integrated ecosystem research including sensor and tag development, (3)
effects of sound on marine life (such as hearing, behavioral response
studies, physiology (diving and stress), and population consequences of
acoustic disturbance (PCAD)), and (4) models and databases for
environmental compliance.
To manage some of the Navy's marine mammal research programmatic
elements, OPNAV N45 developed in 2011 a new Living Marine Resources
(LMR) Research and Development Program (https://www.lmr.navy.mil/). The
goal of the LMR Research and Development Program is to identify and
fill knowledge gaps and to demonstrate, validate, and integrate new
processes and technologies to minimize potential effects to marine
mammals and other marine resources. Key elements of the LMR program
include:
Providing science-based information to support Navy
environmental effects assessments for research, development,
acquisition, testing and evaluation as well as Fleet at-sea
training, exercises, maintenance, and support activities.
Improving knowledge of the status and trends of marine
species of concern and the ecosystems of which they are a part.
Developing the scientific basis for the criteria and
thresholds to measure the effects of Navy generated sound.
Improving understanding of underwater sound and sound
field characterization unique to assessing the biological
consequences resulting from underwater sound (as opposed to tactical
applications of underwater sound or propagation loss modeling for
military communications or tactical applications).
Developing technologies and methods to monitor and,
where possible, mitigate biologically significant consequences to
living marine resources resulting from naval activities, emphasizing
those consequences that are most likely to be biologically
significant.
Navy Research and Development
Navy Funded--Both the LMR and ONR Research and Development Programs
periodically fund projects within the Study Area. Some data and
results, when available from these R&D projects, are typically
summarized in the Navy's annual range complex Monitoring Reports that
are currently submitted to NMFS each year. In addition, the Navy's
Range Complex monitoring during training and testing activities is
coordinated with the R&D monitoring in a given region to leverage
research objectives, assets, and studies where possible under the ICMP.
The integration between the Navy's new LMR Research and Development
Program and related range complex monitoring will continue and improve
during this LOA application period with applicable results presented in
GOA TMAA annual monitoring reports.
Other National Department of Defense Funded Initiatives--Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) are the
DoD's environmental research programs, harnessing the latest science
and technology to improve environmental performance, reduce costs, and
enhance and sustain mission capabilities. The Programs respond to
environmental technology requirements that are common to all of the
military Services, complementing the Services' research programs. SERDP
and ESTCP promote partnerships and collaboration among academia,
industry, the military Services, and other Federal agencies. They are
independent programs managed from a joint office to coordinate the full
spectrum of efforts, from basic and applied research to field
demonstration and validation.
Adaptive Management
The final regulations governing the take of marine mammals
incidental to Navy training activities in the Study Area contain an
adaptive management component, as did previous authorizations. The
reporting requirements associated with this final rule are designed to
provide NMFS with monitoring data from the previous year to allow NMFS
to consider whether any changes are appropriate. NMFS and the Navy
would meet to discuss the monitoring reports, Navy R&D developments,
and current science and whether mitigation or monitoring modifications
are appropriate. The use of adaptive management allows NMFS to consider
new information from different sources to determine (with input from
the Navy regarding practicability) on an annual or biennial basis if
mitigation or monitoring measures should be modified (including
additions or deletions). Mitigation measures could be modified if new
data suggests that such modifications would have a reasonable
likelihood of reducing adverse effects to marine mammal species or
stocks and their habitat and if the measures are practicable.
The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data
to be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) Results
from monitoring and exercises reports, as required by MMPA
authorizations; (2) compiled results of Navy funded R&D studies; (3)
results from specific stranding investigations; (4) results from
general marine mammal and sound research; and (5) any information which
reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or
number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOA.
Reporting
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' Effective reporting is
critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is
obtained from the required monitoring. NMFS described the proposed Navy
reporting requirements in the proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 9991-92;
February 26, 2016). Reports from individual monitoring events, results
of analyses, publications, and periodic progress reports for specific
monitoring projects will be posted to the Navy's Marine Species
Monitoring web portal: https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us and
NMFS' Web site: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm. There are several different reporting requirements that
are further detailed in the regulatory text at the end of this document
and summarized below. Of note, a notification requirement for Major
Training Exercises that was included in the proposed rule has been
modified to be a 72-hour pre-notice, which aligns better with
requirements in other training areas and better supports NMFS'
management needs.
[[Page 19552]]
General Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
Navy personnel will ensure that NMFS (the appropriate Regional
Stranding Coordinator) is notified immediately (or as soon as clearance
procedures allow) if an injured or dead marine mammal is found during
or shortly after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy training exercise
utilizing MFAS, HFAS, or underwater explosive detonations. The Navy
will provide NMFS with species identification or a description of the
animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition
if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed
behaviors (if alive), and photographs or video (if available). The Navy
shall consult the Stranding Response Plan to obtain more specific
reporting requirements for specific circumstances.
Vessel Strike
NMFS has developed the following language to address monitoring and
reporting measures specific to vessel strike. Most of this language
comes directly from the Stranding Response Plan for other Navy training
and testing rulemakings. This section has also been included in the
regulatory text at the end of this final rule. Vessel strike during
Navy training activities in the Study Area is not anticipated; however,
in the event that a Navy vessel strikes a whale, the Navy shall do the
following:
Immediately report to NMFS (pursuant to the established
Communication Protocol) the:
Species identification (if known);
Location (latitude/longitude) of the animal (or
location of the strike if the animal has disappeared);
Whether the animal is alive or dead (or unknown); and
The time of the strike.
As soon as feasible, the Navy shall report to or provide to
NMFS, the:
Size, length, and description (critical if species is
not known) of animal;
An estimate of the injury status (e.g., dead, injured
but alive, injured and moving, blood or tissue observed in the
water, status unknown, disappeared, etc.);
Description of the behavior of the whale during event,
immediately after the strike, and following the strike (until the
report is made or the animal is no longer sighted);
Vessel class/type and operational status;
Vessel length;
Vessel speed and heading; and
To the best extent possible, obtain a photo or video of
the struck animal, if the animal is still in view.
Within 2 weeks of the strike, provide NMFS:
A detailed description of the specific actions of the
vessel in the 30-minute timeframe immediately preceding the strike,
during the event, and immediately after the strike (e.g., the speed
and changes in speed, the direction and changes in direction, other
maneuvers, sonar use, etc., if not classified); and
A narrative description of marine mammal sightings
during the event and immediately after, and any information as to
sightings prior to the strike, if available; and use established
Navy shipboard procedures to make a camera available to attempt to
capture photographs following a ship strike.
NMFS and the Navy will coordinate to determine the services the
Navy may provide to assist NMFS with the investigation of the strike.
The response and support activities to be provided by the Navy are
dependent on resource availability, must be consistent with military
security, and must be logistically feasible without compromising Navy
personnel safety. Assistance requested and provided may vary based on
distance of strike from shore, the nature of the vessel that hit the
whale, available nearby Navy resources, operational and installation
commitments, or other factors.
Annual GOA TMAA Monitoring Report
The Navy shall submit an annual report of the GOA TMAA monitoring
describing the implementation and results from the previous calendar
year. Data collection methods will be standardized across range
complexes and study areas to allow for comparison in different
geographic locations. Although additional information will be gathered,
Navy Lookouts collecting marine mammal data pursuant to the GOA TMAA
monitoring plan shall, at a minimum, provide the same marine mammal
observation data required in Sec. 218.155. The report shall be
submitted either 90 days after the calendar year, or 90 days after the
conclusion of the monitoring year to be determined by the adaptive
management process. The GOA TMAA Monitoring Report may be provided to
NMFS within a larger report that includes the required Monitoring Plan
reports from multiple range complexes and study areas (the multi-Range
Complex Annual Monitoring Report). Such a report would describe
progress of knowledge made with respect to monitoring plan study
questions across all Navy ranges associated with the Integrated
Comprehensive Monitoring Program. Similar study questions shall be
treated together so that progress on each topic shall be summarized
across all Navy ranges. The report need not include analyses and
content that does not provide direct assessment of cumulative progress
on the monitoring plan study questions.
Annual GOA TMAA Exercise Report
Each year, the Navy shall submit a preliminary report detailing the
status of authorized sound sources within 21 days after the anniversary
of the date of issuance of the LOA. Each year, the Navy shall submit a
detailed report within 3 months after the anniversary of the date of
issuance of the LOA. The annual report shall contain information on
Major Training Exercises (MTEs), and a summary of all sound sources
used (total hours or quantity (per the LOA) of each bin of sonar or
other non-impulsive source; total annual number of each type of
explosive exercises; and total annual expended/detonated rounds
(missiles, bombs, etc.) for each explosive bin). The analysis in the
detailed report will be based on the accumulation of data from the
current year's report and data collected from previous reports for the
rule. Information included in the classified annual reports may be used
to inform future adaptive management of activities within the GOA TMAA.
Sonar Exercise Notification
MTE Prior Notification. The Navy shall submit to NMFS (contact as
specified in the LOA and Stranding Plan) an electronic notice of
pending MTEs 72 hours prior to the start of the MTE indicating:
Location of the exercise, beginning and end dates of the exercise, type
of exercise.
Five-Year Close-Out Exercise Report
This report will be included as part of the 2022 annual exercise
report. This report will provide the annual totals for each sound
source bin with a comparison to the annual allowance and the 5-year
total for each sound source bin with a comparison to the 5-year
allowance. Additionally, if there were any changes to the sound source
allowance, this report will include a discussion of why the change was
made and include the analysis to support how the change did or did not
result in a change in the SEIS and final rule determinations. The
report will be submitted 3 months after the expiration of the rule.
NMFS will submit comments on the draft close-out report, if any, within
3 months of receipt. The report will be considered final after the Navy
has addressed NMFS' comments, or 3 months after the submittal of the
draft if NMFS does not provide comments.
Comments and Responses
On February 26, 2016, NMFS published a proposed rule (81 FR 9950)
in response to the Navy's request to take marine mammals incidental to
training
[[Page 19553]]
activities in the GOA TMAA Study Area and requested comments,
information, and suggestions concerning the request. During the 30-day
public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal
Commission (Commission), non-governmental organizations, and private
citizens. Numerous comments were collectively submitted in a letter on
behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Animal Welfare
Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, Cetacean Society
International, Cook Inletkeeper, Copper River Watershed Project,
Defenders of Wildlife, Eyak Preservation Council, Eye of the Whale
Research, The Humane Society of the United States, International Fund
for Animal Welfare, Oasis Earth, Ocean Conservation Research,
OceanCare, Peaceful Skies Coalition, Prince William Soundkeeper, Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Tucson Forward,
Inc., West Coast Action Alliance, and Whale and Dolphin Conservation
(hereinafter referred to as NRDC et al.). Several of NRDC et al.'s
comments, specifically those related to mitigation recommendations (see
Comment 23-49), were the same or similar to comments made on the
proposed rule for Navy training and testing in the Northwest Training
and Testing (NWTT) Study Area and which were addressed by NMFS in the
final rule for NWTT (80 FR 73556, 73575-98; November 24, 2015, Comments
and Responses). NMFS also received an online petition, titled ``Stop
Sonar and Underwater Explosions in Gulf of Alaska,'' which originated
from a non-governmental organization (Eye of the Whale Research) and
was circulated by MoveOn.org petitions. The petition contained 58
signatures at the close of the comment period. NMFS has responded to
the petition below.
Comments specific to section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and NMFS'
analysis of impacts to marine mammals are summarized, sorted into
general topic areas, and addressed below and/or throughout the final
rule. Comments specific to the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, which NMFS participated
in developing as a cooperating agency and adopted, or that were also
submitted to the Navy during the GOA DSEIS/OEIS public comment period
are addressed in Appendix D (Public Participation) of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS. Some commenters presented technical comments on the general
behavioral risk function that are largely identical to those posed
during the comment period for proposed rules for the Atlantic Fleet
Training and Testing (AFTT), Hawaii-Southern California Training and
Testing (HSTT), Mariana Islands Training and Testing (MITT), and NWTT
study areas--Phase II predecessors to the GOA TMAA rule. The behavioral
risk function remains unchanged since then, and here we incorporate our
responses to those initial technical comments (78 FR 73010, 73038
(December 3, 2013), Acoustic Thresholds; 78 FR 78106, 78129 (December
24, 2013), Acoustic Thresholds; 80 FR 46112, 46146 (August 3, 2015),
Criteria and Thresholds; 80 FR 73556, 73579 (November 24, 2015)). Full
copies of the comment letters may be accessed at https://www.regulations.gov.
General Opposition
Comment 1: The vast majority of comments received by NMFS were from
commenters expressing general opposition to Navy training activities in
the GOA TMAA and NMFS' issuance of an MMPA authorization. Many
commenters claimed that the Navy's activities would result in the
``killing,'' ``blowing up,'' or ``deaths'' of marine mammals during GOA
training activities using sonar.
Response: NMFS appreciates the commenters' concern for the marine
environment. However, the commenters' assertion that the Navy's
activities in the GOA TMAA Study Area will result in the killing or
deaths of marine mammals is incorrect. As discussed throughout this
rule and in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the vast majority of predicted takes
are by Level B harassment (behavioral reactions and TTS), and there are
no mortality takes predicted or authorized for any training activities
in the Study area. Further, any impacts from the Navy's activities are
expected to be short term and would not result in significant changes
in behavior, growth, survival, annual reproductive success, lifetime
reproductive success (fitness), or species recruitment. The Navy has
conducted active sonar training activities in the Study Area for years,
and there is no evidence that routine Navy training and testing has
negatively impacted marine mammal populations in the Study Area or at
any Navy Range Complex. As described in more detail later in this
document, based on the best available science, NMFS has determined that
the Navy's training activities will have a negligible impact on the
affected species or stocks and, therefore, we plan to issue the
requested MMPA authorization.
Comment 2: An online petition, titled ``Stop Sonar and Underwater
Explosions in Gulf of Alaska,'' was created by Eye of the Whale
Research and circulated via MoveOn.org petitions. The petition is for
NMFS' denial of the Navy's LOA application based on sonar and
explosives use that could potentially hurt marine mammals in Alaska
waters.
Response: The Navy and NMFS are aware that even with implemented
mitigations, Navy training in the GOA TMAA Study Area will result in
behavioral impacts to a number of marine mammals of multiple species
and injurious impacts to a small number of Dall's porpoises, which is
precisely why those predicted effects are quantified and have been
requested pursuant to the MMPA and ESA. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals if certain
findings are made and regulations are issued. NMFS has made the
requisite findings and therefore must issue regulations and an LOA for
the Navy's activities.
Activity
Comment 3: Several commenters pointed out the importance of
salmonid and other fisheries resources in Alaska and expressed concerns
with Navy training impacts to commercial, recreational, and subsistence
fishing in the Study Area.
Response: Regarding impacts to salmon, fish in general, and the
commercial fishers, as presented in Section 3.6 (Fish) and Section 3.12
(Socioeconomics) of the 2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS and the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, NMFS
and the Navy are aware of the importance of fisheries in Alaska. The
proposed training activities are predicted to have no impact on fish
populations, the health of fisheries, or socioeconomic conditions in
Alaska.
Regarding concerns over subsistence resources, the proposed action
is the continuation of the types of training activities that have been
ongoing for more than a decade. No impacts to traditional subsistence
practices or resources are predicted to result from the proposed
activities. Further, after consultations with Alaska Native tribes from
the Kodiak and Kenai Peninsula region, the Navy has confirmed that
training events in the TMAA would not involve the use of any explosives
in one particular and well-defined fishing area known as Portlock Bank.
Also note that as described in the 2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS, sonar use is
unlikely to disturb fish since most fish cannot hear sonar at the
frequencies in the proposed action and science indicates that the few
fish that can hear in those frequencies have no significant, if any,
reaction to sonar. Please also see the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.5
(Summary of Observations During
[[Page 19554]]
Previous Navy Activities), where over eight years of monitoring effort
has found no evidence that Navy training activities have had any impact
on fish populations in the Pacific in areas such as Southern California
or Hawaii where Navy training has been occurring year-round for
decades.
Additionally, the effects on marine mammal prey species were
addressed in the proposed rule and deemed not to be significant and,
further, NMFS' biological opinion analyzing the Navy's activities found
that they were not likely to jeopardize any listed fish species or
destroy or adversely modify any designated critical habitat for ESA-
listed fish.
Comment 4: Some commenters expressed concern with potential Navy
training impacts to endangered or threatened species within the Study
Area.
Response: As discussed in the proposed rule, there are eight marine
mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction that are listed as endangered
or threatened under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in
the Study Area: Blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale (Mexico DPS and
Western North Pacific DPS), sei whale, sperm whale, gray whale (Western
North Pacific stock), North Pacific right whale, and Steller sea lion
(Western U.S. stock). Pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS found that the take
authorized for the Navy's training activities in the GOA TMAA would
have a negligible impact on these ESA-listed species. Further, the Navy
consulted with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, and NMFS also
consulted internally on the issuance of a rule and LOA under section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for GOA activities. NMFS issued a Biological
Opinion concluding that the issuance of the rule and subsequent LOA are
likely to adversely affect, but are not likely to jeopardize, the
continued existence of the threatened and endangered species under
NMFS' jurisdiction and are not likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat in the GOA TMAA Study Area.
The Biological Opinion for this action is available on NMFS' Web site
(https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm).
Additionally, we note here that since the publication of the
proposed rule, the Navy chose to reduce the proposed amount of activity
significantly, lessening the number of the Carrier Strike Group Events
from two to one per year, and the number of SINKEXs from two to zero
per year. This significantly decreases (by about half) the number of
anticipated and authorized takes for this activity.
Comment 5: Several commenters requested that the Navy change the
timing of operations from summer (April to October) to winter (November
to March), in order to minimize effects on migratory whales and
fisheries in the area in summer.
Response: Comments that suggest restricting or scheduling the
training so it will occur in the winter provide as partial rationale
that the mitigation is needed to avoid whales that migrate to Alaska.
Navy training is proposed to occur between April to October for the
safety of the exercise participants and due to the severe conditions in
the winter months. Due to the high sea states and cloud cover in the
TMAA during winter months, training in the TMAA has historically
occurred in the summer (June-July). These factors were a consideration
in the Alternatives Development of the 2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS (Chapter 2,
Section 2.3). As detailed in Section 3.8 (Marine Mammals) of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS, there are marine mammals present year-round in the Gulf of
Alaska (e.g., humpback whales, blue whales, fin whales, gray whales,
and pinnipeds). Additionally, the majority of the migratory species and
many of the species feeding in the area in the summer (e.g., fin whale,
humpback whales, gray whales) are typically found in high numbers much
closer to shore than in the waters that constitute the majority of the
TMAA (see Ferguson et al., 2015; Rone et al., 2014; Witteveen, 2014).
Generally, Navy training activities are not likely to affect animals in
nearshore locations given that the TMAA boundary nearest to land is
approximately 25 nm from the Kenai Peninsula and the center of the TMAA
is approximately 140 nm offshore. Any effects to whales in Alaska from
Navy training are most likely to result from acoustic sources
associated with events occurring in the deep water areas and away from
the edges of the TMAA boundary. It is also important to note that the
available scientific information does not provide evidence that
exposure to acoustic stressors from Navy training activities are likely
to impact the fitness of individual whales and are not likely to result
in adverse population level or species level impacts. For the reasons
outlined above, training in the winter would not be expected to
meaningfully reduce impacts to marine mammal species or stocks and
their habitat, while it would be impracticable and would unnecessarily
increase risk and threaten the safety of Navy personnel engaged in
training.
Comments suggesting not holding the training activities during the
summer period have also been predicated on avoiding impacts to
fisheries during the fishing season and the livelihood of fishermen and
fishing communities. As detailed in Section 3.6 (Fish) of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS, based on the best available science, the continuation of
training in the GOA TMAA would not have an impact on populations of
fish, the health of the fisheries, or the ability of fishermen to fish.
It is also important to note that training has been conducted for many
years in the GOA TMAA and there have been no reported impacts to any
fish populations or fishery activities. Therefore, training in the
winter would not be practicable and would not be effective in avoiding
impacts to fish or fisheries but would unnecessarily increase risk and
threaten the safety of the Navy personnel engaged in training.
NMFS is charged with promulgating regulations and issuing LOAs for
the requested activity, provided we find that the authorized take will
have a negligible impact on the effected marine mammal species or stock
and that we ensure that measures are required that ensure the least
practicable adverse impact on the species or stocks and their habitat--
which we have. The specific activity that the Navy requested was to
conduct these activities for 21 days (initially two times, now lowered
to one time) between the months of April and October--requiring them to
conduct the exercise outside of these dates is not mitigation within
the context of the requested action, but rather asking them to change
their requested activity.
Comment 6: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS' proposed rule ``green-
lights dangerous levels of harm, including population-level harm, to
marine mammals in the face of both increased scientific certainty
related to the sensitivity of marine mammals to Navy sonar and
increased scientific concern regarding the population-level, long-term,
and ecosystem effects of Navy sonar on marine mammal species.''
NRDC et al. also comment that Navy training activities would
subject relatively na[iuml]ve marine mammal species to sonar and
explosives effects. Beaked whales are provided as an example of species
that may be particularly at risk, and NRDC et al. references well-
documented beaked whale stranding events in their assertion that beaked
whales may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of active sonar.
NRDC et al. and other commenters also expressed concern with the
potential for overlap between Navy activities within the GOA
[[Page 19555]]
TMAA and important feeding areas for endangered North Pacific right
whale and migratory and feeding areas for gray whale.
Response: The Navy has been conducting largely the same training
activities using the same type of equipment in the GOA TMAA Study Area
for over a decade, and has been authorized to use sonar in training
events in the Study Area since 2011, without any evidence of harm to
marine species as a result of those activities. The activities will
occur over the course of no more than 21 days per year. No mortality is
anticipated or authorized and only a small number (4) of level A
Harassment takes (PTS) are authorized for one species (Dall's
porpoise). As described in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and this final rule, the
overwhelming majority of takes predicted for all species are expected
to be short-term behavioral responses to relatively short-term
activities (Level B harassment). The takes authorized by this rule are
less than (i.e., reduced by half with Alternative 1) what was
previously authorized for the same training activities that have been
occurring for years in the Study Area, and are far less than what is
authorized in other Navy training and testing areas (e.g., AFTT, HSTT,
NWTT). In particular, see Section 3.8.5 (Summary of Observations During
Previous Navy Activities) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and the ``Long Term
Consequences'' section of this rule regarding the likely long-term
consequences from those activities.
NMFS notes that legislative history suggests that Congress intended
that Level B harassment be limited to behavioral disturbances that have
``demographic consequences to reproduction or survivability of the
species.'' H.R. Conf. Rep. 108-354 (2003), 108th Cong., 1st Sess.,
reprinted in 2004 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1407, 1447. However, no methodology
currently exists that would allow the Navy to estimate each type of
potential response to sonar, predict any long-term consequences for the
affected mammals, and limit its take request to only the most severe
responses that would have demographic consequences to reproduction or
survivability of the species. Therefore, as described in the ``Analysis
and Negligible Impact Determination'' section of this rule, the Navy's
take estimates capture a wider range of less significant effects. NMFS
considers the available scientific evidence to determine the likely
nature of the modeled behavioral responses and the potential fitness
consequences for affected individuals in evaluating whether the
proposed activities will have a negligible impact on the affected
marine mammal species or stocks. As analyzed in the ``Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination'' section of this final rule, the
majority of the authorized Level B harassment takes are expected to be
in the form of milder responses (i.e., lower-level exposures that still
rise to the level of take, but would be less severe in the ranges of
responses that qualify as a take), and are not expected to have
deleterious impacts on the fitness of any individuals or long-term
consequences to populations of marine mammals.
Effects on marine mammals will be minimized through the Navy's
implementation of the following mitigation measures (among others): (1)
The use of lookouts to monitor for marine mammals and begin powerdown
and shutdown of sonar when marine mammals are detected within ranges
where the received sound level is likely to result in PTS or other
injury; (2) the use of mitigation zones that avoid exposing marine
mammals to levels of explosives likely to result in injury or death of
marine mammals; (3) vessel maneuvering protocols; and (4) operational
restrictions in a North Pacific right whale Cautionary Area. NMFS and
the Navy have also worked to develop a robust monitoring plan to
improve our understanding of the environmental effects resulting from
the use of active sonar and underwater explosives. Additionally, the
final rule includes an adaptive management component that allows for
timely modification of mitigation or monitoring measures based on new
information, when appropriate.
Given the number of commercial and private vessels using sonar for
fishing, navigation, and research in the Gulf of Alaska and the Navy's
authorized use of sonar in training events since 2011, it is unlikely
that there are ``marine mammal populations in the Gulf of Alaska that
are na[iuml]ve to an acoustic stressor,'' especially in the Navy's
historically used GOA TMAA.
The facts regarding the beaked whales found stranded in 2004 were
presented in the 2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS and are also presented in the
referenced technical report accompanying the FSEIS/OEIS. In 2004,
between June 27 and July 19, five beaked whales were discovered
stranded at various locations along 1,600 mi (2,625 km) of the Alaskan
coastline and one was found floating (dead) at sea. Sonar training
events had not been part of an exercise which took place in that
general timeframe in the TMAA and there are no Navy vessels stationed
in Alaska or otherwise using those waters for training purposes. Beaked
whale strandings do occur routinely in Alaska waters and NMFS did not
consider these strandings unusual or otherwise declare them to be a
UME.
Regarding the presence of North Pacific right whale and gray whale
and associated biologically important habitat adjacent to, and within,
the GOA TMAA, please refer to the ``Consideration of Time/Area
Limitations'' section of this rule for a complete discussion and
evaluation of the spatio-temporal overlap of Navy activities and
important feeding and migratory areas for these species. NMFS'
consideration of additional mitigation (time/area closures) in these
areas is also discussed in that section, and later in the ``Response to
Comments'' section. To summarize, NMFS is requiring a North Pacific
right whale ``Cautionary Area'' between June and September in the
overlapping 2,051 km\2\ portion of the North Pacific right whale
feeding area, in which no hull-mounted sonar or explosives would be
used within the portion of the feeding area that overlaps the Navy's
GOA TMAA during those months, except when required by national security
needs. In the event of national security needs, the Navy would be
required to seek approval in advance from the Commander, U.S. Third
Fleet prior to conducting training activities using sonar or
explosives. NMFS believes that implementation of this North Pacific
Right Whale Cautionary Area within the GOA TMAA may provide additional
protection of this species and stock beyond the mitigation measures
already proposed by the Navy. In the case of the gray whale migratory
area, given the extremely minimal geographic and temporal overlap with
Navy training activities in the GOA TMAA, coupled with the fact that no
takes of gray whale are predicted to occur with the proposed level of
training effort, NMFS has determined that additional mitigation
measures related to time/area limitations of Navy training activities
within the overlapping portion of the migratory area would not
contribute to any lessening of the likelihood of adverse impacts on the
species or stocks or their habitat, and are therefore not warranted in
the context of the least practicable impact standard.
Marine Mammal Density Estimates
Comment 7: The Commission recommended that if the Navy requests
authorization to conduct training activities from April to October,
then it include the appropriate environmental parameters in its
acoustic modeling based on those months rather than
[[Page 19556]]
assuming the activities would occur only during July.
Response: The factor having the most effect on the modeling is
marine mammal density. Detailed information on the Navy's selection
protocol, datasets, and specific density values, is presented in
Section 3.8.2.5 (Marine Mammal Density Estimates) in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
and the Pacific Navy Marine Species Density Database GOA Technical
Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014). In some cases, use of
multiple surveys may provide the best density estimates. For example,
data from Rone et al. (2009), consisting of an April 2009 marine mammal
survey conducted by NMFS in the Study Area, was one data source.
Another NMFS survey was conducted from June to July 2013 (Rone et al.,
2014) and was also incorporated. Data from both surveys were used to
derive marine mammal densities and vetted through NMFS subject matter
experts. As noted in the Technical Report, density estimates used in
the modeling were more heavily influenced by the 2013 survey, where
greater effort was conducted over a better representative stratified
area (Rone et al., 2014). More sightings of more species were obtained
in the June-July 2013 survey verses the April 2009 survey. NMFS or
other academic agencies have not done extensive surveys within the
Study Area at other times of the year and monthly or sub-season
sighting data are not available for the entire suite of marine mammal
species potentially present. The data provided for GOA modeling are the
best available density estimates and sufficiently representative for
the summer period.
Because the proposed training (Northern Edge) has historically
occurred in the May to July timeframe, the proposed training in the GOA
TMAA is different from other Navy range complexes such as the Northwest
Training and Testing Range Complex, where there is year-round unit
level training. Therefore, a seasonal analysis is called for in
modeling activities in the GOA TMAA; modeling for GOA was not done for
year-round continuous activity because the Navy's training activities
do not occur year-round in the GOA TMAA. To provide for future
flexibility if needed, the GOA FSEIS/OEIS indicated that the proposed
activities could occur during the summer months (April-October);
however, they are most likely to occur in the May-July timeframe.
Overall, any monthly differences in marine mammal densities from July
to October is likely to be very similar to the July data used for
density derivation in the GOA analysis. Five years (2011-2015) of year-
round Navy funded passive acoustic monitoring in GOA found higher
likelihood for more species, including ESA listed marine mammals, in
mid-summer to late summer (July-October) as compared to early summer
(May-June). Therefore, the current density estimates used for the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS are equivalent for species abundance in the July to October
timeframe, and likely over predictive for the more probably time in
which an actual Northern Edge exercise would be expected to occur (May-
July).
The use of these densities is scientifically valid, representative
of expected densities for all species over the proposed date range, and
based on the best available science. Monthly seasonal densities are not
available for the Study Area, and even if they were, they would not
likely change any of the conclusions in the FSEIS/OEIS or this final
rule.
Comment 8: The Commission stated that it was unsure how the Navy
determined that extrapolated densities better represent expected
densities than densities from relevant environmental suitability (RES)
models in the absence of density data. The Commission recommended that
NMFS require the Navy to (1) account for uncertainty in extrapolated
density estimates for all species by using the upper limit of the 95
percent confidence interval or the arithmetic mean plus two standard
deviations and (2) then re-estimate the numbers of takes accordingly.
Response: The Navy coordinated with scientists at the Northwest
Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) and the National Marine Mammal
Laboratory (NMML) to help identify the best available density estimates
for marine mammals occurring in the Study Area. As the commenter points
out, there is uncertainty in estimating marine mammal densities, and
for some species very little data are available. See the previous
comment response for an explanation of why the density data collected
in July (Rone et al., 2014) is scientifically valid, representative of
expected densities for all species over the proposed date range, and
based on the best available science.
Using the mean value to estimate densities is a reasonable and
scientifically acceptable approach. While the mean may underestimate a
species' density, by definition, it is equally probable that it could
overestimate a species' density. The mean density estimate is the best
value to use as input into the Navy's acoustic effects model to
minimize the influence of uncertainty inherent in the science. Also,
the future application of this survey data as representative for year-
round densities has no bearing on the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, because the
proposed action does not occur year-round. Furthermore, the use of the
mean density estimate is consistent with the approach taken by NMFS to
estimate and report the populations of marine mammals in NMFS' Stock
Assessment Reports. For these reasons, the mean density estimate is
thus considered the ``best available data.''
Using the upper limit of the 95 percent confidence interval or
adjusting the mean estimates as suggested would result in unreasonable
and unrealistic estimates of species densities, particularly given the
very high coefficients of variation (CVs) associated with most marine
mammal density estimates. A confidence interval is only meant to be an
indication of the uncertainty associated with a point estimate, and
should not be used to derive any absolute number within the confidence
interval. Using the upper limit of the range as an input would do
nothing to decrease the level of uncertainty. Implementing the
recommendation would result in an unrepresentative overestimate of the
expected effects (takes) from the proposed action. Further, as detailed
in Section 3.8.3.1.6.3 (Navy Acoustic Effects Model) of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS, the Navy's acoustic model already includes conservative
assumptions (e.g., assumes that the animals do not move horizontally,
assumes they are always head-on to the sound source so that they
receive the maximum amount of energy, etc.), resulting in a more
conservative (i.e., greater) assessment of potential impacts.
Comment 9: The Commission commented that the Rone et al. (2014)
data used by the Navy to estimate densities of northern fur seals
likely under-represent densities for the summer timeframe in which
training activities are likely to occur. The Commission believes that
the densities would be underestimated even if the Navy incorporated the
CVs from the Rone et al. (2014) data.
Response: The Navy consulted with scientists from the NWFSC and
NMML to help identify the best available density estimates for marine
mammals occurring in the Study Area. The timeframe for when the
activities have historically occurred, and for when they would be
expected to occur predominantly over the course of the rule, are well
represented by the June to July timeframe. Data collected from Rone et
al. (2014) in the summer of 2014 resulting in 69 on-effort northern fur
seal sightings (74 individuals) in the
[[Page 19557]]
Study Area is representative of the presence of northern fur seals in
the Study Area. The Rone et al. (2014) survey occurred in approximately
the same month when previous Navy training events have occurred and are
most likely to occur in the future. The Rone et al. (2014) data is
therefore the most representative for use in the assessment of impacts.
As noted in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, tagging data presented by Ream et al.
(2005) indicate the main foraging areas and the main migration route
through the Gulf of Alaska are located far to the west of the Study
Area, so the movement of animals involving the larger expanse of the
Gulf of Alaska at other times of the year and outside the Study Area
are not relevant.
Further, we note that although modeled take estimates are our best
attempt at quantifying the impacts of the proposed action, they do not
represent the entirety of our analysis. For the Gulf of Alaska
specifically, we have described elsewhere the context and nature of the
anticipated impacts on marine mammals, which are expected to be of
short duration and a comparatively small degree--meaning that a small
number of additional Level B harassment takes would not be expected to
change our assessment of the effects on the population.
Comment 10: The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy
to (1) revise its Steller sea lion abundance estimate to include
updated abundance data from Allen and Angliss (2015) (the Navy used
abundance data from Allen and Angliss (2009) to estimate Steller sea
lion densities) and consult with scientists at NMML regarding
unpublished data to revise its Steller sea lion densities, and (2)
revise its northern elephant seal abundance estimate to include both
updated abundance data from Allen and Angliss (2015) and data for
female elephant seals and incorporate data from Robinson et al. (2012)
into its estimates of northern elephant seal densities.
Response: We note, first, that Allen and Angliss (2015) was
published approximately a year after GOA densities were derived and
modeled for the GOA SEIS/OEIS. Prior to that, the Navy coordinated with
scientists at NMML to help identify the best available density
estimates for marine mammals occurring in the Study Area at the
beginning of the density derivation process. For Steller sea lions,
rookeries on both sides of the 144 [deg]W longitude line dividing the
two stocks (DPSs) were used in the estimate of density, with Allen and
Angliss (2009) and associated references consulted. The abundance
increase in the Stock Assessment Report (Allen and Angliss, 2015) is a
trend characterizing the 12-year period between 2000 and 2012. The most
recent Alaska Stock Assessment Report (Muto et al., 2016, which cites
Johnson and Fritz 2014, Fritz et al., 2015) continued the trend
analysis to 2014. While Muto et al. (2016) and associated references
allude to a small percent increase in some regional Steller sea lion
abundances after the date range used by the Navy for GOA densities, the
increases are relatively small and also subject to variation by region.
Furthermore, given the way modeling occurs in NAEMO, slight increases
to density for a species do not always lead to corresponding linear
increase in modeled takes because there are other statistical factors
of the model as well (see Navy's Acoustic Effects 2015 Technical
Report).
As currently modeled, the estimated takes of the two DPSs of
Steller sea lions are relatively small compared to estimated takes for
other species under Alternative 1 (i.e., a total of 621 takes for the
two Steller sea lion DPSs). The potential addition of a small number of
additional Level B harassment takes based on small density changes
would not be significant. Modeled take estimates are our best attempt
at quantifying the impacts of the proposed action, but they do not
represent the entirety of our analysis. For the Gulf of Alaska
specifically, we have described elsewhere the context and nature of the
anticipated impacts on marine mammals, which are expected to be of
short duration and a comparatively small degree--meaning that a small
number of additional Level B harassment takes would not be expected to
change our assessment of the effects on the population.
For elephant seals, the text presented in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS does
not indicate absolute geographic presence or absence of elephant seals,
but is presented as a generalization based on findings presented in the
three references cited (Le Boeuf et al., 2000; Stewart and DeLong,
1995; and Stewart and Huber, 1993). Tag data from Robinson et al.
(2012) was considered in the analysis and clearly shows that the
females mostly range east to about 173 [deg]W, between the latitudes of
40 [deg]N and 45 [deg]N, consistent with the presentation in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS. The kernel density distribution presented by Robinson et
al. (2012) confirms most of the tagged elephant seals foraged outside
of the Study Area. Furthermore, Robinson et al. (2012) provides density
only in relative terms of high or low, and not with the statistical
calculations needed to derive exact at-sea densities as required by
NMFS. By and large, the presence of elephant seals in the Study Area
would likely be limited and transitory. The derived density of elephant
seals in the Study Area as explained in the Navy's density technical
report therefore remains a conservative over-estimate for purposes of
acoustic effect modeling.
Criteria and Thresholds
Comment 11: The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy
to update Finneran and Jenkins (2012) to include the appropriate
justification for its use of the 6-dB extrapolation factor between
explosive and acoustic sources; use 151 dB rather than 152 dB re 1
[mu]Pa2-sec as the TTS threshold for high-frequency cetaceans exposed
to acoustic sources; use 145 dB rather than 146 dB re 1 [mu]Pa2-sec as
the TTS threshold for high-frequency cetaceans for explosive sources;
and based on these changes to the TTS thresholds, adjust the PTS
thresholds for high-frequency cetaceans by increasing the amended TTS
threshold by 20 dB for acoustic sources and 15 dB for explosive
sources, and adjust the behavioral thresholds by decreasing the amended
TTS thresholds by 5 dB for explosive sources.
Response: NMFS participated in the development of the acoustic
thresholds used in the FSEIS/OEIS. As detailed in Finneran and Jenkins
(2012), the thresholds presented in the FSEIS/OEIS incorporate new
findings since the publication of Southall et al. (2007) and the
evolution of scientific understanding since that time. Dr. Finneran was
one of the authors for Southall et al. (2007) and, as such, is familiar
with the older conclusions present in the 2007 publication and
therefore was able to integrate that knowledge into the development of
the refined approach that was presented in Finneran and Jenkins (2012)
and based on evolving science since 2007. Details regarding the process
are provided in Section 3.8.3.1.6 (Quantitative Analysis) of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS. Also, see the summary of the thresholds used in the
analysis as presented in Section 3.8.3.1.4 (Thresholds and Criteria for
Predicting Acoustic and Explosive Impacts on Marine Mammals).
Briefly, the original experimental data is weighted using the
prescribed weighting function to determine the numerical threshold
value. The Commission did not consider the appropriate weighting
schemes when comparing thresholds presented in Southall et al. (2007)
and those presented in Finneran and Jenkins (2012). TTS thresholds
presented in
[[Page 19558]]
Finneran and Jenkins (2012) are appropriate when the applicable
weighting function (Type II) is applied to the original TTS data; TTS
thresholds in Southall et al. (2007) were based on M-weighting. For
example, while it is true that there is an unweighted 12-dB difference
for onset-TTS between beluga watergun (Finneran et al., 2002) and tonal
exposures (Schlundt et al., 2000), the difference after weighting with
the Type II MF-cet weighting function (from Finneran and Jenkins, 2012)
is 6 dB. The Commission has confused (a) the 6 dB difference in PTS and
TTS thresholds based on peak pressure described in Southall et al.,
2007 with (b) the difference between impulsive and non-impulsive
thresholds in Finneran and Jenkins (2012), which is coincidentally 6
dB. In summary, the values derived for impulsive and non-impulsive TTS
and for determining PTS and impulsive behavior thresholds from TTS
thresholds are correct based on the data presented.
More importantly, the Navy and NMFS have continued to revise
acoustic thresholds based on emergent research. In August 2016, NOAA
released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing, which established new
thresholds for predicting auditory injury (i.e., PTS). In developing
the new Guidance, NMFS compiled, interpreted, and synthesized
scientific information currently available on the effects of
anthropogenic sound on marine mammals, including a recent Technical
Report by Dr. James Finneran (U.S. Navy-SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific)
that proposed new weighting functions and thresholds for predicting the
onset of both PTS and TTS in marine mammals (Finneran, 2016). The
methodologies presented within this paper build upon the methodologies
used to develop the criteria applied within the proposed rule and
Navy's GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012), and incorporate
relevant auditory research made available since 2012 (e.g., Kastelein
et al., 2012a; Kastelein et al., 2012b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2013;
Kastelein et al., 2013a; Kastelein et al., 2013b; Popov et al., 2013;
Kastelein et al., 2014a; Kastelein et al., 2014b; Popov et al., 2014;
Finneran et al., 2015; Kastelein et al., 2015a; Kastelein et al.,
2015b; Popov et al., 2015). In light of limited data at the time,
Finneran and Jenkins (2012) presented a conservative approach to
development of auditory weighting functions. In 2016, with the benefit
of newly-available data, Finneran was able to synthesize a wide range
of auditory data, including newly-available studies, to predict refined
auditory weighting functions and corresponding TTS thresholds across
the complete hearing ranges of functional hearing groups.
The specific recommendations made by the Commission in its comments
on the proposed rule were overcome by events when Finneran (2016) was
published and adopted by NMFS in its new Guidance. All the methods used
for synthesizing and interpreting new data sets into thresholds data
were shared with the public and all comments were addressed prior to
finalizing the Guidance. NMFS' new Guidance uses 153 dB for TTS for HF
species from non-impulsive sources (1 dB less conservative than
Finneran (2012) and 2 dB less conservative than the Commission
recommended) and uses 140 dB for TTS for HF species from impulsive
sources (6 dB more conservative than Finneran (2012) and 5 dB more
conservative than the Commission recommends). Further, as recommended,
20 dB was added to the TTS value to get the PTS value for the non-
impulsive sources, and 15 dB was added for the explosive source
threshold.
At the time of the release of the proposed rule and GOA FSEIS/OEIS,
NMFS' final Guidance had not been issued. Further, the new criteria
were not available for the Navy's acoustic effects modeling used to
calculate distances to harassment thresholds and resulting take
estimates. Therefore, the Navy did not use the new auditory weighting
functions and PTS/TTS criteria in its GOA FSEIS/OEIS. However, the
underlying science contained within Finneran (2016) has been addressed
qualitatively within the applicable sections of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and
this final rulemaking. Further, although the writers of the base code
for the model used for Phase II were not available to recode the model
with the updated impulsive criteria in terms of weighting functions,
the Navy was able to use the model to reprocess anticipated explosive
ranges to effects for PTS based on the criteria presented in the new
Guidance, from which TTS and behavioral exposures could be estimated,
to assess if the new criteria could result in any additional species-
specific injury exposures. For more information on this analysis, see
the ``Summary of Request'' section in this final rule.
Comment 12: NRDC et al. commented that the Navy and NMFS failed to
set proper thresholds for threshold shift and injury. They assert the
following as reasons, referencing several articles, for their belief
that the thresholds are improper: First, NMFS' direct extrapolation of
data from bottlenose dolphins and belugas to low-frequency cetaceans is
not justifiable and insufficiently conservative. Second, NMFS makes no
attempt to account for the potential bias in Space and Naval Warfare
Systems Command's (SPAWAR) bottlenose dolphin data, particularly the
age of the subjects used in these influential studies and their
situation for years within a noisy bay. Third, NMFS' weighting curve
for high-frequency cetaceans is not sufficiently conservative in light
of ongoing studies, as by Ron Kastelein. Fourth, NMFS' analysis fails
to incorporate empirical data on both humans and marine mammals
indicating that PTS can occur at levels previously thought to cause
temporary threshold shift only.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The criteria and thresholds for
determining potential effects on marine species used in the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS, the LOA application, and the proposed rule were developed based
on best available science. See the cited Finneran and Jenkins (2012;
Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects
Analysis Technical Report), which can be found at https://www.goaeis.com. Moreover, as described previously, the thresholds
outlined in Finneran and Jenkins (2012) (and used in the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS) were updated with new data in Finneran (2016), which was adopted
by NMFS for use in its new Guidance, following an opportunity for
public comment in which NMFS addressed all comments on data and methods
(including points that are raised here, such as the reference to Wright
(2015)).
As described in the ``Summary of Request'' section of this rule,
NMFS and the Navy assessed the training activities in the GOA TMAA in
the context of the new Guidance and all of the associated new data that
support it (see previous comment response) and made changes to the take
estimates where appropriate. As described, although most thresholds
changed a little in one direction or the other (including going down
for LF and HF species by 4 and 6 dB, respectively, for explosives), and
the weighting functions for all taxa changed, when considered together
and in the context of the proposed activities, the changes in the take
estimates were relatively small (increasing takes only for Dall's
porpoise, by 3 Level A and 149 Level B harassments). In short, much of
this comment has been overcome by events, but nonetheless, we address
some of the details below. Although the commenter is not specifically
commenting on it
[[Page 19559]]
here, we note that some similar issues were raised in the context of
the new 2016 Acoustic Guidance, and NMFS responded to those concerns in
our Federal Register notice announcing the finalization of the Guidance
(81 FR 51693; August 4, 2016; https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/04/2016-18462/technical-guidance-for-assessing-the-effects-of-anthropogenic-sound-on-marine-mammal).
Regarding the commenters' first point, NMFS disagrees that the
thresholds are unjustified and insufficiently conservative. The
discussion presented in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.2.3.3 (Low-
Frequency Cetaceans) and Section 3.8.3.1.11 (Frequency Weighting)
describes the derivation of the thresholds and criteria for low
frequency cetaceans that were used in take calculations in the proposed
rule. Specifically, it was the low- and high-frequency cetacean
weighting functions (see Southall et al., 2007) that were extrapolated
from the dolphin data because of the suspected similarities of greatest
susceptibility at best frequencies of hearing consistent with the best
available science. The Navy used experimentally derived mid-frequency
cetacean thresholds to assess PTS and TTS for low-frequency cetaceans,
since mid-frequency cetaceans are the most similar to the low frequency
group (see Southall et al., 2007; Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). Although
the mid-frequency criteria and thresholds are applied to low frequency
cetaceans, exposures and threshold sound exposure levels are weighted
using the low frequency cetacean weighting function rather than the
mid-frequency, which provides higher susceptibility to low frequency
sound, consistent with their inferred frequencies of best hearing. Data
for low frequency cetaceans considered in the analysis also includes
that from Ketten (2014) for blue whales and minke whales, Ketten and
Mountain (2014) for humpback whales, and Cranford and Krysl (2015) for
fin whales. Observed vocalization frequencies, observed reactions to
playback of sounds, anatomical analyses of the auditory system
(Cranford and Krysl, 2015; Houser et al., 2001; Ketten, 2014; Ketten
and Mountain, 2014; Parks et al., 2007), and a general understanding of
mammalian hearing are the reasons and science behind why the
methodology in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and the proposed rule is justifiable.
NMFS disagrees that the approach was not conservative given that low
frequency cetaceans do not echolocate and that the physiology of
mysticetes indicates a lack of sensitivity to high frequency sound.
NMFS disagrees with the commenters' second point, as the data used
in the Navy's and NMFS' analyses included many animals and species at
multiple experimental facilities around the world as well as auditory
measurements on wild animals that had stranded, in addition to
anatomical analyses of the auditory system of mysticetes (Cranford and
Krysl, 2015; Houser et al., 2001; Ketten, 2014; Ketten and Mountain,
2014; Parks et al., 2007). Direct measurement of hearing sensitivity
exists for approximately 25 species of marine mammals, including the
following cetacean species: Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Houser et
al., 2010a), common dolphins (Houser, Dankiewicz-Talmadge et al.,
2010), Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Johnson, 1967), Indo-Pacific
bottlenose dolphins (Houseret et al., 2010a), Black Sea bottlenose
dolphins (Popov et al., 2007), striped dolphins (Kastelein et al.,
2003), white-beaked dolphins (Nachtigall et al., 2008), Risso's
dolphins (Nachtigall et al., 2005), belugas (Finneran et al., 2005;
White et al., 1977), long-finned pilot whales (Pacini et al., 2010),
false killer whales (Yuen et al., 2005), killer whales (Szymanski et
al., 1999), Gervais' beaked whales (Finneran et al., 2009), and
Blainville's beaked whales (Pacini et al., 2011).
Regarding the commenters' third point, the most recent publications
by Dr. Kastelein are cited and were considered in the analysis
presented in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (see Kastelein et al., 2014a, 2014b,
2015). In reference to the most recent publication involving non-pulse
sources (sonar) from Kastelein et al. (2015), the authors found that
the threshold shift criteria proposed by Southall et al. (2007) for
cetaceans echolocating at high frequency (SEL 215 dB re 1 lPa2s) was
too high for the harbor porpoise when considering high duty cycle
sonars. Kastelein et al. (2015) documented fatiguing sounds at duty
cycles of 10 percent (one sonar ping every 10 seconds) and 100 percent
(one ping immediately followed by another). The high duty cycle sonar
used in Kastelein's study were a different frequency (6-7 kHz) and
produce sound at a higher rate than the Navy's hull-mounted mid-
frequency anti-submarine sonar, which nominally produces one ping every
45 seconds. Therefore, the Kastelein (2015) study and its findings do
not relate to the Navy's proposed action or the sonar sources proposed
for use in the GOA TMAA Study Area.
Additionally, TTS represents a physiological metric for a
behavioral reaction and an exposure resulting in TTS has been and is
considered an MMPA Level B harassment take. As presented in Section
3.8.3.1.5 (Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources, Subsection Harbor
Porpoises) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the Navy and NMFS are aware of the
sensitivity of harbor porpoises and have established a sound pressure
level of 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa as a threshold for predicting behavioral
responses in harbor porpoises and Level B harassment takes pursuant to
the MMPA.
The reference to Tougaard et al. (2014) cited by the commenters has
been considered in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. The point raised in that
reference was that the Southall et al. (2007) weighting functions need
updating given there have been new studies that have since become
available. The Navy's analysis is in fact based on an update to
Southall et al. (2007) as detailed in Finneran and Jenkins (2012). In
the opinion of the authors, the net result from revisions to the
weighting functions like that used by the Navy (Finneran and Jenkins,
2012) is that they are not guaranteed to be conservative enough
specifically with regard to sound sources such as pile driving, ``seal
scarers,'' and high-frequency pingers. With the exception of high
frequency pingers, these sources are not part of the Navy's proposed
action. As detailed in Section 3.8.3.1.2.3 (Hearing Loss; see reference
to Finneran (2015)) in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the Navy and NMFS are in the
process of reviewing the latest and best available science to further
refine future acoustic analyses using weighting functions.
Regarding the commenters' fourth point, NMFS and the Navy have
incorporated empirical data on humans (see the GOA FSEIS/OEIS citations
to Ward et al., 1958, 1959a, b; and Miller et al., 1963).
With regard to the references cited by the commenters: Kastak et
al. (2008) reported PTS in a harbor seal after an exposure of 202 dB
SEL at 4.1 kHz. This exposure level is 5 dB above the PTS onset
criteria used by the Navy in its Phase II modeling, and thus the Navy
would have predicted PTS for this exposure. The Kastak et al. (2008)
data are therefore consistent with the criteria and thresholds used by
the Navy (as described in the FSEIS/OEIS). Kujawa and Liberman (2009)
reported TTS in mice of 40 dB measured 24 hours after exposure.
Thresholds were found to recover completely (thus there was no PTS) but
other signs of auditory damage were found, such as neural degeneration
and a decrease in suprathreshold evoked response amplitudes. A similar
study by Lin et al. (2011) with guinea
[[Page 19560]]
pigs found similar results after TTS of greater than 50 dB measured 24
hours after exposure. Since no lower level exposures were utilized, it
is not known if the suite of auditory damage observed by Kujawa and
Liberman (2009) and Lin et al. (2011) would have occurred with lesser
exposures. The Navy's analyses assumed PTS (and thus injury) would
occur after exposures producing TTS of 40 dB or more measured
approximately 4 minutes after exposure. Therefore, the exposures used
by Kujawa and Liberman (2009) and Lin et al. (2011) would have been
considered injurious by the Navy criteria. Therefore, both the Kastak
et al. (2008) and Kujawa and Liberman (2009) studies are consistent
with the Navy's use of TTS of 40 dB, measured approximately 4 minutes
after exposure, as an indicator for auditory injury.
Comment 13: NRDC et al. provided several comments, which were
originally set forth in a detailed critique by Dr. David Bain, that
were critical of the acoustic risk function used by the Navy and NMFS
to estimate the probability of behavioral effects that NMFS would
classify as harassment. The commenters assert that these risk functions
are flawed and underestimate take.
Response: Dr. Bain's critique is not directly relevant to the
proposed action in the GOA TMAA Study Area. It is in reference to older
Navy EISs (2007 Hawaii Range Complex (HRC) Navy DEIS/OEIS; 2006
Undersea Warfare Training Range (USWTR) DEIS/OEIS) that analyze
different actions in another geographic location, and is no longer
current as the science has evolved over the last nine years. The
criteria and thresholds for determining potential effects on marine
species used in the Navy's GOA FSEIS/OEIS and related consultation
documents have been appropriately revised based on the best available
science since the 2006 and 2007 Draft EISs, which Dr. Bain reviewed
(see Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). Dr. Bain's critique is therefore
dated and not directly relevant to the proposed rule or the Navy's
analysis for the GOA TMAA Study Area as presented in the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS. Please also note that all comments from Dr. Bain's critique were
previously responded to in the 2009 Hawaii Range Complex FEIS/OEIS and
in more recent Navy FEIS/OEISs. Particular aspects of Dr. Bain's
critique highlighted by the commenters are discussed in Comments and
Responses 14 through 18.
Comment 14: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS and the Navy rely on
studies of temporary threshold shift in captive animals for one of
their primary sources of data for the development of behavioral
thresholds.
Response: As described in the FSEIS/OEIS section 3.8.3.1.5, the
captive behavioral data gathered while conducting TTS studies is one of
three data sources used to inform the behavioral response function
generated to predict takes by Level B harassment--the other two studies
are based on observations in the wild of killer whales and North
Atlantic right whales. In order to generate a quantitative curve to
predict behavioral responses, very specific information is needed
regarding what levels of sound were received that are associated with
the specific behavioral changes observed. While not appropriate to use
to the exclusion of wild data, captive studies provide valuable insight
into behavioral response and support the types of precise acoustic
measurements that are necessary for generating behavioral response
functions. Comparatively few field studies documenting marine mammal
responses to MFAS include the specificity of data needed to
appropriately inform a quantitative curve. Some field studies with
informative results have been conducted subsequent to the generation of
the behavioral response function used here to estimate take, and these
studies have been assessed qualitatively in our analysis and NMFS and
Navy have determined that the behavioral response curve used here still
represents a reasonable mechanism for estimating behavioral responses
that rise to the level of take given the body of science available at
this time.
Comment 15: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS and the Navy appear to
have misused data garnered from the Haro Strait incident by including
only those levels of sound received by the ``J'' pod of killer whales
when the USS Shoup was at its closest approach. They further request
the Navy's propagation analysis for the Haro Strait event.
Response: Details of the analysis of the Haro Strait event were
presented in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.2.6 (Behavioral
Reactions to Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources; Subsection
Odontocetes). The propagation analysis is available from the Navy upon
request. The Navy and NMFS reviewed testimony, video, and all field
notes from the time of the event, and have accurately used that
documented data in the analysis for the GOA activities and the Navy
addressed this identical comment in more detail in its response to
comments on the Hawaii Range Complex in 2007. That data clearly
indicated that the behaviors observed were within the species' normal
range of behaviors and there were no immediate or general overt
negative behavioral reactions observed at the time of the exposure.
Furthermore, the presence of numerous small motor vessels maneuvering
in close proximity to the orca further complicated the assessment of
possible reactions related to sonar from a vessel and, specifically,
the agencies determined that it was most appropriate to use the
received levels at the closest approach of the USS Shoup because the
effects when the whales were farther from the Shoup could not be
deconflicted from the effects of the nearby whale-watching boats.
Comment 16: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS and the Navy exclude a
substantial body of controlled exposure research and opportunistic
studies on wild animals (and some research on other experimental
animals as well, within a behavioral experimental protocol). For
example, NMFS and the Navy fail to include data from the July 2004
Hanalei Bay event, in which 150-200 melon-headed whales were embayed
for more than 24 hours during the Navy's Rim of the Pacific exercise.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The studies cited by the commenters are
cited in the proposed rule and in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and were fully
considered in the analysis. Section 3.4 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS contains
citations to additional controlled exposure research on wild animals
including, for example, DeRuiter et al. (2013a, b), Defence Science and
Technology Laboratory (2007); Claridge and Durban (2009); McCarthy et
al. (2011); Melcon et al., 2012); Miller et al. (2011, 2012); Moretti
et al. (2009); Southhall et al. (2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014);
Stimpert et al. (2014); and Tyack et al. (2011). As noted previously,
not all studies contain the level of detailed data to be quantitatively
incorporated into a behavioral response curve, and some of these
studies occurred after the Navy began its modeling. However, all of the
referenced studies have been considered qualitatively in the agency's
analyses and our impact analyses and determinations are supported by
the body of science on this topic.
Regarding the Hanalei Bay event, NMFS included an extensive
analysis of this event in the ``Stranding and Mortality'' section of
the proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 9970-76; February 26, 2016). Please see
that section for further information regarding NMFS' assessment and
consideration of that event. It should be noted that NMFS considered
active sonar transmissions a plausible, if not likely, contributing
[[Page 19561]]
factor in the Hanalei stranding in what may have been a ``confluence of
events,'' including a unique interaction of biological and physical
factor--most of which are not expected to occur in the Study Area or
during GOA activities. The biological factors may have included the
presence of an apparently uncommon, deep-diving cetacean species (and
possibly an offshore, non-resident group), social interactions among
the animals before or after they entered the Bay, and/or unknown
predator or prey conditions. The physical factors may have included the
presence of nearby deep water, multiple vessels transiting in a
directed manner while transmitting active sonar over a sustained
period, the presence of surface sound ducting conditions, and/or
intermittent and random human interactions while the animals were in
the Bay.
Comment 17: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS and the Navy also fail
to incorporate data on harbor porpoises and beaked whales in their
dataset.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenters' assessment. The Navy
and NMFS have used studies on harbor porpoises and beaked whales in the
data sets used for analysis. Please see Section 3.8.3.1.5 (Sonar and
Other Active Acoustic Source) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS where this
information is presented. The analysis includes, for example, data from
both captive and wild harbor porpoises (see Kastelein et al. (2000,
2005b) and Johnston (2002)) and behavioral responses from a wild
population of beaked whales as documented by Tyack et al. (2011).
Please also refer to the cited Finneran and Jenkins (2012) for
additional details. Finally, please see the discussions presented in
Section 3.8.3.1.6.4 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Model Assumptions and
Limitations), which describes the numerous conservative assumptions
incorporated into the Navy's model.
Last, in further and more specific quantitative acknowledgement of
the sensitivity of these species, more conservative step functions are
used to evaluate behavioral disturbance (i.e., estimate take) to beaked
whales and harbor porpoises (140 and 120 dB, respectively).
Comment 18: NRDC et al. commented that the risk function should
have taken into account the social ecology of some marine mammal
species.
Response: The Navy and NMFS have taken these factors into account
to the best extent practical given limitations in the model and
available science. Although the state of science is not complete in
terms of group response by species, life stage, or even behavioral
context in which an individual or group experiences an anthropogenic
sound, as detailed in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.6.3 (Navy
Acoustic Effects Model) and the Navy's Determination of Acoustic
Effects Technical Report (Marine Species Modeling Team, 2015), group
size is accounted for in the modeling of acoustic effects, not in the
risk function. The risk function predicts the percentage of the number
of individuals exposed above a given level that will be taken. The
model deals with the distribution of animats (virtual representations
of animals) derived from density, associated group size, and depth
distribution, and, therefore, the model is where group size can be
addressed. Furthermore, just as one could hypothesize a na[iuml]ve
animal on its own could potentially influence the behavior of the whole
group with negative effect (resulting in a group behavioral reaction),
so might an experienced individual influence the behavior of the whole
group with positive effect and calm the pod so there is no reaction
rising to the level of a take in any individual or the pod as a whole.
In summary, the current model process (risk function, modeling) does
the best job of averaging multiple inputs as well as estimating the
most representative take possible.
Comment 19: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS' threshold is applied
in such a way as to preclude any assessment of long-term behavioral
impacts on marine mammals. It does not account, to any degree, for the
problem of repetition: The way that apparently insignificant impacts,
such as subtle changes in dive times or vocalization patterns, can
become significant if experienced repeatedly or over time.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Specifically, NMFS' thresholds are not
designed to analyze long-term impacts or repetition; they are designed
to predict individual acute behavioral responses. Assessments of long-
term impacts are addressed qualitatively in the narrative. This
analysis is presented in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS in Section 3.8.3.1.3 (Long-
Term Consequences to the Individual and the Population) and Section
3.8.4 (Summary of Impacts (Combined Impacts of all Stressors) on Marine
Mammals) where cumulative impacts are addressed, as well as in the
Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of this rule.
Assessment of long-term cumulative impacts to species and stocks is
also represented by the discussion in Section 3.8.5 of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS (Summary of Observations During Previous Navy Activities). Of
note, NMFS finds that the vast majority of impacts expected from sonar
exposure and underwater detonations will be behavioral in nature,
temporary and comparatively short in duration, relatively infrequent,
and specifically not of the type or severity that would be expected to
be additive for the small portion of the stocks and species likely to
be exposed.
This analysis is further corroborated by the healthy, and in some
locations, increasing marine mammal populations, where sonar use has
been occurring for decades and is frequently in use on an annual basis,
such as on instrumented ranges. As noted previously, there is no
evidence that Navy activities have had or are having any long-term
impact on marine mammal populations or stocks. For more information,
see the Long-Term Consequences discussion in the ``Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination'' section of this rule.
Finally, the proposed Navy training activities will occur over a
short period of time (up to 21 days) once a year. Further, with the
change in preferred alternative to Alternative 1, the Navy activities,
and resulting predicted takes, have essentially been reduced by half
and consist of mainly low-level behavioral responses and occasional
occurrences of TTS, with only 4 Level A harassment takes estimated for
one species. As a result, long-term behavioral impacts on marine
mammals within the GOA TMAA during the Northern Edge exercise are
unlikely to occur.
Comment 20: NRDC et al. commented that while NMFS and the Navy have
assigned a specific threshold to beaked whales, in light of Tyack et
al. (2011), it is clear that some beaked whales are taken on exposure
to mid frequency sonar at levels below 140 decibels (SPL).
Response: The Navy and NMFS specifically considered the Tyack et
al. (2011) study, which was cited in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and proposed
rule, and its findings were incorporated into the threshold for beaked
whales (see the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.4.3.1.6 (Behavioral
Reactions)). During Tyack et al.'s (2011) research at the Navy's fixed
tracking range in the Bahamas, animals were observed to leave the
immediate area of the anti-submarine warfare training exercise
(avoiding the sonar acoustic footprint at a distance where the received
level was ``around 140 dB'' SPL. Further, Moretti et al. (2014)
recently derived an empirical risk function for Blainville's beaked
whale that predicts there is a 0.5 probability of disturbance at a
received level of 150 dB SPL, suggesting that in some cases the current
step function may over-estimate
[[Page 19562]]
the effects of an activity using sonar on beaked whales. Therefore,
NMFS has concluded that, based on the best available science, 140 dB re
1[mu]Pa (root mean square) is a conservative and appropriate threshold
for predicting potential behavioral effects on beaked whales from sonar
signals.
Comment 21: NRDC et al. commented that there are additional flaws
in the Navy's acoustic effects modeling, which include: a lack of any
indication that the Navy has accounted for reverberation effects in its
modeling, or that its modeling sufficiently represents areas in which
the risk of reverberation is greatest; and a failure to consider the
possible synergistic effects on marine mammal physiology and behavior
of using multiple acoustic sources in spatial and temporal proximity.
Response: NMFS disagrees. As presented in the Section 3.8.3.1.6.3
(Navy Acoustic Effects Model) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and in the
referenced modeling technical report (Marine Species Modeling Team,
2015), the Navy's acoustic effects modeling incorporates the most up to
date marine mammal density data and oceanographic data for the
quantification of predicted acoustic impacts to marine mammals.
Contrary to the assertions in the comment, the model does account for a
fully three-dimensional environment in calculating sound propagation
and exposures incorporating site-specific bathymetry, sound speed
profiles, wind speed, and bottom properties into the propagation
modeling process. As noted in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the modeling accounts
for all sources within a scenario simultaneously, so this modeling
approach specifically accounts for the combined (additive) effects from
using multiple acoustic sources in spatial and temporal proximity
(i.e., the cumulative SEL is a composite of all sources received by the
animat). Multiple conservative assumptions are incorporated into the
model.
Comment 22: The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy
to provide the predicted average and maximum ranges for all impact
criteria (i.e., behavioral response, TTS, PTS, onset slight lung
injury, onset slight gastrointestinal injury, and onset mortality), for
all activities (i.e., based on the activity category and representative
source bins and including ranges for more than 1 ping), and for all
functional hearing groups of marine mammals within the GOA TMAA.
Response: Ranges to effects for all criteria and functional hearing
groups are provided for representative active sonars and explosives
(Section 3.8.3.3.1.1, Range to Effects) in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. Table 6
in this rule provides updated ranges to PTS and TTS for the major
activity types in the context of the applicable mitigation measures.
Changes for different taxa were described in more detail in the
``Summary of Request'' section of this Notice. See the ``Summary of
Request'' section for further detail.
Generally speaking, for the modeled ranges, the representative
sources include the most powerful active sonar source and the charge
with the largest net explosive weight analyzed. NMFS believes that
these representative sources provide adequate information to analyze
potential effects on marine mammals. Because the Navy conducts training
in a variety of environments having variable acoustic propagation
conditions, variations in acoustic propagation conditions are
considered in the Navy's acoustic modeling and the quantitative
analysis of acoustic impacts. Average ranges to effect are provided in
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS to show the reader typical zones of impact around
representative sources rather than an inclusive list of source bins. As
presented in Chapter 5 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the mitigation is the
same for all bins within the activity category. The presentation of a
maximum range based on a worst case analysis under extreme conditions
would fail to be representative and therefore potentially confuse
readers by presentation of a range to effects that are extremely
unlikely to ever be present in actual real world conditions.
Because the ranges to PTS for acoustic sources are relatively
short, the ranges to PTS presented in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS are
representative of the ranges for purposes of the discussion. In short,
the information provided in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (and updated in Table 6
here) should be considered applicable to the GOA TMAA Study Area. The
approximate maximum ranges to TTS provided in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Table
3.8-12) are also representative of the ranges to effect and are
provided in the FSEIS/OEIS to show the typical zones of impact around
representative sources.
As explained in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS in Section 3.8.3.3.1.1 (Range to
Effects), there is no reason to show a PTS range for more than one ping
because of the short distances over which a PTS has the potential to
occur. For the case of the most powerful hull-mounted source (hull-
mounted mid-frequency anti-submarine warfare sonar) the ship moves
beyond the PTS zone for each successive ping and there is no difference
in magnitude of successive pings. Refer to Section 3.8.3.1.1 (Non-
impulsive and Impulsive Sound Sources) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. Pings
occur approximately every 50 seconds, and each subsequent ping has the
same approximate range to PTS from the bow of the ship as the first
ping. Therefore, there is not sufficient overlapping energy from one
ping to the next to make presentation of multiple pings useful. As
noted in the comment and presented in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, an animal
would have to be exposed at the TTS level by the first ping and then
continue parallel to the ship within close proximity for 50 seconds to
receive a second ping, potentially resulting in a PTS level exposure.
Given the science detailed in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (see Section
3.8.3.1.7, Marine Mammal Avoidance of Sound Exposures) indicating that
marine mammals will behaviorally avoid high levels of sound, the
assumption that a marine mammal would not remain alongside a pinging
vessel is a simple but reasonable assumption. The GOA FSEIS/OEIS and
this final rule conclude that it is unlikely for an animal to maintain
a speed of 10 knots and stay in close proximity to a vessel using
active sonar. As presented in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (see Section
3.8.3.3.1.1, Range to Effects), while 10 knots was the ship's speed
used in the model, a ship engaged in anti-submarine warfare training
could be moving at between 10 and 15 knots. For a Navy vessel moving at
a nominal 10 knots, it is unlikely a marine mammal could maintain the
speed to parallel the ship and receive adequate energy over successive
pings to result in a PTS exposure.
Mitigation and Monitoring
Comment 23: The Commission and other commenters recommended that
NMFS require the Navy to use passive and active acoustics, whenever
practicable, to supplement visual monitoring during the implementation
of its mitigation measures for all activities that could cause PTS,
injury, or mortality beyond those explosive activities for which
passive acoustics already was proposed (commenters also specifically
suggested modifying sonobuoys for this purpose). NRDC et al. also
suggested use of dedicated passive acoustic monitoring to detect
vocalizing species, through established and portable range
instrumentation and the use of hydrophone arrays off instrumented
ranges. The Commission also questioned why passive and active acoustic
monitoring used during the Navy's Surveillance Towed Array Sensory
System Low Frequency Active
[[Page 19563]]
(SURTASS LFA) activities is not applied here.
Response: The primary purpose of the mitigation shutdowns is to
avoid injury, most TTS, and more severe instances of behavioral
disturbance. We note that in the current mitigation paradigm, without
additional PAM or active acoustic detection as recommended by the
Commission and other commenters, only four individual Dall's porpoises
are anticipated to incur PTS, Level B harassment resulting in TTS is
anticipated for a small number of marine mammals from a few species,
and modeling predicts that zero percent of the Level B harassment takes
result from exposure at closer than 1,825 m (less than 1-2 percent at
closer than 4 km), which is where the mitigation shutdowns would apply.
For the reasons described below, when the minimal potential likelihood
of reducing impacts to marine mammal species or stocks and their
habitat is weighed along with the degree of impracticability for
implementing the measures suggested by commenters, NMFS finds that
requiring such additional mitigation is unwarranted.
Passive acoustic monitoring is already and will continue to be
implemented. As mentioned in Chapter 5 (Standard Operating Procedures,
Mitigation, and Monitoring) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and the
``Mitigation'' section of this final rule, passive acoustic monitoring
would be conducted with Navy assets, such as passive ships sonar
systems or sonobuoys, already participating in the activity. The Navy
does not have the resources to construct and maintain passive acoustic
monitoring (PAM) systems for each training and testing activity.
Discussion in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 5.3.3.1.11 (Increasing Visual
and Passive Acoustic Observations) further articulates why increased
use of passive acoustics for the purpose of mitigation would be
impractical with regard to implementation of military readiness
activities and result in an unacceptable impact on readiness.
Additionally, mitigation measures were developed based on predicted
potential impacts; therefore, the use of acoustic monitoring is not
always warranted, nor practicable from an operational standpoint (GOA
FSEIS/OEIS Section 5.3.2.1, Acoustic Stressors). The Navy's visual
mitigation has been demonstrated to be effective over the 8 years of
monitoring associated with Navy training and testing at sea as
reflected in publically available reports submitted to NMFS since 2006
and accessible on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources Web site
(https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm) (see
Section 3.8.5, Summary of Observations During Previous Navy Activities,
of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, for more information in this regard).
Regarding its effectiveness, passive, and active in specific cases,
acoustic detection can increase the likelihood of detecting marine
mammals for the purposes of implementing mitigation, although passive
acoustic detection can only be effective when animals are vocalizing,
and when they are vocalizing at a level and in a direction that will be
detected and recognized by the sensor (only a subset of the time).
Also, with the exception of the largest sound sources, the size of any
ensonified zone combined with the density of marine mammals and the
likelihood that they avoid loud sounds, there is only a relatively
small number of times (compared to overall scope of exercises) that we
would predict that animals would come within distances that require
shutdowns (as noted above), and that would be further improved by the
use of PAM. Additionally, sophisticated use of multiple sensors is
needed in order to predict the distance and bearing of the vocalizing
animals that is needed to justify implementing a shutdown. The
effectiveness of PAM for mitigation implementation is somewhat further
impeded by fast moving sources because of the constantly changing
location of the marine mammal in relation to the moving source combined
with the inability to detect the direction of movement of the animal in
the moment it is detected. PAM is expensive and operationally
challenging (or impossible) to implement in many cases and the Navy
uses thousands of sound sources across its exercises. As described
above, Navy uses PAM in certain activities where the risk is higher
(e.g., explosives or some hull-mounted sonar), and/or where it is
notably much more practicable to use (e.g., for stationary sources such
as the Improved Extending Echo-ranging (IEER) system, which is a field
of multiple sources). However, given the limited added conservation
value added by using PAM to implement mitigation, combined with the
impracticability of doing so in many cases, NMFS does not believe that
additional use of PAM is warranted for all sources and we believe that
the PAM use required by these regulations contributes to ensuring the
least practicable adverse impact on the effected marine mammal species
and stocks and their habitat.
The SURTASS LFA platforms are slow moving and deploy a high
frequency active sonar (HF/M3) to identify marine mammals in close
proximity (2 km) to the SURTASS LFA vessel. The active sonar system
used by SURTASS LFA is built into the system's vertical array and can
only be employed in this fashion from a slow-moving or stationary
platform. It is not possible to employ this system on the types of
vessels used for the GOA training activities because a vertical array
cannot be used on other ship classes whose mission includes speed and
tactical movement while protecting aircraft carriers and other high
value units. Further, in addition to the difficulty in implementation,
NMFS does not generally support the use of active acoustic monitoring
except in cases where it is mitigating an effect of potentially very
high or singular severity and there is a high likelihood of successful
use (stationery or slow-moving platforms), as it essentially equates to
harassing marine mammals by putting the active detection signal in the
water in order to prevent harassing marine mammals with the main sound
source for which takes are being authorized. NMFS has only previously
considered the use of active acoustic detection in a few situations,
one for SURTASS LFA (actually implemented), in which the HF active
acoustics are used from a slow-moving platform to implement mitigation
and avoid impacts from a very high-level LF source, and two other
situations that were never implemented--one from a dock for testing a
very loud source in port, and one from a large piece of heavy machinery
wherein bodily injury was a possibility.
Modifying sonobuoys to increase their bandwidth is considered
impractical for the Navy because it would require significant
modification to the sonobuoy receiving equipment at a substantial cost
and reduce the effectiveness of the sonobuoy system's ability to detect
submarines. See section 5.3.3.1.13 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Increasing
Visual and Passive Acoustic Observations) for further information
regarding the use of passive sensors.
Comment 24: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS should restrict the
Navy's active sonar and explosives training activities around certain
important habitat areas--specifically, marine protected areas (MPAs)
and recently identified and published biologically important areas (see
Ferguson et al., 2015) located within or in close proximity to the GOA
TMAA. NRDC et al. also recommended that NMFS identify other time/area
closures as informed by the following: (1) Temporally and spatially
well-defined phytoplankton blooms occurring in portions of the TMAA and
driven by the
[[Page 19564]]
tides, bathymetry, and eddy systems of the northern and central Gulf of
Alaska; (2) relative densities of large whales within the April to
October period as informed by BIA and call rate data; (3) temporal and
spatial differences in the depth of the mixed layer and the sonic layer
which can create different surface ducting conditions; and (4) review
of major seamounts, representing potentially biologically important
habitat for multiple species, within the GOA TMAA.
Other commenters recommended similar time/area-specific mitigation
for Navy training activities, including avoidance of seamounts and
BIAs, and restriction of training during the spring/summer time period.
Response: Mitigation measures that include spatio-temporal
avoidance of biologically important areas, MPAs, and other marine
species habitat (e.g., seamounts) within the GOA TMAA Study Area were
fully considered and are discussed in the ``Consideration of Time/Area
Limitations'' section of this final rule.
As discussed in the proposed and final rules and in the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS, biologically important feeding areas for North Pacific right
whale and migration areas for gray whale (Ferguson et al., 2015)
overlap small portions of the western edge/corners of the TMAA. The
overlap is small both spatially for both, and temporally for gray whale
migration (November through January and March through May; Navy
activities within the TMAA have historically occurred in summer
months). As discussed in ``Consideration of Time/Area Limitations,'' it
is unlikely that Navy explosive and sonar training would occur in these
nearshore locations adjacent to the GOA TMAA boundary where the overlap
with BIAs occurs. Therefore, North Pacific right whales and gray whales
in the feeding or migration areas at these boundaries of the GOA TMAA
are unlikely to have their feeding or migration activities affected by
Navy training activities using sonar and other active acoustic sources.
However, after considering the small population size of North Pacific
right whales, the rarity of their detections and general lack of
sightings within the GOA TMAA, and the extremely limited current
information about this species, NMFS is requiring a North Pacific right
whale ``Cautionary Area'' between June and September in the overlapping
2,051 km\2\ portion of the North Pacific right whale feeding area (See
Figure 3.8-4 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS), in which no hull-mounted sonar or
explosives would be used within the portion of the feeding area that
overlaps the Navy's GOA TMAA during those months, except when required
by national security needs. In the event of national security needs,
the Navy would be required to seek approval in advance from the
Commander, U.S. Third Fleet prior to conducting training activities
using sonar or explosives. NMFS believes that implementation of this
North Pacific right whale Cautionary Area within the GOA TMAA may
provide additional protection of this species and stock beyond the
mitigation measures already proposed by the Navy in the proposed rule
and GOA FSEIS/OEIS. In the case of the gray whale migratory area, given
the extremely minimal spatio-temporal overlap with Navy training
activities in the GOA TMAA, coupled with the fact that no takes of gray
whale are predicted to occur with the proposed level of training
effort, NMFS has determined that additional mitigation measures related
to time/area limitations of Navy training activities within the
overlapping portion of the migratory area are not warranted, nor would
avoidance of this area contribute to the least practicable impact
standard or any lessening of the likelihood of adverse impacts on the
species or stocks.
Very few MPAs are located near or within the GOA TMAA. MPAs vary
widely in purpose, level of protection, and restrictions on human uses.
As discussed in ``Consideration of Time/Area Limitations'' and in the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS, MPAs in the vicinity of the GOA TMAA generally focus on
natural heritage, fishery management, and sustainable production. The
identified impacts and purpose for the designation of these areas is to
limit or restrict specific fishing activities, and the Navy would fully
abide by the regulations (mainly restrictions on commercial and
recreational fishing) of the individual MPA and relevant resources.
Since the Navy does not engage in fishing activities, restricting Navy
training activities in these areas would be ineffective at preventing
the identified impacts caused by fishing. Our issuance of an
authorization to take marine mammals would not conflict with the
management, protection, or conservation objectives of these MPAs.
Therefore, NMFS has determined that Navy avoidance of these areas is
not warranted, nor would it contribute to the least practicable impact
standard or any lessening of the likelihood of adverse impacts on
species or stocks.
While seamounts may represent important habitat for multiple
species (including marine mammals), the major seamounts located within
the TMAA (e.g., Dall, Quinn, and Giacomini seamounts) have been
designated by NOAA as Gulf of Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Areas
specifically to help maintain productivity of fisheries resources
through restrictions on bottom fishing. Moreover, NMFS' review of the
passive acoustic monitoring results in the Navy's annual monitoring
reports (2011-2015) for GOA generally does not suggest significantly
greater use of these seamounts by marine mammals (at least for those
where HARPS were deployed; it is also important to note that an animal
may be located several miles away from where it is detected) compared
to other locations (shelf and slope) where detections were recorded.
Navy monitoring efforts indicate that beaked whales appear to use both
shelf and seamount sites, although detections were generally low at the
monitored seamount sites within the TMAA and may in fact be more
prevalent at the slope site. Fin and humpback callings peaked in winter
when Navy activities are not proposed to occur. Fin and sperm whale
detections were generally more prevalent at shelf and slope sites,
respectively. Blue whale calls were detected at all sites. North
Pacific right whale calls were last detected in 2013, on the Quinn
Seamount site; however, analysis of these detections indicated that the
calls were detected from ranges on the order of roughly up to 50 nm to
the east of the site; the calling animal was not in the vicinity of
Quinn Seamount (Debich et al., 2014; [Scaron]irovi[cacute] et al.,
2014). The Navy has been training with sonar and other systems for
decades in locations having seamounts or slope areas, or that are
adjacent to continental shelfs where, to date, there has been no
evidence of any long-term consequences for individuals or populations
of marine mammals. This finding is based on years of research and
monitoring that show, for example, higher densities and long-term
residency by species such as beaked whales in Southern California,
where the Navy trains and tests, than in other adjacent areas. Further,
the Navy has identified the need to train in varied bathymetric
conditions, including around seamounts specifically. Restricting Navy
training to areas away from these bathymetric features would eliminate
the ability to train as needed in these complex environments and would
reduce the realism of the military readiness activity, while
simultaneously providing limited protective value.
It is not practicable to require limited activity during
phytoplankton blooms. The key consideration is these features are
highly variable temporally and spatially throughout the entire Gulf of
[[Page 19565]]
Alaska both inside and outside of the TMAA. Monthly, annual, inter-
annual, and decadal oceanographic conditions will drive the
establishment and disestablishment of these areas which cannot be
predicted in terms of the GOA TMAA authorization. In review of 15 years
of oceanographic data from 1992-2006, Henson and Thomas (2008) for
instance discuss how anticyclonic oceanographic eddies that pull most
of the near shelf nutrients into offshore waters can have substantial
inter-annual variability in number and propagation paths from east to
west. These eddy zones and entrained nutrients would highly influence
phytoplankton blooms. Henson and Thomas (2008) also showed seasonal
patterns with strongest spring and summer eddy zones likely to be in
the north-northeast slope area of the Gulf of Alaska, in areas outside
of the GOA TMAA. Late spring and early summer (May to July) is the most
likely period for any Navy major training event. Given this degree of
variability, it would be impractical to consider on an annual basis
which areas would likely contain the presence of these phytoplankton
blooms, or how long a given bloom would persist even if an eddy were
present.
NMFS notes that the call rate data cited by the commenters, as well
as the Navy's more recent and more robust passive acoustic data from
2011-2015, only provide occurrence specifically for that part of a
given species' population that may be calling at a particular time. The
Navy data set alone represents over 58,953 hours or 2,456 days' worth
of passive acoustic data that has been collected, analyzed, and results
reported. The science of density and relative density estimation from
passive acoustic data is still being researched under funding from
several different Navy programs. For example, the current Navy funded
research is focusing on aspects such as the proper characterization of
calling rates, range of detection, and group size, all of which can
vary by species, region, time of year/day, sex, etc. All of these
variables can impact the resulting density estimate, and therefore the
method of incorporating these variables needs to be investigated
further. Meanwhile, the best available density data (available at
https://www.goaeis.com/Documents/SupplementalEISOEISDocumentsandReferences/SupportingTechnicalDocuments.aspx), which was used in the Navy's FSEIS/
OEIS and this rule to calculate take, does not support the designation
of restricted areas within the TMAA. First, density estimates for many
of the species are uniform across the entire TMAA (e.g., Cuvier's
beaked whales, Minke whales, gray whales) and other species have simple
models with only a few strata (meaning that there is one uniform
density value in a zone, with a few zones: Typically shelf, slope,
deep, and sometimes a differential at the southern edge of the deep
water that is closer to the sea mounts), but different strata are high-
density for different species. For example, fin whales are densest on
the shelf, decreasing in slope strata, with lowest density in deep
water, while sei whales are densest in the deep waters and least dense
on the shelf. This means that restricting activities in one area that
is important to one species would intensify activities in an area that
is important to another species. Additionally, the Navy has
specifically noted the importance of training across these multiple
bathymetric features, so creating a time/area closure that mirrors a
bathymetric strata (e.g., the whole slope, or the whole shelf) is
inherently detrimental to the Navy's mission. Separately, though, the
Navy has also noted in the description of its action that more
hazardous activities, such as those that use explosives, are generally
not conducted on the edges of the TMAA, due to safety and proximity to
coastal areas.
With respect to surface ducting conditions, environmental
conditions in the Gulf of Alaska during the timeframe when Navy
training activities would generally occur do not support surface
ducting conditions. A surface duct requires cold water at the surface
with warmer water at deeper depths which is highly unlikely during the
warmer summer months in the Gulf of Alaska when training has
historically occurred. In addition, there has been no indication that
mixed layer depth has any direct influence on marine mammal behavior or
response to anthropogenic sounds.
Regarding the benefits of the proposed time/area limitations that
NMFS has decided not to require, it is possible that the application of
one or more of these areas could potentially decrease the number of
takes of one species or another, depending on when and where the
exercise ended up taking place. However, as we have explained, due to
the nature of the exercise (short duration) and the effectiveness of
the existing mitigation measures, the anticipated impacts are already
expected to be primarily lower-level behavioral responses and are not
anticipated to occur in times or places where impacts would be more
likely to lead to fitness effects on individuals. When the limited
anticipated potential benefit to marine mammal species and stocks of
applying these measures is combined with the impracticability of
implementation, NMFS has concluded that requiring these measures is not
warranted. NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures required by
this rule, including those clarified or updated above (see
``Consideration of Time/Area Limitation''), are adequate means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammals
species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, while
also considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
NMFS agrees with NRDC and other commenters that there continues to
be a need to better understand the spatial distribution and occurrence
of marine mammals within the Gulf of Alaska, including the use of
potentially important habitat areas within the GOA TMAA. Therefore,
NMFS envisions a more focused monitoring effort in the GOA TMAA during
the Phase II training activities. Objectives of any future monitoring
in the GOA TMAA will be discussed during upcoming NMFS-Navy adaptive
management meetings in 2017.
Comment 25: NRDC et al. suggested the use of sonar and other active
acoustic systems at the lowest practicable source level, with clear
standards and reporting requirements for different testing and training
scenarios.
Response: The Navy uses active sonar at the lowest practicable
source level consistent with mission requirements. See Section
5.3.3.1.3 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Reducing Sonar Source Levels and Total
Number of Hours) for further information.
Comment 26: NRDC et al. suggested expansion of the marine species
``safety zone'' to a 4 km shutdown, reflecting international best
practice, or 2 km, reflecting the standard prescribed by the California
Coastal Commission for similar activities in Southern California.
Response: Section 5.3.3.1.14 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Increasing the
Size of Observed Mitigation Zones) discusses mitigation zone expansion.
See also Section 5.3.3.1.16 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Adopting Mitigation
Measures of Foreign Navies). There is no internationally recognized
best practice with regard to mitigation zone distance. The Navy
developed activity-specific mitigation zones based on the Navy's
acoustic propagation model. As described previously, each recommended
mitigation zone is
[[Page 19566]]
intended to avoid or reduce the potential for onset of the lowest level
of injury, PTS, out to the predicted maximum range. Mitigating to the
predicted maximum range to PTS consequently also mitigates to the
predicted maximum range to onset mortality (1 percent mortality), onset
slight lung injury, and onset slight gastrointestinal tract injury,
since the maximum range to effects for these criteria are shorter than
for PTS. Furthermore, in many cases, the mitigation zone actually
covers the TTS zone.
Implementation of mitigation measures is most effective when the
mitigation zone is appropriately sized to be realistically observed.
The mitigation zones contained in this final rule represent the maximum
area the Navy can effectively observe based on the platform of
observation, number of personnel that will be involved, and the number
and type of assets and resources available. As mitigation zone sizes
increase, the potential for reducing impacts decreases. For instance,
if a mitigation zone increases from 1,000 to 4,000 yd (914 to 3,658 m),
the area that must be observed increases sixteen-fold, which is not
practicable. The Navy does not have the resources to maintain
additional Lookouts or observer platforms that would be needed to
effectively observe mitigation zones of increased size. The mitigation
zones contained in this final rule balance the need to reduce potential
impacts with the Navy's ability to provide effective observations
throughout a given area.
Comment 27: NRDC et al. suggested that the Navy delay or relocate
activities when beaked whales are detected through passive acoustic
monitoring and when significant aggregations of any species or
particularly vulnerable or endangered species (or even sightings of
single North Pacific right whales) are detected by any means in the
vicinity of an exercise, even if potentially occurring beyond the
established mitigation zone.
Response: Mitigation will be implemented within the mitigation zone
for all marine mammals regardless of species or numbers of animals if
they approach or enter a mitigation zone. NMFS disagrees that it is
necessary to delay or relocate activities when beaked whales, North
Pacific right whales, other sensitive species, or significant
aggregations of marine mammals are detected outside the mitigation
zones. For the GOA activities, the Navy developed each recommended
mitigation zone to avoid or reduce the potential for onset of the
lowest level of injury, PTS, out to the predicted maximum range.
Furthermore, in many cases, the predicted maximum range to PTS also
consequently covers the predicted average range to TTS and further
alleviates the likelihood of more severe behavioral responses that
might be anticipated at higher level exposures. The activity-specific
mitigation zones are based on the longest range for all the functional
hearing groups. The mitigation zone for a majority of activities is
driven by either the high-frequency cetaceans or the sea turtle
functional hearing groups. Therefore, the mitigation zones are even
more protective for the remaining functional hearing groups (i.e., low-
frequency cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, and pinnipeds). The
predicted ranges are based on local environmental conditions and are
unique to the GOA TMAA Study Area.
With respect to passive acoustic monitoring, all passive acoustic
detections will be reported to Lookouts to increase vigilance of the
visual surveillance. However, as stated previously, passive acoustic
monitoring can neither provide range or bearing to detected animals,
and therefore cannot provide locations of these animals.
As described previously, Navy watchstanders report both inanimate
objects and marine mammals. Although they attend training to understand
more about marine mammals, they are not expected to be able to identify
animals at the species level and they report only with the specificity
that they can (typically whether the marine mammal observed was a
whale, dolphin, or pinniped). Therefore, they would not be able to
implement mitigation measures that require identification of specific
species (and we have described previously why the Navy cannot utilize
non-Navy trained observers). Moreover, the 2011 and 2015 exercise
reports for GOA indicate that during these previous training exercises,
watchstanders had a total of 4 and 31 sightings, respectively (10 and
68 marine mammals). Only 2 sightings occurred when sonar was operating.
Only 5 sightings included more than 3 animals, and the vast majority
were of a single animal. This data suggests that shutting down for
aggregations would not actually occur with any regularity and would
not, therefore, be expected to contribute to any meaningful reduction
of impacts on marine mammals.
The additional mitigation measure recommended by commenters is
designed to further reduce the numbers of takes by Level B harassment,
focusing on aggregations or endangered species. One point that is often
overlooked is that when a training exercise is interrupted for a
shutdown, it does not just start back up; training exercises often
involve a series of actions and movements that develop over a period of
time. Also, the effectiveness of some of the exercises involving
certain types of targets with a limited battery life can be jeopardized
if restarts result in the exercise length exceeding the needed battery
life. It is difficult to predict how much of an exercise will need to
be redone, but it is safe to say that shutting down will typically
result in a longer total duration of sound source operation as
operators reacquire targets or otherwise get back to where they were
before the shutdown--potentially increasing impacts.
In short, the existing mitigation measures for marine mammals
minimize the likelihood of PTS, TTS, or more severe behavioral
responses and, with the addition of the North Pacific Right Whale
Cautionary Area, ensure that takes are not occurring in particularly
important areas or times that would be more likely to result in impacts
on individual fitness. Additionally, as explained throughout this final
rule, the predicted Level B harassment authorized is expected to be of
a lower level type of effect, of short duration, and unlikely to
adversely impact reproductive success or survivorship of any
individuals (the type of effects that would lead to population-level
impacts). Further, there are comparatively low numbers of Level B
harassment authorized for endangered and threatened whales, and only
three annual takes of North Pacific right whales. In addition to the
fact that the current watchstander requirements do not support the
implementation of any measures that require species identification,
shutdowns beyond those currently recommended to minimize more severe
effects will have limited, if any, ability to reduce impacts on marine
mammal species or stocks and their habitat, while being disruptive to
Navy training and potentially lengthening the overall time that sound
sources are operating. For these reasons, NMFS does not believe that
these measures are warranted.
Comment 28: NRDC et al. suggested use of simulated geography (and
other work-arounds) to reduce or eliminate chokepoint exercises in
near-coastal environments, particularly within canyons and channels,
and use of other important habitat. Other commenters recommended Navy
simulation of training activities as well.
Response: There are no chokepoint exercises in the Study Area.
Further, the Navy does have a particular set of monitoring measures
(intended to help
[[Page 19567]]
reduce the chance of a stranding) that would be applied if a
combination of circumstances exist that are thought to make a stranding
more likely (e.g., steep bathymetry, multiple vessels using sonar in a
single area over an extended period of time, constricted channels or
embayments). However, a combination of these environmental and
operational features is not present in the GOA TMAA Study Area.
As discussed in Section 2.3.2.4 (Simulated Training) of the 2011
GOA FEIS/OEIS and Section 5.3.3.1.2 (Replacing Training with Simulated
Activities) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the Navy uses computer simulation
for training whenever possible. However, training in near-coastal
environments is an essential component to maintaining military
readiness. Computer simulation can provide familiarity and complement
live training; however, it cannot provide the fidelity and level of
training necessary to prepare naval forces for deployment. Sound
propagates differently in shallower water and operators must learn to
train in this environment. Additionally, submarines have become quieter
through the use of improved technology and have learned to hide in the
higher ambient noise levels of the shallow waters of coastal
environments. In real world events, it is highly likely Sailors would
be working in, and therefore must train in, these types of areas. The
littoral water space is also the most challenging area to operate in
due to a diverse acoustic environment. It is not realistic or
practicable to refrain from training in the areas that are the most
challenging and operationally important. Operating in near-costal
environments is essential in order to provide realistic training on
real world combat conditions with regard to shallow water sound
propagation.
Comment 29: NRDC et al. suggested avoidance or reduction of
training during months with historically significant surface ducting
conditions; delay of activities or use of power-downs during
significant surface ducting conditions; and use of additional power-
downs when significant surface ducting conditions coincide with other
conditions that elevate risk.
Response: As discussed in a previous response to comments above,
environmental conditions in the Gulf of Alaska during the timeframe
when Navy training activities would generally occur do not support
surface ducting conditions. A surface duct requires cold water at the
surface with warmer water at deeper depths which is highly unlikely
during the warmer summer months in the Gulf of Alaska when training has
historically occurred. In addition, although it is possible that a
higher number of animals might be taken by Level B harassment in those
moments when Navy training overlaps with surface ducting condition or
be exposed to slightly higher levels than otherwise as the sound from
nearby sources might propagate farther, there has been no indication
that mixed layer depth has any direct influence on marine mammal
behavior or response to anthropogenic sounds.
NMFS also notes that avoiding or reducing active sonar during
surface ducts for the purpose of mitigation would increase safety risks
to personnel, be impractical with regard to implementation of military
readiness activities, and result in unacceptable impacts on readiness
for the following reasons: The Navy must train in the same manner as it
will fight. Submarines have long been known to exploit the phenomena
associated with surface ducting. Therefore, training in surface ducting
conditions is a critical component to military readiness because sonar
operators need to learn how sonar transmissions are altered due to
surface ducting, how submarines may take advantage of them, and how to
operate sonar effectively in this environment. Avoiding activities
during periods with surface ducting conditions or requiring the use of
power-downs during surface ducting conditions would reduce a sonar
operator's ability to effectively operate in a real world combat
situation, thereby resulting in an unacceptable increased risk to
personnel safety and the ability to achieve military readiness.
Furthermore, avoiding surface ducting would be impractical to implement
because ocean conditions contributing to surface ducting change
frequently, and surface ducts can be of varying duration. See section
5.3.3.1.9 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS for more information on avoiding or
reducing activities during surface ducting conditions.
In conclusion, in the case of a Navy operation overlapping with a
surface duct, it is possible that some higher number of animals might
be taken by Level B harassment in those moments, or exposed to slightly
higher levels than otherwise as the sound from nearby sources might
propagate farther--and therefore, numbers of Level B harassment might
be lowered slightly by avoiding a surface duct. However, a slight
reduction in takes of this sort would not be expected to contribute
meaningfully to a reduction in adverse impacts on species or stocks
given the already low number and level of takes anticipated and the
fact that the existing measures are expected to minimize the likelihood
of injury, TTS or more severe behavioral responses, and impacts to
North Pacific Right Whales in a known feeding area. When the minimal
potential likelihood of reducing impacts to marine mammal species or
stocks and their habitat is weighed along with the degree of
impracticability for implementing this measure, NMFS finds that
requiring it is unwarranted.
Comment 30: NRDC et al. suggested that the Navy plan their ship
tracks to avoid embayments and provide escape routes for marine
mammals.
Response: First, the GOA TMAA is an open water area that does not
include any embayments and, therefore, operations are not expected to
block escape routes for marine mammals. Further, NMFS notes that the
Navy has a particular set of monitoring measures (intended to help
reduce the chance of a stranding) that would be applied if a
combination of circumstances exist that are thought to make a stranding
more likely (e.g., steep bathymetry, multiple vessels in a single area
over an extended period of time, and in areas of constricted channels
or embayments). However, a combination of these environmental and
operational features is not present in the GOA TMAA Study Area.
The majority of Navy training activities involving ``ship tracks''
would occur in the offshore portion of the Study Area and therefore
would not involve embayments. In inland waters where there may be areas
that could be considered embayments, ship tracks are generally
constrained by the vessel traffic separation scheme, safety of
operation, and mission requirements. See Section 5.3.3.1.6 of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS (Limiting Access to Training Locations) for further
information regarding limiting the location of activities.
Comment 31: Several commenters suggested that the Navy limit their
activities to periods of good visibility. More specifically, NRDC et
al. suggested that all weapons firing in missile and bombing exercises
involving detonations exceeding 20 lb. net explosive weight take place
during the period 1 hour after sunrise to 30 minutes before sunset.
Response: NMFS believes that effective mitigation measures are
already in place to address missile and bombing exercises.
Specifically, explosive activities are already expected to only result
in small amounts of take of one species (Dall's porpoise). Further,
since the proposed rule, Navy has eliminated two SINKEXs from the
[[Page 19568]]
proposed actions and MISSILEX in the GOA TMAA do not utilize live
ordnance.
The Navy must train at night and in low-visibility conditions to
ensure personnel may operate in similar conditions when required for
actual operations. After sunset and prior to sunrise, watch personnel
employ night visual search techniques, which could include the use of
night vision devices. Please see the ``Mitigation'' section of the rule
for further information. Section 5.3.3.1.8 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
(Avoiding or Reducing Active Sonar at Night and During Periods of Low
Visibility) also discusses activities conducted during varying
environmental conditions.
In conclusion, the anticipated impacts from explosives are already
low and there are detection techniques in place that are expected to
avoid some of the nighttime exposures of marine mammals. It is
difficult to predict the added value of avoiding nighttime explosive
exercises completely above the exposures that will be avoided by
implementing nighttime detection techniques--and further, how this
might translate to any reduction in the already low explosive take
numbers for Dall's porpoise. At any rate, when this small potential
benefit is weighed against the impracticability of the Navy being
unable to train in realistic environments, NMFS finds that this measure
is unwarranted.
Comment 32: NRDC et al. suggested suspension or postponement of
chokepoint exercises during surface ducting conditions and scheduling
of such exercises during daylight hours.
Response: There are no chokepoint exercises in the GOA TMAA Study
Area. See our response to the comment above regarding avoiding or
reducing activities during surface ducting conditions. Also, see our
response to the comment above regarding avoidance of activities at
night.
Comment 33: NRDC et al. suggested use of dedicated aerial monitors
during chokepoint exercises, major exercises, and near-coastal
exercises.
Response: There are no chokepoints proposed for the Study Area.
Please refer to Section 2 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS for a detailed
description of the action. As described throughout Chapter 5 of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS and in this rule (see ``Mitigation'' section), visual
observation (aerial and vessel-based) would be conducted in association
with Navy activities. With respect to the potential benefits of
specific aerial monitoring, the point of such monitoring would be to
augment detection of marine mammals for the implementation of shutdown
measures, which are designed to prevent PTS, minimize TTS, and minimize
more severe behavioral responses. NMFS' response to Comment 23
describes the minimal additional reduction of adverse impacts to marine
mammal species or stocks that is likely to be gained by further
increasing the effectiveness of shutdown measures. In short, zero
percent of Level B harassment takes are expected to occur within
approximately 1,825 m (which encompasses the shutdown area), and only 4
injurious (PTS) takes are expected to occur to one species.
With respect to practicability, specific aerial monitoring is not
typically feasible given the limited duration of typical monitoring
flights (less than four hours). In addition, there are significant
flight safety considerations and airspace restrictions during many Navy
exercises when larger groups of military aircraft are present in high
numbers at various altitudes. When the minimal potential benefit of
this measure is weighed along with the impracticability, NMFS believes
that the measure is not warranted.
Comment 34: NRDC et al. suggested use of aerial surveys and ship-
based surveys before, during, and after multi-unit exercises.
Response: As described throughout Chapter 5 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
and in the ``Mitigation'' section of this rule, visual observation
(aerial and vessel-based) would be conducted in association with Navy
activities. The commenter did not describe what the purpose of these
surveys would be (e.g., to collect information, to delay or shutdown
activities, etc.) and therefore it is difficult to evaluate how these
suggested measures may or may not reduce adverse impacts to marine
mammal species or stocks. However, please see other comment responses
addressing the limited value of augmenting detection to facilitate
shutdowns.
With respect to practicability, specific aerial monitoring is not
typically effective or feasible given the limited duration of typical
monitoring flights (less than four hours). In addition, there are
significant flight safety considerations and airspace restrictions
during Navy training when military aircraft are present in high numbers
at various altitudes. Ship-based surveys before, during, and after
multi-unit exercises are impractical due to the large amount of
resources required and the significant impact such a requirement would
have on readiness. In addition to the mitigation and monitoring
required by this rule, which have proven to be effective, the Navy is
also committed to a robust marine mammal monitoring program designed to
answer specific questions about the effects of the Navy's activities on
marine mammals.
Comment 35: NRDC et al. suggested use of all available range assets
for marine mammal monitoring.
Response: The commenter did not specify the purpose of this
monitoring or the specific assets referred to, so it is difficult to
evaluate any potential benefits to marine mammal species or stocks
along with any specific practicability issues; however, please see
responses to other comments in this section recommending methods for
augmenting detection. NMFS has worked with the Navy over the years to
help develop the most effective mitigation protocols using the
platforms and assets that are available for monitoring. The required
mitigation measures in this document represent the maximum level of
effort (e.g., numbers of Lookouts and passive sonobuoys) that the Navy
can commit to observing mitigation zones given the number of personnel
that will be involved and the number and type of assets and resources
available. Furthermore, there are no permanent Navy range assets or
supporting infrastructure established in or near the GOA TMAA, which is
a temporarily used area only.
Comment 36: Some commenters believe that using Lookouts as the
primary strategy for limiting potential impacts from Navy activities is
inadequate. NRDC et al. suggested the use of additional Lookouts, and
the use of NMFS-certified observers for marine mammal detection. Other
commenters recommended use of independent observers on all Navy
vessels. Several commenters requested further information on the Navy's
Lookout effectiveness study. More specifically, NRDC et al. suggested
that the Navy complete a Lookout effectiveness study comparing the
abilities of Navy vessel-based Lookouts and experienced marine mammal
observers (MMOs), and a requirement for NMFS-certified lookouts or
other monitoring enhancements if Navy observers are significantly less
likely to detect marine mammals.
Response: One key component of the monitoring and mitigation
required by this rule is the shipboard Lookouts (also known as
watchstanders), who are part of the standard operating procedure that
ships use to detect objects (including marine mammals) within a
specific area around the ship during events. The Lookouts are an
element of the Navy's monitoring plan, as required by NMFS
[[Page 19569]]
and specified in the LOA. The goal of Lookouts is to detect marine
mammals entering ranges of 200, 500, and 1,000 yd (183, 457, and 914 m)
around the vessel, which correspond to distances at which various
mitigation actions should be performed. In addition to the Lookouts,
officers on the bridge search visually and sonar operators listen for
marine mammal vocalizations.
NMFS disagrees that using Lookouts as the primary strategy for
limiting potential impacts from Navy activities is inadequate. Navy
Lookouts are qualified and experienced observers of the marine
environment. All Lookouts take part in Marine Species Awareness
Training so that they are better prepared to spot marine mammals. Their
duties require that they report all objects sighted in the water to the
Office of the Deck (OOD) and all disturbances that may be indicative of
a threat to the vessel and its crew. Lookouts are on duty at all times,
day and night, when a ship or surfaced submarine is moving through the
water. Visual detections of marine mammals would be communicated
immediately to a watch station for information disseminations and
appropriate mitigation action. The number of Lookouts required for each
activity represents the maximum level of effort (e.g., numbers of
Lookouts and passive sonobuoys) that the Navy can commit to observing
mitigation zones given the number of personnel that will be involved in
an activity and the number and type of assets and resources available.
The number of Lookouts that the Navy uses for each activity often
represents the maximum capacity based on limited resources (e.g., space
and manning restrictions). NMFS has carefully considered Navy's use of
Lookouts and determined that, in combination with the other mitigation
measures identified, the Navy's mitigation plan will effect the least
practicable adverse impacts on marine mammal species or stocks and
their habitat.
Navy personnel are extensively trained in spotting items on or near
the water surface. The use of third-party observers (e.g., NMFS-
certified protected species observers) in air or on surface platforms
in lieu of or in addition to existing Navy Lookouts for the purposes of
mitigation is impractical for the following reasons: The use of third-
party observers would compromise security for some activities involving
active sonar due to the requirement to provide advance notification of
specific times and locations of Navy platforms; reliance on the
availability of third-party personnel could impact training and testing
flexibility; the presence of additional aircraft in the vicinity of
naval activities would raise safety concerns; and there is limited
space aboard Navy vessels.
In 2010, the Navy initiated a study designed to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Navy Lookout team versus experienced MMOs. The
University of St. Andrews, Scotland, under contract to the Navy,
developed an initial data collection protocol for use during the study.
Between 2010 and 2012, trained Navy marine mammal observers collected
data during nine field trials as part of a ``proof of concept'' phase.
The goal of the proof of concept phase was to develop a statistically
valid protocol for quantitatively analyzing the effectiveness of
Lookouts during Navy training exercises. Field trials were conducted in
the HRC, SOCAL Range Complex, and Jacksonville Range Complex onboard
one frigate, one cruiser, and seven destroyers. Preliminary analysis of
the proof of concept data is ongoing. The Navy is also working to
finalize the data collection process for use during the next phase of
the study. While data was collected as part of this proof of concept
phase, those data are not fairly comparable because protocols were
being changed and assessed, nor are those data statistically
significant. Therefore, it is improper to use these data to draw any
conclusions on the effectiveness of Navy Lookouts at this time.
Comment 37: NRDC et al. suggested the use of dedicated aerial
monitoring for all Navy explosive activities using time-delay firing
devices and/or all activities involving explosives greater than 20 lb
net explosive weight.
Response: There are no time-delay devices proposed for use in the
Study Area. More importantly, with the existing mitigation, only one
species (Dall's porpoise) is expected to be taken by exposure to
explosives, and for that species only 4 takes resulting in PTS are
expected, leaving very few impacts that could potentially be mitigated.
In addition, it is difficult to know what additional value will be
added by the aerial observers beyond the existing ship-based observers.
When the potential benefits of this measure are considered along with
the cost, safety, and impracticality issues laid out in response to
Comment 33, NMFS does not believe this measure is warranted.
Comment 38: NRDC et al. suggested the use of gliders or other
platforms for pre-activity monitoring to avoid significant aggregations
of marine mammals.
Response: The development of passive acoustic detectors on gliders
and other platforms is still in the research and development stages
under funding from the Office of Naval Research and the Navy's Living
Marine Resources programs. While promising, many of the various
technologies are still being tested and not ready for transition to
compliance monitoring where a higher degree of performance is needed.
Gliders, even if able to report in real-time or delayed near real-time,
would only be able to document the presence of marine mammals, not the
distance of the marine mammals from the glider or individual animal
movement, and therefore would not be fully effective in supporting
mitigation that results in delayed operations or shutdowns. Moreover,
gliders would only provide an indication that animals are in the area,
but these same animals could easily move substantial distances over the
course of just a few hours. In some cases, use of gliders in and around
where Navy submarines also operate is an underwater safety hazard to
the submarine and to the glider. Gliders and other passive acoustic
platforms, therefore, are more appropriate for broad area searches
within Navy ranges to document marine mammal seasonal occurrence, but
are not practical as a mitigation tool.
Additionally, as noted previously, the higher level effects that
shutdowns mitigate (PTS, TTS, and more severe behavioral effects) are
already minimal as modeled. Further, in the two previous exercises for
which we have reports (2011 and 2015), only two observations of marine
mammals occurred when sonar was in operation, suggesting that
augmentation of detection capabilities would not necessarily result in
fewer exposures to marine mammals. For these reasons, NMFS has not
required the use of these additional platforms.
Comment 39: NRDC et al. recommended that the Navy comply with
underwater detonation and gunnery exercise mitigation measures as set
forth in NMFS' 2009 final rule (74 FR 3882; January 21, 2009) for the
SOCAL Range Complex.
Response: The commenters do not elaborate on why the mitigation
measures for underwater explosives and gunnery exercises--which are
unrelated activities--for the SOCAL Range Complex would be more
protective than those currently proposed for similar activities in the
GOA TMAA Study Area. Moreover, mitigation measures designed for
training and testing activities in the SOCAL Range Complex are not
directly applicable to GOA activities. Mitigation measures for
underwater detonations and gunnery
[[Page 19570]]
exercises for GOA are described in the ``Mitigation section'' and
regulatory text of this rule. NMFS has determined that these mitigation
measures are adequate means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impacts on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat
Comment 40: NRDC et al. recommended avoidance and reduction in the
use of timer delays in favor of explosives with positive controls.
Response: There are no time-delay devices proposed for use in the
Study Area. Please see Chapter 2 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS for a detailed
description of the action.
Comment 41: NRDC et al. recommended application of ship-speed
restriction (e.g., of 10 knots) for support vessels and/or other
vessels while transiting high-value habitat for baleen whales and
endangered species, or other areas of biological significance, and/or
shipping lanes.
Response: The Navy typically chooses to run vessels at slower
speeds for efficiency to conserve fuel when possible, which may include
speeds less than 5 knots or completely stopped for launching small
boats, certain tactical maneuvers, target launch, or retrievals of
unmanned underwater vehicles, etc. However, some operational
requirements mean that Navy vessels must exceed 10 knots due to unique
training, testing, or safety requirements for a given event. Further,
imposing an artificial speed restriction only on Navy vessels, which
represent an extremely small percentage of ship traffic, particularly
in areas of high commercial traffic where no other limits exist, could
create safety or navigation concerns where Navy vessels are not
traveling at speeds consistent with surrounding traffic.
As discussed earlier in this rule in the ``Mitigation'' section and
in Section 5.3.2.2 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Physical Disturbance and
Strike), the Navy's speed protocol is as follows: While in transit,
Navy vessels shall be alert at all times, use extreme caution, and
proceed at a ``safe speed'' so that the vessel can take proper and
effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or
disturbance, including any marine mammal or sea turtle and can be
stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances
and conditions. Other mitigation measures will be implemented to avoid
vessel strikes, such as maneuvering to keep at least 500 yards from
whales observed in a vessel's path, and not approaching whales head-on,
provided it is safe to do so. The Navy will also be required to report
any vessel strike.
Navy ship speed has not been implicated in impacts to marine
mammals in the GOA TMAA Study Area. As discussed in the ``Take
Request'' section and elsewhere in this rule, there has never been a
recorded vessel strike of marine mammals during any training activities
in the Study Area. The Navy's proposed actions would not result in any
appreciable changes in locations or frequency of vessel activity in the
GOA TMAA. The manner in which the Navy has trained would remain
consistent with the range of variability observed over the last decade,
so neither the Navy nor NMFS anticipate that vessel strikes would occur
within the Study Area during training events, and NMFS has not
authorized take by ship strike.
While NMFS would never say that a ship strike is absolutely
impossible where vessels are in use, the probability here given
historical data in the region and the comparatively small number of
vessels is considered to so small as to be discountable. Therefore,
ship speed restrictions would not be expected to reduce adverse impacts
on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat in any measurable
manner. When this is coupled with the operational challenges of
reducing speed (navigational and safety hazards or training impacts),
the measure is not warranted.
Comment 42: NRDC et al. recommended application of mitigation
prescribed by state regulators, by the courts, by other navies or
research centers, or by the U.S. Navy in the past or in other contexts.
Response: NRDC did not mention any specific measures and therefore
this recommendation cannot be evaluated in the context of the least
practicable adverse impact standard. NMFS and the Navy worked together
on developing a comprehensive set of mitigation measures to reduce the
impacts from Navy training and testing activities on marine mammal
species or stocks and their habitat. During the process of developing
mitigation measures, NMFS and the Navy considered all potentially
applicable mitigation measures. Evaluation of past and present Navy
mitigation measures, alternative mitigation measures, and mitigation
measures of foreign navies is discussed in Chapter 5 of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS. As discussed in the Mitigation section, NMFS has determined that
the mitigation measures required by this rule are adequate means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammal
species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, while
also considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Comment 43: NRDC et al. recommended avoidance of fish spawning
grounds and of important habitat for fish species potentially
vulnerable to significant behavioral change, such as wide-scale
displacement within the water column or changes in breeding behavior.
Response: NMFS considered impacts to marine mammal prey species as
a component of marine mammal habitat. Please see the ``Marine Mammal
Habitat'' section of the proposed rule, which included an extensive
discussion of the potential impact of the Navy's activities on fish. In
summary, long-term consequences to fish populations are not expected.
Impacts to fish spawning grounds and habitat use are also considered
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as
it relates to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The effect of the Navy's
activities on threatened and endangered fish was also addressed in
NMFS' Biological Opinion, which concluded that the Navy's activities
would not reasonably be expected to reduce appreciably the likelihood
of the survival and recovery of any listed fish species.
Section 5.3.1.1.11 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Avoiding Marine Species
Habitats and Biologically Important Areas) discusses habitat avoidance.
Section 3.6 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Fish) provides the effects
determinations on fish. As noted in Section 3.6 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS,
the current science regarding behavioral impacts to fish from sonar is
that the potential for effects within the near field (within few tens
of meters of the source), intermediate, or far distances is low (Popper
et al., 2014). For explosives, the potential for behavioral effects is
high within a few tens of meters from the source, moderate to high
within intermediate distances (hundreds of meters from the source), and
low within the far field (thousands of meters from the source) (Popper
et al., 2014). Therefore, the type of wide-scale displacement being
described by the commenter is unlikely to occur based on the current
state of the science.
In short, NMFS does not anticipate serious, focused, or long-term
effects on any species of fish, especially in the context of their
importance to marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat.
Therefore, NMFS does not expect the effects of Navy activities on
marine mammal prey to result in effects on feeding that would have
negative
[[Page 19571]]
energetic impacts on individuals that would be expected to negatively
affect reproductive success or survivorship. NRDC did not recommend
protection of any particular areas, rendering this recommendation
difficult to assess. NMFS has described in responses to other comments
the practicability concerns associated with avoiding training
activities during certain areas and times. When the limited likelihood
of reducing adverse effects on marine mammal species or stocks is
considered in combination with the practicability challenges of
implementing the recommendation, NMFS finds that the measure is not
warranted.
Comment 44: NRDC et al. recommended evaluating before each multi-
unit exercise whether reductions in sonar use are possible, given the
readiness status of the units involved.
Response: The Navy uses active sonar at the lowest practicable
source level consistent with mission requirements. See Section
5.3.3.1.3 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Reducing Sonar Source Levels and Total
Number of Hours) for more information.
Comment 45: NRDC et al. recommended dedicated research and
development of technology to reduce impacts of active acoustic sources
on marine mammals.
Response: The Navy has provided a significant amount of funding for
marine mammal research. For example, from 2004 to 2012, the Navy
provided over $230 million for marine species research and currently
sponsors 70 percent of all U.S. research concerning the effects of
human-generated sound on marine mammals and 50 percent of such research
conducted worldwide. The Navy's research and development efforts have
significantly improved our understanding of the effects of Navy-
generated sound in the marine environment. These studies have supported
the modification of acoustic criteria to more accurately assess
behavioral impacts to beaked whales and the thresholds for auditory
injury for all species, and the adjustment of mitigation zones to
better avoid injury. In addition, Navy scientists work cooperatively
with other government researchers and scientists, universities,
industry, and non-governmental conservation organizations in
collecting, evaluating, and modeling information on marine resources.
Navy scientists work cooperatively with other government researchers
and scientists, universities, industry, and nongovernmental
conservation organizations in collecting, evaluating, and modeling
information on marine resources. Further, the adaptive management
process required by this rule regularly considers and evaluates the
development and use of new science and technologies for Navy
applications. For additional information on the Navy's marine mammal
monitoring efforts, see https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/. For
the Navy's Living Marine Resources Applied Research Program see https://www.lmr.navy.mil. For the Office of Naval Research's Marine Mammals and
Biology Basic Research Program see https://www.onr.navy.mil/Science-Technology/Departments/Code-32/All-Programs/Atmosphere-Research-322/Marine-Mammals-Biology.aspx.
Comment 46: NRDC et al. recommended establishment of a plan and a
timetable for maximizing synthetic training in order to reduce the use
of active sonar training.
Response: Section 5.3.3.1.2 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Replacing
Training with Simulated Activities) discusses simulated activities. As
described in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the Navy currently uses computer
simulation for training whenever possible. Computer simulation can
provide familiarity and complement live training and testing; however,
it cannot provide the fidelity and level of training necessary to
prepare naval forces for deployment. The Navy is required to provide a
ready and capable force. In doing so, the Navy must operationally test
major platforms, systems, and components of these platforms and systems
in realistic combat conditions before full-scale production can occur.
Substituting simulation for live training and testing fails to meet the
Navy's statutory requirement to properly prepare forces for national
defense.
Comment 47: NRDC et al. recommended prescription of specific
mitigation requirements for individual classes (or sub-classes) of
testing and training activities, in order to maximize mitigation given
varying sets of operational needs.
Response: The Navy and NMFS have already developed mitigation
requirements by activity type. Chapter 5 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and the
``Mitigation'' section of this final rule discuss these mitigation
measures. NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures contained in
this rule are adequate means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impacts on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, while also considering personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military
readiness activity.
Comment 48: NRDC et al. recommended timely, regular reporting to
NOAA, state coastal management authorities, and the public to describe
and verify use of mitigation measures during testing and training
activities.
Response: NMFS has long required the Navy to submit timely, regular
reports regarding the use of mitigation measures during training and
testing activities. Section 3.8.5 (Summary of Observations During
Previous Navy Activities) provides the results from regular reporting
that has occurred since 2006. These reports are publically available at
the Navy Web site (https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/) and at
the NMFS Office of Protected Resources Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/military.htm). Navy reporting requirements,
including exercise and monitoring reporting, are described in the
``Monitoring'' and ``Reporting'' sections of this final rule and in
Section 5.5 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Monitoring and Reporting).
Comment 49: NRDC et al. and other commenters recommended that the
Navy agree to additional clean-up and retrieval of discarded debris and
expended materials associated with its proposed activities.
Response: The Navy conducted a full analysis of the potential
impacts of military expended materials on marine mammals and will
implement several mitigation measures to help avoid or reduce those
impacts. As presented in the 2011 GOA Final EIS/OEIS (Section 3.2
Expended Materials), no biologically meaningful impacts related to
expended materials would occur as a result of the proposed action and
the way those materials are used. There are numerous studies involving
the fate of expended munitions, including locations where the expended
materials are much more concentrated and have been in place for many
decades. Those studies do not indicate there is any significant impact
on the environment or the sea life living in proximity to those
materials.
The Navy has standard operating procedures in place to reduce the
amount of military expended materials to the maximum extent practical,
including recovering targets and associated parachutes (see Section 5.1
of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Standard Operating Procedures).
Effects Analysis/Takes
Comment 50: The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy
to request the total numbers of model-estimated Level A harassment
[[Page 19572]]
and mortality takes rather than reducing the estimated numbers of Level
A harassment and mortality takes based on the Navy's proposed post-
model analysis. Other commenters, including NRDC et al., were also
critical of the Navy's post-model analysis, claiming that post-model
adjustments in takes resulted in underrepresented total takes. NRDC et
al. and other commenters requested further explanation of, or more
information on, the post-model reduction process. Both the Commission
and NRDC et al. expressed concern with observer effectiveness in the
Navy's development of mitigation effectiveness scores or g(0) values.
Response: See Section 3.8.3.1.6 (Behavioral Reactions) of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS for the discussion of the science regarding the avoidance of
sound sources by marine mammals. With regard to concerns over long term
consequences, Section 3.8.3.1.3. (Long-Term Consequences to the
Individual and the Population) and Section 3.8.5 (Summary of
Observations During Previous Navy Activities) in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
provide a discussion on this topic and the reasons why the Navy does
not expect marine mammals to abandon important habitat on a long-term
or permanent basis. In addition, the Post-Model Quantitative Analysis
of Animal Avoidance Behavior and Mitigation Effectiveness for GOA
Training Activities Technical Report, available at https://www.goaeis.com, provides additional details regarding how the avoidance
and mitigation factors were used and provides scientific support from
peer-reviewed research. A comprehensive discussion of the Navy's
quantitative analysis of acoustic impacts, including the post-model
analysis to account for mitigation and avoidance, is also presented in
Chapter 6 of the LOA application.
NMFS believes that the post-modeling analysis is an effective
method for quantifying the implementation of mitigation measures to
reduce impacts on marine mammals and the science regarding the
avoidance of sound sources by marine mammals which cannot be captured
within the modeling process itself, and that the resulting exposure
estimates are, nevertheless, a conservative estimate of impacts on
marine mammals from the Navy's proposed activities. As explained in the
above-referenced documents, as part of the post-modeling analysis the
Navy reduced some predicted Level A (PTS) exposures based on the
potential for marine mammals to be detected and mitigation implemented,
and the potential for marine mammals to avoid a sound source. Given
this potential, not taking into account some possible reduction in
Level A exposures would result in a less realistic, overestimation of
possible Level A harassment takes, as if there were no mitigation
measures implemented. For example, with respect to mitigation
effectiveness, the period of time between clearing the impact area of
any non-participants or marine mammals and weapons release is on the
order of minutes, making it highly unlikely that a marine mammal would
enter the mitigation zone. Information provided in Section 3.8.3.1.8
(Implementing Mitigation to Reduce Sound Exposures) of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS indicates how much of a reduction each factor represents for
specific activities. As explained in the documents referenced above,
the adjustments move a percentage of the model predicted Level A (PTS)
effects at close range to more likely behavioral effects (Level B
harassment) and do not conclude that all modeled mortalities or non-PTS
injuries will be avoided. This process represents peer-reviewed and
accepted scientific process.
The assignment of mitigation effectiveness scores and the
appropriateness of consideration of sightability using detection
probability, g(0), when assessing the mitigation in the quantitative
analysis of acoustic impacts is discussed in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS
(Section 3.8.3.1.8, Implementing Mitigation to Reduce Sound Exposures).
Additionally, the activity category, mitigation zone size, and number
of Lookouts are provided in the proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 9978-87;
February 26, 2016) and GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Section 5, Tables 5.3-2 and 5.4-
1). In addition to the information already contained within the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS, the Post-Model Quantitative Analysis of Animal Avoidance
Behavior and Mitigation Effectiveness for GOA Training Activities
Technical Report (https://www.goateis.com) and Chapter 6 of the Navy's
LOA application describe the process for the post-modeling analysis in
further detail. There is also information on visual detection leading
to the implementation of mitigation in the annual exercise reports
provided to NMFS and briefed annually to NMFS and the Commission. These
annual exercise reports have been made available and can be found at
https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ in addition to https://www.nmfs.noaa/pr/permits/incidental.
The Navy is in the process of assessing Lookout effectiveness at
detecting marine mammals during Navy exercises. Lookouts will not
always be effective at avoiding impacts on all species. However,
Lookouts are expected to increase the overall likelihood that certain
marine mammal species and some sea turtles will be detected at the
surface of the water, when compared to the likelihood that these same
species would be detected if Lookouts are not used. The continued use
of Lookouts contributes to helping reduce potential impacts on these
species from training and testing activities. Results from the Lookout
effectiveness study will be reviewed and any recommendations for
improving Lookout effectiveness will be considered at that time. In
summary, NMFS and the Navy believe that consideration of marine mammal
sightability and activity-specific mitigation effectiveness is
appropriate in the Navy's quantitative analysis in order to provide
decision makers a reasonable assessment of potential impacts from the
Navy's proposed activities.
Comment 51: The Commission commented on possible errors in the take
tables for Dall's and harbor porpoise provided in the Navy's GOA DSEIS/
OEIS, LOA application, and Pacific Navy Marine Species Density Database
GOA Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014) that includes
the actual modeled data. The Commission suggested one possible
explanation that the Navy used the behavioral response functions
(BRF1(for low-frequency cetaceans) and BRF2 (for
mid- and high-frequency cetaceans--excluding beaked whales and harbor
porpoises--and pinnipeds)) from Finneran and Jenkins (2012) without
updating them with the new weighted TTS thresholds.
Response: NMFS notes that the final authorized take estimates for
Dall's porpoises changed slightly from what was presented in the GOA
DSEIS/OEIS based on consideration of NMFS' new Guidance. However, the
take estimates contained in the Navy's LOA application and GOA DSEIS/
OEIS were not in error for Dall's and harbor porpoise. Most of the
differences in takes between the two species can be directly tied to
the differences in both species-specific densities as well as how that
density was distributed within the GOA TMAA (U.S. Department of the
Navy, 2014). Basically, Dall's porpoise density is higher than harbor
porpoise and spread by strata over all of the GOA TMAA. Based on how
acoustic impact modeling was done for the GOA TMAA (U.S. Department of
the Navy, 2015), more Dall's porpoise would conceivably be exposed to
sonar training events at closer range than harbor porpoise with
resulting higher Dall's porpoise potential takes. Harbor porpoises on
the
[[Page 19573]]
other hand have a documented coastal and at most a limited on shelf
occurrence which is reflected in the harbor porpoise densities for the
GOA TMAA (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014). These harbor porpoise
density areas are sufficiently distant from likely Navy sonar training
as reflected in the modeling areas used (U.S. Department of the Navy,
2015) that only a limited number of behavioral exposures could occur.
Comment 52: The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy
to: (1) Describe the upper limit of BRF1 and BRF2, including whether it
assumed a 1-sec ping for all sources; (2) explain how 0 TTS and up to
7,000 behavioral takes were model-estimated for harbor porpoises; (3)
adjust BRF1 and BRF2 with appropriate K and A parameters based on the
basement parameter and the weighted TTS thresholds; and (4) recalculate
its behavioral take estimates for all marine mammals exposed to
acoustic sources based on those revised BRFs.
Response: The Navy has described the derivation of the BRF in
Section 3.8.3.1.5 (Behavioral Responses) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and in
Finneran and Jenkins (2012). The upper end of the BRFs (at levels
approaching 100 percent probability of response) are not correlated or
anchored at any TTS threshold. The values used in the BRFs are based on
correlations of behavioral reactions with highest received sound
pressure level from the three sources of data discussed in Finneran and
Jenkins (2012). The ping lengths used within the Navy's model to assess
potential impacts are representative of the different sonars and
modalities and are not necessarily one second. The predicted higher
order effect (i.e. TTS over behavioral) is what is reported in the
impact analysis; however, it is important to note that both TTS and
behavioral harassment are considered Level B under MMPA.
After consideration of the frequency weighting, the functional TTS
threshold for high frequency cetaceans (which includes both harbor
porpoise and Dall's porpoise) at 3.5 kHz is a sound exposure level of
169 dB re 1[micro]Pa\2\[middot]s. For harbor porpoises the behavioral
threshold is a step function of sound pressure level 120 dB re 1[mu]Pa;
the effect is predicted based on the loudest received ping regardless
of individual ping duration or the number of pings received. From a
SQS-53 with a nominal source level of 235 dB re 1[mu]Pa, the range to
169 dB re 1[micro]Pa\2\[middot]s varies with ping duration and the
number of pings received by an animal, but is on the order of a few
kilometers. On the other hand, the range to the 120 dB re 1[micro]Pa
behavioral threshold from a SQS-53 source can be greater than 100 km.
The GOA TMAA itself, where Navy activities are modeled/analyzed,
contains very low to no harbor porpoise densities (0.0000 to 0.0259
animals/km\2\) and is greater than 50 km from areas on the continental
shelf that contain higher densities of harbor porpoise. Based on the
range to TTS versus behavioral responses, and the fact that sonar
training activities within the GOA TMAA are greater than 50 km from
harbor porpoise habitat, 7,000 predicted behavioral responses and no
TTS is a valid result. Behavioral response for Dall's porpoise is based
on BRF2 which predicts a decreasing probability of response
to a basement level of 120 dB re 1[mu]Pa. Densities of Dall's porpoise
within the TMAA are up to 0.1854 animals/km\2\. Therefore, the sonar
sources within the proposed activities would be within range to TTS for
Dall's porpoise.
NMFS does not agree with the Commission that the Navy should adjust
behavioral response functions based on TTS thresholds as there is no
consistent correlation between sound levels known to induce hearing
loss and those with a specific probability of behavioral reaction.
Therefore, the take estimates in the Navy's GOA SEIS/OEIS and LOA
application are correct based on species densities used, species
occurrence distribution within the TMAA, and modeling results.
Comment 53: The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy
to round its takes based on model-estimated takes to the nearest whole
number or zero in all of its take tables.
Response: In April 2011 at the start of Phase II process, the Navy
and NMFS (as a cooperating agency for NEPA purposes) had a meeting at
NMFS headquarters and agreed to the rounding process presented in the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS, and other Phase II EISs. The final modeling numbers
presented in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS were rounded down at the sub-total
stage so those totals in the GOA SEIS/OEIS based on the various effect
criteria and the totals presented in the LOA application based on Level
A and Level B harassment as grand totals would sum consistently.
Specifically, all fractional post-processed exposures for a species/
stock across all events within each category sub-total (Impulse and
Non-Impulse) are summed to provide an annual total predicted number of
effects. The options for rounding had been to round up, to round down,
or to manually change the conventionally rounded numbers so that the
sub-total and grand totals matched. Given the conservative factors in
the modeling (described in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.6.3 (Navy
Acoustic Effects Model, sub-section Model Assumptions and Limitations))
that produce an overestimate in the predicted effects, using the
Microsoft Excel rounddown function at this final stage of number
presentation was considered to be the most consistent and
representative means of producing the final numbers presented in the
analyses. More importantly, the differences in alternative rounding
procedures would be negligible and would have no consequences related
to the analysis of impacts to populations of marine mammals or the
likely long term consequences resulting from the proposed action.
Comment 54: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS failed to properly
analyze the potential for serious injury and mortality, particularly
with regard to sonar-related injury and mortality (i.e., strandings)
during the Navy's use of mid-frequency active sources and other
sources. The commenters cited several stranding events (e.g., Bahamas,
2000; Washington State, 2003) that they assert occurred coincident with
military mid-frequency sonar use. NRDC et al. commented that these
events have involved beaked whales, minke whales, kogia, and harbor
porpoises, and states that most beaked whale casualties are likely to
go undetected.
Response: NMFS uses the best available science to analyze the
Navy's activities. The ``Stranding and Mortality'' section of the
proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 9970-76; February 26, 2016) summarized the
stranding events referenced in NRDC et al.'s comment, including the
association between stranding events and exposure to MFAS. Also, see
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.2.8 (Stranding) and the U.S.
Department of the Navy (2013c) ``Marine Mammal Strandings Associated
with U.S. Navy Sonar Activities'' technical report available at https://www.goaeis.com. The modeling of acoustic effects takes into
consideration all applicable environmental factors and all applicable
sound sources to predict the likely effects to beaked whales and all
other species. Please also see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and
Jenkins (2012), and the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.4.1 (Frequency
Weighting) to understand the implementation of frequency weighting as
it applies to the analysis of effects from mid-frequency and high
frequency sound sources.
The environmental conditions in the GOA TMAA Study Area and the
types of activities proposed in the GOA
[[Page 19574]]
FSEIS/OEIS have no relationship to those present in the Bahamas
incident fourteen years ago in unique and warm tropical waters. The
environmental conditions otherwise differentiating the Atlantic
tropical Bahamas environment present in 2000 from the GOA TMAA Study
Area include the unique bathymetry of the Bahamas Providence Channels
that are steep sided, narrow, and very deep--ranging from approximately
2,000 to 12,000 in depth. On that day in 2000 in the Bahamas, there was
also a 200-meter-thick layer of near constant water temperature, calm
seas, as well as the presence of beaked whales.
With regard to the harbor porpoise strandings in Washington State
(2003), NMFS has since determined that these strandings were unrelated
to Navy sonar use. There was a lack of evidence of any acoustic trauma
among the harbor porpoises, and the identification of probable causes
(e.g., entanglement in a fishing net, disease processes) of stranding
or death in several animals supports the conclusion that the harbor
porpoise strandings were unrelated to the sonar activities by the USS
SHOUP. Refer to the discussion in the ``Stranding and Mortality''
section of the proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 9970-79; February 26, 2016)
and the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.2.8 (Stranding) and the U.S.
Department of the Navy (2013c) ``Marine Mammal Strandings Associated
with U.S. Navy Sonar Activities'' technical report (available at https://www.goaeis.com) for a discussion of other previous strandings and note
that the other stranding events in this comment did not occur in, and
were not associated with, the GOA TMAA Study Area and did not involve
any of the training scenarios proposed for the GOA TMAA Study Area.
Lastly, while not referenced by the commenters and not related to
active sonar exposure, NMFS considered an investigation into a long-
finned pilot whale mass stranding event at Kyle of Durness, Scotland,
on July 22, 2011 (Brownlow et al., 2015). The investigation considered
unexploded ordnance detonation activities at a Ministry of Defense
bombing range, conducted by the Royal Navy prior to and during the
strandings, as a plausible contributing factor in the mass stranding
event. While Brownlow et al. (2015) concluded that the serial
detonations of underwater ordnance were an influential factor in the
mass stranding event (along with presence of a potentially compromised
animal and navigational error in a topographically complex region) they
also suggest that mitigation measures--which included observations from
a zodiac only and by personnel not experienced in marine mammal
observation, among other deficiencies--were likely insufficient to
assess if cetaceans were in the vicinity of the detonations. The
authors also cite information from the Ministry of Defense indicating
``an extraordinarily high level of activity'' (i.e., frequency and
intensity of underwater explosions) on the range in the days leading up
to the stranding.
The GOA FSEIS/OEIS provides an analysis of potential impacts
occurring in the GOA TMAA Study Area. While most of the world's
coastlines lack coverage by a stranding network, the Navy's analysis of
impacts has focused on scientific data collected in and around the Navy
range complexes, which are the proposed locations for the continuation
of historically occurring training and testing activities including the
use of sonar. A summary of the compendium of the research in that
regard is presented in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS in Section 3.8.5 (Summary of
Observations During Previous Navy Activities). Unlike the rest of the
world's oceans, there has not been an absence of observation where the
U.S. Navy has been routinely training and testing for years. In
particular, and as ongoing for approximately the last 8 years, the
Navy, NMFS, and an independent group of scientists have been engaged in
implementing a comprehensive monitoring program and associated research
that includes monitoring before, during, and after Navy activities on
U.S. Navy range complexes. In short, the research and monitoring
associated with Navy training and testing activities makes the Navy
range complexes different than the remainder of the world's oceans.
There have been no mortalities or strandings associated with Navy
sonar use during the past approximately 8 years of monitoring, but to
the contrary there has been overwhelming evidence from research and
monitoring indicating the continued presence or residence of
individuals and populations in Navy range complexes and no clear
evidence indicating long-term effects from Navy training and testing in
those locations. For example, photographic records spanning more than
two decades demonstrated re-sightings of individual beaked whales (from
two species: Cuvier's and Blainville's beaked whales), suggesting long-
term site fidelity to the area west of the Island of Hawaii where
intensive swept-channel exercises historically occurred (McSweeney et
al., 2007). In the most intensively used training and testing ranges in
the Pacific, photo identification of animals associated with the SOCAL
Range Complex have identified approximately 100 individual Cuvier's
beaked whale individuals with 40 percent having been seen in one or
more prior years, with re-sightings up to 7 years apart (Falcone and
Schorr, 2014). Data from visual surveys documenting the presence of
Cuvier's beaked whales for the ocean basin west of San Clemente Island
(Falcone et al., 2009; Falcone and Schorr, 2012, 2014; Smultea and
Jefferson, 2014) is also consistent with concurrent results from
passive acoustic monitoring that estimated regional Cuvier's beaked
whale densities were higher than indicated by NMFS' broad scale visual
surveys for the United States west coast (Hildebrand and McDonald,
2009). Falcone and Schorr (2012) suggested that these beaked whales may
have population sub-units with higher than expected residency to the
Navy's instrumented Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range in
particular. For over three decades, this ocean area west of San
Clemente has been the location of the Navy's instrumented training
range and is one of the most intensively used training and testing
areas in the Pacific, given the proximity to the Naval installations in
San Diego. In summary, the best available science indicates the Navy's
continued use of Navy range complexes have not precluded beaked whales
from also continuing to inhabit areas where sonar use has been
occurring, and there is no evidence to suggest that undocumented
mortalities are occurring in the GOA TMAA or on the range complexes
where the U.S. Navy routinely conducts training and testing activities.
In the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the sensitivity of beaked whales is taken
into consideration both in the application of Level B harassment
thresholds and in how beaked whales are expected to avoid sonar sources
at higher levels. No beaked whales were predicted in the acoustic
analysis to be exposed to sound levels associated with PTS, other
injury, or mortality (note: There is no data from which to develop or
set a mortality criterion and there is no evidence that sonar can lead
to a direct mortality due to lack of a shock wave). After years of the
Navy conducting similar activities in the Study Area without incident,
NMFS does not expect strandings, injury, or mortality of beaked whales
or any other species to occur as a result of training activities.
Additionally, through the MMPA rulemaking (which allows for adaptive
management), NMFS and the Navy will determine the appropriate
[[Page 19575]]
way to proceed in the event that a causal relationship were to be found
between Navy activities and a future stranding.
NMFS has considered the body of science regarding strandings that
have occurred coincident with Naval training exercises, paying
particular attention to the few instances where scientific review has
concluded that the exercises may have had a causal contribution. In
short, the strandings that have been more conclusively linked to Naval
activities in some way have largely been associated with certain
environmental and/or operational factors that the Navy has addressed
through preventative monitoring measures to be implemented when the
factors may be present in an operational area. In general, there seems
to be a low probability that strandings could occur in any Navy
training areas, and in the GOA this probability is considered
discountable because none of the complicating environment factors are
present, because of short duration and comparatively low volume of
potential tactical sonar use, and because of the historical absence of
Navy-associated strandings in the area. NMFS and the Navy have
adequately considered the science on this topic and applied it to
actions where appropriate.
Comment 55: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS dismisses the leading
explanation about the mechanism of sonar-related injuries--that whales
suffer from bubble growth in organs that is similar to decompression
sickness, or ``the bends'' in human divers--as one of several
controversial hypotheses. They cite numerous papers in support of this
explanation.
Response: NMFS explicitly addresses acoustically mediated bubble
growth in the Potential Effects section of the proposed rule.
Additionally, please see the Navy's GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.2.1
(Direct Injury) in general and specifically Section 3.8.3.1.2.2
(Nitrogen Decompression) where the latest scientific findings have been
presented. As noted above, NMFS and the Navy have reviewed the body of
science on this topic and applied it, where applicable, to the proposed
action.
Comment 56: Citing several references, NRDC et al. commented that
the Navy and NMFS failed to adequately assess the impacts of stress on
marine mammals.
Response: NMFS fully considered in the proposed rule the potential
for physiological responses, particularly stress responses, that could
potentially result from exposure to MFAS/HFAS or underwater explosive
detonations (see Stress Response in the ``Potential Effects'' section
of the proposed rule). NMFS' analysis identifies the probability of
lethal responses, physical trauma, sensory impairment (permanent and
temporary threshold shifts and acoustic masking), physiological
responses (including stress responses), behavioral disturbance (that
rises to the level of harassment), and social responses (effects to
social relationships) that would be classified as a take and whether
such take would have a negligible impact on such species or stocks.
This analysis is included in the Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination in this final rule, and results of the analysis of
physiological stress responses are summarized below. The Navy's
analysis also considered secondary and indirect impacts, including
impacts from stress (see the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8 (Marine
Mammals)). See for example, Section 3.8.3.1.2.5 (Physiological Stress)
presenting Rolland et al. (2012) and other similar research regarding
chronic stressors, and Section 3.8.3.1.3 (Long-Term Consequences to the
Individual and the Population). For a discussion of biotoxins, see
Section 3.8.2.4 (General Threats).
The referenced studies of North Atlantic right whales (e.g.,
Rolland et al., 2012) impacted by chronic noise were cited and
considered in the Navy's and NMFS' analysis, as well as similar studies
such as Hatch et al. (2012) and Parks et al. (2007) (see Section
3.8.3.1, Acoustic Stressors in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS; see ``Potential
Effects of Specified Activities'' on Marine Mammals in the proposed
rule (81 FR 9950, 9961-78; February 26, 2016)). Similar findings for
blue whales from the Pacific (Melcon et al., 2012) were also considered
for mysticetes, as well as similar findings for other marine mammal
groups with regard to potential chronic stressors. Note, however, that
these studies (and similar studies from the Pacific Northwest such as
Williams et al. (2013)) involve chronic noise resulting from the
pervasive presence of commercial vessels. The Navy activities in the
GOA TMAA Study Area involving active sonar or underwater detonations
are infrequent and short-term. Even though an animal's exposure to
active sonar may be more than one time, the intermittent nature of the
sonar signal, its low duty cycle, and the fact that both the vessel and
animal are moving provide a very small chance that exposure to active
sonar for individual animals and stocks would be repeated over extended
periods of time. Since the impact from noise exposure and the Navy's
training events in general should be transitory given the movement of
the participants, any stress responses should be short in duration and
have less than biologically significant consequences. Consequently,
NMFS has determined that the Navy's activities in the GOA TMAA Study
Area do not create conditions of chronic, continuous underwater noise
and are unlikely to lead to habitat abandonment or long-term hormonal
or physiological stress responses in marine mammals.
The opinion on how stress affects individuals and more importantly
marine mammal stocks or populations is still under scientific review
and research. The Navy via the ONR basic research program is a leading
sponsor of ongoing stress related studies. These include but are not
limited to: Development and Validation of a Technique for Detection of
Stress and Pregnancy in Large Whales (multiple academic performers);
Validating the Novel Method of Measuring Cortisol Levels in Cetacean
Skin by Use of an ACTH Challenge in Bottlenose Dolphins (Aarhus
University); Measuring and Validating Levels of Steroid Hormones in the
Skin of Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) (Aarhus University);
Quantifying Stress in Marine Mammals: Measuring Biologically Active
Cortisol in Cetaceans and Pinnipeds (University of Toronto
Scarborough); Behavioral and Physiological Response of Baleen Whales to
Ships and Ship Noise (multiple performers); Stress Hormones and their
Regulation in a Captive Dolphin Population (National Marine Mammal
Foundation); Molecular Indicators of Chronic Stress in a Model
Pinniped--the Northern Elephant Seal (National Marine Mammal
Foundation); Variability of Hormonal Stress Markers and Stress
Responses in a Large Cross-Sectional Sample of Elephant Seals (Sonoma
State University); Development of Novel Noninvasive Methods of Stress
Assessment in Baleen Whales (New England Aquarium); Understanding the
Onset of Health Impacts Caused by Disturbance (University of Aberdeen);
Tag-based Heart Rate Measurements of Harbor Porpoises During Normal and
Noise-exposed Dives to Study Stress Responses (Aarhus University);
Markers of Decompression Stress of Mass Stranded/Live Caught and
Released vs. Single Stranded Marine Mammals (Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution); Investigation of the Molecular Response in Blood and Skin
of Belugas in Response to ``Stressors'' (Sea Research Foundation,
Inc.); Assessing Stress Responses in Beaked and Sperm Whales in the
Bahamas
[[Page 19576]]
(New England Aquarium/Bahamas Marine Mammal Research Organization); and
Determining Baseline Stress-Related Hormone Values in Large Cetaceans
(Baylor University). This body of work is ongoing and will be
supplemented by new studies in future years.
NMFS and the Navy have reviewed the large body of science on this
issue and summarized the more salient articles in the proposed rule and
the FSEIS/OEIS. We address the known risks of stress impacts and
highlight the need for more work on the subject, while acknowledging
that there are no specific actions (beyond the sorts of mitigation
already included) that would be expected to effectively reduce these
risks.
Comment 57: NRDC et al. commented that the Navy would release a
host of toxic chemicals, hazardous materials and waste into the marine
environment that could pose a threat to marine mammals over the life of
the range. They also commented that the Navy plans to abandon cables,
wires, and other items including parachutes that could entangle marine
wildlife.
Response: Please see the 2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS for analysis of impacts
other than acoustic stressors. The GOA FEIS/OEIS analysis concluded
that most of the material expended during training would be inert and
degrade slowly. A small amount of chemicals would be considered
hazardous--predominantly residual explosives, which break down slowly--
but any small amount of leaching sediment would be dispersed quickly by
the currents. The GOA FSEIS/OEIS analysis concluded that the material
expended during training would not result in water or sediment
toxicity, and that no adverse effects on marine organisms would be
expected. Please see the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.2 (Expended Material)
for details in this regard.
Comment 58: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS failed to evaluate and
authorize vessel strike with large cetaceans or the potential
harassment of harbor porpoises by vessel noise. NRDC et al. further
commented that not only are whales at risk of being struck by Navy
vessels in the normal course of activities, but also that the use of
active acoustics exacerbates the potential for collision. NRDC et al.
comments that the failure to examine the risk of ship strikes is
particularly troubling given the Large Whale UME underway in the
Western Gulf of Alaska.
Response: Please see Section 3.8.2.4 (General Threats) of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS for a discussion of the potential for ship strike in
general. Individual species-specific analyses in Section 3.8.2
(Affected Environment) of the FSEIS/OEIS also discuss the threat of
ship strikes on a species level. To date, there has not been a Navy
ship strike in the GOA over 20 years of infrequent use of the GOA TMAA.
Navy ships always move at the safest practical speed based on a given
training objective and schedule, operational need, and safety of
navigation. The Navy has had a longstanding policy that requires ships
to report any ship strikes to NMFS. With respect to the Navy's proposed
activities for 2017 to 2022, there is no large increase in training
activities proposed over and above historic use. Therefore, past real-
world results (no strikes) is just as valid, if not more so than
speculative modeling.
Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways
important to the prevention of whale collisions. Surface ships operated
by or for the Navy have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times,
day and night, when a ship or surfaced submarine is moving through the
water (underway). A primary duty of personnel standing watch on surface
ships is to detect and report all objects and disturbances sighted in
the water that may indicate a threat to the vessel and its crew, such
as debris, a periscope, surfaced submarine, or surface disturbance. Per
vessel safety requirements, personnel standing watch also report any
marine mammals sighted in the path of the vessel as a standard
collision avoidance procedure. All vessels use extreme caution and
proceed at a safe speed so they can take proper and effective action to
avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and can be
stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances
and conditions. Further, this rule requires vessels to avoid
approaching marine mammals head on and to maneuver to maintain a
mitigation zone of 500 yd (457 m) around observed whales and 200 yd
(183 m) around all other marine mammals (except bow-riding dolphins),
providing it is safe to do so.
The research by Nowacek et al. (2004) cited by NRDC et al. is
discussed in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS in the context of behavioral reactions
to vessels and in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.2.6 (Behavioral
Reactions). Nowacek et al. (2004) used an alarm signal purposefully
designed to provoke a response from the whales. The signal, which was
long in duration, lasting several minutes, was intended to protect the
whales from ship strikes. The frequency, duration, and temporal pattern
of sound sources affected the whale's responses. The right whales did
not respond to playbacks of either right whale social sounds or vessel
noise, highlighting the importance of the sound characteristics,
species differences, and individual sensitivity in producing a
behavioral reaction. Navy activities using sonar would not be used in
the same way as the sound source used by Nowacek et al. (2004), and
similar reactions occurring miles from the sound source are not
anticipated.
In addition, there is no scientific basis for the suggestion that
animals exposed to sonar would have ``greater susceptibility to vessel
strike.'' Navy sonar is used intermittently for short durations, and is
not aimed at or designed to be an alarm signal for low frequency
mysticetes or other cetaceans. Further, studies where experimental
sound source are used have had an extremely different frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation from anything
used by or proposed for use by the Navy. Of note, and in contrast to
the comment's assertion, an equally plausible interpretation of the
study is that an active mid-frequency sound source could potentially
alert marine mammals to the presence of a Navy vessel and therefore
reduce the potential for ship strikes. There has never been any
association with Navy sonar use and ship strikes in over 30 years of
worldwide Navy ship strike reporting to NMFS. Therefore, it is
erroneous to assume Navy sonar use in the GOA TMAA would increase
marine mammal vulnerability to Navy ship strike. Further, there has
been no indication from more frequent Navy sonar use in other areas of
the Pacific outside of the GOA TMAA of significant large whale
reactions such that ship strike risk would increase.
Unusual Mortality Events (see ``Strandings in the GOA TMAA'' in the
proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 9976; February 26, 2016)) and any ship
strikes that have been reported in and outside of the GOA are not from
Navy activities. The 2015 GOA strandings discussed in the proposed rule
may be correlated with Pacific coast wide toxic algal poisoning. The
large whale UME in the GOA is still under investigation, with the
causes currently listed as ``undetermined, possible ecological
causes.''
In summary, both NMFS and the Navy fully evaluated the potential
effects of ship strike. While the possibility of ship strike can never
by fully ruled out where vessels are involved, the history and limited
use of Navy vessels in the GOA, combined with the training, safety, and
mitigation
[[Page 19577]]
protocols, makes the probability of a ship strike so small as to be
discountable, and no ship strikes are anticipated or authorized in the
final rule.
Regarding vessel noise, both NMFS and the Navy have considered, and
addressed in the proposed rule and the FSEIS/OEIS, the body of science
indicating that harbor porpoises are generally more sensitive to sound
exposure than other species, typically avoid human activities at larger
distances than other species, and have been documented responding to
vessel noise. Because of this, we use a lower behavioral threshold,
120dB, to predict when harbor porpoises will be taken by Level B
harassment by Navy's sound sources. We believe that this approach
allows for us to fully capture the extent of meaningful effects and
take of harbor porpoises resulting from Navy activities.
Comment 59: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS does not adequately
analyze the potential for and impact of oil spills (the commenters make
reference to the Exxon Valdez and Cosco Busan oil spill incidents).,
including the potential for collisions between Navy vessels and oil
tankers.
Response: The Navy's proposed action would not transport large
amounts of oil, as did those ships involved in prior spills in Alaska,
or interact with the production or transportation of oil for commercial
sale while training in the TMAA. Moreover, the Exxon Valdez spill
occurred as a result of improper ship manning and handling, and the
Cosco Busan incident that occurred in San Francisco resulted from an
impaired pilot. Neither incident is connected to Navy training or
testing. Nevertheless, oil spill prevention is a high priority for the
Navy. Throughout its spill prevention program, the Navy concentrates on
the entire spectrum of oil handling. The Navy maintains in house
capability to respond to spills of all sizes. Every ship is equipped
with an oil spill kit that is designed to prevent spills from entering
the water. Navy activities report oil spills through the Navy chain to
the National Response Center. Navy personnel are highly trained in
containment and cleanup of spills and equipment is pre-staged worldwide
should it be necessary. The Navy conducts periodic training with all
response agencies, federal, state, and local. A search of the USCG's
National Response Center Annual reports indicates that out of the
countless number of reported spills in the state of Alaska, from small
amounts of oil sheen to large spills, there have been very few from
government vessels (predominately USCG vessels) in Alaska. The
probability of a Navy ship oil spill is extremely minimal given
standard operating procedures.
Regarding the potential for collision with oil tankers, the Navy
does not restrict commercial vessel traffic in the TMAA during
exercises but it does publish Notices to Mariners (NTMs) prior to an
exercise alerting vessels to the presence of Navy ships for the
exercise. While the Navy does not publish daily NTMs, USCG District 17,
Juneau, Alaska, communicates any active Navy training activity to
shipping vessels through broadcast NTMs on VHF-FM Channel 16 and 22A
(Navy 2016. During the exercise, consistent with standard practice for
Navy training worldwide, the Navy avoids areas, to the extent
practicable, with high concentrations of commercial vessels (e.g.,
shipping lanes). The Navy has extensive experience and procedures
(radar, lookouts, etc.) during training and transit in avoiding
commercial vessels, fishing boats, and recreational boats. For
instance, in other Pacific range areas, some of which serve as the
homeport concentrations for the majority of Navy ships (e.g., San
Diego, Pearl Harbor), there have been no such collisions with any
commercial shipping vessels. Therefore, the probability of such an
incident (Navy-civilian ship strike) in the TMAA is extremely remote,
further reduced by the low level of Navy activities (one exercise per
year). Furthermore, the actual quantity of Navy surface ships
participating in an individual GOA exercise is typically rather small
(0-4). These Navy ships are present in the TMAA for only short
durations up to 21-days, with shorter periods being more typical (10-14
days).
Comment 60: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS' analysis cannot be
limited only to direct effects, i.e., effects that occur at the same
time and place as the training exercises that would be authorized, but
must also take into account the activity's indirect effects. The
commenters assert that this requirement is critical given the potential
for sonar exercises to cause significant long-term impacts not clearly
observable in the short term.
Response: NMFS and the Navy analyzed both direct and indirect
effects from Navy training activities. A discussion of potential
indirect effects may be found in the proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 9961-
78; February 26, 2016) (see ``Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals'' and the ``Habitat'' section) and this final rule
(see ``Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination''). As discussed in
Section 3.8.3.1.3 (Long-Term Consequences to the Individual and the
Population) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, the Navy's analysis also considers
all potential impacts resulting from exposure to acoustic sources,
including indirect effects. With respect to long-term impacts, see the
discussion in Section 3.8.3.1.3 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Long-Term
Consequences to the Individual and the Population) and the Long-Term
Consequences section of this rule. For marine mammals in particular,
see the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.4 (Summary of Impacts (Combined
Impacts of All Stressors) on Marine Mammals) and Section 3.8.5 (Summary
of Observations During Previous Navy Activities), presenting the
evidence collected from the intensive monitoring of Navy training and
testing at range complexes nationwide since 2006 which provides support
for the conclusions that it is unlikely there would be any population
level or long-term consequences resulting from the proposed training
activities and implementation of this final rule. The scientific
authorities presented in the comment (the National Research Council)
are discussed in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, and do not support the contention
that there is a link between the use of sonar and any population-level
effects. For example, the number of blue whales has been increasing at
3 percent annual rate in the Southern California waters where the most
frequent and intensive sonar use occurs in the Pacific (Calambokidis et
al., 2009a).
Comment 61: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS failed to adequately
assess the cumulative impacts of the Navy's activities in its
negligible impact determination. More specifically, see the commenters'
four comments (62-65) below.
Response: Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA requires NMFS to make a
determination that the take incidental to a specified activity will
have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine
mammals, and will not result in an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses. Neither
the MMPA nor NMFS' implementing regulations specify how to consider
other activities and their impacts on the same populations. However,
consistent with the preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR
40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities are incorporated into the negligible impact
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the density/distribution and
[[Page 19578]]
status of the species, population size and growth rate, and ambient
noise).
As discussed in the ``Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination'' section of this final rule, Chapter 4 of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS contains a comprehensive assessment of potential cumulative
impacts, including analyzing the potential for cumulatively significant
impacts to the marine environment and marine mammals. The Navy used the
best available science and a comprehensive review of past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable actions to develop a robust cumulative impacts
analysis. The cumulative impacts analysis focused on impacts that are
``truly meaningful.'' This was accomplished by reviewing the direct and
indirect impacts that have the potential to occur on each resource
under each of the alternatives. Key factors considered were the current
status and sensitivity of the resource and the intensity, duration, and
spatial extent of the impacts of each potential stressor. In general,
long-term rather than short-term impacts and widespread rather than
localized impacts were considered more likely to contribute to
cumulative impacts. As required under NEPA, the level and scope of the
analysis are commensurate with the potential impacts of the action as
reflected in the resource-specific discussions in Chapter 3 of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS. The GOA FSEIS/OEIS considered its activities alongside
those of other activities in the region whose impacts are truly
meaningful to the analysis.
In addition, NMFS' Biological Opinion concludes that NMFS' proposed
rulemaking and LOA and any take associated with activities authorized
by the rulemaking and LOA are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of threatened or endangered species (or species proposed for
listing) in the action area during any single year or as a result of
the cumulative impacts of a 5-year authorization.
Comment 62: NRDC et al. assert that there is a lack of any
population analysis or quantitative assessment of long-term effects in
the proposed rule.
Response: NMFS and the Navy fully considered potential long-term
and population-level effects. Analysis of these effects is presented in
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS in Section 3.8.3.1.3 (Long-Term Consequences to the
Individual and the Population) and in the ``Analysis and Negligible
Impact Determination'' section in this final rule (see Long-Term
Consequences and Final Determination sections). NMFS' assessment is
that the Navy training activities involving active sonar or underwater
detonations are infrequent and short-term (as a reminder, the GOA TMAA
training activities will not occur continuously throughout the year,
but rather, for a maximum of 21 days annually). Consequently, the
Navy's activities do not create conditions of chronic, continuous
underwater noise and are unlikely to lead to habitat abandonment or
long-term hormonal or physiological stress responses in marine mammals.
Based on the findings from research efforts and monitoring before,
during, and after training and testing events across the Navy since
2006, NMFS' assessment is that it is unlikely there would be impacts to
populations of marine mammals having any long-term consequences as a
result of the proposed continuation of training and testing in the
ocean areas historically used by the Navy, including the GOA TMAA Study
Area. NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks
due to GOA training activities would result in primarily short-term
(temporary and short in duration) and relatively infrequent Level B
harassment of most individuals exposed, and not of the type or severity
that would be expected to be additive for the portion of the stocks and
species likely to be exposed. Level A harassment, of a small degree,
could be incurred by no more than 4 Dall's porpoise.
Additionally, NMFS notes that, even in areas where the Navy uses
sonar frequently, such as instrumented ranges, marine mammal
populations are present, not diminishing, and in some cases, thriving.
NMFS and the Navy relied on actual trends in marine mammal populations
and the best available science regarding marine mammals, including
behavioral response studies and the satellite tracking of tagged marine
mammals in areas of higher sonar use.
NMFS has reporting and monitoring data from the Navy on training
and testing events occurring around the U.S. since 2006. For example,
results from 2 years (2009-2010) of intensive monitoring by independent
scientists and Navy observers in Southern California Range Complex and
Hawaii Range Complex recorded an estimated 161,894 marine mammals with
no evidence of distress or unusual behavior observed during Navy
activities. Additional information and data summarized in the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.5 (Summary of Observations During Previous Navy
Activities) provide support for the conclusions that it is unlikely
there would be any population level or long-term consequences resulting
from implementation of this final rule.
Comment 63: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS does not consider the
potential for acute synergistic effects from multiple Navy activities
taking place at one time, or from Navy activities in combination with
other actions. As an example, the commenters state that NMFS does not
consider the greater susceptibility to vessel strike of animals that
have been temporarily harassed or disoriented. The commenters cite a
Nowacek et al. (2004) study in which exposure to a mid-frequency sound
source provoked interruption of foraging dives and the surfacing of
five North Atlantic right whales and presumably increased risk of
vessel strike.
Response: As presented in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS Section 3.8.3.1.4.2
(Summation of Energy from Multiple Sources) the Navy's and NMFS'
analysis and acoustic impact modeling does consider and quantify the
potential for additive effects from multiple activities involving
acoustic stressors. Unlike the method used previously that modeled
acoustic sources individually, the Navy's acoustic effects model
(NAEMO) has the capability to run all sound sources within a scenario
simultaneously, which accounts for accumulative sound and provides a
more realistic depiction of the additive effects from using multiple
acoustic sources in spatial and temporal proximity (i.e., the
cumulative SEL is a composite of all sources received by the animat)
(See Section 3.8.3.1.6.3 (Navy Acoustic Effects Model) of the GOA
FSEIS/OEIS). Additionally, Section 3.8.3.1.7 (Marine Mammal Avoidance
of Sound Exposures) and the following sub-sections of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS consider likely marine mammal behavior in the analysis of impacts.
In addition, and as explained in response to a previous comment
above, there is no scientific basis for the suggestion that animals
taken by harassment would have ``greater susceptibility to vessel
strike.'' NMFS considered Nowacek et al. (2004), cited by the
commenters, which is discussed in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Section
3.8.3.1.2.6, Behavioral Reactions). Nowacek et al. (2004) used an alarm
signal purposefully designed to provoke a response from the whales. The
signal, which was long in duration, lasting several minutes, was
intended to protect the whales from ship strikes. The frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of sound sources affected the whale's
responses. The right whales did not respond to playbacks of either
right whale social sounds or vessel noise,
[[Page 19579]]
highlighting the importance of the sound characteristics, species
differences, and individual sensitivity in producing a behavioral
reaction. Navy activities using sonar would not be used in the same way
as the sound source used by Nowacek et al. (2004), and similar
reactions occurring miles from the sound source are not anticipated. Of
note, and in contrast to the comment's assertion, an equally plausible
interpretation of the study is that an active mid-frequency sound
source could potentially alert marine mammals to the presence of a Navy
vessel and therefore reduce the potential for ship strikes.
Comment 64: NRDC et al. commented that the proposed rule makes no
attempt to analyze the cumulative and synergistic effects of mortality,
injury, masking, energetic costs, stress, hearing loss, or any
mechanism of cumulative impact, whether for its proposed training or
for its training combined with other activities affecting the same
marine mammal species and populations; and NMFS makes no attempt to
incorporate the effects of reasonably foreseeable activities impacting
the same species and populations into its impact analysis.
Response: Noting our response to Comment 63 regarding the
cumulative effects of the Navy activity in combination with other
activities, please see the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination
section of this final rule, which addresses all of the combined
anticipated impacts from the Navy's GOA activities. Also, see Chapter 4
(Cumulative Impacts) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and the response above
regarding assessing the impacts of stress on marine mammals. In
particular, and to understand the potential for population-level
impact, see Section 3.8.5 (Summary of Observations During Previous Navy
Activities) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. For masking effects see the
discussion in Section 3.8.3.1.2.4 (Auditory Masking), and for energetic
models, foraging, chronic noise and stress, see the discussion in
3.8.3.1.2.5 (Physiological Stress) in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. The proposed
actions are very limited in time and space and will not constitute
``chronic noise and stress'' analogous or comparable to the citations
presented in the comment involving commercial shipping, seismic
surveys, or whale watching.
The Navy's acoustic impact modeling does consider and quantify the
potential for additive effects from multiple activities involving
acoustic stressors by modeling all sound sources within a scenario
simultaneously, which accounts for accumulative sound and provides a
more realistic depiction of the potential effects of an activity.
Further, as explained throughout this rule, NMFS' assessment is that
the cumulative impacts of active sonar would be extremely small because
the exercises would occur for relatively short periods of time; the
sources of active sonar would most often not be stationary; and the
effects of any LF/MFAS/HFAS exposure would stop when transmissions
stop. Additionally, the vast majority of impacts expected from sonar
exposure and underwater detonations are behavioral in nature, temporary
and comparatively short in duration, relatively infrequent, and not of
the type or severity that would be expected to be additive for the
portion of the stocks and species likely to be exposed. NMFS' final
rule is specifically designed to reduce the effects of the Navy's
activity on marine mammal species and stocks to the least practicable
impact, through the inclusion of appropriate mitigation and monitoring
measures, and the issuance of an Authorization with those conditions
does not result in significant cumulative impacts when considered with
all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects.
Chapter 4 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS contains a comprehensive assessment
of potential cumulative impacts, including analyzing the potential for
cumulatively significant impacts to the marine environment and marine
mammals. Specifically, the Navy concluded, and NMFS concurs, that its
proposed action is likely to result in generally no more than temporary
changes to the noise environment and sediment and water quality.
Therefore, there is limited potential for those effects to interact
cumulatively with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects. Implementation of the proposed action, in
conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions, would not be expected to result in significant cumulative
impacts to the environment. As such, the proposed action will not
result in cumulative adverse effects that could have a substantial
effect on species and populations in the action area.
In addition, we note that the Navy has been training in the same
relative area for years using substantially similar training systems,
and coupled with the multitude of other activities taking place in the
area, there is no evidence of long term consequences to marine mammal
populations or stocks.
Comment 65: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS must account for the
additive impact of its activities in light of entanglement, harmful
algal blooms, and changing ocean conditions.
Response: Please see the response above to comments 61-64 regarding
how NMFS and the Navy have considered cumulative effects, such as those
from entanglements, algal blooms, or other stressors resulting from
actions other than the Navy's training. NMFS and the Navy have
considered changing ocean conditions. As discussed in the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS Section 3.4 (Marine Mammals), NMFS and the Navy are aware that
marine mammals will shift their habitat based on changing ocean
conditions. Please see specifically Section 3.8.2.5 (Marine Mammal
Density Estimates) of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS discussing the integration of
habitat modeling into the analysis; also see the Navy's Pacific Marine
Species Density Database Technical Report. The predictive habitat
models reflect the interannual variability and associated
redistribution of marine mammals as a result of changing environmental
conditions during the survey years used to develop the models. The
analysis presented in the Navy' Pacific Marine Species Density Database
Technical Report includes density data for periods of warmer water and
potentially shifting ranges of marine mammals as a result of those
conditions.
While climate change may result in changes in the distribution of
marine mammals, it is currently not possible to predict how or under
what conditions such changes might occur without engaging in
unsupported conjecture. Therefore, it is not possible to reasonably
determine what hypothetical future marine mammal distributions may look
like as a result of climate change or otherwise factor such changes
into an analysis of resulting potential effects and impacts from Navy
activities.
Comment 66: NRDC et al. commented that the proposed rule does not
adequately assess impacts to EFH and other habitat, fish, and other
prey species. NRDC et al. also commented that the proposed rule is
inconsistent with NMFS' findings in its Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA) consultation with the Navy.
Response: The commenters refer to the Navy's analysis of potential
impacts to fish and EFH contained in the GOA 2011 FEIS/OEIS. It is
important to note that the analysis referred to was conducted in the
context of the MSA, the ESA, and Executive Order 12114. The factors
used to assess the significance of effects vary under these Acts, and
are also different from those applied to the MMPA's effects analysis.
The purpose of this comment period
[[Page 19580]]
was for the public to provide comments on the proposed rule, which is
being promulgated under the authority of the MMPA. NMFS fully
considered impacts to fish and other prey species as a component of
marine mammal habitat. Please see the ``Marine Mammal Habitat'' section
of the proposed rule (81 FR 9950, 10000-03; February 26, 2016), which
included an extensive discussion of the potential impact of the Navy's
activities on fish and invertebrates. Potential impacts to marine
mammal food resources within the GOA TMAA are negligible given both the
lack of hearing sensitivity to mid-frequency sonar, the very limited
spatial and temporal scope of most Navy activities at sea including
underwater detonations, and the high biological productivity of these
resources. NMFS concludes that no short- or long-term effects to marine
mammal food resources from Navy activities are anticipated within the
GOA TMAA. The effect of the Navy's activities on threatened and
endangered fish was also addressed in NMFS' Biological Opinion, which
concluded that the Navy's activities would not reasonably be expected
to reduce appreciably the likelihood of the survival and recovery of
any listed fish species.
Section 5.3.1.1.11 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Avoiding Marine Species
Habitats and Biologically Important Areas) discusses habitat avoidance.
Section 3.6 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS (Fish) provides the effects
determinations on fish. As noted in Chapter 3.6 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS,
the current science regarding behavioral impacts to fish from sonar is
that the potential for effects within the near field (within few tens
of meters of the source), intermediate, or far distances is low (Popper
et al., 2014). For explosives, the potential for behavioral effects is
high within a few tens of meters from the source, moderate to high
within intermediate distances (100s of meters from the source), and low
within the far field (thousands of meters from the source) (Popper et
al., 2014).
As described in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, there is updated information
such as fish stock assessment reports and information on fish hearing
since the publication of the 2011 FEIS/OEIS. However, upon a
comprehensive review of this new information, there are no changes to
the affected environment (e.g. species present) or to the impact
conclusions, which forms the environmental baseline of the fish
analysis in the 2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS. Instead, a review of best available
science on fish hearing indicates that most species are less likely to
be affected than previously thought. The Navy and NMFS reviewed Popper
et al. (2014) and other sources of best available science in the fall
of 2015 and determined sonar and explosive criteria for fishes based on
taxonomy which represents all fish species including salmon (refer to
``Navy's Northwest Training and Testing Phase II Sonar and Explosive
Criteria for Fishes'' in the NWTT FEIS/OEIS). In summary, salmon and
the majority of other fish species cannot hear mid-frequency sonar and
therefore would not elicit a behavioral response. For fish species that
can hear mid-frequency sonar, such as herring, a recent study concluded
that the use of naval sonar poses little to no risk to populations of
herring regardless of season, even when an entire population is
aggregated during sonar exposure (Sivle et al., 2015). Therefore,
effects from sonar are not likely to any fish species, even those who
have the ability to hear mid-frequency sonar. Sonar has not been known
to cause mortality, mortal injury, or recoverable injury in the wild
due to lack of fast rise times, lack of high peak pressures, and lack
of high acoustic impulse. In addition, the potential for exposure to
high levels is unlikely due to the very small area of effect around the
source, and the inability for individuals or schools of fish to remain
in that zone of effect while simultaneously maintaining a swim speed
that can match ship speed for a long enough duration of time to
accumulate energy. Effects from explosives are limited to the surface
waters and the area in the immediate vicinity of the explosion. Deep
water fish would not be affected based on their distance from the
source and the lack of a developed swim bladder. No spawning areas or
early life stages would be affected as they are not located in or near
the TMAA. Finally, effects to habitat from temporal sound does not
render the habitat unsuitable to support fish populations. In
conclusion, the small scale of the potential effects on fish (including
disturbance, injury, or mortality) are not expected to have any
meaningful impact on the ability of marine mammals to acquire the prey
that they need or fish populations in general.
Negligible Impact Determination and Analysis
Comment 67: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS should set the
following research priorities with the Navy to address data gaps and to
better inform its analysis and negligible impact determination: (1)
Increased data collection and survey efforts to derive abundance
estimates and improve knowledge on year-round and seasonal
distribution; (2) research into sonar signal modifications; (3) thermal
detection systems; and (4) research on Navy ship speeds during transit.
Response: Increased data collection and survey efforts--NMFS relied
on the best available science to make all required findings under the
MMPA prior to issuing an incidental take authorization to the Navy for
training activities in the GOA TMAA. To be supportive of NMFS' mission,
the Navy funded two previous GOA surveys, a visual line transect survey
in 2009, and a visual and passive acoustic line-transect survey in 2013
(estimated cost $1.1 million for 2013 survey). With only 3-years
between surveys (2009, 2013), this periodicity is more frequent than
what NMFS schedules for almost any other area of the Pacific having
equal limited data at present.
Visual line-transect surveys using medium to large oceanographic
vessels is the current scientific gold standard promoted by NMFS for
deriving marine mammal density. Successive data collection from these
vessels is highly dependent on sea state with limited sightings
available during higher sea states. This limitation means bad weather,
a significant potential anytime in the offshore waters of GOA, can
serious degrade the amount of data collected. For instance, the 2013
GOA line-transect survey was scheduled in July, the most optimum at-sea
time in which to survey the GOA. However, only 59 percent (4,504) of
the proposed pre-survey proposed tracks (7,644 km) could be realized.
Additional future vessel use for visual surveys and towed passive
acoustic surveys would likely have similar limitations.
The Navy-funded 2013 GOA survey provided the most current
scientific sighting and density data available for GOA marine mammals.
Over 164,953 km\2\ of GOA were surveyed including strata reflecting
specific oceanographic and biological regimes (shelf, slope, offshore,
and seamounts). The strata development and sampling design presented by
Rone et al. (2014) was generated and approved by NMFS' Alaska Fisheries
Science Center. The scale of strata is representative of how NMFS
designs all large area surveys to balance scientific need and at-sea
survey costs as compared to available funding. Similar spatial survey
scales are found in almost all NMFS offshore visual line-transect
surveys for the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In fact, Rone et al.
(2014) was more novel than many NMFS surveys in use of four unique
biogeographic areas within the GOA. Given the large ranges that
[[Page 19581]]
constitute most offshore marine mammal distributions at daily,
seasonal, and between year intervals, very small scale surveys and
associated density estimation could conceivably: (a) Not provide enough
species-specific sightings over a given survey or even a group of
similar surveys that meet the statistical requirements for deriving
density, and: (b) May not adequately represent a given species' total
range. In general, visual or passive acoustic detection of some
individuals of a species in one area does not necessarily preclude that
all individuals or even a substantial part of a stock or species use
the same small geographic area. During the survey, there were 964
visual detections of 2,266 individual marine mammals from 13 species.
In addition, there were 345 passive acoustic detections of marine
mammals from nine species. This sighting data from the 2013 survey was
used to update marine mammal density by strata for those animals with
sufficient sightings from which a statistically valid calculation could
be determined (seven species). Densities derived from these sightings
were in turn used in the Navy's impact assessment for GOA training.
The Navy has already funded over $2.6 million in new marine mammal
monitoring within the GOA from 2011-2015. This included a 2013 visual
line-transect and passive acoustic survey, up to five long-term (365
days/year) bottom-mounted passive acoustic devices on the shelf, slope,
and seamounts, and a slope deployment of an underwater glider with
passive acoustic sensors. The bottom-mounted devices deployed year-
round have contributed valuable new science as to the occurrence and
seasonality of GOA marine mammals, including blue whales, fin whales,
gray whales, humpback whales, sperm whales, and beaked whales. To date,
over 58,953 hours or 2,456 days' worth of passive acoustic data over
all seasons have been collected, analyzed, and results reported through
annual monitoring reports.
The Navy and NMFS believe that marine mammal density estimation
from passive acoustic monitoring data is a promising field, which is
why the Navy is a leader in funding new research to advance the state
of the science. The Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the Living
Marine Resources (LMR) program are currently funding multiple projects
focused on the development and validation of statistical tools and
analysis processes. To date, this field is very much in its infancy,
and there are a number of unresolved issues that the current research
is working to address. For example, the current Navy-funded research is
focusing on aspects such as the proper characterization of calling
rates, range of detection, and group size, all of which can vary by
species, region, time of year/day, sex, etc. All of these variables can
impact the resulting density estimate, and therefore the method of
incorporating these variables needs to be investigated further. Once
these methods are further developed and validated, marine mammal
density estimation from passive acoustic monitoring data will be a
promising tool to help characterize population abundance and
distribution. Therefore, with few exceptions, universal density
derivation from additional passive acoustic monitoring in the GOA over
the next 3-5 years is premature given the science underlying this
protocol is still in development.
The Navy currently has an ongoing satellite tagging project for
blue and fin whales on the US West Coast (2014-2017). These are long-
term tags reporting individual movement for a period of several weeks
in a worst case scenario, and up to a year in a best case scenario.
These are highly mobile species that could conceivably move through
portions of the GOA TMAA and if applicable, those results will be
highlighted in the Navy's future GOA monitoring reports. There has
already been non-Navy funded satellite tagging of select Gulf of Alaska
species separate and unrelated to Navy funded monitoring in the same
region. Pacific Life Foundation funded the Marine Mammal Institute of
Oregon State University to attach long-term satellite tracking tags to
humpback whales adjacent to the Gulf of Alaska from 2014 to 2015. To
date, 40 animals have been tagged and results are currently under
analysis. Tagged humpback whales have been successfully tracked whales
across the Gulf of Alaska to winter reproductive areas around Hawaii
and through more coastal routes along the eastern North Pacific
(including the Gulf) to the tip of Baja and nearshore regions off
mainland Mexico.
See the ``Monitoring'' section of this final rule for more
information on monitoring activities planned for 2017 to 2022. Through
the adaptive management process, NMFS and Navy will work together to
define future GOA TMAA monitoring in consideration of achievable
scientific objectives, and in terms of logistical considerations
including but not limited to funding availability, applicability of one
technology in GOA vs. another, and other Navy monitoring commitments in
other regions of the Pacific.
Sonar signal modifications--The Navy's suite of sonar systems have
been designed and optimized for submarine and mine detection over 50
years of research and actual application. Individual signal
characteristics are used because they are proven to work, otherwise the
system would not be in use and would hamper Navy's effectiveness in
capabilities to find and locate adversary submarines and to also
protect Navy ships and submarines. Unwarranted signal modifications are
impractical to implement, and would not allow the Navy to meet its
Title 10 national defense obligations.
Thermal detection systems--The German Federal Ministry of Education
and Research funded initial development of a cryogenically cooled
thermal imaging device mounted on a stabilized gimbal and associated
computer software (designed and built by Ocean Acoustics Lab, Alfred
Wegener Institute Helmholtz-Zentrum for Polar and Marine Research and
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany). The camera and
detection software was initially field tested in the Arctic and
Southern Ocean (Zitterbart et al., 2013). In a follow-on project, the
Navy's Office of Naval Research has continued funding development, at-
sea testing and validation of this system from 2014-2016 in temperate
waters off Australia and tropical waters off Hawaii. However, this
system is still in an intermediate stage of development and not ready
for a full-fledged sea trial of the commercially available stand-alone
system. In addition, costs just for the camera system itself are still
exceedingly large, on the order of $980,000, making the system better
suited for future monitoring applications.
Integration of a non-Navy designed system into the sensor suite of
a modern Navy ship is not a trivial task, and given the complexity of
this or similar thermal imaging systems, would not be practical as a
Navy surface ship mitigation. There are issues of quantity available to
account for the several hundred Navy ships stationed in the Pacific,
the overall costs for that many units, the concerns with lifecycle
maintenance and upkeep with a system on ships deployed for long periods
of time, ability to keep spare parts and critical components in stock
and supplied as needed, and the issue of electromagnetic interference
and engineering considerations when any new technology is proposed for
a Navy ship. Some new technologies can take five to ten years to
resolve all these issues, and in some cased may never be safely or
[[Page 19582]]
logistically integrated for just some of the above considerations.
Navy ship speeds during transit--To date, there has not been a Navy
ship strike in the GOA over 20 years of infrequent use of the GOA TMAA.
Navy ships always move at the safest practical speed based on a given
training objective and schedule, operational need, and safety of
navigation. Navy ships are required to report ship strikes to NMFS.
Slow speeds are just as likely as and more probable than high speed
maneuvers by surface vessels in many of the exercise event scenarios.
Vessel operators need to be able to react to changing tactical
situations and evaluate system capabilities in training as they would
in actual combat. Widespread speed restrictions would not allow the
Navy to properly test vessel capabilities or train to react to these
situations. Speed restrictions during some activities (e.g., flight
operations, underway replenishment, etc.) would also add unacceptable
risk and decrease safety of personnel and vessels.
Collection of Navy ship speed data would not inform or improve the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS analysis or NMFS' negligible impact determination for
the GOA TMAA given the relative different speeds of vessels depending
on activities and the lack of such impacts in the past that would
suggest ship strikes are reasonably likely to occur.
Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways
important to the prevention of whale collisions. Surface ships operated
by or for the Navy have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times,
day and night, when a ship or surfaced submarine is moving through the
water (underway). A primary duty of personnel standing watch on surface
ships is to detect and report all objects and disturbances sighted in
the water that may indicate a threat to the vessel and its crew, such
as debris, a periscope, surfaced submarine, or surface disturbance. Per
vessel safety requirements, personnel standing watch also report any
marine mammals sighted in the path of the vessel as a standard
collision avoidance procedure. All vessels use extreme caution and
proceed at a safe speed so they can take proper and effective action to
avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and can be
stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances
and conditions.
Comment 68: NRDC comments that our negligible impact determination
is unsupported because of the lack of abundance data for certain
species, including minke whales, sperm whales, and several species of
beaked whales.
Response: NMFS is responsible for making a finding based on the
best available science. The lack of recent abundance data for the
species identified by the commenters does not preclude us from making
the necessary findings for these species. As described in the Analysis
and Negligible Impact Determination section, the nature and duration of
the activities, combined with the mitigation requirements, are such
that we anticipate only short-term and lower-level Level B harassment
of the affected individuals. In short, there is very little likelihood
that any individuals will suffer fitness-level effects that threaten
their reproductive success or survivorship. Because of the anticipated
lack of fitness-level effects to any individuals, species or stock
abundance is less of a factor in the analysis of population-level
effects. Nonetheless, information has been added to the negligible
impact analysis section that describes the abundance information we do
have for species without recent abundance estimates, which allows for
at least a broad-scale relative understanding of abundance.
NEPA
Comment 69: NRDC et al. commented that NMFS cannot rely on adoption
of the Navy's GOA FSEIS/OEIS to fulfill its obligation under NEPA due
to the inadequacy of the document.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS is inadequate for our adoption and to meet our
responsibilities under NEPA for the issuance of regulations and LOA, or
that NMFS has not fulfilled its NEPA obligations. NMFS notes that
comments submitted on the GOA DSEIS/OEIS during its public comment
period are addressed by the Navy in Appendix D of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS.
NMFS' Office of Protected Resources has thoroughly reviewed the
Navy's GOA FSEIS/OEIS and concluded that the impacts evaluated by the
Navy are substantially the same as the impacts of NMFS' proposed action
to issue regulations (and associated LOA) governing the take of marine
mammals incidental to Navy training activities in the GOA TMAA Study
Area from May 2017 through May 2022. In addition, the Office of
Protected Resources has evaluated the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and found that it
includes all required components for adoption by NOAA including: A
discussion of the purpose and need for the action; a listing of the
alternatives to the proposed action; a description of the affected
environment; a succinct description of the environmental impacts of the
proposed action and alternatives, including cumulative impacts; and a
listing of agencies and persons consulted, and to whom copies of the
GOA FSEIS/OEIS are sent.
Per the cooperating agency commitment, the Navy provided NMFS with
early preliminary drafts of the GOA DSEIS/OEIS and the FSEIS/OEIS and a
designated (and adequate) timeframe within which NMFS could provide
comments. The Office of Protected Resources circulated the Navy's
preliminary NEPA documents to other interested NOAA line offices and
NMFS' regional and science center offices, compiled any comments
received, and submitted them to the Navy. Subsequently, the Navy and
NMFS participated in comment resolution meetings, in which the Navy
addressed NMFS' comments, and in which any outstanding issues were
resolved. The Navy has incorporated the majority of NMFS' comments into
the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, and adequately addressed those comments that were
not incorporated. As a result of this review, the Office of Protected
Resources has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a separate
Environmental Assessment or EIS to issue regulations or LOA authorizing
the incidental take of marine mammals pursuant to the MMPA, and that
adoption of the Navy's GOA FSEIS/OEIS is appropriate. Based on NMFS'
review of the FSEIS, NMFS has adopted the FSEIS under the Council on
Environmental Quality's Regulations for Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1506.3). Furthermore, in accordance
with NEPA, its implementing regulations, and the NOAA's Administrative
Order (NAO) 216-6A and Companion Manual, we have prepared a Record of
Decision (ROD) which addresses NMFS' determination to issue regulations
and LOA to the Navy pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, for
the taking of marine mammals incidental to the conduct of the Navy's
training activities.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
In the ``Estimated Take of Marine Mammals'' section of the proposed
rule, NMFS described the potential effects to marine mammals from
active sonar and underwater detonations in relation to the MMPA
regulatory definitions of Level A and Level B harassment (81 FR 9950,
9992-97; February 26, 2016). Much of that information has not changed
and is not repeated here; however, two changes to the input into take
estimates have occurred and are
[[Page 19583]]
described both in the ``Summary of Request'' and the ``Take Request''
immediately below.
It is important to note that, as Level B harassment is interpreted
here and quantified by the behavioral thresholds described below, the
fact that a single behavioral pattern (of unspecified duration) is
abandoned or significantly altered and classified as a Level B
harassment take does not mean, necessarily, that the fitness of the
harassed individual is affected either at all or significantly, or
that, for example, a preferred habitat area is abandoned. Further
analysis of context and duration of likely exposures and effects is
necessary to determine the impacts of the estimated effects on
individuals and how those may translate to population-level impacts,
and is included in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination.
Tables 7 and 8 provide a summary of non-impulsive and impulsive
thresholds to TTS and PTS for marine mammals, reflecting the acoustic
thresholds used by the Navy for its acoustic effects model (NAEMO) in
the Navy's FEIS/OEIS and reflected in the proposed rule. Behavioral
thresholds for impulsive sources are summarized in Table 9. A detailed
explanation of how these thresholds were derived is provided in the
Criteria and Thresholds Technical Report (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012)
and summarized in Chapter 6 of the LOA application (https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm). As described in
detail elsewhere, NMFS' new Acoustic Guidance, and the associated
thresholds (https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/Acoustic%20Guidance%20Files/opr-55_acoustic_guidance_tech_memo.pdf)
have also been considered in this final rule.
Table 7--Onset TTS and PTS Thresholds for Non-Impulse Sound
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group Species Onset TTS Onset PTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency Cetaceans.............. All mysticetes......... 178 dB re 1[micro]Pa2- 198 dB re 1[micro]Pa2-
sec(LFII). sec(LFII).
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans.............. Most delphinids, beaked 178 dB re 1[micro]Pa2- 198 dB re 1[micro]Pa2-
whales, medium and sec(MFII). sec(MFII).
large toothed whales.
High-Frequency Cetaceans............. Porpoises, Kogia spp... 152 dB re 1[micro]Pa2- 172 dB re 1[micro]Pa2-
sec(HFII). secSEL (HFII).
Phocidae In-water.................... Harbor, Hawaiian monk, 183 dB re 1[micro]Pa2- 197 dB re 1[micro]Pa2-
elephant seals. sec(PWI). sec(PWI).
Otariidae & Obodenidae In-water...... Sea lions and fur seals 206 dB re 1[micro]Pa2- 220 dB re 1[micro]Pa2-
sec(OWI). sec(OWI).
Mustelidae In-water.................. Sea otters.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LFII, MFII, HFII: New compound Type II weighting functions; PWI, OWI: Original Type I (Southall et al., 2007)
for pinniped and mustelid in water.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 19584]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27AP17.004
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Table 9--Behavioral Thresholds for Impulsive Sound
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive
behavioral
Hearing group threshold for >2 Onset TTS
pulses/24 hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency Cetaceans......... 167 dB SEL (LFII). 172 dB SEL (MFII)
or 224 dB Peak
SPL.
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans......... 167 dB SEL (MFII).
High-Frequency Cetaceans........ 141 dB SEL (HFII). 146 dB SEL (HFII)
or 195 dB Peak
SPL.
Phocid Seals (in water)......... 172 dB SEL (PWI).. 177 dB SEL (PWI)
or 212 dB Peak
SPL.
[[Page 19585]]
Otariidae & Mustelidae (in 195 dB SEL (OWI).. 200 dB SEL (OWI)
water). or 212 dB Peak
SPL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: (1) LFII, MFII, HFII are New compound Type II weighting
functions; PWI, OWI = Original Type I (Southall et al., 2007) for
pinniped and mustelid in water (see Finneran and Jenkins 2012). (2)
SEL = re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s; SPL = re 1 [mu]Pa, SEL = Sound Exposure Level,
dB = decibel, SPL = Sound Pressure Level.
Take Request
The GOA FSEIS/OEIS considered all training activities proposed to
occur in the Study Area that have the potential to result in the take
of marine mammals as defined by the MMPA. The stressors associated with
these activities included the following:
Acoustic (sonar and other active non-impulse sources,
explosives, swimmer defense airguns, weapons firing, launch and
impact noise, vessel noise, aircraft noise);
Energy (electromagnetic devices);
Physical disturbance or strikes (vessels, in-water
devices, military expended materials, seafloor devices);
Entanglement (fiber optic cables, guidance wires,
parachutes);
Ingestion (munitions, military expended materials other
than munitions); and
Secondary stressors (sediments and water quality).
The Navy determined, and NMFS agrees, that two stressors could
potentially result in the incidental taking of marine mammals from
training activities within the Study Area: (1) Non-impulsive stressors
(sonar and other active acoustic sources) and (2) impulsive stressors
(explosives). Non-impulsive and impulsive stressors have the potential
to result in incidental takes of marine mammals by harassment, injury,
or mortality. Explanation of why the other stressors listed above are
unlikely to result in the incidental taking of marine mammals is
provided in the FSEIS/OEIS and the proposed rule.
Training Activities
Based on the Navy's model and post-model analysis, modified as
described below, Table 10 summarizes the Navy's final take request for
training activities for a year (1 exercise occurring over a 7-month
period (April-October) and the summation over a 5-year period (1
exercise occurring over a 7-month period (April-October) for a total of
5 exercises).
Table 10--Summary of Annual and 5-Year Take Requests for GOA TMAA
Training Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training activities
-----------------------------------
MMPA category Source Annual 5-Year
authorization authorization
sought sought
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality......... Explosives...... 0............... 0.
Level A........... Sonar and other 4 (Dall's 20 (Dall's
active acoustic porpoise only porpoise only
sources; as shown in as shown in
explosives. Table 11). Table 11).
Level B........... Sonar and other 18,250 (Species 91,250 (Species
active acoustic specific data specific data
sources; shown in Table shown in Table
explosives. 11). 11).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive and Non-Impulsive Sources
Table 11 provides details on the Navy's final take request for
training activities by species from the acoustic effects modeling
estimates. There are no mortalities predicted for any species
incidental to the proposed training activities. Only four Level A
harassment takes are predicted to occur for one species (i.e., Dall's
porpoises).
Derivations of the numbers presented in Table 11 are described in
more detail within Chapter 6 of the LOA application, but modified as
described in the ``Summary of Request'' section. As described in that
section, take estimates have changed since publication of proposed rule
based on the following:
(1) The Navy modified its incidental take request to reflect the
level of activities described by Alternative 1 of the FSEIS/OEIS (as
opposed to Alternative 2) following a reassessment of reasonably
foreseeable training requirements for the GOA TMAA. This change in
alternative will reduce the total anticipated amount of annual training
activities by reducing the number of annual Carrier Strike Group
Exercises from 2 to 1 and the number of SINKEXs from 2 to 0 (see
``Summary of Request''), ultimately reducing the take authorized. Thus,
the take estimates shown in Table 11 reflect those presented for
Alternative 1 in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS and are greatly reduced from what
was presented in the proposed rule and the Navy's application.
(2) Level A and Level B harassment takes shown in Table 11 are
slightly different for one species (i.e., for Dall's porpoise only)
from what is described in Alternative 1 of the FSEIS/OEIS. This change
is a result of the Navy's reprocessing of anticipated explosive ranges
to effects for Level A and Level B harassment based on NMFS' new
Guidance to assess if the new acoustic thresholds in the Guidance could
result in any additional species-specific injury exposures when applied
to GOA Phase II training activities. The Navy's analysis found that
applying the new thresholds to the training activities addressed by
Alternative 1 would result in an additional three Dall's porpoise Level
A harassment (PTS) takes from explosives and an additional 149 Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral responses) compared to the take
numbers presented in Alternative 1 of the FSEIS/OEIS. The Navy's
analysis concluded that applying the new acoustic criteria would result
in no additional anticipated explosive takes to any other species.
[[Page 19586]]
Table 11--Species-Specific Take Requests From Modeling Estimates of Impulsive and Non-Impulsive Source Effects for All Training Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 5-year
Species Stock ---------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Level A Level B Level A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Pacific right whale...................... Eastern North Pacific.................. 3 0 15 0
Humpback whale *............................... Central North Pacific.................. 61 0 305 0
California, Washington, Oregon......... 7 0 35 0
Western North Pacific.................. 1 0 5 0
Blue whale..................................... Eastern North Pacific.................. 47 0 235 0
Central North Pacific.................. 0 0 0 0
Fin whale...................................... Northeast Pacific...................... 1,291 0 6,455 0
Sei whale...................................... Eastern North Pacific.................. 6 0 30 0
Minke whale.................................... Alaska................................. 43 0 215 0
Gray whale..................................... Eastern North Pacific.................. 0 0 0 0
Western North Pacific.................. 0 0 0 0
Sperm whale.................................... North Pacific.......................... 98 0 490 0
Killer whale................................... Alaska Resident........................ 281 0 1,405 0
Eastern North Pacific Offshore......... 26 0 130 0
AT1 Transient.......................... 0 0 0 0
GOA, Aleutian Island, and Bearing Sea 72 0 360 0
Transient.
Pacific white-sided dolphin.................... North Pacific.......................... 981 0 4,905 0
Harbor porpoise................................ Gulf of Alaska......................... 2,742 0 13,710 0
Southeast Alaska....................... 963 0 4,815 0
Dall's porpoise **............................. Alaska................................. 8,270 ** 4 41,350 20
Cuvier's beaked whale.......................... Alaska................................. 1,271 0 6,355 0
Baird's beaked whale........................... Alaska................................. 200 0 1,000 0
Stejneger's beaked whale....................... Alaska................................. 576 0 2,880 0
Steller sea lion............................... Eastern U.S............................ 335 0 1,675 0
Western U.S............................ 286 0 1,430 0
California sea lion............................ U.S.................................... 2 0 10 0
Northern fur seal.............................. Eastern Pacific-Alaska................. 713 0 3,565 0
Northern elephant seal......................... California Breeding.................... 122 0 610 0
Harbor seal.................................... Aleutian Islands....................... 0 0 0 0
Pribilof Islands....................... 0 0 0 0
Bristol Bay............................ 0 0 0 0
North Kodiak........................... 0 0 0 0
South Kodiak........................... 1 0 5 0
Prince William Sound................... 1 0 5 0
Cook Inlet/Shelikof.................... 0 0 0 0
Glacier Bay/Icy Strait................. 0 0 0 0
Sitka/Chatham.......................... 0 0 0 0
Dixon/Cape Decision.................... 0 0 0 0
Ribbon seal.................................... Alaska................................. 0 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Totals..................................... ....................................... 18,250 4 91,250 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Since the publication of the proposed rule, NMFS requested that the Navy include an additional ESA-listed stock of humpback whale (CA/OR/WA stock)
that could have some elements of its population in or transiting the GOA TMAA. NMFS agreed with the Navy's assessment that the most accurate approach
would be to re-proportion total modeled humpback whale takes to all three stocks based on best available science. The Navy prorated existing modeled
humpback whale takes into three parts based on relative abundance between the Central North Pacific stock, the CA/OR/WA stock, and the Western North
Pacific stock as detailed in scientific sighting and genetic studies (Calambokidis et al., 2008). Thus, Table 11 shows the revised prorated breakdown
of Level B harassment takes by humpback whale stocks. Total number of takes does not differ from what was determined for the proposed rule, nor does
our negligible impact determination for this species change, as discussed below.
** The Navy, at NMFS' request, provided a quantitative analysis of how explosive takes could change if the new NMFS acoustic criteria were applied
retroactively to GOA Phase II results. The Navy's analysis concluded that changes in the take estimate would occur for only one species (Dall's
porpoise) under this assessment (+3 Level A PTS and +149 Level B (TTS and behavior) takes as compared to Alternative 1 of the FSEIS/OEIS).
Marine Mammal Habitat
The Navy's proposed training activities could potentially affect
marine mammal habitat through the introduction of sound into the water
column, impacts to the prey species of marine mammals, bottom
disturbance, or changes in water quality. Each of these components was
considered in Chapter 3 of the GOA FSEIS/OEIS. Based on the information
in the ``Marine Mammal Habitat'' section of the proposed rule (81 FR
9950, 10000-03; February 26, 2016) and the supporting information
included in the GOA FSEIS/OEIS, NMFS has determined that training
activities would not have adverse or long-term impacts on marine mammal
habitat. In summary, expected effects to marine mammal habitat will
include transitory elevated levels of anthropogenic sound in the water
column; short-term physical alteration of the water column or bottom
topography; brief disturbances to marine invertebrates; localized and
infrequent disturbance to fish; a limited number of fish mortalities;
and temporary marine mammal avoidance.
[[Page 19587]]
Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination (NID)
Negligible impact is ``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, as the
severity of harassment may vary greatly depending on the context and
duration of the behavioral response, many of which would not be
expected to have deleterious impacts on the fitness of any individuals.
In determining whether the expected takes will have a negligible
impact, in addition to considering estimates of the number of marine
mammals that might be ``taken,'' NMFS must consider other factors, such
as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration,
etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or
location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature (e.g.,
severity) of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of
estimated mortalities, and the status of the species. As a reminder,
the GOA TMAA training activities will not occur continuously throughout
the year, but rather, for a maximum of 21 days once annually between
April and October.
The Navy's specified activities have been described based on best
estimates of the maximum amount of sonar and other acoustic source use
or detonations that the Navy would conduct. There may be some
flexibility in that the exact number of hours, items, or detonations
may vary from year to year, but the total amount of incidental take is
not authorized to exceed the 5-year totals indicated in Table 11. We
base our analysis and NID on the maximum number of takes authorized,
although, as stated before, the number of takes are only a part of the
analysis, which includes extensive qualitative consideration of other
contextual factors that influence the degree of impact of the takes on
the effected individuals. To avoid repetition, we provide some general
analysis immediately below that applies to all the species listed in
Table 11, given that some of the anticipated effects (or lack thereof)
of the Navy's training activities on marine mammals are expected to be
relatively similar in nature. However, below that, we break our
analysis into species, or groups of species where relevant similarities
exist, to provide more specific information related to the anticipated
effects on individuals or where there is information about the status
or structure of any species that would lead to a differing assessment
of the effects on the population.
The Navy's take request is based on its model and post-model
analysis, modified as described in the ``Summary of Request'' and
``Take Request'' sections. In the discussions below, the ``acoustic
analysis'' refers to the Navy's modeling results and post-model
analysis. The model calculates sound energy propagation from sonar,
other active acoustic sources, and explosives during naval activities;
the sound or impulse received by animat dosimeters representing marine
mammals distributed in the area around the modeled activity; and
whether the sound or impulse received by a marine mammal exceeds the
thresholds for effects. The model estimates are then further analyzed
to consider animal avoidance and implementation of highly effective
mitigation measures to prevent Level A harassment, resulting in final
estimates of effects due to Navy training. NMFS provided input to the
Navy on this process and the Navy's qualitative analysis is described
in detail in Chapter 6 of its LOA application (https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/militry.htm).
Generally speaking, and especially with other factors being equal,
the Navy and NMFS anticipate more severe effects from takes resulting
from exposure to higher received levels (although this is in no way a
strictly linear relationship throughout species, individuals, or
circumstances) and less severe effects from takes resulting from
exposure to lower received levels. The requested number of Level B
harassment takes does not equate to the number of individual animals
the Navy expects to harass (which is lower), but rather to the
instances of take (i.e., exposures above the Level B harassment
threshold) that would occur. These instances may represent either a
very brief exposure (seconds) or, in some cases, longer durations of
exposure within a day. Depending on the location, duration, and
frequency of activities, along with the distribution and movement of
marine mammals, individual animals may be exposed to impulse or non-
impulse sounds at or above the Level B harassment threshold on multiple
days. However, the Navy is currently unable to estimate the number of
individuals that may be taken during training activities. Therefore,
the model results estimate the total number of takes that may occur to
a smaller number of individuals. While the model shows that an
increased number of exposures may take place due to an increase in
events/activities and ordnance, the types and severity of individual
responses to training and activities are not expected to change.
Behavioral Responses
As discussed in the proposed rule, marine mammals can respond to
LF/MFAS/HFAS in many different ways, a subset of which qualifies as
Level B harassment. As described in the proposed rule, the Navy uses
the behavioral response function to quantify the number of behavioral
responses that would qualify as Level B harassment under the MMPA. As
the statutory definition is currently applied, a wide range of
behavioral reactions may qualify as Level B harassment under the MMPA,
including but not limited to avoidance of the sound source, temporary
changes in vocalizations or dive patterns, temporary avoidance of an
area, or temporary disruption of feeding, migrating, or reproductive
behaviors. The estimates calculated using the behavioral response
function do not differentiate between the different types of potential
reactions. Nor do the estimates provide information regarding the
potential fitness or other biological consequences of the reactions on
the affected individuals. We therefore consider the available
scientific evidence to determine the likely nature of the modeled
behavioral responses and the potential fitness consequences for
affected individuals.
For LF/MFAS/HFAS use in the GOA TMAA, the Navy provided information
(Table 12) estimating the percentage of Level B harassment that would
occur within the 6-dB bins (without considering mitigation or
avoidance). As mentioned above, an animal's exposure to a higher
received level is more likely to result in a behavioral response that
is more likely to adversely affect the health of the animal. As
illustrated below, the majority (including about 65-72 percent for the
most powerful ASW hull-mounted sonar, which is responsible for a large
portion of the sonar takes) of calculated takes from MFAS result from
exposures less than 162 dB and more than 20km away. Less than 1-2
percent of the takes are expected to result from exposures above 168 dB
or closer than 4km. Specifically, given a range of behavioral responses
that may be classified as Level B harassment, to the degree that higher
received levels are expected to result in more severe behavioral
responses, only
[[Page 19588]]
a small percentage of the anticipated Level B harassment from Navy
activities might necessarily be expected to potentially result in more
severe responses, especially when the distance from the source at which
the levels below are received is considered (see Table 12). Marine
mammals are able to discern the distance of a given sound source, and
given other equal factors (including received level), they have been
reported to respond more to sounds that are closer (DeRuiter et al.,
2013). Further, the estimated number of responses do not reflect either
the duration or context of those anticipated responses, some of which
will be of very short duration, and other factors should be considered
when predicting how the estimated takes may affect individual fitness.
A recent study by Moore and Barlow (2013) emphasizes the importance of
context (e.g., behavioral state of the animals, distance from the sound
source, etc.) in evaluating behavioral responses of marine mammals to
acoustic sources.
Table 12--Non-Impulsive Ranges to Received Sound Pressure Levels in 6-dB Bins and Percentage of Level B Harassments for Three Representative Sonar
Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonar Bin MF1 (e.g., SQS-53; ASW Sonar Bin MF4 (e.g., AQS-22; ASW Sonar Bin MF5 (e.g., SSQ-62; ASW
hull mounted sonar) dipping sonar) sonobuoy)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of
Received level Distance at which behavioral Distance at which behavioral Distance at which behavioral
levels occur harassments levels occur harassments levels occur harassments
within radius of occurring at within radius of occurring at within radius of occurring at
source (m) given levels source (m) given levels source (m) given levels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Frequency Cetaceans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120 <= SPL < 126...................... 185,400-160,325 0 91,363-70,650 0 20,463-12,725 0
126 <= SPL < 132...................... 160,325-138,400 0 70,650-49,125 0 12,725-7,575 0
132 <= SPL < 138...................... 138,400-118,100 0 49,125-28,950 4 7,575-3,813 5
138 <= SPL < 144...................... 118,100-85,400 2 28,950-10,800 29 3,813-2,200 15
144 <= SPL < 150...................... 85,400-61,288 7 10,800-4,250 29 2,200-638 51
150 <= SPL < 156...................... 61,288-42,750 19 4,250-2,013 19 638-250 18
156 <= SPL < 162...................... 42,750-20,813 43 2,013-638 16 250-100 9
162 <= SPL < 168...................... 20,813-4,375 26 638-200 3 100-<50 3
168 <= SPL < 174...................... 4,375-1,825 1 200-100 0 <50 0
174 <= SPL < 180...................... 1,825-750 0 100-<50 0 <50 0
180 <= SPL < 186...................... 750-375 0 <50 0 <50 0
186 <= SPL < 192...................... 375-200 0 <50 0 <50 0
192 <= SPL < 198...................... 200-100 0 <50 0 <50 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontocetes and Pinnipeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120 <= SPL < 126...................... 185,450-160,475 0 93,075-71,275 0 21,288-14,200 0
126 <= SPL < 132...................... 160,475-138,750 0 71,275-50938 0 14,200-8,238 0
132 <= SPL < 138...................... 138,750-123,113 0 50,938-29,075 1 8,238-4,350 1
138 <= SPL < 144...................... 123,113-85,450 1 29,075-11,050 14 4,350-2,425 6
144 <= SPL < 150...................... 85,450-61,363 4 11,050-4,250 25 2,425-1,213 24
150 <= SPL < 156...................... 61,363-42,763 14 4,250-2,013 24 1,213-250 54
156 <= SPL < 162...................... 42,763-21,025 44 2,013-638 28 250-150 7
162 <= SPL < 168...................... 21,025-4,475 35 638-200 7 150-<50 9
168 <= SPL < 174...................... 4,475-1,850 2 200-100 1 <50 0
174 <= SPL < 180...................... 1,850-763 0 100-<50 0 <50 0
180 <= SPL < 186...................... 763-400 0 <50 0 <50 0
186 <= SPL < 192...................... 400-200 0 <50 0 <50 0
192 <= SPL < 198...................... 200-100 0 <50 0 <50 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: (1) ASW = anti-submarine warfare, m = meters, SPL = sound pressure level; (2) Odontocete behavioral response function is also used for high-
frequency cetaceans, phocid seals, otariid seals and sea lions, and sea otters.
Although the Navy has been monitoring to discern the effects of LF/
MFAS/HFAS on marine mammals since 2006, and research on the effects of
MFAS is advancing, our understanding of exactly how marine mammals in
the Study Area will respond to LF/MFAS/HFAS is still improving.
However, the Navy has submitted more than 80 reports, including Major
Exercise Reports, Annual Exercise Reports, and Monitoring Reports,
documenting hundreds of thousands of marine mammals across Navy range
complexes, and there are only two instances of overt behavioral
disturbances that have been observed. One cannot conclude from these
results that marine mammals were not harassed from MFAS/HFAS, as a
portion of animals within the area of concern were not seen (especially
those more cryptic, deep-diving species, such as beaked whales or Kogia
spp.), the full series of behaviors that would more accurately show an
important change is not typically seen (i.e., only the surface
behaviors are observed), and some of the non-biologist watchstanders
might not be well-qualified to characterize behaviors. However, one can
say that the animals that were observed did not respond in any of the
obviously more severe ways, such as panic, aggression, or anti-predator
response.
Some of the lower level physiological stress responses discussed in
the Potential Effects section of the proposed rule would also likely
co-occur with the predicted harassments, although these responses are
more difficult to detect and fewer data exist relating these responses
to specific received levels of sound. Level B harassment takes, then,
may have a stress-related physiological component as well; however, we
would
[[Page 19589]]
not expect the Navy's generally short-term, intermittent, and (in the
case of sonar) transitory activities to create conditions of long-term,
continuous noise leading to long-term physiological stress responses in
marine mammals.
Diel Cycle
As noted in the Potential Effects section of the proposed rule,
many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting,
traveling, and socializing on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Behavioral
reactions to noise exposure (when taking place in a biologically
important context, such as disruption of critical life functions,
displacement, or avoidance of important habitat) are more likely to be
significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on
subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a behavioral
response lasting less than one day and not recurring on subsequent days
is not considered severe unless it could directly affect reproduction
or survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is a difference
between multiple-day substantive behavioral reactions and multiple-day
anthropogenic activities. For example, just because an at-sea exercise
lasts for multiple days does not necessarily mean that individual
animals are either exposed to those exercises for multiple days or,
further, exposed in a manner resulting in a sustained multiple day
substantive behavioral response. Large multi-day Navy exercises, such
as those proposed in the GOA TMAA, typically include vessels that are
continuously moving at speeds typically 10-15 knots, or higher, and
likely cover large areas that are relatively far from shore, in
addition to the fact that marine mammals are moving as well, which
would make it unlikely that the same animal could remain in the
immediate vicinity of the ship for the entire duration of the exercise.
Additionally, the Navy does not necessarily operate active sonar the
entire time during an exercise (though exercise reports are classified,
the unclassified report for the 2011 training events indicated that
sonar was operated for a total of 67 minutes in the 12-day exercise).
While it is certainly possible that these sorts of exercises could
overlap with individual marine mammals multiple days in a row at levels
above those anticipated to result in a take, because of the factors
mentioned above, it is considered unlikely for the majority of takes.
Even if an exercise overlaps with an individual marine mammal multiple
days in a rule, this does not mean that a behavioral response is
necessarily sustained for multiple days, but instead necessitates the
consideration of likely duration and context to assess any effects on
the individual's fitness.
Durations for non-impulsive activities utilizing tactical sonar
sources vary and are fully described in Appendix A of the GOA FSEIS/
OEIS. ASW training exercises using MFAS/HFAS proposed for the GOA TMAA
generally last for 2-16 hours, and may have intervals of non-activity
in between. Because of the need to train in a large variety of
situations (in the case of the GOA TMAA, complex bathymetric and
oceanographic conditions include a continental shelf, submarine
canyons, seamounts, and fresh water infusions from multiple sources),
the Navy does not typically conduct successive ASW exercises in the
same locations. Given the average length of ASW exercises (times of
continuous sonar use) and typical vessel speed, combined with the fact
that the majority of the cetaceans in the GOA TMAA Study Area would not
likely remain in an area for successive days, it is unlikely that an
animal would be exposed to MFAS/HFAS at levels likely to result in a
substantive response that would then be carried on for more than one
day or on successive days.
Planned explosive exercises for the GOA TMAA are of a short
duration (1-6 hours). Although explosive exercises may sometimes be
conducted in the same general areas repeatedly, because of their short
duration and the fact that they are in the open ocean and animals can
easily move away, it is similarly unlikely that animals would be
exposed for long, continuous amounts of time.
Temporary Threshold Shifts (TTS)
As mentioned previously, TTS can last from a few minutes to days,
be of varying degree, and occur across various frequency bandwidths,
all of which determine the severity of the impacts on the affected
individual, which can range from minor to more severe. The TTS
sustained by an animal is primarily classified by three
characteristics:
1. Frequency--Available data (of mid-frequency hearing specialists
exposed to mid- or high-frequency sounds; Southall et al., 2007)
suggest that most TTS occurs in the frequency range of the source up to
one octave higher than the source (with the maximum TTS at \1/2\ octave
above). The more powerful MF sources used have center frequencies
between 3.5 and 8 kHz and the other unidentified MF sources are, by
definition, less than 10 kHz, which suggests that TTS induced by any of
these MF sources would be in a frequency band somewhere between
approximately 2 and 20 kHz. There are fewer hours of HF source use and
the sounds would attenuate more quickly. They also have lower source
levels, but if an animal were to incur TTS from these sources, it would
cover a higher frequency range (sources are between 20 and 100 kHz,
which means that TTS could range up to 200 kHz; however, HF systems are
typically used less frequently and for shorter time periods than
surface ship and aircraft MF systems, so TTS from these sources is even
less likely). TTS from explosives would be broadband. Vocalization data
for each species, which would inform how TTS might specifically
potentially interfere with communications with conspecifics, was
provided in the LOA application.
2. Degree of the shift (i.e., by how many dB the sensitivity of the
hearing is reduced)--Generally, both the degree of TTS and the duration
of TTS will be greater if the marine mammal is exposed to a higher
level of energy (which would occur when the peak dB level is higher or
the duration is longer). The threshold for the onset of TTS was
discussed previously in this final rule. An animal would have to
approach closer to the source or remain in the vicinity of the sound
source appreciably longer to increase the received SEL, which would be
difficult considering the Lookouts and the nominal speed of an active
sonar vessel (10-15 knots). In the TTS studies (see Threshold Shift
section of the proposed rule), some using exposures of almost an hour
in duration or up to 217 SEL, most of the TTS induced was 15 dB or
less, though Finneran et al. (2007) induced 43 dB of TTS with a 64-
second exposure to a 20 kHz source. However, MFAS emits a short ping
typically every 50 seconds, and TTS incurred from these activities
would likely be of smaller degree and shorter duration.
3. Duration of TTS (recovery time)--In the TTS laboratory studies
(see Threshold Shift section of the proposed rule), some using
exposures of almost an hour in duration or up to 217 SEL, almost all
individuals recovered within 1 day (or less, often in minutes),
although in one study (Finneran et al., 2007), recovery took 4 days. In
this case, because of the likely SEL exposure, TTS incurred would be
expected to be less and recovery time would be shorter.
Based on the range of degree and duration of TTS reportedly induced
by exposures to non-pulse sounds of energy higher than that to which
free-swimming marine mammals in the field are likely to be exposed
during MFAS/HFAS training exercises in the GOA TMAA, it is unlikely
that marine mammals would ever sustain a TTS from MFAS that alters
their sensitivity
[[Page 19590]]
by more than 20 dB for more than a few days (and any incident of TTS
would likely be far less severe due to the short duration of the
majority of the exercises and the speed of a typical vessel). Also, for
the same reasons discussed in the Diel Cycle section, and because of
the short distance within which animals would need to approach the
sound source, it is unlikely that animals would be exposed to the
levels necessary to induce TTS in subsequent time periods such that
their recovery is impeded. Additionally, though the frequency range of
TTS that marine mammals might sustain would overlap with some of the
frequency ranges of their vocalization types, the frequency range of
TTS from MFAS (the source from which TTS would most likely be sustained
because the higher source level and slower attenuation make it more
likely that an animal would be exposed to a higher received level)
would not usually span the entire frequency range of one vocalization
type, much less span all types of vocalizations or other critical
auditory cues. If impaired, marine mammals would typically be aware of
their impairment and are sometimes able to implement behaviors to
compensate (see Acoustic Masking or Communication Impairment section),
though these compensations may incur energetic costs. Because of the
low levels and short duration of TTS expected to result from these
activities, little, if any, energetic costs would be expected to be
incurred.
Acoustic Masking or Communication Impairment
Masking only occurs during the time of the signal (and potential
secondary arrivals of indirect rays), versus TTS, which continues
beyond the duration of the signal. Standard MFAS typically pings every
50 seconds for hull-mounted sources. For the sources for which we know
the pulse length, most are significantly shorter than hull-mounted
active sonar, on the order of several microseconds to tens of
microseconds. For hull-mounted active sonar, though some of the
vocalizations that marine mammals make are less than one second long,
there is only a 1 in 50 chance that they would occur exactly when the
ping was received, and when vocalizations are longer than one second,
only parts of them are masked. Alternately, when the pulses are only
several microseconds long, the majority of most animals' vocalizations
would not be masked. Masking effects from MFAS/HFAS are expected to be
minimal. If masking or communication impairment were to occur briefly,
it would be in the frequency range of MFAS, which overlaps with some
marine mammal vocalizations; however, it would likely not mask the
entirety of any particular vocalization, communication series, or other
critical auditory cue, because the signal length, frequency, and duty
cycle of the MFAS/HFAS signal does not perfectly mimic the
characteristics of any marine mammal's vocalizations. The other sources
used in Navy training, many of either higher frequencies (meaning that
the sounds generated attenuate even closer to the source) or lower
amounts of operation, are similarly not expected to result in masking.
PTS, Injury, or Mortality
NMFS believes that many marine mammals would deliberately avoid
exposing themselves to the received levels of active sonar necessary to
induce injury by moving away from or at least modifying their path to
avoid a close approach. Additionally, in the unlikely event that an
animal approaches the sonar vessel at a close distance, NMFS believes
that the mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown/powerdown zones for MFAS/
HFAS) would typically ensure that animals would not be exposed to
injurious levels of sound. As discussed previously, the Navy utilizes
both aerial (when available) and passive acoustic monitoring (during
all ASW exercises) in addition to watchstanders on vessels to detect
marine mammals for mitigation implementation. There was no modeled
prediction of mortality to any species that occurs in the Study Area as
a result of the Navy's training activities.
If a marine mammal is able to approach a surface vessel within the
distance necessary to incur PTS, the likely speed of the vessel
(nominal 10-15 knots) would make it very difficult for the animal to
remain in range long enough to accumulate enough energy to result in
more than a mild case of PTS. As mentioned previously and in relation
to TTS, the likely consequences to the health of an individual that
incurs PTS can range from mild to more serious dependent upon the
degree of PTS and the frequency band it is in, and many animals are
able to compensate for the shift, although it may include energetic
costs. Because of the small degree of PTS that would likely result, if
it occurs, any energetic costs incurred by four Dall's porpoises would
be expected to be relatively small.
No Level A harassment takes are predicted to occur to any species
from exposure to non-impulsive sound. As mentioned previously, the Navy
reprocessed anticipated ranges to PTS for impulsive sources
(explosives) based on NMFS' new Guidance to assess if the new acoustic
criteria could result in any additional species-specific injury
exposures. The Navy did not reprocess anticipated sonar ranges to
effects for PTS because the acoustic thresholds used in the Navy's
modeling are largely more conservative that the new Guidance, and NMFS
and the Navy qualitatively evaluated (described earlier) the effects
the change would have on our analyses. The Navy's analysis concluded
that only four Level A (PTS) takes per year to one species (Dall's
porpoise) are predicted to occur from GOA training activities. No
species other than Dall's porpoise would be expected to incur PTS from
explosives if the new Guidance was applied to the Navy's activities.
We assume that the acoustic exposures sufficient to trigger onset
PTS (or TTS) would be accompanied by behavioral responses and/or
physiological stress responses, although the sound characteristics that
correlate with specific stress responses in marine mammals are poorly
understood. However, as discussed above in the ``Behavioral Responses''
section, we would not expect the Navy's generally short-term,
intermittent, and (in the case of sonar) transitory activities to
create conditions of long-term, continuous noise leading to long-term
physiological stress responses in marine mammals.
As discussed previously, marine mammals (especially beaked whales)
could potentially respond to MFAS at a received level lower than the
injury threshold in a manner that indirectly results in the animals
stranding. The exact mechanism of this potential response, behavioral
or physiological, is not known. When naval exercises have been
associated with strandings in the past, it has typically been when
three or more vessels are operating simultaneously, in the presence of
a strong surface duct, and in areas of constricted channels, semi-
enclosed areas, and/or steep bathymetry. While these features certainly
do not define the only factors that can contribute to a stranding, and
while they need not all be present in their aggregate to increase the
likelihood of a stranding, it is worth noting that they are not all
present in the GOA TMAA, which only has a strong surface duct present
during the winter, and does not have bathymetry or constricted channels
of the type that have been present in the sonar associated strandings.
When this is combined with consideration of the number of hours of
active sonar training that will be conducted and the total
[[Page 19591]]
duration of all training exercises (a maximum of 21 days once a year),
we believe that the probability that this will occur is small and we
have not authorized this type of take to occur. Lastly, an active sonar
shutdown protocol for strandings involving live animals milling in the
water minimizes the chances that these types of events turn into
mortalities.
As stated previously, there have been no recorded Navy vessel
strikes of any marine mammals during training in the GOA Study Area to
date, nor were takes by injury or mortality resulting from vessel
strike predicted in the Navy's analysis.
Group and Species-Specific Analysis
Predicted effects on marine mammals from exposures to sonar and
other active acoustic sources and explosions during annual training
activities are shown in Table 11. The vast majority of predicted
exposures (greater than 99 percent) are expected to be Level B
harassment (non-injurious TTS and behavioral reactions) from sonar and
other active acoustic sources at relatively low received levels (Table
12). The acoustic analysis predicts the majority of marine mammal
species in the Study Area would not be exposed to explosive (impulsive)
sources associated with training activities. Only Dall's porpoise is
predicted to have Level B (TTS) exposures resulting from explosives,
and only a limited number (4) of Dall's porpoise are expected to have
injurious take (PTS), which are from explosions. There are no lethal
takes predicted for any marine mammal species for the GOA activities.
The analysis below may in some cases (e.g., mysticetes, porpoises,
pinnipeds) address species collectively if they occupy the same
functional hearing group (i.e., low, mid, and high-frequency cetaceans
and pinnipeds in water), have similar hearing capabilities, and/or are
known to generally behaviorally respond similarly to acoustic
stressors. Where there are meaningful differences between species or
stocks in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of
expected take on the population due to differences in population
status, or impacts on habitat, they will either be described within the
section or the species will be included as a separate sub-section.
Mysticetes--The Navy's acoustic analysis predicts that 2,923
instances of Level B harassment of mysticete whales may occur in the
Study Area each year from sonar and other active acoustic sources
during training activities. Annual species-specific take estimates are
as follows: 3 North Pacific right whales (Eastern North Pacific stock),
69 humpback whales (Central North Pacific, Western North Pacific, and
CA/OR/WA stocks), 47 blue whales (Eastern North Pacific stock), 1,291
fin whales (Northeast Pacific stock), 6 sei whales (Eastern North
Pacific stock), and 43 minke whales (Alaska stock). Of these species,
humpback (Western North Pacific DPS and Mexico DPS), blue, fin, sei,
and North Pacific right whales are listed as threatened or endangered
under the ESA and depleted under the MMPA. NMFS issued a Biological
Opinion concluding that the issuance of the rule and subsequent LOA are
likely to adversely affect, but are not likely to jeopardize, the
continued existence of the threatened and endangered species under
NMFS' jurisdiction and are not likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat in the GOA TMAA Study Area
(there is no designated critical habitat for mysticetes in the Study
Area.). Based on the distribution information presented in the LOA
application, it is highly unlikely that gray whales would be
encountered in the Study Area during events involving use of sonar and
other active acoustic sources. The acoustic analysis did not predict
any takes of gray whales and NMFS is not authorizing any takes of this
species.
Generally, these represent a limited number of takes relative to
population estimates for most mysticete stocks in the Study Area. When
the numbers of behavioral takes are compared to the estimated stock
abundance and if one assumes that each take happens to a separate
animal, less than approximately 10 percent of each of these stocks,
with the exception of the Northeast Pacific stock of fin whale and the
Alaska stock of minke whale, would be behaviorally harassed during the
course of a year. There currently are no reliable population estimates
for the Northeast Pacific stock of fin whale and the Alaska stock of
minke whale because only portions of the stocks' range have been
surveyed (Muto and Angliss, 2016). However, NMFS believes the portion
of these stocks expected to be taken is relatively small. Older
provisional surveys in small subsets of the Minke range (Bering shelf
and shelf and nearshore waters from Kenai Fjords to the Aleutians)
showed partial abundances or 389-2,020 and 1,233, respectively,
suggesting numbers larger than the sum of those if all areas in the
Alaska range were surveyed. A provisional estimate of the minimum
population of portion of the fin whale range west of the Kenai
peninsula (about a third of the range) is 1,368 and earlier estimates
of multiple subsets of the portion of the population east of the Kenai
peninsula were in the thousands, suggesting that the abundance of the
full population is at least more than several thousand. Because the
estimates given above represent the total number of exposures and not
necessarily the number of individuals exposed, it is more likely that
fewer individuals would be taken, but a subset would be taken more than
one time per year. In the ocean, the use of sonar and other active
acoustic sources is transient and is unlikely to repeatedly expose the
same population of animals over a short period.
Level B harassment takes are anticipated to be in the form of TTS
and behavioral reactions and no injurious takes of North Pacific right,
humpback, blue, fin, minke, or sei whales from sonar and other active
acoustic stressors or explosives are expected. The majority of acoustic
effects to mysticetes from sonar and other active sound sources during
training activities would be primarily from anti-submarine warfare
events involving surface ships and hull mounted sonar. Research and
observations show that if mysticetes are exposed to sonar or other
active acoustic sources they may react in a number of ways depending on
the characteristics of the sound source, their experience with the
sound source, and whether they are migrating or on seasonal grounds
(i.e., breeding or feeding). Reactions may include alerting, breaking
off feeding dives and surfacing, diving or swimming away, or no
response at all (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; Southall et al.,
2007; Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). Richardson et al. (1995) noted that
avoidance (temporary displacement of an individual from an area)
reactions are the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine
mammals. Avoidance is qualitatively different from the startle or
flight response, but also differs in the magnitude of the response
(i.e., directed movement, rate of travel, etc.). Oftentimes avoidance
is temporary, and animals return to the area once the noise has ceased.
Additionally, migrating animals may ignore a sound source, or divert
around the source if it is in their path.
Specific to U.S. Navy systems using low frequency sound, studies
were undertaken in 1997-98 pursuant to the Navy's Low Frequency Sound
Scientific Research Program. These studies found only short-term
responses to low frequency sound by mysticetes (fin, blue, and humpback
whales) including changes in vocal activity and avoidance
[[Page 19592]]
of the source vessel (Clark, 2001; Miller et al., 2000; Croll et al.,
2001; Fristrup et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007). Baleen whales
exposed to moderate low-frequency signals demonstrated no variation in
foraging activity (Croll et al., 2001). Low-frequency signals of the
Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate sound source were not found to
affect dive times of humpback whales in Hawaiian waters (Frankel and
Clark, 2000).
Specific to mid-frequency sound, studies by Melc[oacute]n et al.
(2012) in the Southern California Bight found that the likelihood of
blue whale low-frequency calling (usually associated with feeding
behavior) decreased with an increased level of MFAS, beginning at a SPL
of approximately 110-120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. However, it is not known
whether the lower rates of calling actually indicated a reduction in
feeding behavior or social contact since the study used data from
remotely deployed, passive acoustic monitoring buoys. Results from a
behavioral response study in Southern California waters indicated that
in some cases and at low received levels, tagged blue whales responded
to MFAS but that those responses were mild and there was a quick return
to their baseline activity (Southall et al., 2011; Southall et al.,
2012b). Blue whales responded to a mid-frequency sound source, with a
source level between 160 and 210 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m and a received
sound level up to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa, by exhibiting generalized
avoidance responses and changes to dive behavior during the exposure
experiments (CEE) (Goldbogen et al., 2013). However, reactions were not
consistent across individuals based on received sound levels alone, and
likely were the result of a complex interaction between sound exposure
factors such as proximity to sound source and sound type (MFAS
simulation vs. pseudo-random noise), environmental conditions, and
behavioral state. Surface feeding whales did not show a change in
behavior during CEEs, but deep feeding and non-feeding whales showed
temporary reactions that quickly abated after sound exposure. Distances
of the sound source from the whales during CEEs were sometimes less
than a mile. Blue whales have been documented exhibiting a range of
foraging strategies for maximizing feeding dependent on the density of
their prey at a given location (Goldbogen et al., 2015), so it may be
that a temporary behavioral reaction or avoidance of a location where
feeding was occurring is not meaningful to the life history of an
animal. The findings from Goldbogen et al. (2013) and Melc[oacute]n et
al. (2012) are generally consistent with the Navy's criteria and
thresholds for predicting behavioral effects to mysticetes from sonar
and other active acoustic sources used in the quantitative acoustic
effects analysis for GOA. The Navy's behavioral response function
predicts the probability of a behavioral response that rises to a Level
B harassment take for individuals exposed to a received SPL of 120 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa or greater, with an increasing probability of reaction with
increased received level as demonstrated in Melc[oacute]n et al.
(2012).
High-frequency systems are notably outside of mysticetes' ideal
hearing and vocalization range. Therefore, mysticetes are unlikely to
be able to detect higher-frequency systems and these systems would not
interfere with their communication or detection of biologically
relevant sounds or cause a significant behavioral reaction.
Most Level B harassments to mysticetes from sonar in the Study Area
would result from received levels less than 156 dB SPL. Therefore, the
majority of Level B harassment takes are expected to be in the form of
milder responses (i.e., lower-level exposures that still rise to the
level of take, but would likely be less severe in the range of
responses that qualify as take) of a generally short duration. As
mentioned earlier in this section, we anticipate more severe effects
from takes when animals are exposed to higher received levels. Most
low-frequency (mysticetes) cetaceans observed in studies usually
avoided sound sources at levels of less than or equal to 160 dB re
1[mu]Pa. Occasional milder behavioral reactions are unlikely to cause
long-term consequences for individual animals or populations. Even if
sound exposure were to be concentrated in a relatively small geographic
area over a long period of time (e.g., days or weeks during major
training exercises), we would expect that some individual whales would
avoid areas where exposures to acoustic stressors are at higher levels.
For example, Goldbogen et al. (2013) indicated some horizontal
displacement of deep foraging blue whales in response to simulated MFA
sonar. Given these animals' mobility and large ranges, we would expect
these individuals to temporarily select alternative foraging sites
nearby until the exposure levels in their initially selected foraging
area have decreased. Therefore, even temporary displacement from
initially selected foraging habitat is not expected to impact the
fitness of any individual animals because we would expect equivalent
foraging to be available in close proximity. Because we do not expect
any fitness consequences any individual animals, we do not expect any
population level effects from these behavioral responses.
As explained above, recovery from a threshold shift (TTS) can take
a few minutes to a few days, depending on the exposure duration, sound
exposure level, and the magnitude of the initial shift, with larger
threshold shifts and longer exposure durations requiring longer
recovery times (Finneran et al., 2005; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010;
Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al., 2009b). However, any threshold
shifts experienced would be expected to be relatively small because of
the unlikelihood that animals will remain within the ensonified area
(due to the short duration of the majority of exercises, the speed of
the vessels, and the short distance within which the animal would need
to approach the sound source) at high levels for the duration necessary
to induce larger threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not necessarily
affect all hearing frequencies equally, so some threshold shifts may
not interfere with an animal's hearing of biologically relevant sounds.
Furthermore, the implementation of mitigation and the sightability of
mysticetes (due to their large size) reduces the potential for a
significant behavioral reaction or a threshold shift to occur.
Overall, the number of predicted behavioral reactions is low and
occasional behavioral reactions are unlikely to cause long-term
consequences for individual animals or populations. This assessment of
long-term consequences is based in part on findings from ocean areas
where the Navy has been intensively training and testing with sonar and
other active acoustic sources for decades. While there are many factors
such as the end of large-scale commercial whaling complicating any
analysis, there is no data suggesting any long-term consequences to
mysticetes from exposure to sonar and other active acoustic sources. On
the contrary, there are findings suggesting mysticete populations are
increasing in the two primary locations (Southern California and
Hawaii) where the Navy's most intensively used range complexes are
located. These findings include: (1) Calambokidis et al. (2009b)
indicating a significant upward trend in abundance of blue whales in
Southern California; (2) the recovery of gray whales that migrate
through the Navy's SOCAL Range Complex twice a year; (3) work by Moore
and Barlow (2011) indicating evidence of increasing fin whale abundance
in the California Current
[[Page 19593]]
area, which includes the SOCAL Range Complex; (4) the range expansion
and increasing presence of Bryde's whales south of Point Conception in
Southern California (Kerosky et al., 2012); and (5) the ocean area
contained within the Hawaii Range Complex continuing to function as a
critical breeding, calving, and nursing area to the point at which the
overall humpback whale population in the North Pacific is now greater
than some prior estimates of pre-whaling abundance (Barlow et al.,
2011).
As discussed in the ``Consideration of Time/Area Limitations''
section of this rule, a biologically important feeding area has been
identified for North Pacific right whale (feeding area) within a small
portion of the GOA TMAA (Ferguson et al., 2015). The Navy and NMFS
anticipate that proposed training activities likely would have temporal
overlap but limited spatial overlap with this BIA. Given the limited
spatial overlap, it is unlikely that Navy training would have any
biologically meaningful effect on North Pacific right whale feeding
behavior in these areas. However, given their small population size,
the rarity of their detections and general lack of sightings within the
GOA TMAA, and the extremely limited current information about this
species, NMFS is requiring a North Pacific right whale ``Cautionary
Area'' between June and September in the overlapping 2,051 km\2\
portion of the North Pacific right whale feeding area, in which no
hull-mounted sonar or explosives would be used within the portion of
the feeding area that overlaps the Navy's GOA TMAA during those months.
In the event of national security needs, the Navy would be required to
seek approval in advance from the Commander, U.S. Third Fleet prior to
conducting training activities using sonar or explosives. NMFS believes
that implementation of this North Pacific right whale Cautionary Area
within the GOA TMAA may provide additional protection of this species
and stock beyond the mitigation measures already proposed by the Navy,
potentially lessening the anticipated impacts even further.
In summary, the GOA TMAA activities are not expected to adversely
impact annual rates of recruitment or survival of mysticete whales.
Sperm Whales--The Navy's acoustic analysis indicates that 98
instances of Level B harassment of sperm whales (North Pacific stock)
may occur in the Study Area each year from sonar or other active
acoustic stressors during training activities. Sperm whales are listed
as endangered under the ESA and depleted under the MMPA. There are
currently no reliable abundance estimates for this stock (Muto and
Angliss, 2016). Although they believed it to be positively biased, the
last estimate (Kato and Miyashita (1998)) was 102,112 sperms whales in
the western North Pacific; the number in Alaska waters is unknown.
These Level B harassment takes are anticipated to be in the form of TTS
and behavioral reactions and no injurious takes of sperm whales from
sonar and other active acoustic stressors or explosives were requested
or authorized. Sperm whales have shown resilience to acoustic and human
disturbance, although they may react to sound sources and activities
within a few kilometers. Sperm whales that are exposed to activities
that involve the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources may
alert, ignore the stimulus, avoid the area by swimming away or diving,
or display aggressive behavior (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007;
Southall et al., 2007; Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). Some (but not all)
sperm whale vocalizations might overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS
frequency range, which could temporarily decrease an animal's
sensitivity to the calls of conspecifics or returning echolocation
signals. However, as noted previously, NMFS does not anticipate TTS of
a long duration or severe degree to occur as a result of exposure to
MFAS/HFAS. Recovery from a threshold shift (TTS) can take a few minutes
to a few days, depending on the exposure duration, sound exposure
level, and the magnitude of the initial shift, with larger threshold
shifts and longer exposure durations requiring longer recovery times
(Finneran et al., 2005; Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al., 2009b;
Finneran and Schlundt, 2010). Here, any threshold shifts experienced
would be expected to be relatively small because of the unlikelihood
that animals will remain within the ensonified area (due to the short
duration of the majority of exercises, the speed of the vessels, and
the short distance within which the animal would need to approach the
sound source) at high levels for the duration necessary to induce
larger threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all
hearing frequencies equally, so some threshold shifts may not interfere
with an animal's hearing of biologically relevant sounds. No sperm
whales are predicted to be exposed to MFAS/HFAS sound levels associated
with PTS or injury.
The majority of Level B harassment takes are expected to be in the
form of mild responses (low-level exposures) and of a generally short
duration. Relative to the last known population size, the number of
anticipated Level B harassment takes is very limited. Because the
estimates given above represent the total number of exposures and not
necessarily the number of individuals exposed, it is more likely that
fewer individuals would be taken, but a subset would be taken more than
one time per year. In the ocean, the use of sonar and other active
acoustic sources is transient and is unlikely to repeatedly expose the
same population of animals over a short period. Overall, the number and
nature of predicted behavioral reactions are unlikely to cause long-
term consequences for individual animals or populations. The GOA
activities are not expected to occur in an area/time of specific
importance for reproductive, feeding, or other known critical behaviors
for sperm whales, and there is no designated critical habitat in the
Study Area. Consequently, the activities are not expected to adversely
impact annual rates of recruitment or survival of sperm whales.
Dolphins and Small Whales--The Navy's acoustic analysis predicts
the following instances of Level B harassment of delphinids (dolphins
and small whales) each year from sonar, other active acoustic sources,
and explosives associated with training activities in the Study Area:
389 killer whales (Alaska Resident; Eastern North Pacific Offshore; AT1
Transient; and GOA, Aleutian Island, and Bearing Sea Transient stocks)
and 981 Pacific white-sided dolphins (North Pacific stock). These
represent a limited number of takes relative to population estimates
for delphinid stocks in the Study Area. When the numbers of behavioral
takes are compared to the estimated stock abundance and if one assumes
that each take happens to a separate animal, less than 15 percent of
each of the killer whale stocks and less than 5 percent of the North
Pacific stock of Pacific white-sided dolphin would be behaviorally
harassed during the course of a year. More likely, slightly fewer
individuals would be harassed, but a subset would be harassed more than
one time during the course of the year.
All of these takes are anticipated to be in the form of Level B
harassment (TTS and behavioral reaction) and no injurious takes of
delphinids from sonar and other active acoustic stressors or explosives
are requested or proposed for authorization. Further, the majority of
takes are anticipated to be by Level B harassment in the form of mild
responses. Research and observations show that if delphinids are
exposed to
[[Page 19594]]
sonar or other active acoustic sources they may react in a number of
ways depending on their experience with the sound source and what
activity they are engaged in at the time of the acoustic exposure.
Delphinids may not react at all until the sound source is approaching
within a few hundred meters to within a few kilometers depending on the
environmental conditions and species. Delphinids that are exposed to
activities that involve the use of sonar and other active acoustic
sources may alert, ignore the stimulus, change their behaviors or
vocalizations, avoid the sound source by swimming away or diving, or be
attracted to the sound source (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007;
Southall et al., 2007; Finneran and Jenkins, 2012).
Research has demonstrated that Alaska Resident killer whales may
routinely move over long large distances (Andrews and Matkin, 2014;
Fearnbach et al., 2013). In a similar documented long-distance
movement, an Eastern North Pacific Offshore stock killer whale tagged
off San Clemente Island, California, moved (over a period of 147 days)
to waters off northern Mexico, then north to Cook Inlet, Alaska, and
finally (when the tag ceased transmitting) to coastal waters off
Southeast Alaska (Falcone and Schorr, 2014). Given these findings,
temporary displacement due to avoidance of training activities is
therefore unlikely to have biological significance to individual
animals.
Delphinid species generally travel in large pods and should be
visible from a distance, allowing for a high level of mitigation
effectiveness, which has been considered quantitatively in the
calculation of Level A harassment take, but is also expected to
potentially reduce the occurrences of more severe behavioral impacts
resulting from higher level exposures. Many of the recorded delphinid
vocalizations overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range (2-20
kHz); however, as noted above, NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a
serious degree or extended duration to occur as a result of exposure to
MFAS/HFAS. Recovery from a threshold shift (TTS) can take a few minutes
to a few days, depending on the exposure duration, sound exposure
level, and the magnitude of the initial shift, with larger threshold
shifts and longer exposure durations requiring longer recovery times
(Finneran et al., 2005; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Mooney et al.,
2009a; Mooney et al., 2009b). Here, any threshold shifts experienced
would be expected to be relatively small because of the unlikelihood
that animals will remain within the ensonified area (due to the short
duration of the majority of exercises, the speed of the vessels, and
the short distance within which the animal would need to approach the
sound source) at high levels for the duration necessary to induce
larger threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all
hearing frequencies equally, so some threshold shifts may not interfere
with an animal's hearing of biologically relevant sounds.
The predicted effects to delphinids are unlikely to cause long-term
consequences for individual animals or populations. The GOA TMAA
activities are not expected to occur in an area/time of specific
importance for reproductive, feeding, or other known critical behaviors
for delphinids. Stocks of delphinid species found in the Study Area are
not depleted under the MMPA, nor are they listed under the ESA.
Consequently, the activities are not expected to adversely impact rates
of recruitment or survival of delphinid species.
Porpoises--The Navy's acoustic analysis predicts that 8,270
instances of Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral reactions) of
Dall's porpoise (Alaska stock) and 3,705 instances of Level B
harassment of harbor porpoise (GOA and Southeast Alaska stocks) may
occur each year from sonar and other active acoustic sources and
explosives associated with training activities in the Study Area.
Acoustic analysis also predicted that 4 Dall's porpoises might be
exposed to sound levels from sonar and other active acoustic stressors
and explosives likely to result in PTS or injury (Level A harassment).
These represent a limited number of takes relative to population
estimates for porpoise stocks in the Study Area (Table 6 of the
proposed rule (81 FR 9957)). When the numbers of takes for Dall's and
harbor porpoise are compared to their respective estimated stock
abundances and if one assumes that each take happens to a separate
animal, less than 10 percent of the Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise,
and less than 10 percent of the GOA and Southeast Alaska stocks of
harbor porpoise would be harassed (behaviorally) during the course of a
year. Because the estimates given above represent the total number of
exposures and not necessarily the number of individuals exposed, it is
more likely that fewer individuals would be taken, but a subset would
be taken more than one time per year.
Behavioral responses can range from a mild orienting response, or a
shifting of attention, to flight and panic (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek,
2007; Southall et al., 2007). The number of Dall's and harbor porpoise
behaviorally harassed by exposure to MFAS/HFAS in the Study Area is
generally higher than the other species. For Dall's porpoise, this is
due to their high density in the area. For harbor porpoises, this is
due to the low Level B harassment threshold (we assume for the purpose
of estimating take that all harbor porpoises exposed to 120 dB or
higher MFAS/HFAS will be taken by Level B harassment), which
essentially makes the ensonified area of effects significantly larger
than for the other species. However, the fact that the threshold is a
step function and not a curve (and assuming uniform density) means that
the vast majority of the takes occur in the very lowest levels that
exceed the threshold (it is estimated that approximately 80 percent of
the takes are from exposures to 120 dB-126 dB), which means that
anticipated behavioral effects are not expected to be severe (e.g.,
temporary avoidance). As mentioned above, an animal's exposure to a
higher received level is more likely to result in a behavioral response
that is more likely to adversely affect the health of an animal.
Animals that do not exhibit a significant behavioral reaction would
likely recover from any incurred costs, which reduces the likelihood of
long-term consequences, such as reduced fitness, for the individual or
population.
Animals that experience hearing loss (TTS or PTS) may have reduced
ability to detect relevant sounds such as predators, prey, or social
vocalizations. Some porpoise vocalizations might overlap with the MFAS/
HFAS TTS frequency range (2-20 kHz). Recovery from a threshold shift
(TTS; partial hearing loss) can take a few minutes to a few days,
depending on the exposure duration, sound exposure level, and the
magnitude of the initial shift, with larger threshold shifts and longer
exposure durations requiring longer recovery times (Finneran et al.,
2005; Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al., 2009b; Finneran and
Schlundt, 2010). More severe shifts may not fully recover and thus
would be considered PTS. However, here, any threshold shifts
experienced would be expected to be relatively small because of the
unlikelihood that animals will remain within the ensonified area (due
to the short duration of the majority of exercises, the speed of the
vessels, and the short distance within which the animal would need to
approach the sound source) at high levels for the duration necessary to
induce larger threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not necessarily
affect all hearing frequencies
[[Page 19595]]
equally, so some threshold shifts may not interfere with an animal
hearing biologically relevant sounds. The likely consequences to the
health of an individual that incurs PTS can range from mild to more
serious, depending upon the degree of PTS and the frequency band it is
in, and many animals are able to compensate for the shift, although it
may include energetic costs. Furthermore, likely avoidance of intense
activity and sound coupled with mitigation measures would further
reduce the potential for severe PTS exposures to occur. If a marine
mammal is able to approach a surface vessel within the distance
necessary to incur PTS, the likely speed of the vessel (nominal 10-15
knots) would make it very difficult for the animal to remain in range
long enough to accumulate enough energy to result in more than a mild
case of PTS.
Harbor porpoises have been observed to be especially sensitive to
human activity (Tyack et al., 2011; Pirotta et al., 2012). The
information currently available regarding harbor porpoises suggests a
very low threshold level of response for both captive (Kastelein et
al., 2000; Kastelein et al., 2005) and wild (Johnston, 2002) animals.
Southall et al. (2007) concluded that harbor porpoises are likely
sensitive to a wide range of anthropogenic sounds at low received
levels (approximately 90 to 120 dB). Research and observations of
harbor porpoises for other locations show that this small species is
wary of human activity and will display profound avoidance behavior for
anthropogenic sound sources in many situations at levels down to 120 dB
re 1 [micro]Pa (Southall, 2007). Harbor porpoises routinely avoid and
swim away from large motorized vessels (Barlow et al., 1988; Evans et
al., 1994; Palka and Hammond, 2001; Polacheck and Thorpe, 1990). The
vaquita, which is closely related to the harbor porpoise in the Study
Area, appears to avoid large vessels at about 2,995 ft (913 m)
(Jaramillo-Legorreta et al., 1999). The assumption is that the harbor
porpoise would respond similarly to large Navy vessels, possibly prior
to commencement of sonar or explosive activity (i.e., pre-activity
avoidance). Harbor porpoises may startle and temporarily leave the
immediate area of the training until after the event ends.
ASW training exercises using MFAS/HFAS generally last for 2-16
hours, and may have intervals of non-activity in between. In addition,
the Navy does not typically conduct ASW exercises in the same
locations. Given the average length of ASW exercises (times of
continuous sonar use) and typical vessel speed, combined with the fact
that the majority of porpoises in the Study Area would not likely
remain in an area for successive days, it is unlikely that an animal
would be exposed to MFAS/HFAS at levels likely to result in a
substantive response (e.g., interruption of feeding) that would then be
carried on for more than one day or on successive days. Thompson et al.
(2013) showed that seismic surveys conducted over a 10-day period in
the North Sea did not result in the broad-scale displacement of harbor
porpoises away from preferred habitat. The harbor porpoises were
observed to leave the area at the onset of survey, but returned within
a few hours, and the overall response of the porpoises decreased over
the 10-day period.
Considering the information above, the predicted effects to Dall's
and harbor porpoise are unlikely to cause significant long-term
consequences for individual animals or the population (the 4 potential
takes by PTS for Dall's porpoise are anticipated to be of a small
degree in a narrow frequency band that that would not have significant
impacts on individual fitness). The Navy's training activities in the
GOA TMAA are not expected to occur in an area/time of specific
importance for reproductive, feeding, or other known critical behaviors
for Dall's and harbor porpoise. Stocks of Dall's and harbor porpoise
are not listed as depleted under the MMPA. Consequently, the activities
are not expected to adversely impact annual rates of recruitment or
survival of porpoises.
Beaked Whales--Acoustic analysis predicts that 200 Baird's beaked
whales (Alaska stock), 1,271 Cuvier's beaked whales (Alaska stock), and
576 Stejneger's beaked whales (Alaska stock) will be taken annually by
Level B harassment from exposure to sonar and other active acoustic
stressors. These takes are anticipated to be in the form of Level B
harassment (mainly all behavioral reaction and only 2 TTS (Cuvier's
beaked whale)) and no injurious takes of beaked whales from sonar and
other active acoustic stressors or explosives are requested or
authorized. Because the estimates given above represent the total
number of exposures and not necessarily the number of individuals
exposed, it is more likely that fewer individuals would be taken, but a
subset would be taken more than one time per year. There are currently
no reliable abundance estimates for Alaska stocks of Baird's, Cuvier's,
and Stejner's beaked whales (Muto and Angliss, 2016). However, the
ranges of all three stocks are very large compared to the TMAA
(Cuvier's is the smallest, occupying all of the GOA and south of the
Canadian border and west past the southern edge of the Kenai peninsula,
while Baird's and Stejner's range even farther south and also cross
north over the Kenai peninsula), which means that the impacts
anticipated within a miniscule portion of the stocks' ranges and
accrued over no more than 21 days would be expected to be relatively
small compared to the population.
As is the case with harbor porpoises, beaked whales have been shown
to be particularly sensitive to sound and therefore have been assigned
a lower harassment threshold based on observations of wild animals by
McCarthy et al. (2011) and Tyack et al. (2011). The fact that the Level
B harassment threshold is a step function (the Navy has adopted an
unweighted 140 dB re 1 [micro]Pa SPL threshold for significant
behavioral effects for all beaked whales) and not a curve (and assuming
uniform density) means that the vast majority of the takes expected to
occur in the very lowest levels that exceed the threshold (it is
estimated that approximately 80 percent of the takes are from exposures
to 140 dB to 146 dB), which means that the anticipated effects for the
majority of exposures are not expected to be severe (as mentioned
above, an animal's exposure to a higher received level is more likely
to result in a behavioral response that is more likely to adversely
affect the health of an animal). Further, Moretti et al. (2014)
recently derived an empirical risk function for Blainville's beaked
whale that predicts there is a 0.5 probability of disturbance at a
received level of 150 dB (confidence interval: 144-155), suggesting
that in some cases the current Navy step function may over-estimate the
effects of an activity using sonar on beaked whales. Irrespective of
the Moretti et al. (2014) risk function, NMFS' analysis assumes that
all of the beaked whale Level B harassment takes that were proposed for
authorization will occur, and we base our negligible impact
determination, in part, on the fact that these exposures would mainly
occur at the very lowest end of the 140-dB Level B harassment threshold
where behavioral effects are expected to be much less severe and
generally temporary in nature.
Behavioral responses can range from a mild orienting response, or a
shifting of attention, to flight and panic (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek,
2007; Southall et al., 2007; Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). Research has
also shown that beaked whales are especially sensitive to the presence
of human activity (Tyack et al., 2011; Pirotta et al.,
[[Page 19596]]
2012). Beaked whales have been documented to exhibit avoidance of human
activity or respond to vessel presence (Pirotta et al., 2012). Beaked
whales were observed to react negatively to survey vessels or low
altitude aircraft by quick diving and other avoidance maneuvers, and
none were observed to approach vessels (Wursig et al., 1998). Some
beaked whale vocalizations may overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency
range (2-20 kHz); however, as noted above, NMFS does not anticipate TTS
of a serious degree or extended duration to occur as a result of
exposure to MFA/HFAS. Recovery from a threshold shift (TTS) can take a
few minutes to a few days, depending on the exposure duration, sound
exposure level, and the magnitude of the initial shift, with larger
threshold shifts and longer exposure durations requiring longer
recovery times (Finneran et al., 2005; Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et
al., 2009b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010). Here, any threshold shifts
experienced would be expected to be relatively small because of the
unlikelihood that animals will remain within the ensonified area (due
to the short duration of the majority of exercises, the speed of the
vessels, and the short distance within which the animal would need to
approach the sound source) at high levels for the duration necessary to
induce larger threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not necessarily
affect all hearing frequencies equally, so some threshold shifts may
not interfere with an animal's hearing of biologically relevant sounds.
It has been speculated for some time that beaked whales might have
unusual sensitivities to sonar sound due to their likelihood of
stranding in conjunction with MFAS use. Research and observations show
that if beaked whales are exposed to sonar or other active acoustic
sources they may startle, break off feeding dives, and avoid the area
of the sound source to levels of 157 dB re 1 [micro]Pa, or below
(McCarthy et al., 2011). Acoustic monitoring during actual sonar
exercises revealed some beaked whales continuing to forage at levels up
to 157 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (Tyack et al., 2011). Stimpert et al. (2014)
tagged a Baird's beaked whale, which was subsequently exposed to
simulated MFAS. Changes in the animal's dive behavior and locomotion
were observed when received level reached 127 dB re 1[mu]Pa. However,
Manzano-Roth et al. (2013) found that for beaked whale dives that
continued to occur during MFAS activity, differences from normal dive
profiles and click rates were not detected with estimated received
levels up to 137 dB re 1 [micro]Pa while the animals were at depth
during their dives. And in research done at the Navy's fixed tracking
range in the Bahamas, animals were observed to leave the immediate area
of the anti-submarine warfare training exercise (avoiding the sonar
acoustic footprint at a distance where the received level was ``around
140 dB'' SPL, according to Tyack et al. (2011)) but return within a few
days after the event ended (Claridge and Durban, 2009; Moretti et al.,
2009, 2010; Tyack et al., 2010, 2011; McCarthy et al., 2011). Tyack et
al. (2011) report that, in reaction to sonar playbacks, most beaked
whales stopped echolocating, made long slow ascent to the surface, and
moved away from the sound. A similar behavioral response study
conducted in Southern California waters during the 2010-2011 field
season found that Cuvier's beaked whales exposed to MFAS displayed
behavior ranging from initial orientation changes to avoidance
responses characterized by energetic fluking and swimming away from the
source (DeRuiter et al., 2013b). However, the authors did not detect
similar responses to incidental exposure to distant naval sonar
exercises at comparable received levels, indicating that context of the
exposures (e.g., source proximity, controlled source ramp-up) may have
been a significant factor. The study itself found the results
inconclusive and meriting further investigation. Cuvier's beaked whale
responses suggested particular sensitivity to sound exposure as
consistent with results for Blainville's beaked whale.
Populations of beaked whales and other odontocetes on the Bahamas
and other Navy fixed ranges that have been operating for decades,
appear to be stable. Behavioral reactions (avoidance of the area of
Navy activity) seem likely in most cases if beaked whales are exposed
to anti-submarine sonar within a few tens of kilometers, especially for
prolonged periods (a few hours or more) since this is one of the most
sensitive marine mammal groups to anthropogenic sound of any species or
group studied to date and research indicates beaked whales will leave
an area where anthropogenic sound is present (Tyack et al., 2011; De
Ruiter et al., 2013; Manzano-Roth et al., 2013; Moretti et al., 2014).
Research involving tagged Cuvier's beaked whales in the SOCAL Range
Complex reported on by Falcone and Schorr (2012, 2014) indicates year-
round prolonged use of the Navy's training and testing area by these
beaked whales and has documented movements in excess of hundreds of
kilometers by some of those animals. Given that some of these animals
may routinely move hundreds of kilometers as part of their normal
pattern, leaving an area where sonar or other anthropogenic sound is
present may have little, if any, cost to such an animal. Photo
identification studies in the SOCAL Range Complex, a Navy range that is
utilized for training and testing more frequently than the GOA TMAA
Study Area, have identified approximately 100 individual Cuvier's
beaked whale individuals with 40 percent having been seen in one or
more prior years, with re-sightings up to 7 years apart (Falcone and
Schorr, 2014). These results indicate long-term residency by
individuals in an intensively used Navy training and testing area,
which may also suggest a lack of long-term consequences as a result of
exposure to Navy training and testing activities.
Based on the findings above, it is clear that the Navy's long-term
ongoing use of sonar and other active acoustic sources has not
precluded beaked whales from also continuing to inhabit those areas. In
summary, based on the best available science, the Navy and NMFS believe
that any TTS or behavioral responses of beaked whales due to sonar and
other active acoustic training activities would generally not have
long-term consequences for individuals or populations. NMFS notes that
Claridge (2013) speculated that sonar use in a Bahamas range could have
``a possible population-level effect'' on beaked whales based on lower
abundance in comparison to control sites. In summary, Claridge
suggested that lower reproductive rates observed at the Navy's Atlantic
Undersea Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC), when compared to a control
site, were due to stressors associated with frequent and repeated use
of Navy sonar. However, it is important to note that there were some
relevant shortcomings of this study. For example, all of the re-sighted
whales during the 5-year study at both sites were female, which
Claridge acknowledged can lead to a negative bias in the abundance
estimation. There was also a reduced effort and shorter overall study
period at the AUTEC site that failed to capture some of the emigration/
immigration trends identified at the control site. Furthermore,
Claridge assumed that the two sites were identical and therefore should
have equal potential abundances, when in reality, there were notable
physical differences. The author also acknowledged that ``information
[[Page 19597]]
currently available cannot provide a quantitative answer to whether
frequent sonar use at (the Bahamas range) is causing stress to resident
beaked whales,'' and cautioned that the outcome of ongoing studies ``is
a critical component to understanding if there are population-level
effects.'' It is also worth noting that the frequency and intensity of
sonar activity at the Bahamas range is greater than in the GOA TMAA,
and the bathymetry and other physical characteristics of the training
area are different.
Moore and Barlow (2013) have noted a decline in beaked whale
populations in a broad area of the Pacific Ocean area out to 300 nm
from the coast and extending from the Canadian-U.S. border to the tip
of Baja Mexico. There are scientific caveats and limitations to the
data used for that analysis, as well as oceanographic and species
assemblage changes on the U.S. Pacific coast not thoroughly addressed.
Although Moore and Barlow (2013) have noted a decline in the overall
beaked whale population along the Pacific coast, in the small fraction
of that area where the Navy has been training and testing with sonar
and other systems for decades (the Navy's SOCAL Range Complex), higher
densities and long-term residency by individual Cuvier's beaked whales
suggest that the decline noted elsewhere is not apparent where Navy
sonar use is most intense. Navy sonar training and testing is not
conducted along a large part of the U.S. west coast from which Moore
and Barlow (2013) drew their survey data. In Southern California, based
on a series of surveys from 2006 to 2008 and a high number encounter
rate, Falcone et al. (2009) suggested the ocean basin west of San
Clemente Island may be an important region for Cuvier's beaked whales
given the number of animals encountered there. Follow-up research
(Falcone and Schorr, 2012, 2014) in this same location suggests that
Cuvier's beaked whales may have population sub-units with higher than
expected residency, particularly in the Navy's instrumented Southern
California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range. Encounters with multiple
groups of Cuvier's and Baird's beaked whales indicated not only that
they were prevalent on the range where Navy routinely trains and tests,
but also that they were potentially present in much higher densities
than had been reported for anywhere along the U.S. west coast (Falcone
et al., 2009, Falcone and Schorr, 2012). This finding is also
consistent with concurrent results from passive acoustic monitoring
that estimated regional Cuvier's beaked whale densities were higher
where Navy trains in the SOCAL training and testing area than indicated
by NMFS' broad scale visual surveys for the U.S. west coast (Hildebrand
and McDonald, 2009).
NMFS also considered New et al. (2013) and their mathematical model
simulating a functional link between foraging energetics and
requirements for survival and reproduction for 21 species of beaked
whales. However, NMFS concluded that the New et al. (2013) model lacks
critical data and accurate inputs necessary to form valid conclusions
specifically about impacts of anthropogenic sound from Navy activities
on beaked whale populations. The study itself notes the need for
``future research,'' identifies ``key data needs'' relating to input
parameters that ``particularly affected'' the model results, and states
only that the use of the model ``in combination with more detailed
research'' could help predict the effects of management actions on
beaked whale species. In short, information is not currently available
to specifically support the use of this model in a project-specific
evaluation of the effects of Navy activities on the impacted beaked
whale species in GOA.
No beaked whales are predicted in the acoustic analysis to be
exposed to sound levels associated with PTS, other injury, or
mortality. After years of the Navy conducting similar activities in the
GOA Study Area without incident, NMFS does not expect strandings,
injury, or mortality of beaked whales to occur as a result of training
activities. Stranding events coincident with Navy MFAS use in which
exposure to sonar is believed to have been a contributing factor were
detailed in the ``Stranding and Mortality'' section of the proposed
rule (81 FR 9950, 9970-76; February 26, 2016). However, for some of
these stranding events, a causal relationship between sonar exposure
and the stranding could not be clearly established (Cox et al., 2006).
In other instances, sonar was considered only one of several factors
that, in their aggregate, may have contributed to the stranding event
(Freitas, 2004; Cox et al., 2006). Because of the association between
tactical MFAS use and a small number of marine mammal strandings, the
Navy and NMFS have been considering and addressing the potential for
strandings in association with Navy activities for years. In addition
to effective mitigation measures intended to more broadly minimize
impacts to marine mammals, the reporting requirements set forth in this
rule ensure that NMFS is notified immediately (or as soon as clearance
procedures allow) if a stranded marine mammal is found during or
shortly after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy training exercise
utilizing MFAS, HFAS, or underwater explosive detonations (see General
Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals and the Stranding
Response Plan in the regulatory text below). Additionally, through the
MMPA process (which allows for adaptive management), NMFS and the Navy
will determine the appropriate way to proceed in the event that a
causal relationship were to be found between Navy activities and a
future stranding.
The GOA training activities are not expected to occur in an area/
time of specific importance for reproductive, feeding, or other known
critical behaviors for beaked whales. None of the Pacific stocks for
beaked whale species found in the Study Area are depleted under the
MMPA. The degree of predicted Level B harassment is expected to be
mild, and no beaked whales are predicted in the acoustic analysis to be
exposed to sound levels associated with PTS, other injury, or
mortality. Consequently, the activities are not expected to adversely
impact annual rates of recruitment or survival of beaked whales.
Pinnipeds--The Navy's acoustic analysis predicts that the following
numbers of Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral reaction) may occur
annually from sonar and other active acoustic stressors associated with
training activities: 621 Steller sea lions (Eastern U.S. and Western
U.S. stocks); 5 California sea lions (U.S. stock); 713 northern fur
seals (Eastern Pacific stock); 122 northern elephant seals (California
Breeding stock); and 2 harbor seals (South Kodiak, and Prince William
Sound stocks). These represent a limited number of takes relative to
population estimates for pinniped stocks in the Study Area. When the
numbers of behavioral takes are compared to the estimated stock
abundances, less than 1 percent of each of these stocks would be
behaviorally harassed during the course of a year. These estimates
represent the total number of exposures and not necessarily the number
of individuals exposed, as a single individual may be exposed multiple
times over the course of a year. Based on the distribution information
presented in the LOA application, it is highly unlikely that ribbon
seals would be encountered in the Study Area during events involving
use of sonar and other active acoustic sources or explosives. The
acoustic analysis did not predict any takes of ribbon seals and NMFS is
not authorizing any takes of this species.
[[Page 19598]]
Research has demonstrated that for pinnipeds, as for other mammals,
recovery from a threshold shift (TTS) can take a few minutes to a few
days, depending on the exposure duration, sound exposure level, and the
magnitude of the initial shift, with larger threshold shifts and longer
exposure durations requiring longer recovery times (Finneran et al.,
2005; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al.,
2009b). However, here, any threshold shifts experienced would be
expected to be relatively small because of the unlikelihood that
animals will remain within the ensonified area (due to the short
duration of the majority of exercises, the speed of the vessels, and
the short distance within which the animal would need to approach the
sound source) at high levels for the duration necessary to induce
larger threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all
hearing frequencies equally, so threshold shifts may not necessarily
interfere with an animal's ability to hear biologically relevant
sounds.
Research and observations show that pinnipeds in the water may be
tolerant of anthropogenic noise and activity (a review of behavioral
reactions by pinnipeds to impulsive and non-impulsive noise can be
found in Richardson et al., 1995 and Southall et al., 2007). Available
data, though limited, suggest that exposures between approximately 90
and 140 dB SPL do not appear to induce strong behavioral responses in
pinnipeds exposed to nonpulse sounds in water (Jacobs and Terhune,
2002; Costa et al., 2003; Kastelein et al., 2006c). Based on the
limited data on pinnipeds in the water exposed to multiple pulses
(small explosives, impact pile driving, and seismic sources), exposures
in the approximately 150 to 180 dB SPL range generally have limited
potential to induce avoidance behavior in pinnipeds (Harris et al.,
2001; Blackwell et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2004). Zero percent of the
takes estimated incidental to the Navy's training activities in the GOA
TMAA are expected to result from exposures above 180 dB.
If pinnipeds are exposed to sonar or other active acoustic sources
they may react in a number of ways depending on their experience with
the sound source and what activity they are engaged in at the time of
the acoustic exposure. Pinnipeds may not react at all until the sound
source is approaching within a few hundred meters and then may alert,
ignore the stimulus, change their behaviors, or avoid the immediate
area by swimming away or diving. Houser et al. (2013) performed a
controlled exposure study involving California sea lions exposed to a
simulated MFAS signal. The purpose of this Navy-sponsored study was to
determine the probability and magnitude of behavioral responses by
California sea lions exposed to differing intensities of simulated MFAS
signals. Behavioral reactions included increased respiration rates,
prolonged submergence, and refusal to participate, among others.
Younger animals were more likely to respond than older animals, while
some sea lions did not respond consistently at any level. Houser et
al.'s findings are consistent with current scientific studies and
criteria development concerning marine mammal reactions to MFAS.
Effects on pinnipeds in the Study Area that are taken by Level B
harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as Navy
monitoring from past activities, will likely be limited to reactions
such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or
decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring). Most likely,
individuals will simply move away from the sound source and be
temporarily displaced from those areas, or not respond at all.
Although less of an issue here because of the short duration of the
activity, it is still worth noting that in areas of repeated and
frequent acoustic disturbance, some pinnipeds may habituate or learn to
tolerate the new baseline or fluctuations in noise level. Habituation
can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated
exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events
(Wartzok et al., 2003). While some animals may not return to an area,
or may begin using an area differently due to training and testing
activities, most animals are expected to return to their usual
locations and behavior. Given their documented tolerance of
anthropogenic sound (Richardson et al., 1995 and Southall et al.,
2007), repeated exposures of individuals (e.g., harbor seals) to levels
of sound that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in
hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. As
stated above, pinnipeds may habituate to or become tolerant of repeated
exposures over time, learning to ignore a stimulus that in the past has
not accompanied any overt threat.
Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of an
overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized
decrease in fitness to those individuals, and would not result in any
adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Evidence from areas where the
Navy extensively trains and tests provides some indication of the
possible consequences resulting from those proposed activities. In the
confined waters of Washington State's Hood Canal where the Navy has
been training and intensively testing for decades and harbor seals are
present year-round, the population level has remained stable suggesting
the area's carrying capacity likely has been reached (Jeffries et al.,
2003; Gaydos et al., 2013). Within Puget Sound there are several
locations where pinnipeds use Navy structures (e.g., submarines,
security barriers) for haulouts. Given that animals continue to choose
these areas for their resting behavior, it would appear there are no
long-term effects or consequences to those animals as a result of
ongoing and routine Navy activities.
Generally speaking, most pinniped stocks in the Study Area are
thought to be stable or increasing (Carretta et al., 2014, 2015). No
areas of specific importance for reproduction or feeding for pinnipeds
have been identified in the Study Area. Western U.S. stocks of Steller
sea lions are listed as endangered under the ESA; however, there is no
designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions in the Study Area. As
a conservative measure, the GOA TMAA boundary zone was specifically
drawn to exclude any nearby critical habitat and associated
terrestrial, air, or aquatic zones.
In summary, the activities are not expected to adversely impact
annual rates of recruitment or survival of pinniped species.
Long-Term Consequences
The best assessment of long-term consequences from training
activities will be to monitor the populations over time within a given
Navy range complex. A U.S. workshop on Marine Mammals and Sound (Fitch
et al., 2011) indicated a critical need for baseline biological data on
marine mammal abundance, distribution, habitat, and behavior over
sufficient time and space to evaluate impacts from human-generated
activities on long-term population survival. The Navy has developed
monitoring plans for protected marine mammals occurring on Navy ranges
with the goal of assessing the impacts of training and testing
activities on marine species and the effectiveness of the Navy's
current mitigation practices. Continued monitoring efforts over time
will be necessary to completely evaluate the long-term consequences of
exposure to noise sources.
Since 2006 across all Navy range complexes (in the Atlantic, Gulf
of
[[Page 19599]]
Mexico, and the Pacific), there have been more than 80 reports,
including Major Exercise Reports, Annual Exercise Reports, and
Monitoring Reports. For the Pacific since 2011, there have been 29
monitoring and exercise reports submitted to NMFS to further research
goals aimed at understanding the Navy's impact on the environment as it
carries out its mission to train and test.
In addition to this multi-year record of reports from across the
Navy, there have also been ongoing Behavioral Response Study research
efforts (in Southern California and the Bahamas) specifically focused
on determining the potential effects from Navy mid-frequency sonar
(Southall et al., 2011, 2012; McCarthy et al., 2011; Tyack et al.,
2011; DeRuiter et al., 2013b; Goldbogen et al., 2013; Moretti et al.,
2014). This multi-year compendium of monitoring, observation, study,
and broad scientific research is informative with regard to assessing
the effects of Navy training and testing in general. Given that this
record involves many of the same Navy training activities being
considered for the Study Area and because it includes all the marine
mammal taxonomic families and many of the same species, this compendium
of Navy reporting is directly applicable to assessing locations such as
the GOA TMAA.
In the Hawaii and Southern California Navy training and testing
ranges from 2009 to 2012, Navy-funded marine mammal monitoring research
completed over 5,000 hours of visual survey effort covering over 65,000
nautical miles, sighted over 256,000 individual marine mammals, took
over 45,600 digital photos and 36 hours of digital video, attached 70
satellite tracking tags to individual marine mammals, and collected
over 40,000 hours of passive acoustic recordings. In Hawaii alone
between 2006 and 2012, there were 21 scientific marine mammal surveys
conducted before, during, or after major exercises. This monitoring
effort is consistent with other research from these areas in that there
have been no direct evidence demonstration that routine Navy training
and testing has negatively impacted marine mammal populations
inhabiting these Navy ranges. Continued monitoring efforts over time
will be necessary to completely evaluate the long-term consequences of
exposure to noise sources. Other research findings related to the
general topic of long-term impacts are discussed above in the Species-
Specific Analysis.
Based on monitoring conducted before, during, and after Navy
training and testing events since 2006, NMFS' assessment is that it is
unlikely there will be impacts having any long-term consequences to
populations of marine mammals as a result of the proposed continuation
of training activities in the Study Area. In addition to the analysis
presented above, this assessment of likelihood is based on four
indicators from areas in the Pacific where Navy training and testing
has been ongoing for decades: (1) Evidence suggesting or documenting
increases in the numbers of marine mammals present (Calambokidis and
Barlow, 2004; Falcone et al., 2009; Hildebrand and McDonald, 2009;
Falcone and Shorr, 2012; Calambokidis et al., 2009a; Berman-Kowalewski
et al., 2010; Moore and Barlow, 2011; Barlow et al., 2011; Kerosky et
al., 2012; Smultea et al., 2013; [Scaron]irovi[cacute] et al., 2015),
(2) examples of documented presence and site fidelity of species and
long-term residence by individual animals of some species (Hooker et
al., 2002; McSweeney et al., 2007; McSweeney et al., 2010; Martin and
Kok, 2011; Baumann-Pickering et al., 2012; Falcone and Schorr, 2014),
(3) use of training and testing areas for breeding and nursing
activities (Littnan, 2010), and (4) 6 years of comprehensive monitoring
data indicating a lack of any observable effects to marine mammal
populations as a result of Navy training and testing activities.
To summarize, while the evidence covers most marine mammal
taxonomic suborders, it is limited to a few species and only suggestive
of the general viability of those species in intensively used Navy
training and testing areas (Barlow et al., 2011; Calambokidis et al.,
2009b; Falcone et al., 2009; Littnan, 2011; Martin and Kok, 2011;
McCarthy et al., 2011; McSweeney et al., 2007; McSweeney et al., 2009;
Moore and Barlow, 2011; Tyack et al., 2011; Southall et al., 2012a;
Melcon, 2012; Goldbogen, 2013; Baird et al., 2013). However, there is
no direct evidence that routine Navy training and testing spanning
decades has negatively impacted marine mammal populations at any Navy
Range Complex. Although there have been a few strandings associated
with use of sonar in other locations (see U.S. Department of the Navy,
2013b), Ketten (2012) has recently summarized, ``to date, there has
been no demonstrable evidence of acute, traumatic, disruptive, or
profound auditory damage in any marine mammal as the result of
anthropogenic noise exposures, including sonar.'' Therefore, based on
the best available science (Barlow et al., 2011; Carretta et al., 2011;
Falcone et al., 2009; Falcone and Schorr, 2012, 2014; Jeffries et al.,
2003; Littnan, 2011; Martin and Kok, 2011; McCarthy et al., 2011;
McSweeney et al., 2007; McSweeney et al., 2009; Moore and Barlow, 2011;
Tyack et al., 2011; Southall et al., 2012, 2013, 2014; Manzano-Roth et
al., 2013; DeRuiter et al., 2013b; Goldbogen et al., 2013; Moretti et
al., 2014; Smultea and Jefferson, 2014; [Scaron]irovi[cacute] et al.,
2015), including data developed in the series of more than 80 reports
submitted to NMFS, we believe that long-term consequences for
individuals or populations are unlikely to result from Navy training
activities in the Study Area.
Final Determination
Training activities proposed in the GOA TMAA Study Area would
result in mainly Level B and a very small number of Level A harassment
takes (for one species), as summarized in Tables 10 and 11. Based on
best available science, NMFS concludes that exposures to sound by
marine mammal species or stocks due to GOA TMAA activities would result
in individuals experiencing primarily short-term (temporary and short
in duration) and relatively infrequent effects of the type or severity
not expected to be additive. In addition, only a generally small
portion of the stocks and species are likely to be exposed.
Marine mammal takes from Navy activities are not expected to impact
annual rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result
in population-level impacts for the following reasons, in summary:
No mortality is anticipated or authorized, only 4
instances of Level A harassment (resulting in low-level PTS) to
Dall's porpoise are likely to occur, and remaining impacts would be
within the non-injurious TTS or behavioral effects zones (Level B
harassment consisting of generally temporary modifications in
behavior).
As mentioned earlier, an animal's exposure to a higher
received level is more likely to result in a behavioral response
that is more likely to adversely affect the health of the animal.
For low frequency cetaceans (mysticetes) in the Study Area, the
majority (73%) of Level B exposures from hull-mounted sonar (which
is responsible for most of the take) will occur at received levels
less than 162 dB and from sources over 20km away. Only less than 1%
of the takes are expected to result from exposures above 174 dB and
closer than 4 km. The majority (63%) of estimated odontocete and
pinniped takes from hull-mounted MFAS/HFAS result from exposures to
received levels less than 162 dB and from sources over 20 km away.
Only less than 2% of the takes are expected to result from exposures
above 174 dB and closer than 4 km. For other sonar sources, 98% of
the takes result from exposures below 168 dB for
[[Page 19600]]
all taxa. As noted previously, in addition to received level, the
context of exposures (such as the distance) influences how animals
respond--for example, beaked whales exposed to the same received
level at a greater distance exhibited a lesser behavioral response
(DeRuiter et al., 2012). In short, primarily because of the lower
levels and greater distances over which most animals are exposed,
the majority of Level B harassment takes are expected to be in the
form of milder responses (i.e., lower-level exposures that still
rise to the level of a take, but would likely be in the less severe
range of responses that qualify as a take), and are not expected to
have deleterious impacts on the fitness of any individuals.
Acoustic disturbances caused by Navy sonar and
explosives are short-term, intermittent, and (in the case of sonar)
transitory. Even when an animal may be exposed to active sonar more
than one time, the intermittent nature of the sonar signal, the
signal's low duty cycle (MFAS has a typical ping of every 50
seconds), and the fact that both the vessel and animal are moving,
provide only a very small chance that exposure to active sonar for
individual animals and stocks would be repeated over extended
periods of time. Additionally, the exercises will not last more than
a total of 21 days annually. Consequently, we would not expect the
Navy's activities to create conditions of long-term, continuous
underwater noise leading to habitat abandonment or long-term
hormonal or physiological stress responses in marine mammal species
or stocks.
Range complexes where intensive training and testing
have been occurring for decades have populations of multiple species
with strong site fidelity (including highly sensitive resident
beaked whales at some locations) and increases in the number of some
species. Populations of beaked whales and other odontocetes in the
Bahamas, and in other Navy fixed ranges that have been operating for
tens of years, appear to be stable.
Navy monitoring of Navy-wide activities since 2006 has
documented hundreds of thousands of marine mammals on the range
complexes and there are only two instances of overt behavioral
change that have been observed.
Navy monitoring of Navy-wide activities since 2006 has
documented no demonstrable instances of injury to marine mammal
species or stocks as a result of non-impulsive acoustic sources.
In at least three decades of similar Navy activities,
only one instance of injury to one species type of marine mammal (In
March 2011; three long-beaked common dolphins off Southern
California) has occurred as a known result of training or testing
using an impulsive source (underwater explosion). Of note, the time-
delay firing underwater explosive training activity implicated in
the March 2011 incident was not proposed for the training activities
in the GOA Study Area.
The protective measures described in the ``Mitigation''
section above are designed, and expected, to avoid vessel strike,
sound exposures that may cause serious injury, minimize the
likelihood of PTS, TTS, or more severe behavioral responses, further
minimize the likelihood of take of North Pacific Right Whales in
important feeding areas, and overall to result in the least
practicable adverse effect on marine mammal species or stocks.
Based on this analysis of the likely effects of the specified
activity on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, which
includes consideration of the materials provided in the Navy's LOA
application and GOA FSEIS/OEIS, and dependent upon the implementation
of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that the total
marine mammal take from the Navy's training activities in the GOA Study
Area will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal
species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival. NMFS is issuing regulations for these activities in order to
prescribe the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact
on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, and to set forth
requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of that taking.
Subsistence Harvest of Marine Mammals
The Tribes nearest the GOA TMAA include the Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak,
the Native Village of Eyak, and the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe; however,
these Tribes do not use the TMAA for subsistence. In January 2013, the
Navy sent letters to 12 Alaska Native federally-recognized Tribes,
including those listed above, with the assistance of the Alaskan
Command's Tribal liaison, requesting government-to-government
consultation pursuant to Executive Order 13175. The Navy conducted a
government-to-government consultation with the Native Village of Eyak
and addressed many of the Village's concerns regarding the potential
impacts from training activities. All 12 Tribes were also provided a
copy of the GOA DSEIS/OEIS for review and comment. Comments on the GOA
DSEIS/OEIS were received from the Native Village of Eyak Tribe. In July
2016, Navy held government-to-government consultation with five (5)
Alaska Native Tribes in the Kodiak area regarding tribal comments and
concerns of the Proposed Action. The Navy considered the concerns of
the five Tribes regarding fishery resources and agreed to include a
mitigation that precludes the use of ordnance in the Portlock Bank
area. The Navy will continue to keep the Tribes informed of the
timeframes of future joint training exercises.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated
by this action. None of the training activities in the Study Area occur
where traditional Arctic subsistence hunting exists. Therefore, NMFS
has determined that the total taking would not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking
for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act
There are eight marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that
are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA with confirmed or
possible occurrence in the Study Area: Blue whale, fin whale, humpback
whale (Western North Pacific DPS and Mexico DPS), sei whale, sperm
whale, gray whale (Western North Pacific stock), North Pacific right
whale, and Steller sea lion (Western U.S. stock). The Navy consulted
with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, and NMFS also consulted
internally on the issuance of a rule and LOA under section 101(a)(5)(A)
of the MMPA for GOA activities. NMFS issued a Biological Opinion
concluding that the issuance of the rule and subsequent LOA are likely
to adversely affect, but are not likely to jeopardize, the continued
existence of the threatened and endangered species under NMFS'
jurisdiction and are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat in the GOA TMAA Study Area. The
Biological Opinion for this action is available on NMFS' Web site
(https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm).
National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS participated as a cooperating agency on the GOA FSEIS/OEIS,
which was published on July 9, 2016, and is available on the Navy's Web
site: https://www.goaeis.com. NMFS determined that the GOA FSEIS/OEIS is
adequate and appropriate to meet our responsibilities under NEPA for
the issuance of regulations and LOA and adopted the Navy's GOA FSEIS/
OEIS.
Classification
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final
rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel
for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration at the
proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Navy is
the sole entity that would be affected by this rulemaking, and the
[[Page 19601]]
Navy is not a small governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or
small business, as defined by the RFA. Any requirements imposed by an
LOA issued pursuant to these regulations, and any monitoring or
reporting requirements imposed by these regulations, would be
applicable only to the Navy. NMFS does not expect the issuance of these
regulations or the associated LOA to result in any impacts to small
entities pursuant to the RFA. Because this action directly affects the
Navy and not a small entity, NMFS concludes the action will not result
in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a
result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has
been prepared.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that there
is good cause under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C
553(d)(3)) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of the
measures contained in the final rule. NMFS is unable to accommodate the
30-day delay of effectiveness due to delays resulting from: Late
changes in the action (reductions in activity levels), the need for new
impact analyses to address policy changes initiated by NMFS (new
Acoustic Guidance), and the need to analyze a recent Ninth Circuit
opinion regarding section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. The Navy is the
only entity subject to the regulations, and it has informed NMFS that
it requests that this final rule take effect by April 2017 to
accommodate a Navy training exercise in the GOA planned for May 1,
2017. A waiver of the 30-day delay of the effective date of the final
rule will allow the Navy to finalize operational procedures to ensure
compliance with required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements, and have MMPA authorization in place to support at-sea
joint exercises in the GOA scheduled for May 2017. Any delay of
enacting the final rule would result in either: (1) A suspension of
planned naval training, which would disrupt vital training essential to
national security; or (2) the Navy's procedural non-compliance with the
MMPA (should the Navy conduct training without an LOA), thereby
resulting in the potential for unauthorized takes of marine mammals.
Moreover, the Navy is ready to implement the rule immediately. For
these reasons, the Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive
the 30-day delay in the effective date.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218
Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental take, Indians, Labeling, Marine
mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Seafood, Sonar, Transportation.
Dated: April 21, 2017.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 218 is amended
as follows:
PART 218--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE
MAMMALS
0
1. The authority citation for part 218 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
0
2. Subpart P is added to part 218 to read as follows:
Subpart P--Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy's Gulf of
Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities Area (GOA TMAA) Study Area
Sec.
218.150 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
218.151 Effective dates and definitions.
218.152 Permissible methods of taking.
218.153 Prohibitions.
218.154 Mitigation.
218.155 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
218.156 Applications for letters of authorization (LOA).
218.157 Letters of authorization (LOA).
218.158 Renewal and modifications of letters of authorization (LOA)
and adaptive management.
Subpart P--Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy's Gulf of
Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities Area (GOA TMAA) Study Area
Sec. 218.150 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the U.S. Navy for the
taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area outlined in paragraph
(b) of this section and that occurs incidental to the activities
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy is only authorized if
it occurs within the GOA TMAA Study Area, which is bounded by a hexagon
with the following six corners: 57[deg]30'[deg] N. lat.,
141[deg]30'[deg] W. long.; 59[deg]36'[deg] N. lat., 148[deg]10'[deg] W.
long.; 58[deg]57'[deg] N. lat., 150[deg]04'[deg] W. long.;
58[deg]20'[deg] N. lat., 151[deg]00'[deg] W. long.; 57[deg]16'[deg] N.
lat., 151[deg]00'[deg] W. long.; and 55[deg]30'[deg] N. lat.,
142[deg]00'[deg] W. long.
(c) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy is only authorized if
it occurs incidental to the following activities:
(1) Sonar and other active sources used during training--(i) Mid-
frequency (MF) source classes. (A) MF1--an average of 271 hours per
year.
(B) MF3--an average of 24 hours per year.
(C) MF4--an average of 26 hours per year.
(D) MF5--an average of 126 items per year.
(E) MF6--an average of 11 items per year.
(F) MF11--an average of 39 hours per year.
(ii) High-frequency (HF) source classes. (A) HF1--an average of 12
hours per year.
(B) HF6--an average of 40 items per year.
(iii) Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) source classes. (A) ASW2--an
average of 40 hours per year.
(B) ASW3--an average of 273 hours per year.
(C) ASW4--an average 6 items per year.
(iv) Torpedoes (TORP). (A) TORP2--an average of 0 items per year.
(B) [Reserved]
(2) Impulsive source detonations during training--(i) Explosive
classes. (A) E5 (>5 to 10 pound (lb) net explosive weight (NEW))--an
average of 56 detonations per year.
(B) E9 (>100 to 250 lb NEW)--an average of 64 detonations per year.
(C) E10 (>250 to 500 lb NEW)--an average of 6 detonations per year.
(D) E12 (>650 to 1,000 lb NEW)--an average of 2 detonations per
year.
(ii) [Reserved]
Sec. 218.151 Effective dates and definitions.
(a) Regulations in this subpart are effective April 26, 2017
through April 26, 2022.
(b) The following definitions are utilized in these regulations:
(1) Uncommon Stranding Event (USE). A stranding event that takes
place during a Major Training Exercise (MTE) and involves any one of
the following:
(i) Two or more individuals of any cetacean species (i.e., could be
two different species, but not including mother/calf pairs, unless of
species of concern listed in next bullet) found dead or live on shore
within a three- to four-day period and within 10 miles of one another.
(ii) A single individual or mother/calf pair of any of the
following marine mammals of concern: beaked whale of any species, North
Pacific right whale, humpback whale, sperm whale, blue
[[Page 19602]]
whale, fin whale, sei whale, Cook Inlet beluga whale, Northern fur
seal, and Steller sea lion.
(iii) A group of two or more cetaceans of any species exhibiting
indicators of distress.
(2) [Reserved]
Sec. 218.152 Permissible methods of taking.
(a) Under letter of authorization (LOA) issued pursuant to Sec.
216.106 of this chapter and Sec. 218.157, the holder of the LOA may
incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the
area described in Sec. 218.150, provided the activity is in compliance
with all terms, conditions, and requirements of these regulations and
the LOA.
(b) The activities identified in Sec. 218.150(c) must be conducted
in a manner that minimizes, to the greatest extent practicable, any
adverse impacts on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat.
(c) The incidental take of marine mammals under the activities
identified in Sec. 218.150(c) is limited to the following species, by
the identified method of take and the indicated number of times:
(1) Level B harassment for all training activities--(i) Mysticetes.
(A) Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Eastern North Pacific--235 (an
average of 47 per year).
(B) Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), Northeast Pacific--6,455 (an
average of 1,291 per year).
(C) Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Central North
Pacific--305 (an average of 61 per year).
(D) Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Western North
Pacific--5 (an average of 1 per year).
(E) Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), CA/OR/WA--35 (an
average of 7 per year).
(F) Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), Alaska--215 (an
average of 43 per year).
(G) North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica), Eastern North
Pacific--15 (an average of 3 per year).
(H) Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), Eastern North Pacific--30
(an average of 6 per year).
(ii) Odontocetes. (A) Baird's beaked whale (Berardius bairdii),
Alaska--1,000 (an average of 200 per year).
(B) Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), Alaska--6,355 (an
average of 1,271 per year).
(C) Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoidea dalli), Alaska--41,350 (an
average of 8,270 per year).
(D) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), GOA--13,710 (an average of
2,742 per year).
(E) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Southeast Alaska--4,815
(an average of 963 per year).
(F) Killer whale (Orcinus orca), Alaska Resident--1,405 (an average
of 281 per year).
(G) Killer whale (Orcinus orca), Eastern North Pacific Offshore--
130 (an average of 26 per year).
(H) Killer whale (Orcinus orca), GOA, Aleutian Island, and Bearing
Sea Transient--360 (an average of 72 per year).
(I) Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), North
Pacific--4,905 (an average of 981 per year).
(J) Stejneger's beaked whale (Mesoplodon stejnegeri), Alaska--2,880
(an average of 576 per year).
(K) Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), North Pacific--490 (an
average of 98 per year).
(iii) Pinnipeds. (A) California sea lion (Zalophus californianus),
U.S.--10 (an average of 2 per year).
(B) Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), Eastern U.S.--1,675 (an
average of 335 per year).
(C) Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), Western U.S.--1,430 (an
average of 286 per year).
(D) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), South Kodiak--5 (an average of 1
per year).
(E) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), Prince William Sound--5 (an
average of 1 per year).
(F) Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), California
Breeding--610 (an average of 122 per year).
(G) Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), Eastern Pacific--3,565
(an average of 713 per year).
(2) Level A harassment for all training activities--(i)
Odontocetes. (A) Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoidea dalli), Alaska--12 (an
average of 4 per year).
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
Sec. 218.153 Prohibitions.
Notwithstanding takings contemplated in Sec. 218.152 and
authorized by an LOA issued under Sec. 216.106 of this chapter and
Sec. 218.157, no person in connection with the activities described in
Sec. 218.150 may:
(a) Take any marine mammal not specified in Sec. 218.152(c);
(b) Take any marine mammal specified in Sec. 218.152(c) other than
by incidental take as specified in Sec. 218.152(c);
(c) Take a marine mammal specified in Sec. 218.152(c) if such
taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or
stocks of such marine mammal; or
(d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and
requirements of these regulations or an LOA issued under Sec. 216.106
of this chapter and Sec. 218.157.
Sec. 218.154 Mitigation.
(a) After review of best available science, the following
mitigation was determined to result in the least practicable adverse
effect on marine mammal species or stocks. When conducting training
activities, as identified in Sec. 218.150, the mitigation measures
contained in the LOA issued under Sec. 216.106 of this chapter and
Sec. 218.157 must be implemented. These mitigation measures include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Lookouts. The Navy shall have two types of lookouts for the
purposes of conducting visual observations: Those positioned on ships;
and those positioned ashore, in aircraft, or on boats. The following
are protective measures concerning the use of lookouts.
(i) Lookouts positioned on surface ships shall be dedicated solely
to diligent observation of the air and surface of the water. Their
observation objectives shall include, but are not limited to, detecting
the presence of biological resources and recreational or fishing boats,
observing mitigation zones, and monitoring for vessel and personnel
safety concerns.
(ii) Due to manning and space restrictions on aircraft, small
boats, and some Navy ships, lookouts for these platforms may be
supplemented by the aircraft crew or pilot, boat crew, range site
personnel, or shore-side personnel. Lookouts positioned in minimally
manned platforms may be responsible for tasks in addition to observing
the air or surface of the water (e.g., navigation of a helicopter or
small boat). However, all lookouts shall, considering personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the
activity, comply with the observation objectives described in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section for lookouts positioned on ships.
(iii) All personnel standing watch on the bridge, Commanding
Officers, Executive Officers, maritime patrol aircraft aircrews, anti-
submarine warfare helicopter crews, civilian equivalents, and lookouts
shall successfully complete the United States Navy Marine Species
Awareness Training prior to standing watch or serving as a lookout.
(iv) Lookout measures for non-impulsive sound. (A) With the
exception of vessels less than 65 ft (20 m) in length, ships using
hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar sources
[[Page 19603]]
associated with anti-submarine warfare activities at sea shall have two
Lookouts at the forward position of the vessel.
(B) While using hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar sources
associated with anti-submarine warfare activities at sea, vessels less
than 65 ft (20 m) in length shall have one lookout at the forward
position of the vessel due to space and manning restrictions.
(C) During non-hull mounted mid-frequency active sonar training
activities, Navy aircraft participating in exercises at sea shall
conduct and maintain, when operationally feasible and safe,
surveillance for marine species of concern as long as it does not
violate safety constraints or interfere with the accomplishment of
primary operational duties. Helicopters shall observe/survey the
vicinity of an anti-submarine warfare training event for 10 minutes
before the first deployment of active (dipping) sonar in the water.
(D) Ships or aircraft conducting non-hull-mounted mid-frequency
active sonar, such as helicopter dipping sonar systems, shall maintain
one lookout.
(E) Ships conducting high-frequency active sonar shall maintain one
lookout.
(v) Lookout measures for explosives and impulsive sound. (A)
Aircraft conducting explosive signal underwater sound buoy activities
using >0.5-2.5 lb. NEW shall have one lookout.
(B) Surface vessels or aircraft conducting small-, medium-, or
large-caliber gunnery exercises against a surface target shall have one
Lookout. From the intended firing position, trained Lookouts shall
survey the mitigation zone for marine mammals prior to commencement and
during the exercise as long as practicable. Towing vessels, if
applicable, shall also maintain one Lookout. If a marine mammal is
sighted in the vicinity of the exercise, the tow vessel shall
immediately notify the firing vessel in order to secure gunnery firing
until the area is clear.
(C) Aircraft conducting explosive bombing exercises shall have one
lookout and any surface vessels involved shall have trained Lookouts.
If surface vessels are involved, Lookouts shall survey for floating
kelp and marine mammals. Aircraft shall visually survey the target and
buffer zone for marine mammals prior to and during the exercise. The
survey of the impact area shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft (460 m)
or lower, if safe to do so, and at the slowest safe speed. Release of
ordnance through cloud cover is prohibited: Aircraft must be able to
actually see ordnance impact areas. Survey aircraft should employ most
effective search tactics and capabilities.
(D) When aircraft are conducting missile exercises against a
surface target, the Navy shall have one Lookout positioned in an
aircraft. Aircraft shall visually survey the target area for marine
mammals. Visual inspection of the target area shall be made by flying
at 1,500 ft (457 m) or lower, if safe to do so, and at the slowest safe
speed. Firing or range clearance aircraft must be able to actually see
ordnance impact areas.
(E) Ships conducting explosive and non-explosive gunnery exercises
shall have one Lookout on the ship. This may be the same lookout
described in paragraph (a)(1)(v)(B) of this section for surface vessels
conducting small-, medium-, or large-caliber gunnery exercises when
that activity is conducted from a ship against a surface target.
(vi) Lookout measures for physical strike and disturbance. (A)
While underway, surface ships shall have at least one Lookout with
binoculars, and surfaced submarines shall have at least one Lookout
with binoculars. Lookouts already posted for safety of navigation and
man-overboard precautions may be used to fill this requirement. As part
of their regular duties, Lookouts will watch for and report to the
Officer of the Deck the presence of marine mammals.
(B) [Reserved]
(vii) Lookout measures for non-explosive practice munitions. (A)
Gunnery exercises using non-explosive practice munitions (e.g., small-,
medium-, and large-caliber) using a surface target shall have one
Lookout.
(B) During non-explosive bombing exercises one Lookout shall be
positioned in an aircraft and trained lookouts shall be positioned in
any surface vessels involved.
(C) When aircraft are conducting non-explosive missile exercises
(including exercises using rockets) against a surface target, the Navy
shall have one Lookout positioned in an aircraft.
(2) Mitigation zones. The following are protective measures
concerning the implementation of mitigation zones.
(i) Mitigation zones shall be measured as the radius from a source
and represent a distance to be monitored.
(ii) Visual detections of marine mammals or sea turtles within a
mitigation zone shall be communicated immediately to a watch station
for information dissemination and appropriate action.
(iii) Mitigation zones for non-impulsive sound. (A) The Navy shall
ensure that hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar transmission levels
are limited to at least 6 dB below normal operating levels if any
detected marine mammals or sea turtles are within 1,000 yd (914 m) of
the sonar dome (the bow).
(B) The Navy shall ensure that hull-mounted mid-frequency active
sonar transmissions are limited to at least 10 dB below the equipment's
normal operating level if any detected marine mammals or sea turtles
are within 500 yd (457 m) of the sonar dome.
(C) The Navy shall ensure that hull-mounted mid-frequency active
sonar transmissions are ceased if any detected cetaceans or sea turtles
are within 200 yd (183 m) and pinnipeds are within 100 yd (90 m) of the
sonar dome. Transmissions shall not resume until the marine mammal has
been observed exiting the mitigation zone, is thought to have exited
the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, has not been
detected for 30 minutes, the vessel has transited more than 2,000 yd
(1830 m) beyond the location of the last detection, or the ship
concludes that dolphins are deliberately closing in on the ship to ride
the ship's bow wave (and there are no other marine mammal sightings
within the mitigation zone). Active transmission may resume when
dolphins are bow riding because they are out of the main transmission
axis of the active sonar while in the shallow-wave area of the ship
bow.
(D) The Navy shall ensure that high-frequency and non-hull-mounted
mid-frequency active sonar transmission levels are ceased if any
detected cetaceans are within 200 yd (183 m) and pinnipeds are within
100 yd (90 m) of the source. Transmissions shall not resume until the
marine mammal has been observed exiting the mitigation zone, is thought
to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, the
mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 10 minutes for an aircraft-deployed source, the mitigation
zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30
minutes for a vessel-deployed source, the vessel or aircraft has
repositioned itself more than 400 yd (370 m) away from the location of
the last sighting, or the vessel concludes that dolphins are
deliberately closing in to ride the vessel's bow wave (and there are no
other marine mammal sightings within the mitigation zone).
(iv) Mitigation zones for explosive and impulsive sound. (A) A
mitigation zone with a radius of 350 yd (320 m) shall be established
for explosive signal underwater sonobuoys using >0.5 to 2.5 lb NEW.
Explosive signal underwater sonobuoys shall not be deployed if
concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in
the mitigation zone (around the intended
[[Page 19604]]
deployment location). Explosive signal underwater sonobuoy deployment
shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone.
Detonations shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is
met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is
thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for a period of 10 minutes. Passive acoustic monitoring shall
also be conducted with Navy assets, such as sonobuoys, already
participating in the activity. These assets would only detect
vocalizing marine mammals within the frequency bands monitored by Navy
personnel. Passive acoustic detections would not provide range or
bearing to detected animals, and therefore cannot provide locations of
these animals. Passive acoustic detections would be reported to
Lookouts posted in aircraft in order to increase vigilance of their
visual surveillance.
(B) A mitigation zone with a radius of 200 yd (183 m) shall be
established for small- and medium-caliber gunnery exercises with a
surface target. The exercise shall not commence if concentrations of
floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone.
Firing shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation
zone. Firing shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is
met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is
thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings
for a period of 10 minutes for a firing aircraft, the mitigation zone
has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes
for a firing ship, or the intended target location has been
repositioned more than 400 yd (370 m) away from the location of the
last sighting.
(C) A mitigation zone with a radius of 600 yd (549 m) shall be
established for large-caliber gunnery exercises with a surface target.
The exercise shall not commence if concentrations of floating
vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing
shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone.
Firing shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is met:
The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is
thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for a period of 30 minutes.
(D) A mitigation zone with a radius of 2,500 yd (2.3 km) around the
intended impact location for explosive bombs and 1000 yd (920 m) for
non-explosive bombs shall be established for bombing exercises. The
exercise shall not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation
(kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Bombing shall cease
if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Bombing shall
recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is thought to have
exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or the
mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 10 minutes.
(E) A mitigation zone of 70 yd (64 m) shall be established for all
explosive large-caliber gunnery exercises conducted from a ship. The
exercise shall not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation
(kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing shall cease
if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing shall
recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is thought to have
exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, the
mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a
period of 30 minutes, or the vessel has repositioned itself more than
140 yd (128 m) away from the location of the last sighting.
(v) Mitigation zones for vessels and in-water devices. (A) Vessels
shall avoid approaching marine mammals head on and shall maneuver to
keep at least 500 yd (457 m) away from observed whales and 200 yd (183
m) away from all other marine mammals (except bow riding dolphins),
providing it is safe to do so. These requirements shall not apply if a
vessel's safety is threatened and to the extent that vessels are
restricted in their ability to maneuver. Restricted maneuverability
includes, but is not limited to, situations when vessels are engaged in
dredging, submerged activities, launching and recovering aircraft or
landing craft, minesweeping activities, replenishment while underway
and towing activities that severely restrict a vessel's ability to
deviate course.
(B) A mitigation zone of 250 yd (229 m) shall be established for
all towed in-water devices, providing it is safe to do so.
(vi) Mitigation zones for non-explosive practice munitions. (A) A
mitigation zone of 200 yd (183 m) shall be established for small-,
medium-, and large-caliber gunnery exercises using a surface target.
The exercise shall not commence if concentrations of floating
vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing
shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone.
Firing shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is met:
The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is
thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and
speed, the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings
for a period of 10 minutes for a firing aircraft, the mitigation zone
has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes
for a firing ship, or the intended target location has been
repositioned more than 400 yd (370 m) away from the location of the
last sighting.
(B) A mitigation zone of 1,000 yd (920 m) shall be established for
bombing exercises. Bombing shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted
within the mitigation zone. The exercise shall not commence if
concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in
the mitigation zone. Bombing shall recommence if any one of the
following conditions is met: the animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone, the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation
zone based on its course and speed, or the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes.
(3) Cautionary Areas. The following are additional measures the
Navy shall comply with when conducting training activities in the GOA
TMAA Study Area:
(i) The Navy shall avoid training activities using hull-mounted
surface ship active sonar and explosive detonations within the North
Pacific Right Whale Cautionary Area, defined as the portion of the
NMFS-identified biologically important feeding area for North Pacific
right whale overlapping the GOA TMAA, except when required by national
security needs.
(ii) In the event of national security needs, the Navy shall seek
approval in advance from the Commander, U.S. Third Fleet, prior to
conducting training activities using hull-mounted active sonar or
explosive detonations within the Cautionary Area.
(4) Stranding response plan. (i) The Navy shall abide by the letter
of the ``Stranding Response Plan for the Gulf of Alaska Temporary
Maritime Activities Area,'' to include the following measures:
(A) Shutdown procedures. When an Uncommon Stranding Event (USE--
defined in Sec. 218.151) occurs during an MTE in the Study Area, the
Navy shall
[[Page 19605]]
implement the procedures described in paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A)(1)
through (4) of this section:
(1) The Navy shall implement a shutdown when advised by a NMFS
Office of Protected Resources Headquarters Senior Official designated
in the GOA TMAA Study Area Stranding Communication Protocol that a USE
involving live animals has been identified and that at least one live
animal is located in the water. NMFS and the Navy shall maintain a
dialogue, as needed, regarding the identification of the USE and the
potential need to implement shutdown procedures.
(2) Any shutdown in a given area shall remain in effect in that
area until NMFS advises the Navy that the subject(s) of the USE at that
area die or are euthanized, or that all live animals involved in the
USE at that area have left the area (either of their own volition or
herded).
(3) If the Navy finds an injured or dead animal floating at sea
during an MTE, the Navy shall notify NMFS immediately or as soon as
operational security considerations allow. The Navy shall provide NMFS
with species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the
animal(s), including carcass condition if the animal(s) is/are dead,
location, time of first discovery, observed behavior (if alive), and
photo or video (if available). Based on the information provided, NFMS
shall determine if, and advise the Navy whether a modified shutdown is
appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
(4) In the event, following a USE, that qualified individuals are
attempting to herd animals back out to the open ocean and animals are
not willing to leave, or animals are seen repeatedly heading for the
open ocean but turning back to shore, NMFS and the Navy shall
coordinate (including an investigation of other potential anthropogenic
stressors in the area) to determine if the proximity of mid-frequency
active sonar training activities or explosive detonations, though
farther than 14 nautical miles from the distressed animal(s), is likely
contributing to the animals' refusal to return to the open water. If
so, NMFS and the Navy shall further coordinate to determine what
measures are necessary to improve the probability that the animals will
return to open water and implement those measures as appropriate.
(B) Within 72 hours of NMFS notifying the Navy of the presence of a
USE, the Navy shall provide available information to NMFS (per the GOA
TMAA Study Area Communication Protocol) regarding the location, number
and types of acoustic/explosive sources, direction and speed of units
using mid-frequency active sonar, and marine mammal sightings
information associated with training activities occurring within 80
nautical miles (148 km) and 72 hours prior to the USE event.
Information not initially available regarding the 80-nautical miles
(148-km), 72-hour period prior to the event shall be provided as soon
as it becomes available. The Navy shall provide NMFS investigative
teams with additional relevant unclassified information as requested,
if available.
(ii) [Reserved]
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 218.155 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(a) The Holder of the Authorization must notify NMFS immediately
(or as soon as operational security considerations allow) if the
specified activity identified in Sec. 218.150 is thought to have
resulted in the mortality or injury of any marine mammals, or in any
take of marine mammals not identified in Sec. 218.152(c).
(b) The Holder of the LOA must conduct all monitoring and required
reporting under the LOA, including abiding by the GOA TMAA monitoring
plan.
(c) General notification of injured or dead marine mammals. Navy
personnel shall ensure that NMFS (regional stranding coordinator) is
notified immediately (or as soon as operational security considerations
allow) if an injured or dead marine mammal is found by Navy personnel
during or shortly after, and in the vicinity of, a Navy training
activity utilizing mid- or high-frequency active sonar, or underwater
explosive detonations. The Navy shall provide NMFS with species or
description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including
carcass condition if the animal is dead), location, time of first
discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photo or video (if
available). In the event that an injured, stranded, or dead marine
mammal is found by the Navy that is not in the vicinity of, or during
or shortly after, MFAS, HFAS, or underwater explosive detonations, the
Navy shall report the same information as listed in this paragraph (c)
as soon as operationally feasible and clearance procedures allow.
(d) General notification of ship strike. In the event of a ship
strike by any Navy vessel, at any time or place, the Navy shall do the
following:
(1) Immediately report to NMFS the species identification (if
known), location (lat/long) of the animal (or the strike if the animal
has disappeared), and whether the animal is alive or dead (or unknown),
and the time of the strike.
(2) Report to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible the size and
length of animal, an estimate of the injury status (ex., dead, injured
but alive, injured and moving, unknown, etc.), vessel class/type and
operational status.
(3) Report to NMFS the vessel length, speed, and heading as soon as
feasible.
(4) Provide NMFS a photo or video, if equipment is available.
(5) Within 2 weeks of the strike, provide NMFS with a detailed
description of the specific actions of the vessel in the 30-minute
timeframe immediately preceding the strike, during the event, and
immediately after the strike (e.g., the speed and changes in speed, the
direction and changes in direction, other maneuvers, sonar use, etc.,
if not classified); a narrative description of marine mammal sightings
during the event and immediately after, and any information as to
sightings prior to the strike, if available; and use established Navy
shipboard procedures to make a camera available to attempt to capture
photographs following a ship strike.
(e) Communication plan. The Navy and NMFS shall develop a
communication plan that will include all of the communication protocols
(phone trees, etc.) and associated contact information required for
NMFS and the Navy to carry out the necessary expeditious communication
required in the event of a stranding or ship strike, including
information described in the notification measures in paragraphs (c)
and (d) of this section.
(f) Annual GOA TMAA monitoring report. The Navy shall submit an
annual report of the GOA TMAA monitoring describing the implementation
and results from the previous calendar year. Data collection methods
shall be standardized across range complexes and study areas to allow
for comparison in different geographic locations. The report shall be
submitted either 90 days after the calendar year, or 90 days after the
conclusion of the monitoring year to be determined by the adaptive
management process. The GOA TMAA Monitoring Report may be provided to
NMFS within a larger report that includes the required Monitoring Plan
reports from multiple range complexes and study areas (the multi-Range
Complex Annual Monitoring Report). Such a report would describe
progress of knowledge made with respect to monitoring plan study
questions across all Navy ranges associated with the Integrated
Comprehensive Monitoring Program. Similar study questions shall
[[Page 19606]]
be treated together so that progress on each topic shall be summarized
across all Navy ranges. The report need not include analyses and
content that does not provide direct assessment of cumulative progress
on the monitoring plan study questions.
(g) Annual GOA TMAA exercise reports. Each year, the Navy shall
submit a preliminary report detailing the status of authorized sound
sources within 21 days after the anniversary of the date of issuance of
the LOA. Each year, the Navy shall submit a detailed report within 3
months after the anniversary of the date of issuance of the LOA. The
annual report shall contain information on Major Training Exercises
(MTEs) and a summary of all sound sources used, as described in
paragraph (g)(3) of this section. The analysis in the detailed report
shall be based on the accumulation of data from the current year's
report and data collected from previous the report. The detailed
reports shall contain information identified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(1) MFAS/HFAS Major Training Exercises. This section shall contain
the following information for Major Training Exercises conducted in the
GOA TMAA:
(i) Exercise Information (for each MTE):
(A) Exercise designator.
(B) Date that exercise began and ended.
(C) Location.
(D) Number and types of active sources used in the exercise.
(E) Number and types of passive acoustic sources used in exercise.
(F) Number and types of vessels, aircraft, etc., participating in
exercise.
(G) Total hours of observation by lookouts.
(H) Total hours of all active sonar source operation.
(I) Total hours of each active sonar source bin.
(J) Wave height (high, low, and average during exercise).
(ii) Individual marine mammal sighting information for each
sighting in each exercise when mitigation occurred:
(A) Date/Time/Location of sighting.
(B) Species (if not possible, indication of whale/dolphin/
pinniped).
(C) Number of individuals.
(D) Initial Detection Sensor.
(E) Indication of specific type of platform observation made from
(including, for example, what type of surface vessel or testing
platform).
(F) Length of time observers maintained visual contact with marine
mammal.
(G) Sea state.
(H) Visibility.
(I) Sound source in use at the time of sighting.
(J) Indication of whether animal is <200 yd, 200 to 500 yd, 500 to
1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 yd, or >2,000 yd from sonar source.
(K) Mitigation implementation. Whether operation of sonar sensor
was delayed, or sonar was powered or shut down, and how long the delay
was.
(L) If source in use is hull-mounted, true bearing of animal from
ship, true direction of ship's travel, and estimation of animal's
motion relative to ship (opening, closing, parallel).
(M) Observed behavior. Lookouts shall report, in plain language and
without trying to categorize in any way, the observed behavior of the
animals (such as animal closing to bow ride, paralleling course/speed,
floating on surface and not swimming, etc.) and if any calves present.
(iii) An evaluation (based on data gathered during all of the MTEs)
of the effectiveness of mitigation measures designed to minimize the
received level to which marine mammals may be exposed. This evaluation
shall identify the specific observations that support any conclusions
the Navy reaches about the effectiveness of the mitigation.
(2) Summary of sources used. (i) This section shall include the
following information summarized from the authorized sound sources used
in all training events:
(A) Total annual hours or quantity (per the LOA) of each bin of
sonar or other non-impulsive source; and
(B) Total annual number of each type of explosive exercises and
total annual expended/detonated rounds (missiles, bombs, sonobuoys,
etc.) for each explosive bin.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) Geographic information presentation. The reports shall present
an annual (and seasonal, where practical) depiction of training
exercises and testing bin usage geographically across the Study Area.
(h) MTE prior notification. The Navy shall submit to NMFS (contact
as specified in the LOA and Stranding Plan) an electronic notice of
pending MTEs 72 hours prior to the start of the MTE indicating:
(1) Location of the exercise.
(2) Beginning and end dates of the exercise.
(3) Type of exercise.
(i) Five-year close-out exercise report. This report shall be
included as part of the 2021 annual exercise report. This report shall
provide the annual totals for each sound source bin with a comparison
to the annual allowance and the 5-year total for each sound source bin
with a comparison to the 5-year allowance. Additionally, if there were
any changes to the sound source allowance, this report shall include a
discussion of why the change was made and include the analysis to
support how the change did or did not result in a change in the SEIS
and final rule determinations. The report shall be submitted 3 months
after the expiration of this subpart. NMFS shall submit comments on the
draft close-out report, if any, within 3 months of receipt. The report
shall be considered final after the Navy has addressed NMFS' comments,
or 3 months after the submittal of the draft if NMFS does not provide
comments.
Sec. 218.156 Applications for letters of authorization (LOA).
To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to the regulations in
this subpart, the U.S. citizen (as defined by Sec. 216.106 of this
chapter) conducting the activity identified in Sec. 218.150(c) (the
U.S. Navy) must apply for and obtain either an initial LOA in
accordance with Sec. 218.157 or a renewal under Sec. 218.158.
Sec. 218.157 Letters of authorization (LOA).
(a) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, shall be valid for a
period of time not to exceed the period of validity of this subpart.
(b) Each LOA shall set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the
species, its habitat, and on the availability of the species for
subsistence uses (i.e., mitigation); and
(3) Requirements for mitigation, monitoring and reporting.
(c) Issuance and renewal of the LOA shall be based on a
determination that the total number of marine mammals taken by the
activity as a whole shall have no more than a negligible impact on the
affected species or stock of marine mammal(s).
Sec. 218.158 Renewals and modifications of letters of authorization
(LOA) and adaptive management.
(a) A letter of authorization issued under Sec. 216.106 of this
chapter and Sec. 218.157 for the activity identified in Sec.
218.150(c) shall be renewed or modified upon request of the applicant,
provided that:
(1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as
those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes
made
[[Page 19607]]
pursuant to the adaptive management provision of this chapter); and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were
implemented.
(b) For LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that
include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or
reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management
provision of this chapter) that do not change the findings made for the
regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total
estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS
may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register, including
the associated analysis illustrating the change, and solicit public
comment before issuing the LOA.
(c) An LOA issued under Sec. 216.106 of this chapter and Sec.
218.157 for the activity identified in Sec. 218.154 may be modified by
NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive management. NMFS may modify and augment the existing
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with
the Navy regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so
creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the
goals of the mitigation and monitoring.
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision
to modify the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures in an LOA:
(A) Results from Navy's monitoring from the previous year(s);
(B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or
studies; or
(C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken
in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or
subsequent LOA.
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS
would publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and
solicit public comment.
(2) Emergencies. If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that
poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of
marine mammals specified in Sec. 218.152(c), an LOA may be modified
without prior notification and an opportunity for public comment.
Notification would be published in the Federal Register within 30 days
of the action.
[FR Doc. 2017-08424 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
