Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area, 57076-57261 [2018-24042]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57076
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 218
[Docket No. 170720687–8965–02]
RIN 0648–BH06
Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training
and Testing Activities in the Atlantic
Fleet Training and Testing Study Area
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
NMFS, upon request from the
U.S. Navy (Navy), issues these
regulations pursuant to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to
govern the taking of marine mammals
incidental to the training and testing
activities conducted in the Atlantic
Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT)
Study Area over the course of five years
beginning in November. These
regulations, which allow for the
issuance of Letters of Authorization
(LOA) for the incidental take of marine
mammals during the described activities
and timeframes, prescribe the
permissible methods of taking and other
means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on marine mammal
species or stocks and their habitat, and
establish requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking.
DATES: Effective from November 14,
2018 through November 13, 2023.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the Navy’s
application and supporting documents,
as well as a list of the references cited
in this document, may be obtained
online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizations-militaryreadiness-activities. In case of problems
accessing these documents, please call
the contact listed below (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Purpose of Regulatory Action
These regulations, issued under the
authority of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.), establish a framework for
authorizing the take of marine mammals
incidental to the Navy’s training and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
testing activities (categorized as military
readiness activities) from the use of
sonar and other transducers, in-water
detonations, air guns, impact pile
driving/vibratory extraction, and
potential vessel strikes based on Navy
movement throughout the AFTT Study
Area, which includes areas of the
western Atlantic Ocean along the East
Coast of North America, portions of the
Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico
(GOMEX).
We received an application from the
Navy requesting five-year regulations
and authorizations to incidentally take
individuals of multiple species and
stocks of marine mammals (‘‘Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application’’ or
‘‘Navy’s application’’). Take is
anticipated to occur by Level A and
Level B harassment as well as a very
small number of serious injuries or
mortalities incidental to the Navy’s
training and testing activities.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the
Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to
NMFS) to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by
U.S. citizens who engage in a specified
activity (other than commercial fishing)
within a specified geographical region
if, after notice and public comment, the
agency makes certain findings and
issues regulations that set forth
permissible methods of taking pursuant
to that activity, as well as monitoring
and reporting requirements. Section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the
implementing regulations at 50 CFR part
216, subpart I, provide the legal basis for
issuing this final rule and the
subsequent LOAs. As directed by this
legal authority, this final rule contains
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements.
Summary of Major Provisions Within
the Final Rule
Following is a summary of the major
provisions of this final rule regarding
the Navy’s activities. Major provisions
include, but are not limited to:
D The use of defined powerdown and
shutdown zones (based on activity);
D Measures to reduce or eliminate the
likelihood of ship strikes, especially for
North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena
glacialis) (NARW);
D Operational limitations in certain
areas and times that are biologically
important (i.e., for foraging, migration,
reproduction) for marine mammals;
D Implementation of a Notification
and Reporting Plan (for dead, live
stranded, or marine mammals struck by
a vessel); and
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
D Implementation of a robust
monitoring plan to improve our
understanding of the environmental
effects resulting from Navy training and
testing activities.
Additionally, the rule includes an
adaptive management component that
allows for timely modification of
mitigation or monitoring measures
based on new information, when
appropriate.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated
to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by
U.S. citizens who engage in a specified
activity (other than commercial fishing)
within a specified geographical region if
certain findings are made and either
regulations are issued or, if the taking is
limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed authorization is provided to
the public for review and the
opportunity to submit comments.
An authorization for incidental
takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible
impact on the species or stock(s), will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible
methods of taking, other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on the species or stocks, and
requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such
takings are set forth. The MMPA states
that the term ‘‘take’’ means to harass,
hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass,
hunt, capture, or kill any marine
mammal.
The National Defense Authorization
Act of 2004 (2004 NDAA) (Pub. L. 108–
136) amended section 101(a)(5) of the
MMPA to remove the ‘‘small numbers’’
and ‘‘specified geographical region’’
provisions indicated above and
amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’
as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness
activity,’’ along with certain research
activities. The definitions of applicable
MMPA statutory terms cited above are
included in the relevant sections below.
More recently, the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2019 (2019 NDAA) (Pub. L.
115–232) amended the MMPA to allow
incidental take rules for military
readiness activities to be issued for up
to seven years. That recent amendment
of the MMPA does not affect this final
rule.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Summary and Background of Request
On June 16, 2017, NMFS received an
application from the Navy for
authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to training and testing
activities (categorized as military
readiness activities) from the use of
sonar and other transducers, in-water
detonations, air guns, and impact pile
driving/vibratory extraction in the
AFTT Study Area. In addition, the Navy
requested incidental take authorization
for up to nine mortalities of four marine
mammal species during ship shock
trials, and authorization for up to three
takes by serious injury or mortality from
vessel strikes over the five-year period.
On August 4, 2017, the Navy sent an
amendment to its application, and the
application was found to be adequate
and complete. On August 14, 2017 (82
FR 37851), we published a notice of
receipt of application (NOR) in the
Federal Register, requesting comments
and information related to the Navy’s
request for 30 days. On March 13, 2018,
we published a notice of the proposed
rulemaking (83 FR 10954) and requested
comments and information related to
the Navy’s request for 45 days. On April
9, 2018, a proposed rule correction (83
FR 15117), which corrected Table 4.
Proposed Training was published in the
Federal Register. Sections of the table
were missing from the preamble,
specifically Amphibious Warfare, AntiSubmarine Warfare, Expeditionary
Warfare, Mine Warfare, and a portion of
Surface Warfare. Comments received
during the NOR and the proposed
rulemaking comment periods are
addressed in this final rule. See further
details addressing comments received in
the Comments and Responses section.
On September 13, 2018, Navy provided
NMFS with a memorandum revising the
takes by serious injury or mortality
included in the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA
application (Chapter 5, Section 5.2
Incidental Take Request from Vessel
Strikes). Specifically, after further
analysis, the Navy withdrew the
inclusion of the Western North Atlantic
stock of blue whale and the Northern
GOMEX stock of sperm whale from its
request for authorization for take of
three (3) large whales by serious injury
or mortality from vessel strike. The
information and assessment that
supports this change is included in the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section.
The Navy requested two five-year
LOAs, one for training and one for
testing activities to be conducted within
the AFTT Study Area, which includes
areas of the western Atlantic Ocean
along the East Coast of North America,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
portions of the Caribbean Sea, and the
GOMEX. Please refer to the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application,
specifically Figure 1.1–1 for a map of
the AFTT Study Area and Figures 2.2–
1 through Figure 2.2–3 for additional
maps of the range complexes and testing
ranges.
The following types of training and
testing, which are classified as military
readiness activities pursuant to the
MMPA, as amended by the 2004 NDAA,
will be covered under the regulations
and associated LOAs: amphibious
warfare (in-water detonations), antisubmarine warfare (sonar and other
transducers, in-water detonations),
expeditionary warfare (in-water
detonations), surface warfare (in-water
detonations), mine warfare (sonar and
other transducers, in-water detonations),
and other warfare activities (sonar and
other transducers, impact pile driving/
vibratory extraction, air guns). In
addition, ship shock trials, a specific
testing activity related to vessel
evaluation, will be conducted. Also,
ship strike by Navy vessels is addressed
and covered, as appropriate.
This will be NMFS’ third series of
rulemaking under the MMPA for
activities in the AFTT Study Area.
NMFS published the first rule effective
from January 22, 2009 through January
22, 2014 on January 27, 2009 (74 FR
4844) and the second rule effective from
November 14, 2013 through November
13, 2018 on December 4, 2013 (78 FR
73009). These regulations are also valid
for five years, from November 14, 2018,
through November 13, 2023.
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. This mission is
mandated by federal law (10 U.S.C.
5062), which ensures the readiness of
the naval forces of the United States.
The Navy executes this responsibility by
establishing and executing training and
testing programs, including at-sea
training and testing exercises, and
ensuring naval forces have access to the
ranges, operating areas (OPAREAs), and
airspace needed to develop and
maintain skills for conducting naval
activities.
The Navy plans to conduct training
and testing activities within the AFTT
Study Area. The Navy has been
conducting military readiness activities
in the AFTT Study Area for well over
a century and with active sonar for over
70 years. The tempo and types of
training and testing activities have
fluctuated because of the introduction of
new technologies, the evolving nature of
international events, advances in
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57077
warfighting doctrine and procedures,
and changes in force structure
(organization of ships, weapons, and
personnel). Such developments
influenced the frequency, duration,
intensity, and location of required
training and testing activities. This
rulemaking reflects the most up to date
compilation of training and testing
activities deemed necessary to
accomplish military readiness
requirements. The types and numbers of
activities included in the rule accounts
for fluctuations in training and testing
in order to meet evolving or emergent
military readiness requirements.
These regulations cover training and
testing activities that would occur for a
five-year period following the expiration
of the current MMPA authorization for
the AFTT Study Area, which expires on
November 13, 2018.
Description of the Specified Activity
Additional detail regarding the
specified activity was provided in our
Federal Register notice of proposed
rulemaking (83 FR 10954; March 13,
2018); please see that proposed rule or
the Navy’s application for more
information. Since the proposed rule,
the Navy has removed one of its testing
activities in the Northeast Range
Complex (four events for Undersea
Warfare Testing (USWT), which
decreased the number of takes by Level
B harassment for the NARW by 115
takes annually. This change also
decreased take by Level B harassment
by approximately 200 takes annually for
Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed fin
whale and 20 takes annually for sei
whales as well as approximately 10,000
takes annually for harbor porpoise.
NMFS and the Navy have also reached
agreement on additional mitigation
measures since the proposed rule,
which are summarized below and
discussed in greater detail in the
Mitigation Measures section of this rule.
The Navy agrees to implement preand post-event observations as part of
all in-water explosive event mitigations
in the AFTT Study Area. The Navy has
expanded the Northeast (NE) NARW
Mitigation Area to match the updated
NE NARW ESA-designated critical
habitat. The Navy has agreed to
broadcast awareness notification
messages with NARW Dynamic
Management Area information (e.g.,
location and dates) to alert vessels to the
possible presence of a NARW to further
reduce the potential for a vessel strike.
The Navy has agreed to additional
coordination to aid in the
implementation of procedural
mitigation to minimize potential
interactions with NARW in the
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57078
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Overview of Training and Testing
Activities
The Navy routinely trains and tests in
the AFTT Study Area in preparation for
national defense missions. Training and
testing activities and exercises covered
in these regulations are summarized
below.
activities addressed in the AFTT Final
Environmental Impact Statement/
Overseas Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS/OEIS) are categorized
under one of the primary mission areas;
the testing community has three
additional categories of activities for
vessel evaluation (including ship shock
trials), unmanned systems, and acoustic
and oceanographic science and
technology. Activities that do not fall
within one of these areas are listed as
‘‘other warfare activities.’’ Each warfare
community (surface, subsurface,
aviation, and expeditionary warfare)
may train in some or all of these
primary mission areas. The testing
community also categorizes most, but
not all, of its testing activities under
these primary mission areas.
The Navy describes and analyzes the
impacts of its training and testing
activities within the AFTT FEIS/OEIS
and the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA
application (documents available at
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities). In its assessment, the Navy
concluded that sonar and other
transducers, in-water detonations, air
guns, and pile driving/extraction were
the stressors that would result in
impacts on marine mammals that could
rise to the level of harassment (also
serious injury or mortality in ship shock
trials or by vessel strike) as defined
under the MMPA. Therefore, the
rulemaking/LOA application provides
the Navy’s assessment of potential
effects from these stressors in terms of
the various warfare mission areas in
which they would be conducted. In
terms of Navy’s primary warfare areas,
this includes:
• Amphibious warfare (in-water
detonations);
• anti-submarine warfare (sonar and
other transducers, in-water detonations);
• expeditionary warfare (in-water
detonations);
• surface warfare (in-water
detonations);
• mine warfare (sonar and other
transducers, in-water detonations); and
• other warfare activities (sonar and
other transducers, impact pile driving/
vibratory extraction, air guns).
Primary Mission Areas
The Navy categorizes its activities
into functional warfare areas called
primary mission areas. These activities
generally fall into the following seven
primary mission areas: Air warfare;
amphibious warfare; anti-submarine
warfare (ASW); electronic warfare;
expeditionary warfare; mine warfare
(MIW); and surface warfare (SUW). Most
Overview of Training Activities and
Exercises Within the AFTT Study Area
An MTE is comprised of several ‘‘unit
level’’ range exercises conducted by
several units operating together while
commanded and controlled by a single
commander. These exercises typically
employ an exercise scenario developed
to train and evaluate the strike group in
naval tactical tasks. In a MTE, most of
Jacksonville Operating Area. The Navy
will also report the total hours and
counts of active sonar and in-water
explosives used in a Southeast (SE)
NARW Critical Habitat Special
Reporting Area in its annual training
and testing activity reports submitted to
NMFS. The Navy will minimize use of
explosives (March to September) in the
Navy Cherry Point Range Complex
Nearshore Mitigation Area to the extent
practicable.
In addition, the Navy will not conduct
major training exercises (MTE) in the
Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness
Mitigation Area and the GOMEX
Planning Awareness Mitigation Area.
The Navy will also implement a 200
hour (hr)/year hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar (MFAS) cap in
the Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness
Mitigation Area. The Navy has added a
year-round, Bryde’s Whale Mitigation
Area, which will cover the biologically
important area (BIA) as described in
NMFS’ 2016 Status Review (NMFS
2016) and implement a 200 hr/year hullmounted MFAS cap and restrict all
explosives except for mine warfare
activities events in this mitigation area.
The Navy has assessed and agreed to
move the ship shock trial box east of the
Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas and move the northern
GOMEX ship shock trial west of the
Bryde’s Whale Mitigation Area,
including five nmi buffers from the
mitigation areas.
The Navy has also revised its
estimated serious injury or mortality
takes of large whales and, as a result,
withdrawn its request for serious injury
or mortality incidental take for the
Western North Atlantic stock of blue
whale and Northern GOMEX stock of
sperm whale due to the extremely low
probability that vessel strike incidental
to the training and testing activities in
the AFTT Study Area would occur.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the activities being directed and
coordinated by the strike group
commander are identical in nature to
the activities conducted during
individual, crew, and smaller unit level
training events. In a MTE, however,
these disparate training tasks are
conducted in concert, rather than in
isolation.
Some integrated or coordinated ASW
exercises are similar in that they are
comprised of several unit level exercises
but are generally on a smaller scale than
a MTE, are shorter in duration, use
fewer assets, and use fewer hours of
hull-mounted sonar per exercise. These
coordinated exercises are conducted
under anti-submarine warfare. For the
purpose of analysis, three key factors
used to identify and group the exercises
are the scale of the exercise, duration of
the exercise, and amount of hullmounted sonar hours modeled/used for
the exercise. NMFS considered the
effects of all training exercises, not just
the major training exercises in these
regulations. Additional detail regarding
the training activities was provided in
our Federal Register notice of proposed
rulemaking (83 FR 10954; March 13,
2018) and a proposed rule correction (83
FR 15117; April 9, 2018); please see
those documents or the Navy’s
application for more information.
Overview of Testing Activities Within
the AFTT Study Area
The Navy’s research and acquisition
community engages in a broad spectrum
of testing activities in support of the
fleet. These activities include, but are
not limited to, basic and applied
scientific research and technology
development; testing, evaluation, and
maintenance of systems (e.g., missiles,
radar, and sonar) and platforms (e.g.,
surface ships, submarines, and aircraft);
and acquisition of systems and
platforms to support Navy missions and
give a technological edge over
adversaries. The individual commands
within the research and acquisition
community included in the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application are the
Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Sea
Systems Command, and the Office of
Naval Research. Additional detail
regarding the testing activities was
provided in our Federal Register notice
of proposed rulemaking (83 FR 10954;
March 13, 2018); please see that
proposed rule or the Navy’s application
for more information.
Dates and Duration
The specified activities may occur at
any time during the five-year period of
validity of the regulations. Planned
number and duration of training and
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
conclusions and finds them complete
and supportable.
testing activities are shown in the
Planned Activities section (Tables 4
through 7).
Acoustic Stressors
Specific Geographic Area
The Navy’s training and testing
activities conducted within the AFTT
Study Area (which includes areas of the
western Atlantic Ocean along the East
Coast of North America, portions of the
Caribbean Sea, and the GOMEX), covers
approximately 2.6 million square
nautical miles (nmi 2) of ocean area,
oriented from the mean high tide line
along the U.S. coast and extends east to
the 45-degree west longitude line, north
to the 65-degree north latitude line, and
south to approximately the 20-degree
north latitude line. Please refer to the
Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application,
specifically Figure 1.1–1 for a map of
the AFTT Study Area and Figures 2.2–
1 through Figure 2.2–3 for additional
maps of the range complexes and testing
ranges.
Description of Acoustic and Explosive
Stressors
The planned training and testing
activities were evaluated to identify
specific components that could act as
stressors (acoustic and explosive) by
having direct or indirect impacts on the
environment. This analysis included
identification of the spatial variation of
the identified stressors.
The Navy uses a variety of sensors,
platforms, weapons, and other devices,
including ones used to ensure the safety
of Sailors and Marines, to meet its
mission. Training and testing with these
systems may introduce acoustic (sound)
energy into the environment. The
Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application
describes specific components that
could act as stressors by having direct
or indirect impacts on the environment.
This analysis included identification of
the spatial variation of the identified
stressors. The following subsections
describe the acoustic and explosive
stressors for biological resources within
the AFTT Study Area. Because of the
complexity of analyzing sound
propagation in the ocean environment,
the Navy relies on acoustic models in its
environmental analyses that consider
sound source characteristics and
varying ocean conditions across the
AFTT Study Area. Stressor/resource
interactions that were determined to
have de minimus or no impacts (i.e.,
vessel, aircraft, or weapons noise) were
not carried forward for analysis in the
Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application.
NMFS reviewed the Navy’s analysis and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Acoustic stressors include acoustic
signals emitted into the water for a
specific purpose, such as sonar, other
transducers (devices that convert energy
from one form to another—in this case,
to sound waves), and air guns, as well
as incidental sources of broadband
sound produced as a byproduct of
impact pile driving and vibratory
extraction. Explosives also produce
broadband sound but are characterized
separately from other acoustic sources
due to their unique characteristics. In
order to better organize and facilitate the
analysis of approximately 300 sources of
underwater sound used for training and
testing by the Navy including sonars,
other transducers, air guns, and
explosives, a series of source
classifications, or source bins, were
developed. The source classification
bins do not include the broadband
sounds produced incidental to pile
driving, vessel or aircraft transits,
weapons firing, and bow shocks.
The use of source classification bins
provides the following benefits:
Provides the ability for new sensors or
munitions to be covered under existing
authorizations, as long as those sources
fall within the parameters of a ‘‘bin;’’
improves efficiency of source utilization
data collection and reporting
requirements anticipated under the
MMPA authorizations; ensures a
conservative approach to all impact
estimates, as all sources within a given
class are modeled as the most impactful
source (highest source level, longest
duty cycle, or largest net explosive
weight) within that bin; allows analyses
to be conducted in a more efficient
manner, without any compromise of
analytical results; and provides a
framework to support the reallocation of
source usage (hours/explosives)
between different source bins, as long as
the total numbers of takes remain within
the overall analyzed and authorized
limits. This flexibility is required to
support evolving Navy training and
testing requirements, which are linked
to real world events.
Sonar and Other Transducers
Active sonar and other transducers
emit non-impulsive sound waves into
the water to detect objects, safely
navigate, and communicate. Passive
sonars differ from active sound sources
in that they do not emit acoustic signals;
rather, they only receive acoustic
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57079
information about the environment, or
listen.
The Navy employs a variety of sonars
and other transducers to obtain and
transmit information about the undersea
environment. Some examples are midfrequency hull-mounted sonars used to
find and track enemy submarines; highfrequency small object detection sonars
used to detect mines; high frequency
underwater modems used to transfer
data over short ranges; and extremely
high-frequency (>200 kilohertz [kHz])
Doppler sonars used for navigation, like
those used on commercial and private
vessels.
Additional detail regarding sound
sources and platforms and categories of
acoustic stressors was provided in our
Federal Register notice of proposed
rulemaking (83 FR 10954; March 13,
2018); please see that proposed rule or
the Navy’s application for more
information.
Sonars and other transducers are
grouped into classes that share an
attribute, such as frequency range or
purpose of use. Classes are further
sorted by bins based on the frequency or
bandwidth; source level; and, when
warranted, the application in which the
source would be used, as follows:
D Frequency of the non-impulsive
acoustic source;
Æ Low-frequency sources operate
below 1 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;
D Sound pressure level of the nonimpulsive source;
Æ Greater than 160 decibels (dB) re 1
micro Pascal (mPa), but less than 180 dB
re 1 mPa;
Æ Equal to 180 dB re 1 mPa and up to
200 dB re 1 mPa;
Æ Greater than 200 dB re 1 mPa;
D Application in which the source
would be used;
Æ Sources with similar functions that
have similar characteristics, such as
pulse length (duration of each pulse),
beam pattern, and duty cycle.
The bins used for classifying active
sonars and transducers that are
quantitatively analyzed in the AFTT
Study Area are shown in Table 1 below.
While general parameters or source
characteristics are shown in the table,
actual source parameters are classified.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57080
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SONAR AND TRANSDUCERS QUANTITATIVELY ANALYZED IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA
Source class category
Bin
Low-Frequency (LF): Sources that produce signals less than 1
kHz.
Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that
produce signals between 1–10 kHz.
LF3
LF4
LF5
LF6
MF1
LF sources greater than 200 dB.
LF sources equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB.
LF sources less than 180 dB.
LF sources greater than 200 dB with long pulse lengths.
Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/SQS–53C and AN/
SQS–61).
Kingfisher mode associated with MF1 sonars.
Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ–10).
Helicopter-deployed dipping sonars (e.g., AN/AQS–22 and AN/
AQS–13).
Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g., DICASS).
Active underwater sound signal devices (e.g., MK84).
Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned.
Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned.
Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB) not
otherwise binned.
Hull-mounted surface ship sonars with an active duty cycle
greater than 80%.
Towed array surface ship sonars with an active duty cycle
greater than 80%.
Oceanographic MF sonar.
Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ–10).
HF3
Other hull-mounted submarine sonars (classified).
Mine detection, classification, and neutralization sonar (e.g.,
AN/SQS–20).
Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned.
Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned.
Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB) not
otherwise binned.
Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/SQS–61).
VHF sources greater than 200 dB.
MF1K
MF3
MF4
MF5
MF6
MF8
MF9
MF10
MF11
MF12
High-Frequency (HF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that
produce signals between 10–100 kHz.
MF14
HF1
HF4
HF5
HF6
HF7
Very High-Frequency Sonars (VHF): Non-tactical sources that
produce signals between 100–200 kHz.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources (e.g., active
sonobuoys and acoustic counter-measures systems) used during ASW training and testing activities.
HF8
VHF1
ASW1
ASW4
Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes associated with the active
acoustic signals produced by torpedoes.
Forward Looking Sonar (FLS): Forward or upward looking object
avoidance sonars used for ship navigation and safety.
Acoustic Modems (M): Systems used to transmit data through
the water.
Swimmer Detection Sonars (SD): Systems used to detect divers
and sub- merged swimmers.
Synthetic Aperture Sonars (SAS): Sonars in which active acoustic signals are post-processed to form high-resolution images
of the seafloor.
Broadband Sound Sources (BB): Sonar systems with large frequency spectra, used for various purposes.
ASW5
TORP1
TORP2
TORP3
FLS2
M3
SD1–SD2
SAS1
SAS3
SAS4
BB1
BB4
BB5
BB6
BB7
Description
MF systems operating above 200 dB.
ASW2
MF Multistatic Active Coherent sonobuoy (e.g., AN/SSQ–125).
ASW3
MF towed active acoustic countermeasure systems (e.g., AN/
SLQ–25).
MF expendable active acoustic device countermeasures (e.g.,
MK 3).
MF sonobuoys with high duty cycles.
Lightweight torpedo (e.g., MK 46, MK 54, or Anti-Torpedo Torpedo).
Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK 48).
Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK 48).
HF sources with short pulse lengths, narrow beam widths, and
focused beam patterns.
MF acoustic modems (greater than 190 dB).
HF and VHF sources with short pulse lengths, used for the detection of swimmers and other objects for the purpose of port
security.
MF SAS systems.
SAS2
HF SAS systems.
VHF SAS systems.
MF to HF broadband mine countermeasure sonar.
MF to HF mine countermeasure sonar.
BB2
HF to VHF mine countermeasure sonar.
LF to MF oceanographic source.
LF to MF oceanographic source.
HF oceanographic source.
LF oceanographic source.
Notes: ASW: Anti-submarine Warfare; BB: Broadband Sound Sources; FLS: Forward Looking Sonar; HF: High-Frequency; LF: Low-Frequency; M: Acoustic Modems; MF: Mid-Frequency; SAS: Synthetic Aperture Sonars; SD: Swimmer Detection Sonars; TORP: Torpedoes; VHF:
Very High-Frequency; dB: decibels.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
mean-square sound pressure level (SPL)
and peak pressure (SPL peak) at a
distance 1 meter (m) from the airgun
would be approximately 215 dB re 1 mPa
and 227 dB re 1 mPa, respectively, if
operated at the full capacity of 60 in3
cubic inches.
Air guns
Small air guns with capacities up to
60 cubic inches (in3) would be used
during testing activities in various
offshore areas in the AFTT Study Area,
as well as near shore at Newport, RI.
Generated impulses would have short
durations, typically a few hundred
milliseconds, with dominant
frequencies below 1 kHz. The root-
Pile Driving/Extraction
Impact pile driving and vibratory pile
removal would occur during
57081
construction of an Elevated Causeway
System (ELCAS), a temporary pier that
allows the offloading of ships in areas
without a permanent port. The source
levels of the noise produced by impact
pile driving and vibratory pile removal
from an actual elevated causeway pile
driving and removal are shown in Table
2.
TABLE 2—ELEVATED CAUSEWAY SYSTEM PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS IN THE AFTT STUDY
AREA
Pile size and type
24-in. Steel Pipe Pile ...........
24-in. Steel Pipe Pile ...........
Method
Average sound levels at 10 m
Impact 1
...............................
Vibratory 2 ...........................
192 dB re 1 μPa SPL rms; 182 dB re 1 μPa 2s SEL (single strike).
146 dB re 1 μPa SPL rms; 145 dB re 1 μPa 2s SEL (per second of duration).
1 Illingworth
and Rodkin (2016).
and Rodkin (2015).
Notes: dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; in.: inch; rms: root mean squared; SEL: Sound Exposure Level; SPL: Sound Pressure Level.
2 Illingworth
The size of the pier in an ELCAS
event is approximately 1,520 ft long,
requiring 119 supporting piles.
Construction of the ELCAS would
involve intermittent impact pile driving
over approximately 20 days. Crews
work 24 hours (hrs) a day and would
drive approximately 6 piles in that
period. Each pile takes about 15 minutes
to drive with time taken between piles
to reposition the driver. When training
events that use the ELCAS are complete,
the structure would be removed using
vibratory methods over approximately
10 days. Crews would remove about 12
piles per 24-hour period, each taking
about 6 minutes to remove.
Explosive Stressors
This section describes the
characteristics of explosions during
naval training and testing. The activities
analyzed in the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA
application that use explosives are
described in Appendix A (Navy Activity
Descriptions) of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS.
Additional detail regarding explosive
stressors was provided in our Federal
Register notice of proposed rulemaking
(83 FR 10954; March 13, 2018); please
see that proposed rule or the Navy’s
application for more information.
Explosive detonations during training
and testing activities are associated with
high-explosive munitions, including,
but not limited to, bombs, missiles,
rockets, naval gun shells, torpedoes,
mines, demolition charges, and
explosive sonobuoys. Explosive
detonations during training and testing
involving the use of high-explosive
munitions (including bombs, missiles,
and naval gun shells) could occur near
the water’s surface. Explosive
detonations associated with torpedoes
and explosive sonobuoys would occur
in the water column; mines and
demolition charges could be detonated
in the water column or on the ocean
bottom. Most detonations would occur
in waters greater than 200 ft in depth,
and greater than 3 nmi from shore,
although mine warfare, demolition, and
some testing detonations would occur in
shallow water close to shore.
In order to better organize and
facilitate the analysis of explosives used
by the Navy during training and testing
that could detonate in water or at the
water surface, explosive classification
bins were developed. Explosives
detonated in water are binned by net
explosive weight. The bins of explosives
that are planned for use in the AFTT
Study Area are shown in Table 3 below.
TABLE 3—EXPLOSIVES ANALYZED IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA
Bin
Net explosive weight 1
(lb)
E1 ...................................................................
E2 ...................................................................
E3 ...................................................................
E4 ...................................................................
E5 ...................................................................
E6 ...................................................................
E7 ...................................................................
E8 ...................................................................
E9 ...................................................................
E10 .................................................................
E11 .................................................................
E12 .................................................................
E14 2 ...............................................................
E16 .................................................................
E17 .................................................................
0.1–0.25 .........................................................
>0.25–0.5 .......................................................
>0.5–2.5 .........................................................
>2.5–5 ............................................................
>5–10 .............................................................
>10–20 ...........................................................
>20–60 ...........................................................
>60–100 .........................................................
>100–250 .......................................................
>250–500 .......................................................
>500–650 .......................................................
>650–1,000 ....................................................
>1,741–3,625 .................................................
>7,250–14,500 ...............................................
>14,500–58,000 .............................................
Example explosive source
Medium-caliber projectile.
Medium-caliber projectile.
Large-caliber projectile.
Mine neutralization charge.
5-inch projectile.
Hellfire missile.
Demo block/shaped charge.
Light-weight torpedo.
500 lb. bomb.
Harpoon missile.
650 lb mine.
2,000 lb bomb.
Line charge.
Littoral Combat Ship full ship shock trial.
Aircraft carrier full ship shock trial.
1 Net
Explosive Weight refers to the equivalent amount of TNT the actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other components.
is not modeled for protected species impacts in water because most energy is lost into the air or to the bottom substrate due to detonation in very shallow water.
2 E14
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57082
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Explosive Fragments
Marine mammals could be exposed to
fragments from underwater explosions
associated with the specified activities.
When explosive ordnance (e.g., bombs
or missiles) detonates, fragments of the
weapons are thrown at high-velocity
from the detonation point, which can
injure or kill marine mammals if they
are struck. These fragments may be of
variable size and are ejected at
supersonic speed from the detonation.
The casing fragments will be ejected at
velocities much greater than debris from
any target due to the proximity of the
casing to the explosive material. Risk of
fragment injury reduces exponentially
with distance as the fragment density is
reduced. Fragments underwater tend to
be larger than fragments produced by inair explosions (Swisdak and Montaro,
1992). Underwater, the friction of the
water would quickly slow these
fragments to a point where they no
longer pose a threat. In contrast, the
blast wave from an explosive detonation
moves efficiently through seawater.
Because the ranges to mortality and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
injury due to exposure to the blast wave
are likely to far exceed the zone where
fragments could injure or kill an animal,
the threshold are assumed to encompass
risk due to fragmentation.
Other Stressor—Vessel Strike
Vessel strikes are not specific to any
particular training or testing activity,
but rather a potential, limited, sporadic,
and incidental result of Navy vessel
movement within the AFTT Study Area.
The average speed of large Navy ships
ranges between 10 and 15 knots and
submarines generally operate at speeds
in the range of 8–13 knots, while a few
specialized vessels can travel at faster
speeds. Vessel strikes are likely to result
in incidental take from serious injury
and/or mortality and, accordingly, for
the purposes of the analysis we assume
that any authorized ship strike would
result in serious injury or mortality.
Information on Navy vessel movements
is provided in the Planned Activities
section. Additional detail on vessel
strike was provided in our Federal
Register notice of proposed rulemaking
(83 FR 10954; March 13, 2018); please
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
see that proposed rule or the Navy’s
application for more information.
Additionally, as referenced above and
described in more detail in the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section, on September 13, 2018 the
Navy provided additional information
explaining why and withdrew certain
species from their request for serious
injury or mortality takes from vessel
strike.
Planned Activities
Planned Training Activities
The training activities that the Navy
plans to conduct in the AFTT Study
Area are summarized in Table 4. The
table is organized according to primary
mission areas and includes the activity
name, associated stressors applicable to
these regulations, number of planned
activities, and locations of those
activities in the AFTT Study Area. For
further information regarding the
primary platform used (e.g., ship or
aircraft type) see Appendix A (Navy
Activity Descriptions) of the AFTT
FEIS/OEIS.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57083
Table 4. Proposed Training Activities Analyzed within the AFTT Study Area.
Acoustic
Acoustic
Acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Fleet
Exercises/Sustainment
Exercise
Aircraft carrier and its
associated aircraft
integrates with surface
and submarine units in
a challenging multithreat operational
environment in order
to maintain their
ability to deploy.
ASW1,
ASW2,
ASW3,
ASW4,
HF1,
LF6,
MF1,
MF3,
MF4,
MF5,
MF11,
MF12
Naval Undersea
Warfare Training
Assessment Course
Multiple ships,
aircraft, and
submarines integrate
the use of their
sensors to search for,
detect, classify,
localize, and track a
threat submarine in
order to launch an
exercise torpedo.
Composite Training
Unit Exercise
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Tactical
Development Exercise
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Surface ships, aircraft,
and submarines
coordinate to search
for, detect, and track
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
ASW1,
ASW3,
ASW4,
HF1,
LF6,
MF1,
MF3,
MF4,
MF5,
MF12
ASW1,
ASW3,
ASW4,
HF1,
Sfmt 4725
2-3 2
12
VACAPES
RC
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
JAXRC
4
20
JAXRC
VACAPES
RC
2
10
6
30
JAXRC
15
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
3
21 days
Up to 10
days
2-5 days
VACAPES
RC
3
15
2
10
JAXRC
5
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
5-7 days
ER14NO18.016</GPH>
Acoustic
Aircraft carrier and its
associated aircraft
integrate with surface
and submarine units in
a challenging multithreat operational
environment in order
to certify them for
deployment.
ASW1,
ASW2,
ASW3,
ASW4,
ASW5,
HF1,
LF6,
MF1,
MF3,
MF4,
MF5,
MF11,
MF12
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
submarines.
LF6,
MFl,
MF3,
MF4,
MF5,
MFll,
MF12
5
5
Acoustic
Explosive
Surface ships and
helicopters search for,
detect, and track threat
submarines.
Group Sail
Naval Surface Fire
Support Exercise -At
Sea
Acoustic
Anti-submarine
Warfare Torpedo
Exercise - Helicopter
Acoustic
Anti-submarine
Warfare Torpedo
Exercise - Maritime
Patrol Aircraft
Acoustic
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Torpedo
Exercise -Ship
Acoustic
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Torpedo
Exercise - Submarine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Surface ship crews
use large-caliber guns
to support forces
ashore; however, the
land target is
simulated at sea.
Rounds are scored by
passive acoustic buoys
located at or near the
Helicopter aircrews
search for, track, and
detect submarines.
Recoverable air
launched torpedoes
are employed against
submarine
Maritime patrol
aircraft aircrews
search for, track, and
detect submarines.
Recoverable air
launched torpedoes
are employed against
submarine
Surface ship crews
search for, track, and
detect submarines.
Exercise torpedoes are
used.
Submarine crews
search for, track, and
detect submarines.
Exercise torpedoes are
used.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
HFl,
MFl,
MF3,
MF4,
MF5,
MFll,
MF12
E5
MF4,
MF5,
TORPl
MF5,
TORPl
25
VACAPES
RC
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
2-3 days
5
25
VACAPES
RC
2
10
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
38
190
VACAPES
RC
4
20
VACAPES
RC
2-5 hrs
4
20
VACAPES
RC
2-8 hrs
ASW3,
MFl,
TORPl
ASW4,
HFl,
MF3,
TORP2
Sfmt 4725
1-2 hrs of
firing, 8
hrs total
2-5 hrs
6
30
2
10
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Northeast
RC
VACAPES
RC
8 hrs
ER14NO18.017</GPH>
57084
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Tracking
Exercise - Helicopter
Acoustic
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Tracking
Exercise - Maritime
Patrol Aircraft
Acoustic
Maritime patrol
aircraft aircrews
search for, track, and
detect submarines.
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Tracking
Exercise - Ship
Acoustic
Surface ship crews
search for, track, and
detect submarines.
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Tracking
Exercise - Submarine
Acoustic
Helicopter aircrews
search for, track, and
detect submarines.
Submarine crews
search for, track, and
detect submarines.
MF4,
MF5
ASW5,
ASW2,
MF5
ASW1,
ASW3,
MF1,
MF11,
MF12
ASW4,
HF1 ,
MF3
24
120
370
1,850
12
60
8
40
90
450
176
880
525
2,625
46
230
5*
25*
110*
550*
5*
25*
440*
2,200*
55*
275*
220*
1,100*
44
220
13
65
1
5
18
90
6
30
2
10
2
10
2
10
4
20
5
25
66
330
Other
AFTT
Areas
JAXRC
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
VACAPES
RC
Northeast
RC
VACAPES
RC
JAXRC
Navy
Cherry
Point RC
Northeast
RC
Other
AFTT
Areas
GO MEX
RC
JAXRC
Navy
Cherry
Point RC
VACAPES
RC
Other
AFTT
Areas
JAXRC
Navy
Cherry
Point RC
Northeast
RC
VACAPES
RC
57085
2-4 hrs
2-8 hrs
2-4 hrs
8 hrs
Expeditionary Warfare
Maritime Security
Operations - AntiSwimmer Grenades
Explosive
Small boat crews
engage in force
protection activities
by using antiswimmer grenades to
defend against hostile
divers.
E2
GOMEX
RC
JAXRC
Navy
Cherry
Point RC
Northeast
RC
VACAPES
RC
1 hr
GO MEX
RC
2 hrs
Acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Airborne Mine
Countermeasure -
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Helicopter aircrews
detect mines using
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
HF4
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.018</GPH>
Mine Warfare
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Mine Detection
Acoustic,
Explosive
Acoustic
Acoustic,
Explosive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
towed or laser mine
detection systems.
Civilian Port Defense
-Homeland Security
Anti-Terrorism/Force
Protection Exercise
Maritime security
personnel train to
protect civilian ports
against enemy efforts
to interfere with
access to those ports.
Coordinated Unit
Level Helicopter
Airborne Mine
Countermeasure
Exercise
A detachment of
helicopter aircrews
train as a unit in the
use of airborne mine
countermeasures, such
as towed mine
detection and
neutralization
systems.
Mine
Countermeasures Mine NeutralizationRemotely Operated
Vehicle
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Ship, small boat, and
helicopter crews
locate and disable
mines using remotely
operated underwater
vehicles.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
HF4,
SAS2
E2,E4
HF4
HF4,
E4
Sfmt 4725
317
1,585
371
1,855
244
1,220
1,540
7,700
1
3
2
10
2
10
2
10
2
10
132
660
71
355
71
355
630
3,150
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
JAXRC
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
NSWC
Panama
City
VACAPES
RC
Beaumont,
TX·
'
Boston,
MA'
Corpus
Christi, TX;
Delaware
Bay, DE;
Earle, NJ;
GOMEX
RC;
Hampton
Roads, VA;
JAXRC;
Kings Bay,
GA;NS
Mayport;
Morehead
City, NC;
Port
Canaveral,
FL;
Savannah,
GA; Tampa
Bay,FL;
VACAPES
RC;
Wilmington
,DE
GOMEX
RC
JAXRC
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
Multiple
days
Multiple
days
VACAPES
RC
GOMEX
RC
JAXRC
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
VACAPES
RC
1.5-4 hrs
ER14NO18.019</GPH>
57086
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Ship crews detect and
avoid mines while
navigating restricted
areas or channels
using active sonar.
Mine
Countermeasures Ship Sonar
Acoustic
Mine Neutralization Explosive Ordnance
Disposal
Explosive
Personnel disable
threat mines using
explosive charges.
HF4
E4, E5,
E6, E7
22
110
53
265
53
265
6
30
16
80
20
100
17
85
16
80
524
2,620
67
335
434
2,170
108
540
329
1,645
6
30
26
130
128
640
2
10
260
1,300
10
50
9
45
51
255
35
175
75
375
41
205
33
165
161
805
GOMEX
RC
JAXRC
VACAPES
RC
Lower
Chesapeake
Bay
GO MEX
RC
JAXRC
Key West
RC
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
VACAPES
RC
57087
1.5-4 hrs
Upto4
hrs
Surface Warfare
Explosive
Explosive
Explosive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Gunnery Exercise
Surface-to-Surface
Boat Medium-Caliber
Gunnery Exercise
Surface-to-Surface
Ship Large-Caliber
Surface ship crews
fire large-caliber guns
at surface targets.
Gunnery Exercise
Surface-to-Surface
Ship Medium-Caliber
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Small boat crews fire
medium-caliber guns
at surface targets.
Surface ship crews
fire medium-caliber
guns at surface
targets.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
E9,
E10,
E12
E1
E3,E5
E1
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
1 hr
1hr
Up to 3
hrs
2-3 hrs
ER14NO18.020</GPH>
Explosive
Fixed-wing aircrews
deliver bombs against
surface targets.
Bombing Exercise
Air-to-Surface
GO MEX
RC
JAXRC
Navy
Cherry
Point RC
VACAPES
RC
GO MEX
RC
JAXRC
Navy
Cherry
Point RC
Northeast
RC
VACAPES
RC
Other
AFTT
Areas
GO MEX
RC
JAXRC
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
VACAPES
RC
Other
AFTT
Areas
GO MEX
RC
JAXRC
57088
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Explosive
Explosive
Explosive
Explosive
Acoustic,
Explosive
Integrated Live Fire
Exercise
Naval forces defend
against a swarm of
surface threats (ships
or small boats) with
bombs, missiles,
rockets, and small-,
medium- and largecaliber guns.
Missile Exercise
Air-to-Surface
Fixed-wing and
helicopter aircrews
fire air-to-surface
missiles at surface
targets.
Helicopter aircrews
fire both precisionguided and unguided
rockets at surface
targets.
Missile Exercise
Air-to-Surface Rocket
Surface ship crews
defend against surface
threats (ships or small
boats) and engage
them with missiles.
Aircraft, ship, and
submarine crews
deliberately sink a
seaborne target,
usually a
decommissioned ship
(made
environmentally safe
for sinking according
to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
standards), with a
variety of munitions.
Missile Exercise
Surface-to-Surface
Sinking Exercise
El , E3 ,
E6, E10
E6, E8,
ElO
E3
E6, ElO
TORP2
, E5,
E8, E9,
E10,
Ell
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
VACAPES
RC
VACAPES
RC
72
360
321
1,605
2
10
2
10
102
510
52
260
88
440
10
50
102
510
10
50
92
460
16
80
12
60
VACAPES
RC
1
5
SINKEX
Box
1
5
Lower
Chesapeake
Bay
1
5
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
169
845
NSBNew
London
6-8 hrs
JAXRC
JAXRC
Navy
Cherry
Point RC
VACAPES
RC
GOMEX
RC
JAXRC
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
VACAPES
RC
JAXRC
1 hr
lhr
2-5 hrs
4-8 hrs,
possibly
over 1-2
days
Other TraininK Activities
Acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Elevated Causeway
System
Submarine Navigation
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Submarine crews
operate sonar for
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Impact
hammer
or
vibrator
y
extracto
r
HF1 ,
MF3
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Up to 20
days for
constructi
on, and
up to 10
days for
removal
Up to 2
hrs
ER14NO18.021</GPH>
Acoustic
A temporary pier is
constructed off the
beach . Supporting
pilings are driven into
the sand and then later
removed.
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
navigation and object
detection while
transiting into and out
of port during reduced
visibility.
Maintenance of
submarine sonar
systems is conducted
pierside or at sea.
Submarine Sonar
Maintenance
Acoustic
Submarine Under Ice
Certification
Acoustic
Surface Ship Object
Detection
Acoustic
Surface Ship sonar
Maintenance
Acoustic
..
. ..
Submarine crews train
to operate under ice.
Ice conditions are
simulated during
training and
certification events.
Surface ship crews
operate sonar for
navigation and object
detection while
transiting in and out of
port during reduced
visibility.
Maintenance of
surface ship sonar
systems is conducted
pierside or at sea.
MF3
3
15
3
15
84
420
23
115
12
60
66
330
9
45
2
10
34
170
86
430
2
10
13
63
47
233
3
15
3
15
9
45
9
45
76
380
HF1
HF8,
MF1K
HF8,
MF1
NSB Kings
Bay
NS
Mayport
NS Norfolk
Port
Canaveral,
FL
Other
AFTT
Areas
NSBNew
London
JAXRC
NSB Kings
Bay
NS Norfolk
Northeast
RC
Port
Canaveral,
FL
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
VACAPES
RC
JAXRC
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
Northeast
RC
VACAPES
RC
NS
Mayport
162
810
NS Norfolk
50
250
50
250
120
600
235
1,175
120
600
JAXRC
NS
Mayport
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
NS Norfolk
VACAPES
RC
...
57089
Up to 1 hr
Upto6
hrs per
day over
5 days
Upto2
hrs
Upto4
hrs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.022</GPH>
AdditiOnal activities utJhzmg sources not listed m the Sonar Bm column may occur durmg mtegrated/coordmated exercises.
All acoustic sources that may be used during training and testing activities have been accounted for in the modeling and
analysis.
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Planned Testing Activities
Naval Air Systems Command
Testing activities covered in these
regulations are described in Table 5
through Table 7.
Table 5 summarizes the planned
testing activities for the Naval Air
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Systems Command analyzed within the
AFTT Study Area.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.023</GPH>
57090
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57091
Table 5. Planned Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities Analyzed in the AFTT
Study Area.
Acoustic,
Explosive
Acoustic,
Explosive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
AntiSubmarine
Warfare
Tracking Test
- Helicopter
AntiSubmarine
Warfare
Tracking Test
-Maritime
Patrol Aircraft
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
This event is similar to the
training event anti-submarine
warfare tracking exercise helicopter. The test evaluates
the sensors and systems used
to detect and track submarines
and to ensure that helicopter
systems used to deploy the
tracking system perform to
specifications.
The test evaluates the sensors
and systems used by maritime
patrol aircraft to detect and
track submarines and to ensure
that aircraft systems used to
deploy the tracking systems
perform to specifications and
meet operational requirements.
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
20--43
146
MF5,
TORPl
MF4,
MF5,
E3
ASW2,
ASW5,
E1, E3,
MF5,
MF6
Sfmt 4725
JAXRC
40--121
362
VACAPES
RC
4-6
24
GOMEX
RC
0-12
24
JAXRC
2-27
35
Key West
RC
28-110
304
Northeast
RC
137-280
951
VACAPES
RC
10--15
60
GOMEX
RC
19
95
JAXRC
10--12
54
Key West
RC
14-15
72
Navy
Cherry
PointRC
36--45
198
Northeast
PointRC
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
2-6 flight
hrs per
event
2 flight
hrs per
event
4-6 flight
hrs per
event
ER14NO18.024</GPH>
Acoustic
AntiSubmarine
Warfare
Torpedo Test
This event is similar to the
training event torpedo
exercise. Test evaluates antisubmarine warfare systems
onboard rotary-wing (e.g.,
helicopter) and fixed-wing
aircraft and the ability to
search for, detect, classify,
localize, track, and attack a
submarine or similar target.
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Acoustic
Functional check of a
helicopter deployed dipping
sonar system prior to
conducting a testing or training
event using the dipping sonar
system.
Kilo Dip
Acoustic,
Explosive
Sonobuoy Lot
Acceptance
Test
Sonobuoys are deployed from
surface vessels and aircraft to
verify the integrity and
performance of a production
lot or group of sonobuoys in
advance of delivery to the fleet
for operational use.
Acoustic
Airborne
Dipping Sonar
Minehunting
Test
A mine-hunting dipping sonar
system deployed from a
helicopter and uses highfrequency sonar for the
detection and classification of
bottom and moored mines.
Airborne Mine
Neutralization
System Test
A test of the airborne mine
neutralization system evaluates
the system's ability to detect
and destroy mines from an
airborne mine countermeasures
capable helicopter. The
airborne mine neutralization
system uses up to four
unmanned underwater vehicles
equipped with high-frequency
sonar, video cameras, and
explosive and non-explosive
neutralizers
Explosive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
MF4
ASW2,
ASW5,
HF5,
HF6,
LF4,
MF5,
MF6,
E1, E3,
E4
25
125
VACAPES
RC
2-6
14
GOMEX
RC
0-6
6
JAXRC
0-6
6
Key West
RC
0-4
8
Northeast
RC
20-40
140
VACAPES
RC
160
800
Key West
RC
16-32
96
NSWC
Panama
City
6-18
42
VACAPES
RC
20-27
107
NSWC
Panama
City
HF4
6 flight
hrs per
event
2 flight
hrs per
event
2.5 flight
hrs per
event
E4
25-45
Sfmt 4725
1.5 flight
hrs per
event
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
145
14NOR3
VACAPES
RC
ER14NO18.025</GPH>
57092
Acoustic
Explosive
Explosive
Explosive
Explosive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Airborne
Sonobuoy
Minehunting
Test
A mine-hunting system made
up of a field of sonobuoys
deployed by a helicopter. A
field of sonobuoys, using highfrequency sonar, is used to
detect and classify bottom and
moored mines.
HF6
Air-to-Surface
Bombing Test
This event is similar to the
training event bombing
exercise air-to-surface. Fixedwing aircraft test the delivery
ofbombs against surface
maritime targets with the goal
of evaluating the bomb, the
bomb carry and delivery
system, and any associated
systems that may have been
newly developed or enhanced.
E9
Air-to-Surface
Gunnery Test
This event is similar to the
training event gunnery
exercise air-to-surface. Fixedwing and rotary-wing aircrews
evaluate new or enhanced
aircraft guns against surface
maritime targets to test that the
guns, gun ammunition, or
associated systems meet
required specifications or to
train aircrews in the operation
of a new or enhanced weapon
system.
Air-to-Surface
Missile Test
Rocket Test
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
This event is similar to the
training event missile exercise
air-to-surface. Test may
involve both fiXed-wing and
rotary-wing aircraft launching
missiles at surface maritime
targets to evaluate the weapon
system or as part of another
system's integration test.
Rocket tests evaluate the
integration, accuracy,
performance, and safe
separation of guided and
unguided 2.75-inch rockets
fired from a hovering or
forward-flying helicopter.
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
52
260
NSWC
Panama
City
24
120
VACAPES
RC
20
100
VACAPES
RC
25-55
215
JAXRC
El
E6, E9,
E10
110-140
640
VACAPES
RC
0-10
20
GOMEX
RC
29-38
167
JAXRC
117-148
663
VACAPES
RC
15-19
87
JAXRC
E3
31-35
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
167
14NOR3
VACAPES
RC
57093
2 flight
hrs per
event
2 flight
hrs per
event
2-2.5
flight
hrs per
event
2-4 flight
hrs per
event
1.5-2.5
hrs per
event
ER14NO18.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Naval Sea Systems Command
Table 6 summarizes the planned
testing activities for the Naval Sea
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Systems Command analyzed within the
AFTT Study Area.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.027</GPH>
57094
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57095
Table 6. Planned Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities Analyzed in the AFTT Study
Area.
AntiSubmarine
Warfare
Mission
Package
Testing
ASWI,
ASW2,
ASW3,
ASW5,
MFI,
MF4,
MF5,
MF12,
TORPI
42
210
JAXRC
4
20
Newport, RI
4
20
NUWC Newport
26
130
VACAPESRC
10
JAXRC
Navy Cherry
PointRC
Northeast RC
VACAPESRC
5
JAXRC
Navy Cherry
PointRC
VACAPESRC
2
10
offshore Fort
Pierce, FL
GOMEXRC
JAXRC
SFOMF
Northeast RC
VACAPESRC
4
20
JAXRC
2
10
Navy Cherry
PointRC
8
40
NUWC Newport
12
60
VACAPESRC
5
NSBNew
London
NS Norfolk
Port Canaveral,
FL
55
Bath, ME
2
Acoustic
Acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
At-sea testing to
ensure systems
are fully
functional in an
open ocean
environment.
At-Sea Sonar
Testing
Pierside Sonar
Testing
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Pierside testing to
ensure systems
are fully
functional in a
controlled
pierside
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
ASW3,
ASW4,
HFI,
LF5,
M3,
MFI,
MFIK,
MF3,
MF5,
MF9,
MFll,
TORP2
ASW3,
HFI,
HF3,
HF8,
M3,
MFI,
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
11
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
1-2 wks, with 48 hrs of active
sonar use with
intervals on nonactivity in
between
From 4 hrs to 11
days
Up to 3 wks
total per ship,
with each source
run
independently
and not
ER14NO18.028</GPH>
Acoustic
Ships and their
supporting
platforms (e.g.,
helicopters,
unmanned aerial
systems) detect,
localize, and
attack
submarines.
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
environment prior
to at-sea test
activities.
Acoustic
Acoustic
Acoustic,
Explosive
Acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Submarine
Sonar Testing/
Maintenance
Surface Ship
Sonar Testing/
Maintenance
Torpedo
(Explosive)
Testing
Torpedo
(Non-
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Pierside testing of
submarine
systems occurs
periodically
following major
maintenance
periods and for
routine
maintenance.
MFIK,
MF3,
MF9,
MFlO
HF1,
HF3,
M3,
MF3
Pierside and atsea testing of ship
systems occur
periodically
following major
maintenance
periods and for
routine
maintenance.
ASW3,
MF1,
MFIK,
MF9,
MFIO
Air, surface, or
submarine crews
employ explosive
and nonexplosive
torpedoes against
artificial targets.
ASW3,
HF1,
HF5,
HF6,
MF1,
MF3,
MF4,
MF5,
MF6,
TORPI,
TORP2,
E8, Ell
Air, surface, or
submarine crews
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
ASW3,
ASW4,
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
5
25
NSBNew
London
4
20
NSB Kings Bay
8
40
Newport, RI
13
65
NS Norfolk
2
10
Pascagoula, MS
3
15
Port Canaveral,
FL
2
10
PNS
16
80
Norfolk, VA
24
120
1
5
JAXRC
1
5
NS Mayport
3
15
NS Norfolk
3
15
VACAPESRC
20
GOMEXRC
offshore Fort
Pierce, FL
KeyWestRC
Navy Cherry
PointRC
Northeast RC
VACAPESRC
4
PNS
2
10
GOMEXRC
JAXRC
Northeast RC
VACAPESRC
7
35
GOMEXRC
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
continuously
during this time.
Up to 3 wks,
with intermittent
use of active
sonar
Up to 3 wks,
with intermittent
use of active
sonar
1-2 day during
daylight hrs
Upto2 wks
ER14NO18.029</GPH>
57096
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Acoustic
Explosive
Acoustic,
Explosive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Countermeasure
Testing
Mine
Countermeasure and
Neutralization
Testing
Mine
Countermeasure
Mission
Package
Testing
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
employ nonexplosive
torpedoes against
submarines or
surface vessels.
When performed
on a testing
range, these
torpedoes may be
launched from a
range craft or
fixed structures
andmayuse
artificial targets.
Countermeasure
testing involves
the testing of
systems that will
detect, localize,
track, and attack
incoming
weapons
including marine
vessel targets.
Testing includes
surface ship
torpedo defense
systems and
marine vessel
stopping
payloads.
Air, surface, and
subsurface
vessels neutralize
threat mines and
mine-like objects.
Vessels and
associated aircraft
conduct mine
countermeasure
operations.
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
HF1,
HF6,
MFl,
MF3,
MF4,
MF5,
MF6,
TORP1,
TORP2,
TORP3
11
55
offshore Fort
Pierce, FL
2
8
JAXRC
7
35
Navy Cherry
PointRC
8
38
Northeast RC
30
150
NUWC Newport
11
55
VACAPESRC
25
GOMEXRC
JAXRC
NUWC Newport
VACAPESRC
KeyWestRC
5
ASW3,
HF5,
TORP1,
TORP2
2-4
14
GOMEXRC
JAXRC
Northeast RC
VACAPESRC
13
65
NSWCPanama
City
6
30
VACAPESRC
19
95
GOMEXRC
10
50
JAXRC
11
55
NSWCPanama
City
2
10
SFOMF
E4, Ell
HF4,
SAS2,
E4
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
From 4 hrs to 6
days, depending
on
countermeasure
being tested
1-1 0 days, with
intermittent use
of
countermeasure/
neutralization
system during
this period
1-2 wks with
intervals of mine
countermeasure
mission package
use during this
time
ER14NO18.030</GPH>
Explosive)
Testing
57097
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Acoustic
Air, surface, and
subsurface
vessels and
systems detect
classify, and '
avoid mines and
mine-like objects.
Vessels also
assess their
potential
su_sceptibility to
mmes and minelike objects.
Mine
Detection and
Classification
Testing
HF1,HF
4, HF8,
MF1,
MF1K,
MF9
5
25
VACAPESRC
6
30
GOMEXRC
10
50
NavyCheny
PointRC
47-55
250
NSWCPanama
City
7-12
43
Riviera Beach,
FL
4
20
SFOMF
3
15
VACAPESRC
60
GOMEXRC
JAXRC
KeyWestRC
NavyCheny
PointRC
Northeast RC
VACAPESRC
5
GOMEXRC
5
JAXRC
5
KeyWestRC
5
NavyCheny
PointRC
5
Northeast RC
12
Explosive
Explosive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Gun Testing _
Large Caliber
Gun Testing MediumCaliber
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Crews defend
against targets
with large-caliber
guns.
Airborne and
surface crews
defend against
targets with
medium-caliber
guns.
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
1-2 wks
E3,E5
33
165
NSWCPanama
City
5
25
VACAPESRC
12
60
GOMEXRC
JAXRC
KeyWestRC
NavyCheny
PointRC
Northeast RC
VACAPESRC
102
510
NSWCPanama
City
E1
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
u~ to 24 days,
w1th up to 12 hrs
of acoustic
activity each day
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
1-2 wks, with
intervals of gun
testing
ER14NO18.031</GPH>
57098
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
VACAPESRC
65
GOMEXRC
JAXRC
KeyWestRC
Navy Cherry
PointRC
Northeast RC
VACAPESRC
Explosive
Acoustic,
Explosive
Explosive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Missile and
Rocket
Testing
Unmanned
Underwater
Vehicle
Testing
Large Ship
Shock Trial
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Missile and
rocket testing
includes various
missiles or
rockets fired from
submarines and
surface
combatants.
Testing of the
launching system
and ship defense
is performed.
5
GOMEXRC
2
10
JAXRC
5
25
Northeast RC
22
110
VACAPESRC
16
80
GOMEXRC
JAXRC
NUWC Newport
Testing involves
the development
or upgrade of
unmanned
underwater
vehicles. This
may include
testing of mine
detection
capabilities,
evaluating the
basic functions of
individual
platforms, or
complex events
with multiple
vehicles.
41
205
GOMEXRC
25
125
JAXRC
Underwater
detonations are
used to test new
ships or major
upgrades.
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
13
E6, E10
ASW4,
FLS2,
HF1,
HF4,
HF5,
HF6,
HF7,
LF5,
MF9,
MF10,
SAS1,
SA2,
SAS3,
VHF1,
E8
E17
Frm 00025
145-146
727
NSWCPanama
City
308-309
1,541
NUWC Newport
9
45
Riviera Beach,
FL
42
210
SFOMF
0-1
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
GOMEX
JAXRC
VACAPESRC
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
1 day to 2 wks
Up to 35 days.
Some
propulsion
systems (gliders)
could operate
continuously for
multiple months.
Typically over 4
wks, with 1
detonation per
week. However,
smaller charges
ER14NO18.032</GPH>
24
5
57099
57100
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
maybe
detonated on
consecutive
days.
Acoustic
Explosive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Surface
Warfare
Testing
Undersea
Warfare
Testing
Small Ship
Shock Trial
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Ships
demonstrate
capability of
countermeasure
systems and
underwater
surveillance,
weapons
engagement, and
communications
systems. This
tests ships' ability
to detect, track,
and engage
underwater
targets.
E1, E5,
E8
PO 00000
10
GOMEXRC
13
65
JAXRC
1
5
KeyWestRC
10
50
Northeast RC
9
45
VACAPESRC
2
10
7 days
JAXRC
ASW3,
ASW4,
HF4,
HF8,
MF1,
MF1K,
MF4,
MF5,
MF9,
MF10,
TORP1,
TORP2
Underwater
detonations are
used to test new
ships or major
upgrades.
Jkt 247001
2
Frm 00026
E16
Fmt 4701
VACAPESRC
0-2
4
JAXRC
VACAPESRC
Navy Cherry
PointRC
SFOMF
2
10
GOMEXRC
6
30
JAXRC
2
10
VACAPESRC
0-3
Sfmt 4725
3
JAXRC
VACAPESRC
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Up to 10 days
Typically over 4
wks, with 1
detonation per
week. However,
smaller charges
ER14NO18.033</GPH>
Explosive
Tests capability
of shipboard
sensors to detect,
track, and engage
surface targets.
Testing may
include ships
defending against
surface targets
using explosive
and nonexplosive rounds,
gun system
structural test
firing and
demonstration of
the response to
Call for Fire
against landbased targets
(simulated by
sea-based
locations).
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57101
maybe
detonated on
consecutive
days.
Acoustic
Acoustic
Acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Insertion/
Extraction
Acoustic
Component
Testing
SemiStationary
Equipment
Testing
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
HFl,
M3,
MF3,
MF9,
MFlO,
TORP2
Testing of
submersibles
capable of
inserting and
extracting
personnel and
payloads into
denied areas from
strategic
distances.
MF3,
MF9
Various surface
vessels, moored
equipment, and
materials are
tested to evaluate
performance in
the marine
environment.
FLS2,
HF5,
HF7,
LF5,
MF9,
SAS2
Semi-stationary
equipment (e.g.,
hydrophones) is
deployed to
determine
functionality.
AG,
ASW3,
ASW4,
HF5,
HF6,
LF4,
LF5,
MF9,
MFlO,
SDl,SD
2
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
2
10
4
20
JAXRC
4
20
Northeast RC
4
20
VACAPESRC
4
20
KeyWestRC
Up to 7 days
Up to 30 days
NSWCPanama
City
264
1,320
33
165
SFOMF
4
20
Newport, Rl
11
55
NSWCPanama
City
190
950
NUWC Newport
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
1 day to multiple
months
From 20 min to
multiple days
ER14NO18.034</GPH>
Acoustic
Submarine
Sea TrialsWeapons
System
Testing
Submarine
weapons and
sonar systems are
tested at-sea to
meet integrated
combat system
certification
requirements.
Offshore Fort
Pierce, FL
GOMEXRC
JAXRC
SFOMF
Northeast RC
VACAPESRC
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Office of Naval Research
Table 7 summarizes the planned
testing activities for the Office of Naval
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Research analyzed within the AFTT
Study Area.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.035</GPH>
57102
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
removal activities associated with Navy
training and testing activities in the
AFTT Study Area that were analyzed in
this rule. Table 8 shows the acoustic
source classes (i.e., LF, MF, and HF) that
could occur in any year under the
Planned Activity for training and testing
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
activities. Under the Planned Activities,
acoustic source class use would vary
annually, consistent with the number of
annual activities summarized above.
The five-year total for the Planned
Activities takes into account that annual
variability.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.036</GPH>
Summary of Acoustic and Explosive
Sources Analyzed for Training and
Testing
Table 8 through Table 11 show the
acoustic source classes and numbers,
explosive source bins and numbers, air
gun sources, and pile driving and
57103
57104
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.037</GPH>
Table 8. Acoustic Source Classes Analyzed and Numbers Used during Training and
Testing Activities in the AFTT Study Area.
High-Frequency (HF):
Tactical and non-tactical
sources that produce
signals between 10 100kHz
Very High-Frequency
Sonars (VHF): Nontactical sources that
produce signals between
100-200 kHz
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
MF10
Active sources
(greater than 160 dB,
but less than 180 dB)
not otherwise binned
H
870
4,348
5,690
28,450
MFll
Hull-mounted
surface ship sonars
with an active duty
cycle greater than
80%
H
8731,001
4,621
1,424
7,120
MF12
Towed array surface
ship sonars with an
active duty cycle
greater than 80%
H
367-397
1,894
1,388
6,940
MF14
Oceanographic MF
sonar
H
0
0
1,440
7,200
HFl
Hull-mounted
submarine sonars
(e.g., AN/BQQ-10)
H
1,9281,932
9,646
397
1,979
HF3
Other hull-mounted
submarine sonars
(classified)
H
0
0
31
154
HF4
Mine detection,
classification, and
neutralization sonar
(e.g., AN/SQS-20)
H
5,4116,371
29,935
30,77230,828
117,91
6
H
0
0
1,8642,056
9,704
HF5
Active sources
(greater than 200 dB)
not otherwise binned
c
0
0
40
200
HF6
Active sources (equal
to 180 dB and up to
200 dB) not
otherwise binned
H
0
0
2,193
10,868
HF7
Active sources
(greater than 160 dB,
but less than 180 dB)
not otherwise binned
H
0
0
1,224
6,120
HF8
Hull-mounted
surface ship sonars
(e.g., AN/SQS-61)
H
20
100
2,084
10,419
VHF sources greater
than200 dB
H
0
0
12
60
VHF
1
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57105
ER14NO18.038</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
ASW
1
MF systems
operating above 200
dB
H
582-641
3,028
820
4,100
ASW
2
MF Multistatic
Active Coherent
sonobuoy (e.g.,
AN/SSQ-125)
c
1,4761,556
7,540
4,7565,606
25,480
ASW
3
MF towed active
acoustic
countermeasure
systems (e.g.,
AN/SLQ-25)
H
4,4855,445
24,345
2,9413,325
15,472
ASW
4
MF expendable
active acoustic
device
countermeasures
(e.g., MK 3)
c
425-431
2,137
3,493
17,057
ASW
5
MF sonobuoys with
high duty cycles
H
572-652
3,020
608628
3,080
TOR
PI
Lightweight torpedo
(e.g., MK 46, MK
54, or Anti-Torpedo
Torpedo)
c
57
285
806980
4,336
TOR
P2
Heavyweight torpedo
(e.g., MK 48)
c
80
400
344408
1,848
TOR
P3
Heavyweight torpedo
(e.g., MK 48)
c
0
0
100
440
Forward Looking
Sonar (FLS): Forward
or upward looking
object avoidance sonars
used for ship navigation
and safety
FLS2
HF sources with
short pulse lengths,
narrow beam widths,
and focused beam
patterns
H
0
0
1,224
6,120
Acoustic Modems (M):
Systems used to transmit
data through the water
M3
MF acoustic modems
(greater than 190 dB)
H
0
0
634
3,169
HF and VHF sources
with short pulse
lengths, used for the
detection of
swimmers and other
objects for the
purpose of port
security
H
0
0
176
880
MF SAS systems
H
0
0
960
4,800
Anti-Submarine
Warfare (ASW):
Tactical sources (e.g.,
active sonobuoys and
acoustic countermeasures systems) used
during ASW training
and testing activities
Torpedoes (TORP):
Source classes
associated with the
active acoustic signals
produced by torpedoes
Swimmer Detection
Sonars (SD): Systems
used to detect divers and
sub- merged swimmers
Synthetic Aperture
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
SDl
-
SD2
SASI
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.039</GPH>
57106
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57107
Table 9 shows the number of air gun
shots planned in AFTT Study Area for
training and testing activities.
TABLE 9—TRAINING AND TESTING AIRGUN SOURCES QUANTITATIVELY ANALYZED IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA
Training
Source class category
Bin
Air guns (AG): Small underwater air guns ................
1C
AG
Testing
Unit 1
Annual
5-year total
Annual
5-year total
0
0
604
3,020
C
= count. One count (C) of AG is equivalent to 100 air gun firings.
Table 10 summarizes the impact pile
driving and vibratory pile removal
activities that would occur during a 24hour period. Annually, for impact pile
driving, the Navy will drive 119 piles,
two times a year for a total of 238 piles.
Over the 5-year period of the rule, the
Navy will drive a total of 1190 piles by
impact pile driving. Annually, for
vibratory pile removal, the Navy will
remove 119 piles, two times a year for
a total of 238 piles. Over the 5-year
period of the rule, the Navy will remove
a total of 1190 piles by vibratory pile
removal.
TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES PER 24-HOUR PERIOD IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA
Method
Pile Driving (Impact) ....................................................................................................................
Pile Removal (Vibratory) ..............................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:02 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
Time per pile
(minutes)
6
12
14NOR3
15
6
Total
estimated
time of noise
per 24-hour
period
(minutes)
90
72
ER14NO18.040</GPH>
Piles per
24-hour
period
57108
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Table 11 shows the number of inwater explosives that could be used in
any year under the Planned Activity for
training and testing activities. Under the
Planned Activities, bin use would vary
annually, consistent with the number of
annual activities summarized above.
The five-year total for the Specified
Activities takes into account that annual
variability.
TABLE 11–EXPLOSIVE SOURCE BINS ANALYZED AND NUMBERS USED DURING TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE
AFTT STUDY AREA
Training
Net explosive
weight 1
(lb)
Bin
Testing
Example explosive source
Annual 2
E1 ...................
E2 ...................
E3 ...................
E4 ...................
E5 ...................
E6 ...................
E7 ...................
E8 ...................
E9 ...................
E10 .................
E11 .................
E12 .................
E16 3 ...............
0.1–0.25 ...........
>0.25–0.5 .........
>0.5–2.5 ...........
>2.5–5 ..............
>5–10 ...............
>10–20 .............
>20–60 .............
>60–100 ...........
>100–250 .........
>250–500 .........
>500–650 .........
>650–1,000 ......
>7,250–14,500
E17 3 ...............
>14,500–58,000
Medium-caliber projectile .....................
Medium-caliber projectile .....................
Large-caliber projectile .........................
Mine neutralization charge ...................
5-inch projectile ....................................
Hellfire missile ......................................
Demo block/shaped charge .................
Light-weight torpedo .............................
500 lb bomb .........................................
Harpoon missile ...................................
650 lb mine ..........................................
2,000 lb bomb ......................................
Littoral Combat Ship full ship shock
trial.
Aircraft carrier full ship shock trial ........
Annual 2
5-year total
5-year total
7,700
210–214
4,592
127–133
1,436
602
4
22
66
90
1
18
0
38,500
1,062
22,960
653
7,180
3,010
20
110
330
450
5
90
0
17,840–26,840
0
3,054–3,422
746–800
1,325
28–48
0
33
4
68–98
10
0
0–12
116,200
0
16,206
3,784
6,625
200
0
165
20
400
50
0
12
0
0
0–4
4
1 Net
Explosive Weight refers to the equivalent amount of TNT the actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other components.
2 Expected annual use may vary per bin because the number of events may vary from year to year, as described in Section 1.5 (Planned Activity).
3 Shock trials consist of four explosions each. In any given year there could be 0–3 small ship shock trials (E16) and 0–1 large ship shock
trials (E17). Over a 5-year period, there could be three small ship shock trials (E16) and one large ship shock trial (E17).
Vessel Movement
Vessels used as part of the Planned
Activity include ships, submarines and
boats ranging in size from small, 22 ft
(7 m) rigid hull inflatable boats to
aircraft carriers with lengths up to 1,092
ft (333 m). Large Navy ships greater than
60 ft (18 m) generally operate at speeds
in the range of 10 to 15 kn for fuel
conservation. Submarines generally
operate at speeds in the range of 8 to 13
kn in transits and less than those speeds
for certain tactical maneuvers. Small
craft, less than 60 ft (18 m) in length,
have much more variable speeds
(dependent on the mission). For small
craft types, sizes and speeds vary during
training and testing. Speeds generally
range from 10 to 14 kn. While these
speeds for large and small crafts are
representative of most events, some
vessels need to temporarily operate
outside of these parameters.
The number of Navy vessels used in
the AFTT Study Area varies based on
military training and testing
requirements, deployment schedules,
annual budgets, and other unpredictable
factors. Most training and testing
activities involve the use of vessels.
These activities could be widely
dispersed throughout the AFTT Study
Area, but would be typically conducted
near naval ports, piers, and range areas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Standard Operating Procedures
For training and testing to be
effective, personnel must be able to
safely use their sensors and weapon
systems as they are intended to be used
in a real-world situation and to their
optimum capabilities. While standard
operating procedures are designed for
the safety of personnel and equipment
and to ensure the success of training
and testing activities, their
implementation often yields additional
benefits on environmental,
socioeconomic, public health and
safety, and cultural resources.
Because standard operating
procedures are essential to safety and
mission success, the Navy considers
them to be part of the planned activities
and has included them in the
environmental analysis. Additional
details on standard operating
procedures were provided in our
Federal Register notice of proposed
rulemaking (83 FR 10954; March 13,
2018); please see that proposed rule or
the Navy’s application for more
information.
Duration and Location
Training and testing activities would
be conducted in the AFTT Study Area
throughout the year from 2018 through
2023 for the five-year period covered by
the regulations. The AFTT Study Area
(see Figure 1.1–1 of the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application) includes
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
areas of the western Atlantic Ocean
along the East Coast of North America,
portions of the Caribbean Sea, and the
GOMEX. The AFTT Study Area begins
at the mean high tide line along the U.S.
coast and extends east to the 45-degree
west longitude line, north to the 65degree north latitude line, and south to
approximately the 20-degree north
latitude line. The AFTT Study Area also
includes Navy pierside locations, bays,
harbors, and inland waterways, and
civilian ports where training and testing
occurs. The AFTT Study Area generally
follows the Commander Task Force 80
area of operations, covering
approximately 2.6 million nmi2 of ocean
area, and includes designated Navy
range complexes and associated
operating areas (OPAREAs) and special
use airspace. While the AFTT Study
Area itself is very large, it is important
to note that the vast majority of Navy
training and testing occurs in designated
range complexes and testing ranges.
A Navy range complex consists of
geographic areas that encompass a water
component (above and below the
surface) and airspace, and may
encompass a land component where
training and testing of military
platforms, tactics, munitions,
explosives, and electronic warfare
systems occur. Range complexes
include established OPAREAs, which
may be further divided to provide better
control of the area for safety reasons.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Please refer to the regional maps
provided in the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA
application (Figure 2.2–1 through Figure
2.2–3) for additional detail of the range
complexes and testing ranges.
Additional detail on range complexes
and testing ranges was provided in our
Federal Register notice of proposed
rulemaking (83 FR 10954; March 13,
2018); please see that proposed rule or
the Navy’s application for more
information.
Comments and Responses
We published a notice of proposed
regulations in the Federal Register on
March 13, 2018 (83 FR 10954), with a
45-day comment period. In that
proposed rule, we requested public
input on the request for authorization
described therein, our analyses, and the
proposed authorizations and requested
that interested persons submit relevant
information, suggestions, and
comments. During the 45-day comment
period, we received 28 total comment
letters. Of this total, one submission was
from another federal agency, two letters
were from organizations or individuals
acting in an official capacity (e.g., nongovernmental organizations (NGOs))
and 25 submissions were from private
citizens. Letters from other NGOs and
state departments that were received
during the NOR were also considered
further. NMFS has reviewed all public
comments received on the proposed
rule and issuance of the LOAs. All
relevant comments and our responses
are described below. We provide no
response to specific comments that
addressed species or statutes not
relevant to our proposed actions under
section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (e.g.,
comments related to sea turtles). We
outline our comment responses by
major categories.
General Comments
The majority of the 25 comment
letters from private citizens expressed
general opposition toward the Navy’s
proposed training and testing activities
and requested that NMFS not issue the
LOAs, but without providing
information relevant to NMFS’
decisions. These comments appear to
indicate a lack of understanding of the
MMPA’s requirement that NMFS ‘‘shall
issue’’ requested authorizations when
certain findings (see the Background
section) are met; therefore, these
comments were not considered further.
The remaining comments are addressed
below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Impact Analysis
General
Comment 1: A Commenter
recommends that NMFS consult with
the Navy to collect more information
regarding the number, nature, and
timing of testing and training events that
take place within, or within close
proximity to, important habitat areas,
essentially refining the scale of the
analysis of training and testing activities
to match the scale of the habitat areas
considered to be important.
Response: In their take request and
effects analysis provided to NMFS, the
Navy considered historic use (number
and nature of training and testing
activities) and locational information of
training and testing activities when
developing modelling boxes. The timing
of training cycles and testing needs
varies based on deployment
requirements to meet current and
emerging threats. Due to the variability,
the Navy’s description of their specified
activities is structured to provide
flexibility in training and testing
locations, timing, and number. In
addition, information regarding the
exact location of sonar usage is
classified. Due to the variety of factors,
many of which influence locations that
cannot be predicted in advance (e.g.,
weather), the analysis is completed at a
scale that is necessary to allow for
flexibility. The purpose of the Navy’s
quantitative acoustic analysis is to
provide the best estimate of impact/take
to marine mammals and ESA listed
species for the regulatory and ESA
section 7 consultation analyses.
Specifically, the analysis must take into
account multiple Navy training and
testing activities over large areas of the
ocean for multiple years; therefore,
analyzing activities in multiple
locations over multiple seasons
produces the best estimate of impacts/
take to inform the AFTT FEIS/OEIS and
regulators. Also, the scale at which
spatially explicit marine mammal
density models are structured is
determined by the data collection
method and the environmental variables
that are used to build the model.
Therefore, altogether, given the
variables that determine when and
where the Navy trains and tests, as well
as the resolution of the density data, the
analysis of potential impacts is scaled to
the level that the data fidelity will
support. NMFS has worked with the
Navy over the years to increase the
spatio-temporal specificity of the
descriptions of activities planned in or
near areas of biological importance,
when possible (i.e., in NARW ESAdesignated critical habitat), and NMFS
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57109
is confident that the granularity of
information provided sufficiently allows
for an accurate assessment of both the
impacts of the Navy’s activities on
marine mammal populations and the
protective measures evaluated to
mitigate those impacts.
Density Estimates
Comment 2: A Commenter noted that
30 iterations or Monte Carlo simulations
is low for general bootstrapping
methods used in those models but
understands that increasing the number
of iterations in turn increases the
computational time needed to run the
models. Accordingly, the Commenter
suggests that the Navy consider
increasing the iterations from 30 to at
least 200 for activities that have yet to
be modeled for Phase III and for all
activities in Phase IV.
Response: The 30 iterations used in
NAEMO represent the number of
iterations run for each of the four
seasons analyzed in AFTT Phase III,
which results in a total of 120 iterations
per year for each event analyzed. For
other areas where only warm and cold
seasons are analyzed, the number of
iterations per season is increased to 60
so that the same 120 iterations per year
are maintained. Navy reached this
number of iterations by running two
iterations of a scenario and calculating
the mean of exposures, then running a
third iteration and calculating the
running mean of exposures, then a
fourth iteration and so on. This is done
until the running mean becomes stable.
Through this approach, it was
determined 120 iterations was sufficient
to converge to a statistically valid
answer and provides a reasonable
uniformity of exposure predictions for
most species and areas. There are a few
exceptions for species with sparsely
populated distributions or highly
variable distributions. In these cases, the
running mean may not flatten out (or
become stable); however, there were so
few exposures in these cases that while
the mean may fluctuate, the overall
number of exposures did not result in
significant differences in the totals. In
total, the number of simulations
conducted for AFTT Phase III exceeded
six million simulations and produced
hundreds of terabytes of data. Increasing
the number of iterations, based on the
discussion above, would not result in a
significant change in the results, but
would incur a significant increase in
resources (e.g., computational and
storage requirements). This would
divert these resources from conducting
other more consequential analysis
without providing for meaningfully
improved data. The Navy has
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57110
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
communicated that it is continually
looking at ways to improve NAEMO and
reduce data and computational
requirements. As technologies and
computational efficiencies improve,
Navy will evaluate these advances and
incorporate them where appropriate.
Comment 3: A Commenter
recommends that the Navy (1) specify
what modeling method and underlying
assumptions were used to estimate PTS
and TTS zones for pile driving activities
and (2) accumulate energy for the entire
day of proposed activities, and (3)
clarify why those zones were estimated
to be the same for LF and HF.
Response: The Navy has explained
that it used measured values for source
levels and transmission loss from pile
driving of the Elevated Causeway
System, the only pile driving activity
included in the Proposed Action of the
AFTT FEIS/OEIS. These recorded
source waveforms were weighted using
the auditory weighting functions. Lowfrequency and high-frequency cetaceans
have similar ranges for impact pile
driving since low-frequency cetaceans
would be relatively more sensitive to
the low-frequency sound, which is
below high-frequency cetaceans best
range of hearing. Neither the NMFS user
spreadsheet nor NAEMO were required
for calculations. An area density model
was developed in MS Excel, which
calculated zones of influence to
thresholds of interest (e.g., behavioral
response) based on durations of pile
driving and the aforementioned
measured and weighted source level
values. The resulting area was then
multiplied by density of each marine
mammal species that could occur
within the vicinity. This produced an
estimated number of animals that could
be impacted per pile, per day, and
overall during the entire activity for
both the impact pile driving and
vibratory removal phases.
Regarding the appropriateness of
accumulating energy for the entire day,
based on the best available science
regarding animal reaction to sound,
selecting a reasonable SEL calculation
period is necessary to more accurately
reflect the time period an animal would
likely be exposed to the sound. The
Navy factored both mitigation
effectiveness and animal avoidance of
higher sound levels into the impact pile
driving analysis. For impact pile
driving, the mitigation zone extends
beyond the average ranges to PTS for all
hearing groups; therefore, mitigation
will help prevent or reduce the potential
for exposure to PTS. The impact pile
driving mitigation zone also extends
beyond or into a portion of the average
ranges to TTS; therefore, mitigation will
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
help prevent or reduce the potential for
exposure to all TTS or some higher
levels of TTS, depending on the hearing
group. Mitigation effectiveness and
animal avoidance of higher sound levels
were both factored into the impact pile
driving analysis as most marine
mammals should be able to easily move
away from the expanding ensonified
zone of TTS/PTS within 60 seconds,
especially considering the soft start
procedure, or avoid the zone altogether
if they are outside of the immediate area
upon startup. Marine mammals and sea
turtles are likely to leave the immediate
area of pile driving and extraction
activities and be less likely to return as
activities persist. However, some
‘‘naive’’ animals may enter the area
during the short period of time when
pile driving and extraction equipment is
being re-positioned between piles.
Therefore, an animal ‘‘refresh rate’’ of 10
percent was selected. This means that
10 percent of the single pile zone of
influence (ZOI) was added for each
consecutive pile within a given 24-hour
period to generate the daily ZOI per
effect category. These daily ZOIs were
then multiplied by the number of days
of pile driving and pile extraction and
then summed to generate a total ZOI per
effect category (i.e., behavioral response,
TTS, PTS). The small size of the
mitigation zone and its close proximity
to the observation platform will result in
a high likelihood that Lookouts would
be able to detect marine mammals and
sea turtles throughout the mitigation
zone.
PTS/TTS Thresholds
Comment 4: A Commenter supports
the weighting functions and associated
thresholds as stipulated in Finneran
(2016), which are the same as those
used for Navy Phase III activities, but
points to additional recent studies that
provide additional behavioral
audiograms (e.g., Branstetter et al., 2017,
Kastelein et al., 2017b) and information
on TTS (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2017a;
2017c). However, the Commenter
recommends that the Navy should
provide a discussion of whether those
new data corroborate the current
weighting functions and associated
thresholds.
Response: The NMFS’ revised
Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on
Marine Mammal Hearing (NMFS 2018),
which was used in the assessment of
effects for this action, compiled,
interpreted, and synthesized the best
available scientific information for
noise-induced hearing effects for marine
mammals to derive updated thresholds
for assessing the impacts of noise on
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
marine mammal hearing, including the
articles that the Commenter references
that were published subsequent to the
publication of the first version of 2016
Acoustic Technical Guidance. The new
data included in those articles are
consistent with the thresholds and
weighting functions included in the
current version of the Acoustic
Technical Guidance (NMFS 2018).
NMFS will continue to review and
evaluate new relevant data as it becomes
available and consider the impacts of
those studies on the Acoustic Technical
Guidance to determine what revisions/
updates may be appropriate. Thus far,
no new information has been published
or otherwise conveyed that would
fundamentally change the assessment of
impacts or conclusions of this rule.
Comment 5: A Commenter
commented that the criteria that the
agency has produced to estimate
temporary threshold shift (TTS) and
permanent threshold shift (PTS) in
marine mammals are erroneous and
non-conservative. The Commenter
specifically cited many supposed issues
with NMFS’ Acoustic Technical
Guidance, including adoption of
‘‘erroneous’’ models, broad
extrapolation from a small number of
individuals, and disregarding ‘‘nonlinear accumulation of uncertainty.’’
The Commenter suggests that NMFS
retain the historical 180-dB rms Level A
harassment threshold as a ‘‘conservative
upper bound’’ or conduct a ‘‘sensitivity
analysis’’ to ‘‘understand the potential
magnitude’’ of the supposed errors.
Response: NMFS disagrees with this
characterization of the Acoustic
Technical Guidance and the associated
recommendation. The Acoustic
Technical Guidance is a compilation,
interpretation, and synthesis of the
scientific literature that provides the
best available information regarding the
effects of anthropogenic sound on
marine mammals’ hearing. The
technical guidance was classified as a
Highly Influential Scientific Assessment
and, as such, underwent three
independent peer reviews, at three
different stages in its development,
including a follow-up to one of the peer
reviews, prior to its dissemination by
NMFS. In addition, there were three
separate public comment periods,
during which time we received and
responded to similar comments on the
guidance (81 FR 51694), which we
cross-reference here, and more recent
public and interagency review under
Executive Order 13795.
The Acoustic Technical Guidance
updates the historical 180-dB rms injury
threshold, which was based on
professional judgement (i.e., no data
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
were available on the effects of noise on
marine mammal hearing at the time this
original threshold was derived). NMFS
does not believe the use of the Acoustic
Technical Guidance provides erroneous
results. The 180-dB rms threshold is
plainly outdated, as the best available
science indicates that rms SPL is not
even an appropriate metric by which to
gauge potential auditory injury (whereas
the scientific debate regarding Level B
behavioral harassment thresholds is not
about the proper metric but rather the
proper level or levels and how these
may vary in different contexts).
Multiple studies from humans,
terrestrial mammals, and marine
mammals have demonstrated less TTS
from intermittent exposures compared
to continuous exposures with the same
total energy because hearing is known to
experience some recovery in between
noise exposures, which means that the
effects of intermittent noise sources
such as tactical sonars are likely
overestimated. Marine mammal TTS
data have also shown that, for two
exposures with equal energy, the longer
duration exposure tends to produce a
larger amount of TTS. Most marine
mammal TTS data have been obtained
using exposure durations of tens of
seconds up to an hour, much longer
than the durations of many tactical
sources (much less the continuous time
that a marine mammal in the field
would be exposed consecutively to
those levels), further suggesting that the
use of these TTS data are likely to
overestimate the effects of sonars with
shorter duration signals.
Regarding the suggestion of pseudoreplication and erroneous models, since
marine mammal hearing and noiseinduced hearing loss data are limited,
both in the number of species and in the
number of individual’s available,
attempts to minimize pseudoreplication
would further reduce these already
limited data sets. Specifically, with
marine mammal behavioral temporary
threshold shift studies, behaviorally
derived data are only available for two
mid-frequency cetacean species
(bottlenose dolphin, beluga) and two
phocids (in-water) pinniped species
(harbor seal and northern elephant seal),
with otariid (in-water) pinnipeds and
high-frequency cetaceans only having
behaviorally-derived data from one
species. Arguments from Wright (2015)
regarding pseudoreplication within the
TTS data are therefore largely irrelevant
in a practical sense because there are so
few data. Multiple data points were not
included for the same individual at a
single frequency. If multiple data
existed at one frequency, the lowest TTS
onset was always used. There is only a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
single frequency where TTS onset data
exist for two individuals of the same
species: 3 kHz for dolphins. Their TTS
(unweighted) onset values were 193 and
194 dB re 1 mPa2s. Thus, NMFS believes
that the current approach makes the best
use of the given data. Appropriate
means of reducing pseudoreplication
may be considered in the future, if more
data become available. Many other
comments from Wright (2015) and the
comments from Racca et al. (2015b)
appear to be erroneously based on the
idea that the shapes of the auditory
weighting functions and TTS/PTS
exposure thresholds are directly related
to the audiograms; i.e., that changes to
the composite audiograms would
directly influence the TTS/PTS
exposure functions (e.g., Wright (2015)
describes weighting functions as
‘‘effectively the mirror image of an
audiogram’’ (p. 2) and states, ‘‘The
underlying goal was to estimate how
much a sound level needs to be above
hearing threshold to induce TTS.’’
(p. 3)). Both statements are incorrect and
suggest a fundamental
misunderstanding of the criteria/
threshold derivation. This would
require a constant (frequencyindependent) relationship between
hearing threshold and TTS onset that is
not reflected in the actual marine
mammal TTS data. Attempts to create a
‘‘cautionary’’ outcome by artificially
lowering the composite audiogram
thresholds would not necessarily result
in lower TTS/PTS exposure levels, since
the exposure functions are to a large
extent based on applying mathematical
functions to fit the existing TTS data.
Behavioral Harassment Thresholds
Comment 6: A Commenter suggests
that NMFS fails to set proper thresholds
for behavioral impacts. Referencing the
biphasic function that assumes an
unmediated dose response relationship
at higher received levels and a contextinfluenced response at lower received
levels that NMFS uses to quantify Level
B behavioral harassment from sonar, the
Commenter suggests that resulting
functions depend on some
inappropriate assumptions that tend to
significantly underestimate effects. The
Commenter expresses concern that
every data point that informs the
agency’s pinniped function, and nearly
two-thirds of the data points informing
the odontocete function (30/49), are
derived from a captive animal study.
Additionally, they assert that the risk
functions do not incorporate (nor does
NMFS apparently consider) a number of
relevant studies on wild marine
mammals. It is not clear from the
proposed rule, or from the Navy’s recent
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57111
technical report on acoustic ‘‘criteria
and thresholds,’’ on which NMFS’
approach here is based, exactly how
each of the studies that NMFS employed
was applied in the analysis, or how the
functions were fitted to the data, but the
available evidence on behavioral
response raises concerns that the
functions are not conservative for some
species. The Commenter recommends
NMFS make additional technical
information available, including from
any expert elicitation and peer review,
so that the public can fully comment.
Response: The Criteria and
Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and
Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals
and Sea Turtles technical report (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017) details
how the Navy’s proposed method,
which was determined appropriate and
adopted by NMFS, accounted for the
differences in captive and wild animals
in the development of the behavioral
response functions. The Navy uses the
best available science, which has been
reviewed by external scientists and
approved by NMFS, in the analysis. The
Navy and NMFS have utilized all
available data that relate known or
estimable received levels to
observations of individual or group
behavior as a result of sonar exposure
(which is needed to inform the
behavioral response function) for the
development of updated thresholds.
Limiting the data to the small number
of field studies that include these
necessary data would not provide
enough data with which to develop the
new risk functions. In addition, NMFS
agrees with the assumptions made by
the Navy to include the fact that captive
animals may be less sensitive, in that
the scale at which a moderate to severe
response was considered to have
occurred is different for captive animals
than for wild animals, as the agency
understands those responses will be
different.
The new risk functions were
developed in 2016, before several recent
papers were published or the data were
available. As new science is published,
the NMFS and the Navy continue to
evaluate the information. The
thresholds have been rigorously vetted
among scientists and within the Navy
community during expert elicitation
and then reviewed by the public before
being applied. It is unreasonable to
revise and update the criteria and risk
functions every time a new paper is
published. These new and future papers
provide additional information, and the
Navy has already begun to consult them
for updates to the thresholds in the
future, when the next round of updated
criteria will be developed. Thus far, no
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57112
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
new information has been published or
otherwise conveyed that would
fundamentally change the assessment of
impacts or conclusions of the AFTT
FEIS/OEIS or this rule. To be included
in the behavioral response function,
data sets need to relate known or
estimable received levels to
observations of individual or group
behavior. Melcon et al. (2012) does not
relate observations of individual/group
behavior to known or estimable received
levels (at that individual/group). In
Melcon et al. (2012), received levels at
the HARP buoy averaged over many
hours are related to probabilities of Dcalls, but the received level at the blue
whale individuals/group are unknown.
As noted, the derivation of the
behavioral response functions is
provided in the 2017 technical report
titled Criteria and Thresholds for U.S.
Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects
Analysis (Phase III). The appendices to
this report detail the specific data points
used to generate the behavioral response
functions. Data points come from
published data that is readily available
and cited within the technical report.
Comment 7: Commenters have
concerns with the use of distance ‘‘cutoffs’’ in the Level B behavioral
harassment thresholds, and the
recommend that NMFS refrain from
using cut-off distances in conjunction
with the Bayesian BRFs and re-estimate
the numbers of marine mammal takes
based solely on the Bayesian BRFs.
Response: The consideration of
proximity (cut-off distances) was part of
the criteria developed in consultation
between Navy and NMFS and was
applied within the Navy’s acoustic
effects model. Cut-off distances were
used to better reflect the take potential
for military readiness activities as
defined in the MMPA. The derivation of
the behavioral response functions and
associated cut-off distances is provided
in the 2017 technical report titled
Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy
Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis
(Phase III). Much of the data used to
derive the behavioral response functions
was from nearby, scaled sources,
thereby potentially confounding results
since it is difficult to tell whether the
focal marine mammal is reacting to the
sound level or the proximity of the
source and/or vessel, amongst other
potentially confounding contextual
factors that are unlike actual Navy
events for which the behavioral
response functions (BRFs) are being
derived. To account for these nonapplicable contextual factors, all
available data on marine mammal
reactions to actual Navy activities and
other sound sources (or other large scale
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
activities such as seismic surveys when
information on proximity to sonar
sources is not available for a given
species group, i.e., harbor porpoises)
were reviewed to find the farthest
distance to which significant behavioral
reactions were observed. These
distances were rounded up to the
nearest 5 or 10 km interval, and for
moderate to large scale activities using
multiple or louder sonar sources, these
distances were greatly increased —
doubled in most cases. The Navy’s BRFs
applied within these distance is
currently the best known method for
providing the public and regulators with
a more realistic (but still conservative
where some uncertainties exist) estimate
of impact and potential take under
military readiness for the proposed
actions within the AFTT FEIS/OEIS.
NMFS has independently assessed the
Navy’s Level B behavioral harassment
thresholds and believe that they
appropriately apply the best available
science and it is not necessary to
recalculate take estimates.
A Commenter also specifically
expresses concern that distance ‘‘cutoffs’’ alleviate some of the exposures
that would otherwise have been counted
if the received level alone were
considered. It is unclear why the
Commenter finds this inherently
inappropriate, as this is what the data
show. As noted previously, there are
multiple studies illustrating that in
situations where one would expect a
Level B behavioral harassment because
of the received levels at which previous
responses were observed, it has not
occurred when the distance from the
source was larger than the distance of
the first observed response.
Comment 8: Regarding cut-off
distances, a Commenter further notes
that dipping sonar appears a significant
predictor of deep-dive rates in beaked
whales on Southern California Antisubmarine Warfare Range (SOAR), with
the dive rate falling significantly (e.g., to
35 percent of that individual’s control
rate) during sonar exposure, and
likewise appears associated with habitat
abandonment. Importantly, these effects
were observed at substantially greater
distances (e.g., 30 or more km) from
dipping sonar than would otherwise be
expected given the systems’ source
levels and the beaked whale response
thresholds developed from research on
hull-mounted sonar. They suggest that
the analysis, and associated cut-off
distances, do not properly consider the
impacts of dipping sonar.
Response: The Navy relied upon the
best science that was available to
develop the behavioral response
functions in consultation with NMFS.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The Navy’s current beaked whale BRF
acknowledges and incorporates the
increased sensitivity observed in beaked
whales during both behavioral response
studies and during actual Navy training
events, as well as the fact that dipping
sonar can have greater effects than some
other sources with the same source
level. Specifically, the distance cut-off
for beaked whales is 50 km, larger than
any other group. Moreover, although
dipping sonar has a significantly lower
source level than hull-mounted sonar, it
is included in the category of sources
with larger distance cut-offs, specifically
in acknowledgement of its
unpredictability and association with
observed effects. This means that
‘‘takes’’ are reflected at lower received
levels that would have been excluded
because of the distance for other source
types. The referenced article
(Associating patterns in movement and
diving behavior with sonar use during
military training exercises: A case study
using satellite tag data from Cuvier’s
beaked whales at the Southern
California Anti-submarine Warfare
Range (Falcone, 2015)) was not
available at the time the behavioral
response functions were developed.
However, NMFS and the Navy have
reviewed the article and concur that
neither this article nor any other new
information that has been published or
otherwise conveyed would significantly
change the assessment of impacts or
conclusions in the AFTT FEIS/OEIS or
in this rulemaking. Nonetheless, the
new information and data presented in
the new article were recently thoroughly
reviewed by the Navy and will be
quantitatively incorporated into future
behavioral response functions, as
appropriate.
Comment 9: Regarding the behavioral
thresholds for explosives, a Commenter
recommends that NMFS estimate and
ultimately authorize behavior takes of
marine mammals during all explosive
activities, including those that involve
single detonations.
Response: The derivation of the
explosive injury criteria is provided in
the 2017 technical report titled Criteria
and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic
and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase
III), and NMFS has applied the general
rule the Commenter references to single
explosives for years, i.e., that marine
mammals are unlikely to respond to a
single instantaneous detonation in a
manner that would rise to the level of
a take. Neither NMFS nor the Navy are
aware of evidence to support the
assertion that animals will have
significant behavioral reactions (i.e.,
those that would rise to the level of a
take) to temporally and spatially
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
isolated explosions. The Navy has been
monitoring detonations since the 1990’s
and has not observed these types of
reactions. TTS and all other higher
order impacts are assessed for all
training and testing events that involve
the use of explosives or explosive
ordnance. All of Navy’s monitoring
projects, reports, and publications are
available on the marine species
monitoring web page (https://www.
navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/).
NMFS will continue to review
applicable monitoring and science data
and consider modifying these criteria
when and if new information suggests it
is appropriate.
Mortality and Injury Thresholds for
Explosions
Comment 10: A Commenter
recommends that NMFS require the
Navy to (1) explain why the constants
and exponents for onset mortality and
onset slight lung injury thresholds for
Phase III have been amended, (2) ensure
that the modified equations are correct,
and (3) specify any additional
assumptions that were made.
Response: The derivation of the
explosive injury equations, including
any assumptions, is provided in the
2017 technical report titled Criteria and
Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and
Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III). It
is our understanding that the constants
and exponents for onset mortality and
onset slight lung injury were amended
by the Navy since Phase II to better
account for the best available science.
Specifically, the equations were
modified in Phase III to fully
incorporate the injury model in
Goertner (1982), specifically to include
lung compression with depth. The
derivation of the Phase III equations and
all associated assumptions are fully
documented in the Navy’s 2017
technical report Criteria and Thresholds
for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive
Effects Analysis (Phase III). NMFS
independently reviewed and concurred
with this approach.
Comment 11: A Commenter
commented on circumstances of the
deaths of multiple common dolphins
during one of the Navy’s underwater
detonation events in March 2011 (Danil
and St. Leger 2011) and indicated that
the Navy’s mitigation measures are not
fully effective, especially for explosive
activities. The Commenter believes it
would be more prudent for the Navy to
estimate injuries and mortalities based
on onset rather than a 50-percent
incidence of occurrence. The Navy did
indicate that it is reasonable to assume
for its impact analysis—thus its take
estimation process—that extensive lung
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
hemorrhage is a level of injury that
would result in mortality for a wild
animal (U.S. Department of the Navy
2017a). Thus, the Commenters notes
that it is unclear why the Navy did not
follow through with that premise. The
Commenter recommends that NMFS use
onset mortality, onset slight lung injury,
and onset GI tract injury thresholds to
estimate both the numbers of marine
mammal takes and the respective ranges
to effect.
Response: Based on an extensive
review of the incident referred to by the
commenter, the Navy, in consultation
with NMFS, revised and updated the
mitigation for these types of events,
which did not previously include
consideration of the distance an animal
could travel while the detonation was
‘‘delayed.’’ There have been no further
incidents since these mitigation changes
were instituted.
The Navy used the range to one
percent risk of mortality, as well as
injury (referred to as ‘‘onset’’ in the
AFTT DEIS/OEIS), to inform the
development of mitigation ranges for
explosions. In all cases, the proposed
mitigation ranges for explosives extend
beyond the range to one percent risk of
non-auditory injury, even for a small
animal (representative mass = 5 kg). In
the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy clarified
that the ‘‘onset’’ non-auditory injury and
mortality criteria are actually one
percent risk criteria.
Over-predicting impacts, which
would occur with the use of one percent
non-auditory injury risk criteria in the
quantitative analysis, would not afford
extra protection to any animal. The
Navy, in coordination with NMFS, has
determined that the 50 percent
incidence of occurrence is a reasonable
mechanism for quantifying the likely
effect, given the use of mitigation zones
based on onset. Ranges to effect based
on one percent risk criteria were
examined to ensure that explosive
mitigation zones would encompass the
range to any potential mortality or nonauditory injury, affording actual
protection against these effects. NMFS
concurs with the Navy’s approach for
mitigating and quantifying injury and
mortality from explosives.
Although the commenter implies that
the Navy did not use extensive lung
hemorrhage as indicative of mortality,
that statement is incorrect. Extensive
lung hemorrhage is assumed to result in
mortality, and the explosive mortality
criteria are based on extensive lung
injury data. See the technical report
titled Criteria and Thresholds for U.S.
Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects
Analysis (Phase III).
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57113
Range to Effects
Comment 12: A Commenter notes an
apparent error in Table 6.4–3 of the
Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application and
recommends that NMFS determine what
the appropriate ranges to TTS should be
for bin LF5 and amend the ranges for
the various functional hearing groups in
the various tables accordingly.
Response: The error in the table has
been fixed; specifically, the ranges for
MF cetaceans have been revised. Note
that the distances are shorter than
initially provided in proposed rule,
indicating that the impacts of exposure
to this bin are fewer than initially
implied by the table. Regardless, the
error was only associated with the
information presented in this table;
there was no associated error in any
distances used in the take estimation,
and both the take estimates and our
findings remain the same.
Comment 13: A Commenter
recommends that the Navy use its
spatially and temporally dynamic
simulation models (e.g., randomlygenerated munition trajectories and
animat simulations) rather than simple
probability calculations to estimate
strike probabilities and number of takes
from expended munitions and nonexplosive materials.
Response: The recommendation of the
Commenter to use a dynamic simulation
model to estimate expended munitions
and non-explosive materials strike
probability was considered, but the
Navy found, and NMFS agrees, that
while the current analysis used in the
AFTT FEIS/OEIS is more conservative
and almost certainly over-estimates the
potential impacts to marine mammals, it
was preferable given the uncertainty
involved in the prediction. An analysis
of direct strike resulting from expended
materials conducted in a dynamic
simulation model such as NAEMO
would also be a probability analysis;
however, it would be conducted in a
different manner. The current analysis
provides an over-estimation of the
probability of a strike for the following
reasons: It (1) calculates the probability
of a single military item (of all the items
expended over the course of the year)
hitting a single animal at its species’
highest seasonal density; (2) does not
take into account the possibility that an
animal may avoid military activities; (3)
does not take into account the
possibility that an animal may not be at
the water surface; (4) does not take into
account that most projectiles fired
during training and testing activities are
fired at targets, and not all projectiles
would hit the water with their
maximum velocity and force; and (5)
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57114
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
does not quantitatively take into
account the Navy avoiding animals that
are sighted through the implementation
of mitigation measures. Given the
uncertainty, and in order to be more
conservative, NMFS and the Navy will
continue using this method.
Mitigation and Avoidance Calculations
Comment 14: Commenters cite
concerns that there was not enough
information by which to evaluate the
Navy’s post-modeling calculations to
account for mitigation and avoidance
and imply that Level A harassment
takes and mortality takes may be
underestimated. A Commenter
recommends that the Navy (1) provide
the total numbers of model-estimated
Level A harassment (PTS and slight
lung and GI injuries) and mortality takes
rather than reduce the estimated
numbers of takes based on the Navy’s
post-model analyses and (2) include the
model-estimated Level A harassment
and mortality takes in its rulemaking/
application to inform NMFS’ negligible
impact determination analyses.
Response: The consideration of
marine mammal avoidance and
mitigation effectiveness is integral to the
Navy’s overall analysis of impacts from
sonar and explosive sources. NMFS has
independently evaluated the method
and agrees that it is appropriately
applied to augment the model in the
prediction and authorization of injury
and mortality as described in the rule.
Details of this analysis are provided in
the Navy’s 2018 technical report titled
Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on
Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles:
Methods and Analytical Approach for
Phase III Training and Testing.
Sound levels diminish quickly below
levels that could cause PTS. Studies
have shown that all animals observed
avoid areas well beyond these zones;
therefore, the vast majority of animals
are likely to avoid sound levels that
could cause injury to their ear. As
discussed in the Navy’s 2018 technical
report titled Quantifying Acoustic
Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea
Turtles: Methods and Analytical
Approach for Phase III Training and
Testing, animats in the Navy’s acoustic
effects model do not move horizontally
or ‘‘react’’ to sound in any way. The
current best available science based on
a growing body of behavioral response
research shows that animals do in fact
avoid the immediate area around sound
sources to a distance of a few hundred
meters or more depending upon the
species. Avoidance to this distance
greatly reduces the likelihood of
impacts to hearing such as TTS and
PTS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Specifically, behavioral response
literature, including the recent 3S and
SOCAL BRS studies, indicate that the
multiple species from different cetacean
suborders do in fact avoid approaching
sound sources by a few hundred meters
or more, which would reduce received
sound levels for individual marine
mammals to levels below those that
could cause PTS. The ranges to PTS for
most marine mammal groups are within
a few tens of meters and the ranges for
the most sensitive group, the HF
cetaceans, average about 200 m, to a
maximum of 270 m in limited cases;
however HF cetaceans such as harbor
porpoises, have been observed reacting
to anthropogenic sound at greater
distances than other species and are
likely to avoid their zones to hearing
impacts (TTS and PTS) as well.
As discussed in the Navy’s 2018
technical report titled Quantifying
Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals
and Sea Turtles: Methods and
Analytical Approach for Phase III
Training and Testing, the Navy’s
acoustic effects model does not consider
procedural mitigations (i.e., powerdown or shut-down of sonars, or
pausing explosive activities when
animals are detected in specific zones
adjacent to the source), which
necessitates consideration of these
factors in the Navy’s overall acoustic
analysis. Credit taken for mitigation
effectiveness is extremely conservative.
For example, if Lookouts can see the
whole area, they get credit for it in the
calculation; if they can see more than
half the area, they get half credit; if they
can see less than half the area, they get
no credit. Not considering animal
avoidance and mitigation effectiveness
would lead to a great overestimate of
injurious impacts. NMFS concurs with
the analytical approach used.
Last, the Navy’s 2018 technical report
titled Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on
Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles:
Methods and Analytical Approach for
Phase III Training and Testing very
clearly explains in detail how species
sightability, the Lookout’s ability to
observe the range to PTS (for sonar and
other transducers) and mortality (for
explosives), the portion of time when
mitigation could potentially be
conducted during periods of reduced
daytime visibility (to include inclement
weather and high sea state) and the
portion of time when mitigation could
potentially be conducted at night, and
the ability for sound sources to be
positively controlled (powered down)
are considered in the post-modeling
calculation to account for mitigation
and avoidance. It is not necessary to
view the many tables of numbers
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
generated in the assessment to evaluate
the method.
Comment 15: A Commenter stated in
regards to the method in which the
Navy’s post-model calculation considers
avoidance specifically (i.e., assuming
animals present beyond the range of
PTS for the first few pings will be able
to avoid it and incur only TTS), given
that sound sources are moving, it may
not be until later in an exercise that the
animal is close enough to experience
PTS, and it is those few close pings that
contribute to the potential to experience
PTS. An animal being beyond the PTS
zone initially has no bearing on whether
it will come within close range later
during an exercise since both sources
and animals are moving. In addition,
Navy vessels may move faster than the
ability of the animals to evacuate the
area. The Navy should have been able
to query the dosimeters of the animats
to verify whether its five-percent
assumption was valid.
Response: The consideration of
marine mammals avoiding the area
immediately around the sound source is
provided in the Navy’s 2018 technical
report titled Quantitative Analysis for
Estimating Acoustic and Explosive
Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea
Turtles. As the Commenter correctly
articulates: ‘‘For avoidance, the Navy
assumed that animals present beyond
the range to onset PTS for the first three
to four pings are assumed to avoid any
additional exposures at levels that could
cause PTS. That equated to
approximately five percent of the total
pings or 5 percent of the overall time
active; therefore, 95 percent of marine
mammals predicted to experience PTS
due to sonar and other transducers were
instead assumed to experience TTS.’’ In
regard to the comment about vessels
moving faster than animals’ ability to
get out of the way, as discussed in the
Navy’s 2018 technical report titled
Quantitative Analysis for Estimating
Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to
Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles,
animats in the Navy’s acoustic effects
model do not move horizontally or
‘‘react’’ to sound in any way,
necessitating the additional step of
considering animal avoidance of closein PTS zones. NMFS independently
reviewed this approach and concurs
that it is fully supported by the best
available science. Based on a growing
body of behavioral response research,
animals do in fact avoid the immediate
area around sound sources to a distance
of a few hundred meters or more
depending upon the species. Avoidance
to this distance greatly reduces the
likelihood of impacts to hearing such as
TTS and PTS, respectively. Specifically,
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
the ranges to PTS for most marine
mammal groups are within a few tens of
meters and the ranges for the most
sensitive group, the HF cetaceans,
average about 200 m, to a maximum of
270 m in limited cases; however HF
cetaceans such as harbor porpoises have
been observed reacting to anthropogenic
sound at greater distances than other
species and are likely to avoid their
zones to hearing impacts (TTS and PTS)
as well. Querying the dosimeters of the
animats would not produce useful
information since, as discussed
previously, the animats do not move in
the horizontal and are not programmed
to ‘‘react’’ to sound or any other
stimulus.
Comment 16: A Commenter asserted
that the Navy’s adjustment of injury and
mortality numbers for ‘‘mitigation
effectiveness’’ is also problematic. The
analysis starts with species-specific g(0)
factors (probability of detection of
animals at zero distance) applied in
professional marine mammal abundance
surveys, then multiplies them by a
simple factor to reflect the relative
effectiveness of the Navy’s Lookouts in
routine operating conditions. Yet the
Navy’s sighting effectiveness is likely to
be much poorer than that of experienced
biologists dedicated exclusively to
marine mammal detection, operating
under conditions that maximize
sightings. As one recent paper observed,
for example, abundance survey rates
declined significantly as sea states rose
above Beaufort 1, and average Beaufort
sea states in the mid- and southeast
Atlantic average Beaufort 3–4
throughout the year (see Table 1). Given
this, it seems that Navy visual surveys
can seldom approximate the sighting
effectiveness of a large-vessel
abundance survey.
Response: Information about the
quantitative analysis process, including
the consideration of mitigation
effectiveness, is described in detail in
the 2018 technical report titled
Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on
Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles:
Methods and Analytical Approach for
Phase III Training and Testing. The
Navy quantitatively assessed the
effectiveness of its mitigation measures
on a per-scenario basis using four
factors: (1) Species sightability, (2) a
Lookout’s ability to observe the range to
permanent threshold shift (for sonar and
other transducers) and range to
mortality (for explosives), (3) the
portion of time when mitigation could
potentially be conducted during periods
of reduced daytime visibility (to include
inclement weather and high sea-state)
and the portion of time when mitigation
could potentially be conducted at night,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
and (4) the ability for sound sources to
be positively controlled (e.g., powered
down). The g(0) values used by the
Navy for their mitigation effectiveness
adjustments take into account the
differences in sightability with sea state,
and utilize averaged g(0) values for sea
states of 1–4 and weighted as suggested
by Barlow (2015). This helps to account
for reduced sightability in varying
conditions, as does the fact that, during
active sonar activities, Navy Lookouts
tend to look in the water near the vessel,
within 1 km, rather than out to the
horizon as Marine Mammal Observers
(MMO) do. During training and testing
activities, there is typically at least one,
if not numerous, support personnel
involved in the activity (e.g., range
support personnel aboard a torpedo
retrieval boat or support aircraft). In
addition to the Lookout posted for the
purpose of mitigation, these additional
personnel observe for and disseminate
marine species sighting information
amongst the units participating in the
activity whenever possible as they
conduct their primary mission
responsibilities. However, as a
conservative approach to assigning
mitigation effectiveness factors, the
Navy elected to account only for the
minimum number of required Lookouts
used for each activity; therefore, the
mitigation effectiveness factors may
underestimate the likelihood that some
marine mammals (as well as sea turtles)
may be detected during activities that
are supported by additional personnel
who may also be observing the
mitigation zone. NMFS independently
reviewed and concurs with this
analysis.
Comment 17: A Commenter
comments on the potential for serious
injury and mortality that could occur in
the event of a ship strike or as a result
of marine mammal exposure to
explosive detonations (ship shock trials)
and suggests that NMFS’ prediction that
only these few takes will result from
Navy’s thousands of hours of training
and testing activities has misrepresented
the science. Specifically, the
Commenter discusses the risk of ship
strike to NARW and suggested that it
appears as a glaring omission from the
list of species authorized for lethal take.
While the Commenter concurred with
NMFS’ refusal to authorize a single ship
strike to the NARW, they do not share
the agency’s level of confidence that the
Navy will be able to effectively mitigate
the potential for a ship strike to occur.
They further suggest that NMFS has
failed to consider the indirect effects of
noise on ship-strike risk. They also
assert that indirect ship strike risk
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57115
resulting from habitat displacement
must be accounted for in NMFS’
analysis. The Commenter recommends
additional mitigation measures slowing
ships to 10 kn.
Response: As described in greater
detail in the Take from Vessel Strikes
section of the final rule, although
NMFS’ analysis shows that NARWs
have a low probability of being struck
even one time within the five-year
period of the rule when strikes across all
activity types (including non-Navy) are
considered (10.11 percent, lower than
all other stocks except North Atlantic
sperm whales), when the enhanced
mitigation measures the Navy will
implement for NARWs are considered
in combination with this low
probability, the Navy and NMFS have
determined that a vessel strike is highly
unlikely and, therefore, it was not
requested and is not authorized.
In addition to procedural mitigation,
the Navy will limit MTEs and
implement additional protective
measures in mitigation areas used by
NARW for foraging, calving, and
migration (where individuals are
concentrated and more likely to be
struck). These measures, which go
above and beyond those focused on
other species (e.g., funding of and
communication with sightings systems,
implementation of speed reductions
during applicable circumstances in
certain areas) have helped the Navy
avoid striking a NARW during training
and testing activities in the past; and
eliminate the potential for future strikes
to occur in the five years of the rule. In
particular, the mitigation pertaining to
communication among vessels,
including the continued participation in
and sponsoring of the Early Warning
System (EWS, a comprehensive
information exchange network
dedicated to reducing the risk of vessel
strikes to NARW in the Southeast) and
NOAA’s NARW Sighting Advisory
System in the Northeast, will help Navy
vessels avoid NARW during transits and
training and testing activities.
Implementation of these measures is
expected to significantly reduce the
probability of striking this particular
species during the five-year period of
the rule. Further, the Navy has agreed to
expand the requirement for Navy
vessels to contact the EWS from just the
NARW ESA-designated critical habitat
to the entire Jacksonville OPAREA.
Additionally the Navy has developed a
new mitigation measure to broadcast
Dynamic Management Area information
based on potential changes in NARW
distribution. Platforms will use
Dynamic Management Area information
to assist their visual observation of
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57116
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
applicable mitigation zones during
training and testing activities. This will
make units even more aware of NARW
aggregations to better plan and conduct
activities to minimize interactions with
this species. Not only will this
mitigation measure help the Navy
further avoid or reduce potential
impacts on NARW from vessel
movements, it will also help aid the
implementation of applicable
procedural mitigation measures for
acoustic, explosive, and physical
disturbance and strike stressors when
Dynamic Management Areas are in
effect.
Ship strikes are a fluke encounter for
which the probability can never be zero
for any vessel. However, the probability
for any particular ship striking a marine
mammal is primarily a product of the
ability of the ship to detect a marine
mammal and the ability to effectively
act to avoid it. Navy combat ships are
inherently among the best at both of
these abilities because compared to
large commercial vessels, they have
trained Lookouts which have received
specialized MMO training and the most
maneuverable ships, which means that
they are more likely to sight a marine
mammal and more likely to be able to
maneuver to avoid it in the available
time—both of which decrease the
probability of striking a marine mammal
below what it would have been in the
absence of those abilities. In the case of
the NARW, the extensive
communication/detection network
described above, which is in use in the
areas of highest NARW occurrence and
where they may be more susceptible to
strike, further increases the likelihood of
detecting a NARW and thereby avoiding
it, which further reduces the probability
of NARW strike. Because of these
additional mitigation measures
combined with the already low
probability that a NARW will be struck,
it is extremely unlikely the Navy will
strike a NARW and mortality/serious
injury of a NARW from vessel strike is
neither anticipated nor authorized.
Regarding the likelihood of mortality
from explosives, the Commenter does
not offer any data or rationale to support
the assertion that NMFS has
underestimated the mortality from
explosives. The analysis and estimates
contained in the final rule are based on
the best available science and accurately
represent the appropriate take numbers
for mortality and injury from explosives.
Underestimated Beaked Whale Injury
and Mortality
Comment 18: A Commenter claims
that NMFS is underestimating serious
injury and mortality for beaked whales.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
They note the statement in the proposed
rule that because a causal relationship
between Navy MFAS use and beaked
whale strandings has not been
established in all instances, and that, in
some cases, sonar was considered to be
only one of several factors that, in
aggregate, may have contributed to the
stranding event, NMFS does ‘‘not expect
strandings, serious injury, or mortality
of beaked whales to occur as a result of
training activities.’’ (83 FR 11084). This
opinion is inconsistent with best
available science and does not take into
account the fact that the leading
explanation for the mechanism of sonarrelated injuries—that whales suffer from
bubble growth in organs that is similar
to decompression sickness, or ‘‘the
bends’’ in human divers—has now been
supported by numerous papers. At the
same time, the commenter argues that
NMFS fails to seriously acknowledge
that sonar can seriously injure or kill
marine mammals at distances well
beyond those established for permanent
hearing loss (83 FR 10999) and
dismisses the risk of stranding and other
mortality events (83 FR 11084) based on
the argument that such effects can
transpire only under the same set of
circumstances that occurred during
known sonar-related events—an
assumption that is arbitrary and
capricious. In conclusion, they argue
that none of NMFS’ assumptions
regarding the expected lack of serious
injury and mortality for beaked whales
are supported by the record, and all lead
to an underestimation of impacts.
Response: The Commenter’s
characterization of NMFS’ analysis is
incorrect. NMFS does not disregard the
fact that it is possible for naval activities
using hull-mounted tactical sonar to
contribute to the death of marine
mammals in certain circumstances (that
are not present in the AFTT Study Area)
via strandings resulting from
behaviorally mediated physiological
impacts or other gas-related injuries.
NMFS discusses these potential causes
and outlines the few cases where active
naval sonar (in the U.S. or, largely,
elsewhere) has either potentially
contributed to or (as with the Bahamas
example) been more definitively
causally linked with marine mammal
strandings. As noted, there are a suite of
factors that have been associated with
these specific cases of strandings
directly associated with sonar (steep
bathymetry, multiple hull-mounted
platforms using sonar simultaneously,
constricted channels, strong surface
ducts, etc.) that are not present together
in the AFTT Study Area and during the
specified activities (and which the Navy
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
takes care across the world not to
operate under without additional
monitoring). Further, there have never
been any strandings associated with
Navy sonar use in the AFTT Study Area.
For these reasons, NMFS does not
anticipate that the Navy’s AFTT training
or testing activities will result in marine
mammal strandings, and none are
authorized.
Ship Strike
Comment 19: A Commenter asserted
that the Navy’s analysis, which NMFS
used to support its vessel-strike analysis
in the rule, does not address the
potential for increased strike risk by
non-Navy vessels as a consequence of
acoustic disturbance. For example, some
types of anthropogenic noise have been
shown to induce near-surfacing
behavior in NARW, increasing the risk
of ship-strike at relatively moderate
levels of exposure. An analysis based on
reported strikes by Navy vessels does
not account for this additional risk. In
assessing ship-strike risk, the Navy
should include offsets to account for
potentially undetected and unreported
collisions.
Response: There is no evidence that
Navy training and testing activities (or
other acoustic activities) increase the
risk of nearby non-Navy vessels (or
other nearby Navy vessels not involved
in the referenced training or testing)
striking marine mammals. Further, any
increase in the probability of hitting a
NARW resulting from this speculated
effect would already inherently be
accounted for in the probability
included in our analysis, which is based
on the actual estimated number of
NARW strikes (which accounts for
unreported non-Navy vessel strikes).
Lastly, the anthropogenic noise signal
referred to in the comment was
developed specifically to elicit a
response from NARWs. This type of
signal is not analogous to any sound
source used by Navy.
Comment 20: A Commenter asserts
that NMFS and the Navy’s analyses fail
to account for the likelihood that the
number of ship strikes are grossly
underestimated because some animals
are struck and not recovered or
reported.
Response: While NMFS agrees that
broadly speaking the number of total
ship strikes may be underestimated due
to incomplete information from other
sectors (shipping, etc.), NMFS is
confident that whales struck by Navy
vessels are detected and reported, and
Navy strikes are the numbers used in
NMFS’ analysis to support the
authorized number of strikes. Navy
ships have multiple Lookouts, including
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
on the forward part of the ship that can
visually detect a hit whale (which has
occasionally occurred), in the unlikely
event ship personnel do not feel the
strike. Navy’s strict internal procedures
and implementation of past mitigation
measures require reporting of any vessel
strikes of marine mammals and the
Navy’s discipline and chain of
command give NMFS a high level of
confidence that all strikes actually get
reported. Accordingly, NMFS is
confident that the information used to
support the analysis is accurate and
complete.
Mitigation and Monitoring
Least Practicable Adverse Impact
Determination
Comment 21: A Commenter
comments that deaths of or serious
injuries to marine mammals that occur
pursuant to activities conducted under
an incidental take authorization, while
perhaps negligible to the overall health
and productivity of the species or stock
and of little consequence at that level,
nevertheless are clearly adverse to the
individuals involved and results in
some quantifiable (though negligible)
adverse impact on the population; it
reduces the population to some degree.
Under the least practicable adverse
impact requirement, and more generally
under the purposes and policies of the
MMPA, the Commenter asserts that
Congress embraced a policy to
minimize, whenever practicable, the
risk of killing or seriously injuring a
marine mammal incidental to an
activity subject to section 101(a)(5)(A),
including providing measures in an
authorization to eliminate or reduce the
likelihood of lethal taking. The
Commenter recommends that NMFS
address this point explicitly in its
analysis and clarify whether it agrees
that the incidental serious injury or
death of a marine mammal always
should be considered an adverse impact
for purposes of applying the least
practicable adverse impact standard.
Response: NMFS disagrees that it is
necessary or helpful to explicitly
address the point the Commenter raises
in the general description of the LPAI
standard. The discussion of this
standard already notes that there can be
population-level impacts that fall below
the ‘‘negligible’’ standard, but that are
still appropriate to mitigate under the
LPAI standard. It is always NMFS’
practice to mitigate mortality to the
greatest degree possible, as death is the
impact that is most easily linked to
reducing the probability of adverse
impacts to populations. However, we
cannot agree that one mortality will
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
always decrease any population in a
quantifiable or meaningful way. For
example, for very large populations, one
mortality may fall well within typical
known annual variation and not have
any effect on population rates. Further,
we do not understand the problem that
the Commenter’s recommendation is
attempting to fix. Applicants generally
do not express reluctance to mitigate
mortality, and we believe that
modifications of this nature would
confuse the issue.
Comment 22: A Commenter
recommends that NMFS address the
habitat component of the least
practicable adverse impact provision in
greater detail. It asserts that NMFS’
discussion of ESA-designated critical
habitat, marine sanctuaries, and BIAs in
the proposed rule is not integrated with
the discussion of the least practicable
adverse impact standard. It would seem
that, under the least practicable adverse
impact provision, adverse impacts on
important habitat should be avoided
whenever practicable. Therefore, to the
extent that activities would be allowed
to proceed in these areas, NMFS should
explain why it is not practicable to
constrain them further.
Response: Marine mammal habitat
value is informed by marine mammal
presence and use and, in some cases,
there may be overlap in measures for the
species or stock directly and for use of
habitat. In this rule, we have identified
time-area mitigations based on a
combination of factors that include
higher densities and observations of
specific important behaviors of marine
mammals themselves, but also that
clearly reflect preferred habitat (e.g.,
feeding areas in the Northeast, NARW
calving areas in the Southeast). In
addition to being delineated based on
physical features that drive habitat
function (e.g., bathymetric features,
among others for some BIAs), the high
densities and concentration of certain
important behaviors (e.g., feeding) in
these particular areas clearly indicate
the presence of preferred habitat. The
Commenter seems to suggest that NMFS
must always consider separate measures
aimed at marine mammal habitat;
however, the MMPA does not specify
that effects to habitat must be mitigated
in separate measures, and NMFS has
clearly identified measures that provide
significant reduction of impacts to both
‘‘marine mammal species and stocks
and their habitat,’’ as required by the
statute.
Comment 23: A Commenter
recommends that NMFS rework its
evaluation criteria for applying the least
practicable adverse impact standard to
separate the factors used to determine
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57117
whether a potential impact on marine
mammals or their habitat is adverse and
whether possible mitigation measures
would be effective. In this regard, the
Commenter asserts that it seems as
though the proposed ‘‘effectiveness’’
criterion more appropriately fits as an
element of practicability and should be
addressed under that prong of the
analysis. In other words, a measure not
expected to be effective should not be
considered a practicable means of
reducing impacts.
Response: In the Mitigation Measures
section, NMFS has explained in detail
our interpretation of the LPAI standard,
the rationale for our interpretation, and
our approach for implementing our
interpretation. The ability of a measure
to reduce effects on marine mammals is
entirely related to its ‘‘effectiveness’’ as
a measure, whereas the effectiveness of
a measure is not connected to its
practicability. The Commenter provides
no support for its argument, and NMFS
has not implemented the Commenter’s
suggestion.
Comment 24: A Commenter
recommends that NMFS recast its
conclusions to provide sufficient detail
as to why additional measures either are
not needed (i.e., there are no remaining
adverse impacts) or would not be
practicable to implement. The
Commenter states that the most
concerning element of NMFS’
implementation of the least practicable
adverse impact standard is its
suggestion that the mitigation measures
proposed by the Navy will sufficiently
reduce impacts on the affected mammal
species and stocks and their habitats (83
FR 11045). That phrase suggests that
NMFS is applying a ‘‘good-enough’’
standard to the Navy’s activities. Under
the statutory criteria, however, those
proposed measures are ‘‘sufficient’’ only
if they have either (1) eliminated all
adverse impacts on marine mammal
species and stocks and their habitat or
(2) if adverse impacts remain, it is
impracticable to reduce them further.
Response: The statement that the
Commenter references does not indicate
that NMFS applies a ‘‘good-enough’’
standard to determining least
practicable adverse impact. Rather, it
indicates that the mitigation measures
are sufficient to meet the statutory legal
standard. In addition, as NMFS has
explained in our description of the least
practicable adverse impact standard,
NMFS does not view the necessary
analysis through the yes/no lens that the
Commenter seeks to prescribe. Rather,
NMFS’ least practicable adverse impact
analysis considers both the reduction of
adverse effects and the practicability.
Further, since the proposed rule was
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57118
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
published, the Navy and NMFS have
evaluated additional measures in the
context of both their practicability and
their ability to further reduce impacts to
marine mammals and have determined
that the addition of several measures
(see Mitigation Measures) is appropriate.
Regardless, beyond these new
additional measures, where the Navy’s
AFTT activities are concerned, the Navy
has indicated that further procedural or
area mitigation of any kind (beyond that
prescribed in this final rule) would be
entirely impracticable.
Comment 25: A Commenter
recommends that any ‘‘formal
interpretation’’ of the least practicable
adverse impact standard by NMFS be
issued in a stand-alone, generally
applicable rulemaking (e.g., in
amendments to 50 CFR 216.103 or
216.105) or in a separate policy
directive, rather than in the preambles
to individual proposed rules.
Response: We appreciate the
Commenter’s recommendation and may
consider the recommended approaches
in the future. We note, however, that
providing relevant explanations in a
proposed incidental take rule is an
effective and efficient way to provide
information to the reader and solicit
focused input from the public, and
ultimately affords the same
opportunities for public comment as a
stand-alone rulemaking would. NMFS
has provided similar explanations of the
least practicable adverse impact
standard in other recent section
101(a)(5)(A) rules, including: U.S. Navy
Operations of Surveillance Towed Array
Sensor System Low Frequency Active
(SURTASS LFA) Sonar; Geophysical
Surveys Related to Oil and Gas
Activities in the GOMEX; and the
proposed rule for U.S. Navy Training
and Testing in the Hawaii-Southern
California Training and Testing (HSTT)
Study Area.
Comment 26: A Commenter cites two
judicial decisions and comments that
while there have been some
improvements in mitigation relative to
NMFS’ 2013–2018 final rule for AFTT
activities, the ‘‘least practicable adverse
impact’’ standard has not been met. The
Commenter asserts, for example, that if
in prescribing protective measures in
important habitat NMFS concludes after
careful analysis that complete exclusion
of unit-level sonar training from the area
is not practicable, the agency should
consider what reductions in activity are
practicable, as by looking at particular
types of exercises or testing activities or
by limiting the amount of activity that
can take place. The Commenter argues
that the MMPA sets forth a ‘‘stringent
standard’’ for mitigation that requires
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
the agency to minimize impacts to the
lowest practicable level, and that the
agency must conduct its own analysis
and clearly articulate it: it ‘‘cannot just
parrot what the Navy says.’’
Response: NMFS disagrees with much
of what the Commenter asserts. When a
suggested or recommended mitigation
measure is impracticable, NMFS has
explored variations of that mitigation to
determine if a practicable form of
related mitigation exists. This is clearly
illustrated in NMFS’ independent
mitigation analysis process explained in
this rule. First, the type of mitigation
required varies by mitigation area,
demonstrating that NMFS has engaged
in a site-specific analysis to ensure
mitigation is tailored only when
practicability demands, i.e., some forms
of mitigation were practicable in some
areas but not others. Other examples of
NMFS’ analysis on this issue appear
throughout the rule. For instance, while
it was not practicable for the Navy to
expand the SE NARW Mitigation Area
to the full extent recommended, the
Navy did agree to some expansion of the
SE NARW Mitigation Area to provide
better protection. Additionally, while
the Navy cannot alleviate all training in
the NE NARW Mitigation Area due to
changes in requirements, Navy removed
one impactful testing activity (four
events) that reduced takes for NARW
and other species significantly.
Nonetheless, NMFS agrees that the
agency must conduct its own analysis,
which it has done here, and not just
accept what is provided by the Navy.
That does not mean, however, that
NMFS cannot review the Navy’s
analysis of effectiveness and
practicability, and concur with those
aspects of the Navy’s analysis with
which NMFS agrees. The Commenter
seems to suggest that NMFS must
describe in the rule in detail the
rationale for not adopting every
conceivable permutation of mitigation,
which is neither reasonable nor required
by the MMPA. NMFS has described our
well-reasoned process for identifying
the measures needed to meet the LPAI
standard in the Mitigation Measures
section in this rule, and we have
followed the approach described there
when analyzing potential mitigation for
the Navy’s activities in the AFTT Study
Area. Discussion regarding specific
recommendations for mitigation
measures provided by the Commenter
on the proposed rule are discussed
separately.
Procedural Mitigation Effectiveness and
Recommendations
Comment 27: A Commenter
commented that the Phase III proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
mitigation zones would not protect
various functional hearing groups from
PTS. For example, the mitigation zone
for an explosive sonobuoy is 549 m but
the mean PTS zones range from 2,205–
3,324 m for HF cetaceans and 308–1,091
m for LF cetaceans. Similarly, the
mitigation zone for an explosive torpedo
is 1,920 m but the mean PTS zones
range from 13,105–14,627 m for HF
cetaceans, 3,133–3,705 m for LF
cetaceans, and 3,072–3,232 for
pinnipeds in water (PW). Mitigation
effectiveness is further complicated
when platforms fire munitions (e.g., for
missiles and rockets) at targets 28 to 140
km away from the firing platform, as
described in the AFTT DEIS/OEIS. An
aircraft would clear the target area well
before it positions itself at the launch
location and launches the missile or
rocket. Ships, on the other hand, do not
clear the target area before launching the
missile or rocket. In either case, marine
mammals could be present in the target
area at the time of the launch
unbeknownst to the Navy.
Response: NMFS is aware that some
mitigation zones do not fully cover the
area in which an animal from a certain
hearing group may incur PTS. For this
small subset of circumstances, NMFS
discussed potential enlargement of the
mitigation zones with the Navy but
concurred with the Navy’s assessment
that further enlargement would be
impracticable. Specifically, the Navy
explained that explosive mitigation
zones, as discussed in Chapter 5 of the
AFTT FEIS/OEIS, any additional
increases in mitigation zone size
(beyond what is depicted for each
explosive activity), or additional
observation requirements would be
impracticable to implement due to
implications for safety, sustainability,
the Navy’s ability to meet Title 10
requirements to successfully accomplish
military readiness objectives, and the
Navy’s ability to conduct testing
associated with required acquisition
milestones or as required on an asneeded basis to meet operational
requirements. Additionally, Navy
Senior Leadership has approved and
determined that the mitigation detailed
in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the AFTT
FEIS/OEIS provides the greatest extent
of protection that is practicable to
implement. The absence of mitigation to
avoid all Level A harassment in some of
these circumstances has been analyzed,
however, and the Navy is authorized for
any of these Level A harassment takes
that may occur.
Comment 28: A Commenter believes
that rather than simply reducing the size
of the mitigation zones it plans to
monitor, the Navy should supplement
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
its visual monitoring efforts with other
monitoring measures. Specifically, the
Commenter further suggests that
sonobuoys could be deployed with the
target in the various target areas prior to
the activity for the Navy to better
determine whether the target area is
clear and remains clear until the
munition is launched. The Commenter
also suggests that the Navy’s
instrumented Undersea Warfare
Training Range (USWTR) could be used
for real-time mitigation and refers to
Navy-cited improvements in the use of
other ranges for monitoring. The Navy
did propose to supplement visual
monitoring with passive acoustic
monitoring during three explosive
activity types but not during the
remaining explosive activities or during
low-, mid-, and high-frequency active
sonar activities. Further, the Commenter
recommends that NMFS require the
Navy to use passive and active acoustic
monitoring, whenever practicable, to
supplement visual monitoring during
the implementation of its mitigation
measures for all activities that could
cause injury or mortality beyond those
explosive activities for which passive
acoustic monitoring already was
proposed. This includes use of the
instrumented USWTR in the coming
years.
Response: For explosive mitigation
zones, as discussed in Chapter 5 of the
AFTT FEIS/OEIS, any additional
increases in mitigation zone size
(beyond what is depicted for each
explosive activity) or observation
requirements would be impracticable to
implement due to implications for
safety, sustainability, and the Navy’s
ability to meet Title 10 requirements to
successfully accomplish military
readiness objectives. We do note,
however, that since the proposed rule,
the Navy has committed to
implementing pre-event observations for
all in-water explosives events (including
some that were not previously
monitored) and to using additional
platforms if available in the vicinity of
the detonation area to help with this
monitoring.
As discussed in the comment, the
Navy does employ passive acoustic
monitoring when practicable to do so
(i.e., when assets that have passive
acoustic monitoring capabilities are
already participating in the activity). For
other explosive events, there are no
platforms participating that have
passive acoustic monitoring capabilities.
Adding a passive acoustic monitoring
capability (either by adding a passive
acoustic monitoring device to a platform
already participating in the activity, or
by adding a platform with integrated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
passive acoustic monitoring capabilities
to the activity, such as a sonobuoy) for
mitigation is not practicable. As
discussed in Section 5.5.3 (Active and
Passive Acoustic Monitoring Devices) of
the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, there are
significant manpower and logistical
constraints that make constructing and
maintaining additional passive acoustic
monitoring systems or platforms for
each training and testing activity
impracticable. Additionally, diverting
platforms that have passive acoustic
monitoring platforms would impact
their ability to meet their Title 10
requirements and reduce the service life
of those systems.
Regarding the use of instrumented
ranges such as USTWR for real-time
mitigation, the commenter is correct
that the Navy continues to develop the
technology and capabilities on their
Ranges for use in marine mammal
monitoring, which can be effectively
compared to operational information
after the fact to gain information
regarding marine mammal response,
and occasionally used to support smallscale real-time mitigation. However, as
discussed above, the manpower and
logistical complexity involved in
detecting and localizing marine
mammals in relation to multiple fastmoving sound source platforms in order
to implement real-time mitigation is
significant. USWTR is not scheduled to
go active until late 2019 (half of
USWTR); however, the Navy continues
to explore mechanisms by which the
Range will contribute to marine
mammal mitigation and monitoring.
Lastly, the mitigation zones for active
sonar systems encompass the ranges to
potential injury.
Comment 29: A Commenter
recommends that NMFS require the
Navy to conduct additional pre-activity
overflights before conducting any
activities involving detonations barring
any safety issues (e.g., low fuel), as well
as post-activity monitoring for activities
involving medium- and large caliber
projectiles, missiles, rockets, and
bombs.
Response: The Navy has agreed to
implement pre-event observation
mitigation, as well as post-event
observation, for all in-water explosive
events. If there are other platforms
participating in these events and in the
vicinity of the detonation area, they will
also visually observe this area as part of
the mitigation team.
Comment 30: A Commenter discusses
that since 2010, the Navy has been
collaborating with researchers at the
University of St. Andrews to study Navy
Lookout effectiveness. The Navy does
not appear to have mentioned that study
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57119
in its AFTT DEIS/OEIS for Phase III and
NMFS did not discuss it in the rule. For
its Phase II DEISs, the Navy noted that
data collected in that study were
insufficient to yield statistically
significant results. Nevertheless, the
Commenter continues to consider the
basic information provided by the
studies to be useful and cites several
specific instances where MMOs sighted
marine mammals that were not sighted
by Navy Lookouts.
Response: The Lookout effectiveness
study that the Commenter references is
still ongoing. This type of study has
never been conducted, is extremely
complex to ensure data validity, and
requires a substantial amount of data to
conduct meaningful statistical analysis.
The Navy has stated that it is committed
to completing it; however, as noted by
the Commenter, there has not been
enough data collected to conduct a
sufficient analysis. Therefore drawing
conclusions from an incomplete data set
is not scientifically valid.
Comment 31: A Commenter
commented that NMFS should increase
the exclusion zone to the 120 dB
isopleth. Since some animals are
sensitive to sonar at low levels of
exposure, the exclusion zone should
ensure lower exposure than 120 dB.
Additionally, there should be buffer
zones along the boundaries of the
mitigation areas to ensure that the
mitigation areas are not exposed to
sources higher than the 120 dB.
Response: First, it is important to note
that the Commenter is suggesting that
NMFS require mitigation that would
eliminate all take, which is not what the
applicable standard requires. Rather,
NMFS is required to put in place
measures that effect the ‘‘least
practicable adverse impact.’’ Separately,
NMFS acknowledges that some marine
mammals may respond to sound at 120
dB in some circumstances; however,
based on the best available data, only a
subset of those exposed at that low level
respond in a manner that would be
considered harassment under the
MMPA. NMFS and the Navy have
quantified those individuals of certain
stocks where appropriate, analyzed the
impacts, and authorized them where
needed. Further, NMFS and the Navy
have identified exclusion zone sizes that
are best suited to minimize impacts to
marine mammal species and stocks and
their habitat while also being
practicable (see Mitigation Measures
section of this rule). Buffer zones are
addressed in Comment 50.
Comment 32: A Commenter
recommended NMFS impose a 10 kn
ship speed in biologically important
areas for marine mammals to reduce
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57120
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
vessel strikes and that NMFS should
mandate that ship speed be reduced to
a maximum of 10 kn in mitigation areas
or in the presence of marine mammals
to decrease the probability of strikes and
decrease sound disturbance from
engines.
Response: This issue is addressed
elsewhere in the Comments and
Responses section and for specific
mitigation areas, but we also reiterate
here that the Navy has applied
conditional ship-speed restrictions in
the areas where it is practicable.
However, generally speaking, it is
impracticable (because of impacts to
mission effectiveness) to further reduce
ship speeds for Navy activities, and,
moreover, given the maneuverability of
Navy ships at higher speeds and
effective Lookouts, any further
reduction in speed would reduce the
already low probability of ship strike
little, if any.
Mitigation Areas
Introduction
The Navy included a comprehensive
proposal of mitigation measures in their
initial application that included
procedural mitigations that reduce the
likelihood of mortality, injury, hearing
impairment, and more severe behavioral
responses for most species. The Navy
also included time/area mitigation that
further protects areas where important
behaviors are conducted and/or
sensitive species congregate, which
reduces the likelihood of takes that are
likely to impact reproduction or
survival (as described in the Mitigation
Measures section of the final rule and
the Navy’s application). As a general
matter, where an applicant proposes
measures that are likely to reduce
impacts to marine mammals, the fact
that they are included in the proposal
and application indicates that the
measures are practicable, and it is not
necessary for NMFS to conduct a
detailed analysis of the measures the
applicant proposed (rather, they are
simply included). However, it is
necessary for NMFS to consider whether
there are additional practicable
measures that could also contribute to
the reduction of adverse effects on the
species or stocks through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
In the case of the Navy’s application,
NMFS raised potential additional
mitigation measures for consideration,
and discussion between the Navy and
NMFS of the multiple factors
considered in a least practicable adverse
impact analysis resulted in the
expansion of the SE NARW Mitigation
Area by 500 mi2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
During the public comment period on
the proposed rule, NMFS received
numerous recommendations for the
Navy to implement additional
mitigation measures, both procedural
and time/area limitations. Extensive
discussion of the recommended
mitigation measures in the context of
the factors considered in the least
practicable adverse impact analysis
(considered in the Mitigation Measures
section of the final rule and described
below), as well as considerations of
alternate iterations or portions of the
recommended measures considered to
better address practicability concerns,
resulted in the addition of several
procedural mitigations and expansion of
multiple time/area mitigations (see the
Mitigation Measures section in the final
rule). These additional areas reflect, for
example, the concerning stock status of
the NARW and Bryde’s whales (which
resulted in expanded time/area
mitigation), focus on areas where
important behaviors and habitat are
found (which resulted in NARW
mitigation areas expanded to better
reflect ESA-designated critical habitat in
the Southeast calving area and
Northeast feeding areas), and
enhancement of the Navy’s ability to
detect and reduce injury and mortality
(which resulted in expanded monitoring
before and after explosive events and
movement of ship shock trials outside of
Bryde’s whale areas and the MidAtlantic Planning Awareness Mitigation
Areas). Through extensive discussion,
NMFS and the Navy worked to identify
and prioritize additional mitigation
measures that are likely to reduce
impacts on marine mammal species or
stocks and their habitat and are also
possible for the Navy to implement.
Ultimately, the Navy adopted all
mitigation measures that are possible
without jeopardizing their mission and
Title 10 responsibilities. In other words,
a comprehensive assessment by Navy
leadership of the final, entire list of
mitigation measures concluded that the
inclusion of any further mitigation
beyond those measures identified here
in the final rule would be entirely
impracticable. Below is additional
discussion regarding specific
recommendations for mitigation
measures.
Mitigation Area Recommendations
Comment 33: In several places in their
comment letter, a Commenter
recommends that the Navy use an
approach similar to that of the
settlement agreement in Conservation
Council for Hawaii v. NMFS, 97 F.Supp.
3d 1210 (D. Haw. 2015), which, while
barring or restricting active sonar and
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
explosives activities, reserved the
Navy’s authority to proceed regardless,
provided that certain conditions were
met: (1) That the Navy deemed the
activity necessary for national defense;
(2) that the authority could be invoked
only by the highest Command authority;
and (3) that any invocation of the
authority be reported to NMFS and,
through the Navy’s Annual and FiveYear Exercise Reports, to the public.
Response: Following the publication
of the 2013 HSTT Study Area MMPA
incidental take rule, a settlement
agreement that resulted from the
litigation prohibited or restricted Navy
activities within specific areas in the
HSTT Study Area. As a general note, the
provisional prohibitions and restrictions
on activities within the HSTT Study
Area were derived pursuant to
negotiations with the plaintiffs in that
case and were specifically not evaluated
or selected based on the type of
thorough examination of best available
science that occurs through the
rulemaking process under the MMPA,
or through related analyses conducted
under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) or the ESA. The
agreement did not constitute a
concession by the Navy as to the
potential impacts of Navy activities on
marine mammals or any other marine
species. Furthermore, the Navy’s
adoption of restrictions on its HSTT
activities as part of a relatively shortterm settlement does not mean that
those restrictions are necessarily
supported by the best available science,
likely to reduce impacts to marine
mammals species or stocks and their
habitat, or practicable to implement
from a military readiness standpoint
over the longer term in either the HSTT
Study Area or other Study Areas,
including AFTT. The Fleet Commander
and senior Navy leadership have
approved the mitigation and explicitly
determined that this is the maximum
amount of mitigation that is practicable
to implement. Permission schemes
would impede on commanding officers
who are empowered to train their crews
and operate their vessels to maintain
readiness and ensure personnel safety.
North Atlantic Right Whale
Comment 34: As a general matter,
several comments were provided in
regards to the NARW.
Response: NMFS appreciates the
concerns expressed by Commenters
regarding NARW in the Northeast in
their feeding and mating areas and along
the Atlantic Coast during migration, as
well as in the Southeast during calving.
As an agency, NMFS is working to
address the numerous issues facing
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
NARW, including continued work to
reduce deaths due to ship strike by nonmilitary vessels and entanglement in
fishing gear, ongoing investigation of the
Unusual Mortality Event (UME), and
other measures to investigate and
address the status of the species. The
best available scientific information
shows that the majority of NARW
sightings in the Southeast occur in
NARW calving areas from roughly
November through April, with
individual NARWs migrating to and
from these areas through Mid-Atlantic
shelf waters.
Since the proposed rule, the Navy has
expanded the NE NARW Mitigation
Area to match designated ESAdesignated critical habitat in the
Northeast. This further minimizes
LFAS/MFAS/HFAS and explosives in
the mitigation area year-round and
incorporates mitigation measures to
avoid ship strike to NARW (which will
also reduce potentially ship strike to
other large whales). The Navy will
obtain Early Warning System NARW
sightings data in the Jacksonville
Operating Area and report this
information to all units to help vessels
and aircraft reduce potential
interactions with NARW. The Navy will
also broadcast awareness notification
messages with NARW Dynamic
Management Area information (e.g.,
location and dates) to applicable Navy
assets operating in the vicinity of the
Dynamic Management Area. The Navy
added the SE NARW Critical Habitat
Special Reporting Area and will report
the total hours and counts of active
sonar and in-water explosives used in
the Southeast NARW ESA-designated
critical habitat). Additionally, the Navy
has removed one of their testing
activities in the Northeast Range
Complex (four events—USWTR) which
decreased the number of Level B
harassment takes annually for NARW by
115 takes. Separately, this change also
decreased annual Level B harassment
takes by approximately 200 takes for
ESA-listed fin whale, 20 takes for sei
whales, and approximately 10,000 takes
for harbor porpoise, which are
discussed elsewhere in comments and
responses. Additional discussion on
NARW is provided below, organized
geographically north to south.
NARW Northeast
Comment 35: Several Commenters
recommended expanding the Navy’s NE
NARW Mitigation Area spatially and
temporally to include important areas
such as Jeffreys Ledge and the central
Gulf of Maine. Commenters
recommended that NMFS include (1)
both Jeffreys Ledge and the central Gulf
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
of Maine in the Navy’s NE NARW
Mitigation Area, at least during the
timeframes noted by LaBrecque et al.
(2015a). A Commenter stated that, if
NMFS chooses not to implement their
recommendation for both Jeffreys Ledge
and the central Gulf of Maine during the
timeframes noted by LaBrecque et al.
(2015a), that NMFS require the Navy to
(1) implement speed restrictions of no
more than 10 kn during vessel transits,
(2) obtain the latest NARW sightings
information from the Northeast
Fisheries Science Center’s NARW
Sighting Advisory System prior to
transits, (3) use the sightings
information to reduce potential
interactions with NARWs during
transits, and (4) implement speed
reductions after a vessel observes a
NARW, if a vessel is within 5 nmi of a
sighting reported to the NARW Sighting
Advisory System within the past week,
and when operating at night or during
periods of reduced visibility. A
Commenter also recommended that a 10
kn vessel speed restriction be required
for the NE NARW Mitigation Area and
also within the boundaries of Jeffreys
Ledge, at a minimum between the
months of June-July and OctoberDecember.
Response: In response to the
recommendations of enlarging the NE
NARW Mitigation Area, the Navy has
agreed to expand the NE NARW
Mitigation Area to match the NE NARW
ESA-designated critical habitat. The
expanded NE NARW Mitigation Area
encompasses key BIAs, as described
below. In general, the expanded NE
NARW Mitigation Area encompasses all
or nearly 100 percent of Cape Cod Bay,
Jeffreys Ledge, the western edge of
Georges Bank, and the northern portion
of the Great South Channel BIAs. One
hundred percent of the NARW feeding
area on Jeffreys Ledge and the NARW
mating area in the central Gulf of Maine
are included in the expanded NE NARW
Mitigation Area (as well as covering 100
percent in the Gulf of Maine Planning
Awareness Area). One hundred percent
of the NARW feeding area on Cape Cod
Bay and Massachusetts Bay are included
in the expanded NE NARW Mitigation
Area. Additionally, 95.08 percent of the
NARW feeding area in the Great South
Channel and the northern edge of
Georges Bank is included in the
expanded NE NARW Mitigation Area.
The mitigation measures required in the
previous NE NARW Mitigation Areas
will carry over to the expanded NE
NARW Mitigation Area and be
implemented year-round.
In response to the recommendation to
implement additional vessel speedrelated mitigation measures for NARW
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57121
on Jeffreys Ledge and the central Gulf of
Maine, these areas are now in fact
encompassed by the expanded NE
NARW Mitigation Area, as described
above, and vessel speed-related
mitigation measures are being
implemented during activities using
non-explosive torpedoes (the same
described in proposed rule).
Specifically, in the NE NARW
Mitigation Area, during non-explosive
torpedo events only, the Navy will (1)
maintain a ship speed of no more than
10 kn during transits and normal firing;
no more than 18 kn during submarine
target firing; and during vessel target
firing, vessel speeds may exceed 18 kn
for brief periods of time (e.g., 10–15
min.); (2) before vessel transits within
the NARW Mitigation Area, conduct a
web query or email inquiry to the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s
NARW Sighting Advisory System to
obtain the latest NARW sightings
information; (3) vessels will use the
sightings information to reduce
potential interactions with NARW
during transits; and (4) in the NE NARW
Mitigation Area, vessels will implement
speed reductions after they observe a
NARW, if they are within 5 nmi of a
sighting reported to the NARW Sighting
Advisory System within the past week,
and when operating at night or during
periods of reduced visibility.
Comment 36: A Commenter
recommends that NMFS prohibit all
active low-, mid-, and high-frequency
sonar and limit non-explosive torpedo
use from April through June in the Great
South Channel and from February
through April in Cape Cod Bay within
the NE NARW Mitigation Area.
Response: As discussed above, the
Navy has agreed to expand the NE
NARW Mitigation Area to encompass all
of the ESA-designated critical habitat in
the Northeast year-round. Therefore,
within the expanded NE NARW
Mitigation Area, the Navy has agreed to
minimize, but not eliminate, the use of
low-frequency active sonar, midfrequency active sonar, and highfrequency active sonar to the maximum
extent practicable. The Navy will not
use Improved Extended Echo Ranging
sonobuoys within three nmi of the
mitigation area and not use explosive
and non-explosive bombs, in-water
detonations, and explosive torpedoes
within the mitigation area. While this
does not include non-explosive
torpedoes within the NE NARW
Mitigation Area, there are only a small
number of Level B harassment takes
from this activity. The Navy analyzed
this area and determine that nonexplosive torpedo activities could not be
removed from this area as described
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57122
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
below. There are 33 estimated takes
from TORPEX. This region provides a
variety of bathymetric and
environmental conditions necessary to
ensure functionality and accuracy of
systems and platforms in areas
analogous to where the military
operates. Testing locations are typically
located near systems command support
facilities, which provide critical safety,
platform, and infrastructure support and
technical expertise necessary to conduct
testing. The Navy has used these same
torpedo testing areas in this region for
decades because they provide critical
bathymetric and oceanographic features,
and using these same areas provides
data collection consistency, which is
critical for comparative data analysis. In
short, NMFS concurs with the Navy that
the addition of this measure would be
impracticable. However to mitigate for
non-explosive torpedo events, the Navy
has already agreed to several procedural
mitigation steps to avoid NARW as
follows. The Navy will conduct
activities during daylight hours in
Beaufort sea state 3 or less. The Navy
will use three Lookouts (one positioned
on a vessel and two in an aircraft during
dedicated aerial surveys) to observe the
vicinity of the activity. An additional
Lookout will be positioned on the
submarine, when surfaced. Immediately
prior to the start of the activity,
Lookouts will observe for floating
vegetation and marine mammals; if
observed, the activity will not
commence until the vicinity is clear or
the activity is relocated to an area where
the vicinity is clear. During the activity,
Lookouts will observe for marine
mammals; if observed, the activity will
cease. To allow a sighted NARW (or any
other marine mammals) to leave the
area, the Navy will not recommence the
activity until one of the following
conditions has been met: (1) The animal
is observed exiting the vicinity of the
activity; (2) the animal is thought to
have exited the vicinity of the activity
based on a determination of its course,
speed, and movement relative to the
activity location; or (3) the area has been
clear from any additional sightings for
30 min.
Northeast Planning Awareness
Mitigation Area
Comment 37: A Commenter
recommends Navy/NMFS further
limiting MTEs and prohibiting/limiting
other activities to reduce cumulative
exposures to range-limited beaked
whale and sperm whale populations
that may inhabit the NE Planning
Awareness Mitigation Areas. The
Commenter recommends that NMFS
consult with the Navy and consider
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
prohibiting the planning and conduct of
major exercises within these areas,
using the Conservation Council
settlement-agreement approach as
described earlier in the Mitigation Areas
of this Comments and Responses
section. If MTEs cannot absolutely be
avoided, the Commenter recommends
that NMFS should prohibit conduct of
more than two MTEs per year, with each
exercise carried out in different NE
Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas
(i.e., one exercise in the northern
Mitigation Area, and one exercise in the
southern Mitigation Area), to ensure
that marine mammal populations with
site fidelity are not exposed to multiple
major training exercises within a single
year. Similarly, the Commenter asserts
that NMFS should consider prohibiting
testing and unit-level sonar and in-water
explosives training, or alternatively, and
less preferably, reducing the number of
hours allowable in a given year, with
the prohibition or restriction structured
as in the Conservation Council
settlement agreement.
Response: As part of the NE Planning
Awareness Mitigation Areas, the Navy
already agrees to avoid conducting
MTEs within the mitigation area to the
maximum extent practicable. However,
if Navy needs to conduct MTE’s, it will
not conduct more than four per year
within the mitigation area. The
Commenter indicated that range-limited
beaked whale populations have been
found on the shelf break off Cape
Hatteras, areas off Canada, in the
Mediterranean, off Southern California,
in the Bahamas, and around the
Hawaiian Islands, and range-limited
sperm whale populations have been
found off Cape Hatteras, the GOMEX,
and off Western Australia. The
Commenter assumed that beaked whales
and sperm whales are also range-limited
within the NE Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas, and as a result,
recommended additional mitigation to
limit MTEs and other activities to
reduce cumulative exposure in the NE
Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas.
However, NMFS agrees with the Navy’s
assessment that the best available
science does not indicate that beaked
whales and sperm whales are rangelimited within the NE Planning
Awareness Mitigation Areas. NMFS
relied on the best available scientific
information (e.g., NMFS’ Stock
Assessment Reports (SARs); Roberts et
al., 2016, 2017; and numerous study
reports from Navy-funded monitoring
and research in the specific geographic
region) in assessing density,
distribution, and other information
regarding marine mammal use of
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
habitats in the study area. In addition,
NMFS consulted LaBrecque et al.
(2015), which provides a specific,
detailed assessment of known BIAs and
provides the best available science to
help inform regulatory and management
decisions about some, though not all,
important cetacean areas. BIAs, which
may be region-, species-, and/or timespecific, include reproductive areas,
feeding areas, migratory corridors, and
areas in which small and resident
populations are concentrated. There are
currently no BIAs for beaked whales or
sperm whales along the Atlantic Coast.
As discussed in the Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination
section, a few minor to moderate TTS or
behavioral reactions to an individual
over the course of a year are unlikely to
have an impact on individual
reproduction or survival. Considering
these factors and the required mitigation
measures, adverse impacts for the
species or stock via effects on
recruitment or survival are not
expected. The Navy does not typically
schedule MTEs in the Northeast Range
Complexes, as indicated in Table 64.
For training and testing that does occur
here, this area provides a wide range of
bathymetric and topographic
opportunities that support critical
smaller scale training and testing
necessary to meet mission requirements.
Additionally, MTEs originally planned
for other locations may have to change
during an exercise, or in exercise
planning, based on an assessment of the
performance of the units, or due to other
conditions such as weather and
mechanical issues. These contingency
requirements preclude the Navy from
completely eliminating MTEs from
occurring in this area.
Comment 38: A Commenter
recommends prohibiting/limiting sonar
and in-water explosives activities
within the southern portion of the
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts
National Marine Monument, including
the Bear Seamount and Physalia
Seamount.
Response: Currently the Northeast
Canyons and Seamounts National
Monument overlap the Gulf of Maine
Planning Awareness Mitigation Area
and the NE Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas, respectively. Bear
Seamount and Physalia Seamount are
contained within the Seamount Unit.
The Navy is already limiting activities
within the NE Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas by avoiding
conducting MTEs to the maximum
extent practicable (and avoiding MTEs
completely within the Gulf of Maine
Planning Awareness Mitigation Area).
In its assessment of the practicability of
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
potential mitigation, the Navy indicated
that it had considered implementing
additional restrictions on active sonar
and explosives in the Northeast
Canyons and Seamounts National
Marine Monument. Navy’s operational
assessment determined that
implementing additional mitigation is
impracticable for the reasons stated in
Section 5.4.2 of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS
(Mitigation Areas off the Northeastern
United States) and also would be
impracticable due to implications for
safety (the ability to avoid potential
hazards), sustainability (maintain
readiness), and the Navy’s ability to
continue meeting its Title 10
requirements to successfully accomplish
military readiness objectives. The
Navy’s operational input indicates that
designating additional mitigation areas
(including the southern portion of the
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts
National Marine Monument) or
implementing further restrictions on the
level, number, or timing (seasonal or
time of day) of training or testing
activities within the mitigation areas
(including, but not limited to, limiting
MTEs and other activities to reduce
cumulative exposures) would have a
significant impact on (1) the ability of
Navy units to meet their individual
training and certification requirements,
preventing them from deploying with
the required level of readiness necessary
to accomplish their missions; (2) the
ability to certify strike groups to deploy
to meet national security tasking,
limiting the flexibility of Combatant
Commanders and warfighters to project
power, engage in multi-national
operations, and conduct the full range of
naval warfighting capability in support
of national security interests; (3) the
ability of program managers and
weapons system acquisition programs to
meet testing requirements and required
acquisition milestones; (4) operational
costs due to extending distance offshore,
which would increase fuel
consumption, maintenance, and time on
station to complete required training
and testing activities; (5) the safety risk
associated with conducting training and
testing at extended distances offshore,
farther away from critical medical and
search and rescue capabilities; (6)
accelerated fatigue-life of aircraft and
ships, leading to increased safety risk
and higher maintenance costs; (7)
training and testing realism due to
reduced access to necessary
environmental or oceanographic
conditions that replicate potential real
world areas in which combat may occur;
and (8) the ability for Navy sailors to
train and become proficient in using the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
sensors and weapons systems as would
be required in a real world combat
situation. NMFS concurs with the
Navy’s determination that the
recommended additional mitigation is
impracticable and, accordingly, has not
included it in the requirements of the
rule.
Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness
Mitigation Area
Comment 39: A Commenter
comments that, although the Gulf of
Maine Planning Awareness Area
represents a significant geographic area,
the mitigation requirements are less
limited compared to the NE NARW
Mitigation Area. Within the boundaries
of this area between the months of July–
September, the Commenter recommends
prohibiting/further limiting mid- and
high-frequency sonar and prohibit
explosives activities within the
biologically important area for harbor
porpoise. The Commenter recommends
prohibiting low-, mid-, and highfrequency sonar activities from March
through November in biologically
important feeding habitat for minke
whales at Cashes Ledge, as well as
prohibiting explosives activities in this
area year-round. The Commenter also
recommends prohibiting/limiting sonar
and in-water explosives activities
within the northern portion of the
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts
National Marine Monument.
Response: In regards to harbor
porpoise, 81.87 percent of the small and
resident population BIA within the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
overlaps the now expanded year-round
NE NARW Mitigation Area, and 100
percent is contained within the Gulf of
Maine Planning Awareness Mitigation
Area.
In regards to minke whales, 100
percent of the BIA falls within the now
expanded year-round NE NARW
Mitigation Area, and 100 percent also
falls within the Gulf of Maine Planning
Awareness Mitigation Area. The Navy is
minimizing the use of low-, mid-, and
high-frequency active sonar to the
maximum extent practicable and
limiting the use of explosives, explosive
and non-explosive bombs, in-water
detonations, and explosive torpedoes
within the expanded NE NARW
Mitigation Area year-round.
Specifically, the Navy will not use
Improved Extended Echo Ranging
sonobuoys within 3 nmi of the
mitigation area. The Navy has now
agreed (since the proposed rule) not to
conduct MTEs within the year-round
Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness
Mitigation Area and will cap the sonar
use in the mitigation area to less than
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57123
200 hours of hull-mounted MFAS per
year, thereby reducing impacts to harbor
porpoise further. As discussed in the
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section, the activities
conducted by the Navy are of short
duration (minutes to a few hours) and
widely dispersed temporally and
geographically and are not expected to
significantly affect natural behavioral
patterns of harbor porpoises or minke
whales, such as feeding, breeding, etc.,
in a manner that would adversely affect
either stock via impacts on rates of
recruitment or survival.
In regards to the use of active sonar
and in-water explosives being
prohibited or limited in the area yearround within the boundaries of the
northern portion of the Northeast
Canyons and Seamounts Marine
National Monument, the northern
portion (Canyon Unit) falls inside of the
Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness
Mitigation area. The Navy is already
limiting their use of hull-mounted
MFAS by capping use at 200 hrs per
year and now will not conduct MTEs
within the mitigation area. However,
there are no limitations on explosives in
this area. The Navy has worked
collaboratively with NMFS to develop
mitigation areas using inputs from the
operational community, the best
available science discussed in Chapter 3
(Affected Environment and
Environmental Consequences) of the
AFTT FEIS/OEIS, published literature,
predicted activity impact footprints, and
marine species monitoring and density
data. The Navy has communicated that
it completed an extensive biological
assessment and operational analysis
(based on a detailed and lengthy review
by training experts and leadership
responsible for meeting statutory
readiness requirements) of potential
mitigation areas throughout the entire
Study Area. The mitigation identified in
this final rule represents what the Navy
has stated is the maximum mitigation
that is practicable to implement under
the Proposed Action. Operational input
indicates that designating additional
mitigation areas (including, but not
limited to, within the northern portion
of the Northeast Canyons and
Seamounts Marine National Monument)
and implementing further restrictions
on the level, number, or timing
(seasonal or time of day) of training or
testing activities within the mitigation
areas (including, but not limited to,
limiting MTEs and other activities)
would have a significant impact on (1)
the ability for units to meet their
individual training and certification
requirements, preventing them from
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57124
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
deploying with the required level of
readiness necessary to accomplish their
missions; (2) the ability to certify strike
groups to deploy to meet national
security tasking, limiting the flexibility
of Combatant Commanders and
warfighters to project power, engage in
multi-national operations, and conduct
the full range of naval warfighting
capability in support of national
security interests; (3) the ability of
program managers and weapons system
acquisition programs to meet testing
requirements and required acquisition
milestones; (4) operational costs due to
extending distance offshore, which
would increase fuel consumption,
maintenance, and time on station to
complete required training and testing
activities; (5) the safety risk associated
with conducting training and testing at
extended distances offshore farther
away from critical medical and search
and rescue capabilities; (6) accelerated
fatigue-life of aircraft and ships leading
to increased safety risk and higher
maintenance costs; (7) training and
testing realism due to reduced access to
necessary environmental or
oceanographic conditions that replicate
potential real world areas in which
combat may occur; and (8) the ability for
Navy sailors to train and become
proficient in using the sensors and
weapons systems as would be required
in a real world combat situation. The
Navy has stated that it is unclear how
it would be able to train and test
without access to the ranges and
locations that have been carefully
developed over decades. Additionally,
limiting access to ranges would deny
operational commanders the ability to
respond to emerging national security
challenges, placing national security at
risk and sailors in danger by not being
properly prepared to perform their
missions. Likewise, the Navy has stated
that these restrictions would have a
significant impact on the testing of
current systems and the development of
new systems. This would deny weapons
system program managers and research,
testing, and development program
managers the flexibility to rapidly field
or develop necessary systems due to the
required use of multiple areas within
limited timeframes. NMFS concurs with
the Navy’s practicability assessment.
NARW Mid-Atlantic
Comment 40: A Commenter
recommends that the Navy should not
plan activities in the Mid-Atlantic
Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas to
avoid times of predicted higher NARW
occurrence, and that NMFS should
consult experts in the NARW
Consortium, including the New England
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Aquarium, for the best available
information on the timing of the NARW
migration and the months in which
NARW are most likely to be present
within the Mid-Atlantic Planning
Awareness Mitigation Areas.
Response: By late March, NARW
typically leave the calving grounds of
the southeast and travel up the U.S.
continental shelf to the Gulf of Maine
(Kenney et al., 2001; Knowlton et al.,
2002 as cited in LaBrecque et al., 2015),
and during this migration, the animals
will traverse these training areas (e.g.,
Virginia Capes). Additionally, recent
evidence suggests distributional shifts of
NARW, with passive acoustic data
indicating nearly year-round presence of
this species in the mid-Atlantic area
(Davis et al., 2017). As described in the
final rule, the Navy will avoid
conducting MTEs within the mitigation
area (Composite Training Unit Exercises
or Fleet Exercises/Sustainment
Exercises) to the maximum extent
practicable but cannot avoid the area
completely and will not conduct more
than four MTEs per year.
Locations for training and testing
activities are chosen based on their
proximity of associated training and
testing ranges, operating areas (e.g.,
VACAPES), available airspace (e.g.,
W–50), unobstructed sea space, and
aircraft emergency landing fields (e.g.,
Naval Air Station Oceana), and with
consideration for public safety (e.g.,
avoiding areas popular for recreational
boating). The Navy has indicated that
further restrictions in this area (e.g.,
further restricting the number of major
training events or seasonal restrictions
on major training exercises based on
predicted density of marine mammal
species) for mitigation would be
impracticable to implement and would
significantly impact the scheduling,
training, and certifications required to
prepare naval forces for deployment. It
would be impracticable to implement
seasonal or temporal restrictions for all
training and testing in this region
because training and testing schedules
are based on national tasking, the
number and duration of training cycles
identified in the Optimized Fleet
Response Plan and various training
plans, and forecasting of future testing
requirements (including emerging
requirements). Although the Navy has
indicated that it has the ability to
restrict the number of major training
exercises in the Mid-Atlantic Planning
Awareness Mitigation Areas, the Navy is
unable to eliminate all MTEs in this
area, because it provides air and sea
conditions necessary to meet real-world
requirements. Additionally, MTEs
originally planned for other locations
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
may have to change during an exercise,
or in exercise planning, based on an
assessment of the performance of the
units or due to other conditions such as
weather and mechanical issues. The
Navy has indicated that these
contingency requirements preclude it
from completely prohibiting MTEs from
occurring in this area. NMFS concurs
with the Navy’s practicability
assessment.
Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas
Comment 41: A Commenter
recommends extending the boundaries
of the Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas to fully encompass the
Cape Hatteras Special Research Area
(CHSRA), prohibiting all training, and
testing activities within the boundary of
the CHSRA.
Response: Although the Navy has the
ability to restrict the number of MTEs in
the Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas (no more than four),
the Navy has communicated that it is
unable to prohibit all MTEs in this area,
as it provides air and sea conditions
necessary to meet real-world
requirements. Additionally, MTEs
originally planned for other locations
may have to change during an exercise,
or in exercise planning, based on an
assessment of the performance of the
units or due to other conditions such as
weather and mechanical issues. These
contingency requirements preclude the
Navy from completely prohibiting MTEs
from occurring in this area.
In its assessment of potential
mitigation, the Navy considered
implementing additional restrictions on
active sonar and explosives in the U.S.
mid-Atlantic region, including
expanding the boundaries of the
mitigation area to fully encompass the
CHSRA, limiting MTEs, and planning
activities to avoid times of predicted
high NARW density. Navy operators
determined that implementing
additional mitigation beyond what is
described in this final rule would be
impracticable due to implications for
safety, sustainability, and the Navy’s
ability to continue meeting its Title 10
requirements to successfully accomplish
military readiness objectives. Some of
the Navy’s considerations regarding
why it would be impracticable to
implement additional mitigation in the
mid-Atlantic region, which NMFS has
reviewed and concurs with, are
provided below.
The waters off the mid-Atlantic and
southeastern United States encompass
part of the primary water space in the
AFTT Study Area where unit-level
training, integrated training, and
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
deployment certification exercises occur
and are critical for these and other
training and testing activities. The Navy
conducts training and testing activities
off the mid-Atlantic and southeastern
United States because this region
provides valuable access to air and sea
space conditions that are analogous to
areas where the Navy operates or may
need to operate in the future. This
contributes to safety of personnel, skill
proficiency, and validation of testing
program requirements. For training and
testing, areas in this region where
exercises are scheduled to occur are
chosen to allow for the realistic tactical
development of the myriad of training
and testing scenarios that Navy units are
required to complete to be mission
effective. Certain activities, such as
deployment certification exercises using
integrated warfare components, require
large areas of the littorals and open
ocean for realistic and safe training.
Locations for other training and
testing activities are chosen due to the
proximity of associated training and
testing ranges and operating areas (e.g.,
VACAPES), available airspace (e.g.,
W–50), unobstructed sea space, and
aircraft emergency landing fields (e.g.,
Naval Air Station Oceana) and with
consideration for public safety (e.g.,
avoiding areas popular for recreational
boating). Further restrictions in this area
(e.g., further restricting the number of
major training events or seasonal
restrictions on MTEs based on predicted
density of marine mammal species) for
mitigation would be impracticable to
implement and would significantly
impact the scheduling, training, and
certifications required to prepare naval
forces for deployment. It would be
impracticable to implement seasonal or
temporal restrictions for all training and
testing in this region (including within
the CHSRA) because training and testing
schedules are based on national tasking,
the number and duration of training
cycles identified in the Optimized Fleet
Response Plan and various training
plans, and forecasting of future testing
requirements (including emerging
requirements).
Comment 42: A Commenter also
recommends further limiting MTE and
prohibiting/further limiting other
activities to reduce cumulative
exposures in the Mid-Atlantic Planning
Awareness Mitigation Areas.
Commenter asserts that if MTEs cannot
absolutely be avoided, NMFS should
consider limiting the number of MTEs
allowable to two per year, with each
exercise carried out in different MidAtlantic Planning Awareness Mitigation
Areas (i.e., one exercise in the northern
Mitigation Area, and one exercise in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
southern Mitigation Area), to ensure
that marine mammal populations with
site fidelity are not exposed to multiple
MTEs within a single year. Similarly,
the Commenter states that NMFS should
consider prohibiting testing, unit-level
sonar, and in-water explosives training
in the mitigation areas, or alternatively,
and less preferably, reducing the
number of hours allowable in a given
year, with the prohibition or restriction
structured as in the Conservation
Council settlement agreement to provide
flexibility.
Response: The Navy has indicated
that although it has the ability to restrict
the number of MTEs in the Mid-Atlantic
Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas
(no more than four), the Navy is unable
to prohibit all MTEs in this area, as it
provides air and sea conditions
necessary to meet real-world
requirements. MTE locations may have
to change during an exercise, or in
exercise planning, based on an
assessment of the performance of the
units, or due to other conditions such as
weather and mechanical issues, which
precludes the ability to completely
prohibit major training exercises from
occurring in this area.
In its assessment of potential
mitigation, the Navy considered
implementing additional restrictions on
active sonar and explosives in the U.S.
mid-Atlantic region and limiting MTEs
and planning activities to further limit
activities in times and areas of predicted
high NARW density. Navy operators
determined that implementing
additional mitigation beyond what is
described in Section 5.4.3 (Mitigation
Areas off the mid-Atlantic and
southeastern United States) of the AFTT
FEIS/OEIS and this final rule (which
provides a significant reduction of
impacts on NARW, as discussed in the
Mitigation Measures section in this final
rule) would be impracticable due to
implications for safety, sustainability,
and the Navy’s ability to continue
meeting its Title 10 requirements to
successfully accomplish military
readiness objectives. As the Navy
explains, it would be impracticable to
implement additional mitigation in the
U.S. mid-Atlantic region for several
reasons. NMFS reviewed and concurs
with the Navy’s assessment of
practicality, effects on mission
effectiveness, and personnel safety.
First, the waters off the mid-Atlantic
and southeastern United States
encompass part of the primary water
space in the AFTT Study Area where
unit-level training, integrated training,
and deployment certification exercises
occur and are critical for these and other
training and testing activities. The Navy
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57125
conducts training and testing activities
off the mid-Atlantic and southeastern
United States because this region
provides valuable access to air and sea
space conditions that are analogous to
areas where the Navy operates or may
need to operate in the future. This
contributes to ensure safety of
personnel, skill proficiency, and
validation of testing program
requirements. Areas in this region
where activities are scheduled to occur
are chosen to allow for the realistic
tactical development of the myriad
training and testing scenarios that Navy
units are required to complete to be
mission effective. Certain activities,
such as deployment certification
exercises using integrated warfare
components, require large areas of the
littorals and open ocean for realistic and
safe training. Locations for other
training and testing activities are chosen
due to the proximity of associated
training and testing ranges and
operating areas (e.g., VACAPES),
available airspace (e.g., W–50 in
VACAPES), unobstructed sea space,
aircraft emergency landing fields (e.g.,
Naval Air Station Oceana), and with
consideration for public safety (e.g.,
avoiding areas popular for recreational
boating). Further restrictions in this area
(e.g., further restricting the number of
major training events or seasonal
restrictions on MTEs based on predicted
density of marine mammal species, such
as NARW) for mitigation would be
impracticable to implement and would
significantly impact the scheduling,
training, and certifications required to
prepare naval forces for deployment. It
would be impracticable to implement
seasonal or temporal restrictions for all
training and testing in this region
(including within the CHSRA) because
training and testing schedules are based
on national tasking, the number and
duration of training cycles identified in
the Optimized Fleet Response Plan and
various training plans, and forecasting
of future testing requirements (including
emerging requirements).
Comment 43: A Commenter
recommends that NMFS require the
Navy to move the ship shock trial areas
beyond the extents of the two MidAtlantic Planning Awareness Areas and
allow a minimum of a five nmi buffer
between the Planning Awareness Areas
and the ship shock trial areas.
Response: The Navy assessed the
practicality and effects on mission
effectiveness and personnel safety, of
this measure and agreed to move the
ship shock trial box east of the MidAtlantic Planning Awareness Mitigation
Areas, including a five nmi buffer.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57126
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
NMFS included the requirement in the
final rule.
NARW Southeast
Comment 44: Several commenters
recommended expanding the Navy’s SE
NARW mitigation areas to encompass
additional areas of NARW occurrence or
the entirety of the ESA-designated
critical habitat in the Southeast, and/or
expanding the limitations on Navy
activities within these areas. Further, a
Commenter recommended that if NMFS
was not going to expand the SE NARW
Mitigation Area, that NMFS should
require the Navy to further implement
measures of vessel speed restrictions
and obtain NARW sighting information
to reduce NARW and potential vessel
interactions on the NARW calving BIA.
A Commenter commented that NMFS
should include the entire extent of the
NARW calving BIA as depicted in
LaBrecque et al. (2015a) in the SE
NARW Mitigation Area. Another
commenter requested that the Navy add
an ‘‘expanded mitigation area’’
(geographically corresponding to the
current SE NARW ESA-designated
critical habitat, minus the Navy’s
current SE NARW Mitigation Area). A
Commenter suggested that if NMFS
chooses not to implement the NARW
calving BIA as depicted in and during
the timeframes noted by LaBrecque et
al. (2015a), then they recommend that
NMFS require the Navy to (1)
implement speed restrictions of no more
than 10 kn during vessel transits, (2)
obtain the latest NARW sightings
information prior to transits from the
Southeast Regional Office’s (SERO)
NARW Early Warning System, (3) use
the sightings information to reduce
potential interactions with NARWs
during transits, and (4) implement
speed reductions after a vessel observes
a NARW, if a vessel is within 5 nmi of
a sighting reported to the SE Regional
Office NARW Early Warning System
within the past week, and when
operating at night or during periods of
reduced visibility. Similarly, a
commenter also requested that the Navy
minimize activities requiring vessel
speeds greater than 10 kn for all vessels
65 ft or greater operating within the
current SE NARW Mitigation Area as
well as an ‘‘expanded mitigation area’’
(spatially corresponding to the current
SE NARW ESA-designated critical
habitat, minus the Navy’s current SE
NARW Mitigation Area).
Response: The SE NARW Mitigation
Area remains the same from the
proposed rule but as a result of
recommendations from and discussion
with NMFS, the Navy has expanded this
area from the previous rule authorizing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
incidental take between 2013 and 2018.
The SE NARW Mitigation Area occurs
off the coast of Florida and Georgia and
encompasses a portion of the calving
ESA-designated critical habitat for this
species. The best available scientific
information shows that the majority of
NARW sightings in the Southeast occur
in calving areas from roughly November
through April, with individual NARW
migrating to and from these areas
through mid-Atlantic shelf waters.
Because of these concerns regarding
NARW, the Navy proposed mitigation in
its rulemaking/LOA application in the
SE NARW Mitigation Area from
November 15 to April 15. These
measures are expected to largely avoid
disruption of behavioral patterns for
NARW and to minimize overall acoustic
exposures. Major training exercises and
most activities using active sonar will
not occur in some portions of the
calving ESA-designated critical habitat
in the SE NARW Mitigation Area. The
Navy will not conduct: (1) Lowfrequency active sonar (except as noted
below), (2) mid-frequency active sonar
(except as noted below), (3) highfrequency active sonar, (4) missile and
rocket activities (explosive and nonexplosive), (5) small-, medium-, and
large-caliber gunnery activities, (6)
Improved Extended Echo Ranging
sonobuoy activities, (7) explosive and
non-explosive bombing activities, (8) inwater detonations, and (9) explosive
torpedo activities within the mitigation
area. Further, to the maximum extent
practicable, the Navy has already agreed
to minimize the use of: (1) Helicopter
dipping sonar, (2) low and midfrequency active sonar for navigation
training and object detection exercises
within the mitigation area, and (3) other
activities. The activities resulting in
most of the Level B harassment within
ESA-designated critical habitat and
within the Navy’s SE NARW Mitigation
Area are from navigation (37 takes) and
ship object detection exercise (82 takes)
which each last for approximately 30
min or less as the vessel or submarine
is transiting into or out of port. With the
exception of the Composite Training
Unit Exercise, all activities using sonar
that are expected to result in Level B
harassment by TTS and behavioral
disturbance of NARW in this area are
either short-term (e.g., 30 min to 4 hours
during submarine navigation and
signature analysis testing) or involve a
limited number of sonar platforms
(since there are a limited number of
sonar platforms and both the sonar
platforms and animals are moving, there
is a low likelihood of co-occurrence for
more than a short period of time). These
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
factors limit the potential for these
instances of Level B harassment by TTS
and behavioral disturbance to result in
long duration exposures. Consistent
with literature described previously on
the response of marine mammals to
sonar, we anticipate that exposed
animals will be able to return to normal
behavior patterns shortly after the
exposure is over (minutes to hours)
(See, e.g., Goldbogen et al., 2013; Sivle
et al., 2015). For longer duration
activities (e.g., MTEs), particularly those
utilizing multiple sonar platforms, the
chance of a longer term exposure and
associated response is increased, but as
described below, we do not expect longterm exposures to occur from these
activities. Depending on animal
movement and where these longer
duration activities actually occur within
the operating areas, such exercises have
the potential to result in sustained and/
or repeated exposure of NARW.
However, the Navy’s geographic
mitigations for MTEs and other
exercises using active sonar (with the
exception of navigation and ship object
detection) minimize the likelihood of
exposures of animals to these activities
in ESA-designated critical habitat. MTEs
will not be conducted in most of the
Southeast ESA-designated critical
habitat. Further, the Navy’s modeling
indicated very limited impacts to
NARW from MTEs in the southeast (i.e.,
one instance of Level B behavioral
harassment in the Jacksonville Range
Complex, which could occur within the
ESA-designated critical habitat
designated for the species).
Based on this short duration of
exposure, and the minor behavioral
response expected to occur from the
exposure, we do not expect these
responses to affect the health of
individual NARWs in any way that
could affect reproduction or survival,
even though some individual animals
may experience Level B harassment
more than once annually in this area.
NARW may be present in or near the SE
NARW Mitigation Area for
approximately 20 events per year (5.48
percent) for navigation and 57
approximate events per year (15.61
percent) for object detection. This does
not necessarily mean NARW will be
impacted by Level B harassment takes
during these short duration activities
(approximately 30 min, up to 2 hrs).
NMFS believes that the mitigation in the
Southeast avoids impacts to the NARWs
while on the calving grounds. While the
Navy could not expand the SE NARW
Mitigation Area to the full extent of
ESA-designated critical habitat, the
Navy has agreed to include the full
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
extent of ESA-designated critical habitat
in a special reporting area and annually
report training and testing activities in
this area to NMFS. The Navy will report
the total hours and counts of active
sonar and in-water explosives used in
the SE NARW Critical Habitat Special
Reporting Area (November 15 through
April 15) (i.e., the Southeast NARW
ESA-designated critical habitat) in its
annual training and testing activity
reports submitted to NMFS.
In response to the recommendation to
implement additional vessel speed
related mitigation measures for NARW
in the calving BIA (as depicted by
LaBrecque et al., 2015), the SE NARW
Mitigation Area has not been expanded
from the proposed rule. However, the
Navy has added mitigation measures
related to vessels, including the
addition of the Jacksonville Operating
Area Mitigation Area (November 15
through April 15), where additional
communication will occur for all
training and testing activities occurring
in this area to fleet vessels to minimize
potential interaction with NARW. The
Jacksonville Operating Area Mitigation
Area overlaps with the SE NARW ESAdesignated critical habitat/calving BIA.
Regarding measures to avoid vessel
strikes in the southeast, in the SE
NARW Mitigation Area, (1) the Navy
will implement vessel speed reductions
after they observe a NARW; (2) before
transiting or conducting training or
testing activities in the SE NARW
Mitigation Area, the Navy will initiate
communication with the Fleet Area
Control and Surveillance Facility,
Jacksonville to obtain Early Warning
System NARW sightings data; (3) the
Fleet Area Control and Surveillance
Facility, Jacksonville will advise vessels
of all reported NARW sightings in the
vicinity to help vessels and aircraft
reduce potential interactions with
NARW; and (4) vessels will implement
speed reductions if they are within 5
nmi of a sighting reported within the
past 12 hrs, or when operating at night
or during periods of poor visibility. To
the maximum extent practicable, vessels
will minimize north-south transits. The
Navy will use the reported sightings
information as it plans specific details
of events (e.g., timing, location,
duration) to minimize potential
interactions with NARW to the
maximum extent practicable. The Navy
will use the reported sightings
information to assist visual observations
of applicable mitigation zones and to
aid in the implementation of procedural
mitigation.
Finally, since the proposed rule, the
Navy has agreed to broadcast awareness
notification messages with NARW
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Dynamic Management Area information
(e.g., location and dates) to applicable
Navy assets operating in the vicinity
(NARW Dynamic Management Area
notification). The information will alert
assets to the possible presence of a
NARW to maintain safety of navigation
and further reduce the potential for a
vessel strike. Units will use the
information to assist their visual
observation of applicable mitigation
zones during training and testing
activities and to aid in the
implementation of procedural
mitigation, including but not limited to,
mitigation for vessel movement.
For this rule, within the mid-Atlantic
and southeastern region, NMFS and the
Navy worked to identify an opportunity
to expand the mitigation area for NARW
off the southeastern United States in a
way that would enhance protections for
the species, while balancing the
practicability of implementation. The
Navy expanded the SE NARW
Mitigation Area to correlate with the
occurrence of NARW to the maximum
extent practicable based on readiness
requirements.
Certain activities, such as deployment
certification exercises using integrated
warfare components, require large areas
of the littorals and open ocean for
realistic and safe training. Locations for
other training activities are chosen due
to the proximity of associated training
ranges (e.g., Jacksonville Range
Complex), available airspace (e.g.,
avoiding airspace conflicts with major
airports such as Jacksonville
International Airport), unobstructed sea
space, aircraft emergency landing fields
(e.g., Naval Air Station Jacksonville),
and with consideration for public safety
(e.g., avoiding areas popular for
recreational boating). The Jacksonville
Operating Area and Charleston
Operating Area represent critical
training sea spaces that are necessary to
prepare naval forces for combat. Areas
where testing events are scheduled to
occur are chosen to allow the Navy to
test systems and platforms in a variety
of bathymetric and environmental
conditions to ensure functionality and
accuracy in real world environments.
Test locations are typically located near
the support facilities of the systems
commands, which provide critical
safety, platform, and infrastructure
support and technical expertise
necessary to conduct testing (e.g.,
proximity to air squadrons).
In conclusion, the Navy has indicated
that additional expansion of the SE
NARW Mitigation Area eastward to
mirror the boundary of the expanded
ESA-designated critical habitat or
northward to encompass all areas of
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57127
potential occurrence, would require
training to move farther north or farther
out to sea, which would be
impracticable due to implications for
safety and sustainability, as detailed in
Section 5.4.3 (Mitigation Areas off the
Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United
States) of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS.
Additionally, the Navy has explained
why further limitations on activities
within this area would be impracticable.
NMFS reviewed, and concurs with, the
Navy’s assessment of practicality, effects
on mission effectiveness, personnel
safety.
Comment 45: A Commenter
recommended dipping sonar and lowfrequency sonar be prohibited in the
Navy’s SE NARW Mitigation Area.
Response: Regarding dipping sonar, as
discussed in Section 5.4.3 (Mitigation
Areas off the Mid-Atlantic and
Southeastern United States) of the AFTT
FEIS/OEIS, the Navy will minimize the
use of helicopter dipping sonar to the
maximum extent practicable. The only
helicopter dipping sonar activity that
could potentially be conducted in the
mitigation area is Kilo Dip, which could
involve 1–2 pings of active sonar
infrequently. Kilo Dip is a functional
check activity that needs to occur close
to an air station in the event of a system
failure (i.e., all systems are not
functioning properly). During this
activity, the Navy will implement the
procedural mitigation described in
Section 5.3.2.1 (Active Sonar) of the
AFTT FEIS/OEIS, with visual
observations aided by Early Warning
System NARW data.
Regarding LFAS, as discussed in
Section 5.4.3 (Mitigation Areas off the
Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United
States) of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, the
Navy will not conduct LFAS in the
mitigation area, with the exception of
LFAS used for navigation training,
which will be minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. During
this activity, crews train to operate
sonar for navigation, an ability that is
critical for safety while transiting into
and out of port during periods of
reduced visibility. The Navy will
implement the procedural mitigation
described in Section 5.3.2.1 (Active
Sonar), with visual observations aided
by Early Warning System NARW
sightings data.
Additionally, since the proposed rule,
the Navy added a SE NARW Critical
Habitat Special Reporting Area
(November 15 through April 15) where
the Navy will report the total hours and
counts of active sonar and in-water
explosives used in the Special Reporting
Area in its annual training and testing
activity reports submitted to NMFS.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57128
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Geographically speaking, this Special
Reporting Area is the same area as the
SE NARW ESA-designated critical
habitat, and the reporting will help
NMFS and the Navy understand in a
more refined way the actual scale of
activities occurring in NARW habitat,
which will inform future analyses and,
as appropriate, adaptive management.
GOMEX Planning Awareness Mitigation
Areas/Bryde’s Whale Mitigation Area
Comment 46: Commenters
recommend that NMFS (1) expand Area
2 in the GOMEX Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas to include the waters
(a) out to the 400-m isobath along Area
2’s entire extent and (b) from the 100to 400-m isobaths from Pensacola,
Florida, to Mobile Bay, Alabama for the
biologically important area identified by
LaBrecque et al. (2015) for Bryde’s
whale, which in the proposed rule is not
fully capturing the extent of important
habitat within the De Soto Canyon. A
Commenter also recommends moving,
as necessary, the ship shock trial area
farther offshore to allow a minimum of
a five nmi buffer between the expanded
Area 2 (as recommended above) in the
GOMEX Planning Awareness Mitigation
Areas and the ship shock trial area, and
restricting the Navy from conducting
underwater detonations in Area 2 in the
GOMEX Planning Awareness Mitigation
Areas. Further, a Commenter
recommends that NMFS require the
Navy to implement year-round speed
restrictions of no more than 10 kn
during vessel transits in Area 2 of the
GOMEX Planning Awareness Mitigation
Areas.
Response: Since the proposed rule,
the Navy has agreed to the addition of
a year-round, Bryde’s Whale Mitigation
Area which will cover the BIA as
described in NMFS’ 2016 Status Review
and include the area between 100 to 400
m isobaths between 87.5 degrees W to
27.5 degrees N. The Navy has agreed to
move the northern GOMEX ship shock
trial box west, out of the Bryde’s whale
BIA/Bryde’s Whale Mitigation Area,
including a five nmi buffer. Within the
mitigation area, the Navy will not
conduct more than 200 hrs of hullmounted MFAS per year and will not
use explosives (except during mine
warfare activities). The Navy will report
the total hours and counts of active
sonar and in-water explosives used in
the mitigation area in its annual training
and testing activity reports submitted to
NMFS. Based on the Navy’s assessment
of practicality and effects on mission
effectiveness and personnel safety,
which NMFS reviewed and concurs
with, the new mitigation represents the
maximum level of mitigation that is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
practicable to implement within this
area. Due to low numbers of Bryde’s
whale, almost exclusively limited to the
GOMEX, and limited Navy ship traffic
that overlaps with Bryde’s whale
habitat, the Navy does not anticipate
any ship strike takes. Furthermore, there
have been no documented Bryde’s
whale ship strikes by Navy vessels;
therefore, the speed restrictions would
not lower the already low potential for
ship strike for this species. Further, the
Navy will implement procedural
mitigation during any vessel movements
to reduce potential ship strike for all
marine mammals including Bryde’s
whales.
Comment 47: A Commenter
recommended prohibiting or reducing
deployment of all unit-level active
low-, mid-, and high-frequency sonar
and underwater explosives in the
GOMEX Planning Awareness Mitigation
Areas or alternatively, and less
preferably, reducing the number of
hours allowable in a given year.
Response: Since the proposed rule,
the Navy expanded and renamed a
portion of the GOMEX Planning
Awareness Mitigation Areas as the
Bryde’s Whale Mitigation Area. As
described in more detail in Comment
Response 46, the Bryde’s Whale
Mitigation Area allows a limited amount
of MFAS and prohibits the use of
explosives. The Navy also will now not
conduct MTEs in the GOMEX Planning
Awareness Mitigation Areas.
However, the Navy has
communicated that the GOMEX
encompasses part of the primary water
space in the AFTT Study Area where
unit-level training, integrated training,
and deployment certification exercises
occur and it is critical for these and
other training and testing activities. The
Navy conducts training and testing
activities in the GOMEX because this
region provides valuable access to air
and sea space conditions that are
analogous to areas where the Navy
operates or may need to operate in the
future. This contributes to ensure safety
of personnel, skill proficiency, and
validation of testing program
requirements. For training, areas in this
region where exercises are scheduled to
occur are chosen to allow for the
realistic tactical development of the
myriad of training scenarios Navy units
are required to complete to be mission
effective. Certain activities, such as
deployment certification exercises using
integrated warfare components, require
large areas of the littorals and open
ocean for realistic and safe training.
Locations for other training activities are
chosen due to the proximity of
associated training ranges (e.g.,
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Pensacola Operating Area); available
airspace (e.g., avoiding airspace
conflicts with major airports, such as
Key West International Airport);
unobstructed sea space (e.g., throughout
the New Orleans Operating Area);
aircraft emergency landing fields (e.g.,
Naval Air Station Pensacola), and with
consideration of public safety (e.g.,
avoiding areas popular for recreational
boating). Areas where testing events are
scheduled to occur are chosen to allow
the Navy to test systems and platforms
in a variety of bathymetric and
environmental conditions to ensure
functionality and accuracy in real world
environments. Test locations are
typically located near the support
facilities of the systems commands,
which provide critical safety, platforms,
and infrastructure support and technical
expertise necessary to conduct testing
(e.g., proximity to air squadrons). Based
on the Navy’s assessment of practicality
and effects on mission effectiveness and
personnel safety, which NMFS reviewed
and concurs with, the Bryde’s Whale
Mitigation Area includes the maximum
level of mitigation that is practicable to
implement within this area.
Additional Mitigation Areas
Comment 48: A Commenter
recommends adding additional
mitigation areas for (1) the Charleston
Bump (year-round), (2) coastal
bottlenose dolphin habitat within the
DWH oil spill area, and (3) habitat based
management for the Cul de Sac, Great
Bahama Canyon.
Response: First, we note regarding the
Charleston Bump, the commenter cites
the importance of the area to fish larvae
and spawning, fishing, and sea turtles,
with only a general reference to ‘‘a
diversity of marine mammals,’’ without
any indication that limiting activities in
the area would reduce impacts to
marine mammal species and stocks or
their habitat. Regarding protection of
coastal bottlenose dolphins affected by
the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill,
we note that of all the Northern GOMEX
Estuarine stocks, only one overlaps with
stressors from the Navy’s activities, and
that stock is authorized for one take by
Level B harassment.
More importantly, separate from the
fact that little, if any, protection of
marine mammals would be achieved
through the adoption of the
recommended measures, the Navy has
assessed the practicality and effect of
these recommendations on mission
effectiveness and personnel safety and
determined that the measures would be
impracticable, and NMFS concurs with
this determination.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
In its assessment of potential
mitigation, the Navy considered
implementing additional restrictions on
active sonar and explosives in the U.S.
mid-Atlantic and GOMEX regions,
including at the Charleston Bump and
areas affected by the DWH oil spill.
Navy operators determined that
implementing additional mitigation
beyond what is described in Section
5.4.3 and Section 5.4.4 (Mitigation
Areas off the mid-Atlantic and
Southeastern United States and
Mitigation Areas in the GOMEX) of the
AFTT FEIS/OEIS would be
impracticable due to implications for
safety (the ability to avoid potential
hazards), sustainability (maintain
readiness), and the Navy’s ability to
continue meeting its Title 10
requirements to successfully accomplish
military readiness objectives.
It would be impracticable to
implement additional mitigation in the
U.S. mid-Atlantic and GOMEX for
several reasons. The Navy has indicated
that the mitigation identified in Section
5.4 (Mitigation Areas to be
Implemented) of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS
represents the maximum mitigation
within the identified mitigation areas
that is practicable to implement under
the proposed activities. The Navy has
communicated that operational input
indicates that designating additional
mitigation areas (including the
Charleston Bump and areas affected by
the DWH oil spill) would (1) have a
significant impact on the ability for
units to meet their individual training
and certification requirements,
preventing them from deploying with
the required level of readiness necessary
to accomplish their missions); (2) the
ability to certify strike groups to deploy
to meet national security tasking
(limiting the flexibility of Combatant
Commanders and warfighters to project
power, engage in multi-national
operations, and conduct the full range of
naval warfighting capability in support
of national security interests); (3) the
ability of program managers and
weapons system acquisition programs to
meet testing requirements and required
acquisition milestones; (4) operational
costs (due to extending distance
offshore, which would increase fuel
consumption, maintenance, and time on
station to complete required training
and testing activities); (5) the safety risk
associated with conducting training and
testing at extended distances offshore
(farther away from critical medical and
search and rescue capabilities); (6)
accelerated fatigue-life of aircraft and
ships (leading to increased safety risk
and higher maintenance costs); (7)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
training and testing realism (due to
reduced access to necessary
environmental or oceanographic
conditions that replicate potential real
world areas in which combat may
occur); and (8) the ability for Navy
Sailors to train and become proficient in
using the sensors and weapons systems
as would be required in a real world
combat situation.
Furthermore, the iterative and
cumulative impact of all commenterproposed mitigation areas and seasonal
or temporal restrictions would deny
national command authorities the
flexibility to respond to national
security challenges and incur significant
restrictions to required training and
testing that entail movements to
multiple operational areas along the
Eastern seaboard and the GOMEX to
conduct training within set time frames.
Likewise, this iterative and cumulative
impact would deny weapons system
program managers and research, testing,
and development program managers the
flexibility to rapidly field or develop
necessary systems due to the required
use of multiple areas within limited
timeframes. Additional information
regarding the operational importance,
significant negative impacts on Navy
training and testing activities, and
impracticability of implementing the
mitigation area in each geographic
region mentioned is provided in
Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the AFTT
FEIS/OEIS.
Regarding Cul de Sac, Bahamas, the
Navy did not consider mitigation for the
Cul de Sac because it is not part of the
AFTT Study Area. Therefore, NMFS did
not consider mitigation in the final rule
for the Cul de Sac because it is not part
of the AFTT Study Area.
Comment 49: A Commenter
recommends that efforts be undertaken
to identify additional important habitat
areas across the AFTT Study Area, using
the full range of data and information
available (e.g., habitat-based density
models, NOAA-recognized BIAs, survey
data, etc.).
Response: NMFS and the Navy used
the best available scientific information
(e.g., SARs; Roberts et al., 2016, 2017;
and numerous study reports from Navyfunded monitoring and research in the
specific geographic region) in assessing
density, distribution, and other
information regarding marine mammal
use of habitats in the AFTT Study Area.
In addition, NMFS consulted LaBrecque
et al. (2015), which provides a specific,
detailed assessment of known BIAs,
which may be region-, species-, and/or
time-specific, include reproductive
areas, feeding areas, migratory corridors,
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57129
and areas in which small and resident
populations are concentrated.
Comment 50: A Commenter
recommended establishing stand-off
distances around the Navy’s mitigation
areas to the greatest extent practicable,
allowing for variability in size given the
location of the area, the type of
operation at issue, and the species of
concern.
Response: Mitigation areas are
typically developed in consideration of
both the area that is being protected and
the distance from the stressor in
question that is appropriate to maintain
to ensure the protection. Sometimes this
results in the identification of the area
plus a buffer, and sometimes both the
protected area and the buffer are
considered together in the designation
of the edge of the area. We note that the
edges of a protected area are typically of
less importance to a protected stock or
behavior, since important areas often
have a density gradient that lessens
towards the edge. In addition, while a
buffer of a certain size may be ideal to
alleviate all impacts of concern, a
lessened buffer does not mean that the
protective value is significantly
reduced, as the core of the area is still
protected. Also, one should not assume
that activities are constantly occurring
in the area immediately adjacent to the
protected area. These issues were
considered here, and the Navy has
indicated that the mitigation identified
in Section 5.4 (Mitigation Areas to be
Implemented) of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS
represents the maximum mitigation
within mitigation areas and the
maximum size of mitigation areas that
are practicable to implement under the
proposed activities. The Navy has
communicated (and NMFS concurs with
the assessment) that implementing
additional mitigation (e.g., stand-off
distances that would extend the size of
the mitigation areas) beyond what is
described in Section 5.4 (Mitigation
Areas to be Implemented) of the AFTT
FEIS/OEIS would be impracticable due
to implications for safety (the ability to
avoid potential hazards), sustainability
(based on the amount and type of
resources available, such as funding,
personnel, and equipment)), and the
Navy’s ability to continue meeting its
Title 10 requirements.
Additional Mitigation Research
Comment 51: Commenters
recommend that NMFS consider
additional mitigation measures to
prescribe or research including (1)
research into sonar signal modifications,
(2) thermal detection systems, (3)
mitigation and research on Navy ship
speeds, including requiring the Navy to
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57130
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
collect and report data on ship speed as
part of the EIS process; and (4)
compensatory mitigation for the adverse
impacts of the permitted activity on
marine mammals and their habitat that
cannot be prevented or mitigated.
Response: NMFS consulted with the
Navy regarding potential research into
additional mitigation measures, as
follows:
1. Research into sonar signal
modification—Sonar signals are
designed explicitly to provide optimum
performance at detecting underwater
objects (e.g., submarines) in a variety of
acoustic environments. The Navy
acknowledges that there is very limited
data, and some suggest that up or down
sweeps of the sonar signal may result in
different animal reactions; however, this
is a very small data sample, and this
science requires further development. If
future studies indicate this could be an
effective approach, then NMFS and the
Navy will investigate the feasibility and
practicability to modify signals, based
on tactical considerations and cost, to
determine how it will affect the sonar’s
performance.
2. Thermal detection—The Office of
Naval Research Marine Mammals and
Biology program is currently funding an
ongoing project (2013–2018) that is
testing the thermal limits of infrared
based automatic whale detection
technology (Principal Investigators: Olaf
Boebel and Daniel Zitterbart). This
project is focused on (1) capturing
whale spouts at two different locations
featuring subtropical and tropical water
temperatures, (2) optimizing detector/
classifier performance on the collected
data, and (3) testing system performance
by comparing system detections with
concurrent visual observations. In
addition, the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has
funded six initial studies to test and
evaluate current technologies and
algorithms to automatically detect
marine mammals (IR thermal detection
being one of the technologies) on an
unmanned surface vehicle. Based on the
outcome of these initial studies, followon efforts and testing are planned for
2018–2019.
3. Mitigation for the Navy to collect
and report data on ship speed as part of
the EIS—The Navy conducted an
operational analysis of potential
mitigation areas throughout the entire
Study Area to consider a wide range of
mitigation options, including but not
limited to vessel speed restrictions. As
discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels
and In-Water Devices) of the AFTT
FEIS/OEIS, Navy ships transit at speeds
that are optimal for fuel conservation or
to meet operational requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Operational input indicated that
implementing additional vessel speed
restrictions beyond what is identified in
Section 5.4 (Mitigation Areas to be
Implemented) of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS
would be impracticable to implement
due to implications for safety and
sustainability. In its assessment of
potential mitigation, the Navy
considered implementing additional
vessel speed restrictions (e.g.,
expanding the 10 kn restriction to other
activities). The Navy determined that
implementing additional vessel speed
restrictions beyond what is described in
Section 5.5.2.2 (Restricting Vessel
Speed) of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS would
be impracticable due to implications for
safety (the ability to avoid potential
hazards), sustainability (maintain
readiness), and the Navy’s ability to
continue meeting its Title 10
requirements to successfully accomplish
military readiness objectives.
Additionally, as described in Section
5.5.2.2 (Restricting Vessel Speed) of the
AFTT FEIS/OEIS, any additional vessel
speed restrictions would prevent vessel
operators from gaining skill proficiency,
would prevent the Navy from properly
testing vessel capabilities, or would
increase the time on station during
training or testing activities as required
to achieve skill proficiency or properly
test vessel capabilities, which would
significantly increase fuel consumption.
As discussed in Section 5.3.4.1 (Vessel
Movement) of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, the
Navy implements mitigation to avoid
vessel strikes throughout the Study
Area. As directed by the Chief of Naval
Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST)
5090.1D, Environmental Readiness
Program, Navy vessels report all marine
mammal incidents worldwide,
including ship speed. Therefore, the
data required for ship strike analysis
discussed in the comment is already
being collected. Any additional data
collection required would create an
unnecessary and impracticable
administrative burden on the Navy.
4. Compensatory mitigation—For
years, the Navy has implemented a very
broad and comprehensive range of
measures to mitigate potential impacts
to marine mammals from military
readiness activities. As the AFTT FEIS/
OEIS documents in Chapter 5
(Mitigation), the Navy is proposing to
expand these measures further where
practicable. Aside from direct
mitigation, as noted by a Commenter,
the Navy engages in an extensive
spectrum of other activities that greatly
benefit marine species in a more general
manner that is not necessarily tied to
just military readiness activities. As
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
noted in Section 3.0.1.1 (Marine Species
Monitoring and Research Programs) of
the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy provides
extensive investment for research
programs in basic and applied research.
The U.S. Navy is one of the largest
sources of funding for marine mammal
research in the world, which has greatly
enhanced the scientific community’s
understanding of marine species much
more generally. The Navy’s support and
marine mammal research includes:
Marine mammal detection, including
the development and testing of new
autonomous hardware platforms and
signal processing algorithms for
detection, classification, and
localization of marine mammals;
improvements in density information
and development of abundance models
of marine mammals; and advancements
in the understanding and
characterization of the behavioral,
physiological (hearing and stress
response), and potentially populationlevel consequences of sound exposure
on marine life. In addition, the Navy is
a critical sponsor of the NARW Early
Warning System and the winter aerial
surveys, which have contributed to a
marked reduction in vessel strikes of the
NARW in the Southeast ESA-designated
critical habitat, particularly by
commercial vessels, which represent
one of the biggest threats to the NARW.
Compensatory mitigation is not required
to be imposed upon federal agencies
under the MMPA. Importantly, the
Commenter did not recommend any
specific measure(s), rendering it
impossible to conduct any meaningful
evaluation of its recommendation.
Finally, many of the methods of
compensatory mitigation that have
proven successful in terrestrial settings
(purchasing or preserving land with
important habitat, improving habitat
through plantings, etc.) are not
applicable in a marine setting with such
far-ranging species. Thus, any presumed
conservation value from such an idea
would be purely speculative at this
time.
Monitoring Recommendations
Comment 52: A Commenter
recommends that NMFS prioritize Navy
research projects of long-term
monitoring that aim to provide baseline
information and quantify the impact of
training and testing activities at the
individual, and ultimately, population
level, and the effectiveness of
mitigation. The Commenter
recommends individual-level
behavioral-response studies, such as
focal follows and tagging using DTAGs,
carried out before, during, and after
Navy training and testing activities. The
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Commenter recommends prioritizing
DTAG studies that further characterize
the suite of vocalizations related to
social interactions. The Commenter
recommends the use of unmanned aerial
vehicles. The Commenter recommends
that NMFS require the Navy to use these
technologies for assessing marine
mammal behavior before, during, and
after Navy training and testing (e.g.,
swim speed and direction, group
cohesion). The Commenter recommends
NMFS ask the Navy to expand funding
to explore the utility of other, simpler
modeling methods that could provide at
least an indicator of population-level
effects, even if each of the behavioral
and physiological mechanisms are not
fully characterized. The Commenter
recommends studies aimed at exploring
other potential proxy measures of
changes in population-level abundance
in order to develop an early-detection
system for populations that may be
experiencing a decline as a result of
Navy activities.
Response: Broadly speaking, NMFS
works closely with the Navy in the
identification of monitoring priorities
and the selection of projects to conduct,
continue, modify, and/or stop through
the Adaptive Management process,
which includes annual review and
debriefs by all scientists conducting
studies pursuant to the Navy’s MMPA
rule. The process NMFS and the Navy
have developed allows for
comprehensive and timely input from
the Navy and other stakeholders that is
based on rigorous reporting out from the
Navy and the researchers doing the
work. Further, the Navy is pursuing
many of the topics that the commenter
identifies, either through the Navy
monitoring required under the MMPA
and ESA, or through Navy-funded
research programs (ONR and LMR). We
are confident that the monitoring
conducted by the Navy satisfies the
requirements of the MMPA.
The Navy established the Strategic
Planning Process under the marine
species monitoring program to help
structure the evaluation and
prioritization of projects for funding.
Section 5.1.2.2.1.3 (Strategic Planning
Process) of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS
provides a brief overview of the
Strategic Planning Process. More detail,
including the current intermediate
scientific objectives, is available on the
monitoring portal as well as in the
Strategic Planning Process report. The
Navy’s evaluation and prioritization
process is driven largely by a standard
set of criteria that help the steering
committee evaluate how well a potential
project would address the primary
objectives of the monitoring program.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
NMFS has opportunities to provide
input regarding the Navy’s intermediate
scientific objectives as well as providing
feedback on individual projects through
the annual program review meeting and
annual report. For additional
information, please visit: https://
www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/
about/strategic-planning-process/.
Details on the Navy’s involvement
with future research will continue to be
developed and refined by Navy and
NMFS through the consultation and
adaptive management processes, which
regularly considers and evaluates the
development and use of new science
and technologies for Navy applications.
The Navy has indicated that it will
continue to be a leader in funding of
research to better understand the
potential impacts of Navy training and
testing activities and to operate with the
least possible impacts while meeting
training and testing requirements.
D Individual-level behavioralresponse studies—In addition to the
Navy’s marine species monitoring
program investments for individuallevel behavioral-response studies, the
Office of Naval Research Marine
Mammals and Biology program and the
Navy’s Living Marine Resources
program continue to heavily invest in
this topic. For example, the following
studies are currently being funded.
D The Southern California Behavioral
Response Study (Principal Investigators:
John Calambokidis and Brandon
Southall).
D Cuvier’s Beaked Whale and Fin
Whale Behavior During Military Sonar
Operations: Using Medium-term Tag
Technology to Develop Empirical Risk
Functions (Principal Investigators: Greg
Schorr and Erin Falcone).
D 3S3—Behavioral responses of sperm
whales to naval sonar (Principal
Investigators: Petter Kvadsheim and
Frans-Peter Lam).
D Measuring the effect of range on the
behavioral response of marine mammals
through the use of Navy sonar (Principal
Investigators: Stephanie Watwood and
Greg Schorr).
D Behavioral response evaluations
employing robust baselines and actual
Navy training (BREVE) (Principal
Investigators: Steve Martin, Tyler
Helble, Len Thomas).
D Integrating remote sensing methods
to measure baseline behavior and
responses of social delphinids to Navy
sonar (Principal Investigators: Brandon
Southall, John Calambokidis, John
Durban).
2. DTAGS to characterize social
communication between individuals of
a species or stock, including mothers
and calves—The Navy has funded a
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57131
variety of projects that are collecting
data that can be used to study social
interactions amongst individuals.
Examples of these projects include:
D Southern California Behavioral
Response Study (Principal Investigators:
John Calambokidis and Brandon
Southall).
D Tagging and Tracking of
Endangered NARW in Florida Waters
(Principal Investigators: Doug Nowacek
and Susan Parks). This project involves
the use of DTAGs, and data regarding
the tagged individual and group are
collected in association with the tagging
event. In addition to the vocalization
data that is being collected on the
DTAGs, data is collected on individual
and group behaviors that are observed,
including between mother/calf pairs
when applicable. The Navy will
continue to collect this type of data
when possible.
D Integrating remote sensing methods
to measure baseline behavior and
responses of social delphinids to Navy
sonar (Principal Investigators: Brandon
Southall, John Calambokidis, John
Durban).
D Acoustic Behavior of NARW
(Eubalaena glacialis) Mother-Calf Pairs
(Principal Investigators: Susan E. Parks
and Sofie Van Parijs). The long-term
goal of this project is to quantify the
behavior of mother-calf pairs from the
NARW to determine (a) why mothers
and calves are more susceptible to
collisions with vessels and, (b) the vocal
behavior of this critical life stage to
assess the effectiveness of passive
acoustic monitoring to detect mothercalf pairs in important habitat areas (see
https://www.onr.navy.mil/reports/FY15/
mbparks.pdf).
D Social Ecology and Group Cohesion
in Pilot Whales and Their Responses to
Playback of Anthropogenic and Natural
Sounds (Principal Investigator: Frants
H. Jensen). This project investigates the
social ecology and cohesion of longfinned pilot whales as part of a broad
multi-investigator research program that
seeks to understand how cetaceans are
affected by mid-frequency sonar and
other sources of anthropogenic noise
(see https://www.onr.navy.mil/reports/
FY15/mbjensen.pdf).
3. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to
assess marine mammal behavior before,
during, and after Navy training and
testing activities (e.g., swim speed and
direction, group cohesion)—Studies that
use unmanned aerial vehicles to assess
marine mammal behaviors and body
condition are being funded by the Office
of Naval Research Marine Mammals and
Biology program. Although the
technology shows promise, the field
limitations associated with the use of
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57132
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
this technology has hindered the useful
application in behavioral response
studies in association with Navy
training and testing events. For safety,
research vessels cannot remain in close
proximity to Navy vessels during Navy
training or testing events, so battery life
of the unmanned aerial vehicles has
been an issue. However, as the
technology improves, the Navy will
continue to assess the applicability of
this technology for the Navy’s research
and monitoring programs. An example
project is Integrating Remote Sensing
Methods to Measure Baseline Behavior
and Responses of Social Delphinids to
Navy sonar (Principal Investigators:
Brandon Southall, John Calambokidis,
and John Durban).
4. NMFS asked the Navy to expand
funding to explore the utility of other,
simpler modeling methods that could
provide at least an indicator of
population-level effects, even if each of
the behavioral and physiological
mechanisms are not fully
characterized—The Office of Naval
Research Marine Mammals and Biology
program has invested in the Population
Consequences of Disturbance (PCoD)
model, which provides a theoretical
framework and the types of data that
would be needed to assess population
level impacts. Although the process is
complicated and many species are data
poor, this work has provided a
foundation for the type of data that is
needed. Therefore, in the future,
relevant data that is needed for
improving the analytical approaches for
population level consequences resulting
from disturbances will be collected
during projects funded by the Navy’s
marine species monitoring program.
General population level trend analysis
is conducted by NMFS through its SARs
and regulatory determinations. The
Navy’s analysis of effects to populations
(species and stocks) of all potentially
exposed marine species, including
marine mammals and sea turtles, is
based on the best available science as
discussed in Sections 3.7 (Marine
Mammals) and 3.8 (Reptiles) of the
AFTT FEIS/OEIS. PCoD models, similar
to many fisheries stock assessment
models, once developed will be
powerful analytical tools when mature.
However, currently they are dependent
on too many unknown factors for these
types of models to produce a reliable
answer.
As discussed in the Monitoring
section of this final rule, the Navy’s
marine species monitoring program
typically supports 10–15 projects in the
Atlantic at any given time. Current
projects cover a range of species and
topics from collecting baseline data on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
occurrence and distribution, to tracking
whales and sea turtles, to conducting
behavioral response studies on beaked
whales and pilot whales. The Navy’s
marine species monitoring web portal
provides details on past and current
monitoring projects, including technical
reports, publications, presentations, and
access to available data and can be
found at: https://www.navymarine
speciesmonitoring.us/regions/atlantic/
current-projects/. A list of the
monitoring studies that the Navy is
currently planning under this rule are
listed at the bottom of the Monitoring
section of this final rule.
Negligible Impact Determination
General
Comment 53: A Commenter
commented that NMFS’ analytical
approach is not transparent. NMFS
applied both qualitative and
quantitative analyses to inform its
negligible impact determination. In
general, NMFS has based negligible
impact determinations associated with
incidental take authorizations on
abundance estimates provided either in
its SARs or other more recent published
literature. For the AFTT proposed rule,
NMFS used the average population
estimate as determined by the Navy’s
density models across all seasons from
Roberts et al. (2016) rather than
abundance estimates from either the
SARs or published literature. For some
species, NMFS indicated that it had
apportioned the takes at the species or
population level based on takes
predicted at higher taxonomic levels.
However, NMFS did not specify for
which species/populations this method
was used or the assumptions made.
NMFS also did not specify how it
determined the actual ‘‘population’’ size
given that the densities differ on orders
of kilometers. Interpolation or
smoothing, and potentially
extrapolation, of data likely would be
necessary to achieve NMFS’ intended
goal—it is unclear whether any such
methods were implemented.
In addition, it is unclear whether
NMFS used data from Mannocci et al.
(2017) in a similar manner to the
Roberts et al. (2016) data, which
informed abundance estimates for the
majority of species within the U.S. EEZ.
Furthermore, NMFS did not specify
how it determined the proportion of
total takes that would occur beyond the
U.S. EEZ. Presumably, that was based
on modeling assumptions and modelestimated takes provided by the Navy,
but this is not certain. Moreover, the
‘‘instances’’ of the specific types of
taking (i.e., mortality, Level A and B
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
harassment) do not match the total takes
‘‘inside and outside the U.S. EEZ’’ in
Tables 72–77 or those take estimates in
Tables 39–41. It appears the ‘‘instances’’
of take columns were based on only
those takes in the U.S. EEZ rather than
the entire AFTT Study Area. Sperm
whales, for example, have 3,880 takes
that presumably would occur outside
the U.S. EEZ and were not enumerated
in the ‘‘instances’’ of take columns.
Thus, it is unclear what types of takes
those constitute. Given that the
negligible impact determination is based
on the total taking in the entire study
area, NMFS should have partitioned the
takes in the ‘‘instances’’ of take columns
in Tables 72–77 for all activities that
occur within and beyond the U.S. EEZ.
Response: NMFS has added
explanation in the Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination section
to better describe the take-specific
analysis for each stock, species, or
group, as appropriate. As described in
the footnotes, the Navy abundances
referenced in the tables in the Analysis
and Negligible Impact Determination
section, both in and outside of the U.S.
EEZ, are a reflection of summing the
densities that are used to calculate take
for each species as described in the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section (i.e., including Roberts et al.
and/or Mannocci et al. where
appropriate), which means using
Roberts et al. (2016), where available
(inside the U.S EEZ), and Mannocci
et al. (2017) outside the U.S. EEZ, as the
commenter suggests. NMFS
acknowledges that there were a few
small errors in the take numbers in the
proposed rule; however, they have been
corrected (i.e., the take totals in Tables
39, 40, and 41 for a given stock now
equal the ‘‘in and outside the U.S. EEZ’’
take totals in Tables 72–77) and the
minor changes do not affect the analysis
or determinations in the rule.
Comment 54: A Commenter asserts
that NMFS assumes that it is unlikely
any particular subset of a stock would
be taken over more than a few
sequential days—i.e., where repeated
takes of individuals are likely to occur,
they are more likely to result from nonsequential exposures from different
activities, and marine mammals are not
predicted to be taken for more than a
few days in a row, at most. Yet NMFS
presents no details of the Navy’s
training and testing activities in support
of this position. The Commenter cites to
the fact that the Navy reuses certain
geographic areas regularly for some
specific exercises as a reason that repeat
exposures are likely to be sequential.
Response: The Commenter ignores the
fact that marine mammals still move
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
around (some for long distances), and
even if they are resident and Navy
activities are geographically
concentrated, it does not naturally
follow that their exposures to these
activities are necessarily temporally
concentrated.
In addition, NMFS’ analyses do not
uniformly assume that where repeated
takes are likely to occur, they are more
likely to result from non-sequential
exposures. NMFS negligible impact
analyses suggest that individuals of
some stocks are likely to be taken across
sequential days, while others are not.
Multiple factors are taken into
consideration in predicting the relative
likelihood that repeated takes of an
individual will occur sequentially,
including the approximate predicted
number of takes to an individual within
a year and the manner in which the
activities overlap the species range. For
example, if the number of average takes
per individual is less than two, the
entire species range is contained within
the AFTT Study Area, and that range
includes a migratory pathway that
moves through an area dense with
training and testing activities (e.g.,
NARW), it is reasonably likely that
every or almost every individual gets
taken on at least one day. This means
that there are relatively few takes left to
distribute. There is no reason to think
(based on species movement and
activities) that these takes would all
accrue to a few animals, or that the takes
would occur on sequential days. In
other words, even if activities occur in
focused areas, it is highly unlikely that
individual animals (e.g., NARW) are
staying in those areas, especially given
how limited activities are in the areas
that animals (e.g., NARW) aggregate due
to the mitigation. Alternately, if the
average number of takes per animal is
notably higher (either altogether or in a
limited area such as the U.S. EEZ), such
as 18 for beaked whales, it follows that
some number of individuals are likely
actually taken at an even higher
number, and the higher that number, the
higher the probability that when spread
across the years, some days will be
sequential. NMFS addresses these
differences in our negligible impact
analyses.
Comment 55: A Commenter states that
NMFS must consider new information
for sperm whales in the GOMEX prior
to authorizing take for the AFTT
specified activities, particularly because
of the five reported stranded sperm
whale calves in the Gulf since October
2016. The Commenter asserts that
NMFS must protect the Mississippi
Canyon that provides year-round sperm
whale habitat. The Commenter also
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
states that NMFS should ensure
heightened protection for this area for
sperm whales as well as Bryde’s whales
and Cuvier’s beaked whales that are
vulnerable to harm from military
activities.
Response: NMFS considered the
sperm whale information provided by
the commenter in its negligible impact
determination. There have been six
documented sperm whales strandings in
the GOMEX between 2016 and 2018.
Five sperm whales stranded in 2016, 1
whale in 2017, and zero whales in 2018.
Based on the examination data that was
available (the condition of the whale
ranged from fresh dead to moderate/
advanced decomposition to
mummified/skeletal) there were four
whales where findings of human
interaction could not be determined. Of
the two whales that remained, one
whale showed evidence of a fishery
interaction, and the other showed no
evidence of human interaction. NMFS’
SERO requested a consultation with the
Working Group on Marine Mammal
Unusual Mortality Events about the
elevated 2016 sperm whale strandings,
but the Working Group determined the
data did not qualify as a UME at that
time. The Working Group noted that the
current number of four strandings for
the year was only at the upper limit of
the 10 year average, that there was a
very low total number of strandings in
general in the region, and the animals
were stranding during months that they
would be expected, and therefore the
findings did not meet the UME criteria.
The SERO and our Southeast Fisheries
Science Center will continue to
coordinate with the Working Group for
sharing of histopathology results and
formulation of hypotheses.
Separately, and as described in more
detail elsewhere in the rule, after
additional discussion with NMFS, the
Navy withdrew its request for mortal
take by vessel strike for sperm whale
(GOMEX stock) due to the following
considerations that showed that vessel
strike of a whale from this stock is
unlikely: (1) The lower number of Navy
steaming days in the GOMEX; (2) that
there have been no vessel strikes of any
large whales since 2009 per the SAR
and no Navy strikes of any large whales
since 1995 (based on our records) in the
GOMEX; (3) the lower abundance of
sperm whales in the GOMEX, and (4)
the Navy’s adherence to Marine Species
Awareness Training and adoption of
additional mitigation measures. NMFS
concurs that the strike of sperm whales
in the GOMEX is unlikely and has not
authorized mortal take. Further, nearly
the entire important sperm whale
habitat (Mississippi Canyon) is included
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57133
in the GOMEX Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas. As stated in this final
rule and the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy
is not planning to conduct any MTEs in
the GOMEX.
Cumulative and Aggregate Effects
Comment 56: A Commenter
commented that NMFS failed to
adequately assess the aggregate effects of
all of the Navy’s activities included in
the rule. The Commenter alleges that
NMFS’ lack of analysis of these
aggregate impacts, which is essential to
any negligible impact determination,
represents a glaring omission from the
proposed rule. Further, they assert that
the agency assumes that all of the
Navy’s estimated impacts would not
affect individuals or populations
through repeated activity—even though
the takes anticipated each year would
affect the same populations and, indeed,
would admittedly involve extensive use
of some of the same biogeographic areas.
While NMFS states that Level B
behavioral harassment (aside from those
caused by masking effects) involves a
stress response that may contribute to
an animal’s allostatic load, it assumes
without further analysis that any such
impacts would be insignificant. The
commenter states that both statements
are factually insupportable given the
lack of any population analysis or
quantitative assessment of long-term
effects in the proposed rule and the
numerous deficiencies in the thresholds
and modeling that NMFS has adopted
from the Navy.
Response: We respond to the
aggregate effect comment here, and
address the consideration of impacts
from other activities in the response to
Comment 57 immediately below.
NMFS did analyze the aggregate
effects of mortality, injury, masking,
energetic costs, stress, hearing loss, and
behavioral harassment from the Navy’s
activities in reaching the negligible
impact determinations. Significant
additional discussion has been added to
the Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section of the final rule
to better explain the agency’s analysis
and how the potential for aggregate or
cumulative effects on individuals relate
to the overall negligible impact
determination for each species or stock.
In our analysis, NMFS fully considers
the potential for aggregate effects from
all Navy activities. We also consider
UMEs and previous environmental
impacts (i.e., DWH oil spill) to inform
the baseline levels of both individual
health and susceptibility to additional
stressors, as well as stock status.
Further, the species and stock-specific
assessments in the Analysis and
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57134
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Negligible Impact Determination section
(which have been updated and
expanded) pull together and address the
combined mortality, injury, behavioral
harassment, and other effects of the
aggregate AFTT activities (and in
consideration of applicable mitigation)
as well as other information that
supports our determinations that the
Navy activities will not adversely affect
any species or stocks via impacts on
rates of recruitment or survival. We refer
the reader to the Analysis and Negligible
Impact Determination section for this
analysis.
Comment 57: Some commenters
asserted that in reaching our MMPA
findings, NMFS did not adequately
consider the cumulative impacts of the
Navy’s activities when combined with
the effects of other non-Navy activities.
A Commenter adds that NMFS needs to
include consideration of the most up-todate information on NARW, humpback
whales, and sperm whales, including
UMEs, deaths, and recent strandings.
Response: The preamble for NMFS’
implementing regulations under section
101(a)(5) (54 FR 40338; September 29,
1989) explains in responses to
comments that the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic
activities are to be incorporated into the
negligible impact analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline.
Consistent with that direction, NMFS
here has factored into its negligible
impact analyses the impacts of other
past and ongoing anthropogenic
activities via their impacts on the
baseline (e.g., as reflected in the
density/distribution and status of the
species, population size and growth
rate, and other relevant stressors (such
as incidental mortality in commercial
fisheries, UMEs, or oil spills)). See the
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section of this rule.
Also, as described further in the
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section of the final rule,
NMFS evaluated the impacts of AFTT
authorized mortality on the affected
stocks in consideration of other
anticipated human-caused mortality,
including the mortality predicted in the
SARs for other activities along with
other NMFS-permitted mortality (i.e.,
authorized as part of the Northeast
Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) rule),
using multiple factors, including
Potential Biological Removal (PBR). As
described in more detail in the Analysis
and Negligible Impact Determination
section, PBR was designed to identify
the maximum number of animals that
may be removed from a stock (not
including natural mortalities) while
allowing that stock to reach or maintain
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
its optimum sustainable population
(OSP) and is also helpful in informing
whether mortality will adversely affect
annual rates of recruitment or survival
in the context of a section 101(a)(5)(A).
In addition, NMFS did consider the
most up-to-date information on the
three large whale species referenced by
the commenter, along with the other
potentially affected species and stocks.
See the relevant sections of the final
rule for extensive discussion on the
effects of UMEs, deaths, recent
strandings, and other factors that are
affecting, or have the potential to affect,
the species and stocks that will also be
affected by the Navy’s activities.
Our 1989 final rule for the MMPA
implementing regulations also
addressed public comments regarding
cumulative effects from future,
unrelated activities. There we stated
that such effects are not considered in
making findings under section 101(a)(5)
concerning negligible impact. We
indicated that NMFS would consider
cumulative effects that are reasonably
foreseeable when preparing a NEPA
analysis and also that reasonably
foreseeable cumulative effects would be
considered under section 7 of the ESA
for ESA-listed species.
We recognize the potential for
cumulative impacts, and that the
aggregate impacts of the Navy’s training
and testing activities will be greater than
the impacts of any one particular
activity. The direct aggregate impacts of
the Navy’s training and testing activities
were addressed through the associated
NEPA analyses in the AFTT FEIS/OEIS
(with NMFS as a cooperating agency),
which addressed the impacts of a
maximum amount of activities, and
which NMFS has adopted as the basis
for its Record of Decision for the
issuance of the final rule and LOAs.
In order to meet the responsibility to
analyze cumulative effects under NEPA,
the Navy, in cooperation with NMFS,
evaluated the cumulative effects of the
incremental impact of its proposed
action when added to other past,
present, and future actions (as well as
the effects of climate change), against
the appropriate resources and regulatory
baselines. The Navy used the best
available science and a comprehensive
review of past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable actions to develop its
Cumulative Impacts analysis. This
analysis is contained in Chapter 4 of the
AFTT FEIS/OIES. As required under
NEPA, the level and scope of the
analysis is commensurate with the
scope of potential impacts of the action
and the extent and character of the
potentially-impacted resources (e.g., the
geographic boundaries for cumulative
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
impacts analysis for some resources are
expanded to include activities outside
the AFTT Study Area that might impact
migratory or wide-ranging animals), as
reflected in the resource-specific
discussions in Chapter 3 (Affected
Environment and Environmental
consequences) of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS.
The AFTT FEIS/OEIS considered the
proposed training and testing activities
alongside other actions in the region
whose impacts may be additive to those
of the proposed training and testing.
Past and present actions are also
included in the analytical process as
part of the affected environmental
baseline conditions presented in
Chapter 3 of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS. The
Navy has done so in accordance with
1997 Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) guidance. Per the guidance, a
qualitative approach and best
professional judgment are appropriate
where precise measurements are not
available. Where precise measurements
and/or methodologies were available
they were used. Guidance from CEQ
states it ‘‘is not practical to analyze
cumulative effects of an action on the
universe; the list of environmental
effects must focus on those that are truly
meaningful.’’ Further, the U.S. EPA has
reviewed the AFTT FEIS/OEIS and
rated the document as LO—lack of
objections—which means it has not
identified any environmental impact
requiring substantive changes to the
proposal. Information on the NEPA
analysis is provided in Section 4.1.1
(Determination of Significance). Lastly,
all of the potential effects on marine
mammals from Navy training and
testing were analyzed in Section 3.7
(Affected Environment and
Environmental Consequences—Marine
mammals) of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS.
Based on the best available science, it
was determined that population-level
impacts would not occur.
Comment 58: A Commenter cites to
the status and trajectory of NARWs and
asserts that the negligible impact finding
is unsupported for this species
specifically. The commenter asserts that
the negligible impact analysis must take
into account all of the baseline activities
that are known to have contributed to
the species’ decline, as well as other
reasonably foreseeable activities (e.g.,
five seismic surveys planned for the
Atlantic in the near future) that would
affect the same populations impacted by
the Navy’s activities. The Commenter
also cites to the number of Level B
harassment takes (585) included in the
proposed rule to support their
assertions. To satisfy the negligible
impact requirement for NARWs, the
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Commenter asserts that NMFS must
revise its impacts analysis and
incorporate additional mitigation, such
as those recommended in section II of
Commenter’s letter.
Response: The analysis for NARW in
the final rule has been updated and
expanded since the proposed rule and
more clearly addresses the pertinent
points the commenter raises. See also
the responses above for how NMFS took
into account other activities that have or
may contribute to the species’ status
(Comments and Responses 35, 36, 40,
44, and 45). In addition, since
publication of the proposed rule, the
Navy has removed an exercise that
would have occurred in the Northeast,
decreasing estimated takes by
approximately 20 percent to 471.
Further, the Navy has expanded the NE
NARW Mitigation Area (and its
associated protections) to match the
updated NARW ESA-designated critical
habitat and further added a requirement
not to conduct MTEs in the Gulf of
Maine Planning Awareness Area. Both
of these mitigation measures further
reduce impacts to NARW in important
feeding areas. Given all of this, and as
described in more detail in the Analysis
and Negligible Impact Determination
section of the rule, any individual
NARW is likely to be disturbed at a lowmoderate level on no more than a few
likely non-sequential days per year, and
not in biologically important areas. Even
given the fact that some of the affected
individuals may already have
compromised health, there is nothing to
suggest that such a low magnitude and
severity of effects would result in
impacts on reproduction or survival of
any individual. For these reasons, we
determined that the expected take will
have a negligible impact on NARW.
NEPA
Comment 59: A Commenter
comments that NMFS cannot rely on the
Navy’s AFTT FEIS/OEIS to fulfill its
obligations under NEPA because the
Purpose and Need is too narrow and
does not support NMFS’ MMPA action,
and therefore the AFTT FEIS/OEIS does
not explore a reasonable range of
alternatives.
Response: The proposed action at
issue is the Navy’s proposal to conduct
training activities in the AFTT Study
Area. NMFS is a cooperating agency for
that proposed action, as it has
jurisdiction by law and special expertise
over marine resources impacted by the
proposed action including marine
mammals and federally listed
threatened and endangered species.
Consistent with the regulations
published by the Council on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Environmental Quality (CEQ), it is
common and sound NEPA practice for
NOAA to adopt a lead agency’s NEPA
analysis when, after independent
review, NOAA determines the
document to be sufficient in accordance
with 40 CFR 1506.3. Specifically here,
NOAA must be satisfied that the AFTT
EIS/OEIS adequately addresses the
impacts of issuing the MMPA incidental
take authorization and that NOAA’s
comments and concerns have been
adequately addressed. There is no
requirement in CEQ regulations that
NMFS, as a cooperating agency, issue a
separate purpose and need statement in
order to ensure adequacy and
sufficiency for adoption. Nevertheless,
the Navy, in coordination with NMFS,
has clarified the statement of Purpose
and Need in the AFTT FEIS/OEIS to
more explicitly acknowledge NMFS’
action of issuing an MMPA incidental
take authorization. NMFS also clarified
how its regulatory role under the MMPA
related to Navy’s activities. NMFS’ early
participation in the NEPA process and
role in shaping and informing analyses
using its special expertise ensured that
the analysis in the AFTT FEIS/OEIS is
sufficient for purposes of NMFS’ own
NEPA obligations related to its issuance
of an Incidental Take Authorization
under the MMPA.
Regarding the alternatives, NMFS’
early involvement in development of
the AFTT DEIS/OEIS and role in
evaluating the effects of incidental take
under the MMPA ensured that the
AFTT DEIS/OEIS would include
adequate analysis of a reasonable range
of alternatives. The AFTT FEIS/OEIS
includes a No Action Alternative
specifically to address what could
happen if NMFS did not issue an
MMPA authorization. The other two
Alternatives address two action options
that the Navy could potentially pursue
while also meeting their mandated Title
10 training and testing responsibilities.
More importantly, these alternatives
fully analyze a comprehensive variety of
mitigation measures. This mitigation
analysis supported NMFS’ evaluation of
our options in potentially issuing an
MMPA authorization, which, if the
authorization may be issued, primarily
revolves around the appropriate
mitigation to prescribe. This approach
to evaluating a reasonable range of
alternatives is consistent with NMFS
policy and practice for issuing MMPA
incidental take authorizations. NOAA
has independently reviewed and
evaluated the AFTT EIS/OEIS,
including the purpose and need
statement and range of alternatives, and
determined that the Navy’s AFTT FEIS/
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57135
OEIS fully satisfies NMFS’ NEPA
obligations related to its decision to
issue the MMPA final rule and
associated Letters of Authorization, and
we have adopted it.
Use of NMFS’ Acoustic Technical
Guidance
Comment 60: A Commenter does not
agree with the Navy’s use of NMFS 2016
Acoustic Technical Guidance (NMFS,
2016) for purposes of evaluating
potential auditory injury. The
Commenter claims that (1) NOAA is
considering rescinding or revising the
Acoustic Technical Guidance (2) NMFS’
use of the guidance conflicts with
Executive Order (E.O.) 13795
(‘‘Implementing an America-First
Offshore Energy Strategy’’); (2) Several
industry groups have identified Data
Quality flaws in the Acoustic Technical
guidance; (3) the Commenter has also
identified significant Data Quality flaws
in the Acoustic Technical Guidance;
and (4) NMFS and/or Navy’s continued
use of the Acoustic Technical Guidance
violates Information Quality Act (IQA)
guidelines. Regarding the IQA, the
Commenter states that NMFS does not
have an Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)-approved Information
Collection Request (ICR) associated with
the guidance, and is therefore violating
the IQA.
Response: NMFS disagrees that use of
the Acoustic Technical Guidance results
in any of the claims listed by the
Commenter. NMFS is not considering
rescinding the Acoustic Technical
Guidance. First, the use of the Acoustic
Technical Guidance does not conflict
with Executive Order 13795. Section 10
of the Executive Order called for a
review of the technical guidance as
follows: ‘‘The Secretary of Commerce
shall review for consistency with the
policy set forth in Section 2 of this order
and, after consultation with the
appropriate Federal agencies, take all
steps permitted by law to rescind or
revise that guidance, if appropriate.’’ To
assist the Secretary in the review of the
Acoustic Technical Guidance, NMFS
solicited public comment via a 45-day
public comment period (82 FR 24950;
May 31, 2017) and hosted an
interagency consultation meeting with
representatives from ten federal
agencies (September 25, 2017). NMFS
received 62 comments directly related
to the 2016 Acoustic Technical
Guidance. Comments were submitted by
federal agencies (Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM), the Navy,
the Marine Mammal Commission), oil
and gas industry representatives,
Members of Congress, subject matter
experts, NGOs, a foreign statutory
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57136
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
advisory group, a regulatory advocacy
group, and members of the public. Most
of the comments (85 percent)
recommended no changes to the
Acoustic Technical Guidance, and no
public commenter suggested rescinding
the Acoustic Technical Guidance. The
U.S. Navy, the Marine Mammal
Commission, Members of Congress, and
subject matter experts expressed
support for the Acoustic Technical
Guidance thresholds and weighting
functions as reflecting the best available
science. The remaining comments (15
percent) focused on additional scientific
publications for consideration or
recommended revisions to improve
implementation of the Acoustic
Technical Guidance. All public
comments received during this review
can be found at www.regulations.gov. At
the September 25, 2017, Federal
Interagency Consultation, none of the
federal agencies recommended
rescinding the Acoustic Technical
Guidance. Federal agencies were
supportive of the Acoustic Technical
Guidance thresholds and auditory
weighting functions and the science
behind their derivation and were
appreciative of the opportunity to
provide input. Comments received at
the meeting focused on improvements
to implementation of the Acoustic
Technical Guidance and
recommendations for future working
group discussions to address
implementation of the Acoustic
Technical Guidance based on any new
scientific information as it becomes
available.
NMFS has already released a revised
2018 Acoustic Technical Guidance
document (June 21, 2018) as a result of
the review under E.O. 13795 (see
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance), and the thresholds and
weighting functions in the revised
document (2018 Acoustic Technical
Guidance) are identical to those in the
2016 Acoustic Technical Guidance.
Thus, the revised version does not
change the analysis already completed
by the Navy, which relied on the 2016
version. Additional information on the
review process under Executive Order
13795 can be found in Appendix C of
the Acoustic Technical Guidance.
In addition, NMFS did comply with
the OMB Peer Review Bulletin and IQA
Guidelines in development of the
technical guidance. The Acoustic
Technical Guidance was classified as a
Highly Influential Scientific Assessment
and, as such, underwent three
independent peer reviews, at three
different stages in its development,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
including a follow-up to one of the peer
reviews, prior to its dissemination by
NMFS. In addition, there were three
separate public comment periods.
Responses to public comments were
provided in a previous Federal Register
notice (81 FR 51694; August 4, 2016).
Detailed information on the peer
reviews and public comment periods
conducted during development of the
Acoustic Technical Guidance are
included as an appendix to the Acoustic
Technical Guidance.
The Commenter is incorrect in their
assumption that the Acoustic Technical
Guidance is only based on nonimpulsive Navy sonar and that it is
radically different from impulsive
sound like seismic air guns used in the
oil and gas industry. The Commenter is
also incorrect in stating that the
application of the Acoustic Technical
Guidance cannot practically be used to
regulate seismic and other impulsive
sounds sources and that explosives, like
those used by the Navy, are not subject
to the Acoustic Technical Guidance, but
instead to a completely different
explosive risk guidance. While it is true
that there are less marine mammal TTS
onset data available for impulsive
sources compared to non-impulsive
sources, the Acoustic Technical
Guidance impulsive thresholds are
specifically derived from data from two
impulsive sources: (1) A seismic water
gun (Finneran et al., 2002) and (2) a
single air gun exposure (Lucke et al.,
2009) (i.e., these sources are more
similar to those used by the oil and gas
industry than tactical sonar or tonal
signals). For the evaluation of PTS
onset, underwater explosives are subject
to the same impulsive thresholds from
the Acoustic Technical Guidance as
other impulsive sources, such as seismic
air guns or impact pile drivers (i.e., they
do not have a separate set of criteria for
potential impacts on hearing).
Underwater explosives do have
additional thresholds based on their
potential to induce lung or
gastrointestinal injury via exposure to
shock waves, which are based on net
explosive weight, as well as charge
depth and animal mass.
Regarding the comment that industry
impulsive sound would be more
appropriately assessed and regulated
through Navy’s explosive risk guidance
than through the Acoustic Technical
Guidance, we disagree. Please see our
comments above regarding explosives.
Overall, the Acoustic Technical
Guidance is a scientific tool that assists
in impact assessments and explicitly
states that while it can inform regulatory
decisions, it in no way directly
mandates any specific regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
decisions, actions, or mitigations.
Discretion is left to regulators to
interpret the best way to use this best
available information.
Last, regarding the Paperwork
Reduction Act, there is no collection of
information requirement associated
with the Acoustic Technical Guidance.
Rather, NMFS information collection for
Applications and Reporting
Requirements for Incidental Taking of
Marine Mammals by Specified
Activities Under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, OMB control number
0648–0151, was recently renewed and
fully considers any potential additional
time required as a result of using the
Acoustic Technical Guidance, which is
included in the estimated burden hours.
Description of Marine Mammals and
Their Habitat in the Area of the
Specified Activities
Marine mammal species and their
associated stocks that have the potential
to occur in the AFTT Study Area are
presented in Table 12 along with an
abundance estimate, an associated
coefficient of variation value, and best/
minimum abundance estimates. Some
marine mammal species, such as
manatees, are not managed by NMFS,
but by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and therefore not discussed
below. The Navy anticipates the take of
individuals of 39 marine mammal
species by Level A and B harassment
incidental to training and testing
activities from the use of sonar and
other transducers, in-water detonations,
air guns, and impact pile driving/
vibratory extraction. In addition, the
Navy requested authorization for nine
serious injuries or mortalities of four
marine mammal stocks during ship
shock trials, and three takes by serious
injury or mortality from vessel strikes
over the five-year period. One marine
mammal species, the NARW, has
critical habitat designated under the
ESA in the AFTT Study Area (described
below).
The species carried forward for
analysis are those likely to be found in
the AFTT Study Area based on the most
recent data available, and do not
include stocks or species that may have
once inhabited or transited the area but
have not been sighted in recent years
and therefore are extremely unlikely to
occur in the AFTT Study Area (e.g.,
species which were extirpated because
of factors such as nineteenth and
twentieth century commercial
exploitation).
The species not carried forward for
analysis include the bowhead whale,
beluga whale, and narwhal as these
would be considered extralimital
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
species and are not part of the AFTT
seasonal species assemblage. Bowhead
whales are likely to be found only in the
Labrador Current open ocean area, even
if in 2012 and 2014, the same bowhead
whale was observed in Cape Cod Bay,
which represents the southernmost
record of this species in the western
North Atlantic. In June 2014, a beluga
whale was observed in several bays and
inlets of Rhode Island and
Massachusetts (Swaintek, 2014). This
sighting likely represents a single
extralimital beluga whale occurrence in
the Northeast United States Continental
Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. There is
no stock of narwhal that occurs in the
U.S. EEZ in the Atlantic Ocean;
however, populations from Hudson
Strait and Davis Strait may extend into
the AFTT Study Area at its northwest
extreme. However, narwhals prefer cold
Arctic waters and those wintering in
Hudson Strait occur in smaller numbers.
For these reasons, the likelihood of any
Navy activities encountering and having
any effect on any of these three species
is so slight as to be unlikely; therefore,
these species do not require further
analysis.
Additionally, for multiple bottlenose
dolphin stocks, there was no potential
for overlap with any stressors from Navy
activities and therefore there would be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
no adverse effects (or takes), in which
case, those stocks were not considered
further. Specifically, with the exception
of the Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne,
Bay Boudreau stock of bottlenose
dolphins (which is addressed in the
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section below), there is
no potential for overlap of any Navy
stressor with any other Northern
GOMEX Bay, Sound, and Estuary
stocks. Also, the following bottlenose
dolphin stocks for the Atlantic do not
have any potential for overlap with
Navy activity stressors (or take), and
therefore are not considered further:
Northern South Carolina Estuarine
System, Charleston Estuarine System,
Northern Georgia/Southern South
Carolina Estuarine System, Central
Georgia Estuarine System, Southern
Georgia Estuarine System, Biscayne Bay,
and Florida Bay stocks. For the same
reason, bottlenose dolphins off of Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands were
also not considered further. We note
that in NMFS’ draft 2018 SARs (made
available since the proposed rule was
published), NMFS has further
delineated stocks within the Northern
GOMEX Bay, Sound, and Estuary stocks
since the 2017 SAR and the Navy’s
application. However, the Mississippi
Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57137
stock of bottlenose dolphins remains the
same, and the fact that no Navy stressors
overlap any of the other stocks remains
accurate, so our analysis of these stocks
is unchanged. NMFS is in the process of
writing individual SARs for each of the
31 Northern GOMEX Bay, Sound, and
Estuary stocks. To date, six have been
completed (including the Mississippi
Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau
stock).We presented a detailed
discussion of marine mammals and
their occurrence in the planned action
area, inclusive of important marine
mammal habitat (e.g., critical habitat),
BIAs, national marine sanctuaries, and
UMEs in our Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking (83 FR 10954;
March 13, 2018); please see that
proposed rule or the Navy’s application
for more information. There have been
no changes to important marine
mammal habitat, BIAs, National Marine
Sanctuaries, or ESA-designated critical
habitat since the issuance of the
proposed rule; therefore, they are not
discussed further (though we note that
NARW ESA-designated critical habitat
was updated in 2016, since the last
Navy AFTT rule, and some of the
discussion in the rule references that).
Additional information on UMEs has
become available and is discussed
following Table 12.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57138
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Bowhead
whale
North
Atlantic
right whale
Blue whale
Bryde's
whale
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Balaena
mysticetus
Eastern CanadaWest Greenland
Eubalaena
glacialis
Balaenoptera
brydei/edeni
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Endangered,
strategic,
depleted
Western
Balaenoptera
musculus
Endangered,
strategic,
depleted
Western North
Atlantic (Gulf of St.
Lawrence)
Endangered,
strategic,
depleted
Northern Gulf of
Mexico
Planned
Endangered,
strategic
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Labrador
Current
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf,
West Greenland
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
NA
Gulf
Stream,
Labrador
Current,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf,
Gulf of Mexico
(extralimital)
NA
Unknown/
440 11
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre,
Labrador
Current
Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf,
Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf,
Caribbean Sea,
and Gulf of
Mexico
( strandings only)
NA
33 (1.07) I 16
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Gulf of Mexico
NA
7,660 (4,500-
ll,IOOt
451 (0) I 445
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.041</GPH>
Table 12. Marine mammals with the potential to occur within the AFTT Study Area.
Fin whale
Humpback
whale
Minke
whale
VerDate Sep<11>2014
West Greenland
Shelf
NA
Endangered,
strategic,
depleted
1,618
(0. 33) I 1,234
West Greenland
Endangered,
strategic,
depleted
4,468 (1,34314,871)9
Labrador
Current
Gulf of St.
Lawrence
Endangered,
strategic,
depleted
328
(306-350) 10
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf,
Scotian Shelf
NA
896 (0) I 896
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre,
Labrador
Current
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea,
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
NA
Caribbean Sea,
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
NA
Balaenoptera
physalus
Megaptera
novaeangliae
Gulf of Maine
NA
Canadian Eastern
Coastal
NA
2,591 (0.81) I
1,425
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre,
Labrador
Current
West Greenland'
NA
16,609
(7,17238,461)1NA'
Labrador
Current
West Greenland
Shelf
NA
NA
NA
Nova Scotia
Endangered,
strategic,
depleted
357 (0.52) I
236
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea,
Southeast
Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
Labrador Sea
Endangered,
strategic,
depleted
Unknown•
Labrador
Current
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf,
West Greenland
Shelf
Balaenoptera
borealis
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
NA
Western North
Atlantic
Balaenoptera
acutorostrata
Sei whale
Caribbean Sea,
Gulf of Mexico,
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre,
Labrador
Current
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57139
ER14NO18.042</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Sperm
whale
Beluga
whale
2,288 (0.28) I
1,815
Northern Gulf of
Mexico
Endangered,
strategic,
depleted
763 (0.38) I
560
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Puerto Rico and
U.S. Virgin Islands
Endangered,
strategic,
depleted
Unknown
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Caribbean Sea
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf,
Caribbean Sea
NA
Western North
Atlantic
NA
3,785 (0.47) I
2,598 12
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Northern Gulf of
Mexico
NA
186 (1.04) I
9012
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
Eastern High
Arctic/Baffin Bay 13
NA
21,213
(10,98532,619) 13
Labrador
Current
West Greenland
Shelf
NA
West Greenland 14
NA
10,595
(4.90424,650) 14
NA
West Greenland
Shelf
NA
NA
NA15
NA
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf,
West Greenland
Shelf
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
Kogia breviceps
and Kogia sima
Monodon
monoceros
Blainville' s
beaked
whale
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Endangered,
strategic,
depleted
Delphinapterus
leucas
Narwhal
NA15
Western North
Atlantic 16
NA
7,092 (0.54) I
4,632 17
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre,
Labrador
Current
Northern Gulf of
Mexico
NA
149 (0.91) I
7718
NA
Mesoplodon
densirostris
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
NA
North Atlantic
Physeter
macrocephalus
Pygmy and
dwarf
sperm
whales
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf,
Caribbean Sea
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre,
Labrador
Current
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.043</GPH>
57140
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Cuvier's
beaked
whale
NA
Western North
Atlantic 16
NA
6,532 (0.32) I
5,021
Northern Gulf of
Mexico 16
NA
74 (1.04) I 36
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
Puerto Rico and
U.S. Virgin Islands
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Caribbean Sea
NA
NA
7,092 (0.54) I
4,632 17
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
United States
Continental Shelf
NA
NA
149 (0.91) I
7718
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
Unknown
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre,
Labrador
Current
Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
NA
7,092 (0.54) I
4,632 17
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
NA
NA
7,092 (0.54) I
4,632 17
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
NA
Western North
Atlantic 16
NA
44,715 (0.43)
131,610
Gulf
Stream
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
NA
Northern Gulf of
Mexico
NA
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
Gervais'
beaked
whale
Mesoplodon
europaeus
Northern Gulf of
Mexico 16
Northern
bottlenose
whale
Sowerby's
beaked
whale
True's
beaked
whale
Atlantic
spotted
dolphin
Hyperoodon
ampulla/us
Western North
Atlantic
Mesoplodon
bidens
Western North
Atlantic 16
Mesoplodon
mirus
Western North
Atlantic 16
Stene/la
frontalis
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
NA
NA
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.044</GPH>
Ziphius
cavirostris
Western North
Atlantic 16
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
57141
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Puerto Rico and
U.S. Virgin Islands
Atlantic
white-sided
dolphin
Clymene
dolphin
Lagenorhynchus
acutus
Western North
Atlantic
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Caribbean Sea
NA
48,819 (0.61)
I 30,403
Gulf
Steam,
Labrador
Current
Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
NA
NA
NA
Unknown
Gulf
Stream
Northern Gulf of
Mexico 16
NA
129 (1.0) I 64
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
77,532 (0.40)
I 56,053
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
Long Island
Sound, Sandy
Hook Bay,
Lower
Chesapeake
Bay, James
River,
Elizabeth
River
Western North
Atlantic Northern
Migratory Coastaf0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
NA
Western North
Atlantic 16
Stene!!a
clymene
Tursiops
truncatus
NA
Unknown
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
Western North
Atlantic Offshore 19
Common
bottlenose
dolphin
Strategic
Strategic,
depleted
NA
6,639 (0.41) I
4,759
NA
Western North
Atlantic Southern
Migratory Coastaf0
Strategic,
depleted
3,751 (0.06) I
2,353
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
Lower
Chesapeake
Bay, James
River,
Elizabeth
River,
Beaufort
Inlet, Cape
Fear River,
Kings Bay,
St. Johns
River
Western North
Atlantic South
Carolina/Georgia
Coastae0
Strategic,
depleted
6,027 (0.34) I
4,569
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
Kings Bay,
St. Johns
River
Northern North
Carolina Estuarine
System20
Strategic
823 (0.06) I
782
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
Beaufort
Inlet, Cape
Fear River
Southern North
Carolina Estuarine
System20
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
Beaufort
Inlet, Cape
Fear River
Northern South
Carolina Estuarine
System20
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
NA
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.045</GPH>
57142
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Charleston
Estuarine System20
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
NA
Northern Georgia/
Southern South
Carolina Estuarine
System20
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
NA
Central Georgia
Estuarine System20
Strategic
192 (0.04) I
185
NA
Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf
NA
Southern Georgia
Estuarine System20
Strategic
194 (0.05) I
185
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
Kings Bay,
St. Johns
River
Western North
Atlantic Northern
Florida Coastal 20
Strategic,
depleted
877 (0.49) I
595
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
Kings Bay,
St. Johns
River
Jacksonville
Estuarine System20
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
Kings Bay,
St. Johns
River
Western North
Atlantic Central
Florida Coastal 20
Strategic,
depleted
1,218 (0.35) I
913
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
Port
Canaveral
Indian River Lagoon
Estuarine System20
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
Port
Canaveral
Biscayne Bay 16
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
NA
Florida Bay 16
NA
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Northern Gulf of
Mexico Continental
Shelf0
Na
51,192 (0.10)
I 46,926
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Gulf of Mexico
Eastern Coastal20
NA
12,388 (0.13)
I 11,110
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Gulf of Mexico
Northern Coastal 20
NA
7,185 (0.21) I
6,044
NA
Gulf of Mexico
St. Andrew
Bay,
Pascagoula
River
Gulf of Mexico
Western Coastaf0
NA
20,161 (0.17)
I 17,491
NA
Gulf of Mexico
Corpus
Christi Bay,
Galveston
Bay
57143
Common
bottlenose
dolphin
(continued)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.046</GPH>
Tursiops
iruncatus
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Northern Gulf of
Mexico Oceanic20
NA
5,806 (0.39) I
4,230
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Laguna Madre
Strategic
80 (1.57) I
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Nueces Bay/Corpus
Christi Bay
Strategic
58(0.61)/
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Copano
Bay/Aransas
Bay/San Antonio
Bay/Redfish
Bay/Espiritu Santo
Bay
Strategic
55 (0.82) I
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Strategic
61 (0.45) I
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
WestBay
NA
48 (0.03) I 46
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Galveston Bay/East
Bay!Trinity Bay
Strategic
152 (0.43) I
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Sabine Lake
Strategic
0
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Calcasieu Lake
Strategic
0
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Strategic
0
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
NA
3,870 (0.15) I
3,426
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Barataria Bay
Estuarine System20
Strategic
2,306 (0.09) I
2,138
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Mississippi River
Delta
Strategic
332 (0.93) I
170
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Mississippi Sound,
Lake Borgne, Bay
Boudreau20
Strategic
3,046 (0.06) I
2,896
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
122 (0.34) I
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Matagorda Bay!fres
Palacios
Bay/Lavaca Bay
Vermilion Bay/West
Cote Blanche
Bay/Atchafalaya
Bay
Terrebonne
Bay!fimbalier Bay
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Mobile
Bay/Bonsecour Bay
Strategic
Perdido Bay
Strategic
0
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Pensacola Bay/East
Bay
Strategic
33 (0.80) I
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Choctawhatchee
Strategic
179 (0.04) I
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.047</GPH>
57144
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Unknown
124 (0.57) I
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Strategic
152 (0.08) I
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Strategic
439 (0.14) I
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Strategic
491 (0.39) I
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Tampa Bay
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Sarasota Bay/Little
Sarasota Bay
Strategic
158 (0.27) I
126
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Strategic
826 (0.09) I
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Caloosahatchee
River
Strategic
0
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Estero Bay
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Whitewater Bay
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Florida Keys (Bahia
Honda to Key West)
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico
NA
Puerto Rico and
U.S. Virgin Islands
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Caribbean Sea
NA
Strategic
442 (1.06) I
212
NA
Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf
NA
St. Andrew Bay
St. Joseph Bay20
St. Vincent
Sound/Apalachicola
Bay/St. George
Sound
Apalachee Bay
Waccasassa
Bay/Withlacoochee
Bay/Crystal Bay
St. Joseph
Sound/Clearwater
Harbor
Pine Island
Sound/Charlotte
Harbor/Gasparilla
Sound/Lemon Bay
Chokoloskee
Bay/Ten Thousand
Islands/Gullivan
Bay
False killer
whale
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Pseudorca
crassidens
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Western North
Atlantic22
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Strategic
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.048</GPH>
Bay
57145
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Northern Gulf of
Mexico 16
Fraser's
dolphin
Killer
Whale
Longfmnedpilot
whale
Melonheaded
Whale
Pantropical
spotteddolphin
Pygmy
Killer
Whales
VerDate Sep<11>2014
NA
Unknown
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
NA
Western North
Atlantic23
NA
Unknown
Gulf
Stream
Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf,
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
Northern Gulf of
Mexico 16
NA
Unknown
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
United States
Continental Shelf,
Scotian Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
NA
Lagenodelphis
hosei
Western North
Atlantic22
NA
Unknown
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre,
Labrador
Current
Northern Gulf of
Mexico 16
NA
28 (1.02) I 14
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
5,636 (0.63) I
3,464
Gulf
Stream
Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
NA
Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf
NA
Orcinus orca
Globicephala
me las
Western North
Atlantic
NA
Western North
Atlantic23
NA
Unknown
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Northern Gulf of
Mexico 16
NA
2,235 (0.75) I
1,274
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
Western North
Atlantic 16
NA
3,333 (0.91) I
1,733
Gulf
Stream
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
NA
Northern Gulf of
Mexico22
NA
50,880 (0.27)
I 40,699
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
Peponocephala
electra
Stene !Ia
attenuate
Western North
Atlantic 16
NA
Unknown
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Northern Gulf of
Mexico 16
NA
152 (1.02) I
75
NA
Feresa
attenuata
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
NA
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.049</GPH>
57146
Risso's
dolphin
Roughtoothed
dolphin
Shortfinned pilot
whale
Spinner
dolphin
Striped
dolphin
NA
18,250 (0.46)
I 12,619
Northern Gulf of
Mexico
NA
2,442 (0.57) I
1,563
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
Caribbean Sea
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
NA
Western North
Atlantic 16
NA
136 (1.00) I
67
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Northern Gulf of
Mexico
NA
624 (0.99) I
311
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
Western North
Atlantic
NA
28,924 (0.24)
I 23,637
NA
Northeast
Continental Shelf,
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
NA
Northern Gulf of
Mexico22
NA
2,415 (0.66) I
1,456
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
Puerto Rico and
U.S. Virgin Islands
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Caribbean Sea
NA
Unknown
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf
NA
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
Steno
bredanensis
Stene!!a
longirostris
Western North
Atlantic 16
NA
Northern Gulf of
Mexico 16
NA
Puerto Rico and
U.S. Virgin Islands
Strategic
Unknown
NA
Caribbean Sea
NA
Western North
Atlantic 16
NA
54,807 (0.30)
I 42,804
Gulf
Stream
Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf,
Scotian Shelf
NA
Northern Gulf of
Mexico 16
NA
1,849 (0.77) I
1,041
NA
Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean Sea
NA
NA
NA
Stene !Ia
coeruleoalba
Shortbeaked
common
dolphin
Delphinus
de !phis
Western North
Atlantic
Whitebeaked
dolphin
Lagenorhynchus
albirostris
Western North
Atlantic23
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
NA
Western North
Atlantic
Grampus
griseus
Globicephala
macrorhynchus
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
United States
Continental Shelf,
Scotian Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
Gulf
Stream,
North
Atlantic
Gyre
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00073
11,441 (0.83)
I 6,221
NA
70,184 (0.28)
I 55,690
Gulf
Stream
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
NA
2,003 (0.94) I
1,023
Labrador
Current
Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57147
ER14NO18.050</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Gulf of Maine/Bay
of Fundy
Harbor
porpoise
Gulf of St.
Lawrence24
Phocoena
NA
Newfoundland25
Greenland26
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
NA
Frm 00074
NA
NA
Fmt 4701
79,883 (0.32)
I 61,415
Unknown24
Unknown25
Unknown26
Sfmt 4725
NA
Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
Narragansett
Bay, Rhode
Island Sound,
Block Island
Sound,
Buzzards
Bay,
Vineyard
Sound, Long
Island Sound,
Piscataqua
River,
Thames
River,
Kennebec
River
Labrador
Current
Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
NA
Labrador
Current
Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
NA
Labrador
Current
Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf,
West Greenland
Shelf
NA
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.051</GPH>
57148
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Gray seal
Harbor seal
Harp seal
Hooded
seal
Halichoerus
grypus
Phoca vitulina
Pagophilus
groenlandicus
Cystophora
cristata
Western North
Atlantic
Western North
Atlantic
Western North
Atlantic
Western North
Atlantic
NA
NA
NA
NA
27,131 (0.19)
I 23,158
75,834 (0.15)
I 66,884
Unknown
Unknown
57149
Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
Narragansett
Bay, Rhode
Island Sound,
Block Island
Sound,
Buzzards
Bay,
Vineyard
Sound, Long
Island Sound,
Piscataqua
River,
Thames
River,
Kennebeck
River
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
Chesapeake
Bay,
Narragansett
Bay, Rhode
Island Sound,
Block Island
Sound,
Buzzards
Bay,
Vineyard
Sound, Long
Island Sound,
Piscataqua
River,
Thames
River,
Kennebeck
River
NA
Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf
NA
Southeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Northeast
U.S. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf,
West Greenland
Shelf
Narragansett
Bay, Rhode
Island Sound,
Block Island
Sound,
Buzzards
Bay,
Vineyard
Sound, Long
Island Sound,
Piscataqua
River,
Thames
River,
Kennebec
River
NA
NA
Notes: CV: coefficient ofvanat10n; ESA: Endangered Spec1es Act; MMPA: Marme Mammal ProtectiOn Act; NA: not applicable
1Taxonomy
follows (Committee on Taxonomy, 2016)
Stock designations for the U.S. EEZ and abundance estimates are from Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARS prepared by NMFS (Hayes eta/.,
20 17) and the draft 2018 SARs, unless specifically noted.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.052</GPH>
2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
A UME is defined under section
410(6) of the MMPA as a stranding that
is unexpected; involves a significant
die-off of any marine mammal
population; and demands immediate
response. From 1991 to the present,
there have been 36 formally recognized
UMEs affecting marine mammals along
the Atlantic Coast and the GOMEX
involving species under NMFS’
jurisdiction. Two additional UME’s
have been declared in 2018 since
publication of the proposed rule that
inform our analysis: The Northeast
Pinniped UME (harbor and gray seals)
in the Atlantic and the Southwest
Florida Bottlenose dolphin UME in the
GOMEX. The NARW, humpback whale,
and minke whale UMEs on the Atlantic
Coast are still active and involve
ongoing investigations. The impacts to
Barataria Bay bottlenose dolphins from
the expired UME (discussed in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
proposed rule) associated with the DWH
oil spill in the GOMEX are thought to
be persistent and continue to inform
population analyses. The other UMEs
expired several years ago and little is
known about how the effects of those
events might be appropriately applied to
an impact assessment several years
later. The five UMEs that could inform
the current analysis are discussed
below.
NARW UME
Since June 7, 2017, elevated
mortalities of NARW have been
documented. To date, a total of 19
confirmed dead stranded NARW (12 in
Canada; 7 in the United States), and five
live whale entanglements in Canada
have been observed, predominantly in
the Gulf of St. Lawrence region of
Canada and around the Cape Cod area
of Massachusetts. Historically (2006–
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2016), the annual average for dead
NARW strandings in Canada and the
United States combined is 3.8 whales
per year. This event was declared a
UME and is under investigation. Full
necropsy examinations have been
conducted on 11 of the 19 whales and
final results from the examinations are
pending. Necropsy results from seven of
the Canadian whales suggest mortalities
of four whales were compatible with
blunt trauma likely caused by vessel
collision and two mortalities were
confirmed from chronic entanglement in
fishing gear (Daoust et al., 2017; M.
Hardy personal communication to D.
Fauquier on October 5, 2017; MeyerGutbrod et al., 2018; Pettis et al., 2017a).
The seventh whale was too decomposed
to determine the cause of mortality, but
some observations in this animal
suggested blunt trauma. Limited
samples from another whale suggest
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.053</GPH>
57150
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
acute death (Daoust et al., 2018). Daoust
et al. (2018) also concluded there were
no oil and gas seismic surveys
authorized in the months prior to or
during the period over which these
mortalities occurred, as well as no
blasting or major marine development
projects. All of the NARW that stranded
in the United States that are part of the
UME had been significantly
decomposed at the time of stranding,
and investigations have been limited.
Navy was consulted as to sonar use and
they confirmed none was used in the
vicinity of any of the strandings.
As part of the UME process, an
independent team of scientists
(Investigative Team) was assembled to
coordinate with the Working Group on
Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality
Events to review the data collected,
sample future whales that strand and to
determine the next steps for the
investigation. For more information on
this UME, please refer to https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-life-distress/2017-2018-northatlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortalityevent.
While data are not yet available to
statistically estimate the population’s
trend beyond 2015, three lines of
evidence indicate the population is still
in decline. First, calving rates in 2016,
2017, and 2018 were low. Only five new
calves were documented in 2017 (Pettis
et al., 2017a), well below the number
needed to compensate for expected
mortalities (Pace et al., 2017), and no
new calves were reported for 2018.
Long-term photographic identification
data indicate new calves rarely go
undetected, so these years likely
represent a continuation of the low
calving rates that began in 2012 (Kraus
et al., 2007; Pace et al., 2017). Second,
as noted above, the preliminary
abundance estimate for 2016 is 451
individuals, down approximately 1.5
percent from 458 in 2015. Third, since
June 2017, at least 19 NARWs have died
in what has been declared an UME as
discussed above, and at least one calf
died prior to this in April 2017 (MeyerGutbrod et al., 2018; NMFS 2017).
Humpback Whale UME Along the
Atlantic Coast
Since January 2016, elevated
mortalities of humpback whales along
the Atlantic coast from Maine through
Florida have occurred. As of August 29,
2018 a total of 81 humpback strandings
have occurred (26, 33, and 22 whales in
2016, 2017, and 2018 respectively). As
of April 2017, partial or full necropsy
examinations were conducted on 20
cases, or approximately half of the 42
strandings (at that time). Of the 20
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
whales examined, 10 had evidence of
blunt force trauma or pre-mortem
propeller wounds indicative of vessel
strike, which is over six times above the
16-year average of 1.5 whales showing
signs of vessel strike in this region.
Vessel strikes were documented for
stranded humpback whales in Virginia
(3), New York (3), Delaware (2),
Massachusetts (1) and New Hampshire
(1). NOAA, in coordination with our
stranding network partners, continues to
investigate the recent mortalities,
environmental conditions, and
population monitoring to better
understand the recent humpback whale
mortalities. At this time, vessel
parameters (including size) are not
known for each vessel-whale collision
that lead to the death of the whales.
Therefore, NOAA considers all sizes of
vessels to be risks for whale species in
highly trafficked areas. The Navy has
investigated potential strikes and
confirmed that it had none. This
investigation is ongoing. Please refer to
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/
mmume/2017humpback
atlanticume.html for more information
on this UME.
Minke Whale UME Along the Atlantic
Coast
Since January 2017, elevated
mortalities of minke whale along the
Atlantic coast from Maine through
South Carolina have occurred. As of
September 9, 2018, a total of 43
strandings have occurred (27 and 16
whales in 2017 and 2018, respectively).
As of February 16, 2018 full or partial
necropsy examinations were conducted
on over 60 percent of the whales.
Preliminary findings in several of the
whales have shown evidence of human
interactions, primarily fisheries
interactions, or infectious disease. These
findings are not consistent across all of
the whales examined, and final
diagnostic results are still pending for
many of the cases. This investigation is
ongoing. Please refer to https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-life-distress/2017-2018-minkewhale-unusual-mortality-event-alongatlantic-coast for more information on
this UME.
Northeast Pinniped UME Along the
Atlantic Coast
Since July 2018, elevated numbers of
harbor seal and gray seal mortalities
have occurred across Maine, New
Hampshire and Massachusetts. As of
September 25, 2018, a total of 1,036 seal
strandings have been confirmed. Full or
partial necropsy examinations have
been conducted on many of the seals
and samples have been collected for
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57151
testing. Based on testing conducted so
far, the main pathogen found in the
seals is phocine distemper virus. While
initially detected in some animals, there
is not strong evidence that avian
influenza virus is a cause of this UME.
This investigation is ongoing. Please
refer to https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-lifedistress/2018-pinniped-unusualmortality-event-along-northeast for
more information on this UME.
Southwest Florida Bottlenose Dolphin
UME Along the GOMEX
Since July 2018, elevated bottlenose
dolphin mortalities have occurred along
the Southwest coast of Florida including
Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota,
Manatee, Hillsborough, and Pinellas
counties. As of September 27, 2018, 65
dolphins have been confirmed stranded
in this event. Our stranding network
partners have conducted full or partial
necropsy examinations on several
dolphins, with positive results for the
red tide toxin (brevetoxin) indicating
this UME is related to the severe bloom
of a red tide that has been ongoing since
November 2017. This investigation is
ongoing. Please refer to https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/
marine-life-distress/2018-bottlenosedolphin-unusual-mortality-eventsouthwest-florida for more information
on this UME.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
We provided a summary and
discussion of the potential effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat in our Federal Register
notice of proposed rulemaking (83 FR
10954; March 13, 2018). In the Potential
Effects of Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals and Their Habitat section of
the proposed rule, NMFS provided a
description of the ways marine
mammals may be affected by these
activities in the form of serious injury or
mortality, physical trauma, sensory
impairment (permanent and temporary
threshold shifts and acoustic masking),
physiological responses (particular
stress responses), behavioral
disturbance, or habitat effects.
Therefore, we do not reprint the
information here but refer the reader to
that document. For additional summary
and discussion of recent scientific
studies not included in the proposed
rulemaking, we direct the reader to the
AFTT FEIS/OEIS (Chapter 3, Section 3.7
Marine Mammals, https://
www.aftteis.com/), which NMFS
participated in the development of via
our cooperating agency status and
adopted to meet our NEPA
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57152
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
requirements. We highlight several
studies below, but direct the reader to
the AFTT FEIS/OEIS for a full
compilation. As noted above, NMFS has
reviewed and accepted the Navy’s
compilation and interpretation of the
best available science contained in the
AFTT FEIS/OEIS. More specifically, we
have independently reviewed the more
recent studies that were not included in
NMFS’ proposed rule and have
concluded that the descriptions and
interpretations of those studies are
accurate. Importantly, we note that none
of the newer information highlighted
here or in the AFTT FEIS/OEIS affects
our analysis in a manner that changes
our determinations under the MMPA.
The Acoustic Technical Guidance
(NMFS 2018), which was used in the
assessment of effects for this action,
compiled, interpreted, and synthesized
the best available scientific information
for noise-induced hearing effects for
marine mammals to derive updated
thresholds for assessing the impacts of
noise on marine mammal hearing. New
data on killer whale hearing (Branstetter
et al., 2017), harbor porpoise hearing
(Kastelein et al., 2017a), harbor porpoise
TS in response to airguns (Kastelein et
al., 2017b) and mid-frequency sonar
(Kastelein et al., 2017c), and harbor seal
TS in response to pile-driving sounds
(Kastelein et al., 2018) are consistent
with data included and thresholds
presented in the Acoustic Technical
Guidance.
Recent studies with captive
odontocete species (bottlenose dolphin,
harbor porpoise, beluga, and false killer
whale) have observed increases in
hearing threshold levels when
individuals received a warning sound
prior to exposure to a relatively loud
sound (Nachtigall and Supin, 2013,
2015, Nachtigall et al., 2016a,b,c,
Finneran, 2018, Nachtigall et al., 2018).
These studies suggest that captive
animals have a mechanism to reduce
hearing sensitivity prior to impending
loud sounds. Hearing change was
observed to be frequency dependent and
Finneran (2018) suggests hearing
attenuation occurs within the cochlea or
auditory nerve. Based on these
observations on captive odontocetes, the
authors suggest that wild animals may
have a mechanism to self-mitigate the
impacts of noise exposure by
dampening their hearing during
prolonged exposures of loud sound, or
if conditioned to anticipate intense
sounds (Finneran, 2018, Nachtigall at
al., 2018).
Recent reviews have synthesized data
from experimental studies examining
marine mammal behavioral response to
anthropogenic sound, and have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
documented large variances in
individual behavioral responses to
anthropogenic sound both within and
among marine mammal species. These
reviews highlight the importance of the
exposure context (e.g., behavioral state,
presence of other animals and social
relationships, prey abundance, distance
to source, presence of vessels,
environmental parameters, etc.) in
determining or predicting a behavioral
response. As described in the Proposed
Rule, in a review of experimental field
studies to measure behavioral responses
of cetaceans to sonar, Southall et al.
(2016) observed that some individuals
of different species display clear yet
varied responses (some of which have
negative implications), while others
appear to tolerate high levels. Results
from the studies they investigated
demonstrate that responses are highly
variable and may not be fully
predictable with simple acoustic
exposure metrics (e.g., received sound
level). Rather, differences among species
and individuals along with contextual
aspects of exposure (e.g., behavioral
state) appear to affect response
probability (Southall et al., 2016).
Dunlop et al. (2018) combined data from
the BRAHSS (Behavioural Response of
Australian Humpback whales to Seismic
Surveys) studies designed to examine
the behavioral responses of migrating
humpback whales to various seismic
array sources to develop a doseresponse model. The model accounted
for other variables such as presence of
the vessel, array towpath relative to the
migration, and social and environmental
parameters. Authors observed that
whales were more likely to avoid the
airgun or array (defined by increasing
their distance from the source) when
they were exposed to sounds greater
than 130 dB re 1 mPa2·s and they were
within 4 km of the source (Dunlop et al.,
2018). At sound exposure levels of 150–
155 dB re 1 mPa2·s and less than 2.5 km
from the source the model predicted a
50% probability of response (Dunlop et
al. 2018). However, it was not possible
to estimate the maximum response
threshold as at the highest received
levels of 160–170 dB re 1 mPa2·s) a small
number of whales moving rapidly and
close to the source did not exhibit an
avoidance response as defined by the
study (Dunlop et al., 2018).
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
This section indicates the number of
takes that NMFS is authorizing, which
are based on the amount of take that
NMFS anticipates could occur or is
likely to occur, depending on the type
of take and the methods used to
estimate it, as described in detail below.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
NMFS coordinated closely with the
Navy in the development of their
incidental take application, and with
one limited exception, agrees that the
methods the Navy put forth in their
application to estimate take (including
the model, thresholds, and density
estimates), and the resulting numbers
being authorized, are appropriate and
based on the best available science. As
noted elsewhere, additional discussion
and subsequent analysis led both NMFS
and the Navy, in coordination, to
conclude that different take estimates
for serious injury or mortality were
appropriate, and where those numbers
differ from the Navy’s application or our
proposed rule, NMFS has explicitly
described our rationale and indicated
what we consider an appropriate
number of takes.
Takes are predominantly in the form
of harassment, but a small number of
serious injuries or mortalities are also
authorized. For military readiness
activities, the MMPA defines
‘‘harassment’’ as: (i) Any act that injures
or has the significant potential to injure
a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely
to disturb a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of natural behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering, to a point where
such behavioral patterns are abandoned
or significantly altered (Level B
harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be
in the form of Level B harassment, as
use of the acoustic and explosive
sources (i.e., sonar, air guns, pile
driving, explosives) is more likely to
result in the disruption of natural
behavioral patterns to a point where
they are abandoned or significantly
altered (as defined specifically at the
beginning of this section, but referred to
generally as behavioral disruption) or
TTS for marine mammals than other
forms of take. There is also the potential
for Level A harassment, however, in the
form of auditory injury and/or tissue
damage (latter from explosives only) to
result from exposure to the sound
sources utilized in training and testing
activities. Lastly, a limited number of
serious injuries or mortalities could
occur for four species of mid-frequency
cetaceans during ship shock trials and
three serious injuries or mortalities total
(over the five-year period) of mysticetes
(except for blue whales) and North
Atlantic sperm whales could occur
through vessel collisions. Although we
analyze the impacts of these potential
serious injuries or mortalities that are
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
authorized, the required mitigation and
monitoring measures are expected to
minimize the likelihood that ship strike
or these high level explosive exposures
(and the associated serious injury or
mortality) actually occur.
Generally speaking, for acoustic
impacts, we estimate the amount and
type of harassment by considering: (1)
Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS
believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be taken
by Level B harassment (in this case, as
defined in the military readiness
definition of Level B harassment
included above) or incur some degree of
temporary or permanent hearing
impairment; (2) the area or volume of
water that will be ensonified above
these levels in a day or event; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine
mammals within these ensonified areas;
and (4) and the number of days of
activities or events. Below, we describe
these components in more detail and
present the take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science,
NMFS, in coordination with the Navy,
has established acoustic thresholds that
identify the most appropriate received
level of underwater sound above which
marine mammals exposed to these
sound sources could be reasonably
expected to experience a disruption in
behavior patterns to a point where they
are abandoned or significantly altered,
or to incur TTS (equated to Level B
harassment) or PTS of some degree
(equated to Level A harassment).
Thresholds have also been developed to
identify the pressure levels above which
animals may incur non-auditory injury
from exposure to pressure waves from
explosive detonation.
Despite the quickly evolving science,
there are still challenges in quantifying
expected behavioral responses that
qualify as Level B harassment,
especially where the goal is to use one
or two predictable indicators (e.g.,
received level and distance) to predict
responses that are also driven by
additional factors that cannot be easily
incorporated into the thresholds (e.g.,
context). So, while the new Level B
behavioral harassment thresholds have
been refined here to better consider the
best available science (e.g.,
incorporating both received level and
distance), they also still, accordingly,
have some built-in conservative choices
to address the challenge noted. For
example, while duration of observed
responses in the data are now
considered in the thresholds, some of
the responses that are informing take
thresholds are of a very short duration,
such that it is possible some of these
responses might not always rise to the
level of disrupting behavior patterns to
a point where they are abandoned or
significantly altered. In summary, we
believe these Level B behavioral
harassment thresholds are the most
appropriate method for predicting Level
B behavioral harassment given the best
available science and the associated
uncertainty. We describe the application
of this Level B behavioral harassment
57153
threshold as identifying the ‘‘maximum
number of instances in which marine
mammals could be reasonably expected
to experience a disruption in behavior
patterns to a point where they are
abandoned or significantly altered.’’
Hearing Impairment (TTS/PTS and
Tissues Damage and Mortality)
Non-Impulsive and Impulsive
NMFS’ Acoustic Technical Guidance
(NMFS, 2018) identifies dual criteria to
assess auditory injury (Level A
harassment) to five different marine
mammal groups (based on hearing
sensitivity) as a result of exposure to
noise from two different types of
sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
The Acoustic Technical Guidance also
identifies criteria to predict TTS, which
is not considered injury and falls into
the Level B harassment category. The
Navy’s planned activity includes the use
of non-impulsive (sonar, vibratory pile
driving/removal) and impulsive
(explosives, air guns, impact pile
driving) sources.
These thresholds (Tables 13–14) were
developed by compiling and
synthesizing the best available science
and soliciting input multiple times from
both the public and peer reviewers. The
references, analysis, and methodology
used in the development of the
thresholds are described in Acoustic
Technical Guidance, which may be
accessed at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
TABLE 13—ACOUSTIC THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF TTS AND PTS FOR NON-IMPULSIVE SOUND SOURCES BY
FUNCTIONAL HEARING GROUP
Non-impulsive
Functional hearing group
TTS threshold SEL
(weighted)
Low-Frequency Cetaceans ..............................................................................................................
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans ...............................................................................................................
High-Frequency Cetaceans .............................................................................................................
Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater) .......................................................................................................
PTS threshold SEL
(weighted)
179
178
153
181
199
198
173
201
Note: SEL thresholds in dB re 1 μPa2s.
Based on the best available science,
the Navy (in coordination with NMFS)
used the acoustic and pressure
thresholds indicated in Table 14 to
predict the onset of TTS, PTS, tissue
damage, and mortality for explosives
(impulsive) and other impulsive sound
sources.
TABLE 14—ONSET OF TTS, PTS, TISSUE DAMAGE, AND MORTALITY THRESHOLDS FOR MARINE MAMMALS FOR
EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER IMPULSIVE SOURCES
Functional hearing group
Species
Onset TTS
Onset PTS
Low-frequency cetaceans ....
All mysticetes .............
168 dB SEL (weighted) or 213 dB Peak
SPL.
183 dB SEL (weighted) or 219 dB Peak
SPL.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Mean onset
slight GI tract
injury
237 dB Peak
SPL.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
Mean onset slight
lung injury
Equation 1 ............
14NOR3
Mean onset
mortality
Equation 2.
57154
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 14—ONSET OF TTS, PTS, TISSUE DAMAGE, AND MORTALITY THRESHOLDS FOR MARINE MAMMALS FOR
EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER IMPULSIVE SOURCES—Continued
Functional hearing group
Species
Mid-frequency cetaceans .....
High-frequency cetaceans ...
Phocidae ..............................
Most delphinids, medium and large
toothed whales.
Porpoises and Kogia
spp.
Harbor, Gray, Bearded, Harp, Hooded,
and Ringed seals.
Onset TTS
Onset PTS
170 dB SEL (weighted) or 224 dB Peak
SPL.
140 dB SEL (weighted) or 196 dB Peak
SPL.
170 dB SEL (weighted) or 212 dB Peak
SPL.
185 dB SEL (weighted) or 230 dB Peak
SPL.
155 dB SEL (weighted) or 202 dB Peak
SPL.
185 dB SEL (weighted) or 218 dB Peak
SPL.
Mean onset
slight GI tract
injury
Mean onset slight
lung injury
Mean onset
mortality
237 dB Peak
SPL.
237 dB Peak
SPL.
237 dB Peak
SPL.
Notes:
Equation 1: 47.5M1/3 (1+[DRm/10.1])1/6 Pa-sec.
Equation 2: 103M1/3 (1+[DRm/10.1])1/6 Pa-sec.
M = mass of the animals in kg.
DRm = depth of the receiver (animal) in meters.
SPL = sound pressure level.
Impulsive—Air Guns and Impact Pile
Driving
Impact pile driving produces
impulsive noise; therefore, the criteria
used to assess the onset of TTS and PTS
are identical to those used for air guns,
as well as explosives (see Table 14
above) (see Hearing Loss from Air guns
in Chapter 6, Section 6.4.3.1, Methods
for Analyzing Impacts from Air guns in
the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA
application). Refer to the Criteria and
Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and
Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals
and Sea Turtles technical report (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017d) for
detailed information on how the criteria
and thresholds were derived.
Non-Impulsive—Sonar and Vibratory
Pile Driving/Removal
Vibratory pile removal (that will be
used during the ELCAS) creates
continuous non-impulsive noise at low
source levels for a short duration.
Therefore, the criteria used to assess the
onset of TTS and PTS due to exposure
to sonars (non-impulsive, see Table 13
above) are also used to assess auditory
impacts to marine mammals from
vibratory pile driving (see Hearing Loss
from Sonar and Other Transducers in
Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2.1, Methods for
Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and
Other Transducers in the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application). Refer to
the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S.
Navy Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to
Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles
technical report (U.S. Department of the
Navy, 2017d) for detailed information
on how the criteria and thresholds were
derived. Non-auditory injury (i.e., other
than PTS) and mortality from sonar and
other transducers is so unlikely as to be
discountable under normal conditions
for the reasons explained in the
proposed rule under Potential Effects of
Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals and Their Habitat section—
Acoustically Mediated Bubble Growth
and Other Pressure-related Injury and is
therefore not considered further in this
analysis.
Behavioral Harassment
Though significantly driven by
received level, the onset of Level B
harassment by behavioral disturbance
from anthropogenic noise exposure is
also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g.,
frequency, predictability, duty cycle),
the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and
the receiving animals (hearing,
motivation, experience, demography,
behavioral context) and can be difficult
to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison
et al., 2011). Based on what the
available science indicates and the
practical need to use thresholds based
on a factor, or factors, that are both
predictable and measurable for most
activities, NMFS uses generalized
acoustic thresholds based primarily on
received level (and distance in some
cases) to estimate the onset of Level B
behavioral harassment.
Air Guns and Pile Driving
For air guns and pile driving, NMFS
predicts that marine mammals are likely
to be taken by Level B behavioral
harassment when exposed to
underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms)
for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1
mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive
(e.g., seismic air guns) or intermittent
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. To
estimate Level B behavioral harassment
from air guns, the existing NMFS Level
B harassment threshold of 160 dB re 1
mPa (rms) is used. The root mean square
calculation for air guns is based on the
duration defined by 90 percent of the
cumulative energy in the impulse.
The existing NMFS Level B
harassment thresholds were also
applied to estimate Level B behavioral
harassment from impact and vibratory
pile driving (Table 15).
TABLE 15—PILE DRIVING LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS TO PREDICT BEHAVIORAL
RESPONSES FROM MARINE MAMMALS
Pile driving criteria (SPL, dB re 1 μPa) Level B harassment threshold
Underwater vibratory
(dB rms)
Underwater impact
(dB rms)
120
160
Notes: Root mean square calculation for impact pile driving is based on the duration defined by 90 percent of the cumulative energy in the impulse. Root mean square for vibratory pile driving is calculated based on a representative time series long enough to capture the variation in levels, usually on the order of a few seconds.
dB: decibel; dB re 1 μPa: decibel referenced to 1 micropascal; rms: root mean square.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Sonar
As noted, the Navy coordinated with
NMFS to propose Level B behavioral
harassment thresholds specific to their
military readiness activities utilizing
active sonar. The way the criteria were
derived is discussed in detail in the
Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy
Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to
Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles
Technical Report (U.S. Department of
the Navy, 2017d). Developing the new
Level B harassment behavioral criteria
involved multiple steps. All peerreviewed published behavioral response
studies conducted both in the field and
on captive animals were examined in
order to understand the breadth of
behavioral responses of marine
mammals to sonar and other
transducers. NMFS has carefully
reviewed the Navy’s proposed Level B
behavioral thresholds and establishment
of cutoff distances for the species, and
agrees that it is the best available
science and is the appropriate method
to use at this time for determining
impacts to marine mammals from sonar
and other transducers and calculating
take and to support the determinations
made in the proposed rule.
As noted above, marine mammal
responses to sound (some of which are
considered disturbances that rise to the
level of a take) are highly variable and
context specific, i.e., they are affected by
differences in acoustic conditions;
differences between species and
populations; differences in gender, age,
reproductive status, or social behavior;
or other prior experience of the
individuals. This means that there is
support for considering alternative
approaches for estimating Level B
behavioral harassment. Although the
statutory definition of Level B
harassment for military readiness
activities means that a natural behavior
pattern of a marine mammal is
significantly altered or abandoned, the
current state of science for determining
those thresholds is somewhat unsettled.
In its analysis of impacts associated
with sonar acoustic sources (which was
coordinated with NMFS), the Navy
proposed an updated conservative
approach that likely overestimates the
number of takes by Level B harassment
due to behavioral disturbance and
response. Many of the behavioral
responses identified using the Navy’s
quantitative analysis are most likely to
be of moderate severity as described in
the Southall et al., 2007 behavioral
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
response severity scale. These
‘‘moderate’’ severity responses were
considered significant if they were
sustained for the duration of the
exposure or longer. Within the Navy’s
quantitative analysis, many reactions
are predicted from exposure to sound
that may exceed an animal’s Level B
behavioral harassment threshold for
only a single exposure (a few seconds)
to several minutes, and it is likely that
some of the resulting estimated
behavioral responses that are counted as
Level B harassment would not
constitute ‘‘significantly altering or
abandoning natural behavioral
patterns.’’ The Navy and NMFS have
used the best available science to
address the challenging differentiation
between significant and non-significant
behavioral reactions (i.e., whether the
behavior has been abandoned or
significantly altered such that it
qualifies as harassment), but have erred
on the cautious side where uncertainty
exists (e.g., counting these lower
duration reactions as take), which likely
results in some degree of overestimation
of Level B behavioral harassment. We
consider application of this Level B
behavioral harassment threshold,
therefore, as identifying the maximum
number of instances in which marine
mammals could be reasonably expected
to experience a disruption in behavior
patterns to a point where they are
abandoned or significantly altered (i.e.,
Level B harassment). Because this is the
most appropriate method for estimating
Level B harassment given the best
available science and uncertainty on the
topic, it is these numbers of Level B
harassment by behavioral disturbance
that are analyzed in the Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination
section.
In the Navy’s acoustic impact
analyses during Phase II, the likelihood
of Level B behavioral harassment in
response to sonar and other transducers
was based on a probabilistic function
(termed a behavioral response
function—BRF), that related the
likelihood (i.e., probability) of a
behavioral response (at the level of a
Level B harassment) to the received
SPL. The BRF was used to estimate the
percentage of an exposed population
that is likely to exhibit Level B
harassment due to altered behaviors or
behavioral disturbance at a given
received SPL. This BRF relied on the
assumption that sound poses a
negligible risk to marine mammals if
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57155
they are exposed to SPL below a certain
‘‘basement’’ value. Above the basement
exposure SPL, the probability of a
response increased with increasing SPL.
Two BRFs were used in Navy acoustic
impact analyses: BRF1 for mysticetes
and BRF2 for other species. BRFs were
not used for harbor porpoises and
beaked whales during Phase II analyses.
Instead, step functions at SPLs of 120
dB re 1 mPa and 140 dB re 1 mPa were
used for harbor porpoises and beaked
whales, respectively, as thresholds to
predict Level B harassment by
behavioral disturbance.
Developing the new Level B
behavioral harassment criteria for Phase
III involved multiple steps: All available
behavioral response studies conducted
both in the field and on captive animals
were examined to understand the
breadth of behavioral responses of
marine mammals to sonar and other
transducers. Marine mammal species
were placed into behavioral criteria
groups based on their known or
suspected behavioral sensitivities to
sound. In most cases these divisions
were driven by taxonomic
classifications (e.g., mysticetes,
pinnipeds). The data from the
behavioral studies were analyzed by
looking for significant responses, or lack
thereof, for each experimental session.
The Navy used cutoff distances
beyond which the potential of
significant behavioral responses (and
therefore Level B harassment) is
considered to be unlikely (see Table 16
below). For animals within the cutoff
distance, a behavioral response function
based on a received SPL as presented in
Chapter 3, Section 3.1.0 of the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application was used
to predict the probability of a potential
significant behavioral response. For
training and testing events that contain
multiple platforms or tactical sonar
sources that exceed 215 dB re 1 mPa @
1 m, this cutoff distance is substantially
increased (i.e., doubled) from values
derived from the literature. The use of
multiple platforms and intense sound
sources are factors that probably
increase responsiveness in marine
mammals overall. There are currently
few behavioral observations under these
circumstances; therefore, the Navy
conservatively predicted significant
behavioral responses that would rise to
Level B harassment at further ranges as
shown in Table 16, versus less intense
events.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57156
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 16—CUTOFF DISTANCES FOR MODERATE SOURCE LEVEL, SINGLE PLATFORM TRAINING AND TESTING EVENTS AND
FOR ALL OTHER EVENTS WITH MULTIPLE PLATFORMS OR SONAR WITH SOURCE LEVELS AT OR EXCEEDING 215 dB
RE 1 μPa @1 m
Moderate SL/
single platform
cutoff distance
(km)
Criteria group
Odontocetes .....................................................................................................................................................
Pinnipeds .........................................................................................................................................................
Mysticetes and Manatees ................................................................................................................................
Beaked Whales ................................................................................................................................................
Harbor Porpoise ...............................................................................................................................................
10
5
10
25
20
High SL/
multi-platform
cutoff distance
(km)
20
10
20
50
40
Notes: dB re 1 μPa @1 m: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal at 1 meter; km: kilometer; SL: source level.
The information currently available
regarding harbor porpoises suggests a
very low threshold level of response for
both captive and wild animals.
Threshold levels at which both captive
(Kastelein et al., 2000; Kastelein et al.,
2005) and wild harbor porpoises
(Johnston, 2002) responded to sound
(e.g., acoustic harassment devices,
acoustic deterrent devices, or other nonimpulsive sound sources) are very low,
approximately 120 dB re 1 mPa.
Therefore, a SPL of 120 dB re 1 mPa was
used in the analysis as a threshold for
predicting Level B behavioral
harassment in harbor porpoises.
The range to received sound levels in
6-dB steps from five representative
sonar bins and the percentage of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
animals that may be taken by Level B
harassment under each behavioral
response function (or step function in
the case of the harbor porpoise) are
shown in Table 17 through Table 21.
Cells are shaded if the mean range value
for the specified received level exceeds
the distance cutoff range for a particular
hearing group and therefore are not
included in the estimated take. See
Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2.1.1 (Methods
for Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and
Other Transducers) of the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application for further
details on the derivation and use of the
behavioral response functions,
thresholds, and the cutoff distances to
identify takes by Level B harassment,
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
which were coordinated with NMFS.
Table 17 illustrates the maximum likely
takes (maximum number of instances in
which marine mammals would be
reasonably expected to experience a
disruption in behavior patterns to a
point where they are abandoned or
significantly altered) for LFAS. As noted
previously, NMFS carefully reviewed,
and contributed to, Navy’s proposed
level B behavioral harassment
thresholds and cutoff distances for the
species, and agrees that these methods
represent the best available science at
this time for determining impacts to
marine mammals from sonar and other
transducers.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57157
Table 17. Ranges to an Estimated Level B Behavioral Harassment Takes for Sonar Bin LFS
over a Representative Range of Environments within the AFTT Study Area.
178
1 (0-1)
97%
59%
92%
100%
100%
172
2 (1-2)
91%
30%
76%
99%
100%
166
4 (1-6)
78%
20%
48%
97%
100%
160
10 (1-13)
58%
18%
27%
93%
100%
154
21 (1-25)
40%
17%
18%
83%
100%
148
46 (1---60)
29%
16%
16%
66%
100%
142
104 (1-140)
25%
13%
15%
45%
100%
136
242 (120---430)
23%
9%
15%
28%
100%
130
573 (320-1,275)
20%
5%
15%
18%
100%
124
1,268 (550-2,775)
17%
2%
14%
14%
100%
118
2,733 (800---6,525)
12%
1%
13%
12%
0%
112
5,820 (1,025-18,275)
6%
0%
9%
11%
0%
106
13,341 (1,275-54,525)
11%
0%
100
31,026 (2,025-100,000*)
8%
0%
* Indicates maximum range of acoustic model, a distance of approximately I 00 kilometers from the sound source.
Notes: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance cutoff range for a particular hearing group.
Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are included in the estimated impacts. Cut-off ranges in this table are for activities with
high source levels and/or multiple platforms (see Table 16 for behavioral cut-off distances).
dB re 1 JlPa2 - s: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal squared second; m: meters
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.003</GPH>
Table 18 through Table 20 enumerate the maximum likely takes for MF AS.
57158
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Table 18. Ranges to an Estimated Level B Behavioral Harassment Takes for Sonar Bin
MFl over a Representative Range of Environments within the AFTT Study Area.
196
109 (100-150)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
190
257 (220-370)
100%
98%
99%
100%
100%
184
573 (400-1,000)
99%
88%
98%
100%
100%
178
1,235 (725-3,525)
97%
59%
92%
100%
100%
172
3,007 (875-9,775)
91%
30%
76%
99%
100%
166
6,511 (925-19 ,525)
78%
20%
48%
97%
100%
160
11,644 (975-36,275)
58%
18%
93%
100%
154
18,012 (975---60,775)
40%
17%
83%
100%
148
26,037 (1,000---77,525)
66%
100%
142
33,377 (1,000-100,000*)
45%
100%
136
41,099 (1,025-100,000*)
130
46,618 (3,275-1 00,000*)
124
50,173 (3,525-1 00,000*)
118
52,982 (3,775-100,000*)
112
56,337 (4,275-100,000*)
106
60,505 (4,275-100,000*)
100
62,833 (4,525-1 00,000*)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.004</GPH>
*Indicates maximum range of acoustic model, a distance of approximately 100 kilometers from the sound source.
Notes: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance cutoff range for a particular hearing group.
Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are included in the estimated impacts. Cut-off ranges in this table are for activities
with high source levels and/or multiple platforms (see Table 16 for behavioral cut-off distances). dB re 1 JlPa2 - s: decibels referenced to 1
micropascal squared second; m: meters
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57159
Table 19. Ranges to an Estimated Level B Behavioral Harassment Takes for Sonar Bin
MF4 over a Representative Range of Environments within the AFTT Study Area.
196
8 (1-10)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
190
17(1-21)
100%
98%
99%
100%
100%
184
35 (1---40)
99%
88%
98%
100%
100%
178
71 (1-95)
97%
59%
92%
100%
100%
172
156 (110---410)
91%
30%
76%
99%
100%
166
431 (280-1,275)
78%
20%
48%
97%
100%
160
948 (490-3,525)
58%
18%
27%
93%
100%
154
1,937 (750-10,025)
40%
17%
18%
83%
100%
148
3,725 (1,025-20,525)
29%
16%
16%
66%
100%
142
7,084 (1,525-38,525)
25%
13%
15%
45%
100%
136
11,325 (1,775-56,275)
23%
9%
28%
100%
130
16,884 (1,775-74,275)
18%
100%
124
24,033 (2,275-80,775)
14%
100%
118
31,950 (2,27 5-1 00,000*)
12%
0%
112
37,663 (2,525-1 00,000*)
106
41,436 (2,775-100,000*)
100
44,352 (2,775-100,000*)
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.005</GPH>
Indicates maximum range of acoustic model, a distance of approximately 100 kilometers from the sound source.
Notes: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance cutoff range for a particular hearing
group. Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are included in the estimated impacts. Cut-off ranges in this table are for
activities with high source levels and/or multiple platforms (see Table 16 for behavioral cut-off distances). dB re 1 JlPa2 - s: decibels
referenced to 1 micropascal squared second; m: meters
57160
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Table 20. Ranges to an Estimated Level B Behavioral Harassment Takes for Sonar Bin
MFS over a Representative Range of Environments within the AFTT Study Area.
190
2 (1-3)
100%
98%
99%
100%
100%
184
4 (1-9)
99%
88%
98%
100%
100%
178
14 (1-18)
97%
59%
92%
100%
100%
172
29 (1-35)
91%
30%
76%
99%
100%
166
61 (1-80)
78%
20%
48%
97%
100%
160
141 (1---400)
58%
18%
27%
93%
100%
154
346 (1-1,000)
40%
17%
18%
83%
100%
148
762 (420-2,525)
29%
16%
16%
66%
100%
142
1,561 (675-5,525)
25%
13%
15%
45%
100%
136
2,947 (1,025-10,775)
23%
9%
15%
28%
100%
130
5,035 (1,025-17,275)
20%
5%
15%
18%
100%
124
7,409 (1,275-22,525)
14%
100%
118
10,340 (1,525-29,525)
12%
0%
112
13,229 (1,525-38,025)
11%
0%
106
16,487 (1,525---46,025)
11%
0%
100
20,510 (1,775-60,525)
8%
0%
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.006</GPH>
Notes: Cells are shaded ifthe mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance cutoff range for a particular hearing group.
Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are included in the estimated impacts. Cut-offranges in this table are for activities
with high source levels and/or multiple platforms (see Table 16 for behavioral cut-off distances). dB re I ~Pa2 - s: decibels referenced to I
micropascal squared second; m: meter
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Explosives
Phase III explosive criteria for Level B
behavioral harassment thresholds for
marine mammals is the hearing groups’
TTS threshold minus 5 dB (see Table 22
and Table 14 for the TTS thresholds for
explosives) for events that contain
multiple impulses from explosives
underwater. This was the same
approach as taken in Phase II for
explosive analysis. See the Criteria and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and
Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals
and Sea Turtles Technical Report (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017d) for
detailed information on how the criteria
and thresholds were derived. NMFS
continues to concur that this approach
is the best available science for
determining impacts to marine
mammals from explosives.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
TABLE 22—PHASE III LEVEL B BEHAVIORAL HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS
FOR EXPLOSIVES FOR MARINE MAMMALS
Medium
Underwater .......
Underwater .......
Underwater .......
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Functional
hearing
group
LF
MF
HF
SEL
(weighted)
163
165
135
ER14NO18.007</GPH>
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
57161
57162
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
bombs and missiles actually occur upon
impact with above-water targets.
However, for this analysis, sources such
as these were modeled as exploding
underwater. This overestimates the
amount of explosive and acoustic
Functional
SEL
energy entering the water.
Medium
hearing
(weighted)
The model estimates the impacts
group
caused by individual training and
Underwater ....... PW
165 testing exercises. During any individual
Note: Weighted SEL thresholds in dB re 1 modeled event, impacts to individual
animats are considered over 24-hour
μPa2s underwater.
periods. The animats do not represent
Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model
actual animals, but rather they represent
Sonar and Other Transducers and
a distribution of animals based on
Explosives
density and abundance data, which
allows for a statistical analysis of the
The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model
number of instances that marine
calculates sound energy propagation
mammals may be exposed to sound
from sonar and other transducers and
levels resulting in an effect. Therefore,
explosives during naval activities and
the model estimates the number of
the sound received by animat
instances in which an effect threshold
dosimeters. Animat dosimeters are
was exceeded over the course of a year,
virtual representations of marine
mammals distributed in the area around but does not estimate the number of
individual marine mammals that may be
the modeled naval activity and each
impacted over a year (i.e., some marine
dosimeter records its individual sound
mammals could be impacted several
‘‘dose.’’ The model bases the
times, while others would not
distribution of animats over the AFTT
experience any impact). A detailed
Study Area on the density values in the
explanation of the Navy’s Acoustic
Navy Marine Species Density Database
Effects Model is provided in the
and distributes animats in the water
column proportional to the known time technical report Quantitative Analysis
for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive
that species spend at varying depths.
Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea
The model accounts for
Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy,
environmental variability of sound
2017a).
propagation in both distance and depth
when computing the received sound
Air Guns and Pile Driving
level on the animats. The model
The Navy’s quantitative analysis
conducts a statistical analysis based on
estimates the sound and energy received
multiple model runs to compute the
by marine mammals distributed in the
estimated effects on animals. The
area around planned Navy activities
number of animats that exceed the
involving air guns. See the technical
thresholds for effects is tallied to
report titled Quantitative Analysis for
provide an estimate of the number of
marine mammals that could be affected. Estimating Acoustic and Explosive
Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea
Assumptions in the Navy model
Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy,
intentionally err on the side of
2017a) for additional details.
overestimation when there are
unknowns. Naval activities are modeled Underwater noise effects from pile
driving and vibratory pile extraction
as though they would occur regardless
were modeled using actual measures of
of proximity to marine mammals,
impact pile driving and vibratory
meaning that no mitigation is
considered (i.e., no power down or shut removal during construction of an
down modeled) and without any
ELCAS (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2015,
avoidance of the activity by the animal.
2016). A conservative estimate of
The final step of the quantitative
spreading loss of sound in shallow
analysis of acoustic effects is to consider coastal waters (i.e., transmission loss =
the implementation of mitigation and
16.5*Log10 [radius]) was applied based
the possibility that marine mammals
on spreading loss observed in actual
would avoid continued or repeated
measurements. Inputs used in the model
sound exposures. For more information
are provided in Chapter 1, Section
on this process, see the discussion in
1.4.1.3 (Pile Driving) of the Navy’s
the Take Requests subsection below.
rulemaking/LOA application, including
Many explosions from ordnance such as source levels; the number of strikes
TABLE 22—PHASE III LEVEL B BEHAVIORAL HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS
FOR EXPLOSIVES FOR MARINE MAMMALS—Continued
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
required to drive a pile and the duration
of vibratory removal per pile; the
number of piles driven or removed per
day; and the number of days of pile
driving and removal.
Range to Effects
The following section provides range
to effects for sonar and other active
acoustic sources as well as explosives to
specific acoustic thresholds determined
using the Navy Acoustic Effects Model.
Marine mammals exposed within these
ranges for the shown duration are
predicted to experience the associated
effect. Range to effects is important
information in not only predicting
acoustic impacts, but also in verifying
the accuracy of model results against
real-world situations and determining
adequate mitigation ranges to avoid
higher level effects, especially
physiological effects to marine
mammals.
Sonar
The range to received sound levels in
6-dB steps from 5 representative sonar
bins and the percentage of the total
number of animals that may exhibit a
significant behavioral response (and
therefore Level B harassment) under
each behavioral response function (or
step function in the case of the harbor
porpoise) are shown in Table 17 through
Table 21 above, respectively. See
Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2.1 (Methods for
Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and
Other Transducers) of the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application for
additional details on the derivation and
use of the behavioral response
functions, thresholds, and the cutoff
distances that are used to identify Level
B behavioral harassment.
The ranges to the PTS for 5
representative sonar systems for an
exposure of 30 seconds is shown in
Table 23 relative to the marine
mammal’s functional hearing group.
This period (30 seconds) was chosen
based on examining the maximum
amount of time a marine mammal
would realistically be exposed to levels
that could cause the onset of PTS based
on platform (e.g., ship) speed and a
nominal animal swim speed of
approximately 1.5 m per second. The
ranges provided in the table include the
average range to PTS, as well as the
range from the minimum to the
maximum distance at which PTS is
possible for each hearing group.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57163
TABLE 23—RANGE TO PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR FIVE REPRESENTATIVE SONAR SYSTEMS
Approximate PTS (30 seconds) ranges (meters) 1
Functional hearing group
Sonar bin LF5
(low frequency
sources <180
dB source
level)
Sonar bin MF1
(e.g., SQS–53
ASW hull
mounted
sonar)
Sonar bin MF4
(e.g., AQS–22
ASW Dipping
Sonar)
Sonar bin MF5
(e.g., SSQ–62
ASW
Sonobuoy)
Sonar bin HF4
(e.g., SQS–20
Mine Hunting
Sonar)
0
(0–0)
0
(0–0)
0
(0–0)
0
(0–0)
66
(65–80)
16
(16–16)
192
(170–270)
46
(45–55)
15
(15–18)
3
(3–3)
31
(30–40)
11
(11–13)
0
(0–0)
0
(0–0)
9
(8–13)
0
(0–0)
0
(0–0)
1
(0–2)
34
(20–85)
0
(0–0)
Low-frequency Cetaceans ...................................................
Mid-frequency Cetaceans ....................................................
High-frequency Cetaceans ..................................................
Phocid Seals ........................................................................
1 PTS ranges extend from the sonar or other active acoustic sound source to the indicated distance. The average range to PTS is provided as
well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to PTS in parenthesis.
Notes: ASW: Anti-submarine warfare; HF: High frequency; LF: Low frequency; MF: Mid-frequency; PTS: Permanent threshold shift; NA: Not
applicable because there is no overlap between species and sound source.
The tables below illustrate the range
to TTS for 1, 30, 60, and 120 seconds
from five representative sonar systems
(see Table 24 through Table 28).
TABLE 24—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN LF5 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE RANGE
OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE AFTT STUDY AREA
Approximate TTS ranges (meters) 1
Sonar bin LF5
(low frequency sources <180 dB source level)
Functional hearing group
1 second
Low-frequency Cetaceans ...............................................................................
30 seconds
4
(0–5)
222
(200–310)
0
(0–0)
0
(0–0)
Mid-frequency Cetaceans ................................................................................
High-frequency Cetaceans ..............................................................................
Phocid Seals ....................................................................................................
4
(0–5)
222
(200–310)
0
(0–0)
0
(0–0)
60 seconds
120 seconds
4
(0–5)
331
(280–525)
0
(0–0)
0
(0–0)
4
(0–5)
424
(340–800)
0
(0–0)
0
(0–0)
1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parenthesis. Notes: Ranges for 1-sec and 30-sec periods are identical for Bin MF1 because
this system nominally pings every 50 seconds, therefore these periods encompass only a single ping. PTS: Permanent threshold shift; TTS:
Temporary threshold shift.
TABLE 25—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN MF1 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE
RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE AFTT STUDY AREA
Approximate TTS ranges (meters) 1
Sonar bin MF1
(e.g., SQS–53 ASW hull mounted sonar)
Functional hearing group
Low-frequency Cetaceans ...............................................................................
Mid-frequency Cetaceans ................................................................................
High-frequency Cetaceans ..............................................................................
Phocid Seals ....................................................................................................
1 second
30 seconds
60 seconds
120 seconds
1111
(650–2775)
222
(200–310)
3001
(1275–8275)
784
(575–1275)
1111
(650–2775)
222
(200–310)
3001
(1275–8275)
784
(575–1275)
1655
(800–3775)
331
(280–525)
4803
(1525–13525)
1211
(850–3025)
2160
(900–6525)
424
(340–800)
6016
(1525–16775)
1505
(1025–3775)
1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parenthesis.
Notes: Ranges for 1-sec and 30-sec periods are identical for Bin MF1 because this system nominally pings every 50 seconds, therefore these
periods encompass only a single ping. ASW: Anti-submarine warfare; MF: Mid-frequency; PTS: Permanent threshold shift; TTS: Temporary
threshold shift.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57164
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 26—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN MF4 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE
RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE AFTT STUDY AREA
Approximate TTS ranges (meters) 1
Sonar bin MF4
(e.g., AQS–22 ASW Dipping Sonar)
Functional hearing group
1 second
Low-frequency Cetaceans ...............................................................................
89
(85–120)
22
(22–25)
270
(220–575)
67
(65–90)
Mid-frequency Cetaceans ................................................................................
High-frequency Cetaceans ..............................................................................
Phocid Seals ....................................................................................................
30 seconds
175
(160–280)
36
(35–45)
546
(410–1025)
119
(110–180)
60 seconds
262
(220–575)
51
(45–60)
729
(525–1525)
171
(150–260)
120 seconds
429
(330–875)
72
(70–95)
1107
(600–2275)
296
(240–700)
1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parenthesis.
Notes: ASW: Anti-submarine warfare; MF: Mid-frequency; PTS: Permanent threshold shift; TTS: Temporary threshold shift.
TABLE 27—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN MF5 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE
RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE AFTT STUDY AREA
Approximate TTS ranges (meters) 1
Sonar bin MF5
(e.g., SSQ–62 ASW Sonobuoy)
Functional hearing group
1 second
Low-frequency Cetaceans ...............................................................................
11
(0–14)
5
(0–10)
122
(110–320)
9
(8–13)
Mid-frequency Cetaceans ................................................................................
High-frequency Cetaceans ..............................................................................
Phocid Seals ....................................................................................................
30 seconds
11
(0–14)
5
(0–10)
122
(110–320)
9
(8–13)
60 seconds
16
(0–20)
12
(0–15)
187
(150–525)
15
(14–18)
120 seconds
23
(0–25)
17
(0–22)
286
(210–750)
22
(21–25)
1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parenthesis.
Notes: ASW: Anti-submarine warfare; MF: Mid-frequency; PTS: Permanent threshold shift; TTS: Temporary threshold shift.
TABLE 28—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN HF4 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE RANGE
OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE AFTT STUDY AREA
Approximate TTS ranges (Meters) 1
Sonar bin HF4
(e.g., SQS–20 Mine Hunting Sonar)
Functional hearing group
1 second
Low-frequency Cetaceans ...............................................................................
Mid-frequency Cetaceans ................................................................................
High-frequency Cetaceans ..............................................................................
Phocid Seals ....................................................................................................
1
(0–3)
10
(7–17)
242
(100–975)
2
(0–5)
30 seconds
3
(0–5)
19
(11–35)
395
(170–1775)
5
(0–8)
60 seconds
5
(0–7)
27
(17–60)
524
(230–2775)
8
(5–13)
120 seconds
7
(0–12)
39
(22–100)
655
(300–4275)
12
(8–20)
1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parenthesis.
Notes: HF: High frequency; PTS: Permanent threshold shift; TTS: Temporary threshold shift.
Explosives
The following section provides the
range (distance) over which specific
physiological or behavioral effects are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
expected to occur based on the
explosive criteria (see Chapter 6,
Section 6.5.2.1.1 of the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application and the
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Navy’s technical report Criteria and
Thresholds Used to Estimate Impacts to
Marine Mammals from Explosives) and
the explosive propagation calculations
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
from the Navy Acoustic Effects Model
(see Chapter 6, Section 6.5.2.1.3, Navy
Acoustic Effects Model of the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application). The
range to effects are shown for a range of
explosive bins, from E1 (up to 0.25 lb
net explosive weight) to E17 (up to
58,000 lb net explosive weight) (Tables
29 through 34). Ranges are determined
by modeling the distance that noise
from an explosion would need to
propagate to reach exposure level
thresholds specific to a hearing group
that would cause behavioral response
(to the degree of Level B behavioral
harassment), TTS, PTS, and non-
auditory injury. Ranges are provided for
a representative source depth and
cluster size for each bin. For events with
multiple explosions, sound from
successive explosions can be expected
to accumulate and increase the range to
the onset of an impact based on SEL
thresholds. Ranges to non-auditory
injury and mortality are shown in
Tables 33 and 34, respectively. Range to
effects is important information in not
only predicting impacts from
explosives, but also in verifying the
accuracy of model results against realworld situations and determining
adequate mitigation ranges to avoid
57165
higher level effects, especially
physiological effects to marine
mammals. For additional information
on how ranges to impacts from
explosions were estimated, see the
technical report Quantifying Acoustic
Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea
Turtles: Methods and Analytical
Approach for Phase III Training and
Testing (U.S. Navy, 2017b).
Table 29 shows the minimum,
average, and maximum ranges to onset
of auditory and likely behavioral effects
that rise to the level of Level B
harassment for high-frequency cetaceans
based on the developed thresholds.
TABLE 29—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B BEHAVIORAL HARASSMENT FOR
HIGH-FREQUENCY CETACEANS
Range to effects for explosives: high frequency cetaceans 1
Source depth
(m)
Bin
E1 ....................................................................
0.1
E2 ....................................................................
0.1
E3 ....................................................................
18.25
E4 ....................................................................
15
1
20
1
2
1
50
1
5
2
2
25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
19.8
198
0.1
0.1
30
15
0.1
45.75
305
0.1
0.1
18.5
45.75
0.1
61
61
E5 ....................................................................
E6 ....................................................................
E7 ....................................................................
E8 ....................................................................
E9 ....................................................................
E10 ..................................................................
E11 ..................................................................
E12 ..................................................................
E16 ..................................................................
E17 ..................................................................
1
Cluster size
PTS
446 (180–975)
1,289 (440–3,025)
503 (200–1,025)
623 (250–1,275)
865 (525–2,525)
4,484 (1,275–7,775)
1,576 (1,025–2,275)
3,314 (2,275–4,525)
1,262 (975–2,025)
1,355 (875–2,775)
3,342 (925–8,025)
1,204 (550–3,275)
2,442 (1,525–5,025)
3,317 (2,525–4,525)
1,883 (675–4,525)
2,442 (1,025–5,525)
3,008 (2,025–4,025)
2,210 (800–4,775)
2,960 (875–7,275)
4,827 (1,525–8,775)
3,893 (1,525–7,525)
3,046 (1,275–6,775)
5,190 (2,275–9,775)
6,173 (2,525–12,025)
TTS
1,512 (525–3,775)
4,527 (1,275–10,775)
1,865 (600–3,775)
2,606 (750–5,275)
3,707 (1,025–6,775)
10,610 (2,275–19,775)
6,588 (4,525–8,775)
10,312 (7,525–14,775)
4,708 (1,775–7,525)
4,900 (2,525–8,275)
8,880 (1,275–20,525)
4,507 (1,275–10,775)
7,631 (4,525–10,775)
10,122 (7,775–13,275)
6,404 (1,525–14,525)
7,079 (2,025–12,275)
9,008 (6,025–10,775)
6,088 (1,525–13,275)
8,424 (1,525–19,275)
11,231 (2,525–20,025)
9,320 (2,275–17,025)
7,722 (1,525–18,775)
7,851 (3,525–19,525)
11,071 (3,775–29,275)
Behavioral
2,591 (800–6,775)
6,650 (1,525–16,525)
3,559 (1,025–6,775)
4,743 (1,275–8,525)
5,879 (1,775–10,025)
13,817 (2,275–27,025)
9,744 (7,275–13,025)
14,200 (9,775–20,025)
6,618 (2,025–11,525)
6,686 (3,025–11,275)
11,832 (1,525–25,025)
6,755 (1,525–16,525)
10,503 (4,775–15,025)
13,872 (9,775–17,775)
9,001 (1,525–19,775)
9,462 (2,275–17,025)
12,032 (8,525–14,525)
8,299 (1,525–19,025)
11,380 (1,525–24,275)
14,667 (2,525–26,775)
12,118 (2,525–21,525)
10,218 (2,025–22,525)
9,643 (3,775–25,775)
13,574 (4,025–37,775)
Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation environments in parentheses.
Table 30 shows the minimum,
average, and maximum ranges to onset
of auditory and likely behavioral effects
that rise to the level of a take for mid-
frequency cetaceans based on the
developed thresholds.
TABLE 30—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B BEHAVIORAL HARASSMENT FOR
MID-FREQUENCY CETACEANS
Range to effects for explosives: mid-frequency cetaceans 1
Source depth
(m)
Bin
E1 ....................................................................
0.1
E2 ....................................................................
0.1
E3 ....................................................................
18.25
E4 ....................................................................
15
E5 ....................................................................
E6 ....................................................................
E7 ....................................................................
E8 ....................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Cluster size
19.8
198
0.1
0.1
30
15
0.1
45.75
305
PO 00000
Frm 00091
1
20
1
2
1
50
1
5
2
2
25
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fmt 4701
PTS
26 (25–50)
113 (80–290)
35 (30–45)
51 (40–70)
40 (35–45)
304 (230–1,025)
74 (60–100)
192 (140–260)
69 (65–70)
48 (0–55)
391 (170–850)
116 (90–290)
110 (85–310)
201 (190–220)
204 (150–500)
133 (120–200)
58 (0–110)
Sfmt 4700
TTS
139 (95–370)
539 (210–1,025)
184 (100–300)
251 (120–430)
236 (190–800)
1,615 (750–3,275)
522 (440–750)
1,055 (875–1,525)
380 (330–470)
307 (260–380)
1,292 (470–3,275)
536 (310–1,025)
862 (600–2,275)
1,067 (1,025–1,275)
802 (400–1,525)
828 (525–2,025)
656 (550–750)
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Behavioral
218 (120–550)
754 (270–1,525)
276 (130–490)
365 (160–700)
388 (280–1,275)
2,424 (925–5,025)
813 (650–1,025)
1,631 (1,275–2,525)
665 (550–750)
504 (430–700)
1,820 (575–5,025)
742 (380–1,525)
1,281 (975–3,275)
1,601 (1,275–2,025)
1,064 (470–2,275)
1,273 (775–2,775)
1,019 (900–1,025)
57166
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 30—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B BEHAVIORAL HARASSMENT FOR
MID-FREQUENCY CETACEANS—Continued
Range to effects for explosives: mid-frequency cetaceans 1
Source depth
(m)
Bin
E9 ....................................................................
E10 ..................................................................
E11 ..................................................................
0.1
0.1
18.5
45.75
0.1
61
61
E12 ..................................................................
E16 ..................................................................
E17 ..................................................................
1 Distances
Cluster size
PTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
241 (200–370)
339 (230–750)
361 (230–750)
289 (230–825)
382 (270–550)
885 (650–1,775)
1,398 (925–2,275)
TTS
946 (450–1,525)
1,125 (490–2,525)
1,744 (800–3,775)
1,544 (800–3,275)
1,312 (525–2,775)
3,056 (1,275–5,025)
3,738 (1,525–6,775)
Behavioral
1,279 (500–2,275)
1,558 (550–4,775)
2,597 (925–5,025)
2,298 (925–5,025)
1,767 (600–4,275)
3,689 (1,525–6,525)
4,835 (1,775–9,275)
in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation environments in parentheses.
Table 31 shows the minimum,
average, and maximum ranges to onset
of auditory and likely behavioral effects
that rise to the level of a take for low-
frequency cetaceans based on the
developed thresholds.
TABLE 31—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B BEHAVIORAL HARASSMENT FOR
LOW-FREQUENCY CETACEANS
Range to effects for explosives: low frequency cetaceans 1
Source depth
(m)
Bin
E1 ....................................................................
0.1
E2 ....................................................................
0.1
E3 ....................................................................
18.25
E4 ....................................................................
15
1
20
1
2
1
50
1
5
2
2
25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
19.8
198
0.1
0.1
30
15
0.1
45.75
305
0.1
0.1
18.5
45.75
0.1
61
61
E5 ....................................................................
E6 ....................................................................
E7 ....................................................................
E8 ....................................................................
E9 ....................................................................
E10 ..................................................................
E11 ..................................................................
E12 ..................................................................
E16 ..................................................................
E17 ..................................................................
1 Distances
Cluster size
PTS
54 (45–80)
211 (110–320)
64 (55–75)
87 (70–110)
211 (190–390)
1,450 (675–3,275)
424 (380–550)
1,091 (950–1,525)
375 (350–400)
308 (280–380)
701 (300–1,525)
280 (150–450)
824 (525–1,275)
1,928 (1,775–2,275)
486 (220–1,000)
1,233 (675–3,025)
937 (875–975)
655 (310–1,275)
786 (340–7,275)
3,705 (925–8,775)
3,133 (925–8,275)
985 (400–6,025)
10,155 (2,025–21,525)
17,464 (8,275–39,525)
TTS
259 (130–390)
787 (340–1,525)
264 (150–400)
339 (190–500)
1,182 (600–2,525)
8,920 (1,525–24,275)
3,308 (2,275–4,775)
6,261 (3,775–9,525)
1,770 (1,275–3,025)
2,275 (1,275–3,525)
4,827 (750–29,275)
1,018 (460–7,275)
4,431 (2,025–7,775)
8,803 (6,025–14,275)
3,059 (575–20,525)
7,447 (1,275–19,025)
6,540 (3,025–12,025)
2,900 (650–31,025)
7,546 (725–49,025)
16,488 (2,275–40,275)
16,365 (1,775–50,275)
7,096 (800–72,775)
35,790 (18,025–69,775)
47,402 (21,025–93,275)
Behavioral
137 (90–210)
487 (210–775)
154 (100–220)
203 (120–300)
588 (410–1,275)
4,671 (1,025–10,775)
1,426 (1,025–2,275)
3,661 (2,525–5,275)
1,003 (725–1,275)
1,092 (850–2,275)
1,962 (575–22,525)
601 (300–1,525)
2,334 (1,275–4,275)
4,942 (3,525–6,525)
1,087 (440–7,775)
3,633 (1,000–9,025)
3,888 (2,025–6,525)
1,364 (500–8,525)
3,289 (550–26,525)
9,489 (1,775–22,775)
8,701 (1,275–23,775)
2,658 (625–46,525)
25,946 (14,025–58,775)
34,095 (16,275–86,275)
in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation environments in parentheses.
Table 32 shows the minimum,
average, and maximum ranges to onset
of auditory and likely behavioral effects
that rise to the level of take for phocids
based on the developed thresholds.
TABLE 32—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, LEVEL B BEHAVIORAL HARASSMENT AND FOR
PHOCIDS
Range to effects for explosives: phocids 1
Source depth
(m)
Bin
E1 ....................................................................
0.1
E2 ....................................................................
0.1
E3 ....................................................................
18.25
E4 ....................................................................
15
E5 ....................................................................
E6 ....................................................................
19.8
198
0.1
0.1
30
15
E7 ....................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Cluster size
Frm 00092
1
20
1
2
1
50
1
5
2
2
25
1
1
1
Fmt 4701
PTS
50 (45–85)
197 (110–380)
65 (55–85)
85 (65–100)
121 (110–220)
859 (600–2,025)
213 (190–260)
505 (450–600)
214 (210–220)
156 (150–180)
615 (250–1,025)
210 (160–380)
359 (280–625)
557 (525–650)
Sfmt 4700
TTS
242 (120–470)
792 (300–1,275)
267 (140–430)
345 (180–575)
689 (500–1,525)
4,880 (1,525–10,525)
1,246 (1,025–1,775)
2,933 (2,275–4,275)
1,083 (900–2,025)
1,141 (825–2,275)
2,209 (850–9,775)
796 (480–1,275)
1,821 (1,275–2,775)
3,435 (2,775–4,525)
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Behavioral
360 (160–650)
1,066 (410–2,275)
378 (190–675)
476 (230–875)
1,074 (725–2,525)
7,064 (1,775–16,275)
2,006 (1,525–3,025)
4,529 (3,275–6,775)
1,559 (1,025–2,525)
2,076 (1,275–3,525)
3,488 (1,025–15,275)
1,040 (600–3,275)
2,786 (1,775–4,275)
5,095 (3,775–6,775)
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57167
TABLE 32—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, LEVEL B BEHAVIORAL HARASSMENT AND FOR
PHOCIDS—Continued
Range to effects for explosives: phocids 1
Source depth
(m)
Bin
E8 ....................................................................
0.1
45.75
305
0.1
0.1
18.5
45.75
0.1
61
61
E9 ....................................................................
E10 ..................................................................
E11 ..................................................................
E12 ..................................................................
E16 ..................................................................
E17 ..................................................................
1 Distances
Cluster size
PTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TTS
346 (230–600)
469 (380–1,025)
322 (310–330)
441 (330–575)
539 (350–900)
1,026 (700–2,025)
993 (675–2,275)
651 (420–900)
2,935 (1,775–5,025)
3,583 (1,775–7,525)
Behavioral
1,136 (625–4,025)
2,555 (1,275–6,025)
3,222 (1,775–4,525)
1,466 (825–5,775)
1,914 (875–8,525)
5,796 (1,525–12,775)
4,835 (1,525–13,525)
2,249 (950–11,025)
6,451 (2,275–16,275)
12,031 (3,275–29,275)
1,708 (850–6,025)
3,804 (1,525–9,775)
4,186 (2,275–5,775)
2,142 (950–9,775)
3,137 (1,025–15,025)
8,525 (1,775–19,775)
7,337 (1,775–18,775)
3,349 (1,275–16,025)
10,619 (3,275–24,025)
18,396 (7,275–41,025)
in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation environments in parentheses.
Table 33 below shows the minimum,
average, and maximum ranges due to
varying propagation conditions to nonauditory injury as a function of animal
mass and explosive bin (i.e., net
explosive weight). Ranges to
gastrointestinal tract injury typically
exceed ranges to slight lung injury;
therefore, the maximum range to effect
is not mass-dependent. Animals within
these water volumes would be expected
to receive minor injuries at the outer
ranges, increasing to more substantial
injuries, and finally mortality as an
animal approaches the detonation point.
TABLE 33—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT
NON-AUDITORY INJURY RISK FOR
ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING
GROUPS
Bin
TABLE 33—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT
NON-AUDITORY INJURY RISK FOR
ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING
GROUPS—Continued
Range (m)
E1 .........................
E2 .........................
E3 .........................
E4 .........................
E5 .........................
E6 .........................
E7 .........................
E8 .........................
E9 .........................
E10 .......................
E11 .......................
E12 .......................
Bin
22 (22–35)
25 (25–30)
46 (35–75)
63 (0–130)
75 (55–130)
97 (65–390)
232 (200–270)
170 (0–490)
215 (100–430)
251 (110–700)
604 (400–2,525)
436 (130–1,025)
Range (m)
E16 .......................
E17 .......................
1,844 (925–3,025)
3,649 (1,000–14,025)
1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance
is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation environments in parentheses. Modeled ranges based
on peak pressure for a single explosion generally exceed the modeled ranges based on
impulse (related to animal mass and depth).
Ranges to mortality, based on animal
mass, are show in Table 34 below.
TABLE 34—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT MORTALITY RISK FOR ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS AS A FUNCTION OF
ANIMAL MASS
Range to effects for air guns 1 for 10 pulses (m)
Hearing group
PTS (SEL)
High-Frequency Cetacean
Low-Frequency Cetacean ..
Mid-Frequency Cetacean ...
Phocids ..............................
PTS (Peak SPL)
0 (0–0)
13 (12–13)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
TTS (SEL)
15 (15–15)
2 (2–2)
0 (0–0)
2 (2–2)
TTS (Peak SPL)
0 (0–0)
72 (70–80)
0 (0–0)
3 (3–3)
25 (25–25)
4 (4–4)
0 (0–0)
4 (4–4)
Behavioral 2
700
685
680
708
(250–1,025)
(170–1,025)
(160–2,275)
(220–1,025)
1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. PTS and TTS values depict the range produced by SEL and Peak SPL (as noted) hearing threshold criteria levels.
2 Behavioral values depict the ranges produced by RMS hearing threshold criteria levels.
Air Guns
Table 35 and Table 36 present the
approximate ranges in meters to PTS,
TTS, and likely behavioral reactions
that rise to the level of take for air guns
for 10 and 100 pulses, respectively.
Ranges are specific to the AFTT Study
Area and also to each marine mammal
hearing group, dependent upon their
criteria and the specific locations where
animals from the hearing groups and the
airgun activities could overlap. Small
air guns (12–60 in3) would be fired
pierside at the Naval Undersea Warfare
Center Division, Newport Testing
Range, and at off-shore locations
typically in the Northeast, Virginia
Capes, and GOMEX Range Complexes.
Single, small air guns lack the peak
pressures that could cause non-auditory
injury (see Finneran et al., (2015));
therefore, potential impacts could
include PTS, TTS, and/or Level B
behavioral harassment.
TABLE 35—RANGE TO EFFECTS (METERS) FROM AIR GUNS FOR 10 PULSES
Range to effects for air guns 1 for 10 pulses (m)
Hearing group
PTS (SEL)
High-Frequency Cetacean .........................................
Low-Frequency Cetacean ..........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
0 (0–0)
13 (12–13)
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
PTS (Peak
SPL)
15 (15–15)
2 (2–2)
Sfmt 4700
TTS (SEL)
0 (0–0)
72 (70–80)
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
TTS (Peak
SPL)
25 (25–25)
4 (4–4)
14NOR3
Behavioral 2
700 (250–1,025)
685 (170–1,025)
57168
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 35—RANGE TO EFFECTS (METERS) FROM AIR GUNS FOR 10 PULSES—Continued
Range to effects for air guns 1 for 10 pulses (m)
Hearing group
PTS (SEL)
Mid-Frequency Cetacean ...........................................
Phocids ......................................................................
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
PTS (Peak
SPL)
TTS (Peak
SPL)
TTS (SEL)
0 (0–0)
2 (2–2)
0 (0–0)
3 (3–3)
Behavioral 2
0 (0–0)
4 (4–4)
680 (160–2,275)
708 (220–1,025)
1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. PTS and TTS values depict the range produced by SEL and Peak SPL (as noted) hearing threshold criteria levels.
2 Behavioral values depict the ranges produced by RMS hearing threshold criteria levels.
TABLE 36—RANGE TO EFFECTS FROM AIR GUNS FOR 100 PULSES
Range to effects for air guns 1 for 100 pulses (m)
PTS (Peak
SPL)
Hearing group
PTS (SEL)
High-Frequency Cetacean .........................................
Low-Frequency Cetacean ..........................................
4 (4–4)
122 (120–130)
40 (40–40)
3 (3–3)
Mid-Frequency Cetacean ...........................................
Phocids ......................................................................
0 (0–0)
3 (2–3)
0 (0–0)
3 (3–3)
TTS (Peak
SPL)
TTS (SEL)
48 (45–50)
871 (600–
1,275)
0 (0–0)
25 (25–25)
Behavioral 2
66 (65–70)
13 (12–13)
2,546 (1,025–5,525)
2,546 (1,025–5,525)
0 (0–0)
14 (14–15)
2,546 (1,025–5,525)
2,546 (1,025–5,525)
1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. PTS and TTS values depict the range produced by SEL and Peak SPL (as noted) hearing threshold criteria levels.
2 Behavioral values depict the ranges produced by RMS hearing threshold criteria levels.
Pile Driving
TTS, and likely behavioral responses
that rise to the level of take for impact
pile driving and vibratory pile removal,
Table 37 and Table 38 present the
approximate ranges in meters to PTS,
respectively. Non-auditory injury is not
predicted for pile driving activities.
TABLE 37—AVERAGE RANGES TO EFFECTS (METERS) FROM IMPACT PILE DRIVING
Hearing group
PTS (m)
Low-frequency Cetaceans ...........................................................................................................
Mid-frequency Cetaceans ............................................................................................................
High-frequency Cetaceans ..........................................................................................................
Phocids ........................................................................................................................................
TTS (m)
65
2
65
19
529
16
529
151
Behavioral (m)
870
870
870
870
Notes: PTS: Permanent threshold shift; TTS: Temporary threshold shift.
TABLE 38—AVERAGE RANGES TO EFFECTS (METERS) FROM VIBRATORY PILE EXTRACTION
Hearing group
PTS (m)
Low-frequency Cetaceans ...........................................................................................................
Mid-frequency Cetaceans ............................................................................................................
High-frequency Cetaceans ..........................................................................................................
Phocids ........................................................................................................................................
TTS (m)
0
0
7
0
3
4
116
2
Behavioral (m)
376
376
376
376
Notes: PTS: Permanent threshold shift; TTS: Temporary threshold shift.
Marine Mammal Density
A quantitative analysis of impacts on
a species or stock requires data on their
abundance and distribution that may be
affected by anthropogenic activities in
the potentially impacted area. The most
appropriate metric for this type of
analysis is density, which is the number
of animals present per unit area. Marine
species density estimation requires a
significant amount of effort to both
collect and analyze data to produce a
reasonable estimate. Unlike surveys for
terrestrial wildlife, many marine species
spend much of their time submerged,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
and are not easily observed. In order to
collect enough sighting data to make
reasonable density estimates, multiple
observations are required, often in areas
that are not easily accessible (e.g., far
offshore). Ideally, marine mammal
species sighting data would be collected
for the specific area and time period
(e.g., season) of interest and density
estimates derived accordingly. However,
in many places, poor weather
conditions and high sea states prohibit
the completion of comprehensive visual
surveys.
For most cetacean species, abundance
is estimated using line-transect surveys
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
or mark-recapture studies (e.g., Barlow,
2010, Barlow and Forney, 2007,
Calambokidis et al., 2008). The result
provides one single density estimate
value for each species across broad
geographic areas. This is the general
approach applied in estimating cetacean
abundance in the NMFS’ SARs.
Although the single value provides a
good average estimate of abundance
(total number of individuals) for a
specified area, it does not provide
information on the species distribution
or concentrations within that area, and
it does not estimate density for other
timeframes or seasons that were not
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
surveyed. More recently, habitat
modeling has been used to estimate
cetacean densities (Barlow et al., 2009;
Becker et al., 2010, 2012a, b, c, 2014,
2016; Ferguson et al., 2006a; Forney et
al., 2012, 2015; Redfern et al., 2006).
These models estimate cetacean density
as a continuous function of habitat
variables (e.g., sea surface temperature,
seafloor depth, etc.) and thus allow
predictions of cetacean densities on
finer spatial scales than traditional linetransect or mark recapture analyses and
for areas that have not been surveyed.
Within the geographic area that was
modeled, densities can be predicted
wherever these habitat variables can be
measured or estimated.
To characterize the marine species
density for large areas such as the AFTT
Study Area, the Navy compiled data
from several sources. The Navy
developed a protocol to select the best
available data sources based on species,
area, and time (season). The resulting
Geographic Information System
database called the Navy Marine
Species Density Database includes
seasonal density values for every marine
mammal species present within the
AFTT Study Area. This database is
described in the technical report titled
U.S. Navy Marine Species Density
Database Phase III for the Atlantic Fleet
Training and Testing Area (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017), hereafter
referred to as the density technical
report.
A variety of density data and density
models are needed in order to develop
a density database that encompasses the
entirety of the AFTT Study Area.
Because this data is collected using
different methods with varying amounts
of accuracy and uncertainty, the Navy
has developed a model hierarchy to
ensure the most accurate data is used
when available. The density technical
report describes these models in detail
and provides detailed explanations of
the models applied to each species
density estimate. The below list
describes possible models in order of
preference.
1. Spatial density models (see Roberts
et al. (2016)) are preferred and used
when available because they provide an
estimate with the least amount of
uncertainty by deriving estimates for
divided segments of the sampling area.
These models (see Becker et al., 2016;
Forney et al., 2015) predict spatial
variability of animal presence based on
habitat variables (e.g., sea surface
temperature, seafloor depth, etc.). This
model is developed for areas, species,
and, when available, specific
timeframes (months or seasons) with
sufficient survey data; therefore, this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
model cannot be used for species with
low numbers of sightings. In the AFTT
Study Area, this model is available for
certain species along the East Coast to
the offshore extent of available survey
data and in the GOMEX.
2. Design-based density models
predict animal density based on survey
data. Like spatial density models, they
are applied to areas with survey data.
Design-based density models may be
stratified, in which a density is
predicted for each sub-region of a
survey area, allowing for better
prediction of species distribution across
the density model area. In the AFTT
Study Area, stratified density models
are used for certain species on both the
East Coast and the GOMEX. In addition,
a few species’ stratified density models
are applied to areas east of regions with
available survey data and cover a
substantial portion of the Atlantic
Ocean portion of the AFTT Study Area.
3. Extrapolative models are used in
areas where there is insufficient or no
survey data. These models use a limited
set of environmental variables to predict
possible species densities based on
environmental observations during
actual marine mammal surveys (see
Mannocci et al. (2017)). In the AFTT
Study Area, extrapolative models are
typically used east of regions with
available survey data and cover a
substantial portion of the Atlantic
Ocean of the AFTT Study Area. Because
some unsurveyed areas have
oceanographic conditions that are very
different from surveyed areas (e.g., the
Labrador Sea and North Atlantic gyre)
and some species models rely on a very
limited data set, the predictions of some
species’ extrapolative density models
and some regions of certain species’
extrapolative density models are
considered highly speculative.
Extrapolative models are not used in the
GOMEX.
4. Existing Relative Environmental
Suitability models include a high degree
of uncertainty, but are applied when no
other model is available.
When interpreting the results of the
quantitative analysis, as described in the
density technical report (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017), ‘‘it is
important to consider that even the best
estimate of marine species density is
really a model representation of the
values of concentration where these
animals might occur. Each model is
limited to the variables and assumptions
considered by the original data source
provider. No mathematical model
representation of any biological
population is perfect and with regards
to marine species biodiversity, any
single model method will not
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57169
completely explain the actual
distribution and abundance of marine
mammal species. It is expected that
there would be anomalies in the results
that need to be evaluated, with
independent information for each case,
to support if we might accept or reject
a model or portions of the model.’’
The Navy’s estimate of abundance
(based on the density estimates used) in
the AFTT Study Area may differ from
population abundances estimated in the
NMFS’ SARs in some cases for a variety
of reasons. Models may predict different
population abundances for many
reasons. The models may be based on
different data sets or different temporal
predictions may be made. The SARs are
often based on single years of NMFS
surveys, whereas the models used by
the Navy generally include multiple
years of survey data from NMFS, the
Navy, and other sources. To present a
single, best estimate, the SARs often use
a single season survey where they have
the best spatial coverage (generally
summer). Navy models often use
predictions for multiple seasons, where
appropriate for the species, even when
survey coverage in non-summer seasons
is limited, to characterize impacts over
multiple seasons as Navy activities may
occur in any season. Predictions may be
made for different spatial extents. Many
different, but equally valid, habitat and
density modeling techniques exist and
these can also be the cause of
differences in population predictions.
Differences in population estimates may
be caused by a combination of these
factors. Even similar estimates should
be interpreted with caution and
differences in models fully understood
before drawing conclusions.
These factors and others described in
the Density Technical Report should be
considered when examining the
estimated impact numbers in
comparison to current population
abundance information for any given
species or stock. For a detailed
description of the density and
assumptions made for each species, see
the Density Technical Report.
NMFS coordinated with the Navy in
the development of its take estimates
and concurs that the Navy’s approach
for density appropriately utilizes the
best available science. Later, in the
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section, we assess how
the estimated take numbers compare to
stock abundance in order to better
understand the potential number of
individuals impacted—and the rationale
for which abundance estimate is used is
included there.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57170
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Take Requests
The AFTT FEIS/OEIS considered all
training and testing activities proposed
to occur in the AFTT Study Area that
have the potential to result in the
MMPA defined take of marine
mammals. The Navy determined that
the three stressors below could result in
the incidental taking of marine
mammals. NMFS has reviewed the
Navy’s data and analysis and
determined that it is complete and
accurate and agrees that the following
stressors have the potential to result in
takes of marine mammals from the
Navy’s planned activities.
D Acoustics (sonar and other
transducers; air guns; pile driving/
extraction).
D Explosives (explosive shock wave
and sound).
D Physical Disturbance and Strike
(vessel strike).
NMFS reviewed and agrees with the
Navy’s conclusion that acoustic and
explosive sources have the potential to
result in incidental takes of marine
mammals by harassment, serious injury,
or mortality. NMFS carefully reviewed
the Navy’s analysis and conducted its
own analysis of vessel strikes,
determining that the likelihood of any
particular species of large whale being
struck is quite low. Nonetheless, NMFS
agrees that vessel strikes have the
potential to result in incidental take
from serious injury or mortality for
certain species of large whales and the
Navy has specifically requested
coverage for these species. Therefore,
the likelihood of vessel strikes, and later
the effects of the incidental take that is
being authorized, has been fully
analyzed and is described below.
The quantitative analysis process
used for the AFTT FEIS/OEIS and the
Navy’s take request in the rulemaking/
LOA application to estimate potential
exposures to marine mammals resulting
from acoustic and explosive stressors is
detailed in the technical report titled
Quantitative Analysis for Estimating
Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to
Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017a). The
Navy Acoustic Effects Model estimates
acoustic and explosive effects without
taking mitigation into account;
therefore, the model overestimates
predicted impacts on marine mammals
within mitigation zones. To account for
mitigation for marine species in the take
estimates, the Navy conducts a
quantitative assessment of mitigation.
The Navy conservatively quantifies the
manner in which procedural mitigation
is expected to reduce model-estimated
PTS to TTS for exposures to sonar and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
other transducers, and reduce modelestimated mortality to injury for
exposures to explosives. The extent to
which the mitigation areas reduce
impacts on the affected species and
stocks is addressed separately in the
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section.
The Navy assessed the effectiveness of
its procedural mitigation measures on a
per-scenario basis for four factors: (1)
Species sightability, (2) a Lookout’s
ability to observe the range to PTS (for
sonar and other transducers) and range
to mortality (for explosives), (3) the
portion of time when mitigation could
potentially be conducted during periods
of reduced daytime visibility (to include
inclement weather and high sea-state)
and the portion of time when mitigation
could potentially be conducted at night,
and (4) the ability for sound sources to
be positively controlled (e.g., powered
down).
During the conduct of training and
testing activities, there is typically at
least one, if not numerous, support
personnel involved in the activity (e.g.,
range support personnel aboard a
torpedo retrieval boat or support
aircraft). In addition to the Lookout
posted for the purpose of mitigation,
these additional personnel observe for
and disseminate marine species sighting
information amongst the units
participating in the activity whenever
possible as they conduct their primary
mission responsibilities. However, as a
conservative approach to assigning
mitigation effectiveness factors, the
Navy elected to only account for the
minimum number of required Lookouts
used for each activity; therefore, the
mitigation effectiveness factors may
underestimate the likelihood that some
marine mammals may be detected
during activities that are supported by
additional personnel who may also be
observing the mitigation zone.
The Navy used the equations in the
below sections to calculate the
reduction in model-estimated mortality
impacts due to implementing
procedural mitigation.
Equation 1:
Mitigation Effectiveness = Species
Sightability × Visibility ×
Observation Area × Positive Control
Species Sightability is the ability to
detect marine mammals and is
dependent on the animal’s presence at
the surface and the characteristics of the
animal that influence its sightability.
The Navy considered applicable data
from the best available science to
numerically approximate the
sightability of marine mammals and
determined that the standard ‘‘detection
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
probability’’ referred to as g(0) is most
appropriate. Visibility = 1¥sum of
individual visibility reduction factors.
Observation Area = portion of impact
range that can be continuously observed
during an event. Positive Control =
positive control factor of all sound
sources involving mitigation. For further
details on these mitigation effectiveness
factors please refer to the technical
report titled Quantifying Acoustic
Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea
Turtles: Methods and Analytical
Approach for Phase III Training and
Testing report (U.S. Department of the
Navy, 2018).
To quantify the number of marine
mammals predicted to be sighted by
Lookouts during implementation of
procedural mitigation in the range to
injury (PTS) for sonar and other
transducers, the species sightability is
multiplied by the mitigation
effectiveness scores and number of
model-estimated PTS impacts, as shown
in the equation below:
Equation 2:
Number of Animals Sighted by
Lookouts = Mitigation Effectiveness
× Model-Estimated Impacts
The marine mammals sighted by
Lookouts during implementation of
mitigation in the range to PTS, as
calculated by the equation above, would
avoid being exposed to these higher
level impacts. The Navy corrects the
category of predicted impact for the
number of animals sighted within the
mitigation zone (e.g., shifts PTS to TTS),
but does not modify the total number of
animals predicted to experience impacts
from the scenario.
To quantify the number of marine
mammals predicted to be sighted by
Lookouts during implementation of
procedural mitigation in the range to
mortality during events using
explosives, the species sightability is
multiplied by the mitigation
effectiveness scores and number of
model-estimated mortality impacts, as
shown in equation 1 above. The marine
mammals predicted to be sighted by
Lookouts during implementation of
procedural mitigation in the range to
mortality, as calculated by the above
equation 2, are predicted to avoid
exposure in these ranges. The Navy
corrects the category of predicted
impact for the number of animals
sighted within the mitigation zone, but
does not modify the total number of
animals predicted to experience impacts
from the scenario. For example, the
number of animals sighted (i.e., number
of animals that will avoid mortality) is
first subtracted from the modelpredicted mortality impacts, and then
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
added to the model-predicted injurious
impacts.
The Navy coordinated with NMFS in
the development of this quantitative
method to address the effects of
procedural mitigation on acoustic and
explosive exposures and takes, and
NMFS independently reviewed and
concurs with the Navy that it is
appropriate to incorporate the
quantitative assessment of mitigation
into the take estimates based on the best
available science. For additional
information on the quantitative analysis
process and mitigation measures, refer
to Chapter 6 (Take Estimates for Marine
Mammals) and Chapter 11 (Mitigation
57171
Authorized Take From Training
Activities
Measures) of the Navy’s rulemaking/
LOA application.
In summary, we believe the Navy’s
methods, including the method for
incorporating mitigation and avoidance,
are the most appropriate methods for
predicting PTS and TTS. But even with
the consideration of mitigation and
avoidance, given some of the more
conservative components of the
methodology (e.g., the thresholds do not
consider ear recovery between pulses),
we would describe the application of
these methods as identifying the
maximum number of instances in which
marine mammals would be reasonably
expected to incur either TTS or PTS.
For training activities, Table 39
summarizes the Navy’s take request and
the maximum amount and type of take
by harassment that NMFS concurs is
reasonably likely to occur by species or
stock. Authorized mortality is addressed
further down. Navy Figures 6.4–10
through 6.5–69 in Chapter 6 of the
Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application
illustrate the comparative amounts of
TTS and Level B behavioral harassment
for each species, noting that if a ‘‘taken’’
animat was exposed to both TTS and
Level B behavioral harassment in the
model, it was recorded as a TTS.
TABLE 39—SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE FROM ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES
Annual
Species
Stock
Level B
harassment
5-Year total
Level A
harassment
Level B
harassment
Level A
harassment
Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenidae (right whales)
North Atlantic right whale * ................
Western ............................................
245
0
1,177
0
26
0
121
0
0
206
2,425
1,498
233
292
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
961
11,262
7,296
1,116
1,400
0
0
0
14
3
0
0
0
119
68,839
0
0
0
10
0
10
74
39,913
74
39,913
0
48
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
173
61,113
172
226,286
173
61,113
5,360
61,113
61,113
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
4,706
573,622
71,097
33
125
0
46
0
0
0
Family Balaenopteridae (roquals)
Blue whale * ......................................
Bryde’s whale ....................................
Minke whale ......................................
Fin whale * .........................................
Humpback whale ..............................
Sei whale * ........................................
Western North Atlantic (Gulf of St.
Lawrence).
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
NSD † ...............................................
Canadian East Coast .......................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Gulf of Maine ....................................
Nova Scotia ......................................
Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)
Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)
Sperm whale * ...................................
Gulf of Mexico Oceanic ....................
North Atlantic ....................................
24
14,084
Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)
Dwarf sperm whale ...........................
Pygmy sperm whale .........................
Gulf of Mexico Oceanic ....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
14
8,527
14
8,527
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)
Blainville’s beaked whale ..................
Cuvier’s beaked whale ......................
Gervais’ beaked whale .....................
Northern bottlenose whale ................
Sowersby’s beaked whale ................
True’s beaked whale .........................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
35
12,533
34
46,402
35
12,533
1,073
12,533
12,533
Family Delphinidae (dolphins)
Atlantic spotted dolphin .....................
Atlantic white-sided dolphin ..............
Bottlenose dolphin ............................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Choctawhatchee Bay .......................
Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal .......
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
951
117,994
14,502
7
42
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57172
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 39—SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE FROM ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES—Continued
Annual
Species
Stock
Clymene dolphin ...............................
Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal .....
Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal ......
Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System.
Jacksonville Estuarine System ........
Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne,
Bay Boudreau.
Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental
Shelf.
Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic ....
Northern North Carolina Estuarine
System.
Southern North Carolina Estuarine
System.
Western North Atlantic Northern
Florida Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Offshore ......
Western North Atlantic South Carolina/Georgia Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal.
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
False killer whale ..............................
Fraser’s dolphin ................................
Killer whale ........................................
Long-finned pilot whale .....................
Melon-headed whale .........................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............
Pygmy killer whale ............................
Risso’s dolphin ..................................
Rough-toothed dolphin ......................
Short-beaked common dolphin .........
Short-finned pilot whale ....................
Spinner dolphin .................................
Striped dolphin ..................................
White-beaked dolphin .......................
Level B
harassment
5-Year total
Level A
harassment
Level B
harassment
Level A
harassment
219
4,149
283
0
0
0
1,089
12,568
1,414
0
0
0
84
0
0
0
421
0
0
0
1,560
2
7,799
9
195
3,221
0
0
970
11,800
0
0
0
0
0
0
906
0
4,324
0
5,341
0
25,594
0
25,189
4
125,183
21
308,206
4,328
39
0
1,473,308
20,559
192
0
12,494
2
58,061
10
99
69,774
41
8,271
59
3,929
1
77
17,039
70
37,157
566
145,125
16
6,483
39
21,034
97
19,568
218,144
36
31,357
228
73,689
67
91,038
40
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
495
330,027
208
39,051
298
18,634
4
372
83,050
352
175,369
2,828
686,775
84
30,639
197
100,018
436
92,314
1,046,193
179
150,213
1,138
347,347
336
451,001
192
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
64
0
0
0
6
0
15
0
161
147,290
802
0
0
1
0
7,173
11,632
42,191
631
0
0
4
0
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
Harbor porpoise ................................
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy .............
29,789
Suborder Pinnipedia
Family Phocidae (true seals)
Gray seal ...........................................
Harbor seal .......................................
Harp seal ...........................................
Hooded seal ......................................
Western
Western
Western
Western
North
North
North
North
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
1,444
2,341
8,444
127
* ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the AFTT Study Area.
† NSD: No stock designated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Authorized Take From Testing
Activities
For testing activities other than ship
shock trials, Table 40 summarizes the
Navy’s take request and the maximum
amount and type of take by harassment
57173
harassment takes annually for NARW by
115 takes. This change also decreased
annual Level B harassment takes by
approximately 200 takes for ESA-listed
fin whale and 20 takes for sei whales as
well as approximately 10,000 takes
annually for harbor porpoise.
that NMFS concurs is reasonably likely
to occur and has authorized by species
or stock. Since the proposed rule, the
Navy has removed one of their testing
events in the Northeast Range Complex
(Undersea Warfare Testing), which
decreased the number of Level B
TABLE 40—SPECIES-SPECIFIC TAKE FROM ALL TESTING ACTIVITIES (EXCLUDING SHIP SHOCK TRIALS)
Annual
Species
Stock
Level B
harassment
5-Year total
Level A
harassment
Level B
harassment
Level A
harassment
Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenidae (right whales)
North Atlantic right whale * ................
Western ............................................
224
0
1,091
0
20
0
95
0
52
125
1,616
3,655
493
482
0
0
2
3
0
0
257
614
7,971
17,716
2,412
2,327
0
0
7
16
0
0
0
0
5,240
51,657
0
0
6
14
6
14
3,424
21,159
3,424
21,159
27
66
27
66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,710
49,647
6,988
182,228
6,710
49,647
4,485
49,764
49,764
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
71,882
109,582
31,779
966
0
16,258
3,677
3
2
11
1
0
0
1
0
0
333,793
504,538
150,062
4,421
0
76,439
18,035
15
13
52
6
0
0
5
0
0
3
1
0
0
14
4
0
0
125,940
8
594,921
40
14,448
106
1
0
67,244
533
5
0
Family Balaenopteridae (roquals)
Blue whale * ......................................
Bryde’s whale ....................................
Minke whale ......................................
Fin whale * .........................................
Humpback whale ..............................
Sei whale * ........................................
Western North Atlantic (Gulf of St.
Lawrence).
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
NSD † ...............................................
Canadian East Coast .......................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Gulf of Maine ....................................
Nova Scotia ......................................
Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)
Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)
Sperm whale * ...................................
Gulf of Mexico Oceanic ....................
North Atlantic ....................................
1,106
11,278
Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)
Dwarf sperm whale ...........................
Pygmy sperm whale .........................
Gulf of Mexico Oceanic ....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
727
4,384
727
4,384
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)
Blainville’s beaked whale ..................
Cuvier’s beaked whale ......................
Gervais’ beaked whale .....................
Northern bottlenose whale ................
Sowersby’s beaked whale ................
True’s beaked whale .........................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
1,392
10,565
1,460
38,780
1,392
10,565
971
10,593
10,593
Family Delphinidae (dolphins)
Atlantic spotted dolphin .....................
Atlantic white-sided dolphin ..............
Bottlenose dolphin ............................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Choctawhatchee Bay .......................
Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal .......
Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal .....
Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal ......
Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System.
Jacksonville Estuarine System ........
Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne,
Bay Boudreau.
Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental
Shelf.
Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic ....
Northern North Carolina Estuarine
System.
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57174
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 40—SPECIES-SPECIFIC TAKE FROM ALL TESTING ACTIVITIES (EXCLUDING SHIP SHOCK TRIALS)—Continued
Annual
Species
Stock
Clymene dolphin ...............................
False killer whale ..............................
Fraser’s dolphin ................................
Killer whale ........................................
Long-finned pilot whale .....................
Melon-headed whale .........................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............
Pygmy killer whale ............................
Risso’s dolphin ..................................
Rough-toothed dolphin ......................
Short-beaked common dolphin .........
Short-finned pilot whale ....................
Spinner dolphin .................................
Striped dolphin ..................................
White-beaked dolphin .......................
Level B
harassment
Southern North Carolina Estuarine
System.
Western North Atlantic Northern
Florida Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Offshore ......
Western North Atlantic South Carolina/Georgia Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal.
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................
Western North Atlantic .....................
Western North Atlantic .....................
5-Year total
Level A
harassment
Level B
harassment
Level A
harassment
0
0
0
0
329
0
1,614
0
2,272
0
10,950
0
11,855
3
56,321
15
119,880
1,632
23
0
566,572
8,017
116
0
4,222
0
20,827
0
4,166
35,985
1,931
3,766
1,120
1,293
32
42
20,502
3,059
16,688
25,929
77,451
719
2,847
1,649
20,070
3,927
8,765
353,012
1,823
17,002
7,815
33,351
2,447
102,047
44
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
17
0
1
0
2
0
5
0
19,919
170,033
9,118
17,716
5,314
6,070
152
188
94,694
14,546
78,545
121,469
355,889
3,415
13,426
7,821
94,009
18,493
41,492
1,675,885
8,614
80,576
36,567
157,241
11,703
465,392
213
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
4
4
19
0
0
0
6
0
0
72
0
7
0
7
0
23
0
212
578,130
1,007
2
4
2
0
4,376
7,094
38,273
3,805
11
17
12
0
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
Harbor porpoise ................................
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy .............
125,404
Suborder Pinnipedia
Family Phocidae (true seals)
Gray seal ...........................................
Harbor seal .......................................
Harp seal ...........................................
Hooded seal ......................................
Western
Western
Western
Western
North
North
North
North
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
894
1,448
7,850
787
* ESA–listed species (all stocks) within the AFTT Study Area.
† NSD: No stock designated.
Authorized Take From Ship Shock
The Navy’s model and quantitative
analysis process used for the AFTT
FEIS/OEIS and in the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application to estimate
exposures of marine mammals to
explosives (ship shock) is detailed in
the technical report titled Quantifying
Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals
and Sea Turtles: Methods and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Analytical Approach for Phase III
Training and Testing (U.S. Department
of the Navy, 2017b). NMFS has
reviewed the Navy’s data and analysis
of explosive impacts and concurs that
the estimated take the Navy requested
appropriately represents the maximum
take by harassment that is reasonably
expected to occur, as well as the
potential for mortality. Table 41
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
summarizes the Navy’s take request and
the maximum amount and type of take
that is reasonably expected to occur
(harassment) or could potentially occur
(serious injury/mortality) by species for
ship shock trials under testing activities
per small and large ship shock events
and the summation over a five-year
period. The table below displays
maximum ship shock impacts to marine
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
mammals by species (in bold text), as
well as maximum impacts on individual
stocks. The maximum is derived by
selecting the highest number of
potential impacts across all locations
and all seasons for each species/stock.
Small Ship Shock trials could take place
any season within the deep offshore
water of the Virginia Capes Range
Complex or in the spring, summer, or
fall within the Jacksonville Range
Complex and could occur up to three
times over a five-year period. The Large
Ship Shock trial could take place in the
Jacksonville Range Complex during the
spring, summer, or fall and during any
season within the deep offshore water of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
the Virginia Capes Range Complex or
within the GOMEX. The Large Ship
Shock Trial could occur once over five
years.
Navy’s model and quantitative
analysis process estimated serious
injury/mortality of four dolphin species
from ship shock trials including:
Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Western
North Atlantic), Pantropical spotted
dolphin (Northern GOMEX), shortbeaked common dolphin (Western
North Atlantic), and Spinner dolphin
(Northern GOMEX) (Table 41 below).
For serious injury/mortality takes over
the five-year period, based on the
exposure estimates generated by the
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57175
model and the quantitative postmodeling mitigation and avoidance
adjustments, an annual average of 0.2
dolphins from each dolphin species/
stock listed above (i.e., for those species
or stocks where 1 take could potentially
occur divided by 5 years to get the
annual number of mortalities/serious
injuries) or 1.2 dolphins in the case of
short-beaked common dolphin (i.e.,
where 6 takes could potentially occur
divided by 5 years to get the annual
number of mortalities/serious injuries)
is used in further analysis in the
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57176
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Dwarf sperm
whale
Gulf of Mexico
Oceanic
Western North
Atlantic
Pygmy sperm
whale
VerDate Sep<11>2014
46
28
0
91
70
0
229
154
0
0
0
0
51
64
0
51
64
0
46
28
0
91
70
0
229
154
0
46
28
0
91
70
0
229
154
0
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.054</GPH>
Table 41. Species Specific Take from Ship Shock Trials.
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
0
0
0
51
64
0
51
64
0
46
28
0
91
70
0
229
154
0
Blainville's
beaked whale
1
0
0
1
1
0
4
1
0
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Western North
Atlantic
Cuvier's
beaked whale
2
1
0
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
0
0
0
Western North
Atlantic
2
Gervais'
beaked whale
1
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
0
Western North
Atlantic
2
0
4
3
0
8
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
8
6
0
0
0
1
1
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
Northern
bottlenose
whale
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Western North
Atlantic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sowerby's
beaked whale
1
0
0
1
1
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
Western North
Atlantic
True's beaked
whale
1
Western North
1
1
0
1
0
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
0
0
0
2
Western North
Atlantic
6
4
0
8
12
0
26
24
0
Atlantic whitesided dolphin
1
1
0
3
9
1
6
12
1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.055</GPH>
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
57177
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Western North
Atlantic
Bottlenose
dolphin
Choctawhatchee
Bay
1
1
0
3
9
1
6
12
1
13
10
0
16
24
0
55
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
6
0
10
6
0
0
0
0
10
9
0
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Western North
Atlantic Central
Florida Coastal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Western North
Atlantic
Northern
Migratory
Coastal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gulf of Mexico
Eastern Coastal
Gulf of Mexico
Northern
Coastal
Gulf of Mexico
Western Coastal
Indian River
Lagoon
Estuarine
System
Jacksonville
Estuarine
System
Mississippi
Sound, Lake
Borgne, Bay
Boudreau
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
Continental
Shelf
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
Oceanic
Northern North
Carolina
Estuarine
System
Southern North
Carolina
Estuarine
System
Western North
Atlantic
Northern
Florida Coastal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.056</GPH>
57178
57179
Western North
Atlantic
Offshore
13
10
0
16
24
0
55
54
0
Western North
Atlantic South
Carolina/
Georgia Coastal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
9
8
0
15
23
0
0
0
0
8
6
0
8
6
0
2
5
0
9
8
0
15
23
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
Western North
Atlantic
Southern
Migratory
Coastal
Clymene
dolphin
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
Western North
Atlantic
False killer
whale
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
Western North
Atlantic
Fraser's
dolphin
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
2
3
0
Western North
Atlantic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Killer whale
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Western North
Atlantic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Long-finned
pilot whale
2
2
0
5
6
0
11
12
0
Western North
Atlantic
2
2
0
5
6
0
11
12
0
Melon-headed
whale
1
1
0
5
4
0
8
7
0
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
0
0
0
4
4
0
4
4
0
1
1
0
5
1
0
8
4
0
2
3
0
25
20
1
31
29
1
Western North
Atlantic
Pantropical
spotted
dolphin
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.057</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
0
0
0
25
20
1
25
20
1
2
3
0
7
3
0
l3
12
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
l
0
l
l
0
Western North
Atlantic
0
0
0
1
0
0
l
0
0
Western North
Atlantic
Pygmy killer
whale
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
Risso's dolphin
1
1
0
3
1
0
6
4
0
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
0
0
0
2
l
0
2
l
0
Western North
Atlantic
I
I
0
3
I
0
6
4
0
Rough-toothed
dolphin
1
0
0
3
2
0
6
2
0
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
51
1
67
107
3
187
260
6
40
51
1
67
107
3
187
260
6
Short-finned
pilot whale
2
2
0
4
5
0
10
11
0
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
0
0
0
2
3
0
2
3
0
2
2
0
4
5
0
10
II
0
3
1
0
37
45
1
46
48
1
0
0
0
37
45
1
37
45
1
3
1
0
7
3
0
16
6
0
4
8
0
10
12
0
22
36
0
0
0
0
4
3
0
4
3
0
Western North
Atlantic
4
8
0
10
12
0
22
36
0
White-beaked
dolphin
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Western North
Atlantic
Short-beaked
common
dolphin
Western North
Atlantic
Western North
Atlantic
Spinner
dolphin
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
Western North
Atlantic
Striped
dolphin
Northern Gulf
of Mexico
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.058</GPH>
57180
Take From Vessel Strikes
The marine mammals most vulnerable
to vessel strikes are those that spend
extended periods of time at the surface
in order to restore oxygen levels within
their tissues after deep dives (e.g., the
sperm whale). In addition, some baleen
whales, such as the NARW, seem
generally unresponsive to vessel sound,
making them more susceptible to vessel
collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These
species are primarily large, slower
moving whales.
Some researchers have suggested the
relative risk of a vessel strike can be
assessed as a function of animal density
and the magnitude of vessel traffic (e.g.,
Fonnesbeck et al. 2008; Vanderlaan et
al., 2008). Differences among vessel
types also influence the probability of a
vessel strike. The ability of any ship to
detect a marine mammal and avoid a
collision depends on a variety of factors,
including environmental conditions,
ship design, size, speed, and personnel,
as well as the behavior of the animal.
Vessel speed, size, and mass are all
important factors in determining if
injury or death of a marine mammal is
likely due to a vessel strike. For large
vessels, speed and angle of approach
can influence the severity of a strike.
For example, Vanderlaan and Taggart
(2007) found that between vessel speeds
of 8.6 and 15 knots, the probability that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
a vessel strike is lethal increases from
0.21 to 0.79. Large whales also do not
have to be at the water’s surface to be
struck. Silber et al. (2010) found when
a whale is below the surface (about one
to two times the vessel draft), there is
likely to be a pronounced propeller
suction effect. This suction effect may
draw the whale into the hull of the ship,
increasing the probability of propeller
strikes.
There are some key differences
between the operation of military and
non-military vessels, which make the
likelihood of a military vessel striking a
whale lower than some other vessels
(e.g., commercial merchant vessels). Key
differences include: Many military ships
have their bridges positioned closer to
the bow, offering better visibility ahead
of the ship (compared to a commercial
merchant vessel).
• There are often aircraft associated
with the training or testing activity
(which can serve as Lookouts), which
can more readily detect cetaceans in the
vicinity of a vessel or ahead of a vessel’s
present course before crew on the vessel
would be able to detect them.
• Military ships are generally more
maneuverable than commercial
merchant vessels, and if cetaceans are
spotted in the path of the ship, could be
capable of changing course more
quickly.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57181
• The crew size on military vessels is
generally larger than merchant ships,
allowing for stationing more trained
Lookouts on the bridge. At all times
when vessels are underway, trained
Lookouts and bridge navigation teams
are used to detect objects on the surface
of the water ahead of the ship, including
cetaceans. Additional Lookouts, beyond
those already stationed on the bridge
and on navigation teams, are positioned
as Lookouts during some training
events.
• When submerged, submarines are
generally slow moving (to avoid
detection) and therefore marine
mammals at depth with a submarine are
likely able to avoid collision with the
submarine. When a submarine is
transiting on the surface, there are
Lookouts serving the same function as
they do on surface ships.
Vessel strike to marine mammals is
not associated with any specific training
or testing activity but is rather an
extremely limited and sporadic, but
possible, accidental result of Navy
vessel movement within the AFTT
Study Area or while in transit.
There have been three recorded Navy
vessel strikes of large whales in the
AFTT Study Area from 2009 through
2017 (nine years), the period in which
Navy began implementing effective
mitigation measures to reduce the
likelihood of vessel strikes. In order to
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.074</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57182
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
account for the accidental nature of
vessel strikes to large whales in general,
and the potential risk from any vessel
movement within the AFTT Study Area
within the five-year period, the Navy
requested incidental takes based on
probabilities derived from a Poisson
distribution using ship strike data
between 2009–2016 in the AFTT Study
Area (the time period from when
current mitigations were instituted until
the Navy conducted the analysis for the
EIS and application), and no new strikes
have occurred since), as well as
historical at-sea days in AFTT from
2009–2016 and estimated potential atsea days for the period from 2018 to
2023 covered by the requested
regulations. This distribution predicted
the probabilities of a specific number of
strikes (n=0, 1, 2, etc.) over the period
from 2018 to 2023. The analysis is
described in detail in Chapter 6 of the
Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application
(and further refined in the Navy’s
revised ship strike analysis posted on
NMFS’ website https://www.fisheries.
noaa.gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/incidental-takeauthorizations-military-readinessactivities.
For the same reasons listed above
describing why Navy vessel strike is
comparatively unlikely, it is highly
unlikely that a Navy vessel would strike
a whale or dolphin without detecting it
and, accordingly, NMFS is confident
that the Navy’s reported strikes are
accurate and appropriate for use in the
analysis. The Navy used those three
whale strikes in their calculations to
determine the number of strikes likely
to result from their activities (although
worldwide strike information, from all
Navy activities and other strikes, was
used to inform the species that may be
struck) and evaluated data beginning in
2009 as that was the start of the Navy’s
Marine Species Awareness Training and
adoption of additional mitigation
measures to address ship strike, which
will remain in place along with
additional mitigation measures during
the five years of this rule.
The probability analysis concluded
that there was a 15 percent chance that
zero whales would be struck by Navy
vessels over the next five years,
indicating an 85 percent chance that at
least one whale would be struck over
the next five years and a 17 percent
chance of striking three whales over the
five-year period. In addition, small
delphinids are neither expected nor
authorized to be struck by Navy vessels
since: They have not been struck
historically as a result of Navy AFTT
activities, their smaller size and
maneuverability makes a strike from a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:02 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
larger vessel much less likely as
illustrated in worldwide ship-strike
records, and the majority of the Navy’s
faster-moving activities are located in
offshore areas where smaller delphinid
densities are less. Accordingly, NMFS
anticipates and authorizes takes by
vessel strike of large whales only (i.e.,
no dolphins or smaller whales) over the
course of the five-year regulations from
training and testing activities as
discussed below.
Based on the above analysis, the Navy
estimated that it has the potential to
strike, and take by serious injury or
mortality, up to three large whales
incidental to the specified activity over
the course of the five years of the AFTT
regulations. Because of the number of
incidents in which the struck animal
has remained unidentified to species
(although due to the Navy’s particular
measures to avoid NARW, it is unlikely
that any of the three vessel strikes were
of NARW), it is challenging to predict
the number of the potential takes that
will be of any particular species. The
Navy requested incidental take
authorization for up to two of any the
following species in the five-year
period: Humpback whale (Gulf of Maine
stock), fin whale (Western North
Atlantic stock), minke (Canadian East
Coast stock), and sperm whale (North
Atlantic stock) and one of any of the
following: Sei whale (Nova Scotia
stock), blue whale (Western North
Atlantic stock), sperm whale (GOMEX
Oceanic stock). NMFS independently
reviewed this analysis and agrees that
three ship strikes have at least the
potential to occur and therefore the
request for mortal takes of three large
whales over the five-year period of the
rule is reasonable based on the available
strike data (three strikes by Navy over
nine years) and the Navy’s probability
analysis. NMFS does not agree,
however, that two mortal takes of any
one species is likely, or that strike of
either blue whales or the GOMEX stock
of sperm whales is remotely likely.
In order to predict the likelihood of
striking any particular species, NMFS
compiled information from the latest
NMFS 2018 SARs on detected annual
rates of large whale serious injury and
mortality from vessel collisions (Table
42 below), which represent the best
available science. The annual rates of
large whale serious injury and mortality
from vessel collisions indicate the
relative susceptibility of large whale
species to vessel strike in the Atlantic
Ocean and GOMEX. To calculate the
relative likelihood of striking each
species, we summed the annual rates of
mortality and serious injury from vessel
collisions, then divided each species’
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
annual rate by this number. To estimate
the percent likelihood of striking a
particular species of large whale, we
multiplied the relative likelihood of
striking each species by the total
probability of striking a whale (i.e., 85
percent, as described by the Navy’s
probability analysis). To calculate the
percent likelihood of striking a
particular species of large whale twice,
we squared the value estimated for the
probability of striking a particular
species of whale (i.e., to calculate the
probability of an event occurring twice,
multiply the probability of the first
event by the second). The analysis
indicates that there is a very low percent
chance of striking any particular species
or stock more than once (i.e., less than
7 percent chance for all species) as
shown in Table 42 below and,
accordingly, in the proposed rule NMFS
proposed that any of the mysticete and
sperm whale stocks might incur one
serious injury or mortality take by vessel
strike over the five-year period of the
rule, except the NARW which would
have zero mortality/serious injury takes
because of the enhanced mitigation and
the Bryde’s whale, which would also
have zero mortality/serious injury takes
because of their low numbers and lack
of previous strikes
However, based on the quantitative
method above, blue whales and GOMEX
sperm whales also have a zero percent
chance of being struck. Following
additional discussion with the Navy
(after the proposed rule was published)
about this quantitative analysis, the
Navy’s activities, and other factors—and
NMFS’ independent review—NMFS and
the Navy agreed that vessel strike of
these two stocks was highly unlikely.
Accordingly, the Navy revised their
request for take by serious injury or
mortality to include up to one of any the
following species in the five-year
period: Humpback whale (Gulf of Maine
stock), fin whale (Western North
Atlantic stock), minke whale (Canadian
East Coast stock), sperm whale (North
Atlantic stock), and sei whale (Nova
Scotia stock)—removing the request for
GOMEX sperm whales and North
Atlantic blue whales. We note that the
quantitative method outlined above
indicates only a very small likelihood
that the Navy will strike a North
Atlantic sperm whale (< 3 percent),
however, the Navy has struck a sperm
whale previously in the Atlantic, which
points to a higher likelihood that it
could occur and that an authorized
mortality is appropriate. Additional
discussion relevant to our
determinations for North Atlantic blue
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
whales, GOMEX sperm whale, NARW,
and Bryde’s whale is included below.
In addition to the zero probability
predicted by the quantitative model,
there are no recent confirmed records of
vessel collision mortality or serious
injury to blue whales in the U.S.
Atlantic EEZ, although there is one
older historical record pointing to a ship
strike that likely occurred outside of the
U.S. Atlantic EEZ (outside of where
most Navy activities occur, so less
relevant) and one 1998 record of a dead
20 m (66 ft) male blue whale brought
into Rhode Island waters on the bow of
a tanker. The cause of death was
determined to be ship strike; however,
some of the injuries were difficult to
explain from the necropsy. As noted
previously, the Navy has been
conducting Marine Species Awareness
Training and implementing additional
mitigation measures to protect against
strikes since 2009. Therefore, given the
absence of any strikes in the recent past
since the Navy has implemented its
current mitigation measures, the very
low abundance of North Atlantic blue
whales throughout the AFTT Study
Area, and the very low number of two
blue whales ever known to be struck in
the area by any type of vessel (and not
struck by Navy vessels), we believe the
likelihood of the Navy hitting a blue
whale is discountable.
In addition to the zero probability of
hitting a sperm whale in the GOMEX
predicted by the quantitative model,
there have been no vessel strikes of any
large whales since 2009 per the SAR
and no Navy strikes of any large whales
since 1995 (based on our records) in the
GOMEX. Further, the Navy has
comparatively fewer steaming days in
the GOMEX and there is a fairly low
abundance of sperm whales occurring
there. As noted previously, the Navy has
been conducting Marine Species
Awareness Training and implementing
additional mitigation measures to
protect against strikes since 2009.
Therefore, NMFS believes that the
likelihood of the Navy hitting a GOMEX
sperm whale is discountable.
Although the quantitative analysis
predicts that NARWs do have a low
probability of being struck one time
within the five-year period when vessel
strikes across all activity types
(including non-Navy) are considered
(10.11 percent, lower than all other
stocks except North Atlantic sperm
57183
whales), when the enhanced mitigation
measures (discussed below) the Navy
will implement for NARWs are
considered in combination with this
low probability, the Navy and NMFS
find that a vessel strike is highly
unlikely and therefore, lethal take of
NARWs was not requested and is not
authorized. We further note that while
there have been three strikes of
unidentified whales, it is unlikely they
were NARW, as one occurred in the
Chesapeake Bay and observed features
suggested it was most probably a
humpback whale, while the other two
occurred 75 and 45 nmi offshore from
Cape Hatteras, beyond where NARW are
expected to occur. Regarding the
Bryde’s whale, due to the fact that the
Navy has not struck a Bryde’s whale, the
very low abundance numbers, and the
limited Navy ship traffic that overlaps
with Bryde’s whale habitat, neither the
Navy nor NMFS anticipate any vesselstrike takes, and none were requested or
proposed for authorization. The Navy is
now also limiting activities (i.e., 200 hr
cap on hull-mounted MFAS) and will
not use explosives (except during mine
warfare activities) in the Bryde’s Whale
Mitigation Area.
TABLE 42—ANNUAL RATES OF MORTALITY AND SERIOUS INJURY FROM VESSEL COLLISIONS COMPILED FROM NMFS
2018 SARS AND ESTIMATED PERCENT CHANCE OF STRIKING EACH LARGE WHALE SPECIES IN THE AFTT STUDY
AREA OVER A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD
Annual rate of
M/SI * from
vessel
collision
Species
Fin whale—Western North Atlantic stock ....................................................................................
Sei whale—Nova Scotia stock ....................................................................................................
Minke whale—Canadian East Coast stock .................................................................................
Blue whale—Western North Atlantic stock ..................................................................................
Humpback whale—Gulf of Maine stock ......................................................................................
Sperm whale—North Atlantic stock .............................................................................................
Sperm whale—Gulf of Mexico stock ...........................................................................................
In conclusion, although it is generally
unlikely that any whales will be struck
in a year, based on the information and
analysis above (as well as the additional
information regarding NARW mitigation
below), NMFS anticipates that no more
than three whales could be taken by
serious injury or mortality over the fiveyear period of the rule, and that those
three whales may include no more than
one of any of the five following stocks
(though no more than three total):
Humpback whale (Gulf of Maine stock),
fin whale (Western North Atlantic
stock), minke (Canadian East Coast
stock), sperm whale (North Atlantic
stock), and sei whale (Nova Scotia
stock). Accordingly, NMFS has
authorized the serious injury or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
mortality of 0.2 whales annually from
each of these species or stocks (i.e., 1
take divided by 5 years to get the annual
number). Below we include additional
information regarding the mitigation
measures that help avoid ship strike of
NARW.
In addition to procedural mitigation,
the Navy will implement measures in
mitigation areas used by NARW for
foraging, calving, and migration (see the
Mitigation Measures section in this rule
and a full analysis in Chapter 5
(Mitigation) of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS).
These measures, which go above and
beyond those focused on other species
(e.g., funding of and communication
with sightings systems, implementation
of speed reductions during applicable
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1.6
0.8
1.4
0
1.8
0.2
0
Percent
chance of
ONE strike
22.67
11.33
19.83
0
25.50
2.83
0
Percent
chance of
TWO strike
5.14
1.28
3.93
0
6.50
0.08
0
circumstances in certain areas) have
helped the Navy avoid striking a NARW
during training and testing activities in
the past; and essentially eliminate the
potential for strikes to occur during the
five-year period of the rule. In
particular, the mitigation pertaining to
vessels, including the continued
participation in and sponsoring of the
Early Warning System, will help Navy
vessels avoid NARW during transits and
training and testing activities. The Early
Warning System is a comprehensive
information exchange network
dedicated to reducing the risk of vessel
strikes to NARW off the southeast
United States from all mariners (i.e.,
Navy and non-Navy vessels). Navy
participants include the Fleet Area
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57184
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Control and Surveillance Facility,
Jacksonville; Commander, Naval
Submarine Forces, Norfolk, Virginia;
and Naval Submarine Support
Command. The Navy, U.S. Coast Guard,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
NMFS collaboratively sponsor daily
aerial surveys from December 1 through
March 31 (weather permitting) to
observe for NARW from the shoreline
out to approximately 30–35 nmi
offshore. Aerial surveyors relay
sightings information to all mariners
transiting within the NARW calving
habitat (e.g., commercial vessels,
recreational boaters, and Navy ships).
In the NE NARW Mitigation Area,
before all vessel transits, the Navy
conducts a web query or email inquiry
of NOAA’s NARW Sighting Advisory
System to obtain the latest NARW
sightings information. Navy vessels will
use the obtained sightings information
to reduce potential interactions with
NARW during transits and prevent ship
strikes. In this mitigation area, vessels
will implement speed reductions after
they observe a NARW; if they are within
5 nmi of the location of a sighting
reported to the NARW Sighting
Advisory System within the past week;
and when operating at night or during
periods of reduced visibility. During
transits and normal firing involving
non-explosive torpedos activities, the
Navy ships will maintain a speed of no
more than 10 kn. During submarine
target firing, ships will maintain speeds
of no more than 18 kn. During vessel
target firing, vessel speeds may exceed
18 kn for only brief periods of time (e.g.,
10–15 min). In the SE NARW Mitigation
Area, before transiting or conducting
training or testing activities within the
mitigation area, the Navy will initiate
communication with the Fleet Area
Control and Surveillance Facility,
Jacksonville to obtain Early Warning
System NARW whale sightings data.
The Fleet Area Control and Surveillance
Facility, Jacksonville will advise vessels
of all reported whale sightings in the
vicinity to help vessels and aircraft
reduce potential interactions with
NARWs and prevent ship strikes.
Commander Submarine Force U.S.
Atlantic Fleet will coordinate any
submarine activities that may require
approval from the Fleet Area Control
and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville.
Vessels will use the sightings
information to reduce potential
interactions with NARW during transits
and prevent ship strikes. Vessels will
also implement speed reductions after
they observe a NARW, if they are within
5 nmi of a sighting reported within the
past 12 hrs, or when operating in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
mitigation area at night or during
periods of poor visibility. To the
maximum extent practicable, vessels
will minimize north-south transits in
the mitigation area. Finally, the Navy
will broadcast awareness notification
messages with NARW Dynamic
Management Area information (e.g.,
location and dates) to applicable Navy
vessels operating in the vicinity of the
Dynamic Management Area. The
information will alert assets to the
possible presence of a NARW to
maintain safety of navigation and
further reduce the potential for a vessel
strike. Navy platforms will use the
information to assist their visual
observation of applicable mitigation
zones during training and testing
activities and to aid in the
implementation of procedural
mitigation, including but not limited to,
mitigation for vessel movement.
Implementation of these measures is
expected to significantly reduce the
probability of striking this particular
species during the five-year period of
the rule. Ship strikes are a fluke
encounter for which the probability will
never be zero for any vessel. The
probability for any particular ship to
strike a marine mammal is primarily a
product of the ability of the ship to
detect a marine mammal and the ability
to effectively act to avoid it. Navy
combat ships are inherently among the
best at both of these because compared
to large commercial vessels, they have
trained Lookouts which have received
specialized MMO training, and the most
maneuverable ships, which means that
they are more likely to sight a marine
mammal and more likely to be able to
maneuver to avoid it in the available
time—both of which decrease the
probability of striking a marine mammal
below what it would have been in the
absence of those abilities. In the case of
the NARW, the extensive
communication/detection network
described above, which is in use in the
areas of highest NARW occurrence and
where they may be more susceptible to
strike, further increases the likelihood of
detecting a NARW and thereby avoiding
it, which further reduces the probability
of NARW strike. Further, detection of
NARW in some areas/times is associated
with reduced speed requirements,
which in some cases may reduce the
strike probability further by slightly
increasing the time within which an
operator has to maneuver away from a
whale. Because of these additional
mitigation measures combined with the
already low probability that a NARW
will be struck, it is extremely unlikely
the Navy will strike a NARW and
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
mortality/serious injury of a NARW
from vessel strike is neither anticipated
nor authorized.
Mitigation Measures
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 a determination of
‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’ shall
include consideration of personnel
safety, practicality of implementation,
and impact on the effectiveness of the
‘‘military readiness activity.’’
In Conservation Council for Hawaii v.
National Marine Fisheries Service, 97 F.
Supp.3d 1210, 1229 (D. Haw. 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.’’
More recently, expressing similar
concerns in a challenge to a U.S. Navy
Operations of Surveillance Towed Array
Sensor System Low Frequency Active
Sonar (SURTASS LFA) incidental take
rule (77 FR 50290), the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals in Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) v. Pritzker, 828
F.3d 1125, 1134 (9th Cir. 2016), stated,
‘‘[c]ompliance 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 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 (such as
the Navy Gulf of Alaska rule (82 FR
19530; April 27, 2017)).
Before NMFS can issue incidental
take regulations under section
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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 implementing regulations for
section 101(a)(5) both 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 1 and, therefore
are considered in evaluating population
level impacts.
As we stated in the preamble to the
final rule for the incidental take
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.’’ (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
consideration of mitigation—the least
practicable adverse impact provision
separately requires NMFS to prescribe
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,’’ 50
CFR 216.102(b), which are typically
identified as mitigation measures.2
The negligible impact and least
practicable adverse impact standards in
the MMPA both call for evaluation at
the level of the ‘‘species or stock.’’ The
MMPA does not define the term
‘‘species.’’ However, Merriam-Webster
Dictionary defines ‘‘species’’ to include
‘‘related organisms or populations
potentially capable of interbreeding.’’
See www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/species (emphasis added).
The MMPA defines ‘‘stock’’ as ‘‘a group
1A
growth rate can be positive, negative, or flat.
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 regulation.
2 For
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
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). The
definition of ‘‘population’’ is ‘‘a group of
interbreeding organisms that represents
the level of organization at which
speciation begins.’’ www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/population. The
definition of ‘‘population’’ is strikingly
similar to the MMPA’s definition of
‘‘stock,’’ with both involving groups of
individuals that belong to the same
species and located in a manner that
allows for interbreeding. In fact, the
term ‘‘stock’’ in the MMPA is
interchangeable with the statutory term
‘‘population stock.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1362(11).
Both the negligible impact standard and
the least practicable adverse impact
standard call for evaluation at the level
of the species or stock, and the terms
‘‘species’’ and ‘‘stock’’ both relate to
populations; therefore, it is appropriate
to view both the negligible impact
standard and the least practicable
adverse impact standard as having a
population-level focus.
This interpretation is consistent with
Congress’s statutory findings for
enacting the MMPA, nearly all of which
are most applicable at the species or
stock (i.e., population) level. See 16
U.S.C. 1361 (finding that it is species
and population stocks that are or may be
in danger of extinction or depletion; that
it is species and population stocks that
should not diminish beyond being
significant functioning elements of their
ecosystems; and that it is species and
population stocks that should not be
permitted to diminish below their
optimum sustainable population level).
Annual rates of recruitment (i.e.,
reproduction) and survival are the key
biological metrics used in the evaluation
of population-level impacts, and
accordingly these same metrics are also
used in the evaluation of population
level impacts for the least practicable
adverse impact standard.
Recognizing this common focus of the
least practicable adverse impact and
negligible impact provisions on the
‘‘species or stock’’ does not mean we
conflate the two standards; despite some
common statutory language, we
recognize the two provisions are
different and have different functions.
First, a negligible impact finding is
required before NMFS can issue an
incidental take authorization. Although
it is acceptable to use the mitigation
measures to reach a negligible impact
finding (see 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57185
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
measures that will affect the least
practicable amount of adverse impact
upon the affected species or stock.
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 specifically 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
reiterate that the least practicable
adverse impact standard also requires
consideration of measures for marine
mammal habitat, with particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and other areas of similar significance,
and for subsistence impacts, whereas
the negligible impact standard is
concerned solely with conclusions
about the impact of an activity on
annual rates of recruitment and
survival.3
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
(emphases 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 or
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
3 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).
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57186
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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 measures extends beyond
that analysis. In evaluating what
mitigation measures are appropriate,
NMFS considers the potential impacts
of the Specified Activities, 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 Standard
Given the NRDC v. Pritzker decision,
we discuss here how we determine
whether a measure or set of measures
meets the ‘‘least practicable adverse
impact’’ standard. Our separate analysis
of whether the take anticipated to result
from Navy’s activities meets the
‘‘negligible impact’’ standard appears in
the Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section below.
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
potential measure(s) is expected to
reduce adverse impacts to marine
mammal species or stocks, their habitat,
and their availability for subsistence
uses (where relevant). This analysis
considers such things as the nature of
the potential adverse impact (such as
likelihood, scope, and range), the
likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented, and the
likelihood of successful
implementation; and
(2) The practicability of the measures
for applicant implementation.
Practicability of implementation may
consider such things as cost, impact on
activities, and, in the case of a military
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
readiness activity, specifically considers
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity. 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(iii).
While the language of the least
practicable adverse impact standard
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 focuses on
measures that are designed to avoid or
minimize impacts on individual marine
mammals that are likely to increase the
probability or severity of populationlevel effects.
While direct evidence of impacts to
species or stocks from a specified
activity is rarely available, and
additional study is still needed to
understand 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 effects
(or the risk thereof) to species or stocks.
We also acknowledge that there is
always the potential that new
information, or a new recommendation
that we had not previously considered,
becomes available and necessitates
reevaluation of mitigation measures
(which may be addressed through
adaptive management) to see if further
reductions of population impacts are
possible and practicable.
In the evaluation of specific measures,
the details of the specified activity will
necessarily inform each of the two
primary factors discussed above
(expected reduction of impacts and
practicability), and are carefully
considered to determine the types of
mitigation that are appropriate under
the least practicable adverse impact
standard. Analysis of how a potential
mitigation measure may reduce adverse
impacts on a marine mammal stock or
species, consideration of personnel
safety, practicality of implementation,
and consideration of the impact on
effectiveness of military readiness
activities are not issues that can be
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
meaningfully evaluated through a yes/
no lens. The manner in which, and the
degree to which, implementation of a
measure is expected to reduce impacts,
as well as its practicability in terms of
these considerations, can vary widely.
For example, a time/area restriction
could be of very high value for
decreasing population-level impacts
(e.g., avoiding disturbance of feeding
females in an area of established
biological importance) or it could be of
lower value (e.g., decreased disturbance
in an area of high productivity but of
less firmly established biological
importance). Regarding practicability, a
measure might involve restrictions in an
area or time that impede the Navy’s
ability to certify a strike group (higher
impact on mission effectiveness), or it
could mean delaying a small in-port
training event by 30 minutes to avoid
exposure of a marine mammal to
injurious levels of sound (lower impact).
A responsible evaluation of ‘‘least
practicable adverse impact’’ will
consider the factors along these realistic
scales. Accordingly, the greater the
likelihood that a measure will
contribute to reducing the probability or
severity of adverse impacts to the
species or stock or their habitat, the
greater the weight that measure is given
when considered in combination with
practicability to determine the
appropriateness of the mitigation
measure, and vice versa. In the
evaluation of specific measures, the
details of the specified activity will
necessarily inform each of the two
primary factors discussed above
(expected reduction of impacts and
practicability), and will be carefully
considered to determine the types of
mitigation that are appropriate under
the least practicable adverse impact
standard. We discuss consideration of
these factors in greater detail below.
1. Reduction of adverse impacts to
marine mammal species or stocks and
their habitat.4 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 (and how many individuals)
4 We recognize the least practicable adverse
impact standard requires consideration of measures
that will address minimizing impacts on the
availability of the species or stocks for subsistence
uses where relevant. Because subsistence uses are
not implicated for this action, we do not discuss
them. However, a similar framework would apply
for evaluating those measures, taking into account
the MMPA’s directive that we make a finding of no
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of
the species or stocks for taking for subsistence, and
the relevant implementing regulations.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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 effects have greater
value in reducing the likelihood or
severity of adverse species- or stocklevel 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 are expected in the
absence of mitigation in order to assess
the added value of any potential
measures. Finally, because the least
practicable adverse impact standard
gives NMFS discretion to weigh a
variety of factors when determining
appropriate mitigation measures and
because the focus of the standard is on
reducing impacts at the species or stock
level, the least practicable adverse
impact standard does not compel
mitigation for every kind of take, or
every individual taken, if that mitigation
is unlikely to meaningfully contribute to
the reduction of adverse impacts on the
species or stock and its habitat, even
when practicable for implementation by
the applicant.
The status of the species or stock is
also relevant in evaluating the
appropriateness of potential 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 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 a UME or has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
other known vulnerabilities, such as
recovering from an oil spill.
Habitat mitigation, particularly as it
relates to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance, is also
relevant to achieving the standard 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. As with
species- or stock-related mitigation, the
emphasis given to a measure’s ability to
reduce impacts on a species or stock’s
habitat considers the degree, likelihood,
and context of the anticipated reduction
of impacts to habitat. Because habitat
value is informed by marine mammal
presence and use, in some cases there
may be overlap in measures for the
species or stock and for use of habitat.
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 nor successful, then
either that measure should be modified
or the potential value of the measure to
reduce effects should be lowered.
2. Practicability. Factors considered
may include cost, impact on activities,
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)(iii)).
NMFS reviewed the Specified
Activities and the mitigation measures
as described in the Navy’s rulemaking/
LOA application and the AFTT FEIS/
OEIS to determine if they would result
in the least practicable adverse effect on
marine mammals. NMFS worked with
the Navy in the development of the
Navy’s initially proposed measures,
which are informed by years of
implementation and monitoring. A
complete discussion of the evaluation
process used to develop, assess, and
select mitigation measures, which was
informed by input from NMFS, can be
found in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the
AFTT FEIS/OEIS and is summarized
below in this section. The process
described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of
the AFTT FEIS/OEIS robustly supports
NMFS’ independent evaluation of
whether the mitigation measures
required by this rule meet the least
practicable adverse impact standard.
The Navy is required to implement the
mitigation measures identified in this
rule to avoid or reduce potential
impacts from acoustic, explosive, and
physical disturbance and ship strike
stressors.
In summary (and described in more
detail below in this section), the Navy
has agreed to procedural mitigation
measures that will reduce the
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57187
probability and/or severity of impacts
expected to result from acute exposure
to acoustic sources or explosives, ship
strike, and impacts to marine mammal
habitat. Specifically, the Navy will use
a combination of delayed starts,
powerdowns, and shutdowns to
minimize or avoid serious injury or
mortality, minimize the likelihood or
severity of PTS or other injury, and
reduce instances of TTS or more severe
behavioral disruption caused by
acoustic sources or explosives. The
Navy also will implement multiple
time/area restrictions (several of which
have been added since the previous
AFTT MMPA incidental take rule) that
would reduce take of marine mammals
in areas or at times where they are
known to engage in important
behaviors, such as feeding or calving,
where the disruption of those behaviors
would have a higher probability of
resulting in impacts on reproduction or
survival of individuals that could lead
to population-level impacts.
Since the proposed rule, NMFS and
the Navy have agreed to additional
mitigation measures that are expected to
reduce the likelihood and/or severity of
adverse impacts on marine mammal
species/stocks and their habitat and are
practicable for implementation. Below
we summarize the added measures and
describe the manner in which they are
expected to reduce the likelihood or
severity of adverse impacts on marine
mammal species or stocks and their
habitat. A full description of each
measure is included in the mitigation
tables below.
1. Pre-event in-water explosive event
observations—The Navy will implement
pre-event observation as part of all inwater explosive event mitigations.
Additionally, if there are other
platforms participating in these events
(beyond the vessel or aircraft in which
required Lookout(s) are located) and in
the vicinity of the detonation area, they
will also visually observe this area as
part of the mitigation team. This added
monitoring for a subset of activities for
which it was not previously required
(explosive bombs, missiles and rockets,
projectiles, torpedoes, grenades, and
line charge testing) in advance of
explosive events increases the
likelihood that marine mammals will be
detected if they are in the mitigation
area and that, if any animals are
detected, explosions will be delayed by
timely mitigation implementation,
thereby further reducing the already low
likelihood that animals will be injured
or killed by the blast.
2. Post-event in-water explosive event
observations—The Navy will implement
post-event observation as part of all in-
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57188
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
water explosive event mitigations.
Additionally, if there are other
platforms participating in these events
(beyond the vessel or aircraft in which
required Lookout(s) are located) and in
the vicinity of the detonation area, they
will also visually observe this area as
part of the mitigation team. This added
monitoring for a subset of activities for
which it was not previously required
(explosive bombs, missiles and rockets,
projectiles, torpedoes, grenades, and
line charge testing) increases the
likelihood that any injured marine
mammals would be detected following
an explosive event, which would
increase our understanding of impacts
and could potentially inform mitigation
changes via the adaptive management
provisions.
3. NE NARW Mitigation Area—The
Navy will expand the NE NARW
Mitigation Area to match the updated
NE NARW ESA-designated critical
habitat. All of the mitigation required in
the NE NARW Mitigation Area and
discussed in the proposed rule (see
Table 63 in the proposed rule) will
apply to the expanded NE NARW
Mitigation Area. The reduction of
activities in, and increase of protective
measures in (discussed elsewhere),
areas with higher concentrations of
NARWs engaged in important feeding
activities (such as they are in this area),
is expected to reduce the probability
and/or severity of impacts on NARWs
that would be more likely to adversely
affect the fitness of any individual,
which in turn reduces the likelihood
that any impacts would translate to
adverse impacts on the stock.
4. NARW Dynamic Management Area
notification—The Navy has agreed to
broadcast awareness notification
messages with NARW Dynamic
Management Area information (e.g.,
location and dates) to applicable Navy
vessels operating in the vicinity of
NARW Dynamic Management Areas.
The information will alert vessels to the
possible presence of a NARW to
maintain safety of navigation and
further reduce the potential for a vessel
strike. Any expanded mechanisms for
detecting NARW, either directly around
a vessel or in the wider area to increase
vigilance for vessels, further reduce the
probability that a whale will be struck.
5. Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness
Mitigation Area—The Navy will not
conduct MTEs in this area. If the Navy
identifies a National Security
requirement to conduct an MTE, Navy
will confer with NMFS to determine/
verify that potential effects are
addressed under the NEPA/MMPA/ESA
analyses. The Navy will implement a
200 hr/year hull-mounted MFAS cap
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
and include all sonar and explosives
usage in the Gulf of Maine Planning
Awareness Mitigation Area in the
annual training and testing activity
reports. Any limitation of activities in,
and/or increase of protective measures
in, areas with higher concentrations of
NARW, fin whales, sei whales,
humpback whales and minke whales
engaged in important feeding activities
(such as this area), is expected to reduce
the probability and/or severity of
impacts on NARW and other mysticetes
that would be more likely to adversely
affect the fitness of any individual,
which in turn reduces the likelihood
that any impacts would translate to
adverse impacts on the stock. Reduction
of MTEs in this area will also reduce the
severity of impacts to the small resident
population of harbor porpoises (Gulf of
Maine stock).
6. Bryde’s Whale Mitigation Area—
The Navy (1) has agreed to the addition
of a year-round, Bryde’s Whale
Mitigation Area, which will cover the
BIA as described in NMFS’ 2016 Status
Review and include the area between
100 to 400 m isobaths between 87.5
degrees W to 27.5 degrees N; (2) has
agreed to move the northern GOMEX
ship shock trial box west, out of the
Bryde’s whale BIA/Bryde’s Whale
Mitigation Area, including a five nmi
buffer; (3) will also implement a 200 hr/
year hull-mounted MFAS cap and
restrict all explosives except for mine
warfare activities events in the Bryde’s
Whale Mitigation Area; and (4) will
report the total hours and counts of
active sonar and in-water explosives
used in the mitigation area in its annual
training and testing activity reports
submitted to NMFS. Any limitation of
activities in the Bryde’s whale
mitigation area is expected to reduce the
probability and/or severity of impacts
on Bryde’s whales that would be more
likely to adversely affect the fitness of
any individual, which in turn reduces
the likelihood that any impacts would
translate to adverse impacts on the
stock.
7. GOMEX Planning Awareness
Mitigation Area—This area has been
expanded to cover the BIA as described
in NMFS’ 2016 Status Review and
include the area between 100 to 400 m
isobaths between 87.5° W to 27.5° N.
The Navy will not conduct MTEs in this
area. If the Navy identifies a National
Security requirement to conduct an
MTE, Navy will confer with NMFS to
determine/verify potential effects are
addressed under the NEPA/MMPA/ESA
analyses. Any limitation of activities in
the area in which Bryde’s whales are
limited to is expected to reduce the
probability and/or severity of impacts
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
on NARWs that would be more likely to
adversely affect the fitness of any
individual, which in turn reduces the
likelihood that any impacts would
translate to adverse impacts on the
stock.
8. Testing Event Removal—The Navy
has removed one of their testing
activities in the Northeast Range
Complex (four events—USWT), which
decreased the number of Level B
harassment takes annually for NARW by
115 takes. This change also decreased
annual Level B harassment takes by
approximately 200 takes for ESA-listed
fin whale and 20 takes for sei whales,
as well as approximately 10,000 takes
annually for harbor porpoise.
9. Jacksonville Operating Area
Mitigation Area (November 15 through
April 15)—The Navy will implement
additional coordination and obtain
Early Warning System NARW sightings
data to aid in the implementation of
procedural mitigation to minimize
potential interactions with NARW in the
Jacksonville Operating Area. This
additional coordination will increase
the likelihood that a NARW is detected
and action taken to avoid vessel strike,
thus further reducing the probability of
a NARW strike.
10. SE NARW Critical Habitat Special
Reporting Area (November 15 through
April 15)—The Navy will report the
total hours and counts of active sonar
and in-water explosives used in a SE
NARW Critical Habitat Special
Reporting Area in its annual training
and testing activity reports submitted to
NMFS.
11. Navy Cherry Point Range Complex
Nearshore Mitigation Area (March
through September)—The Navy will
minimize use of explosives in the Navy
Cherry Point Range Complex Nearshore
Mitigation Area to the extent
practicable. This area overlaps with the
NARW migratory BIA and is expected to
reduce impacts to NARW that may be
present in March and April.
12. Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness
Areas—The Navy has assessed and
agreed to move the ship shock trial box
east of the including a 5 nmi buffer. The
reduction of activities in, and increase
of protective measures in areas with
higher concentrations of NARW (such as
they are in this area) is expected to
reduce the probability and/or severity of
impacts on NARW that would be more
likely to adversely affect the fitness of
any individual, which in turn reduces
the likelihood that any impacts would
translate to adverse impacts on the
stock.
The Navy assessed the measures it has
agreed to in the context of personnel
safety, practicality of implementation,
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
and their impacts on the Navy’s ability
to meet their Title 10 requirements and
found that the measures were
supportable. As described above, NMFS
has independently evaluated all of the
measures the Navy has committed to
(including those above added since the
proposed rule was published) in the
manner described earlier in this section
(i.e., in consideration of their ability to
reduce adverse impacts on marine
mammal species and stocks and their
habitat and their practicability for
implementation). We have determined
that the additional measures will further
reduce impacts on the affected marine
mammal species and stocks and their
habitat beyond the initial measures
proposed and, further, be practicable for
Navy implementation.
The Navy also evaluated numerous
measures in its AFTT FEIS/OEIS that
were not included in the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application for the
Specified Activities, and NMFS
independently reviewed and concurs
with Navy’s analysis that their inclusion
was not appropriate under the least
practicable adverse impact standard
based on our assessment. The Navy
considered these additional potential
mitigation measures in two groups.
First, Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the
AFTT FEIS/OEIS, in the Measures
Considered but Eliminated section,
includes an analysis of an array of
different types of mitigation that have
been recommended over the years by
non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
or the public, through scoping or public
comment on environmental compliance
documents. As described in Chapter 5 of
the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, commenters
sometimes recommend that the Navy
reduce their overall amount of training,
reduce explosive use, modify their
sound sources, completely replace live
training with computer simulation, or
include time of day restrictions. All of
these mitigation measures could
potentially reduce the number of marine
mammals taken, via direct reduction of
the activities or amount of sound energy
put in the water. However, as the Navy
has described in Chapter 5 Mitigation of
the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy needs to
train and test in the conditions in which
it fights—and these types of
modifications fundamentally change the
activity in a manner that would not
support the purpose and need for the
training and testing (i.e., are entirely
impracticable) and therefore are not
considered further. NMFS finds the
Navy’s explanation for why adoption of
these recommendations would
unacceptably undermine the purpose of
the testing and training persuasive.
After independent review, NMFS finds
the Navy’s judgment on the impacts of
potential mitigation measures to
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation and the undermining of
the effectiveness of training and testing
persuasive, and for these reasons, NMFS
finds that these measures do not meet
the least practicable adverse impact
standard because they are not
practicable.
Second, in Chapter 5 Mitigation of the
AFTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy evaluated
additional potential procedural
mitigation measures, including
increased mitigation zones, additional
passive acoustic and visual monitoring,
and decreased vessel speeds. Some of
these measures have the potential to
incrementally reduce take to some
degree in certain circumstances, though
the degree to which this would occur is
typically low or uncertain. However, as
described in the Navy’s analysis, the
measures would have significant direct
negative effects on mission effectiveness
and are considered impracticable (see
Chapter 5 Mitigation of AFTT FEIS/
OEIS). NMFS independently reviewed
and concurred with the Navy’s
evaluation and concurred with this
assessment, which supports NMFS’
findings that the impracticability of this
additional mitigation would greatly
outweigh any potential minor reduction
in marine mammal impacts that might
result; therefore, these additional
mitigation measures are not required
under the least practicable adverse
impact standard.
NMFS has independently reviewed
the Navy’s mitigation analysis (Chapter
5 Mitigation of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS as
referenced above), which considers the
same factors that NMFS would consider
to satisfy the least practical adverse
impact standard, and concurs with the
conclusions. Therefore, NMFS is not
proposing to include any additional
measures in these regulations, other
than the new measures that were agreed
upon after the proposed rule. Below are
the mitigation measures that NMFS
determined will ensure the least
practicable adverse impact on all
affected species and stocks and their
habitat, including the specific
considerations for military readiness
activities. The following sections
summarize the mitigation measures that
will be implemented in association with
the training and testing activities
analyzed in this document. The Navy’s
mitigation measures are organized into
two categories: procedural mitigation
and mitigation areas.
Procedural Mitigation
Procedural mitigation is mitigation
that the Navy will implement whenever
and wherever an applicable training or
testing activity takes place within the
AFTT Study Area. The Navy customizes
procedural mitigation for each
applicable activity category or stressor.
Procedural mitigation generally
involves: (1) The use of one or more
trained Lookouts to diligently observe
for specific biological resources
(including marine mammals) within a
mitigation zone, (2) requirements for
Lookouts to immediately communicate
sightings of specific biological resources
to the appropriate watch station for
information dissemination, and (3)
requirements for the watch station to
implement mitigation (e.g., halt an
activity) until certain recommencement
conditions have been met. The first
procedural mitigation (Table 43) is
designed to aid Lookouts and other
applicable personnel with their
observation, environmental compliance,
and reporting responsibilities. The
remainder of the procedural mitigation
measures (Tables 44 through Tables 63)
are organized by stressor type and
activity category and includes acoustic
stressors (i.e., active sonar, air guns, pile
driving, weapons firing noise),
explosive stressors (i.e., sonobuoys,
torpedoes, medium-caliber and largecaliber projectiles, missiles and rockets,
bombs, sinking exercises, mines, antiswimmer grenades, line charge testing
and ship shock trials), and physical
disturbance and strike stressors (i.e.,
vessel movement, towed in-water
devices, small-, medium-, and largecaliber non-explosive practice
munitions, non-explosive missiles and
rockets, non-explosive bombs and mine
shapes).
TABLE 43—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AND EDUCATION
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• All training and testing activities, as applicable.
Mitigation Requirements:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57189
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57190
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 43—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AND EDUCATION—Continued
Procedural Mitigation Description
• Appropriate personnel (including civilian personnel) involved in mitigation and training or testing activity reporting under the Proposed Action must complete
one or more modules of the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series, as identified in their career path training plan. Modules include:
—Introduction to the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series. The introductory module provides information on environmental laws
(e.g., ESA, MMPA) and the corresponding responsibilities that are relevant to Navy training and testing activities. The material explains why environmental compliance is important in supporting the Navy’s commitment to environmental stewardship.
—Marine Species Awareness Training. All bridge watch personnel, Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, maritime patrol aircraft aircrews,
anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare rotary-wing aircrews, Lookouts, and equivalent civilian personnel must successfully complete the Marine Species Awareness Training prior to standing watch or serving as a Lookout. The Marine Species Awareness Training provides information on sighting cues,
visual observation tools and techniques, and sighting notification procedures. Navy biologists developed Marine Species Awareness Training to improve
the effectiveness of visual observations for biological resources, focusing on marine mammals and sea turtles, and including floating vegetation, jellyfish
aggregations, and flocks of seabirds.
—U.S. Navy Protective Measures Assessment Protocol. This module provides the necessary instruction for accessing mitigation requirements during the
event planning phase using the Protective Measures Assessment Protocol software tool.
—U.S. Navy Sonar Positional Reporting System and Marine Mammal Incident Reporting. This module provides instruction on the procedures and activity
reporting requirements for the Sonar Positional Reporting System and marine mammal incident reporting.
Procedural Mitigation for Acoustic
Stressors
Mitigation measures for acoustic
stressors are provided in Tables 44
through 47.
Procedural Mitigation for Active Sonar
Procedural mitigation for active sonar
is described in Table 44 below.
TABLE 44—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR ACTIVE SONAR
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Low-frequency active sonar, mid-frequency active sonar, high-frequency active sonar:
—For vessel-based activities, mitigation applies only to sources that are positively controlled and deployed from manned surface vessels (e.g., sonar
sources towed from manned surface platforms).
—For aircraft-based activities, mitigation applies only to sources that are positively controlled and deployed from manned aircraft that do not operate at high
altitudes (e.g., rotary-wing aircraft). Mitigation does not apply to active sonar sources deployed from unmanned aircraft or aircraft operating at high altitudes (e.g., maritime patrol aircraft).
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• Hull-mounted sources:
—1 Lookout: Platforms with space or manning restrictions while underway (at the forward part of a small boat or ship) and platforms using active sonar
while moored or at anchor (including pierside).
—2 Lookouts: Platforms without space or manning restrictions while underway (at the forward part of the ship).
—4 Lookouts: Pierside sonar testing activities at Port Canaveral, Florida and Kings Bay, Georgia.
• Sources that are not hull-mounted:
—1 Lookout on the ship or aircraft conducting the activity.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zones:
—During the activity, at 1,000 yd power down 6 dB, at 500 yd power down an additional 4 dB (for a total of 10 dB), and at 200 yd shut down for low-frequency active sonar ≥200 decibels (dB) and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar.
—200 yd. shut down for low-frequency active sonar <200 dB, mid-frequency active sonar sources that are not hull-mounted, and high-frequency active
sonar.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of active sonar transmission.
• During the activity:
—Low-frequency active sonar ≥200 decibels (dB) and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar: Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; power
down active sonar transmission by 6 dB if observed within 1,000 yd. of the sonar source; power down an additional 4 dB (10 dB total) within 500 yd.;
cease transmission within 200 yd.
—Low-frequency active sonar <200 dB, mid-frequency active sonar sources that are not hull-mounted, and high-frequency active sonar: Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; cease active sonar transmission if observed within 200 yd. of the sonar source.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing or powering up active sonar transmission) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed
exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the sonar source; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min for aircraft-deployed sonar sources or 30 min for
vessel-deployed sonar sources; (4) for mobile activities, the active sonar source has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size
beyond the location of the last sighting; or (5) for activities using hull-mounted sonar, the ship concludes that dolphins are deliberately closing in on the
ship to ride the ship’s bow wave, and are therefore out of the main transmission axis of the sonar (and there are no other marine mammal sightings within the mitigation zone).
Procedural Mitigation for Air Guns
Procedural mitigation for air guns is
described in Table 45 below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57191
TABLE 45—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR AIR GUNS
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Air guns.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout positioned on a ship or pierside.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zone:
—150 yd around the air gun.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of air gun use.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, cease air gun use.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing air gun use) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the air gun; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min; or (4) for mobile activities, the air gun has transited a distance equal to double that of
the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.
Procedural Mitigation for Pile Driving
Procedural mitigation for pile driving
is described in Table 46 below.
TABLE 46—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR PILE DRIVING
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Pile driving and pile extraction sound during Elevated Causeway System training.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout positioned on the shore, the elevated causeway, or a small boat.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zone:
—100 yd. around the pile.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (for 30 min):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, delay the start of pile driving or vibratory pile extraction.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, cease impact pile driving or vibratory pile extraction.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing pile driving or pile extraction) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the pile
driving location; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min.
Procedural Mitigation for Weapons
Firing Noise
Procedural mitigation for weapons
firing noise is described in Table 47
below.
TABLE 47— PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR WEAPONS FIRING NOISE
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Weapons firing noise associated with large-caliber gunnery activities.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout positioned on the ship conducting the firing.
• Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same one described for Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber Projectiles or Small-, Medium-, and
Large-Caliber Non-Explosive Practice Munitions.
Mitigation Requirements:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57192
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 47— PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR WEAPONS FIRING NOISE—Continued
Procedural Mitigation Description
• Mitigation zone:
—30° on either side of the firing line out to 70 yd from the muzzle of the weapon being fired.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of weapons firing.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, cease weapons firing.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing weapons firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2)
the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the firing ship; (3) the
mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min; or (4) for mobile activities, the firing ship has transited a distance equal to double
that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.
Procedural Mitigation for Explosive
Stressors
Procedural Mitigation for Explosive
Sonobuoys
Mitigation measures for explosive
stressors are provided in Tables 48
through 58.
Procedural mitigation for explosive
sonobuoys is described in Table 48
below.
TABLE 48—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE SONOBUOYS
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Explosive sonobuoys.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft or on small boat.
• If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zone:
—600 yd. around an explosive sonobuoy.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during deployment of a sonobuoy field, which typically lasts 20–30 min):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Conduct passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals; use information from detections to assist visual observations.
—Visually observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of sonobuoy or source/receiver pair
detonations.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, cease sonobuoy or source/receiver pair detonations.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the
start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its
course, speed, and movement relative to the sonobuoy; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10
min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically
fuel constrained.
• After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station):
—When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), observe
for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.
—If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these assets must assist in the visual observation
of the area where detonations occurred.
Procedural Mitigation for Explosive
Torpedoes
Procedural mitigation for explosive
torpedoes is described in Table 49
below.
TABLE 49—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE TORPEDOES
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Explosive torpedoes.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57193
TABLE 49—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE TORPEDOES—Continued
Procedural Mitigation Description
• 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft.
• If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zone:
—2,100 yd around the intended impact location.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during deployment of the target):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Conduct passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals; use information from detections to assist visual observations.
—Visually observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals and jellyfish aggregations; if observed, relocate or delay the start of firing.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals and jellyfish aggregations; if observed, cease firing.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the
start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its
course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are
not typically fuel constrained.
• After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station):
—When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), observe
for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.
—If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these assets must assist in the visual observation
of the area where detonations occurred.
Procedural Mitigation for Medium- and
Large-Caliber Projectiles
Procedural mitigation for mediumand large-caliber projectiles is described
in Table 50 below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57194
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 50—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MEDIUM-CALIBER AND LARGE-CALIBER PROJECTILES
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Gunnery activities using explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles:
—Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout on the vessel or aircraft conducting the activity.
• For activities using explosive large-caliber projectiles, depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described for Weapons Firing
Noise.
• If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zones:
—200 yd around the intended impact location for air-to-surface activities using explosive medium-caliber projectiles.
—600 yd around the intended impact location for surface-to-surface activities using explosive medium-caliber projectiles.
—1,000 yd around the intended impact location for surface-to-surface activities using explosive large-caliber projectiles.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of firing.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, cease firing.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location;
(3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 min for vessel-based firing; or (4) for activities using mobile targets, the intended impact location has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the
last sighting.
• After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station):
—When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), observe for marine mammals in
the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.
—If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where
detonations occurred.
Procedural Mitigation for Explosive
Missiles and Rockets
Procedural mitigation for explosive
missiles and rockets is described in
Table 51 below.
TABLE 51—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MISSILES AND ROCKETS
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Aircraft-deployed explosive missiles and rockets:
—Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft.
• If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zones:
—900 yd around the intended impact location for missiles or rockets with 0.6–20 lb net explosive weight.
—2,000 yd around the intended impact location for missiles with 21–500 lb net explosive weight.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation zone):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of firing.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, cease firing.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location;
or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min
when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained.
• After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station):
—When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), observe for marine mammals in
the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.
—If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where
detonations occurred.
Procedural Mitigation for Explosive
Bombs
Procedural mitigation for explosive
bombs is described in Table 52 below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57195
TABLE 52—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE BOMBS
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Explosive bombs.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout positioned in the aircraft conducting the activity.
• If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zone:
—2,500 yd around the intended target.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when arriving on station):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment.
• During the activity (e.g., during target approach):
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, cease bomb deployment.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing bomb deployment) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone;
(2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended target;
(3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min; or (4) for activities using mobile targets, the intended target has transited
a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.
• After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station):
—When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), observe for marine mammals in
the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.
—If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where
detonations occurred.
Procedural Mitigation for Sinking
Exercises
Procedural mitigation for sinking
exercises is described in Table 53
below.
TABLE 53—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR SINKING EXERCISES
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Sinking exercises.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 2 Lookouts (one positioned in an aircraft and one on a vessel).
• If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zone:
—2.5 nmi around the target ship hulk.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (90 min prior to the first firing):
—Conduct aerial observations of the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Conduct aerial observations of the mitigation zone for marine mammals and jellyfish aggregations; if observed, delay the start of firing.
• During the activity:
—Conduct passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals; use information from detections to assist visual observations.
—Visually observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals from the vessel; if observed, cease firing.
—Immediately after any planned or unplanned breaks in weapons firing of longer than 2 hrs, observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals from the aircraft and vessel; if observed, delay recommencement of firing.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the target ship hulk; or (3) the
mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min.
• After completion of the activity (for 2 hrs after sinking the vessel or until sunset, whichever comes first):
—Observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.
—If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where
detonations occurred.
Procedural Mitigation for Explosive
Mine Countermeasure and
Neutralization Activities
activities is described in Table 54
below.
Procedural mitigation for explosive
mine countermeasure and neutralization
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57196
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 54—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MINE COUNTERMEASURE AND NEUTRALIZATION ACTIVITIES
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout positioned on a vessel or in an aircraft when implementing the smaller mitigation zone.
• 2 Lookouts (one positioned in an aircraft and one on a small boat) when implementing the larger mitigation zone.
• If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zones:
—600 yd around the detonation site for activities using 0.1–5-lb net explosive weight.
—2,100 yd around the detonation site for activities using 6–650 lb net explosive weight (including high explosive target mines).
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station; typically, 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30
min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of detonations.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, cease detonations.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to detonation site; or (3) the
mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the
activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained.
• After completion of the activity (typically 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that
are not typically fuel constrained):
—Observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.
—If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where
detonations occurred.
Procedural Mitigation for Explosive
Mine Neutralization Activities Involving
Navy Divers
Navy divers is described in Table 55
below.
Procedural mitigation for explosive
mine neutralization activities involving
TABLE 55—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MINE NEUTRALIZATION ACTIVITIES INVOLVING NAVY DIVERS
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 2 Lookouts (two small boats with one Lookout each, or one Lookout on a small boat and one in a rotary-wing aircraft) when implementing the smaller mitigation zone.
• 4 Lookouts (two small boats with two Lookouts each), and a pilot or member of an aircrew must serve as an additional Lookout if aircraft are used during the
activity, when implementing the larger mitigation zone.
• All divers placing the charges on mines must support the Lookouts while performing their regular duties and must report applicable sightings to their supporting small boat or Range Safety Officer.
• If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties.
Mitigation Requirements:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57197
TABLE 55—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MINE NEUTRALIZATION ACTIVITIES INVOLVING NAVY DIVERS—
Continued
Procedural Mitigation Description
• Mitigation zones:
—500 yd around the detonation site during activities under positive control using 0.1–20 lb net explosive weight.
—1,000 yd around the detonation site during activities using time-delay fuses (0.1–20 lb net explosive weight) and during activities under positive control
using 21–60 lb net explosive weight charges.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station for activities under positive control; 30 min for activities using time-delay firing devices):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of detonations or fuse initiation.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, cease detonations or fuse initiation.
—To the maximum extent practicable depending on mission requirements, safety, and environmental conditions, boats must position themselves near the
mid-point of the mitigation zone radius (but outside of the detonation plume and human safety zone), must position themselves on opposite sides of the
detonation location (when two boats are used), and must travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location with one Lookout observing inward toward the detonation site and the other observing outward toward the perimeter of the mitigation zone.
—If used, aircraft must travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location to the maximum extent practicable.
—The Navy must not set time-delay firing devices (0.1–20 lb net explosive weight) to exceed 10 min.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the detonation site; or (3)
the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min during activities under positive control with aircraft that have fuel constraints,
or 30 min during activities under positive control with aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained and during activities using time-delay firing devices.
• After completion of an activity (for 30 min):
—Observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.
—If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where
detonations occurred.
Procedural Mitigation for Maritime
Security Operations—Anti-Swimmer
Grenades
Procedural mitigation for maritime
security operations—anti-swimmer
grenades is described in Table 56 below.
TABLE 56—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR MARITIME SECURITY OPERATIONS—ANTI-SWIMMER GRENADES
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Maritime Security Operations—Anti-Swimmer Grenades.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout positioned on the small boat conducting the activity.
• If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zone:
—200 yd around the intended detonation location.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of detonations.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, cease detonations.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended detonation location; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min; or (4) the intended detonation location has transited a distance
equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.
• After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station):
—When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), observe for marine mammals in
the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.
—If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where
detonations occurred.
Procedural Mitigation for Line Charge
Testing
Procedural mitigation for line charge
testing is described in Table 57 below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57198
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 57—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR LINE CHARGE TESTING
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Line charge testing.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout positioned on a vessel.
• If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zone:
—900 yd around the intended detonation location.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, delay the start of detonations.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, cease detonations.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended detonation location; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min.
• After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station):
—When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), observe for marine mammals in
the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.
—If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where
detonations occurred.
Procedural Mitigation for Ship Shock
Trials
Procedural mitigation for ship shock
trials is described in Table 58 below.
TABLE 58—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR SHIP SHOCK TRIALS
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Ship shock trials.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• At least 10 Lookouts or trained marine species observers (or a combination thereof) positioned either in an aircraft or on multiple vessels (i.e., a Marine Animal Response Team boat and the test ship):
—If aircraft are used, Lookouts or trained marine species observers must be in an aircraft and on multiple vessels.
—If aircraft are not used, a sufficient number of additional Lookouts or trained marine species observers must be used to provide vessel-based visual observation comparable to that achieved by aerial surveys.
• If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zone:
—3.5 nmi around the ship hull.
• During event planning:
—The Navy must not conduct ship shock trials in the Jacksonville Operating Area during North Atlantic right whale calving season from November 15
through April 15.
—The Navy develops detailed ship shock trial monitoring and mitigation plans approximately 1-year prior to an event and must continue to provide these to
NMFS for review and approval.
—Pre-activity planning must include selection of one primary and two secondary areas where marine mammal populations are expected to be the lowest
during the event, with the primary and secondary locations located more than 2 nmi from the western boundary of the Gulf Stream for events in the Virginia Capes Range Complex or Jacksonville Range Complex.
—If it is determined during pre-activity surveys that the primary area is environmentally unsuitable (e.g., observations of marine mammals or presence of
concentrations of floating vegetation), the shock trial could be moved to a secondary site in accordance with the detailed mitigation and monitoring plan
provided to NMFS.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity at the primary shock trial location (in intervals of 5 hrs, 3 hrs, 40 min, and immediately before the detonation):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, delay triggering the detonation.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals, large schools of fish, jellyfish aggregations, and flocks of seabirds; if observed, cease triggering the
detonation.
—After completion of each detonation, observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures and halt any remaining detonations until the Navy can consult with NMFS and review or adapt the mitigation, if
necessary.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the ship hull; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min.
• After completion of the activity (during the following 2 days at a minimum, and up to 7 days at a maximum):
—Observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.
—If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where
detonations occurred.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Procedural Mitigation for Physical
Disturbance and Strike Stressors
Procedural Mitigation for Vessel
Movement
Mitigation measures for physical
disturbance and strike stressors are
provided in Table 59 through Table 63.
Procedural mitigation for vessel
movement used during the Planned
57199
Activities is described in Table 59
below.
TABLE 59—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR VESSEL MOVEMENT
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Vessel movement:
—The mitigation must not be applied if: (1) The vessel’s safety is threatened, (2) the vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver (e.g., during launching
and recovery of aircraft or landing craft, during towing activities, when mooring, etc.), or (3) the vessel is operated autonomously.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout on the vessel that is underway.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zones:
—500 yd around whales.
—200 yd around other marine mammals (except bow-riding dolphins and pinnipeds hauled out on man-made navigational structures, port structures, and
vessels).
• During the activity:
—When underway, observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, maneuver to maintain distance.
• Additional requirements:
—The Navy must broadcast awareness notification messages with North Atlantic right whale Dynamic Management Area information (e.g., location and
dates) to applicable Navy assets operating in the vicinity of the Dynamic Management Area. The information must alert assets to the possible presence
of a North Atlantic right whale to maintain safety of navigation and further reduce the potential for a vessel strike. Platforms must use the information to
assist their visual observation of applicable mitigation zones during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation,
including but not limited to mitigation for vessel movement.
—If a marine mammal vessel strike occurs, the Navy must follow the established incident reporting procedures.
Procedural Mitigation for Towed InWater Devices
Procedural mitigation for towed inwater devices is described in Table 60
below.
TABLE 60—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR TOWED IN-WATER DEVICES
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Towed in-water devices:
—Mitigation applies to devices that are towed from a manned surface platform or manned aircraft.
—The mitigation must not be applied if the safety of the towing platform or in-water device is threatened.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout positioned on the manned towing platform.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zones:
—250 yd around marine mammals.
• During the activity (i.e., when towing an in-water device):
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, maneuver to maintain distance.
Procedural Mitigation for Small-,
Medium-, and Large-Caliber NonExplosive Practice Munitions
explosive practice munitions is
described in Table 61 below.
Procedural mitigation for small-,
medium-, and large-caliber non-
TABLE 61—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR SMALL-, MEDIUM-, AND LARGE-CALIBER NON-EXPLOSIVE PRACTICE MUNITIONS
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Gunnery activities using small-, medium-, and large-caliber non-explosive practice munitions:
—Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout positioned on the platform conducting the activity.
• Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described for Weapons Firing Noise.
Mitigation Requirements:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57200
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 61—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR SMALL-, MEDIUM-, AND LARGE-CALIBER NON-EXPLOSIVE PRACTICE
MUNITIONS—Continued
Procedural Mitigation Description
• Mitigation zone:
—200 yd around the intended impact location.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of firing.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, cease firing.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location;
(3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 min for vessel-based firing; or (4) for activities using a mobile target, the intended impact location has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the
last sighting.
Procedural Mitigation for Non-Explosive
Missiles and Rockets
Procedural mitigation for nonexplosive missiles and rockets is
described in Table 62 below.
TABLE 62—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE MISSILES AND ROCKETS
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Aircraft-deployed non-explosive missiles and rockets:
—Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zone:
—900 yd around the intended impact location.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation zone):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of firing.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, cease firing.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting prior to or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location;
or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min
when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained.
Procedural Mitigation for Non-Explosive
Bombs and Mine Shapes
Procedural mitigation for nonexplosive bombs and mine shapes is
described in Table 63 below.
TABLE 63—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE BOMBS AND MINE SHAPES
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Non-explosive bombs.
• Non-explosive mine shapes during mine laying activities.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft.
Mitigation Requirements:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57201
TABLE 63—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE BOMBS AND MINE SHAPES—Continued
Procedural Mitigation Description
• Mitigation zone:
—1,000 yd around the intended target.
• Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when arriving on station):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment or mine laying.
• During the activity (e.g., during approach of the target or intended minefield location):
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, cease bomb deployment or mine laying.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting prior to or during the activity:
—The Navy must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing bomb deployment or mine laying) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the
intended target or minefield location; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min; or (4) for activities using mobile targets, the intended target has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.
Mitigation Areas
In addition to procedural mitigation,
the Navy will implement mitigation
measures within mitigation areas and/or
at times to avoid or minimize potential
impacts on marine mammals (see the
revised maps and tables, with expanded
areas as described above, provided in
Chapter 5 (Mitigation), Section 5.4 of
the AFTT FEIS/OEIS). The Navy has
taken into account public comments
received on the AFTT DEIS/OEIS, best
available science, and the practicability
of implementing additional mitigation
measures and has expanded and
improved their mitigation areas and
mitigation measures to further reduce
impacts to marine mammals. As such,
the Navy revised their mitigation areas
since their application and the proposed
rule (see above). The Navy re-analyzed
existing mitigation areas and considered
new habitat areas suggested by the
public, NMFS, and other non-Navy
organizations, including NARW ESAdesignated critical habitat, important
habitat for sperm whales and Bryde’s
whales, BIAs, and National Marine
Sanctuaries. The Navy worked
collaboratively with NMFS to develop
mitigation areas using inputs from the
Navy’s operational community, the best
available science discussed in Chapter 3
of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS (Affected
Environment and Environmental
Consequences), published literature,
predicted activity impact footprints,
marine species monitoring and density
data, and the practicability of
implementing additional mitigation
measures. Following are the mitigation
areas that the Navy has committed to
implement and that are included in the
final regulations (including a
description of expanded areas and/or
protections).
Mitigation Areas Off the Northeastern
United States
Mitigation areas for the Northeastern
United States are described in Table 64.
The Navy has expanded the NE NARW
Area and added the Gulf of Maine
Planning Awareness Mitigation Area
since the proposed rule and the location
and boundaries of each mitigation area
are included in the Navy’s AFTT FEIS/
OEIS.
TABLE 64—MITIGATION AREAS OFF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
Mitigation Area Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Sonar.
• Explosives.
• Physical disturbance and strikes.
Mitigation Area Requirements (year-round):
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57202
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 64—MITIGATION AREAS OFF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES—Continued
Mitigation Area Description
• Northeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area:
—The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area (i.e., the northeast North Atlantic right
whale critical habitat) in its annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS.
—The Navy must minimize the use of low-frequency active sonar, mid-frequency active sonar, and high-frequency active sonar to the maximum extent
practicable within the mitigation area.
—The Navy must not use Improved Extended Echo Ranging sonobuoys (in or within 3 nmi of the mitigation area) or use, explosive and non-explosive
bombs, in-water detonations, and explosive torpedoes within the mitigation area.
—For activities using non-explosive torpedoes within the mitigation area, the Navy must conduct activities during daylight hrs in Beaufort sea state 3 or
less. The Navy must use three Lookouts (one positioned on a vessel and two in an aircraft during dedicated aerial surveys) to observe the vicinity of the
activity. An additional Lookout must be positioned on the submarine, when surfaced. Immediately prior to the start of the activity, Navy personnel must
observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if observed, the activity must not commence until the vicinity is clear or the activity is relocated to
an area where the vicinity is clear. During the activity, Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals; if observed, the activity must cease. To allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the area, the Navy must not recommence the activity until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal
is observed exiting the vicinity of the activity; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the vicinity of the activity based on a determination of its course,
speed, and movement relative to the activity location; or (3) the area has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min. During transits and normal
firing, ships must maintain a speed of no more than 10 knots. During submarine target firing, ships must maintain speeds of no more than 18 knots. During vessel target firing, vessel speeds may exceed 18 knots for brief periods of time (e.g., 10–15 min).
—Before vessel transits within the mitigation area, the Navy must conduct a web query or email inquiry to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System to obtain the latest North Atlantic right whale
sightings information. Vessels must use the sightings information to reduce potential interactions with North Atlantic right whales during transits. Vessels
must implement speed reductions within the mitigation area after observing a North Atlantic right whale, if transiting within 5 nmi of a sighting reported to
the North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System within the past week, and if transiting at night or during periods of reduced visibility.
• Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness Mitigation Area:
—The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and testing activity
reports submitted to NMFS.
—The Navy must not conduct >200 hrs of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar per year within the mitigation area.
—The Navy must not conduct major training exercises (Composite Training Unit Exercises or Fleet Exercises/Sustainment Exercises) within the mitigation
area. If the Navy needs to conduct a major training exercise within the mitigation area in support of training requirements driven by national security concerns, it must confer with NMFS to verify that potential impacts are adequately addressed in the Navy’s Final EIS/OEIS and associated consultation documents.
• Northeast Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas:
—The Navy will avoid conducting major training exercises (Composite Training Unit Exercises or Fleet Exercises/Sustainment Exercises) within the mitigation area to the maximum extent practicable.
—The Navy must not conduct more than four major training exercises per year within the mitigation area (all or a portion of the exercise). If the Navy needs
to conduct additional major training exercises in the mitigation area in support of training requirements driven by national security concerns, it must provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in its annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS.
Mitigation Areas Off the Mid-Atlantic
and Southeastern United States
Mitigation areas off the Mid-Atlantic
and Southeastern United States are
described in Table 65 below. The
location and boundaries of each
mitigation area are included in the
Navy’s AFTT FEIS/OEIS.
TABLE 65—MITIGATION AREAS OFF THE MID-ATLANTIC AND SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
Mitigation Area Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Sonar.
• Explosives.
• Physical disturbance and strikes.
Mitigation Area Requirements:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57203
TABLE 65—MITIGATION AREAS OFF THE MID-ATLANTIC AND SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES—Continued
Mitigation Area Description
• Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area (November 15 through April 15):
—The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and testing activity
reports submitted to NMFS.
—The Navy must not conduct: (1) Low-frequency active sonar (except as noted below), (2) mid-frequency active sonar (except as noted below), (3) highfrequency active sonar, (4) missile and rocket activities (explosive and non-explosive), (5) small-, medium-, and large-caliber gunnery activities, (6) Improved Extended Echo Ranging sonobuoy activities, (7) explosive and non-explosive bombing activities, (8) in-water detonations, and (9) explosive torpedo activities within the mitigation area.
—To the maximum extent practicable, the Navy must minimize the use of: (1) Helicopter dipping sonar, (2) low-frequency active sonar and hull-mounted
mid-frequency active sonar used for navigation training, and (3) low-frequency active sonar and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar used for object
detection exercises within the mitigation area.
—Before transiting or conducting training or testing activities within the mitigation area, the Navy must initiate communication with the Fleet Area Control
and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville to obtain Early Warning System North Atlantic right whale sightings data. The Fleet Area Control and Surveillance
Facility, Jacksonville must advise vessels of all reported whale sightings in the vicinity to help vessels and aircraft reduce potential interactions with North
Atlantic right whales. Commander Submarine Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet must coordinate any submarine activities that may require approval from the Fleet
Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville. Vessels must use the sightings information to reduce potential interactions with North Atlantic right
whales during transits.
—Vessels must implement speed reductions if they are within 5 nmi of a sighting reported within the past 12 hrs, or when operating at night or during periods of poor visibility.
—To the maximum extent practicable, vessels must minimize north-south transits in the mitigation area.
• Jacksonville Operating Area (November 15 through April 15):
—Navy units conducting training or testing activities in the Jacksonville Operating Area must initiate communication with the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville to obtain Early Warning System North Atlantic right whale sightings data. The Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility,
Jacksonville must advise vessels of all reported whale sightings in the vicinity to help vessels and aircraft reduce potential interactions with North Atlantic
right whales. Commander Submarine Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet must coordinate any submarine activities that may require approval from the Fleet Area
Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville. The Navy must use the reported sightings information as it plans specific details of events (e.g., timing, location, duration) to minimize potential interactions with North Atlantic right whales to the maximum extent practicable. The Navy must use the reported
sightings information to assist visual observations of applicable mitigation zones and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation.
• Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat Special Reporting Area (November 15 through April 15):
—The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the Special Reporting Area (i.e., the southeast North Atlantic right whale critical habitat) in its annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS.
• Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas (year-round):
—The Navy will avoid conducting major training exercises within the mitigation area (Composite Training Unit Exercises or Fleet Exercises/Sustainment Exercises) to the maximum extent practicable.
—The Navy must not conduct the Ship Shock trial in the Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness Areas including a 5-nmi buffer.
—The Navy must not conduct more than four major training exercises per year (all or a portion of the exercise) within the mitigation area. If the Navy needs
to conduct additional major training exercises in the mitigation area in support of training requirements driven by national security concerns, it must provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in its annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS.
• Navy Cherry Point Range Complex Nearshore Mitigation Area (March through September):
—The Navy must not conduct explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers in the mitigation area.
—To the maximum extent practicable, the Navy must not use explosive sonobuoys, explosive torpedoes, explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles, explosive missiles and rockets, explosive bombs, explosive mines during mine countermeasure and neutralization activities, and anti-swimmer grenades in the mitigation area.
Mitigation Areas in the GOMEX
Mitigation areas in the GOMEX are
described in Table 66 below. The Navy
has expanded the GOMEX Planning
Awareness Mitigation area and added
the Bryde’s Whale Mitigation area since
the proposed rule and the location and
boundaries of each mitigation area are
included in the AFTT FEIS/OEIS.
TABLE 66—MITIGATION AREAS IN THE GOMEX
Mitigation Area Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Sonar.
• Explosives.
Mitigation Area Requirements (Year-Round):
• Bryde’s Whale Mitigation Area:
—The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and testing activity
reports submitted to NMFS.
—The Navy must not conduct >200 hrs of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar per year within the mitigation area.
—The Navy must not use explosives (except during mine warfare activities) within the mitigation area.
• Gulf of Mexico Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas:
—The Navy must not conduct any major training exercises within the mitigation areas (all or a portion of the exercise). If the Navy needs to conduct a
major training exercise within the mitigation areas in support of training requirements driven by national security concerns, it must confer with NMFS to
verify that potential impacts are adequately addressed in the Navy’s Final EIS/OEIS and associated consultation documents.
The Navy’s analysis indicates that the
measures in these mitigation areas are
both practicable and will reduce the
likelihood or severity of adverse impacts
to marine mammal species and stocks or
their habitat in the manner described in
the Navy’s analysis. After extensive
coordination and independent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
consideration of the measures
considered and eliminated by the Navy
and the Navy’s determinations as to
how the measures would affect
personnel safety, practicality to
implement, and effectiveness to the
Navy mission, NMFS finds the
information persuasive to inform NMFS’
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
LPAI finding and NMFS’ independent
analysis of these mitigation areas.
Summary of Mitigation Areas
Table 67 below includes a description
of the mitigation implemented in each
of the areas and immediately below we
include a summary of the manner in
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57204
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
which the mitigation areas are expected
to reduce impacts to marine mammals
and the likelihood or severity of impacts
to species or stock:
Northeast North Atlantic Right Whale
Mitigation Areas (year-round)
The Navy has enlarged the mitigation
area to cover the full extent of the
northeast NARW ESA-designated
critical habitat. The expanded area also
encompasses all of the important
feeding areas for humpback whales and
fin whales, significant portions of the
feeding areas for sei and minke whales
(73 percent and 44 percent,
respectively), as well as 82 percent of
the portion in the U.S. EEZ of a small
and resident population of harbor
porpoises. Mitigation to limit the use of
active sonar to the maximum extent
practicable and not use certain
explosive and non-explosive munitions
will help the Navy further avoid or
reduce potential impacts on NARWs
year-round in their most important
feeding areas, a mating area, and the
northern portion of their migration
habitat. These mitigations will also
reduce the severity and scale of impacts
on the other mysticetes and harbor
porpoises. Conducting non-explosive
torpedo activities during daylight hours
in Beaufort sea state 3 or less will help
increase Lookout effectiveness during
these activities. Mitigation to obtain the
latest sighting information from the
NARW Sighting Advisory System will
help vessels avoid NARWs during
training and testing activities. The
NARW Sighting Advisory System is a
National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration program
that collects sightings information off
the northeastern United States from
aerial surveys, shipboard surveys, whale
watching vessels, and opportunistic
sources, such as the U.S. Coast Guard,
commercial ships, fishing vessels, and
the public. The Navy will also
implement new special reporting
procedures to report the total hours and
counts of active sonar and in-water
explosives used in the mitigation area in
its annual training and testing activity
reports submitted to NMFS. The special
reporting requirements will aid the
Navy and NMFS in continuing to
analyze potential impacts of training
and testing in this area. The reduction
of activities in, and increase of
protective measures in, areas with
higher concentrations of NARWs or
other mysticetes engaged in important
feeding activities (such as they are in
this area), or NARWs engaged in mating
activities, is expected to reduce the
probability and/or severity of impacts to
these species and stocks that would be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
more likely to adversely affect the
fitness of any individual, which in turn
reduces the likelihood that any impacts
would translate to adverse impacts on
the stock. Similarly, reduction in the
scale or level of impacts in the vicinity
of this small resident population of
harbor porpoises is expected to reduce
the probability that impacts would
adversely impact the fitness of any
individual and thereby translate to
adverse impacts on the stock.
Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness
Mitigation Area (year-round)
Newly developed for Phase III and
since the proposed rule was published,
the Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness
Mitigation Area extends throughout the
Gulf of Maine and southward over
Georges Bank. The area covers the full
extent of the northeast NARW ESAdesignated critical habitat, including
both a mating area and important
feeding area. The expanded area also
fully encompasses important feeding
areas for humpback whales, minke
whales, sei whales, and fin whales as
well as all of the portion in the U.S. EEZ
of a small and resident population of
harbor porpoises. The Navy will not
conduct MTEs in this area, which will
further help the Navy avoid or reduce
potential impacts on marine mammals
from active sonar during major training
exercises (which are associated with
more severe effects because of the use of
multiple platforms and higher-level
sound sources, as well as longerduration activities). The reduction of
activities in, and increase of protective
measures in, areas with higher
concentrations of NARWs or other
mysticetes engaged in important feeding
activities (such as they are in this area),
or NARWs engaged in mating activities,
is expected to reduce the probability
and/or severity of impacts to these
species and stocks that would be more
likely to adversely affect the fitness of
any individual, which in turn reduces
the likelihood that any impacts would
translate to adverse impacts on the
stock. Similarly, and reduction in the
scale or level of impacts in the vicinity
of this small resident population of
harbor porpoises is expected to reduce
the probability that impacts would
adversely impact the fitness of any
individual and thereby translate to
adverse impacts on the stock. The Navy
will also implement special reporting
procedures to report the total hours and
counts of active sonar and in-water
explosives used in the mitigation area in
its annual training and testing activity
reports submitted to NMFS. The special
reporting requirements will aid the
Navy and NMFS in continuing to
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
analyze potential impacts of training
and testing in this area.
Northeast Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas (year-round)
The Northeast Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas extend across the shelf
break and contain underwater canyons
that have been associated with marine
mammal feeding and abundance,
including within a portion of the
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts
National Marine Monument. They are
situated among highly productive
environments, such as persistent
oceanographic features associated with
upwellings and steep bathymetric
contours. The mitigation included
within the Northeast Planning
Awareness Mitigation Areas (Table 64)
will help the Navy further avoid or
reduce potential impacts from active
sonar during major training exercises on
marine mammals that inhabit, feed in,
mate in, or migrate through the
northeast region. For example, the
mitigation areas overlap a portion of the
NARW northern migration habitat. Fin
whales are known to follow prey off the
continental shelf in this region
(Azzellino et al., 2008; Panigada et al.,
2008). Sei whales have high abundance
in two of the mitigation areas along the
shelf break of Georges Bank and near
Hydrographer Canyon (Waring et al.,
2014). The reduction of activities in,
and increase of protective measures in,
areas with higher concentrations of
NARWs or other mysticetes is expected
to reduce the probability of impacts to
these species and stocks that would be
more likely to adversely affect the
fitness of any individual, which in turn
reduces the likelihood that any impacts
would translate to adverse impacts on
the stock.
Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas (year-round)
The Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas extend across large
swaths of shelf break and contain
underwater canyons associated with
high marine mammal diversity (e.g.,
Norfolk Canyon). The mitigation areas
are situated among highly productive
environments, such as persistent
oceanographic features associated with
upwellings and steep bathymetric
contours. Numerous species of marine
mammals occur in the area, including
beaked, fin, humpback, minke, and
sperm whales; and pilot whales,
bottlenose, short-beaked common,
Atlantic spotted, striped, Clymene, and
Risso’s dolphins. The area is thought to
be important for short-finned pilot
whale feeding (as well as other
odontocetes) and is associated with high
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
species abundance (Thorne et al., 2017).
The area is also used seasonally during
migrations by numerous species and
overlaps the NARW migration habitat
identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b).
The Navy will avoid planning major
training exercises to the maximum
extent practicable and will not conduct
more than four per year. The Navy has
also agreed to move the ship shock trial
box east of the Mid-Atlantic Planning
Awareness Mitigation Areas including a
5-nmi buffer. Because of the diversity of
marine mammals and other fauna, as
well as the general increased use of the
area for odontocete feeding, any
reduction of the more impactful MTEs
(more platforms, higher-level sources,
and longer duration) would be expected
to have a reduction in the probability of
impacts to these species and stocks that
would be more likely to adversely affect
the fitness of any individual, which in
turn reduces the likelihood that any
impacts would translate to adverse
impacts on the stock. Because of the
high diversity of marine fauna, reduced
training in this area would also be
considered a direct reduction of impacts
on marine mammal habitat.
Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale
Mitigation Area (November 15 Through
April 15)
The Navy has expanded the existing
SE NARW Mitigation Area northward
approximately 50 nmi along the coast of
northern Georgia from the shoreline out
to 10–12 nmi. The Navy expanded the
mitigation area to correlate with the
occurrence of NARWs to the maximum
extent practicable based on readiness
requirements. The mitigation area
encompasses a portion of the NARW
migration and calving areas identified
by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) and a
portion of the southeast NARW ESAdesignated critical habitat. Mitigation to
not conduct, or to limit the use of, active
sonar to the maximum extent
practicable (depending on the source)
and to not conduct in-water detonations
and certain activities using explosives
and non-explosive practice munitions,
will help the Navy further avoid or
reduce potential impacts on NARWs in
these key habitat areas seasonally. The
Navy will implement special reporting
procedures to report the total hours and
counts of active sonar and in-water
explosives used in the mitigation area in
its annual training and testing activity
reports submitted to NMFS. The special
reporting requirements will aid the
Navy and NMFS in continuing to
analyze potential impacts of training
and testing in the mitigation area.
Mitigation for vessel movements
includes minimizing north-south
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
transits; implementing speed reductions
after vessels observe a NARW, if they
are within 5 nmi of a sighting reported
within the past 12 hrs, or when
operating in the mitigation area at night
or during periods of poor visibility; and
continuing to participate in and sponsor
the Early Warning System. The Early
Warning System is a comprehensive
information exchange network
dedicated to reducing the risk of vessel
strikes to NARW off the southeast
United States from all mariners (i.e.,
Navy and non-Navy vessels). Navy
participants include the Fleet Area
Control and Surveillance Facility,
Jacksonville; Commander, Naval
Submarine Forces, Norfolk, Virginia;
and Naval Submarine Support
Command. The Navy, U.S. Coast Guard,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
NMFS collaboratively sponsor daily
aerial surveys from December 1 through
March 31 (weather permitting) to
observe for NARWs from the shoreline
out to approximately 30–35 nmi
offshore. Aerial surveyors relay
sightings information to all mariners
transiting within the NARW calving
habitat (e.g., commercial vessels,
recreational boaters, Navy ships). The
reduction of activities in, and increase
of protective measures in, areas with
higher concentrations of NARWs
engaged in calving activities and
migration (such as they are in this area),
is expected to reduce the probability
and/or severity of impacts on NARWs
that would be more likely to adversely
affect the fitness of any individual,
which in turn reduces the likelihood
that any impacts would translate to
adverse impacts on the stock.
Additionally, these measures are
expected to significantly increase the
likelihood of detection of NARWs,
which in turn significantly decreases
the likelihood of a ship strike. Last, this
area coincides with the ranges of two
small resident stocks of bottlenose
dolphins (Southern Georgia Estuarine
and Jacksonville Estuarine) and is
generally expect to reduce the scale and
severity of impacts on these stocks,
reducing the likelihood of populationlevel impacts.
Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale
Critical Habitat Special Reporting Area
Newly developed for Phase III, the SE
NARW Critical Habitat Special
Reporting Area covers the entire
southeast NARW ESA-designated
critical habitat, as well as the ranges of
three small resident populations of
bottlenose dolphins (Southern Georgia
Estuarine, Jacksonville Estuarine, and
Charleston Estuarine). The Navy will
implement special reporting procedures
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57205
to report the total hours and counts of
active sonar and in-water explosives
used in the mitigation area (i.e., the
southeast NARW ESA-designated
critical habitat) in its annual training
and testing activity reports submitted to
NMFS. The special reporting
requirements will aid the Navy and
NMFS in continuing to analyze
potential impacts of training and testing
in this area.
Jacksonville Operating Area
The Navy has developed new
mitigation measures for units
conducting training or testing activities
in the Jacksonville Operating Area,
which overlaps the majority of the
southeast NARW ESA-designated
critical habitat and extends far out to the
edge of the continental shelf. The
mitigation measures to obtain and use
Early Warning System NARW sightings
data will help vessels and aircraft
reduce potential interactions (i.e.,
reducing the likelihood of a strike) with
NARWs in portions of the southeast
NARW ESA-designated critical habitat
and NARW migration and calving areas
identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b).
Navy Cherry Point Range Complex
Nearshore Mitigation Area
The Navy is continuing an existing
mitigation measure to not conduct
explosive mine neutralization activities
involving Navy divers from March
through September within the
mitigation area, which is defined as
within 3.2 nmi of an estuarine inlet and
within 1.6 nmi of the shoreline in the
Navy Cherry Point Range Complex. For
Phase III, the Navy is expanding the
mitigation requirements in this
mitigation area to include additional inwater explosives to the maximum extent
practicable. Although the measure was
primarily designed to reduce potential
impacts on sea turtles near nesting
beaches during the nesting season and
on sandbar sharks in Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern, the mitigation area
also overlaps a portion of the NARW
migration area identified by LaBrecque
et al. (2015b). Any reduction of impacts
where NARW may be concentrated
contributes to a reduction in the
probability that impacts will accrue to
fitness impacts on individuals or,
further, to impacts on the stock.
Bryde’s Whale Mitigation Area (YearRound)
Newly developed for Phase III, the
Bryde’s Whale Mitigation Area covers
the extent of the Bryde’s whale small
and resident population area identified
by LaBrecque et al. (2015a), including
the extended area identified by NMFS
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57206
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
in its 2016 Bryde’s whale status review
(Rosel et al., 2016). Mitigation to limit
annual hours of mid-frequency active
sonar use and to not use in-water
explosives (except during mine warfare
activities) will help the Navy avoid or
reduce potential impacts on the small
and resident population of Bryde’s
whales. To accomplish the mitigation
for explosives, the Navy has adjusted
the boundaries of the northern GOMEX
ship shock trial area. The ship shock
trial area is being relocated 5 nm from
the western boundary of the Bryde’s
Whale Mitigation Area. This will help
the Navy avoid the potential for Bryde’s
whales to be exposed to explosives
during ship shock trials within the
mitigation area. The Navy will
implement special reporting procedures
to report the total hours and counts of
active sonar and in-water explosives
used in the mitigation area in its annual
training and testing activity reports
submitted to NMFS. The special
reporting requirements will aid the
Navy and NMFS in continuing to
analyze potential impacts of training
and testing in this area. This overall
reduction in activity and increase in
protective measures across the majority
of the Bryde’s whale range minimizes
the probability and/or severity of
impacts on Bryde’s whales that are
likely to adversely affect the fitness of
any individual, which in turn reduces
the likelihood that any impacts would
translate to adverse impacts on the
stock.
GOMEX Planning Awareness Mitigation
Areas (Year-Round)
The Navy is enlarging the more
eastern GOMEX Planning Awareness
Mitigation Area to fully encompass the
Bryde’s whale small and resident
population area identified by LaBrecque
et al. (2015a) and the extended area
identified by NMFS in its 2016 Bryde’s
whale status review (Rosel et al., 2016).
The GOMEX Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas also overlap most of
the Mississippi Canyon sperm whale
habitat area and a portion of sperm
whale habitat area west of the Dry
Tortugas. They extend across large
swaths of shelf break and contain
underwater canyons associated with
marine mammal abundance (e.g.,
Mississippi Canyon, DeSoto Canyon).
The mitigation areas are situated among
highly productive environments, such
as persistent oceanographic features
associated with upwellings and steep
bathymetric contours. The Navy will not
conduct MTEs in these areas. Mitigation
within the GOMEX Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas will help the Navy
further avoid or reduce potential
impacts from active sonar during MTEs
(which have more platforms, higher
source levels, and longer durations more
likely to have more severe impacts) on
marine mammals that inhabit, feed in,
reproduce in, or migrate through these
areas. Specifically, these mitigation
areas would be expected to result in a
reduction in the probability of impacts
to the GOMEX stocks of Bryde’s whales
and sperm whale that would be more
likely to adversely affect the fitness of
any individual, which in turn reduces
the likelihood that any impacts would
translate to adverse impacts on the
stock.
A summary of mitigation areas for
marine mammals is described in Table
67 below.
TABLE 67—SUMMARY OF MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS
Summary of mitigation area requirements
Northeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area
• The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and
testing activity reports.
• The Navy must minimize use of active sonar to the maximum extent practicable and must not use explosives that detonate in the water.
• The Navy must conduct non-explosive torpedo testing during daylight hrs in Beaufort sea state 3 or less using three Lookouts (one on a vessel, two in an aircraft during aerial surveys) and an additional Lookout on the submarine when surfaced; during transits, ships must maintain
a speed of no more than 10 knots; during firing, ships must maintain a speed of no more than 18 knots except brief periods of time during
vessel target firing.
• Vessels must obtain the latest North Atlantic right whale sightings data and implement speed reductions after they observe a North Atlantic
right whale, if within 5 nmi of a sighting reported within the past week, and when operating at night or during periods of reduced visibility.
Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness Mitigation Area
• The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and
testing activity reports.
• The Navy must not conduct major training exercises and must not conduct >200 hrs of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar per year.
Northeast Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas and Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas
• The Navy must avoid conducting major training exercises to the maximum extent practicable.
• The Navy must not conduct more than four major training exercises per year.
Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area (November 15–April 15)
• The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and
testing activity reports.
• The Navy must not use active sonar except as necessary for navigation training, object detection training, and dipping sonar.
• The Navy must not expend explosive or non-explosive ordnance.
• Vessels must obtain the latest North Atlantic right whale sightings data; must implement speed reductions after they observe a North Atlantic
right whale, if within 5 nmi of a sighting reported within the past 12 hrs, and when operating at night or during periods of reduced visibility;
and must minimize north-south transits to the maximum extent practicable.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57207
TABLE 67—SUMMARY OF MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS—Continued
Summary of mitigation area requirements
Jacksonville Operating Area (November 15–April 15)
• Navy units conducting training or testing activities in the Jacksonville Operating Area must obtain and use Early Warning System North Atlantic right whale sightings data as they plan specific details of events to minimize potential interactions with North Atlantic right whales to the
maximum extent practicable. The Navy must use the reported sightings information to assist visual observations of applicable mitigation
zones and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation.
Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat Special Reporting Area (November 15–April 15)
• The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and
testing activity reports.
Navy Cherry Point Range Complex Nearshore Mitigation Area (March–September)
• The Navy must not conduct explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers in the mitigation area.
• To the maximum extent practicable, the Navy must not use explosive sonobuoys, explosive torpedoes, explosive medium-caliber and largecaliber projectiles, explosive missiles and rockets, explosive bombs, explosive mines during mine countermeasure and neutralization activities, and anti-swimmer grenades in the mitigation area.
Bryde’s Whale Mitigation Area
• The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and
testing activity reports.
• The Navy must not conduct >200 hrs of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar per year and must not use explosives (except during explosive mine warfare activities).
Gulf of Mexico Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas
• The Navy must not conduct any major training exercises under the Proposed Action.
Notes: Min.: minutes; nmi: nautical miles.
Summary of Procedural Mitigation
A summary of procedural mitigation
is described in Table 68 below.
TABLE 68—SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL MITIGATION
Stressor or activity
Mitigation zones sizes and other requirements
Environmental Awareness and Education ..........
Active Sonar .......................................................
• Afloat Environmental Compliance Training program for applicable personnel.
Depending on sonar source:
• 1,000 yd power down, 500 yd power down, and 200 yd shut. down
• 200 yd shut down.
• 150 yd.
• 100 yd.
• 30 degrees on either side of the firing line out to 70 yd.
• 600 yd.
• 2,100 yd.
• 1,000 yd (large-caliber projectiles).
• 600 yd (medium-caliber projectiles during surface-to-surface activities).
• 200 yd (medium-caliber projectiles during air-to-surface activities).
• 2,000 yd (21–500 lb net explosive weight).
• 900 yd. (0.6–20 lb net explosive weight).
• 2,500 yd.
• 2.5 nmi.
• 2,100 yd (6–650 lb net explosive weight).
• 600 yd (0.1–5 lb net explosive weight).
• 1,000 yd (21–60 lb net explosive weight for positive control charges and charges using timedelay fuses).
• 500 yd (0.1–20 lb net explosive weight for positive control charges).
• 200 yd.
Air Guns ..............................................................
Pile Driving ..........................................................
Weapons Firing Noise ........................................
Explosive Sonobuoys .........................................
Explosive Torpedoes ..........................................
Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber
Projectiles.
Explosive Missiles and Rockets .........................
Explosive Bombs ................................................
Sinking Exercises ...............................................
Explosive Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Activities.
Explosive Mine Neutralization Activities Involving Navy Divers.
Maritime Security Operations—Anti-Swimmer
Grenades.
Line Charge Testing ...........................................
Ship Shock Trials ................................................
Vessel Movement ...............................................
Towed In-Water Devices ....................................
Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive Practice Munitions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PO 00000
900 yd.
3.5 nmi.
500 yd (whales).
200 yd (other marine mammals).
North Atlantic right whale Dynamic Management Area notification messages.
250 yd.
200 yd.
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57208
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 68—SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL MITIGATION—Continued
Stressor or activity
Mitigation zones sizes and other requirements
Non-Explosive Missiles and Rockets .................
Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine Shapes ...........
• 900 yd.
• 1,000 yd.
Notes: lb: pounds; nmi: nautical miles; yd: yards.
Mitigation Conclusions
Monitoring
NMFS has carefully evaluated the
Navy’s mitigation measures—many of
which were developed with NMFS’
input during the previous phases of
Navy training and testing
authorizations—and considered a broad
range of other measures (i.e., the
measures considered but eliminated in
the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, which reflect
many of the comments that have arisen
via NMFS or public input in past years)
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 mitigation measures included
consideration of the following factors in
relation to one another: The manner in
which, and the degree to which, the
successful implementation of the
mitigation measures is expected to
reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude
of adverse impacts to marine mammal
species and stocks and their habitat; the
proven or likely efficacy of the
measures; and the practicability of the
measures for applicant implementation,
including consideration of personnel
safety, practicality of implementation,
and impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity.
Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s
planned measures, as well as other
measures considered by the Navy and
NMFS, NMFS has determined that the
mitigation measures included in this
rule are appropriate 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, considering
specifically personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity.
Additionally, as described in more
detail below, the final rule includes an
adaptive management provision, which
ensures that mitigation is regularly
assessed and provides a mechanism to
improve the mitigation, based on the
factors above, through modification as
appropriate.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA
states that in order to authorize
incidental take 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 incidental take
authorizations must include the
suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that
will result in increased knowledge of
the species and of the level of taking or
impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be
present.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring
Program (ICMP)
The Navy’s ICMP is intended to
coordinate marine species monitoring
efforts across all regions and to allocate
the most appropriate level and type of
effort for each range complex based on
a set of standardized objectives, and in
acknowledgement of regional expertise
and resource availability. The ICMP is
designed to be flexible, scalable, and
adaptable through the adaptive
management and strategic planning
processes to periodically assess progress
and reevaluate objectives. This process
includes conducting an annual adaptive
management review meeting, at which
the Navy and NMFS jointly consider the
prior-year goals, monitoring results, and
related scientific advances to determine
if monitoring plan modifications are
warranted to more effectively address
program goals. Although the ICMP does
not specify actual monitoring field work
or individual projects, it does establish
a matrix of goals and objectives that
have been developed in coordination
with NMFS. As the ICMP is
implemented through the Strategic
Planning Process, 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:
D An increase in our understanding of
the likely occurrence of marine
mammals and/or ESA-listed marine
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
species in the vicinity of the action (i.e.,
presence, abundance, distribution, and/
or density of species);
D 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., sound, explosive
detonation, or military expended
materials), 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), 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);
D An increase in our understanding of
how individual marine mammals or
ESA-listed 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);
D 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);
D An increase in our understanding of
the effectiveness of mitigation and
monitoring measures;
D A better understanding and record
of the manner in which the authorized
entity complies with the incidental take
regulations and LOAs and the ESA
Incidental Take Statement;
D An increase in the probability of
detecting marine mammals (through
improved technology or methods), both
specifically within the mitigation zone
(thus allowing for more effective
implementation of the mitigation) and
in general, to better achieve the above
goals; and
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
D Ensuring that adverse impact of
activities remains at the least practicable
level.
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
intermediate scientific objectives and a
conceptual framework incorporating a
progression of knowledge, spanning
occurrence, exposure, response, and
consequence. The Strategic Planning
Process for Marine Species Monitoring
is used to set overarching intermediate
scientific objectives, develop individual
monitoring project concepts, identify
potential species of interest at a regional
scale, evaluate, prioritize and select
specific monitoring projects to fund or
continue supporting for a given fiscal
year, execute and manage selected
monitoring projects, and report and
evaluate progress and results. This
process addresses 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
AFTT Study Area
NMFS has received multiple years’
worth of annual exercise and
monitoring reports addressing active
sonar use and explosive detonations
within the AFTT Study Area and other
Navy range complexes. The data and
information contained in these reports
have been considered in developing
mitigation and monitoring measures for
the training and testing activities within
the AFTT Study Area. The Navy’s
annual exercise and monitoring reports
may be viewed at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities and https://www.navymarine
speciesmonitoring.us.
The Navy’s marine species monitoring
program typically supports 10–15
projects in the Atlantic at any given
time with an annual budget of
approximately $3.5M. Current projects
cover a range of species and topics from
collecting baseline data on occurrence
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
and distribution, to tracking whales and
sea turtles, to conducting behavioral
response studies on beaked whales and
pilot whales. The Navy’s marine species
monitoring web portal provides details
on past and current monitoring projects,
including technical reports,
publications, presentations, and access
to available data and can be found at:
https://www.navymarine
speciesmonitoring.us/regions/atlantic/
current-projects/.
Following is a summary of the work
currently planned for 2019, some of
which is wrapping up and some of
which will continue for multiple years,
based on the planning and review
process outlined above, which includes
input from NMFS and the Marine
Mammal Commission. Additional
details are available on the Navy’s
website (https://www.navymarine
speciesmonitoring.us/regions/atlantic/
current-projects/):
D Atlantic Behavioral Response Study
(Hatteras study area)—Assessing
behavioral response of beaked whales
and pilot whales to tactical military
sonar and simulated scaled sonar with
controlled exposure experiments.
D Pinniped Tagging and Tracking in
Southeast Virginia (lower Chesapeake
Bay)—Documenting habitat use,
movements, and haul-out patterns of
seals in the Hampton Roads region of
the Chesapeake Bay and coastal
Atlantic.
D Pinniped Haul-out Counts and
Photo-Identification (lower Chesapeake
Bay and Virginia eastern shore)—
Documenting occurrence and seasonal
site fidelity of seals at select haul-out
locations in the lower Chesapeake Bay.
D Mid-Atlantic Humpback Whale
Monitoring (coastal SE Virginia)—Photo
identification and deployment of
satellite-linked tracking tags to
document occurrence, baseline
behavior, and habitat use of humpback
whales in the coastal mid-Atlantic
waters of Virginia.
D Behavioral Reactions of Juvenile
Humpback Whales to Approaching
Ships (Chesapeake Bay shipping
channels)—Assessing response of
humpback whales to vessel approaches
using DTags and visual focal follow
methods.
D NARW Monitoring—Assess the
behavior and distribution of NARWs
using multiple methods including
deployment of DTags in coastal waters
of the Southeast calving grounds, and
passive acoustic monitoring using
autonomous underwater gliders in the
mid-Atlantic region.
D Occurrence, Ecology, and Behavior
of Deep-diving Odontocetes (Hatteras
study area)—Deployment of satellite-
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57209
linked tags to document and assess
habitat use and diving behavior of
beaked whales and pilot whales.
D Vessel baseline surveys and tagging
of cetaceans (USWTR study area of
Jacksonville OPAREA)—continuation of
vessel-based visual surveys for
cetaceans in the USWTR region, as well
as satellite-linked tagging of priority
species to document habitat use and
movement patterns.
D Passive Acoustic baseline
monitoring—Continue deployment of
High-frequency Acoustic Recording
packages (or similar) at multiple
locations along the mid-Atlantic and SE
coast to document seasonal patterns of
species occurrence.
D Occurrence and Ecology of North
Atlantic Shelf Break Species and Effects
of Anthropogenic Noise Impacts—
Assessment of acoustic niche and
spatial/seasonal occurrence of beaked
whales and Kogia, occurrence and
acoustic behavior of baleen whales, and
anthropogenic drivers of cetacean
distribution using passive acoustics.
D Bryde’s whale monitoring in
GOMEX—collaboration with SEFSC to
assess occurrence and distribution of
Bryde’s whales in GOMEX.
D Mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf
Break Cetacean Study (VACAPES
OPAREA)—Assess occurrence, habitat
use, movement patterns, and baseline
behavior of cetaceans (primarily
medium to large whales) in continental
shelf break region of the VACAPES
OPAREA with visual surveys, photo ID,
biopsy sampling, and satellite-linked
tagging.
D Mid-Atlantic & Southeast
Humpback Catalog—Establish a
centralized collaborative humpback
whale photo-id catalog for the midAtlantic and southeast regions to
support management and environmental
planning.
Adaptive Management
The final regulations governing the
take of marine mammals incidental to
Navy training and testing activities in
the AFTT Study Area contain an
adaptive management component. Our
understanding of the effects of Navy
training and testing activities (e.g.
acoustic and explosive stressors) on
marine mammals continues to evolve,
which makes the inclusion of an
adaptive management component both
valuable and necessary within the
context of five-year regulations.
The reporting requirements associated
with this rule are designed to provide
NMFS with monitoring data from the
previous year to allow NMFS to
consider whether any changes to
existing mitigation and monitoring
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57210
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
requirements are appropriate. NMFS
and the Navy would meet to discuss the
monitoring reports, Navy research and
development studies, 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 mammals 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 LOAs. The
results from monitoring reports and
other studies may be viewed at https://
www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/.
Reporting
In order to issue incidental take
authorization 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. 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.
Currently, there are several different
reporting requirements pursuant to
these regulations:
Notification of Injured, Live Stranded or
Dead Marine Mammals
The Navy will consult the
Notification and Reporting Plan, which
sets out notification, reporting, and
other requirements when injured, live
stranded, or dead marine mammals are
detected. The Notification and
Reporting Plan is available for review at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizations-militaryreadiness-activities.
days after the completion of any major
training exercise indicating: Location of
the exercise; beginning and end dates of
the exercise; and type of exercise.
Annual AFTT Monitoring Report
The Navy will submit an annual
report to NMFS of the AFTT monitoring
describing the implementation and
results from the previous calendar year.
Data collection methods will be
standardized across range complexes
and AFTT Study Area to allow for
comparison in different geographic
locations. The report will 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. Such a
report would describe progress of
knowledge made with respect to
intermediate scientific objectives within
the AFTT Study Area associated with
the Integrated Comprehensive
Monitoring Program. Similar study
questions shall be treated together so
that summaries can be provided for each
topic area. The report need not include
analyses and content that does not
provide direct assessment of cumulative
progress on the monitoring plan study
questions.
Five-Year Close-Out Exercise Report
This report will be included as part of
the 2023 annual exercise report. This
report will provide the annual totals for
each sound source bin with a
comparison to the annual allowance and
the five-year total for each sound source
bin with a comparison to the five-year
allowance. The draft report will be
submitted to NMFS three months after
the expiration of the rule. NMFS will
provide comments, if any, to the Navy
on the draft close-out report within
three months of receipt. The report will
be considered final after the Navy has
addressed NMFS’ comments, or three
months after the submittal of the draft
report if NMFS does not provide
comments.
Annual AFTT Exercise Report
Each year, the Navy will submit a
preliminary report to NMFS detailing
the status of authorized sound sources
within 21 days after the anniversary of
the date of issuance of the LOAs. Each
year, the Navy shall submit a detailed
report to NMFS 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 Shock Trials,
Sinking Exercise (SINKEX) events, and
a summary of all sound sources used,
including within specified mitigation
areas (total hours or quantity (per the
LOA) of each bin of sonar or other nonimpulsive source and total annual
expended/detonated ordnance (missiles,
bombs, sonobuoys, etc.) for each
explosive bin). The report will also
include the details regarding specific
requirements associated with specific
mitigation areas. The analysis in the
detailed report will be based on the
accumulation of data from the current
year’s report and data presented in the
previous report. Information included in
the classified annual reports may be
used to inform future adaptive
management of activities within the
AFTT Study Area.
Major Training Exercises Notification
The Navy shall submit an electronic
report to NMFS within fifteen calendar
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination
Negligible Impact Analysis
Introduction
NMFS has defined negligible impact
as ‘‘an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of takes alone is not enough information
on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’
through mortality, serious injury, and
Level A or Level B harassment (as
presented in Tables 39 and 41), NMFS
considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g.,
intensity, duration), the context of any
responses (e.g., critical reproductive
time or location, migration), as well as
effects on habitat, and the likely
effectiveness of the mitigation. We also
assess the number, intensity, and
context of estimated takes by evaluating
this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFS’ implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status
of the species, population size and
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
growth rate where known, other ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality,
ambient noise levels, and specific
consideration of take by Level A
harassment or serious injury or
mortality (hereafter referred to as M/SI)
previously authorized for other NMFS
activities).
In the Estimated Take of Marine
Mammals section, we identified the
subset of potential effects that would be
expected to rise to the level of takes, and
then identified the number of each of
those mortality takes that we believe
could occur or harassment takes that are
likely to occur based on the methods
described. The impact that any given
take will have is dependent on many
case-specific factors that need to be
considered in the negligible impact
analysis (e.g., the context of behavioral
exposures such as duration or intensity
of a disturbance, the health of impacted
animals, the status of a species that
incurs fitness-level impacts to
individuals, etc.). Here we evaluate the
likely impacts of the enumerated
harassment takes that are proposed for
authorization and anticipated to occur
under this rule, in the context of the
specific circumstances surrounding
these predicted takes. We also include
a specific assessment of serious injury
or mortality takes that could occur, as
well as consideration of the traits and
statuses of the affected species and
stocks. Last, we collectively evaluate
this information, as well as other more
taxa-specific information and mitigation
measure effectiveness, in group-specific
discussions that support our negligible
impact conclusions for each stock.
Harassment
The Navy’s Specified Activities
reflects representative levels/ranges of
training and testing activities,
accounting for the natural fluctuation in
training, testing, and deployment
schedules. This approach is
representative of how Navy’s activities
are conducted over any given year over
any given five-year period. Specifically,
the Navy provided a range of levels for
each activity/source type for a year—
they used the maximum annual level to
calculate annual takes, and they used
the sum of three nominal years (average
level) and two maximum years to
calculate five-year takes for each source
type. The Description of the Specified
Activity section contains a more realistic
annual representation of activities, but
includes years of a higher maximum
amount of training and testing to
account for these fluctuations. There
may be some flexibility in the exact
number of hours, items, or detonations
that may vary from year to year, but take
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
totals would not exceed the five-year
totals indicated in Tables 39 through 41.
We base our analysis and negligible
impact determination (NID) on the
maximum number of takes that would
be reasonably expected to occur and are
being 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
affected individuals. To avoid
repetition, we provide some general
analysis immediately below that applies
to all the species listed in Tables 39
through 41, given that some of the
anticipated effects of the Navy’s training
and testing activities on marine
mammals are expected to be relatively
similar in nature. However, below that,
we break our analysis into species (and/
or stock), or groups of species (and the
associated stocks) where relevant
similarities exist, to provide more
specific information related to the
anticipated effects on individuals of a
specific stock 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
species or stock. Organizing our analysis
by grouping species or stocks that share
common traits or that will respond
similarly to effects of the Navy’s
activities and then providing species- or
stock-specific information allows us to
avoid duplication while assuring that
we have analyzed the effects of the
specified activities on each affected
species or stock.
The Navy’s harassment take request is
based on its model and quantitative
assessment of mitigation, which NMFS
believes appropriately, although likely
somewhat conservatively, predicts the
maximum amount of Level B
harassment that is reasonably expected
to occur. In the discussions below, the
‘‘acoustic analysis’’ refers to the Navy’s
modeling results and quantitative
assessment of mitigation. 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 energy
received by a marine mammal exceeds
the thresholds for effects. Assumptions
in the Navy model intentionally err on
the side of overestimation when there
are unknowns. Naval activities are
modeled as though they would occur
regardless of proximity to marine
mammals, meaning that no mitigation is
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57211
considered (e.g., no power down or shut
down) and without any avoidance of the
activity by the animal. The final step of
the quantitative analysis of acoustic
effects, which occurs after the modeling,
is to consider the implementation of
mitigation and the possibility that
marine mammals would avoid
continued or repeated sound exposures.
NMFS provided input to, independently
reviewed, and concurred with, the Navy
on this process and the Navy’s analysis,
which is described in detail in Chapter
6 of the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA
application (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities), was used to quantify
harassment takes for this rule.
Generally speaking, the Navy and
NMFS anticipate more severe effects
from takes resulting from exposure to
higher received levels (though this is in
no way a strictly linear relationship for
behavioral effects throughout species,
individuals, or circumstances) and less
severe effects from takes resulting from
exposure to lower received levels.
However, there is also growing evidence
of the importance of distance in
predicting marine mammal behavioral
response to sound—i.e., sounds of a
similar level emanating from a more
distant source have been shown to be
less likely to evoke a response of equal
magnitude (DeRuiter 2012). The
estimated number of Level A and 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 A and Level
B harassment threshold) that are
anticipated to occur over the five-year
period. These instances may represent
either brief exposures (seconds or
minutes) or, in some cases, longer
durations of exposure within a day.
Some individuals may experience
multiple instances of take (meaning over
multiple days) over the course of the
year, while some members of a species
or stock may not experience take at all
which means that the number of
individuals taken is smaller than the
total estimated takes. In other words,
where the instances of take exceed the
number of individuals in the
population, repeated takes (on more
than one day) of some individuals are
predicted. Generally speaking, the
higher the number of takes as compared
to the population abundance, the more
repeated takes of individuals are likely,
and the higher the actual percentage of
individuals in the population that are
likely taken at least once in a year. We
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57212
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
look at this comparative metric to give
us a relative sense of where larger
portions of the stocks are being taken by
Navy activities and where there is a
higher likelihood that the same
individuals are being taken across
multiple days and where that number of
days might be higher. In the ocean, the
use of sonar and other active acoustic
sources is often transient and is unlikely
to repeatedly expose the same
individual animals within a short
period, for example within one specific
exercise, however, some repeated
exposures across different activities
could occur over the year, especially
where events occur in generally the
same area with more resident species. In
short, we expect that the total
anticipated takes represent exposures of
a smaller number of individuals of
which some were exposed multiple
times, but based on the nature of the
Navy activities and the movement
patterns of marine mammals, it is
unlikely that individuals from most
species or stocks would be taken over
more than a few sequential days. This
means repeated takes of individuals are
likely to occur, they are more likely to
result from non-sequential exposures
from different activities and marine
mammals are not predicted to be taken
for more than a few days in a row, at
most. As described elsewhere, the
nature of the majority of the exposures
would be expected to be of a less severe
nature and based on the numbers it is
likely that any individual exposed
multiple times is still only taken on a
small percentage of the days of the year.
The greater likelihood is that not every
individual is taken, or perhaps a smaller
subset is taken with a slightly higher
average and larger variability of highs
and lows, but still with no reason to
think that any individuals would be
taken a significant portion of the days of
the year, much less that many of the
days of disturbance would be
sequential.
Some of the lower level physiological
stress responses (e.g., orientation or
startle response, change in respiration,
change in heart rate) discussed earlier
would 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
not expect the Navy’s generally shortterm, intermittent, and (typically in the
case of sonar) transitory activities to
create conditions of long-term,
continuous noise leading to long-term
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
physiological stress responses in marine
mammals.
The estimates calculated using the
behavioral response function do not
differentiate between the different types
of behavioral responses that rise to the
level of Level B harassments. As
described in the Navy’s application, the
Navy identified (with NMFS’ input) the
types of behaviors that would be
considered a take (moderate behavioral
responses as characterized in Southall et
al., 2007 (e.g., altered migration paths or
dive profiles, interrupted nursing,
breeding or feeding, or avoidance) that
also would be expected to continue for
the duration of an exposure). The Navy
then compiled the available data
indicating at what received levels and
distances those responses have
occurred, and used the indicated
literature to build biphasic behavioral
response curves that are used to predict
how many instances of Level B
behavioral harassment occur in a day.
Take estimates alone do not provide
information regarding the potential
fitness or other biological consequences
of the reactions on the affected
individuals. We therefore consider the
available activity-specific,
environmental, and species-specific
information to determine the likely
nature of the modeled behavioral
responses and the potential fitness
consequences for affected individuals.
Use of sonar and other transducers
would typically be transient and
temporary. The majority of acoustic
effects to mysticetes from sonar and
other active sound sources during
testing and training activities would be
primarily from ASW events. It is
important to note although ASW is one
of the warfare areas of focus during
MTEs, there are significant periods
when active ASW sonars are not in use.
Nevertheless, behavioral reactions are
assumed more likely to be significant
during MTEs than during other ASW
activities due to the duration (i.e.,
multiple days), scale (i.e., multiple
sonar platforms), and use of high-power
hull-mounted sonar in the MTEs. In
other words, in the range of potential
behavioral effects that might expect to
be part of a response that qualifies as an
instance Level B behavioral harassment
(which by nature of the way it is
modeled/counted, occurs within one
day), the less severe end might include
exposure to comparatively lower levels
of a sound, at a detectably greater
distance from the animal, for a few or
several minutes, and that could result in
a behavioral response such as avoiding
an area that an animal would otherwise
have chosen to move through or feed in
for some amount of time or breaking off
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
one or a few feeding bouts. More severe
effects could occur when the animal
gets close enough to the source to
receive a comparatively higher level, is
exposed continuously to one source for
a longer time, or is exposed
intermittently to different sources
throughout a day. Such effects might
result in an animal having a more severe
flight response and leaving a larger area
for a day or more or potentially losing
feeding opportunities for a day.
However, such severe behavioral effects
are expected to occur infrequently.
To help assess this, for sonar (LFAS/
MFAS/HFAS) used in the AFTT Study
Area, the Navy provided information
estimating the percentage of animals
that may be taken by Level B
harassment under each behavioral
response function that would occur
within 6-dB increments (percentages
discussed below in the Group and
Species-Specific Analyses section). As
mentioned above, all else being equal,
an animal’s exposure to a higher
received level is more likely to result in
a behavioral response that is more likely
to lead to adverse effects, which could
more likely accumulate to impacts on
reproductive success or survivorship of
the animal, but other contextual factors
(such as distance) are important also.
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 shorter duration. We
anticipate more severe effects from takes
when animals are exposed to higher
received levels or at closer proximity to
the source. Because stocks belonging to
the same species and species belonging
to taxa that share common
characteristics are likely to respond and
be affected in similar ways, these
discussions are presented within each
species group below in the Group and
Species-Specific Analyses section.
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 a smaller percentage of
the anticipated Level B harassment from
Navy activities might necessarily be
expected to potentially result in more
severe responses (see the Group and
Species-Specific Analyses section below
for more detailed information). To fully
understand the likely impacts of the
predicted/authorized take on an
individual (i.e., what is the likelihood or
degree of fitness impacts), one must
look closely at the available contextual
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
information, such as the duration of
likely exposures and the likely severity
of the exposures (e.g., whether they will
occur for a longer duration over
sequential days or the comparative
sound level that will be received).
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.
Diel Cycle
As noted previously, 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).
Henderson et al., 2016 found that
ongoing smaller scale events had little
to no impact on foraging dives for
Blainville’s beaked whale, while multiday training events may decrease
foraging behavior for Blainville’s beaked
whale (Manzano-Roth et al., 2016).
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 ASW activities,
typically include vessels that are
continuously moving at speeds typically
10–15 kn, or higher, and likely cover
large areas that are relatively far from
shore (typically more than 3 nmi from
shore) and in waters greater than 600 ft
deep. Additionally 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. Further, the Navy does not
necessarily operate active sonar the
entire time during an 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
result in a take, because of the factors
mentioned above, it is considered
unlikely for the majority of takes.
However, it is also worth noting that the
Navy conducts many different types of
noise-producing activities over the
course of the year and it is likely that
some marine mammals will be exposed
to more than one and taken on multiple
days, even if they are not sequential.
Durations of Navy activities utilizing
tactical sonar sources and explosives
vary and are fully described in
Appendix A of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS.
Sonar used during ASW would impart
the greatest amount of acoustic energy
of any category of sonar and other
transducers analyzed in the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application and
include hull-mounted, towed,
sonobuoy, helicopter dipping, and
torpedo sonars. Most ASW sonars are
MFAS (1–10 kHz); however, some
sources may use higher or lower
frequencies. ASW training activities
using hull mounted sonar proposed for
the AFTT Study Area generally last for
only a few hours. Some ASW training
and testing can generally last for 2–10
days, or as much as 21 days for an MTELarge Integrated ASW (see Table 4). For
these multi-day exercises there will
typically be extended intervals of nonactivity in between active sonar periods.
Because of the need to train in a large
variety of situations, the Navy does not
typically conduct successive ASW
exercises in the same locations. Given
the average length of ASW exercises
(times of sonar use) and typical vessel
speed, combined with the fact that the
majority of the cetaceans would not
likely remain in proximity to the sound
source, it is unlikely that an animal
would be exposed to LFAS/MFAS/
HFAS at levels or durations likely to
result in a substantive response that
would then be carried on for more than
one day or on successive days.
Most planned explosive events are
scheduled to occur over a short duration
(1–8 hours); however, the explosive
component of the activity only lasts for
minutes (see Tables 4 through 7).
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, or
demonstrate sustained behavioral
responses. Although SINKEXs may last
for up to 48 hrs (4–8 hrs, possibly 1–2
days), they are almost always completed
in a single day and only one event is
planned annually for the AFTT training
activities. They are stationary and
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57213
conducted in deep, open water where
fewer marine mammals would typically
be expected to be encountered. They
also have shutdown procedures and
rigorous monitoring, i.e., during the
activity, the Navy conducts passive
acoustic monitoring and visually
observes for marine mammals 90 min
prior to the first firing, during the event,
and 2 hrs after sinking the vessel. All of
these factors make it unlikely that
individuals would be exposed to the
exercise for extended periods or on
consecutive days.
Last, as described previously, Navy
modeling uses the best available science
to predict the instances of exposure
above certain acoustic thresholds,
which are equated, as appropriate, to
harassment takes (and further corrected
to account for mitigation and
avoidance). As further noted, for active
acoustics it is more challenging to parse
out the number of individuals taken by
Level B harassment from this larger
number of instances. One method that
NMFS can use to help better understand
the overall scope of the impacts is to
compare these total instances of take
against the abundance of that stock. For
example, if there are 100 takes in a
population of 100, one can assume
either that every individual was
exposed above acoustic thresholds in no
more than one day, or that some smaller
number were exposed in one day but a
few of those individuals were exposed
multiple days within a year. Where the
instances of take exceed 100 percent of
the population, multiple takes of some
individuals are predicted and expected
to occur within a year. Generally
speaking, the higher the number of takes
as compared to the population
abundance, the more multiple takes of
individuals are likely, and the higher
the actual percentage of individuals in
the population that are likely taken at
least once in a year. We look at this
comparative metric to give us a relative
sense of where larger portions of the
stocks are being taken by Navy activities
and where there is a higher likelihood
that the same individuals are being
taken across multiple days and where
that number of days might be higher. At
a minimum, it provides a relative
picture of the scale of impacts to each
stock.
In short, we expect that the total
anticipated takes represent exposures of
a smaller number of individuals of
which some would be exposed multiple
times, but based on the nature of the
Navy’s activities and the movement
patterns of marine mammals, it is
unlikely that any particular subset
would be taken over more than several
sequential days (with a few possible
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57214
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
exceptions discussed in the stockspecific conclusions).
When calculating the proportion of a
population affected by takes (e.g., the
number of takes divided by population
abundance), it is important to choose an
appropriate population estimate to make
the comparison. In this case, we
appropriately compared the predicted
takes to abundance estimates generated
from the same underlying density
estimate used to calculate the predicted
take (described earlier and below),
versus abundance estimates from the
SARs, which are not based on the same
data (and are more limited) and would
not be appropriate for this purpose. The
SARs provide the official population
estimate for a given species or stock in
U.S. waters in a given year and are
typically based solely on the most
recent survey data, but they are not the
only information used to estimate takes.
Instead here modeled density layers are
used, which incorporate the SAR
surveys and other survey data. If takes
are calculated from another dataset (for
example a broader sample of survey
data) and compared to the population
estimate from the SARs, it would
misrepresent the percent of the
population affected because of different
population baselines. Note that to
further refine NMFS’ comparison of take
to the population (which may be found
in the Group and Species-Specific
Analyses section below), comparisons
are made both within the U.S. EEZ only
(where density estimates have lesser
uncertainty and takes are notably
greater) and across the whole AFTT
Study Area, which offers a more
comprehensive comparison for many
stocks.
The Navy uses, and NMFS concurs
with, the use of spatially and temporally
explicit density models (based on the
best available science) that vary in space
and time to estimate their potential
impacts to species. See the U.S. Navy
Marine Species Density Database Phase
III for the Atlantic Fleet Training and
Testing Area Technical Report to learn
more on how the Navy selects density
information and the models selected for
individual species. These models may
better characterize how Navy impacts
can vary in space and time but often
predict different population abundances
than the SARs.
Models may predict different
population abundances for many
reasons. The models may be based on
different data sets or different temporal
predictions may be made. The SARs are
often based on single years of NMFS
surveys whereas the models used by the
Navy generally include multiple years
of survey data from NMFS, the Navy,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
and other sources. To present a single,
best estimate, the SARs often use a
single season survey where they have
the best spatial coverage (generally
summer). Navy models often use
predictions for multiple seasons, where
appropriate for the species, even when
survey coverage in non-summer seasons
is limited, to characterize impacts over
multiple seasons as Navy activities may
occur in any season. Predictions may be
made for different spatial extents. Many
different, but equally valid, habitat and
density modeling techniques exist and
these can also be the cause of
differences in population predictions.
Differences in population estimates may
be caused by a combination of these
factors. Even similar estimates should
be interpreted with caution and
differences in models must be fully
understood before drawing conclusions.
The AFTT Study Area covers a broad
area in the western North Atlantic
Ocean and the GOMEX. The Navy has
tried to find density estimates for this
entire area, where appropriate given
species distributions. However, only a
small number of Navy training and
testing activities occur outside of the
U.S. EEZ. As such, NMFS believes that
the average population predicted by
Navy models across seasons in the U.S.
EEZ is the best baseline to use when
analyzing takes as a proportion of
population. This is a close
approximation of the actual population
used in Navy take analysis as
occasionally sound can propagate
outside of the U.S. EEZ and a small
number of exercises do occur in
international waters. This
approximation will be less accurate for
species with major changes in density
close to the U.S. EEZ or far offshore.
Models of individual species or stocks
were not available for all species and
takes had to be proportioned to the
species or stock level from takes
predicted on models at higher
taxonomic levels. See the various Navy
technical reports mentioned previously
in this rule that detail take estimation
and density model selection proposed
by Navy and adopted by NMFS for
details.
TTS
NMFS and the Navy have estimated
that some individuals of some species of
marine mammals may sustain some
level of TTS from active sonar. As
mentioned previously, in general, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
severe. Tables 72–77 indicate the
number of takes by TTS that may be
incurred by different stocks from
exposure to active sonar and explosives.
No TTS is estimated from air guns or
pile driving activities because it is
unlikely to occur. 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 Navy’s MF sources,
which are the highest power and most
numerous sources and the ones that
cause the most take, utilize the 1–10
kHz frequency band, which suggests
that if TTS were to be induced by any
of these MF sources it would be in a
frequency band somewhere between
approximately 2 and 20 kHz, which is
in the range of communication calls for
many odontocetes. There are fewer
hours of HF source use and the sounds
would attenuate more quickly, plus they
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 10
and 100 kHz, which means that TTS
could range up to 200 kHz), which
could overlap with the range in which
some odontocetes communicate or
echolocate. 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 unlikely. There are
fewer LF sources and the majority are
used in the more readily mitigated
testing environment, and TTS from LF
sources would most likely occur below
2 kHz, which is in the range where
many mysticetes communicate and also
where other non-communication
auditory cues are located (waves,
snapping shrimp, fish prey). TTS from
explosives would be broadband. Also of
note, the majority of sonar sources from
which TTS may be incurred occupy a
narrow frequency band, which means
that the TTS incurred would also be
across a narrower band (i.e., not
affecting the majority of an animal’s
hearing range). This frequency provides
information about the cues to which a
marine mammal may be temporarily
less sensitive, but not the degree or
duration of sensitivity loss.
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
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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 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 kn) and the relative
motion between the sonar vessel and the
animal. In the TTS studies discussed in
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, since any hullmounted sonar such as the SQS–53
(MFAS), emits a ping typically every 50
seconds, incurring those levels of TTS is
highly unlikely. In short, given the
anticipated duration and levels of sound
exposure, we would not expect marine
mammals to incur more than relatively
low levels of TTS (i.e., single digits of
sensitivity loss). To add context to this
degree of TTS, individual marine
mammals may regularly experience
variations of 6dB differences in hearing
sensitivity across time (Finneran et al.,
2000; Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et
al., 2002).
3. Duration of TTS (recovery time)—
In the TTS laboratory studies (as
discussed in 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.
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 LFAS/
MFAS/HFAS training and testing
exercises in the AFTT Study Area, it is
unlikely that marine mammals would
ever sustain a TTS from MFAS that
alters their sensitivity by more than 20
dB for more than a few hours—and any
incident of TTS would likely be far less
severe due to the short duration of the
majority of the events and the speed of
a typical vessel, especially given the fact
that the higher power sources resulting
in TTS are predominantly intermittent,
which have been shown to result in
shorter durations of TTS. Also, for the
same reasons discussed in the Analysis
and Negligible Impact Determination—
Diel Cycle section, and because of the
short distance within which animals
would need to approach the sound
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.
Tables 72–77 indicate the number of
incidental takes by TTS that are likely
to result from the Navy’s activities. As
a general point, the majority of these
TTS takes are the result of exposure to
hull-mounted MFAS (MF narrower
band sources), with fewer from
explosives (broad-band lower frequency
sources), and even fewer from LF or HF
sonar sources (narrower band). As
described above, we expect the majority
of these takes to be in the form of mild
(single-digit), short-term (minutes to
hours), narrower band (only affecting a
portion of the animals hearing range)
TTS. This means that for one to several
times per year, for several minutes to
maybe a few hours (high end) each, a
taken individual will have slightly
diminished hearing sensitivity (slightly
more than natural variation, but
nowhere near total deafness) more often
within a narrower mid- to higher
frequency band that may overlap part
(but not all) of a communication,
echolocation, or predator range, but
sometimes across a lower or broader
bandwidth. The significance of TTS is
also related to the auditory cues that are
germane within the time period that the
animal incurs the TTS—for example, if
an odontocete has TTS at echolocation
frequencies, but incurs it at night when
it is resting and not feeding, for
example, it is not impactful. In short,
the expected results of any one of these
small number of mild TTS occurrences
could be that (1) it does not overlap
signals that are pertinent to that animal
in the given time period, (2) it overlaps
parts of signals that are important to the
animal, but not in a manner that impairs
interpretation, or (3) it reduces
detectability of an important signal to a
small degree for a short amount of
time—in which case the animal may be
aware and be able to compensate (but
there may be slight energetic cost), or
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57215
the animal may have some reduced
opportunities (e.g., to detect prey) or
reduced capabilities to react with
maximum effectiveness (e.g., to detect a
predator or navigate optimally).
However, given the small number of
times that any individual might incur
TTS, the low degree of TTS and the
short anticipated duration, and the low
likelihood that one of these instances
would occur in a time period in which
the specific TTS overlapped the entirety
of a critical signal, it is unlikely that
TTS of the nature expected to result
from Navy activities would result in
behavioral changes or other impacts that
would impact any individual’s (of any
hearing sensitivity) reproduction or
survival.
Acoustic Masking or Communication
Impairment
The ultimate potential impacts of
masking on an individual (if it were to
occur) are similar to those discussed for
TTS, but an important difference is that
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. Fundamentally, masking is
referred to as a chronic effect because
one of the key harmful components of
masking is its duration—the fact that an
animal would have reduced ability to
hear or interpret critical cues becomes
much more likely to cause a problem
the longer it is occurring. Also inherent
in the concept of masking is the fact that
the potential for the effect is only
present during the times that the animal
and the source are in close enough
proximity for the effect to occur (and
further, this time period would need to
coincide with a time that the animal
was utilizing sounds at the masked
frequency). As our analysis has
indicated, because of the relative
movement of vessels and the species
involved in this rule, we do not expect
the exposures with the potential for
masking to be of a long duration. In
addition, masking is fundamentally
more of a concern at lower frequencies
(because low frequency signals
propagate significantly further than
higher frequencies and because they are
more likely to overlap both the narrower
LF calls of mysticetes, as well as many
non-communication cues such as fish
and invertebrate prey, and geologic
sounds that inform navigation) and from
continuous sources where there is no
quiet time between pulses within which
auditory signals can be detected and
interpreted. For these reasons, dense
aggregations of, and long exposure to,
continuous LF activity, such as shipping
or seismic airgun operation (the latter
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57216
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
signal changes from intermittent to
continuous at distance), are much more
of a concern for masking, whereas
comparatively short-term exposure to
the predominantly intermittent pulses
of MFAS or HFAS, or explosions are not
expected to result in a meaningful
amount of masking. While the Navy
occasionally uses LF and more
continuous sources, it is not in the
contemporaneous aggregate amounts
that would accrue to a masking concern.
Specifically, the nature of the activities
and sound sources used by the Navy do
not support the likelihood of a level of
masking accruing that would have the
potential to affect reproductive success
or survival. Additional detail is
provided below.
Standard hull-mounted MFAS
typically ping every 50 seconds for hullmounted sources. Some hull-mounted
anti-submarine sonars can also be used
in an object detection mode known as
‘‘Kingfisher’’ mode (e.g., used on vessels
when transiting to and from port) where
pulse length is shorter but pings are
much closer together in both time and
space since the vessel goes slower when
operating in this mode. For the majority
of sources, the pulse length is
significantly shorter than hull-mounted
active sonar, on the order of several
microseconds to tens of milliseconds.
Some of the vocalizations that many
marine mammals make are less than one
second long, so, for example with hullmounted sonar, there would be a 1 in
50 chance (only if the source was in
close enough proximity for the sound to
exceed the signal that is being detected)
that a single vocalization might be
masked by a ping. However, when
vocalizations (or series of vocalizations)
are longer than one second, masking
would not occur. Additionally, when
the pulses are only several
microseconds long, the majority of most
animals’ vocalizations would not be
masked.
Most ASW sonars and
countermeasures use MF frequencies
and a few use LF and HF frequencies.
Most of these sonar signals are limited
in the temporal, frequency, and spatial
domains. The duration of most
individual sounds is short, lasting up to
a few seconds each. A few systems
operate with higher duty cycles or
nearly continuously, but they typically
use lower power, which means that an
animal would have to be closer, or in
the vicinity for a longer time, to be
masked to the same degree as by a
higher level source. Nevertheless,
masking could occasionally occur at
closer ranges to these high-duty cycle
and continuous active sonar systems,
but as described previously, it would be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
expected to be of a short duration when
the source and animal are in close
proximity. Most ASW activities are
geographically dispersed and last for
only a few hours, often with
intermittent sonar use even within this
period. Most ASW sonars also have a
narrow frequency band (typically less
than one-third octave). These factors
reduce the likelihood of sources causing
significant masking. HF signals (above
10 kHz) attenuate more rapidly in the
water due to absorption than do lower
frequency signals, thus producing only
a very small zone of potential masking.
If masking or communication
impairment were to occur briefly, it
would more likely be in the frequency
range of MFAS (the more powerful
source), which overlaps with some
odontocete 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 resemble
the characteristics of any marine
mammal’s vocalizations.
Masking could occur briefly in
mysticetes due to the overlap between
their low-frequency vocalizations and
the dominant frequencies of airgun
pulses. However, masking in
odontocetes or pinnipeds is less likely
unless the airgun activity is in close
range when the pulses are more
broadband. Masking is more likely to
occur in the presence of broadband,
relatively continuous noise sources such
as during vibratory pile driving and
from vessels, however, the duration of
temporal and spatial overlap with any
individual animal and the spatially
separated sources that the Navy uses
would not be expected to result in more
than short-term, low impact masking
that would not affect reproduction or
survival.
The other sources used in Navy
training and testing, 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. For the reasons
described here, any limited masking
that could potentially occur would be
minor and short-term and not expected
to have adverse impacts on reproductive
success or survivorship.
PTS from Sonar Acoustic Sources and
Explosives and Tissue Damage From
Explosives
Tables 72–77 indicate the number of
individuals of each of species and stock
for which Level A harassment in the
form of PTS resulting from exposure to
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
active sonar and/or explosives is
estimated to occur. Tables 72–77 also
indicate the number of individuals of
each of species and stock for which
Level A harassment in the form of tissue
damage resulting from exposure to
explosive detonations is estimated to
occur. The number of individuals to
potentially incur PTS annually (from
sonar and explosives) for the predicted
species ranges from 0 to 454 (454 for
harbor porpoise), but is more typically
a few up to 31 (with the exception of a
few species). The number of individuals
to potentially incur tissue damage from
explosives for the predicted species
ranges from 0 to 36 (36 for short-beaked
common dolphin), but is typically zero
in most cases.
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-emitting vessel at
a close distance, NMFS believes that the
mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown/
powerdown zones for active sonar)
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 ASW exercises,
passive acoustic detections are used as
a cue for Lookouts’ visual observations
when passive acoustic assets are already
participating in an activity) in addition
to Lookouts on vessels to detect marine
mammals for mitigation
implementation. As discussed
previously, the Navy utilized a postmodeling quantitative assessment to
adjust the take estimates based on
avoidance and the likely success of
some portion of the mitigation
measures. As is typical in predicting
biological responses, it is challenging to
predict exactly how avoidance and
mitigation will affect the take of marine
mammals, and therefore the Navy erred
on the side of caution in choosing a
method that would more likely still
overestimate the take by PTS to some
degree. Nonetheless, these modified
Level A harassment take numbers are
the most appropriate estimates of what
is likely to occur, and we have analyzed
them.
If a marine mammal is able to
approach a surface vessel within the
distance necessary to incur PTS in spite
of the mitigation measures, the likely
speed of the vessel (nominally 10–15
kn) and relative motion of the vessel
would make it very difficult for the
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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. The majority
of any PTS incurred as a result of
exposure to Navy sources would be
expected to be in the 2–20 kHz region
(resulting from the most powerful hullmounted sonar) and could overlap a
small portion of the communication
frequency range of many odontocetes,
whereas other marine mammal groups
have communication calls at lower
frequencies. Regardless of the frequency
band though, the more important point
in this case is that any PTS accrued as
a result of exposure to Navy activities
would be expected to be of a small
amount (single digits). Permanent loss
of some degree of hearing is a normal
occurrence for older animals, and many
animals are able to compensate for the
shift, both in old age or at younger ages
as the result of stressor exposure. While
a small loss of hearing sensitivity may
include some degree of energetic costs
for compensating or may mean some
small loss of opportunities or detection
capabilities, at the expected scale it
would be unlikely to impact behaviors,
opportunities, or detection capabilities
to a degree that would interfere with
reproductive success or survival.
We also assume that the acoustic
exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS
(or TTS) would be accompanied by
physiological stress responses, although
the sound characteristics that correlate
with specific stress responses in marine
mammals are poorly understood. As
discussed above for Level B behavioral
harassment, 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 that
could affect reproduction or survival.
The Navy implements mitigation
measures (described in the Mitigation
Measures section) during explosive
activities, including delaying
detonations when a marine mammal is
observed in the mitigation zone. Nearly
all explosive events will occur during
daylight hours to improve the
sightability of marine mammals and
thereby improve mitigation
effectiveness. Observing for marine
mammals during the explosive activities
will include aerial and passive acoustic
detection methods (when they are
available and part of the activity) before
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
the activity begins, in order to cover the
mitigation zones that can range from
200 yds (183 m) to 2,500 yds (2,286 m)
depending on the source (e.g., explosive
sonobuoy, explosive torpedo, explosive
bombs), and 2.5 nmi for sinking exercise
(see Tables 48—57).
Observing for marine mammals
during ship shock (which includes
Lookouts in aircraft or on multiple
vessels) begins 5 hrs before the
detonation and extends 3.5 nmi from
the ship’s hull (see Table 58). The
required mitigation is expected to
reduce the likelihood that all of the
takes will occur. Some, though likely
not all, of that reduction was quantified
in the Navy’s quantitative assessment of
mitigation; however, we analyze the
type and amount of take by Level A
harassment in Tables 39 through 41.
Generally speaking, tissue damage
injuries from explosives could range
from minor lung injuries (the most
sensitive organ and first to be affected)
that consist of some short-term
reduction of health and fitness
immediately following the injury that
heals quickly and will not have any
discernible long-term effects, up to more
impactful permanent injuries across
multiple organs that may cause health
problems and negatively impact
reproductive success (i.e., increase the
time between pregnancies or even
render reproduction unlikely) but fall
just short of a ‘‘serious injury’’ by virtue
of the fact that the animal is not
expected to die. Nonetheless, due to the
Navy’s mitigation and detection
capabilities, we would not expect
marine mammals to typically be
exposed to a more severe blast located
closer to the source—so the impacts
likely would be on the less severe end.
It is still difficult to evaluate how these
injuries may or may not impact an
animal’s fitness, however, these effects
are only seen in very small numbers
(single digits with the exception of two
stocks) and in species of fairly high to
very high abundances. In short, it is
unlikely that any, much less all, of the
small number of injuries accrued to any
one stock would result in reduced
reproductive success of any individuals,
but even if a few did, the status of the
affected stocks are such that it would
not be expected to adversely impact
rates of reproduction.
Serious Injury and Mortality
NMFS is authorizing a very small
number of serious injuries or mortalities
that could occur in the event of a ship
strike or as a result of marine mammal
exposure to explosive detonations. We
note here that the takes from potential
ship strikes or explosive exposures
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57217
enumerated below could result in nonserious injury, but their worst potential
outcome (mortality) is analyzed for the
purposes of the negligible impact
determination.
In addition, we discuss here the
connection, and differences, between
the legal mechanisms for authorizing
incidental take under section 101(a)(5)
for activities such as the Navy’s testing
and training in the AFTT Study Area,
and for authorizing incidental take from
commercial fisheries. In 1988, Congress
amended the MMPA’s provisions for
addressing incidental take of marine
mammals in commercial fishing
operations. Congress directed NMFS to
develop and recommend a new longterm regime to govern such incidental
taking (see MMC, 1994). The need to
develop a system suited to the unique
circumstances of commercial fishing
operations led NMFS to suggest a new
conceptual means and associated
regulatory framework. That concept,
PBR, and a system for developing plans
containing regulatory and voluntary
measures to reduce incidental take for
fisheries that exceed PBR were
incorporated as sections 117 and 118 in
the 1994 amendments to the MMPA.
PBR is defined in section 3 of the
MMPA as ‘‘the maximum number of
animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing
that stock to reach or maintain its OSP
and, although not controlling, can be
one measure considered among other
factors when evaluating the effects of M/
SI on a marine mammal species or stock
during the section 101(a)(5)(A) process.
OSP is defined in section 3 of the
MMPA as ‘‘the number of animals
which will result in the maximum
productivity of the population or the
species, keeping in mind the carrying
capacity of the habitat and the health of
the ecosystem of which they form a
constituent element.’’ Through section
2, an overarching goal of the statute is
to ensure that each species or stock of
marine mammal is maintained at or
returned to its OSP.
PBR values are calculated by NMFS as
the level of annual removal from a stock
that will allow that stock to equilibrate
within OSP at least 95 percent of the
time, and is the product of factors
relating to the minimum population
estimate of the stock (Nmin), the
productivity rate of the stock at a small
population size, and a recovery factor.
Determination of appropriate values for
these three elements incorporates
significant precaution, such that
application of the parameter to the
management of marine mammal stocks
may be reasonably certain to achieve the
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57218
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
goals of the MMPA. For example,
calculation of the minimum population
estimate (Nmin) incorporates the level of
precision and degree of variability
associated with abundance information,
while also providing (typically the 20th
percentile of a log-normal distribution
of the population estimate) reasonable
assurance that the stock size is equal to
or greater than the estimate (Barlow et
al., 1995). In general, the three factors
are developed on a stock-specific basis
in consideration of one another in order
to produce conservative PBR values that
appropriately account for both
imprecision that may be estimated, as
well as potential bias stemming from
lack of knowledge (Wade, 1998).
Congress called for PBR to be applied
within the management framework for
commercial fishing incidental take
under section 118 of the MMPA. As a
result, PBR cannot be applied
appropriately outside of the section 118
regulatory framework without
consideration of how it applies within
the section 118 framework, as well as
how the other statutory management
frameworks in the MMPA differ from
the framework in section 118. PBR was
not designed and is not used as an
absolute threshold limiting commercial
fisheries. Rather, it serves as a means to
evaluate the relative impacts of those
activities on marine mammal stocks.
Even where commercial fishing is
causing M/SI at levels that exceed PBR,
the fishery is not suspended. When M/
SI exceeds PBR in the commercial
fishing context under section 118,
NMFS may develop a take reduction
plan, usually with the assistance of a
take reduction team. The take reduction
plan will include measures to reduce
and/or minimize the taking of marine
mammals by commercial fisheries to a
level below the stock’s PBR. That is,
where the total annual human-caused
M/SI exceeds PBR, NMFS is not
required to halt fishing activities
contributing to total M/SI but rather
utilizes the take reduction process to
further mitigate the effects of fishery
activities via additional bycatch
reduction measures. In other words,
under section 118 of the MMPA, PBR
does not serve as a strict cap on the
operation of commercial fisheries that
may incidentally take marine mammals.
Similarly, to the extent PBR may be
relevant when considering the impacts
of incidental take from activities other
than commercial fisheries, using it as
the sole reason to deny (or issue)
incidental take authorization for those
activities would be inconsistent with
Congress’s intent under section
101(a)(5) and the use of PBR under
section 118. The standard for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
authorizing incidental take under
section 101(a)(5) continues to be, among
other things, whether the total taking
will have a negligible impact on the
species or stock. When Congress
amended the MMPA in 1994 to add
section 118 for commercial fishing, it
did not alter the standards for
authorizing non-commercial fishing
incidental take under section 101(a)(5),
implicitly acknowledging that the
negligible impact standard under
section 101(a)(5) is separate from the
PBR metric under section 118. In fact,
in 1994 Congress also amended section
101(a)(5)(E) (a separate provision
governing commercial fishing incidental
take for species listed under the ESA) to
add compliance with the new section
118 but retained the requirement for a
negligible impact finding under section
101(a)(5)(A), showing that Congress
understood that the determination of
negligible impact and application of
PBR may share certain features but are,
in fact, different.
Since the introduction of PBR, NMFS
has used the concept almost entirely
within the context of implementing
sections 117 and 118 and other
commercial fisheries managementrelated provisions of the MMPA.
Although there are a few examples
where PBR has informed agency
deliberations under other sections of the
MMPA, where PBR has been raised it
has been a consideration and not
dispositive to the issue at hand. Further,
the agency’s thoughts regarding the
potential role of PBR in relation to other
programs of the MMPA have evolved
since the agency’s earlier applications to
section 101(a)(5) decisions. The MMPA
requires that PBR be estimated in SARs
and that it be used in applications
related to the management of take
incidental to commercial fisheries (i.e.,
the take reduction planning process
described in section 118 of the MMPA
and the determination of whether a
stock is ‘‘strategic’’ as defined in section
3), but nothing in the statute requires
the application of PBR outside the
management of commercial fisheries
interactions with marine mammals.
Nonetheless, NMFS recognizes that as
a quantitative metric, PBR may be useful
as a consideration when evaluating the
impacts of other human-caused
activities on marine mammal stocks.
Outside the commercial fishing context,
and in consideration of all known
human-caused mortality, PBR can help
inform the potential effects of M/SI
requested to be authorized under
101(a)(5)(A). As noted by NMFS and the
USFWS in our implementation
regulations for the 1986 amendments to
the MMPA (54 FR 40341, September 29,
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1989), the Services consider many
factors, when available, in making a
negligible impact determination,
including, but not limited to, the status
of the species or stock relative to OSP
(if known); whether the recruitment rate
for the species or stock is increasing,
decreasing, stable, or unknown; the size
and distribution of the population; and
existing impacts and environmental
conditions. In this multi-factor analysis,
PBR can be a useful indicator for when,
and to what extent, the agency should
take an especially close look at the
circumstances associated with the
potential mortality, along with any other
factors that could influence annual rates
of recruitment or survival.
When considering PBR during
evaluation of effects of M/SI under
section 101(a)(5)(A), we first calculate a
metric for each species or stock that
incorporates information regarding
ongoing anthropogenic M/SI into the
PBR value (i.e., PBR minus the total
annual anthropogenic mortality/serious
injury estimate), which is called
‘‘residual PBR.’’ (Wood et al., 2012). We
focus our analysis on residual PBR
because it incorporates anthropogenic
mortality occurring from other sources.
We then consider how the anticipated
or potential incidental M/SI from the
activities being evaluated compares to
residual PBR using the following
framework.
Where a specified activity could cause
(and NMFS is contemplating
authorizing) incidental M/SI that is less
than 10 percent of residual PBR (the
‘‘insignificance threshold, see below),
we consider M/SI from the specified
activities to represent an insignificant
incremental increase in ongoing
anthropogenic M/SI for the marine
mammal stock in question that alone
(i.e., in the absence of any other take)
will not adversely affect annual rates of
recruitment and survival. As such, this
amount of M/SI would not be expected
to affect rates of recruitment or survival
in a manner resulting in more than a
negligible impact on the affected stock
unless there are other factors that could
affect reproduction or survival, such as
Level A and/or Level B harassment, or
considerations such as information that
illustrates the uncertainty involved in
the calculation of PBR for some stocks.
In a prior incidental take rulemaking,
this threshold was identified as the
‘‘significance threshold,’’ but it is more
accurately labeled an insignificance
threshold, and so we use that
terminology here. Assuming that any
additional incidental take by Level A or
Level B harassment from the activities
in question would not combine with the
effects of the authorized M/SI to exceed
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
the negligible impact level, the
anticipated M/SI caused by the
activities being evaluated would have a
negligible impact on the species or
stock. However, M/SI above the 10
percent insignificance threshold does
not indicate that the M/SI associated
with the specified activities is
approaching a level that would
necessarily exceed negligible impact.
Rather, the 10 percent insignificance
threshold is meant only to identify
instances where additional analysis of
the anticipated M/SI is not required
because the negligible impact standard
clearly will not be exceeded on that
basis alone.
Where the anticipated M/SI is near,
at, or above residual PBR, consideration
of other factors (positive or negative),
including those outlined above, as well
as mitigation is especially important to
assessing whether the M/SI will have a
negligible impact on the species or
stock. PBR is a conservative metric and
not sufficiently precise to serve as an
absolute predictor of population effects
upon which mortality caps would
appropriately be based. For example, in
some cases stock abundance (which is
one of three key inputs into the PBR
calculation) is underestimated because
marine mammal survey data within the
U.S. EEZ are used to calculate the
abundance even when the stock range
extends well beyond the U.S. EEZ. An
underestimate of abundance could
result in an underestimate of PBR.
Alternatively, we sometimes may not
have complete M/SI data beyond the
U.S. EEZ to compare to PBR, which
could result in an overestimate of
residual PBR. M/SI that exceeds PBR
may still potentially be found to be
negligible in light of other factors that
offset concern, especially when robust
mitigation and adaptive management
provisions are included.
In Conservation Council for Hawaii v.
National Marine Fisheries Service, 97 F.
Supp.3d 1210, 1225 (D. Haw. 2015),
which concerned a challenge to NMFS’
issuance of letters of authorization to
the Navy for activities in an area of the
Pacific Ocean known as the HSTT Study
Area, the Court reached a different
conclusion, stating, ‘‘Because any
mortality level that exceeds PBR will
not allow the stock to reach or maintain
its OSP, such a mortality level could not
be said to have only a ‘negligible
impact’ on the stock.’’ As described
above, the Court’s statement
fundamentally misunderstands the two
terms and incorrectly indicates that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
these concepts (PBR and ‘‘negligible
impact’’) are directly connected, when
in fact nowhere in the MMPA is it
indicated that these two terms are
equivalent.
Specifically, PBR was designed as a
tool for evaluating mortality and is
defined as the number of animals that
can be removed while ‘‘allowing the
stock to reach or maintain OSP,’’ with
the formula for PBR designed to ensure
that growth towards OSP is not reduced
by more than 10 percent (or equilibrate
to OSP 95 percent of the time).
Separately, and without reference to
PBR, NMFS’ long-standing MMPA
implementing regulations state that take
will have a negligible impact when it
does not ‘‘adversely affect the species or
stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.’’ OSP (to which
PBR is linked) is defined in the statute
as a population which falls within a
range from the population level that is
the largest supportable within the
ecosystem to the population level that
results in maximum net productivity.
OSP is an aspirational goal of the overall
statute and PBR is designed to ensure
minimal deviation from this overarching
goal. The ‘‘negligible impact’’
determination and finding protects
against ‘‘adverse impacts on the affected
species and stocks’’ when evaluating
specific activities.
For all these reasons, even where M/
SI exceeds residual PBR, it is still
possible for the take to have a negligible
impact on the species or stock. While
‘‘allowing a stock to reach or maintain
OSP’’ would ensure that NMFS
approached the negligible impact
standard in a conservative and
precautionary manner so that there were
not ‘‘adverse effects on affected species
or stocks,’’ it is equally clear that in
some cases the time to reach this
aspirational OSP could be slowed by
more than 10 percent (i.e., total humancaused mortality in excess of PBR could
be allowed) without adversely affecting
a species or stock. Another difference
between the two standards is the
temporal scales upon which the terms
focus. That is, OSP contemplates the
incremental, 10 percent reduction in the
rate to approach a goal that is tens or
hundreds of years away. The negligible
impact analysis, on the other hand,
necessitates an evaluation of annual
rates of recruitment or survival to
support the decision of whether to issue
five-year regulations.
Accordingly, while PBR is useful for
evaluating the effects of M/SI in section
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57219
101(a)(5)(A) determinations, it is just
one consideration to be assessed in
combination with other factors and
should not be considered determinative.
The accuracy and certainty around the
data that feed any PBR calculation (e.g.,
the abundance estimates) must be
carefully considered. This approach of
using PBR as a trigger for concern while
also considering other relevant factors
provides a reasonable and appropriate
means of evaluating the effects of
potential mortality on rates of
recruitment and survival, while
demonstrating that it is possible to
exceed PBR by some small amount and
still make a negligible impact
determination under section
101(a)(5)(A).
Our evaluation of the M/SI for each of
the species and stocks for which
mortality could occur follows. No
mortalities or serious injuries are
anticipated from Navy’s sonar activities.
In addition, all mortality authorized for
some of the same species or stocks over
the next several years pursuant to our
final rulemaking for the NMFS’ NEFSC
has been incorporated into the residual
PBR.
We first consider maximum potential
incidental M/SI from Navy’s ship strike
analysis for the affected mysticetes and
sperm whales (see Table 69) and from
the Navy’s explosive detonations for the
affected dolphin species (see Table 70)
in consideration of NMFS’ threshold for
identifying insignificant M/SI take. By
considering the maximum potential
incidental M/SI in relation to PBR and
ongoing sources of anthropogenic
mortality, we begin our evaluation of
whether the potential incremental
addition of M/SI through Navy’s ship
strikes and explosive detonations may
affect the species’ or stocks’ annual rates
of recruitment or survival. We also
consider the interaction of those
mortalities with incidental taking of that
species or stock by harassment pursuant
to the specified activity.
Based on the methods discussed
previously, NMFS believes that mortal
takes of three large whales over the
course of the five-year rule could occur,
but that no more than one over the five
years of any species of humpback
whale, fin whale, sei whale, minke
whale, or sperm whale (North Atlantic
stock) would occur. This means an
annual average of 0.2 whales from each
species or stock as described in Table 69
(i.e., 1 take over 5 years divided by 5 to
get the annual number) is planned for
authorization.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57220
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 69—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO AFTT SHIP STRIKE, 2018–2023
Stock
abundance
(Nbest)*
Species
(stock)
Annual
planned
take by
serious
injury or
mortality 1
Total
annual
M/SI * 2
Fisheries
interactions
(Y/N);
Annual rate
of M/SI
from
Fisheries
Interactions *
Vessel
collisions
(Y/N);
annual rate
of M/SI
from
vessel
collision *
PBR *
Residual
PBR–PBR
minus
annual
M/SI and
NEFSC
authorized
take 3
NEFSC
authorized
take
(annual)
UME (Y/N);
number and
year
Stock
trend * 4
Fin whale (Western North Atlantic).
Sei whale (Nova
Scotia).
Minke Whale
(Canadian
East Coast).
1,618
0.2
2.5
Y; 1.1 .................
Y; 1.4 ...............
2.5
0
0
?
N
357
0.2
0.6
N; 0 ....................
Y; 0.6 ...............
0.5
0
¥0.1
?
N
2,591
0.2
7.5
Y; 6.5 .................
Y; 1.1 ...............
14
1
5.5
?
Humpback
whale (Gulf of
Maine).
5 896
0.2
9.8
Y; 7.1 .................
Y; 2.7 ...............
14.6
0
4.8
↑
2,288
0.2
0.8
Y; 0.6 .................
Y; 0.2 ...............
3.6
0
2.8
?
Y/43; total in
2018 (27 in
2017 and 60
in 2018).
Y/81; total in
2018 (26 in
2016, 33 in
2017 and 22
in 2018).
?
Sperm whale
(North Atlantic).
* Presented in the draft 2018 SARS.
1 This column represents the annual take by serious injury or mortality by vessel collision and was calculated by the number of mortalities planned for authorization
divided by five years (the length of the rule and LOAs).
2 This column represents the total number of incidents of M/SI that could potentially accrue to the specified species or stock. This number comes from the SAR, but
deducts the takes accrued from either Navy strikes or NEFSC takes as noted in the SARs to ensure not double-counted against PBR. However, for these species,
there were no takes from either Navy or NEFSC as noted in the SARs to deduct that would be considered double-counting.
3 This value represents the calculated PBR less the average annual estimate of ongoing anthropogenic mortalities (i.e., total annual human-caused M/SI, which is
presented in the draft 2018 SARs) and authorized take for NEFSC.
4 See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends.
The Navy has also requested a small
number of takes by serious injury or
mortality from explosives. To calculate
the annual average of mortalities for
explosives in Table 70 we used the same
method as described for vessel strikes.
The annual average is the number of
takes divided by five years to get the
annual number.
The following species takes by serious
injury or mortality from explosions
(ship shock trials) are being authorized
by NMFS. A total of nine mortalities
(one Atlantic white-sided dolphin, one
pantropical spotted dolphin, one
spinner dolphin, and six short-beaked
common dolphins) are possible over the
5-year period and therefore the 0.2
mortalities annually for Atlantic whitesided dolphin, pantropical spotted
dolphin, and spinner dolphin and 1.2
mortalities annually for short-beaked
common dolphin are described in Table
70.
TABLE 70—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO AFTT SERIOUS INJURY OR MORTALITY FROM EXPLOSIVES (SHIP SHOCK
TRIALS), 2018–2023
Species
(stock)
Stock
abundance
(Nbest) *
Atlantic white-sided dolphin
(Western N. Atlantic).
Pantropical spotted dolphin
(Northern GOMEX).
Short-beaked common dolphin (Western N. Atlantic).
Spinner dolphin (Northern
GOMEX).
Annual
planned
take by
serious
injury or
mortality 1
Fisheries
interactions
(Y/N);
annual rate
of M/SI
from
fisheries
interactions *
Total
annual
M/SI * 2
PBR *
NEFSC
authorized
take
(annual)
Residual
PBR–PBR
minus
annual
M/SI and
NEFSC
authorized
take 3
UME
(Y/N);
number
and year
Stock
trend *4
48,819
0.2
30
30
304
0.6
273.4
?
N
50,880
0.2
4.4
4.4
407
0
402.6
?
70,184
1.2
406
406
557
2
149
?
Y/3; in 2010–
2014.
N
11,411
0.2
0
0
62
0
62
?
Y/7; in 2010–
2014.
* Presented in the draft 2018 SARS.
1 This column represents the annual take by serious injury or mortality during ship shock trials and was calculated by the number of mortalities planned for authorization divided by five years (the length of the rule and LOAs).
2 This column represents the total number of incidents of M/SI that could potentially accrue to the specified species or stock. This number comes from the SAR, but
deducts the takes accrued from either Navy or NEFSC takes as noted in the SARs to ensure not double-counted against PBR. However, for these species, there
were no takes from either Navy or NEFSC as noted in the SARs to deduct that would be considered double-counting.
3 This value represents the calculated PBR less the average annual estimate of ongoing anthropogenic mortalities (i.e., total annual human-caused M/SI, which is
presented in the draft 2018 SARs) and authorized take for NEFSC.
4 See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Species or Stocks With M/SI Below the
Insignificance Threshold
As noted above, for a species or stock
with incidental M/SI less than 10
percent of residual PBR, we consider M/
SI from the specified activities to
represent an insignificant incremental
increase in ongoing anthropogenic M/SI
that alone (i.e., in the absence of any
other take and barring any other
unusual circumstances) will not
adversely affect annual rates of
recruitment and survival. In this case, as
shown in Tables 69 and 70, the
following species or stocks have
potential or estimated, and authorized,
M/SI below their insignificance
threshold: Humpback whales (Gulf of
Maine), sperm whale (North Atlantic),
Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Western
Atlantic stock), Pantropical spotted
dolphins (Northern GOMEX stock),
short-beaked common dolphins
(Western North Atlantic stock), spinner
dolphins (Northern GOMEX stock), and
minke whales (Canadian East Coast).
While the authorized mortality of
humpback whales and minke whales is
below the insignificance threshold,
because of the ongoing UMEs for these
species, we address how other factors in
the evaluation of how the authorized
serious injury or mortality inform the
negligible impact determination
immediately below. For the other five
stocks with authorized mortality below
the insignificance threshold, there are
no other known factors, information, or
unusual circumstances that indicate
anticipated M/SI below the
insignificance threshold could have
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival and they are not
discussed further.
For the remaining stocks with
anticipated potential M/SI above the
insignificance threshold, how that M/SI
compares to residual PBR and
discussion of additional factors are
discussed in the section that follows.
Humpback Whale
Authorized mortality of humpback
whales is below the insignificance
threshold. Additionally, when
evaluating the mortality authorization in
the context of the PBR designated for
the Gulf of Maine stock, a primary
consideration is that, although the Gulf
of Maine stock is the only stock
designated under the MMPA, it is but
one of several North Atlantic feeding
groups associated with the West Indies
breeding population DPS (which is not
considered at risk and thereby not ESAlisted) found within the AFTT Study
Area. Humpbacks encountered along the
East Coast within the AFTT Study Area
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
may be from the Gulf of Maine stock,
the Newfoundland feeding group, the
Gulf of St. Lawrence feeding group, or
one of the other three feeding groups
associated with the West Indies DPS.
The Gulf of Maine stock likely
dominates the northern portion of the
AFTT Study Area, where there is far
less Navy activity and ship traffic, but
the southeastern and mid-Atlantic tissue
sampling and photo ID work (of
relatively small sample size) suggests
that Gulf of Maine stock individuals
might comprise approximately of 30
percent of the individuals in the rest of
the of the AFTT study area, i.e., the midand south Atlantic portion (Hayes et al.,
2017). In other words, if there were a
mortality, it would not necessarily come
from the Gulf of Maine stock. It is more
appropriate to consider the mortality in
the context of the much larger West
Indies DPS, which has an increasing
growth trend of 3.1 percent (Bettridge et
al., 2015) and would have a much
higher PBR if it were calculated for the
whole DPS or any of the other feeding
groups (none of which are designated as
stocks). Similarly, the humpback UME
is of concern, but the number of
recorded deaths along the Atlantic Coast
could come from a number of feeding
groups (at least four of which definitely
have individuals that move through the
AFTT Study Area) and should be
considered in that context. In other
words, the addition of the single Navy
authorized mortality means that the
total human-caused mortality to all
humpbacks recorded from the Atlantic
(which actually occurs from multiple
feeding groups, most of which are not
considered stocks) is still less than the
insignificance threshold of the Gulf of
Maine stock alone, meaning that if the
human-caused mortality in the Atlantic
were compared against the abundance
(and associated PBR) of the much larger
(and increasing) DPS (or multiple
feeding groups) to which the deaths
actually accrue, the single Navy
mortality would be even more clearly
unlikely to have any effects on annual
rates of recruitment or survival.
Of additional note, specifically, there
are over 10,000 humpback whales in the
West Indies DPS. If one were to
calculate a PBR for that group, using a
recovery factor of 0.5 (which is
appropriate for stocks when the OSP is
not known), an rmax of 0.4, and
assuming very conservatively that nmin
would be 5,000 or more (for U.S. stocks
nmin is typically 80% or more of the
abundance estimate in the SAR), PBR
would be around 50. Eighty-four
mortalities have been recorded during
the UME (since 2016), averaging 28 per
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57221
year. However, average mortalities from
2011–2015 averaged about 13, which
means that there are about 15 more
mortalities annually during the UME
than typically recorded when there is no
UME. If these UME mortalities were
combined with other annual humancaused mortalities and were viewed
through the PBR lens (for human-caused
mortalities), total human-caused
mortality (inclusive of additional UME
deaths, which are not necessarily
human-caused, as a portion have been
attributed to vessel strike, while others
are inconclusive) would be well under
the residual PBR for the West Indies
DPS.
Also of note, the Atlantic Large Whale
Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) is a
program to reduce the risk of serious
injury and death of large whales caused
by accidental entanglement in U.S.
commercial trap/pot and gillnet fishing
gear. Since its implementation in 1997,
it aims to reduce the number of whales
taken by gear entanglements focusing on
fin whales, humpback whales, and
NARW. In 2003, the Atlantic Large
Whale Take Reduction Team (Team)
agreed to manage entanglement risk by
first reducing the risk associated with
groundlines and then reducing the risk
associated with vertical lines in
commercial trap/pot and gillnet gear. In
2014, the Plan was amended (79 FR
36586, June 27, 2014) to address large
whale entanglement risks associated
with vertical line (or buoy lines) from
commercial trap/pot fisheries. This
amendment included gear
modifications, gear setting
requirements, an expanded seasonal
trap/pot closure (Massachusetts
Restricted Area), and gear marking for
both trap/pot and gillnet fisheries. The
original Massachusetts Restricted Area
was a seasonal closure from January 1
through April 30 for all trap/pot
fisheries. In a subsequent Plan
amendment, the boundary for the
Massachusetts Restricted Area was
expanded by 900 mi2 (2.59 km2), and
the start date changed to February 1 (79
FR 73848, December 12, 2014).
Currently the Atlantic Large Whale
Take Reduction Plan has two seasonal
trap/pot closures: The Massachusetts
Restricted Area (50 CFR 229.32(c)(3))
and the Great South Channel Trap/Pot
Closure (50 CFR 229.32(c)(4)). The
Massachusetts Restricted Area prohibits
fishing with, setting, or possessing trap/
pot gear in this area unless stowed in
accordance with § 229.2 from February
1 to April 30. The Great South Channel
Trap/Pot Closure prohibits fishing with,
setting, or possessing trap/pot gear in
this area unless stowed in accordance
with § 229.2 from April 1 through June
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57222
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
30. Effective September 1, 2015, the
ALWTRP included new gear marking
areas for gillnets and trap/pots for
Jeffrey’s Ledge and Jordan Basin (Gulf of
Maine), two important high-use areas
for humpback whales and NARWs. The
only study available that examined the
effectiveness of the ALWTRP reviewed
the regulations up to 2009 (Pace et al.,
2014) and the results called for
additional mitigation measures needed
to reduce entanglements. Since that
time, NMFS put two major regulatory
actions in place—the 2007 sinking
groundline rule that went into effect in
2009 (73 FR 51228) and the 2014
vertical line rule that went into effect in
2015 (79 FR 36586). The Office of Law
Enforcement (OLE) reports that of gear
checked by OLE under the ALWTRP,
they found a compliance rate of 94.49
percent in FY–2015 and 84.42 percent
in FY–2016. In addition, NMFS
Fisheries Science Centers held a
working group in May 2018 to make
recommendations on the best analytical
approach to measure how effective these
regulations have been, however, the
results of the meeting are not yet
available. For more information on this
program please refer to https://
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/
protected/whaletrp/.
Minke Whale
Authorized mortality of minke whales
is below the insignificance threshold.
The abundance and PBR of minke
whales is significantly greater than what
is reflected in the current SAR because
the most recent population estimate is
based only on surveys in U.S. waters
and slightly into Canada, and did not
cover the habitat of the entire Canadian
East Coast stock. The 2015 SAR
abundance included data from the 2007
Canadian Trans-North Atlantic Sighting
Surveys (TNASS), which appropriately
included surveys of Nova Scotian and
Newfoundland Canadian waters and
estimated an abundance of 20,741
minkes with a PBR of 162, as opposed
to the current estimates of 2,591 and 14,
respectively. However, as recommended
in the guidelines for preparing SARs
(NMFS 2016), estimates older than eight
years are deemed unreliable, so the 2018
SAR population estimate does not
include data from the 2007 TNASS.
While it is certainly possible that the
numbers in Canadian waters have
changed since the last TNASS survey,
there is no reason to think that the
majority of the individuals in the stock
would not still occupy the Canadian
portion of the range. Additionally, the
current abundance estimate does not
account for availability bias due to
submerged animals (i.e., estimates are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
not corrected to account for the fact that
given X number of animals seen at the
surface, we can appropriately assume
that Y number were submerged and not
counted). Without a correction for this
bias, the abundance estimate is likely
further biased low. Last, while the UME
is a concern, we note that the deaths
should be considered in the context of
the whole stock, which most certainly
has a significantly higher abundance
and PBR than those reflected in the
SAR.
Of additional note, specifically, the
PBR was previously estimated at 162
when the full abundance was
considered. Fifty-two mortalities have
been recorded during the UME (since
2017), averaging 26 per year. However,
average mortalities from 2011–2016
averaged about 13, which means that
there are about 13 more mortalities
annually during the UME than typically
recorded when there is no UME. If these
UME mortalities were combined with
other annual human-caused mortalities
and were viewed through the PBR lens
(for human-caused mortalities), and we
assumed that PBR was in the vicinity of
the PBR previously reported (162), total
human-caused mortality (inclusive of
additional UME deaths) would still be
well under residual PBR for the full
stock of minke whales.
Species or Stocks With M/SI Above the
Insignificance Threshold
Fin Whale
For fin whales (Western North
Atlantic stock) PBR is currently set at
2.5 and the total annual M/SI is 2.5,
yielding a residual PBR of 0. The M/SI
value includes the records of 1.0 annual
fishery interaction and 1.5 annual vessel
collisions. For the reasons discussed
above, those collisions are unlikely to be
from Navy vessels. NMFS is authorizing
one mortality over the five-year duration
of the rule (indicated as 0.2 annually for
the purposes of comparing to PBR),
which means that residual PBR is
exceeded by 0.2 (although of note, Navy
take alone does not exceed PBR itself).
However as explained earlier, this does
not mean that the stock is not at or
increasing toward OSP or that one lethal
take by the Navy in the five years
covered by this rule would adversely
affect the stock through annual
reproduction or survival rates. To the
contrary, consideration of the
information outlined below indicates
that the Navy’s authorized mortality is
not expected to result in more than a
negligible impact on this stock.
The abundance of fin whales is likely
significantly greater than what is
reflected in the current SAR because the
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
most recent population estimate is
based only on surveys in U.S. waters
and slightly into Canada, and did not
cover the habitat of the entire stock,
which extends over a very large
additional area into Nova Scotian and
Newfoundland waters. Accordingly, if a
PBR were calculated based on an
appropriately enlarged abundance, it
would be notably higher. Additionally,
the current abundance estimate does not
account for availability bias due to
submerged animals (i.e., estimates are
not corrected to account for the fact that
given X number of animals seen at the
surface, we can appropriately assume
that Y number were submerged and not
counted). Without a correction for this
bias, the abundance estimate is likely
further biased low. Because of these
limitations, the current calculated PBR
is not a reliable indicator of how
removal of animals will affect the
stock’s ability to reach or maintain OSP.
We note that, generally speaking, while
the abundance may be underestimated
in this manner for some stocks due to
the lack of surveys in areas outside of
the U.S. EEZ, it is also possible that the
human-caused mortality could be
underestimated in the un-surveyed area.
However, in the case of fin whales, most
mortality is caused by entanglement in
gear that is deployed relatively close to
shore and, therefore, unrecorded
mortality offshore would realistically be
proportionally less as compared to the
unsurveyed abundance and therefore
the premise that PBR is likely
underestimated still holds. Given the
small amount by which residual PBR is
exceeded and more significant degree
(proportionally) to which abundance is
likely underestimated, it is reasonable to
think that if a more realistic PBR were
used, the anticipated total humancaused mortality would be notably
under it.
Additionally, the ALWTRP (as
described above) is a program to reduce
the risk of serious injury and death of
large whales caused by accidental
entanglement in U.S. commercial trap/
pot and gillnet fishing gear. It aims to
reduce the number of whales taken by
gear entanglements focusing on fin
whales, humpback whales, and NARW.
ALWTRP measures have equal
effectiveness in reducing entanglement
of fin whales.
We also note that in this case, 0.2 M/
SI means one mortality in one of the five
years and zero mortalities in four of
those five years. Therefore, residual PBR
would not be exceeded in 80 percent of
the years covered by this rule. In these
particular situations where authorized
M/SI is fractional, consideration must
be given to the lessened impacts
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
anticipated due to the absence of
mortality in four of the five years. Last,
we reiterate the fact that PBR is a
conservative metric and also is not
sufficiently precise to serve as an
absolute predictor of population effects
upon which mortality caps would
appropriately be based, which is
especially important given the subtle
difference between zero and one across
the five-year period, which is the
smallest possible distinction one can
have if there is any consideration of
mortality.
Nonetheless, the exceedance of
residual PBR necessitates close attention
to the remainder of the impacts on fin
whales from this activity to ensure that
the total authorized impacts are
negligible. This information will be
considered in combination with our
assessment of the impacts of harassment
takes later in the section.
Sei Whale
For sei whales (Nova Scotia stock)
PBR is currently set at 0.5 and the total
annual M/SI is 0.6, yielding a residual
PBR of ¥0.1. The fact that residual PBR
is negative means that the total
anticipated human-caused mortality is
expected to exceed PBR even in the
absence of additional take by the Navy.
The M/SI value includes no records of
annual fishery interactions, but 0.6
annual vessel collisions. For the reasons
discussed above, those collisions are
unlikely to be from Navy vessels. NMFS
is authorizing one mortality over the
five-year duration of the rule (indicated
as 0.2 annually for the purposes of
comparing to PBR), which means that
residual PBR is exceeded by 0.3.
However as explained earlier, this does
not necessarily mean that the stock is
not at or increasing toward OSP or that
one lethal take by the Navy in the five
years would adversely affect
reproduction or survival rates. In fact,
consideration of the additional
information below supports our
determination that the Navy’s
authorized mortality is not expected to
result in more than a negligible impact
on this stock.
The abundance of sei whales is likely
significantly greater than what is
reflected in the current SAR because the
population estimate is based only on
surveys in U.S. waters and slightly into
Canada, and did not cover the habitat of
the entire stock, which extends over a
large additional area around to the south
of Newfoundland. Accordingly, if a PBR
were calculated based on an
appropriately enlarged abundance, it
would be higher. Additionally, the
current abundance estimate does not
account for availability bias due to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
submerged animals (i.e., estimates are
not corrected to account for the fact that
given X number of animals seen at the
surface, we can appropriate assume that
Y number were submerged and not
counted). Without a correction for this
bias, the abundance estimate is likely
biased low. Because of these limitations,
the current calculated PBR is not a
reliable indicator of how removal of
animals will affect the stock’s ability to
reach or maintain OSP. We note that,
generally speaking, while the
abundance may be underestimated in
this manner for some stocks due to the
lack of surveys in areas outside of the
U.S. EEZ, it is also possible that the
human-caused mortality could be
underestimated in the un-surveyed area.
However, in the case of sei whales, most
mortality is caused by ship strike and
the density of ship traffic is higher the
closer you are to shore (making strikes
more likely closer to shore) and,
therefore, unrecorded mortality offshore
would realistically be proportionally
less as compared to the unsurveyed
abundance and therefore the premise
that PBR is likely underestimated still
holds. Given the small amount by which
residual PBR is exceeded, and more
significant degree (proportionally) to
which abundance is likely
underestimated, it is reasonable to think
that if a more realistic PBR were used,
the anticipated total human mortality
would be notably under it.
We also note that in this case, 0.2 M/
SI means one mortality in one of five
years and zero mortalities in four of
those five years. Residual PBR is not
being exceeded in 80 percent of the
years. In these particular situations
where authorized M/SI is fractional,
consideration must be given to the
lessened impacts anticipated due to the
absence of mortality in four of the five
years. Last, we reiterate the fact that
PBR is a conservative metric and also is
not sufficiently precise to serve as an
absolute predictor of population effects
upon which mortality caps would
appropriately be based, which is
especially important given the subtle
difference between zero and one across
the five-year period, which is the
smallest possible distinction one can
have if there is any consideration of
mortality.
Nonetheless, the exceedance of
residual PBR necessitates close attention
to the remainder of the impacts on sei
whales from this activity to ensure that
the total authorized impacts are
negligible. This information will be
considered in combination with our
assessment of the impacts of harassment
takes later in the section.
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57223
Group and Species-Specific Analyses
Overview
The maximum amount and type of
incidental take of marine mammals
reasonably likely to occur and therefore
authorized from exposures to sonar and
other active acoustic sources and
explosions during the five-year training
and testing period are shown in Tables
39 and 40 as well as ship shock trials
shown in Table 41. The vast majority of
predicted exposures (greater than 99
percent) are expected to be Level B
harassment (non-injurious TTS and
behavioral reactions) from acoustic and
explosive sources during training and
testing activities at relatively low
received levels.
As noted previously, the estimated
Level B harassment takes represent
instances of take, not the number of
individuals taken (the much lower and
less frequent Level A harassment takes
are far more likely to be associated with
separate individuals), and in many cases
some individuals are expected to be
taken more than one time, while in
other cases a portion of individuals will
not be taken at all. Below, we compare
the take numbers for stocks to their
associated abundance estimates to
evaluate the magnitude of impacts
across the stock and to individuals.
Specifically, when an abundance
percentage comparison is below 100, it
means that that percentage or less of the
individuals in the stock will be affected
(i.e., some individuals will not be taken
at all), that the average for those taken
is one day per year, and that we would
not expect any individuals to be taken
more than a few times in a year. When
it is more than 100 percent, it means
there will definitely be some number of
repeated takes of individuals. For
example, if the percentage is 300, the
average would be each individual is
taken on three days in a year if all were
taken, but it is more likely that some
number of individuals will be taken
more than three times and some number
of individuals fewer or not at all. While
it is not possible to know the maximum
number of days across which
individuals of a stock might be taken, in
acknowledgement of the fact that it is
more than the average, for the purposes
of this analysis, we assume a number
approaching twice the average. For
example, if the percentage of take
compared to the abundance is 800, we
estimate that some individuals might be
taken 16 times. Those comparisons are
included in the sections below. For
some stocks these numbers have been
adjusted slightly (single digits) since the
proposed rule to more consistently
apply this approach, but these minor
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57224
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
changes did not change the analysis or
findings.
Use of sonar and other transducers
would typically be transient and
temporary. The majority of acoustic
effects to mysticetes from sonar and
other active sound sources during
testing and training activities would be
primarily from ASW events. It is
important to note that although ASW is
one of the warfare areas of focus during
MTEs, there are significant periods
when active ASW sonars are not in use.
Nevertheless, behavioral reactions are
assumed more likely to be significant
during MTEs than during other ASW
activities due to the duration (i.e.,
multiple days) and scale (i.e., multiple
sonar platforms) of the MTEs. On the
the less severe end, exposure to
comparatively lower levels of a sound at
a detectably greater distance from the
animal, for a few or several minutes,
could result in a behavioral response
such as avoiding an area that an animal
would otherwise have moved through or
feed in or breaking off one or a few
feeding bouts. More severe behavioral
effects could occur when an animal gets
close enough to the source to receive a
comparatively higher level of sound, is
exposed continuously to one source for
a longer time, or is exposed
intermittently to different sources
throughout a day. Such effects might
result in an animal having a more severe
flight response and leaving a larger area
for a day or more, or potentially losing
feeding opportunities for a day.
However, such severe behavioral effects
are expected to occur infrequently.
Occasional, milder behavioral
reactions are unlikely to cause long-term
consequences for individual animals or
populations, and even if some smaller
subset of the takes are in the form of a
longer (several hours or a day) and more
severe responses, if they are not
expected to be repeated over sequential
days, impacts to individual fitness are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
not anticipated. Nearly all studies and
experts agree that infrequent exposures
of a single day or less are unlikely to
impact an individual’s overall energy
budget (Farmer et al., 2018; Harris et al.,
2017; King et al., 2015; NAS 2017; New
et al., 2014; Southall et al., 2007;
Villegas-Amtmann et al., 2015). When
impacts to individuals increase in
magnitude or severity such that either
repeated and sequential higher severity
impacts occur (the probability of this
goes up for an individual the higher
total number of takes it has) or the total
number of moderate to more severe
impacts increases substantially,
especially if occurring across sequential
days, then it becomes more likely that
the aggregate effects could potentially
interfere with feeding enough to reduce
energy budgets in a manner that could
impact reproductive success via longer
cow-calf intervals, terminated
pregnancies, or calf mortality. It is
important to note that these impacts
only accrue to females, which only
comprise a portion of the population
(typically approximately 50 percent).
Based on energetic models, it takes
energetic impacts of a significantly
greater magnitude to cause the death of
an adult marine mammal, and females
will always terminate a pregnancy or
stop lactating before allowing their
health to deteriorate. Also, the death of
an adult has significantly more impact
on population growth rates than
reductions in reproductive success, and
death of males has very little effect on
population growth rates. However, as
explained earlier, such severe impacts
from the Navy’s activities would be very
infrequent and not likely to occur at all
for most species and stocks. Even for
those species or stocks where it is
possible for a small number of females
to experience reproductive effects, we
explain below why there still will be no
effect on rates of recruitment or
survival.
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Deepwater Horizon (DWH) Oil Spill
As discussed in the proposed rule,
tens of thousands of marine mammals
were exposed to the DWH surface slick,
where they inhaled, aspirated, ingested,
and came into contact with oil
components (Dias et al., 2017). The oil’s
physical and toxic effects damaged
tissues and organs, leading to a
constellation of adverse health effects,
including reproductive failure, adrenal
disease, lung disease, and poor body
condition, as observed in bottlenose
dolphins (De Guise et al., 2017; Kellar
et al., 2017). Coastal and estuarine
bottlenose dolphin populations were
some of the most severely injured (Hohn
et al., 2017; Rosel et al., 2017; Thomas
et al., 2017), as described previously in
relation to the UME, but oceanic species
were also exposed and experienced
increased mortality, increased
reproductive failure, and a higher
likelihood of other adverse health
effects.
Due to the scope of the spill, the
magnitude of potentially injured
populations, and the difficulties and
limitations of working with marine
mammals, it is impossible to quantify
injury without uncertainty. Wherever
possible, the quantification results
represent ranges of values that
encapsulate the uncertainty inherent in
the underlying datasets. The population
model outputs shown in Table 71 best
represent the temporal magnitude of the
injury and the potential recovery time
from the injury (DWH NRDA Trustees
(Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource
Damage Assessment Trustees), 2016).
The values in the table inform the
baseline levels of both individual health
and susceptibility to additional
stressors, as well as stock status, with
which the effects of the Navy takes are
considered in the negligible impact
analysis.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
The analysis below in some cases
(e.g., porpoises, pinnipeds) addresses
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 behaviorally respond similarly to
acoustic stressors. Because some of
these species have similar hearing
capabilities and respond similarly to
received sound, it would be duplicative
to repeat the same analysis for each
species. In addition, animals belonging
to each stock within a species have the
same hearing capabilities and
behaviorally respond in the same
manner as animals in other stocks
within the species. Thus, our analysis
below considers the effects of Navy’s
activities on each affected stock even
where discussion is organized by
functional hearing group and/or
information is evaluated at the species
level. Where there are meaningful
differences between stocks within a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
species that would further differentiate
the analysis (e.g., the status of the stock
or mitigation related to biologically
important areas for the stock), they are
either described within the section or
the discussion for those species or
stocks is included as a separate
subsection.
Mysticetes
This section builds on the broader
discussion above and brings together the
discussion of the different types and
amounts of take that different stocks
will incur, the applicable mitigation for
each stock, and the status of the stocks
to support the negligible impact
determinations for each stock. We have
already described above why we believe
the incremental addition of the small
number of low-level PTS takes will not
have any meaningful effect towards
inhibiting reproduction or survival. We
have also described the unlikelihood of
any masking or habitat impacts to any
groups that would rise to the level of
affecting individual fitness. For
mysticetes, there is no predicted tissue
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
damage from explosives for any stock.
Much of the discussion below focuses
on the behavioral effects and the
mitigation measures that reduce the
probability or severity of effects in
biologically important areas. Because
there are multiple stock-specific factors
in relation to the status of the species
(UMEs) as well as mortality take for
multiple stocks, we break out stockspecific findings at the end of the
section.
In Table 72 below, for mysticetes, we
indicate the total annual mortality,
Level A and Level B harassment, and a
number indicating the instances of total
take as a percentage of abundance. Since
the proposed rule, the Navy has
removed one of their testing events in
the Northeast Range Complex (four
events—USWT), which decreased the
number of Level B harassment takes
annually for NARW by 115 takes. This
change also decreased annual Level B
harassment takes by approximately 200
takes for ESA-listed fin whales and 20
takes for sei whales.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.008</GPH>
Group and Species-Specific Analyses
57225
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
The majority of takes by harassment
of mysticetes in the AFTT Study Area
are caused by sources from the MF1
active sonar bin (which includes hullmounted sonar) because they are high
level sources in the 1–10 kHz range,
which overlaps the most sensitive area
of hearing for mysticetes, and of the
sources expected to result in take, they
also are used in a large portion of
exercises (see Table 1.5–5 in the Navy’s
application). Most of the takes (64
percent) from the MF1 bin in the AFTT
Study Area would result from received
levels between 160 and 172 dB SPL,
while another 32 percent would result
from exposure between 172 and 178 dB
SPL. For the remaining active sonar bin
types, the percentages are as follows:
LF3 = 96 percent between 142 and 154,
MF4 = 98 percent between 136 and 145,
MF5 = 97 percent between 118 and 142,
and HF4 = 98 percent between 100 and
148 dB SPL. These values may be
derived from the information in Tables
6.4–8 through 6.4–12 in the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application (though
they were provided directly to NMFS
upon request). For mysticetes, explosive
training and testing activities do not
result in any Level B behavioral
harassment or PTS, and the TTS takes
are in the single digits and comprise a
fraction (approximately 1–10 percent) of
those caused by exposure to active
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
sonar. There are no takes of mysticetes
by pile driving or airguns. Based on this
information, the majority of the Level B
behavioral harassment is expected to be
of low to sometimes moderate severity
and of a relatively shorter duration.
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). Behavioral 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; DOD, 2017).
Overall, mysticetes have been observed
to be more reactive to acoustic
disturbance when a noise source is
located directly on their migration
route. Mysticetes disturbed while
migrating could pause their migration or
route around the disturbance. Although
they may pause temporarily, they will
resume migration shortly after. Animals
disturbed while engaged in other
activities such as feeding or
reproductive behaviors may be more
likely to ignore or tolerate the
disturbance and continue their natural
behavior patterns. As noted in the
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
section, there are multiple examples
from behavioral response studies of
odontocetes ceasing their feeding dives
when exposed to sonar pulses at certain
levels, but alternately, blue whales were
less likely to show a visible response to
sonar exposures at certain levels when
feeding than when traveling. However,
Goldbogen et al. (2013) indicated some
horizontal displacement of deep
foraging blue whales in response to
simulated MFA sonar. Most Level B
behavioral harassment of mysticetes is
likely to be short-term and low to
moderate severity, with no anticipated
effect on reproduction or survival from
Level B harassment.
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. Some
mysticetes may avoid larger activities
such as a MTE as it moves through an
area, although these activities generally
do not use the same training locations
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.009</GPH>
57226
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
day-after-day during multi-day
activities. Therefore, displaced animals
could return quickly after the MTE
finishes. Due to the limited number and
broad geographic scope of MTEs, it is
unlikely that most mysticetes would
encounter a major training exercise
more than once per year and no MTEs
will occur in the GOMEX or the Gulf of
Maine area where the BIA feeding areas
for NARW, fin whales, humpback
whales, minke whales, and sei whales
are located. In the ocean, the use of
sonar and other active acoustic sources
is transient and is unlikely to expose the
same population of animals repeatedly
over a short period of time, especially
given the broader-scale movements of
mysticetes.
The implementation of mitigation and
the sightability of mysticetes (due to
their large size) further reduces the
potential for a significant behavioral
reaction or a threshold shift to occur
(i.e., shutdowns are expected to be
successfully implemented, though we
have analyzed the impacts that are
anticipated to occur and that we are
therefore authorizing. As noted
previously, when an animal incurs a
threshold shift, it occurs in the
frequency from that of the source up to
one octave above. This means that the
vast majority of threshold shift caused
by Navy sonar sources will typically
occur in the range of 2–20 kHz (from the
1–10 kHz MF1 bin), and if resulting
from hull-mounted sonar, will be in the
range of 3.5–7 kHz. The majority of
mysticete vocalizations, including for
NARW, occurs in frequencies below 1
kHz, which means that TTS incurred by
mysticetes will not interfere with
conspecific communication
Additionally, many of the other critical
sounds that serve as cues for navigation
and prey (e.g., waves, fish,
invertebrates) occur below a few kHz,
which means that detection of these
signals will not be inhibited by most
threshold shift either. When we look in
ocean areas where the Navy has been
intensively training and testing with
sonar and other active acoustic sources
for decades, there is no data suggesting
any long-term consequences to
reproduction or survival rates of
mysticetes from exposure to sonar and
other active acoustic sources.
The Navy will implement mitigation
areas that will avoid or reduce impacts
from harassment to mysticetes and these
areas contain some of the BIAs for large
whales and ESA-designated critical
habitat for NARW. The NARW is an atrisk species with an ongoing UME. In
order to mitigate the number and
potential severity of any NARW
harassment takes, from November 15
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
through April 15, the Navy will not
conduct LFAS/MFAS/HFAS, except for
sources that will be minimized to the
maximum extent practicable during
helicopter dipping, navigation training,
and object detection exercises within
the SE NARW Mitigation Area. As
discussed previously, the majority of
takes result from exposure to the higher
power hull-mounted sonar during major
training exercises, which will not occur
here. The activities that are allowed to
occur such as those used for navigation
training or object detection exercises use
lower level sources that operate in a
manner less likely to result in more
concerning affects (i.e., single sources
for shorter overall amounts of time—
e.g., activity is less than 30 min).
Animals in these protected areas are
engaged in important behaviors, either
feeding or interacting with calves,
during which if they were disturbed the
effects could be more impactful (e.g., if
whales were displaced from preferred
feeding habitat for long periods, there
could be energetic consequences more
likely to lead to an adverse effect on
fitness, or if exposure to activities
caused a severe disturbance to a cowcalf pair that resulted in the pair
becoming separated, it could increase
the risk of predation for the calf). By
limiting activities, the number of takes
that would occur in these areas is
decreased and the probability of a more
severe impact is reduced. The SE
NARW Mitigation Area encompasses a
portion of the NARW migration and
calving areas identified by LaBrecque et
al. (2015a) and a portion of the
southeastern NARW ESA-designated
critical habitat. Outside of the SE
NARW Mitigation Area, active sonar
would be used for ASW activities and
for pierside sonar testing at Kings Bay,
Georgia. The best available density data
for the AFTT Study Area shows that the
areas of highest density are off the
southeastern United States in areas that
coincide with the SE NARW Mitigation
Area. Therefore, the majority of active
sonar use would occur outside of the
areas of highest seasonal NARW density
and important use areas off the
southeastern United States. In addition,
before transiting or conducting testing
and training activities, the Navy will
coordinate to obtain Early Warning
System NARW sighting data to help
vessels and aircraft reduce potential
interactions with NARWs.
The Navy will also minimize the use
of active sonar in the NE NARW
Mitigation Area. Refer to the Mitigation
Measures section of this rule for a
description of the area. Torpedo (nonexplosive) activities can occur
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57227
throughout the year, however, based on
typical testing schedules only a limited
number would likely be conducted in
August and September. Many NARW
will have migrated south out of the area
by that time. Torpedo training or testing
activities would not occur in or within
2.7 nmi of the Stellwagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary, which is critical
habitat for NARW foraging. Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary also
provides feeding and nursery grounds
for NARW, humpback, sei, and fin
whales. Since the proposed rule, the
Navy has agreed to expand the NE
NARW Mitigation Area to cover the full
extent of the northeast NARW ESAdesignated critical habitat designated
under the ESA and has agreed not to
conduct MTEs in the Gulf of Maine
Planning Awareness Mitigation Area.
One hundred percent of the NARW
feeding area on Jeffreys Ledge and the
NARW mating area in the central Gulf
of Maine are included in the expanded
NE NARW Mitigation Area (as well as
in the Gulf of Maine Planning
Awareness Area). The expanded NE
NARW Mitigation Area covers Cape Cod
Bay, Jeffreys Ledge, the western edge of
Georges Bank, and the northern portion
of the Great South Channel; 100 percent
of the NARW feeding area on Cape Cod
Bay and Massachusetts Bay and 95.08
percent of the NARW feeding area in the
Great South Channel and the northern
edge of George’s Bank is included in the
expanded NE NARW Mitigation Area.
The mitigation measures required in the
previous NE NARW Mitigation Area
will carry over to the expanded
mitigation area and be implemented
year-round. These same important
feeding and mating areas for NARW in
the northeast are 100 percent included
in the Gulf of Maine Planning
Awareness Mitigation Area.
The humpback whale (1 BIA), minke
whale (2 BIAs), fin whale (2 BIAs), and
sei whale (1 BIA) feeding BIAs (6 total)
are also located within the NE NARW
Mitigation Area or Gulf of Maine
Planning Awareness Mitigation Area (or
both). Ninety-seven percent of the
humpback whale feeding area in the
Gulf of Maine, Stellwagen Bank, and the
Great South Channel are included in the
NE NARW Mitigation Area (100 percent
in the Gulf of Maine Planning
Awareness Mitigation Area). One
hundred percent of the minke whale
feeding BIA (central Gulf of Maine—
Parker Ridge and Cashes Ledge) is
included in the NE NARW Mitigation
Area and the Gulf of Maine Planning
Awareness Mitigation Area. One
hundred percent of the fin whale
feeding area BIA in the southern and the
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57228
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
northern Gulf of Maine are included in
the NE NARW Mitigation Area and the
Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness
Mitigation Area. Seventy-three percent
of the sei whale feeding area in the Gulf
of Maine is included in the NE NARW
Mitigation Area (100 percent in the Gulf
of Maine Planning Awareness
Mitigation Area). Approximately half of
the minke whale feeding area in the
southwestern Gulf of Maine and Georges
Bank is included in the NE NARW
Mitigation Area (100 percent in the Gulf
of Maine Planning Awareness
Mitigation Area). The Navy will limit
the use of active sonar to the maximum
extent practicable and not use certain
explosive and non-explosive munitions
year-round within the NE NARW
Mitigation Area to further reduce
potential impacts on large whales
feeding and NARW in their most
important feeding areas, a mating area,
and the northern portion of their
migration habitat. Newly developed for
this regulatory period, the Gulf of Maine
Planning Awareness Mitigation Area
extends throughout the Gulf of Maine
and southward over Georges Bank. The
mitigation will further reduce potential
impacts on marine mammals from
active sonar during MTEs within key
areas of biological importance,
including NARW critical habitat; a
portion of the northern NARW
migration area; NARW, humpback
whale, minke whale, sei whale, and fin
whale feeding areas; and a NARW
mating area.
The Bryde’s whale BIA is inclusive of
the GOMEX Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas and the Navy will not
conduct MTEs in the GOMEX. Since the
proposed rule, the Navy agreed upon
the addition of a mitigation area for
Bryde’s whale. The Bryde’s Whale
Mitigation Area covers the extent of the
Bryde’s whale small and resident
population area identified by LaBrecque
et al. (2015b), including the extended
area identified by NMFS in its 2016
Bryde’s whale status review (Rosel et
al., 2016). In this mitigation area, the
Navy will limit annual hours of MFAS
use and will not use in-water explosives
(except during mine warfare activities)
to avoid or reduce potential impacts on
the small and resident population of
Bryde’s whales.
As described previously there are
three ongoing UMEs for NARW,
humpback whales, and minke whales.
There is significant concern regarding
the status of the NARW, both because of
the ongoing UME and because of the
overall status of the stock. However, the
Navy’s mitigation measures make
NARW mortality unlikely— and we are
not authorizing such take—and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
newly expanded mitigation areas further
reduce the extent of potential Level B
harassment by behavioral disruption in
areas that are important for NARW,
hence reducing the significance of such
disruption. NMFS also has concern
regarding the UMEs for humpback and
minke whales. NMFS, in coordination
with our stranding network partners,
continues to investigate the recent
mortalities, environmental conditions,
and population monitoring to better
understand how the recent humpback
and minke whale mortalities occurred.
Also, these unexplained mortalities
have been evaluated in the context of
other human-caused mortality and the
single authorized mortalities for these
species in the sections above. Ship
speed reduction rules are in effect for
commercial and large vessels during
times of high concentrations of NARW,
and require vessels greater than or equal
to 65 feet in length to reduce speeds to
10 kn or less while entering or departing
ports. While this rule was put into place
primarily for the NARW presence in
New England and Mid-Atlantic waters,
it does benefit other whale species, such
as humpback whales that are in those
areas from November through July.
NOAA is reviewing ship-tracking data
to ensure compliance with the ship
speed reduction rule around Cape Cod,
New York, and the Chesapeake Bay
areas. The UME for minke whales was
recently declared. Preliminary findings
in several of the whales have shown
evidence of human interactions or
infectious disease. These findings are
not consistent across all of the whales
examined, so more research is needed.
As part of the UME investigation
process, NOAA is assembling an
independent team of scientists to
coordinate with the Working Group on
Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality
Events to review the data collected,
sample stranded whales, and determine
the next steps for the investigation.
Below we compile and summarize the
information that supports our
determination that the Navy’s activities
will not adversely impact rates of
recruitment or survival for any of the
affected mysticete stocks:
NARW (Western stock)—As described
previously, the status of NARW is
precarious and they are listed as
endangered under the ESA. There is a
UME associated with the recent
unusually high number of deaths (some
of which have been attributed to
entanglement), the number of births in
recent years has been unusually low,
and recent studies have reported
individuals showing poor health or high
stress levels. Accordingly and as
described above, the Navy is
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
implementing a comprehensive suite of
mitigation measures that not only avoid
the likelihood of ship strikes, but also
minimize the severity of behavioral
disruption by minimizing impacts in
areas that are important for feeding and
calving, thus ensuring that the relatively
small number of Level B harassment
takes that do occur are not expected to
affect reproductive success or
survivorship via detrimental impacts to
energy intake or cow/calf interactions.
Specifically, no mortality or Level A
harassment is anticipated or authorized.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
instances compared to the abundance
(137 percent) combined with the fact
that the AFTT Study Area overlaps most
if not all of the range, suggests that
many to most of the individuals in the
stock will likely be taken, but only on
one or two days per year, with no reason
to think the days would likely be
sequential. Regarding the severity of
those individual takes by Level B
behavioral harassment, we have
explained that the duration of any
exposure is expected to be between
minutes and hours (i.e., relatively
short), the received sound levels are
largely below 172 dB with some lesser
portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate
or lower level, less likely to evoke a
severe response), and that because of the
mitigation the exposures will not occur
in areas or at times where impacts
would be likely to affect feeding and
energetics or important cow/calf
interactions that could lead to reduced
reproductive success or survival.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes, we
have explained that they are expected to
be low-level and of short duration and
the associated lost opportunities and
capabilities are not at a level that would
impact reproduction or survival.
Altogether, any individual NARW is
likely to be disturbed at a low-moderate
level on no more than a couple of likely
non-sequential days per year (and not in
biologically important areas). Even
given the fact that some of the affected
individuals may have compromised
health, there is nothing to suggest that
such a low magnitude and severity of
effects would result in impacts on
reproduction or survival of any
individual, much less impacts on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
for the stock. For these reasons, we have
determined, in consideration of all of
the effects of the Navy’s activities
combined, that the authorized take will
have a negligible impact on NARW.
Blue Whale (Western North Atlantic
stock)—This is a wide-ranging stock that
is best considered as ‘‘an occasional
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
visitor’’ to the U.S. EEZ, which may
represent the southern limit of its
feeding range (2017 SARS), though no
specific feeding areas have been
identified. For this reason, the
abundances calculated by the Navy
based on survey data in the U.S. EEZ are
very low (9 and 104, in the U.S. EEZ
and throughout the range respectively)
and while NMFS’ 2018 SAR does not
predict an abundance, it does report an
Nmin (minimum abundance) of 440.
There is no currently reported trend for
the population and there are no specific
issues with the status of the stock that
cause particular concern (e.g., UMEs),
although the species is listed as
endangered under the ESA. No
mortality or Level A harassment is
anticipated or authorized for blue
whales. Regarding the magnitude of
Level B harassment takes (TTS and
behavioral disruption), given the
number of total takes (47), the large
range and wide-ranging nature of blue
whales, and the minimum abundance
identified in the SAR, there is no reason
to think that any single animal will be
taken by Level B harassment more than
one time (though perhaps a few could
be) and less than 10 percent of the
population is likely to be impacted.
Regarding the severity of those
individual Level B harassment
behavioral takes, we have explained that
the duration of any exposure is expected
to be between minutes and hours (i.e.,
relatively short) and the received sound
levels are largely below 172 dB with a
portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate
or lower level, less likely to evoke a
severe response). Regarding the severity
of TTS takes, we have explained that
they are expected to be low-level and of
short duration and the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities not at a
level that would impact reproduction or
survival.
Altogether, no more than 10 percent
of the stock is likely to be impacted and
any individual blue whale is likely to be
disturbed at a low-moderate level on no
more than a day or two days per year
and not in any known biologically
important areas. This low magnitude
and severity of effects is unlikely to
result in impacts on the reproduction or
survival of any individual, much less
impacts on annual rates of recruitment
or survival for the stock. For these
reasons, we have determined, in
consideration of all of the effects of the
Navy’s activities combined, that the
authorized take will have a negligible
impact on blue whales.
Bryde’s whale (Northern GOMEX
stock)—The Bryde’s whale is a small
resident population. Although there is
no current UME, the small size of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
population and its constricted range,
combined with the lingering effects of
exposure to oil from the DWH oil spill
(which include adverse health effects on
individuals, as well as population
effects) are cause for considerable
caution. Accordingly, as described
above, the Navy is implementing
considerable time/area mitigation
(including an expansion since the rule
was proposed) to minimize impacts
within their limited range, including not
planning MTEs, which include the most
powerful sound sources operating in a
more concentrated area, limiting the
hours of other sonar use, and not using
explosives, with the exception of mine
warfare activities, which has both
reduced the amount of take and reduced
the likely severity of impacts. No
mortality or Level A harassment by
tissue damage injury is anticipated or
authorized, and only one Level A
harassment by PTS take is estimated
and authorized. Regarding the
magnitude of Level B harassment takes
(TTS and behavioral disruption), the
number of estimated instances
compared to the abundance (112
percent, Table 72) combined with the
fact that the AFTT Study Area overlaps
all of the small range, suggests that most
to all of the individuals in the stock will
likely be taken, but only on one or two
days per year, with no reason to think
the days would likely be sequential.
Regarding the severity of those
individual Level B harassment
behavioral takes, we have explained that
the duration of any exposure is expected
to be between minutes and hours (i.e.,
relatively short); the received sound
levels are largely below 172 dB with a
portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate
or lower level, less likely to evoke a
severe response); and that because of the
mitigation the exposures will be of a
less impactful nature. Regarding the
severity of TTS takes, we have
explained that they are expected to be
low-level and of short duration and the
associated lost opportunities and
capabilities not at a level that would
impact reproduction or survival. For
similar reasons (described above) the
one estimated Level A harassment take
by PTS for this stock is unlikely to have
any effects on the reproduction or
survival of any individuals.
Altogether, any individual Bryde’s
whale is likely to be disturbed at a lowmoderate level on no more than one or
two days per year. Even given the fact
that some of the affected individuals
may have compromised health, there is
nothing to suggest that such a low
magnitude and severity of effects would
result in impacts on the reproduction or
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57229
survival of any individual, much less
annual rates of recruitment or survival
for the stock. For these reasons, we have
determined, in consideration of all of
the effects of the Navy’s activities
combined, that the authorized take will
have a negligible impact on the GOMEX
stock of Bryde’s whales.
Bryde’s whale (NSD)—These Bryde’s
whales span the mid- and southern
Atlantic and have not been designated
as a stock under the MMPA. There is no
currently reported trend for the
population and there are no specific
issues with the status of the stock that
cause particular concern (e.g., UMEs).
No mortality or Level A harassment is
anticipated or authorized. Regarding the
magnitude of Level B harassment takes
(TTS and behavioral disruption), the
number of estimated instances
compared to the abundance within the
U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the
U.S. EEZ, respectively, is 626 percent
and 60 percent (Table 72), though the
percentages would be far lower if
compared against the abundance of the
entire range of this species in the
Atlantic. This information suggests that
only a portion of the stock is likely
impacted (significantly less than 60
percent given the large range), but that
there is likely some repeat exposure (5
to 12 days within a year) of some subset
of individuals within the U.S. EEZ if
some animals spend extended time
within the U.S. EEZ. Regarding the
severity of those individual Level B
harassment behavioral takes, we have
explained that the duration of any
exposure is expected to be between
minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short)
and the received sound levels are
largely below 172 dB with a portion up
to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower
level, less likely to evoke a severe
response). Regarding the severity of TTS
takes, we have explained that they are
expected to be low-level and of short
duration and the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities not at a
level that would impact reproduction or
survival.
Altogether, only a portion of the
population is impacted and any
individual Bryde’s whale is likely to be
disturbed at a low to moderate level,
with likely many animals exposed only
once or twice and a subset potentially
disturbed across 5 to 12 likely nonsequential days not in any known
biologically important areas. This low
magnitude and severity of effects is not
expected to result in impacts on annual
rates of recruitment or survival for the
stock. For these reasons, we have
determined, in consideration of all of
the effects of the Navy’s activities
combined, that the authorized take will
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57230
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
have a negligible impact on Bryde’s
whales.
Minke whale (Canadian East Coast
stock)—This stock of minke whales
spans the East Coast and far into
Northern Canada waters. Minke whales
in the Atlantic are currently
experiencing a UME wherein there have
been unexpectedly elevated deaths
along the Atlantic Coast, some of which
have been preliminarily attributed to
human interaction or infectious disease.
Importantly, both the abundance and
PBR are considered significantly
underestimated in the SAR, as
discussed above. NMFS will authorize
one mortality in five years, and the
resulting 0.2 annual mortality fell below
10 percent of residual PBR, under the
insignificance threshold, and would be
considerably even lower if compared
against a more appropriate PBR.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
instances compared to the abundance
within the U.S. EEZ and both in and
outside of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is
536 percent and 53 percent (Table 72).
This information suggests that
something less than half of the
individuals are likely impacted, but that
there is likely some repeat exposure (5
to 10 days within a year) of some subset
of individuals within the U.S. EEZ if
some animals spend extended time
within the U.S. EEZ. Regarding the
severity of those individual takes by
Level B behavioral harassment, we have
explained that the duration of any
exposure is expected to be between
minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short)
and the received sound levels largely
below 172 dB, with a portion up to 178
dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level,
less likely to evoke a severe response).
Also, the Navy implements time/area
mitigation in the Northeast that
minimizes MTEs and total sonar hours
in an area that significantly overlaps an
important feeding area for minke
whales, which will reduce the severity
of impacts to minke whales by reducing
interference in feeding that could result
in lost feeding opportunities or
necessitate additional energy
expenditure to find other good
opportunities. Regarding the severity of
TTS takes, we have explained that they
are expected to be low-level and of short
duration and the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities not at a
level that would impact reproduction or
survival. For similar reasons (described
above) the five estimated Level A
harassment takes by PTS for this stock
are unlikely to have any effects on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
reproduction or survival of any
individuals.
Altogether, only a portion of the stock
is impacted and any individual minke
whale is likely to be disturbed at a low
to moderate level, with likely many
animals exposed only once or twice and
a subset potentially disturbed across 5
to 10 likely non-sequential days,
minimized in biologically important
areas. Even given the potential for
compromised health of some
individuals, this low magnitude and
severity of effects is not expected to
result in impacts on the reproduction or
survival of individuals, nor are these
harassment takes combined with the
authorized mortality expected to
adversely affect this stock through
impacts on annual rates of recruitment
or survival for the stock. For these
reasons, we have determined, in
consideration of all of the effects of the
Navy’s activities combined, that the
authorized take will have a negligible
impact on minke whales.
Fin whale (Western North Atlantic
stock)—This stock spans the East Coast
and up into the Newfoundland waters of
Canada. There is no currently reported
trend for the population and there are
no specific issues with the status of the
stock that cause particular concern (e.g.,
UMEs), although the species is listed as
endangered under the ESA. Importantly,
both the abundance and PBR are
considered underestimated in the SAR,
as discussed above. NMFS will
authorize 1 mortality over the 5 years of
the rule, or 0.2 annually. With the
addition of this 0.2 annual mortality,
residual PBR is exceeded, which means
the total human-caused mortality would
exceed PBR by 0.2. However, if the PBR
in the SAR reflected the actual
abundance across the entire range of the
stock, residual PBR would be
significantly higher, and definitely not
be exceeded. Further, the Atlantic Large
Whale Take Reduction Plan directs
multiple efforts and requirements
towards reducing mortality from
commercial fishing (via gear
modifications, area closures, and other
mechanisms) and NOAA Law
Enforcement has reported high
compliance rates. Regarding the
magnitude of Level B harassment takes
(TTS and behavioral disruption), the
number of estimated instances
compared to the abundance within the
U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the
U.S. EEZ, respectively, is 323 percent
and 37 percent (Table 72). This
information suggests that something less
than a third of the individuals are likely
impacted, but that there is likely some
repeat exposure (2–6 days within a year)
of some subset of individuals within the
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
U.S. EEZ if some animals spend
extended time within the U.S. EEZ.
Regarding the severity of those
individual takes by Level B behavioral
harassment, we have explained that the
duration of any exposure is expected to
be between minutes and hours (i.e.,
relatively short) and the received sound
levels largely below 172 dB (i.e., of a
moderate or lower level, less likely to
evoke a severe response). Also, the Navy
implements time/area mitigation in the
Northeast that minimizes major training
exercises and total sonar hours in an
area that significantly overlaps an
important BIA feeding area for fin
whales, which will reduce the severity
of impacts to fin whales by reducing
interference in feeding that could result
in lost feeding opportunities or
necessitate additional energy
expenditure to find other good
opportunities. Regarding the severity of
TTS takes, we have explained that they
are expected to be low-level, of short
duration, and mostly not in a frequency
band that would be expected to interfere
with fin whale communication or other
important low-frequency cues—and that
the associated lost opportunities and
capabilities are not at a level that would
impact reproduction or survival. For
these same reasons (low level and
frequency band), while a small
permanent loss of hearing sensitivity
may include some degree of energetic
costs for compensating or may mean
some small loss of opportunities or
detection capabilities, at the expected
scale the 33 estimated Level A
harassment takes by PTS for fin whales
would be unlikely to impact behaviors,
opportunities, or detection capabilities
to a degree that would interfere with
reproductive success or survival of any
individuals.
Altogether, only a portion of the stock
is impacted and any individual fin
whale is likely to be disturbed at a low
to moderate level, with likely many
animals exposed only once or twice and
a subset potentially disturbed across
approximately 6 likely non-sequential
days, minimized in biologically
important areas. This low magnitude
and severity of effects is not expected to
result in impacts on reproduction or
survival of individuals, nor are these
harassment takes combined with the
authorized mortality expected to
adversely affect this stock through
impacts on annual rates of recruitment
or survival for the stock. For these
reasons, we have determined, in
consideration of all of the effects of the
Navy’s activities combined, that the
authorized take will have a negligible
impact on fin whales.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Humpback whale (Gulf of Maine
stock)—This feeding group stock of
humpback whales is one of several
associated with the larger, and
increasing, West Indies DPS. Humpback
whales in the Atlantic are currently
experiencing a UME in which a portion
of the whales have shown evidence of
vessel strike. NMFS will authorize one
mortality for the five-year period, which
falls under the insignificance threshold
of 10 percent of residual PBR for the
Gulf of Maine stock. However,
importantly, deaths of humpback
whales along the Atlantic coast
(whether by authorized ship strike or
UME) must be considered within the
context of the larger West Indies DPS, as
animals along the coast could come
from the Gulf of Maine stock or any of
three or more other associated feeding
groups. Specifically, the West Indies
DPS numbers in excess of 10,000 whales
and the associated PBR, if calculated,
would be over 100.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
instances (of any humpbacks) compared
to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ
and both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ,
respectively, is 141 percent and 16
percent (Table 72). This suggests that
only a small portion of the humpback
whales in the area are likely impacted,
with perhaps some individuals taken on
a few days of the year. It would be
impossible to determine exactly what
portion of the takes are from the Gulf of
Maine stock. However, based on the
information provided earlier, which
suggested about one third of the
humpback whales traversing the
Atlantic Coast likely come from the Gulf
of Maine stock, we estimate that
approximately 250 of the 749 total
humpback whale takes might be from
the Gulf of Maine stock. Two hundred
and fiftyrepresents about 28 percent of
the minimum population estimate for
the Gulf of Maine humpback whale
abundance in NMFS’ draft 2018 SAR,
equating to an expectation that few
animals would be repeatedly exposed.
Regarding the severity of those
individual takes by Level B behavioral
harassment, we have explained that the
duration of any exposure is expected to
be between minutes and hours (i.e.,
relatively short) and the received sound
levels largely below 172 dB with a
portion above 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate
or lower level, less likely to evoke a
severe response). Also, the Navy
implements time/area mitigation in the
Northeast that minimizes MTEs and
total sonar hours in an area that
significantly overlaps with an important
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
feeding area for humpbacks, which will
reduce the severity of impacts to
humpbacks by reducing interference in
feeding that could result in lost feeding
opportunities or necessitate additional
energy expenditure to find other good
opportunities. Regarding the severity of
TTS takes, we have explained that they
are expected to be low-level and of short
duration and the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities not at a
level that would impact reproduction or
survival. For similar reasons (described
above) the three estimated Level A
harassment takes by PTS for this stock
are unlikely to have any effects on the
reproduction or survival of any
individuals.
Altogether, only a portion of the stock
or DPS is impacted and any individual
humpback whale is likely to be
disturbed at a low-moderate level, with
most animals exposed only once or
twice, and minimized in biologically
important areas. This low magnitude
and severity of effects is not expected to
result in impacts on the reproduction or
survival of any individuals, nor are
these harassment takes combined with
the authorized mortality expected to
adversely affect this stock through
impacts on annual rates of recruitment
or survival for the stock. For these
reasons, we have determined, in
consideration of all of the effects of the
Navy’s activities combined, that the
authorized take will have a negligible
impact on humpback whales.
Sei whale (Nova Scotia stock)—This
stock spans the northern East Coast and
up to southern Newfoundland. There is
no currently reported trend for the
population and there are no specific
issues with the status of the stock that
cause particular concern (e.g., UMEs),
although the species is listed as
endangered under the ESA. Importantly,
both the abundance and PBR are
considered underestimated in the SAR,
as discussed above. NMFS will
authorize one mortality over the 5 years
covered by this rule, or 0.2 mortality
annually. With the addition of this 0.2
annual mortality, residual PBR is
exceeded, which means the total
human-caused mortality would exceed
PBR by 0.3. However, if the PBR in the
SAR reflected the actual abundance
across the entire range of the stock,
residual PBR would be significantly
higher, and PBR would not be exceeded.
Further, the ALWTRP Plan directs
multiple efforts and requirements
towards reducing mortality from
commercial fishing (via gear
modifications, area closures, and other
mechanisms) and NOAA Law
Enforcement has reported high
compliance rates. Regarding the
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57231
magnitude of Level B harassment takes
(TTS and behavioral disruption), the
number of estimated instances
compared to the abundance within the
U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the
U.S. EEZ, respectively, is 317 percent
and 7 percent (Table 72). This
information suggests that only a very
small portion of individuals in the stock
are likely impacted, but that there is
likely some repeat exposure (several
days within a year) of some subset of
individuals within the U.S. EEZ if some
animals spend extended time within the
U.S. EEZ. Regarding the severity of
those individual takes by Level B
behavioral harassment, we have
explained that the duration of any
exposure is expected to be between
minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short)
and the received sound levels largely
below 172 dB with a portion up to 178
dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level,
less likely to evoke a severe response).
Also, the Navy implements time/area
mitigation in the Northeast that
minimizes major training exercises and
total sonar hours in an area that
significantly overlaps an important BIA
feeding area for sei whales, which will
reduce the severity of impacts to sei
whales by reducing interference in
feeding that could result in lost feeding
opportunities or necessitate additional
energy expenditure to find other good
opportunities. Regarding the severity of
TTS takes, we have explained that they
are expected to be low-level and of short
duration and the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities not at a
level that would impact reproduction or
survival. For similar reasons (described
above) the four estimated Level A
harassment takes by PTS for this stock
are unlikely to have any effects on the
reproduction or survival of any
individuals.
Altogether, only a small portion of the
stock is impacted and any individual sei
whale is likely to be disturbed at a lowmoderate level, with likely many
animals exposed only once or twice and
a subset potentially disturbed across a
few days, minimized in biologically
important areas. This low magnitude
and severity of harassment effects is not
expected to result in impacts on
individual reproduction or survival, nor
are these harassment takes combined
with the authorized mortality expected
to adversely affect this stock through
impacts on annual rates of recruitment
or survival. For these reasons, we have
determined, in consideration of all of
the effects of the Navy’s activities
combined, that the authorized take will
have a negligible impact on sei whales.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57232
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Odontocetes
In this section, we include
information here that applies to all of
the odontocete species and stocks
addressed below, which are further
divided into the following subsections:
Sperm whales, dwarf sperm whales, and
pygmy sperm whales; Dolphins and
small whales; Beaked whales; and
Harbor porpoise. These sub-sections
include more specific information about
the group, as well as conclusions for
each stock represented.
The majority of takes by harassment
of odontocetes in the AFTT Study Area
are caused by sources from the MF1
active sonar bin (which includes hullmounted sonar) because they are high
level sources at a frequency (1–10 kHz),
which overlap a more sensitive portion
(though not the most sensitive) of the
MF hearing range, and of the sources
expected to result in take, they are used
in a large portion of exercises (see Table
1.5–5 in the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA
application). For odontocetes other than
beaked whales or harbor porpoises (for
which these percentages are indicated
separately in their sections), most of the
takes (97 percent) from the MF1 bin in
the AFTT Study Area would result from
received levels between 160 and 172 dB
SPL. For the remaining active sonar bin
types, the percentages are as follows:
LF3 = 98 percent between 142 and 160,
MF4 = 97 percent between 136 and 160,
MF5 = 98 percent between 124 and 148,
and HF4 = 93 percent between 100 and
148 dB SPL. These values may be
derived from the information in Tables
6.4–8 through 6.4–12 in the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application (though
they were provided directly to NMFS
upon request). Based on this
information, the majority of the takes by
Level B behavioral harassment are
expected to be low to sometimes
moderate in nature, but still of a
generally shorter duration.
For all odontocetes, takes from
explosives (Level B behavioral
harassment, TTS, or PTS if present)
comprise a very small fraction of those
caused by exposure to active sonar.
Take from exposure to air guns or pile
driving is limited to small numbers of
a few dolphin species (bottlenose,
Atlantic spotted, and Clymene).
The range of potential behavioral
effects of sound exposure on marine
mammals generally, and odontocetes
specifically, has been discussed in
detail previously. There are a couple of
behavioral patterns that differentiate the
likely impacts on odontocetes as
compared to mysticetes. First,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
odontocetes echolocate to find prey,
which means that they actively send out
sounds to detect their prey. While there
are many strategies for hunting, one
common pattern, especially for deeper
diving species, is many repeated deep
dives within a bout, and multiple bouts
within a day, to find and catch prey. As
discussed above, there are many studies
demonstrating the cessation of
odontocete foraging dives in response to
sound exposure. If enough foraging
interruptions occur over multiple
sequential days, and the individual
either does not take in the necessary
food, or must exert significant effort to
find necessary food elsewhere, energy
budget deficits can occur that could
potentially result in impacts to
reproductive success, such as increased
cow/calf intervals (the time between
successive calving). Alternately, many
mysticetes rely on seasonal migratory
patterns that position them in a
geographic location at a specific time of
the year to take advantage of ephemeral
large abundances of prey (i.e.,
invertebrates or small fish, which they
eat by the thousands), whereas
odontocetes forage more homogeneously
one fish or squid at a time, which means
that if they are interrupted while
feeding, it is often possible to find more
prey relatively nearby.
Because the majority of harassment
take of odontocetes results from the
sources in the MF1 bin (1–10 kHz), the
vast majority of threshold shift caused
by Navy sonar sources will typically
occur in the range of 2–20 kHz. This
frequency range falls directly within the
range of most odontocete vocalizations.
However, odontocete vocalizations
typically span a much wider range than
this, and alternately, threshold shift
from active sonar will often be in a
narrower band (reflecting the narrower
band source that caused it), which
means that TTS incurred by odontocetes
would typically only interfere with
communication within a portion of an
odontocete’s range (if it occurred during
a time when communication with
conspecifics was occurring) and as
discussed earlier, it would only be
expected to be of a short duration and
relatively small degree. Odontocete
echolocation occurs predominantly at
frequencies significantly higher than 20
kHz, though there may be some small
overlap at the lower part of their
echolocating range for some species,
which means that there is little
likelihood that threshold shift, either
temporary or permanent would interfere
with feeding behaviors. Many of the
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
other critical sounds that serve as cues
for navigation and prey (e.g., waves,
fish, invertebrates) occur below a few
kHz, which means that detection of
these signals will not be inhibited by
most threshold shift either. The low
number of takes by threshold shifts that
might be incurred by individuals
exposed to explosives, pile driving, or
air guns would likely be lower
frequency (5 kHz or less) and spanning
a wider frequency range, which could
slightly lower an individual’s sensitivity
to navigational or prey cues, or a small
portion of communication calls, for
several minutes to hours (if temporary)
or permanently. There is no reason to
think that any of the individual
odontocetes taken by TTS would incur
these types of takes over more than a
few days of the year (with the exception
of North Atlantic Kogia, which are
explicitly discussed below), at the most,
and therefore they are unlikely to incur
impacts on reproduction or survival.
Sperm Whales, Dwarf Sperm Whales,
and Pygmy Sperm Whales—In this
section, building on the broader
discussion above (for marine mammals,
and odontocetes in particular), we bring
together the discussion of the different
types and amounts of take that different
stocks will incur, the applicable
mitigation for each stock, and the status
of the stocks to support the negligible
impact determinations for each stock.
We have also previously described the
unlikelihood of any masking or habitat
impacts to any groups that would rise to
the level of affecting individual fitness.
The discussion in this section fairly
narrowly focuses some information that
applies specifically to the sperm whale
group, and then because there are
multiple stock-specific factors in
relation to differential Level B
harassment effects and authorized
mortality, we break out specific findings
into a few groups—North Atlantic
sperm whales (with authorized
mortality and one instance of tissue
damage from explosives), Western North
Atlantic dwarf and pygmy sperm
whales, and GOMEX sperm, dwarf
sperm and pygmy sperm whales (which
have lower level magnitude of Level B
harassment takes, but lingering effects
from the DWH oil spill).
In Table 73 below, for sperm whale,
dwarf sperm whales, and pygmy sperm
whales, we indicate the total annual
mortality, Level A and Level B
harassment, and a number indicating
the instances of total take as a
percentage of abundance.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
As discussed above, the majority of
Level B harassment behavioral takes of
odontocetes, and thereby sperm whales,
are expected to be in the form of low to
occasionally moderate severity of a
generally shorter duration. As
mentioned earlier in this section, we
anticipate more severe effects from takes
when animals are exposed to higher
received levels or for longer durations.
Occasional milder Level B behavioral
harassment is unlikely to cause longterm consequences for individual
animals or populations, even if some
smaller subset of the takes are in the
form of a longer (several hours or a day)
and more moderate response. However,
impacts across higher numbers of days,
especially where sequential, have an
increased probability of resulting in
energetic deficits that could accrue to
effects on reproductive success.
We note here that Kogia, as an HFsensitive species, has a lower PTS
threshold than all other groups and
therefore is likely to experience larger
amounts of TTS and PTS, and NMFS
will authorize higher numbers.
However, Kogia whales are still likely to
avoid sound levels that would cause
higher levels of TTS (greater than 20 dB)
or PTS. Even though the number of
takes is high, all of the reasons
described above for why TTS and PTS
are not expected to impact reproduction
or survival still apply. The Navy will
implement a mitigation area that will
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
avoid or reduce impacts to sperm
whales (Physeter microcephalus).
Nearly the entire important sperm
whale habitat (Mississippi Canyon) is
included in the GOMEX Planning
Awareness Mitigation Areas where the
Navy will not conduct MTEs, which are
more likely to have more severe effects
because of their multiple platforms,
hull-mounted sonar, and longerdurations.
Below we compile and summarize the
information that supports our
determination that the Navy’s activities
will not adversely impact recruitment or
survival for any of the affected stocks
addressed in this section.
Sperm whale (North Atlantic stock)—
This stock spans the East Coast out into
oceanic waters well beyond the U.S.
EEZ. There is no currently reported
trend for the population and, although
listed as endangered under the ESA,
there are no specific issues with the
status of the stock that cause particular
concern (e.g., UMEs). NMFS will
authorize one mortality, which, when
added to the other forward-projected
mortality does not exceed the PBR
insignificance threshold. One Level A
harassment take by tissue damage will
also be authorized which, as noted
previously, could range in impact from
minor to something just less than M/SI
that could seriously impact fitness.
However, given the Navy’s mitigation
and the sperm whale’s large size, which
improves detection by Lookouts,
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57233
exposure at the closer to the source and
more severe end of the spectrum is less
likely and we cautiously assume some
moderate impact for this single take that
could lower one individual’s fitness
within the year such that a female
(assuming a 50 percent chance of it
being a female) might forego
reproduction for one year. As noted
previously, foregone reproduction has
less of an impact on population rates
than death (especially for one year) and
one instance would not be expected to
impact annual rates of recruitment or
survival, even if it were a female.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
instances of harassment compared to the
abundance within the U.S. EEZ and
both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ,
respectively, is 544 percent and 41
percent (Table 73). This information,
combined with the known range of the
stock, suggests that something less than
a quarter of the individuals in the stock
are likely impacted, but that there is
likely some repeat exposure (2–11 days
within a year) of some subset of
individuals that remain within the U.S.
EEZ for an extended time. Regarding the
severity of those individual takes by
Level B behavioral harassment, we have
explained that the duration of any
exposure response is expected to be
between minutes and hours (i.e.,
relatively short) and the received sound
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57234
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
levels largely between 160 and 172 dB
(i.e., of a lower, to occasionally
moderate, level). Regarding the severity
of TTS takes, as described previously
they are expected to be low-level and of
short duration and the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities not at a
level that would impact reproduction or
survival. For similar reasons (described
above) three estimated Level A
harassment takes by PTS for this stock
is unlikely to have any effects on the
reproduction or survival of any
individuals.
Altogether, only a small portion of the
stock is impacted and any individual
sperm whale is likely to be disturbed at
a low-moderate level, with the majority
of animals likely disturbed once or not
at all, and a subset potentially disturbed
across 2–11 likely non-sequential days.
Even for an animal disturbed at the high
end of this range (11 days over a year),
given the low to moderate impact from
each incident, and the fact that few days
with take would likely be sequential, no
impacts to individual fitness are
expected. This low to occasionally
moderate magnitude and severity of
effects is not expected to result in
impacts on reproduction or or survival,
and nor are these harassment takes
combined with the authorized mortality
expected to adversely affect the stock
through annual rates of recruitment or
survival. For these reasons, we have
determined, in consideration of all of
the effects of the Navy’s activities
combined, that the authorized take will
have a negligible impact on North
Atlantic sperm whales.
Sperm whale, dwarf sperm whale, and
pygmy sperm whale (GOMEX stocks)—
These stocks suffer from lingering
health issues from the DWH oil spill (6–
7 percent of individuals of these stocks
with adverse health effects), which
means that some could be more
susceptible to exposure to other
stressors, and negative population
effects (21–42 years until the DWH oilinjured population trajectory is
projected to catch up with the baseline
population trajectory (i.e., in the
absence of DWH)), reported as years to
recovery. Neither mortality nor tissue
damage from explosives is anticipated
or authorized for any of these three
stocks, and sperm whales are not
expected to incur PTS. Regarding the
magnitude of Level B harassment takes
(TTS and behavioral disruption), the
number of estimated instances of
harassment compared to the abundance
is 54–78 percent (Table 73), which
suggests that for each of the three
species/stocks either this percentage of
the individuals in these stocks are all
taken by harassment on a single day, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
a small subset may be taken on a few
days. Regarding the severity of those
individual takes by Level B behavioral
harassment, we have explained that the
duration of any exposure response is
expected to be between minutes and
hours (i.e., relatively short) and the
received sound levels are largely
between 160 and 172 dB (i.e., of a lower
level, less likely to evoke a severe
response). Additionally, the Navy is
implementing mitigation areas for
sperm whales that are expected to
reduce impacts in important feeding
areas, further lessening the severity of
impacts. Regarding the severity of TTS
takes, as described previously they are
expected to be low-level, of short
duration, and mostly not in a frequency
band that would be expected to interfere
significantly with conspecific
communication, echolocation, or other
important low-frequency cues. Also,
there is no reason to believe that any
individual would incur these TTS takes
more than a few days in a year, and the
associated lost opportunities and
capabilities would not be expected to
impact reproduction or survival. For
these same reasons (low level and
frequency band), while a small
permanent loss of hearing sensitivity
may include some degree of energetic
costs for compensating or may mean
some small loss of opportunities or
detection capabilities, 70 estimated
Level A harassment takes by PTS for the
two Kogia stocks in the GOMEX would
be unlikely to impact behaviors,
opportunities, or detection capabilities
to a degree that would interfere with
reproductive success or survival of any
individuals.
Altogether, only a portion of these
stocks are impacted and any individual
sperm, dwarf sperm, or pygmy sperm
whale is likely to be disturbed at a low
to occasionally moderate level and no
more than a few days per year. Even
given the fact that some of the affected
individuals may have compromised
health, there is nothing to suggest that
such a low magnitude and severity of
effects would result in impacts on the
reproduction or survival of individuals,
much less annual rates of recruitment or
survival for any of the stocks. For these
reasons, we have determined, in
consideration of all of the effects of the
Navy’s activities combined, that the
authorized take will have a negligible
impact on the GOMEX stocks of sperm
whales, dwarf sperm whales, and
pygmy sperm whales.
Pygmy and Dwarf sperm whales
(Western North Atlantic stocks)—These
stocks span the deeper waters of the
East Coast north to Canada and out into
oceanic waters beyond the U.S. EEZ.
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
There is no currently reported trend for
these populations and there are no
specific issues with the status of the
stocks that cause particular concern.
Neither mortality nor tissue damage
from explosives is anticipated or
authorized for these stocks. Regarding
the magnitude of Level B harassment
takes (TTS and behavioral disruption),
the number of estimated instances of
harassment compared to the abundance
within the U.S. EEZ and both in and
outside of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is
2,105 percent and 360 percent (Table
73). This information, combined with
the known range of the stock, suggests
that while not all of the individuals in
these stocks will most likely be taken
(because they span well into oceanic
waters) of those that are taken, most will
be taken over several repeated days
(though likely not sequential) and some
subset that spends extended time within
the U.S. EEZ will likely be taken over
a larger amount of days (likely 15–42
days during a year), some of which
could be sequential. Regarding the
severity of the individual takes by Level
B behavioral harassment, we have
explained that the duration of any
exposure response is expected to be
between minutes and hours (and likely
not more than 24 hours) and the
received sound levels are largely
between 160 and 172 dB (i.e., of a lower
level, less likely to evoke a severe
response). Additionally, while
interrupted feeding bouts are a known
response and concern for odontocetes,
we also know that there are often viable
alternative habitat options in the
relative vicinity. Regarding the severity
of TTS takes, as described previously
they are expected to be low-level, of
short duration and mostly not in a
frequency band that would be expected
to interfere significantly with
conspecific communication,
echolocation, or other important lowfrequency cues. Also, there is no reason
to believe that any individual would
incur these TTS takes more than a few
days in a year, and the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities would
not be expected to impact reproduction
or survival. For these same reasons (low
level and frequency band), while a small
permanent loss of hearing sensitivity
may include some degree of energetic
costs for compensating or may mean
some small loss of opportunities or
detection capabilities, at the expected
scale the 94 estimated Level A
harassment takes by PTS for the two
Kogia stocks in the North Atlantic
would be unlikely to impact behaviors,
opportunities, or detection capabilities
to a degree that would interfere with
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
reproductive success or survival of any
individuals.
Altogether, most of the stock will
likely be taken (at a low to occasionally
moderate level) over several days a year,
and some smaller portion of the stock is
expected to be taken on a relatively
moderate to high number of days across
the year, some of which could be
sequential days. Though the majority of
impacts are expected to be of a lower to
sometimes moderate severity, the larger
number of takes (in total and for certain
individuals) makes it more likely
(probabilistically) that a small number
of individuals could be interrupted
during foraging in a manner and amount
such that impacts to the energy budgets
of females (from either losing feeding
opportunities or expending considerable
energy to find alternative feeding
options) could cause them to forego
reproduction for a year (energetic
impacts to males are generally
meaningless to population rates unless
they cause death, and it takes extreme
energy deficits beyond what would ever
be likely to result from these activities
to cause the death of an adult marine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
mammal). As noted previously,
however, foregone reproduction
(especially for one year) has far less of
an impact on population rates than
mortality and a small number of
instances of foregone reproduction
would not be expected to adversely
impact annual rates of recruitment or
survival, especially given that PBR for
both of these stocks is 21. For these
reasons, in consideration of all of the
effects of the Navy’s activities
combined, we have determined that the
authorized take will have a negligible
impact on the West North Atlantic
stocks of pygmy and dwarf sperm
whales.
Dolphins and Small Whales—This
section builds on the broader discussion
above brings together the discussion of
the different types and amounts of take
that different stocks will incur, the
applicable mitigation for each stock, and
the status of the stocks to support the
negligible impact determinations for
each stock. None of these species are
listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA. We have also described
the unlikelihood of any masking or
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57235
habitat impacts to any groups that
would rise to the level of affecting
individual fitness. The discussion below
focuses on additional information that is
specific to the dolphin taxa (in addition
to the general information on
odontocetes provided above, which is
relevant to these species) and to support
the summarized group-specific
conclusions in the subsequent sections.
Because of several factors, we break out
specific findings into four groups: The
two GOMEX (GOM) stocks with
authorized mortality, the two Western
North Atlantic stocks with authorized
mortality, the remaining GOMEX stocks
(which have a lower magnitude of Level
B harassment takes, but also health
issues related to the DWH oil spill), and
the remaining Western North Atlantic
stocks.
In Table 74 below, for dolphins and
small whales, we indicate the total
annual mortality, Level A and Level B
harassment, and a number indicating
the instances of total take as a
percentage of abundance.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57236
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Table 74. Annual takes of Level Band Level A harassment and mortality for dolphins and
small whales in the AFTT Study Area and number indicating the instances of total take as
a percentage of stock abundance.
Instances of total
Instances of indicated types of incidental take (not all takes
level B Harassment
Behavioral
Species
Atlantic spotted dolphin
Disturbance
Stock
take as percentage of
abundance
Level A Harassment
PTS
disturbance)
Tissue
Mortality
In EEl
Damage
Inside and
Outside EEZ
In EEl
Inside and
Outside EEl
Inside and
In EEl
Outside
EEZ
Northern Gulf of Mexico
69,225
3,610
3
0
0
72,838
72,838
47,676
47,676
153
153
Western North Atlantic
208,201
19,383
26
6
0
209,814
227,616
52,118
250,648
403
91
44,077
2,207
7
3
0.2
44,210
46,294
137,305
308
34
941
32
0
0
0
973
973
99
99
984
984
42
0
0
0
0
42
42
9,888
9,888
0
0
15,644
834
2
0
0
16,480
16,480
8,476
8,476
194
194
7,191
635
0
0
0
7,826
7,826
33,903
33,903
23
23
255
31
0
0
0
286
286
36
36
790
790
74
13
0
0
0
87
87
27
27
320
320
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
198
198
1
1
121,223
6,287
15
1
0
127,526
127,526
72,043
72,043
177
177
13,947
706
8
2
0
14,663
14,663
18,364
18,364
80
80
2,844
483
0
0
0
3,327
3,327
3,622
3,622
92
92
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,145
90
0
0
0
1,235
1,235
906
906
136
136
7,100
513
0
0
0
7,613
7,613
4,528
4,528
168
168
Atlantic white-sided dolphin Western North Atlantic
Bottlenose dolphin
ITS (may also
include
Abundance
Total takes
represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance)
Choctawhatchee Bay
Gulf of Mexico Eastern
Coastal
Gulf of Mexico Northern
Coastal
Gulf of Mexico Western
Coastal
Indian River Lagoon Estuarine
System
Jacksonville Estuarine System
Mississippi Sound, Lake
Borgne, Bay Boudreau
Northern Gulf of Mexico
Continental Shelf
Northern Gulf of Mexico
Oceanic
Northern North Carolina
Estuarine System
Southern North Carolina
Estuarine System
Western North Atlantic
Northern Florida Coastal
Western North Atlantic
Central Florida Coastal
Western North Atlantic
Northern Migratory Coastal
Western North Atlantic
Offshore
14,332
33,993
3,051
7
0
0
37,051
37,051
9,962
9,962
372
372
393,416
34,686
77
9
0
421,295
428,188
64,298
186,260
655
230
5,544
416
0
0
0
5,960
5,960
3,622
3,622
165
165
Western North Atlantic
South Carolina/Georgia
Coastal
Western North Atlantic
15,411
1,305
2
0
0
16,718
16,718
7,245
7,245
231
231
Northern Gulf of Mexico
4,174
99
4
2
0
4,279
4,279
10,942
10,942
39
39
Western North Atlantic
97,952
7,816
10
3
0
92,364
105,781
15,370
171,202
601
62
Northern Gulf of Mexico
1,902
72
1
0
0
1,975
1,975
3,136
3,136
63
63
Western North Atlantic
11,176
863
0
0
0
11,131
12,039
1,254
16,144
888
75
Northern Gulf of Mexico
1,123
58
2
1
0
1,184
1,184
1,637
1,637
72
72
Western North Atlantic
4,931
291
0
0
0
3,914
5,222
411
17,588
952
30
Southern Migratory Coastal
Clymene dolphin
False killer whale
Fraser's dolphin
Northern Gulf of Mexico
33
0
0
0
0
33
33
176
176
19
19
Western North Atlantic
113
6
0
0
0
112
119
15
472
747
25
Long-finned pilot whale
Western North Atlantic
35,890
1,656
7
1
0
33,769
37,554
3,863
447,431
874
8
Melon-headed whale
Northern Gulf of Mexico
3,067
66
3
1
0
3,137
3,137
6,725
6,725
47
47
Western North Atlantic
50,058
3,792
3
0
0
49,707
53,853
5,821
69,526
854
77
Northern Gulf of Mexico
25,924
596
15
6
0.2
26,541
26,541
82,055
82,055
32
32
Western North Atlantic
207,279
15,304
8
1
0
196,098
222,592
30,088
275,964
652
81
Northern Gulf of Mexico
720
16
1
0
0
737
737
2,062
2,062
36
36
Western North Atlantic
8,702
629
0
0
0
8,507
9,331
1,052
12,296
809
76
Northern Gulf of Mexico
1,647
43
1
0
0
1,691
1,691
3,096
3,096
55
55
Western North Atlantic
38,887
2,220
2
0
0
40,144
41,109
5,601
39,085
717
105
Northern Gulf of Mexico
3,849
177
1
1
0
4,028
4,028
4,824
4,824
83
83
Western North Atlantic
25,857
2,476
0
0
0
26,450
28,333
2,793
34,768
947
81
Western North Atlantic
540,662
30,561
101
36
1.2
571,100
571,361
73,481
520,317
777
110
92
Killer whale
Pantropical spotted dolphin
Pygmy killer whale
Risso's dolphin
Rough-toothed dolphin
Short-beaked common
dolphin
Short-finned pilot whale
Spinner dolphin
Striped dolphin
White-beaked dolphin
Northern Gulf of Mexico
1,835
26
3
0
0
1,864
1,864
2,032
2,032
92
Western North Atlantic
45,724
2,639
5
1
0
34,760
48,369
6,578
450,146
528
11
Northern Gulf of Mexico
7,803
277
31
14
0.2
8,125
8,125
13,653
13,653
60
60
Western North Atlantic
98,665
8,382
5
1
0
98,817
107,053
11,280
135,573
876
79
Northern Gulf of Mexico
2,449
69
2
1
0
2,521
2,521
4,871
4,871
52
52
Western North Atlantic
181,103
11,992
16
4
0
167,438
193,115
52,222
322,542
321
60
Western North Atlantic
80
4
0
0
0
84
84
42
42
200
200
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.011</GPH>
Note: Above we compare predicted takes to abundance estimates generated from the same underlymg density est1mate (as descnbed m the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section), versus abundance estimates directly from NMFS' SARs, which are not based on the same data and
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
As described above, the large majority
of Level B behavioral harassments to
odontocetes, and thereby dolphins and
small whales, from hull-mounted sonar
(MF1) in the AFTT Study Area would
result from received levels between 160
and 172 dB SPL. Therefore, the majority
of Level B harassment takes are
expected to be in the form of low to
occasionally moderate responses of a
generally shorter duration. As
mentioned earlier in this section, we
anticipate more severe effects from takes
when animals are exposed to higher
received levels. Occasional milder
occurrences of Level B behavioral
harassment are unlikely to cause longterm consequences for individual
animals or populations that have any
effect on reproduction or survival. Some
behavioral responses could be in the
form of a longer (several hours or a day)
and more moderate response, but
because they are not expected to be
repeated over more than several
sequential days at the most, impacts to
reproduction or survival for most
animals are not anticipated. Even where
a few animals could experience effects
on reproduction, for the reasons
explained below this would not affect
rates of recruitment or survival.
Research and observations show that
if delphinids 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.
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.
Some dolphin species (the more surfacedwelling taxa—typically those with
‘‘dolphin’’ in the common name, except
Risso’s dolphin, such as bottlenose
dolphins, spotted dolphins, common
dolphins, spinner dolphins, roughtoothed dolphins, etc), especially those
residing in more industrialized or busy
areas, have demonstrated more
tolerance for disturbance and loud
sounds and many of these species are
known to approach vessels to bow-ride.
These species are often considered
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
generally less sensitive to disturbance.
Deep-diving dolphins that reside in
deeper waters and generally have fewer
interactions with human activities are
more likely to demonstrate more typical
avoidance reactions and foraging
interruptions as described above in the
odontocete overview.
BIAs have been identified for several
small and resident populations of
bottlenose dolphin in the GOMEX and
on the East Coast, but these identified
areas are within bays and estuaries
where the Navy does not use explosives
and conducts limited activities by sonar
and other transducers. For example, for
the small resident population of
Northern North Carolina Estuarine
dolphins, for which there is a BIA, onethird of the takes are from subnavigation and ship object avoidance,
which are less impactful than sonar
activity and shorter in duration (by
about 30 min or less). The area of
activity is at the northern edge of this
BIA, which further reduces the
possibility of modeled takes that would
result in impacts that could affect
reproduction or survival. The other twothirds of the takes for the Northern
North Carolina Estuarine dolphins are
from Civilian Port Defense, which
would occur at most only once in five
years in the vicinity of that BIA.
Similarly, for the small resident
population of Indian River Lagoon
Estuarine system bottlenose dolphins,
for which there is also a BIA, all of the
Level B harassment takes are also from
the less impactful sonar activity of subnavigation and ship object avoidance
and are events of short duration
(approximately 30 min). Two small and
resident populations of bottlenose
dolphin for which there are two BIAs
(Northern North Carolina Estuarine
System and Southern North Carolina
Estuarine System) may be impacted
during pile driving activities for the
Elevated Causeway System at Marine
Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina; however, only one modeled
take of a Northern North Carolina
Estuarine System bottlenose dolphin is
predicted. There are no expected takes
from any activities to the small resident
population of Southern North Carolina
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57237
Estuarine System bottlenose dolphins
(for which there is a BIA) and only one
expected take to the small resident
population of Mississippi Sound
bottlenose dolphins (for which there is
a BIA) from sonar. Therefore, for these
small resident populations of bottlenose
dolphins, impacts from Level B
harassment are expected to be shortterm and minor, and mostly all in the
form of behavioral disturbance.
Abandonment of the area, or any other
response that could affect reproduction
or survival, is not anticipated for the
small and resident bottlenose dolphin
populations stocks with BIAs from the
Navy’s training and testing activities.
Animals from one of these stocks with
a BIA, the bottlenose dolphin of
Barataria Bay, Louisiana, which is still
showing persistent impacts from the
Cetacean UME in the Northern GOMEX,
were recently fitted with satellite-linked
transmitters, which showed that most
dolphins remained within the bay,
while those that entered nearshore
coastal waters remained within 1.75 km
(Wells et al., 2017). With the Navy’s
activities very limited in this type of
habitat, the Navy is not conducting
training or testing where Barataria Bay
dolphins inhabit and therefore no takes
will occur to this stock.
Below we synthesize and summarize
the information that supports our
determination that the Navy’s activities
will not adversely impact recruitment or
survival for any of the affected stocks
addressed in this section:
Atlantic white-sided dolphin and
short-beaked common dolphin (Western
North Atlantic stocks)—There is no
currently reported trend for these stocks
and there are no specific issues with the
status of these stocks that cause
particular concern (e.g., UMEs). We
have authorized one and six mortalities
over the course of five years for these
two stocks, respectively. Given the large
residual PBR values for these stocks
(248 and 148), this number of
mortalities falls well under the
insignificance threshold. Some Level A
harassment take by tissue damage from
explosives has also been authorized for
these stocks (3 and 36, respectively). As
noted previously, tissue damage effects
could range in impact from minor to
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57238
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
something just less than M/SI that could
seriously impact fitness. However, given
the Navy’s mitigation, which makes
exposure at the closer to the source and
more severe end of the spectrum less
likely, we cautiously assume some
moderate impact for this category of
take that could lower an individual’s
fitness within the year such that females
(assuming a 50 percent chance that a
take is a female) might forego
reproduction for one year. As noted
previously, foregone reproduction has
less of an impact on population rates
than death (especially for one year) and
the number of takes anticipated for each
stock would not be expected to impact
annual rates of recruitment or survival,
even if all of the takes were females
(which would be highly unlikely),
especially given the high residual PBRs
of these stocks (in other words, if the
stocks can absorb those numbers of
mortalities without impacting ability to
approach OSP, clearly they can absorb
the significantly lesser effects of a oneyear delay in calving).
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
instances of harassment compared to the
abundance within the U.S. EEZ and
both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ for
these four stocks, respectively, is 308–
777 percent and 34–110 percent (Table
74). This information suggests that some
portion of these stocks are likely not
taken at all, but that there is likely some
repeat exposure (2–15 days within a
year) of some subset of individuals.
Regarding the severity of those
individual takes by Level B behavioral
harassment, we have explained that the
duration of any exposure response is
expected to be between minutes and
hours (i.e., relatively short) and the
received sound levels largely below 172
dB (i.e., of a lower level, less likely to
evoke a severe response). Additionally,
while we do not have a specific reason
to expect that these takes would occur
sequentially on more than several days
in row or be more severe in nature, the
probability of this occurring increases
the higher the total take numbers. Given
the higher number of takes and the
associated abundances (especially for
short-beaked common dolphin) we
acknowledge the possibility that some
smaller subset of individuals could
experience behavioral disruption of a
degree that impacts energetic budgets
such that reproduction could be delayed
for a year. However, as discussed above
in regards to PBR and Level A
harassment by tissue damage, and in
consideration of the potential
reproductive effects of tissue damage
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
and these takes by Level B behavioral
harassment, and in combination with
the authorized mortality—this degree of
effects on a small subset of individuals
is still not expected to adversely affect
rates of recruitment or survival.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as
described previously they are expected
to be low-level, of short duration, and
not in a frequency band that would be
expected to significantly interfere with
dolphin communication, or
echolocation or other important lowfrequency cues—and, therefore, the
associated lost opportunities and
capabilities would not be expected to
impact reproduction or survival. For
these same reasons (low level and the
likely frequency band), while a small
permanent loss of hearing sensitivity
may include some degree of energetic
costs for compensating or may mean
some small loss of opportunities or
detection capabilities, the estimated
Level A harassment takes by PTS for the
two dolphin stocks addressed here (7
and 101, respectively) would be
unlikely to impact behaviors,
opportunities, or detection capabilities
to a degree that would interfere with
reproductive success or survival of any
individuals.
Altogether, individual dolphins are
likely to be taken at a low level, with
some animals likely taken once or not
at all, many potentially disturbed across
2–15 predominantly non-sequential
days, and a small number potentially
experiencing a level of effects that could
curtail reproduction for one year. This
magnitude and severity of effects
(especially given the status of the
stocks), including the consideration or
the authorized mortality, is not expected
to result in impacts on annual rates of
recruitment or survival for either of the
stocks. For these reasons, we have
determined, in consideration of all of
the effects of the Navy’s activities
combined, that the authorized take will
have a negligible impact on these two
Western North Atlantic stocks of
dolphins.
Pantropical spotted dolphin and
spinner dolphin (GOM stocks)—As
described above, the GOMEX dolphin
stocks indicated in Table 71 suffer from
lingering health issues resulting from
the DWH oil spill (7 and 17 percent of
individuals of these stocks, respectively,
have adverse health effects), which
means that some of them could be more
susceptible to exposure to other
stressors, as well as negative population
effects (predicting it will take up to 39
and 105 years, respectively, for stocks to
return to population growth rates
predicted in the absence of DWH
effects). We have authorized one
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
mortality over the course of five years
for each of these two stocks,
respectively. Given the large residual
PBR values for these stocks (402 and 62,
respectively), this number of mortalities
falls well under the insignificance
threshold. Some Level A harassment
take by tissue damage from explosives
has also been authorized for these stocks
(6 and 14, respectively). As noted
previously, tissue damage effects could
range in impact from minor to
something just less than M/SI that could
seriously impact fitness. However, given
the Navy’s mitigation, which makes
exposure at the closer to the source and
more severe end of the spectrum less
likely, we cautiously assume some
moderate impact for this category of
take that could lower an individual’s
fitness within the year such that females
(assuming a 50 percent chance that a
take is a female) might forego
reproduction for one year. As noted
previously, foregone reproduction has
less of an impact on population rates
than death (especially for one year) and
the number of takes anticipated for each
stock would not be expected to impact
annual rates of recruitment or survival,
even if all of the takes were females
(which would be highly unlikely),
especially given the high residual PBRs
of these stocks (in other words, if the
stocks can absorb one mortality each
without impacting ability to approach
OSP, they can absorb the significantly
lesser effect of a one-year delay in
calving).
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
instances of harassment compared to the
abundance is 32 percent and 60 percent,
respectively, reflecting that only a
subset of each stock will be taken by
Level B behavioral harassment within a
year. Of that subset, those taken will
likely be taken one time, but if taken
more than that, the 2 or 3 days would
not likely be sequential (Table 74).
Regarding the severity of those
individual takes by Level B behavioral
harassment, we have explained that the
duration of any exposure response is
expected to be between minutes and
hours (i.e., relatively short) and the
received sound levels largely below 172
dB (i.e., of a lower to occasionally
moderate severity).
Regarding the severity of TTS takes,
as described previously they are
expected to be low-level, of short
duration, and not in a frequency band
that would be expected to significantly
interfere with dolphin communication,
or echolocation or other important lowfrequency cues. Therefore, the
associated lost opportunities and
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
capabilities are not expected to impact
reproduction or survival. For these same
reasons (low level and the likely
frequency band), while a small
permanent loss of hearing sensitivity
may include some degree of energetic
costs for compensating or may mean
some small loss of opportunities or
detection capabilities, the estimated
Level A harassment takes by PTS for the
dolphin stocks addressed here (15 and
31, respectively) would be unlikely to
impact behaviors, opportunities, or
detection capabilities to a degree that
would interfere with reproductive
success or survival of any individuals.
Altogether, any individual dolphin is
likely to be taken at a low to
occasionally moderate level, with most
animals likely not taken at all and with
a subset of animals being taken up to a
few non-sequential days. Even given the
fact that some of the affected
individuals may have compromised
health, there is nothing to suggest that
such a low magnitude and severity of
effects, including the potential tissue
damage, would result in impacts on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
for either of these two stocks. For these
reasons, we have determined, in
consideration of all of the effects of the
Navy’s activities combined, that the
authorized take will have a negligible
impact on the GOMEX stocks of
pantropical spotted dolphins and
spinner dolphins.
Western North Atlantic dolphin stocks
(all stocks in Table 74 except Atlantic
white-sided dolphin and short-beaked
common dolphin)—There are no
specific issues with the status of these
stocks that cause particular concern
(e.g., UMEs). No mortality is expected
nor has it been authorized for these
stocks. For some of these stocks, some
tissue damage has been authorized (0 for
many, 1–9 for others). As noted
previously, tissue damage effects could
range in impact from minor to
something just less than M/SI that could
seriously impact fitness. However, given
the Navy’s mitigation, which makes
exposure at the closer to the source and
more severe end of the spectrum less
likely, we cautiously assume some
moderate impact for all these takes that
could lower an individual’s fitness
within the year such that this small
number of females (assuming a 50
percent chance of being a female) might
forego reproduction for one year. As
noted previously, foregone reproduction
has less of an impact on population
rates than death (especially for one year)
and a few instances would not be
expected to impact annual rates of
recruitment or survival, even if all of the
takes were females (which would be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
highly unlikely), especially given the
higher residual PBRs, where known (the
majority of stocks). For stocks with no
calculated residual PBR or where
abundance is unknown, the limited
information available on population size
indicates that the very low number of
females who might forego reproduction
would have no effect on rates of
recruitment or survival. Regarding the
magnitude of Level B harassment takes
(TTS and behavioral disruption), the
number of estimated instances of
harassment compared to the abundance
ranges up to 984 percent inside the U.S.
EEZ (though some are significantly
lower) and is generally much lower
across the whole range of most stocks,
reflecting that for many stocks only a
subset of the stock will be impacted—
although alternately for a few of the
smaller bay stocks all individuals are
expected to be taken across multiple
days (Table 74). Generally, individuals
of most stocks (especially bottlenose
dolphins) might be taken no more than
several times each, while the other
species in this group will only accrue
takes to a portion of the stock, but
individuals might be taken across 2–20
days within a year. Regarding the
severity of those individual takes by
Level B behavioral harassment, we have
explained that the duration of any
exposure response is expected to be
between minutes and hours (i.e.,
relatively short) and the received sound
levels largely below 172 dB (i.e., of a
lower level, less likely to evoke a severe
response). While we do not have reason
to expect that these takes would occur
sequentially on more than several days
in a row or be more severe in nature, the
probability of this occurring increases
the higher the total take numbers. Given
higher percentages when compared to
abundances, and especially where the
absolute number of takes is higher (e.g.,
spinner dolphin), we acknowledge the
possibility that some smaller subset of
individuals (especially in the larger
stocks with higher total take numbers)
could experience behavioral disruption
of a degree that impacts energetic
budgets such that reproduction could be
delayed for a year. However, as
discussed above in regards to tissue
damage, and in consideration of the
potential reproductive effects of Level A
harassment by tissue damage and these
takes by Level B behavioral harassment,
this degree of effects on a small subset
of individuals is still not expected to
adversely affect rates of recruitment or
survival. For the smaller Estuarine
stocks with the potential repeated days
of disturbance, we note that as
described earlier, the activities that
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57239
Navy conducts in inland areas (not
MTEs, etc.) are expected to generally
result in lower severity responses,
further decreasing the likelihood that
they would accrue to effects on
reproduction or survival, even if
accrued over several sequential days.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes,
as described previously they are
expected to be low-level, of short
duration, and not in a frequency band
that would be expected to significantly
interfere with dolphin communication,
or echolocation or other important lowfrequency cues. Therefore, the
associated lost opportunities and
capabilities would not be expected to
impact reproduction or survival. For
these same reasons (low level and the
likely frequency band), while a small
permanent loss of hearing sensitivity
may include some degree of energetic
costs for compensating or may mean
some small loss of opportunities or
detection capabilities, the estimated
Level A harassment takes by PTS for the
dolphin stocks addressed here (between
1 and 77) would be unlikely to impact
behaviors, opportunities, or detection
capabilities to a degree that would
interfere with reproductive success or
survival of any individuals.
Altogether, any individual dolphin is
likely taken at a low to occasionally
moderate level, with some animals
likely taken once or not at all, and a
subset potentially disturbed across 2–20
predominantly non-sequential days, and
a small number potentially experiencing
a level of effects that could curtail
reproduction for one year. The
magnitude and severity of effects
described is not expected to result in
impacts on annual rates of recruitment
or survival for any of the stocks. For
these reasons, we have determined, in
consideration of all of the effects of the
Navy’s activities combined, that the
authorized take will have a negligible
impact on these Western North Atlantic
stocks of dolphins.
GOMEX dolphin stocks (all of the
stocks indicated in Table 74 except
Pantropical spotted dolphin and
spinner dolphin)—As described above,
the GOMEX stocks indicated in Table 71
suffer from lingering health issues
resulting from the DWH oil spill (3–30
percent of individuals of these stocks
have adverse health effects), which
means that some of them could be more
susceptible to exposure to other
stressors, as well as negative population
effects (predicting it will take up to 76
years, with number varying across
stocks, for stocks to return to population
growth rate e predicted in the absence
of DWH effects). Of note, the Northern
Coastal bottlenose dolphin adverse
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57240
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
effect statistics are about twice as high
as the others (i.e., all other stocks are
below 17 percent). No mortality is
authorized for these stocks, however a
few Level A harassment takes by tissue
damage from explosives (zero for most,
1–2 for a few, and 6 for the Atlantic
spotted dolphin stock) are authorized.
As noted previously, tissue damage
effects could range in impact from
minor to something just less than M/SI
that could seriously impact fitness.
However, given the Navy’s mitigation,
which makes exposure at the closer to
the source and more severe end of the
spectrum less likely, we cautiously
assume some moderate impact for these
Level A harassment takes that could
lower an individual’s fitness within the
year such that a female (assuming a 50
percent chance of being a female) might
forego reproduction for one year. As
noted previously, foregone reproduction
has less of an impact on population
rates than death (especially for one year)
and a few instances, even up to six,
would not be expected to impact annual
rates of recruitment or survival, even if
all of the takes were of females (which
is highly unlikely).
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
instances of harassment compared to the
abundance ranges up to 177 percent, but
is generally much lower for most stocks,
reflecting that generally only a subset of
each stock will be taken, with those in
the subset taken only a few nonsequential days of the year (Table 74).
Regarding the severity of those
individual takes by Level B behavioral
harassment, we have explained that the
duration of any exposure response is
expected to be between minutes and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
hours (i.e., relatively short) and the
received sound levels largely below 172
dB (i.e., of a lower to occasionally
moderate severity).
Regarding the severity of TTS takes,
as described previously they are
expected to be low-level, of short
duration, and not in a frequency band
that would be expected to significantly
interfere with dolphin communication,
or echolocation or other important lowfrequency cues. Therefore, the
associated lost opportunities and
capabilities would not be expected to
impact reproduction or survival. For
these same reasons (low level and the
likely frequency band), while a small
permanent loss of hearing sensitivity
may include some degree of energetic
costs for compensating or may mean
some small loss of opportunities or
detection capabilities, the estimated
Level A harassment takes by PTS for the
dolphin stocks addressed here (all 3 or
below, with the exception of three
stocks with much larger abundances
with 4, 8, and 15 PTS takes) would be
unlikely to impact behaviors,
opportunities, or detection capabilities
to a degree that would interfere with
reproductive success or survival of any
individuals.
Altogether, any individual dolphin is
likely to be taken at a low to
occasionally moderate level, with many
animals likely not taken at all and with
a subset of animals being taken up to a
few times. A very small number could
potentially experience tissue damage
that could curtail reproduction for one
year. Even given the fact that some of
the affected individuals may have
compromised health, there is nothing to
suggest that such a low magnitude and
severity of effects would result in
impacts on annual rates of recruitment
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
or survival for any of the GOMEX stocks
indicated in Table 74. For these reasons,
we have determined, in consideration of
all of the effects of the Navy’s activities
combined, that the authorized take will
have a negligible impact on these
GOMEX stocks of dolphins.
Harbor Porpoise—In this section, we
build on the broader Odontocete
discussion above (i.e., that information
applies to harbor porpoises as well),
except where we offer alternative
information about the received levels for
harbor porpoise Level B behavioral
harassment. We bring together the
discussion of the different types and
amounts of take that the stock will
incur, the applicable mitigation for the
stock, and the status of the stock to
support the negligible impact
determination. Harbor porpoises are not
listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA. The discussion below
focuses on additional information that is
specific to harbor porpoises (in addition
to the general information on
odontocetes provided above, which is
relevant to this species) to support the
summarized conclusion for this stock.
We have also described previously the
unlikelihood of any masking or habitat
impacts to harbor porpoises that would
affect reproduction or survival.
In Table 75, below for porpoises, we
indicate the total annual mortality,
Level A and Level B harassment, and a
number indicating the instances of total
take as a percentage of abundance. Since
the proposed rule, the Navy has
removed one of its testing activities in
the Northeast Range Complex (four
events—USWT), which decreased the
number of Level B harassment takes by
approximately 10,000 takes annually for
harbor porpoise.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Note that this paragraph provides
specific information that is in lieu of the
parallel information provided for
odontocetes as a whole. The majority of
takes by harassment of harbor porpoises
in the AFTT Study Area are caused by
sources from the MF1 active sonar bin
(which includes hull-mounted sonar)
because they are high level sources at a
frequency (1–10 kHz), which overlaps a
more sensitive portion (though not the
most sensitive) of the HF hearing range,
and of the sources expected to result in
take, they are used in a large portion of
exercises (see Table 1.5–5 in the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application). Most of
the takes (88 percent) from the MF1 bin
in the AFTT Study Area would result
from received levels between 154 and
166 dB SPL. For the remaining active
sonar bin types, the percentages are as
follows: LF3 = 98 percent between 136
and 154, MF4 = 95 percent between 130
and 148, MF5 = 93 percent between 118
and 136, and HF4 = 96 percent between
118 and 148 dB SPL. These values may
be derived from the information in
Tables 6.4–8 through 6.4–12 in the
Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application
(though they were provided directly to
NMFS upon request).
Harbor porpoises have been shown to
be particularly 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
harbor porpoises for other locations
show that this 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). Harbor porpoises may
startle and temporarily leave the
immediate area of the training or testing
until after the event ends. Accordingly,
harbor porpoises have been assigned a
lower Level B behavioral harassment
threshold, i.e., a more distant distance
cutoff (40 km for high source level, 20
km for moderate source level) and, as a
result, the number of harbor porpoise
taken by Level B behavioral harassment
through exposure to LFAS/MFAS/HFAS
in the AFTT Study Area is generally
higher than the other species. Given the
levels they are exposed to and their
sensitivity, some responses would be of
a lower severity, but many would likely
be considered moderate. As mentioned
earlier in the odontocete overview, we
anticipate more severe effects from takes
when animals are exposed to higher
received levels or sequential days of
impacts; occasional low to moderate
behavioral reactions are unlikely to
affect reproduction or survival. Some
takes by Level B behavioral harassment
could be in the form of a longer (several
hours or a day) and more moderate
response, but unless they are repeated
over more than several sequential days,
impacts to reproduction or survival for
most animals are not anticipated. Even
where some smaller number of animals
could experience effects on
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57241
reproduction (which could happen to a
small number), for the reasons
explained below this would not affect
rates of recruitment or survival,
especially given the status of the stock.
A BIA was identified for this small
and resident population of harbor
porpoises by LaBrecque et al. (2015a,
2015b). The population straddles the
Northern border of the U.S. EEZ and
AFTT Study Area, with perhaps
approximately half located inside the
border (noting that BIAs were only
identified within the U.S. EEZ, so the
whole BIA is in the AFTT Study Area).
Navy testing activities that use sonar
and other transducers could occur year
round within the Northeast Range
Complexes in the vicinity of the BIA.
However, the harbor porpoise BIA is
included in the Gulf of Maine Planning
Awareness Mitigation Area where the
Navy will not plan MTEs (Composite
Training Unit or Fleet/Sustainment
Exercises) and will not conduct more
than 200 hrs of hull-mounted MFAS per
year, both of which reduce the likely
severity of potential Level B harassment
by behavioral disturbance (e.g., it is less
likely that harbor porpoises would be
displaced from the preferred habitat in
the BIA and thereby suffer effects more
likely to impact reproduction or
survival).
In conclusion, the Gulf of Maine/Bay
of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise is
found predominantly in northern U.S.
coastal waters (<150 m depth) and up
into Canada’s Bay of Fundy. No
mortality or tissue damage by explosives
are anticipated or authorized for this
stock and there are no specific issues
with the status of the stock that cause
particular concern (e.g., UMEs).
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57242
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
instances compared to the abundance
within the U.S. EEZ and both in and
outside of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is
941 percent and 80 percent (Table 75).
This information, combined with the
known range of the stock, suggests that
only a portion of the individuals in the
stock are likely impacted (i.e., notably
less than 80 percent given the likely
repeats; in other words more than 20
percent taken zero times), but that there
would likely be some amount of repeat
exposures across days (perhaps 6–19
days within a year) for some subset of
individuals that spend extended times
within the U.S. EEZ. Regarding the
severity of those individual takes by
Level B behavioral harassment, the
duration of any exposure response is
expected to be from minutes to hours
and not likely exceeding 24 hrs, and the
received sound levels of the MF1 bin are
largely between 154 and 166 dB, which,
for a harbor porpoise (which have a
lower Level B behavioral harassment
threshold) would mostly be considered
a moderate level.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes,
as described previously they are
expected to be low-level, of short
duration, and not in a frequency band
that would be expected to significantly
interfere with harbor porpoise
communication, or echolocation or
other important low-frequency cues.
Therefore, the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities would
not be expected to impact reproduction
or survival. For these same reasons (low
level and the likely frequency band),
while a small permanent loss of hearing
sensitivity may include some degree of
energetic costs for compensating or may
mean some small loss of opportunities
or detection capabilities, the estimated
454 Level A harassment takes by PTS
for harbor porpoise would be unlikely to
impact behaviors, opportunities, or
detection capabilities to a degree that
would interfere with reproductive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
success or survival for most individuals.
Because of the high number of PTS
takes, we acknowledge that a few
animals could potentially incur
permanent hearing loss of a higher
degree that could potentially interfere
with their successful reproduction and
growth. However, given the status of the
stock, even if this occurred, it would not
adversely impact rates of recruitment or
survival.
Altogether, because harbor porpoises
are particularly sensitive, it is likely that
a fair number of the responses will be
of a moderate nature. Additionally, as
noted, some portion of the stock may be
taken repeatedly on up to 19 days
within a year, some of those may be
sequential. Given this and the larger
number of total takes (totally and to
individuals), it is more likely
(probabilistically) that some small
number of individuals could be
interrupted during foraging in a manner
and amount such that impacts to the
energy budgets of females (from either
losing feeding opportunities or
expending considerable energy to find
alternative feeding options) could cause
them to forego reproduction for a year
(energetic impacts to males are generally
meaningless to population rates unless
they cause death, and it takes extreme
energy deficits beyond what would ever
be likely to result from these activities
to cause the death of an adult marine
mammal). As noted previously,
however, foregone reproduction
(especially for one year) has far less of
an impact on population rates than
mortality and a small number of
instances would not be expected to
adversely impact annual rates of
recruitment or survival, especially given
that the residual PBR of harbor
porpoises is 451 (and a one year delay
in calving has a far less severe impact
on population rates than death, and this
stock could absorb more than 400
deaths without inhibiting its ability to
approach OSP). All indications are that
the number of times in which
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reproduction would be likely to be
foregone will not affect the stock’s
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
For these reasons, we have determined,
in consideration of all of the effects of
the Navy’s activities combined, that the
authorized take will have a negligible
impact on harbor porpoises.
Beaked Whales—In this section, we
build on the broader Odontocete
discussion above (i.e., that information
applies to beaked whales as well),
except where we offer alternative
information about the received levels for
beaked whale Level B behavioral
harassment. We bring together the
discussion of the different types and
amounts of take that different stocks
will incur, the applicable mitigation for
each stock, and the status of the stocks
to support the negligible impact
determinations for each stock. None of
these species are listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA. For beaked
whales, there is no predicted mortality
or tissue damage from explosives for
any stock. Broadly, we have also
described the unlikelihood of any
masking or habitat impacts to any
groups that would rise to the level of
affecting individual fitness. The
discussion below focuses on additional
information that is specific to beaked
whales (in addition to the general
information on odontocetes provided
above, which is relevant to these
species) to support the summarized
conclusion for this stock. Because there
are differential magnitudes of effect to
the GOMEX stocks of beaked whales
(lower magnitude of Level B
harassment, but also lingering effects
from the DWH oil spill) versus the
Western North Atlantic beaked whales,
we break out specific findings into those
two groups.
In Table 76 below, for beaked whales,
we indicate the total annual mortality,
Level A and Level B harassment, and a
number indicating the instances of total
take as a percentage of abundance.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Note that this first paragraph provides
specific information that is in lieu of the
parallel information provided for
odontocetes as a whole. The majority of
takes by harassment of beaked whales in
the AFTT Study Area are caused by
sources from the MF1 active sonar bin
(which includes hull-mounted sonar)
because they are high level sources at a
frequency (1–10 kHz), which overlaps a
more sensitive portion (though not the
most sensitive) of the MF hearing range,
and of the sources expected to result in
take, they are used in a large portion of
exercises (see Table 1.5–5 in the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application). Most of
the takes (91 percent) from the MF1 bin
in the AFTT Study Area would result
from received levels between 148 and
160 dB SPL. For the remaining active
sonar bin types, the percentages are as
follows: LF3 = 94 percent between 136
and 148, MF4 = 96 percent between 124
and 148, MF5 = 96 percent between 100
and 142, and HF4 = 94 percent between
100 and 148 dB SPL. These values may
be derived from the information in
Tables 6.4–8 through 6.4–12 in the
Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application
(though they were provided directly to
NMFS upon request). Given the levels
they are exposed to and their sensitivity,
some responses would be of a lower
severity, but many would likely be
considered moderate.
As is the case with harbor porpoises,
research has shown that beaked whales
are especially sensitive to the presence
of human activity (Tyack et al., 2011;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Pirotta et al., 2012) and therefore have
been assigned a lower harassment
threshold, i.e., a more distant distance
cutoff (50 km for high source level, 25
km for moderate source level). Given the
levels they are exposed to and their
sensitivity, some responses would be of
a lower severity, but many would likely
be considered moderate.
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). 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
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57243
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 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
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
57244
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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. Populations of beaked
whales and other odontocetes on the
Bahamas and other Navy fixed ranges,
where Navy activities have been
operating for decades, appear to be
stable. Take by Level B behavioral
harassment (most likely 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, 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
seven 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 adverse impact on rates of
recruitment and survival in the areas a
result of exposure to Navy’s training and
testing activities. Finally, results from
passive acoustic monitoring estimated
regional Cuvier’s beaked whale
densities were higher than indicated by
NMFS’ broad scale visual surveys for
the U.S. West Coast (Hildebrand and
McDonald, 2009).
As mentioned earlier in the
odontocete overview, we anticipate
more severe effects from takes when
animals are exposed to higher received
levels or sequential days of impacts.
Occasional instances of take by Level B
behavioral harassment of a low to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
moderate severity are unlikely to affect
reproduction or survival. Here, some
small number of takes by Level B
behavioral harassment could be in the
form of a longer (several hours or a day)
and more moderate response, and/or
some small number could be repeated
over more than several sequential days.
Impacts to reproduction could be
possible for some small number of
individuals, but given the information
presented regarding beaked whale
movement patterns, their return to areas
within hours to a few days after a
disturbance, and their continued
presence and abundance in the area of
instrumented Navy ranges, these
impacts seem somewhat less likely.
Nonetheless, even where some smaller
number of animals could experience
effects on reproduction, they would not
be expected to adversely affect rates of
recruitment or survival.
Below we synthesize and summarize
the information that supports our
determination that the Navy’s activities
will not adversely impact recruitment or
survival for any of the affected stocks
addressed in this section:
Beaked whales (Western North
Atlantic stocks)—These stocks span the
deeper waters of the East Coast north to
Canada and out into oceanic waters
beyond the U.S. EEZ. There is no
currently reported trend for these
populations and there are no specific
issues with the status of the stocks that
cause particular concern. Neither
mortality nor tissue damage from
explosives is anticipated or authorized
for these stocks. Regarding the
magnitude of Level B harassment takes
(TTS and behavioral disruption), the
number of estimated instances of
harassment compared to the abundance
within the U.S. EEZ and both in and
outside of the U.S. EEZ is 1567–1836
percent and 148–297 percent,
respectively (Table 76). This
information, combined with the known
range of the stock, suggests that while
not all of the individuals in these stocks
will most likely be taken (because they
span well into oceanic waters), of those
that are, most will be taken over a few
days (though likely not sequential) and
some subset that spends extended time
within the U.S. EEZ will likely be taken
over a larger amount of days (maybe 15–
37) some of which could be sequential.
Regarding the severity of those
individual takes by Level B behavioral
harassment, we have explained that the
duration of any exposure response is
expected to generally be between
minutes and hours and largely between
148 and 160 dB, though with beaked
whales, which are considered somewhat
more sensitive, this could mean that
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
some individuals will leave preferred
habitat for a day or two. However, while
interrupted feeding bouts are a known
response and concern for odontocetes,
we also know that there are often viable
alternative habitat options in the
relative vicinity in the Western North
Atlantic.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes,
as described previously they are
expected to be low-level, of short
duration, and not in a frequency band
that would adversely affect
communication, inhibit echolocation, or
otherwise interfere with other low
frequency cues. Therefore any
associated lost opportunities and
capabilities would not impact
reproduction or survival. For the same
reasons (low level and frequency band)
the one to three estimated Level A
harassment takes by PTS for these
stocks are unlikely to have any effects
on the reproduction or survival of any
individuals.
Altogether, a small portion of the
stock will likely be taken (at a relatively
moderate level) on a relatively moderate
to high number of days across the year,
some of which could be sequential.
Though the majority of impacts are
expected to be of a sometimes low, but
more likely, moderate magnitude and
severity, the sensitivity of beaked
whales and larger number of takes
makes it more likely (probabilistically)
that a small number of individuals
could be interrupted during foraging in
a manner and amount such that impacts
to the energy budgets of females (from
either losing feeding opportunities or
expending considerable energy to find
alternative feeding options) could cause
them to forego reproduction for a year
(energetic impacts to males are generally
meaningless to population rates unless
they cause death, and it takes extreme
energy deficits beyond what would ever
be likely to result from these activities
to cause the death of an adult marine
mammal). As noted previously,
however, foregone reproduction
(especially for one year) has far less of
an impact on population rates than
mortality and a small number of
instances would not be expected to
adversely impact annual rates of
recruitment or survival. Based on the
abundance of these stocks in the area
and the evidence of little, if any, known
human-caused mortality, all indications
here are that the small number of times
in which reproduction would be likely
to be foregone will not affect the stock’s
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
For these reasons, we have determined,
in consideration of all of the effects of
the Navy’s activities combined, that the
authorized take will have a negligible
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
will leave preferred habitat for a day or
two. However, while interrupted
feeding bouts are a known response and
concern for odontocetes, we also know
that there are often viable alternative
habitat options in the relative vicinity in
the GOMEX. Regarding the severity of
TTS takes, as described previously they
are expected to be low-level, of short
duration, and not in a frequency band
that would adversely affect
communication, inhibit echolocation, or
otherwise interfere with other low
frequency cues. Therefore any
associated lost opportunities and
capabilities would not impact
reproduction or survival.
Altogether, likely only a portion of
these stocks are impacted and any
individual beaked whale is likely being
disturbed moderate level no more than
a few days per year. Even given the fact
that some of the affected individuals
may have compromised health, there is
nothing to suggest that this magnitude
and severity of effects would result in
impacts on annual rates of recruitment
or survival for any of the stocks. For
these reasons, we have determined, in
consideration of all of the effects of the
Navy’s activities combined, that the
authorized take will have a negligible
impact on the GOMEX stocks of beaked
whales included in Table 76.
Pinnipeds
In this section, we build on the
broader discussion above and bring
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
together the discussion of the different
types and amounts of take that different
stocks will incur, the applicable
mitigation for each stock, and the status
of the stocks to support the negligible
impact determinations for each stock.
None of these species are listed as
endangered or threatened under the
ESA. For pinnipeds, there is no
predicted mortality or tissue damage
from explosives for any stock. Broadly,
we have already described above why
we believe the incremental addition of
the small number of low-level PTS takes
in predominantly narrow frequency
bands will not have any meaningful
effect towards inhibiting reproduction
or survival. We have also described the
unlikelihood of any masking or habitat
impacts to any groups that would rise to
the level of affecting individual fitness.
Much of the discussion below focuses
on the behavioral effects. A UME has
been designated for harbor seals and
gray seals, which is addressed below,
but because of the small magnitude and
severity of effects for all of the species,
it is not necessary to break out the
findings by species or stock.
In Table 77 below for pinnipeds, we
indicate the total annual mortality,
Level A and Level B harassment, and a
number indicating the instances of total
take as a percentage of abundance.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
ER14NO18.015</GPH>
impact on the Western North Atlantic
stocks of beaked whales.
Beaked whales (GOMEX stocks)—The
animals in these stocks suffer from
lingering health issues resulting from
the DWH oil spill (four percent of
individuals of these stocks have adverse
health effects), which means that some
of them could be more susceptible to
exposure to other stressors, and negative
population effects (10 years for their
growth rate to recover to the rate
predicted for the stock if it had not
incurred spill impacts). Neither
mortality nor tissue damage from
explosives is anticipated or authorized
for these stocks. Level A harassment
take from PTS is also unlikely to occur.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
instances of harassment compared to the
abundance is 148–155 percent (Table
76). This information indicates that
either the individuals in these stocks are
all taken by harassment one or two days
within a year, or that a subset are not
taken at all and a small subset may be
taken several times. Regarding the
severity of those individual takes, we
have explained that the duration of any
exposure response is expected to
generally be between minutes and hours
and largely between 148 and 160 dB,
though with beaked whales, which are
considered somewhat more sensitive,
this could mean that some individuals
57245
57246
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
The majority of takes by harassment
of pinnipeds in the AFTT Study Area
are caused by sources from the MF1
active sonar bin (which includes hullmounted sonar) because they are high
level sources at a frequency (1–10 kHz),
which overlaps the most sensitive
portion of the pinniped hearing range,
and of the sources expected to result in
take, they are used in a large portion of
exercises (see Table 1.5–5 in the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application). Most of
the takes (76 percent) from the MF1 bin
in the AFTT Study Area would result
from received levels between 166 and
172 dB SPL, while another 23 percent
would result from exposure between
172 and 178 dB SPL. For the remaining
active sonar bin types, the percentages
are as follows: LF3 = 97 percent
between 148 and 166, MF4 = 97 percent
between 142 and 166, MF5 = 97 percent
between 130 and 160, and HF4 = 96
percent between 118 and 166 dB SPL.
These values may be derived from the
information in Tables 6.4–8 through
6.4–12 in the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA
application (though they were provided
directly to NMFS upon request).
Exposures at these levels would be
considered of low to occasionally
moderate severity. As mentioned earlier
in this section, we anticipate more
severe effects from takes when animals
are exposed to higher received levels.
Occasional milder takes by Level B
behavioral harassment are unlikely to
cause long-term consequences for
individual animals or populations,
especially when they are not expected
to be repeated over sequential multiple
days. For all pinnipeds, harassment
takes from explosives (behavioral, TTS,
or PTS if present) comprise a very small
fraction of those caused by exposure to
active sonar. No take of pinnipeds is
expected to result from pile driving, and
take from exposure to airguns is limited
to single digits of gray and harbor seals.
Because the majority of harassment
take of pinnnipeds results from the
sources in the MF1 bin (1–10 kHz), the
vast majority of threshold shift caused
by Navy sonar sources will typically
occur in the range of 2–20 kHz. This
frequency range falls within the range of
pinniped hearing, however, odontocete
vocalizations typically span a somewhat
lower range than this (<0.2 to 10 kHz)
and threshold shift from active sonar
will often be in a narrower band
(reflecting the narrower band source
that caused it), which means that TTS
incurred by pinnipeds would typically
only interfere with communication
within a portion of an pinniped’s range
(if it occurred during a time when
communication with conspecifics was
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
occurring). As discussed earlier, it
would only be expected to be of a short
duration and relatively small degree.
Many of the other critical sounds that
serve as cues for navigation and prey
(e.g., waves, fish, invertebrates) occur
below a few kHz, which means that
detection of these signals will not be
inhibited by most threshold shift either.
The very low number of takes by
threshold shifts that might be incurred
by individuals exposed to explosives or
airguns would likely be lower frequency
(5 kHz or less) and spanning a wider
frequency range, which could slightly
lower an individual’s sensitivity to
navigational or prey cues, or a small
portion of communication calls, for
several minutes to hours (if temporary)
or permanently.
Regarding behavioral disturbance,
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). 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. Effects on
pinnipeds in the AFTT 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
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
from those areas, or not respond at all,
which would have no effect on
reproduction or survival. In areas of
repeated and frequent acoustic
disturbance, some animals 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 of any of these
species to levels of sound that may
cause Level B harassment are unlikely
to result in hearing impairment or to
significantly disrupt foraging behavior.
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 that would result in
any adverse impact on rates of
recruitment or survival for 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
planned activities. Specifically, almost
all of the impacts to pinnipeds
estimated by the quantitative
assessment are due to navigation and
object avoidance (detection) activities in
navigation lanes entering Groton,
Connecticut. Navigation and object
avoidance (detection) activities
normally involve a single ship or
submarine using a limited amount of
sonar, therefore significant reactions are
unlikely, especially in phocid seals. The
use of sonar from navigation and object
avoidance in Groton, Connecticut likely
exposes the same sub-population of
animals multiple times throughout the
year. However, phocid seals are likely to
have only minor and short-term
behavioral reactions to these types of
activities and significant behavioral
reactions leading to impacts on
reproduction or survival would not be
expected, even if some smaller groups
were repeatedly taken. Below we
synthesize and summarize the
information that supports our
determination that the Navy’s activities
will not adversely impact recruitment or
survival for any of the affected species
and stocks addressed in this section.
In conclusion, the Western North
Atlantic pinnipeds (harp seal, harbor
seal, hooded seal, and gray seal) stocks
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
are northern, but highly migratory
species. While harp seals are limited to
the northern portion of the U.S. EEZ,
gray and harbor seals may be found as
far south as the Chesapeake in late Fall
and hooded seals migrate as far south as
Puerto Rico. A UME has been
designated for gray seals and harbor
seals and the main pathogen found on
the seals that have been tested is
phocine distemper virus. Neither
mortality nor tissue damage from
explosives is anticipated or authorized
for any of these stocks. Regarding the
magnitude of Level B harassment takes
(TTS and behavioral disruption), the
number of estimated instances of
harassment compared to the abundance
that is expected within the AFTT Study
area is 34–225 percent, which suggests
that only a subset of the animals in the
AFTT Study area would be taken, but
that a few might be taken on several
days within the year (1–5), but not on
sequential days. When the fact that
some of these seals are residing in areas
near Navy activities is considered, we
can estimate that perhaps some of those
individuals might be taken some higher
number of days within the year (up to
approximately 10), but still with no
reason to think that these takes would
occur on sequential days, which means
that we would not expect effects on
reproduction or survival. Regarding the
severity of those individual Level B
behavioral harassment takes, we have
explained that the duration of any
exposure response is expected to be
between minutes and hours (i.e.,
relatively short) and the received sound
levels are largely below 172 dB, with
some up to 178 dB (i.e., of a lower to
moderate level, less likely to evoke a
severe response) and therefore there is
no indication that the expected takes by
Level B behavioral harassment would
have any effect on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes,
they are expected to be low-level, of
short duration, and not in a frequency
band that would adversely affect
communication, inhibit echolocation, or
otherwise interfere with other low
frequency cues. Therefore any
associated lost opportunities and
capabilities would not impact
reproduction or survival. For the same
reasons (low level and frequency band)
the two to four estimated Level A
harassment takes by PTS for these
stocks are unlikely to have any effects
on the reproduction or survival of any
individuals.
Even given the fact that some of the
affected harbor seal individuals may
have compromised health due to the
UME, there is nothing to suggest that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
such a low magnitude and severity of
effects would result in impacts on
annual rates of recruitment or survival,
especially given that the stock
abundance in NMFS SAR is 75,839 with
a residual PBR of 1,651. Similarly, given
the low magnitude and severity of
effects, there is no indication that these
activities would affect reproduction or
survival of harp or hooded seals, much
less adversely affect rates of recruitment
or survival, especially given that harp
seal abundance is estimated at 6.9
million and hooded seal residual PBR is
13,950. Gray seals are experiencing a
UME as well as an exceedance of more
than 4,299 M/SI above PBR. However,
given the low magnitude (take
compared to abundance is 95 percent,
meaning the subset of individuals taken
may be taken a few times on nonsequential days) and low to occasionally
moderate severity of impacts, no
impacts to individual reproduction or
survival are expected, and therefore no
effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival will occur. For these reasons, in
consideration of all of the effects of the
Navy’s activities combined, we have
determined that the authorized take will
have a negligible impact on the Western
North Atlantic stocks of gray seals,
harbor seals, hooded seals, and harp
seals.
Determination
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the potential and likely effects
of the specified activities on marine
mammals and their habitat, and taking
into consideration the implementation
of the monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total
marine mammal take from the specified
activities will have a negligible impact
on all affected marine mammal species
and stocks.
Subsistence Harvest of Marine
Mammals
There are no subsistence uses or
harvest of marine mammals in the
geographic area affected by the specified
activities. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking
affecting species or stocks would not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of such species or stocks
for taking for subsistence purposes.
ESA
There are five marine mammal
species under NMFS jurisdiction that
are listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA with confirmed or
possible occurrence in the AFTT Study
Area: Blue whale (Western North
Atlantic stock), fin whale (Western
North Atlantic stock), sei whale (Nova
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57247
Scotia), sperm whale (GOMEX Oceanic
stock and North Atlantic stock), and
NARW (Western North Atlantic stock).
In addition, the GOMEX Bryde’s whale
is proposed for listing under the ESA.
The Navy consulted with NMFS
pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, and
NMFS also consulted internally on the
issuance of these regulations and LOAs
under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA
for AFTT activities. NMFS issued a
Biological and Conference Opinion
concluding that the issuance of the rule
and subsequent LOAs 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 AFTT Study Area. The Biological
and Conference Opinion for this action
is available at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities.
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
Federal agency actions that are likely
to injure national marine sanctuary
resources are subject to consultation
with the Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries (ONMS) under section
304(d) of the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act (NMSA).
On December 15, 2017, the Navy
initiated consultation with ONMS and
submitted a Sanctuary Resource
Statement (SRS) that discussed the
effects of the U.S. Navy’s AFTT
activities in the vicinity of Stellwagen
Bank, Gray’s Reef, and Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuaries on
sanctuary resources. NMFS worked with
the Navy in the development of the SRS
to ensure that it could serve jointly as
an SRS for NMFS’ action as well.
On December 20, 2017, NMFS OPR
initiated consultation with ONMS on
NMFS’ proposed MMPA Incidental
Take Regulations for the Navy’s AFTT
activities. NMFS requested that ONMS
consider the description and assessment
of the effects of the Navy’s activities,
which included an assessment of the
effects on marine mammals, included in
the joint SRS submitted by the Navy as
satisfying NMFS’ need to provide an
SRS.
ONMS reviewed the SRS, as well as
an addendum the Navy provided on
April 3, 2018. On April 12, 2018, ONMS
found the SRS addendum sufficient for
the purposes of making an injury
determination to develop recommended
alternatives as required by the NMSA.
On May 15, 2018, ONMS recommended
two reasonable and prudent measures to
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57248
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Navy and NMFS (one of which applied
to NMFS) in accordance with the NMSA
to minimize injury and to protect
sanctuary resources. ONMS
subsequently provided a slight
modification of those recommendations
to the Navy and NMFS on August 1,
2018.
On August 17, 2018, the Navy agreed
to implement both ONMS
recommendations. On October 30, 2018,
NMFS agreed to implement the
recommendation that applied to NMFS,
thus concluding our consultation with
ONMS.
issued pursuant to these regulations,
and any monitoring or reporting
requirements imposed by these
regulations, are applicable only to the
Navy. NMFS does not expect the
issuance of these regulations or the
associated LOAs to result in any
impacts to small entities pursuant to the
RFA. Because this action will directly
affect 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.
NEPA
NMFS participated as a cooperating
agency on the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, which
was published on September 14, 2018,
and is available at https://
www.aftteis.com. In accordance with 40
CFR 1506.3, NMFS independently
reviewed and evaluated the AFTT FEIS/
OEIS and determined that it is adequate
and sufficient to meet our
responsibilities under NEPA for the
issuance of this rule and associated
LOAs. NOAA therefore adopted the
Navy’s AFTT FEIS/OEIS. NMFS has
prepared a separate Record of Decision.
NMFS’ Record of Decision for adoption
of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS and issuance of
this final rule and subsequent LOAs can
be found at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities.
Waiver of Delay in Effective Date
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 has certified to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration that this final
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The RFA
requires Federal agencies to prepare an
analysis of a rule’s impact on small
entities whenever the agency is required
to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking. However, a Federal agency
may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
that the action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Navy is the sole entity that will be
affected by this rulemaking, and the
Navy is not a small governmental
jurisdiction, small organization, or small
business, as defined by the RFA. Any
requirements imposed by an LOA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
NMFS 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 this final rule. No individual or
entity other than the Navy is affected by
the provisions of these regulations. The
Navy has informed NMFS that it
requests that this final rule take effect by
November 14, 2018, to accommodate the
Navy’s current Letters of Authorization
expiring November 13, 2018, so as to
not cause a disruption in training and
testing activities. NMFS was unable to
accommodate the 30-day delay of
effectiveness period due to the need for
additional time to consider additional
mitigation measures presented by the
Navy as well as new analysis of
information showing that incidental
mortality and serious injury of two
stocks previously analyzed is unlikely
to occur. The waiver of the 30-day delay
of the effective date of the final rule will
ensure that the MMPA final rule and
Letters of Authorization are in place by
the time the previous authorizations
expire. Any delay in finalizing the rule
would result in either: (1) A suspension
of planned naval training and testing,
which would disrupt vital training and
testing essential to national security; or
(2) the Navy’s procedural noncompliance with the MMPA (should the
Navy conduct training and testing
without LOAs), thereby resulting in the
potential for unauthorized takes of
marine mammals. Moreover, the Navy is
ready to implement the rule
immediately. For these reasons, NMFS
finds good cause to waive the 30-day
delay in the effective date. In addition,
the rule authorizes incidental take of
marine mammals that would otherwise
be prohibited under the statute.
Therefore the rule is granting an
exception to the Navy and relieving
restrictions under the MMPA, which is
a separate basis for waiving the 30-day
effective date for the rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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: October 30, 2018.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
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., unless
otherwise noted.
2. Revise subpart I of part 218 to read
as follows:
■
Subpart I—Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet
Training and Testing (AFTT)
Sec.
218.80 Specified activity and specified
geographical region.
218.81 Effective dates.
218.82 Permissible methods of taking.
218.83 Prohibitions.
218.84 Mitigation requirements.
218.85 Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
218.86 Letters of Authorization.
218.87 Renewals and modifications of
Letters of Authorization.
218.88–218.89 [Reserved]
Subpart I—Taking and Importing
Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Atlantic
Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT)
§ 218.80 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
described in paragraph (b) of this
section and that occurs incidental to the
activities listed in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by
the Navy under this subpart may be
authorized in Letters of Authorization
(LOAs) only if it occurs within the
Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing
(AFTT) Study Area, which includes
areas of the western Atlantic Ocean
along the East Coast of North America,
portions of the Caribbean Sea, and the
Gulf of Mexico. The AFTT Study Area
begins at the mean high tide line along
the U.S. East Coast and extends east to
the 45-degree west longitude line, north
to the 65-degree north latitude line, and
south to approximately the 20-degree
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
north latitude line. The AFTT Study
Area also includes Navy pierside
locations, bays, harbors, and inland
waterways, and civilian ports where
training and testing occurs.
(c) The taking of marine mammals by
the Navy is only authorized if it occurs
incidental to the Navy conducting
training and testing activities, including:
(1) Training. (i) Amphibious warfare.
(ii) Anti-submarine warfare.
(iii) Electronic warfare.
(iv) Expeditionary warfare.
(v) Mine warfare.
(vi) Surface warfare.
(2) Testing. (i) Naval Air Systems
Command Testing Activities.
(ii) Naval Sea System Command
Testing Activities.
(iii) Office of Naval Research Testing
Activities.
§ 218.81
Effective dates.
Regulations in this subpart are
effective November 14, 2018 through
November 13, 2023.
§ 218.82
Permissible methods of taking.
(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to
§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.86,
the Holder of the LOAs (hereinafter
‘‘Navy’’) may incidentally, but not
57249
intentionally, take marine mammals
within the area described in § 218.80(b)
by Level A harassment and Level B
harassment associated with the use of
active sonar and other acoustic sources
and explosives as well as serious injury
or mortality associated with ship shock
trials and vessel strikes provided the
activity is in compliance with all terms,
conditions, and requirements of these
regulations in this subpart and the
applicable LOAs.
(b) The incidental take of marine
mammals by the activities listed in
§ 218.80(c) is limited to the following
species:
TABLE 1 TO § 218.82
Species
Stock
Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenidae (right whales):
North Atlantic right whale * .....................................................................................
Family Balaenopteridae (roquals):
Blue whale * ...........................................................................................................
Bryde’s whale .........................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Minke whale ...........................................................................................................
Fin whale * ..............................................................................................................
Humpback whale ....................................................................................................
Sei whale * ..............................................................................................................
Western.
Western North Atlantic (Gulf of St. Lawrence)
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
NSD.
Canadian East Coast.
Western North Atlantic.
Gulf of Maine.
Nova Scotia.
Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)
Family Physeteridae (sperm whale):
Sperm whale * ........................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Family Kogiidae (sperm whales):
Dwarf sperm whale ................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Pygmy sperm whale ...............................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales):
Blainville’s beaked whale .......................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale ...........................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Gervais’ beaked whale ...........................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Northern bottlenose whale .....................................................................................
Sowersby’s beaked whale .....................................................................................
True’s beaked whale ..............................................................................................
Family Delphinidae (dolphins):
Atlantic spotted dolphin ..........................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Atlantic white-sided dolphin ...................................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ..................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Gulf of Mexico Oceanic.
North Atlantic.
Gulf of Mexico Oceanic.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Choctawhatchee Bay.
Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal.
Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal.
Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal.
Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System.
Jacksonville Estuarine System.
Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau.
Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf.
Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic.
Northern North Carolina Estuarine System.
Southern North Carolina Estuarine System.
Western North Atlantic Northern Florida Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Offshore.
Western North Atlantic South Carolina/Georgia Coastal.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57250
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 TO § 218.82—Continued
Species
Stock
Clymene dolphin ....................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
False killer whale ...................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Fraser’s dolphin ......................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Killer whale .............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Long-finned pilot whale ..........................................................................................
Melon-headed whale ..............................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ....................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Pygmy killer whale .................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .......................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin ...........................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Short-beaked common dolphin ..............................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale .........................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Spinner dolphin ......................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Striped dolphin .......................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
White-beaked dolphin ............................................................................................
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise .....................................................................................................
Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy.
Suborder Pinnipedia
Family Phocidae (true seals):
Gray seal ................................................................................................................
Harbor seal .............................................................................................................
Harp seal ................................................................................................................
Hooded seal ...........................................................................................................
§ 218.83
Prohibitions.
Notwithstanding incidental takings
contemplated in § 218.82(a) and
authorized by LOAs issued under
§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.86,
no person in connection with the
activities listed in § 218.80(c) may:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the
terms, conditions, and requirements of
this subpart or an LOA issued under
§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.86;
(b) Take any marine mammal not
specified in § 218.82(b);
(c) Take any marine mammal
specified § 218.82(b) in any manner
other than as specified in the LOAs; or
(d) Take a marine mammal specified
§ 218.82(b) if NMFS determines such
taking results in more than a negligible
impact on the species or stocks of such
marine mammal.
§ 218.84
Mitigation requirements.
When conducting the activities
identified in § 218.80(c), the mitigation
measures contained in any LOAs issued
under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and
218.86 must be implemented. These
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Western
Western
Western
Western
North
North
North
North
mitigation measures include, but are not
limited to:
(a) Procedural mitigation. Procedural
mitigation is mitigation that the Navy
must implement whenever and
wherever an applicable training or
testing activity takes place within the
AFTT Study Area for each applicable
activity category or stressor category and
includes acoustic stressors (i.e., active
sonar, air guns, pile driving, weapons
firing noise), explosive stressors (i.e.,
sonobuoys, torpedoes, medium-caliber
and large-caliber projectiles, missiles
and rockets, bombs, sinking exercises,
mines, anti-swimmer grenades, line
charge testing and ship shock trials),
and physical disturbance and strike
stressors (i.e., vessel movement, towed
in-water devices, small-, medium-, and
large-caliber non-explosive practice
munitions, non-explosive missiles and
rockets, non-explosive bombs and mine
shapes).
(1) Environmental awareness and
education. Appropriate personnel
(including civilian personnel) involved
in mitigation and training or testing
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Atlantic.
Atlantic.
Atlantic.
Atlantic.
activity reporting under the specified
activities will complete one or more
modules of the U.S. Navy Afloat
Environmental Compliance Training
Series, as identified in their career path
training plan. Modules include:
Introduction to the U.S. Navy Afloat
Environmental Compliance Training
Series, Marine Species Awareness
Training, U.S. Navy Protective Measures
Assessment Protocol, and U.S. Navy
Sonar Positional Reporting System and
Marine Mammal Incident Reporting.
(2) Active sonar. Active sonar
includes low-frequency active sonar,
mid-frequency active sonar, and highfrequency active sonar. For vessel-based
active sonar activities, mitigation
applies only to sources that are
positively controlled and deployed from
manned surface vessels (e.g., sonar
sources towed from manned surface
platforms). For aircraft-based active
sonar activities, mitigation applies only
to sources that are positively controlled
and deployed from manned aircraft that
do not operate at high altitudes (e.g.,
rotary-wing aircraft). Mitigation does
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
not apply to active sonar sources
deployed from unmanned aircraft or
aircraft operating at high altitudes (e.g.,
maritime patrol aircraft).
(i) Number of Lookouts and
observation platform—(A) Hullmounted sources. One Lookout for
platforms with space or manning
restrictions while underway (at the
forward part of a small boat or ship) and
platforms using active sonar while
moored or at anchor (including
pierside); two Lookouts for platforms
without space or manning restrictions
while underway (at the forward part of
the ship); and four Lookouts for pierside
sonar testing activities at Port Canaveral,
Florida and Kings Bay, Georgia.
(B) Non-hull mounted sources. One
Lookout on the ship or aircraft
conducting the activity.
(ii) Mitigation zones and
requirements. During the activity, at
1,000 yard (yd) the Navy must power
down 6 decibels (dB), at 500 yd the
Navy must power down an additional 4
dB (for a total of 10 dB), and at 200 yd
the Navy must shut down for lowfrequency active sonar ≥200 dB and
hull-mounted mid-frequency active
sonar; or at 200 yd the Navy must shut
down for low-frequency active sonar
<200 dB, mid-frequency active sonar
sources that are not hull-mounted, and
high-frequency active sonar.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (e.g., when maneuvering on
station), Navy personnel must observe
the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if observed, Navy personnel
must relocate or delay the start until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel
also must observe the mitigation zone
for marine mammals; if observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the
start of active sonar transmission.
(B) During low-frequency active sonar
at or above 200 dB and hull-mounted
mid-frequency active sonar, Navy
personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals and power
down active sonar transmission by 6 dB
if observed within 1,000 yd of the sonar
source; power down by an additional 4
dB (10 dB total) if observed within 500
yd of the sonar source; and cease
transmission if observed within 200 yd
of the sonar source.
(C) During low-frequency active sonar
below 200 dB, mid-frequency active
sonar sources that are not hull mounted,
and high-frequency active sonar, Navy
personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals and cease
active sonar transmission if observed
within 200 yd of the sonar source.
(D) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing or
powering up active sonar transmission)
until one of the following conditions
has been met: The animal is observed
exiting the mitigation zone; the animal
is thought to have exited the mitigation
zone based on a determination of its
course, speed, and movement relative to
the sonar source; the mitigation zone
has been clear from any additional
sightings for 10 minutes (min) for
aircraft-deployed sonar sources or 30
min for vessel-deployed sonar sources;
for mobile activities, the active sonar
source has transited a distance equal to
double that of the mitigation zone size
beyond the location of the last sighting;
or for activities using hull-mounted
sonar, the ship concludes that dolphins
are deliberately closing in on the ship to
ride the ship’s bow wave, and are
therefore out of the main transmission
axis of the sonar (and there are no other
marine mammal sightings within the
mitigation zone).
(3) Air guns—(i) Number of Lookouts
and observation platform. One Lookout
must be positioned on a ship or
pierside.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
150 yd around the air gun.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (e.g., when maneuvering on
station), Navy personnel must observe
the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if observed, Navy personnel
must relocate or delay the start until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel
also must observe the mitigation zone
for marine mammals; if observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the
start of air gun use.
(B) During the activity, Navy
personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if observed,
Navy personnel must cease use of air
guns.
(C) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing air
gun use) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone;
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to the air gun; the
mitigation zone has been clear from any
additional sightings for 30 min; or for
mobile activities, the air gun has
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57251
transited a distance equal to double that
of the mitigation zone size beyond the
location of the last sighting.
(4) Pile driving. Pile driving and pile
extraction sound during Elevated
Causeway System training.
(i) Number of Lookouts and
observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned on the shore, the elevated
causeway, or a small boat.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
100 yd around the pile driver.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (for 30 min), Navy personnel
must observe the mitigation zone for
floating vegetation; if observed, Navy
personnel must delay the start until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel
also must observe the mitigation zone
for marine mammals; if observed, Navy
personnel must delay the start of pile
driving or vibratory pile extraction.
(B) During the activity, Navy
personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if observed,
Navy personnel must cease impact pile
driving or vibratory pile extraction.
(C) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing pile
driving or pile extraction) until one of
the following conditions has been met:
The animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone; the animal is thought to
have exited the mitigation zone based
on a determination of its course, speed,
and movement relative to the pile
driving location; or the mitigation zone
has been clear from any additional
sightings for 30 min.
(5) Weapons firing noise. Weapons
firing noise associated with large-caliber
gunnery activities.
(i) Number of Lookouts and
observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned on the ship conducting
the firing. Depending on the activity, the
Lookout could be the same as the one
provided for under ‘‘Explosive mediumcaliber and large-caliber projectiles’’ or
under ‘‘Small-, medium-, and largecaliber non-explosive practice
munitions’’ in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) and
(a)(19)(i) of this section.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
Thirty degrees on either side of the
firing line out to 70 yd from the muzzle
of the weapon being fired.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the
activity, Navy personnel must observe
the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if resources observed,
relocate or delay the start until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57252
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
also must observe the mitigation zone
for marine mammals; if observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the
start of weapons firing.
(B) During the activity, Navy
personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if observed,
Navy personnel must cease weapons
firing.
(C) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing
weapons firing) until one of the
following conditions has been met: The
animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone; the animal is thought to
have exited the mitigation zone based
on a determination of its course, speed,
and movement relative to the firing
ship; the mitigation zone has been clear
from any additional sightings for 30
min; or for mobile activities, the firing
ship has transited a distance equal to
double that of the mitigation zone size
beyond the location of the last sighting.
(6) Explosive sonobuoys—(i) Number
of Lookouts and observation platform.
One Lookout must be positioned in an
aircraft or on small boat. If additional
platforms are participating in the
activity, personnel positioned in those
assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators)
will support observing the mitigation
zone for applicable biological resources
while performing their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
600 yd around an explosive sonobuoy.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (e.g., during deployment of a
sonobuoy field, which typically lasts
20–30 min), Navy personnel must
observe the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay
the start until the mitigation zone is
clear. Navy personnel must conduct
passive acoustic monitoring for marine
mammals and use information from
detections to assist visual observations.
Navy personnel also must visually
observe the mitigation zone for marine
mammals; if observed, Navy personnel
must relocate or delay the start of
sonobuoy or source/receiver pair
detonations.
(B) During the activity, Navy
personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if observed,
Navy personnel must cease sonobuoy or
source/receiver pair detonations.
(C) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing
detonations) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone;
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to the sonobuoy; or
the mitigation zone has been clear from
any additional sightings for 10 min
when the activity involves aircraft that
have fuel constraints (e.g., helicopter),
or 30 min when the activity involves
aircraft that are not typically fuel
constrained.
(D) After completion of the activity
(e.g., prior to maneuvering off station),
when practical (e.g., when platforms are
not constrained by fuel restrictions or
mission-essential follow-on
commitments), Navy personnel must
observe for marine mammals in the
vicinity of where detonations occurred;
if any injured or dead marine mammals
are observed, Navy personnel must
follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are
supporting this activity (e.g., providing
range clearance), these Navy assets must
assist in the visual observation of the
area where detonations occurred.
(7) Explosive torpedoes—(i) Number
of Lookouts and observation platform.
One Lookout positioned in an aircraft. If
additional platforms are participating in
the activity, Navy personnel positioned
in those assets (e.g., safety observers,
evaluators) must support observing the
mitigation zone for applicable biological
resources while performing their regular
duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
2,100 yd around the intended impact
location.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (e.g., during deployment of the
target), Navy personnel must observe
the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay
the start until the mitigation zone is
clear. Navy personnel also must conduct
passive acoustic monitoring for marine
mammals and use the information from
detections to assist visual observations.
Navy personnel must visually observe
the mitigation zone for marine mammals
and jellyfish aggregations; if observed,
Navy personnel must relocate or delay
the start of firing.
(B) During the activity, Navy
personnel must observe for marine
mammals and jellyfish aggregations; if
observed, Navy personnel must cease
firing.
(C) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing
firing) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone;
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to the intended
impact location; or the mitigation zone
has been clear from any additional
sightings for 10 min when the activity
involves aircraft that have fuel
constraints, or 30 min when the activity
involves aircraft that are not typically
fuel constrained.
(D) After completion of the activity
(e.g., prior to maneuvering off station)—
when practical (e.g., when platforms are
not constrained by fuel restrictions or
mission-essential follow-on
commitments), Navy personnel must
observe for marine mammals in the
vicinity of where detonations occurred;
if any injured or dead marine mammals
are observed, Navy personnel must
follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are
supporting this activity (e.g., providing
range clearance), these Navy assets must
assist in the visual observation of the
area where detonations occurred.
(8) Explosive medium-caliber and
large-caliber projectiles. Gunnery
activities using explosive mediumcaliber and large-caliber projectiles.
Mitigation applies to activities using a
surface target.
(i) Number of Lookouts and
observation platform. One Lookout must
be on the vessel or aircraft conducting
the activity. For activities using
explosive large-caliber projectiles,
depending on the activity, the Lookout
could be the same as the one described
in weapons firing noise in paragraph
(a)(5)(i) of this section. If additional
platforms are participating in the
activity, Navy personnel positioned in
those assets (e.g., safety observers,
evaluators) must support observing the
mitigation zone for applicable biological
resources while performing their regular
duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
(A) 200 yd around the intended impact
location for air-to-surface activities
using explosive medium-caliber
projectiles.
(B) 600 yd around the intended
impact location for surface-to-surface
activities using explosive mediumcaliber projectiles.
(C) 1,000 yd around the intended
impact location for surface-to-surface
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
activities using explosive large-caliber
projectiles.
(D) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (e.g., when maneuvering on
station), Navy personnel must observe
the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if observed, Navy personnel
must relocate or delay the start until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel
also must observe the mitigation zone
for marine mammals; if observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the
start of firing.
(E) During the activity, Navy
personnel must observe for marine
mammals; if observed, Navy personnel
must cease firing.
(F) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing
firing) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone;
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to the intended
impact location; the mitigation zone has
been clear from any additional sightings
for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30
min for vessel-based firing; or for
activities using mobile targets, the
intended impact location has transited a
distance equal to double that of the
mitigation zone size beyond the location
of the last sighting.
(G) After completion of the activity
(e.g., prior to maneuvering off station)—
when practical (e.g., when platforms are
not constrained by fuel restrictions or
mission-essential follow-on
commitments), Navy personnel must
observe for marine mammals in the
vicinity of where detonations occurred;
if any injured or dead marine mammals
are observed, Navy personnel must
follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are
supporting this activity (e.g., providing
range clearance), these Navy assets must
assist in the visual observation of the
area where detonations occurred.
(9) Explosive missiles and rockets.
Aircraft-deployed explosive missiles
and rockets. Mitigation applies to
activities using a surface target.
(i) Number of Lookouts and
observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned in an aircraft. If additional
platforms are participating in the
activity, Navy personnel positioned in
those assets (e.g., safety observers,
evaluators) must support observing the
mitigation zone for applicable biological
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
resources while performing their regular
duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
(A) 900 yd around the intended impact
location for missiles or rockets with 0.6–
20 lb net explosive weight.
(B) 2,000 yd around the intended
impact location for missiles with 21–
500 lb net explosive weight.
(C) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the
mitigation zone), Navy personnel must
observe the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if resource observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the
start until the mitigation zone is clear.
Navy personnel also must observe the
mitigation zone for marine mammals; if
resources observed, Navy personnel
must relocate or delay the start of firing.
(D) During the activity, Navy
personnel must observe for marine
mammals; if observed, Navy personnel
must cease firing.
(E) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing
firing) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone;
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to the intended
impact location; or the mitigation zone
has been clear from any additional
sightings for 10 min when the activity
involves aircraft that have fuel
constraints, or 30 min when the activity
involves aircraft that are not typically
fuel constrained.
(F) After completion of the activity
(e.g., prior to maneuvering off station)—
when practical (e.g., when platforms are
not constrained by fuel restrictions or
mission-essential follow-on
commitments), Navy personnel must
observe for marine mammals in the
vicinity of where detonations occurred;
if any injured or dead marine mammals
are observed, Navy personnel must
follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are
supporting this activity (e.g., providing
range clearance), these Navy assets must
assist in the visual observation of the
area where detonations occurred.
(10) Explosive bombs—(i) Number of
Lookouts and observation platform. One
Lookout must be positioned in an
aircraft conducting the activity. If
additional platforms are participating in
the activity, Navy personnel positioned
in those assets (e.g., safety observers,
PO 00000
Frm 00179
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57253
evaluators) must support observing the
mitigation zone for applicable biological
resources while performing their regular
duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
2,500 yd around the intended target.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (e.g., when arriving on station),
Navy personnel must observe the
mitigation zone for floating vegetation;
if observed, Navy personnel must
relocate or delay the start until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel
also must observe the mitigation zone
for marine mammals; if observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the
start of bomb deployment.
(B) During the activity (e.g., during
target approach), Navy personnel must
observe for marine mammals; if
observed, Navy personnel must cease
bomb deployment.
(C) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing bomb
deployment) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone;
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to the intended
target; the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for
10 min; or for activities using mobile
targets, the intended target has transited
a distance equal to double that of the
mitigation zone size beyond the location
of the last sighting.
(D) After completion of the activity
(e.g., prior to maneuvering off station),
when practical (e.g., when platforms are
not constrained by fuel restrictions or
mission-essential follow-on
commitments), Navy personnel must
observe for marine mammals in the
vicinity of where detonations occurred;
if any injured or dead marine mammals
are observed, Navy personnel must
follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are
supporting this activity (e.g., providing
range clearance), these Navy assets must
assist in the visual observation of the
area where detonations occurred.
(11) Sinking exercises—(i) Number of
Lookouts and observation platform.
Two Lookouts (one must be positioned
in an aircraft and one must be
positioned on a vessel). If additional
platforms are participating in the
activity, Navy personnel positioned in
those assets (e.g., safety observers,
evaluators) must support observing the
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57254
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
mitigation zone for applicable biological
resources while performing their regular
duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
2.5 nautical miles (nmi) around the
target ship hulk.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (90 min prior to the first firing),
Navy personnel must conduct aerial
observations of the mitigation zone for
floating vegetation and delay the start
until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy
personnel also must conduct aerial
observations of the mitigation zone for
marine mammals and jellyfish
aggregations; if observed, Navy
personnel must delay the start of firing.
(B) During the activity, Navy
personnel must conduct passive
acoustic monitoring for marine
mammals and use information from
detections to assist visual observations.
Navy personnel must visually observe
the mitigation zone for marine mammals
from the vessel; if observed, Navy
personnel must cease firing.
Immediately after any planned or
unplanned breaks in weapons firing of
longer than two hours, Navy personnel
must observe the mitigation zone for
marine mammals from the aircraft and
vessel; if observed, Navy personnel
must delay recommencement of firing.
(C) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing
firing) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone;
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to the target ship
hulk; or the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for
30 min.
(D) After completion of the activity
(for two hours after sinking the vessel or
until sunset, whichever comes first),
Navy personnel must observe for marine
mammals in the vicinity of where
detonations occurred; if any injured or
dead marine mammals are observed,
Navy personnel must follow established
incident reporting procedures. If
additional platforms are supporting this
activity (e.g., providing range clearance),
these Navy assets must assist in the
visual observation of the area where
detonations occurred.
(12) Explosive mine countermeasure
and neutralization activities—(i)
Number of Lookouts and observation
platform. (A) One Lookout must be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
positioned on a vessel or in an aircraft
when implementing the smaller
mitigation zone (using up to 0.1–5 lb net
explosive weight charges).
(B) Two Lookouts (one must be in an
aircraft and one must be on a small boat)
when implementing the larger
mitigation zone (using up to 6–650 lb
net explosive weight charges).
(C) If additional platforms are
participating in the activity, Navy
personnel positioned in those assets
(e.g., safety observers, evaluators) will
support observing the mitigation zone
for applicable biological resources while
performing their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
(A) 600 yd around the detonation site
for activities using 0.1–5 lb net
explosive weight.
(B) 2,100 yd around the detonation
site for activities using 6–650 lb net
explosive weight (including high
explosive target mines).
(C) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (e.g., when maneuvering on
station; typically, 10 min when the
activity involves aircraft that have fuel
constraints, or 30 min when the activity
involves aircraft that are not typically
fuel constrained), Navy personnel must
observe the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if observed, Navy personnel
must relocate or delay the start until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel
also must observe the mitigation zone
for marine mammals; if observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the
start of detonations.
(D) During the activity, Navy
personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if observed,
the Navy must cease detonations.
(E) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing
detonations) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone;
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to detonation site; or
the mitigation zone has been clear from
any additional sightings for 10 min
when the activity involves aircraft that
have fuel constraints, or 30 min when
the activity involves aircraft that are not
typically fuel constrained.
(F) After completion of the activity
(typically 10 min when the activity
involves aircraft that have fuel
constraints, or 30 min when the activity
involves aircraft that are not typically
PO 00000
Frm 00180
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
fuel constrained), Navy personnel must
observe for marine mammals in the
vicinity of where detonations occurred;
if any injured or dead marine mammals
are observed, Navy personnel must
follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are
supporting this activity (e.g., providing
range clearance), these Navy assets will
assist in the visual observation of the
area where detonations occurred.
(13) Explosive mine neutralization
activities involving Navy divers—(i)
Number of Lookouts and observation
platform. (A) Two Lookouts (two small
boats with one Lookout each, or one
Lookout must be on a small boat and
one must be in a rotary-wing aircraft)
when implementing the smaller
mitigation zone.
(B) Four Lookouts (two small boats
with two Lookouts each), and a pilot or
member of an aircrew must serve as an
additional Lookout if aircraft are used
during the activity, when implementing
the larger mitigation zone.
(C) All divers placing the charges on
mines must support the Lookouts while
performing their regular duties and
must report applicable sightings to their
supporting small boat or Range Safety
Officer.
(D) If additional platforms are
participating in the activity, Navy
personnel positioned in those assets
(e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must
support observing the mitigation zone
for applicable biological resources while
performing their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
(A) 500 yd around the detonation site
during activities under positive control
using 0.1–20 lb net explosive weigh.
(B) 1,000 yd around the detonation
site during all activities using timedelay fuses (0.1–20 lb net explosive
weight) and during activities under
positive control using 21–60 lb net
explosive weight charges.
(C) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (e.g., when maneuvering on
station for activities under positive
control; 30 min for activities using timedelay firing devices), Navy personnel
must observe the mitigation zone for
floating vegetation; if observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the
start until the mitigation zone is clear.
Navy personnel also must observe the
mitigation zone for marine mammals; if
resource observed, Navy personnel must
relocate or delay the start of detonations
or fuse initiation.
(D) During the activity, Navy
personnel must observe for marine
mammals; if observed, Navy personnel
must cease detonations or fuse
initiation. To the maximum extent
practicable depending on mission
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
requirements, safety, and environmental
conditions, boats must position
themselves near the mid-point of the
mitigation zone radius (but outside of
the detonation plume and human safety
zone), must position themselves on
opposite sides of the detonation location
(when two boats are used), and must
travel in a circular pattern around the
detonation location with one Lookout
observing inward toward the detonation
site and the other observing outward
toward the perimeter of the mitigation
zone. If used, aircraft must travel in a
circular pattern around the detonation
location to the maximum extent
practicable. Navy personnel must not
set time-delay firing devices (0.1–20 lb.
net explosive weight) to exceed 10 min.
(E) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing
detonations) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone;
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to the detonation
site; or the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for
10 min during activities under positive
control with aircraft that have fuel
constraints, or 30 min during activities
under positive control with aircraft that
are not typically fuel constrained and
during activities using time-delay firing
devices.
(F) After completion of an activity (for
30 min), Navy personnel must observe
for marine mammals in the vicinity of
where detonations occurred; if any
injured or dead marine mammals are
observed, Navy personnel must follow
established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are
supporting this activity (e.g., providing
range clearance), these Navy assets must
assist in the visual observation of the
area where detonations occurred.
(14) Maritime security operations—
anti-swimmer grenades—(i) Number of
Lookouts and observation platform. One
Lookout must be positioned on the
small boat conducting the activity. If
additional platforms are participating in
the activity, Navy personnel positioned
in those assets (e.g., safety observers,
evaluators) must support observing the
mitigation zone for applicable biological
resources while performing their regular
duties.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
200 yd around the intended detonation
location.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (e.g., when maneuvering on
station), Navy personnel must observe
the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if observed, Navy personnel
must relocate or delay the start until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel
also must observe the mitigation zone
for marine mammals; if observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the
start of detonations.
(B) During the activity, Navy
personnel must observe for marine
mammals; if observed, Navy personnel
must cease detonations.
(C) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing
detonations) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone;
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to the intended
detonation location; the mitigation zone
has been clear from any additional
sightings for 30 min.; or the intended
detonation location has transited a
distance equal to double that of the
mitigation zone size beyond the location
of the last sighting.
(D) After completion of the activity
(e.g., prior to maneuvering off station),
when practical (e.g., when platforms are
not constrained by fuel restrictions or
mission-essential follow-on
commitments), Navy personnel must
observe for marine mammals in the
vicinity of where detonations occurred;
if any injured or dead marine mammals
are observed, Navy personnel must
follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are
supporting this activity (e.g., providing
range clearance), these Navy assets must
assist in the visual observation of the
area where detonations occurred.
(15) Line charge testing—(i) Number
of Lookouts and observation platform.
One Lookout must be positioned on a
vessel. If additional platforms are
participating in the activity, Navy
personnel positioned in those assets
(e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must
support observing the mitigation zone
for applicable biological resources while
performing their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
900 yd around the intended detonation
location.
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57255
(A) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (e.g., when maneuvering on
station), Navy personnel must observe
the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if observed, Navy personnel
must delay the start until the mitigation
zone is clear. Navy personnel also must
observe the mitigation zone for marine
mammals; if observed, Navy personnel
must delay the start of detonations.
(B) During the activity, Navy
personnel must observe for marine
mammals; if observed, Navy personnel
must cease detonations.
(C) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing
detonations) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone;
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to the intended
detonation location; or the mitigation
zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for 30 min.
(D) After completion of the activity
(e.g., prior to maneuvering off station),
when practical (e.g., when platforms are
not constrained by fuel restrictions or
mission-essential follow-on
commitments), Navy personnel must
observe for marine mammals in the
vicinity of where detonations occurred;
if any injured or dead marine mammals
are observed, Navy personnel must
follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are
supporting this activity (e.g., providing
range clearance), these Navy assets will
assist in the visual observation of the
area where detonations occurred.
(16) Ship shock trials—(i) Number of
Lookouts and observation platform. (A)
A minimum of ten Lookouts or trained
marine species observers (or a
combination thereof) must be positioned
either in an aircraft or on multiple
vessels (i.e., a Marine Animal Response
Team boat and the test ship).
(1) If aircraft are used, Lookouts or
trained marine species observers must
be in an aircraft and on multiple vessels.
(2) If aircraft are not used, a sufficient
number of additional Lookouts or
trained marine species observers must
be used to provide vessel-based visual
observation comparable to that achieved
by aerial surveys.
(B) If additional platforms are
participating in the activity, Navy
personnel positioned in those assets
(e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57256
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
support observing the mitigation zone
for applicable biological resources while
performing their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
3.5 nmi around the ship hull.
(A) The Navy must not conduct ship
shock trials in the Jacksonville
Operating Area during North Atlantic
right whale calving season from
November 15 through April 15.
(B) The Navy must develop detailed
ship shock trial monitoring and
mitigation plans approximately one-year
prior to an event and must continue to
provide these to NMFS for review and
approval.
(C) Pre-activity planning must include
selection of one primary and two
secondary areas where marine mammal
populations are expected to be the
lowest during the event, with the
primary and secondary locations located
more than 2 nmi from the western
boundary of the Gulf Stream for events
in the Virginia Capes Range Complex or
Jacksonville Range Complex.
(D) If it is determined during preactivity surveys that the primary area is
environmentally unsuitable (e.g.,
observations of marine mammals or
presence of concentrations of floating
vegetation), the shock trial can be
moved to a secondary site in accordance
with the detailed mitigation and
monitoring plan provided to NMFS.
(E) Prior to the initial start of the
activity at the primary shock trial
location (in intervals of 5 hrs, 3 hrs, 40
min, and immediately before the
detonation), Navy personnel must
observe the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if observed, Navy personnel
must delay the start until the mitigation
zone is clear. Navy personnel also must
observe the mitigation zone for marine
mammals; if observed, Navy personnel
must delay triggering the detonation.
(F) During the activity, Navy
personnel must observe for marine
mammals, large schools of fish, jellyfish
aggregations, and flocks of seabirds; if
observed, Navy personnel must cease
triggering the detonation. After
completion of each detonation, Navy
personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if any
injured or dead marine mammals are
observed, Navy personnel must follow
established incident reporting
procedures and halt any remaining
detonations until Navy personnel can
consult with NMFS and review or adapt
the mitigation, if necessary.
(G) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing
detonations) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone;
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to the ship hull; or
the mitigation zone has been clear from
any additional sightings for 30 min.
(H) After completion of the activity
(during the following two days at a
minimum, and up to seven days at a
maximum), Navy personnel must
observe for marine mammals in the
vicinity of where detonations occurred;
if any injured or dead marine mammals
are observed, Navy personnel must
follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are
supporting this activity (e.g., providing
range clearance), these Navy assets will
assist in the visual observation of the
area where detonations occurred.
(17) Vessel movement. The mitigation
will not be applied if: the vessel’s safety
is threatened; the vessel is restricted in
its ability to maneuver (e.g., during
launching and recovery of aircraft or
landing craft, during towing activities,
when mooring, etc.); or the vessel is
operated autonomously.
(i) Number of Lookouts and
observation platform. One Lookout must
be on the vessel that is underway.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
(A) 500 yd around whales.
(B) 200 yd around all other marine
mammals (except bow-riding dolphins
and pinnipeds hauled out on man-made
navigational structures, port structures,
and vessels).
(C) During the activity, when
underway, Navy personnel must
observe the mitigation zone for marine
mammals; if observed, Navy personnel
must maneuver to maintain distance.
(D) Additionally, Navy personnel
must broadcast awareness notification
messages with North Atlantic right
whale Dynamic Management Area
information (e.g., location and dates) to
applicable Navy assets operating in the
vicinity of the Dynamic Management
Area. The information will alert assets
to the possible presence of a North
Atlantic right whale to maintain safety
of navigation and further reduce the
potential for a vessel strike. Platforms
will use the information to assist their
visual observation of applicable
mitigation zones during training and
testing activities and to aid in the
implementation of procedural
mitigation, including but not limited to,
mitigation for vessel movement. If a
marine mammal vessel strike occurs,
Navy personnel must follow the
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
established incident reporting
procedures.
(18) Towed in-water devices.
Mitigation applies to devices that are
towed from a manned surface platform
or manned aircraft. The mitigation will
not be applied if the safety of the towing
platform or in-water device is
threatened.
(i) Number of Lookouts and
observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned on a manned towing
platform.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
250 yd around marine mammals. During
the activity, when towing an in-water
device, Navy personnel must observe for
marine mammals; if observed, Navy
personnel must maneuver to maintain
distance.
(19) Small-, medium-, and largecaliber non-explosive practice
munitions. Mitigation applies to
activities using a surface target.
(i) Number of Lookouts and
observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned on the platform
conducting the activity. Depending on
the activity, the Lookout could be the
same as the one described for weapons
firing noise in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this
section.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
200 yd around the intended impact
location.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (e.g., when maneuvering on
station), Navy personnel must observe
the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if observed, Navy personnel
must relocate or delay the start until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel
also must observe the mitigation zone
for marine mammals; if observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the
start of firing.
(B) During the activity, Navy
personnel must observe for marine
mammals; if observed, Navy personnel
must cease firing.
(C) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing
firing) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone;
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to the intended
impact location; the mitigation zone has
been clear from any additional sightings
for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30
min for vessel-based firing; or for
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
activities using a mobile target, the
intended impact location has transited a
distance equal to double that of the
mitigation zone size beyond the location
of the last sighting.
(20) Non-explosive missiles and
rockets. Aircraft-deployed nonexplosive missiles and rockets.
Mitigation applies to activities using a
surface target.
(i) Number of Lookouts and
observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned in an aircraft.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
900 yd around the intended impact
location.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the
mitigation zone), Navy personnel must
observe the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if observed, Navy personnel
must relocate or delay the start until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel
also must observe the mitigation zone
for marine mammals; if observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the
start of firing.
(B) During the activity, Navy
personnel must observe for marine
mammals; if observed, Navy personnel
must cease firing.
(C) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting prior to or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing
firing) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the mitigation zone;
the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to the intended
impact location; or the mitigation zone
has been clear from any additional
sightings for 10 min when the activity
involves aircraft that have fuel
constraints, or 30 min when the activity
involves aircraft that are not typically
fuel constrained.
(21) Non-explosive bombs and mine
shapes. Non-explosive bombs and nonexplosive mine shapes during mine
laying activities.
(i) Number of Lookouts and
observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned in an aircraft.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements.
1,000 yd around the intended target.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the
activity (e.g., when arriving on station),
Navy personnel must observe the
mitigation zone for floating vegetation;
if observed, Navy personnel must
relocate or delay the start until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
also must observe the mitigation zone
for marine mammals; if observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the
start of bomb deployment or mine
laying.
(B) During the activity (e.g., during
approach of the target or intended
minefield location), Navy personnel
must observe the mitigation zone for
marine mammals; if observed, Navy
personnel must cease bomb deployment
or mine laying.
(C) Commencement/recommencement
conditions after a marine mammal
sighting prior to or during the activity:
Navy personnel must allow a sighted
marine mammal to leave the mitigation
zone prior to the initial start of the
activity (by delaying the start) or during
the activity (by not recommencing bomb
deployment or mine laying) until one of
the following conditions has been met:
The animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone; the animal is thought to
have exited the mitigation zone based
on a determination of its course, speed,
and movement relative to the intended
target or minefield location; the
mitigation zone has been clear from any
additional sightings for 10 min; or for
activities using mobile targets, the
intended target has transited a distance
equal to double that of the mitigation
zone size beyond the location of the last
sighting.
(b) Mitigation areas. In addition to
procedural mitigation, the Navy must
implement mitigation measures within
mitigation areas to avoid potential
impacts on marine mammals.
(1) Mitigation areas off the
Northeastern United States for sonar,
explosives, and physical disturbance
and strikes—(i) Mitigation area
requirements. (A) Northeast North
Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area
(year-round):
(1) Navy personnel must report the
total hours and counts of active sonar
and in-water explosives used in the
mitigation area (which includes North
Atlantic right whale ESA-designated
critical habitat) in its annual training
and testing activity reports submitted to
NMFS.
(2) Navy personnel must minimize the
use of low-frequency active sonar, midfrequency active sonar, and highfrequency active sonar to the maximum
extent practicable within the mitigation
area.
(3) Navy personnel must not use
Improved Extended Echo Ranging
sonobuoys in or within 3 nmi of the
mitigation area or use explosive and
non-explosive bombs, in-water
detonations, and explosive torpedoes
within the mitigation area.
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57257
(4) For activities using non-explosive
torpedoes within the mitigation area,
Navy personnel must conduct activities
during daylight hours in Beaufort sea
state 3 or less. The Navy must use three
Lookouts (one positioned on a vessel
and two positioned in an aircraft during
dedicated aerial surveys) to observe the
vicinity of the activity. An additional
Lookout must be positioned on the
submarine, when surfaced. Immediately
prior to the start of the activity, Navy
personnel will observe for floating
vegetation and marine mammals; if
observed, Navy personnel will not
commence the activity until the vicinity
is clear or the activity is relocated to an
area where the vicinity is clear. During
the activity, Navy personnel will
observe for marine mammals; if
observed, Navy personnel will cease the
activity. To allow a sighted marine
mammal to leave the area, Navy
personnel must not recommence the
activity until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is
observed exiting the vicinity of the
activity; the animal is thought to have
exited the vicinity of the activity based
on a determination of its course, speed,
and movement relative to the activity
location; or the area has been clear from
any additional sightings for 30 min.
During transits and normal firing, ships
will maintain a speed of no more than
10 knots (kn). During submarine target
firing, ships must maintain speeds of no
more than 18 kn. During vessel target
firing, vessel speeds may exceed 18 kn
for brief periods of time (e.g., 10–15
min).
(5) For all activities, before vessel
transits within the mitigation area, Navy
personnel must conduct a web query or
email inquiry to the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration Northeast Fisheries
Science Center’s North Atlantic Right
Whale Sighting Advisory System to
obtain the latest North Atlantic right
whale sightings information. Navy
personnel on vessels must use the
sightings information to reduce
potential interactions with North
Atlantic right whales during transits.
Navy personnel on vessels must
implement speed reductions within the
mitigation area after observing a North
Atlantic right whale, if transiting within
5 nmi of a sighting reported to the North
Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory
System within the past week, and if
transiting at night or during periods of
reduced visibility.
(B) Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness
Mitigation Area (year-round):
(1) Navy personnel must report the
total hours and counts of active sonar
and in-water explosives used in the
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57258
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
mitigation area in its annual training
and testing activity reports submitted to
NMFS.
(2) Navy personnel must not conduct
greater than 200 hrs of hull-mounted
mid-frequency active sonar per year
within the mitigation area.
(3) Navy personnel must not conduct
major training exercises (Composite
Training Unit Exercises or Fleet
Exercises/Sustainment Exercises) within
the mitigation area. If the Navy needs to
conduct a major training exercise within
the mitigation area in support of
training requirements driven by national
security concerns, Navy personnel must
confer with NMFS to verify that
potential impacts are adequately
addressed.
(C) Northeast Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas (year-round):
(1) Navy personnel will avoid
planning major training exercises
(Composite Training Unit Exercises or
Fleet Exercises/Sustainment Exercises)
within the mitigation area to the
maximum extent practicable.
(2) Navy personnel must not conduct
more than four major training exercises
per year (all or a portion of the exercise)
within the mitigation area.
(3) If the Navy needs to conduct
additional major training exercises in
the mitigation area in support of
training requirements driven by national
security concerns, Navy personnel must
provide NMFS with advance
notification and include the information
in its annual training and testing
activity reports submitted to NMFS.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) Mitigation areas off the MidAtlantic and Southeastern United States
for sonar, explosives, and physical
disturbance and strikes—(i) Mitigation
area requirements. (A) Southeast North
Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area
(November 15 through April 15):
(1) Navy personnel must report the
total hours and counts of active sonar
and in-water explosives used in the
mitigation area in its annual training
and testing activity reports submitted to
NMFS.
(2) The Navy must not conduct: Lowfrequency active sonar (except as noted
in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(3) of this
section), mid-frequency active sonar
(except as noted in paragraph
(b)(2)(i)(A)(3) of this section), highfrequency active sonar, missile and
rocket activities (explosive and nonexplosive), small-, medium-, and largecaliber gunnery activities, Improved
Extended Echo Ranging sonobuoy
activities, explosive and non-explosive
bombing activities, in-water
detonations, and explosive torpedo
activities within the mitigation area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
(3) To the maximum extent
practicable, Navy personnel must
minimize the use of: Helicopter dipping
sonar, low-frequency active sonar and
hull-mounted mid-frequency active
sonar used for navigation training, and
low-frequency active sonar and hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar
used for object detection exercises
within the mitigation area.
(4) Before transiting or conducting
training or testing activities within the
mitigation area, Navy personnel must
initiate communication with the Fleet
Area Control and Surveillance Facility,
Jacksonville to obtain Early Warning
System North Atlantic right whale
sightings data. The Fleet Area Control
and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville
must advise Navy personnel on vessels
of all reported whale sightings in the
vicinity to help Navy personnel on
vessels and aircraft reduce potential
interactions with North Atlantic right
whales. Commander Submarine Force
U.S. Atlantic Fleet must coordinate any
submarine activities that may require
approval from the Fleet Area Control
and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville.
Navy personnel on vessels must use the
sightings information to reduce
potential interactions with North
Atlantic right whales during transits.
(5) Navy personnel on vessels must
implement speed reductions after they
observe a North Atlantic right whale, if
they are within 5 nmi of a sighting
reported within the past 12 hrs, or when
operating in the mitigation area at night
or during periods of poor visibility.
(6) To the maximum extent
practicable, Navy personnel on vessels
must minimize north-south transits in
the mitigation area.
(B) Southeast North Atlantic Right
Whale Critical Habitat Special Reporting
Area (November 15 through April 15):
(1) Navy personnel must report the
total hours and counts of active sonar
and in-water explosives used in the
Special Reporting Area (which includes
southeast North Atlantic right whale
ESA-designated critical habitat) in its
annual training and testing activity
reports submitted to NMFS.
(2) [Reserved]
(C) Jacksonville Operating Area
(November 15 through April 15):
(1) Navy units conducting training or
testing activities in the Jacksonville
Operating Area must initiate
communication with the Fleet Area
Control and Surveillance Facility,
Jacksonville to obtain Early Warning
System North Atlantic right whale
sightings data. The Fleet Area Control
and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville
must advise Navy personnel on vessels
of all reported whale sightings in the
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
vicinity to help Navy personnel on
vessels and aircraft reduce potential
interactions with North Atlantic right
whales. Commander Submarine Force
U.S. Atlantic Fleet must coordinate any
submarine activities that may require
approval from the Fleet Area Control
and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville.
Navy personnel must use the reported
sightings information as they plan
specific details of events (e.g., timing,
location, duration) to minimize
potential interactions with North
Atlantic right whales to the maximum
extent practicable. Navy personnel must
use the reported sightings information
to assist visual observations of
applicable mitigation zones and to aid
in the implementation of procedural
mitigation.
(2) [Reserved]
(D) Navy Cherry Point Range Complex
Nearshore Mitigation Area (March
through September):
(1) Navy personnel must not conduct
explosive mine neutralization activities
involving Navy divers in the mitigation
area.
(2) To the maximum extent
practicable, Navy personnel must not
use explosive sonobuoys, explosive
torpedoes, explosive medium-caliber
and large-caliber projectiles, explosive
missiles and rockets, explosive bombs,
explosive mines during mine
countermeasure and neutralization
activities, and anti-swimmer grenades in
the mitigation area.
(E) Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas (year-round):
(1) Navy personnel will avoid
planning major training exercises
(Composite Training Unit Exercises or
Fleet Exercises/Sustainment Exercises)
to the maximum extent practicable.
(2) Navy personnel must not conduct
more than four major training exercises
per year (all or a portion of the exercise)
within the mitigation area.
(3) If the Navy needs to conduct
additional major training exercises in
the mitigation area in support of
training requirements driven by national
security concerns, Navy personnel will
provide NMFS with advance
notification and include the information
in its annual training and testing
activity reports submitted to NMFS.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) Mitigation areas in the Gulf of
Mexico for sonar—(i) Mitigation area
requirements. (A) Gulf of Mexico
Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas
(year-round):
(1) Navy personnel must not conduct
major training exercises within the
mitigation area (all or a portion of the
exercise).
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
(2) If the Navy needs to conduct a
major training exercise within the
mitigation areas in support of training
requirements driven by national
security concerns, Navy personnel must
confer with NMFS to verify that
potential impacts are adequately
addressed.
(B) Bryde’s Whale Mitigation Area
(year-round):
(1) Navy personnel must report the
total hours and counts of active sonar
and in-water explosives used in the
mitigation area in its annual training
and testing activity reports submitted to
NMFS.
(2) Navy personnel must not conduct
greater than 200 hrs of hull-mounted
mid-frequency active sonar per year
within the mitigation area.
(3) The Navy must not use explosives
(except during mine warfare activities)
within the mitigation area.
(ii) [Reserved]
§ 218.85 Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
(a) Unauthorized take. The Navy must
notify NMFS immediately (or as soon as
operational security considerations
allow) if the specified activity identified
in § 218.80 is thought to have resulted
in the mortality or serious injury of any
marine mammals, or in any Level A or
Level B harassment take of marine
mammals not identified in this subpart.
(b) Monitoring and reporting under
the LOAs. The Navy must conduct all
monitoring and required reporting
under the LOAs, including abiding by
the AFTT Study Area monitoring
program. Details on program goals,
objectives, project selection process, and
current projects are available at
www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us.
(c) Notification of injured, live
stranded, or dead marine mammals.
The Navy must consult the Notification
and Reporting Plan, which sets out
notification, reporting, and other
requirements when dead, injured, or
live stranded marine mammals are
detected. The Notification and
Reporting Plan is available at
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities.
(d) Annual AFTT Study Area marine
species monitoring report. The Navy
must submit an annual report of the
AFTT Study Area monitoring describing
the implementation and results from the
previous calendar year. Data collection
methods must be standardized across
range complexes and study areas to
allow for comparison in different
geographic locations. The report must
be submitted to the Director, Office of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
Protected Resources of NMFS 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. This report will
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 must be treated
together so that progress on each topic
can 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.
(e) Annual AFTT Study Area training
and testing reports. Each year, the Navy
must submit a preliminary report (Quick
Look Report) detailing the status of
authorized sound sources within 21
days after the anniversary of the date of
issuance of each LOA to the Director,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS.
Each year, the Navy must submit a
detailed report within 3 months after
the anniversary of the date of issuance
of each LOA to the Director, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS. The annual
reports must contain information on
Major Training Exercises (MTEs),
Sinking Exercise (SINKEX) events, and
a summary of all sound sources used,
including within specified mitigation
reporting areas, as described in
paragraph (e)(3) of this section. The
analysis in the detailed report must be
based on the accumulation of data from
the current year’s report and data
collected from the previous report. The
detailed reports must contain
information identified in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) MTEs. This section of the report
must contain the following information
for MTEs conducted in the AFTT Study
Area:
(i) Exercise Information (for each
MTE):
(A) Exercise designator.
(B) Date that exercise began and
ended.
(C) Location.
(D) Number and types of active sonar
sources used in the exercise.
(E) Number and types of passive
acoustic sources used in exercise.
(F) Number and types of vessels,
aircraft, and other platforms,
participating in exercise.
(G) Total hours of all active sonar
source operation.
(H) Total hours of each active sonar
source bin.
(I) Wave height (high, low, and
average) during exercise.
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
57259
(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.g.,
sonar, Lookout).
(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 was
less than 200 yd, 200 to 500 yd, 500 to
1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 yd, or greater
than 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 was hull-mounted,
true bearing of animal from the vessel,
true direction of vessel’s travel, and
estimation of animal’s motion relative to
vessel (opening, closing, parallel).
(M) Observed behavior. Lookouts
must report, in plain language and
without trying to categorize in any way,
the observed behavior of the animal(s)
(such as animal closing to bow ride,
paralleling course/speed, floating on
surface and not swimming, etc.) and if
any calves were 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 must identify
the specific observations that support
any conclusions the Navy reaches about
the effectiveness of the mitigation.
(2) SINKEXs. This section must
include the following information for
each SINKEX completed that year:
(i) Exercise information (gathered for
each SINKEX):
(A) Location.
(B) Date and time exercise began and
ended.
(C) Total hours of observation by
Lookouts before, during, and after
exercise.
(D) Total number and types of
explosive source bins detonated.
(E) Number and types of passive
acoustic sources used in exercise.
(F) Total hours of passive acoustic
search time.
(G) Number and types of vessels,
aircraft, and other platforms
participating in exercise.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
57260
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
(H) Wave height in feet (high, low,
and average) during exercise.
(J) Narrative description of sensors
and platforms utilized for marine
mammal detection and timeline
illustrating how marine mammal
detection was conducted.
(ii) Individual marine mammal
observation (by Navy Lookouts)
information (gathered for each marine
mammal sighting) for each sighting
where mitigation was implemented:
(A) Date/Time/Location of sighting.
(B) Species (if not possible, indicate
whale, dolphin, or pinniped).
(C) Number of individuals.
(D) Initial detection sensor (e.g., sonar
or Lookout).
(E) Length of time observers
maintained visual contact with marine
mammal.
(F) Sea state.
(G) Visibility.
(H) Whether sighting was before,
during, or after detonations/exercise,
and how many minutes before or after.
(I) Distance of marine mammal from
actual detonations: Less than 200 yd,
200 to 500 yd, 500 to 1,000 yd, 1,000 to
2,000 yd, or greater than 2,000 yd (or
target spot if not yet detonated).
(J) Observed behavior. Lookouts must
report, in plain language and without
trying to categorize in any way, the
observed behavior of the animal(s) (such
as animal closing to bow ride,
paralleling course/speed, floating on
surface and not swimming etc.),
including speed and direction and if
any calves were present.
(K) Resulting mitigation
implementation. The report must
indicate whether explosive detonations
were delayed, ceased, modified, or not
modified due to marine mammal
presence and for how long.
(L) If observation occurred while
explosives were detonating in the water,
indicate munition type in use at time of
marine mammal detection.
(3) Summary of sources used. This
section must include the following
information summarized from the
authorized sound sources used in all
training and testing events:
(i) Total annual hours or quantity (per
the LOA) of each bin of sonar or other
acoustic sources (pile driving and air
gun activities); and
(ii) Total annual expended/detonated
ordnance (missiles, bombs, sonobuoys,
etc.) for each explosive bin.
(4) Geographic information
presentation. The reports must present
an annual (and seasonal, where
practical) depiction of training and
testing bin usage (as well as pile driving
activities) geographically across the
AFTT Study Area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
(5) Sonar exercise notification. The
Navy must submit to NMFS (contact as
specified in the LOA) an electronic
report within fifteen calendar days after
the completion of any MTE indicating:
(i) Location of the exercise;
(ii) Beginning and end dates of the
exercise; and
(iii) Type of exercise.
(f) Five-year close-out comprehensive
training and testing report. This report
must be included as part of the 2023
annual training and testing report. This
report must provide the annual totals for
each sound source bin with a
comparison to the annual allowance and
the five-year total for each sound source
bin with a comparison to the five-year
allowance. Additionally, if there were
any changes to the sound source
allowance, this report must 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 EIS and final rule
determinations. The draft report must be
submitted three months after the
expiration of this subpart to the
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS. NMFS must submit comments
on the draft close-out report, if any,
within three 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.
§ 218.86
Letters of Authorization.
(a) To incidentally take marine
mammals pursuant to the regulations in
this subpart, the Navy must apply for
and obtain Letters of Authorization
(LOAs) in accordance with § 216.106 of
this chapter.
(b) LOAs, unless suspended or
revoked, may be effective for a period of
time not to exceed the expiration date
of the regulations in this subpart.
(c) If an LOA expires prior to the
expiration date of the regulations in this
subpart, the Navy may apply for and
obtain a renewal of the LOA.
(d) In the event of projected changes
to the activity or to mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting (excluding
changes made pursuant to the adaptive
management provision of § 218.87(c)(1))
as required by an LOA issued under this
subpart, the Navy must apply for and
obtain a modification of the LOA as
described in § 218.87.
(e) Each LOA will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental
taking;
(2) Specified geographic areas for
incidental taking;
(3) Means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact (i.e.,
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
mitigation) on the species or stocks of
marine mammals and their habitat; and
(4) Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
(f) Issuance of the LOA(s) will be
based on a determination that the level
of taking must be consistent with the
findings made for the total taking
allowable under the regulations in this
subpart.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of the
LOA(s) will be published in the Federal
Register within 30 days of a
determination.
§ 218.87 Renewals and modifications of
Letters of Authorization.
(a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106
of this chapter and 218.86 may be
renewed or modified upon request by
the applicant, provided that:
(1) The planned specified activity and
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures, as well as the anticipated
impacts, are the same as those described
and analyzed for the regulations in this
subpart (excluding changes made
pursuant to the adaptive management
provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section); and
(2) NMFS determines that the
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures required by the previous
LOA(s) under the regulations in this
subpart were implemented.
(b) For LOA modification or renewal
requests by the applicant that include
changes to the activity or to the
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting
measures (excluding changes made
pursuant to the adaptive management
provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section) 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 stock or
years), NMFS may publish a notice of
planned LOA in the Federal Register,
including the associated analysis of the
change, and solicit public comment
before issuing the LOA.
(c) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106
of this chapter and 218.86 may be
modified by NMFS under the following
circumstances:
(1) Adaptive management. After
consulting with the Navy regarding the
practicability of the modifications,
NMFS may modify (including adding or
removing measures) the existing
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting
measures 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
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting
measures in an LOA include:
(A) Results from the 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 the regulations in this
subpart or subsequent LOAs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:07 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
(ii) If, through adaptive management,
the modifications to the mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting measures are
substantial, NMFS will publish a notice
of planned 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 LOAs issued pursuant to
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
57261
§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.86,
an LOA may be modified without prior
notice or opportunity for public
comment. Notice would be published in
the Federal Register within thirty days
of the action.
§§ 218.88–218.89
[Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2018–24042 Filed 11–13–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\14NOR3.SGM
14NOR3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57076-57261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24042]
[[Page 57075]]
Vol. 83
Wednesday,
No. 220
November 14, 2018
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 218
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental
to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet
Training and Testing Study Area; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 57076]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 218
[Docket No. 170720687-8965-02]
RIN 0648-BH06
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the
Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS, upon request from the U.S. Navy (Navy), issues these
regulations pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to
govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to the training and
testing activities conducted in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing
(AFTT) Study Area over the course of five years beginning in November.
These regulations, which allow for the issuance of Letters of
Authorization (LOA) for the incidental take of marine mammals during
the described activities and timeframes, prescribe the permissible
methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat,
and establish requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting
of such taking.
DATES: Effective from November 14, 2018 through November 13, 2023.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the Navy's application and supporting documents,
as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be
obtained online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call
the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Regulatory Action
These regulations, issued under the authority of the MMPA (16
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), establish a framework for authorizing the take of
marine mammals incidental to the Navy's training and testing activities
(categorized as military readiness activities) from the use of sonar
and other transducers, in-water detonations, air guns, impact pile
driving/vibratory extraction, and potential vessel strikes based on
Navy movement throughout the AFTT Study Area, which includes areas of
the western Atlantic Ocean along the East Coast of North America,
portions of the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico (GOMEX).
We received an application from the Navy requesting five-year
regulations and authorizations to incidentally take individuals of
multiple species and stocks of marine mammals (``Navy's rulemaking/LOA
application'' or ``Navy's application''). Take is anticipated to occur
by Level A and Level B harassment as well as a very small number of
serious injuries or mortalities incidental to the Navy's training and
testing activities.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs
the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region
if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings
and issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking
pursuant to that activity, as well as monitoring and reporting
requirements. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I, provide the legal basis for
issuing this final rule and the subsequent LOAs. As directed by this
legal authority, this final rule contains mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements.
Summary of Major Provisions Within the Final Rule
Following is a summary of the major provisions of this final rule
regarding the Navy's activities. Major provisions include, but are not
limited to:
[ssquf] The use of defined powerdown and shutdown zones (based on
activity);
[ssquf] Measures to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of ship
strikes, especially for North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena
glacialis) (NARW);
[ssquf] Operational limitations in certain areas and times that are
biologically important (i.e., for foraging, migration, reproduction)
for marine mammals;
[ssquf] Implementation of a Notification and Reporting Plan (for
dead, live stranded, or marine mammals struck by a vessel); and
[ssquf] Implementation of a robust monitoring plan to improve our
understanding of the environmental effects resulting from Navy training
and testing activities.
Additionally, the rule includes an adaptive management component
that allows for timely modification of mitigation or monitoring
measures based on new information, when appropriate.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers
of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public for review and the opportunity
to submit comments.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking, other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or
stocks, and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of
such takings are set forth. The MMPA states that the term ``take''
means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt,
capture, or kill any marine mammal.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (2004 NDAA) (Pub. L.
108-136) amended section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to remove the ``small
numbers'' and ``specified geographical region'' provisions indicated
above and amended the definition of ``harassment'' as it applies to a
``military readiness activity,'' along with certain research
activities. The definitions of applicable MMPA statutory terms cited
above are included in the relevant sections below.
More recently, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019 NDAA) (Pub. L. 115-232) amended the MMPA
to allow incidental take rules for military readiness activities to be
issued for up to seven years. That recent amendment of the MMPA does
not affect this final rule.
[[Page 57077]]
Summary and Background of Request
On June 16, 2017, NMFS received an application from the Navy for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to training and testing
activities (categorized as military readiness activities) from the use
of sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations, air guns, and
impact pile driving/vibratory extraction in the AFTT Study Area. In
addition, the Navy requested incidental take authorization for up to
nine mortalities of four marine mammal species during ship shock
trials, and authorization for up to three takes by serious injury or
mortality from vessel strikes over the five-year period. On August 4,
2017, the Navy sent an amendment to its application, and the
application was found to be adequate and complete. On August 14, 2017
(82 FR 37851), we published a notice of receipt of application (NOR) in
the Federal Register, requesting comments and information related to
the Navy's request for 30 days. On March 13, 2018, we published a
notice of the proposed rulemaking (83 FR 10954) and requested comments
and information related to the Navy's request for 45 days. On April 9,
2018, a proposed rule correction (83 FR 15117), which corrected Table
4. Proposed Training was published in the Federal Register. Sections of
the table were missing from the preamble, specifically Amphibious
Warfare, Anti-Submarine Warfare, Expeditionary Warfare, Mine Warfare,
and a portion of Surface Warfare. Comments received during the NOR and
the proposed rulemaking comment periods are addressed in this final
rule. See further details addressing comments received in the Comments
and Responses section. On September 13, 2018, Navy provided NMFS with a
memorandum revising the takes by serious injury or mortality included
in the Navy's rulemaking/LOA application (Chapter 5, Section 5.2
Incidental Take Request from Vessel Strikes). Specifically, after
further analysis, the Navy withdrew the inclusion of the Western North
Atlantic stock of blue whale and the Northern GOMEX stock of sperm
whale from its request for authorization for take of three (3) large
whales by serious injury or mortality from vessel strike. The
information and assessment that supports this change is included in the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section.
The Navy requested two five-year LOAs, one for training and one for
testing activities to be conducted within the AFTT Study Area, which
includes areas of the western Atlantic Ocean along the East Coast of
North America, portions of the Caribbean Sea, and the GOMEX. Please
refer to the Navy's rulemaking/LOA application, specifically Figure
1.1-1 for a map of the AFTT Study Area and Figures 2.2-1 through Figure
2.2-3 for additional maps of the range complexes and testing ranges.
The following types of training and testing, which are classified
as military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by
the 2004 NDAA, will be covered under the regulations and associated
LOAs: amphibious warfare (in-water detonations), anti-submarine warfare
(sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations), expeditionary
warfare (in-water detonations), surface warfare (in-water detonations),
mine warfare (sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations), and
other warfare activities (sonar and other transducers, impact pile
driving/vibratory extraction, air guns). In addition, ship shock
trials, a specific testing activity related to vessel evaluation, will
be conducted. Also, ship strike by Navy vessels is addressed and
covered, as appropriate.
This will be NMFS' third series of rulemaking under the MMPA for
activities in the AFTT Study Area. NMFS published the first rule
effective from January 22, 2009 through January 22, 2014 on January 27,
2009 (74 FR 4844) and the second rule effective from November 14, 2013
through November 13, 2018 on December 4, 2013 (78 FR 73009). These
regulations are also valid for five years, from November 14, 2018,
through November 13, 2023.
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. This mission is
mandated by federal law (10 U.S.C. 5062), which ensures the readiness
of the naval forces of the United States. The Navy executes this
responsibility by establishing and executing training and testing
programs, including at-sea training and testing exercises, and ensuring
naval forces have access to the ranges, operating areas (OPAREAs), and
airspace needed to develop and maintain skills for conducting naval
activities.
The Navy plans to conduct training and testing activities within
the AFTT Study Area. The Navy has been conducting military readiness
activities in the AFTT Study Area for well over a century and with
active sonar for over 70 years. The tempo and types of training and
testing activities have fluctuated because of the introduction of new
technologies, the evolving nature of international events, advances in
warfighting doctrine and procedures, and changes in force structure
(organization of ships, weapons, and personnel). Such developments
influenced the frequency, duration, intensity, and location of required
training and testing activities. This rulemaking reflects the most up
to date compilation of training and testing activities deemed necessary
to accomplish military readiness requirements. The types and numbers of
activities included in the rule accounts for fluctuations in training
and testing in order to meet evolving or emergent military readiness
requirements.
These regulations cover training and testing activities that would
occur for a five-year period following the expiration of the current
MMPA authorization for the AFTT Study Area, which expires on November
13, 2018.
Description of the Specified Activity
Additional detail regarding the specified activity was provided in
our Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking (83 FR 10954; March
13, 2018); please see that proposed rule or the Navy's application for
more information. Since the proposed rule, the Navy has removed one of
its testing activities in the Northeast Range Complex (four events for
Undersea Warfare Testing (USWT), which decreased the number of takes by
Level B harassment for the NARW by 115 takes annually. This change also
decreased take by Level B harassment by approximately 200 takes
annually for Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed fin whale and 20 takes
annually for sei whales as well as approximately 10,000 takes annually
for harbor porpoise. NMFS and the Navy have also reached agreement on
additional mitigation measures since the proposed rule, which are
summarized below and discussed in greater detail in the Mitigation
Measures section of this rule.
The Navy agrees to implement pre- and post-event observations as
part of all in-water explosive event mitigations in the AFTT Study
Area. The Navy has expanded the Northeast (NE) NARW Mitigation Area to
match the updated NE NARW ESA-designated critical habitat. The Navy has
agreed to broadcast awareness notification messages with NARW Dynamic
Management Area information (e.g., location and dates) to alert vessels
to the possible presence of a NARW to further reduce the potential for
a vessel strike. The Navy has agreed to additional coordination to aid
in the implementation of procedural mitigation to minimize potential
interactions with NARW in the
[[Page 57078]]
Jacksonville Operating Area. The Navy will also report the total hours
and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in a Southeast
(SE) NARW Critical Habitat Special Reporting Area in its annual
training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS. The Navy will
minimize use of explosives (March to September) in the Navy Cherry
Point Range Complex Nearshore Mitigation Area to the extent
practicable.
In addition, the Navy will not conduct major training exercises
(MTE) in the Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness Mitigation Area and the
GOMEX Planning Awareness Mitigation Area. The Navy will also implement
a 200 hour (hr)/year hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar (MFAS) cap
in the Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness Mitigation Area. The Navy has
added a year-round, Bryde's Whale Mitigation Area, which will cover the
biologically important area (BIA) as described in NMFS' 2016 Status
Review (NMFS 2016) and implement a 200 hr/year hull-mounted MFAS cap
and restrict all explosives except for mine warfare activities events
in this mitigation area. The Navy has assessed and agreed to move the
ship shock trial box east of the Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness
Mitigation Areas and move the northern GOMEX ship shock trial west of
the Bryde's Whale Mitigation Area, including five nmi buffers from the
mitigation areas.
The Navy has also revised its estimated serious injury or mortality
takes of large whales and, as a result, withdrawn its request for
serious injury or mortality incidental take for the Western North
Atlantic stock of blue whale and Northern GOMEX stock of sperm whale
due to the extremely low probability that vessel strike incidental to
the training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area would occur.
Overview of Training and Testing Activities
The Navy routinely trains and tests in the AFTT Study Area in
preparation for national defense missions. Training and testing
activities and exercises covered in these regulations are summarized
below.
Primary Mission Areas
The Navy categorizes its activities into functional warfare areas
called primary mission areas. These activities generally fall into the
following seven primary mission areas: Air warfare; amphibious warfare;
anti-submarine warfare (ASW); electronic warfare; expeditionary
warfare; mine warfare (MIW); and surface warfare (SUW). Most activities
addressed in the AFTT Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS/OEIS) are categorized under one of
the primary mission areas; the testing community has three additional
categories of activities for vessel evaluation (including ship shock
trials), unmanned systems, and acoustic and oceanographic science and
technology. Activities that do not fall within one of these areas are
listed as ``other warfare activities.'' Each warfare community
(surface, subsurface, aviation, and expeditionary warfare) may train in
some or all of these primary mission areas. The testing community also
categorizes most, but not all, of its testing activities under these
primary mission areas.
The Navy describes and analyzes the impacts of its training and
testing activities within the AFTT FEIS/OEIS and the Navy's rulemaking/
LOA application (documents available at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities). In its assessment, the Navy concluded
that sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations, air guns, and
pile driving/extraction were the stressors that would result in impacts
on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment (also
serious injury or mortality in ship shock trials or by vessel strike)
as defined under the MMPA. Therefore, the rulemaking/LOA application
provides the Navy's assessment of potential effects from these
stressors in terms of the various warfare mission areas in which they
would be conducted. In terms of Navy's primary warfare areas, this
includes:
Amphibious warfare (in-water detonations);
anti-submarine warfare (sonar and other transducers, in-
water detonations);
expeditionary warfare (in-water detonations);
surface warfare (in-water detonations);
mine warfare (sonar and other transducers, in-water
detonations); and
other warfare activities (sonar and other transducers,
impact pile driving/vibratory extraction, air guns).
Overview of Training Activities and Exercises Within the AFTT Study
Area
An MTE is comprised of several ``unit level'' range exercises
conducted by several units operating together while commanded and
controlled by a single commander. These exercises typically employ an
exercise scenario developed to train and evaluate the strike group in
naval tactical tasks. In a MTE, most of the activities being directed
and coordinated by the strike group commander are identical in nature
to the activities conducted during individual, crew, and smaller unit
level training events. In a MTE, however, these disparate training
tasks are conducted in concert, rather than in isolation.
Some integrated or coordinated ASW exercises are similar in that
they are comprised of several unit level exercises but are generally on
a smaller scale than a MTE, are shorter in duration, use fewer assets,
and use fewer hours of hull-mounted sonar per exercise. These
coordinated exercises are conducted under anti-submarine warfare. For
the purpose of analysis, three key factors used to identify and group
the exercises are the scale of the exercise, duration of the exercise,
and amount of hull-mounted sonar hours modeled/used for the exercise.
NMFS considered the effects of all training exercises, not just the
major training exercises in these regulations. Additional detail
regarding the training activities was provided in our Federal Register
notice of proposed rulemaking (83 FR 10954; March 13, 2018) and a
proposed rule correction (83 FR 15117; April 9, 2018); please see those
documents or the Navy's application for more information.
Overview of Testing Activities Within the AFTT Study Area
The Navy's research and acquisition community engages in a broad
spectrum of testing activities in support of the fleet. These
activities include, but are not limited to, basic and applied
scientific research and technology development; testing, evaluation,
and maintenance of systems (e.g., missiles, radar, and sonar) and
platforms (e.g., surface ships, submarines, and aircraft); and
acquisition of systems and platforms to support Navy missions and give
a technological edge over adversaries. The individual commands within
the research and acquisition community included in the Navy's
rulemaking/LOA application are the Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Sea
Systems Command, and the Office of Naval Research. Additional detail
regarding the testing activities was provided in our Federal Register
notice of proposed rulemaking (83 FR 10954; March 13, 2018); please see
that proposed rule or the Navy's application for more information.
Dates and Duration
The specified activities may occur at any time during the five-year
period of validity of the regulations. Planned number and duration of
training and
[[Page 57079]]
testing activities are shown in the Planned Activities section (Tables
4 through 7).
Specific Geographic Area
The Navy's training and testing activities conducted within the
AFTT Study Area (which includes areas of the western Atlantic Ocean
along the East Coast of North America, portions of the Caribbean Sea,
and the GOMEX), covers approximately 2.6 million square nautical miles
(nmi \2\) of ocean area, oriented from the mean high tide line along
the U.S. coast and extends east to the 45-degree west longitude line,
north to the 65-degree north latitude line, and south to approximately
the 20-degree north latitude line. Please refer to the Navy's
rulemaking/LOA application, specifically Figure 1.1-1 for a map of the
AFTT Study Area and Figures 2.2-1 through Figure 2.2-3 for additional
maps of the range complexes and testing ranges.
Description of Acoustic and Explosive Stressors
The planned training and testing activities were evaluated to
identify specific components that could act as stressors (acoustic and
explosive) by having direct or indirect impacts on the environment.
This analysis included identification of the spatial variation of the
identified stressors.
The Navy uses a variety of sensors, platforms, weapons, and other
devices, including ones used to ensure the safety of Sailors and
Marines, to meet its mission. Training and testing with these systems
may introduce acoustic (sound) energy into the environment. The Navy's
rulemaking/LOA application describes specific components that could act
as stressors by having direct or indirect impacts on the environment.
This analysis included identification of the spatial variation of the
identified stressors. The following subsections describe the acoustic
and explosive stressors for biological resources within the AFTT Study
Area. Because of the complexity of analyzing sound propagation in the
ocean environment, the Navy relies on acoustic models in its
environmental analyses that consider sound source characteristics and
varying ocean conditions across the AFTT Study Area. Stressor/resource
interactions that were determined to have de minimus or no impacts
(i.e., vessel, aircraft, or weapons noise) were not carried forward for
analysis in the Navy's rulemaking/LOA application. NMFS reviewed the
Navy's analysis and conclusions and finds them complete and
supportable.
Acoustic Stressors
Acoustic stressors include acoustic signals emitted into the water
for a specific purpose, such as sonar, other transducers (devices that
convert energy from one form to another--in this case, to sound waves),
and air guns, as well as incidental sources of broadband sound produced
as a byproduct of impact pile driving and vibratory extraction.
Explosives also produce broadband sound but are characterized
separately from other acoustic sources due to their unique
characteristics. In order to better organize and facilitate the
analysis of approximately 300 sources of underwater sound used for
training and testing by the Navy including sonars, other transducers,
air guns, and explosives, a series of source classifications, or source
bins, were developed. The source classification bins do not include the
broadband sounds produced incidental to pile driving, vessel or
aircraft transits, weapons firing, and bow shocks.
The use of source classification bins provides the following
benefits: Provides the ability for new sensors or munitions to be
covered under existing authorizations, as long as those sources fall
within the parameters of a ``bin;'' improves efficiency of source
utilization data collection and reporting requirements anticipated
under the MMPA authorizations; ensures a conservative approach to all
impact estimates, as all sources within a given class are modeled as
the most impactful source (highest source level, longest duty cycle, or
largest net explosive weight) within that bin; allows analyses to be
conducted in a more efficient manner, without any compromise of
analytical results; and provides a framework to support the
reallocation of source usage (hours/explosives) between different
source bins, as long as the total numbers of takes remain within the
overall analyzed and authorized limits. This flexibility is required to
support evolving Navy training and testing requirements, which are
linked to real world events.
Sonar and Other Transducers
Active sonar and other transducers emit non-impulsive sound waves
into the water to detect objects, safely navigate, and communicate.
Passive sonars differ from active sound sources in that they do not
emit acoustic signals; rather, they only receive acoustic information
about the environment, or listen.
The Navy employs a variety of sonars and other transducers to
obtain and transmit information about the undersea environment. Some
examples are mid-frequency hull-mounted sonars used to find and track
enemy submarines; high-frequency small object detection sonars used to
detect mines; high frequency underwater modems used to transfer data
over short ranges; and extremely high-frequency (>200 kilohertz [kHz])
Doppler sonars used for navigation, like those used on commercial and
private vessels.
Additional detail regarding sound sources and platforms and
categories of acoustic stressors was provided in our Federal Register
notice of proposed rulemaking (83 FR 10954; March 13, 2018); please see
that proposed rule or the Navy's application for more information.
Sonars and other transducers are grouped into classes that share an
attribute, such as frequency range or purpose of use. Classes are
further sorted by bins based on the frequency or bandwidth; source
level; and, when warranted, the application in which the source would
be used, as follows:
[ssquf] Frequency of the non-impulsive acoustic source;
[cir] Low-frequency sources operate below 1 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;
[ssquf] Sound pressure level of the non-impulsive source;
[cir] Greater than 160 decibels (dB) re 1 micro Pascal ([mu]Pa),
but less than 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa;
[cir] Equal to 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa and up to 200 dB re 1 [mu]Pa;
[cir] Greater than 200 dB re 1 [mu]Pa;
[ssquf] Application in which the source would be used;
[cir] Sources with similar functions that have similar
characteristics, such as pulse length (duration of each pulse), beam
pattern, and duty cycle.
The bins used for classifying active sonars and transducers that
are quantitatively analyzed in the AFTT Study Area are shown in Table 1
below. While general parameters or source characteristics are shown in
the table, actual source parameters are classified.
[[Page 57080]]
Table 1--Sonar and Transducers Quantitatively Analyzed in the AFTT Study
Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source class category Bin Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF): Sources LF3 LF sources greater
that produce signals less than LF4 than 200 dB.
1 kHz. LF sources equal to
180 dB and up to 200
dB.
LF5 LF sources less than
180 dB.
LF6 LF sources greater
than 200 dB with long
pulse lengths.
Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical MF1 Hull-mounted surface
and non-tactical sources that ship sonars (e.g., AN/
produce signals between 1-10 SQS-53C and AN/SQS-
kHz. 61).
MF1K Kingfisher mode
associated with MF1
sonars.
MF3 Hull-mounted submarine
sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ-
10).
MF4 Helicopter-deployed
dipping sonars (e.g.,
AN/AQS-22 and AN/AQS-
13).
MF5 Active acoustic
sonobuoys (e.g.,
DICASS).
MF6 Active underwater
sound signal devices
(e.g., MK84).
MF8 Active sources
(greater than 200 dB)
not otherwise binned.
MF9 Active sources (equal
to 180 dB and up to
200 dB) not otherwise
binned.
MF10 Active sources
(greater than 160 dB,
but less than 180 dB)
not otherwise binned.
MF11 Hull-mounted surface
ship sonars with an
active duty cycle
greater than 80%.
MF12 Towed array surface
ship sonars with an
active duty cycle
greater than 80%.
MF14 Oceanographic MF
sonar.
High-Frequency (HF): Tactical HF1 Hull-mounted submarine
and non-tactical sources that sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ-
produce signals between 10-100 10).
kHz. HF3
Other hull-mounted
submarine sonars
(classified).
HF4 Mine detection,
classification, and
neutralization sonar
(e.g., AN/SQS-20).
HF5 Active sources
(greater than 200 dB)
not otherwise binned.
HF6 Active sources (equal
to 180 dB and up to
200 dB) not otherwise
binned.
HF7 Active sources
(greater than 160 dB,
but less than 180 dB)
not otherwise binned.
HF8 Hull-mounted surface
ship sonars (e.g., AN/
SQS-61).
Very High-Frequency Sonars VHF1 VHF sources greater
(VHF): Non-tactical sources than 200 dB.
that produce signals between
100-200 kHz.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): ASW1 MF systems operating
Tactical sources (e.g., active above 200 dB.
sonobuoys and acoustic counter- ASW2
measures systems) used during MF Multistatic Active
ASW training and testing Coherent sonobuoy
activities. (e.g., AN/SSQ-125).
ASW3
MF towed active
acoustic
countermeasure
systems (e.g., AN/SLQ-
25).
ASW4 MF expendable active
acoustic device
