Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area, 66846-67031 [2018-27342]
Download as PDF
66846
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 218
[Docket No. 170918908–8999–02]
RIN 0648–BH29
Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training
and Testing Activities in the HawaiiSouthern California Training and
Testing Study Area
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; notification of
issuance of Letters of Authorization.
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 HawaiiSouthern California Training and
Testing (HSTT) Study Area over the
course of five years beginning in
December 2018. 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 December 21,
2018 through December 20, 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:
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
Purpose of Regulatory Action
These regulations, issued under the
authority of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 HSTT Study
Area. The HSTT Study Area (see Figure
1.1–1 of the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA
application) is comprised of established
operating and warning areas across the
north-central Pacific Ocean, from the
mean high tide line in Southern
California west to Hawaii and the
International Date Line. The Study Area
includes the at-sea areas of three
existing range complexes (the Hawaii
Range Complex, the Southern California
(SOCAL) Range Complex, and the Silver
Strand Training Complex), and overlaps
a portion of the Point Mugu Sea Range
(PMSR). Also included in the Study
Area are Navy pierside locations in
Hawaii and Southern California, Pearl
Harbor, San Diego Bay, and the transit
corridor 1 on the high seas where sonar
training and testing may occur.
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
1 Vessel transit corridors are the routes typically
used by Navy assets to traverse from one area to
another. The route depicted in Figure 1–1 of the
Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application is the shortest
route between Hawaii and Southern California,
making it the quickest and most fuel efficient. The
depicted vessel transit corridor is notional and may
not represent the actual routes used by ships and
submarines transiting from Southern California to
Hawaii and back. Actual routes navigated are based
on a number of factors including, but not limited
to, weather, training, and operational requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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;
D Activity 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
D Implementation of a robust monitoring
plan to improve our understanding of the
environmental effects resulting from the
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
their habitat, and requirements
pertaining to 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.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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 for ‘‘military
readiness activities’’ and amended the
definition of ‘‘harassment’’ as it applies
to military readiness activities, along
with certain research activities. The
definitions of all 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, however, because both the Navy’s
application and NMFS’ proposed
incidental take rule preceded passage of
the 2019 NDAA and contemplated
authorization for five years.
Summary and Background of Request
On September 13, 2017, NMFS
received an application from the Navy
for authorization to take marine
mammals by Level A and B harassment
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
HSTT Study Area. In addition, the Navy
requested incidental take authorization
by serious injury or mortality for a
combined ten takes of two marine
mammal species from explosives and
for up to three takes of large whales
from vessel strikes over the five-year
period. On October 13, 2017, the Navy
sent an amendment to its application
and the application was found to be
adequate and complete. On October 20,
2017 (82 FR 48801), 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 June
26, 2018, we published a notice of the
proposed rulemaking (83 FR 29872) and
requested comments and information
related to the Navy’s request for 45 days.
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 10, 2018, and October
26, 2018, Navy provided NMFS with
memoranda revising the estimated takes
by serious injury or mortality included
in the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
application for ship strike. The Navy’s
request for takes by serious injury or
mortality of three large whales over the
course of five years remains unchanged.
However, specifically, after further
analysis and discussion with NMFS, the
Navy modified their request for takes
from particular stocks in the following
ways:
• Humpback whales (California, Oregon,
Washington (CA/OR/WA) stock):
Æ Reduced request for take from two to one
individual.
Æ Removed the authorization request for
individuals that also are part of the Central
America Distinct Population Segment (DPS)
recognized under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). Both the Central America DPS and
Mexico DPS overlap with the CA/OR/WA
stock, but from this stock, only a humpback
whale from the Mexico DPS is expected to be
taken by serious injury or mortality. These
individuals, that are part of both the CA/OR/
WA stock and the Mexico DPS, will be
referred to as ‘‘humpback whales (CA/OR/
WA stock, Mexico DPS)’’ henceforth.
• Sperm whale (Hawaii or CA/OR/WA
stock):
Æ Original authorization request for take
was for two total from any stock; reduced
request for take to one individual.
Æ Removed request for individuals from
the CA/OR/WA stock, i.e., only an individual
from the Hawaii stock is requested.
• Bryde’s whale (Eastern Tropical Pacific
stock or Hawaii stock)—Reduced request for
take from one individual to zero.
• Minke whale (Hawaii stock)—Reduced
request for take from one individual to zero.
• Sei whale (Hawaii stock and Eastern
North Pacific stock)—Reduced request for
take from one individual to zero.
NMFS concurs that it is reasonably
likely that these lethal takes could
occur. 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 activities and one
for testing activities to be conducted
within the HSTT Study Area. The HSTT
Study Area (see Figure 1.1–1 of the
Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application) is
comprised of established operating and
warning areas across the north-central
Pacific Ocean, from the mean high tide
line in Southern California west to
Hawaii and the International Date Line.
The Study Area includes the at-sea areas
of three existing range complexes (the
Hawaii Range Complex, the SOCAL
Range Complex, and the Silver Strand
Training Complex), and overlaps a
portion of the PMSR. Also included in
the Study Area are Navy pierside
locations in Hawaii and Southern
California, Pearl Harbor, San Diego Bay,
and the transit corridor on the high seas
where sonar training and testing may
occur.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66847
The following types of training and
testing, which are classified as military
readiness activities pursuant to the
MMPA, as amended by the 2004 NDAA,
would be covered under the regulations
and associated LOAs: Amphibious
warfare (in-water detonations), antisubmarine warfare (sonar and other
transducers, 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, pile driving, air guns).
Also, ship strike by Navy vessels is
addressed and covered, as appropriate.
This will be NMFS’ third in a series
of rulemakings for testing and training
activities in the HSTT Study Area.
Hawaii and Southern California were
separate in the initial rulemaking
period, and the first two rules were
effective from January 5, 2009, through
January 5, 2014 (74 FR 1456; January 12,
2009), and January 14, 2009, through
January 14, 2014 (74 FR 3882; January
21, 2009), respectively. The rulemaking
for the second five-year period, which
combined Hawaii and Southern
California, was in effect from December
24, 2013, through December 24, 2018
(78 FR 78106; December 24, 2013), as
modified by the terms of a stipulated
settlement agreement and order issued
by the United States District Court for
the District of Hawaii on September 14,
2015. The new regulations described
here will be valid for five years, from
December 21, 2018, though December
20, 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
training and testing at sea, often in
designated operating areas (OPAREA)
and testing and training ranges. The
Navy must be able to access and utilize
these areas and associated sea space and
air space in order to develop and
maintain skills for conducting naval
activities.
The Navy plans to conduct training
and testing activities within the HSTT
Study Area. The Navy has been
conducting similar military readiness
activities in the HSTT Study Area since
the 1940s. 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66848
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
(organization of ships, weapons, and
personnel). Such developments
influenced the frequency, duration,
intensity, and location of required
training and testing activities, but the
basic nature of sonar and explosive
events conducted in the HSTT Study
Area has remained the same.
The Navy’s rulemaking/LOA
application 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 account
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 HSTT Study Area, which expires on
December 24, 2018.
Description of the Specified Activity
Additional detail regarding the
specified activity was provided in our
Federal Register notice of proposed
rulemaking (83 FR 29872; June 26,
2018); please see that notice of proposed
rulemaking or the Navy’s application for
more information. Since the proposed
rule, NMFS and the Navy have reached
agreement on additional mitigation
measures which are summarized below
and discussed in greater detail in the
Mitigation Measures section of this rule.
The Navy will implement pre- and
post-event observation of the mitigation
zone for all in-water explosive event
mitigation measures in the HSTT Study
Area. The Navy expanded their
mitigation areas to include the sections
of the Santa Monica Bay to Long Beach
and San Nicolas Island biologically
important areas (BIAs) that overlap the
HSTT Study Area. These areas are
referred to as the Santa Monica/Long
Beach and San Nicolas Island Mitigation
Areas and explosive use is limited in
these areas as described in the
Mitigation Measures section. Further,
the Navy will limit surface ship sonar
such that it will not exceed 200 hours
from June through October cumulatively
within the San Diego Arc, San Nicolas
Island, and Santa Monica/Long Beach,
Mitigation Areas. The Navy will also
add a year-round limitation on
explosives to the 4-Islands Region
Mitigation Area, which includes a
portion of the false killer whale (Main
Hawaiian Island insular stock) BIA
north of Maui and Molokai in the HSTT
Study Area. The Navy has agreed to
issue notification messages to increase
operator awareness of the presence of
marine mammals. The Navy will review
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
WhaleWatch, a program coordinated by
NMFS’ West Coast Region as an
additional information source to inform
the drafting of the seasonal awareness
message to alert vessels in the area to
the possible presence of concentrations
of large whales, including blue, gray,
and fin whales in SOCAL.
In coordination with NMFS, the Navy
has also revised its estimate of and
request for serious injury or mortality
takes of large whales from ship strikes,
as described immediately above in the
Summary and Background of Request
section. The detailed rationale for this
change is provided in the Estimated
Take of Marine Mammals section.
Overview of Training and Testing
Activities
The Navy routinely trains and tests in
the HSTT Study Area in preparation for
national defense missions. Training and
testing activities 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 HSTT FEIS/
OEIS are categorized under one of the
primary mission areas; the testing
community has three additional
categories of activities for vessel
evaluation, unmanned systems, and
acoustic and oceanographic science and
technology. Activities that do not fall
within one of these areas are listed as
‘‘other activities.’’ Each warfare
community (surface, subsurface,
aviation, and special 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 HSTT 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/removal were the
stressors that would result in impacts on
marine mammals that could rise to the
level of harassment (and serious injury
or mortality by explosives or by vessel
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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:
D Amphibious warfare (in-water
detonations);
D ASW (sonar and other transducers, inwater detonations);
D SUW (in-water detonations);
D MIW (sonar and other transducers, inwater detonations); and
D Other warfare activities (sonar and other
transducers, impact pile driving/vibratory
removal, air guns).
Overview of Major Training Exercises
and Other Exercises Within the HSTT
Study Area
A major training exercise (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 an MTE, most of the
activities being directed and
coordinated by the Commander are
identical in nature to the activities
conducted during individual, crew, and
smaller unit level training events. In an
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
an MTE, are shorter in duration, use
fewer assets, and use fewer hours of
hull-mounted sonar per exercise. For
the purpose of analysis, three key
factors are used to identify and group
major, integrated, and coordinated
exercises including 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 these major,
integrated, and coordinated training
exercises in these regulations.
Additional detail regarding the training
activities was provided in our Federal
Register notice of proposed rulemaking
(83 FR 29872; June 26, 2018); please see
that notice of proposed rulemaking or
the Navy’s application for more
information.
Overview of Testing Activities Within
the HSTT Study Area
The Navy’s research and acquisition
community engages in a broad spectrum
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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, the Naval
Sea Systems Command, the Office of
Naval Research, and the Space and
Naval Warfare Systems Command.
Additional detail regarding the testing
activities was provided in our Federal
Register notice of proposed rulemaking
(83 FR 29872; June 26, 2018); please see
that notice of proposed rulemaking 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
testing activities are shown in the
Planned Activities section (Tables 4
through 7).
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Specific Geographic Area
The Navy’s HSTT Study Area extends
from the north-central Pacific Ocean,
from the mean high tide line in
Southern California west to Hawaii and
the International Date Line, including
the Hawaii and Southern California
(SOCAL) Range Complexes, as well as
the Silver Strand Training Complex and
overlapping a small portion of the Point
Mugu Sea Range (PMSR). Please refer to
Figure 1–1 of the Navy’s rulemaking/
LOA application for a map of the HSTT
Study Area, Figures 2–1 to 2–4 for the
Hawaii Operating Area (where the
majority of training and testing activities
occur within the Hawaii Range
Complex), Figures 2–5 to 2–7 for the
SOCAL Range Complex, and Figure 2–
8 for the Silver Strand Training
Complex.
Description of Acoustic and Explosive
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 or shock waves from explosives
into the environment. The Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application describes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
specific components that could act as
stressors by having direct or indirect
impacts on the environment. The
following subsections describe the
acoustic and explosive stressors for
biological resources within the HSTT
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 HSTT 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 analyzed
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66849
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 midfrequency hull-mounted sonar used to
find and track 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. The characteristics of these
sonars and other transducers, such as
source level, beam width, directivity,
and frequency, depend on the purpose
of the source. Higher frequencies can
carry more information or provide more
information about objects off which they
reflect, but attenuate more rapidly.
Lower frequencies attenuate less
rapidly, so may detect objects over a
longer distance, but with less detail.
Additional detail regarding sound
sources and platforms and categories of
acoustic stressors was provided in our
Federal Register notice of proposed
rulemaking (83 FR 29872; June 26,
2018); please see that notice of proposed
rulemaking 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 (SPL) of the nonimpulsive source;
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66850
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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 HSTT
Study Area are shown in Table 1 below.
While general parameters or source
characteristics are shown in the table,
actual source parameters are classified.
TABLE 1—SONAR AND TRANSDUCERS QUANTITATIVELY ANALYZED IN THE HSTT 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
MF1K
MF2
MF3
MF4
MF5
MF6
MF8
MF9
MF10
MF11
MF12
High-Frequency (HF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that
produce signals between 10–100 kHz.
MF13
HF1
HF2
HF3
HF4
HF5
HF6
HF7
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources (e.g., active
sonobuoys and acoustic counter-measures systems) used during ASW training and testing activities.
HF8
ASW1
ASW2
ASW3
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.
ASW5
TORP1
TORP2
TORP3
FLS2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
FLS3
Acoustic Modems (M): Systems used to transmit data through the
water.
Swimmer Detection Sonars (SD): Systems used to detect divers
and submerged swimmers.
M3
Synthetic Aperture Sonars (SAS): Sonars in which active acoustic
signals are post-processed to form high-resolution images of
the seafloor.
SAS1
SAS2
SAS3
SAS4
BB4
BB7
BB9
Broadband Sound Sources (BB): Sonar systems with large frequency spectra, used for various purposes.
SD1–SD2
Description
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–60).
Kingfisher mode associated with MF1 sonars.
Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/SQS–56).
Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ–10).
Helicopter-deployed dipping sonars (e.g., 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%.
MF sonar sources.
Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ–10).
HF Marine Mammal Monitoring System.
Other hull-mounted submarine sonars (classified).
Mine detection, classification, and neutralization sonar (e.g.,
AQS–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).
MF systems operating above 200 dB.
MF Multistatic Active Coherent sonobuoy (e.g., AN/SSQ–125).
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.
VHF 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.
HF SAS systems.
VHF SAS systems.
MF to HF broadband mine countermeasure sonar.
LF to MF oceanographic source.
LF oceanographic source.
MF optoacoustic source.
Notes: ASW: Antisubmarine 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Air Guns
Small air guns with capacities up to
60 cubic inches (in3) would be used
during testing activities in various
offshore areas of the Southern California
Range Complex and in the Hawaii
Range Complex. Generated impulses
would have short durations, typically a
few hundred milliseconds, with
dominant frequencies below 1 kHz. The
root mean square (SPL rms) and peak
pressure (SPL peak) at a distance 1
meter (m) from the air gun would be
approximately 215 dB re 1 mPa and 227
dB re 1 mPa, respectively, if operated at
the full capacity of 60 in3.
Pile Driving/Extraction
Impact pile driving and vibratory pile
removal would occur during
66851
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 ELCAS impact pile
driving and vibratory removal are
shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2—ELEVATED CAUSEWAY SYSTEM PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS IN THE HSTT
STUDY AREA
Pile size and type
Method
24-in. Steel Pipe Pile ...................
24-in. Steel Pipe Pile ...................
Average sound levels at 10 m
Impact 1
............
Vibratory 2 .........
192 dB re 1 μPa SPL rms, 182 dB re 1 μPa2s SEL (single strike).
146 dB re 1 μPa SPL rms, 145 dB re 1 μPa2s SEL (per second of duration).
1 Illingworth and Rodkin (2016), 2 Illingworth and Rodkin (2015).
Notes: in = inch, SEL = Sound Exposure Level, SPL = Sound Pressure Level, rms = root mean squared, dB re 1 μPa = decibels referenced to
1 micropascal.
The size of the pier and number of
piles used 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 HSTT FEIS/OEIS.
Additional detail regarding explosive
stressors was provided in our Federal
Register notice of proposed rulemaking
(83 FR 29872; June 26, 2018); please see
that notice of proposed rulemaking 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 in the
air or at the water’s surface. Explosive
detonations associated with torpedoes
and explosive sonobuoys would occur
in the water column; mines and
demolition charges would 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 nautical miles (Nmi)
from shore, although most mine warfare,
demolition, and some testing
detonations would occur in shallow
water close to shore. Those that occur
close to shore are typically conducted
on designated ranges.
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 for use in the HSTT Study Area
are shown in Table 3 below.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
TABLE 3—EXPLOSIVES ANALYZED IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA
Bin
Net explosive weight 1
(lb)
E1 .......................................................................
E2 .......................................................................
E3 .......................................................................
E4 .......................................................................
E5 .......................................................................
E6 .......................................................................
E7 .......................................................................
E8 .......................................................................
E9 .......................................................................
E10 .....................................................................
E11 .....................................................................
E12 .....................................................................
E13 2 ...................................................................
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 ......................................................
>1,000–1,740 ...................................................
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.
Multiple Mat Weave charges.
1 Net
Explosive Weight refers to the equivalent amount of TNT.
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. In addition, activities are confined to small coves without regular marine mammal occurrence. These are not single
charges, but multiple smaller charges detonated simultaneously or within a short time period.
2 E13
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66852
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Explosive Fragments
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Marine mammals could be exposed to
fragments from underwater explosions
associated with the specified activities.
When explosive ordnance (e.g., bomb or
missile) detonates, fragments of the
weapon 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 the seawater.
Because the ranges to mortality and
injury due to exposure to the blast wave
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
far exceed the zone where fragments
could injure or kill an animal, the
thresholds 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 HSTT Study Area.
Navy vessels transit at speeds that are
optimal for fuel conservation or to meet
training and testing requirements.
Should a vessel strike occur, it would
likely 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 29872; June 26,
2018); please see that notice of proposed
rulemaking or the Navy’s application for
more information. Additionally, as
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
referenced above and described in more
detail in the Estimated Take of Marine
Mammals section, on September 10,
2018, and October 26, 2018, the Navy
provided additional information
withdrawing and reducing certain
species from their request for serious
injury or mortality takes from vessel
strike with explanation supporting the
Navy’s change in requested take.
Planned Activities
Planned Training Activities
The training activities that the Navy
plans to conduct in the HSTT 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, description of the
activity, sound source bin, the number
of planned activities, and the locations
of those activities in the HSTT Study
Area. For further information regarding
the primary platform used (e.g., ship or
aircraft type) see Appendix A (Navy
Activity Descriptions) of the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66853
Table 4. Training activities analyzed in the HSTT Study Area.
Acoustic
Composite
Training Unit
Exercise
Rim of the
Pacific Exercise
5
Acoustic
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Fleet Exercise/
Sustainment
Exercise
Undersea
Warfare Exercise
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Aircraft carrier and
associated aircraft integrates
with surface and submarine
units in challenging multithreat operational
environment in order to
maintain their ability to
deploy. Fleet Exercises and
Sustainment Exercises are
similar to Composite
Training Unit Exercises, but
are shorter in duration
Elements of anti-submarine
warfare tracking exercise
combine in this exercise of
multiple air, surface, and
subsurface units, over a
period of several days
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
ASW1
ASW2
ASW3
ASW4
ASW5
HF1
LF6
MF1
MF3
MF4
MF5
MFll
MF12
ASW2
ASW3
ASW4
HF1
HF3
HF4
M3
MF1
MF3
MF4
MF5
MFll
ASW1
ASW2
ASW3
ASW4
HF1
LF6
MF1
MF3
MF4
MF5
MFll
MF12
ASW3
ASW4
HF1
LF6
MF1
MF3
MF4
MF5
MFll
Sfmt 4725
SOCAL,
PMSR4
2-3
12
HRC
0-1
2
30 days
SOCAL,
PMSR
0-1
2
HRC
1
3
Up to 10
days
SOCAL,
PMSR
5
22
HRC
3
12
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
21 days
27DER2
4 days
ER27DE18.000</GPH>
Acoustic
Aircraft carrier and
associated aircraft integrate
with surface and submarine
units in a challenging multithreat operational
environment in order to
certify them for deployment.
Only the anti-submarine
warfare portion of
Composite Training Unit
Exercise is included in this
activity; other training
objectives are met via unit
level
Biennial multinational
training exercise in which
navies from Pacific Rim
nations and others conduct
training throughout the
Hawaiian Islands in a
number of warfare areas.
Components of a Rim of the
Pacific exercise, such as
certain mine warfare and
amphibious training, may be
conducted in the Southern
California Range Complex
Small Integrated
Anti-Submarine
Warfare
Multiple ships and aircraft
coordinate use of sensors,
including sonobuoys, to
search, detect, and track
threat submarine
Medium
Coordinated
Anti-Submarine
Warfare
Training for prospective
Commanding Officers on
submarines to assess
officers' abilities to operate
in numerous hostile
environments,
encompassing surface
vessels, aircraft, and other
submarines
Small
Coordinated
Anti-Submarine
Warfare
Multiple ships and
helicopters integrate the use
of their sensors, including
sonobuoys, to search for,
detect, classify, localize, and
track a threat submarine to
launch a torpedo
Naval Surface
Fire Support
Exercise - at Sea
Surface ship uses largecaliber gun to support forces
ashore; Land targets are
simulated at sea. Rounds
impact water and scored by
passive acoustic
hydrophones located at or
near
area
Acoustic
Amphibious
Marine
Expeditionary
Unit Exercise
Navy and Marine Corps
forces conduct advanced
integration training in
preparation for deployment
certification
Acoustic
Marine
Expeditionary
Unit Composite
Training Unit
Exercise
Amphibious Ready Group
exercises are conducted to
validate the Marine
Expeditionary Unit's
readiness for
Acoustic
Acoustic
Acoustic
Explosive
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
ASW2
ASW3
ASW4
HF1
MF1
MF1K
MF3
MF4
MF5
MF6
MF12
TORP1
TORP2
ASW3
ASW4
HF1
MF1
MF3
MF4
MF5
TORP1
TORP2
ASW2
ASW3
ASW4
HF1
MF1
MF3
MF4
MF5
MFll
MF12
E5
ASW1
LF6
MF1
MF3
MFll
MF12
HF1
ASW2
ASW3
ASW4
HF1
MF1
Sfmt 4725
HRC
SOCAL
1
2-3
2
12
2-5 days
HRC
SOCAL
2
2
10
2
3-10
days
HRC
SOCAL
2
10-14
10
58
2-4 days
HRC
(W188)
15
75
8 hrs
SO CAL
2-3
12
5-7 days
SO CAL
2-3
12
Up to 21
days
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.001</GPH>
66854
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Acoustic
Acoustic
Acoustic
Acoustic
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Torpedo
ExerciseHelicopter
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Torpedo
ExerciseMaritime Patrol
Aircraft
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Torpedo
Exercise - Ship
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Torpedo
ExerciseSubmarine
Helicopter crews search for,
track, and detect
submarines. Recoverable air
launched torpedoes are
employed against submarine
Maritime patrol aircraft
crews search for, track, and
detect submarines.
Recoverable air launched
torpedoes are employed
submarine
Surface ship crews search
for, track, and detect
submarines. Exercise
torpedoes are used during
this event
Submarine crews search for,
track, and detect
submarines. Exercise
torpedoes are used during
this event
MF3
MF4
MF5
MFll
MF4
MF5
TORP1
MF5
TORPl
ASW3
MF1
TORPl
ASW4
HF1
MF3
TORP2
HRC
6
30
SOCAL
104
520
HRC
10
50
SOCAL
25
125
HRC
50
250
SOCAL
117
585
HRC
48
240
SOCAL
l3
65
159
795
524
2,620
6
30
32
160
2-5 hrs
2-8 hrs
2-5 hrs
8 hrs
HRC
Acoustic
Acoustic
Acoustic
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Anti-Submarine
Warfare
Tracking
ExerciseHelicopter
Anti-Submarine
Warfare
Tracking
ExerciseMaritime Patrol
Aircraft
Anti-Submarine
Warfare
Tracking
ExerciseAnti-Submarine
Warfare
Tracking
ExerciseSubmarine
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Helicopter crews search for,
track, and detect submarines
MF4
MF5
SOCAL,
PMSR
HSTT
Transit
Corridor
Maritime patrol aircraft
aircrews search for, track,
and detect submarines.
Recoverable air launched
HRC
MF5
Surface ship crews search
for, track, and detect
submarines
ASW3
MF1
MFll
MF12
Submarine crews search for,
track, and detect submarines
ASW4
HF1
HF3
MF3
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
2-4 hrs
2-8 hrs
SOCAL,
PMSR
56
280
HRC
224
1,120
SOCAL,
PMSR
HRC
423
2,115
200
1,000
50
250
SOCAL,
PMSR
2-4 hrs
8 hrs
HSTT
Transit
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.002</GPH>
and includes small boat
raids; visit, board, search,
and seizure training;
helicopter and mechanized
amphibious raids; and noncombatant evacuation
66855
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Explosive,
Acoustic
Acoustic
Explosive,
Acoustic
Explosive
Acoustic
Airborne Mine
Countermeasure
- Mine Detection
Civilian Port
DefenseHomeland
Security AntiTerrorism/Force
Protection
Exercises
Marine Mammal
Systems
Mine
Countermeasure
Exercise - Ship
Sonar
Acoustic
Mine
Countermeasure
ExerciseSurface
Explosive,
Acoustic
Mine
Countermeasure
Mine
Neutralization
Remotely
Operated
Vehicle
Explosive
Mine
Neutralization
Explosive
Ordnance
Disposal
Acoustic
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Service Weapons
Test
Acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Submarine Mine
Exercise
Surface Ship
Object Detection
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Air, surface, or submarine
crews employ explosive
torpedoes against virtual
targets
HF1
MF3
MF6
TORP2
Ell
Helicopter aircrews detect
mines using towed or laser
mine detection
HF4
Maritime security personnel
train to protect civilian ports
against enemy efforts to
interfere with access to
those ports
Navy deploys trained
bottlenose dolphins and
California sea lions as part
of a marine mammal minehunting and object-recovery
active sonar
Mine countermeasure ship
crews detect, locate,
identify, and avoid mines
while navigating restricted
areas or channels, such as
while entering or leaving
Ship, small boat, and
helicopter crews locate and
disable mines using
remotely operated
underwater vehicles
Personnel disable threat
mines using explosive
charges
Submarine crews practice
detecting mines in a
area
Ship crews detect and avoid
mines while navigating
restricted areas or channels
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
HF4
SAS2
E2
E4
Corridor
7
35
HRC
2
10
SOCAL
1
5
SO CAL
10
50
Pearl
Harbor,
HI
1
5
San
Diego,
CA
1-3
12
HRC
10
50
SOCAL
175
875
8 hrs
E7
HRC
30
150
SOCAL
92
460
HF4
SO CAL
266
1,330
HRC
6
30
SOCAL
372
1,860
20
100
E4
E5
E6
E7
1.5-4 hrs
HRC
(Puuloa)
SOCAL
(IB,
SSTC,
Sfmt 4725
1.5-4 hrs
1.5 to 4
hrs
Upto4
hrs
170
970
40
200
SOCAL
HRC
12
42
60
210
SOCAL
164
820
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
HF1
MF1K
HF8
Multiple
days
Varies
HF4
HF8
MF1K
HF4
E4
2hrs
6 hrs
30
minutes
to 1 hr
ER27DE18.003</GPH>
66856
66857
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Explosive
Explosive
Explosive
Explosive
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Explosive
Underwater
Demolition
Qualification and
Certification
Military personnel use
explosive charges to destroy
barriers or obstacles to
amphibious vehicle access
to beach areas
Navy divers conduct various
levels of training and
certification in placing
underwater demolition
E5
E6
E7
Bombing
Exercise Air-toSurface
Fixed-wing aircrews deliver
bombs against surface
targets
E9
E10
E12
Gunnery
Exercise
Surface-toSurface Boat
Medium-Caliber
Small boat crews fire
medium-caliber guns at
surface targets
E1
E2
Gunnery
Exercise
Surface-toSurface Ship
Large-caliber
Surface ship crews fire
large-caliber guns at surface
targets
Gunnery
Exercise
Surface-toSurface Ship
Medium-Caliber
Surface ship crews fire
medium-caliber guns at
surface targets
Acoustic,
Explosive
Independent
Deployer
Certification
Exercise/Tailore
d Surface
Warfare Training
Multiple ships, aircraft,
submarines conduct
integrated multi-warfare
training with surface
warfare emphasis. Serves as
ready-to-deploy certification
for individual surface ships
tasked with surface warfare
miSSIOnS
Explosive
Integrated Live
Fire Exercise
Naval Forces defend against
swarm of surface threats
or small
with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
E10
El3
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
E3
E5
E1
E2
ASW2
ASW3
ASW4
HF1
MF1
MF3
MF4
MF5
MFll
E1
E3
E6
E10
E1
E3
E6
Sfmt 4725
SOCAL
(Northwes
tHarbor)
18
90
HRC
(Puuloa)
25
125
120
600
HRC
187
935
SOCAL
640
3,200
HSTT
Transit
Corridor
5
25
HRC
10
50
SOCAL
14
70
HRC
32
160
SOCAL
200
1,000
HSTT
Transit
Corridor
HRC
13
65
50
1250
SOCAL
180
900
HSTT
Transit
Corridor
40
200
SOCAL
1
5
HRC
(W188A)
SOCAL
1
5
1
5
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
4 hrs
Varies
1hr
1hr
Up to 3
hrs
2-3 hrs
15 days
6-8 hrs
ER27DE18.004</GPH>
Explosive
Underwater
Demolitions
Multiple Charge
-Mat Weave
and Obstacle
Explosive
Missile Exercise
Air-to-Surface
Explosive
Missile Exercise
Air-to-Surface
Rocket
Explosive
Missile Exercise
Surface-toSurface
Acoustic,
Explosive
Sinking Exercise
Pile
driving
Elevated
Causeway
System
Acoustic
Kilo Dip
Acoustic
Acoustic
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
E10
(SOAR)
Fixed-wing, helicopter
aircrews fire air-to-surface
missiles at surface
Helicopter aircrews fire
precision-guided and
unguided rockets at surface
E6
E8
E10
HRC
SOCAL
10
210
50
1,050
1hr
E3
HRC
SOCAL
227
246
1,135
1,120
1hr
HRC
(W188A)
SOCAL
20
100
10
50
HRC
SOCAL
1-3
0-1
7
1
4-8 hrs,
over 1-2
days
Up to 20
days for
construct
-ion; up
to 10
days for
removal
E6
E10
Aircraft, ship, submarine
crews deliberately sink
seaborne target, usually
decommissioned ship made
environmentally safe for
sinking according to U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency standards, with
of munitions
Pier constructed off of a
beach. Piles driven into
bottom with impact
hammer. Piles removed
from seabed via vibratory
extractor. Only in-water
are
Functional check of dipping
sonar prior to conducting
full test or training event on
the
sonar
Submarine crews operate
sonar for navigation and
object detection while
transiting into and out of
port during reduced
Submarine
Navigation
Exercise
Submarine Sonar
Maintenance and
Systems Checks
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
bombs, missiles, rockets,
and small-, medium- and
Maintenance of submarine
sonar systems is conducted
pierside or at sea
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
TORP2
E5
E8
E9
E10
Ell
E12
Impact
hammer
or
vibrator
y
extracto
r
SOCAL
2
10
MF4
HRC
SOCAL
60
2,400
300
12,000
Pearl
Harbor,
HI
220
1,100
HF1
MF3
San Diego
CA
HRC
MF3
Sfmt 4725
1.5 hrs
Upto2
hrs
80
400
260
1,300
Pearl
Harbor,
HI
260
1,300
SOCAL
93
465
San Diego
Bay, CA
92
460
HSTT
Transit
Corridor
10
50
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
2-5 hrs
27DER2
Up to 1
hr
ER27DE18.005</GPH>
66858
Planned Testing Activities
Naval Air Systems Command
Testing activities covered in these
regulations are described in Table 5
through Table 8.
Table 5 summarizes the planned
testing activities for the Naval Air
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66859
Systems Command analyzed within the
HSTT Study Area.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.006</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66860
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Table 5. Naval Air Systems Command testing activities analyzed in the HSTT Study Area.
Explosive,
Acoustic
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Tracking Test
-Helicopter
Explosive,
Acoustic
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Tracking Test
- Maritime Patrol
Aircraft
The test evaluates the sensors and systems
used by maritime patrol aircraft to detect
and track submarines and lo ensure thai
aircraft systems used to deploy the
tracking systems perform to specifications
and meet operational requirements.
ASW2,ASW5,
MF5, MF6, El,
E3
Explosive,
Acoustic
Sonobuoy Lot
Acceptance Test
Sonobuoys are deployed from surface
vessels and aircraft to verify the integrity
and performance of a lot or group of
sonobuoys in advance of delivery to the
fleet for operational use.
Acoustic
Airborne Dipping
Sonar Minehunting
l'est
Acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17-22
95
2-6 hrs
MF5. TORPI
This event is similar to the training event
anti-submarine tracking exercisehelicopter. The test evaluates the sensors
and systems used to detect and track
submarines and to ensure that helicopter
systems used to deploy the tracking
systems perform to specifications.
Explosive
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Torpedo Test
HRC
SO CAL
35-71
247
SOCAL
30-132
252
HRC
54-61
284
MF4, MF5, F3
2 hrs
4-6 hrs
SO CAL
58-68
310
ASW2,ASW5,
HF5, HJ-'6, LJ-'4,
MF5, MJ-'6, E1,
E3. E4
SOCAL
160
800
6 hrs
A mine-hunting dipping sonar system that
is deployed from a helicopter and uses
high-frequency sonar for the detection and
classification of bottom and moored
mines.
HF4
SO CAL
0-12
12
2 hrs
Airborne Mine
Neutralization System
Test
A test of the airborne mine neutralization
system that evaluates the system's ability
to detect and destroy mines from an
airborne mine countermeasures capable
helicopter (e.g.. MH-60). 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.
E4
SO CAL
11-31
75
2.5 hrs
Airborne Sonobuoy
Minehunting Test
A mine-hunting system made up of
sonobuoys deployed from a helicopter. A
field of sonobuoys, using high-frequency
sonar, is used for detection and
classification of bottom and moored
mines.
HF6
SO CAL
3-9
21
2 hrs
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.007</GPH>
Acoustic
This event is similar to the training event
torpedo exercise. Test evaluates antisubmarine warfare systems on board
rotary-wing 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. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Table 6 summarizes the planned
testing activities for the Naval Sea
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Systems Command analyzed within the
HSTT Study Area.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.008</GPH>
Naval Sea Systems Command
66861
66862
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Table 6. Naval Sea Systems Command testing activities analyzed in the HSTT Study Area.
Acoustic
Acoustic
Acoustic
Acoustic
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
At-Sea Sonar
Testing
At-sea testing to ensure systems are
fully functional in an open ocean
environment.
ASW3,
ASW4,HF1,
LF4, LF5, M3,
MFl,MFlK,
MF2,MF3,
MF5,MF9,
MFlO,MFll
Countermeasure testing involves
the testing of systems that will
detect, localize, and track incoming
weapons, including marine vessel
targets. Testing includes surface
ship torpedo defense systems and
marine vessel stopping payloads.
Countermeasure
Testing
Pierside testing to ensure systems
are fully functional in a controlled
pierside environment prior to at-sea
test activities.
Pierside Sonar
Testing
Submarine Sonar
Testing/Maintenance
Surface Ship Sonar
Testing/Maintenance
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
ASWl,
ASW2,
ASW3,
ASW5,MF1,
MF4, MF5,
MF12, TORPl
Pierside and at-sea testing of
submarine systems occurs
periodically following major
maintenance periods and for routine
maintenance.
Pierside and at-sea testing of ship
systems occurs periodically
following major maintenance
periods and for routine
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
22
110
SO CAL
23
115
HRC
16
78
HRCSO CAL
5
SO CAL
20-21
99
HRC
8
40
HRCSO CAL
4
20
SO CAL
11
55
HSTT
Transit
Corridor
2
10
Pearl
Harbor,
HI
7
35
San
Diego,
CA
7
35
HRC
4
20
Pearl
Harbor,
HI
17
85
San
Diego,
CA
24
120
HRC
3
15
Pearl
Harbor,
HI
3
15
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ASW3,
ASW4,HF5,
TORPl,
TORP2
HFl, HF3,
HF8,M3,
MFl,MF3,
MF9
HFl, HF3,
M3,MF3
ASW3,MF1,
MF1K,MF9,
MFlO
Sfmt 4725
HRC
4-8 hrs per
day over 12 weeks
4 hrs-11
days
4 hrs-6
days
Up to 3
weeks,
intermittent
sonar use
Up to 3
weeks,
intermittent
sonar use
Up to 3
weeks,
intermittent
sonar use
ER27DE18.009</GPH>
Acoustic
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Mission
Package Testing
Ships and their supporting
platforms (e.g., rotary-wing aircraft
and unmanned aerial systems)
detect, localize, and prosecute
submarines.
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Explosive,
Acoustic
Acoustic
Torpedo (NonExplosive) Testing
Explosive,
Acoustic
Mine
Countermeasure and
Neutralization
Testing
Explosive,
Acoustic
Mine
Countermeasure
Mission Package
Testing
Acoustic
Mine Detection and
Classification
Testing
Explosive
Explosive
Explosive
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Torpedo (Explosive)
Testing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
ASW3,HF1,
HF5, HF6,
MF1,MF3,
MF4, MF5,
MF6, TORP1,
TORP2,E8,
Ell
Air, surface, or submarine crews
employ non-explosive torpedoes
against submarines or surface
vessels.
ASW3,
ASW4,HF1,
HF6, M3,
MFl,MF3,
MF4, MF5,
MF6, TORP1,
TORP2,
TORP3
Air, surface, and subsurface vessels
neutralize threat mines and minelike objects.
Vessels and associated aircraft
conduct mine countermeasure
operations.
Air, surface, and subsurface vessels
and systems detect and classify and
avoid mines and mine-like objects.
Vessels also assess their potential
susceptibility to mines and minelike objects.
Missile and Rocket
Testing
Missile and rocket testing includes
various missiles or rockets fired
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
HF1, HF8,
MF1,MF5
E3
Surface crews test medium-caliber
guns to defend against surface
targets.
Gun TestingMedium-Caliber
HF4, E4
HF4, SAS2,
E4
Surface crews test large-caliber
guns to defend against surface
targets.
Gun TestingLarge-Caliber
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Air, surface, or submarine crews
employ explosive and nonexplosive torpedoes against
artificial targets.
E1
San
Diego,
CA
3
15
SOCAL
3
15
HRC
8
40
HRC
SO CAL
3
15
SO CAL
8
40
HRC
8
40
HRC
SO CAL
9
45
SO CAL
8
Upto2
weeks
40
SO CAL
11
55
HRC
19
80
SO CAL
58
290
HRC
2
10
HRC
SO CAL
2
6
SO CAL
11
55
HRC
7
35
HRCSO CAL
72
360
SO CAL
7
35
HRC
4
20
HRCSOCAL
48
240
SOCAL
4
20
HRC
13
65
HRC-
24
120
E6
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
1-2 days,
daylight
hours only
27DER2
1-10 days,
intermittent
use of
systems
1-2 weeks,
intermittent
use of
systems
Up to 24
days, up to
12 hrs
acoustic
daily
1-2 weeks
1-2 weeks
1 day-2
weeks
ER27DE18.010</GPH>
maintenance.
66863
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
from submarines and surface
combatants. Testing of the
launching system and ship defense
is performed.
Acoustic
Acoustic
Acoustic
Explosive
Acoustic
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
SO CAL
Unmanned Surface
Vehicle System
Testing
Testing involves the production or
upgrade of unmanned surface
vehicles. This may include tests of
mine detection capabilities,
HF4, SAS2
evaluations of the basic functions of
individual platforms, or complex
events with multiple vehicles.
Unmanned
Underwater Vehicle
Testing
Testing involves the production or
upgrade of unmanned underwater
vehicles. This may include tests of
mine detection capabilities,
HF4,MF9
evaluations of the basic functions of
individual platforms, or complex
events with multiple vehicles.
Submarine Sea
Trials - Weapons
System Testing
Submarine weapons and sonar
HFl, M3,
systems are tested at-sea to meet the
MF3, MF9,
integrated combat system
MFlO, TORP2
certification requirements.
Surface Warfare
Testing
Tests the capabilities 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
El, E5, E8
structural test firing, and
demonstration of the response to
Call for Fire against land-based
targets (simulated by sea-based
locations).
Undersea Warfare
Testing
Vessel Signature
Evaluation
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Ships demonstrate capability of
countermeasure systems and
underwater surveillance, weapons
engagement, and communications
systems. This tests ships ability to
detect, track, and engage undersea
targets.
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
100
HRC
3
15
Up to 10
days
SO CAL
4
20
HRC
3
15
Up to 35
days
SO CAL
291
1,455
HRC
5
SO CAL
5
HRC
9
45
HRCSO CAL
63
313
Up to 7
days
7 days
14-16
72
HRC
7
35
HRC
SO CAL
12-16
32
SO CAL
11
51
HRC
4
20
HRC
SO CAL
36
180
SO CAL
24
120
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ASW3
Sfmt 4725
20
SO CAL
ASW4,HF4,
HF8, MFl,
MF4, MF5,
MF6, TORPl,
TORP2
Surface ship, submarine and
auxiliary system signature
assessments. This may include
electronic, radar, acoustic, infrared
and magnetic signatures.
SOCAL
Up to 10
days
Typically
1-5 days,
up to 20
days
ER27DE18.011</GPH>
66864
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Office of Naval Research
Table 7 summarizes the planned
testing activities for the Office of Naval
Space and Naval Warfare Systems
Command
66865
Research analyzed within the HSTT
Study Area.
Naval Warfare Systems Command
analyzed within the HSTT Study Area.
ER27DE18.013</GPH>
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.012</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Table 8 summarizes the planned
testing activities for the Space and
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Summary of Acoustic and Explosive
Sources Analyzed for Training and
Testing
Table 9 through Table 12 show the
acoustic source classes and numbers,
explosive source bins and numbers, air
gun sources, and pile driving and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
removal activities associated with Navy
training and testing activities in the
HSTT Study Area that were analyzed in
this rule. Table 9 shows the acoustic
source classes (i.e., LF, MF, and HF) that
could occur in any year under the
Planned Activities for training and
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
testing 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\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.014</GPH>
66866
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66867
Table 9. Acoustic source classes analyzed and numbers used during training and
testing activities in the HSTT Study Area.
LF3
LF4
LF5
LF6
Mid-Frequency
(MF):
Tactical and nontactical sources
that produce
signals between 1
and 10kHz
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
MF1
MFlK
MF2 3
Kingfisher mode
associated with
MFl sonars
Hull-mounted
surface ship
sonars (e.g.,
MF3
MF4
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
MF5
Mid-Frequency
(MF):
Tactical and nontactical sources
that produce
signals between 1
and 10kHz
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
MF6
Helicopterdeployed dipping
sonars (e.g.,
AN/AQS-22 and
ANI
Active acoustic
sonobuoys (e.g.,
DICAS
Active
underwater sound
MF8
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
H
0
0
195
975
H
0
0
589-777
3,131
c
0
0
20
100
H
0
0
H
121- 167
668
40-80
240
H
5,7796,702
28,809
1,540
5,612
H
100
500
14
70
H
0
0
54
270
H
2,0802,175
10,440
1,311
6,553
H
414-489
2,070
311-475
1,717
c
5,7046,124
28,300
5,2505,863
27,120
c
9
45
1,1411,226
5,835
H
0
0
70
350
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
1
27DER2
9,950
ER27DE18.015</GPH>
Low-Frequency
(LF):
Sources that
produce signals
less than 1 kHz
66868
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
MF9
MF10
MF11
MF12
MF13
High-Frequency
(HF):
Tactical and nontactical sources
that produce
signals between 10
and 100kHz
HF1
HF2
HF3
High-Frequency
(HF):
Tactical and nontactical sources
that produce
signals between 10
and 100kHz
HF4
HF5
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
HF6
HF7
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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%
MF sonar source
Hull-mounted
submarine sonars
(e.g., AN/BQQ10)
HF Marine
Mammal
Monitoring
System
Other hullmounted
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
H
0
0
5,1395,165
25,753
H
0
0
1,8241,992
9,288
H
718-890
3,597
56
280
H
161-215
884
660
3,300
H
0
0
300
1,500
H
1,7951,816
8,939
772
3,859
H
0
0
120
600
H
287
1,345
110
549
H
2,316
10,380
16,29916,323
81,447
H
0
0
960
4,800
c
0
0
40
200
H
0
0
1,0001,009
5,007
H
0
0
1,380
6,900
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.016</GPH>
binned
HF8
Anti-Submarine
Warfare (ASW):
Tactical sources
(e.g., active
sonobuoys and
acoustic
countermeasures
systems) used
duringASW
training and testing
activities
Anti-Submarine
Warfare (ASW):
Tactical sources
(e.g., active
sonobuoys and
acoustic
countermeasures
systems) used
duringASW
training and testing
activities
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
H
118
588
1,032
3,072
H
194-261
1,048
470
2,350
c
688-790
3,346
4,3345,191
23,375
H
5,0056,425
25,955
2,741
13,705
MF expendable
active acoustic
device
countermeasures
(e.g., MK 3)
c
1,2841,332
6,407
2,244
10,910
MF sonobuoys
with high duty
cycles
H
220-300
1,260
522-592
2,740
TORP
1
Lightweight
torpedo (e.g., MK
46, MK54, or
Anti-Torpedo
Torpedo)
c
231-237
1,137
923-971
4,560
TORP
2
TORP
3
Heavyweight
torpedo (e.g., MK
48)
c
521-587
2,407
404
1,948
c
0
0
45
225
H
28
140
448-544
2,432
H
0
0
2,640
13,200
H
61
153
518
2,588
ASWI
ASW2
ASW3
ASW4
ASW5
4
FLS2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
FLS3
Acoustic Modems
(M): Systems used
to transmit data
through the water
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
180 dB) not
otherwise binned
Hull-mounted
surface ship
sonars (e.g.,
AN/SQS-61)
MF systems
operating above
200dB
MF Multistatic
Active Coherent
sonobuoy (e.g.,
AN/SSQ-125)
MF towed active
acoustic
countermeasure
systems (e.g.,
AN/SLQ-25)
M3
Jkt 247001
HF sources with
short pulse
lengths, narrow
beam widths, and
focused beam
patterns
VHF sources with
short pulse
lengths, narrow
beam widths, and
focused beam
patterns
MF acoustic
modems (greater
than 190 dB)
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66869
ER27DE18.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66870
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Table 10 shows the number of air gun
shots planned in the HSTT Study Area
for training and testing activities.
TABLE 10—TRAINING AND TESTING AIR GUN SOURCES QUANTITATIVELY ANALYZED IN THE HSTT 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
844
4,220
C
= count. One count (C) of AG is equivalent to 100 air gun firings.
Table 11 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 five-year period of the rule, the
Navy will drive a total of 1,190 piles by
impact pile driving. Annually, for
vibratory pile extraction, the Navy will
extract 119 piles, two times a year for
a total of 238 piles. Over the five-year
period of the rule, the Navy will extract
a total of 1,190 piles by vibratory pile
extraction.
Piles per
24-hour period
Method
Pile Driving (Impact) ....................................................................................................................
Pile Removal (Vibratory) ..............................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
6
12
27DER2
Total
estimated
time of
noise per
24-hour period
minutes
Time
per pile
minutes
15
6
90
72
ER27DE18.018</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES PER 24-HOUR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Table 12 shows the number of inwater explosives that could be used in
any year under the Planned Activities
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
66871
Planned Activities takes into account
that annual variability.
Table 12. Explosive source bins analyzed and numbers used during training and testing
activities in the HSTT Study Area.
E1
0.1-0.25
E2
> 0.25--0.5
E3
> 0.5-2.5
Medium-caliber
projectiles
Medium-caliber
projectiles
Large-caliber
projectiles
0.3, 60
2,940
14,700
8,91615,216
62,880
0.3, 50
1,746
8,730
0
0
0.3, 60
2,797
13,985
2,8803,124
14,844
10, 16, 33,
50, 61, 65,
650
38
190
634674
3,065
E4
> 2.5-5
Mine neutralization
charge
E5
> 5-10
5 in projectiles
0.3, 10, 50
4,7304,830
23,750
1,400
7,000
E6
> 10-20
Hellfire missile
0.3, 10, 50,
60
592
2,872
26-38
166
E7
> 20--60
Demo block/
shaped charge
10,50,60
13
65
0
0
E8
> 60-100
Lightweight torpedo
0.3, 150
33-38
170
57
285
E9
> 100-250
500 lb bomb
0.3
2,090
4
20
> 250-500
Harpoon missile
0.3
1,100
30
150
> 500--650
650 lb mine
61, 150
7-17
45
12
60
> 650-1,000
2,000 lb bomb
0.3
16-21
77
0
0
> 1,000-1,740
Multiple Mat Weave
charges
NA2
9
45
0
0
E
10
E
11
E
12
E
13
410450
219224
Net Explosive Weight refers to the amount of explosives; the actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other components.
modeled because charge is detonated in surf zone; not a single E 13 charge, but multiple smaller charges detonated in quick succession
Notes: in= inch(es), lb = pound(s), ft =feet
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Vessel Movement
Vessels used as part of the Planned
Activities include ships, submarines,
unmanned vessels, and boats ranging in
size from small, 22 ft (7 m) rigid hull
inflatable boats to aircraft carriers with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
lengths up to 1,092 ft (333 m). 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. Small craft (for purposes of this
analysis, less than 18 m in length) have
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
much more variable speeds (0–50+
knots (kn), dependent on the activity),
but generally range from 10 to 14 kn.
From unpublished Navy data, average
median speed for large Navy ships in
the HSTT Study Area from 2011–2015
varied from 5–10 kn with variations by
ship class and location (i.e., slower
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.019</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
2 Not
66872
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
speeds close to the coast). While these
speeds for large and small craft are
representative of most events, some
vessels need to temporarily operate
outside of these parameters.
The number of Navy vessels used in
the HSTT Study Area varies based on
military training and testing
requirements, deployment schedules,
annual budgets, and other dynamic
factors. Most training and testing
activities involve the use of vessels.
These activities could be widely
dispersed throughout the HSTT Study
Area, but would be typically conducted
near naval ports, piers, and range areas.
Navy vessel traffic would especially be
concentrated near San Diego, California
and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. There is no
seasonal differentiation in Navy vessel
use because of continual operational
requirements from Combatant
Commanders. The majority of large
vessel traffic occurs between the
installations and the OPAREAs. Support
craft would be more concentrated in the
coastal waters in the areas of naval
installations, ports, and ranges.
Activities involving vessel movements
occur intermittently and are variable in
duration, ranging from a few hours up
to weeks.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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 to 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 29872; June 26,
2018); please see that notice of proposed
rulemaking or the Navy’s application for
more information.
Duration and Location
Training and testing activities would
be conducted under this authorization
in the HSTT Study Area throughout the
years. The HSTT Study Area (see Figure
1.1–1 of the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA
application) is comprised of established
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
operating and warning areas across the
north-central Pacific Ocean, from the
mean high tide line in Southern
California west to Hawaii and the
International Date Line. The Study Area
includes the at-sea areas of three
existing range complexes (the Hawaii
Range Complex, the SOCAL Range
Complex, and the Silver Strand Training
Complex), and overlaps a portion of the
PMSR. Also included in the Study Area
are Navy pierside locations in Hawaii
and Southern California, Pearl Harbor,
San Diego Bay, and the transit corridor 2
on the high seas where sonar training
and testing may occur.
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 OPAREAs and special use
airspace, which may be further divided
to provide better control of the area and
events being conducted for safety
reasons. Please refer to the regional
maps provided in the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application (Figures 2–
1 through 2–8) 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 29872; June 26,
2018); please see that notice of proposed
rulemaking or the Navy’s application for
more information.
Comments and Responses
We published a notice of proposed
regulations in the Federal Register on
June 26, 2018 (83 FR 29872), with a 45day comment period. In that notice of
proposed rulemaking, we requested
public input on the requests 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 22 comment letters
in total. Of this total, two submissions
were from other Federal agencies, two
2 Vessel transit corridors are the routes typically
used by Navy assets to traverse from one area to
another. The route depicted in Figure 1–1 of the
Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application is the shortest
route between Hawaii and Southern California,
making it the quickest and most fuel efficient. The
depicted vessel transit corridor is notional and may
not represent the actual routes used by ships and
submarines transiting from Southern California to
Hawaii and back. Actual routes navigated are based
on a number of factors including, but not limited
to, weather, training, and operational requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
letters were from organizations or
individuals acting in an official capacity
(e.g., non-governmental organizations
(NGOs)) and 18 submissions were from
private citizens. 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 organize our comment
responses by major categories.
General Comments
The majority of the 18 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) can be made; therefore, these
comments were not considered further.
The remaining comments are addressed
below.
Impact Analysis
General
Comment 1: A commenter
recommended that the Navy provide
NMFS with an acoustics analysis that
addresses noise impacts on land, from
the air, and underwater. Full
environmental analysis of the noise
would examine a suite of metrics
appropriate to the array of resources
impacted. The impacts should discuss
potential effects on wildlife, visitors,
and other noise-sensitive receivers.
The commenter also recommended
that the Navy consider the following as
it plans to conduct activities in the
HSTT Study Area:
• Use appropriate metrics to assess
potential environmental impacts on land and
water.
• Determine natural ambient acoustic
conditions as a baseline for analysis.
• Assess effects from cumulative noise
output, incorporating noise generated from
other anthropogenic sources.
• Determine distance at which noise will
attenuate to natural levels.
• Assess effects that these noise levels
would have on terrestrial wildlife, marine
wildlife, and visitors.
• Appropriate and effective mitigation
measures should be developed and used to
reduce vessel strike (e.g., timing activities to
avoid migration, and searching for marine
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
mammals before and during activities and
taking avoidance measures).
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Response: NMFS refers the
commenter to the HSTT FEIS/OEIS
which conducts an assessment of all of
the activities which comprise the
proposed action and their impacts
(including cumulative impacts) to
relevant resources. The Navy is not
required to do ambient noise monitoring
or assess impacts to wildlife other than
marine mammals or to visitors/tourists.
The mitigation measures in the rule
include procedural measures to
minimize strike (avoiding whales by 500
yards, etc.), mitigation areas to
minimize strike in biologically
important areas, and Awareness
Notification Message areas wherein all
vessels are alerted to stay vigilant to the
presence of large whales.
Density Estimates
Comment 2. A commenter
commented 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 suggested that the Navy
consider increasing the iterations from
30 to at least 200 for activities that have
yet to be modeled for upcoming MMPA
rulemakings for Navy testing and
training activities.
Response: In areas where there are
four season, 30 iterations are used in
NAEMO which results in a total of 120
iterations per year for each event.
However, in areas where only two
seasons, warm and cold, the number of
iterations per season is increased to 60
so that 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 HSTT Phase III exceeded
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
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.
NMFS has reviewed the Navy’s
approach and concurs that it is
technically sound and reflects the best
available science.
Comment 3: A commenter had
concerns regarding the Navy’s pinniped
density estimates. Given that a single
density was provided for the respective
areas and pinnipeds were assumed to
occur at sea as individual animals,
uncertainty does not appear to have
been incorporated in the Navy’s animat
modeling for pinnipeds. The Navy
primarily used sightings or abundance
data, assuming certain correction
factors, divided by an area to estimate
pinniped densities. Many, if not all, of
the abundance estimates had associated
measures of uncertainty (i.e.,
coefficients of variation (CV), standard
deviation (SD), or standard error (SE)).
Therefore, the commenter
recommended that NMFS require the
Navy to specify whether and how it
incorporated uncertainty in the
pinniped density estimates into its
animat modeling and if it did not,
require the Navy to use measures of
uncertainty inherent in the abundance
data (i.e., CV, SD, SE) similar to the
methods used for cetaceans.
Response: As noted in the cited
technical report Quantifying Acoustic
Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea
Turtles: Methods and Analytical
Approach for Phase III Training and
Testing (U.S. Department of the Navy,
2017a), the Navy did not apply
statistical uncertainty outside the survey
boundaries into non-surveyed areas,
since it deemed application of statistical
uncertainty would not be meaningful or
appropriate. We note that there are no
measures of uncertainty (i.e., no CV, SD,
or SE) provided in NMFS Pacific Stock
Assessment Report (SAR) Appendix 3
(Carretta et al., 2017) associated with the
abundance data for any of the pinniped
species present in Southern California
or for monk seals in Hawaii. Although
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66873
some measures of uncertainty are
presented in some citations within the
SAR and in other relevant publications
for some survey findings, it is not
appropriate for the Navy to attempt to
derive summations of total uncertainty
for an abundance when the authors of
the cited studies and the SAR have not.
For additional information regarding
use of pinniped density data, see the
cited U.S. Navy Marine Species Density
Database Phase III for the HawaiiSouthern California Training and
Testing Study Area Section 11 (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017b). As a
result of the lack of published
applicable measures of uncertainty for
pinnipeds, the Navy did not incorporate
measures of uncertainty into the
pinniped density estimates. NMFS
independently reviewed the methods
and densities used by the Navy and
concur that they are appropriate and
reflect the best available science.
Comment 4: A commenter had
concerns regarding the various areas,
abundance estimates, and correction
factors that the Navy used for
pinnipeds. The commenter referenced a
lot of information in the context of both
what the Navy used and what they
could have used instead and
summarizes the discussion with seven
recommendations.
For harbor seals, the area was based
on the NMFS SOCAL stratum
(extending to the extent of the U.S.
exclusive economic zone (EEZ), 370 km
from the coast) for its vessel-based
surveys (i.e., Barlow 2010) and the Navy
applied the density estimates from the
coast to 80-km offshore. The commenter
believes that this approach is
inappropriate and that the Navy should
use the area of occurrence to estimate
the densities for harbor seals. For harbor
seals, the Navy assumed that 22 percent
of the stock occurred in SOCAL, citing
Department of the Navy (2015). The
commenter had two concerns with this
approach. First, one has to go to
Department of the Navy (2015) to
determine the original source of the
information (Lowry et al., 2008; see the
commenter’s February 20, 2014, letter
on this matter). Second, Lowry et al.
(2008) indicated that 23.3 percent of the
harbor seal population occurred in
SOCAL, not 22 percent as used by the
Navy. Therefore, the commenter
recommended that, at the very least,
NMFS require the Navy to revise the
pinniped density estimates using the
extent of the coastal range (e.g., from
shore to 80 km offshore) of harbor seals
as the applicable area, 23.3 percent of
the California abundance estimate based
on Lowry et al. (2008), and an at-sea
correction factor of 65 percent based on
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66874
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Harvey and Goley (2011) for both
seasons.
For Monk seals the area was based on
the areas within the 200-m isobaths in
both the Main and Northwest Hawaiian
Islands (MHI and NWHI, respectively)
and areas beyond the 200-m isobaths in
the U.S. EEZ. The commenter asserted
that some of the abundances used were
not based on best available science. The
Navy noted that its monk seal
abundance was less than that reported
by Baker et al. (2016), but that those
more recent data were not available
when the Navy’s modeling process
began. The Baker et al. (2016) data have
been available for almost two years and
should have been incorporated
accordingly, particularly since the data
would yield greater densities and the
species is endangered. For monk seals,
the commenter recommended using the
2015 monk seal abundance estimate
from Baker et al. (2016) and an at-sea
correction factor of 63 percent for the
MHI based on Baker et al. (2016) and 69
percent for the NWHI based on Harting
et al. (2017).
For the northern fur seals, the area
was based on the NMFS SOCAL stratum
(extending to the extent of the U.S. EEZ,
370 km from the coast) for its vesselbased surveys (i.e., Barlow 2010). For
elephant seals, California sea lions, and
Guadalupe fur seals, the area was based
on the Navy SOCAL modeling area. The
commenter had concerns that these
areas are not based on the biology or
ecology of these species. The
commenter recommended using the
same representative area for elephant
seals, northern fur seals, Guadalupe fur
seals, and California sea lions. The
commenter recommended using an
increasing trend of 3.8 percent annually
for the last 15 years for elephant seals
as part of the California population and
at least 31,000 as representative of the
Mexico population based on Lowry et
al. (2014). Additionally, the commenter
recommended using an at-sea correction
factor of 44 percent for the cold season
and 48 percent for the warm season for
California sea lions based on Lowry and
Forney (2005).
Finally, the commenter recommended
that NMFS require the Navy to (1)
specify the assumptions made and the
underlying data that were used for the
at-sea correction factors for Guadalupe
and northern fur seals and (2) consult
with experts in academia and at the
NMFS Science Centers to develop more
refined pinniped density estimates that
account for pinniped movements,
distribution, at-sea correction factors,
and density gradients associated with
proximity to haul-out sites or rookeries.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Response: The Navy provided
additional clarification regarding the
referenced concerns about areas,
abundance estimates, and correction
factors that were used for pinnipeds. We
note that take estimation is not an exact
science. There are many inputs that go
into an estimate of marine mammal
exposure, and the data upon which
those inputs are based come with
varying levels of uncertainty and
precision. Also, differences in life
histories, behaviors, and distributions of
stocks can support different decisions
regarding methods in different
situations. Different methods may be
supportable in different situations, and,
further, there may be more than one
acceptable method to estimate take in a
particular situation. Accordingly, while
NMFS always ensures that the methods
are technically supportable and reflect
the best available science, NMFS does
not prescribe any one method for
estimating take (or calculating some of
the specific take estimate components
that the commenter is concerned about).
NMFS reviewed the areas, abundances,
and correction factors used by the Navy
to estimate take and concurs that they
are appropriate. We note the following
in further support of the analysis: While
some of the suggestions the commenter
makes could provide alternate valid
ways to conduct the analyses, these
modifications are not required in order
to have equally valid and supportable
analyses and, further, would not change
NMFS’ determinations for pinnipeds. In
addition, we note that (1) many of the
specific recommendations that the
commenter makes are largely minor in
nature: ‘‘44 not 47 percent,’’ ‘‘63 not 61
percent,’’ ‘‘23.3 not 22 percent’’ or ‘‘area
being approximately 13 percent larger;’’
and (2) even where the recommendation
is somewhat larger in scale, given the
ranges of these stocks, the size of the
stocks, and the number and nature of
pinniped takes, recalculating the
estimated take for any of these pinniped
stocks using the commenter’s
recommended changes would not
change NMFS’ assessment of impacts on
the recruitment or survival of any of
these stocks, or the negligible impact
determination. Below, we address the
Commenters issues in more detail and,
while we do not explicitly note it in
every section, NMFS has reviewed the
Navy’s analysis and choices in relation
to these comments and concurs that
they are technically sound and reflect
the best available science.
For harbor seals—Based on the results
from satellite tracking of harbor seals at
Monterey, California and the
documented dive depths (Eguchi and
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Harvey, 2005), the extent of the range
for harbor seals in the HSTT Study Area
used by the Navy (a 50 nmi buffer
around all known haul-out sites;
approximately 93 km) is more
appropriate than the suggested 80 km
offshore suggested by commenter.
The comment is incorrect in its claim
that the Navy did not use the best
available science. Regarding the
appropriate percentage of the California
Current Ecosystem abundance to assign
to the HSTT Study Area, the 22 percent
that the Navy used is based on the most
recent of the two years provided in
Lowry et al. (2008) rather than the mean
of two years, which is one valid
approach. Additionally, since
approximately 74 percent of the harbor
seal population in the Channel Islands
(Lowry et al., 2017) is present outside
and to the north of the HSTT Study
Area, it is a reasonable assumption that
the 22 percent used already provides a
conservative overestimate and that it
would not be appropriate to apply a
higher percentage of the overall
population for distribution into the
Navy’s modeling areas.
Again the comment is incorrect in its
claim that the correction factors applied
to population estimates were either
unsubstantiated or incorrect. Regarding
the commenter’s recommended use of
an at-sea correction factor of 65 percent
for both seasons based on Harvey and
Goley (2011), that correction factor was
specifically meant to apply to the single
molting season when harbor seals are
traditionally surveyed (see discussion in
Lowry et al., 2017). Additionally, the
authors of that study provided a
correction factor (CF = 2.86; 35 percent)
for Southern California but left open the
appropriateness of that factor given the
limited data available at the time. For
these reasons, having separate
correction factors for each of the seasons
is more appropriate as detailed in
Section 11.1.5 (Phoca vitulina, Pacific
harbor seal) of the U.S. Navy Marine
Species Density Database Phase III for
the Hawaii-Southern California Training
and Testing Study Area (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017b).
For monk seals, as detailed in Section
11.1.4 (Neomonachus schauinslandi,
Hawaiian monk seal) of the U.S. Navy
Marine Species Density Database Phase
III for the Hawaii-Southern California
Training and Testing Study Area (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017b), the
Navy consulted with the researchers
and subject matter experts at the Pacific
Science Center and the Monk Seal
Recovery Team regarding the abundance
estimates, at sea correction factors, and
distribution for monk seals in the
Hawaiian Islands during development
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS throughout 2015
and the Summer of 2016. The Navy
incorporated the results of those
consultations, including unpublished
data, into the analysis of monk seals.
Additional details in this regard to
monk seal distributions and population
trends as reflected by the abundance in
the Hawaiian Islands are presented in
the FEIS/OEIS in Section 3.7.2.2.9.2
(Habitat and Geographic Range) and
Section 3.7.2.2.9.3 (Population Trends).
The Navy has indicated that it has
continued ongoing communications
with researchers at the Pacific Islands
Science Center and elsewhere, has
accounted for the findings in the
citations noted by the commenter (Baker
et al., 2016; Harting et al., 2017) as well
as information in forthcoming
publications provided ahead of
publication via those researchers (cited
as in preparation), and specifically
asked for and received concurrence
from subject matter experts regarding
specific findings presented in the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS regarding monk seals. The
Navy also considered (subsequent to
publication of the HSTT FEIS) the new
Main Hawaiian Islands haulout
correction factor presented in the
publication by Wilson et al. (2017,
which would be inconsistent with the
use of the Baker et al. (2016) correction
factors suggested by the commenter),
and the Harting et al. (2017) correction
factor, and has considered the new
abundance numbers presented in the
2016 Stock Assessment Report, which
first became available in January 2018.
It is the Navy’s assessment that a
revision of the monk seal at-sea density
would only result in small changes to
the predicted effects and certainly
would not change the conclusions
presented in the HSTT FEIS/OEIS
regarding impact on the population or
the impact on the species. The Navy has
communicated that it assumes that as
part of the ongoing regulatory
discussions with NMFS, changes to
estimates of effects can be best dealt
with in the next rulemaking given
Wilson et al. (2017) has now also
provided a totally new haulout
correction factor for the Main Hawaiian
Islands that was not considered in Baker
et al. (2016), Harting et al. (2017), or the
2016 SAR.
For northern fur seals, elephant seals,
California sea lions, and Guadalupe fur
seals, the Navy consulted with various
subject matter experts regarding the
abundances and distributions used in
the HSTT FEIS/OEIS analyses for these
species and based on those
consultations and the literature
available, the Navy and NMFS believe
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
that the findings presented in the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS and supporting technical
reports provide the most accurate
assessments available for these species.
Given the demonstrated differences in
the at-sea distributions of elephant
seals, northern fur seals, Guadalupe fur
seals, and California sea lions (Gearin et
al., 2017; Lowry et al., 2014; Lowry,et
al., 2017; Norris, 2017; Norris,et al.,
2015; Robinson et al., 2012; University
of California Santa Cruz and National
Marine Fisheries Service, 2016), it
would not be appropriate to use the
same representative area for
distributions of these species’
population abundances. For example,
California sea lions forage
predominantly within 20 nautical miles
from shore (Lowry and Forney, 2005),
while tag data shows that many
elephant seals (Robinson et al., 2012)
and Guadalupe fur seals (Norris, 2017)
seasonally forage in deep waters of the
Pacific well outside the boundaries of
the HSTT Study Area.
For northern elephant seals (Mirounga
angustirostris, Northern elephant seal),
as detailed in Section 11.1.3 of the
technical report titled U.S. Navy Marine
Species Density Database Phase III for
the Hawaii-Southern California Training
and Testing Study Area (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017e),
hereafter referred to as the Density
Technical Report, the Navy considered
a number of factors in the development
of the data for this species, including
the fact that not all of the elephant seal
population is likely to occur exclusively
within the Southern California portion
of the HSTT Study Area. Given that the
three main rookeries considered in this
analysis are located at the northern
boundary of the HSTT Study Area and
that elephant seals migrate northward
after the breeding season, the Navy, in
consultation with subject matter
experts, believes the current abundance
used in the analysis is based on the best
available science and represents a
conservative overestimate of the number
of elephant seals likely to be affected by
Navy activities in the HSTT Study Area.
For California sea lions, the citation
(Lowry and Forney, 2005) used as the
basis for this recommendation
specifically addressed the use of the
Central and Northern California at-sea
correction factor elsewhere, with the
authors stating; ‘‘In particular, [use of
the Central and Northern California atsea correction factor] would not be
appropriate for regions where sea lions
reproduce, such as in the Southern
California Bight (SCB) and in Mexico,
. . .’’ Given the waters of the Southern
California Bight and off Mexico overlap
the HSTT Study Area and since the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66875
authors of the cited study specifically
recommended not using the correction
factor in the manner the commenter
suggested, the Navy does not believe use
of that correction factor for the HSTT
Study Area would be appropriate.
NMFS concurs with this approach
For Guadalupe fur seal—Additional
detail regarding the data used for the
analysis of Guadalupe fur seals has been
added to the HSTT Final EIS/OEIS
Section 3.7.2.2.8 (Arctocephalus
townsendi, Guadalupe Fur Seal). The
Navy had integrated the latest
(September 2017) unpublished data for
Guadalupe fur seals from researchers in
the United States and Mexico into the
at-sea correction factor and density
distribution of the species used in the
modeling, but consultations with
experts in academia and at the NMFS
Science Centers and their
recommendations had not been
finalized before release of the Draft EIS/
OEIS. Subsequently, the Navy did not
consider this revision of the text critical
for the final NEPA document since the
new data did not provide any significant
change to the conclusions reached
regarding the Guadalupe fur seal
population. In fact, the data indicates an
increase in the population and
expansion of their range concurrent
with decades of ongoing Navy training
and testing in the SOCAL range
complex.
For Northern Fur Seal—As presented
in Section 11.1.2 (Callorhinus ursinus,
Northern fur seal) of the Navy’s Density
Technical Report (U.S. Department of
the Navy, 2017b), the correction factor
percentages for northern fur seals
potentially at sea were derived from the
published literature as cited (Antonelis,
Stewart, & Perryman, 1990; Ream,
Sterling, & Loughlin, 2005; Roppel,
1984).
For future EISs, the Navy explained
that it did and will continue to consult
with authors of the papers relevant to
the analyses as well as other experts in
academia and at the NMFS Science
Centers during the development of the
Navy’s analyses. During the
development of the HSTT EIS/OEIS and
as late as September 2017, the Navy had
ongoing communications with various
subject matter experts and specifically
discussed pinniped movements, the
distribution of populations within the
study area to support the analyses, the
pinniped haulout or at-sea correction
factors, and the appropriateness of
density gradients associated with
proximity to haul-out sites or rookeries.
As shown in the references cited, the
personal communications with
researchers have been made part of the
public record, although many other
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66876
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
informal discussions with colleagues
have also assisted in the Navy’s
approach to the analyses presented.
The Navy acknowledges that there
have been previous comments provided
by this commenter on other Navy range
complex documents regarding the use of
satellite tag movement and location data
to derive at-sea pinniped density data,
and the Navy asserts that previous
responses to those comments remain
valid. Additionally, the commenter has
noted that the ‘‘. . . Commenter
continues to believe that data regarding
movements and dispersion of tagged
pinnipeds could yield better
approximations of densities than the
methods the Navy currently uses.’’ The
Navy acknowledges that in comments to
previous Navy EIS/OEIS analyses, the
commenter has recommended this
untried approach; responses to those
previous comments have been provided.
The Navy also notes that there have
been papers suggesting the future
application of Bayesian or Markov chain
techniques for use in habitat modeling
(e.g., Redfern et al., 2006) and
overcoming the bias introduced by
interpretation of population habitat use
based on non-randomized tagging
locations (e.g., Whitehead & Jonsen,
2013). However, the use of satellite tag
location data in a Bayesian approach to
derive cetacean or pinniped densities at
sea has yet to be accepted,
implemented, or even introduced in the
scientific literature.
This issue was in fact recently
discussed as part of the Density
Modeling Workshop associated with the
October 2017 Society for Marine
Mammalogy conference. The consensus
of the marine mammal scientists present
was that while pinniped tag data could
provide a good test case, it realistically
was unlikely to be a focus of the nearterm research. The working group
determined that a focused technical
group should be established to
specifically discuss pinnipeds and data
available for density surface modelling
in the future. It was also discussed at the
Density Modeling Workshop in October
2018. The Navy has convened a
pinniped working group and NMFS
ASFSC is sponsoring a demonstration
project to use haulout and telemetry
data from seals in Alaska to determine
the viability of such an approach.
Therefore, consistent with previous
assessments and based on recent
discussions with subject matter experts
in academia, the NMFS Science Centers,
and the National Marine Mammal
Laboratory, and given there is no
currently established methodology for
implementing the approach suggested
by the commenter, the Navy believes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
that attempting to create and apply a
new density derivation method at this
point would introduce additional levels
of uncertainty into density estimations.
For these reasons, the Navy and
NMFS will not provide density
estimates based on pinniped tracking
data. Publications reporting on satellite
tag location data have been and will
continue to be used to aid in the
understanding of pinniped distributions
and density calculations as referenced
in the FEIS/OEIS and the U.S. Navy
Marine Species Density Database Phase
III for the Hawaii-Southern California
Training and Testing Study Area (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017b). The
Navy has communicated that it will
continue, as it has in the past, to refine
pinniped density and distributions
using telemetry data and evolving new
techniques (such as passive acoustic
survey data) in development of the
Navy’s analyses. As noted above, NMFS
has reviewed the Navy’s methods and
concurs that they are appropriate and
reflect the best available science.
Comment 5: A commenter
recommended that NMFS require the
Navy to (1) specify what modeling
method and underlying assumptions,
including any relevant source spectra
and assumed animal swim speeds and
turnover rates, were used to estimate the
ranges to PTS and TTS for impact and
vibratory pile-driving activities, (2)
accumulate the energy for the entire day
of proposed activities to determine the
ranges to PTS and TTS for impact and
vibratory pile-driving activities, and (3)
clarify why the PTS and TTS ranges
were estimated to be the same for LF
and HF cetaceans during impact pile
driving.
Response: As explained in Section
3.7.3.1.4.1 of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the
Navy measured values for source levels
and transmission loss from pile driving
of the Elevated Causeway System, the
only pile driving activity included in
the Specified Activity. The Navy
reviewed the source levels and how the
spectrum was used to calculate the
range to effects; NMFS supports the use
of these measured values. These
recorded source waveforms were
weighted using the auditory weighting
functions. Low-frequency and highfrequency cetaceans have similar ranges
for impact pile driving since lowfrequency 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 (ZOI) to thresholds of interest
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(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. NOAA
HQ scientists involved in the acoustic
criteria development reviewed the
manner in which the Navy applied the
frequency weighting and calculated all
values and concurred with the
approach.
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
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 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 repositioned between piles. Therefore, an
animal ‘‘refresh rate’’ of 10 percent was
selected. This means that 10 percent of
the single pile 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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
throughout the mitigation zone.
PTS/TTS Thresholds
Comment 6: A commenter supported
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, they commented 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)
(Acoustic Technical Guidance), 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, including the articles that the
commenter referenced 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 7: Commenters 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 nonconservative. Commenters cited
multiple purported issues with NMFS’
Acoustic Technical Guidance, such as
pseudo-replication and inconsistent
treatment of data, broad extrapolation
from a small number of individuals, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
disregarding ‘‘non-linear accumulation
of uncertainty.’’ Commenters suggested
that NMFS not rely exclusively on its
auditory guidance for determining Level
A harassment take, but should at a
minimum 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 scientific 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. This review
process was scientifically rigorous and
ensured that the Guidance represents
the best scientific data available.
The Acoustic Technical Guidance
updates the historical 180 dB rms injury
threshold, which was based on
professional judgement (i.e., no data
were available on the effects of noise on
marine mammal hearing at the time this
original threshold was derived). NMFS
disagrees with any suggestion that 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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66877
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 individuals 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
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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66878
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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 8: Commenters commented
on what it asserts is NMFS’ failure to set
proper thresholds for behavioral
impacts. Referencing the biphasic
function that assumes an unmediated
dose response relationship at higher
received levels and a context-influenced
response at lower received levels that
NMFS uses to quantify behavioral
harassment from sonar, Commenters
commented that resulting functions
depend on some inappropriate
assumptions that tend to significantly
underestimate effects. Commenters
expressed 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,
Commenters asserted that the risk
functions do not incorporate (nor does
NMFS apparently consider) a number of
relevant studies on wild marine
mammals. Commenters stated that it is
not clear from the proposed rule, or
from the Navy’s recent technical report
on acoustic ‘‘criteria and thresholds,’’
on which NMFS’ approach in the rule
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.
Commenters recommended 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
differences in captive and wild animals
in the development of the behavioral
response functions. The Navy used 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, including 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,
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
new information has been published or
otherwise conveyed that would
fundamentally change the assessment of
impacts or conclusions of the HSTT
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 9: Commenters stated
concerns with the use of distance ‘‘cutoffs’’ in the behavioral harassment
thresholds, and one commenter
recommended 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 the Navy and NMFS, is
appropriate based on the best available
science which shows that marine
mammal responses to sound vary based
on both sound level and distance, and
was applied within the Navy’s acoustic
effects model. 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). To account for nonapplicable contextual factors, all
available data on marine mammal
reactions to actual Navy activities and
other sound sources (or other large scale
activities such as seismic surveys when
information on proximity to sonar
sources is not available for a given
species group) 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 distances provide
technically sound methods reflective of
the best available science to estimate of
impact and potential take under military
readiness for the actions analyzed
within the HSTT FEIS/OEIS and
included in these regulations. NMFS
has independently assessed the Navy’s
behavioral harassment thresholds and
believes that they appropriately apply
the best available science and it is not
necessary to recalculate take estimates.
The commenter also specifically
expressed 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
multiple studies illustrating that in
situations where one would expect a
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 10: Regarding cut-off
distances, Commenters noted that
dipping sonar appears to be 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. Commenters
suggested 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.
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 Antisubmarine Warfare Range (Falcone et
al., 2017) was not available at the time
the BRFs 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
conveyed since the proposed rule was
published would significantly change
the assessment of impacts or
conclusions in the HSTT 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 for data available at the time
that new functions are needed to inform
new analyses.
Furthermore, ongoing Navy funded
beaked whale monitoring at the same
site where the dipping sonar tests were
conducted has not documented habitat
abandonment by beaked whales. Passive
acoustic detections of beaked whales
have not significantly changed over
eight years of monitoring (DiMarzio et
al., 2018). From visual surveys in the
area since 2006 there have been
repeated sightings of: The same
individual beaked whale, beaked whale
mother-calf pairs, and beaked whale
mother-calf pairs with mothers on their
second calf (Schorr et al., 2018).
Satellite tracking studies of beaked
whale documented high site fidelity to
this area (Schorr et al., 2018).’’
Comment 11: Regarding the
behavioral thresholds for explosives,
Commenters recommended 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 a commenter referenced 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
isolated explosions. The Navy has been
monitoring detonations since the 1990s
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.
Further, to clarify, the current take
estimate framework does not preclude
the consideration of animals being
behaviorally disturbed during single
explosions as they are counted as ‘‘taken
by Level B harassment’’ if they are
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66879
exposed above the TTS threshold,
which is only 5 dB higher than the
behavioral harassment threshold. We
acknowledge in our analysis that
individuals exposed above the TTS
threshold may also be behaviorally
harassed and those potential impacts are
considered in the negligible impact
determination.
All of the 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 12: A commenter
recommended 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. NMFS
independently reviewed and concurred
with this approach.
Comment 13: A commenter
commented that the Navy only used the
onset mortality and onset slight lung
injury criteria to determine the range to
effects, while it used the 50 percent
mortality and 50 percent slight lung
injury criteria to estimate the numbers
of marine mammal takes. The
commenter believes that this approach
is inconsistent with the manner in
which the Navy estimated the numbers
of takes for PTS, TTS, and behavior for
explosive activities. All of those takes
have been and continue to be based on
onset, not 50-percent values. The
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)
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66880
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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
hemorrhage is a level of injury that
would result in mortality for a wild
animal (Department of the Navy 2017a).
Thus, the commenter comments 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, in coordination with NMFS
the Navy revised and updated the
mitigation for these types of events.
There have been no further incidents
since these mitigation changes were
instituted in 2011.
The Navy used the range to one
percent risk of mortality and injury
(referred to as ‘‘onset’’ in the Draft EIS/
OEIS) to inform the development of
mitigation zones for explosives. In all
cases, the mitigation zones 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 FEIS/OEIS, the Navy
has clarified that the ‘‘onset’’ nonauditory 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
representation of a potential effect and
appropriate for take estimation.
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 2017 technical report
titled Criteria and Thresholds for U.S.
Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects
Analysis (Phase III).
Range to Effects
Comment 14: One commenter noted
that regarding TTS, the ranges to effect
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
provided in Table 25 of the Federal
Register notice of proposed rulemaking
and Table 6–4 of the LOA application
appear to be incorrect. The ranges for LF
cetaceans should increase with
increasing sonar emission time.
Therefore, the commenter
recommended that NMFS determine
what the appropriate ranges to TTS for
bin LF5 should be and amend the ranges
for the various functional hearing
groups in the 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 the 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.
Mitigation and Avoidance Calculations
Comment 15: Commenters cited
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 takes and
mortality takes may be underestimated.
A commenter recommended that NMFS
(1) authorize the total numbers of
model-estimated Level A harassment
(PTS) and mortality takes rather than
reduce the estimated numbers of takes
based on the Navy’s post-model
analyses and (2) use those numbers, in
addition to the revised Level B
harassment takes, to inform its
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;
additional information on the mitigation
analysis also has been included in the
final rule.
Sound levels diminish quickly below
levels that could cause PTS. Studies
have shown that all animals observed
avoid areas well beyond these zones;
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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.
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.
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, i.e., we
believe the estimated Level A take
numbers represent the maximum
number of these takes that are likely to
occur and it would not be appropriate
to authorize a higher number or
consider a higher number in the
negligible impact analysis.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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
generated in the assessment to evaluate
the method.
Comment 16: 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, which
results in a 95 percent reduction in the
number of estimated PTS takes
predicted by the model), 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 5-percent
assumption was valid. Commenters are
concerned that this method
underestimates the number of PTS
takes.
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 5 percent of the total
pings or 5 percent of the overall time
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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,
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. 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. The commenter
references comments that they have
previously submitted on the Navy’s Gulf
of Alaska incidental take regulations
and we refer the commenter to NMFS’
responses, which were included in the
Federal Register document announcing
the issuance of the final regulations (82
FR 19572, April 27, 2017).
Underestimated Beaked Whale Injury
and Mortality
Comment 17: A commenter
commented that the Navy and NMFS
both underestimate take for Cuvier’s
beaked whales because they are
extremely sensitive to sonar. A new
study of Cuvier’s beaked whales in
Southern California exposed to mid and
high-power sonar confirmed that they
modify their diving behavior up to 100km away (Falcone et al., 2017). The
commenter asserted that this science
disproves NMFS’ assumption that
beaked whales will find suitable habitat
nearby within their small range. This
modified diving behavior, which was
particularly strong when exposed to
mid-power sonar, indicates disruption
of feeding. Accordingly, impacts on
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66881
Cuvier’s beaked whales could include
interference with essential behaviors
that will have more than a negligible
impact on this species. In addition,
Lookouts and shutdowns do not protect
Cuvier’s beaked whales from Navy sonar
because this is a deep-diving species
that is difficult to see from ships.
Response: Takes of Cuvier’s beaked
whales are not underestimated. The
behavioral harassment threshold for
beaked whales has two components,
both of which consider the sensitivity of
beaked whales. First, the biphasic
behavioral harassment function for
beaked whales, which is based on data
on beaked whale responses, has a
significantly lower mid-point than other
groups and also reflects a significantly
higher probability of ‘‘take’’ at lower
levels (e.g., close to 15 percent at 120
dB). Additionally, the distance cut-off
used for beaked whales is farther than
for any other group (50 km, for both the
MF1 and MF4 bins, acknowledging the
fact that the unpredictability of dipping
sonar likely results in takes at greater
distances than other more predictable
sources of similar levels). Regarding the
referenced article, the commenter is
selectively citing only part of it. The
study, which compiles information from
multiple studies, found that shallow
dives were predicted to increase in
duration as the distance to both highand mid-power MFAS sources
decreased, beginning at approximately
100 km away and, specifically, the
differences only varied from
approximately 20 minutes without
MFAS to about 24 minutes with MFAS
at the closest distance (i.e., the dive time
varied from 20 to 24 minutes over the
distance of 100 km away to the closest
distance measured). Further, the same
article predicted that deep dive duration
(which is more directly associated with
feeding and linked to potential energetic
effects) was predicted to increase with
proximity to mid-power MFAS from
approximately 60 minutes to
approximately 90 minutes beginning at
around 40 km (10 dives). There were
four deep dives exposed high-power
MFAS within 20 km, the distance at
which deep dive durations increased
with the lower power source types.
Other responses to MFAS included deep
dives that were shorter than typical and
shallower, and instances where there
were no observed responses at closer
distances. The threshold for Level B
harassment is higher than just ‘‘any
measurable response’’ and NMFS and
the Navy worked closely together to
identify behavioral response functions
and distance cut-offs that reflect the best
available science to identify when
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66882
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
marine mammal behavioral patterns
will be disrupted to a point where they
are abandoned or significantly altered.
Further, the take estimate is in no way
based on an assumption that beaked
whales will always be sighted by
Lookouts—and adjustment to account
for Lookout effectiveness considers the
variable detectability of different stocks.
In this rule, both the take estimate and
the negligible impact analysis
appropriately consider the sensitivity of,
and scale of impacts to (we address
impacts to feeding and energetics),
Cuvier’s (and all) beaked whales.
Comment 18: A commenter
commented that NMFS is
underestimating serious injury and
mortality for beaked whales. A
commenter noted 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 at 30007). The
commenter asserted that this opinion is
inconsistent with best available science
and does not take into account the fact
that the leading explanation for the
mechanism of sonar-related injuries—
that whales suffer from bubble growth
in organs that is similar to
decompression sickness, or ‘‘the bends’’
in human divers—has now been
supported by numerous papers. At the
same time, the commenter argued 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 29916) and
dismisses the risk of stranding and other
mortality events (83 FR 30007) 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, a commenter
argued 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: A 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 HSTT Study Area)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
via strandings resulting from
behaviorally mediated physiological
impacts or other gas-related injuries.
NMFS discussed these potential causes
and outlined the few cases where active
naval sonar (in the United States or,
largely, elsewhere) had either
potentially contributed to or (as with the
Bahamas example) been more
definitively causally linked with marine
mammal strandings in the proposed
rule. 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 HSTT Study Area and during the
specified activities (and which the Navy
takes care across the world not to
operate under without additional
monitoring). There have been no
documented beaked whale mortalities
from Navy activities within the HSTT
Study Area. Further, none of the beaked
whale strandings causally associated
with Navy sonar stranding are in the
Pacific. For these reasons, NMFS does
not anticipate that the Navy’s HSTT
training or testing activities will result
in beaked whale marine mammal
strandings, and none are authorized.
Furthermore, ongoing Navy funded
beaked whale monitoring at a heavily
used training and testing area in SOCAL
has not documented mortality or habitat
abandonment by beaked whales. Passive
acoustic detections of beaked whales
have not significantly changed over
eight years of monitoring (DiMarzio et
al., 2018). From visual surveys in the
area since 2006 there have been
repeated sightings of: the same
individual beaked whale, beaked whale
mother-calf pairs, and beaked whale
mother-calf pairs with mothers on their
second calf (Schorr et al., 2018).
Satellite tracking studies of beaked
whale documented high site fidelity to
this area even though the study area is
located in one of the most used Navy
areas in the Pacific (Schorr et al., 2018).
Ship Strike
Comment 19: A commenter
commented that the Navy’s current
approach to determine the risk of a
direct vessel collision with marine
mammals is flawed and fails to account
for the likelihood that ship strikes since
2009 were unintentionally
underreported. The commenters noted
that vessel collisions are generally
underreported in part because they can
be difficult to detect, especially for large
vessels and that the distribution, being
based on reported strikes, does not
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
account for this problem. Additionally,
the commenter asserted that the Navy’s
analysis does not address the potential
for increased strike risk of 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
right whales, increasing the risk of shipstrike—by not only the source vessel but
potentially by third-party vessels in the
area—at relatively moderate levels of
exposure (Nowacek et al., 2004). An
analysis based on reported strikes by
Navy vessels per se does not account for
this additional risk. In assessing shipstrike risk, the Navy should include
offsets to account for potentially
undetected and unreported collisions.
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
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. The Navy’s strict internal
procedures and mitigation requirements
include reporting of any vessel strikes of
marine mammals, and the Navy’s
discipline, extensive training (not only
for detecting marine mammals, but for
detecting and reporting any potential
navigational obstruction), and strict
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.
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. More whales are
struck by non-Navy vessels off
California in areas outside of the HSTT
Study Area such as approaches to Los
Angeles and San Francisco.
Mitigation and Monitoring
Least Practicable Adverse Impact
Determination
Comment 20: A commenter
commented that deaths of, or serious
injuries to marine mammals that occur
pursuant to activities conducted under
an incidental take authorization, while
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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 asserted 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 recommended 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 least
practicable adverse impact 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 least practicable
adverse impact 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
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 21: A commenter
recommended that NMFS address the
habitat component of the least
practicable adverse impact provision in
greater detail. It asserted that NMFS’
discussion of 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.,
calving areas in Hawaii, feeding areas
SOCAL). 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 22: A commenter
recommended that NMFS rework its
evaluation criteria for applying the least
practicable adverse impact standard to
separate the factors used to determine
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 asserted 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 least
practicable adverse impact 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
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66883
practicability. The commenter provides
no support for its argument, and NMFS
has not implemented the Commission’s
suggestion.
Comment 23: A commenter
recommended 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 their practicability.
Further, since the proposed rule was
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
HSTT 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. NMFS has
reviewed documentation and analysis
provided by the Navy explaining how
and why specific procedural and
geographic based mitigation measures
impact practicability, and NMFS
concurs with these assessments and has
determined that the mitigation measures
outlined in the final rule satisfy the
statutory standard and that any adverse
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66884
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
impacts that remain are unable to be
further mitigated.
Comment 24: A commenter
recommended 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 Gulf of Mexico; and the
final rule for U.S. Navy Training and
Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet
Study Area.
Comment 25: A commenter cited two
judicial decisions and commented that
the ‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’
standard has not been met. A
commenter stated that contrary to the
Pritzker Court decision, NMFS, while
clarifying that population-level impacts
are mitigated ‘‘through the application
of mitigation measures that limit
impacts to individual animals,’’ has
again set population-level impact as the
basis for mitigation in the proposed
rule. Because NMFS’ mitigation analysis
is opaque, it is not clear what practical
effect this position may have on its
rulemaking. A commenter stated that
the proposed rule is also unclear in its
application of the ‘‘habitat’’ emphasis in
the MMPA’s mitigation standard, and
that while NMFS’ analysis is opaque, its
failure to incorporate or even,
apparently, to consider viable time-area
measures suggests that the agency has
not addressed this aspect of the Pritzker
decision. A commenter argues that the
MMPA sets forth a ‘‘stringent standard’’
for mitigation that requires 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.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Response: NMFS disagrees with much
of what a 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 when
practicability demands, i.e., some forms
of mitigation were practicable in some
areas but not others. Examples of NMFS’
analysis on this issue appear throughout
the rule. For instance, while it was not
practicable for the Navy to include a
mitigation area for the Tanner-Cortes
blue whale BIA, the Navy did agree to
expand mitigation protection to all of
the other blue whale BIAs in the SOCAL
region. Additionally, while the Navy
cannot alleviate all training in the
mitigation areas that protect small
resident odontocete populations in
Hawaii, has further expanded the
protections in those areas such that it
does not use explosives or MFAS in the
areas (MF1 bin in both areas, MF4 bin
in the Hawaii Island area). 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. A
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 least
practicable adverse impact 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 HSTT Study
Area. Discussion regarding specific
recommendations for mitigation
measures provided by a commenter on
the proposed rule are discussed
separately.
Procedural Mitigation Effectiveness and
Recommendations
Comment 26: A commenter
commented that the Navy’s proposed
mitigation zones are similar to the zones
previously used during Phase II
activities and are intended, based on the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Phase III HSTT DEIS/OEIS, to avoid the
potential for marine mammals to be
exposed to levels of sound that could
result in injury (i.e., PTS). However, the
commenter believed that Phase III
proposed 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 2,113–3,682 m for HF.
Similarly, the mitigation zone for an
explosive torpedo is 1,920 m but the
mean PTS zones range from 7,635–
10,062 m for HF, 1,969–4,315 m for LF,
and 3,053–3,311 for PW. The
appropriateness of such zones is further
complicated by platforms firing
munitions (e.g., for missiles and rockets)
at targets that are 28 to 139 km away
from the firing platform. 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 unbeknownst to the Navy at the
time of the launch.
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
(Mitigation) of the HSTT 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 HSTT
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.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Comment 27: One commenter made
several comments regarding visual and
acoustic detection as related to
mitigating impacts that can cause injury.
The commenter noted that the Navy
indicated in the HSTT DEIS/OEIS that
Lookouts would not be 100 percent
effective at detecting all species of
marine mammals for every activity
because of the inherent limitations of
observing marine species and because
the likelihood of sighting individual
animals is largely dependent on
observation conditions (e.g., time of day,
sea state, mitigation zone size,
observation platform). The Navy has
been collaborating with researchers at
the University of St. Andrews to study
Navy Lookout effectiveness and the
commenter anticipates that the Lookout
effectiveness study will be very
informative once completed, but notes
that in the interim, the preliminary data
do provide an adequate basis for taking
a precautionary approach. The
commenter believed that rather than
simply reducing the size of the
mitigation zones it plans to monitor, the
Navy should supplement its visual
monitoring efforts with other
monitoring measures including passive
acoustic monitoring.
The commenter suggested that
sonobuoys could be deployed with the
target in the various target areas prior to
the activity. This approach would allow
the Navy to better determine whether
the target area is clear and remains clear
until the munition is launched.
Although the Navy indicated that it
was continuing to improve its
capabilities for using range
instrumentation to aid in the passive
acoustic detection of marine mammals,
it also stated that it didn’t have the
capability or resources to monitor
instrumented ranges in real time for the
purpose of mitigation. That capability
clearly exists. While available resources
could be a limiting factor, the
commenter notes that personnel who
monitor the hydrophones on the
operational side do have the ability to
monitor for marine mammals as well.
The commenter has supported the use
of the instrumented ranges to fulfill
mitigation implementation for quite
some time (see the commenter’s most
recent November 13, 2017 letter) and
contends that localizing certain species
(or genera) provides more effective
mitigation than localizing none at all.
The commenter recommended 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 have the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
potential to cause injury or mortality
beyond those explosive activities for
which passive acoustic monitoring
already was proposed, including those
activities that would occur on the
SCORE and PMRF ranges.
Response: For explosive mitigation
zones, 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
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 HSTT 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 for realtime mitigation, the
commenter is correct that the Navy
continues to develop the technology and
capabilities on its 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. However, as discussed above,
the manpower and logistical complexity
involved in detecting and localizing
marine mammals in relation to multiple
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66885
fast-moving sound source platforms in
order to implement real-time mitigation
is significant. A more detailed
discussion of the limitations for on
range passive acoustic detection as realtime mitigation is provided in Comment
34 and is impracticable for the Navy.
The Navy’s instrumented ranges were
not developed for the purpose of
mitigation. For example, beaked whales
produce highly directed echolocation
clicks that are difficult to
simultaneously detect on multiple
hydrophones within the instrumented
range at PMRF; therefore, there is a high
probability that a vocalizing animal
would be assigned a false location on
the range (i.e., the Navy would not be
able to verify its presence in a
mitigation zone). Although the Navy is
continuing to improve its capabilities to
use range instrumentation to aid in the
passive acoustic detection of marine
mammals, at this time it would not be
effective or practicable for the Navy to
monitor instrumented ranges for the
purpose of real-time mitigation for the
reasons discussed in Section 5.5.3
(Active and Passive Acoustic
Monitoring Devices) of the HSTT FEIS/
OEIS.
Comment 28: The commenter
recommended 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
event mitigation measures. 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 29: One commenter
recommended that the Navy implement
larger shutdown zones.
Response: The Navy mitigation zones
represent the maximum surface area the
Navy can effectively observe based on
the platform involved, number of
personnel that will be involved, and the
number and type of assets and resources
available. As mitigation zone sizes
increase, the potential for observing
marine mammals and thus reducing
impacts decreases, because the number
of observers can’t increase although the
area to observe increases. For instance,
if a mitigation zone increases from 1,000
to 2,000 yd., the area that must be
observed increases five-fold. NMFS has
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66886
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
analyzed the Navy’s required mitigation
and found that it will effect the least
practicable adverse impact. The Navy’s
mitigation measures consider both the
need to reduce potential impacts and
the ability to provide effective
observations throughout a given
mitigation zone. To implement these
mitigation zones, Navy Lookouts are
trained to use a combination of unaided
eye and optics as they search the surface
around a vessel. In addition, there are
other Navy personnel on a given bridge
watch (in addition to designated
Lookouts), who are also constantly
watching the water for safety of
navigation and marine mammals. Takes
that cannot be mitigated are analyzed
and authorized provided the necessary
findings can be made.
Comment 30: Commenters
commented that NMFS should cap the
maximum level of activities each year.
Response: The commenters offers no
rationale for why a cap is needed and
nor do they suggest what an appropriate
cap might be. The Navy is responsible
under Title 10 for conducting the
needed amount of testing and training to
maintain military readiness, which is
what they have proposed and NMFS has
analyzed. Further, the MMPA states that
NMFS shall issue MMPA authorizations
if the necessary findings can be made,
as they have been here. Importantly, as
described in the Mitigation Areas
section, the Navy will limit activities
(active sonar, explosive use, MTE
exercises, etc.) to varying degrees in
multiple areas that are important to
sensitive species or for critical behaviors
in order to minimize impacts that are
more likely to lead to adverse effects on
rates of recruitment or survival.
Comment 31: A commenter suggested
the Navy could improve observer
effectiveness through the use of NMFScertified marine mammal observers.
Response: The Navy currently
requires at least one qualified Lookout
on watch at all times a vessel is
underway. In addition, on surface ships
with hull-mounted sonars during sonar
events, the number increases with two
additional Lookouts on the forward
portion of the vessel (i.e., total of three
Lookouts). Furthermore, unlike civilian
commercial ships, there are additional
bridge watch standers on Navy ships
viewing the water during all activities.
The Navy’s Marine Species Awareness
training that all bridge watchstanders
including Lookouts take has been
reviewed and approved by NMFS. This
training is conducted annually and prior
to MTEs. Note, Navy visual monitoring
from Lookouts and bridge
watchstanders as well as unit-based
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
passive acoustic detection is used when
available and appropriate.
As we understand from the Navy,
mandating NMFS-certified marine
mammal observers on all ships would
require setting up and administering a
certification program, providing security
clearance for certified people, ensuring
that all platforms are furnished with
these individuals, and housing these
people on ships for extended times from
weeks to months. This would be an
extreme logistic burden on realistic
training. The requirement for additional
non-Navy observers would provide little
additional benefit, especially at the near
ship mitigation ranges for midfrequency active sonars on surface ships
(<1,000 yds), nor be significantly better
than the current system developed by
the Navy in consultation with NMFS.
The purpose of Navy Lookouts is to
provide sighting information for other
boats and vessels in the area, in-water
debris, and other safety of navigation
functions. During active sonar use,
additional personnel are assigned for
the duration of the sonar event. In
addition, the other Navy personnel on a
given bridge watch along with
designated Lookouts are also constantly
watching the water for safety of
navigation and marine mammals.
Navy training and testing activities
often occur simultaneously and in
various regions throughout the HSTT
Study Area, with underway time that
could last for days or multiple weeks at
a time. The pool of certified marine
mammal observers across the U.S. West
Coast is rather limited, with many
already engaged in regional NMFS
survey efforts. Relative to the number of
dedicated MMOs that would be required
to implement this condition, as of July
2018, there are approximately 22 sonarequipped Navy ships (i.e., surface ships
with hull-mounted active sonars)
stationed in San Diego. Six additional
vessels from the Pacific Northwest also
transit to Southern California for
training (28 ships times 2 observers per
watch times 2 watches per day =
minimum of 112 observers).
Senior Navy commands in the Pacific
continuously reemphasize the
importance of Lookout responsibilities
to all ships. Further, the Navy has an
ongoing study in which certified Navy
civilian scientist observers embark
periodically on Navy ships in support of
a comparative Lookout effectiveness
study. Results from this study will be
used to make recommendations for
further improvements to Lookout
training.
Additionally, we note that the
necessity to include trained NMFSapproved PSOs on Navy vessels, while
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
adding little or no additional protective
or data-gathering value, would be very
expensive and those costs would need
to be offset—most likely through
reductions in the budget for Navy
monitoring, through which invaluable
data is gathered.
Comment 32: Commenters
commented that NMFS should consider
increasing the exclusion zone to the 120
dB isopleth because some animals are
sensitive to sonar at low levels of
exposure.
Response: First, it is important to note
that the Commenters are 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 section).
Comment 33: A commenter
commented that NMFS should impose a
10-kn ship speed in biologically
important areas and critical habitat for
marine mammals to reduce vessel
strikes. One commenter also specifically
referenced this measure in regard to
humpback whales and blue whales.
Response: This issue also is addressed
elsewhere in the Comments and
Responses section for specific
mitigation areas. 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 the presence of effective
Lookouts, any further reduction in
speed would reduce the already low
probability of ship strike little, if any.
The Navy is unable to impose a 10-kn
ship speed limit because it would not be
practical to implement and would
impact the effectiveness of Navy’s
activities by putting constraints on
training, testing, and scheduling. The
Navy requires flexibility in use of
variable ship speeds for training, testing,
operational, safety, and engineering
qualification requirements. Navy ships
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
typically use the lowest speed practical
given individual mission needs. NMFS
has reviewed the Navy’s analysis of
these additional restrictions and the
impacts they would have on military
readiness and concurs with the Navy’s
assessment that they are impracticable.
The main driver for ship speed
reduction is reducing the possibility and
severity of ship strikes to large whales.
However, even given the wide ranges of
speeds from slow to fast that Navy ships
must use to meet training and testing
requirements, the Navy has a very low
strike history to large whales in
Southern California, with no whales
struck by the Navy from 2010–2018.
Current Navy Standard Operating
Procedures and mitigations require a
minimum of at least one Lookout on
duty while underway (in addition to
bridge watch personnel) and, so long as
safety of navigation is maintained, to
keep 500 yards away from large whales
and 200 yards away from other marine
mammals (except for bow-riding
dolphins and pinnipeds hauled out on
shore or structures). Furthermore, there
is no Navy ship strike of a marine
mammal on record in SOCAL that has
occurred in the coastal area (∼40 Nmi
from shore), which is where speed
restrictions are most requested. Finally,
the most recent model estimate of the
potential for civilian ship strike risk to
blue, humpback, and fin whales off the
coast of California found the highest risk
near San Francisco and Long Beach
associated with commercial ship routes
to and from those ports (Rockwood et
al., 2018). There was no indication of a
similar high risk to these species off San
Diego, where the HSTT Study Area
occurs.
Previously, the Navy commissioned a
vessel density and speed report based
on an analysis of Navy ship traffic in the
HSTT Study Area between 2011 and
2015. Median speed of all Navy vessels
within the HSTT Study Area is typically
already low, with median speeds
between 5 and 12 knots. Further, the
presence and transits of commercial and
recreational vessels, annually
numbering in the thousands, poses a
more significant risk to large whales
than the presence of Navy vessels. The
HSTT FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 (Affected
Environment and Environmental
Consequences) Section 3.7.3.4.1
(Impacts from Vessels and In-Water
Devices) and Appendix K, Section
K.4.1.6.2 (San Diego (Arc) Blue Whale
Feeding Area Mitigation
Considerations), explain the important
differences between most Navy vessels
and their operation and commercial
ships that make Navy vessels much less
likely to strike a whale.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
When developing Phase III mitigation
measures, the Navy analyzed the
potential for implementing additional
types of mitigation, such as vessel speed
restrictions within the HSTT Study
Area. The Navy determined that based
on how the training and testing
activities will be conducted within the
HSTT Study Area, vessel speed
restrictions would be incompatible with
practicability criteria for safety,
sustainability, and training and testing
missions, as described in Chapter 5
(Mitigation), Section 5.3.4.1 (Vessel
Movement) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS.
Comment 34: Commenters
commented that NMFS should improve
detection of marine mammals with
restrictions on low-visibility activities
and alternative detection such as
thermal or acoustic methods.
Response: The Navy has compiled
information related to the effectiveness
of certain equipment to detect marine
mammals in the context of their
activities, as well as the practicality and
effect on mission effectiveness of using
various equipment. NMFS has reviewed
this evaluation and concurs with the
characterization and the conclusions
below.
Low visibility—Anti-submarine
warfare training involving the use of
mid-frequency active sonar typically
involves the periodic use of active sonar
to develop the ‘‘tactical picture,’’ or an
understanding of the battle space (e.g.,
area searched or unsearched, presence
of false contacts, and an understanding
of the water conditions). Developing the
tactical picture can take several hours or
days, and typically occurs over vast
waters with varying environmental and
oceanographic conditions. Training
during both high visibility (e.g.,
daylight, favorable weather conditions)
and low visibility (e.g., nighttime,
inclement weather conditions) is vital
because sonar operators must be able to
understand the environmental
differences between day and night and
varying weather conditions and how
they affect sound propagation and the
detection capabilities of sonar.
Temperature layers move up and down
in the water column and ambient noise
levels can vary significantly between
night and day, affecting sound
propagation and how sonar systems are
operated. Reducing or securing power in
low-visibility conditions as a mitigation
would affect a commander’s ability to
develop the tactical picture and would
prevent sonar operators from training in
realistic conditions. Further, during
integrated training multiple vessels and
aircraft may participate in an exercise
using different dimensions of warfare
simultaneously (e.g., submarine warfare,
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66887
surface warfare, air warfare, etc.). If one
of these training elements were
adversely impacted (e.g., if sonar
training reflecting military operations
were not possible), the training value of
other integrated elements would also be
degraded. Additionally, failure to test
such systems in realistic military
operational scenarios increases the
likelihood these systems could fail
during military operations, thus
unacceptably placing Sailors’ lives and
the Nation’s security at risk. Some
systems have a nighttime testing
requirement; therefore, these tests
cannot occur only in daylight hours.
Reducing or securing power in low
visibility conditions would decrease the
Navy’s ability to determine whether
systems are operationally effective,
suitable, survivable, and safe for their
intended use by the fleet even in
reduced visibility or difficult weather
conditions.
Thermal detection—Thermal
detection systems are more useful for
detecting marine mammals in some
marine environments than others.
Current technologies have limitations
regarding water temperature and survey
conditions (e.g., rain, fog, sea state,
glare, ambient brightness), for which
further effectiveness studies are
required. Thermal detection systems are
generally thought to be most effective in
cold environments, which have a large
temperature differential between an
animal’s temperature and the
environment. Current thermal detection
systems have proven more effective at
detecting large whale blows than the
bodies of small animals, particularly at
a distance. The effectiveness of current
technologies has not been demonstrated
for small marine mammals. Thermal
detection systems exhibit varying
degrees of false positive detections (i.e.,
incorrect notifications) due in part to
their low sensor resolution and reduced
performance in certain environmental
conditions. False positive detections
may incorrectly identify other features
(e.g., birds, waves, boats) as marine
mammals. In one study, a false positive
rate approaching one incorrect
notification per 4 min. of observation
was noted.
The Navy has been investigating the
use of thermal detection systems with
automated marine mammal detection
algorithms for future mitigation during
training and testing, including on
autonomous platforms. Thermal
detection technology being researched
by the Navy, which is largely based on
existing foreign military grade
hardware, is designed to allow observers
and eventually automated software to
detect the difference in temperature
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66888
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
between a surfaced marine mammal
(i.e., the body or blow of a whale) and
the environment (i.e., the water and air).
Although thermal detection may be
reliable in some applications and
environments, the current technologies
are limited by their: (1) Low sensor
resolution and a narrow fields of view,
(2) reduced performance in certain
environmental conditions, (3) inability
to detect certain animal characteristics
and behaviors, and (4) high cost and
uncertain long term reliability.
Thermal detection systems for
military applications are deployed on
various Department of Defense (DoD)
platforms. These systems were initially
developed for night time targeting and
object detection such as a boat, vehicle,
or people. Existing specialized DoD
infrared/thermal capabilities on Navy
aircraft and surface ships are designed
for fine-scale targeting. Viewing arcs of
these thermal systems are narrow and
focused on a target area. Furthermore,
sensors are typically used only in select
training events, not optimized for
marine mammal detection, and have a
limited lifespan before requiring
expensive replacement. Some sensor
elements can cost upward of $300,000
to $500,000 per device, so their use is
predicated on a distinct military need.
One example of trying to use existing
DoD thermal system is being proposed
by the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force
agreed to attempt to use specialized U.S.
Air Force aircraft with military thermal
detection systems for marine mammal
detection and mitigation during a
limited at-sea testing event. It should be
noted, however, these systems are
specifically designed for and integrated
into a small number of U.S. Air Force
aircraft and cannot be added or
effectively transferred universally to
Navy aircraft. The effectiveness remains
unknown in using a standard DoD
thermal system for the detection of
marine mammals without the addition
of customized system-specific computer
software to provide critical reliability
(enhanced detection, cueing for an
operator, reduced false positive, etc.)
Finally, current DoD thermal sensors
are not always optimized for marine
mammal detections verse object
detection, nor do these systems have the
automated marine mammal detection
algorithms the Navy is testing via its
ongoing research program. The
combination of thermal technology and
automated algorithms are still
undergoing demonstration and
validation under Navy funding.
Thermal detection systems
specifically for marine mammal
detection have not been sufficiently
studied both in terms of their
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
effectiveness within the environmental
conditions found in the HSTT Study
Area and their compatibility with Navy
training and testing (i.e., polar waters vs.
temperate waters). The effectiveness of
even the most advanced thermal
detection systems with technological
designs specific to marine mammal
surveys is highly dependent on
environmental conditions, animal
characteristics, and animal behaviors.
At this time, thermal detection systems
have not been proven to be more
effective than, or equally effective as,
traditional techniques currently
employed by the Navy to observe for
marine mammals (i.e., naked-eye
scanning, hand-held binoculars, highpowered binoculars mounted on a ship
deck). The use of thermal detection
systems instead of traditional
techniques would compromise the
Navy’s ability to observe for marine
mammals within its mitigation zones in
the range of environmental conditions
found throughout the Study Area.
Furthermore, thermal detection systems
are designed to detect marine mammals
and do not have the capability to detect
other resources for which the Navy is
required to implement mitigation,
including sea turtles. Focusing on
thermal detection systems could also
provide a distraction from and
compromise to the Navy’s ability to
implement its established observation
and mitigation requirements. The
mitigation measures discussed in
Chapter 5 (Mitigation), Section 5.3
(Procedural Mitigation to be
Implemented) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS
include the maximum number of
Lookouts the Navy can assign to each
activity based on available manpower
and resources; therefore, it would be
impractical to add personnel to serve as
additional Lookouts. For example, the
Navy does not have available manpower
to add Lookouts to use thermal
detection systems in tandem with
existing Lookouts who are using
traditional observation techniques.
The Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency funded six initial
studies to test and evaluate infraredbased thermal detection technologies
and algorithms to automatically detect
marine mammals on an unmanned
surface vehicle. Based on the outcome
of these initial studies, follow-on efforts
and testing are planned for 2018–2019.
The Office of Naval Research Marine
Mammals and Biology program funded
a project (2013–2018) to test the thermal
limits of infrared-based automatic whale
detection technology. This project is
focused on capturing whale spouts at
two different locations featuring
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
subtropical and tropical water
temperatures, optimizing detector/
classifier performance on the collected
data, and testing system performance by
comparing system detections with
concurrent visual observations.
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, 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, follow-on efforts and
testing are planned for 2018–2019.
The Navy plans to continue
researching thermal detection systems
for marine mammal detection to
determine their effectiveness and
compatibility with Navy applications. If
the technology matures to the state
where thermal detection is determined
to be an effective mitigation tool during
training and testing, NMFS and the
Navy will assess the practicability of
using the technology during training
and testing events and retrofitting the
Navy’s observation platforms with
thermal detection devices. The
assessment will include an evaluation of
the budget and acquisition process
(including costs associated with
designing, building, installing,
maintaining, and manning the
equipment); logistical and physical
considerations for device installment,
repair, and replacement (e.g.,
conducting engineering studies to
ensure there is no electronic or power
interference with existing shipboard
systems); manpower and resource
considerations for training personnel to
effectively operate the equipment; and
considerations of potential security and
classification issues. New system
integration on Navy assets can entail up
to 5 to 10 years of effort to account for
acquisition, engineering studies, and
development and execution of systems
training. The Navy will provide
information to NMFS about the status
and findings of Navy-funded thermal
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
detection studies and any associated
practicability assessments at the annual
adaptive management meetings.
Passive Acoustic Monitoring—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
passive acoustic monitoring capabilities
to the activity, such as a sonobuoy) for
mitigation is not practicable. As
discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation),
Section 5.5.3 (Active and Passive
Acoustic Monitoring Devices) of the
HSTT 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.
The use of real-time passive acoustic
monitoring (PAM) for mitigation at the
Southern California Anti-submarine
Warfare Range (SOAR) exceeds the
capability of current technology. The
Navy has a significant research
investment in the Marine Mammal
Monitoring on Navy Ranges (M3R)
system at three ocean locations
including SOAR. However, this system
was designed and intended to support
marine mammal research for select
species, and not as a mitigation tool.
Marine mammal PAM using
instrumented hydrophones is still under
development and while it has produced
meaningful results for marine species
monitoring, abundance estimation, and
research, it was not developed for nor is
it appropriate for real-time mitigation.
The ability to detect, classify, and
develop an estimated position (and the
associated area of uncertainty) differs
across species, behavioral context,
animal location vs. receiver geometry,
source level, etc. Based on current
capabilities, and given adequate time,
vocalizing animals within an
indeterminate radius around a
particular hydrophone are detected, but
obtaining an estimated position for all
individual animals passing through a
predetermined area is not assured.
Detecting vocalizations on a
hydrophone does not determine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
whether vocalizing individuals would
be within the established mitigation
zone in the timeframes required for
mitigation. Since detection ranges are
generally larger than current mitigation
zones for many activities, this would
unnecessarily delay events due to
uncertainty in the animal’s location and
put at risk event realism.
Furthermore, PAM at SOAR does not
account for animals not vocalizing. For
instance, there have been many
documented occurrences during PAM
verification testing at SOAR of small
boats on the water coming across marine
mammals such as baleen whales that
were not vocalizing and therefore not
detected by the range hydrophones.
Animals must vocalize to be detected by
PAM; the lack of detections on a
hydrophone may give the false
impression that the area is clear of
marine mammals. The lack of
vocalization detections is not a direct
measure of the absence of marine
mammals. If an event were to be moved
based upon low-confidence
localizations, it may inadvertently be
moved to an area where non-vocalizing
animals of undetermined species are
present.
To develop an estimated position for
an individual, it must be vocalizing and
its vocalizations must be detected on at
least three hydrophones. The
hydrophones must have the required
bandwidth, and dynamic range to
capture the signal. In addition, calls
must be sufficiently loud so as to
provide the required signal to noise
ratio on the surrounding hydrophones.
Typically, small odontocetes echolocate
with a directed beam that makes
detection of the call on multiple
hydrophones difficult. Developing an
estimated position of selected species
requires the presence of whistles which
may or may not be produced depending
on the behavioral state. Beaked whales
at SOAR vocalize only during deep
foraging dives which occur at a rate of
approximately 10 per day. They
produce highly directed echolocation
clicks that are difficult to
simultaneously detect on multiple
hydrophones. Current real-time systems
cannot follow individuals and at best
produce sparse positions with multiple
false locations. The position estimation
process must occur in an area with
hydrophones spaced to allow the
detection of the same echolocation click
on at least three hydrophones.
Typically, a spacing of less than 4 km
in water depths of approximately 2 km
is preferred. In the absence of detection,
the analyst can only determine with
confidence if a group of beaked whales
is somewhere within 6 km of a
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66889
hydrophone. Beaked whales produce
stereotypic click trains during deep
(<500 m) foraging dives. The presence of
a vocalizing group can be readily
detected by an analyst by examining the
click structure and repetition rate.
However, estimating position is possible
only if the same train of clicks is
detected on multiple hydrophones
which is often precluded by the
animal’s narrow beam pattern.
Currently, this is not an automated
routine.
In summary, the analytical and
technical capabilities required to use
PAM such as M3R at SOAR as a
required mitigation tool are not
sufficiently robust to rely upon due to
limitations with near real-time
classification and determining estimated
positions. The level of uncertainty as to
a species presence or absence and
location are too high to provide the
accuracy required for real-time
mitigation. As discussed in Chapter 5
(Mitigation) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS,
existing Navy visual mitigation
procedures and measures, when
performed by individual units at-sea,
still remain the most practical means of
protection for marine species.
Comment 35: Commenters
commented that NMFS should add
mitigation for other marine mammal
stressors such as dipping sonar, pile
driving, and multiple exposures near
homeports.
Response: The Navy implements a
200-yd shutdown for dipping sonar and
a 100-yd exclusion zone for pile-driving.
It is unclear what the commenter means
by adding mitigation for ‘‘multiple
exposures’’ near homeports, and
therefore no explanation can be
provided.
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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66890
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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 HSTT
application, we worked with the Navy
prior to the publication of the proposed
rule and ultimately the Navy agreed to
increase geographic mitigation areas
adjacent to the island of Hawaii to more
fully encompass specific biologically
important areas and the Alenuihaha
Channel and to limit additional antisubmarine warfare mid-frequency active
sonar (ASW) source bins (MF4) within
some geographic mitigation areas.
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, concerns about blue whales in
SOCAL and small resident odontocete
populations in Hawaii (which resulted
in expanded time/area mitigation), focus
on areas where important behaviors and
habitat are found (e.g., in BIAs), and
enhancement of the Navy’s ability to
detect and reduce injury and mortality
(which resulted in expanded monitoring
before and after explosive events).
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.
Following the publication of the 2013
HSTT MMPA incidental take rule, the
Navy (and NMFS) were sued and the
resulting settlement agreement
prohibited or restricted Navy activities
within specific areas in the HSTT Study
Area. These provisional prohibitions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
and restrictions on activities within the
HSTT Study Area were derived
pursuant to negotiations with the
plaintiffs in that lawsuit 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, or to the
practicability of the measures. The
Navy’s adoption of restrictions on its
HSTT activities as part of a relatively
short-term 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 the HSTT Study
Area. Accordingly, as required by
statute, NMFS analyzed the Navy’s
activities, impacts, mitigation and
potential mitigation (including the
settlement agreement measures)
pursuant to the ‘‘least practicable
adverse impact’’ standard to determine
the appropriate mitigation to include in
these regulations. Some of the measures
included in the settlement agreement
are included in the final rule, while
some are not. Other measures that were
not included in the settlement
agreement are included in the final rule.
Ultimately, the Navy adopted all
mitigation measures that are practicable
without jeopardizing its 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. NMFS independently
reviewed the Navy’s practicability
determinations for specific mitigation
areas and concurs with the Navy’s
analysis.
As we outlined in the Mitigation
Measures section, NMFS has reviewed
Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation
Assessment) in the Navy’s HSTT FEIS/
OEIS and information contained reflects
the best available science as well as a
robust evaluation of the practicability of
different measures, and NMFS uses
Appendix K to support our independent
least practicable adverse impact
analysis. Below is additional discussion
regarding specific recommendations for
mitigation measures.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comment 36: With respect to the
national security exemption related to
mitigation areas, a commenter
recommended that NMFS should
specify that authorization may be given
only by high-level officers, consistent
with the Settlement Agreement or with
previous HSTT rulings.
Response: The Navy provided the
technical analyses contained in
Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation
Assessment) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS
that included details regarding changing
the measure to the appropriate
delegated Command designee (see
specifically Appendix K, Section K.2.2.1
(Proposed Mitigation Areas within the
HSTT Study Area), for each of the
proposed areas). The commenter
proposed ‘‘authorization may be given
only by high-level officers’’ and
therefore appears to have missed the
designations made within the cited
sections above since those do constitute
positions that could only be considered
‘‘high level officers.’’ The decision
would be delegated to high-level
officers. This delegation has been
clarified in the Final rule as
‘‘permission from the appropriate
designated Command authority.’’
SOCAL Areas
Comment 37: NPS recommended that
the Navy consider the following as it
plans to conduct activities in the HSTT
Study Area. NPS noted the units of the
NPS system that occur near the Navy’s
training and testing locations in
Southern California and which may be
affected by noise including Channel
Islands National Park (NP) and Cabrillo
National Monument.
Response: National Parks and marine
protected areas in are addressed in
Chapter 6 of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS. The
Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary consists of an area of 1,109
nmi2 around Anacapa Island, Santa
Cruz Island, Santa Rosa Island, San
Miguel Island and Santa Barbara Island
to the south. Only 92 nmi2 of Santa
Barbara Island, or about 8 percent of the
Channel Island National Marine
Sanctuary, occurs within the SOCAL
portion of the HSTT Study Area, but the
entirety of that piece is included in the
Santa Barbara Mitigation Area. The
Navy will continue to implement a
mitigation area out to 6 nmi of Santa
Barbara Island, which includes a
portion of the Channel Island National
Marine Sanctuary and the Santa Barbara
Marine Protected Area where the Navy
will restrict the use of MF1 sonar
sources and some explosive during
training. Please refer to Figure 5.4–4 in
the Navy’s HSTT FEIS/OEIS shows the
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
spatial extent of the Santa Barbara
Island mitigation area.
Cabrillo National Monument only
contains some intertidal areas, but no
marine waters. No Navy activities
overlap with the Cabrillo National
Monument; therefore, no impacts are
expected.
Comment 38: A commenter
recommended to extend the seasonality
of the San Diego Arc Mitigation Area to
December 31 for blue whales are present
off southern California almost year
round, and relatively higher levels from
June 1 through December 31.
Response: Analysis of the San Diego
Arc Mitigation Area and its
consideration for additional geographic
mitigation is provided in the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS in Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment), Section K.4.1.6
(San Diego (Arc) Blue Whale Feeding
Area; Settlement Areas 3–A through 3–
C, California Coastal Commission 3 nmi
Shore Area, and San Diego Arc Area),
Section K.5.5 (Settlement Areas within
the Southern California Portion of the
HSTT Study Area), and Section K.6.2
(San Diego Arc: Area Parallel to the
Coastline from the Gulf of California
Border to just North of Del Mar). This
analysis included consideration of
seasonality and the potential
effectiveness of restrictions to use of
mid-frequency active sonar by Navy in
the area. Based on the Appendix K
(Geographic Mitigation Assessment)
analyses, the Navy will implement
additional mitigation within the San
Diego Arc Mitigation Area, as detailed
in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) Section 5.4.3
(Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals
in the Southern California Portion of the
Study Area) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, to
further avoid or reduce impacts on
marine mammals from acoustic and
explosive stressors and vessel strikes
from Navy training and testing in this
location. Since the proposed rule, the
Navy is now limiting MF1 surface ship
hull-mounted MFAS even further in the
San Diego Arc Mitigation Area. The
Navy will not conduct more than 200
hrs of MF1 MFAS in the combined areas
of the San Diego Arc Mitigation Area
and newly added San Nicholas Island
and Santa Monica/Long Beach
Mitigation Areas. As described in the
proposed rule, the Navy will not use
explosives that could potentially result
in the take of marine mammals during
large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing,
and missile (including 2.75″ rockets)
activities during training and testing in
the San Diego Mitigation Area.
Regarding the recommended increase in
seasonality to December 31, the San
Diego Arc and current seasonality is
based on the Biologically Important
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Area associated with this mitigation
area (Calambokidis et al., 2017), which
identifies the primary months for
feeding. While blue whale calls have
been detected in Southern California
through December (Rice et al., 2017,
Lewis and Sˇirovic´, in press), given a
large propagation range (10–50 km or
more) for low-frequency blue whale
vocalization, blue whale call detection
from a Navy-funded single passive
acoustic device near the San Diego Arc
may not be a direct correlation with
blue whale presence within the San
Diego Arc from November through
December. In addition, passive acoustic
call detection data does not currently
allow for direct abundance estimates.
Calls may indicate some level of blue
whale presence, but not abundance or
individual residency time. In the most
recent Navy-funded passive acoustic
monitoring report including the one site
in the northern San Diego Arc from June
2015 to April 2016, blue whale call
detection frequency near the San Diego
Arc starts declining in November after
an October peak (Rice et al., 2017,
Sˇirovic´, personal communication). The
newest Navy-funded research on blue
whale movements from 2014 to 2017
along the U.S. West Coast based on
satellite tagging, has shown that
individual blue whale movement is
wide ranging with large distances
covered daily (Mate et al., 2017).
Nineteen (19) blue whales were tagged
in 2016, the most recent reporting year
available (Mate et al., 2017). Only 5 of
the 19 blue whales spent time in the
SOCAL portion of the HSTT Study
Area, and only spent a few days within
the range complex (2–13 days). Average
distance from shore for blue whales was
113 km. None of the 19 blue whales
tagged in 2016 spent time within the
San Diego Arc. From previous year
efforts (2014–2015), only a few tagged
blue whales passed through the San
Diego Arc. In addition, Navy and nonNavy-funded blue whale satellite
tagging studies started in the early 1990s
and has continued irregularly through
2017. In general, most blue whales start
a south-bound migration from the
‘‘summer foraging areas’’ in the mid- to
late-fall time period, unless food has not
been plentiful, which can lead to a
much earlier migration south. Therefore,
while blue whales have been
documented within the San Diego Arc
previously, individual use of the area is
variable, likely of short duration, and
declining after October. Considering the
newest passive acoustic and satellite
tagging data, there is no scientific
justification for extending the San Diego
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66891
Arc Mitigation Area period from
October 31 to December 31.
Comment 39: A commenter
recommended limiting all MF1 use
within the San Diego Arc Mitigation
Area. A commenter also recommended
NMFS should carefully consider
prohibiting use of other LFAS and
MFAS during the time period the San
Diego Arc Mitigation Areas is in place,
and for the MTEs to be planned for
other months of the year.
Response: Since the proposed rule,
the Navy is now limiting MF1 surface
ship hull-mounted MFAS even further
in the San Diego Arc Mitigation Area.
The Navy will not conduct more than
200 hrs of MF1 MFAS in the combined
areas of the San Diego Arc Mitigation
Area and newly added San Nicholas
Island and Santa Monica/Long Beach
Mitigation Areas. Appendix K
(Geographic Mitigation Assessment) of
the HSTT FEIS/OEIS discusses the
Navy’s analysis of MFAS restrictions
within the San Diego Arc Mitigation
Area. Other training MFAS systems are
likely to be used less frequently in the
vicinity of the San Diego Arc area than
surface ship MFAS. Given water depths,
the San Diego Arc area is not conducive
for large scale anti-submarine warfare
exercises, nor near areas where other
anti-submarine warfare training and
testing occurs. Due to the presence of
existing Navy subareas in the southern
part of the San Diego Arc, a limited
amount of helicopter dipping MFAS
could occur. These designated range
areas are required for proximity to
airfields in San Diego such as Naval Air
Station North Island and for airspace
management. However, helicopters only
used these areas in the Arc for a Kilo
Dip. A Kilo Dip is a functional check of
approximately 1–2 pings of active sonar
to confirm the system is operational
before the helicopter heads to more
remote offshore training areas. This
ensures proper system operation and
avoids loss of limited training time,
expenditure of fuel, and cumulative
engine use in the event of equipment
malfunction. The potential effects of
dipping sonar have been accounted for
in the Navy’s analysis. Dipping sonar is
further discussed below in Comment 40.
Comment 40: A commenter
recommended prohibiting the use of airdeployed mid-frequency active sonar in
the San Diego Arc Mitigation Area.
Response: The HSTT FEIS/OEIS and
specifically Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment) discuss the
Navy’s analysis of mid-frequency and
low-frequency active sonar restrictions
within the San Diego Arc. Other sonar
systems are likely to be used less
frequently in the vicinity of the San
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66892
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Diego Arc than surface ship midfrequency active sonars. In regard to the
recommendation to prohibit ‘‘airdeployed’’ or dipping mid-frequency
active sonar, the only helicopter dipping
sonar activity that would likely be
conducted in the San Diego Arc area is
a Kilo Dip, which occurs relatively
infrequently and involves a functional
check of approximately 1–2 pings of
active sonar before moving offshore
beyond the San Diego Arc to conduct
the training activity. During use of this
sonar, the Navy will implement the
procedural mitigation as described in
Section 5.3.2.1 (Active Sonar). The Kilo
Dip functional check needs to occur
close to Naval Air Station North Island
in San Diego to insure all systems are
functioning properly, before moving
offshore. This ensures proper system
operation and avoids loss of limited
training time, expenditure of fuel, and
cumulative engine use in the event of
equipment malfunction. The potential
effects of dipping sonar have been
accounted for in the Navy’s analysis.
Further, due to lower power settings for
dipping sonar, potential behavioral
impact ranges of dipping sonar are
significantly lower than surface ship
sonars. For example, the HSTT average
modeled range to temporary threshold
shift of dipping sonar for a 1-second
ping on low-frequency cetacean (i.e.,
blue whale) is 77 m (HSTT FEIS/OEIS
Table 3.7–7). This range is easily
monitored for large whales by a
hovering helicopter and is accounted for
in the Navy’s proposed mitigation
ranges for dipping sonars. Limited ping
time and lower power settings therefore
would limit the impact from dipping
sonar to any marine mammal species. It
should be pointed out that the
commenter’s recommendation is based
on new Navy behavioral response
research specific to beaked whales
(Falcone et al., 2017). The Navy relied
upon the best science that was available
to develop behavioral response
functions in consultation with NMFS
for the HSTT FEIS/OEIS. The article
cited in the comment (Falcone et al.,
2017) was not available at the time the
HSTT EIS/OEIS was published. The
new information and data presented in
the article was thoroughly reviewed
when it became available and further
considered in discussions with some of
the paper’s authors. Many of the
variables requiring further analysis for
beaked whales and dipping sonar
impact assessment are still being
researched under continued Navy
funding through 2019. The small
portion of designated Kilo Dip areas that
overlap the southern part of the San
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Diego Arc is not of sufficient depth for
preferred habitat of beaked whales (see
Figure 2.1–9 in the HSTT FEIS/OEIS).
Further, passive acoustic monitoring for
the past several years in the San Diego
Arc confirms a lack of beaked whale
detections (Rice et al., 2017). Also,
behavioral responses of beaked whales
from dipping and other sonars cannot be
universally applied to other species
including blue whales. Navy-funded
behavioral response studies of blue
whales to simulated surface ship sonar
has demonstrated there are distinct
individual variations as well as strong
behavioral state considerations that
influence any response or lack of
response (Goldbogen et al., 2013).
Comment 41: A commenter
recommends requiring vessel speed
restrictions within the San Diego Arc
Mitigation Area.
Response: Previously, the Navy
commissioned a vessel density and
speed report for the HSTT Study Area
(CNA, 2016). Based on an analysis of
Navy ship traffic in the HSTT Study
Area between 2011 and 2015, median
speed of all Navy vessels within
Southern California is typically already
low, with median speeds between 5 and
12 kn (CAN, 2016). Slowest speeds
occurred closer to the coast including
the general area of the San Diego Arc
and approaches to San Diego Bay. The
presence and transits of commercial and
recreational vessels, numbering in the
many hundreds, far outweighs the
presence of Navy vessels. According the
the SARs, blue whale mortality and
injuries attributed to commercial ship
strikes in California waters was zero in
the most recent reporting period
between 2011 and 2015 (Carretta et al.,
2017a). However, ship strikes were
implicated in the deaths of four blue
whales and the serious injury of a fifth
whale between 2009 and 2013 (Carretta
et al., 2015). There has been no
confirmed Navy ship strike to a blue
whale in the entire Pacific over the 13year period from 2005 to 2017. To
minimize the possibility of ship strike
in the San Diego Arc Mitigation Area,
the Navy will implement procedural
mitigation for vessel movements based
on guidance from NMFS for vessel
strike avoidance. The Navy will also
issue seasonal awareness notification
messages to all Navy vessel of blue, fin,
and gray whale occurrence to increase
ships awareness of marine mammal
presence as a means of improving
detection and avoidance of whales in
SOCAL. When developing the
mitigation for this 2018–2023 rule, the
Navy analyzed the potential for
implementing additional types of
mitigation, such as developing vessel
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
speed restrictions within the HSTT
Study Area. The Navy determined that
based on how the training and testing
activities will be conducted within the
HSTT Study Area under the planned
activities, vessel speed restrictions
would be incompatible with the
practicability assessment criteria for
safety, sustainability, and Title 10
requirements, as described in Section
5.3.4.1 (Vessel Movement) of the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS.
Comment 42: A commenter
recommended prohibiting the use of airdeployed mid-frequency active sonar in
the Santa Barbara Island Mitigation
Area.
Response: The commenter requested
to prohibit ‘‘air-deployed’’ midfrequency active sonar is based on one
paper (Falcone et al., 2017), which is a
Navy-funded project designed to study
behavioral responses of a single species,
Cuvier’s beaked whales, to midfrequency active sonar. The Navy relied
upon the best science that was available
to develop behavioral response
functions for beaked whales and other
marine mammals in consultation with
NMFS for the HSTT FEIS/OEIS. The
article cited in the comment (Falcone et
al., 2017) was not available at the time
the HSTT DEIS/OEIS was published but
does not change the HSTT FEIS/OEIS
criteria or conclusions. The new
information and data presented in the
article were thoroughly reviewed when
they became available and further
considered in discussions with some of
the paper’s authors. Many of the
variables requiring further analysis for
beaked whales and dipping sonar
impact assessment are still being
researched under continued Navy
funding through 2019.
Behavioral responses of beaked
whales from dipping and other sonars
cannot be universally applied to other
marine mammal species. For example,
Navy-funded behavioral response
studies of blue whales to simulated
surface ship sonar has demonstrated
there are distinct individual variations
as well as strong behavioral state
considerations that influence any
response or lack of response (Goldbogen
et al., 2013). The same conclusion on
the importance of exposure and
behavioral context was stressed by
Harris et al. (2017). Therefore, it is
expected that other species would also
have highly variable individual
responses ranging from some response
to no response to any anthropogenic
sound. This variability is accounted for
in the Navy’s current behavioral
response curves described in the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS and supporting technical
reports.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
The potential effects of dipping sonar
have been rigorously accounted for in
the Navy’s analysis. Parameters such as
power level and propagation range for
typical dipping sonar use are factored
into HSTT acoustic impact analysis
along with guild specific criteria and
other modeling variables as detailed in
the HSTT FEIS/OEIS and associated
technical reports for criteria and
acoustic modeling. Due to lower power
settings for dipping sonar, potential
impact ranges of dipping sonar are
significantly lower than surface ship
sonars. For example, the HSTT average
modeled range to temporary threshold
shift of dipping sonar for a 1-second
ping on low-frequency cetacean (i.e.,
blue whale) is 77 m, and for midfrequency cetaceans including beaked
whales is 22 m (HSTT FEIS/OEIS Table
3.7–7). This range is monitored for
marine mammals by a hovering
helicopter and is accounted for in the
Navy’s proposed mitigation ranges for
dipping sonars (200 yd. or 183 m).
Limited ping time and lower power
settings therefore would limit the
impact from dipping sonar to any
marine mammal species.
For other marine mammal species, the
small area around Santa Barbara Island
does not have resident marine
mammals, formally identified
biologically important areas, nor is it
identified as a breeding or persistent
foraging location for cetaceans. Instead,
the same marine mammals that range
throughout the offshore Southern
California area could pass at some point
through the marine waters of Santa
Barbara Island. As discussed in
Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation
Assessment) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS,
the Navy is already proposing yearround limitations to mid-frequency
active sonar and larger explosive use.
The Navy will not use MF1 surface ship
hull-mounted mid-frequency active
sonar during training or testing, or
explosives that could potentially result
in the take of marine mammals during
medium-caliber or large-caliber
gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile
(including 2.75″ rockets) activities
during training in the Santa Barbara
Island Mitigation Area. Other midfrequency active sonar systems for
which the Navy is seeking authorization
within SOCAL are used less frequently
than surface ship sonars, and more
importantly are of much lower power
with correspondingly lower propagation
ranges and reduced potential behavioral
impacts.
Comment 43: A commenter
recommended prohibiting other sources
of mid-frequency active sonar in the
Santa Barbara Mitigation Area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Response: Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment) discusses the
Navy’s analysis of mid-frequency active
sonar restrictions around Santa Barbara
Island. Other training mid-frequency
active sonar (MFAS) systems are likely
to be used less frequently in the vicinity
Santa Barbara Island than surface ship
mid-frequency active sonars. Although
not prohibiting the use of other sources
of MFAS, the Navy will not use MF1
surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar during training
or testing, or explosives that could
potentially result in the take of marine
mammals during medium-caliber or
large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing,
and missile (including 2.75″ rockets)
activities during training in the Santa
Barbara Island Mitigation Area.
Comment 44: A commenter
recommended implementing vessel
speed restrictions in the Santa Barbara
Island Mitigation Area (Channel Islands
Sanctuary Cautionary Area).
Response: The Channel Islands
Sanctuary Cautionary Area was
renamed the Santa Barbara Island
Mitigation Area for the proposed rule.
All locations within the HSTT Study
Area have been used for Navy training
and testing for decades. There has been
no scientific evidence to indicate the
Navy’s activities are having adverse
effects on populations of marine
mammals, many of which continue to
increase in number or are maintaining
populations based on what regional
conditions can support. This includes
any marine mammal population that
may transit through the Santa Barbara
Island Mitigation Area. For example, the
most recent NMFS U.S. West Coast
survey findings (Moore and Barlow,
2017) encountered the highest estimated
abundance of Mesoplodon beaked
whales in the California Current since
1991. Multiple other surveys,
monitoring efforts, and research projects
continue to encounter long-term
resident individuals such as
populations of beaked whales in higher
densities within the HSTT Study Area
where various sonar systems have been
in use for decades; see for example
citation in the HSTT FEIS/OEIS to
Debich et al. (2015a, 2015b), Falcone
and Schorr (2012, 2014), Hildebrand et
al. (2009), Moretti (2016), Sˇirovic´ et al.
(2016), and Smultea and Jefferson
(2014). The newest Navy-funded
research, which was not available when
the HSTT FEIS/OEIS was issued,
continue to support the regular and
repeated occurrence of marine mammal
populations in HSTT including those
thought most susceptible to behavioral
response to anthropogenic sounds
(DiMarzio et al., 2018; Lewis and
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66893
Sˇirovic´, in press; Moretti et al., 2017;
Schorr et al., 2018; Sˇirovic´ et al., 2016,
2017, 2018; Sˇirovic´ et al., 2018). Navy
research and monitoring funding
continues within the HSTT Study Area
under current NMFS MMPA and ESA
permits, and is planned through the
duration of any future permits. Given
the lack of effects to marine mammal
populations in the HSTT Study Area
from surface ship sonars, the effects
from intermittent, less frequent use of
lower powered dipping mid-frequency
active sonar or other mid-frequency
active sonar and low-frequency sonars
would also not significantly affect local
populations.
Additionally, here has not been any
Navy ship strike to marine mammals in
SOCAL over the 8-year period from
2010–2018, and there has never been a
Navy strike within the boundary of the
Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary over the course of strike
record collection dating back 20 years.
Therefore, ship strike risk to marine
mammals transiting the Santa Barbara
Island Mitigation Area is minimal.
Additionally, as detailed in the analysis
in the HSTT FEIS/OEIS Section
3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and InWater Devices) and in Appendix K
(Geographic Mitigation Assessment),
there are important differences between
most Navy vessels and their operation
and commercial ships that individually
make Navy vessels much less likely to
strike a whale. Navy vessels already
operate at a safe speed given a particular
transit or activity need. This also
includes a provision to avoid large
whales by 500 yd; so long as safety of
navigation and safety of operations is
maintained. Previously, the Navy
commissioned a vessel density and
speed report for HSTT (CNA, 2016).
Based on an analysis of Navy ship traffic
in HSTT between 2011 and 2015, the
average speed of all Navy vessels within
Southern California is typically already
low, with median speeds between 5 and
12 kn (CNA, 2016). Slowest speeds
occurred closer to the coast and islands.
However, sometimes during training or
testing activities, higher speeds are
required.
Finally, given the lack of population
impact to marine species throughout
SOCAL from Navy activities, lack of
significant and repeated use of the small
portion of waters within the Santa
Barbara Island Mitigation Area by
marine mammals, anticipated low
individual residency times within the
Mitigation Area, application of
mitigation and protective measures as
outlined in the HSTT FEIS/OEIS,
documented safe speeds Navy vessels
already navigate by, detailed
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66894
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
assessments of realistic training and
testing requirements and potential
impacts of further restrictions, the Navy
has adequately defined the most
practicable mitigation measures in the
HSTT FEIS/OEIS and Appendix K
(Geographic Mitigation Assessment).
Comment 45: A commenter
recommended additional mitigation
areas for important beaked whale
habitat in the Southern California Bight.
A commenter asserted that it is
important to focus substantial
management efforts on beaked whales
within the Navy’s SOCAL Range
Complex, which sees the greatest annual
amount of sonar and explosives activity
of any Navy range in the Pacific.
Response: The basis for this comment
includes incorrect or outdated
information or information that does not
reflect the environment present in the
HSTT Study Area, such as, ‘‘. . .beaked
whale populations in the California
Current have shown significant,
possibly drastic declines in abundance
over the last twenty years.’’ The citation
provided in the footnote to the comment
and postulated ‘‘decline’’ was for
beaked whales up until 2008 (which
does not take into account information
from the last 10 years) and was a
postulated trend for the entire U.S. West
Coast, not data which is specific to the
HSTT Study Area. As noted in Section
3.7.3.1.1.7 (Long-Term Consequences) of
the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the postulated
decline was in fact not present within
the SOCAL portion of the HSTT Study
Area, where abundances of beaked
whales have remained higher than other
locations off the U.S. West Coast. In
addition, the authors of the 2013
citation (Moore and Barlow, 2013) have
published trends based on survey data
gathered since 2008 for beaked whales
in the California Current, which now
includes the highest abundance estimate
in the history of these surveys (Barlow
2016; Carretta et al., 2017; Moore and
Barlow, 2017). Also, when considering
the portion of the beaked whale
population within the SOCAL portion of
the HSTT Study Area and as presented
in the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, multiple
studies have documented continued
high abundance of beaked whales and
the long-term residency of documented
individual beaked whales, specifically
where the Navy has been training and
testing for decades (see for example
Debich et al., 2015a, 2015b; Dimarzio et
al., 2018; Falcone and Schorr, 2012,
2014; Hildebrand et al., 2009; Moretti,
2016; Schorr et al., 2018; Sˇirovic´ et al.,
2016; Smultea and Jefferson, 2014).
There is no evidence that there have
been any population-level impacts to
beaked whales resulting from Navy
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
training and testing in the SOCAL
portion of the HSTT Study Area. The
Navy did provide analysis and
consideration of additional geographic
mitigation for beaked whales in the
Southern California Bight in Appendix
K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment),
Section K.7.2 (Southern California
Public Comment Mitigation Area
Assessment) and specifically Section
K.7.2.7 (Northern Catalina Basin and the
San Clemente Basin) of the HSTT FEIS/
OEIS regarding the stated concern over
the possible presence of Perrin’s beaked
whale. See Chapter 5 (Mitigation),
Section 5.4.1.2 (Mitigation Area
Assessment) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS for
additional details regarding the
assessments of areas considered for
mitigation.
Comment 46: A commenter
recommended additional mitigation
areas in the San Nicholas Basin. A
commenter notes that the settlement
agreement established a ‘‘refuge’’ from
sonar and explosives activities in a
portion of the whales’ secondary
habitat, outside the Southern California
Anti-submarine Warfare Range (SOAR),
with more management effort being
necessary in the long term a commenter
recommended at a minimum that NMFS
should prescribe the ‘‘refuge’’ during the
next five-year operation period and
should consider all possible habitatbased management efforts, including but
not limited to the expansion of this area
further south towards SOAR, to address
impacts on the small population of
Cuvier’s beaked whales associated with
San Clemente Island. A commenter also
commented the energetic costs of
displacement of beaked whales into suboptimal foraging habitat outweigh the
costs of repeated sonar exposure for
whale survival, while creating
conditions of a population sink, such as
has been seen on the Navy’s AUTEC
range (Claridge 2013).
Response: Navy did provide analysis
and consideration of additional
geographic mitigation for beaked whales
in the San Nicolas Basin in Appendix K
(Geographic Mitigation Assessment),
Section K.7.2 (Southern California
Public Comment Mitigation Area
Assessment) and specifically Section
K.7.2.1 (San Nicolas Basin) of the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS. See Chapter 5 (Mitigation),
Section 5.4.1.2 (Mitigation Area
Assessment) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS for
additional details regarding the
assessments of areas considered for
mitigation.
Within San Nicolas Basin, there is a
documented, recurring number of
Cuvier’s beaked whales strongly
indicating that the Navy’s activities
areis not having a population-level
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
impact to this species. This is supported
by repeated visual re-sighting rates of
individuals, sightings of calves and,
more importantly, reproductive females,
and passive acoustic assessments of
steady vocalization rates and abundance
over at least the most recent seven-year
interval. It is incorrect to consider as
fact that there is a ‘‘population sink,
such as has been seen on the Navy’s
AUTEC range. In the citation provided
(Claridge 2013), that statement is merely
a hypothesis, yet to be demonstrated.
The Navy has been funding Cuvier’s
beaked whale research specifically in
San Nicolas Basin since 2006. This
research is planned to continue for at
least the next five years through the
duration of the planned HSTT MMPA
permit. Cumulative from 2006 to 2016,
over 170 individual Cuvier’s beaked
whales have been catalogued within San
Nicolas Basin. Schorr et al. (2018) state
for the most recent field season from
2016 to 2017 that: Identification photos
of suitable quality were collected from
69 of the estimated 81 individual
Cuvier’s beaked whales encountered in
2016–2017. These represented 48
unique individuals, with eight of these
whales sighted on two different days,
and another three on three different
days during the study period. Nineteen
(39 percent) of these whales had been
sighted in previous years. Many more
whales identified in 2016 had been
sighted in a previous year (16/28
individuals, 57 percent), compared to
2017 (5/22 individuals, 23 percent),
though both years had sightings of
whales seen as early as 2007. There
were three adult females photographed
in 2016 that had been sighted with
calves in previous years, one of which
was associated with her second calf.
Additionally, a fourth adult female, first
identified in 2015 without a calf, was
subsequently sighted with a calf. The
latter whale was sighted for a third
consecutive year in 2017, this time
without a calf, along with two other
adult females with calves who had not
been previously sighted. These sightings
of known reproductive females with and
without calves over time (n = 45) are
providing critically needed calving and
weaning rate data for Population
Consequences of Disturbance (PcoD)
models currently being developed for
this species on SOAR.
In 2018, an estimate of overall
abundance of Cuvier’s beaked whales at
the Navy’s instrumented range in San
Nicolas Basin was obtained using new
dive-counting acoustic methods and an
archive of passive acoustic M3R data
representing 35,416 hours of data
(DiMarzio, 2018; Moretti, 2017). Over
the seven-year interval from 2010–2017,
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
there was no observed change and
perhaps a slight increase in annual
Cuvier’s beaked whale abundance
within San Nicolas Basin (DiMarzio
2018). There does appear to be a
repeated dip in population numbers and
associated echolocation clicks during
the fall centered around August and
September (DiMarzio, 2018; Moretti,
2017). A similar August and September
dip was noted by researchers using
stand-alone off-range bottom passive
acoustic devices in Southern California
(Rice et al., 2017; Sˇirovic´ et al., 2016).
This dip in abundance documented over
10 years of monitoring may be tied to
some as yet unknown population
dynamic or oceanographic and prey
availability dynamic. It is unknown
scientifically if this represents a
movement to different areas by parts of
the population, or a change in
behavioral states without movement
(i.e., breeding verse foraging). Navy
training and testing events are spatially
and temporally spread out across the
SOCAL portion of the HSTT Study
Area. In some years events occur in the
fall, yet in other years events do not.
Yet, the same dip has consistently been
observed lending further evidence this
is likely a population biological
function.
Comment 47: A commenter
recommended additional mitigation
areas in the Santa Catalina Basin. A
commenter commented that there is
likely a small, resident population of
Cuvier’s beaked whales resides in the
Santa Catalina Basin and that this
population is subject to regular acoustic
disturbance due to the presence of the
Shore Bombardment Area (SHOBA) and
3803XX. The population may also be
exposed to training activities that
occupy waters between Santa Catalina
and San Clemente Islands. Similar to
the San Nicholas population, the
settlement agreement established a
‘‘refuge’’ from sonar and explosives
activities in the northern portion of the
Santa Catalina Basin. A commenter
recommended that, at a minimum the
Navy should carefully consider
implementing the ‘‘refuge’’ during the
next five-year authorization period and
should continue to consider all possible
habitat-based management efforts to
address impacts on the population.
Response: The water space areas
mentioned in the comment as
‘‘(SHOBA)’’ off the southern end of San
Clemente Island are waters designated
as Federal Danger and Safety Zones via
formal rule making (Danger Zone—33
CFR 334.950 and Safety Zone—33 CFR
165.1141) because they are adjacent to
the shore bombardment impact area that
is on land at the southern end of San
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Clemente Island. Waters designated as
‘‘3803XX,’’ which are associated with
the Wilson Cove anchorages and
moorings, where ship calibration tests,
sonobuoy lot testing, and special
projects take place, are designated as
Federal Safety and Restricted Zones via
formal rule making (Safety Zone—33
CFR 165.1141 and Restricted Zone—33
CFR 334.920).
The comment states a concern that a
population of Cuvier’s beaked whale is,
‘‘subject to regular acoustic disturbance
due to the presence of the Shore
Bombardment Area,’’ is not correct. The
SHOBA is a naval gun impact area
located on land at the southern end of
San Clemente Island. This area is an
instrumented land training range used
for a variety of bombardment training
and testing activities. The in-water
administrative boundary for SHOBA
does not delineate the locations where
a ship firing at land targets must be
located and does not represent where
gunfire rounds are targeted. The water
area in Santa Catalina Basin is a
controlled safety zone in the very
unlikely event a round goes over the
island and lands in the water. With the
modern advent of better precision
munitions, computers, and advanced
fire control, that probability is very
remote. Navy vessels use the waters
south of San Clemente Island (SHOBA
West and SHOBA East) from which to
fire into land targets on southern San
Clemente Island (see the HSTT FEIS/
OEIS Figure 2.1–7). Therefore, there
would not be any underwater acoustic
disturbance to Cuvier’s beaked whales
located within the Santa Catalina Basin
from in-water explosives or ship firing.
Comment 48: A commenter
recommended additional mitigation
areas for the southernmost edge of the
California Current, west of Tanner and
Cortes Banks. In light of the importance
of the Southernmost edge of the
California Current, west of Tanner and
Cortes banks, Commenters recommend
assessing the designation of the
southern offshore waters of the
Southern California Bight as a seasonal
time-area management area for Cuvier’s
beaked whales between November and
June. The approximate coordinates are
32.75 N, 119.46 W (referenced as Site E).
As part of this assessment, a commenter
recommended that the boundaries be
refined via expert consideration of
acoustic and other relevant information
pertaining to beaked whale biology and
bathymetric and oceanographic data.
Response: Baumann-Pickering et al.
(2014a, b, 2015), as the commenter
referenced, did not specify this area as
biologically important and the author’s
data only indicated there have been
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66895
detections of the Cuvier’s beaked whales
within this area. Further, the species is
widely distributed within Southern
California and across the Pacific with
almost all suitable deep water habitat
greater than 800 m in Southern
California conceivably containing
Cuvier’s beaked whales. Only limited
population vital rates exist for beaked
whales, covering numbers of animals,
populations vs. subpopulations
determination, and residency time for
individual animals (Schorr et al., 2017,
2018). The science of passive acoustic
monitoring is positioned to answer
some questions on occurrence and
seasonality of beaked whales, but
cannot as of yet address all fundamental
population parameters including
individual residency time.
Furthermore, while passive acoustic
monitoring within Southern California
has been ongoing for 28 years, with
many sites funded by the Navy, not all
sites have been consecutively monitored
for each year. All of the single bottommounted passive acoustic devices used
for the analysis by Baumann-Pickering
et al. (2014a, b, 2015), and used in the
comment to support its argument, are
not continuous and have various
periodicities from which data have been
collected. Specifically, devices have
been deployed and removed from
various locations with some sites having
multiple years of data, others
significantly less, with perhaps just a
few months out of a year. For instance,
Site E, located west of Tanner and
Cortes Banks and used by the
commenter to justify restrictions in this
area, was only monitored for 322 days
from September 2006 through July 2009
(obtaining slightly less than a full year’s
worth of data).
Site E was also used again for another
63 days from Dec 2010 through
February 2011. During this second
monitoring period at Site E, Gassman et
al. (2015) reported detection of only
three Cuvier’s beaked whales over six
separate encounters with time intervals
of 10–33 minutes. As sources of data
associated with a single monitoring
point, the two monitoring episodes
conducted at Site E may not be
indicative of Cuvier’s beaked whale
presence at other locations within
Southern California, which lack
comparable monitoring devices. Nor
would they be indicative of overall
importance or lack of importance of the
area west of Tanner and Cortes Banks.
Further, more recent acoustic sampling
of bathymetrically featureless areas off
Southern California with drifting
hydrophones conducted by NMFS,
detected many beaked whales over
abyssal plains and not associated with
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66896
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
slope or seamount features. This
counters a common misperception that
beaked whales are primarily found over
slope waters, in deep basins, or over
seamounts (Griffins and Barlow 2016).
Most importantly, older passive
acoustic data prior to 2009 may not be
indicative of current or future
occurrence of beaked whales, especially
in terms of potential impact of climate
change on species distributions within
Southern California. To summarize,
these limited periods of monitoring (322
days in a three-year period prior to 2010
and 63 days in 2011) may or may not
be reflective of current beaked whale
distributions within Southern California
and into the future. Furthermore,
passive acoustic-only detection of
beaked whales, without additional
population parameters, can only
determine relative occurrence, which
could be highly variable over subregions and through time.
While Cuvier’s beaked whales have
been detected west of Tanner and Cortes
Banks, as noted above this species is
also detected in most all Southern
California locations greater than 800 m
in depth. Furthermore, the Navy has
been training and testing in and around
Tanner and Cortes Banks with the same
basic systems for over 40 years, with no
evidence of any adverse impacts having
occurred. Further, there are no
indications that Navy training and
testing in the Southern California
portion of the HSTT Study Area has had
any adverse impacts on populations of
beaked whales in Southern California.
In particular, a re-occurring population
of Cuvier’s beaked whales co-exists
within San Nicolas Basin to the east, an
area with significantly more in-water
sonar use than west of Tanner and
Cortes Banks.
To gain further knowledge on the
presence of beaked whales in Southern
California, the Navy continues to fund
additional passive acoustic field
monitoring, as well as research
advancements for density derivation
from passive acoustic data. For the fiveyear period from 2013 to 2017, U.S.
Pacific Fleet on behalf of the U.S. Navy
funded $14.2 million in marine species
monitoring within Hawaii and Southern
California. Specifically, in terms of
beaked whales, the Navy has been
funding beaked whale population
dynamics, tagging, and passive acoustic
studies within the HSTT Study Area
since 2007 (DiMarzio et al., 2018;
Moretti, 2017; Rice et al., 2017, Schorr
et al., 2017, 2018; Sˇirovic´, et al., 2017).
Variations of these efforts are planned to
continue through the duration of the
next HSTT MMPA permit cycle using a
variety of passive acoustic, visual,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
tagging, photo ID, and genetics research
tools. This Navy effort is in addition and
complementary to any planned NMFS
efforts for beaked whales and other
marine mammals. For instance, the
Navy is co-funding with NMFS and the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management a
planned Summer-Fall 2018 visual and
passive acoustic survey along the U.S.
West Coast and off Baja Mexico. New
passive detection technologies focusing
on beaked whales will be deployed
during these surveys (similar to Griffiths
and Barlow, 2016). The Navy continues
SOCAL beaked whale occurrence and
impact studies with additional effort
anticipated through 2020.
Analysis of the southernmost edge of
the California Current, west of TannerCortes Bank and the presence of
Cuvier’s beaked whales was addressed
in Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation
Assessment), Section K.7.2.4
(Southernmost Edge of California
Current, West of Tanner-Cortes Bank)
and Section K.7.2.6 (Cuvier’s Beaked
Whale Habitat Areas Mitigation
Assessment) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS.
Also see Chapter 3, Section 3.7.2.3.24
(Cuvier’s Beaked Whale (Ziphius
cavirostris)) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS for
additional information regarding this
species.
As noted in Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment), the waters west
of Tanner and Cortes Banks are also
critical to the Navy’s training and
testing activities; therefore, it is not
practicable to preclude activities within
that water space in the SOCAL portion
of the HSTT Study Area. Reasonable
mitigation measures, as discussed in
Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation
Assessment), would limit the impact of
training and testing on marine
mammals, and especially beaked
whales, in this area.
Given that there is no evidence that
Navy training and testing activities are
having significant impacts to population
of beaked whales anywhere in the
SOCAL portion of the HSTT Study
Area, the uncertainty of current use by
Cuvier’s beaked whales of the area west
of Tanner and Cortes Banks, the fact that
general occurrence of beaked whales in
Southern California may not necessarily
equate to factors typically associated
with biologically important areas, and
consideration of the importance of Navy
training and testing activities in the
areas around Tanner and Cortes Banks
discussed in Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment) of the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS, additional geographic
mitigation specifically for the area west
of Tanner and Cortes Banks is not
warranted.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
As noted in Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment) and Chapter 5
(Mitigation), Section 5.3 (Procedural
Mitigation to be Implemented) of the
HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy will
continue to implement procedural
mitigation measures throughout the
HSTT Study Area.
Comment 49: A commenter
commented that the same long-term
passive acoustic study of the Southern
California Bight as discussed for
Cuvier’s beaked whales above in
Comment 48 also suggests that
southern-central waters represent
biologically important habitat for
Perrin’s beaked whale. A commenter
recommended that the Northern
Catalina Basin and the waters southeast
of Santa Catalina Island (approximate
coordinates of 33.28 N, ¥118.25 W),
and the San Clemente Basin
(approximate coordinates of 32.52 N,
¥118.32 W), both based on location of
HARP deployments (referenced as sites
‘‘A’’ and ‘‘S’’), be considered as
management areas for Perrin’s beaked
whales. A commenter recommended
that the boundaries of any restrictions
be established via expert consideration.
Response: All of the single bottommounted passive acoustic devices used
for the analysis by Baumann-Pickering
et al. (2014) and used by the commenter
to support their argument are not
continuous and have various
periodicities for which data have been
collected. As single point sources of
data, these passive acoustic devices may
not be indicative of Perrin’s beaked
whale presence at other locations within
Southern California without comparable
devices. Nor would older data prior to
2009 be indicative of current or future
occurrence especially in terms of
potential impact of climate change on
species distributions.
Navy-funded passive acoustic
monitoring within the SOCAL portion
of the HSTT Study Area has been
ongoing for the past 21 years, but not all
areas are monitored continuously, and
devices have been deployed and
removed from various locations. Santa
Catalina Basin was only monitored from
August 2005 to July 2009. Santa
Catalina Basin has not been monitored
under Navy funding since 2009 because
other areas in Southern California were
prioritized for passive acoustic device
placement by the researchers. For San
Clemente Island, the single monitoring
site ‘‘S’’ used in Baumann-Pickering et
al. (2014) and cited as the source of the
comment’s claim for San Clemente
Basin was only deployed for a limited
time of approximately 1.5 years,
resulting in 409 days of data (September
2009–May 2011). For both sites
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
combined, only 41 hours of BW43 signal
types were detected over a cumulative
approximately five-and-a-half years of
monitoring. The 41 hours of BW43
detections therefore only represents a
small fraction of overall recording time
(less than 1 percent).
The beaked whale signal type
detected called BW43 has been
suggested as coming from Perrin’s
beaked whales (Baumann-Pickering et
al. 2014), but not yet conclusively and
scientifically confirmed.
A different Navy-funded single site
south of San Clemente Island within the
San Clemente Basin has had a passive
acoustic device in place from July 2014
through current. Sˇirovic´ et al. (2016)
and Rice et al. (2017) contain the most
current results from San Clemente Basin
site ‘‘N.’’ While Sˇirovic´ et al. (2016) and
Rice et al. (2017) do report periodic
passive acoustic detections of
Mesoplodon beaked whales thought to
be Perrin’s beaked whale in San
Clemente Basin, the overall detection
rate, periodicity, and occurrence has not
been high. Between May 2015 and June
2016, there were only seven weeks in
which potential Perrin’s beaked whale
echolocation clicks were detected, with
each week having less than 0.14 hours/
week of detections. Acoustic sampling
of bathymetrically featureless areas off
Southern California with drifting
hydrophones by NMFS detected many
beaked whales over abyssal plains and
not always associated with slope or
seamount features, which counters a
common misperception that beaked
whales are primarily found over slope
waters, in deep basins, or over
seamounts (Griffins and Barlow 2016).
One of these devices was deployed
within the SOCAL portion of the HSTT
Study Area. In addition, analysis of
NMFS visual survey data from 2014, the
most recent year available, showed an
increase in Mesoplodon beaked whales
along the entire U.S. West Coast, which
the authors attributed to an influx of
tropical species of Mesoplodon during
the unusually warm water condition
that year (Barlow 2016; Moore & Barlow
2017). Perrin’s beaked whale, part of the
Mesoplodon guild, could be part of
these sightings. In summary, San
Clemente Basin and Santa Catalina
Basin with similar low passive acoustic
detection rates are likely to be part of
Perrin beaked whale’s general
distribution along the U.S. West Coast
and in particular Southern California
and Baja Mexico. This distribution is
likely to be wide ranging for Perrin’s
beaked whales as a species and highly
correlated to annual oceanographic
conditions. Santa Catalina and San
Clemente basins do have infrequent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
suspected Perrin’s beaked whale passive
acoustic detections from a limited
number of devices, but these areas may
not specifically represent unique high
occurrence locations warranting
geographic protection beyond existing
Navy protective measures.
The Navy has been training and
testing in and around the Northern
Catalina Basin and waters southeast of
Santa Catalina Island with the same
systems for over 40 years, and there is
no evidence of any adverse impacts
having occurred and no indications that
Navy training and testing has had any
adverse impacts on populations of
beaked whales in Southern California.
The main source of anthropogenic noise
in the Catalina Basin and waters south
of San Clemente Island are associated
with commercial vessel traffic
concentrated in the northbound and
southbound lanes of the San Pedro
Channel that runs next to Santa Catalina
Island and leads to and from the ports
of Los Angeles/Long Beach and other
commercial traffic from San Diego and
ports to the north and south of Southern
California. These waters in and around
Northern Catalina Basin and waters
southeast of Santa Catalina Island are
critical to the Navy’s training and
testing activities, and so it is not
practicable to limit or reduce access or
preclude activities within that water
space in the SOCAL portion of the
HSTT Study Area.
The Santa Catalina Basin area and
Perrin’s beaked whales were addressed
in Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation
Assessment), Section K.7.2.3 (Catalina
Basin) and K.7.2.7 (Northern Catalina
Basin and the San Clemente Basin) of
the HSTT FEIS/OEIS. Also see
Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation
Assessment), Section K.7.2.7.2
(Northern Catalina Basin and Waters
Southeast of Catalina Island Perrin’s
Beaked Whale Habitat Mitigation
Considerations) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS
for additional information regarding this
species. Additional limitations as
discussed in Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment) would limit
training and impact readiness. Given
that there is no evidence of impacts to
the population of beaked whales in the
area, and low potential occurrence of
Perrin’s beaked whales in the Southern
California portion of the HSTT Study
Area, geographic mitigation would not
effectively balance a reduction of
biological impacts with an acceptable
level of impact on military readiness
activities. As noted in Appendix K
(Geographic Mitigation Assessment) and
Chapter 5, Section 5.3 (Procedural
Mitigation to be Implemented) of the
HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy will
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66897
continue to implement procedural
mitigation measures throughout the
HSTT Study Area.
Comment 50: Commenters
recommended additional mitigation
areas for important fin whale habitat off
Southern California. The commenters
recommended that the waters between
the 200 m and 1000 m isobaths be
assessed for time-area management so
that, at minimum, ship strike awareness
measures for fin whales can be
implemented during the months of
November through February, when the
whales aggregate in the area.
Response: As described and detailed
in the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy
implements a number of ship-strike risk
reduction measures for all vessels, in all
locations and seasons, and for all
marine mammal species. New research
by Sˇirovic´ et al. (2017) supports a
hypothesis that between the Gulf of
California and Southern California,
there could be up to four distinct subpopulations based on fin whale call
types, including a Southern California
resident population. There is also
evidence that there can be both subpopulation shifts and overlap within
Southern California (Sˇirovic´ et al.,
2017). Scales et al. (2017) also
postulated two Southern California subpopulations of fin whales based on
satellite tagging and habitat modeling.
Scales et al. (2017) stated that some fin
whales may not follow the typical
baleen whale migration paradigm, with
some individuals found in both warm,
shallow nearshore waters <500 m, and
deeper cool waters over complex
seafloor topographies. Collectively, the
author’s spatial habitat models with
highest predicted occurrence for fin
whales cover the entire core training
and testing portion of the SOCAL
portion of the HSTT Study Area, not
just areas between 200 and 1,000 m.
Results from Navy-funded long-term
satellite tagging of fin whales in
Southern and Central California still
shows some individual fin whales
engage in wide-ranging movements
along the U.S. West Coast, as well as
large daily movements well within
subareas (Mate et al., 2017). In support
of further refining the science on
Southern California fin whales, Falcone
and Schorr (2014) examined fin whale
movements through photo ID and shortto-medium term (days-to-several weeks)
satellite tag tracking under funding from
the Navy. The authors conducted small
boat surveys from June 2010 through
January 2014, approximately three-anda-half years. Of interest in terms of the
comment and the 200–1,000 m isobaths
occurrence, more fin whale tag locations
were reported off the Palos Verdes
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66898
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Peninsula and off of the Los Angeles/
Long Beach commercial shipping ports
in fall, both areas north of and outside
of the Navy’s Southern California Range
Complex. Compared to the above areas,
there were not as many tag locations in
the similar isobaths region off San Diego
associated with the Navy range area.
Falcone and Schorr (2014) did
document an apparent inshore-offshore
distribution between Winter–Spring and
Summer–Fall. Given the apparent
resident nature of some fin whales in
Southern California as discussed in
Falcone and Schorr (2014), Scales et al.
(2017), and Sˇirovic´ et al. (2017), it
remains uncertain if the inshoreoffshore seasonal pattern as well as subpopulation occurrence will persist into
the future, or if fin whales will change
distribution based on oceanographic
impacts on available prey (ex. El Nino,
climate change, etc.). The efforts from
Falcone and Schorr on fin whales began
in 2010 and are planned to continue for
the next several years under Navy
monitoring funding to further refine fin
whale population structure and
occurrence within Southern California.
The data from the various single
bottom-mounted passive acoustic
devices used in the analysis are not
continuous and have various
periodicities for which data have been
collected. Many of these devices are
purposely placed in 200–1000 m of
water. Given these are point sources of
data, they may or may not be indicative
of fin whale calling or presence at other
locations within Southern California
without devices. Passive acoustic
analysis is only useful for those
individuals that are calling and may not
indicate total population occurrence.
Low-frequency fin whale calls by their
very nature have relatively long
underwater propagation ranges so
detections at a single device could
account for individuals 10–50 miles
away if not further, depending on local
propagation conditions. This would
mean calling whales are not in the 200–
1000 m area. Sˇirovic´ et al. (2015)
acknowledge in discussing their data
biases, that their use of ‘‘call index’’
may best indicate a period of peak
calling. But fin whales produce multiple
call types depending on behavioral
state. Based on technology limitations,
some fin whale call types were not
included in Sˇirovic´ et al. (2015).
1. The study cited by a commenter
(Sˇirovic´ et al., 2015) and used as the
basis for ‘‘Figure 3’’ concerns trends
seen within the Southern California
Bight, not exclusively the SOCAL Range
Complex;
2. The research used as the basis for
Figure 3 was funded by the Navy to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
develop baseline information for the
areas where Navy trains and tests and
was by no means designed to or
otherwise intended as a representative
sample of all waters off California or the
entire habitat of the fin whale
population in the area;
3. It is not correct to assume detected
vocalizations (a ‘‘call index’’) reported
in Sˇirovic´ et al. (2015) for fin whales
equates with where fin whales are
aggregated in the Southern California
Bight. For example, the acoustic
monitoring data did not pick up or
otherwise correspond to the observed
seasonal distribution shift of fin whales
indicated by visual survey data covering
the same time periods (Campbell et al.,
2015; Douglas et al., 2014);
4. Sˇirovic´ et al. (2015) make no such
claim of aggregations during the winter
months but instead compare call index
rates and state that the purpose for the
paper was to demonstrate that passive
acoustics can be a powerful tool to
monitor population trends, not relative
abundances;
5. There is no science to support the
contention that fin whales are ‘‘at
particular risk of ship-strike on the
naval range.’’ Two fin whales were
struck by the Navy in 2009 in the
Southern California portion of the HSTT
Study Area as Navy noted in Appendix
K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment),
but there have been no fin whales struck
and in fact no whales of any species
struck in the subsequent nine-year
period despite a documented increase in
the fin whale population inhabiting the
area (Barlow, 2016; Moore & Barlow,
2011; Smultea & Jefferson, 2014).
Furthermore, one of those vessel strikes
occurred at the end of the recommended
mitigation timeframe (February) and the
other well outside the time period
(May), so the proposed mitigation
would only have been marginally
effective, if at all. Neither of these Navy
fin whale strike locations were close to
shore (both >50–60 Nmi from shore), or
associated with coastal shipping lanes.
Based on an analysis of Navy ship traffic
in the HSTT Study Area between 2011
and 2015, median speed of all Navy
vessels within Southern California is
typically already low, with median
speeds between 5 and 12 knots (CNA,
2016). This includes areas within and
outside of 200–1000 m within Southern
California, with slowest speeds closer to
the coast; and
6. As presented in the EIS/OEIS, fin
whales are present off all the waters of
Southern California year-round (Sˇirovic´
et al., 2015, 2017). Using available
quantitative density and distribution
mapping, the best available science, and
expert elicitation, definitive areas of
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
importance for fin whales could not be
determined by a panel of scientists
specifically attempting to do so
(Calambokidis et al., 2015).
Navy vessels already operate at a safe
speed given a particular transit or
activity need. This also includes a
provision to avoid large whales by 500
yards, so long as safety of navigation
and safety of operations is maintained.
Previously, the Navy commissioned a
vessel density and speed report for
HSTT (CNA, 2016). Based on an
analysis of Navy ship traffic in HSTT
between 2011 and 2015, median speed
of all Navy vessels within Southern
California is typically already low, with
median speeds between 5 and 12 knots
(CNA, 2016). Slowest speeds occurred
closer to the coast and islands.
In conclusion, speed restrictions
within 200–1000 m is unwarranted
given the wide range of fin whale
movements along the U.S. West Coast
including areas within and outside of
200–1000 m contours, sometimes largescale daily movements within regional
areas as documented from Navy-funded
satellite tagging, the current lack of ship
strike risk from Navy vessels in
Southern California (2010–2017), the
already safe training and testing ship
speeds Navy uses within HSTT, and
existing Navy mitigation measures
including provisions to avoid large
whales by 500 yards where safe to do so.
In addition, the Navy agreed to send
out seasonal awareness messages of
blue, fin, and gray whale occurrence to
improve awareness of all vessels
operating to the presence of these
species in SOCAL.
Hawaii Areas
Comment 51: NPS recommends that
the Navy consider the following as it
plans to conduct activities in the HSTT
Study Area. NPS notes units of the NPS
system that occur near training and
testing areas around Hawaii and identify
which can be affected by noise. The
Units are: Kaloko-Honokohau National
Historical Park (NHP), Pu’uhonua o
Honaunau NHP, Pu’ukolhola Heiau
National Historic Site, Kalaupapa NHP,
and the World War II Valor in the
Pacific National Monument.
Response: National Parks and Marine
protected areas in are addressed in
Chapter 6 of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS.
Kalaupapa National Historical Park
(NHP) is discussed in Comment 52
below. No planned activities overlap
with Kaloko-Honokohau NHP; therefore,
no impacts are expected within the
Kalaupapa NHP. The Pu’uhonua o
Honaunau NHP and Pu’ukolhola Heiau
National Historic Site are not
specifically addressed in Chapter 6 of
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
the FEIS/OEIS, but neither site appears
to contain any marine waters. The
Navy’s planned activities do not occur
on land except in designated training
areas on Navy properties (i.e., for
amphibious assaults, etc.); therefore,
there are no activities that overlap with
these sites and no impacts are expected.
The WWII Valor in the Pacific
Monument is for the USS Arizona
which is a Navy war memorial. No
activities occur within the boundary of
the site itself, and the monument was
not designated to protect marine
species. There are training and testing
activities that occur within Pearl Harbor
as a whole, and impacts to marine
mammals in the waters of Pearl Harbor
as a whole were include in Navy’s
proposed activities and therefore
analyzed by NMFS in this final rule.
Comment 52: The NPS noted the
presence of marine mammal species in
the Kalaupapa NHP (on the north shore
of Molokai), and is concerned about
potential take of protected species that
inhabit water out to 1000 fathoms, and
recommended the Navy consider
alternate training areas to avoid impacts
to these species. Species that occur yearround include the false killer whale,
sperm whale, pygmy sperm whale,
spinner dolphin, and bottlenose
dolphin. Humpback whales are seasonal
visitors from November to April. The
Hawaiian monk seal pups are within the
Kalaupapa NHP during the Spring and
Summer.
Response: Part of the Kalaupapa NHP
(northern portion) is protected by the
measures employed inside the 4-Islands
Region Mitigation Area such as yearround prohibition on explosives and no
use of MF1 surface ship hull mounted
mid-frequency active sonar from
November 15–April 15).
We note, however, that the majority of
the Kalaupapa NHP is not in the 4Islands Region Mitigation Area as it is
mainly landbased, but just outside it.
The Kalaupapa NHP was designated to
protect the two historic leper colonies
on the property and was not designated
with the purpose of protecting marine
species. The boundaries of the
Kalaupapa NHP extend a quarter mile
offshore. The Navy does propose
conducting activities associated with
the planned activities in the boundary
of the the Kalaupapa NHP. There would
be no effect to Hawaiian monk seal
pupping on NHP land as the Navy does
not have any planned activities in the
boundary of the Kalaupapa NHP,
especially on land. The Navy’s planned
activities do not include any land-based
activities except for a few activities
which are conducted on designated
Navy property (i.e., amphibious assaults
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
on Silver Strand, etc.). Further, as the
seaspace adjacent to the Kalaupapa NHP
is not an established training or testing
area, it is unlikely naval activity would
occur in this area.
Comment 53: A commenter
recommended expanding the Hawaii
Island Mitigation Area westward to
protect resident Cuvier’s beaked whales
and rough-toothed dolphins. The
boundaries of the Hawaii Island
Mitigation Area should be expanded
westward to remain consistent with the
boundaries of the BIAs defined in Baird
et al. (2015), which informed the
boundaries of Conservation Council
Settlement Areas 1–C and 1–D. This
expansion will cover habitat for Cuvier’s
beaked whales and toothed dolphins
that are resident around the Big Island.
Response: Analyses of the marine
mammal species mentioned in the
comment and considered within the
Hawaii Island Mitigation Area are
discussed throughout Appendix K
(Geographic Mitigation Assessment),
Section K.3 (Biologically Important
Areas within the Hawaii Range Complex
Portion of the HSTT Study Area) and
Sections K.5.1 (Settlement Areas Within
the Hawaii Portion of the HSTT Study
Area) through K.5.4 (Proposed
Mitigation Areas that Overlap the
Hawaii Portion of the HSTT Settlement
Agreement Areas) of the HSTT FEIS/
OEIS. Additional information on the
marine mammals mentioned in the
comment is also provided in the
species-specific sub-sections in Chapter
3, Section 3.7.2 (Affected Environment)
of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS. Based on these
analyses, the Navy will implement
additional mitigation within the Hawaii
Island Mitigation Area (year-round) as
detailed in Chapter 5, Section 5.4.2
(Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals
in the Hawaii Range Complex) of the
HSTT FEIS/OEIS, to further avoid or
reduce impacts on marine mammals
from acoustic and explosive stressors
from the planned activities.
The mitigation requirement of
prohibiting the use of explosives yearround during training and testing across
the entire Hawaii Island Mitigation Area
satisfies the previous mitigation
requirement of a prohibition on the use
of in-water explosives for training and
testing activities of the Settlement
Agreement for Areas 1–A, 1–C, and 1–
D, and further extends that requirement
to the ‘Alenuiha¯ha¯ Channel (Area 1–B).
The Hawaii Island Mitigation Area still
includes 100 percent of Settlement
Areas 1–C and 1–D and includes a large
majority of the BIAs for Cuvier’s Beaked
Whale (Hawaii Island BIA) and RoughToothed Dolphins (Hawaii Island BIA)
(the areas in question by this comment).
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66899
Particularly, it covers 93.30 percent of
the Cuvier’s Beaked Whale BIA
westward of Hawaii Island and 83.58
percent of Rough-toothed dolphins
Hawaii Island BIA westward of Hawaii
Island.
Only the northern portion of the
Cuvier’s beaked whale BIA in
Alenuihaha Channel and a smaller
offshore portion of the BIA west of
Hawaii are not covered by mitigations
included in the Hawaii Island
Mitigation Area on the west and east of
Hawaii Island. The BIAi s based on the
known range of the island-associated
population, and the authors suggest that
‘‘the range of individuals from this
population is likely to increase as
additional satellite-tag data become
available’’ (Baird et al., 2015b). Cuvier’s
beaked whales are not expected to be
displaced from their habitat due to
training and testing activities further
offshore in these small areas of the
biologically important area, given that
the biologically important area covers
23,583 km2, is unbroken and continuous
surrounding the island, and the BIA
likely underrepresents their range. The
small portion of the BIA that does not
overlap the Hawaii Island Mitigation
Area is offshore, and according to the
most recent stock assessment
approximately 95 percent of all sighting
locations were within 45 km of shore.
Additionally, consequences to
individuals or populations are not
unknown. No PTS is estimated or
authorized. A small numbers of TTS
and Level B behavioral harassment takes
for Cuvier’s beaked whales are
estimated across the entire Hawaii
portion of the Study Area due to
acoustic stressors. Most of the TTS and
Level B behavioral harassment takes for
Cuvier’s beaked whales are associated
with testing in the Hawaii Temporary
Operating Area, impacting the pelagic
population (see Figure 3.7–36 of the
HSTT FEIS/OEIS). It is extremely
unlikely that any modeled takes would
be of individuals in this small portion
of the BIA that extends outside the
Hawaii Island Mitigation Area.
Long-term and relatively
comprehensive research has found no
evidence of any apparent effects while
documenting the continued existence of
multiple small and resident populations
of various species as well as long-term
residency by individual beaked whales
spanning the length of the current
studies that exceed a decade. Further,
the Navy has considered research
showing that in specific contexts (such
as associated with urban noise,
commercial vessel traffic, eco-tourism,
or whale watching, Chapter 3, Section
3.7.2.1.5.2 (Commercial Industries)) of
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66900
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
the HSTT FEIS/OEIS that chronic
repeated displacement and foraging
disruption of populations with
residency or high site fidelity can result
in population-level effects. As also
detailed in the HSTT FEIS/OEIS,
however, the Navy training and testing
activities do not equate with the types
of disturbance in this body of research,
nor do they rise to the level of chronic
disturbance where such effects have
been demonstrated because Navy
activities are typically sporadic and
dispersed. There is no evidence to
suggest there have been any populationlevel effects in the waters around Oahu,
Kauai, and Niihau or anywhere in the
HSTT Study Area. In the waters around
Oahu, Kauai, and Niihau, documented
long-term residency by individuals and
the existence of multiple small and
resident populations are precisely
where Navy training and testing have
been occurring for decades, strongly
suggesting a lack of significant impact to
those individuals and populations from
the continuation of Navy training and
testing.
Mark-recapture estimates derived
from photographs of rough-toothed
dolphins taken between 2003 and 2006
resulted in a small and resident
population estimate of 198 around the
island of Hawaii (Baird et al., 2008), but
those surveys were conducted primarily
with 40 km of shore and may
underestimate the population. Data do
suggest high site fidelity and low
population size for the island-associated
population. There are no tagging data to
provide information about the range of
the island-associated population; the
biologically important area is based on
sighting locations and encompasses
7,175 km2. Generally, this species is
typically found close to shore around
oceanic islands. Only approximately
half of the BIA offshore is not covered
by the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area,
where the BIA overlaps with special use
airspace. Consequences to individuals
or populations are not unknown. No
PTS is estimated or authorized. Some
TTS and Level B behavioral harassment
takes due to acoustic stressors for this
species across the entire HSTT Study
Area (see Figure 3.7–66). Significant
impacts on rough-toothed dolphin
natural behaviors or abandonment due
to training with sonar and other
transducers are unlikely to occur within
the small and resident population area.
A few minor to moderate TTS or Level
B behavioral harassment to an
individual over the course of a year are
unlikely to have any significant costs or
long-term consequences for that
individual, and nothing in the planned
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
activities is expected to cause a
‘‘catastrophic event.’’ The Navy
operating areas west of Hawaii Island
are used commonly for larger events for
a variety of reasons described further in
Section K.3 (Biologically Important
Areas Within the Hawaiian Range
Complex Portion of the HSTT Study
Area) (e.g., the relatively large group of
seamounts in the open ocean offers
challenging bathymetry in the open
ocean far away from civilian vessel
traffic and air lanes where ships,
submarines, and aircraft are completely
free to maneuver) and sonar may be
used by a variety of platforms. Enlarging
the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area is not
anticipated to realistically reduce
adverse impacts. Expanding the Hawaii
Island Mitigation Area has a limited
likelihood of further reducing impacts
on marine mammal species or stocks
and their habitat, while these open
ocean operating areas for important for
training and testing and, in
consideration of these factors (and the
broader least practicable adverse impact
considerations discussed in the
introduction), NMFS has determined
that requiring this additional mitigation
is not appropriate.
Comment 54: A commenter
recommended limiting MTEs to reduce
cumulative exposure in the Hawaii
Island Mitigation Area.
Response: Prohibiting MTEs outright
or spatially separating them within the
Hawaii Island Mitigation Area (which
includes the formerly named Planning
Awareness Area) was proposed as
additional mitigation to ensure that
‘‘marine mammal populations with
highly discrete site fidelity . . . are not
exposed to MTEs within a single year.’’
The goal of geographic mitigation is not
to be an absolute, outright barrier and
stop exposing animals to exercises per
se; it is to reduce adverse impacts to the
maximum extent practicable. Impacts
associated with major training exercises,
including cumulative impacts, are
addressed in Chapters 3 (Affected
Environment and Environmental
Consequences) and Chapter 4
(Cumulative Impacts) of the HSTT FEIS/
OEIS, and Navy quantitative analysis
using the best available science has
determined that training and testing
activities will not have population-level
impacts on any species. As determined
in Chapter 3, Section 3.7.4 (Summary of
Potential Impacts on Marine Mammals)
of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, it is not
anticipated that the Proposed Action
will result in significant impacts to
marine mammals. To date, the findings
from research and monitoring and the
regulatory conclusions from previous
analyses by NMFS are that the majority
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of impacts from Navy training and
testing activities are not expected to
have deleterious impacts on the fitness
of any individuals or long-term
consequences to populations of marine
mammals.
MTEs cannot be moved around within
the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area, given
that those activities are specifically
located to leverage particular features
like the Alenuihaha Channel and the
approaches to Kawaihae Harbor. This
recommendation is not, therefore,
appropriate in consideration of NMFS’
least practicable adverse impact
standard.
To limit activities, the Navy will not
conduct more than 300 hours of MF1
surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar or 20 hours of
MF4 dipping sonar, or use explosives
that could potentially result in takes of
marine mammals during training and
testing in the Hawaii Mitigation Area.
Comment 55: A commenter
recommended prohibiting or restricting
other sources of mid-frequency active
sonar in the Hawaii Island Mitigation
Area including prohibiting the use of
helicopter-deployed mid-frequency
active sonar in the Hawaii Island
Mitigation Area.
Response: The Navy is already
limiting other sources of MFAS.
Between the application and the
proposed rule, the Navy added new
mitigation that includes a limit to the
annual use of helicopter dipping sonar
in the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area.
Specifically, the Navy will not conduct
more than 20 hours of MF4 dipping
sonar that could potentially result in
takes of marine mammals during
training and testing. Helicopters deploy
MFAS from a hover position in bouts
generally lasting under 20 minutes,
moving rapidly between sequential
deployment and their duration of use
and source level (217 dB) are generally
well below those of hull-mounted
frequency sonar (235 dB). All locations
within the HSTT Study Area have been
used for Navy training and testing for
decades. There has been no scientific
evidence to indicate the Navy’s
activities are having adverse effects on
populations of marine mammals, many
of which continue to increase in number
or are maintaining populations based on
what regional conditions can support.
Navy research and monitoring funding
continues within the HSTT Study Area
under current NMFS MMPA and ESA
permits, and is planned through the
duration of any future permits. Given
the lack of effects to marine mammal
populations in the HSTT Study Area
from larger, more powerful surface ship
sonars, the effects from intermittent, less
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
frequent use of lower powered midfrequency dipping sonar or other midfrequency active sonars would also not
significantly affect small and resident
populations.
Comment 56: A commenter
recommended extending the 4-Islands
Region Mitigation Area westward to
encompass the Humpback Whale
Special Reporting Area in Kaiwi
Channel. Additionally the 4-Island
Region Mitigation Area is inadequate to
protect endangered Main Hawaiian
Island insular false killer whales as the
Main Hawaiian Island insular false
killer whale is highly range-restricted to
certain high-use areas, one of which
includes the ESA critical habitat and the
BIA north of Maui and Molokai (‘‘False
killer whale Hawaii Island to Niihau’’
BIA).
Response: The portion of the special
reporting area that extends into Kaiwi
Channel over Penguin Bank (equivalent
to settlement area 2A) is generally not
a higher use area for Main Hawaiian
Island insular false killer whales and
does not overlap significantly with the
biologically important area. As
presented in Chapter 3 (Affected
Environment and Environmental
Consequences), Navy quantitative
analysis indicates that significant
impacts on false killer whale natural
behaviors or abandonment due to
training with sonar and other
transducers are unlikely to occur within
the entire small and resident population
area, let alone in the small sub-portion
of the biologically important area that
overlaps the proposed extension.
Additionally, most of the modeled takes
are for the Hawaii pelagic population of
false killer whale (see Figure 3.7–46 and
Table 3.7–31). Also, as described in
more detail in Appendix K of the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS, due to training and testing
needs, the expansion of this area is
considered impracticable.
Comment 57: A commenter
recommended extending to year-round
restrictions in the 4-Island Region
Mitigation Area and the proposed
extension into the Kaiwi Channel
Humpback Whale Special Reporting
Area.
Response: The additional expansion
requested in the comment is not
expected to reduce adverse impacts to
an extent that would outweigh the
negative impacts if unit commanders
were unable to conduct unit-level
training and testing, especially as they
pass over Penguin Bank while transiting
between Pearl Harbor and other parts of
the Study Area. Prohibiting midfrequency active sonar would preclude
the Submarine Command Course from
meeting its objectives and leveraging the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
important and unique characteristics of
the 4-Islands Region, as described in
multiple sections of Appendix K (e.g.,
Section K.3.1.6 (4-Islands Region and
Penguin Bank Humpback Whale
Reproduction Area, and Settlement Area
2–A and 2–B)). Penguin Bank is
particularly used for shallow water
submarine testing and anti-submarine
warfare training because of its large
expanse of shallow bathymetry. The
conditions in Penguin Bank offer ideal
bathymetric and oceanographic
conditions allowing for realistic training
and testing and serve as surrogate
environments for active theater
locations.
Additionally, this mitigation would
further increase reporting requirements.
As discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation)
Section 5.5.2.6 (Increasing Reporting
Requirements) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS,
the Navy developed its reporting
requirements in conjunction with
NMFS, balancing the usefulness of the
information to be collected with the
practicability of collecting it. An
increase in reporting requirements as a
mitigation would draw the event
participants’ attentions away from the
complex tactical tasks they are primarily
obligated to perform (such as driving a
warship), which would adversely
impact personnel safety, public health
and safety, and the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity. Expanding
the Mitigation Area and extending the
restrictions is not, therefore, appropriate
in consideration of NMFS’ least
practicable adverse impact standard.
Comment 58: A commenter
recommended implementing vessel
speed restrictions within the 4-Islands
Region Mitigation Area.
Response: This mitigation measure
was proposed to address impacts on
humpback whales due to both ship
noise and ship strikes. As described and
detailed in the Draft EIS, the Navy
already implements a number of shipstrike risk reduction measures for all
vessels, in all locations and seasons, and
for all marine mammal species. The
Navy cannot implement mitigation that
restricts vessel speed during training or
testing in the HSTT Study Area. Vessels
must be able to maneuver freely as
required by their tactics in order for
training events to be effective.
Imposition of vessel speed restrictions
would interfere with the Navy’s ability
to complete tests that must occur in
specific bathymetric and oceanic
conditions and at specific speeds. Navy
vessel operators must test and train with
vessels in such a manner that ensures
their ability to operate vessels as they
would in military missions and combat
operations (including being able to react
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66901
to changing tactical situations and
evaluate system capabilities).
Furthermore, testing of new platforms
requires testing at the full range of
propulsion capabilities and is required
to ensure the delivered platform meets
requirements. Based on an analysis of
Navy ship traffic in the HSTT Study
Area between 2011 and 2015, median
speed of all Navy vessels within Hawaii
is typically already low, with median
speeds between 8–16 kn (CNA, 2016).
Speed restrictions in the Cautionary
Area (renamed the 4-Islands Region
Mitigation Area) are unwarranted given
the movement of all social groups
throughout the islands outside the
Mitigation Area, the current lack of ship
strike risk from Navy vessels in Hawaii
(2010–2017), the already safe training
and testing ship speeds the Navy uses
within HSTT, and existing Navy
mitigation measures, including
provisions to avoid large whales by 500
yards where safe to do so. Implementing
speed restrictions in the Mitigation Area
is not, therefore, appropriate in
consideration of NMFS’ least practicable
adverse impact standard.
Information on the response of baleen
whales to vessel noise is presented in
Section 3.7.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral
Reactions) and Section 3.7.3.1.5
(Impacts from Vessel Noise). Impacts, if
they did occur, would most likely be
short-term masking and minor
behavioral responses. Therefore,
significant impacts on humpback whale
reproductive behaviors from vessel
noise associated with training activities
are not expected. Navy vessels are
intentionally designed to be quieter than
civilian vessels, and ship speed
reductions are not expected to reduce
adverse impacts on humpback whales
due to vessel noise.
Comment 59: A commenter
recommended prohibiting the use of inwater explosives in the 4-Islands Region
Mitigation Area.
Response: The Navy has agreed to
implement a year-round restriction on
the use of in-water explosives that could
potentially result in takes of marine
mammals during training and testing.
Should national security present a
requirement explosives that could
potentially result in the take of marine
mammals during training or testing,
naval units will obtain permission from
the appropriate designated Command
authority prior to commencement of the
activity. The Navy will provide NMFS
with advance notification and include
the information (e.g., sonar hours or
explosives usage) in its annual activity
reports submitted to NMFS.
Comment 60: A commenter
recommended prohibiting other sources
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66902
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
of MFAS in the 4-Islands Region
Mitigation Area.
Response: NMFS reviewed Navy’s
assessment for the 4-Islands Mitigation
Area. This area provides a unique and
irreplaceable shallow water training
capability for units to practice
operations in littoral areas that are both
shallow and navigationally constrained
(HSTT FEIS Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment), Section
K.3.3.1.6). The 4-Islands Region
provides an environment for antisubmarine warfare search, tracking and
avoidance of opposing anti-submarine
warfare forces. The bathymetry provides
unique attributes and unmatched
opportunity to train in searching for
submarines in shallow water. Littoral
training allows units to continue to
deploy improved sensors or tactics in
littoral waters. In the Hawaii portion of
the HSTT Study Area specifically, antisubmarine warfare training in shallow
water is vitally important to the Navy
since diesel submarines typically hide
in that extremely noisy and complex
marine environment (Arabian Gulf,
Strait of Malacca, Sea of Japan, and the
Yellow Sea all contain water less than
200 m deep). There is no other area in
this portion of the HSTT Study Area
with the bathymetry and sound
propagation analog to seas where Navy
conducts real operations that this
training could relocate to. The Navy
cannot conduct realistic shallow water
training exercises without training in
and around the 4-Islands Region
Mitigation Area. In addition, this area
includes unique shallow water training
opportunities for unit-level training,
including opportunity to practice
operations in littoral areas that are both
shallow, and navigationally constrained,
and in close proximity to deeper open
ocean environments. While MFAS is
used infrequently in this area, a
complete prohibition of all active sonars
would impact Navy training readiness
in an area identified as important for the
Navy based on its unique bathymetry.
However, the Navy recognizes the
biological importance of this area to
humpback whales during the
reproductive season and with NMFS
concurrence strives to limit the use of
surface ship hull-mounted MFAS
during that time of year. While the Navy
has been training and testing in the area
with the same basic systems for over 40
years, there is no evidence of any
adverse impacts having occurred, and
there are multiple lines of evidence
demonstrating the small odontocete
population high site fidelity to the area.
Comment 61: A commenter
recommended prohibiting the use of
helicopter-deployed mid-frequency
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
active sonar in the 4-Islands Region
Mitigation Area.
Response: The commenter’s request to
prohibit ‘‘air-deployed’’ mid-frequency
active sonar is based on one paper
(Falcone et al., 2017), which is a Navyfunded project designed to study the
behavioral responses of a single species,
Cuvier’s beaked whales, to midfrequency active sonar. The Navy relied
upon the best science that was available
to develop behavioral response
functions for beaked whales and other
marine mammals in consultation with
NMFS for the Draft EIS/OEIS. The
article cited in the comment (Falcone et
al., 2017) was not available at the time
the Draft EIS/OEIS was published but
does not change the current FEIS/OEIS
criteria or conclusions. The new
information and data presented in the
article was thoroughly reviewed when it
became available and further considered
in discussions with some of the paper’s
authors following its first presentation
in October 2017 at a recent scientific
conference. Many of the variables
requiring further analysis for beaked
whales and dipping sonar impact
assessment are still being researched
under continued Navy funding through
2019.
There are no beaked whale
biologically important areas in the 4Islands Region Mitigation Area, and the
Mitigation Area is generally shallower
than beaked whales’ preferred habitat.
Behavioral responses of beaked whales
from dipping and other sonars cannot be
universally applied to other marine
mammal species. Research indicates
that there are distinct individual
variations as well as strong behavioral
state considerations that influence any
response or lack of response (Goldbogen
et al., 2013; Harris et al., 2017).
Therefore, it is expected that other
species would have highly variable
individual responses ranging from some
response to no response to any
anthropogenic sound. This variability is
accounted for in the Navy’s current
behavioral response curves described in
the HSTT Draft EIS/OEIS and
supporting technical reports.
Furthermore, the potential effects of
dipping sonar have been rigorously
accounted for in the Navy’s analysis.
Parameters such as power level and
propagation range for typical dipping
sonar use are factored into HSTT
acoustic impact analysis along with
guild specific criteria and other
modeling variables, as detailed in the
HSTT DEIS/OEIS and associated
technical reports for criteria and
acoustic modeling. Further, due to
lower power settings for dipping sonar,
potential impact ranges of dipping sonar
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
are significantly lower than surface ship
sonars. For example, the HSTT average
modeled range to TTS of dipping sonar
for a 1-second ping on low-frequency
cetacean (i.e., blue whale) is 77 m, and
for mid-frequency cetaceans including
beaked whales is 22 m (HSTT FEIS/
OEIS Table 3.7–7). This range is easily
monitored for marine mammals by a
hovering helicopter and is accounted for
in the Navy’s proposed mitigation
ranges for dipping sonars (200 yds. or
183 m). Limited ping time (i.e., less
dipping sonar use as compared to
typical surface ship sonar use) and
lower power settings therefore would
limit the impact from dipping sonar to
any marine mammal species.
This is an area of extremely low use
for air-deployed mid-frequency active
sonar. Prohibiting air-deployed midfrequency active sonar in the Mitigation
Area would not be any more protective
to marine mammal populations
generally, or the Main Hawaiian Islands
insular false killer whale in particular,
than currently implemented procedural
mitigation measures for air-deployed
mid-frequency active sonar and is not,
therefore, appropriate in consideration
of NMFS’ least practicable adverse
impact standard.
Comment 62: A commenter
recommended prohibiting use of lowfrequency active sonar in the 4-Islands
Region Mitigation Area.
Response: The commenters suggested
that ‘‘Baleen whales are vulnerable to
the impacts of low-frequency active
sonar, particularly in calving areas
where low-amplitude communication
calls between mothers and calves can be
easily masked.’’ As described in Chapter
3, Section 3.7.2.3.1 (Humpback Whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae), Hawaii DPS)
of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the best
available science has demonstrated
humpback whale population increases
and an estimated abundance greater
than some pre-whaling estimates. This
data does not indicate any populationlevel impacts from decades of ongoing
Navy training and testing in the
Hawaiian Islands.
Comment 63: A commenter
recommended additional mitigation
areas critical habitat for the Main
Hawaiian Islands insular false killer
whale. NMFS issued the Final Rule
designating critical habitat under the
ESA on July 24, 2018. A commenter
stated that in light of the 2018 listing
under the ESA, NMFS must protect this
species from the noise and other
disturbance resulting from naval
activities, including by mitigating
impacts within its critical habitat. The
commenter recommended that, at
minimum, the Navy establish protective
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Mitigation Areas in all the BIAs
identified for this species by NOAA and
that NMFS should revisit and revise its
Mitigation Areas and mitigation
requirements based on the final critical
habitat designation.
Response: Critical habitat includes
waters from the 45 m depth contour to
the 3,200 m depth contour around the
main Hawaiian Islands from Niihau east
to Hawaii (82 FR 51186). With regard to
the analysis of the identified
Biologically Important Areas for the
Main Hawaiian Islands insular false
killer whales, see Section K.3.3 (False
Killer Whale Small and Resident
Population Area: Main Hawaiian Island
Insular stock). With regard to the
identified threats to the species, see
Section 3.7.2.2.7.5 (Species-Specific
Threats) and specifically the
documented incidental take by
commercial fisheries (Bradford and
Forney, 2016; Oleson et al., 2010;
Reeves et al., 2009; West, 2016). NMFS
has previously determined that Navy’s
current training and testing activities are
not expected to have fitness
consequences for individual Main
Hawaiian Islands insular false killer
whales and not likely to reduce the
viability of the populations those
individual whales represent.
The Navy is implementing the Hawaii
Island Mitigation Area which
encompassess all of the BIA for Main
Hawaiian Islands insular false killer
whales around that island, and the 4Islands Region Mitigation Area (which
captures approximately 40 percent of
the BIAs in the 4-island area). As
discussed in the Mitigation Areas in
Hawaii section of this final rule, these
mitigation areas are expected to
significantly reduce impacts to this
stock and its habitat.
Comment 64: Commenters
recommended additional mitigation
areas for important habitat areas off
Oahu, Kauai, and Niihau—the waters off
Oahu, Kauai, and Niihau include a
number of important habitat areas for a
variety of species, including false killer
whale critical habitat (see above), five
NOAA-identified BIAs off Oahu (false
killer whale, humpback whale,
pantropical spotted dolphin, bottlenose
dolphin, and spinner dolphin) and three
BIAs off Kauai and Niihau (humpback
whale, spinner dolphin, and bottlenose
dolphin) (Baird et al. 2012). The
commenters assert that the agency must
consider the implementation of
Mitigation Areas off Oahu, Kau‘i, and
Niihau. Providing mitigation measures
for select activities during even a
limited season within some important
habitat areas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Response: In the HSTT FEIS/OEIS,
the Navy considered the science, the
Navy requirements, and the
effectiveness of identified habitat areas
off Oahu, Kauai, and Niihau as
presented in Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment) Section K.3
(Biologically Important Areas within the
Hawaii Range Complex Portion of the
HSTT Study Area). This includes the
five identified Biologically Important
Areas off Oahu (false killer whale,
humpback whale, pantropical spotted
dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, and
spinner dolphin) and three Biologically
Important Areas off Kauai and Niihau
(humpback whale, spinner dolphin, and
bottlenose dolphin) as well as a
discussion in Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment), Section K.1.1.5
(Mitigation Areas Currently
Implemented) regarding the 4-Islands
Region Mitigation Area.
Based on the Navy’s analysis and as
detailed in the sections referenced
above, there is no scientific basis
indicating the need for mitigation in the
first place; see specifically the
discussion in Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment), Section K.2.1.2
(Biological Effectiveness Assessment) of
the HSTT FEIS/OEIS. As presented and
reviewed in the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the
Navy has presented citations to research
showing that in specific contexts (such
as associated with urban noise,
commercial vessel traffic, eco-tourism,
or whale watching; see Chapter
3,Section 3.7.2.1.5.2 (Commercial
Industries)) and references (Dunlop,
2016; Dyndo et al., 2015; Erbe et al.,
2014; Frisk, 2012; Gedamke et al., 2016;
Hermannsen et al., 2014; Li et al., 2015;
McKenna et al., 2012; Melco´n et al.,
2012; Miksis-Olds and Nichols, 2015;
Nowacek et al., 2015; Pine et al., 2016;
Pirotta et al. 2018; Williams et al.,
2014c) or specifically for Hawaii
(Heenehan et al., 2016a, 2016b;
Heenehan et al., 2017a, 2017b; Tyne et
al., 2014; Tyne, 2015; Tyne et al., 2015;
Tyne et al., 2017), that chronic repeated
displacement and foraging disruption of
populations with residency or high site
fidelity can result in population-level
effects. As also detailed in the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS, the planned Navy training
and testing activities do not equate with
the types of disturbance in the citations
above nor do they rise to the level of
chronic disturbance where such effects
have been demonstrated. There is no
evidence to suggest there have been any
population-level effects in the waters
around Oahu, Kauai, and Niihau or in
the HSTT Study Area resulting from the
same training and testing activities that
have been ongoing for decades, which
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66903
the commenter recommends the need to
stop, or at a minimum, be mitigated. In
the waters around Oahu, Kauai, and
Niihau, documented long-term
residency by individuals and the
existence of multiple small and resident
populations precisely where Navy
training and testing have been occurring
for decades strongly suggests a lack of
significant impact to those individuals
and populations from the continuation
of Navy training and testing. Appendix
K of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS further
describes the importance of these areas
for Navy training and testing and why
implementation of additional mitigation
areas would be impracticable.
Comment 65: A commenter
recommended additional mitigation
area for Cross Seamount, as Cross
Seamount represents important foraging
habitat for a potentially rare or
evolutionary distinct species of beaked
whale, a commenter strongly
recommended that the HSTT EIS/OEIS
assess the designation of a year-round
management area to protect the
seamount. Such a designation would
have secondary benefits for a variety of
other odontocete species foraging at
Cross Seamount seasonally between
November and May. NMFS should also
consider habitat-based management
measures for other nearby seamounts.
Response: Analysis and consideration
of Cross Seamount and ‘‘other nearby
seamounts’’ for additional geographic
mitigation was provided in Appendix K
(Geographic Mitigation Assessment),
Section K.7.1 (Hawaii Public Comment
Mitigation Area Assessment), including
sub-sections K.7.1.1 (General Biological
Assessment of Seamounts in the Hawaii
Portion of the Study Area) and K.7.1.2
(Cross Seamount) of the HSTT FEIS/
OEIS.
As discussed in Appendix K
(Geographic Mitigation Assessment),
Section 4.7.1.3 (Mitigation Assessment)
of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, implementing
new geographic mitigation measures in
addition to ongoing procedural
mitigation within the vicinity of Cross
Seamount would not be effective at
reducing adverse impacts on beaked
whales or other marine mammal
populations. The Navy has been training
and testing in the broad ocean area
around Cross Seamount with the same
basic systems for over 40 years, and
there is no evidence of any adverse
impacts to marine species. Additionally,
the suggested mitigation would not be
practicable to implement. The broad
ocean area around Cross Seamount and
the seamounts to the north are unique
in that there are no similar broad ocean
areas in the vicinity of the Hawaiian
Islands that are not otherwise
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66904
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
encumbered by commercial vessel
traffic and commercial air traffic routes.
In addition, beaked whales may be more
widely distributed than currently
believed. Ongoing passive acoustic
efforts from NMFS and Navy within the
Pacific have documented beaked whale
detections at many locations beyond
slopes and seamounts to include areas
over abyssal plains (Klinck et al. 2015,
Griffiths and Barlow 2016, Rice et al.,
2018).
Comment 66: A commenter
commented that the NMFS must ensure
that the activities are having the least
practicable adverse impact, so it must
do a comprehensive analysis of whether
the proposed mitigation areas
sufficiently protect marine mammals.
NMFS must require the Navy to
implement additional, practicable
measures to mitigate further the adverse
impacts of its activities. To ensure least
practicable adverse impacts, NMFS
must consider additional mitigation
time/area restrictions, including but not
limited to: (1) Expanded areas in
Southern California to include all of the
biologically important areas for whales;
(2) add a Cuvier’s beaked whale
mitigation area in Southern California to
protect that small, declining population
that has high site fidelity; (3) add
mitigation areas for the biologically
important areas off of Oahu and Kauai;
(4) the entire Humpback National
Marine Sanctuary should be afforded
protections from Navy activities because
it is an important habitat for breeding,
calving and nursing; and (5) limits on
sonar and explosives should be adopted
in the designated critical habitat for the
Hawaiian monk seal and false killer
whale.
Response: In regards to expanded
areas in Southern California to include
all of the biologically important areas
for whales, the Navy has agreed to
expanded areas in SOCAL, a portion of
the San Nicholas Island BIA and the
Santa Monica/Long Beach BIA are now
included as part of the San Diego Arc
Mitigation Area but also named the San
Nicholas Island Mitigation Area and the
Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation
Area. The Santa Monica Bay/Long
Beach and San Nicolas Island BIA only
partially overlaps a small portion of the
northern part of the SOCAL portion of
the HSTT Study Area. The Santa
Monica Bay/Long Beach BIA overlap in
SOCAL is 13.9 percent. The San Nicolas
Island BIA overlap in SOCAL is 23.5
percent.
The Navy will limit surface ship sonar
and not exceed 200 hours of MFAS
sensor MF1 June 1 through October 31
during unit-level training and MTEs in
the Santa Monica Bay/Long Beach BIA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
and San Nicolas Island Mitigation Areas
(as well as San Diego Arc Mitigation
Area). The Navy has also agreed to limit
explosives. Specifically, within the San
Nicolas Island Mitigation Area, the
Navy will not use explosives that could
potentially result in the take of marine
mammals during mine warfare, largecaliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and
missile (including 2.75″ rockets)
activities during training. Within the
Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation
Area, the Navy will not use explosives
that could potentially result in the take
of marine mammals during mine
warfare, large-caliber gunnery, torpedo,
bombing, and missile (including 2.75″
rockets) activities during training and
testing.
The Tanner-Cortes Bank BIA—NMFS
and the Navy have discussed this
extensively, and the Navy is unable to
incorporate this area into geographic
mitigation because is impracticable.
Specifically, it would not be practical
for the Navy to implement and prevents
the Navy from meeting training and
testing missions. As discussed in detail
in Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation
Assessment) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS,
during the Navy’s practicability and
biological review of the Tanner Bank
BIA, it was concluded that
implementation of a mitigation area was
not practical for this species. The area
in and around Tanner Banks is a core
high priority training and testing venue
for SOCAL combining unique
bathymetry and existing infrastructure.
This includes an existing bottom
training minefield adjacent to Tanner
Banks, future Shallow Water Training
Range (SWTR West) expansion as well
as proximity to critical tactical
maneuver areas to the south and the
Navy’s underwater instrumented range
to the northeast. Furthermore, the
general area is in or adjacent to critical
Navy training that cannot occur at other
locations due to available, existing
infrastructure, operationally relevant
bathymetry, sea space, proximity to San
Clemente Island and San Diego, etc.). Of
all the blue whale BIAs designated, the
Tanner Banks BIA had the fewest blue
whale sighting records supporting its
designation. New science since
designation funded by the Navy further
highlights how infrequently Tanner
Bank is used by blue whales as
compared to the rest of their movements
in SOCAL. Out of 73 blue whales tagged
with satellite transmitters, only a few
transits through Tanner Banks were
documented between 2014–2017. The
longest cumulative time any individual
whale stayed within the boundaries of
the Tanner Banks BIA was less than one
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and a half days. Typical average blue
whale daily movement along the U.S.
West Coast is often up to 13–27 nautical
miles a day (Oregon State University,
unpublished data). Most blue whale
area restricted foraging occurred around
the northern Channel Islands, north of
and outside of the HSTT SOCAL Study
Area.
The feeding areas as recommended by
the commenter north of Los Angeles for
humpbacks (Santa Barbara Channel-San
Miguel BIA and Morro Bay to Pt Sal)
and blue whales (Santa Barbara Channel
to San Miguel BIA, Pt Conception/
Arguello to Pt Sal) are outside of the
HSTT Study Area; therefore are not
applicable for inclusion.
In regard to adding a Cuvier’s beaked
whale mitigation area in Southern
California to protect that small,
declining population that has high site
fidelity, NMFS is assuming the
commenter is referring to the area west
of San Clemente Island as the comment
letter did not specify an exact location.
The beaked whale species detected most
frequently in Southern California is
Cuvier’s beaked whale. Cuvier’s beaked
whales are widely distributed within
Southern California and across the
Pacific with almost all suitable deep
water habitat >800 m conceivably
containing Cuvier’s beaked whales. In
new unpublished Navy funded data,
beaked whales have even been detected
over deep water, open abyssal plains
(>14,000 feet). Only limited population
vital rates exist for beaked whales,
covering numbers of animals,
populations vs. subpopulations
determination, and residency time for
individual animals. While Cuvier’s
beaked whales have been detected north
and west of Tanner and Cortes Banks, as
noted above this species is also detected
in most all Southern California locations
800 m in depth. The Navy’s Marine
Mammal Monitoring on Navy Ranges
(M3R) program has documented
continual Cuvier’s beaked whale
presence on SOAR over 8-years from
2010–2017 with slight abundance
increases through 2017 (DiMarzio et al.,
2018.)
Navy-funded research on Cuvier’s
beaked whales within the Southern
California (SOCAL) Range Complex
began in 2006. In 2008, researchers
began deploying satellite tags as a part
of this research. To date, 27 LowImpact Minimally-Percutaneous
External-electronics Transmitting
(LIMPET) tags have been deployed
within the complex. Twenty-five of
those whales were tagged within the
San Nicolas Basin and two were tagged
in the Catalina Basin. Average
transmission duration was 36.6 days (sd
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
= 29.8), with the longest transmitting for
121.3 days. Movement data suggest that
Cuvier’s beaked whales have a high
degree of site-fidelity to the Southern
California Range Complex, and the San
Nicolas basin in particular. Overall,
there were 3,207 filtered location
estimates from the 27 tagged whales, 91
percent of which were within the SoCal
Range Complex. 54 percent of all
location estimates were within the San
Nicolas Basin, with twelve tagged
whales spending more than 80 percent
of their transmission duration within
the basin. The two whales tagged in the
Catalina Basin never entered the San
Nicolas Basin. Only three whales tagged
in the San Nicolas Basin crossed into
the Catalina Basin (1.3 percent of all
locations); two of those whales had just
one Catalina Basin location each,
though the remaining whale had 28
percent of its locations there. Five
whales tagged in the San Nicolas Basin
moved into the Santa Cruz Basin for
anywhere from 1–62 percent of their
time (6 percent of all locations). In
contrast, 20 of 25 whales tagged in the
San Nicolas Basin moved south of the
basin at some point. Of these 20 whales,
most remained within either Tanner
Canyon or the San Clemente Basin
immediately to the south, but one
traveled north to near San Miguel Island
and four traveled south towards
Guadalupe Island. Three of these whales
have not been documented in the San
Nicolas basin since, though to date at
least six whales tagged in the San
Nicolas Basin have been re-sighted there
a year or more after the deployment.
Additionally, one of the whales that was
south of San Nicolas when the tag
stopped transmitting has since been
sighted three times since.
Given that there is the uncertainty of
current residence of Cuvier’s beaked
whales in the areas north and west of
SOAR, the fact that general occurrence
of beaked whales in Southern California
may not necessarily equate to factors
typically associated with biologically
important areas (i.e., one area not more
important than another), and
consideration of the importance of Navy
training and testing in the areas around
SOAR and Tanner and Cortes Banks as
discussed in Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment), i.e., the
impracticability of additional area
mitigation in this area, additional
geographic mitigation to create a
‘‘refuge’’ in the recommended area is
not scientifically supported or
warranted.
In regard to the comment on the entire
Humpback Whale National Marine
Sanctuary should be afforded
protections from Navy activities because
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
it is an important habitat for breeding,
calving and nursing the Humpback
National Marine Sanctuary largely
overlaps both the Hawaii Island
Mitigation Area as well as the 4-Islands
Region Mitigation Area. In the Hawaii
Island Mitigation Area (year-round), the
Navy will not conduct more than 300
hours of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted
mid-frequency active sonar or 20 hours
of MF4 dipping sonar, or use explosives
that could potentially result in takes of
marine mammals during training and
testing. In the 4-Islands Region
Mitigation Area (November 15–April 15
for active sonar; year-round for
explosives), the Navy will not use MF1
surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar or explosives
that could potentially result in takes of
marine mammals during training and
testing. This seasonal limitation is
specifically during important breeding,
calving, and nursing, times/habitat for
humpback whales and was expanded
for humpback whales as the previous
season for this mitigation area was
December 15–April 15).
There are areas of the Humpback
Whale National Marine Sanctuary
around the islands of Niihau, Kauai,
Oahu, and west of Molokai (Penguin
Bank) that are outside of the Navy’s
mitigation areas. However, none of the
Navy’s training and testing areas for
explosives around Kauai and Niihau are
within the Hawaiian Islands Humpback
Whale National Marine Sanctuary.
There may be limited sonar use as units
transit to/from PMRF ranges.
Part of the Humpback Whale National
Marine Sanctuary, west of the island of
Molokai, Penguin Bank, is not included
in the 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area.
Penguin Bank particularly is used for
shallow water submarine testing and
anti-submarine warfare training because
of its large expanse of shallow
bathymetry. While submarines do not
typically use mid-frequency active
sonar, relying primarily on passive
sonar (listening mode) to avoid
detection from adversaries, submarines
are required to train in counter
detection tactics, techniques and
procedures against threat surface
vessels, airborne anti-submarine warfare
units and other threat submarines using
mid-frequency active sonar as part of
both their perspective Commanding
Officers qualification course and predeployment certification. The ability for
surface vessels and air assets to simulate
opposing forces, using mid-frequency
active sonar when training with
submarines, is critical to submarine
crew training for deployed and combat
operations. Surface ships and aircraft
mimicking opposition forces present
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66905
submarines with a realistic and
complicated acoustic and tactical
environment. The Navy expects realworld adversaries to target our
submarines with active sonar. Without
active sonar from opposition forces
submarines do not get a realistic picture
regarding if they successfully evaded
detection. Surface warfare training is
designed to support unit-level training
requirements and group cross-platform
events in 28 mission areas for surface
ship certification prior to deployment.
Additionally, the Navy will
implement the Humpback Whale
Special Reporting Area (December 15
through April 15) is comprised of
additional areas of high humpback
whale densities that overlap the
Humpback Whale National Marine
Sanctuary. This reporting is included in
the exercise and monitoring reports that
are an ongoing Navy requirement and
are submitted to NMFS annually.
Special reporting data, along with all
other reporting requirements, are
considered during adaptive
management to determine if additional
mitigation may be required. The Navy
currently reports to NMFS the total
hours (from December 15 through April
15) of all hull-mounted mid-frequency
active sonar usage occurring in the
Humpback Whale Special Reporting
Area, plus a 5 km buffer, but not
including the Pacific Missile Range
Facility. The Navy will continue this
reporting for the Humpback Whale
Special Reporting Area.
In regard to limits on sonar and
explosives should be adopted in the
ESA-designated critical habitat for the
Hawaiian monk seal and false killer
whale, the Navy will cap MFAS for the
entire false killer whale BIA adjacent to
the island of Hawaii and a portion of the
false killer whale BIA north of Maui and
Molokai as follows. The Navy already
will to limit explosive use in the entire
false killer whale BIA adjacent to the
island of Hawaii. The Navy will now
add year-round limitation on explosives
to the 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area,
which includes a portion of the false
killer whale BIA north of Maui and
Molokai. For the Hawaii Island
Mitigation Area (year-round): The Navy
will not conduct more than 300 hours
of surface ship hull-mounted MFAS
sonar MF1 (MF1) or 20 hours of MFAS
dipping sonar MF4 (MF4), or use
explosives during training and testing
year-round. For the 4-Islands Region
Mitigation Area (November 15–April 15
for active sonar, year-round for
explosives): The Navy will not use
surface ship hull-mounted MFAS sonar
MF1 from November 15–April 15 and
explosive year-round during training or
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66906
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
testing activities. The remaining false
killer whale BIA overlaps with areas
(e.g., Kaiwi Channel) where additional
mitigations were found to be
impractical.
In regard to limits on sonar and
explosives in ESA-designated critical
habitat for Hawaiian monk seal, the
Navy’s training and testing activities do
occur in a portion of the ESA-designated
critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals,
which is of specific importance to the
species. However, monk seals in the
main Hawaiian Islands have increased
while the Navy has continued its
activities, even though the Hawaiian
monk seal overall population trend has
been on a decline from 2004 through
2013, with the total number of Hawaiian
monk seals decreasing by 3.4 percent
per year (Carretta et al., 2017). While the
decline has been driven by the
population segment in the northwestern
Hawaiian Islands, the number of
documented sightings and annual births
in the main Hawaiian Islands has
increased since the mid-1990s (Baker,
2004; Baker et al., 2016). In the main
Hawaiian Islands, the estimated
population growth rate is 6.5 percent
per year (Baker et al., 2011; Carretta et
al., 2017). Of note, in the 2013 HRC
Monitoring Report, tagged monk seals
did not show any behavioral changes
during periods of MFAS.
The Hawaii Island Mitigation Area
overlaps all of their critical habitat
around the Island of Hawaii (as well as
the southern end of Maui) and, by not
using explosives or the most impactful
sonar sources in this, thereby reduces
the likelihood that take might impact
reproduction or survival by interfering
with important feeding or resting
behaviors (potentially having adverse
impacts on energy budgets) or
separating mothers and pups in times
when pups are more susceptible to
predation and less able to feed or
otherwise take care of themselves. The
4-Islands Mitigation Area overlaps with
ESA-designated critical habitat around
Maui, Lanai, and Molokai.
Comment 67: A commenter
commented that in the proposed rule,
NMFS estimates 588 takes annually will
cause multiple instances of exposure to
insular false killer whales, taking 400
percent of the population. As the
potential biological removal is 0.18
animals, the loss of a single individual,
or an impairment to its health and
fitness, could place the species on an
extinction trajectory. NMFS must
consider additional mitigation in the
designated critical habitat, as well as
excluded areas, to ensure a negligible
impact on false killer whales.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Response: The commenter is
conflating behavioral take with
mortality take addressed in PBR. There
are no insular false killer whale
mortality takes modeled, anticipated, or
authorized. 400 percent of the
population would mean that all animals
would be behaviorally harassed an
average of 4 times per year, or once per
season. The short term biological
reaction of an animal for periods of
minutes to hours a few times a year
would not have any fitness impacts to
the individual let alone any population
level impacts. NMFS confirms that these
impacts are negligible. Additionally,
much of the Navy’s mitigations on
Hawaii and the 4 island region
encompass areas that overlap with high
use insular false killer whale habitat and
thus already mitigate impacts. From the
Navy consultation with NMFS under
the ESA for insular false killer whale
critical habitat, less than 12 percent of
modeled takes would take place in or
near insular false killer whale critical
habitat. These takes as explained
previously would be transitory (shortduration), and spread out in time and
space.’’
Comment 68: 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. Also, 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 Chapter 5
(Mitigation), Section 5.4 (Mitigation
Areas to be Implemented) of the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS represents the maximum
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
mitigation within mitigation areas and
the maximum size of mitigation areas
that are practicable to implement under
the Proposed Action. 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 Chapter 5 (Mitigation),
Section 5.4 (Mitigation Areas to be
Implemented) of the HSTT 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 69: A commenter
recommended NMFS consider
additional mitigation measures to
prescribe or research including: (1)
Research into sonar signal
modifications; (2) mitigation and
research on Navy ship speeds (the
commenter recommended that the
agency require the Navy to collect and
report data on ship speed as part of the
EIS process); and (3) 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 and
discussion is included below.
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. Mitigation and research on Navy
ship speeds inclusive of Navy collecting
and reporting 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
discussed in Chapter 3, Section
3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water
Devices) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, Navy
ships transit at speeds that are optimal
for fuel conservation or to meet
operational requirements. Operational
input indicated that implementing
additional vessel speed restrictions
beyond what is identified in Chapter 5
(Mitigation), Section 5.4 (Mitigation
Areas to be Implemented) of the HSTT
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
Chapter 5 (Mitigation), Section 5.5.2.2
(Restricting Vessel Speed) of the HSTT
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 Chapter 5
(Mitigation), Section 5.5.2.2 (Restricting
Vessel Speed) of the HSTT 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 Chapter 5 (Mitigation),
Section 5.3.4.1 (Vessel Movement) of
the HSTT 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.
3. 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 HSTT FEIS/
OEIS documents in Chapter 5
(Mitigation), the Navy is proposing to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
expand these measures further where
practicable. Aside from direct
mitigation, as noted by the 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
noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.0.1.1
(Marine Species Monitoring and
Research Programs) of the HSTT 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. 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.
Comment 70: A commenter
recommended that given the paucity of
information on marine mammal habitat
currently available for the HSTT Study
Area, that efforts be undertaken in an
iterative manner by NMFS, and the
Navy, to identify additional important
habitat areas across the HSTT Study
Area, using the full range of data and
information available to the agencies
(e.g., habitat-based density models,
NOAA-recognized BIAs, survey data,
oceanographic and other environmental
data, etc.).
Response: NMFS and the Navy used
the best available scientific information
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66907
(e.g., SARs 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
habitats in the HSTT 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,
and areas in which small and resident
populations are concentrated. While the
science of marine mammal occurrence,
distribution, and density resides as a
core NMFS mission, the Navy does
provide extensive support to the NMFS
mission via ongoing HSTT specific
monitoring as detailed in this final rule.
Also included are direct Navy funding
support to NMFS for programmatic
marine mammal surveys in Hawaii and
the U.S. West Coast, and spatial habitat
model improvements.’’
Comment 71: A commenter
recommended integration of important
habitat areas to improve resolution of
operations. The delineation of BIAs by
NOAA, the updates made by the Navy
to its predictive habitat models, and
evidence of additional important habitat
areas within the HSTT Study Area,
provide the opportunity for the agencies
to improve upon their current approach
to the development of alternatives by
improving resolution of their analysis of
operations. A commenter offered the
following thoughts for consideration.
They state that recognizing that
important habitat areas imply the nonrandom distribution and density of
marine mammals in space and time,
both the spatial location and the timing
of training and testing events in relation
to those areas is a significant
determining factor in the assessment of
acoustic impacts. Levels of acoustic
impact derived from the NAEM are
likely to be under- or over-estimated
depending on whether the location of
the modeled event is further from the
important habitat area, or closer to it,
than the actual event. Thus, there is a
need for the Navy to compile more
information regarding the number,
nature, and timing of testing and
training events that take place within, or
in close proximity to, important habitat
areas, and to refine its scale of analysis
of operations to match the scale of the
habitat areas that are considered to be
important. While the proposed rule, in
assessing environmental impacts on
marine mammals, breaks down
estimated impacts by general region
(i.e., HRC and SOCAL), the resolution is
seldom greater than range complex or
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66908
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
homeport and is not specifically focused
on areas of higher biological
importance. Current and ongoing efforts
to identify important habitat areas for
marine mammals should be used by
NMFS and by the Navy as a guide to the
most appropriate scale(s) for the
analysis of operations.
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 its 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 HSTT 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 (e.g., in BIAs or
Sanctuaries, where possible), and NMFS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
protective measures evaluated to
mitigate those impacts.
Monitoring Recommendations
Comment 72: A commenter
recommended that NMFS require that
the Navy continue to conduct long-term
monitoring with the aim to provide
baseline information on occurrence,
distribution, and population structure of
marine mammal species and stocks, and
baseline information upon which the
extent of exposure to disturbance from
training and testing activities at the
individual, and ultimately, population
level-impacts, and the effectiveness of
mitigation measures, can be evaluated.
The commenter recommended
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 commenter
recommended 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 recommended
that NMFS require the Navy to use these
technologies for assessing marine
mammal behavior before, during, and
after Navy training and testings (e.g.,
swim speed and direction, group
cohesion). Additionally, the commenter
recommended studies into how these
technologies can be used to assess body
condition be supported as this can
provide an important indication of
energy budget and health, which can
inform the assessment of populationlevel impacts.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
structure the evaluation and
prioritization of projects for funding.
Chapter 5 (Mitigation), Section
5.1.2.2.1.3 (Strategic Planning Process)
of the HSTT 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.
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 the Navy and
NMFS through the consultation and
adaptive management processes, which
regularly consider and evaluate 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.
(1) 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:
• The Southern California Behavioral
Response Study (Principal Investigators:
John Calambokidis and Brandon Southall)
• 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)
• 3S3-Behavioral responses of sperm whales
to naval sonar (Principal Investigators:
Petter Kvadsheim and Frans-Peter Lam)
• 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)
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
• Behavioral response evaluations
employing robust baselines and actual
Navy training (BREVE) (Principal
Investigators: Steve Martin, Tyler Helble,
Len Thomas)
• Integrating remote sensing methods to
measure baseline behavior and responses
of social delphinids to Navy sonar
(Principal Investigators: Brandon Southall,
John Calambokidis, John Durban).
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
(2) DTAGS to characterize social
communication between individuals of
a species or stock, including mothers
and calves. Furthermore, DTAGs are just
one example of animal movement and
acoustics tag. From the Navy’s Office of
Naval Research and Living Marine
Resource programs, Navy funding is
being used to improve a suite of marine
mammal tags to increase attachment
times, improve data being collected, and
improve data satellite transmission—
The Navy has funded a variety of
projects that are collecting data that can
be used to study social interactions
amongst individuals. Examples of these
projects include:
• Southern California Behavioral Response
Study (Principal Investigators: John
Calambokidis and Brandon Southall)
• Tagging and Tracking of Endangered North
Atlantic Right Whales 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.
• Integrating remote sensing methods to
measure baseline behavior and responses
of social delphinids to Navy sonar
(Principal Investigators: Brandon Southall,
John Calambokidis, John Durban)
• Acoustic Behavior of North Atlantic Right
Whale (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
North Atlantic right whale 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 mother-calf
pairs in important habitat areas (see
https://www.onr.navy.mil/reports/FY15/
mbparks.pdf).
• 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 long-finned pilot
whales as part of a broad multi-investigator
research program that seeks to understand
how cetaceans are affected by mid-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
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 stock
assessment reports 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
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66909
(Marine Mammals) and 3.8 (Reptiles) of
the HSTT 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 the 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 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 73: Commenters
commented that NMFS’ analytical
approach for negligible impact
determination is not transparent and
that the methods and resulting data
cannot be substantiated with the
information provided. The Commission
stated that in general, NMFS has based
negligible impact determinations
associated with incidental take
authorizations on abundance estimates
provided either in its Stock Assessment
Reports (SARs) or other more recent
published literature. For the HSTT
proposed rule, NMFS used abundance
estimates as determined by the Navy’s
underlying density estimates rather than
abundance estimates from either the
SARs or published literature. NMFS did
also not specify how it determined the
actual abundance given that many of 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
estimated the abundances in the same
manner beyond the U.S. EEZ as it did
within the U.S. EEZ for HRC and why
it did not compare takes within the U.S.
EEZ and beyond the U.S. EEZ for
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66910
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
SOCAL, given that a larger proportion of
the Navy’s SOCAL action area is beyond
the U.S. EEZ than HRC. Furthermore,
NMFS did not specify how it
determined the proportion of total takes
that would occur beyond the U.S. EEZ.
Moreover, the ‘instances’ of the specific
types of taking (i.e., mortality, Level A
and B harassment) do not match the
total takes ‘inside and outside the EEZ’
in Tables 69–81 (where applicable) or
those take estimates in Tables 41–42
and 67–68. It also appears the
‘instances’ of take columns were based
on only those takes in the U.S. EEZ for
HRC rather than the area within and
beyond the U.S. EEZ. It further is
unclear why takes were not apportioned
within and beyond the U.S. EEZ for
SOCAL. 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 69–81 for all activities that occur
within and beyond the U.S. EEZ. One
commenter further asserts that any
‘‘small numbers’’ determination that
relies on abundance estimates derived
simplistically from modeled densities is
both arbitrary and capricious. The
commenters assert that NMFS should, at
least for data rich species, derive its
absolute abundance estimates from
NMFS’ SARs or more recently
published literature.
Response: NMFS’ Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination section
has been updated and expanded in the
final rule to clarify the issues the
Commenters raise here (as well as
others). Specifically, though, NMFS
uses both the Navy-calculated
abundance (based on the Navycalculated densities described in detail
in the Estimated Take of Marine
Mammal section) and the SARs
abundances, where appropriate, in the
negligible impact analysis—noting that
the nature of the overlap of the Navy
Study Area with the U.S. EEZ is
different in Hawaii versus SOCAL,
supporting different analytical
comparisons.
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 41 and 42 for a given stock
now equal the ‘‘in and outside the U.S.
EEZ’’ take totals in Tables X–Y) and the
minor changes do not affect the analysis
or determinations in the rule.
Also, the Commenters are incorrect
that the instances of take for HRC do not
reflect the take both within and outside
the U.S. EEZ. They do. Last, one
commenter mentions the agency making
a ‘‘small numbers’’ determination, but
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
such a determination is not applicable
in the context of military readiness
activities.
Comment 74: A commenter
commented that the activities proposed
by the Navy include high-intensity
noise pollution, vessel traffic,
explosions, pile driving, and more at a
massive scale. According to the
commenter, NMFS has underestimated
the amount of take and the adverse
impact that it will have on marine
mammals and their habitat.
Response: NMFS has provided
extensive information demonstrating
that the best available science has been
used to estimate the amount of take, and
further to analyze the impacts that all of
these takes combined will have on the
affected species and stocks. As
described in the Analysis and Negligible
Impact Determination section, this
information and our associated analyses
support the negligible impact
determinations necessary to issue these
regulations.
Comment 75: A commenter
commented that blue whales exposed to
mid-frequency sonar (with received
levels of 110 to 120 dB re 1 mPa) are less
likely to produce calls associated with
feeding behavior. They cite the
Goldbogen et al. (2013) study (and a
subsequent study) as extremely
concerning because of the potential
impacts of sonar on the essential life
functions of blue whales as it found that
sonar can disrupt feeding and displace
blue whales from high-quality prey
patches, significantly impacting their
foraging ecology, individual fitness, and
population health. They also state that
mid-frequency sonar has been
associated with several cases of blue
whale stranding events and that lowfrequency anthropogenic noise can
mask calling behavior, reduce
communication range, and damage
hearing. These impacts from sonar on
blue whales suggest that the activities’
impacts would have long-term, nonnegligible impacts on the blue whale
population.
Response: As described in this final
rule in the Analysis and Negligible
Impact Determination section, NMFS
has fully considered the effects that
exposure to sonar can have on blue
whales, including impacts on calls and
feeding and those outlined in the
Goldbogen study. However, as
discussed, any individual blue whale is
not expected to be exposed to sonar and
taken on more than several days per
year. Thus, while vocalizations may be
impacted or feeding behaviors
temporarily disrupted, this small scale
of impacts is not expected to affect
reproductive success or survival of any
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
individuals, especially given the
limitations on sonar and explosive use
within blue whale BIAs. Of additional
note, while the blue whale behavioral
response study (BRS) in Southern
California documented some foraging
responses by blue whales to simulated
Navy sonar, any response was highly
variable by individual and context of
the exposure. There were, for instance,
some individual blue whales that did
not respond. Recent Navy-funded blue
whale tracking has documented wide
ranging movements through Navy areas
such that any one area is not used
extensively for foraging. More long-term
blue whale residency occurs north of
and outside of the HSTT Study Area.
Further, we disagree with the assertion
that MFAS has been causally associated
with blue whale strandings. This topic
was discussed at length in the proposed
rule and there is no data causally
linking MFAS use with blue whale
strandings.
Comment 76: A commenter
commented that NMFS cannot consider
the additional mortality/serious injury,
including the 0.2 in the proposed
authorization for ship strike for blue
whales, to have a negligible impact
determination for this stock. They also
state that counts of mortality/serious
injury do not account for the additional
takes proposed to be authorized that
cumulatively can have population level
impacts from auditory injury and
behavioral disturbance. Similarly, the
commenter commented that NMFS
cannot consider the proposed
authorization for 0.4 annual mortality/
serious injury to have a negligible
impact on the CA/OR/WA stock of
humpback whales because take is
already exceeding the potential
biological removal, and especially
concerning is any take authorized for
the critically endangered Central
America population that would have
significant adverse population impacts.
Response: As described in detail in
the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section, the Navy and NMFS have
revisited and re-analyzed the Navy’s
initial request for takes by mortality of
blue and humpback whales from vessel
strike and determined that only 1 strike
of either would be anticipated over the
course of 5 years, and therefore
authorized the lesser amount. Further,
NMFS has expanded and refined the
discussion of mortality take, PBR, and
our negligible impact finding in the
Serious Injury and Mortality sub-section
of the Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section and do not repeat
it here.
Comment 77: A commenter
commented that the estimated
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
population size for the Hawaii stock of
sei whales is only 178 animals, and the
potential biological removal is 0.2
whales per year. According to the
Commenters, NMFS admits that the
mortality for the Hawaii stock of sei
whales is above potential biological
removal. The commenter asserted that
the conclusion that the action will have
a negligible impact on this stock is
arbitrary and capricious.
Response: As described in detail in
the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section, the Navy and NMFS revisited
and re-analyzed the Navy’s initial
request for the take of a sei whale from
vessel strike and determined that this
take is unlikely to occur and, therefore,
it is not authorized.
Comment 78: A commenter
commented that any take of Hawaiian
monk seal by the proposed activities
will have a non-negligible impact given
the precarious status of this species.
Response: NMFS’ rationale for finding
that the Navy’s activity will have a
negligible impact on monk seals is
included in the Pinniped subsection of
the Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section and is not reprinted here. Nonetheless we reiterate
that no mortality or injury due to tissue
damage is anticipated or authorized,
only one instance of PTS is estimated
and authorized, and no individual monk
seal is expected to be exposed to
stressors that would result in take more
than a few days a year. Further, the
Hawaii Island and 4-Island mitigation
areas provide significant protection of
monk seal critical habitat in the Main
Hawaiian Islands, reducing impacts
form sonar and explosives around a
large portion of pupping beaches and
foraging habitat, as described in the
Mitigation Measures section.
Cumulative and Aggregate Effects
Comment 79: One commenter
asserted that NMFS has not apparently
considered the impact of Navy activities
on a population basis for many of the
marine mammal populations within the
HSTT Study Area. Instead, it has lodged
discussion for many populations within
broader categories, most prominently
‘‘mysticetes’’ (14 populations) and
‘‘odontocetes’’ (37 populations), that in
some cases correspond to general
taxonomic groups. Such grouping of
stocks elides important differences in
abundance, demography, distribution,
and other population-specific factors,
making it difficult to assume ‘‘that the
effects of an activity on the different
stock populations’’ are identical. That is
particularly true where small, resident
populations are concerned, and
differences in population abundance,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
habitat use, and distribution relative to
Navy activities can be profoundly
significant. Additionally, the
commenter states that NMFS assumed
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.
Response: NMFS provides
information regarding broader groups in
order to avoid repeating information
that is applicable across multiple
species or stocks, but analyses have
been conducted and determinations
made specific to each stock. The method
used to avoid repeating information
applicable to a number of species or
stocks while also presenting and
integrating all information applicable to
particular species or stocks is described
in the rule. Also, NMFS’ analysis does
address the fact that some individuals
may be repeatedly impacted and how
those impacts may or may not accrue to
more serious effects. The Analysis and
Negligible Impacts Determination
section has been expanded and refined
to better explain this.
Comment 80: NMFS’ negligible
impact analysis for Cuvier’s beaked
whales is predicated on a single take
estimate for the CA/OR/WA stock. This
is deeply problematic as the species is
known to occur in small, resident
populations within the SOCAL Range
Complex. These populations are acutely
vulnerable to Navy sonar. Cuvier’s
beaked whales have repeatedly been
associated with sonar-related pathology,
are known to react strongly to sonar at
distances up to 100 kilometers, and are
universally regarded to be among the
most sensitive of all marine mammals to
anthropogenic noise (Falcone et al.,
2017). Some populations, such as the
one in San Nicholas Basin that
coincides with the Navy’s much-used
Southern California ASW Range
(SOAR), are repeatedly exposed to
sonar, posing the same risk of
population-wide harm documented on a
Navy range in the Bahamas (Falcone
and Schorr, 2013). The broad take
estimates presented in the Proposed
Rule, and the negligible impact analysis
that they are meant to support, provide
no insight into the specific impacts
proposed for these small populations.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
sensitivity of small resident populations
both in our analyses and in the
identification of mitigation measures,
where appropriate. However, we are
required to make our negligible impact
determination in the context of the
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66911
MMPA-designated stock, which, in the
case of the CA/OR/WA stock of Cuvier’s
beaked whale, spans the U.S. EEZ off
the West Coast. As described in our
responses to previous comments, NMFS
and the Navy have fully accounted for
the sensitivity of Cuvier’s beaked
whales in the behavioral thresholds and
the estimation of take. Further, contrary
to the assertions of the commenter,
NMFS has absolutely considered the
potential impacts of repeated takes on
individuals that show site fidelity and
that analysis can be found in the
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section, which has been
refined and updated since the proposed
rule based on public input. Nonetheless,
in 2018, an estimate of overall
abundance of Cuvier’s beaked whales at
the Navy’s instrumented range in San
Nicolas Basin was obtained using new
dive-counting acoustic methods and an
archive of passive acoustic M3R data
representing 35,416 hours of data
(DiMarzio, 2018; Moretti, 2017). Over
the seven-year period from 2010–2017,
there was no observed decrease and
perhaps a slight increase in annual
Cuvier’s beaked whale abundance
within San Nicolas Basin (DiMarzio,
2018). There does appear to be a
repeated dip in population numbers and
associated echolocation clicks during
the fall centered around August and
September (Moretti 2017, DiMarzio
2018). A similar August and September
dip was noted by researchers using
stand-alone off-range bottom passive
acoustic devices in Southern California
(Sˇirovic´ et al., 2016; Rice et al., 2017).
This dip in abundance may be tied to
some as yet unknown population
dynamic or oceanographic and prey
availability dynamics.
Comment 81: One commenter
asserted that with respect to mortalities
and serious injuries, NMFS’ application
of potential biological removal (PBR) is
unclear and may not be consistent with
its prior interpretations. The agency
recognizes that PBR is a factor in
determining whether the negligible
impact threshold has been exceeded,
but argues that, since PBR and
negligible impact are different statutory
standards, NMFS might find that an
activity that kills marine mammals
beyond what PBR could support would
not necessarily exceed the negligible
impact threshold. Regardless, however,
of whether Congress intended PBR as a
formal constraint on NMFS’ ability to
issue incidental take permits under
section 101(a)(5), NMFS’ own definition
of ‘‘negligible impact’’ prevents it from
authorizing mortalities or other takes
that would threaten the sustainability of
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66912
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
marine mammal stocks. Mortalities and
serious injuries exceeding potential
biological removal levels would do just
that.
Additionally, in assessing the
consequences of authorized mortality
below PBR, NMFS applies an
‘‘insignificance’’ standard, such that any
lethal take below 10 percent of residual
PBR is presumed not to exceed the
negligible impact threshold. This
approach seems inconsistent, however,
with the regulatory thresholds
established for action under the
commercial fisheries provision of the
Act, where bycatch of 1 percent of total
PBR triggers mandatory take reduction
procedures for strategic marine mammal
stocks. See 16 U.S.C. 1387(f)(1); 83 FR
5349, 5349 (Feb. 7, 2018). NMFS should
clarify why it has chosen 10 percent
rather than, for example, 1 percent as its
‘‘insignificance’’ threshold, at least for
endangered species and other
populations designated as strategic
under the MMPA.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the
consideration of PBR is unclear and
notes that the narrative describing the
application of PBR has been updated in
this final rule to further explain how the
agency considers this metric in the
context of the negligible impact
determination under section
101(a)(5)(A) (see the Serious Injury and
Mortality sub-section of the Analysis
and Negligible Impact Determination
section) and is not repeated here. That
discussion includes how PBR is
calculated and therefore how it is
possible for anticipated M/SI to exceed
PBR or residual PBR and yet not
adversely affect a particular species or
stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment and survival.
Regarding the insignificance
threshold, as explained in the rule,
residual PBR is a metric that can be
used to inform the assessment of M/SI
impacts, and the insignificance
threshold is an analytical tool to help
prioritize analyst effort. But the
insignificance threshold is not applied
as a strict presumption as described by
the commenter. Although it is true that
as a general matter M/SI that is less than
10 percent of residual PBR should have
no effect on rates of recruitment or
survival, the agency will consider
whether there are other factors that
should be considered, such as whether
an UME is affecting the species or stock.
The 10 percent insignificance
threshold is an analytical tool that
indicates that the potential mortality or
serious injury is an insignificant
incremental increase in anthropogenic
mortality and serious injury that alone
(in the absence of any other take and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
any other unusual circumstances)
would clearly not affect rates of
recruitment or survival. As such,
potential mortality and serious injury at
the insignificance-threshold level or
below is evaluated in light of other
relevant factors (such as an ongoing
UME) and then considered in
conjunction with any anticipated Level
A or Level B harassment take to
determine if the total take would affect
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Ten percent was selected because it
corresponds to the insignificance
threshold under the MMPA framework
for authorizing incidental take of marine
mammals resulting from commercial
fisheries. There the insignificance
threshold, which also is 10 percent of
PBR, is ‘‘the upper limit of annual
incidental mortality and serious injury
of marine mammal stocks by
commercial fisheries that can be
considered insignificant levels
approaching a zero mortality and
serious injury rate’’ (see 50 CFR 229.2).
A threshold that represents an
insignificant level of mortality or
serious injury approaching a zero
mortality and serious injury rate was
thought to be an appropriate level to
indicate when, absent other factors, the
agency can be confident that expected
mortality and serious injury will not
affect annual rates of recruitment and
survival, without the need for
significant additional analysis.
Regarding the claim that NMFS’
interpretation of PBR may be
inconsistent with prior interpretations,
we disagree. Rather, NMFS’
interpretation of PBR has been utilized
appropriately within the context of the
different MMPA programs and
associated statutory standards it has
informed. The application of PBR under
section 101(a)(5)(A) also has developed
and been refined in response to
litigation and as the amount of and
nature of M/SI requested pursuant to
this section has changed over time,
thereby calling for the agency to take a
closer look at how M/SI relative to PBR
relates to effects on rates of recruitment
and survival. Specifically, until
recently, NMFS had used PBR relatively
few times to support determinations
outside of the context of MMPA
commercial fisheries assessments and
decisions. Indeed, in Georgia Aquarium,
Inc. v. Pritzker, 135 F. Supp.3d 1280
(N.D. Ga. 2015), in ruling on a lawsuit
in which the plaintiffs sought to use
PBR as the reason they should be
allowed to import animals from the
Sahklin-Amur stock of beluga whales
for public display, the Court
summarized a ‘‘handful’’ of cases where
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
NMFS had used PBR to support certain
agency findings. The Court agreed that
the agency does not have a ‘‘practice
and policy’’ of applying PBR in all
circumstances. Importantly, the Court
stated that ‘‘NMFS has shown that
where the Agency has considered PBR
outside of the U.S. commercial fisheries
context, it has treated PBR as only one
‘quantitative tool’ and that it is not used
as the sole basis for its impact
analyses,’’ just as NMFS has done here
for its negligible impact analyses.
The examples considered by the
Georgia Aquarium Court involved
scientific research permits or
subsistence harvest decisions where
reference to PBR was one consideration
among several. Thus, in one of the
examples referenced by the Court, PBR
was included to evaluate different
alternatives in a 2007 EIS developed in
support of future grants and permits
related to research on northern fur seals
and Steller sea lions (available at
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/
noaa/17331). Similarly, in the 2015
draft EIS on the Makah Tribe’s request
to hunt gray whales, different levels of
harvest were compared against PBR
along with other considerations in the
various alternatives (available at https://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/
publications/protected_species/marine_
mammals/cetaceans/gray_whales/
makah_deis_feb_2015.pdf). Consistent
with what the Georgia Aquarium Court
found, in both of those documents PBR
was one consideration in developing
alternatives for the agency’s EIS and not
determinative in any decision-making
process.
After 2013 in response to an
incidental take authorization request
from NMFS’ Southwest Fisheries
Science Center that contained PBR
analysis and more particularly in
response to a District Court’s March
2015 ruling that NMFS’ failure to
consider PBR when evaluating lethal
take under section 101(a)(5)(A) violated
the requirement to use the best available
science (see Conservation Council for
Hawaii v. National Marine Fisheries
Service, 97 F. Supp.3d 1210 (D. Haw.
2015)), NMFS began to systematically
consider the role of PBR when
evaluating the effects of M/SI during
section 101(a)(5)(A) rulemakings.
Previously, in 1996 shortly after the PBR
metric was first introduced, NMFS
denied a request from the U.S. Coast
Guard for an incidental take
authorization for their vessel and
aircraft operations, seemingly solely on
the basis of the potential for ship strike
in relation to PBR. The decision did not
appear to consider other factors that
might also have informed the potential
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
for ship strike of a North Atlantic right
whale in relation to the negligible
impact standard.
During the following years and until
the Court’s decision in Conservation
Council and the agency issuing the
proposed incidental take authorization
for the Southwest Fisheries Science
Center, NMFS issued incidental take
regulations without referencing PBR.
Thereafter, however, NMFS began
considering and articulating the
appropriate role of PBR when
processing incidental take requests for
M/SI under section 101(a)(5)(A).
Consistent with the interpretation of
PBR across the rest of the agency,
NMFS’ Permits and Conservation
Division has been using PBR as a tool
to inform the negligible impact analysis
under section 101(a)(5)(A), recognizing
that it is not a dispositive threshold that
automatically determines whether a
given amount of M/SI either does or
does not exceed a negligible impact on
the affected species or stock.
Comment 82: 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. 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.
Response: NMFS did analyze the
potential for aggregate effects from
mortality, injury, masking, habitat
effects, 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
potential for aggregate or cumulative
effects on individuals as well as how
these effects on individuals relate to
potential effects on annual rates of
recruitment and survival for each
species or stock.
In addition, NMFS fully considers the
potential for aggregate effects from all
Navy activities. We also consider UMEs
and previous environmental impacts,
where appropriate, 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
assessments in the Analysis and
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 HSTT 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.
Widespread, extensive monitoring
since 2006 on Navy ranges that have
been used for training and testing for
decades has demonstrated no evidence
of population-level impacts. Based on
the best available research from NMFS
and Navy-funded marine mammal
studies, there is no evidence that
‘‘population-level harm’’ to marine
mammals, including beaked whales, is
occurring in the HSTT Study Area. The
presence of numerous small, resident
populations of cetaceans, documented
high abundances, and populations
trending to increase for many marine
mammals species in the area suggests
there are not likely population-level
consequences resulting from decades of
ongoing Navy training and testing
activities. Through the process
described in the rule and the LOAs, the
Navy will work with NMFS to assure
that the aggregate or cumulative impacts
remain at the negligible impact level.
Regarding the consideration of stress
responses, NMFS does not assume that
the impacts are insignificant. There is
currently neither adequate data nor
mechanism by which the impacts of
stress from acoustic exposure can be
reliably and independently quantified.
However, stress effects that result from
noise exposure likely often occur
concurrently with behavioral
harassment and many are likely
captured and considered in the
quantification of other takes by
harassment that occur when individuals
come within a certain distance of a
sound source (behavioral harassment,
PTS, and TTS).
Comment 83: Some Commenters
asserted that in reaching our MMPA
negligible impact finding, NMFS did not
adequately consider the cumulative
impacts of the Navy’s activities when
combined with the effects of other nonNavy activities.
Response: Both the statute and the
agency’s implementing regulations call
for analysis of the effects of the
applicant’s activities on the affected
species and stocks, not analysis of other
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66913
unrelated activities and their impacts on
the species and stocks. That does not
mean, however, that effects on the
species and stocks caused by other nonNavy activities are ignored. The
preamble for NMFS’ implementing
regulations under section 101(a)(5) (54
FR 40338; September 29, 1989) explains
in response 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 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 or UMEs)). See the
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section of this rule.
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.
Also, as described further in the
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section of the final rule,
NMFS evaluated the impacts of HSTT
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 Southwest
Fisheries Science Center rule), using
multiple factors, including 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
its 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).
NEPA
Comment 84: Commenters
commented that NMFS cannot rely on
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66914
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
the Navy’s HSTT 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 HSTT FEIS/OEIS does
not explore a reasonable range of
alternatives.
Response: The proposed action at
issue is the Navy’s proposal to conduct
testing and training activities in the
HSTT 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
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 Navy’s
EIS 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 HSTT 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 HSTT FEIS/OEIS is
sufficient for purposes of NMFS’ own
NEPA obligations related to its issuance
of incidental take authorization under
the MMPA.
Regarding the alternatives, NMFS’
early involvement in development of
the HSTT EIS/OEIS and role in
evaluating the effects of incidental take
under the MMPA ensured that the
HSTT DEIS/OEIS would include
adequate analysis of a reasonable range
of alternatives. The HSTT FEIS/OEIS
includes a No Action Alternative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 EIS, including the
purpose and need statement and range
of alternatives, and determined that the
HSTT FEIS/OEIS fully satisfies NMFS’
NEPA obligations related to its decision
to issue the MMPA final rule and
associated LOAs, and we have adopted
it.
Endangered Species Act
Comment 85: A commenter
commented that under the ESA NMFS
has the discretion to impose terms,
conditions, and mitigation on any
authorization. They believe the
proposed action clearly affects listed
whales, sea turtles, and Hawaiian monk
seals, triggering the duty to consult. The
commenter urged NMFS to fully comply
with the ESA and implement robust
reasonable and prudent alternatives and
conservation measures to avoid harm to
endangered species and their habitats.
Response: NMFS has fully complied
with the ESA. The agency consulted
pursuant to section 7 of the ESA and
NMFS’ ESA Interagency Cooperation
Division provided a biological opinion
concluded that NMFS’ action of issuing
MMPA incidental take regulations for
the Navy HSTT activities would not
jeopardize the continued existence of
any threatened or endangered species
and nor would it adversely modify any
designated critical habitat. The
biological opinion may be viewed at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizations-militaryreadiness-activities.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 HSTT Study Area are
presented in Table 13 along with an
abundance estimate, an associated
coefficient of variation value, and best/
minimum abundance estimates. The
Navy anticipates the take of 39
individual marine mammal species by
Level A and B harassment incidental to
training and testing activities from the
use of sonar and other transducers, inwater detonations, air guns, and impact
pile driving/vibratory extraction
activities. In addition, the Navy
requested authorization for ten serious
injuries or mortalities combined of two
marine mammal stocks from explosives,
and three takes of large whales by
serious injury or mortality from vessel
strikes over the five-year period. Two
marine mammal species, the Hawaiian
monk seal and the Main Hawaiian
Islands Insular false killer whale, have
critical habitat designated under the
ESA in the HSTT Study Area (described
below).
The species considered but not
carried forward for analysis are two
American Samoa stocks of spinner
dolphins—(1) the Kure and Midway
stock and (2) the Pearl and Hermes
stock. There is no potential for overlap
with any stressors from Navy activities
and therefore there would be no
incidental takes, in which case, these
stocks are not considered further.
We presented a detailed discussion of
marine mammals and their occurrence
in the planned action area, inclusive of
ESA-designated critical habitat, BIAs,
National Marine Sanctuaries, and
unusual mortality events (UMEs) in our
Federal Register notice of proposed
rulemaking (83 FR 29872; June 26,
2018); please see that notice of proposed
rulemaking or the Navy’s application for
more information. There have been no
changes or new information on BIAs
and National Marine Sanctuaries since
publication of the proposed rule;
therefore, they are not discussed further.
Additional information on certain ESAdesignated critical habitat and UMEs
has become available and so both of
these topics are discussed following
Table 13.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66915
TABLE 13—MARINE MAMMAL OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA
Status
Common name
Blue whale ......
Bryde’s whale
Scientific name
Balaenoptera
musculus.
Balaenoptera
brydei/edeni.
Fin whale ........
Balaenoptera
physalus.
Stock
MMPA
ESA
Eastern North
Pacific.
Central North
Pacific.
Eastern Tropical Pacific.
Hawaii .............
Strategic, Depleted.
Strategic, Depleted.
.........................
Endangered ....
.........................
.........................
CA/OR/WA ......
Strategic, Depleted.
Strategic, Depleted.
.........................
Endangered ....
Strategic, Depleted.
Strategic, Depleted.
Strategic .........
Endangered ....
.........................
.........................
.........................
Endangered ....
Hawaii .............
Gray whale .....
Humpback
whale.
Eschrichtius
robustus.
Megaptera
novaeangliae.
Minke whale ....
Balaenoptera
acutorostrata.
Sei whale ........
Balaenoptera borealis.
Eastern North
Pacific.
Western North
Pacific.
CA/OR/WA ......
Central North
Pacific.
CA/OR/WA ......
Endangered ....
.........................
Threatened/ ....
Endangered 1 ..
.........................
Kogia breviceps ...
CA/OR/WA ......
Dwarf sperm
whale.
Kogia sima ...........
Hawaii .............
CA/OR/WA ......
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
Baird’s beaked
whale.
Blainville’s
beaked
whale.
Cuvier’s
beaked
whale.
Berardius bairdii ...
Hawaii .............
CA/OR/WA ......
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
Mesoplodon
densirostris.
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
Ziphius cavirostris
CA/OR/WA ......
.........................
Hawaii .............
Indopacetus
pacificus.
CA/OR/WA ......
Hawaii .............
Longman’s
beaked
whale.
Mesoplodon
beaked
whales.
Common
Bottlenose
dolphin.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
.........................
Pygmy sperm
whale.
Physeter
macrocephalus.
Hawaii .............
Eastern North
Pacific.
Hawaii .............
Endangered ....
.........................
Strategic, Depleted.
Strategic, Depleted.
Strategic, Depleted.
Strategic, Depleted.
.........................
Sperm whale ...
False killer
whale.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Seasonal
absence
Occurrence
Endangered ....
Endangered ....
Endangered ....
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
Southern California.
Southern California.
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
....................
Summer ..........
1,647 (0.07)/
1,551
133 (1.09)/63
.........................
unknown
.........................
1,751 (0.29)/
1,378
9,029 (0.12)/
8,127
154 (1.05)/75
.........................
Summer ..........
.........................
.........................
.........................
Summer ..........
.........................
Summer ..........
.........................
Summer ..........
.........................
.........................
26,960
(0.05)/25,849
175
(0.05)/167
2,900
(0.03)/2,784
10,103
(0.30)/7,891
636
(0.72)/369
unknown
519
(0.4)/374
391
(0.90)/204
1,997
(0.57)/1,270
4,559
(0.33)/3,478
4,111
(1.12)/1,924
unknown
unknown
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
Winter and Fall
.........................
Southern California.
.........................
3,274
(0.67)/2,059
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
723
0.69/428
7,619
(0.66)/4,592
Mesoplodon spp ..
CA/OR/WA ......
.........................
.........................
Southern California.
.........................
3,044
(0.54)/1,967
Tursiops truncatus
California
Coastal.
.........................
.........................
Southern California.
.........................
453
(0.06)/346
CA/OR/WA Offshore.
Hawaii Pelagic
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
.........................
Kauai and
Niihau.
Oahu ...............
4-Islands .........
Hawaii Island ..
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
Hawaii .............
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
.........................
Strategic, Depleted.
Endangered ....
Hawaii .............
.........................
1,924
(0.54)/1,255
21,815
(0.57)/13.957
NA
NA/97
NA
NA
NA
NA/91
167
(0.14)/149
Pseudorca
crassidens.
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Main Hawaiian
Islands Insular.
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
.........................
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
Stock
abundance
(CV)/minimum
population
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
27DER2
unknown
2,697
(0.6)/1,633
2,105
(1.13)/980
66916
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 13—MARINE MAMMAL OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued
Status
Common name
Fraser’s dolphin.
Killer whale .....
Long-beaked
common dolphin.
Melon-headed
whale.
Scientific name
Lagenodelphis
hosei.
Orcinus orca ........
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Spinner dolphin
Striped dolphin
VerDate Sep<11>2014
ESA
Hawaii Pelagic
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands.
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
.........................
Southern California.
.........................
1,540
(0.66)/928
617
(1.11)/290
51,491
(0.66)/31,034
300
(0.1)/276
Southern California.
.........................
243
unknown/243
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
Delphinus
capensis.
California .........
.........................
.........................
Southern California.
.........................
146
(0.96)/74
101,305
(0.49)/68,432
Peponocephala
electra.
Hawaiian Islands.
Kohala Resident.
CA/OR/WA ......
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
.........................
Southern California.
.........................
CA/OR/WA ......
.........................
.........................
.........................
Oahu ...............
.........................
.........................
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
.........................
4-Islands .........
Hawaii Island ..
Hawaii Pelagic
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
Hawaii .............
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
.........................
Tropical ...........
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
Winter &
Spring.
.........................
CA/OR/WA ......
.........................
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
NSD 3 ..............
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
Delphinus delphis
CA/OR/WA ......
.........................
.........................
Southern California.
.........................
Globicephala
macrorhynchus.
CA/OR/WA ......
.........................
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
.........................
Hawaii Pelagic
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
Hawaii Island ..
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
Oahu and 4-Islands.
Kauai and
Niihau.
Kure and Midway.
Pearl and Hermes.
CA/OR/WA ......
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
665
(0.09)/617
NA
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
NA
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
unknown
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
unknown
.........................
.........................
Southern California.
.........................
29,211
(0.20)/24,782
Steno bredanensis
Short-beaked
common dolphin.
Short-finned
pilot whale.
MMPA
Stock
abundance
(CV)/minimum
population
.........................
Grampus griseus
Rough-toothed
dolphin.
Seasonal
absence
.........................
Feresa attenuata
Risso’s dolphins.
Occurrence
Eastern North
Pacific Offshore.
Eastern North
Pacific Transient/West
Coast Transient 2.
Hawaii .............
Northern right
Lissodelphis borewhale dolalis.
phin.
Pacific whiteLagenorhynchus
sided dolphin.
obliquidens.
Pantropical
Stenella attenuata
spotted dolphin.
Pygmy killer
whale.
Stock
Stenella
longirostris.
Stenella
coeruleoalba.
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
.........................
.........................
.........................
27DER2
8,666
(1.00)/4,299
447
(0.12)/404
26,556
(0.44)/18,608
26,814
(0.28)/21,195
unknown
unknown
unknown
55,795
(0.40)/40,338
unknown
10,640
(0.53)/6,998
6,336
(0.32)/4,817
11,613
(0.43)/8,210
unknown
72,528
(0.39)/52,833
969,861
(0.17)/839,325
836
(0.79)/466
19,503
(0.49)/13,197
unknown
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66917
TABLE 13—MARINE MAMMAL OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued
Status
Common name
Scientific name
Stock
Occurrence
Seasonal
absence
MMPA
ESA
Hawaii .............
.........................
.........................
Hawaii .............
.........................
Southern California.
Southern California.
Hawaii .............
.........................
Dall’s porpoise
Phocoenoides dalli
CA/OR/WA ......
.........................
.........................
Harbor seal .....
Phoca vitulina ......
California .........
.........................
.........................
Hawaiian monk
seal.
Northern elephant seal.
California sea
lion.
Guadalupe fur
seal.
Northern fur
seal.
Neomonachus
schauinslandi.
Mirounga
angustirostris.
Zalophus
californianus.
Arctocephalus
townsendi.
Callorhinus
ursinus.
Hawaii .............
Endangered ....
California .........
Strategic, Depleted.
.........................
U.S. Stock .......
.........................
.........................
Mexico to California.
California .........
Strategic, Depleted.
.........................
Threatened .....
.........................
.........................
Southern
fornia.
Southern
fornia.
Southern
fornia.
Southern
fornia.
.........................
.........................
Cali-
.........................
Cali-
.........................
Cali-
.........................
Cali-
.........................
Stock
abundance
(CV)/minimum
population
61,021
(0.38)/44,922
25,750
(0.45)/17,954
30,968
NA/27,348
1,415
(0.03)/1,384
179,000
NA/81,368
257,606
NA/233,515
20,000
NA/15,830
14,050
NA/7,524
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
1 The two humpback whale Distinct Population Segments making up the California, Oregon, and Washington stock present in Southern California are the Mexico Distinct Population Segment, listed under the ESA as Threatened, and the Central America Distinct Population Segment,
which is listed under the ESA as Endangered.
2 This stock is mentioned briefly in the Pacific Stock Assessment Report (Carretta et al., 2017) and referred to as the ‘‘Eastern North Pacific
Transient’’ stock; however, the Alaska Stock Assessment Report contains assessments of all transient killer whale stocks in the Pacific and the
Alaska Stock Assessment Report refers to this same stock as the ‘‘West Coast Transient’’ stock (Muto et al., 2017).
3 NSD—No stock designation. Rough-toothed dolphin has a range known to include the waters off Southern California, but there is no recognized stock or data available for the U.S. West Coast.
The proposed rule (83 FR 29909, June
26, 2018) includes a description of ESA
designated critical habitat, BIAs,
National Marine Sanctuaries, and
unusual mortality events that are
applicable in the HSTT Study area and
that material remains applicable and is
not repeated here. However, we do
include information where anything has
changed. In this case, since the
proposed rule was published, ESA
designated critical habitat for main
Hawaiian Islands insular false killer
whales was finalized and new
information regarding the California sea
lion UME became available.
Critical habitat for the ESA-listed
Main Hawaiian Islands insular false
killer whale DPS was finalized in July
2018 (83 FR 35062; July 24, 2018)
designating waters from the 45 m depth
contour to the 3,200 m depth contour
around the main Hawaiian Islands from
Niihau east to Hawaii. This designation
does not include most bays, harbors, or
coastal in-water structures. NMFS
excluded 14 areas (one area, with two
sites, for the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management and 13 areas requested by
the Navy) from the critical habitat
designation because it was determined
that the benefits of exclusion
outweighed the benefits of inclusion,
and exclusion would not result in
extinction of the species. In addition,
two areas, the Ewa Training Minefield
and the Naval Defensive Sea Area, were
ineligible for designation because they
are managed under the Joint Base Pearl
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Harbor-Hickam Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plan that was
found to benefit main Hawaiian Islands
insular false killer whales. The total area
designated was approximately 45,504
km2 (17,564 mi2) of marine habitat and
the designation stresses the importance
of protecting: adequate space for
movement and use; prey species of
sufficient quantity, quality, and
availability to support growth and
reproduction; waters free of harmful
types and amounts of pollutants; and
sound levels that would not
significantly impair false killer whale
use or occupancy.
Regarding the California sea lion
UME, although this UME has not been
closed, NMFS staff recently confirmed
that the mortality of pups and yearlings
returned to normal in 2017 and 2018
and they plan to present it to the
Working Group to discuss closure by the
end of 2018 (Deb Fauquier, pers.
comm.). Please refer to the proposed
rule (83 FR 29872; June 26, 2018) and
NMFS’ website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-life-distress/2013-2017california-sea-lion-unusual-mortalityevent-california 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
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
notice of proposed rulemaking (83 FR
29872; June 26, 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 shift 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
HSTT FEIS/OEIS (Chapter 3, Section 3.7
Marine Mammals, https://
www.hstteis.com/), which NMFS
participated in the development of via
our cooperating agency status and
adopted to meet our NEPA
requirements. We highlight several
studies below, but direct the reader to
the HSTT 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
HSTT FEIS/OEIS. More specifically, we
have independently reviewed the more
recent studies that were not included in
NMFS’ proposed rule, have concluded
that the Navy’s descriptions and
interpretations of those studies in the
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66918
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
FEIS/OEIS are accurate, and have taken
those studies into consideration in our
analyses that inform our negligible
impact determinations. Importantly, we
note that none of the newer information
highlighted here or in the HSTT FEIS/
OEIS affects our analysis in a manner
that changes our determinations under
the MMPA from the proposed rule.
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
threshold shift (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 (Finneran, 2018; Nachtigall and
Supin, 2013, 2015; Nachtigall et al.,
2016a,b,c; 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 et
al., 2018).
Recent reviews have synthesized data
from experimental studies examining
marine mammal behavioral response to
anthropogenic sound, and have
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 percent 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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
are based on the best available science
and appropriate for authorization. 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 from
vessel strikes 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 in the
paragraph above, 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 (the 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 California sea lion and shortbeaked common dolphin (10 mortalities
total between the two species over a five
year period) from explosives, and no
more than three serious injuries or
mortalities total (over the five-year
period) of large whales through vessel
collisions. Although we analyze the
impacts of these potential serious
injuries or mortalities that are
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.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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) 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 factors
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. We describe the
application of this Level B behavioral
harassment 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.
In summary, we believe these Level B
behavioral harassment thresholds are
66919
the most appropriate method for
predicting Level B behavioral
harassment given the best available
science and the associated uncertainty.
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, airguns, impact pile
driving) sources.
These thresholds (Tables 14–15) 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 14—ACOUSTIC THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF TTS AND PTS FOR NON-IMPULSIVE SOUND SOURCES BY
FUNCTIONAL HEARING GROUPS
Non-impulsive
Functional hearing group
TTS threshold
SEL (weighted)
Low-Frequency Cetaceans ..........................................................................................................................
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans ...........................................................................................................................
High-Frequency Cetaceans .........................................................................................................................
Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater) ...................................................................................................................
Otarid Pinnipeds (Underwater) ....................................................................................................................
PTS threshold
SEL (weighted)
179
178
153
181
199
199
198
173
201
219
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 15 to
predict the onset of TTS, PTS, tissue
damage, and mortality for explosives
(impulsive) and other impulsive sound
sources.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
TABLE 15—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
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
Mean onset
slight GI
tract injury
Mean onset
slight lung
injury
237 dB
Peak SPL.
Equation 1 ..
27DER2
Mean
onset
mortality
Equation 2.
66920
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 15—ONSET OF TTS, PTS, TISSUE DAMAGE, AND MORTALITY THRESHOLDS FOR MARINE MAMMALS FOR
EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER IMPULSIVE SOURCES—Continued
Functional
hearing group
Species
Onset TTS
Onset PTS
Mid-frequency cetaceans .............................
Most delphinids, medium and large toothed
whales.
High-frequency cetaceans ...........................
Porpoises and Kogia spp ............................
Phocidae ......................................................
Harbor seal, Hawaiian monk seal, Northern
elephant seal.
Otariidae .......................................................
California sea lion, Guadalupe fur seal,
Northern fur seal.
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.
188 dB SEL
(weighted)
or 226 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.
203 dB SEL
(weighted)
or 232 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.
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.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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 15
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 Effects Analysis (Phase III)
report (U.S. Department of the Navy,
2017c) 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 14
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 Effects
Analysis (Phase III) report (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017c) for
detailed information on how the criteria
and thresholds were derived. Nonauditory injury (i.e., other than PTS)
and mortality from sonar and other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 (Ellison et al., 2011; Southall
et al., 2007). 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 pile-
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
driving, 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 rms 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 16).
TABLE 16—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
Underwater impact
120 dB rms ...............
160 dB rms.
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.
Sonar
As noted above, the Navy coordinated
with NMFS to propose Level B
behavioral harassment thresholds
specific to their military readiness
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
activities utilizing active sonar.
Behavioral response criteria are used to
estimate the number of animals that
may exhibit a behavioral response to
sonar and other transducers. The way
the criteria were derived is discussed in
detail in the Criteria and Thresholds for
U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive
Effects Analysis (Phase III) report (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017c).
Developing the new Level B harassment
behavioral criteria involved multiple
steps. All peer-reviewed 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 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 for calculating take and
to support the determinations made in
the final 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 used
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 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
and are being authorized.
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
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 beaked whales during
Phase II analyses. Instead, a step
function at an SPL of 140 dB re 1 mPa
was used for beaked whales as the
threshold to predict Level B harassment
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66921
by behavioral disturbance. Of note, a
separate step function at an SPL of 120
dB re 1 mPa was used for harbor
porpoises in the 2013–2018 rule, but
there are no harbor porpoises in the
HSTT Study Area (and Dall’s porpoises
do not have the same behavioral
sensitivities), so harbor porpoises are
not discussed further.
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. Six behavioral response
field studies with observations of 14
different marine mammal species
reactions to sonar or sonar-like signals
and 6 captive animal behavioral studies
with observations of 8 different species
reactions to sonar or sonar-like signals
were used to provide a robust data set
for the derivation of the Navy’s Phase III
marine mammal behavioral response
criteria. All behavioral response
research that has been published since
the derivation of the Navy’s Phase III
criteria (c.a. December 2016) has been
examined and is consistent with the
current behavioral response functions.
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 17
below). This was determined by
examining all available published field
observations of behavioral reactions to
sonar or sonar-like signals that included
the distance between the sound source
and the marine mammal. The longest
distance, rounded up to the nearest 5km increment, was chosen as the cutoff
distance for each behavioral criteria
group (i.e., odontocetes, mysticetes,
pinnipeds, and beaked whales). 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66922
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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 (however, we
note that helicopter dipping sonars were
considered in the intense sound source
group, despite lower source levels,
because of data indicating that marine
mammals are sometimes more
responsive to the less predictable
employment of this source). 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
farther ranges as shown in Table 17,
versus less intense events.
TABLE 17—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
SlL/single
platform
cutoff
distance
(km)
Criteria group
Odontocetes .............................................................................................................................................................
Pinnipeds .................................................................................................................................................................
Mysticetes ................................................................................................................................................................
Beaked Whales ........................................................................................................................................................
High
SL/multiplatform
cutoff
distance
(km)
10
5
10
25
20
10
20
50
Note: dB re 1 μPa @1 m: Decibels referenced to 1 micropascal at 1 meter; km: Kilometer; SL: Source level.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
The range to received sound levels in
6-dB steps from five representative
sonar bins and the percentage of
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 18 through Table 22.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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,
which were coordinated with NMFS.
Table 18 illustrates the maximum likely
percentage of exposed individuals taken
at the indicated received level and
associated range (in which marine
mammals would be reasonably expected
to experience a disruption in behavior
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
patterns to a point where they are
abandoned or significantly altered) for
LFAS. As noted previously, NMFS
carefully reviewed, and contributed to,
the 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.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
indicated received level and associated
range for MFAS.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.020</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Tables 19 through Table 21 identify
the maximum likely percentage of
exposed individuals taken at the
66923
66924
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Table 19. Ranges to estimated Level B behavioral harassment takes for sonar bin MFl over
resentative
of environments within the HSTT
Area.
196
190
184
178
172
166
160
154
148
142
136
130
124
118
112
106
100
109
(100-110)
239
(190-250)
502
(310-575)
1,024
(550-2,025)
2,948
(625-5,775)
6,247
(625-10,025)
11,919
(650-20,525)
20,470
(650--62,025)
33,048
(725--63,525)
43,297
(2,025-71,775)
52,912
(2,275-91,525)
61,974
(2,275-100,000*)
66,546
(2,275-100,000*)
69,637
(2,525-1 00,000*)
73,010
(2,525-1 00,000*)
75,928
(2,525-1 00,000*)
78,899
(2,525-1 00,000*)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
99%
100%
99%
88%
98%
100%
97%
59%
92%
100%
91%
30%
76%
99%
78%
20%
48%
97%
Note: 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. dB re 1 JlPa2 - s:
decibels referenced to 1 micropascal squared second; m: meters
* Indicates maximum range to which acoustic model was run, a distance of approximately 100 kilometers from the sound
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.021</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
source.
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66925
Table 20. Ranges to estimated Level B behavioral harassment takes for sonar bin MF4 over
resentative
of environments within the HSTT
Area.
196
190
184
178
172
166
160
154
148
142
136
130
124
118
112
106
100
8
(1-8)
17
(1-17)
34
(1-35)
68
(1-75)
145
(130-300)
388
(270-875)
841
(470-1,775)
1,748
(700--6,025)
3,163
(1,025-13,775)
5,564
(1,275-27,025)
8,043
(1,525-54,275)
17,486
(1,525-65,525)
27,276
(1,525-84,775)
33,138
(2, 775-85,275)
39,864
(3,775-100,000*)
45,477
(5,275-100,000*)
48,712
(5,275-100,000*)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
99%
100%
99%
88%
98%
100%
97%
59%
92%
100%
91%
30%
76%
99%
78%
20%
48%
97%
58%
18%
27%
93%
40%
17%
18%
83%
29%
16%
16%
66%
25%
13%
15%
45%
23%
9%
15%
28%
18%
14%
12%
11%
11%
8%
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.022</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Note: 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. dB re 1 JlPa2 - s:
decibels referenced to 1 micropascal squared second; m: meters
* Indicates maximum range to which acoustic model was run, a distance of approximately 100 kilometers from the sound
source.
66926
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Table 21. Ranges to estimated Level B behavioral harassment takes for sonar bin MFS over
resentative
of environments within the HSTT
Area.
196
190
184
178
172
166
160
154
148
142
136
130
124
118
112
106
100
0
(0-0)
2
(1-3)
4
(1-7)
14
(1-15)
29
(1-30)
59
(1-70)
133
(1-340)
309
(1-950)
688
(430-2,275)
1,471
(650--4,025)
2,946
(700-7 ,525)
5,078
(725-11 '775)
7,556
(725-19 ,525)
10,183
(725-27,775)
13,053
(725-63,025)
16,283
(1,025--64,525)
20,174
(1,025-70,525)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
99%
100%
99%
88%
98%
100%
97%
59%
92%
100%
91%
30%
76%
99%
78%
20%
48%
97%
58%
18%
27%
93%
40%
17%
18%
83%
29%
16%
16%
66%
25%
13%
15%
45%
23%
9%
15%
28%
20%
5%
15%
18%
17%
2%
14%
14%
12%
11%
11%
8%
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.023</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Note: 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. dB reI JlPa2- s:
decibels referenced to 1 micropascal squared second; m: meters
* Indicates maximum range to which acoustic model was run, a distance of approximately I 00 kilometers from the sound source.
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66927
Table 22. Ranges to an estimated Level B behavioral harassment takes for sonar bin HF4
of environments within the HSTT
Area.
196
190
184
178
172
166
160
154
148
142
136
130
124
118
112
106
100
3
(1---{))
8
(1-16)
17
(1-35)
34
(1-90)
68
(1-180)
133
(12--430)
255
(30-750)
439
(50-1,525)
694
(85-2,275)
989
(110-3,525)
1,378
(170--4,775)
1,792
(270---{),025)
2,259
(320-7,525)
2,832
(320-8,525)
3,365
(320-1 0,525)
3,935
(320-12,275)
4,546
(320-16, 77 5)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
99%
100%
99%
88%
98%
100%
97%
59%
92%
100%
91%
30%
76%
99%
78%
20%
48%
97%
58%
18%
27%
93%
40%
17%
18%
83%
29%
16%
16%
66%
25%
13%
15%
45%
23%
9%
15%
28%
20%
5%
15%
18%
17%
2%
14%
14%
12%
1%
13%
12%
6%
0%
9%
11%
3%
0%
5%
11%
1%
0%
2%
8%
Table 22 identifies the maximum
likely percentage of exposed individuals
taken at the indicated received level and
associated range for HFAS.
Explosives
Phase III explosive criteria for Level B
behavioral harassment thresholds for
marine mammals is the hearing groups’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
TTS threshold minus 5 dB (see Table 23
below and Table 15 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
Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and
Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III)
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
report (U.S. Department of the Navy,
2017c) for detailed information on how
the criteria and thresholds were derived.
NMFS continues to concur that this
approach represents the best available
science for determining impacts to
marine mammals from explosives.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.024</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Note: 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. dB re 1 JlPa2 - s: decibels referenced to
1 micropascal squared second; m: meters
*Indicates maximum range to which acoustic model was run, a distance of approximately 100 kilometers from the sound source.
66928
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 23—PHASE III LEVEL B BEHAV- on this process, see the discussion in
IORAL HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS the Take Requests subsection below.
FOR EXPLOSIVES FOR MARINE MAM- Many explosions from ordnance such as
MALS
Functional
hearing
group
Medium
Underwater
Underwater
Underwater
Underwater
Underwater
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
SEL
(weighted)
LF
MF
HF
PW
OW
163
165
135
165
183
Note: Weighted SEL thresholds in dB re 1
μPa2s underwater. PW—pinnipeds underwater, OW—otariids underwater.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model
Sonar and Other Transducers and
Explosives
The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model
calculates sound energy propagation
from sonar and other transducers and
explosives during naval activities and
the sound received by animat
dosimeters. Animat dosimeters are
virtual representations of marine
mammals distributed in the area around
the modeled naval activity and each
dosimeter records its individual sound
‘‘dose.’’ The model bases the
distribution of animats over the HSTT
Study Area on the density values in the
Navy Marine Species Density Database
and distributes animats in the water
column proportional to the known time
that species spend at varying depths.
The model accounts for
environmental variability of sound
propagation in both distance and depth
when computing the received sound
level received by the animats. The
model conducts a statistical analysis
based on multiple model runs to
compute the estimated effects on
animals. The number of animats that
exceed the thresholds for effects is
tallied to provide an estimate of the
number of marine mammals that could
be affected.
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
considered (i.e., no power down or shut
down modeled) and without any
avoidance of the activity by the animal.
The final step of the quantitative
analysis of acoustic effects is to consider
the implementation of mitigation and
the possibility that marine mammals
would avoid continued or repeated
sound exposures. For more information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
energy entering the water.
The model estimates the impacts
caused by individual training and
testing exercises. During any individual
modeled event, impacts to individual
animats are considered over 24-hour
periods. The animats do not represent
actual animals, but rather they represent
a distribution of animals based on
density and abundance data, which
allows for a statistical analysis of the
number of instances that marine
mammals may be exposed to sound
levels resulting in an effect. Therefore,
the model estimates the number of
instances in which an effect threshold
was exceeded over the course of a year,
but does not estimate the number of
individual marine mammals that may be
impacted over a year (i.e., some marine
mammals could be impacted several
times, while others would not
experience any impact). A detailed
explanation of the Navy’s Acoustic
Effects Model is provided in the
technical report 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).
Air Guns and Pile Driving
The Navy’s quantitative analysis
estimates the sound and energy received
by marine mammals distributed in the
area around planned Navy activities
involving air guns. See 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) for additional details.
Underwater noise effects from pile
driving and vibratory pile extraction
were modeled using actual measures of
impact pile driving and vibratory
removal during construction of an
ELCAS (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2015,
2016). A conservative estimate of
spreading loss of sound in shallow
coastal waters (i.e., transmission loss =
16.5*Log10 (radius)) was applied based
on spreading loss observed in actual
measurements. Inputs used in the model
are provided in Chapter 1, Section
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1.4.1.3 (Pile Driving) of the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application, including
source levels; the number of strikes
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 five 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 PTS for five
representative sonar systems for an
exposure of 30 seconds is shown in
Table 24 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\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66929
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 24—RANGE TO PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR FIVE REPRESENTATIVE SONAR SYSTEMS
Approximate range in meters for PTS from 30 seconds exposure
Functional hearing group
Sonar
bin LF
Low-frequency Cetacean .....................................................
Mid-frequency Cetacean ......................................................
High-frequency Cetacean ....................................................
Otariidae ...............................................................................
Phocidae ..............................................................................
0
0
0
0
0
Sonar
bin MF1
(0–0)
(0–0)
(0–0)
(0–0)
(0–0)
65 (65–65)
16 (16–16)
181 (180–190)
6 (6–6)
45 (45–45)
Sonar
bin MF4
Sonar
bin MF5
14 (0–15)
3 (3–3)
30 (30–30)
0 (0–0)
11 (11–11)
Sonar
bin HF4
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
9 (8–10)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
1 (0–2)
30 (8–80)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
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.
The tables below illustrate the range
to TTS for 1, 30, 60, and 120 seconds
from five representative sonar systems
(see Table 25 through Table 29).
TABLE 25—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN LF5 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE RANGE
OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA
Approximate TTS ranges
(meters) 1
Sonar bin LF5M
(low frequency sources <180 dB source level)
Hearing group
1 second
Low-frequency Cetacean .........................
Mid-frequency Cetacean ..........................
High-frequency Cetacean ........................
Otariidae ..................................................
Phocidae ..................................................
30 seconds
3
0
0
0
0
(0–4)
(0–0)
(0–0)
(0–0)
(0–0)
3
0
0
0
0
60 seconds
(0–4)
(0–0)
(0–0)
(0–0)
(0–0)
3
0
0
0
0
120 seconds
(0–4)
(0–0)
(0–0)
(0–0)
(0–0)
3
0
0
0
0
(0–4)
(0–0)
(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 parentheses.
TABLE 26—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN MF1 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE
RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA
Approximate TTS ranges
(meters) 1
Hearing group
Sonar bin MF1
(e.g., SQS–53 ASW hull-mounted sonar)
1 second
Low-frequency Cetacean .........................
Mid-frequency Cetacean ..........................
High-frequency Cetacean ........................
Otariidae ..................................................
Phocidae ..................................................
30 seconds
903 (850–1,025)
210 (210–210)
3,043 (1,525–4,775)
65 (65–65)
669 (650–725)
903 (850–1,025)
210 (210–210)
3,043 (1,525–4,775)
65 (65–65)
669 (650–725)
60 seconds
1,264 (1,025–2,275)
302 (300–310)
4,739 (2,025–6,275)
106 (100–110)
970 (900–1,025)
120 seconds
1,839 (1,275–3,025)
379 (370–390)
5,614 (2,025–7,525)
137 (130–140)
1,075 (1,025–1,525)
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 parentheses.
TABLE 27—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN MF4 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE
RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Approximate TTS ranges
(meters) 1
Hearing group
Sonar bin MF4
(e.g., AQS–22 ASW dipping sonar)
1 second
Low-frequency Cetacean .........................
Mid-frequency Cetacean ..........................
High-frequency Cetacean ........................
Otariidae ..................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
30 seconds
77 (0–85)
22 (22–22)
240 (220–300)
8 (8–8)
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
162 (150–180)
35 (35–35)
492 (440–775)
15 (15–15)
Sfmt 4700
60 seconds
235 (220–290)
49 (45–50)
668 (550–1,025)
19 (19–19)
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
120 seconds
370 (310–600)
70 (70–70)
983 (825–2,025)
25 (25–25)
66930
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 27—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN MF4 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE
RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued
Approximate TTS ranges
(meters) 1
Sonar bin MF4
(e.g., AQS–22 ASW dipping sonar)
Hearing group
1 second
Phocidae ..................................................
30 seconds
65 (65–65)
60 seconds
110 (110–110)
156 (150–170)
120 seconds
269 (240–460)
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 parentheses.
TABLE 28—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN MF5 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE
RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA
Approximate TTS ranges
(meters) 1
Hearing group
Sonar bin MF5
(e.g., SSQ–62 ASW Sonobuoy)
1 second
Low-frequency Cetacean .........................
Mid-frequency Cetacean ..........................
High-frequency Cetacean ........................
Otariidae ..................................................
Phocidae ..................................................
30 seconds
10 (0–12)
6 (0–9)
118 (100–170)
0 (0–0)
9 (8–10)
60 seconds
10 (0–12)
6 (0–9)
118 (100–170)
0 (0–0)
9 (8–10)
14 (0–18)
12 (0–13)
179 (150–480)
0 (0–0)
14 (14–16)
120 seconds
21 (0–25)
17 (0–21)
273 (210–700)
0 (0–0)
21 (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 parentheses.
TABLE 29—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN HF4 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE
RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA
Approximate TTS ranges
(meters) 1
Hearing group
Sonar bin HF4
(e.g., SQS–20 mine hunting sonar)
1 second
Low-frequency Cetacean .........................
Mid-frequency Cetacean ..........................
High-frequency Cetacean ........................
Otariidae ..................................................
Phocidae ..................................................
30 seconds
1 (0–3)
10 (4–17)
168 (25–550)
0 (0–0)
2 (0–5)
2 (0–5)
17 (6–35)
280 (55–775)
0 (0–0)
5 (2–8)
≤60 seconds
4 (0–7)
24 (7–60)
371 (80–1,275)
0 (0–0)
8 (3–13)
120 seconds
6 (0–11)
34 (9–90)
470 (100–1,525)
1 (0–1)
11 (4–22)
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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 parentheses.
Explosives
The following section provides the
range (distance) over which specific
physiological or behavioral effects are
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
Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy
Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis
(Phase III) report (U.S. Department of
the Navy, 2017c) and the explosive
propagation calculations 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
application). The range to effects are
shown for a range of explosive bins,
from E1 (up to 0.25 lb net explosive
weight) to E12 (up to 1,000 lb net
explosive weight) (Tables 30 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
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 35 and 36, 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
higher level effects, especially
physiological effects to marine
mammals. For additional information
on how ranges to impacts from
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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, 2018).
Table 30 shows the minimum,
average, and maximum ranges to onset
66931
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 30—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 cetacean 1
Bin
Source
depth
(m)
Cluster
size
E1 ...........................................
0.1
E2 ...........................................
0.1
E3 ...........................................
0.1
1
25
1
10
1
12
1
12
2
2
2
2
25
25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
18.25
E4 ...........................................
E5 ...........................................
E6 ...........................................
E7 ...........................................
E8 ...........................................
E9 ...........................................
E10 .........................................
E11 .........................................
E12 .........................................
PTS
3
15.25
19.8
198
0.1
15.25
0.1
3
15.25
3
18.25
0.1
45.75
0.1
0.1
18.5
45.75
0.1
TTS
353 (130–825)
1,188 (280–3,025)
425 (140–1,275)
988 (280–2,275)
654 (220–1,525)
1,581 (300–3,525)
747 (550–1,525)
1,809 (875–4,025)
2,020 (1,025–3,275)
970 (600–1,525)
1,023 (1,000–1,025)
959 (875–1,525)
2,892 (440–6,275)
4,448 (1,025–7,775)
1,017 (280–2,525)
2,275 (2,025–2,525)
1,238 (625–2,775)
3,150 (2,525–3,525)
2,082 (925–3,525)
1,646 (775–2,525)
1,908 (1,025–4,775)
2,105 (850–4,025)
2,629 (875–5,275)
3,034 (1,025–6,025)
2,925 (1,525–6,025)
2,868 (975–5,525)
3,762 (1,525–8,275)
Behavioral
1,234 (290–3,025)
3,752 (490–8,525)
1,456 (300–3,525)
3,335 (480–7,025)
2,294 (350–4,775)
4,573 (650–10,275)
3,103 (950–6,025)
7,807 (1,025–12,775)
3,075 (1,025–6,775)
4,457 (1,025–8,525)
4,649 (2,275–8,525)
4,386 (3,025–7,525)
6,633 (725–16,025)
10,504 (1,525–18,275)
3,550 (490–7,775)
6,025 (4,525–7,275)
5,613 (1,025–10,525)
7,171 (5,525–8,775)
6,170 (1,275–10,525)
4,322 (1,525–9,775)
5,564 (1,525–12,525)
4,901 (1,525–12,525)
5,905 (1,525–13,775)
7,636 (1,525–16,525)
7,152 (2,275–18,525)
6,097 (2,275–14,775)
7,873 (3,775–20,525)
2,141 (340–4,775)
5,196 (675–12,275)
2,563 (390–5,275)
4,693 (650–10,275)
3,483 (490–7,775)
6,188 (725–14,775)
5,641 (1,000–9,275)
10,798 (1,025–17,775)
3,339 (1,025–9,775)
6,087 (1,275–12,025)
6,546 (3,025–11,025)
5,522 (3,025–9,275)
8,925 (800–22,775)
13,605 (1,775–24,775)
4,908 (675–12,275)
7,838 (6,275–9,775)
7,954 (1,275–14,275)
8,734 (7,275–10,525)
8,464 (1,525–16,525)
5,710 (1,525–14,275)
7,197 (1,525–18,775)
6,700 (1,525–16,775)
7,996 (1,525–20,025)
9,772 (1,775–21,525)
9,011 (2,525–24,525)
8,355 (4,275–21,275)
10,838 (4,275–26,525)
1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels.
E13 not modeled due to surf zone use and lack of marine mammal receptors at site-specific location.
Table 31 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 mid-frequency cetaceans
based on the developed thresholds.
TABLE 31—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 cetacean 1
Bin
Source
depth
(m)
Cluster
size
E1 ...........................................
0.1
E2 ...........................................
0.1
E3 ...........................................
0.1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
18.25
E4 ...........................................
E5 ...........................................
E6 ...........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
3
15.25
19.8
198
0.1
15.25
0.1
3
15.25
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
PTS
1
25
1
10
1
12
1
12
2
2
2
2
25
25
1
1
1
Frm 00087
TTS
25 (25–25)
107 (75–170)
30 (30–35)
88 (65–130)
50 (45–65)
153 (90–250)
38 (35–40)
131 (120–250)
139 (110–160)
71 (70–75)
69 (65–70)
49 (0–55)
318 (130–625)
312 (290–725)
98 (70–170)
159 (150–160)
88 (75–180)
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Behavioral
118 (80–210)
476 (150–1,275)
145 (95–240)
392 (140–825)
233 (110–430)
642 (220–1,525)
217 (190–900)
754 (550–1,525)
1,069 (525–1,525)
461 (400–725)
353 (350–360)
275 (270–280)
1,138 (280–3,025)
1,321 (675–2,525)
428 (150–800)
754 (650–850)
526 (450–875)
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
178 (100–320)
676 (240–1,525)
218 (110–400)
567 (190–1,275)
345 (130–600)
897 (270–2,025)
331 (290–850)
1,055 (600–2,525)
1,450 (875–1,775)
613 (470–750)
621 (600–650)
434 (430–440)
1,556 (310–3,775)
1,980 (850–4,275)
615 (210–1,525)
1,025 (1,025–1,025)
719 (500–1,025)
66932
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 31—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 cetacean 1
Bin
E7 ...........................................
E8 ...........................................
E9 ...........................................
E10 .........................................
E11 .........................................
E12 .........................................
Source
depth
(m)
Cluster
size
3
18.25
0.1
45.75
0.1
0.1
18.5
45.75
0.1
0.1
PTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
240
166
160
128
215
275
335
272
334
520
TTS
(230–260)
(120–310)
(150–170)
(120–170)
(200–220)
(250–480)
(260–500)
(230–825)
(310–350)
(450–550)
Behavioral
1,025 (1,025–1,025)
853 (500–1,525)
676 (500–725)
704 (575–2,025)
861 (575–950)
1,015 (525–2,275)
1,153 (650–1,775)
1,179 (825–3,025)
1,151 (700–1,275)
1,664 (800–3,525)
1,900 (1,775–2,275)
1,154 (550–1,775)
942 (600–1,025)
1,040 (750–2,525)
1,147 (650–1,525)
1,424 (675–3,275)
1,692 (775–3,275)
1,784 (1,000–4,275)
1,541 (800–3,525)
2,195 (925–4,775)
1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels.
E13 not modeled due to surf zone use and lack of marine mammal receptors at site-specific location.
Table 32 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 low-frequency cetaceans
based on the developed thresholds.
TABLE 32—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 cetacean 1
Bin
Source
depth
(m)
Cluster
size
E1 ...........................................
0.1
E2 ...........................................
0.1
E3 ...........................................
0.1
1
25
1
10
1
12
1
12
2
2
2
2
25
25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
18.25
E4 ...........................................
E5 ...........................................
E6 ...........................................
E7 ...........................................
E8 ...........................................
E9 ...........................................
E10 .........................................
E11 .........................................
E12 .........................................
PTS
3
15.25
19.8
198
0.1
15.25
0.1
3
15.25
3
18.25
0.1
45.75
0.1
0.1
18.5
45.75
0.1
0.1
TTS
51 (40–70)
205 (95–270)
65 (45–95)
176 (85–240)
109 (65–150)
338 (130–525)
205 (170–340)
651 (340–1,275)
493 (440–1,000)
583 (350–850)
378 (370–380)
299 (290–300)
740 (220–6,025)
1,978 (1,025–5,275)
250 (100–420)
711 (525–825)
718 (390–2,025)
1,121 (850–1,275)
1,889 (1,025–2,775)
460 (170–950)
1,049 (550–2,775)
616 (200–1,275)
787 (210–2,525)
4,315 (2,025–8,025)
1,969 (775–5,025)
815 (250–3,025)
1,040 (330–6,025)
Behavioral
227 (100–320)
772 (270–1,275)
287 (120–400)
696 (240–1,275)
503 (190–1,000)
1,122 (320–7,775)
996 (410–2,275)
3,503 (600–8,275)
2,611 (1,025–4,025)
3,115 (1,275–5,775)
1,568 (1,275–1,775)
2,661 (1,275–3,775)
2,731 (460–22,275)
8,188 (3,025–19,775)
963 (260–7,275)
3,698 (1,525–4,275)
3,248 (1,275–8,525)
5,293 (2,025–6,025)
6,157 (2,775–11,275)
1,146 (380–7,025)
4,100 (1,025–14,275)
1,560 (450–12,025)
2,608 (440–18,275)
10,667 (4,775–26,775)
9,221 (2,525–29,025)
2,676 (775–18,025)
4,657 (1,275–31,275)
124 (70–160)
476 (190–725)
159 (80–210)
419 (160–625)
284 (120–430)
761 (240–6,025)
539 (330–1,275)
1,529 (470–3,275)
1,865 (950–2,775)
1,554 (1,000–2,775)
926 (825–950)
934 (900–950)
1,414 (350–14,275)
4,727 (1,775–11,525)
617 (200–1,275)
2,049 (1,025–2,525)
1,806 (950–4,525)
3,305 (1,275–4,025)
4,103 (2,275–7,275)
873 (280–3,025)
2,333 (800–7,025)
1,014 (330–5,025)
1,330 (330–9,025)
7,926 (3,275–21,025)
4,594 (1,275–16,025)
1,383 (410–8,525)
2,377 (700–16,275)
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances, which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels.
E13 not modeled due to surf zone use and lack of marine mammal receptors at site-specific location.
Table 33 shows the minimum,
average, and maximum ranges to onset
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
of auditory and likely behavioral effects
that rise to the level of Level B
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
harassment for phocids based on the
developed thresholds.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66933
TABLE 33—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B BEHAVIORAL HARASSMENT FOR
PHOCIDS
Range to effects for explosives: Phocids 1
Bin
Source
depth
(m)
Cluster
size
E1 ...........................................
0.1
E2 ...........................................
0.1
E3 ...........................................
0.1
1
25
1
10
1
12
1
12
2
2
2
2
25
25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
18.25
E4 ...........................................
E5 ...........................................
E6 ...........................................
E7 ...........................................
E8 ...........................................
E9 ...........................................
E10 .........................................
E11 .........................................
E12 .........................................
PTS
3
15.25
19.8
198
0.1
15.25
0.1
3
15.25
3
18.25
0.1
45.75
0.1
0.1
18.5
45.75
0.1
0.1
TTS
45 (40–65)
190 (95–260)
58 (45–75)
157 (85–240)
96 (60–120)
277 (120–390)
118 (110–130)
406 (330–875)
405 (300–430)
265 (220–430)
220 (220–220)
150 (150–150)
569 (200–850)
920 (825–1,525)
182 (90–250)
392 (340–440)
288 (250–600)
538 (450–625)
530 (460–750)
311 (290–330)
488 (380–975)
416 (350–470)
507 (340–675)
1,029 (775–1,275)
881 (700–2,275)
631 (450–750)
971 (550–1,025)
Behavioral
210 (100–290)
798 (280–1,275)
258 (110–360)
672 (240–1,275)
419 (160–625)
1,040 (370–2,025)
621 (500–1,275)
1,756 (1,025–4,775)
1,761 (1,025–2,775)
1,225 (975–1,775)
991 (950–1,025)
973 (925–1,025)
2,104 (725–9,275)
5,250 (2,025–10,275)
767 (270–1,275)
1,567 (1,275–1,775)
1,302 (1,025–3,275)
2,109 (1,775–2,275)
2,617 (1,025–4,525)
1,154 (625–1,275)
2,273 (1,275–5,275)
1,443 (675–2,025)
1,734 (725–3,525)
5,044 (2,025–8,775)
3,726 (2,025–8,775)
1,927 (800–4,025)
2,668 (1,025–6,275)
312 (130–430)
1,050 (360–2,275)
383 (150–550)
934 (310–1,525)
607 (220–900)
1,509 (525–6,275)
948 (700–2,025)
3,302 (1,025–6,275)
2,179 (1,025–3,275)
1,870 (1,025–3,275)
1,417 (1,275–1,525)
2,636 (2,025–3,525)
2,895 (825–11,025)
7,336 (2,275–16,025)
1,011 (370–1,775)
2,192 (2,025–2,275)
2,169 (1,275–5,775)
2,859 (2,775–3,275)
3,692 (1,525–5,275)
1,548 (725–2,275)
3,181 (1,525–8,025)
1,911 (800–3,525)
2,412 (800–5,025)
6,603 (2,525–14,525)
5,082 (2,025–13,775)
2,514 (925–5,525)
3,541 (1,775–9,775)
1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels.
E13 not modeled due to surf zone use and lack of marine mammal receptors at site-specific location.
Table 34 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 ottariids based on the
developed thresholds.
TABLE 34—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B BEHAVIORAL HARASSMENT FOR
OTARIIDS
Range to effects for explosives: Otariids 1
Bin
Source
depth
(m)
Cluster
size
E1 ...........................................
0.1
E2 ...........................................
0.1
E3 ...........................................
0.1
18.25
E4 ...........................................
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
E5 ...........................................
E6 ...........................................
E7 ...........................................
E8 ...........................................
E9 ...........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
3
15.25
19.8
198
0.1
15.25
0.1
3
15.25
3
18.25
0.1
45.75
0.1
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
PTS
1
25
1
10
1
12
1
12
2
2
2
2
25
25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Frm 00089
TTS
7 (7–7)
30 (25–35)
9 (9–9)
25 (25–30)
16 (15–19)
45 (35–65)
15 (15–15)
55 (50–60)
64 (40–85)
30 (30–35)
25 (25–25)
17 (0–25)
98 (60–120)
151 (140–260)
30 (25–35)
53 (50–55)
36 (35–40)
93 (90–100)
73 (70–75)
50 (50–50)
55 (55–60)
68 (65–70)
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Behavioral
34 (30–40)
136 (80–180)
41 (35–55)
115 (70–150)
70 (50–95)
206 (100–290)
95 (90–100)
333 (280–750)
325 (240–340)
205 (170–300)
170 (170–170)
117 (110–120)
418 (160–575)
750 (650–1,025)
134 (75–180)
314 (280–390)
219 (200–380)
433 (380–500)
437 (360–525)
235 (220–250)
412 (310–775)
316 (280–360)
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
56 (45–70)
225 (100–320)
70 (50–95)
189 (95–250)
115 (70–150)
333 (130–450)
168 (150–310)
544 (440–1,025)
466 (370–490)
376 (310–575)
290 (290–290)
210 (210–210)
626 (240–1,000)
1,156 (975–2,025)
220 (100–320)
459 (420–525)
387 (340–625)
642 (550–800)
697 (600–850)
385 (330–450)
701 (500–1,525)
494 (390–625)
66934
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 34—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B BEHAVIORAL HARASSMENT FOR
OTARIIDS—Continued
Range to effects for explosives: Otariids 1
Source
depth
(m)
Bin
E10 .........................................
E11 .........................................
Cluster
size
0.1
18.5
45.75
0.1
0.1
E12 .........................................
PTS
1
1
1
1
3
TTS
86 (80–95)
158 (150–200)
117 (110–130)
104 (100–110)
172 (170–180)
Behavioral
385 (240–460)
862 (750–975)
756 (575–1,525)
473 (370–575)
694 (480–1,025)
582 (390–800)
1,431 (1,025–2,025)
1,287 (950–2,775)
709 (480–1,025)
924 (575–1,275)
1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels.
E13 not modeled due to surf zone use and lack of marine mammal receptors at site-specific location.
Table 35 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 35—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT NON-AUDITORY INJURY RISK FOR ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS
Range
(m)
(min-max)
Bin
E1 .......................................................................................................................................................................................
E2 .......................................................................................................................................................................................
E3 .......................................................................................................................................................................................
E4 .......................................................................................................................................................................................
E5 .......................................................................................................................................................................................
E6 .......................................................................................................................................................................................
E7 .......................................................................................................................................................................................
E8 .......................................................................................................................................................................................
E9 .......................................................................................................................................................................................
E10 .....................................................................................................................................................................................
E11 .....................................................................................................................................................................................
E12 .....................................................................................................................................................................................
12 (11–13)
15 (15–20)
25 (25–30)
32 (0–75)
40 (35–140)
52 (40–120)
145 (100–500)
117 (75–400)
120 (90–290)
174 (100–480)
443 (350–1,775)
232 (110–775)
Note: 1 Average distance (m) to mortality is depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses.
E13 not modeled due to surf zone use and lack of marine mammal receptors at site-specific location. Differences between bins E11 and E12
due to different ordnance types and differences in model parameters.
Ranges to mortality, based on animal
mass, are show in Table 36 below.
TABLE 36—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT MORTALITY RISK FOR ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS AS A FUNCTION OF
ANIMAL MASS
Animal mass intervals (kg) 1
Bin
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
10
E1 .................................................
E2 .................................................
E3 .................................................
E4 .................................................
E5 .................................................
E6 .................................................
E7 .................................................
E8 .................................................
E9 .................................................
E10 ...............................................
E11 ...............................................
E12 ...............................................
3 (2–3)
4 (3–5)
8 (6–10)
15 (0–35)
13 (11–45)
18 (14–55)
67 (55–180)
50 (24–110)
32 (30–35)
56 (40–190)
211 (180–500)
94 (50–300)
250
0 (0–3)
1 (0–4)
4 (2–8)
9 (0–30)
7 (4–35)
10 (5–45)
35 (18–140)
27 (9–55)
20 (13–30)
25 (16–130)
109 (60–330)
35 (20–230)
1,000
5,000
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
1 (0–2)
4 (0–8)
3 (3–12)
5 (3–15)
16 (12–30)
13 (0–20)
10 (8–12)
13 (11–16)
47 (40–100)
16 (13–19)
25,000
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
2 (0–6)
2 (0–8)
3 (2–10)
10 (8–20)
9 (4–13)
7 (6–9)
9 (7–11)
30 (25–65)
11 (9–13)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–3)
0 (0–2)
0 (0–3)
5 (4–9)
4 (0–6)
4 (3–4)
5 (4–5)
15 (0–25)
6 (5–8)
≤72,000
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–2)
0 (0–2)
0 (0–2)
4 (3–7)
3 (0–5)
3 (2–3)
4 (3–4)
13 (11–22)
5 (4–8)
Note: 1 Average distance (m) to mortality is depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses.
E13 not modeled due to surf zone use and lack of marine mammal receptors at site-specific location.
Differences between bins E11 and E12 due to different ordnance types and differences in model parameters (see Table 6–42 for details).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66935
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
gun) would be approximately 215 dB re
1 mPa and 227 dB re 1 mPa, respectively,
if operated at the full capacity of 60 in3.
The size of the air gun chamber can be
adjusted, which would result in lower
SPLs and SEL per shot. 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.
Air Guns
animals from the hearing groups and the
air gun activities could overlap. Small
Table 37 and Table 38 present the
air guns (12–60 in3) would be used
approximate ranges in meters to PTS,
during testing activities in the offshore
TTS, and likely behavioral responses
areas of the Southern California Range
that rise to the level of a take for air guns Complex and in the Hawaii Range
for 1 and 10 pulses, respectively. Ranges Complex. Generated impulses would
are specific to the HSTT Study Area and have short durations, typically a few
also to each marine mammal hearing
hundred milliseconds, with dominant
group, dependent upon their criteria
frequencies below 1 kHz. The SPL and
SPL peak (at a distance 1 m from the air
and the specific locations where
TABLE 37—RANGE TO EFFECTS (METERS) FROM AIR GUNS FOR 1 PULSE
Range to effects for air guns 1 for 1 pulse (m)
PTS
(SEL)
Hearing group
High-Frequency Cetacean .............................................
Low-Frequency Cetacean ..............................................
Mid-Frequency Cetacean ...............................................
Otariidae .........................................................................
Phocidae ........................................................................
0
3
0
0
0
(0–0)
(3–4)
(0–0)
(0–0)
(0–0)
PTS
(Peak SPL)
18 (15–25)
2 (2–3)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
2 (2–3)
TTS
(SEL)
TTS
(Peak SPL)
1 (0–2)
27 (23–35)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
Behavioral 2
33 (25–80)
5 (4–7)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
5 (4–8)
702
651
689
590
668
(290–1,525)
(200–1,525)
(290–1,525)
(290–1,525)
(290–1,525)
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.
TABLE 38—RANGE TO EFFECTS (METERS) FROM AIR GUNS FOR 10 PULSES
Range to Effects for Air Guns 1 for 10 pulses (m)
PTS
(SEL)
Hearing group
High-Frequency Cetacean .............................................
Low-Frequency Cetacean ..............................................
Mid-Frequency Cetacean ...............................................
Otariidae .........................................................................
Phocidae ........................................................................
0 (0–0)
15 (12–20)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
PTS
(Peak SPL)
18 (15–25)
2 (2–3)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
2 (2–3)
TTS
(SEL)
TTS
(Peak SPL)
3 (0–9)
86 (70–140)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
4 (3–5)
Behavioral 2
33 (25–80)
5 (4–7)
0 (0–0)
0 (0–0)
5 (4–8)
702
651
689
590
668
(290–1,525)
(200–1,525)
(290–1,525)
(290–1,525)
(290–1,525)
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
Table 39 and Table 40 present the
approximate ranges in meters to PTS,
TTS, and/or Level B behavioral
harassment that rise to the level of a
take for impact pile driving and
vibratory pile removal, respectively.
Non-auditory injury is not predicted for
pile driving activities.
TABLE 39—AVERAGE RANGES TO EFFECTS (METERS) FROM IMPACT PILE DRIVING
PTS
(m)
Hearing group
Low-Frequency Cetaceans ..........................................................................................................
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans ...........................................................................................................
High-Frequency Cetaceans .........................................................................................................
Phocidae ......................................................................................................................................
Otariidae ......................................................................................................................................
TTS
(m)
65
2
65
19
2
Behavioral
(m)
529
16
529
151
12
870
870
870
870
870
Note: PTS: permanent threshold shift; TTS: temporary threshold shift.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
TABLE 40—AVERAGE RANGES TO EFFECT (METERS) FROM VIBRATORY PILE EXTRACTION
PTS
(m)
Hearing group
Low-Frequency Cetaceans ..........................................................................................................
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans ...........................................................................................................
High-Frequency Cetaceans .........................................................................................................
Phocidae ......................................................................................................................................
Otariidae ......................................................................................................................................
TTS
(m)
0
0
7
0
0
Note: PTS: permanent threshold shift; TTS: temporary threshold shift.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Behavioral
(m)
3
4
116
2
0
376
376
376
376
376
66936
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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,
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
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
surveyed. More recently, spatial habitat
modeling developed by NMFS’
Southwest Fisheries Science Center 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 line-transect 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
To characterize the marine species
density for large areas such as the HSTT
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
HSTT Study Area. This database is
described in the technical report titled
U.S. Navy Marine Species Density
Database Phase III for the HawaiiSouthern California Training and
Testing Study Area (U.S. Department of
the Navy, 2017e), 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 HSTT Study Area.
Because this data is collected using
different methods with varying amounts
of accuracy and uncertainty, the Navy
has developed a 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
models in order of preference.
1. Spatial density models 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 as a function of 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 model cannot be used for
species with low numbers of sightings.
2. Stratified design-based density
estimates use line-transect survey data
with the sampling area divided
(stratified) into sub-regions, and a
density is predicted for each sub-region
(see Barlow, 2016; Becker et al., 2016;
Bradford et al., 2017; Campbell et al.,
2014; Jefferson et al., 2014). While
geographically stratified density
estimates provide a better indication of
a species’ distribution within the study
area, the uncertainty is typically high
because each sub-region estimate is
based on a smaller stratified segment of
the overall survey effort.
3. Design-based density estimations
use line-transect survey data from land
and aerial surveys designed to cover a
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
specific geographic area (see Carretta et
al., 2015). These estimates use the same
survey data as stratified design-based
estimates, but are not segmented into
sub-regions and instead provide one
estimate for a large surveyed area.
Although relative environmental
suitability (RES) models provide
estimates for areas of the oceans that
have not been surveyed using
information on species occurrence and
inferred habitat associations and have
been used in past density databases,
these models were not used in the
current quantitative analysis. In the
HSTT analysis, due to the availability of
other density methods along the
hierarchy the use of RES model was not
necessary.
When interpreting the results of the
quantitative analysis, as described in the
Density Technical Report, ‘‘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 mammal biodiversity, any
single model method will not
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
(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a).’’
The Navy’s estimate of abundance
(based on the density estimates used) in
the HSTT 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, including being based on
different data sets, different areas, or
different time periods. 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. For
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
example, the SAR encompasses the U.S.
EEZ, while the HSTT Study area
overlaps only part of the U.S. EEZ
(specifically, the Pacific SAR overlaps
only 35 percent of the Hawaii part of the
HSTT Study Area and only about 14
percent of SOCAL), but alternately
extends out significantly beyond it to
the West. 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.
The global population structure of
humpbacks, with 14 DPSs all associated
with multiple feeding areas at which
individuals from multiple DPSs
convene, is another reason that SAR
abundance estimates can differ from
other estimates and be somewhat
confusing—the same individuals are
addressed in multiple SARs. For some
species, the stock assessment for a given
species may exceed the Navy’s density
prediction because those species’ home
range extends beyond the Study Area
boundaries. For other species, the stock
assessment abundance may be much
less than the number of animals in the
Navy’s modeling because the HSTT
Study Area extends well beyond the
U.S. waters covered by the SAR
abundance estimate. The primary source
of density estimates are geographically
specific survey data and either peerreviewed line-transect estimates or
habitat-based density models that have
been extensively validated to provide
the most accurate estimates possible.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Take Requests
The HSTT FEIS/OEIS considered all
training and testing activities proposed
to occur in the HSTT 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.
• Acoustics (sonar and other
transducers; air guns; pile driving/
extraction).
• Explosives (explosive shock wave
and sound (assumed to encompass the
risk due to fragmentation)).
• 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 HSTT 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
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).
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 mitigation is expected
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66937
to reduce model-estimated PTS to TTS
for exposures to sonar and 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 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 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66938
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
determined the standard ‘‘detection
probability’’ referred to as g(0) is most
appropriate. Also, Visibility = 1 ¥ sum
of individual visibility reduction
factors; Observation Area = portion of
impact range that can be continuously
observed during an event; and 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 × ModelEstimated 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. 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 model-predicted mortality impacts,
and then added to the model-predicted
injurious impacts.
NMFS coordinated with the Navy in
the development of this quantitative
method to address the effects of
procedural mitigation on acoustic and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 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) and
Chapter 6 (Take Estimates for Marine
Mammals) and Chapter 11 (Mitigation
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.
Summary of Requested Take From
Training and Testing Activities
As a general matter, NMFS does not
prescribe the methods for estimating
take for any applicant, but we review
and ensure that applicants use the best
available science, and methodologies
that are logical and technically sound.
Applicants may use different methods
of calculating take (especially when
using models) and still get to a result
that is representative of the best
available science and that allows for a
rigorous and accurate evaluation of the
effects on the affected populations.
There are multiple pieces of the Navy
take estimation methods—propagation
models, animat animal movement
models, and behavioral thresholds, for
example. NMFS evaluates the
acceptability of these pieces as they
evolve and are used in different rules
and impact analyses. Some of the pieces
of the Navy’s take estimation process
have been used in their rules since 2009
and undergone multiple public
comment processes, all of them have
undergone extensive internal Navy
review, and all of them have undergone
comprehensive review by NMFS, which
has sometimes resulted in modifications
to methods or models.
The Navy uses rigorous review
processes (verification, validation, and
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
accreditation processes, peer and public
review) to ensure the data and
methodology it uses represent the best
available science. For instance, the
NAEMO (animal movement) model is
the result of a NMFS-led Center for
Independent Experts (CIE) review of the
components used in earlier models. The
acoustic propagation component of the
NAEMO model (CASS/GRAB) is
accredited by the Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Master Library (OAML),
and many of the environmental
variables used in the NAEMO model
come from approved OAML databases
and are based on in-situ data collection.
The animal density components of the
NAEMO model are base products of the
Navy Marine Species Density Database,
which includes animal density
components that have been validated
and reviewed by a variety of scientists
from NMFS Science Centers and
academic institutions. Several
components of the model, for example
the Duke University habitat-based
density models, have been published in
peer reviewed literature. Others like
AMAPPS, which was conducted by
NMFS Science Centers, have undergone
quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) processes. Finally the NAEMO
model simulation components
underwent QA/QC review and
validation for model parts such as the
scenario builder, acoustic builder,
scenario simulator, etc., conducted by
qualified statisticians and modelers to
ensure accuracy. Other models and
methodologies have gone through
similar review processes.
Based on the methods discussed in
the previous sections and the Navy’s
model and the quantitative assessment
of mitigation, the Navy provided its take
request for acoustic and explosive
sources for training and testing activities
both annually (based on the maximum
number of activities per 12-month
period) and over a 5-year period. NMFS
has reviewed the Navy’s data and
analysis and determined that it is
complete and accurate and that the
takes by harassment as well as the takes
by serious injury or mortality from
explosives requested for authorization
are reasonably expected to occur and
that the takes by serious injury or
mortality could occur as a result of
vessel strikes. Five-year total impacts
may be less than the sum total of each
year because although the annual
estimates are based on the maximum
estimated takes, five-year estimates are
based on the sum of two maximum
years and three nominal years.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66939
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Authorized Take From Training
Activities
For training activities, Table 41
summarizes the Navy’s take request and
the maximum amount and type of Level
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, it was
recorded as a TTS.
A and Level B harassment that NMFS
concurs is reasonably likely to occur by
species or stock. Authorized mortality is
addressed further below. Navy Figures
6–12 through 6–50 in Chapter 6 of the
Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application
TABLE 41—SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES
IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA
Annual
Species
Stock
Level B
harassment
5-Year total **
Level A
harassment
Level B
harassment
Level A
harassment
Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)
Blue whale * ......................................
Bryde’s whale † .................................
Fin whale * .........................................
Humpback whale † ............................
Minke whale ......................................
Sei whale * ........................................
Central North Pacific ........................
Eastern North Pacific .......................
Eastern Tropical Pacific ...................
Hawaii † ............................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
CA/OR/WA † .....................................
Central North Pacific ........................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
Eastern North Pacific .......................
Hawaii ...............................................
34
1,155
27
105
1,245
33
1,254
5,604
649
3,463
53
118
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
139
5,036
118
429
5,482
133
5,645
23,654
2,920
13,664
236
453
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
6
4
2
0
0
2,751
4
5
0
11,860
14
19
0
0
0
6,257
7,078
0
0
35
16
23
57,571
22,833
27,366
148
64
105
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,044
16,364
33,494
5,497
57,172
18,036
0
0
0
0
0
0
214
31,986
2,086
74
8,186
152
42
701
405
256
28,409
73
135
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
876
142,966
9,055
356
40,918
750
207
3,005
1,915
1,094
122,784
326
606
0
9
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
84
0
352
0
Family Eschrichtiidae
Gray whale † .....................................
Eastern North Pacific .......................
Western North Pacific † ....................
Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)
Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)
Sperm whale * ...................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
1,397
1,714
Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)
Dwarf sperm whale ...........................
Pygmy sperm whale .........................
Kogia whales .....................................
Hawaii ...............................................
Hawaii ...............................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
13,961
5,556
6,012
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)
Baird’s beaked whale ........................
Blainville’s beaked whale ..................
Cuvier’s beaked whale ......................
Longman’s beaked whale .................
Mesoplodon spp ................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
Hawaii ...............................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
1,317
3,687
7,016
1,235
13,010
3,778
Family Delphinidae (dolphins)
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Bottlenose dolphin ............................
False killer whale † ............................
Fraser’s dolphin ................................
Killer whale ........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
California Coastal .............................
CA/OR/WA Offshore ........................
Hawaii Pelagic ..................................
Kauai & Niihau .................................
Oahu .................................................
4-Island .............................................
Hawaii Island ....................................
Hawaii Pelagic ..................................
Main Hawaiian Islands Insular † ......
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands .......
Hawaii ...............................................
Eastern North Pacific Offshore ........
Eastern North Pacific Transient/
West Coast Transient.
Hawaii ...............................................
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66940
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 41—SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES
IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued
Annual
Species
Stock
Long-beaked common dolphin .........
Melon-headed whale .........................
California ..........................................
Hawaiian Islands ..............................
Kohala Resident ...............................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii Island ....................................
Hawaii Pelagic ..................................
Oahu .................................................
4-Island .............................................
Hawaii ...............................................
Tropical .............................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
Hawaii ...............................................
NSD 1 ................................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
Hawaii Island ....................................
Hawaii Pelagic ..................................
Kauai & Niihau .................................
Oahu & 4-Island ...............................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
Northern right whale dolphin .............
Pacific white-sided dolphin ...............
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............
Pygmy killer whale ............................
Risso’s dolphin ..................................
Rough-toothed dolphin ......................
Short-beaked common dolphin .........
Short-finned pilot whale ....................
Spinner dolphin .................................
Striped dolphin ..................................
Level B
harassment
5-Year total **
Level A
harassment
128,994
2,335
182
56,820
43,914
2,585
6,809
4,127
260
5,816
471
76,276
6,590
4,292
0
932,453
990
8,594
89
3,138
310
1,493
119,219
5,388
Level B
harassment
Level A
harassment
14
0
0
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
45
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
559,540
9,705
913
253,068
194,882
12,603
29,207
20,610
1,295
24,428
2,105
338,560
28,143
18,506
0
4,161,283
4,492
37,077
433
12,826
1,387
7,445
550,936
22,526
69
0
0
40
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
216
5
0
0
0
0
5
3
0
137
121,256
634
90
0
0
327,136
2,386
44,017
447
0
0
7
1
72
13,636
662
170,926
34
3
349
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
Dall’s porpoise ..................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
27,282
Suborder Pinnipedia
Family Otariidae (eared seals)
California sea lion .............................
Guadalupe fur seal * .........................
Northern fur seal ...............................
U.S ...................................................
Mexico ..............................................
California ..........................................
69,543
518
9,786
Family Phocidae (true seals)
Harbor seal .......................................
Hawaiian monk seal * ........................
Northern elephant seal .....................
California ..........................................
Hawaii ...............................................
California ..........................................
3,119
139
38,169
Note: Kogia: Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales are difficult to distinguish between at sea, and abundance estimates are only available for Kogia
spp (reported in Barlow 2016 and Carretta et al. 2017). Due to low estimated abundances of CA/OR/WA dwarf sperm whales, the majority of
Kogia in the HSTT Study Area are anticipated to be CA/OR/WA pygmy sperm whales.
Mesoplodon: No methods are available to distinguish between the six species of Mesoplodon beaked whales in the CA/OR/WA stocks
(Blainville’s beaked whale (M. densirostris), Perrin’s beaked whale (M. perrini), Lesser beaked whale (M. peruvianus), Stejneger’s beaked whale
(M. stejnegeri), Gingko-toothed beaked whale (M. gingkodens), and Hubbs’ beaked whale (M. carlhubbsi)) when observed during at-sea surveys
(Carretta et al., 2018). These six species are managed as one unit.
* ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area.
** 5-year total impacts may be less than sum total of each year. Not all activities occur every year; some activities occur multiple times within a
year; and some activities only occur a few times over course of a 5-year period.
† Only designated stocks are ESA-listed.
1 NSD: No stock designation.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Authorized Take From Testing
Activities
For testing activities, Table 42
summarizes the Navy’s take request and
the maximum amount and type of take
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
by Level A and Level B harassment that
NMFS concurs is reasonably likely to
occur and has authorized by species or
stock. Navy Figures 6–12 through 6–50
in Chapter 6 of the Navy’s rulemaking/
LOA application illustrate the
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66941
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 42—SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL
TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA
Annual
Species
Stock
Level B
harassment
5-year total **
Level A
harassment
Level B
harassment
Level A
harassment
Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)
Blue whale * ......................................
Bryde’s whale † .................................
Fin whale * .........................................
Humpback whale † ............................
Minke whale ......................................
Sei whale * ........................................
Central North Pacific ........................
Eastern North Pacific .......................
Eastern Tropical Pacific ...................
Hawaii † ............................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
CA/OR/WA † .....................................
Central North Pacific ........................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
Eastern North Pacific .......................
Hawaii ...............................................
14
833
14
41
980
15
740
3,522
276
1,467
26
49
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
65
4,005
69
194
4,695
74
3,508
16,777
1,309
6,918
124
229
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
11
0
4
0
0
1,920
2
2
0
9,277
11
7
0
0
0
5,259
3,731
0
0
29
13
15
30,607
12,270
14,643
140
60
67
0
0
1
0
0
1
3,418
8,117
21,379
2,675
29,746
11,512
0
0
20
0
0
11
1,595
23,436
1,242
491
475
207
38
340
184
125
12,664
34
64
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
7,968
112,410
6,013
2,161
2,294
778
186
1,622
892
594
60,345
166
309
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
40
118,278
1,157
168
41,279
31,424
1,409
3,640
202
0
6
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
198
568,020
5,423
795
198,917
151,000
6,791
17,615
957
0
24
0
0
15
8
0
0
0
Family Eschrichtiidae
Gray whale † .....................................
Eastern North Pacific .......................
Western North Pacific † ....................
Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)
Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)
Sperm whale * ...................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
1,096
782
Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)
Dwarf sperm whale ...........................
Pygmy sperm whale .........................
Kogia whales .....................................
Hawaii ...............................................
Hawaii ...............................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
6,459
2,595
3,120
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)
Baird’s beaked whale ........................
Blainville’s beaked whale ..................
Cuvier’s beaked whale ......................
Longman’s beaked whale .................
Mesoplodon spp ................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
Hawaii ...............................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
727
1,698
4,484
561
6,223
2,415
Family Delphinidae (dolphins)
Bottlenose dolphin ............................
False killer whale † ............................
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Fraser’s dolphin ................................
Killer whale ........................................
Long-beaked common dolphin .........
Melon-headed whale .........................
Northern right whale dolphin .............
Pacific white-sided dolphin ...............
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
California Coastal .............................
CA/OR/WA Offshore ........................
Hawaii Pelagic ..................................
Kauai & Niihau .................................
Oahu .................................................
4-Island .............................................
Hawaii Island ....................................
Hawaii Pelagic ..................................
Main Hawaiian Islands Insular † ......
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands .......
Hawaii ...............................................
Eastern North Pacific Offshore ........
Eastern North Pacific Transient/
West Coast Transient.
Hawaii ...............................................
California ..........................................
Hawaiian Islands ..............................
Kohala Resident ...............................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii Island ....................................
Hawaii Pelagic ..................................
Oahu .................................................
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66942
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 42—SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL
TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued
Annual
Species
Stock
Pygmy killer whale ............................
Risso’s dolphin ..................................
Rough-toothed dolphin ......................
Short-beaked common dolphin .........
Short-finned pilot whale ....................
Spinner dolphin .................................
Striped dolphin ..................................
Level B
harassment
4-Island .............................................
Hawaii ...............................................
Tropical .............................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
Hawaii ...............................................
NSD 1 ................................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaii ...............................................
Hawaii Island ....................................
Hawaii Pelagic ..................................
Kauai & Niihau .................................
Oahu & 4-Island ...............................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
Hawaiian ...........................................
5-year total **
Level A
harassment
458
2,708
289
49,985
2,808
2,193
0
560,120
923
4,338
202
1,396
1,436
331
56,035
2,396
Level B
harassment
Level A
harassment
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1,734
13,008
1,351
240,646
13,495
10,532
0
2,673,431
4,440
20,757
993
6,770
6,530
1,389
262,973
11,546
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
216
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
72
81,611
338
6
0
1
237,870
4,357
26,168
23
0
4
1
0
27
11,258
254
107,343
7
0
131
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
Dall’s porpoise ..................................
CA/OR/WA .......................................
17,091
Suborder Pinnipedia
Family Otariidae (eared seals)
California sea lion .............................
Guadalupe fur seal * .........................
Northern fur seal ...............................
U.S. ..................................................
Mexico ..............................................
California ..........................................
48,665
939
5,505
Family Phocidae (true seals)
Harbor seal .......................................
Hawaiian monk seal * ........................
Northern elephant seal .....................
California ..........................................
Hawaii ...............................................
California ..........................................
2,325
66
22,702
Note: Kogia: Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales are difficult to distinguish between at sea, and abundance estimates are only available for Kogia
spp (reported in Barlow 2016 and Carretta et al. 2017). Due to low estimated abundances of CA/OR/WA dwarf sperm whales, the majority of
Kogia in the HSTT Study Area are anticipated to be CA/OR/WA pygmy sperm whales.
Mesoplodon: No methods are available to distinguish between the six species of Mesoplodon beaked whales in the CA/OR/WA stocks
(Blainville’s beaked whale (M. densirostris), Perrin’s beaked whale (M. perrini), Lesser beaked whale (M. peruvianus), Stejneger’s beaked whale
(M. stejnegeri), Gingko-toothed beaked whale (M. gingkodens), and Hubbs’ beaked whale (M. carlhubbsi)) when observed during at-sea surveys
(Carretta et al., 2018). These six species are managed as one unit.
* ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area.
** 5-year total impacts may be less than sum total of each year. Not all activities occur every year; some activities occur multiple times within a
year; and some activities only occur a few times over course of a 5-year period.
† Only designated stocks are ESA-listed.
1 NSD: No stock designation.
Take From Vessel Strikes and
Explosives by Serious Injury or
Mortality
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Vessel Strike
Vessel strikes from commercial,
recreational, and military vessels are
known to affect large whales and have
resulted in serious injury and occasional
fatalities to cetaceans (BermanKowalewski et al., 2010; Calambokidis,
2012; Douglas et al., 2008; Laggner
2009; Lammers et al., 2003). Records of
collisions date back to the early 17th
century, and the worldwide number of
collisions appears to have increased
steadily during recent decades (Laist et
al., 2001; Ritter 2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Numerous studies of interactions
between surface vessels and marine
mammals have demonstrated that freeranging marine mammals often, but not
always (e.g., McKenna et al., 2015),
engage in avoidance behavior when
surface vessels move toward them. It is
not clear whether these responses are
caused by the physical presence of a
surface vessel, the underwater noise
generated by the vessel, or an
interaction between the two (Amaral
and Carlson, 2005; Au and Green, 2000;
Bain et al., 2006; Bauer, 1986; Bejder et
al., 1999; Bejder and Lusseau, 2008;
Bejder et al., 2009; Bryant et al., 1984;
Corkeron, 1995; Erbe, 2002; Fe´lix, 2001;
Goodwin and Cotton, 2004; Lemon et
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
al., 2006; Lusseau, 2003; Lusseau, 2006;
Magalhaes et al., 2002; Nowacek et al.,
2001; Richter et al., 2003; Scheidat et
al., 2004; Simmonds, 2005; Watkins,
1986; Williams et al., 2002; Wursig et
al., 1998). Several authors suggest that
the noise generated during motion is
probably an important factor (Blane and
Jaakson, 1994; Evans et al., 1992; Evans
et al., 1994). Water disturbance may also
be a factor. These studies suggest that
the behavioral responses of marine
mammals to surface vessels are similar
to their behavioral responses to
predators. Avoidance behavior is
expected to be even stronger in the
subset of instances that the Navy is
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
conducting training or testing activities
using active sonar or explosives.
The most vulnerable marine mammals
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., sperm whales). In
addition, some baleen whales seem
generally unresponsive to vessel sound,
making them more susceptible to vessel
collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These
species are primarily large, slow 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 ability and
number of personnel observing, 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 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:
D Many military ships have their bridges
positioned closer to the bow, offering better
visibility ahead of the ship (compared to a
commercial merchant vessel).
D 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.
D 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
D 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.
D 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 HSTT
Study Area or while in transit.
There have been two recorded Navy
vessel strikes of large whales in the
HSTT Study Area from 2009 through
2018, the period in which Navy began
implementing effective mitigation
measures to reduce the likelihood of
vessel strikes. Both strikes occured in
2009 and both were to fin whales. In
order to account for the accidental
nature of vessel strikes to large whales
in general, and the potential risk from
any vessel movement within the HSTT
Study Area within the five-year period
in particular, the Navy requested
incidental takes based on probabilities
derived from a Poisson distribution
using ship strike data between 2009–
2016 in the HSTT Study Area (the time
period from when current mitigations
were instituted until the Navy
conducted the analysis for the EIS/OEIS
and rulemaking/LOA application; no
new strikes have occurred since), as
well as historical at-sea days in the
HSTT Study Area from 2009–2016 and
estimated potential at-sea 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-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities).
For the same reasons listed above
describing why a Navy vessel strike is
comparatively unlikely, it is highly
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66943
unlikely that a Navy vessel would strike
a whale, dolphin, porpoise, or pinniped
without detecting it and, accordingly,
NMFS is confident that the Navy’s
reported strikes are accurate and
appropriate for use in the analysis.
Specifically, Navy ships have multiple
Lookouts, including on the forward part
of the ship that can visually detect a hit
animal, in the unlikely event ship
personnel do not feel the strike (which
has occasionally occurred). Navy’s strict
internal procedures and mitigation
requirements include reporting of any
vessel strikes of marine mammals, and
the Navy’s discipline, extensive training
(not only for detecting marine
mammals, but for detecting and
reporting any potential navigational
obstruction), and strict chain of
command give NMFS a high level of
confidence that all strikes actually get
reported.
The Navy used those two fin 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 29 percent chance that
zero whales would be struck by Navy
vessels over the five-year period,
indicating a 71 percent chance that at
least one whale would be struck over
the five years and a 10 percent chance
of striking three whales over the fiveyear period. Therefore, the Navy
estimates, and NMFS agrees, that there
is some probability that the Navy could
strike, and take by serious injury or
mortality, up to three large whales
incidental to training and testing
activities within the HSTT Study Area
over the course of the five years.
Small delphinids, porpoises, and
pinnipeds are neither expected nor
authorized to be struck by Navy vessels.
In addition to the reasons listed above
that make it unlikely that the Navy will
hit a large whale (more maneuverable
ships, larger crew, etc.), following are
the additional reasons that vessel strike
of dolphins, small whales, porpoises,
and pinnipeds is considered very
unlikely. Dating back more than 20
years and for as long as it has kept
records, the Navy has no records of
individuals of these groups being struck
by a vessel as a result of Navy activities
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66944
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
and, further, their smaller size and
maneuverability make a strike unlikely.
Also, NMFS has never received any
reports from other authorized activities
indicating that these species have been
struck by vessels. Worldwide ship strike
records show little evidence of strikes of
these groups from the shipping sector
and larger vessels and the majority of
the Navy’s activities involving fastermoving vessels (that could be
considered more likely to hit a marine
mammal) are located in offshore areas
where smaller delphinid, porpoise, and
pinniped densities are lower. Based on
this information, NMFS concurs with
the Navy’s assessment and recognizes
the potential for (and is authorizing)
incidental take by vessel strike of large
whales only (i.e., no dolphins, small
whales, porpoises, or pinnipeds) over
the course of the five-year regulations
from training and testing activities as
discussed below.
For large whales, the Navy’s
application identified the distribution of
species over which the take request
would apply based on the species/
stocks most likely to be present in the
HSTT Study Area based on documented
abundance and where overlap occurs
between a species’ distribution and core
Navy training and testing areas within
the HSTT Study Area. To determine
which species may be struck, the Navy
used a weight of evidence approach to
qualitatively rank range complex
specific species using historic and
current stranding data from NMFS,
relative abundance as derived by NMFS
for the HSTT Biological Opinion, and
the Navy-funded monitoring data within
each range complex. Results of this
approach are presented in Table 5–4 of
the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application.
Based on the analysis described above
and in its application, 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 HSTT
regulations. The Navy initially
requested incidental take authorization
for up to two of any the following stocks
in the five-year period: gray whale
(Eastern North Pacific stock), fin whale
(CA/OR/WA stock), humpback whale
(CA/OR/WA stock, Mexico DPS),
humpback whale (Central North Pacific
stock), and sperm whale (Hawaii stock).
The Navy also initially requested
incidental take authorization for one of
any the following species over the fiveyear period: blue whale (Eastern North
Pacific stock), Bryde’s whale (Eastern
Tropical Pacific stock), Bryde’s whale
(Hawaii stock), humpback whale (CA/
OR/WA stock, Central America DPS),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
minke whale (CA/OR/WA stock), minke
whale (Hawaii stock), sperm whale (CA/
OR/WA stock), sei whale (Hawaii stock),
and sei whale (Eastern North Pacific
stock).
NMFS independently reviewed this
analysis and agrees that three ship
strikes have at least the potential to
occur and, therefore, that 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 (two strikes by Navy over
approximately 10 years) and the Navy’s
probability analysis. Based on the
reasons described below, however,
NMFS does not agree that two mortal
takes of humpback whale (CA/OR/WA
stock) or sperm whales are likely, or that
any strike of the following whale
species is remotely likely: Minke whale
(CA/OR/WA stock), minke whale
(Hawaii stock), sei whale (Hawaii stock),
sei whale (Eastern North Pacific stock),
Bryde’s whale (Eastern Tropical Pacific
stock), sperm whale (CA/OR/WA stock)
and Bryde’s whale (Hawaii stock).
Since the proposed rule was
published, NMFS and the Navy reexamined and re-analyzed the available
information regarding how many of any
given stock could be struck and should
be authorized for lethal take. As noted
in the proposed rule, the Navy initially
considered a weight of evidence
approach that considered relative
abundance, historical strike data over
many years, and the overlap of Navy
activities with the stock distribution in
their request. Since the proposed rule,
NMFS and the Navy further discussed
the available information and
considered two factors in addition to
those considered in the Navy’s
additional request: (1) The relative
likelihood of hitting one stock versus
another based on available strike data
from all vessel types as denoted in the
SARs and (2) whether the Navy has ever
definitively struck an individual from a
particular stock and, if so, how many
times.
To address number (1) above, NMFS
compiled information from NMFS’
SARs on detected annual rates of large
whale serious injury and mortality from
vessel collisions. The annual rates of
large whale serious injury and mortality
from vessel collisions from the SARs
help inform the relative susceptibility of
large whale species to vessel strike in
SOCAL and Hawaii as recorded
systematically over the last five years.
We summed the annual rates of
mortality and serious injury from vessel
collisions as reported in the SARs, then
divided each species’ annual rate by this
sum to get the relative likelihood. To
estimate the percent likelihood of
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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., 71 percent, as described by the
Navy’s probability analysis above). We
also calculated the percent likelihood of
striking a particular species of large
whale twice by squaring the value
estimated for the probability of striking
a particular species of whale once (i.e.,
to calculate the probability of an event
occurring twice, multiply the
probability of the first event by the
second). We note that these probabilities
vary from year to year as the average
annual mortality for a given five-year
window changes (and we include the
annual averages from 2017 and 2018
SARs in Table 43 to illustrate), however,
over the years and through changing
SARs, stocks tend to consistently
maintain a relatively higher or relatively
lower likelihood of being struck.
The probabilities calculated as
described above are then considered in
combination with the information
indicating the species that the Navy has
definitively hit in the HSTT Study Area
since 1991 (since they started tracking
consistently), as well as the information
originally considered by the Navy in
their application, which includes
relative abundance, total recorded
strikes, and the overlay of all of this
information with the Navy’s action area.
We note that for all of the mortal take
of species specifically denoted in Table
43 below, 19 percent of the individuals
struck overall by any vessel type
remained unidentified and 36 percent of
those struck by the Navy (5 of 14 in the
Pacific) remained unidentified.
However, given the information on
known stocks struck, the analysis below
remains appropriate. We also note that
Rockwood et al. (2017) modeled the
likely vessel strike of blue whales, fin
whales, and humpback whales on the
U.S. West Coast (discussed in more
detail in the Serious Injury and
Mortality subsection of the Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination
section), and those numbers help inform
the relative likelihood that the Navy
will hit those stocks.
For each indicated stock, Table 43
includes the percent likelihood of
hitting an individual whale once based
on SAR data, total strikes from Navy
vessels and from all other vessels,
relative abundance, and modeled vessel
strikes from Rockwood et al. The last
column indicates the annual mortality
authorized: those stocks with one M/SI
take authorized over the five-year period
of the rule are shaded lightly, while
those with two M/SI takes authorized
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66945
Accordingly, stocks that have no
record of ever having been struck by any
vessel are considered unlikely to be
struck by the Navy in the five-year
period of the rule. Stocks that have
never been struck by the Navy, have
rarely been struck by other vessels, and
have a low percent likelihood based on
the SAR calculation and a low relative
abundance are also considered unlikely
to be struck by the Navy during the fiveyear rule. We note that while vessel
strike records have not differentiated
between Eastern North Pacific and
Western North Pacific gray whales,
given their small population size and
the comparative rarity with which
individuals from the Western North
Pacific stock are detected off the U.S.
West Coast, it is highly unlikely that
they would be encountered, much less
struck. This rules out all but six stocks.
Three of the six stocks (CA/OR/WA
stock of fin whale, Eastern North Pacific
stock of gray whale, and Central North
Pacific stock of humpback whale) are
the only stocks to have been hit more
than one time each by the Navy in the
HSTT StudyAarea, have the three
highest total strike records (21, 35, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
58 respectively), have three of the four
highest percent likelihoods based on the
SAR records, have three of the four
significantly higher relative abundances,
and have up to a 3 or 4 percent
likelihood of being struck twice based
on NMFS’ SAR calculation (not shown
in Table 43, but proportional to percent
likelihood of being struck once). Based
on all of these factors, it is considered
reasonably likely that these stocks could
be struck twice during the five-year rule.
Based on the information summarized
in Table 43 and the fact that we expect
three large whales could be struck, it is
considered reasonably likely that one
individual from the remaining three
stocks could be struck. Sperm whales
have only been struck a total of two
times by any vessel type in the whole
HSTT Study Area, however, the Navy
struck a sperm whale once in Hawaii
prior to 2009 and the relative abundance
of sperm whales in Hawaii is the highest
of any of the stocks present. Therefore,
we consider it reasonably likely that the
Hawaii stock of sperm whales could be
struck once during the five-year rule.
The total strikes of Eastern North Pacific
blue whales, the percent likelihood of
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
striking one based on the SAR
calculation, and their relative
abundance can all be considered
moderate compared to other stocks and
the Navy has struck one in the past prior
to 2009 (with the likelihood of striking
two based on the SAR calculation being
below one percent). Therefore, we
consider it reasonably likely that the
Navy could strike one individual over
the course of the five-year rule. The
Navy has not hit a humpback whale in
the HSTT Study Area and their relative
abundance is very low. However, the
Navy has struck a humpback whale in
the Northwest and as a species,
humpbacks have a moderate to high
number of total strikes and percent
likelihood of being struck. Although the
likelihood of CA/OR/WA humpback
whales being struck overall is moderate
to high relative to other stocks, the
distribution of the Mexico DPS versus
the Central America DPS, as well as the
distribution of overall vessel strikes
inside versus outside of the SOCAL area
(the majority are outside), supports the
reasonable likelihood that the Navy
could strike one individual humpback
whale (not two), and that that
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.025</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
over the five-year period of the rule are
shaded more darkly.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66946
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
individual would be highly likely to be
from the Mexico DPS, as described
below.
Specifically, regarding the likelihood
of striking a humpback whale from a
particular DPS, as suggested in Wade et
al. (2016), the probability of
encountering (which is thereby applied
to striking) humpback whales from each
DPS in the CA/OR area is 89.6 percent
and 19.7 percent for the Mexico and
Central America DPSs, respectively
(note that these percentages reflect the
upper limit of the 95 percent confidence
interval to reduce the likelihood of
underestimating take, and thereby do
not total to 100). This suggests that the
chance of striking a whale from the
Central America DPS is one tenth to one
fifth of the overall chance of hitting a
CA/OR/WA humpback whale in general
in the SOCAL part of the HSTT Study
Area, which in combination with the
fact that no humpback whale has been
struck in SOCAL makes it highly
unlikely, and thereby none from the
Central America DPS are anticipated or
authorized. If a humpback whale were
struck in SOCAL, it is likely it would be
of the Mexico DPS. However, regarding
the overall likelihood of striking a
humpback whale at all and the likely
number of times, we note that the
majority of strikes of the CA/OR/WA
humpback whale (i.e., the numbers
reflected in Table 43) take place outside
of SOCAL and, whereas the comparative
DPS numbers cited above apply in the
California and Oregon feeding area, in
the Washington and Southern British
Columbia feeding area, Wade et al.
(2016) suggest that 52.9, 41.9, and 14.7
percent of humpback whales
encountered will come from the Hawaii,
Mexico, and Central America DPSs,
respectively. This means that the
numbers in Table 43 indicating the
overall strikes of CA/OR/WA humpback
whales and SAR calculations based on
average annual mortality over the last
five years are actually lower than
indicated for the Mexico DPS, which
would only be a subset of those
mortalities. Last, the Rockwood et al.
paper supports a relative likelihood of
1:1:2 for striking blue whales,
humpback whales, and fin whales off
the U.S. West Coast, which supports the
authorized take included in this rule,
which is 1, 1, and 2, respectively over
the five-year period. For these reasons,
one mortal take of CA/OR/WA
humpback whales, which would be
expected to be of the Mexico DPS, could
reasonably likely occur and is
authorized.
Accordingly, the Navy revised their
request for take by serious injury or
mortality to include up to two of any the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
following species in the five-year
period: Gray whale (Eastern North
Pacific stock), fin whale (CA/OR/WA
stock), humpback whale (Central North
Pacific stock); and one of any of the
following species in the five year
period: Blue whale (Eastern North
Pacific stock), humpback whale (CA/
OR/WA stock, Mexico DPS), or sperm
whale (Hawaii stock).
As described above, NMFS and the
Navy concur that vessel strikes to the
stocks below are very unlikely to occur
due to the stocks’ relatively low
occurrence in the HSTT Study Area,
particularly in core HSTT training and
testing subareas, and the fact that the
stocks have not been struck by the Navy
and are rarely, if ever, recorded struck
by other vessels. Therefore the Navy is
not requesting lethal take authorization,
and NMFS is not authorizing lethal take,
for the following stocks: Bryde’s whale
(Eastern Tropical Pacific stock), Bryde’s
whale (Hawaii stock), humpback whale
(CA/OR/WA stock, Central America
DPS), minke whale (CA/OR/WA stock),
minke whale (Hawaii stock), sei whale
(Hawaii stock), sei whale (Eastern North
Pacific stock), and sperm whale (CA/
OR/WA stock).
In conclusion, although it is generally
unlikely that any whales will be struck
in a year, based on the information and
analysis above, NMFS anticipates that
no more than three whales could be
taken by serious injury or mortality over
the five-year period of the rule, and that
those three whales may include no more
than two of any of the following stocks:
Gray whale (Eastern North Pacific
stock), fin whale (CA/OR/WA stock),
humpback whale (Central North Pacific
stock); and no more than one of any of
the following stocks: Blue whale
(Eastern North Pacific stock), humpback
whale (CA/OR/WA, Mexico DPS), and
sperm whale (Hawaii stock).
Accordingly, NMFS has evaluated
under the negligible impact standard the
serious injury or mortality of 0.2 or 0.4
whales annually from each of these
species or stocks (i.e., 1 or 2 takes,
respectively, divided by 5 years to get
the annual number), along with other
expected harassment incidental take.
Explosives
The Navy’s model and quantitative
analysis process used for the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS and in the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application to estimate
potential exposures of marine mammals
to explosive stressors is detailed in 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Department of the Navy, 2018).
Specifically, over the course of a year,
the Navy’s model and quantitative
analysis process estimates mortality of
two short-beaked common dolphin and
one California sea lion as a result of
exposure to explosive training and
testing activities (please refer to section
6 of the Navy’s rule making/LOA
application). Over the five-year period
of the regulations requested, mortality of
10 marine mammals in total (6 shortbeaked common dolphins and 4
California sea lions) is estimated as a
result of exposure to explosive training
and testing activities. NMFS
coordinated with the Navy in the
development of their take estimates and
concurs with the Navy’s approach for
estimating the number of animals from
each species that could be affected by
mortality takes from explosives.
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] satisfies] 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
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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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) and the Navy
Atlantic Fleet Testing and Training rule
(83 FR 57076; November 14, 2018).
Before NMFS can issue incidental
take regulations under section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, it must make
a finding that the total taking will have
a ‘‘negligible impact’’ on the affected
‘‘species or stocks’’ of marine mammals.
NMFS’ and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s 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 3 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
3A
growth rate can be positive, negative, or flat.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.4
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
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
4 For purposes of this discussion, we omit
reference to the language in the standard for least
practicable adverse impact that says we also must
mitigate for subsistence impacts because they are
not at issue in this regulation.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66947
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.
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 and their
habitat. 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.5
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
5 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\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66948
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
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 and their habitats, 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 population-level effects.
While direct evidence of impacts to
species or stocks from a specified
activity is rarely available, and
additional study is still needed to
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
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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.6 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)
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
6 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 potential biological
removal (PBR) level (as defined in 16
U.S.C. 1362(20)); the affected species or
stock is a small, resident population; or
the stock is involved in a UME or has
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)).
Assessment of Mitigation Measures for
HSTT Rule
NMFS reviewed the Specified
Activities and the mitigation measures
as described in the Navy’s rulemaking/
LOA application and the HSTT 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
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66949
implementation and monitoring. A
complete discussion of the evaluation
process used to develop, assess, and
select mitigation measures, which was
coordinated with and informed by input
from NMFS and included consideration
of the measures that were added as a
result of the settlement agreement (see
below), can be found in Chapter 5
(Mitigation) and Appendix K
(Geographic Mitigation Assessment) of
the HSTT FEIS/OEIS and is summarized
below in this section. The process
described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) and
Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation
Assessment) of the HSTT 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.
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). We
note that in their application, the Navy
added a couple of mitigation measures
that were new since the 2013–2018
HSTT incidental take regulations: (1)
The Santa Barbara Island Mitigation
Area—to avoid or reduce potential
impacts from mid-frequency active
sonar and explosives on numerous
marine mammal species (including blue
whales and gray whales) within the
mitigation area, which contains
important foraging or migration habitat
and overlaps a portion of the Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary, and
(2) Blue Whale, Gray Whale, and Fin
Whale Awareness Notification Message
Areas—to further help avoid or reduce
potential impacts from vessel strikes
and training and testing activities on
blue whales, gray whales, and fin
whales within the Southern California
portion of the Study Area, which
contains important seasonal foraging or
migration habitat for these species.
However, it is still 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 HSTT
application, we worked with the Navy
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66950
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
prior to the publication of the proposed
rule and ultimately, the Navy agreed to
significantly expand geographic
mitigation areas adjacent to the island of
Hawaii to more fully encompass the
Alenuihaha Channel (important habitat
and migration area) and overlap the
BIAs of multiple species (reproductive
area for humpbacks, and overlapping
the ranges of multiple small resident
populations of odontocetes) and to limit
additional anti-submarine warfare midfrequency active sonar (ASW) source
bins (MF4) within those mitigation
areas, which is expected to further
reduce the probability and severity of
impacts that would be more likely to
affect reproduction or survival of
individuals or adversely affect the stock.
Of note, following publication of the
2013 HSTT incidental take rule, the
Navy and NMFS were sued and the
parties reached a settlement in
Conservation Council for Hawaii v.
National Marine Fisheries Service, 97 F.
Supp.3d 1210 (D. Haw. 2015), in which
the Navy agreed to restrict its activities
within specific areas in the HSTT Study
Area (beyond the areas and restrictions
included as mitigation measures in the
2013 rule). Additional detail is provided
below in the subsection entitled Brief
Comparison of Settlement Mitigation
and Final HSTT Mitigation in the Rule.
In summary (and as described in more
detail below in this section), the Navy
has agreed to procedural mitigation
measures that will reduce the
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 2013 HSTT
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 publication of 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
marine 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 Tables 45–
62.
1. Pre-event in-water explosive event
observations—The Navy will implement
pre-event observation mitigation for all
in-water explosive event mitigation
measures. Additionally, if there are
other platforms participating in these
events and in the vicinity of the
detonation area, Navy personnel on
those platforms 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, and grenades) in advance of
explosive events increases the
likelihood that marine mammals will be
detected if they are in the mitigation
area for that event 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 mitigation for all
in-water explosive event mitigation
measures. Additionally, if there are
other platforms participating in these
events and in the vicinity of the
detonation area, Navy personnel on
those platforms 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) 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. The San Diego Arc Mitigation Area
was the initial mitigation area for the
proposed rule. For the final rule, the
Navy agreed to add the San Nicolas
Island and Santa Monica/Long Beach
Mitigation Areas (June 1–October 31),
which include all of the relatively small
portions of the Santa Monica Bay/Long
Beach and San Nicolas Island BIAs that
overlap the HSTT Study Area (55.4
Nmi2 or 13.9 percent and 33.6 Nmi2 or
23.5 percent, respectively). The Navy
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
agrees to limit explosives during
training in the Santa Monica Bay/Long
Beach and San Nicolas Island Mitigation
Areas. This reduction of activities (as
described here and in the newly
expanded measure immediately below,
i.e., fewer explosives and MF1 sonar) in
these areas with higher concentrations
of blue whales engaged in important
feeding behaviors is expected to reduce
the probability or severity of impacts on
blue whales that would be more likely
to adversely affect the reproduction or
survival of any individual, which in
turn reduces the likelihood that any
impacts would translate to adverse
impacts on the stock.
4. The Navy agrees to limit surface
ship sonar in the Santa Monica/Long
Beach and San Nicolas Island Mitigation
Areas. The Navy will not exceed 200 hrs
of MFAS sensor MF1 from June 1
through October 31 in the combined San
Diego Arc, San Nicolas Island, and
Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation
Areas (manner in which this helps
reduce impact to marine mammals
noted directly above).
5. In the proposed rule, the Navy
included a seasonal restriction on the
use of hull-mounted active sonar in the
4-Islands Mitigation Area, but no limit
on explosive use. The Navy has added
an all-year restriction on the use of
explosives in this area. The 4-Islands
Mitigation Area overlaps with a
reproductive BIA for humpback whales,
as well as BIAs for several small
resident populations of multiple
odontocetes (bottlenose dolphins, main
Hawaiian Island false killer whales,
pantropical spotted dolphins, and
spinner dolphins). For humpback
whales, the reduction of activities in
this area with individuals that have
calves or are potentially breeding is
expected to reduce the probability or
severity of impacts that would be more
likely to adversely impact reproduction
or survival of individuals by directly
interfering with breeding behaviors or
by separating mothers and calves at a
time with calves are more susceptible to
predators. For the odontocete stocks
with BIAs for small resident
populations, we aim to avoid
overwhelming small populations (which
are more susceptible to certain
population effects, such as Allee effects)
with large scale impacts, especially
when the population is limited to a
small area and less able to access
alternative habitat. Limiting explosive
effects in these mitigation areas that
overlap the BIAs further reduces
impacts to these stocks, although we
note that all four of these odontocete
small resident populations span
multiple islands, which means that
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
impacts in any one location are less
likely to affect the whole population.
6. The Navy has agreed to issue
notification messages to increase
operator awareness of the presence of
marine mammals. The Navy will review
WhaleWatch, a program coordinated by
NMFS’ West Coast Region as an
additional information source to inform
the drafting of the annual notification
messages for blue, fin, and gray whales
in SOCAL.The information will alert
vessels to the possible presence of these
stocks to maintain safety of navigation
and further reduce the potential for a
vessel strike. Any expanded
mechanisms for detecting large whales,
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.
The Navy assessed the new and/or
expanded measures it has agreed to
(above) in the context of personnel
safety, practicality of implementation,
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 the HSTT FEIS/OEIS that
were not included in the Navy’s
rulemaking/LOA application, 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 HSTT 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
NGOs or the public, through scoping or
public comment on environmental
compliance documents. Appendix K
(Geographic Mitigation Assessment) of
the HSTT FEIS/OEIS includes an indepth analysis of time/area restrictions
that have been recommended over time
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
or previously implemented as a result of
litigation. As described in Chapter 5
(Mitigation) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS,
commenters sometimes recommend that
the Navy reduce its overall amount of
training, reduce explosive use, modify
its sound sources, completely replace
live training with computer simulation,
or include time of day restrictions.
Many 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 HSTT
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
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 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy
evaluated additional potential
procedural mitigation measures,
including increased mitigation zones,
ramp-up measures, 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 HSTT FEIS/
OEIS). NMFS independently reviewed
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
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66951
required under the least practicable
adverse impact standard.
Last, Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment) of the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS describes a comprehensive
method for analyzing potential
geographic mitigation that includes
consideration of both a biological
assessment of how the potential time/
area limitation would benefit the
species or stock and its habitat (e.g., is
a key area of biological importance or
would result in avoidance or reduction
of impacts) in the context of the
stressors of concern in the specific area
and an operational assessment of the
practicability of implementation (e.g.,
including an assessment of the specific
importance of that area for training,
considering proximity to training ranges
and emergency landing fields and other
issues). The analysis analyzes an
extensive list of areas, including areas in
which certain Navy activities were
limited under the terms of the 2015
HSTT settlement agreement, areas
identified by the California Coastal
Commission, and areas suggested during
scoping. For the areas that were agreed
to under the settlement agreement, the
Navy notes two important facts that
NMFS generally concurs with: (1) The
measures were derived pursuant to
negotiations with plaintiffs and were
specifically not evaluated or selected
based on the examination of the best
available science that NMFS typically
applies to a mitigation assessment and
(2) the Navy’s adoption of restrictions
on its activities as part of a relatively
short-term settlement does not mean
that those restrictions are practicable to
implement over the longer term.
The Navy proposed (and NMFS has
incorporated into this rule) several time/
area mitigations that were not included
in the 2013–2018 HSTT MMPA
regulations (as described above). For the
areas that are not included in these
regulations, though, the analysis in the
HSTT FEIS/OEIS (Chapter 5 and
Appendix K) shows that on balance, the
mitigation was not warranted because
the anticipated reduction of adverse
impacts on marine mammal species or
stocks and their habitat was not
sufficient to offset the impracticability
of implementation (in some cases
potential benefits to marine mammals
were limited to non-existent, in others
the consequences on mission
effectiveness were too great). We note
that in regard to the protection of
marine mammal habitat, habitat value is
informed by marine mammal presence
and use and, in some cases, there may
be overlap in measures that minimize
impacts to the species or stock directly
and measures that minimize impacts on
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66952
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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.,
blue whale feeding areas in SOCAL, and
in-shore small resident populations of
odontocetes around Hawaii). 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.
Overall, NMFS has independently
reviewed the Navy’s mitigation analysis
Chapter 5 (Mitigation) and Appendix K
(Geographic Mitigation Assessment) of
the HSTT FEIS/OEIS as referenced
above), which considers the same
factors that NMFS considers to satisfy
the least practical adverse impact
standard, and concurs with the
conclusions. Therefore, NMFS is not
including the additional measures
discussed in the HSTT FEIS/OEIS in
these regulations, other than the new
measures that were discussed in the
proposed rule and those agreed upon
after publication of the proposed rule, as
described above. Below, we list and
describe the mitigation measures
(organized into procedural measures
and mitigation areas) that NMFS has
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. However, first, in the section
immediately below, we provide a brief
summary of the ways in which the
mitigation included in this rule
compares to the mitigation the Navy
implemented during the settlement
agreement.
Brief Comparison of 2015 Settlement
Mitigation and Final HSTT Mitigation in
the Rule
As noted above, following publication
of the 2013 HSTT MMPA incidental
take rule, the Navy and NMFS were
sued and the parties reached a
settlement in 2015 under which the
Navy agreed to restrict its activities
within specific areas in the HSTT Study
Area (beyond the areas and restrictions
included in the 2013 rule). While we
have described above the analysis that
supports the selection of mitigation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
measures included in the final rule
(referencing the associated Navy
documents, where appropriate), because
the Navy has been implementing the
settlement agreement measures since
2015, we provide here a summary
description of the differences and
additional analysis.
First, we note broadly that the
provisional restrictions on activities
within the HSTT Study Area were
derived pursuant to negotiations with
the plaintiffs as part of the lawsuit and
specifically were not evaluated or
selected based on the best available
science as would occur through the
MMPA rulemaking process 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 impacts of Navy activities on
marine mammals or any other marine
species, the extent to which the
measures would reduce impacts, or the
practicability of the measures. The
Navy’s adoption of restrictions on its
HSTT testing and training activities as
part of the relatively short-term
settlement agreement therefore did not
mean that those restrictions were
supported by the best available science,
likely to reduce impacts on marine
mammals species or stocks and their
habitat, or practicable to implement
from a military readiness standpoint
over the longer term in the HSTT Study
Area. Accordingly, as required by
statute, NMFS analyzed the Navy’s
activities as set forth in its application
and including impacts, proposed
mitigation, and additional potential
mitigation (including the settlement
agreement measures) pursuant to the
‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’
standard to determine the appropriate
mitigation to include in these
regulations. Some of the measures that
were included in the 2015 settlement
agreement are included in the final rule,
while some are not.
As characterized elsewhere in the
rule, we look here at the differences in
both procedural mitigation measures
and mitigation areas. The 2015
settlement agreement included two
procedural mitigations (one of which
was a group of related reporting
measures). Regarding one of the
measures, the 2015 settlement
agreement indicated that ‘‘Navy surface
vessels operating within the HSTT shall
avoid approaching marine mammals
head-on and shall maneuver to maintain
a 500 yard (457 meter) mitigation zone
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for observed whales and a 200 yard (183
meter) mitigation zone for all other
observed marine mammals (except bow
riding dolphins), providing it is safe to
do so.’’ This measure is fully included
in this final rule. Regarding the other
measure, the settlement agreement
included several related reporting
requirements for NMFS to implement in
the event the discovery of an injured or
dead marine mammal triggered certain
Navy reporting requirements included
in the 2013 rule. These reporting
requirements are not included in this
rule both because it is not the role of
101(a)(5)(A) regulations to require
reporting and notifications by NMFS to
others (where appropriate notice and
opportunity for public involvement is
already provided for under the statute)
and this reporting by NMFS did not
further the conservation of marine
mammals. Last, these settlement
agreement reporting measures
highlighted inconsistencies between
some of the measures required under
the 2013 regulations and those
inconsistencies have been resolved; the
2018 LOAs include updated reporting
requirements.
NMFS’ and the Navy’s analysis of
mitigation areas is described in the
subsections above and the description of
areas included in the final rule are
described in the subsection below. In
order to assist the reader in
understanding the differences in
mitigation areas between the terms of
the 2015 settlement agreement (as a
result of the ruling in Conservation
Council for Hawaii v. National Marine
Fisheries Service, 97 F. Supp.3d 1210
(D. Haw. 2015)) and this final rule, we
offer the following:
• Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 below depict the
settlement mitigation areas and the HSTT
Mitigation Areas for Hawaii and SOCAL.
• Table 44 below compares the mitigation
requirements from the 2015 settlement
agreement areas to the mitigation
requirements for the areas specified in this
final rule (noting also the species for which
impacts will be reduced).
• Table K.2–2 of Appendix K in the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS includes a comparison of the
settlement agreement areas to mitigation
areas for this rulemaking period by species
and BIAs.
• NMFS’ CetSound website includes an
interactive map depicting the BIAs for all
species and stocks (there are 12 overlapping
BIAs in the main Hawaiian Islands, making
it difficult to present them effectively in a
static map). See https://cetsound.noaa.gov/
biologically-important-area-map.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66953
ER27DE18.027</GPH>
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.026</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Figure 1. 2015 Settlement Agreement Areas in the Hawaii Portion of the HSTT
Study Area.
66954
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Figure 3. 2015 Settlement Agreement Areas in the Southern California Portion of the HSTT
Study Area.
Figure 4. 2018 - 2023 Mitigation Areas in the Southern California Portion of the HSTT
Study Area.
l\'
j:
20
I
I
4011m
f
ER27DE18.029</GPH>
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.028</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
N 0
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66955
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
TABLE 44—COMPARISON OF MITIGATION AREAS IN EFFECT 2015–2018 UNDER THE 2015 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO
MITIGATION AREAS IMPLEMENTED UNDER 2018 FINAL RULE
Litigation settlement
(2015–December 2018)
HSTT final MMPA incidental take rule
(December 2018–2023)
Hawaii
• Area 1–A Hawaii Island (North, South, East) (year-round). (a)
Prohibit the use of MFAS for training and testing activities during
both MTEs and unit-level training; and (b) prohibit the use of inwater explosives for training and testing activities. Reduces impacts to false killer whales, pygmy killer whales, short-finned pilot
whales, bottlenose dolphins, spinner dolphins, Cuvier’s beaked
whales, and Blainville’s beaked whales
• Area 1–B Hawaii Island (Northwest) (year-round). Limit the use
of MFAS for training and testing activities during MTEs to one
Rim of the Pacific in 2016, one Rim of the Pacific in 2018, three
Undersea Warfare Exercises per calendar year, and one Independent Deployer Certification Exercise per calendar year. Reduces impacts to humpback whales, false killer whales, shortfinned pilot whales, melon-headed whales, bottlenose dolphins,
spinner dolphins, Cuvier’s beaked whales, and Blainville’s
beaked whales
Hawaii
• Hawaii Island Mitigation Area (year-round). Incorporates parts of settlement measures 1–A through 1–E and 2–A through 2–E. Navy will
minimize the use of MFAS (MF1 and MF4) and will not use explosives during testing and training. Reduces impacts on ESA-listed
false killer whales and monk seals, two species of beaked whales,
humpback whales, and other species.
• 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area (November 1–April 15 for active
sonar, year-round for explosives). Incorporates parts of settlement
Areas 1–A, 1–B, 1–C, 1–D, 1–E, 2–A, 2–B, and 2–C and humpback
reporting area. Navy will not use MFAS (MF1) or explosives in this
mitigation area during training and testing. Reduces impacts to
humpback whales, ESA-listed false killer whales and monk seals,
and some dolphin species.
• Humpback Whale Special Reporting Areas (December 15–April 15).
Incorporates parts of settlement areas 1–B, 1–C, 1–D, 2–A, 2–B,
and 2–D, humpback special reporting area and humpback cautionary area. Navy will report the hours of MF1 used in these areas
in training and testing activity reports.
• Humpback Whale Awareness Notification Message Area (November–April). Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft operating in the area to the possible
presence of concentrations of large whales, including humpback
whales.
• Area 1–C Hawaii Island (West) (year-round). (a) Limit the use of
MFAS for training and testing activities during MTEs to one Rim
of the Pacific in 2016, one Rim of the Pacific in 2018, three Undersea Warfare Exercises per calendar year, and one Independent Deployer Certification Exercise per calendar year; (b)
prohibit the use of MFAS for training and testing activities during
unit-level training (excluding unit-level training conducted by participants in an ongoing MTE; and (c) prohibit the use of in-water
explosives for training and testing activities. Reduces impacts to
humpback whales, false killer whales, dwarf sperm whales,
pygmy killer whales, short-finned pilot whales, bottlenose dolphins, spotted dolphins, spinner dolphins, rough toothed dolphins, Cuvier’s beaked whales, and Blainville’s beaked whales
• Area 1–D Hawaii Island (Southwest) (year-round). (a) Limit the
use of MFAS for training and testing activities during MTEs to
one Rim of the Pacific in 2016, one Rim of the Pacific in 2018,
three Undersea Warfare Exercises per calendar year, one Independent Deployer Certification Exercise per calendar year, and
one Sustainment Exercise per calendar year; (b) prohibit the use
of MFAS for training and testing activities during unit-level training (excluding unit-level training conducted by participants in ongoing MTEs ); and (c) prohibit the use of in-water explosives for
training and testing activities. Reduces impacts to dwarf sperm
whales, pygmy killer whales, short-finned pilot whales, bottlenose
dolphins, spotted dolphins, spinner dolphins, rough-toothed dolphins, Cuvier’s beaked whales, and Blainville’s beaked whales
• Area 1–E and 2–E Hawaii Island (nearshore Northwest) (yearround). Require that all surface vessels use extreme caution and
proceed at safe speed so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance,
and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. Reduces impacts to dwarf
sperm whales, false killer whales, pygmy killer whales, melonheaded whales, bottlenose dolphins, spotted dolphins, spinner
dolphins, rough-toothed dolphins, and Blainville’s beaked whales
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66956
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 44—COMPARISON OF MITIGATION AREAS IN EFFECT 2015–2018 UNDER THE 2015 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO
MITIGATION AREAS IMPLEMENTED UNDER 2018 FINAL RULE—Continued
Litigation settlement
(2015–December 2018)
HSTT final MMPA incidental take rule
(December 2018–2023)
• Area 2–A (Southeast Oahu, Southwest Molokai, Penguin Bank)
(year-round). (a) Prohibit the use of MFAS for training and testing activities during MTEs; (b) prohibit the use of in-water explosives for training and testing activities; and (c) require that all
surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe speed
so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision
with any sighted object or disturbance, and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and
conditions. Reduces impacts to humpback whales, false killer
whales, bottlenose dolphins, and spinner dolphins
• Area 2–B (South Molokai, East Maui, Penguin Bank) (yearround). (a) Prohibit the use of in-water explosives for training and
testing activities; and (b) require that all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe speed so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object
or disturbance, and can be stopped within a distance appropriate
to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. Reduces impacts
to humpback whales, bottlenose dolphins, spotted dolphins, and
spinner dolphins
• Area 2–C (North Molokai, North Maui) (year-round). (a) Prohibit
the use of MFAS for training and testing activities during MTEs;
(b) implement a Protective Measure Assessment Protocol measure advising Commanding Officers that the area is false killer
whale habitat and that they should avoid using MFAS during
unit-level training within the area whenever practicable; and (c)
prohibit the use of in-water explosives for training and testing activities (within the overlap of Area 2–B and Area 2–C, the restrictions imposed in Area 2–B and Area 2–C both apply). Reduces
impacts to false killer whales, bottlenose dolphins, and spinner
dolphins
• Area 2–D (Southeast Oahu, Northwest Molokai) (year-round).
Prohibit the use of in-water explosives for training and testing activities. Reduces impacts to false killer whales, bottlenose dolphins, and spinner dolphins
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Southern California
• Area 3–A (San Diego Arc, coastal) (June 1–October 31). (a) Prohibit the use of MFAS for training and testing activities during
MTEs and unit-level training; and (b) require that all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe speed so they can
take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any
sighted object or disturbance, and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
Reduces impacts to blue and gray whales
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Southern California
• San Diego Arc, San Nicolas Island, and Santa Monica/Long Beach
Mitigation Areas (June 1–October 31). Incorporates parts of settlement areas 3–A, 3–B, 3–C, 4–A, 4–B, 4–C, and 4–D. Navy will minimize the use of MFAS (MF1) within the three Mitigation Areas during training and testing. Within the San Diego Arc Mitigation Area,
Navy will not use explosives during large-caliber gunnery, torpedo,
bombing, and missile activities during testing and training. Within the
San Nicolas Island Mitigation Area Navy will not use explosives during mine warfare, large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing and missile activities during training. Within the Santa Monica/Long Beach
Mitigation Area, Navy will not use explosives during mine warfare,
large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75″
rockets) activities during training and testing. Reduces impacts primarily to blue whales, but also gray and fin whales.
• Santa Barbara Island Mitigation Area (year-round). Incorporates
parts of settlement areas 4A, Channel Island NMS. Navy will not
use MFAS (MF1) and explosives in small-, medium-, and large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile activities during unitlevel training or MTEs. Reduces impacts to numerous marine mammal species that use the Channel Islands NMS and partially overlap
areas for blue whales and gray whales.
• Blue Whale (June–October), Gray Whale (November–March), and
Fin Whale (November–May) Awareness Notification Message Areas.
Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert
ships and aircraft operating in the area to the possible presence of
concentrations of large whales, particularly blue, gray, and fin
whales.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66957
TABLE 44—COMPARISON OF MITIGATION AREAS IN EFFECT 2015–2018 UNDER THE 2015 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO
MITIGATION AREAS IMPLEMENTED UNDER 2018 FINAL RULE—Continued
Litigation settlement
(2015–December 2018)
HSTT final MMPA incidental take rule
(December 2018–2023)
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
• Area 3–B (San Diego Arc, coastal) (June 1–October 31). (a) Prohibit the use of MFAS for training and testing activities during
MTEs and unit-level training, except for system checks; (b) implement a seasonal Protective Measure Assessment Protocol
measure advising Commanding Officers that the area is blue
whale habitat and that they should avoid conducting system
checks within the area whenever practicable; and (c) require that
all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe
speed so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a
collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and can be
stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. Reduces impacts to blue and gray
whales
• Area 3–C (Santa Monica Bay to Long Beach, coastal) (November 1–May 20). Require that all surface vessels use extreme
caution and proceed at safe speed so they can take proper and
effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to
the prevailing circumstances and conditions. Reduces impacts to
blue and gray whales
• Area 4–A (East of San Nicholas Island) (year-round). (a) Prohibit
the use of MFAS for training and testing activities during MTEs
and unit-level training; and (b) prohibit the use of in-water explosives for training and testing activities. Reduces impacts to blue
and gray whales
• Area 4–B (east of Santa Catalina Island) (year-round). Prohibit
the use of MFAS for training and testing activities during MTEs
and unit-level training. Reduces impacts to gray whales
• Area 4–C (Tanner-Cortes Bank) (June 1–October 31). Require
that all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe
speed so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a
collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and can be
stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. Reduces impacts to blue and gray
whales
• Area 4–D (south of 4–A) (year-round). Require all surface vessels to use extreme caution and proceed at a safe speed so they
can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any
sighted object or disturbance, and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
Reduces impacts to gray whales
As described above, NMFS analyzed the
Navy’s activities as set forth in its
application, the impacts of those activities,
the proposed mitigation, and potential
additional mitigation (including the 2015
settlement agreement measures) pursuant to
the ‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’
standard to determine the appropriate
mitigation to include in these regulations.
Some of the measures that were included in
the 2015 settlement agreement are included
in this final rule (for example, the vast
majority of the area in Hawaii included in the
mitigation for the settlement agreement is
included in Mitigation Areas in this rule),
while some are not (for example, because of
the instrumented ranges and specific training
needs in SOCAL, less of the area covered in
the settlement agreement is included as
Mitigation Areas in this rule). As noted
previously, Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment) of the HSTT FEIS/
OEIS includes a detailed analysis of all of the
potential mitigation areas and associated
measures (including the settlement measures
addressed in this section), in the context of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
both reduction of marine mammal impacts
and practicability. NMFS has independently
reviewed Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation
Assessment), determined that the analysis
reflects the best available science, and used
the information to support our findings
outlined in this Mitigation Measures section.
A summary of the rationale for not adopting
the relatively small subset of remaining 2015
settlement agreement measures that were not
carried forward follows.
In Hawaii, about 85 percent of the area that
was covered by 2015 settlement areas is
covered by mitigation areas in this final rule
(see Figures 1 and 2 above). The protected
area around the island of Hawaii is the same
in this rule as it was in the 2015 settlement
agreement (Hawaii Mitigation Area), with the
difference being that the settlement
agreement included mitigation on Penguin
Bank and in a couple of areas north of
Molokai and Maui that are not included in
the 4-Islands Mitigation Area in this final
rule. As explained in more detail in the full
analysis in Section 3 of Appendix K of the
HSTT FEIS/OEIS, Penguin Bank offers
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
critical shallow and constrained conditions
for Navy training (especially submarines) that
are not available anywhere else in Hawaii.
The areas north of Molokai and Maui that are
not included in the current 4-Islands
Mitigation Area are similarly critical for
certain exercises that specifically include
torpedo exercises deliberately conducted in
this area north of the islands to avoid the
other suitable training areas between the four
islands where humpback whale density is
higher. The 2015 settlement agreement
mitigation restricted all MFAS and explosive
use on Penguin Bank (area 2–A), however, as
the Navy explains, this MFAS restriction is
impracticable in that it would have
unacceptable impacts on their training and
testing capabilities. In addition, the Navy
does not typically use explosives in this area.
For the settlement areas north of Molokai and
Maui that are not covered in the rule (area
2–B and part of area 2–C), the settlement
agreement restricted explosive use but did
not restrict MFAS in the 2–B area. Explosive
use in these areas is also already rare, but for
the reasons described in Appendix K,
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66958
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
restricting MFAS use is impracticable and
would have unacceptable impacts on training
and testing. We also note that while it is not
practicable to restrict MFAS use on Penguin
Bank, MFAS use is relatively low and we
have identified it as a special reporting area
for which the Navy will report the MFAS use
in that area to inform adaptive management
discussions in the future. Additionally, some
of the areas that the 2015 settlement
agreement identified included language
regarding extra vigilance intended to avoid
vessel strikes. Neither NMFS nor the Navy
thought that inclusion of this term as written
would necessarily reduce the probability of
a vessel strike, so instead we have included
the Humpback Whale Awareness Notification
provision, which sends out a message to all
Navy vessels in Hawaii during the time that
humpback whales are present. Last we note
that the 2015 settlement mitigation areas
with MFAS restrictions sometimes excluded
all MFAS, while sometimes they limited the
number of MTEs that could occur (with no
limit on any particular type of sonar,
meaning that hull-mounted surface ship
sonar could be operated), whereas the sonar
restrictions in this final rule limit the use of
surface ship hull-mounted sonar, which is
the source that results in the vast majority of
incidental takes.
For SOCAL, the 2015 settlement areas had
four primary objectives: Reducing impacts in
blue whale feeding areas, reducing the
likelihood of large whale vessel strikes,
minimizing incidental take of gray whales,
and minimizing incidental take of beaked
whales in areas that the plaintiffs argued
were specifically important to beaked
whales. As noted previously, of the four blue
whale feeding areas in SOCAL, the Navy
mitigation areas in this rule fully cover three
of them (those associated with settlement
areas 3–A, 3–B, 4–A, and 4–B in the 2015
settlement agreement) and limit surface ship
hull-mounted MFAS and explosive use. In
fact, we included protections for the southern
end of a blue whale feeding BIA (Santa
Monica/Long Beach area), by limiting hullmounted MFAS and explosives that were not
included in the 2015 settlement areas. The
fourth blue whale feeding BIA, Tanner-Cortes
Banks, provides unique and irreplaceable
shallow-water conditions that are critical for
shallow-water training and testing (especially
for submarines) and that are not available
elsewhere in SOCAL, along with a shallowwater minefield training range. Notably, in a
satellite tracking study of blue whales in
Southern California from 2014 to 2017,
Tanner-Cortes Banks was only transited
minimally by individual blue whales (Mate
et al., 2018). Limiting activities in this area
would inhibit the Navy’s ability to
successfully test and train and is
impracticable. In fact, the 2015 settlement
area at Tanner-Cortes Banks did not limit
MFAS or explosive use. Rather, TannerCortes Banks (area 4–C), settlement area 4–
D, and the large settlement area close to shore
(area 3–C) each only had one associated
protective measure, which was language
regarding extra vigilance intended to avoid
vessel strikes. However, neither NMFS nor
the Navy thought that inclusion of this term
as written would necessarily reduce the
probability of a vessel strike, so instead we
have included the Blue Whale, Gray Whale,
and Fin Whale Awareness Notification Area,
which sends out a message to all Navy
vessels in SOCAL during the time these large
whales are present and will more effectively
help to reduce the probability of ship strike.
The remaining areas covered by 2015
settlement mitigation areas that are not
covered by mitigation areas in this final rule
(area 4–B and the outer edges of area 4–A,
which does not align exactly with the blue
whale BIA like the current Navy mitigation
area does) were intended to reduce impacts
on gray whales and to provide some sort of
protection for beaked whales. However,
NMFS and the Navy disagree that the
remaining 2015 settlement areas provide the
protection the plaintiffs assert. As noted
earlier, gray whales migrate primarily
through a 5 to 10 km corridor along the West
Coast, with some individuals occasionally
ranging offshore (noting that mother/calf
pairs always stay very close to shore), which
resulted in the BIA recognizing a 47-km
buffer beyond the 5 to 10 km main migration
corridor, but also expanding the BIA further
offshore in order to encompass the Channel
Islands, where some individuals also
sometimes range further. Prohibiting
activities outside of the main migration
corridor in an area where gray whales may
be present only occasionally is not expected
to meaningfully reduce effects, especially if
the mitigation area is small compared to the
much larger buffer area and the same amount
of activities occur outside of the mitigation
area, but still in the larger area that gray
whales occupy. Regarding beaked whales, the
plaintiffs in the Conservation Council for
Hawaii case indicated that settlement area 4–
B would provide important habitat for
beaked whales based on tagging data from
two whales in 2014. However, while beaked
whales are present in the area, tagging data
through 2018 (for 27 Cuvier’s beaked whales)
shows that these whales have site fidelity to
the SOAR Range and typically do not move
toward the 2015 settlement areas when they
do leave SOAR. In other words, since the
2015 settlement area is not an area of known
particular importance for these whales,
protecting it would not be expected to reduce
impacts. Appendix K of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS
explains in detail why additional limitations
in this area would inhibit training and testing
and thereby be impracticable, and the
Comments and Responses section of this rule
addresses these recommendations
specifically. In summary, the mitigation areas
identified in this rule address the valid
concerns that were targeted through the 2015
settlement agreement, but areas that were
either impracticable to continue to
implement or do not provide a reduction in
impacts on marine mammals were not
carried forward.
The final Procedural Mitigation measures
and Mitigation Area measures are described
in the sections below.
Final Procedural Mitigation
Procedural mitigation is mitigation that the
Navy will implement whenever and
wherever an applicable training or testing
activity takes place within the HSTT 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 45) 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 45 through Tables 64) 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
large-caliber projectiles, missiles and rockets,
bombs, sinking exercises, mines, underwater
demolition multiple charge mat weave and
obstacles loading, anti-swimmer grenades),
and physical disturbance and strike stressors
(i.e., vessel movement, towed in-water
devices, small-, medium-, and large-caliber
non-explosive practice munitions, nonexplosive missiles and rockets, non-explosive
bombs and mine shapes).
TABLE 45–PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AND EDUCATION
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• All training and testing activities, as applicable.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Appropriate Navy personnel (including civilian personnel) involved in mitigation and training or testing activity reporting under the specific
activities 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:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66959
TABLE 45–PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AND EDUCATION—Continued
Procedural Mitigation Description
—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 46 through 49.
Procedural Mitigation for Active Sonar
Procedural mitigation for active sonar is
described in Table 46 below.
TABLE 46—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR ACTIVE SONAR
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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).
• 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 Navy personnel must power down 6 dB, at 500 yd, Navy personnel must power down an additional 4
dB (for a total of 10 dB), and at 200 yd Navy personnel must shut down for low-frequency active sonar ≥200 decibels (dB) and hullmounted 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 highfrequency active sonar.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation
zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are 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: Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; power down active sonar transmission by 6 dB if marine mammals are observed within 1,000 yd
of the sonar source; power down an additional 4 dB (for a total of 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 marine mammals are observed within
200 yd of the sonar source.
• 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 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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66960
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Procedural Mitigation for Air Guns
Procedural mitigation for air guns is
described in Table 47 below.
TABLE 47—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR AIR GUNS
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Air guns.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout must be 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 floating vegetation is observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation
zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, relocate or delay the start of air gun use.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, cease air gun use.
• 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: (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 48 below.
TABLE 48—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 must be 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 floating vegetation is observed, delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, delay the start of pile driving or vibratory pile extraction.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, cease impact pile driving or vibratory pile extraction.
• 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: (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 49 below.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
TABLE 49—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 must be positioned on the ship conducting the firing.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66961
TABLE 49—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR WEAPONS FIRING NOISE—Continued
Procedural mitigation description
—Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same one provided for under Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber Projectiles or under Small-, Medium, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive Practice Munitions.
Mitigation Requirements:
• 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 floating vegetation is observed, relocate or delay the start of weapons firing until the
mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, relocate or delay the start of weapons firing.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, cease weapons firing.
• 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: (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
Mitigation measures for explosive stressors
are provided in Tables 50 through 59.
Procedural Mitigation for Explosive
Sonobuoys
Procedural mitigation for explosive
sonobuoys is described in Table 50 below.
TABLE 50—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE SONOBUOYS
Procedural mitigation description
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Stressor or Activity:
• Explosive sonobuoys.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout must be positioned 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) 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 floating vegetation is 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 marine mammals are observed, relocate or delay the start of sonobuoy or
source/receiver pair detonations.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, cease sonobuoy or source/receiver pair detonations.
• 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: (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 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 51 below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66962
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 51—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE TORPEDOES
Procedural mitigation description
Stressor or Activity:
• Explosive torpedoes.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout must be 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 floating vegetation is 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 marine mammals or jellyfish aggregations are observed, relocate or delay the start of firing.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals and jellyfish aggregations; if marine mammals and jellyfish aggregations are observed,
cease firing.
• 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: (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 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 medium- and
large-caliber projectiles is described in Table
52 below.
TABLE 52—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MEDIUM-CALIBER AND LARGE-CALIBER PROJECTILES
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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 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 for Weapons Firing Noise.
• 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.
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 floating vegetation is observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone
is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, relocate or delay the start of firing.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, cease firing.
• 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: (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):
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66963
TABLE 52—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MEDIUM-CALIBER AND LARGE-CALIBER PROJECTILES—Continued
Procedural mitigation description
—When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), observe 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 53
below.
TABLE 53—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 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 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 floating vegetation is observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone
is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, relocate or delay the start of firing.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, cease firing.
• 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: (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 54 below.
TABLE 54—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE BOMBS
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Procedural mitigation description
Stressor or Activity:
• Explosive bombs.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout must be positioned in the aircraft 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.
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 floating vegetation is observed, relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment until
the mitigation zone is clear.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66964
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 54—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE BOMBS—Continued
Procedural mitigation description
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are 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 marine mammals are observed, cease bomb deployment.
• 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: (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 55 below.
TABLE 55—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR SINKING EXERCISES
Procedural mitigation description
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Stressor or Activity:
• Sinking exercises.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 2 Lookouts (one must be positioned in an aircraft and one must be 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.
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 of firing until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Conduct aerial observations of the mitigation zone for marine mammals and jellyfish aggregations; if marine mammals or jellyfish aggregations are 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 marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease
firing.
—Immediately after any planned or unplanned breaks in weapons firing of longer than 2 hours, observe the mitigation zone for marine
mammals from the aircraft and vessel; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must 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 hours 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, Navy
personnel must 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
Procedural mitigation for explosive mine
countermeasure and neutralization activities
is described in Table 56 below.
TABLE 56—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MINE COUNTERMEASURE AND NEUTRALIZATION ACTIVITIES
Procedural mitigation description
Stressor or Activity:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66965
TABLE 56—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MINE COUNTERMEASURE AND NEUTRALIZATION ACTIVITIES—
Continued
Procedural mitigation description
• Explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout must be positioned on a vessel or in an aircraft when implementing the smaller mitigation zone.
• 2 Lookouts (one must be positioned in an aircraft and one must be on a small boat) when implementing the larger mitigation zone.
• 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.
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 floating vegetation is observed, relocate or delay the start of detonations until the
mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, relocate or delay the start of detonations.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals, concentrations of seabirds, and individual foraging seabirds; if for marine mammals,
concentrations of seabirds, and individual foraging seabirds are observed, cease detonations.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity or a sighting of seabird concentrations or individual foraging seabirds during the activity:
—Navy personnel must allow a sighted animal 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
Procedural mitigation for explosive mine
neutralization activities involving Navy
divers is described in Table 57 below.
TABLE 57—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MINE NEUTRALIZATION ACTIVITIES INVOLVING NAVY DIVERS
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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 must be on a small boat and one must be 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, 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.
Mitigation Requirements:
• 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 (0.1–29 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 timedelay firing devices):
—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, relocate or delay the start of detonations or fuse initiation until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, relocate or delay the start of detonations or fuse initiation.
• During the activity:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66966
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 57—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MINE NEUTRALIZATION ACTIVITIES INVOLVING NAVY DIVERS—
Continued
Procedural mitigation description
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals, concentrations of seabirds, and individual foraging seabirds (in the water and not on
shore); if marine mammals, concentrations of seabirds, and individual foraging seabirds are observed, cease detonations or fuse initiation.
—To the maximum extent practicable depending on mission requirements, safety, and environmental conditions, Navy must position boats
mustnear 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 (0.1–29 lb. net explosive weight) to exceed 10 min.
—During activities conducted in shallow water, a shore-based observer must survey the mitigation zone with binoculars for birds before and
after each detonation. If training involves multiple detonations, the second (or third, etc.) detonation must occur either immediately after
the preceding detonation (i.e., within 10 seconds) or after 30 min. to avoid potential impacts on birds foraging underwater.
• Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity or a sighting of seabird concentrations or individual foraging seabirds during the activity:
—Navy personnel must allow a sighted animal 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 Underwater
Demolition Multiple Charge—Mat Weave and
Obstacle Loading
Procedural mitigation for underwater
demolition multiple charge—mat weave and
obstacle loading is described in Table 58
below.
TABLE 58—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR UNDERWATER DEMOLITION MULTIPLE CHARGE—MAT WEAVE AND OBSTACLE
LOADING
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Procedural Mitigation Description
Stressor or Activity:
• Underwater Demolition Multiple Charge—Mat Weave and Obstacle Loading exercises.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 2 Lookouts (one must be on a small boat and one must be on shore from an elevated platform).
• 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.
Mitigation Requirements:
• Mitigation zone:
—700 yd around the detonation location.
• Prior to the initial start of the activity:
—For 30 min. prior to the first detonation, the Lookout positioned on a small boat must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation
and marine mammals; if floating vegetation or marine mammals are observed, delay the start of detonations.
—For 10 min. prior to the first detonation, the Lookout positioned on shore must use binoculars to observe the mitigation zone for marine
mammals; if marine mammals are observed, delay the start of detonations until the mitigation zone has been clear of any additional
sightings for a minimum of 10 min.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, cease detonations.
• 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: (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 location; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10
min. (as determined by the shore observer).
• After completion of the activity (for 30 min.):
—The Lookout positioned on a small boat 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 assets must assist in the visual observation of
the area where detonations occurred.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66967
Procedural Mitigation for Maritime Security
Operations—Anti-Swimmer Grenades
Procedural mitigation for maritime security
operations—anti-swimmer grenades is
described in Table 59 below.
TABLE 59—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 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.
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 floating vegetation is observed, relocate or delay the start of detonations until the
mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, relocate or delay the start of detonations.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, cease detonations.
• 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: (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 Physical
Disturbance and Strike Stressors
Mitigation measures for physical
disturbance and strike stressors are provided
in Table 60 through Table 64.
Procedural Mitigation for Vessel Movement
Procedural mitigation for vessel movement
is described in Table 60 below.
TABLE 60—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR VESSEL MOVEMENT
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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), (3) the vessel is operated autonomously,
or (4) when impractical based on mission requirements (e.g., during Amphibious Assault—Battalion Landing exercises).
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout must be 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 marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must maneuver to
maintain distance.
• Additional requirements:
—If a marine mammal vessel strike occurs, Navy personnel must follow the established incident reporting procedures.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66968
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Procedural Mitigation for Towed In-Water
Devices
Procedural mitigation for towed in-water
devices is described in Table 61 below.
TABLE 61—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 must be 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 marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must maneuver to maintain distance.
Procedural Mitigation for Small-, Medium-,
and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive Practice
Munitions
Procedural mitigation for small-, medium, and large-caliber non-explosive practice
munitions is described in Table 62 below.
TABLE 62—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 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.
Mitigation Requirements:
• 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 floating vegetation is observed, relocate or delay the start of firing until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, relocate or delay the start of firing.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, cease firing.
• 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: (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 non-explosive
missiles and rockets is described in Table 63
below.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
TABLE 63—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 must be positioned in an aircraft.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66969
TABLE 63—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE MISSILES AND ROCKETS—Continued
Procedural mitigation description
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 floating vegetation is observed, relocate or delay the start of firing until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, relocate or delay the start of firing.
• During the activity:
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, cease firing.
• 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: (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 non-explosive
bombs and mine shapes is described in Table
64 below.
TABLE 64—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE BOMBS AND MINE SHAPES
Procedural mitigation description
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Stressor or Activity:
• Non-explosive bombs.
• Non-explosive mine shapes during mine laying activities.
Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform:
• 1 Lookout must be positioned in an aircraft.
Mitigation Requirements:
• 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 floating vegetation is observed, relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment or
mine laying until the mitigation zone is clear.
—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are 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 and; if marine mammals are observed, cease bomb deployment or mine laying.
• 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:
(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.
Final Mitigation Areas
In addition to procedural mitigation, the
Navy will implement mitigation measures
within mitigation areas to avoid or minimize
potential impacts on marine mammals (see
Figures 2 and 4 above and the revised figures
provided in the HSTT FEIS/OEIS for specific
information on the location and boundaries
of each mitigation area). A full technical
analysis (for which the methods were
summarized above) of the mitigation areas
that the Navy considered for marine
mammals is provided in Appendix K
(Geographic Mitigation Assessment) of the
HSTT FEIS/OEIS. The Navy has taken into
account public comments received on the
HSTT DEIS/OEIS, best available science, and
the practicability of implementing additional
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
mitigation measures and has enhanced its
mitigation areas and mitigation measures to
further reduce impacts to marine mammals.
The Navy has therefore revised their
mitigation areas since their application
(changes noted at the beginning of this
section). The Navy re-analyzed existing
mitigation areas and considered new habitat
areas suggested by the public, NMFS, and
other non-governmental organizations,
including main Hawaiian Islands insular
false killer whale ESA designated critical
habitat, important habitat for large whales in
SOCAL, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
science discussed in Chapter 3 of the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS (Affected Environment and
Environmental Consequences section),
published literature, predicted activity
impact footprints, marine species monitoring
and density data, and the practicability of
implementing additional mitigations.
NMFS conducted an independent analysis
of the mitigation areas that the Navy will
implement and that are included in this rule,
which are described below. NMFS concurs
with the Navy’s analysis, which 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 or stocks or their
habitat in the manner described in the Navy’s
analysis and this rule. We note that NMFS is
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66970
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
heavily reliant on the Navy’s assessment of
practicability, since the Navy is best
equipped to judge the degree to which a
given mitigation measure affects personnel
safety or mission effectiveness, and is
practical to implement. The Navy considers
the measures in this rule to be practicable.
We further describe and summarize the
manner in which the Area Mitigations in the
rule will reduce the likelihood or severity of
adverse impacts to marine mammal species
or stocks or their habitat below.
Mitigation Areas in Hawaii
Hawaii Island Mitigation Area: The Navy
will not use more than 300 hours of MF1
surface hull-mounted MFAS (the source that
results in, by far, the highest numbers of take)
or 20 hours of MF4 dipping sonar in a year,
or explosives across this large area at any
time of the year. This mitigation area
overlaps the entirety of several small,
resident populations (BIAs) of odontocetes
that occur only around the island of Hawaii
(Hawaii stocks of dwarf sperm whale, pygmy
killer whale, short-finned pilot whale, melonheaded whale, bottlenose dolphin, and
Blaineville’s beaked whale) and about 80 and
90 percent, respectively, of the Hawaii stocks
of the rough-toothed dolphin and Cuvier’s
beaked whale. For small resident
populations, we aim to avoid overwhelming
small populations (which are more
susceptible to certain adverse impacts on
population rates of growth and survival, such
as Allee effects) with large scale impacts,
especially when the population is limited to
a small area and less able to access
alternative habitat. By minimizing exposure
to the most impactful sonar sources and not
using explosives, both the magnitude and
severity of both behavioral impacts and
potential hearing impairment are greatly
reduced. There are also several small resident
populations (BIAs) of odontocetes that span
multiple islands, and this mitigation area
overlaps all of the stock’s range around the
island of Hawaii for false killer whales (Main
Hawaiian Island insular stock) and spinner
dolphins (Hawaiian Islands stock), and about
90 percent of the range around the island of
Hawaii for pantropical spotted dolphins
(Hawaii stock). Additionally, critical habitat
has been designated, pursuant to the ESA, for
false killer whales (Main Hawaiian Island
insular stock) in waters between 45 and 3,200
meters depth around all of the main
Hawaiian islands, and this mitigation area
captures more than 95 percent of this area
around the island of Hawaii. Stocks that span
multiple islands and have larger total area
within their range are generally considered
somewhat less vulnerable than those with
smaller ranges, but nonetheless, this
mitigation area (along with the addition of
the 4-Islands Mitigation Area discussed
immediately below) offers significant
reduction of impacts to these stocks.
This mitigation area also overlaps an
important breeding and calving area (BIA) for
the Central North Pacific stock of humpback
whales (of note, the BIA entirely contains,
and is slightly larger than, the Hawaii
Humpback Whale National Marine
Sanctuary). This BIA includes areas adjacent
to all of the Main Hawaiian Islands, and this
mitigation area encompasses the important
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
area adjacent to the island of Hawaii. For
humpback whales, the reduction of activities
and associated impacts (behavioral
disturbance or TTS) in this area for
individuals that have calves or are
potentially breeding is expected to reduce the
probability or severity of impacts that would
be more likely to adversely impact
reproduction or survival of individuals by
directly interfering with breeding behaviors
or by separating mothers and calves at a time
when calves are more susceptible to
predators and less able to care for and feed
themselves.
Critical habitat has been designated,
pursuant to the ESA, for the Hawaiian monk
seal from the shore out to the 200-m depth
line (but only between the bottom and 10
meters above the bottom) in multiple areas
on 10 islands of the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands and six islands of the Main Hawaiian
Islands. These areas include: (1) Significant
coastal areas where seals haul out for resting,
molting, socializing, and avoiding predators;
(2) preferred coastal and marine nursery
grounds where seals haul out for pupping
and nursing, and (3) marine areas where seals
hunt and feed. This mitigation area overlaps
all of their critical habitat around the Island
of Hawaii and, by not using explosives or the
most impactful sonar sources in this area,
thereby reduces the likelihood that take
might impact reproduction or survival by
interfering with important feeding or resting
behaviors (potentially having adverse
impacts on energy budgets) or separating
mothers and pups in times when pups are
more susceptible to predation and less able
to feed or otherwise take care of themselves.
4-Islands Region Mitigation Area: The
Navy will not use MF1 surface hull-mounted
MFAS (the source that results in, by far, the
highest numbers of take) from November 15
through April 15 or use explosives in this
area at any time of the year. The Maui/
Molokai area (4-Islands Region) is an
important reproductive and calving area for
humpback whales (another section of the
BIA, and including a greater area than the
Hawaii island section), and the mitigation
area overlaps the entirety of this BIA between
the islands of Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and
Kaho’alawe. As noted above, the reduction of
activities in this area with individuals that
have calves or are potentially breeding is
expected to reduce the probability or severity
of impacts that would be more likely to
adversely impact reproduction or survival of
individuals by directly interfering with
breeding behaviors or by separating mothers
and calves at a time when calves are more
susceptible to predators and less able to care
for and feed themselves.
In addition, as noted above, there are also
several small resident populations of marine
mammals (BIAs) that span multiple islands,
and this mitigation area overlaps about 80
percent of the pantropical spotted dolphin
(Hawaii stock) area adjacent to these four
islands (one of three discrete areas of the
BIA), about 40 percent of the portion of the
false killer whale’s (Main Hawaiian Island
insular stock) range that spans an area north
of Molokai and Maui (one of the two
significantly larger areas that comprise the
false killer whale BIA), and a good portion
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of the BIA for spinner dolphins (Hawaiian
Islands stock), which spans the Main
Hawaiian Islands in one large continuous
area. As noted above, the critical habitat for
false killer whales extends fairly far out (to
3,200 meters depth) around all the Main
Hawaiian Islands. As described in the Hawaii
Island Mitigation Area section above, by
limiting exposure to the most impactful sonar
source and explosives for these stocks, in this
4-Islands Region Mitigation Area in addition
to the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area both the
magnitude and severity of both behavioral
impacts and potential hearing impairment
are greatly reduced.
Also as noted first above, critical habitat
has been designated for the Hawaiian monk
seal from the shore out to the 200-m depth
line around the four islands targeted with
this mitigation area. The mitigation area
overlaps more than half of the critical habitat
around these four islands and by not using
explosives or the most impactful sonar
sources in this area, the likelihood that take
might impact reproduction or survival by
interfering with important feeding or resting
behaviors (potentially having adverse
impacts on energy budgets) or separating
mothers and pups in times when pups are
more susceptible to predation and less able
to feed or otherwise take care of themselves
is greatly reduced.
Humpback Whale Awareness Notification
Message Area: The Navy will issue a seasonal
awareness notification message that will alert
Navy ships and aircraft in the area of the
possible presence of whales and instruct
them to remain vigilant to the presence of
large whales that when seasonally
concentrated (like humpbacks) may become
vulnerable to vessel strikes. The message is
issued to all vessels in Hawaii from
November through April. This message will
further increase the vigilance of Navy
Lookouts in a place and time where
humpback whale density is high, which will
further reduce the chance that a humpback
whale (or other large whale) may be struck.
Humpback Whale Special Reporting Areas:
The Navy will report the total hours of
surface ship hull-mounted MFAS used
between December 15 and April 15 in three
special reporting areas, including Penguin
Banks and two other much smaller areas that
also overlap the humpback whale BIA. These
reporting areas are not mitigation areas,
however, we describe them here because they
were identified in order to inform the
adaptive management process. Specifically,
Penguin Bank is an area with high humpback
whale density that is also critical for Navy
training and testing. Because of the
impracticability of implementing activity
limitations in this important area, we
designated this reporting requirement so that
NMFS could remain aware of the level of
activity in the area and revisit mitigation
discussions, if appropriate. To date the
Navy’s reporting has not lead to changes in
NMFS’ least practicable adverse impact
analysis for the mitigation in this area.
Mitigation Areas Off the U.S. West Coast
Santa Barbara Island Mitigation Area
(Year-round): The Navy will not use ship
hull-mounted MFAS during training or
testing (the source responsible for the most
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
take), or explosives during medium-calibre or
large-calibre gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and
missile (including 2.75-inch rockets)
activities during training, year-round. The
boundary of this mitigation area is
conterminous with the boundary of the
portion of the Channel Islands NMS that is
within the HSTT Study Area, and overlaps
the extensive coastal gray whale migration
BIA. The Channel Islands NMS is considered
a highly productive and diverse area of highvalue habitat that is more typically free of
anthropogenic stressors (because many
activities are prohibited or limited within the
Sanctuary boundaries), and, therefore,
limiting sonar and explosive activities in this
area would be expected to reduce the
likelihood that marine mammals feeding or
resting in the area (which is more likely
because of the higher value habitat) would be
disrupted in a manner that would have
adverse effects on their energy budgets and
potentially impact reproduction or survival,
or that marine mammals using the area
would incur TTS or PTS. Activity limitations
in this mitigation area are considered
protection of generally higher quality habitat
(because of the diversity of prey species and
protected space, including acoustic habitat,
that is generally freer from stressors) for the
myriad marine mammal species that use it or
may pass through the area, which could
include any of the species identified as being
present in the SOCAL portion of the HSTT
Study Area. Though the gray whale migration
area primarily consists of a relatively narrow
coastal strip, some gray whales migrate
through this area, either north or south, in all
months of the year except August and
September.
San Diego Arc, San Nicolas Island, and
Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Areas:
From June 1 through October 31, the Navy
will not conduct more than 200 hours of
surface ship hull-mounted MFAS in these
combined areas during training or testing,
and will limit explosive use in the three areas
as described in Table 66 below. The San
Diego Arc Mitigation Area is conterminous
with the entirety of a blue whale feeding BIA
and the other two mitigation areas are
conterminous with the portions of two blue
whale feeding BIAs that overlap the HSTT
Study Area. One blue whale feeding BIA in
SOCAL is not protected by a mitigation area
(Tanner-Cortes Banks) because it would be
impracticable due to the significant
importance of the area for Navy testing and
training (described in detail in the HSTT
FEIS/OEIS). All of these mitigation areas
overlap the gray whale migratory route.
Reducing harassing exposures (behavioral
disturbance or hearing impairment) of marine
mammals to sonar and explosives in feeding
areas, even when the animals have
demonstrated some tolerance for disturbance
when in a feeding state, is expected to reduce
the likelihood that feeding would be
interrupted to a degree that energetic reserves
might be affected in a manner that could
reduce survivorship or reproductive success.
This mitigation area will also partially
66971
overlap with an important migration area for
gray whales.
Blue whale (June–October), Gray Whale
(November–March), and Fin Whale
(November–May) Awareness Notification
Message Area: The Navy will issue a seasonal
awareness notification message that will alert
ships and aircraft in the area of the possible
presence of whales and instruct them to
remain vigilant to the presence of large
whales that, when seasonally concentrated
(like blue whales, gray whales, or fin whales)
may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. The
message is issued to all Navy vessels in
SOCAL in the indicated time periods. This
message is will further increase the vigilance
of Navy Lookouts in a place and time where
blue, gray, and fin whale density is high,
which will further reduce the chance that
one of these species (or other large whale)
may be struck.
Information on the mitigation measures
that the Navy will implement within
mitigation areas is provided in Tables 65 and
66. The mitigation applies year-round unless
specified otherwise in the tables.
Mitigation Areas for the Hawaii Range
Complex (HRC)
Mitigation areas for the HRC are described
in Table 65 below. The location of each
mitigation area is depicted in Figures 1 and
2 above and may also be found in Chapter
5 of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS.
TABLE 65—MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Mitigation area description
Stressor or Activity:
• Sonar.
• Explosives.
• Vessel strikes.
Mitigation Area Requirements:
• Hawaii Island Mitigation Area (year-round):
—Navy personnel must not conduct more than 300 hours of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or 20 hours of MF4
dipping sonar, or use explosives that could potentially result in takes of marine mammals during training and testing. Should national security require conduct of more than 300 hours of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or 20 hours of MF4 dipping
sonar, or use of explosives that could potentially result in the take of marine mammals during training or testing, Naval units must obtain
permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. Navy personnel must provide
NMFS with advance notification and include the information (e.g., sonar hours or explosives usage) in its annual activity reports submitted to NMFS.
• 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area (November 15–April 15 for active sonar; year-round for explosives):
—Navy personnel must not use MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or explosives that could potentially result in
takes of marine mammals during training and testing. Should national security require use of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or explosives that could potentially result in the take of marine mammals during training or testing, Naval units must
obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. Navy personnel must provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information (e.g., sonar hours or explosives usage) in its annual activity reports submitted to NMFS.
• Humpback Whale Special Reporting Areas (December 15–April 15):
—Navy personnel must report the total hours of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar used in the special reporting areas in
its annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS.
• Humpback Whale Awareness Notification Message Area (November–April):
—Navy personnel must issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft operating in the area to the possible
presence of concentrations of large whales, including humpback whales.
—To maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during transits, Navy personnel must instruct vessels to remain vigilant to the presence of large whale species (including humpback whales), that when concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes.
—Platforms must use the information from the awareness notification message to assist their visual observation of applicable mitigation
zones during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66972
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Mitigation Areas for the SOCAL Portion of
the Study Area
Mitigation areas for the SOCAL portion of
the Study Area are described in Table 66
below. The location of each mitigation area
is depicted in Figures 3 and 4 above and may
also be found in Chapter 5 of in the 2018
HSTT FEIS/OEIS.
TABLE 66—MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PORTION OF THE STUDY AREA
Mitigation area description
Stressor or Activity
• Sonar.
• Explosives.
• Vessel strikes.
Mitigation Area Requirements:
• San Diego Arc, San Nicolas Island, and Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Areas (June 1–October 31):
—Navy personnel must not conduct more than a total of 200 hours of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar in the
combined areas, excluding normal maintenance and systems checks, during training and testing. Should national security require conduct of more than 200 hours of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar in the combined areas during training and
testing (excluding normal maintenance and systems checks), naval units must obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. Navy personnel must provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information (e.g., sonar hours) in its annual activity reports submitted to NMFS.
—Within the San Diego Arc Mitigation Area, Navy personnel must not use explosives that could potentially result in the take of marine
mammals during large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75″ rockets) activities during training and testing.
Should national security require use of explosives that could potentially result in the take of marine mammals during large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75″ rockets) activities during training or testing, naval units must obtain permission from
the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. Navy personnel must provide NMFS with advance
notification and include the information (e.g., explosives usage) in its annual activity reports submitted to NMFS.
—Within the San Nicolas Island Mitigation Area, Navy personnel must not use explosives that could potentially result in the take of marine
mammals during mine warfare, large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75″ rockets) activities during training.
Should national security require use of explosives that could potentially result in the take of marine mammals during mine warfare, largecaliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75″ rockets) activities during training, Naval units must obtain permission
from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy must provide NMFS with advance
notification and include the information (e.g., explosives usage) in its annual activity reports submitted to NMFS.
—Within the Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Area, Navy personnel must not use explosives that could potentially result in the take of
marine mammals during mine warfare, large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75″ rockets) activities during
training and testing. Should national security require use of explosives that could potentially result in the take of marine mammals during
mine warfare, large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75″ rockets) activities during training or testing, Naval
units must obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. Navy must provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information (e.g., explosives usage) in its annual activity reports submitted to NMFS.
• Santa Barbara Island Mitigation Area (year-round):
—Navy personnel must not use MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during training or testing, or explosives that
could potentially result in the take of marine mammals during medium-caliber or large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75″ rockets) activities during training. Should national security require use of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during training or testing, or explosives that could potentially result in the take of marine mammals during medium-caliber or
large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75″ rockets) activities during training, Naval units must obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. Navy personnel must provide NMFS
with advance notification and include the information (e.g., sonar hours or explosives usage) in its annual activity reports submitted to
NMFS.
• Blue Whale (June–October), Gray Whale (November–March), and Fin Whale (November–May) Awareness Notification Message Areas:
—Navy personnel must issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft operating in the area to the possible
presence of concentrations of large whales, including blue whales, gray whales, or fin whales.
—To maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during transits, Navy personnel must instruct vessels to remain vigilant to the presence of large whale species, that when concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes.
—Platforms must use the information from the awareness notification messages to assist their visual observation of applicable mitigation
zones during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation.
Summary of Mitigation
The Navy’s mitigation measures are
summarized in Tables 67 (Procedural
Mitigation) and 68 (Mitigation Areas).
Summary of Procedural Mitigation
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
TABLE 67—SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL MITIGATION
Stressor or activity
Mitigation zone 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° on either side of the firing line out to 70 yd.
• 600 yd.
Air Guns .......................................................................................
Pile Driving ...................................................................................
Weapons Firing Noise .................................................................
Explosive Sonobuoys ...................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
66973
TABLE 67—SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL MITIGATION—Continued
Stressor or activity
Mitigation zone sizes and other requirements
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 ..
Underwater Demolition Multiple Charge—Mat Weave and Obstacle Loading.
Maritime Security Operations—Anti-Swimmer Grenades ...........
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 ....................................
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2,100 yd.
1,000 y. (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 time-delay fuses).
• 500 yd (0.1–20 lb net explosive weight for positive control charges).
• 700 yd.
•
•
•
•
•
200
500
200
250
200
yd.
yd (whales).
yd (other marine mammals).
yd (marine mammals).
yd.
• 900 yd.
• 1,000 yd.
Summary of Mitigation Areas
TABLE 68—SUMMARY OF MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Summary of mitigation area requirements
Mitigation Areas for Shallow-water Coral Reefs and Precious Coral Beds (year-round)
• The Navy must not conduct precision anchoring (except in designated anchorages), explosive or non-explosive mine countermeasure
and neutralization activities, explosive or non-explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers, explosive or non-explosive
small-, medium-, and large-caliber gunnery activities using a surface target, explosive or non-explosive missile and rocket activities using
a surface target, and explosive or non-explosive bombing or mine laying activities (except in designated locations).
• The Navy must not place mine shapes, anchors, or mooring devices on the seafloor (except in designated locations).
Hawaii Island Mitigation Area (year-round)
• Navy personnel must not conduct more than 300 hours of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or 20 hours of MF4
dipping sonar, or use explosives that could potentially result in takes of marine mammals during training and testing.1
4-Islands Region Mitigation Area (November 15–April 15 for active sonar; year-round for explosives)
• Navy personnel must not use MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or explosives that could potentially result in
takes of marine mammals during training and testing.1
Humpback Whale Special Reporting Areas (December 15–April 15)
• Navy personnel must report the total hours of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar used in in the special reporting
areas in its annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS.
San Diego Arc, San Nicolas Island, and Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Areas (June 1–October 31)
• Navy personnel must not conduct more than a total of 200 hours of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar in the
combined areas, excluding normal maintenance and systems checks, during training and testing.1
• Within the San Diego Arc Mitigation Area, Navy personnel must not use explosives that could potentially result in the take of marine
mammals during large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75″ rockets) activities during training and testing.1
• Within the San Nicolas Island Mitigation Area, Navy personnel must not use explosives that could potentially result in the take of marine
mammals during mine warfare, large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75″ rockets) activities during training.1
• Within the Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Area, Navy personnel must not use explosives that could potentially result in the take of
marine mammals during mine warfare, large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75″ rockets) activities during
training and testing.1
Santa Barbara Island Mitigation Area (year-round)
• Navy personnel must not use MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during training and testing, or explosives that
could potentially result in the take of marine mammals during medium-caliber or large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75″ rockets) activities during training.1
Awareness Notification Message Areas (seasonal according to species)
• Navy personnel must issue awareness notification messages to alert ships and aircraft to the possible presence of humpback whales
(November–April), blue whales (June–October), gray whales (November–March), or fin whales (November–May).
1 If Naval units need to conduct more than the specified amount of training or testing, they will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in its annual activity reports submitted to NMFS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66974
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Mitigation Conclusions
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, or during the development of
the proposed or final rule for these HSTT
Phase 3 activities. NMFS and the Navy also
considered a broad range of other measures
(i.e., the measures considered but eliminated,
as discussed in the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, which
reflect many of the comments that have
arisen via public input in past years) to
ensure that NMFS prescribes the means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact
on the affected marine mammal species and
stocks and their habitat. In particular for this
rule, we carefully and thoroughly evaluated
those additional measures that were put in
place in 2015 as a result of the settlement
agreement in Conservation Council for
Hawaii v. National Marine Fisheries Service.
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. Ultimately, the Navy adopted all
mitigation measures that are practicable by,
among other things, not jeopardizing its
mission and Title 10 responsibilities. 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. NMFS
independently reviewed the Navy’s
practicability determinations for specific
mitigation areas and concurs with the Navy’s
analysis.
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.
Monitoring
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states
that in order to authorize incidental take for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.
Although the Navy has been conducting
research and monitoring in the HSTT Study
Area for over 20 years, it developed a formal
marine species monitoring program in
support of the MMPA and ESA
authorizations for the Hawaii and Southern
California range complexes in 2009. This
robust program has resulted in hundreds of
technical reports and publications on marine
mammals that have informed Navy and
NMFS analyses in environmental planning
documents, rules, and Biological Opinions.
The reports are made available to the public
on the Navy’s marine species monitoring
website
(www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us) and
the data on the Ocean Biogeographic
Information System Spatial Ecological
Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations
(OBIS–SEAMAP)
(www.seamap.env.duke.edu).
The Navy will continue collecting
monitoring data to inform our understanding
of the occurrence of marine mammals in the
HSTT Study Area; the likely exposure of
marine mammals to stressors of concern in
the HSTT Study Area; the response of marine
mammals to exposures to stressors; the
consequences of a particular marine mammal
response to their individual fitness and,
ultimately, populations; and the effectiveness
of implemented mitigation measures. Taken
together, mitigation and monitoring comprise
the Navy’s integrated approach for reducing
environmental impacts from the specified
activities. The Navy’s overall monitoring
approach seeks to leverage and build on
existing research efforts whenever possible.
As agreed upon between the Navy and
NMFS, monitoring measures presented here,
as well as the mitigation measures described
above, focus on the protection and
management of potentially affected marine
mammals. A well-designed monitoring
program can provide important feedback for
validating assumptions made in analyses and
allow for adaptive management of marine
resources. Monitoring is required under the
MMPA, and details of the monitoring
program for the specified activities have been
developed through coordination between
NMFS and the Navy through the regulatory
process for previous Navy at-sea training and
testing actions.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 and NMFS 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 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 ESAlisted 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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
D Ensuring that adverse impact of activities
remains at the least practicable level.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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
HSTT Study Area
The monitoring program has
undergone significant changes since the
first rules were issued for HRC and
SOCAL in 2009, which highlights its
evolution through the process of
adaptive management. The monitoring
program developed for the first cycle of
environmental compliance documents
(e.g., U.S. Department of the Navy,
2008) utilized effort-based compliance
metrics that were somewhat limiting.
Through adaptive management
discussions, the Navy designed and
conducted monitoring studies according
to scientific objectives, thereby
eliminating basing requirements upon
metrics of level-of-effort. Furthermore,
refinements of scientific objective have
continued through the latest permit
cycle through 2018.
Progress has also been made on the
monitoring program’s conceptual
framework categories from the Scientific
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Advisory Group for Navy Marine
Species Monitoring (U.S. Department of
the Navy, 2011e), ranging from
occurrence of animals to their exposure,
response, and population consequences.
Lessons-learned with monitoring in the
first two MMPA rulemaking periods in
HRC and SOCAL suggested that
‘‘layering’’ multiple components of
monitoring simultaneously provides a
way to leverage an increase in return of
the progress toward answering scientific
monitoring questions.
Specific monitoring under the 2013–
2018 regulations has included:
D HRC
Æ Long-term Trends in Abundance of
Marine Mammals at the Pacific Missile Range
Facility (PMRF);
Æ Estimation of Received Levels of MidFrequency Active Sonar on Marine Mammals
at PMRF;
Æ Behavioral Response of Marine
Mammals to Navy Training and Testing at
PMRF; and
Æ Navy Civilian Marine Mammal
Observers on MFAS Ships in Offshore Waters
of HRC.
D SOCAL
Æ Blue and Fin Whale Satellite Tagging;
Æ Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impact
Assessment at the Southern California
Offshore Antisubmarine Warfare Range
(SOAR);
Æ Cuvier’s Beaked Whale, Blue Whale, and
Fin Whale Impact Assessments at NonInstrumented Range Locations in SOCAL;
and
Æ Marine Mammal Sightings during
California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries
Investigation (CalCOFI) Cruises.
Numerous publications, dissertations,
and conference presentations have
resulted from research conducted under
the Navy’s marine species monitoring
program (https://
www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/
reading-room/publications/), resulting
in a significant contribution to the body
of marine mammal science. Publications
on occurrence, distribution, and density
have fed the modeling input, and
publications on exposure and response
have informed Navy and NMFS
analyses of behavioral response and
consideration of mitigation measures.
Furthermore, collaboration between
the monitoring program and the Navy’s
research and development (e.g., the
Office of Naval Research) and
demonstration-validation (e.g., Living
Marine Resources) programs has been
strengthened, leading to research tools
and products that have already
transitioned to the monitoring program.
These include Marine Mammal
Monitoring on Ranges (M3R), controlled
exposure experiment behavioral
response studies (CEE BRS), acoustic
sea glider surveys, and global
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66975
positioning system-enabled satellite
tags. Recent progress has been made
with better integration of monitoring
across all Navy at-sea study areas,
including study areas in the Pacific and
the Atlantic Oceans, and various testing
ranges. Publications from the Living
Marine Resources and Office of Naval
Research programs have also resulted in
significant contributions to hearing,
acoustic criteria used in effects
modeling, exposure, and response, as
well as developing tools to assess
biological significance (e.g., populationlevel consequences).
NMFS and the Navy also consider
data collected during procedural
mitigations as monitoring. Data are
collected by shipboard personnel on
hours spent training, hours of
observation, hours of sonar, and marine
mammals observed within the
mitigation zone during Major Training
Exercises when mitigations are
implemented. These data are provided
to NMFS in both classified and
unclassified annual exercise reports.
NMFS has received multiple years’
worth of annual exercise and
monitoring reports addressing active
sonar use and explosive detonations
within the HSTT 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 HSTT Study Area. The Navy’s
annual exercise and monitoring reports
may be viewed at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/military.htm and https://
www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us.
The Navy has been funding various
marine mammal studies and research
within the HSTT Study Area for the past
20 years. Under permitting from NMFS
starting in 2009, this effort has
transitioned from a specific metric
based approach, to a broader new
research only approach (e.g., set number
of visual surveys, specific number of
passive acoustic recording devices, etc.),
and more recently since 2014 a more
regional (Hawaii or Southern California)
species-specific study question design
(e.g., what is distribution of species A
within the HSTT Study Area, what is
response of species B to Navy activities,
etc.).
In adaptive management consultation
with NMFS, some variation of these
ongoing studies or planned new studies
will continue within the HSTT Study
Area for either the duration of these new
regulations, or for a set period as
specified in a given project’s scope.
Some projects may only require one or
two years of field effort. Other projects
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66976
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
could entail multi-year field efforts (two
to five years). For instance, in the
SOCAL portion of the HSTT Study
Area, the Navy has funded development
and application of new passive acoustic
technology since the early 2000’s for
detecting Cuvier’s beaked whales. This
also includes ongoing effort to further
identify and update population
demographics for Cuvier’s beaked
whales (re-sighting rates, population
growth, calving rates, movements, etc.)
specific to Navy training and testing
areas, as well as responses to Navy
activity. Variations of these Cuvier’s
beaked whale monitoring studies will
likely continue under future
authorizations. 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.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/
regions/pacific/current-projects/.
The Navy’s marine species monitoring
program typically supports 6–10
monitoring projects in the HSTT Study
Area at any given time. Projects can be
either major multi-year efforts, or one to
two year special studies. The Navy’s
monitoring projects going into 2019
include:
D Long-term Trends in Abundance of
Marine Mammals at PMRF (Hawaii)—
Analysis of long-term archive of hydrophone
recordings from the instrumented range at
PMRF to uncover long-term trends in the
occurrence of marine mammals on the range,
including minke whale, humpback whale, fin
whale, Bryde’s whale, and Blainville’s
beaked whale.
D Estimation of Received Levels of MFAS
and an opportunistic Behavioral Response
Study of Marine Mammals at PMRF
(Hawaii)—Estimation of the received level of
mid-frequency active sonar (MFAS) of
marine mammals (including blackfish
species, mysticetes, sperm whale, and beaked
whales) near PMRF as well as their shortterm behavioral responses. Analysts will
perform acoustic propagation modeling from
Navy platforms to localized animals. Animals
may be localized either acoustically by the
range hydrophones, or by a satellite tagging
effort. The tagging component will also
provide information on spatial movement
and habitat-use patterns. Both received-level
and behavioral response studies will be an
opportunistic protocol performed during
actual Navy training deploying MFAS.
D Humpback Whale Tagging at PMRF
(Hawaii)—A combination of acoustic pinger
and satellite tags will be applied to
humpback whales to investigate the
movement patterns, habitat use, and behavior
of humpback whales (nearshore and offshore)
of different age-sex classes on and off the
instrumented range at PMRF. The tags will
also enable enhanced validation of
localization algorithms using the range
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
hydrophones, as well as provide locations of
animals when they are not vocalizing.
D Navy Civilian Marine Mammal Observers
on guided missile destroyers (DDGs) (Hawaii
and Southern California)—Visual survey for
marine mammals will be performed by
biologist observers embarked aboard Navy
DDGs during training exercises involving
deployment of MFAS. The acquired data will
be incorporated in a long-term project
investigating the mitigation effectiveness of
Navy Lookouts that spans all Navy at-sea
training ranges in both the Atlantic and
Pacific oceans.
D Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impact
Assessment at SOAR (Southern California)—
The instrumented hydrophone range at the
Navy’s Southern California Antisubmarine
Warfare Range (SOAR), combined with
concurrent field efforts with satellite tagging
and visual surveys will investigate key
baseline population demographics and
movement patterns for Cuvier’s beaked
whale. Short-term behavioral and/or vocal
responses when Cuvier’s beaked whales are
exposed to sonar will also be investigated.
D Beaked Whale Occurrence In Southern
California From Passive Acoustic Monitoring
(Southern California)—This project has three
field components. Bottom-moored passive
acoustic devices will investigate the
seasonality and spatial distribution of beaked
whale species in Southern California
including new deployments in Baja. Also,
ocean profiling gliders outfitted with a high
frequency acoustic recording system will
perform a survey on a larger geographic scale
and across a diverse range of habitats in
Southern California to investigate the spatial
distribution and occurrence of beaked whale
species. Finally, passive acoustic data from
towed arrays deployed during quarterly
California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries
Investigations surveys will be analyzed for
beaked whales across a large geographic
scale.
D Guadalupe Fur Seal Population Census
and Satellite Tracking (Southern
California)—Satellite tagging as well as landbased visual survey will investigate the
habitat use by age-sex class of Guadalupe fur
seals across both the Southern California
Range Complex and Northwest Training and
Testing study areas, as well as other areas
including epipelagic waters.
D Blue and Fin Whale Satellite Tagging
and Genetics (Southern California)—Satellite
tagging of blue whales and fin whales at
various locations off southern California
occurred from 2014–2017. The project
investigated movement patterns, occurrence,
and residence times of blue and fin whales
within Navy training and testing areas along
the U.S. West Coast as compared to other
areas visited by tagged whales outside of
Navy training and testing areas. While field
efforts for this project are complete,
additional analysis will continue beyond
2018 and include peer-reviewed result
publication.
Additional scientific projects may
have field efforts within Hawaii and
Southern California under separate
Navy funding from the Navy’s two
marine species research programs, the
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Office of Naval Research Marine
Mammals and Biology Program and the
Living Marine Resources Program. The
periodicity of these research projects are
more variable than the Navy’s
compliance monitoring described above.
Adaptive Management
The final regulations governing the
take of marine mammals incidental to
Navy training and testing activities in
the HSTT 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
requirements 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 more effectively
accomplishing the goals of the
mitigation and monitoring and if the
measures are practicable. If the
modifications to the mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting measures are
substantial, NMFS will publish a notice
of the planned LOA in the Federal
Register and solicit public comment.
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 an incidental take
authorization for an activity, section
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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
would 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:
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizations-militaryreadiness-activities.
Annual HSTT Monitoring Report
The Navy will submit an annual
report to NMFS of the HSTT monitoring
describing the implementation and
results from the previous calendar year.
Data collection methods will be
standardized across range complexes
and HSTT Study Area to allow for
comparison in different geographic
locations. The draft of the annual
monitoring report will be submitted
either three months after the calendar
year, or three months 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 HSTT
Study Area associated with the
Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring
Program. Similar study questions will
be treated together so that summaries
can be provided for each topic area. The
report need not include analyses and
content that do not provide direct
assessment of cumulative progress on
the monitoring plan study questions.
NMFS will submit comments on the
draft monitoring report, if any, 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
if NMFS does not have comments.
As an alternative, the Navy may
submit a multi-Range Complex annual
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Monitoring Plan report to fulfill this
requirement. Such a report will describe
progress of knowledge made with
respect to monitoring study questions
across multiple Navy ranges associated
with the ICMP. Similar study questions
will be treated together so that progress
on each topic will be summarized across
multiple Navy ranges. The report need
not include analyses and content that
does not provide direct assessment of
cumulative progress on the monitoring
study question. This will continue to
allow Navy to provide a cohesive
monitoring report covering multiple
ranges (as per ICMP goals), rather than
entirely separate reports for the HSTT,
Gulf of Alaska, Mariana Islands, and the
Northwest Study Areas.
Annual HSTT Training Exercise Report
and Testing Activity Report
Each year, the Navy will submit two
preliminary reports (Quick Look
Reports) 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 will also submit detailed reports
to NMFS within three months after the
one-year anniversary of the date of
issuance of the LOAs. The annual
reports will contain information on
MTEs, Sinking Exercise (SINKEX)
events, and a summary of all sound
sources used (total hours or quantity
(per the LOA) of each bin of sonar or
other non-impulsive source; total
annual number of each type of explosive
exercises; and total annual expended/
detonated rounds (missiles, bombs,
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
reports will be based on the
accumulation of data from the current
year’s report and data collected from
previous reports. Information included
in the classified annual reports may be
used to inform future adaptive
management of activities within the
HSTT Study Area.
The Annual HSTT Training Exercise
Report and Testing Activity Navy
reports (classified or unclassified
versions) can be consolidated with other
exercise reports from other range
complexes in the Pacific Ocean for a
single Pacific Exercise Report, if
desired. Specific sub-reporting in these
annual reports include:
D Humpback Whale Special Reporting
Area (December 15–April 15): The Navy will
report the total hours of operation of surface
ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active
sonar used in the special reporting area; and
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66977
D HSTT Mitigation Areas (see Chapter 11
of the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application):
The Navy will report any use of surface ship
hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar
that occurred as specifically described in
these areas.
D Major Training Exercises Notification
The Navy shall submit an electronic
report to NMFS within fifteen calendar
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.
Other Reporting and Coordination
The Navy will continue to report and
coordinate with NMFS for the
following:
D Annual marine species monitoring
technical review meetings with researchers
and the Marine Mammal Commission
(currently, every two years a joint PacificAtlantic meeting is held); and
D Annual Adaptive Management meetings
with the Marine Mammal Commission
(recently modified to occur in conjunction
with the annual monitoring technical review
meeting).
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 41 and 42), 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66978
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
impacts on the environmental baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status
of the species, population size and
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 reflect
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 the
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
exact number of hours, items, or
detonations that may vary from year to
year, but take totals would not exceed
the five-year totals indicated in Tables
41 and 42. 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
41 and 42, 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 predicts that
maximum amount of harassment that is
likely 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
meaning that no mitigation is
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 Section
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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
likely taken at least once in a year. We
look at this comparative metric to give
us a relative sense of where a larger
portion of a stock is being taken by Navy
activities, 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 or more likely sequential. 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, for some individuals
of some stocks 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, for some
stocks 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 that even where repeated takes of
individuals are likely to occur, they are
more likely to result from nonsequential exposures from different
activities, and, even if sequential,
individual animals are not predicted to
be taken for more than several 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
case of sonar) transitory activities to
create conditions of long-term,
continuous noise leading to long-term
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 individual animals 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), 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 of 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, that could result
in a behavioral response such as
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66979
avoiding an area that an animal would
otherwise have chosen to move through
or feed in for some amount of time or
breaking off 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 HSTT 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66980
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
individual (i.e., what is the likelihood or
degree of fitness impacts), one must
look closely at the available contextual
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
exercises could overlap with individual
marine mammals multiple days in a row
at levels above those anticipated to
result in a take, because of the factors
mentioned above, it is considered
unlikely for the majority of takes.
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 (Navy Activity
Descriptions) of the HSTT 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 HSTT 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
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
days), they are almost always completed
in a single day and only one event is
planned annually for the HSTT training
activities. They are stationary and
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.
Assessing the Number of Individuals
Taken and the Likelihood of Repeated
Takes
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 and the number of
times those individuals are taken 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 harassment 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. It
also provides a relative picture of the
scale of impacts to each stock.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
In the ocean, unlike a modeling
simulation with static animals, 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
would likely occur over the year,
especially where numerous activities
occur in generally the same area (for
example on instrumented ranges) with
more resident species. 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 exceptions discussed in
the stock-specific conclusions).
When calculating the proportion of a
population affected by takes (e.g., the
number of takes divided by population
abundance), which can also be helpful
in estimating the number of days over
which some individuals may be taken,
it is important to choose an appropriate
population estimate against which to
make the comparison. 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). When the stock is known to range
well outside of U.S. EEZ boundaries,
population estimates based on surveys
conducted only within the U.S. EEZ are
known to be underestimates. In the case
of both Hawaii and Southern California
(near which mutually exclusive sets of
stocks are impacted by Navy activities),
the areas of Navy activities across which
take is estimated have boundaries that
vary significantly from the U.S. EEZ
boundaries, and further vary differently
in Hawaii versus Southern California.
For example, the Study Area
encompasses large areas of ocean space
outside U.S. waters (i.e., extending
seaward beyond the U.S. EEZ) or,
separately, many stocks range up and
down the U.S., Canada, and/or Mexican
West Coast, while Navy activities
covered in this rule are confined northsouth to the Southern California area
included in the Navy study area.
Additionally, the information used to
estimate take includes the data
underlying the SAR abundances, as well
as other survey data, used together to
model density layers. If takes are
calculated from another dataset (for
example a broader sample of survey
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
data) and compared to the population
estimate from the SARs, it may distort
the percent of the population affected or
an assessment of how many days a year
individuals may be taken because of
different population baselines.
However, when the SAR considers the
larger area within which the stock
ranges it may contribute to a more
appropriate sense of the proportion of
the population taken. Accordingly, in
calculating the percentage of takes
versus abundance for each stock in
order to assist in understanding both the
percentage of the stock affected, as well
as how many days across a year
individuals could be taken, we use the
data most appropriate for the situation.
For Hawaii, a fair number of stocks
range outside of the U.S. EEZ, the
majority of the take occurs inside the
U.S. EEZ, and a fair number of stocks do
not have abundance estimates in the
SAR. Therefore, for the purposes of this
analytical exercise, the tables included
in the group-specific analyses below
include percentages calculated for the
Navy’s take in the U.S. EEZ versus the
Navy-estimated abundances within the
U.S. EEZ, as well as the take in the
whole Study Area versus the Navyestimated abundances in the whole area.
However, where appropriate for a given
stock (and the explanation will be
provided in the narrative), the SAR
abundance may also be used for
comparison. For Southern California,
while a fair number of stocks range
seaward from the U.S. EEZ, many also
range significantly north and south
outside the Navy Study Area and that
abundance is captured by the SAR.
Additionally, generally speaking, except
where stocks are more coastal, a higher
percentage of the take occurs outside of
the U.S. EEZ than around Hawaii
(though the majority are still inside the
U.S. EEZ). Accordingly, rather than
focus on the take in the U.S. EEZ, the
tables included in the group-specific
analyses below include percentages
calculated for the Navy’s take in the
entire Study Area as compared against
both the Navy-calculated abundance in
the entire Study Area and the SARs.
The estimates found in NMFS’ SARs
remain the official estimates of stock
abundance where they are current.
These estimates are typically generated
from the most recent shipboard and/or
aerial surveys conducted. Studies based
on abundance and distribution surveys
restricted to U.S. waters are unable to
detect temporal shifts in distribution
beyond U.S. waters that might account
for any changes in abundance within
U.S. waters. In some cases, NMFS’
abundance estimates show substantial
year-to-year variability. However, for
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66981
highly migratory species (e.g., large
whales) or those whose geographic
distribution extends well beyond the
boundaries of the Navy’s study area
(e.g., populations with distribution
along the entire California Current
versus just SOCAL), comparisons to the
SAR may be more appropriate. This is
because the Navy’s acoustic modeling
process does not horizontally move
animats, and therefore does not account
for immigration and emigration within
the study area. For instance, while it
may be accurate that the abundance of
animals in Southern California at any
one time for a particular species is 200
individuals, if the species is highly
migratory or has large daily home
ranges, it is not likely that the same 200
individuals would be present every day.
A good descriptive example is blue
whales, which tagging data have shown
traverse the SOCAL area in a few days
to weeks on their migrations. Therefore,
at any one time there may be a stable
number of animals, but over the course
of the entire year the entire population
may cycle through SOCAL. Therefore,
when comparing the estimated takes to
an abundance, in this case the SAR,
which represents the total population,
may be more appropriate than the
Navy’s modeled abundance for SOCAL.
In each of the species write-ups for the
negligible impact assessment we explain
which abundance was used for making
the comparison of takes to the impacts
to the population.
NMFS’ Southwest Fisheries Science
Center derived densities for the Navy,
and NMFS supports the use of spatially
and temporally explicit density models
that vary in space and time to estimate
their potential impacts to species. See
the U.S. Navy Marine Species Density
Database Phase III Hawaii-Southern
California 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, 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66982
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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 should be fully
understood before drawing conclusions.
Temporary Threshold Shift
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
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.
The modeling predicts that no TTS will
result from air guns or pile driving
activities. 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, but below the range
of the echolocation signals used for
foraging. 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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 noncommunication 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
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, 2002; Schlundt et al., 2000).
3. Duration of TTS (recovery time)—
In the TTS laboratory studies (as
discussed in the proposed rule), some
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 HSTT 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
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 animal’s 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 noncommunication cues such as fish and
invertebrate prey, and geologic sounds
that inform navigation. Masking is also
more of a concern from continuous
sources (versus intermittent sonar
signals) 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 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
often narrow frequency range 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
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66983
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
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 (but few
mysticete 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 single marine
mammal species’ 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66984
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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
active sonar and/or explosives is
estimated to occur. Tables 72–77 also
indicate the number of individuals of
each 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 209 (209 is for
Dall’s porpoise), but is more typically 0–
10 (with the exception of several other
species that range up to 97). Only five
stocks (three dolphins and two
pinnipeds) have the potential to incur
tissue damage from explosives and the
number of individuals from any given
stock ranges from one to ten.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
represent the maximum number of
instances in which marine mammals
would be reasonably expected to incur
either PTS or tissue damage, and we
have analyzed them accordingly.
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
animal to remain in range long enough
to accumulate enough energy to result
in more than a mild case of PTS. As
mentioned previously 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
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
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).
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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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 (and PTS of the
low severity anticipated here is not
expected to affect the survival of any
individual marine mammals).
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
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 HSTT 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. In
Conservation Council for Hawaii v.
National Marine Fisheries Service, 97 F.
Supp.3d 1210 (D. Haw. 2015), which
concerned a challenge to NMFS’
regulations and LOAs to the Navy for
activities assessed in the 2013–2018
HSTT MMPA rulemaking, the Court
ruled that NMFS’ failure to consider
PBR when evaluating lethal takes in the
negligible impact analysis under section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
101(a)(5)(A) violated the requirement to
use the best available science.
PBR is defined in section 3 of the
MMPA as ‘‘the maximum number of
animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing
that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population’’ (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
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 reasonable
assurance that the stock size is equal to
or greater than the estimate (Barlow et
al., 1995), typically by using the 20th
percentile of a log-normal distribution
of the population estimate. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66985
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), NMFS’ long-standing
regulatory definition of ‘‘negligible
impact,’’ and the use of PBR under
section 118. The standard for
authorizing incidental take for activities
other than commercial fisheries under
section 101(a)(5) continues to be, among
other things that are not related to PBR,
whether the total taking will have a
negligible impact on the species or
stock. Nowhere does section
101(a)(5)(A) reference use of PBR to
make the negligible impact finding or
authorize incidental take through multiyear regulations, nor does its companion
provision at 101(a)(5)(D) for authorizing
non-lethal incidental take under the
same negligible-impact standard. NMFS’
MMPA implementing regulations state
that take has a negligible impact when
it does not ‘‘adversely affect the species
or stock through effects on annual rates
of recruitment or survival’’—likewise
without reference to PBR. 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66986
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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 standard of the
negligible impact finding under section
101(a)(5)(A) (and section 101(a)(5)(D)),
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 in
1994, NMFS had used the concept
almost entirely within the context of
implementing sections 117 and 118 and
other commercial fisheries managementrelated provisions of the MMPA. Prior
to the Court’s ruling in Conservation
Council for Hawaii v. National Marine
Fisheries Service and consideration of
PBR in a series of section 101(a)(5)
rulemakings, there were a few examples
where PBR had informed agency
deliberations under other MMPA
sections and programs, such as playing
a role in the issuance of a few scientific
research permits and subsistence
takings. But as the Court found when
reviewing examples of past PBR
consideration in Georgia Aquarium v.
Pritzker, 135 F. Supp. 3d 1280 (N.D. Ga.
2015), where NMFS had considered
PBR outside the commercial fisheries
context, ‘‘it has treated PBR as only one
‘quantitative tool’ and [has not used it]
as the sole basis for its impact
analyses.’’ Further, the agency’s
thoughts regarding the appropriate role
of PBR in relation to MMPA programs
outside the commercial fishing context
have evolved since the agency’s early
application of PBR to section 101(a)(5)
decisions. Specifically, NMFS’ denial of
a request for incidental take
authorization for the U.S. Coast Guard
in 1996 seemingly was based on the
potential for lethal take in relation to
PBR and did not appear to consider
other factors that might also have
informed the potential for ship strike in
relation to negligible impact (61 FR
54157; October 17, 1996).
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in our
implementation regulations for the 1986
amendments to the MMPA (54 FR
40341, September 29, 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 from all
sources into the PBR value (i.e., PBR
minus the total annual anthropogenic
mortality/serious injury estimate in the
SAR), which is called ‘‘residual PBR.’’
(Wood et al., 2012). We first focus our
analysis on residual PBR because it
incorporates anthropogenic mortality
occurring from other sources. If the
ongoing human-caused mortality from
other sources does not exceed PBR, then
residual PBR is a positive number, and
we consider how the anticipated or
potential incidental M/SI from the
activities being evaluated compares to
residual PBR using the framework in the
following paragraph. If the ongoing
anthropogenic mortality from other
sources already exceeds PBR, then
residual PBR is a negative number and
we consider the M/SI from the activities
being evaluated as described further
below.
When ongoing total anthropogenic
mortality from the applicant’s specified
activities does not exceed PBR and
residual PBR is a positive number, as a
simplifying analytical tool we first
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
consider whether the specified activities
could cause incidental M/SI that is less
than 10 percent of residual PBR (the
‘‘insignificance threshold,’’ see below).
If so, 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 other considerations
such as information that illustrates the
uncertainty involved in the calculation
of PBR for some stocks. In a few prior
incidental take rulemakings, this
threshold was identified as the
‘‘significance threshold,’’ but it is more
accurately labeled an insignificance
threshold, and so we use that
terminology here, as we did in the
AFTT Proposed and Final Rules (83 FR
57076; November 14, 2018). 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 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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. The accuracy and
certainty around the data that feed any
PBR calculation, such as the abundance
estimates, must be carefully considered
to evaluate whether the calculated PBR
accurately reflects the circumstances of
the particular stock. 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,
which involved the challenge to NMFS’
issuance of LOAs to the Navy in 2013
for activities in 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
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 that
stock to reach or maintain its [OSP].’’
OSP is defined as a population that 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,
and thus is an aspirational management
goal of the overall statute with no
specific timeframe by which it should
be met. PBR is designed to ensure
minimal deviation from this overarching
goal, with the formula for PBR typically
ensuring that growth towards OSP is not
reduced by more than 10 percent (or
equilibrates to OSP 95 percent of the
time). As PBR is applied by NMFS, it
provides that growth toward OSP is not
reduced by more than 10 percent, which
certainly allows a stock to ‘‘reach or
maintain its [OSP]’’ in a conservative
and precautionary manner—and we can
therefore clearly conclude that if PBR
were not exceeded, there would not be
adverse effects on the affected species or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
stocks. Nonetheless, it is equally clear
that in some cases the time to reach this
aspirational OSP level could be slowed
by more than 10 percent (i.e., total
human-caused mortality in excess of
PBR could be allowed) without
adversely affecting a species or stock
through effects on its rates of
recruitment or survival. Thus even in
situations where the inputs to calculate
PBR are thought to accurately represent
factors such as the species’ or stock’s
abundance or productivity rate, it is still
possible for incidental take to have a
negligible impact on the species or stock
even where M/SI exceeds residual PBR
or PBR.
As noted above, in some cases the
ongoing human-caused mortality from
activities other than those being
evaluated already exceeds PBR and,
therefore, residual PBR is negative. In
these cases (such as is specifically
discussed for the Eastern North Pacific
stock of blue whales and the CA/OR/
WA stock of humpback whales), any
additional mortality, no matter how
small, and no matter how small relative
to the mortality caused by other human
activities, would result in greater
exceedance of PBR. PBR is helpful in
informing the analysis of the effects of
mortality on a species or stock because
it is important from a biological
perspective to be able to consider how
the total mortality in a given year may
affect the population. However, section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA indicates that
NMFS shall authorize the requested
incidental take from a specified activity
if we find that ‘‘the total of such taking
[i.e., from the specified activity] will
have a negligible impact on such species
or stock.’’ In other words, the task under
the statute is to evaluate the applicant’s
anticipated take in relation to their
take’s impact on the species or stock,
not other entities’ impacts on the
species or stock. Neither the MMPA nor
NMFS’ implementing regulations call
for consideration of other unrelated
activities and their impacts on the
species or stock. In fact, in response to
public comments on the implementing
regulations NMFS explained that such
effects are not considered in making
negligible impact findings under section
101(a)(5), although the extent to which
a species or stock is being impacted by
other anthropogenic activities is not
ignored. Such effects are reflected in the
baseline of existing impacts as reflected
in the species’ or stock’s abundance,
distribution, reproductive rate, and
other biological indicators.
NMFS guidance for commercial
fisheries provides insight when
evaluating the effects of an applicant’s
incidental take as compared to the
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66987
incidental take caused by other entities.
Parallel to section 101(a)(5)(A), section
101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA provides that
NMFS shall allow the incidental take of
ESA-listed endangered or threatened
marine mammals by commercial
fisheries if, among other things, the
incidental M/SI from the commercial
fisheries will have a negligible impact
on the species or stock. As discussed
earlier, the authorization of incidental
take resulting from commercial fisheries
and authorization for activities other
than commercial fisheries are under two
separate regulatory frameworks.
However when it amended the statute in
1994 to provide a separate incidental
take authorization process for
commercial fisheries, Congress kept the
requirement of a negligible impact
determination for this one category of
species, thereby applying the standard
to both programs. Therefore, while the
structure and other standards of the two
programs differ such that evaluation of
negligible impact under one program
may not be fully applicable to the other
program (e.g., the regulatory definition
of ‘‘negligible impact’’ at 50 CFR
216.103 applies only to activities other
than commercial fishing), guidance on
determining negligible impact for
commercial fishing take authorizations
can be informative when considering
incidental take outside the commercial
fishing context. In 1999, NMFS
published criteria for making a
negligible impact determination
pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(E) of the
MMPA in a notice of proposed permits
for certain fisheries (64 FR 28800; May
27, 1999). Criterion 2 stated ‘‘If total
human-related serious injuries and
mortalities are greater than PBR, and
fisheries-related mortality is less than
0.1 PBR, individual fisheries may be
permitted if management measures are
being taken to address non-fisheriesrelated serious injuries and mortalities.
When fisheries-related serious injury
and mortality is less than 10 percent of
the total, the appropriate management
action is to address components that
account for the major portion of the
total.’’ This criterion addresses when
total human-caused mortality is
exceeding PBR, but the activity being
assessed is responsible for only a small
portion of the mortality. In the HSTT
proposed rule and other incidental take
authorizations in which NMFS has
recently articulated a fuller description
of how we consider PBR under section
101(a)(5)(A), this situation had not
arisen, and NMFS’ description of how
we consider PBR in the section 101(a)(5)
authorization process did not, therefore,
include consideration of this scenario.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66988
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
However, the analytical framework we
use here appropriately incorporates
elements of the one developed for use
under section 101(a)(5)(E) and because
the negligible impact determination
under section 101(a)(5)(A) focuses on
the activity being evaluated, it is
appropriate to utilize the parallel
concept from the framework for section
101(a)(5)(E).
Accordingly, we are using a similar
criterion in our negligible impact
analysis under section 101(a)(5)(A) to
evaluate the relative role of an
applicant’s incidental take when other
sources of take are causing PBR to be
exceeded, but the take of the specified
activity is comparatively small. Where
this occurs, we may find that the
impacts of the taking from the specified
activity may (alone) be negligible even
when total human-caused mortality
from all activities exceeds PBR if (in the
context of a particular species or stock):
The authorized mortality or serious
injury would be less than or equal to 10
percent of PBR and management
measures are being taken to address
serious injuries and mortalities from the
other activities (i.e., other than the
specified activities covered by the
incidental take authorization under
consideration). We must also determine,
though, that impacts on the species or
stock from other types of take (i.e.,
harassment) caused by the applicant do
not combine with the impacts from
mortality or serious injury to result in
adverse effects on the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.
As discussed above, however, while
PBR is useful in informing the
evaluation of the effects of M/SI in
section 101(a)(5)(A) determinations, it is
just one consideration to be assessed in
combination with other factors and is
not determinative, including because, as
explained above, the accuracy and
certainty of the data used to calculate
PBR for the species or stock must be
considered. And we reiterate the
considerations discussed above for why
it is not appropriate to consider PBR an
absolute cap in the application of this
guidance. Accordingly, we use PBR as a
trigger for concern while also
considering other relevant factors to
provide a reasonable and appropriate
means of evaluating the effects of
potential mortality on rates of
recruitment and survival, while
acknowledging that it is possible to
exceed PBR (or exceed 10 percent of
PBR in the case where other humancaused mortality is exceeding PBR but
the specified activity being evaluated is
an incremental contributor, as described
in the last paragraph) 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 or serious injury could occur
follows. No mortalities or serious
injuries are anticipated from the 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 Southwest
and Pacific Islands Fisheries Science
Centers has been incorporated into the
residual PBR.
We first consider maximum potential
incidental M/SI from the Navy’s ship
strike analysis for the affected
mysticetes and sperm whales (see Table
69) and from the Navy’s explosive
detonations for California sea lions and
short-beaked common dolphin (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 may occur
over the course of the five-year rule. The
rule authorizes no more than two from
any of the following species/stocks over
the five-year period: gray whale (Eastern
North Pacific stock), fin whale (CA/OR/
WA stock), and humpback whale
(Central North Pacific stock). The rule
authorizes no more than one mortality
from any of the following species/stocks
over the five-year period: blue whale
(Eastern North Pacific stock), humpback
whale (CA/OR/WA stock, Mexico DPS),
and sperm whale (Hawaii stock). We do
not anticipate, nor authorize, ship strike
takes to blue whale (Central North
Pacific stock), fin whale (Hawaii stock),
gray whale (Western North Pacific
stock), minke whale (either CA/OR/WA
stock or Hawaii stock), sei whale (either
Hawaii stock or Eastern North Pacific
stock), Bryde’s whale (either Hawaii
stock or Eastern Tropical Pacific stock)
or sperm whale (CA/OR/WA stock).
This means an annual average of 0.2
whales from each species or stock where
one mortality may occur and an annual
average of 0.4 whales from each species
or stock where two mortalities may
occur as described in Table 69 (i.e., 1 or
2 takes over 5 years divided by 5 to get
the annual number) is authorized.
TABLE 69—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO MORTALITIES REQUESTED FOR SHIP STRIKE, 2018–2023
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Species
(stock)
Fin whale (CA/
OR/WA stock).
Gray whale
(Eastern North
Pacific stock).
Humpback whale
(CA/OR/WA
stock, Mexico
DPS).
Humpback whale
(Central North
Pacific stock).
Sperm whale
(Hawaii stock).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Stock
abundance
(Nbest) *
Annual
authorized
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 3
Stock trend * 4
Recent UME
(Y/N);
number and
year
(since 2007)
9,029
0.4
≥43.5
Y; ≥0.5 ...............
Y, 1.6 .................
81
37.5
↑ ..............................
N.
26,960
0.4
138
Y, 7.7 .................
Y, 0.8 .................
801
663
stable since 2003 ....
N.
2,900
0.2
≥38.6
Y; ≥14.1 .............
Y, 22 ..................
16.7
¥21.9
↑ ..............................
N.
10,103
0.4
40.76
Y; 18.76 .............
Y, 22 ..................
33.4
¥7.36
stable .......................
N.
5,559
0.2
0.7
Y, 0.7 .................
N ........................
13.9
13.2
? ..............................
N.
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66989
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 69—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO MORTALITIES REQUESTED FOR SHIP STRIKE, 2018–2023—Continued
Species
(stock)
Annual
authorized
take by
serious
injury or
mortality 1
Stock
abundance
(Nbest) *
Blue whale
(Eastern North
Pacific Stock).
1,647
Total
annual
M/SI * 2
≥19
0.2
Fisheries
interactions
(Y/N);
annual rate of
M/SI from
fisheries
interactions *
Vessel collisions
(Y/N);
annual rate of
M/SI from
vessel collision*
≥0.96 .................
Y, 18 ..................
Residual
PBR–PBR
minus annual M/SI 3
PBR *
2.3
¥16.7
Stock
Recent UME
(Y/N);
number and
year
(since 2007)
trend * 4
stable .......................
Y; 3, 2007.
* Presented in the SARS.
1 This column represents the annual take by serious injury or mortality by vessel collision and was calculated by the number of mortalities 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 NMFS’ Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) takes in the SARs to ensure not double-counted against
PBR. However, for these species, there were no takes from either other Navy activities or SWFSC 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 SARs).
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.
common dolphins over the 5-year
period (therefore 0.8 mortalities
annually for California sea lions and 1.2
mortalities annually for short-beaked
common dolphin), as described in Table
70.
The annual average is the total number
of takes divided by five years to get the
annual number. Specifically, NMFS is
authorizing the following serious injury
or mortality takes from explosions: 4
California sea lions and 6 short-beaked
TABLE 70—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO MORTALITIES FROM EXPLOSIVES, 2018–2023
Stock
abundance
(Nbest) *
Species
(stock)
California sea lion (U.S.
stock).
Short-beaked common
dolphin (CA/OR/WA
stock).
Annual
authorized
take by
serious injury or
mortality * 1
Total
annual
M/SI * 2
Fisheries
interactions
(Y/N); annual
rate of M/SI from
fisheries
interactions *
PBR *
SWFSC
authorized
take
(annual) 3
Residual
PBR—PBR
minus
annual M/SI
and
SWFSC 4
Stock
trend * 5
UME (Y/N);
number and year
257,606
0.8
318.4
Y; 197 ................
14,011
6.6
13,686
↑
Y; 2013.
969,861
1.2
≥40
Y; ≥40 ................
8,393
2.8
8,350.2
?
N.
* Presented in the SARS.
1 This column represents the annual take by serious injury or mortality during explosive detonations 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 activities or NMFS’ SWFSC takes in the SARs to ensure not double-counted against PBR. In this case, for California sea
lion 0.8 annual M/SI from the U.S. West Coast during scientific trawl and longline operations conducted by NMFS and 1.8 annual M/SI from marine mammal research
related mortalities authorized by NMFS was deducted from total annual M/SI (321).
3 This column represents annual take authorized through NMFS’ SWFSC rulemaking/LOAs (80 FR 58982).
4 This value represents the calculated PBR less the average annual estimate of ongoing anthropogenic mortalities (i.e., total annual human-caused M/SI column
and the annual authorized take from the SWFSC column. In the case of California sea lion the M/SI column (318.4) and the annual authorized take from the SWFSC
(6.6) were subtracted from the calculated PBR.of 14,011. In the case of Short-beaked common dolphin the M/SI column (40) and the annual authorized take from the
SWFSC (2.8) were subtracted from the calculated PBR of 8,393.
5 See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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 clearly 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 (from ship strike
and explosive takes, respectively), and
authorized, M/SI below their
insignificance threshold: fin whale (CA/
OR/WA stock), gray whale (Eastern
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
North Pacific stock), humpback whale
(Central North Pacific stock), sperm
whale (Hawaii stock), California sea lion
(U.S stock), and short-beaked common
dolphin (CA/OR/WA stock). While the
authorized mortality of California sea
lions (U.S. stock) are below the
insignificance threshold, because of the
recent UMEs, we further address how
the authorized serious injury or
mortality and the UME 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
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
recruitment or survival and they are not
discussed further. For the remaining
two stocks with anticipated potential
M/SI above the insignificance threshold,
how that M/SI compares to residual
PBR, as well as additional factors, as
appropriate, are discussed below as
well.
California Sea Lion (U.S. Stock)
The estimated (and authorized) lethal
take of California sea lions is well below
the insignificance threshold (0.8 as
compared to a residual PBR of 13,686)
and NMFS classifies the stock as
‘‘increasing’’ in the SARs. Nonetheless,
we consider here how the 2013-present
California Sea Lion Unusual Mortality
Event informs our negligible impact
determination. This UME was confined
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
66990
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
to pup and yearling sea lions and many
were emaciated, dehydrated, and
underweight. Although this UME has
not been closed, NMFS staff confirmed
that the mortality of pups and yearlings
returned to normal in 2017 and 2018
and we plan to present it to the Working
Group to discuss closure by the end of
2018 (Deb Fauquier, pers. comm.).
NMFS’ findings to date indicate that a
change in the availability of sea lion
prey, especially sardines, a high value
food source for nursing mothers, was a
likely contributor to the large number of
strandings. Sardine spawning grounds
shifted further offshore in 2012 and
2013, and while other prey were
available (market squid and rockfish),
these may not have provided adequate
nutrition in the milk of sea lion mothers
supporting pups, or for newly-weaned
pups foraging on their own. Although
the pups showed signs of some viruses
and infections, findings indicate that
this event was not caused by disease,
but rather by the lack of high quality,
close-by food sources for nursing
mothers. Average mortalities from
2013–2017 averaged about 1,000–3,000
more annually than they had in the
previous 10 years. However, even if
these unusual mortalities were still
occurring (with current data suggesting
they are not), combined with other
annual human-caused mortalities, and
viewed through the PBR lens (for
human-caused mortalities), total
human-caused mortality (inclusive of
the potential for additional UME deaths)
would still fall well below residual PBR.
Further, the loss of pups and yearlings
would not be expected to have as much
of an effect on annual population rates
as the death of adult females. In
conclusion, because of the abundance,
population trend, and residual PBR of
this stock, as well as the fact that the
increased mortality stopped two years
ago and the UME is expected to be
closed soon, this UME is not expected
to have any impacts on individuals in
the coming five years, nor is it thought
to have had impacts on the population
rate when it was occurring that would
influence our evaluation of the effects of
authorized mortality on the stock.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Stocks With M/SI Above Residual PBR
Humpback Whale (CA/OR/WA Stock,
Mexico DPS)
For this stock, PBR is currently set at
33.4 and the total annual M/SI is
estimated at greater than or equal to
40.76, yielding a residual PBR of ¥7.36.
NMFS is authorizing one serious injury
or mortality over the five-year duration
of the rule (indicated as 0.2 annually for
the purposes of comparing to PBR),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
which means that residual PBR is
exceeded by 7.56. However, as
described previously, in the commercial
fisheries setting for ESA-listed marine
mammals (which is similar to the nonfisheries incidental take setting, in that
a negligible impact determination is
required that is based on the assessment
of take caused by the activity being
analyzed) NMFS may find the impact of
the authorized take from a specified
activity to be negligible even if total
human-caused mortality exceeds PBR, if
the authorized mortality is less than 10
percent of PBR and management
measures are being taken to address
serious injuries and mortalities from the
other activities causing mortality (i.e.,
other than the specified activities
covered by the incidental take
authorization in consideration). When
those considerations are applied in the
section 101(a)(5)(A) context, the
authorized lethal take (0.2 annually) of
humpback whales from the CA/OR/WA
stock is significantly less than 10
percent of PBR (in fact less than 1
percent of 33.4) and there are
management measures in place to
address serious injury and mortality
from activities other than those the
Navy is conducting (summarized
below).
Based on identical simulations as
those conducted to identify Recovery
Factors for PBR in Wade et al. (1998),
but where values less than 0.1 were
investigated (P. Wade, pers. comm.), we
predict that where the mortality from a
specified activity does not exceed Nmin
*1/2 Rmax * 0.013, the contemplated
mortality for the specific activity will
not delay the time to recovery by more
than 1 percent. For this stock of
humpback whales, Nmin *1/2 Rmax *
0.013 = 1.45 and the annual authorized
mortality is 0.2 (i.e., less than 1.45),
which means that the mortality
authorized in this rule for HSTT
activities will not delay the time to
recovery by more than 1 percent.
As described previously, NMFS must
also ensure that impacts by the
applicant on the species or stock from
other types of take (i.e., harassment) do
not combine with the impacts from
mortality and serious injury to adversely
affect the species or stock via impacts
on annual rates of recruitment or
survival, which is discussed further
below in the stock-specific conclusion
sections.
We discuss here the nature in which
the predicted average annual mortality
from other sources has changed since
the proposed rule. The proposed rule
included the information from the 2017
SAR, which indicated that PBR was 11
and the total observed annual average
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
mortality was greater than or equal to
6.5 (one from vessel strikes and >5.5
from fisheries interactions). The total
human-caused mortality did not exceed
residual PBR, and our analysis, which
considered other factors as well,
concluded that lethal take, alone, from
the Navy’s activities would not have
more than a negligible impact on
humpback whales (CA/OR/WA stock,
Mexico DPS) (we also went on to
analyze the effects of the potential lethal
take in conjunction with the estimated
harassment take under the negligible
impact standard). In August 2018,
NMFS published draft 2018 SARs in
which PBR increased to 33.4 and the
predicted average annual mortality
increased to greater than or equal to
40.76 (22 estimated from vessel
collisions, >14.1 observed fisheries
interactions, and 2.16 predicted
fisheries interactions if unidentified
entanglements are prorated based on a
model based on known species
entanglements). While the observed
mortality from vessel strikes remains
low at 2.1, the draft 2018 SAR relies on
a new method to estimate annual deaths
by ship strike utilizing an encounter
theory model that combined species
distribution models of whale density,
vessel traffic characteristics, along with
whale movement patterns obtained from
satellite-tagged animals in the region to
estimate encounters that would result in
mortality (Rockwood et al., 2017). The
model predicts 22 annual mortalities of
humpback whales from vessel strikes.
The authors (Rockwood et al., 2017) do
not suggest that ship strike suddenly
increased to 22 this year. In fact, the
model is not specific to a year, but
rather offers a generalized prediction of
ship strike off the U.S. West Coast.
Therefore, if the Rockwood et al. (2017)
model is an accurate representation of
vessel strike, then similar levels of ship
strike have been occurring in past years
as well. Put another way, if the model
is correct, for some number of years
total human-caused mortality has been
significantly underestimated, and PBR
has been similarly exceeded by a
notable amount, and yet the CA/OR/WA
stock of humpback whales is considered
stable nevertheless. We note that as of
the date this final rule was signed and
transmitted to the Office of the Federal
Register, the public comment period for
the draft 2018 SAR was still open. This
means that NMFS has not yet
considered any comments that other
experts and the public might have
regarding the propriety of the model for
identifying annual mortality in the SAR.
The CA/OR/WA stock of humpback
whales experienced a steady increase
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
from the 1990s through approximately
2008, and more recent estimates through
2014 indicate a leveling off of the
population size. This stock is comprised
of the feeding groups of three DPSs.
Two DPSs associated with this stock are
listed under the ESA as either
endangered (Central America DPS) or
threatened (Mexico DPS), while the
third is not listed. The mortality
authorized by this rule is for an
individual from the Mexico DPS only.
As described in the Final Rule
Identifying 14 DPSs of the Humpback
Whale and Revision of Species-Wide
Listing (81 FR 62260, September 8,
2016), the Mexico DPS was initially
proposed not to be listed as threatened
or endangered, but the final decision
was changed in consideration of a new
abundance estimate using a new
methodology that was more accurate
(less bias from capture heterogeneity
and lower coefficient of variation) and
resulted in a lower abundance than was
previously estimated. To be clear, the
new abundance estimate did not
indicate that the numbers had
decreased, but rather, the more accurate
new abundance estimate (3,264),
derived from the same data but based on
an integrated spatial multi-strata mark
recapture model (Wade et al., 2016) was
simply notably lower than earlier
estimates, which were 6,000–7,000 from
the SPLASH project (Calambokidis et
al., 2008) or higher (Barlow et al.,
20111). The updated abundance was
still higher than 2,000, which is the
Biological Review Team’s (BRT)
threshold between ‘‘not likely to be at
risk of extinction due to low abundance
alone’’ and ‘‘increasing risk from factors
associated with low abundance.’’
Further, the BRT concluded that the
DPS was unlikely to be declining
because of the population growth
throughout most of its feeding areas, in
California/Oregon and the Gulf of
Alaska, but they did not have evidence
that the Mexico DPS was actually
increasing in overall population size.
As discussed, we also take into
consideration management measures in
place to address serious injury and
mortality caused by other activities. The
California swordfish and thresher shark
drift gillnet fishery is one of the primary
causes of M/SI take from fisheries
interactions for humpback whales on
the West Coast. NMFS established the
Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take
Reduction Team in 1996 and prepared
an associated Plan (PCTRP) to reduce
the risk of M/SI via fisheries
interactions. In 1997, NMFS published
final regulations formalizing the
requirements of the PCTRP, including
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
the use of pingers following several
specific provisions and the employment
of Skipper education workshops.
Crab pot fisheries are also a
significant source of mortality for
humpback whales and, unfortunately,
have increased mortalities over recent
years. However, the draft 2018 SAR
notes that a recent increase in
disentanglement efforts has resulted in
an increase in the fraction of cases that
are reported as non-serious injuries as a
result of successful disentanglement.
More importantly, since 2015, NMFS
has engaged in a multi-stakeholder
process in California (including
California State resource managers,
fishermen, NGOs, and scientists) to
identify and develop solutions and
make recommendations to regulators
and the fishing industry for reducing
whale entanglements (see https://
www.opc.ca.gov/whaleentanglementworking-group/), referred
to as the Whale Entanglement Working
Group. More recently, similar efforts to
address the entanglement issue have
also been initiated in Oregon and
Washington. The Whale Entanglement
Working Group has made significant
progress since 2015 and is tackling the
problem from multiple angles,
including:
D Development of Fact Sheets and Best
Practices for specific Fisheries issues (e.g.,
California Dungeness Crab Fishing BMPs, or
the 2018–2019 Best Fishing Practices Guide);
D 2018–2019 Risk Assessment and
Mitigation Program (RAMP) to support the
state of California in working collaboratively
with experts (fishermen, researchers, NGOs,
etc.) to identify and assess elevated levels of
entanglement risk and determine the need for
management options to reduce risk of
entanglement; and
D Support of pilot studies to test new
fisheries technologies to reduce take (e.g.,
Exploring Ropeless Fishing Technologies for
the California Dungeness Crab Fishery).
The Working Group meets regularly,
posts reports and annual
recommendations, and makes all of
their products and guidance documents
readily accessible for the public. The
April 2018 Working Group Report
reports on the progress of the RAMP
(though there is a separate RAMP
report), summarized new ideas for
Fisheries BMPs, and indicated next
steps.
We also note that on November 26,
2018, NMFS’ West Coast Regional Office
received a notice of intent from the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife to apply for a Section 10
Incidental Take Permit under the ESA to
address protected species interactions in
certain California state-managed fixed
gear fisheries. Any request for such a
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66991
permit must include a Habitat
Conservation Plan that specifies, among
other things, what steps the applicant
will take to minimize and mitigate the
impacts, and the funding that will be
available to implement such steps.
Further regarding measures in place
to reduce mortality from sources other
than the Navy, the Channel Islands
NMS staff coordinates, collects, and
monitors whale sightings in and around
the Whale Advisory Zone and the
Channel Islands NMS region, which is
within the area of highest strike
mortality (90th percentile) for
humpback whales on the U.S. West
coast (Rockwood et al., 2017). The
seasonally established Whale Advisory
Zone spans from Point Arguello to Dana
Point, including the Traffic Separation
Schemes in the Santa Barbara Channel
and San Pedro Channel. Vessels
transiting the area from June through
November are recommended to exercise
caution and voluntarily reduce speed to
10 kn or less for blue, humpback, and
fin whales. Channel Island NMS
observers collect information from aerial
surveys conducted by NOAA, the U.S.
Coast Guard, California Department of
Fish and Game, and Navy chartered
aircraft. Information on seasonal
presence, movement, and general
distribution patterns of large whales is
shared with mariners, NMFS’ Office of
Protected Resources, the U.S. Coast
Guard, the California Department of
Fish and Game, the Santa Barbara
Museum of Natural History, the Marine
Exchange of Southern California, and
whale scientists. Real time and
historical whale observation data
collected from multiple sources can be
viewed on the Point Blue Whale
Database.
We also note that in this case, 0.2 M/
SI annually means the potential for one
mortality in one of the five years and
zero mortalities in four of those five
years. Therefore, the Navy would not be
contributing to the total human-caused
mortality at all in four of the five, or 80
percent, of the years covered by this
rule. That means that even if a
humpback whale from the CA/OR/WA
stock were to be struck, in four of the
five years there could be no effect on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
from Navy-caused M/SI. Additionally,
as noted previously, the loss of a male
would have far less, if any, of an effect
on population rates and absent any
information suggesting that one sex is
more likely to be struck than another,
one could reasonably assume that there
is a 50 percent chance that the single
strike authorized by this rule would be
a male, thereby further decreasing the
likelihood of impacts on the population
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66992
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
rate. In situations like this where
potential M/SI is fractional,
consideration must be given to the
lessened impacts anticipated due to the
absence of mortality or serious injury in
four of the five years and due to the fact
that a single strike could be a male.
Lastly, we reiterate that PBR is a
conservative metric and also not
sufficiently precise to serve as an
absolute predictor of population effects
upon which mortality caps would
appropriately be based. This is
especially important given the minor
difference between zero and one across
the five-year period covered by this rule,
which is the smallest distinction
possible when considering mortality.
Wade et al. (1998), authors of the paper
from which the current PBR equation is
derived, note that ‘‘Estimating
incidental mortality in one year to be
greater than the PBR calculated from a
single abundance survey does not prove
the mortality will lead to depletion; it
identifies a population worthy of careful
future monitoring and possibly
indicates that mortality-mitigation
efforts should be initiated.’’
The information included here
illustrates that this humpback whale
stock is stable, the potential (and
authorized) mortality is well below 10
percent (0.6 percent) of PBR, and
management actions are in place to
minimize both fisheries interactions and
ship strike from other vessel activity in
the one of the highest-risk areas for
strikes. More specifically, although the
total human-mortality exceeds PBR, the
authorized mortality for the Navy’s
specified activities would incrementally
contribute less than 1 percent of that
and, further, given the fact that it would
occur in only one of five years and
could be comprised of a male (far less
impactful to the population), the
potential impacts on population rates
are even less. Based on the presence of
the factors described above, including
consideration of the fact that the
authorized mortality of 0.2 will not
delay the time to recovery by more than
1 percent, we do not expect lethal take
from Navy activities, alone, to adversely
affect the CA/OR/WA stock of
humpback whales through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Nonetheless, the fact that total humancaused mortality exceeds PBR
necessitates close attention to the
remainder of the impacts (i.e.,
harassment) on the CA/OR/WA stock of
humpback whales from the Navy’s
activities to ensure that the total
authorized takes have a negligible
impact on the species and stock.
Therefore this information will be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
considered in combination with our
assessment of the impacts of harassment
takes later in the section, in the
humpback whale conclusion section.
Blue Whale (Eastern North Pacific
Stock)
For blue whales (Eastern North Pacific
stock), PBR is currently set at 2.3 and
the total annual M/SI is estimated at
greater than or equal to 19, yielding a
residual PBR of -16.7. NMFS is
authorizing one serious injury or
mortality for the Navy 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 16.9. However, as
described previously, in the commercial
fisheries setting for ESA-listed marine
mammals (which is similar to the
incidental take setting, in that the
negligible impact determination is based
on the assessment of take of the activity
being analyzed) NMFS may find the
impact of the authorized take from a
specified activity to be negligible even
if total human-caused mortality exceeds
PBR, if the authorized mortality is less
than 10 percent of PBR and management
measures are being taken to address
serious injuries and mortalities from the
other activities causing mortality (i.e.,
other than the specified activities
covered by the incidental take
authorization in consideration). When
those considerations are applied in the
section 101(a)(5)(A) context, the
authorized lethal take (0.2 annually) of
blue whales from the Eastern North
Pacific stock is less than 10 percent of
PBR (which is 2.3) and there are
management measures in place to
address serious injury and mortality
from activities other than those the
Navy is conducting (summarized
below). Perhaps more importantly, the
population is considered ‘‘stable’’ and,
specifically, the available data suggests
that the current number of ship strikes
is not likely to have an adverse impact
on the population, despite the fact that
it exceeds PBR, with the Navy’s
minimal additional mortality of one
whale in the five years not creating the
likelihood of adverse impact.
Immediately below, we explain the
information that supports our finding
that the Navy’s authorized mortality is
not expected to result in more than a
negligible impact on this stock. As
described previously, NMFS must also
ensure that impacts by the applicant on
the species or stock from other types of
take (i.e., harassment) do not combine
with the impacts from mortality to
adversely affect the species or stock via
impacts on annual rates of recruitment
or survival, which occurs further below
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
in the stock-specific conclusion
sections.
We discuss here the nature in which
the predicted average annual mortality
from other sources has changed since
the proposed rule. The proposed rule
included the information from the 2017
SAR, which indicated that PBR was 2.3
and the total observed annual average
mortality (which was all from ship
strike) was 0.9. There were no other
observed sources of mortality, the total
human-caused mortality did not exceed
residual PBR, and our analysis, which
considered other factors as well,
concluded that lethal take, alone, from
the Navy’s activities would not have
more than a negligible impact on blue
whales (Eastern North Pacific stock) (we
also went on to analyze the effects of the
potential lethal take in conjunction with
the estimated harassment take under the
negligible impact standard). In August
2018, NMFS published draft 2018 SARs
in which PBR remained at 2.3 and
observed average annual mortality went
down to 0.2 (from ship strike). However,
the draft 2018 SAR relies on a new
method to estimate annual deaths by
ship strike utilizing an encounter theory
model that combined species
distribution models of whale density,
vessel traffic characteristics, along with
whale movement patterns obtained from
satellite-tagged animals in the region to
estimate encounters that would result in
mortality (Rockwood et al., 2017). The
model predicts 18 annual mortalities of
blue whales from vessel strikes, which,
with the additional M/SI of 0.96 from
fisheries interactions, results in the
current estimate of residual PBR being
¥16.7. We note that as of the date this
final rule was signed and transmitted to
the Office of Federal Register, the public
comment period for the draft 2018 SAR
was still open. This means that NMFS
has not yet considered any comments
that other experts and the public might
have regarding the propriety of the
model for identifying annual mortality
in the SAR.
Although NMFS’ Permits and
Conservation Division in the Office of
Protected Resources has independently
reviewed the new ship strike model and
its results and agrees that it is
appropriate for estimating blue whale
mortality by ship strike on the U.S. West
Coast, for analytical purposes we also
note that if the historical method were
used to predict vessel strike (i.e., using
observed mortality by vessel strike, or
0.2, instead of 18), then total humancaused mortality including the Navy’s
potential take would not exceed PBR.
We further note that the authors
(Rockwood et al., 2017) do not suggest
that ship strike suddenly increased to 18
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
this past year. In fact, the model is not
specific to a year, but rather offers a
generalized prediction of ship strike off
the U.S. West Coast. Therefore, if the
Rockwood et al. (2017) model is an
accurate representation of vessel strike,
then similar levels of ship strike have
been occurring in past years as well. Put
another way, if the model is correct, for
some number of years total-humancaused mortality has been significantly
underestimated and PBR has been
similarly exceeded by a notable amount,
and yet the Eastern North Pacific stock
of blue whales remains stable
nevertheless.
NMFS’ draft 2018 SAR states that the
stock is ‘‘stable’’ and there is no
indication of a population size increase
in this blue whale population since the
early 1990s. The lack of a species’ or
stock’s population increase can have
several causes, some of which are
positive. The draft SAR further cites to
Monnahan et al. (2015), which used a
population dynamics model to estimate
that the Eastern North Pacific blue
whale population was at 97 percent of
carrying capacity in 2013 and to suggest
that the observed lack of a population
increase since the early 1990s was
explained by density dependence, not
impacts from ship strike. This would
mean that this stock of blue whales
shows signs of stability and is not
increasing in population size because
the population size is at or nearing
carrying capacity for its available
habitat. And, in fact, we note that this
stable population has maintained this
status throughout the years that Navy
has consistently tested and trained at
similar levels (with similar vessel
traffic) in areas that overlap with blue
whale occurrence.
Monnahan et al. (2015) modeled
vessel numbers, ship strikes, and the
population of the Eastern North Pacific
blue whale population from 1905 out to
2050 using a Bayesian framework to
incorporate informative biological
information and assign probability
distributions to parameters and derived
quantities of interest. The authors tested
multiple scenarios with differing
assumptions, incorporated uncertainty,
and further tested the sensitivity of
multiple variables. Their results
indicated that there is no immediate
threat (i.e. through 2050) to the
population from any of the scenarios
tested, which included models with 10
and 35 strike mortalities per year.
Broadly, the authors concluded that,
unlike other blue whale stocks, the
Eastern North Pacific blue whales have
recovered from 70 years of whaling and
are in no immediate threat from ship
strikes. They further noted that their
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
conclusion conflicts with the depleted
and strategic designation under the
MMPA, as well as PBR specifically.
As discussed, we also take into
consideration management measures in
place to address serious injury and
mortality caused by other activities. The
Channel Islands NMS staff coordinates,
collects, and monitors whale sightings
in and around the Whale Advisory Zone
and the Channel Islands NMS region.
Redfern et al. (2013) note that the most
risky area for blue whales is the Santa
Barbara Channel, where shipping lanes
intersect with common feeding areas.
The seasonally established Whale
Advisory Zone spans from Point
Arguello to Dana Point, including the
Traffic Separation Schemes in the Santa
Barbara Channel and San Pedro
Channel. Vessels transiting the area
from June through November are
recommended to exercise caution and
voluntarily reduce speed to 10 kn or less
for blue, humpback, and fin whales.
Channel Island NMS observers collect
information from aerial surveys
conducted by NOAA, the U.S. Coast
Guard, California Department of Fish
and Game, and U.S. Navy chartered
aircraft. Information on seasonal
presence, movement, and general
distribution patterns of large whales is
shared with mariners, NMFS Office of
Protected Resources, U.S. Coast Guard,
California Department of Fish and
Game, the Santa Barbara Museum of
Natural History, the Marine Exchange of
Southern California, and whale
scientists. Real time and historical
whale observation data collected from
multiple sources can be viewed on the
Point Blue Whale Database.
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, the Navy
would not be contributing to the total
human-caused mortality at all in four of
the five, or 80 percent, of the years
covered by this rule. That means that
even if a blue whale were to be struck,
in four of the five years there could be
no effect on annual rates of recruitment
or survival from Navy-caused M/SI.
Additionally, as noted previously, the
loss of a male would have far less, if
any, of an effect on population rates and
absent any information suggesting that
one sex is more likely to be struck than
another, one could reasonably assume
that there is a 50 percent chance that the
single strike authorized by this rule
would be a male, thereby further
decreasing the likelihood of impacts on
the population rate. In situations like
this where potential M/SI is fractional,
consideration must be given to the
lessened impacts anticipated due to the
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66993
absence of mortality or serious injury in
four of the five years and the fact that
the single strike could be a male. Lastly,
we reiterate that PBR is a conservative
metric and also not sufficiently precise
to serve as an absolute predictor of
population effects upon which mortality
caps would appropriately be based. This
is especially important given the minor
difference between zero and one across
the five-year period covered by this rule,
which is the smallest distinction
possible when considering mortality.
Wade et al. (1998), authors of the paper
from which the current PBR equation is
derived, note that ‘‘Estimating
incidental mortality in one year to be
greater than the PBR calculated from a
single abundance survey does not prove
the mortality will lead to depletion; it
identifies a population worthy of careful
future monitoring and possibly
indicates that mortality-mitigation
efforts should be initiated.’’ The
information included here illustrates
that this blue whale stock is stable,
approaching carrying capacity, and has
leveled off because of densitydependence, not human-caused
mortality, in spite of what might be
otherwise indicated from the calculated
PBR. Further, potential (and authorized)
mortality is below 10 percent of PBR
and management actions are in place to
minimize ship strike from other vessel
activity in the one of the highest-risk
areas for strikes. Based on the presence
of the factors described above, we do
not expect lethal take from Navy
activities, alone, to adversely Eastern
North Pacific blue whales through
effects on recruitment or survival.
Nonetheless, the fact that total humancaused mortality exceeds PBR
necessitates close attention to the
remainder of the impacts (i.e.,
harassment) on the Eastern Central
Pacific stock of blue whales from the
Navy’s activities to ensure that the total
authorized takes have a negligible
impact on the species or stock.
Therefore, this information will be
considered in combination with our
assessment of the impacts of harassment
takes later in the section.
Group and Species-Specific/StockSpecific Analyses
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
41 and 42 along with the discussion in
the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section on Vessel Strike and Explosives.
The vast majority of predicted
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66994
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
exposures (greater than 99 percent) are
expected to be Level B harassment (noninjurious 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 total take numbers (including PTS,
TTS, and behavioral harassment) 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 as many as 16 times.
Those comparisons are included in the
sections below. For some stocks these
numbers have been adjusted slightly
(with these adjustments being in the
single digits) since the proposed rule so
as to more consistently apply this
approach, but these minor changes did
not change the analysis or findings.
To assist in understanding what this
analysis means, we clarify a few issues
related to estimated takes and the
analysis here. An individual that incurs
a PTS or TTS take may sometimes, for
example, also be behaviorally disturbed
at the same time. As described in more
detail previously, the degree of PTS, and
the degree and duration of TTS,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
expected to be incurred from the Navy’s
activities are not expected to impact
marine mammals such that their
reproduction or survival could be
affected. Similarly, data do not suggest
that a single instance in which an
animal accrues PTS or TTS and is also
behaviorally harassed would result in
impacts to reproduction or survival.
Alternately, we recognize that if an
individual is behaviorally harassed
repeatedly for a longer duration and on
consecutive days, effects could accrue to
the point that reproductive success is
jeopardized (as discussed below in the
stock-specific conclusions).
Accordingly, as described in the
previous paragraph, in analyzing the
number of takes and the likelihood of
repeated and sequential takes (which
could accrue to reproductive impacts),
we consider the total takes, not just the
behavioral harassment takes, so that
individuals exposed to both TS and
behavioral harassment are appropriately
considered. We note that the same logic
applies with the potential addition of
behavioral harassment to tissue damage
from explosives, the difference being
that we do already consider the
likelihood of reproductive impacts
whenever tissue damage occurs.
Further, the number of level A
harassment takes by either PTS or tissue
damage are so low compared to
abundance numbers that it is considered
highly unlikely that any individual
would be taken at those levels more
than once.
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
less severe end, exposure to
comparatively lower levels of 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
fed 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
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
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 female 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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. Specifically below,
we first give broad descriptions of the
mysticete, odontocete, and pinniped
groups and then differentiate into
further groups as appropriate.
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 (above in this
section and in the proposed rule,
respectively, with no new applicable
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
information received since publication
of the proposed rule) the unlikelihood
of any masking or habitat impacts
having effects that would impact the
reproduction or survival of any of the
individual marine mammals affected by
the Navy’s activities. For mysticetes,
there is no predicted tissue 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, as
well as mortality take for several stocks,
at the end of the section we break out
our findings for most stocks on a stockspecific basis, however we do consider
five of the stocks in Hawaii with lowlevel impacts together.
In Table 71 and 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.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.030</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
effect on rates of recruitment or
survival.
The analyses below in some cases
address species collectively if they
occupy the same functional hearing
group (i.e., low, mid, and highfrequency cetaceans and pinnipeds in
water), share similar life history
strategies, and/or are known to
behaviorally respond similarly to
acoustic stressors. Because some of
these groups or species share
characteristics that inform the impact
analysis similarly, it would be
duplicative to repeat the same analysis
for each species or stock. In addition,
animals belonging to each stock within
a species typically 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 species that would further
66995
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
The majority of takes by harassment
of mysticetes in the HSTT Study Area
are caused by sources from the MF1
active sonar bin (which includes hullmounted sonar) because they are high
level, narrowband sources in the 1–10
kHz range, which intersect what is
estimated to be the most sensitive area
of hearing for mysticetes. They also are
used in a large portion of exercises (see
Table 1.5–5 in the Navy’s application).
Most of the takes (62 percent) from the
MF1 bin in the HSTT Study Area would
result from received levels between 154
and 172 dB SPL, while another 35
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 160 dB SPL,
LF5 = 98 percent between 100 and 130
dB SPL, MF4 = 98 percent between 136
and 154 dB SPL, MF5 = 97 percent
between 118 and 142 dB SPL, 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, PTS
from explosives is fewer than 3 for every
stock, and the TTS takes from
explosives comprise a small fraction
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
(approximately 1–10 percent) of those
caused by exposure to active sonar.
There are only two Level B harassment
takes of mysticetes by pile driving and
airguns each, one gray whale and one
blue whale for each activity type. 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 feeding or breeding grounds.
Behavioral reactions may include
alerting, breaking off feeding dives and
surfacing, diving or swimming away, or
no response at all (DOD, 2017;
Nowacek, 2007; Richardson, 1995;
Southall et al., 2007). 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, while males en route to
breeding grounds have been shown to
be less responsive to disturbances.
Although some may pause temporarily,
they will resume migration shortly after
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the exposure ends. 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. Alternately, adult
females with calves may be more
responsive to stressors. As noted in the
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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.031</GPH>
66996
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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 do not
typically use the same training locations
day-after-day during multi-day
activities, except periodically in
instrumented ranges. Therefore,
displaced animals could return quickly
after the MTE finishes. Due to the
limited number and geographic scope of
MTEs, it is unlikely that most
mysticetes would encounter a major
training exercise more than once per
year and additionally, total hullmounted sonar hours are limited in
several areas that are important to
mysticetes (described below). 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 procedural
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 shifts caused
by Navy sonar sources will typically
occur in the range of 2–20 kHz (from the
1–10 kHz MF1 bin, though in a specific
narrow band within this range as the
sources are narrowband), and if
resulting from hull-mounted sonar, will
be in the range of 3.5–7 kHz. The
majority of mysticete vocalizations
occur 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
The Navy will also limit activities and
employ other measures in mitigation
areas that will avoid or reduce impacts
to mysticetes and where BIAs for large
whales have been identified in the
HSTT Study Area.
In the SOCAL portion of the HSTT
Study Area, the Navy will implement
the San Diego Arc, San Nicolas Island,
and Santa Monica/Long Beach
Mitigation Areas from June 1 through
October 31, which will reduce impacts
primarily to blue whales, but also
potentially gray whales and fin whales.
These mitigation areas fully overlap the
three associated blue whale Feeding
Areas (all three of which are BIAs) in
the HSTT Study Area both temporally
and spatially (see also the HSTT FEIS/
OEIS Appendix K (Geographic
Mitigation Assessment), Section K.4);
only the Tanner-Cortes Bank BIA is not
included for practicability reasons
discussed previously. Within these
three Mitigation Areas, the Navy will
not exceed 200 hrs of MFAS sensor MF1
use (with the exception of active sonar
maintenance and systems checks) in all
three of the areas combined, annually,
and will not use explosives during
large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing,
and missile (including 2.75-inch (in)
rockets) activities during training (or for
mine warfare in the San Nicolas and
Santa Monica areas).
In addition, the Navy will implement
the year-round Santa Barbara Island
Mitigation Area, which encompasses the
portion of the Channel Islands NMS that
overlaps with the HSTT Study Area.
The Navy will not use MFAS sensor
MF1 surface hull-mounted sonar or
explosives used in gunnery (all
calibers), torpedo, bombing, and missile
exercises (including 2.75-in rockets)
during training. This Mitigation area
overlaps a blue whale feeding BIA and
also the Channel Islands NMS is
consider a highly productive and
diverse area of high-value habitat that is
more typically free of anthropogenic
stressors, and, therefore, limiting
activities in this area is considered
habitat protection for the myriad marine
mammal species that use it or may pass
through the area.
In the HRC portion of the HSTT Study
Area, the Navy will implement the 4Islands Region Mitigation Area, which
is expected to reduce impacts to
humpback whales (during an important
breeding/calving time period), as well as
the Main Hawaiian Island Insular stock
of false killer whale, monk seals, and
several dolphin species. In this area, the
Navy will not use MFAS sensor MF1
during training or testing activities from
November 15 through April 15 nor will
the Navy use any explosives throughout
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66997
the year that could potentially result in
takes of marine mammals. Since 2009,
the Navy has adhered to a Humpback
Whale Cautionary Area as a mitigation
area within the Hawaiian Islands
Humpback Whale NMS, an area
identified as having one of the highest
concentrations of humpback whales,
with calves, during the critical winter
months. As added protection, the Navy
has expanded the size and extended the
season of the current Humpback Whale
Cautionary Area, renaming this area the
4-Islands Region Mitigation Area to
reflect the benefits afforded to multiple
species. The season is currently between
December 15 and April 15 and the Navy
has extended it from November 15
through April 15 for the purposes of this
mitigation because the peak humpback
whale season has expanded. The size of
the 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area has
also expanded since the last HSTT
regulation to include an area north of
Maui and Molokai and overlaps an area
identified as a BIA for the endangered
Main Hawaiian Islands insular false
killer whales (Baird et al., 2015; Van
Parijs, 2015) (see Figure 5.4–3, in
Chapter 5 Mitigation Areas for Marine
Mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex
of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS).
Within the 4-Islands Region
Mitigation Area is the Hawaiian Islands
Humpback Whale Reproduction Area
BIA (4-Islands Region and Penguin
Bank). The use of sonar and other
transducers primarily occur farther
offshore than the delineated boundaries
of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback
Whale Reproduction Area BIA.
Explosive events are typically
conducted in areas that are designated
for explosive use, which are areas
outside of the Hawaiian Islands
Humpback Whale Reproduction Area
BIA.
The restrictions on MFAS sensor MF1
in this area and the fact that the Navy
does not plan to use any explosives in
this area mean that the number of takes
of humpback whales will be lessened, as
will their potential severity, in that the
Navy is avoiding exposures in an area
and time where the takes would be more
likely to interfere with cow/calf
communication or result in potentially
heightened impacts on sensitive or
naı¨ve individuals (calves).
The Navy is also implementing the
Hawaii Island Mitigation Area. The
Hawaii Island Mitigation Area is
effective year-round and the Navy will
not use more than 300 hrs of MFAS
sensory MF1 and will not exceed 20 hrs
of MFAS sensory MF4. Also within the
Hawaii Island Mitigation Area, the Navy
will not use any explosives (e.g.,
surface-to-surface or air-to-surface
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
66998
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
missile and gunnery events, BOMBEX,
and mine neutralization) during testing
and training year-round. Of note here,
this measure would provide additional
protection in this important
reproductive area for humpback whales,
reducing impacts in an area and time
where impacts would likely be more
severe if incurred. Separately (and
addressed more later), these protected
areas also reduce impacts for identified
biologically important areas for
endangered Main Hawaiian Islands
insular false killer whales, two species
of beaked whales (Cuvier and
Blainville’s), dwarf sperm whale, pygmy
killer whale, melon-headed whale,
short-finned pilot whale, and several
small resident populations of dolphins
(Baird et al., 2015; Van Parijs, 2015).
The 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area
and the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area
both also overlap with portions
(approximately 55 percent) of the
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
NMS. The Navy will continue to issue
an annual humpback whale awareness
notification message to remind ships
and aircraft to be extra vigilant during
times of high densities of humpback
whales while in transit and to maintain
certain distances from animals during
the operation of ships and aircraft.
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:
Blue Whale (Eastern North Pacific
stock)—The SAR identifies this stock as
‘‘stable’’ even though the larger species
is listed as endangered under the ESA.
We further note that this stock was
originally listed under the ESA as a
result of the impacts from commercial
whaling, which is no longer affecting
the species. As discussed above, both
the abundance and PBR are likely
underestimated to some degree in the
SAR. NMFS will authorize one
mortality over the five years covered by
this rule, or 0.2 mortality annually. With
the addition of this 0.2 annual mortality,
residual PBR is exceeded, resulting in
the total human-caused mortality
exceeding PBR by 16.9. However, as
described in more detail above in the
Serious Injury and Mortality subsection,
when total human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR, we consider whether the
incremental addition of a small amount
of authorized mortality from the
specified activity may still result in a
negligible impact, in part by identifying
whether it is less than 10 percent of
PBR. In this case, the authorized
mortality is well below 10 percent of
PBR, management measures are in place
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
to reduce mortality from other sources,
and the incremental addition of a single
mortality over the course of the five-year
Navy rule is not expected to, alone, lead
to adverse impacts on the stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
total instances of take compared to the
abundance (measured against both the
Navy-estimated abundance and the
SAR) is 253 and 121 percent,
respectively (Table 72). Given the range
of blue whales, this information
suggests that only some portion of
individuals in the stock are likely
impacted, but that there will likely be
some repeat exposure (maybe 5 or 6
days within a year) of some subset of
individuals that spend extended time
within the SOCAL Range. 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).
Additionally, the Navy implements
time/area mitigation in SOCAL in the
majority of the BIAs, which will reduce
the severity of impacts to blue 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 blue 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 similar reasons
(described above) the single estimated
Level A harassment take by PTS for this
stock is unlikely to have any effect on
the reproduction or survival of that one
individual, even if it were to be
experienced by an animal that also
experiences one or more Level B
harassment behavioral disruptions.
Altogether, only a small portion of the
stock is impacted and any individual
blue whale is likely to be disturbed at
a low-moderate level, with likely many
animals exposed only once or twice and
a subset potentially disturbed across
five or six days, but minimized in
biologically important areas. This low
magnitude and severity of harassment
effects is not expected to result in
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
impacts on the reproduction or survival
of any individuals and, therefore, when
combined with the authorized mortality
(which our earlier analysis indicated
would not, alone, have more than a
negligible impact on this stock of blue
whales), the total take is not 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 the Eastern
North Pacific stock of blue whales.
Bryde’s whale (Eastern Tropical
Pacific stock)—Little is known about
this stock, or its status, and it is not
listed under the ESA. 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 total instances of take
compared to the abundance is 3,154
percent, however, the abundance upon
which this percentage is based (1.3
whales from the Navy estimate, which
is extrapolated from density estimates
based on very few sightings) is clearly
erroneous and the SAR does not include
an abundance estimate because all of
the survey data is outdated (Table 72).
However, the abundance in the early
1980s was estimated as 22,000 to
24,000, a portion of the stock was
estimated at 13,000 in 1993, and the
minimum number in the Gulf of
California was estimated at 160 in 1990.
Given this information and the fact that
41 total takes of Bryde’s whales were
estimated, this information suggests that
only a small portion of the individuals
in the stock are likely impacted, and
few, if any, are likely taken over more
than one day. 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).
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
Bryde’s whale communication or other
important low-frequency cues. Any
associated lost opportunities and
capabilities are not at a level that would
impact reproduction or survival.
Altogether, only a small portion of the
stock is impacted and any individual
Bryde’s whale is likely to be disturbed
at a low-moderate level, with few, if
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
any, individuals exposed over more
than one day in the year. This low
magnitude and severity of harassment
effects is not expected to result in
impacts on individual reproduction or
survival, much less 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 the Eastern Tropical Pacific
stock of Bryde’s whales.
Fin whale (CA/OR/WA stock)—The
SAR identifies this stock as
‘‘increasing,’’ even though the larger
species is listed as endangered under
the ESA. NMFS will authorize two
mortalities over the five years covered
by this rule, or 0.4 mortality annually.
The addition of this 0.4 annual
mortality still leaves the total humancaused mortality well under residual
PBR.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
total instances of take compared to the
abundance (measured against both the
Navy-estimated abundance and the
SAR) is 613 and 25 percent, respectively
(Table 72). This information suggests
that only some portion (less than 25
percent) of individuals in the stock are
likely impacted, but that there is likely
some repeat exposure (perhaps up to 12
days within a year) of some subset of
individuals that spend extended time
within the SOCAL complex. Some of
these takes could occur on a few
sequential days for some small number
of individuals, for example, if they
resulted from a multi-day exercise on a
range while individuals were in the area
for multiple days feeding. 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).
Additionally, while there are no
designated BIAs for fin whales in the
SOCAL range, the Navy implements
time/area mitigation in SOCAL in blue
whale BIAs, and fin whales are known
to sometimes feed in some of the same
areas, which means they could
potentially accrue some benefits from
the mitigation. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
the associated lost opportunities and
capabilities are not at a level that would
impact reproduction or survival. For
similar reasons (described above) the
single estimated Level A harassment
take by PTS for this stock is unlikely to
have any effects on the reproduction or
survival of that one individual.
Altogether, this population is
increasing, only a small portion of the
stock is impacted, and any individual
fin whale is likely to be disturbed at a
low-moderate level, with the taken
individuals likely exposed between one
and twelve days, with a few individuals
potentially taken on a few sequential
days. 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 the CA/OR/
WA stock of fin whales.
Humpback whale (CA/OR/WA
stock)—The SAR identifies this stock as
stable (having shown a long-term
increase from 1990 and then leveling off
between 2008 and 2014) and the
individuals in this stock are associated
with three DPSs, one of which is not
listed under the ESA (Hawaii), one of
which is designated as threatened
(Mexico), and one of which is
designated as endangered (Central
America) (individuals encountered in
the SOCAL portion of the HSTT Study
Area are likely to come from the latter
two). NMFS will authorize one
mortality over the five years covered by
this rule, or 0.2 mortality annually
(Mexico DPS only). With the addition of
this 0.2 annual mortality, the total
human-caused mortality exceeds PBR
by 7.56. However, as described in more
detail above in the Serious Injury and
Mortality subsection, when total humancaused mortality exceeds PBR, we
consider whether the incremental
addition of a small amount of
authorized mortality from the specified
activity may still result in a negligible
impact, in part by identifying whether it
is less than 10 percent of PBR, which is
33.4. In this case, the authorized
mortality is well below 10 percent of
PBR (less than one percent, in fact) and
management measures are in place to
reduce mortality from other sources.
More importantly, as described above in
Serious Injury and Mortality, the
authorized mortality of 0.2 will not
delay the time to recovery by more than
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
66999
1 percent. Given these factors, the
incremental addition of a single
mortality over the course of the five-year
Navy rule is not expected to, alone, lead
to adverse impacts on the stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
total instances of take compared to the
abundance (measured against both the
Navy-estimated abundance and the
SAR) is 808 and 104 percent,
respectively (Table 72). Given the range
of humpback whales, this information
suggests that only some portion of
individuals in the stock are likely
impacted, but that there is likely some
repeat exposure (maybe perhaps up to
16 days within a year) of some subset
of individuals that spend extended time
within the SOCAL complex. 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).
Some of these takes could occur on
several sequential days for some small
number of individuals, for example, if
they resulted from a multi-day exercise
on a range while individuals were in the
area for multiple days feeding, however,
in these amounts it would still not be
expected to adversely impact
reproduction or survival of any
individuals.
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 humpback 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 similar reasons
(described above) the single estimated
Level A harassment take by PTS for this
stock is unlikely to have any effects on
the reproduction or survival of that one
individual.
Altogether, only a small portion of the
stock is impacted and any individual
humpback whale is likely to be
disturbed at a low-moderate level, with
likely many animals exposed only once
or twice and a subset potentially
disturbed up to 16 days, but with no
reason to think that more than a few of
those days would be sequential. This
low magnitude and severity of
harassment effects is not expected to
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
67000
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
result in impacts on the reproduction or
survival of any individuals and,
therefore, when combined with the
authorized mortality (which our earlier
analysis indicated would not, alone,
have more than a negligible impact on
this stock of humpback whales), the
total take is not 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 the CA/OR/WA stock of
humpback whales.
Minke whale (CA/OR/WA stock)—The
status of this stock is unknown and it is
not listed under the ESA. No mortality
from vessel strike or tissue damage from
explosive exposure is anticipated or
authorized for this species. Regarding
the magnitude of Level B harassment
takes (TTS and behavioral disruption),
the number of estimated total instances
of take compared to the abundance
(measured against both the Navyestimated abundance and the SAR) is
568 and 146 percent, respectively (Table
72). Based on the behaviors of minke
whales, which often occur along
continental shelves and sometimes
establish home ranges along the West
Coast, this information suggests that
only a portion of individuals in the
stock are likely impacted, but that there
is likely some repeat exposure (perhaps
up to 11 days within a year) of some
subset of individuals that spend
extended time within the SOCAL
complex. Some of these takes could
occur on a few sequential days for some
small number of individuals, for
example, if they resulted from a multiday exercise on a range while
individuals were in the area for multiple
days feeding. 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).
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
minke 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
similar reasons (described above) the
single estimated Level A harassment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
take by PTS for this stock is unlikely to
have any effects on the 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 lowmoderate level, with the taken
individuals likely exposed between one
and eleven days, with a few individuals
potentially taken on a few sequential
days. This low magnitude and severity
of harassment effects is not expected to
result in impacts on individual
reproduction or survival, much less
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 the CA/OR/WA stock of
minke whales.
Sei whale (Eastern North Pacific
stock)—The status of this stock is
unknown and it is listed under the ESA.
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 total instances of
take compared to the abundance
(measured against both the Navyestimated abundance and the SAR) is
2,633 and 15 percent, respectively
(Table 72), however, the abundance
upon which the Navy percentage is
based (3 from the Navy estimate, which
is extrapolated from density estimates
based on very few sightings) is likely an
underestimate of the number of
individuals in the HSTT study Area,
resulting in an overestimated
percentage. Nonetheless, even given this
information and the large range of sei
whales, and the fact that only 79 total
Level B harassment takes of sei whales
were estimated, it is likely that some
very small number of sei whales is taken
repeatedly, potentially up to 15 days in
a year (typically 2,633 percent would
lead to the estimate of 52 days/year,
however, given that there are only 79 sei
whale total takes, we used the
conservative assumption that five
individuals might be taken up to 15
times, with the few remaining takes
distributed among other individuals).
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). Some of these takes
could occur on a few sequential days for
some small number of individuals, for
example, if they resulted from a multi-
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
day exercise on a range while
individuals were in the area for multiple
days feeding, however, in these amounts
it would still not be expected to
adversely impact reproduction or
survival of any individuals. 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 sei whale
communication or other important lowfrequency cues—and that the associated
lost opportunities and capabilities are
not at a level that would impact
reproduction or survival.
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 only a few
individuals exposed over one to 15 days
in a year, with no more than a few
sequential days. This low magnitude
and severity of harassment effects is not
expected to result in impacts on
individual reproduction or survival,
much less 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 the Eastern
North Pacific stock of sei whales.
Gray whale (Eastern North Pacific
stock)—The SAR identifies this stock as
‘‘increasing’’ and the species is not
listed under the ESA. NMFS will
authorize two mortalities over the five
years covered by this rule, or 0.4
mortality annually. The addition of this
0.4 annual mortality still leaves the total
human-caused mortality well under the
insignificance threshold of residual
PBR.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
total instances of take compared to the
abundance (measured against both the
Navy-estimated abundance and the
SAR) is 2,424 and 22 percent,
respectively (Table 72). This
information suggests that only some
small portion of individuals in the stock
are likely impacted (less than 22
percent), but that there is likely some
level of repeat exposure of some subset
of individuals that spend extended time
within the SOCAL complex. Typically
2,424 percent would lead to the estimate
of 48 days/year, however, given that a
large number of gray whales are known
to migrate through the SOCAL complex
and the fact that there are only 4,678
total takes, we believe that it is more
likely that a large number of individuals
are taken one to a few times, while a
small number staying in an area to feed
for several days may be taken on 5–10
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
days. 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). Some of these takes
could occur on a couple of sequential
days for some small number of
individuals, however, in these amounts
it would still not be expected to
adversely impact reproduction or
survival of any individuals.
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 gray 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 7 estimated Level A
harassment takes by PTS for gray 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, gray whales are not
endangered or threatened under the
ESA and the Eastern North Pacific stock
is increasing. Only a small portion of
the stock is impacted and any
individual gray whale is likely to be
disturbed at a low-moderate level, with
likely many animals exposed only once
or twice and a subset potentially
disturbed across five to ten days. This
low magnitude and severity of
harassment effects is not expected to
result in impacts to reproduction or
survival for any individuals and nor are
these harassment takes combined with
the authorized mortality of two whales
over the five year period 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 the Eastern
North Pacific stock of gray whales.
Gray whale (Western North Pacific
stock)—The Western North Pacific stock
of gray whales is considered
‘‘increasing,’’ but is listed as endangered
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
under the ESA. No mortality or Level A
harassment is anticipated or authorized.
This stock is expected and authorized to
incur the very small number of 6 Level
B harassment takes (2 behavioral and 4
TTS) to a stock with a SAR-estimated
abundance of 140. These takes will
likely accrue to different individuals,
the behavioral disturbances will be of a
low-moderate level, and the TTS
instances will be at a low level and
short duration. This low magnitude and
severity of harassment effects is not
expected to result in impacts on
individual reproduction or survival,
much less 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 the Western North Pacific
stock of gray whales.
Humpback whale (Central North
Pacific stock)—The SAR identifies this
stock as ‘‘increasing’’ and the DPS is not
listed under the ESA. No Level A
harassment by tissue damage is
authorized. NMFS will authorize two
mortalities over the five years covered
by this rule, or 0.4 mortalities annually.
The addition of this 0.4 annual
mortality still leaves the total humancaused mortality well under the
insignificance threshold for residual
PBR.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
instances of take compared to the
abundance, both throughout the HSTT
Study Area and within the U.S. EEZ,
respectively, is 180 and 161 percent
(Table 71). This information and the
complicated far-ranging nature of the
stock structure suggests that some
portion of the stock (but not all) are
likely impacted, over one to several
days per year, with little likelihood of
take across sequential days. 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).
Additionally, as noted above, there are
two mitigation areas implemented by
the Navy that span a large area of this
important humpback reproductive area
(BIA) and minimize impacts by limiting
the use of MF1 active sonar and
explosives, thereby reducing both the
number and severity of takes of
humpback whales. Regarding the
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67001
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 humpback
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 3 estimated Level A
harassment takes by PTS for humpback
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, this stock is increasing
and the DPS is not listed as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Only a
small portion of the stock is impacted
and any individual humpback whale is
likely to be disturbed at a low-moderate
level, with the taken individuals likely
exposed between one and twelve days,
with a few individuals potentially taken
on a few sequential days. 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 effects 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 the Central North Pacific
stock of humpback whales.
Blue whale (Central North Pacific
stock) and the Hawaii stocks of Bryde’s
whale, Fin whale, Minke whale, and Sei
whale—The status of these stocks are
not identified in the SARs. Blue whale
(Central North Pacific stock) and the
Hawaii stocks of fin whale and sei
whale are listed as endangered under
the ESA; the Hawaii stocks of minke
whales and Bryde’s whales are not
listed under the ESA. No mortality or
Level A harassment by tissue damage 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 take compared to the
abundance, both throughout the HSTT
Study Area and within the U.S. EEZ,
respectively, is 92–135 and 103–142
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
67002
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
percent (Table 71). This information
suggests that some portion of the stocks
(but not all) are likely impacted, over
one to several days per year, with little
likelihood of take across sequential
days. 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). 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 mysticete
communication or other important lowfrequency cues—and that the associated
lost opportunities and capabilities are
not at a level that would impact
reproduction or survival. For similar
reasons (described above) the two
estimated Level A harassment takes by
PTS for the Hawaii stock of minke
whales are unlikely to have any effects
on the reproduction or survival of any
individuals.
Altogether, only a portion of these
stocks are impacted and any individuals
of these stocks are likely to be disturbed
at a low-moderate level, with the taken
individuals likely exposed between one
and several days, with little chance that
any are taken across sequential days.
This low magnitude and severity of
harassment effects is not expected to
result in impacts on individual
reproduction or survival, much less
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 these stocks.
Odontocetes
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
previously described (above in this
section and in the proposed rule,
respectively, with no new applicable
information received since publication
of the proposed rule) the unlikelihood
of any masking or habitat impacts
having effects that would impact the
reproduction or survival of any of the
individual marine mammals affected by
the Navy’s activities. Here, we include
information that applies to all of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
odontocete species and stocks, which
are then further divided and discussed
in more detail in the following
subsections: Sperm whales, dwarf
sperm whales, and pygmy sperm
whales; Dolphins and small whales;
Beaked whales; and Dall’s porpoise.
These sub-sections include more
specific information about the groups,
as well as conclusions for each stock
represented.
The majority of takes by harassment
of odontocetes in the HSTT Study Area
are caused by sources from the MF1
active sonar bin (which includes hullmounted sonar) because they are high
level, typically narrowband sources at a
frequency (in the 1–10 kHz range),
which overlap a more sensitive portion
(though not the most sensitive) of the
MF hearing range, and 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 (for which these
percentages are indicated separately in
that section), most of the takes (98
percent) from the MF1 bin in the HSTT
Study Area would result from received
levels between 154 and 172 dB SPL. For
the remaining active sonar bin types, the
percentages are as follows: LF3 = 97
percent between 142 and 160 dB SPL,
LF5M = 99 percent between 106 and
118 dB SPL, MF4 = 99 percent between
136 and 160 dB SPL, MF5 = 97 percent
between 118 and 148 dB SPL, and HF4
= 96 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 (and low
number) of those caused by exposure to
active sonar. Specifically, for all but six
odontocete stocks the instances of PTS
and TTS from explosives are five or
fewer and 12 or fewer per stock,
respectively. By virtue of the sheer
density and abundance of these two
stocks, long-beaked and short-beaked
dolphins incur a slightly higher
number—13 or fewer and 30 or fewer
instances of PTS and TTS, respectively.
And, because of the lower threshold for
HF species, pygmy and dwarf sperm
whales have about 10–20 PTS takes and
30–100 TTS takes from explosives per
stock, while Dall’s porpoises have about
50 PTS takes and 300 PTS takes from
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
explosives. Only five stocks incur take
by harassment in the form of TTS or
PTS from exposure to air guns and in all
five cases it is limited to fewer than 10
takes each for TTS and PTS. No
odontocetes incur PTS from exposure to
pile driving, and only two stocks incur
TTS in the amounts of one and three
takes, respectively, from pile driving.
Because the majority of harassment
take of odontocetes results from the
sources in the MF1 bin (typically a
narrowband source in the 1–10 kHz
range), the vast majority of threshold
shift caused by Navy sonar sources will
typically occur across a narrower band
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 their
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 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 a few stocks, which are explicitly
discussed below), at the most, and
therefore they are unlikely to incur
impacts on reproduction or survival.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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). Second, 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
on one fish or squid at a time. Therefore,
if odontocetes are interrupted while
feeding, it is often possible to find more
prey relatively nearby.
Sperm Whales, Dwarf Sperm Whales,
and Pygmy Sperm Whales
In this section, we bring together the
discussion of marine mammals
generally and odontocetes in particular
regarding 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
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
determinations for each. We have also
previously described the unlikelihood
of any masking or habitat impacts to any
marine mammals that would rise to the
level of affecting individual fitness. The
discussion in this section fairly
narrowly focuses 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 potential (and
authorized) mortality, we break out
specific findings into a few groups—CA/
OR/WA stocks of sperm whales, dwarf
sperm whales, and pygmy sperm
whales; sperm whale (Hawaii stock);
and Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales
(Hawaii stocks).
In Table 73 and Table 74 below, for
sperm whales, 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. No tissue
damage is anticipated.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.032</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
PTS takes from these sources are very
low, and while spanning a wider
frequency band, are still expected to be
of a low degree (i.e., low amount of
hearing sensitivity loss).
The range of potential behavioral
effects of sound exposure on marine
mammals generally, and odontocetes
specifically, has been discussed in
detail previously. There are behavioral
patterns that differentiate the likely
impacts on odontocetes as compared to
mysticetes. First, 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, studies demonstrate
that odontocetes cease their 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
67003
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
As discussed above, the majority of
Level B harassment behavioral takes of
odontocetes, and thereby sperm whales,
is 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 dwarf and pygmy
sperm whales, as HF-sensitive species,
have a lower PTS threshold than all
other groups and therefore are likely to
experience larger amounts of TTS and
PTS, and NMFS will accordingly
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 TTS
and PTS takes are relatively high, all of
the reasons described above for why
TTS and PTS are not expected to impact
reproduction or survival still apply.
We also note that impacts to dwarf
sperm whale stocks will be reduced
through the Hawaii Island Mitigation
Area, which overlaps (but is larger than)
the entirety of two BIAs for small
resident populations of dwarf and
pygmy sperm whales. In this mitigation
area, the Navy will not conduct more
than 300 hours of MF1 surface ship
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
hull-mounted mid-frequency active
sonar or 20 hours of MF4 dipping sonar
and will not use explosives during
testing and training.
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, dwarf sperm whale, and
pygmy sperm whale (CA/OR/WA
stocks)—The SAR identifies the CA/OR/
WA stock of sperm whales as ‘‘stable’’
and the species is listed as endangered
under the ESA. The status of the CA/
OR/WA stocks of pygmy and dwarf
sperm whales is unknown and neither
are listed under the ESA. Neither
mortality nor Level A harassment by
tissue damage from exposure to
explosives is expected or authorized for
any of these three stocks.
Due to their pelagic distribution,
small size, and cryptic behavior, pygmy
sperm whales and dwarf sperm whales
are rarely sighted during at-sea surveys
and difficult to distinguish between
when visually observed in the field.
Many of the relatively few observations
of Kogia spp. off the U.S. West Coast
were not identified to species. All at-sea
sightings of Kogia spp. have been
identified as pygmy sperm whales or
Kogia spp. Stranded dwarf sperm and
pygmy sperm whales have been found
on the U.S. West Coast, however dwarf
sperm whale strandings are rare. NMFS
SARs suggest that the majority of Kogia
sighted off the U.S. West Coast were
likely pygmy sperm whales. As such,
the stock estimate in the NMFS SAR for
pygmy sperm whales is the estimate
derived for all Kogia spp. in the region
(Barlow 2016), and no separate
abundance estimate can be determined
for dwarf sperm whales, though some
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
low number likely reside in the U.S.
EEZ. Due to the lack of abundance
estimate it is not possible to predict the
take of dwarf sperm whales and take
estimates are identified as Kogia spp.
(including both pygmy and dwarf sperm
whales). We assume only a small
portion of those takes are likely to be
dwarf sperm whales as the density and
abundance in the U.S. EEZ is thought to
be low.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
total instances of take compared to the
abundance (measured against both the
Navy-estimated abundance and the
SAR) is, respectively, 913 and 125 for
sperm whales and 1,211 and 223 for
Kogia spp., with a large proportion of
these anticipated to be pygmy sperm
whales due to the low abundance and
density of dwarf sperm whales in the
HSTT Study Area. (Table 74). Given the
range of these stocks (which extends the
entire length of the West Coast, as well
as beyond the U.S. EEZ boundary), this
information suggests that some portion
of the individuals in these stocks will
not be impacted, but that there is likely
some repeat exposure (perhaps up to 24
days within a year for Kogia spp. and 18
days a year for sperm whales) of some
small subset of individuals that spend
extended time within the SOCAL Range.
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 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.033</GPH>
67004
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
lower, to occasionally moderate, level
and less likely to evoke a severe
response). However, some of these takes
could occur on a fair number of
sequential days for some number on
individuals.
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 sperm 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
(PTS) 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 estimated Level A harassment
takes by PTS for the dwarf and pygmy
whale stocks would be unlikely to
impact behaviors, opportunities, or
detection capabilities to a degree that
would interfere with reproductive
success or survival of any individuals.
Thus the 38 total Level A harassment
takes by PTS for these two stocks would
be unlikely to affect rates of recruitment
and survival for the stocks.
Altogether, most members of the
stocks will likely be taken by Level B
harassment (at a low to occasionally
moderate level) over several days a year,
and some smaller portion of the stocks
are expected to be taken on a relatively
moderate to high number of days (up to
18 or 24) 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 for
a subset of individuals makes it more
likely 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, which is the maximum
predicted because the small number
anticipated in any one year makes the
probability that any individual would
be impacted in this way twice in five
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
years very low) 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 affect these stocks through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival, and we note that residual PBR
is 19 for pygmy dwarf sperm whales and
1.6 for sperm whales. Both the
abundance and PBR are unknown for
dwarf sperm whales, however, we know
that take of this stock is likely
significantly lower in magnitude and
severity (i.e., lower number of total takes
and repeated takes any individual) than
pygmy sperm whales. 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 CA/OR/
WA stocks of sperm whales and pygmy
and dwarf sperm whales.
Sperm whale (Hawaii stock)—The
SAR does not identify a trend for this
stock and the species is listed as
endangered under the ESA. No Level A
harassment by PTS or tissue damage is
expected or authorized. NMFS will
authorize one mortality over the 5 years
covered by this rule, which is 0.2
mortalities annually. The addition of
this 0.2 annual mortality still leaves the
total human-caused mortality well
under the insignificance threshold for
residual PBR.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
instances of take compared to the
abundance, both throughout the HSTT
Study Area and within the U.S. EEZ,
respectively, is 151 and 147 percent
(Table 73). This information and the
sperm whale stock range suggest that
likely only a smaller portion of the stock
is impacted, over one to several days per
year, with little likelihood of take across
sequential days. 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 lower, to
occasionally moderate, level and less
likely to evoke a severe response).
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
sperm 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.
Altogether, a relatively small portion
of this stock is impacted and any
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67005
individuals are likely to be disturbed at
a low-moderate level, with the taken
individuals likely exposed between one
and several days, with little chance that
any are taken across sequential days.
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
single 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 the Hawaii stock of sperm
whales.
Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales
(Hawaii stocks)—The SAR does not
identify a trend for these stocks and the
species are not listed under the ESA. No
Level A harassment by tissue damage is
authorized. Regarding the magnitude of
Level B harassment takes (TTS and
behavioral disruption), the number of
estimated instances of take compared to
the abundance, both throughout the
HSTT Study Area and within the U.S.
EEZ, respectively, is 244–249 and 235–
240 percent (Table 73). This information
and the pygmy and dwarf sperm whale
stock ranges (at least throughout the
U.S. EEZ around the entire Hawaiian
Islands) suggest that likely a fair portion
of each stock is not impacted, but that
a subset of individuals may be over one
to perhaps five days per year, with little
likelihood of take across sequential
days. 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
lower, to occasionally moderate, level
and less likely to evoke a severe
response). Additionally, as noted
earlier, within the Hawaii Island
Mitigation Area, explosives are not used
and the use of MF1 and MF4 active
sonar is limited, greatly reducing the
severity of impacts within the small
resident population BIA for dwarf
sperm whales, which is entirely
contained within this mitigation area.
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 sperm 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
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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, estimated Level A harassment
takes by PTS for dwarf and pygmy
sperm 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,
even if it were to be experienced by an
animal that also experiences one or
more Level B harassment behavioral
disruptions. Thus the 29 and 64 total
Level A harassment takes by PTS for
dwarf and pygmy sperm whales,
respectively, would be unlikely to affect
rates of recruitment and survival for
these stocks.
Altogether, a portion of these stocks
are likely to be impacted and any
individuals are likely to be disturbed at
a low-moderate level, with the taken
individuals likely exposed between one
and five days, with little chance that
any are taken across sequential days.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
This low magnitude and severity of
Level A and Level B harassment effects
is not expected to result in impacts on
individual reproduction or survival,
much less 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
expected (and authorized) take will
have a negligible impact on the Hawaii
stocks of pygmy and dwarf sperm
whales.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
endangered or threatened under the
ESA. For beaked whales, there is no
predicted mortality or tissue damage for
any stock. 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
conclusions for each stock. Because
there are differential magnitudes of
effect to the Hawaii stocks of beaked
whales versus the CA/OR/WA stocks of
beaked whales, we break out specific
findings into those two groups.
In Tables 75 and 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. No Level A
harassment (PTS and Tissue Damage)
takes are anticipated or authorized.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.034</GPH>
67006
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
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
HSTT Study Area are caused by sources
from the MF1 active sonar bin (which
includes hull-mounted sonar) because
they are high level narrowband sources
in the 1–10 kHz range, 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). Most of
the takes (94 percent) from the MF1 bin
in the HSTT Study Area would result
from received levels between 154 and
160 dB SPL. For the remaining active
sonar bin types, the percentages are as
follows: LF3 = 90 percent between 136
and 148 dB SPL, LF5M = 99 percent
between 100 and 118 dB SPL, MF4 = 95
percent between 130 and 148 dB SPL,
MF5 = 95 percent between 100 and 142
dB SPL, and HF4 = 96 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 (Pirotta et al., 2012;
Tyack et al., 2011) and therefore have
been assigned a lower harassment
threshold, i.e., a more distant distance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
cutoff (50 km for high source level, 25
km for moderate source level).
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, although few definitive causal
relationships between MFAS use and
strandings have been documented, and
no such findings have been documented
with Navy use in Hawaii and Southern
California.
Research and observations show that
if beaked whales are exposed to sonar or
other active acoustic sources, they may
startle, break off feeding dives, and
avoid the area of the sound source to
levels of 157 dB re 1 mPa, or below
(McCarthy et al., 2011). Acoustic
monitoring during actual sonar
exercises revealed some beaked whales
continuing to forage at levels up to 157
dB re 1 mPa (Tyack et al., 2011).
Stimpert et al. (2014) tagged a Baird’s
beaked whale, which was subsequently
exposed to simulated MFAS. Changes in
the animal’s dive behavior and
locomotion were observed when
received level reached 127 dB re 1 mPa.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67007
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;
McCarthy et al., 2011; Moretti et al.,
2009, 2010; Tyack et al., 2010, 2011).
Tyack et al. (2011) report that, in
reaction to sonar playbacks, most
beaked whales stopped echolocating,
made long slow ascent to the surface,
and moved away from the sound. A
similar behavioral response study
conducted in Southern California waters
during the 2010–2011 field season
found that Cuvier’s beaked whales
exposed to MFAS displayed behavior
ranging from initial orientation changes
to avoidance responses characterized by
energetic fluking and swimming away
from the source (DeRuiter et al., 2013b).
However, the authors did not detect
similar responses to incidental exposure
to distant naval sonar exercises at
comparable received levels, indicating
that context of the exposures (e.g.,
source proximity, controlled source
ramp-up) may have been a significant
factor. The study itself found the results
inconclusive and meriting further
investigation. Cuvier’s beaked whale
responses suggested particular
sensitivity to sound exposure as
consistent with results for Blainville’s
beaked whale.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.035</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
67008
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Populations of beaked whales and
other odontocetes on the Bahamas and
other Navy fixed ranges that have been
operating for decades, appear to be
stable. Behavioral reactions (avoidance
of the area of Navy activity) seem likely
in most cases if beaked whales are
exposed to anti-submarine sonar within
a few tens of kilometers, especially for
prolonged periods (a few hours or more)
since this is one of the most sensitive
marine mammal groups to
anthropogenic sound of any species or
group studied to date and research
indicates beaked whales will leave an
area where anthropogenic sound is
present (De Ruiter et al., 2013;
Manzano-Roth et al., 2013; Moretti et
al., 2014; Tyack et al., 2011). Research
involving tagged Cuvier’s beaked whales
in the SOCAL Range Complex reported
on by Falcone and Schorr (2012, 2014)
indicates year-round prolonged use of
the Navy’s training and testing area by
these beaked whales and has
documented movements in excess of
hundreds of kilometers by some of those
animals. Given that some of these
animals may routinely move hundreds
of kilometers as part of their normal
pattern, leaving an area where sonar or
other anthropogenic sound is present
may have little, if any, cost to such an
animal. Photo identification studies in
the SOCAL Range Complex, a Navy
range that is utilized for training and
testing, have identified approximately
100 individual Cuvier’s beaked whale
individuals with 40 percent having been
seen in one or more prior years, with resightings 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 long-term
consequences as a result of exposure to
Navy training and testing activities.
Over eight years of passive acoustic
monitoring on the Navy’s instrumented
range west of San Clemente Island
documented no significant changes in
annual and monthly beaked whale
echolocation clicks, with the exception
of repeated fall declines likely driven by
a natural beaked whale life history
functions (DiMarzio et al., 2018).
Finally, results from passive acoustic
monitoring estimated regional Cuvier’s
beaked whale densities were higher
than indicated by the 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Occasional instances of take by Level B
behavioral harassment of a low to
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, those responses
would not be expected to adversely
affect rates of recruitment or survival.
We also note that impacts to beaked
whale stocks will be reduced through
the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area,
which overlaps (but is larger than)
almost the entirety of two BIAs for small
resident populations of Blainville’s and
Cuvier’s beaked whales (the mitigation
area covers all of the BIA for Blainville’s
and all but a very small portion of the
BIA for Cuvier’s). In this mitigation area,
the Navy will not conduct more than
300 hours of MF1 surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar
and not more than 20 hours of MF4
dipping sonar and will not use
explosives during testing and training.
Below we synthesize and summarize
the information that supports our
determination that the Navy’s activities
will not adversely impact recruitment or
survival rates for any of the affected
stocks addressed in this section:
Blainville’s, Cuvier’s, and Longman’s
beaked whales (Hawaii stocks)—The
SAR does not identify a trend for these
stocks and the species are not listed
under the ESA. No mortality or Level A
harassment are expected or authorized
for any of these three stocks. Regarding
the magnitude of Level B harassment
takes (TTS and behavioral disruption),
the number of estimated instances of
take compared to the abundance, both
throughout the HSTT Study Area and
within the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is
521–545 and 514–539 percent (Table
75). This information and the stock
ranges (at least of the small, resident
Island associated stocks around Hawaii)
suggest that likely a fair portion of the
stocks (but not all) will be impacted,
over one to perhaps eleven days per
year, with little likelihood of much take
across sequential days. Regarding the
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 160 dB, though with beaked
whales, which are considered somewhat
more sensitive, this could mean that
some individuals will leave preferred
habitat for a day or two (i.e., moderate
level takes). However, while interrupted
feeding bouts are a known response and
concern for odontocetes, we also know
that there are often viable alternative
habitat options nearby. Additionally, as
noted earlier, within the Hawaii Island
mitigation area (which entirely contains
the BIAs for Cuvier’s and Blainville’s
beaked whales), explosives are not used
and the use of MF1 and MF4 active
sonar is limited, greatly reducing the
severity of impacts within these two
small resident populations.
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 beaked 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.
Altogether, a fair portion of these
stocks are impacted and any individuals
are likely to be disturbed at a moderate
level, with the taken individuals likely
exposed between one and eleven days,
with little chance that individuals are
taken across more than a few sequential
days. This low, to occasionally
moderate, magnitude and severity of
harassment effects is not expected to
result in impacts on individual
reproduction or survival, much less
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 the Hawaii
stocks of beaked whales.
Baird’s and Cuvier’s beaked whales
and Mesoplodon species (all CA/OR/
WA stocks)—The species are not listed
under the ESA and their populations
have been identified as ‘‘stable,’’
‘‘decreasing,’’ and ‘‘increasing,’’
respectively. No mortality or Level A
harassment are expected or authorized
for any of these three stocks.
No methods are available to
distinguish between the six species of
Mesoplodon beaked whale CA/OR/WA
stocks (Blainville’s beaked whale (M.
densirostris), Perrin’s beaked whale (M.
perrini), Lesser beaked whale (M.
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
peruvianus), Stejneger’s beaked whale
(M. stejnegeri), Gingko-toothed beaked
whale (M. gingkodens), and Hubbs’
beaked whale (M. carlhubbsi) when
observed during at-sea surveys (Carretta
et al., 2018). Bycatch and stranding
records from the region indicate that the
Hubb’s beaked whale is most commonly
encountered (Carretta et al., 2008,
Moore and Barlow, 2013). As indicated
in the SAR, no species-specific
abundance estimates are available, the
abundance estimate includes all CA/
OR/WA Mesoplodon spp, and the six
species are managed as one unit. Due to
the lack of species-specific abundance
estimates it is not possible to predict the
take of individual species and take
estimates are identified as Mesoplodon
spp.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
total instances of take compared to the
abundance for these stocks is 2762,
2212, and 6960 percent (measured
against Navy-estimated abundance) and
76, 351, and 203 percent (measured
against the SAR) for Baird’s beaked
whales, Cuvier’s beaked whales, and
Mesoplodon spp., respectively (Table
76). Given the ranges of these stocks,
this information suggests that some
smaller portion of the individuals of
these stocks will be taken, and that
some subset of individuals within the
stock will be taken repeatedly within
the year (perhaps up to 20–25 days)—
potentially over a fair number of
sequential days, especially where
individuals spend extensive time in the
SOCAL Range (note that we predicted
lower days of repeated exposure for
these stocks than their percentages
might have suggested because of the
lower overall number of takes). 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 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 160 dB, though with beaked
whales, which are considered somewhat
more sensitive, this could mean that
some individuals will leave preferred
habitat for a day or two (i.e., of a
moderate level). However, as noted,
some of these takes could occur on a fair
number of sequential days for these
stocks.
As described previously, the severity
of TTS takes, is expected to be lowlevel, of short duration, and mostly not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
in a frequency band that would be
expected to interfere significantly with
conspecific communication,
echolocation, or other important lowfrequency cues. Therefore, the
associated lost opportunities and
capabilities would not be expected to
impact reproduction or survival. For
similar reasons (described above) the
single 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, a portion of these stocks
will likely be taken (at a moderate or
sometimes low 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 moderate severity, the repeated
takes over a potentially fair number of
sequential days for some individuals
makes it more likely 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 only one year in five, as
discussed previously) 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
affect these stocks through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival,
especially given the residual PBR of
these three beaked whale stocks (16, 21,
and 20, respectively).
Further, Navy activities have been
conducted in SOCAL for many years at
similar levels and the SAR considers
Mesoplodon spp. as increasing and
Baird’s beaked whales as stable. While
NMFS’ SAR indicates that Cuvier’s
beaked whales on the U.S. West Coast
are declining based on a Bayesian trend
analysis of NMFS’ survey data collected
from 1991 through 2014, results from
passive acoustic monitoring and other
research have estimated regional
Cuvier’s beaked whale densities that
were higher than indicated by NMFS’
broad-scale visual surveys for the U.S.
West Coast (Debich et al., 2015a; Debich
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67009
et al., 2015b; Falcone and Schorr, 2012,
2014; Hildebrand et al., 2009; Moretti,
2016; Sˇirovic´ et al., 2016; Smultea and
Jefferson, 2014). Research also indicates
higher than expected residency in the
Navy’s instrumented Southern
California Anti-Submarine Warfare
Range in particular (Falcone and Schorr,
2012) and photo identification studies
in the SOCAL have identified
approximately 100 individual Cuvier’s
beaked whale individuals with 40
percent having been seen in one or more
prior years, with re-sightings up to 7
years apart (Falcone and Schorr, 2014).
The documented residency by many
Cuvier’s beaked whales over multiple
years suggest that a stable population
may exist in that small portion of the
stock’s overall range (Falcone et al.,
2009; Falcone and Schorr, 2014; Schorr
et al., 2017).
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 CA/OR/WA stocks of
Baird’s and Cuvier’s beaked whales, as
well as all six species included within
the Mesoplodon spp.
Small Whales and Dolphins
This section builds on the broader
discussion above and compiles 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 also have
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 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 three groups: 1) long-beaked
common dolphin (California stock),
Northern right whale dolphin, and
short-beaked common dolphin (CA/OR/
WA stocks), which all have authorized
mortality or tissue damage; 2) all other
SOCAL dolphin stocks except those
identified in 1; and 3) all HRC dolphin
stocks.
In Tables 77 and 78 below, for
odontocetes (in this section odontocetes
refers specifically to the small whales
and dolphins indicated in Tables 77 and
78), we indicate the total annual
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
67010
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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
Table 77. Annual takes of Level B and Level A harassment, mortality for odontocetes in the
HRC of the HSTT Study Area and number indicating the instances of total take as a
t k abun dance.
percentage o f soc
Instances of indicated types of incidental take
(not all takes represent separate individuals,
especially for disturbance)
Level B Harassment
Level A Harassment
TOTAL
Mortality
TTS(may
Behavioral
also include
Disturbance
disturbance)
Stock
Species
PTS
Tissue
Damage
TAKES
(entire
Study
Area)
Bottlenose dolphin
Hawaii Pelagic
Bottlenose dolphin
Kauai & Niihau
Bottlenose dolphin
Oahu
Bottlenose dolphin
4-lsland
Bottlenose dolphin
Hawaii
False killer whale
False killer whale
Hawaii Pelagic
Main Hawaiian Islands Insular
False killer whale
Fraser's dolphin
Hawaii
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
Killer whale
Melon-headed whale
Hawaii Islands
Melon-headed whale
Kohala Resident
Hawaii
Pantropical spotted dolphin Hawaii Island
Pantropical spotted dolphin Hawaii Pelagic
Pantropical spotted dolphin Oahu
Pantropical spotted dolphin 4-lsland
Pygmy killer whale
Hawaii
Pygmy killer whale
Tropical
Risso's dolphin
Hawaii
Abundance
Total Takes
Takes
Total Navy
(within
Abundance
in and out
NAVY
EEZ)
EEZ (HRC)
3196
534
8600
132
31
61
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3328
565
8662
2481
264
8376
1528
184
743
349
74
10
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
359
80
316
42
999
572
365
39784
118
3261
341
3767
42
17
16
1289
6
231
9
227
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1041
589
381
41075
124
3492
350
3994
9973
4284
476
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
701
8122
17
402
0
0
0
0
710
8950
50
448
0
0
6112
12499
373
433
Instance of total take as
percent of abundance
Total take
EEZ take as
as
percentage
Within Navy
percentage
ofEEZ
EEZ
of total
Abundance
abundance
Navy
(HRC)
abundance
1442
218
172
184
743
307
1169
143
1130
189
131
189
131
190
61
167
32
766
476
280
31120
93
2557
182
2576
645
147
215
5408
69
1782
447
2405
507
147
169
18763
54
1782
447
2405
161
400
177
760
180
196
78
166
151
324
166
166
172
143
41
107
10449
4329
7600
4194
5462
372
4637
372
191
1164
164
1127
0
0
718
8524
634
6538
657
4928
657
3931
109
173
96
166
0
0
0
0
760
9398
490
7318
159
1210
23
4199
478
777
2130
174
0
0
0
0
0
0
6485
12932
4859
9946
3054
6433
2808
5784
212
201
173
172
0
0
0
0
291
4534
89
3491
629
2885
629
2229
46
157
14
157
Rough-toothed dolphin
Hawaii
Short-finned pilot whale
Hawaii
Spinner dolphin
Hawaii Island
Spinner dolphin
Hawaii Pelagic
279
4332
12
202
0
0
Spinner dolphin
Kauai & Niihau
1683
63
0
0
0
1746
812
604
604
289
134
Spinner dolphin
Oahu & 4-lsland
1790
34
1
0
0
1825
1708
354
354
516
482
Striped dolphin
Hawaii
7379
405
0
0
0
7784
6034
4779
3646
163
165
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.036</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Note: For the HI take estimates, we compare predicted takes to abundance estimates generated from the same underlying density estimates, both
in and outside of the U.S. EEZ. Because the portion of the Navy's action area inside the U.S. EEZ is generally concomitant with the area used to
generate the abundance estimates in the SARs, and the abundance predicted by the same underlying density estimates is the preferred abundance to
use, there is no need to separately compare the take to the SARs abundance estimate.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
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 HSTT 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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, such
as bottlenose dolphins, spotted
dolphins, common dolphins, spinner
dolphins, rough-toothed dolphins, etc.,
but not Risso’s dolphin), 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
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.
Identified important areas for
odontocetes (BIAs for small resident
populations) will be protected by the
Navy’s mitigation areas. The size of the
4-Islands Region Mitigation Area has
been expanded to include an area north
of Maui and Molokai and overlaps an
area identified as a BIA for the
endangered Main Hawaiian Islands
insular false killer whale (Baird et al.,
2015; Van Parijs, 2015) (see Figure 5.4–
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67011
3, in Chapter 5 Mitigation Areas for
Marine Mammals in the Hawaii Range
Complex of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS). The
4-Islands Region Mitigation Area
provides partial protection for identified
biologically important areas that span
multiple islands for four species (small
and resident populations) including
false killer whales, common bottlenose
dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphin,
and spinner dolphin, by not using midfrequency active anti-submarine warfare
sensor MF1 in the area during testing or
training.
The Navy’s Hawaii Island Mitigation
Area also provides additional protection
for identified biologically important
areas (small and resident populations)
for multiple Main Hawaii Island species
by not conducting more than 300 hours
of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar or 20 hours of
MF4 dipping sonar and not using
explosives during testing and training.
Specifically, this Mitigation Area
entirely encompasses the BIAs for
insular pygmy killer whales, melonheaded whales, short-finned pilot
whales, and the Hawaii population of
pantropical spotted dolphins;
encompasses a large portion of the
rough-toothed dolphin BIA; and
overlaps the Hawaii Island portion of
the multi-Island BIAs for false killer
whales, common bottlenose dolphin,
and spinner dolphin.
Below we synthesize and summarize
the information that supports our
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
ER27DE18.037</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
67012
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
determination that the Navy’s activities
will not adversely impact recruitment or
survival for any of the affected stocks
addressed in this section:
Long-beaked common dolphin
(California stock), northern right whale
dolphin (CA/OR/WA stock), and shortbeaked common dolphin (CA/OR/WA
stock)—None of these stocks is listed
under the ESA and their stock statuses
are considered ‘‘increasing,’’
‘‘unknown,’’ and ‘‘stable,’’ respectively.
Short-beaked common dolphins are
authorized for six takes by mortality
over the five-year rule, or 1.2 M/SI
annually. The addition of this 1.2
annual mortality still leaves the total
human-caused mortality well under the
insignificance threshold for residual
PBR. The three stocks are expected and
authorized to accrue 2, 1, and 10 Level
A harassment takes from tissue damage
resulting from exposure to explosives,
respectively. As described in greater
detail previously, the impacts of a Level
A harassment take by tissue damage
could range in impact from minor to
something just less than M/SI that could
seriously impact fitness. However, given
the Navy’s procedural mitigation,
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 these takes that
could lower the affected 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 only one year
in five), and 1 to 10 instances would not
be expected to impact annual rates of
recruitment or survival for these stocks.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
total instances of take compared to the
abundance (measured against both the
Navy-estimated abundance and the
SAR) is 2411, 1273, and 571 (respective
to the stocks listed in the heading) and
244, 369, and 229 (respective to the
stocks listed in the heading) percent
(Table 78). Given the range of these
stocks, this information suggests that
likely some portion (but not all or even
the majority) of the individuals in the
Northern right whale dolphin and shortbeaked common dolphin stocks are
likely impacted, while it is entirely
possible that most or all of the rangelimited long-beaked common dolphin is
taken. All three stocks likely will
experience some repeat Level B
harassment exposure (perhaps up to 48,
25, or 11 days within a year, respective
to the stocks listed in the heading) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
some subset of individuals that spend
extended time within the SOCAL range
complex. 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 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). However, some of
these takes could occur on a fair number
of sequential days for long-beaked
common dolphins or northern right
whale dolphins, or even some number
of short-beaked common dolphins,
given the high number of total takes
(i.e., the probability that some number
of individuals get taken on a higher
number of sequential days is higher,
because the total take number is
relatively high, even though percentage
not that high).
As described previously, the severity
of TTS takes, is expected to be lowlevel, 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, 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, as discussed
above, it 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 and as described in more
detail immediately above, short-beaked
common dolphins are authorized for 1.2
annual lethal takes, all three stocks may
experience a very small number of takes
by tissue damage or PTS (relative to the
stock abundance and PBR), and a
moderate to large portion of all three
stocks will likely be taken (at a low to
occasionally moderate level) over
several days a year, and some smaller
portion of these stocks 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
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
mammal. As noted previously, however,
foregone reproduction (especially for
only one year out of five) has far less of
an impact on population rates than
mortality and a small number of
instances of foregone reproduction
(including in combination with that
which might result from the small
number of tissue damage takes) would
not be expected to adversely affect the
stocks through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival, especially given
the very high residual PBRs of these
stocks (621, 175, and 8353,
respectively). For these reasons, in
consideration of all of the effects of the
Navy’s activities combined (mortality,
Level A harassment, and Level B
harassment), we have determined that
the authorized take will have a
negligible impact on these three stocks
of dolphins.
All other SOCAL dolphin stocks
(except Long-beaked common dolphin,
Northern right whale dolphin, and
short-beaked common dolphin)—None
of these stocks is listed under the ESA
and their stock statuses are considered
‘‘unknown,’’ except for the bottlenose
dolphin (California coastal stock) and
killer whale (Eastern North Pacific
stock), which are considered ‘‘stable.’’
No M/SI or Level A harassment via
tissue damage from exposure to
explosives is expected or authorized for
these stocks.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral
disruption), the number of estimated
total instances of take compared to the
abundance (measured against both the
Navy-estimated abundance and the
SAR) is from 440–2675 and 45 to 2881,
respectively (Table 78). Given the range
of these stocks (along the entire U.S.
West Coast, or even beyond, with some
also extending seaward of the HSTT
Study Area boundaries), this
information suggests that some portion
(but not all or even the majority) of the
individuals of any of these stocks will
be taken, with the exception that most
or all of the individuals of the more
E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM
27DER2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
range-limited California coastal stock of
bottlenose dolphin may be taken. It is
also likely that some subset of
individuals within most of these stocks
will be taken repeatedly within the year
(perhaps up to 10–15 days within a
year), but with no more than several
potentially sequential days, although
the CA/OR/WA stocks of bottlenose
dolphins, Pacific white-sided dolphins,
and Risso’s dolphins may include
individuals that are taken repeatedly
within the year over a higher number of
days (up to 57, 22, and 40 days,
respectively) and potentially over a fair
number of sequential days, especially
where individuals spend extensive time
in the SOCAL range complex. Note that
though percentages are high for the
Eastern North Pacific stock of killer
whales and short-finned pilot whales,
given the low overall number of takes,
it is highly unlikely that any individuals
would be taken across the number of
days their percentages would suggest.
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 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 lower, or
sometimes moderate level, less likely to
evoke a severe response). However, as
noted, some of these takes could occur
on a fair number of sequential days for
the three stocks listed earlier.
As described previously, regarding
the severity of TTS takes, is 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. 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, it 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, a portion of all of these
stocks will likely be taken (at a low to
occasionally moderate level) over
several days a year, and some smaller
portion of CA/OR/WA stocks of
bottlenose dolphins, Pacific white-sided
dolphins, and Risso’s dolphins,
specifically, are expected to be taken on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Dec 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
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) for the
CA/OR/WA stocks of bottlenose
dolphins, Pacific white-sided dolphins,
and Risso’s dolphins 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
