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, 48388-48455 [2019-18850]

Download as PDF 48388 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 218 [190826–0018 ] RIN 0648–BJ06 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: Proposed rule; request for comment. AGENCY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) to extend the time period from December 2023 to December 2025 for Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) regulations authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities conducted in the HawaiiSouthern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area. In August 2018, the MMPA was amended by the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 to allow for 7-year authorizations for military readiness activities, as compared to the previously allowed five years. The Navy’s activities qualify as military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA as amended by the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2004. In making the request to extend the time period covered by the MMPA HSTT regulations from five to seven years, the Navy proposes no changes to their specified activities, the geographical region in which those activities would be conducted, mitigation measures, monitoring, or reporting over the longer seven-year period. Pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS is requesting comments on the proposed seven-year rule and associated Letters of Authorization (LOAs) to cover the same activities covered by the existing 2018 HSTT regulations. NMFS will consider all public comments prior to issuing any final rule and making final decisions on the issuance of the requested LOAs, and agency responses will be summarized in the notice of the final decision. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than October 15, 2019. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA– khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 NMFS–2019–0103, by any of the following methods: • Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20190103, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. • Mail: Submit written comments to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only. A copy of the Navy’s applications, NMFS’ proposed and final rules and subsequent LOAs for the existing regulations, and other supporting documents and documents cited herein may be obtained online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities. In case of problems accessing these documents, please use the contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Piniak, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Regulatory Action These proposed regulations, issued under the authority of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), would extend the framework for authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to the Navy’s training and testing activities (which qualify as military readiness activities) from the use of sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations, air guns, impact pile driving/vibratory extraction, and the movement of vessels throughout the HSTT Study Area. The HSTT Study Area is comprised of PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 on the high seas where sonar training and testing may occur. NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting to extend NMFS’ existing MMPA regulations (50 CFR part 218, subpart H; hereafter ‘‘2018 HSTT regulations’’) that authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities conducted in the HSTT Study Area to cover seven years of the Navy’s activities, instead of five. Take is anticipated to occur by Level A harassment 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. Background The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA 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, the public is provided with notice of the proposed incidental take authorization the opportunity to review and 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 stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in this rule as ‘‘mitigation E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 measures’’); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. The MMPA defines ‘‘take’’ to mean to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. The Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section below discusses the definition of ‘‘negligible impact.’’ The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA) (Pub. L. 108–136) amended section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to remove the ‘‘small numbers’’ and ‘‘specified geographical region’’ provisions indicated above and amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness activity’’ to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (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). In addition, the 2004 NDAA amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities such that least practicable adverse impact shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity. More recently, section 316 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019 NDAA) (Pub. L. 115–232), signed on August 13, 2018, amended the MMPA to allow incidental take rules for military readiness activities under section 101(a)(5)(A) to be issued for up to seven years. Prior to this amendment, all incidental take rules under section 101(a)(5)(A) were limited to five years. Summary of Request On December 27, 2018, NMFS issued a five-year final rule governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities conducted in the HSTT Study Area (83 FR 66846; hereafter ‘‘2018 HSTT final rule’’). Previously on August 13, 2018, and towards the end of the time period in which NMFS was processing the Navy’s request for the 2018 regulations, the 2019 NDAA amended the MMPA for military readiness activities to allow incidental take regulations to be issued for up to seven years instead of the previous five years. The Navy’s training and testing activities conducted in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 HSTT Study Area qualify as military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the 2004 NDAA. On March 11, 2019 the Navy submitted an application requesting that NMFS extend the 2018 HSTT regulations and associated LOAs such that they would cover take incidental to seven years of training and testing activities instead of five, extending the expiration date from December 20, 2023 to December 20, 2025. In its 2019 application, the Navy proposes no changes to the nature of the specified activities covered by the 2018 HSTT final rule, the level of activity within and between years would be consistent with that previously analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule, and all activities would be conducted within the same boundaries of the HSTT Study Area identified in the 2018 HSTT final rule. Therefore, the training and testing activities (e.g., equipment and sources used, exercises conducted) and the mitigation, monitoring, and nearly all reporting measures are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule. The only changes included in the Navy’s request are to conduct those same activities in the same region for an additional two years. In its request, the Navy included all information necessary to identify the type and amount of incidental take that may occur in the two additional years so NMFS could determine whether the analyses and conclusions regarding the impacts of the proposed activities on marine mammal species and stocks previously reached for five years of activities remain the same for seven years of identical activity. 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. 8062), which ensures the readiness of the naval forces of the United States. The Navy executes this responsibility by establishing and executing training programs, including at-sea training and exercises, and ensuring naval forces have access to the ranges, operating areas (OPAREAs), and airspace needed to develop and maintain skills for conducting naval activities. The Navy proposes to continue conducting training and testing activities within the HSTT Study Area. The Navy’s March 11, 2019, rulemaking and LOA extension application (hereafter ‘‘2019 Navy application’’) reflects the same compilation of training and testing activities presented in the Navy’s October 13, 2017, initial rulemaking and LOA application PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48389 (hereafter ‘‘2017 Navy application’’) and the 2018 HSTT regulations that were subsequently promulgated, which can be found at: https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities. These activities are deemed by the Navy necessary to accomplish military readiness requirements and are anticipated to continue into the reasonably foreseeable future. The 2019 Navy application and this rule cover training and testing activities that would occur over seven years, including the five years already authorized under the 2018 HSTT regulations, with the regulations valid from the publication date of the final rule (if issued) through December 20, 2025. Summary of the Proposed Regulations NMFS is proposing to extend the incidental take regulations and associated LOAs through December 20, 2025, to cover the same Navy activities covered by the 2018 HSTT regulations. The 2018 HSTT final rule was only recently published and its analysis remains current and valid. In its 2019 application, the Navy proposes no changes to the nature (e.g., equipment and sources used, exercises conducted) or level of the specified activities within or between years or to the boundaries of the HSTT Study Area. The mitigation, monitoring, and nearly all reporting measures (described below) would be identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule. The proposed regulatory language included at the end of this proposed rule, which would be published at 50 CFR part 218, subpart H, also is the same as that under the HSTT 2018 regulations, except for a small number of technical changes. No new information has been received from the Navy, or otherwise become available to NMFS, since publication of the 2018 HSTT final rule that significantly changes the analyses supporting the 2018 findings. Where there is any new information pertinent to the descriptions, analyses, or findings required to authorize incidental take for military readiness activities under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(A), that information is provided in the appropriate sections below. Because the activities included in the 2019 Navy application have not changed and the analyses and findings included in the documents provided and produced in support of the recently published 2018 HSTT final rule remain current and applicable, this proposed rule relies heavily on and references to the applicable information and analyses E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48390 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules in those documents. Below is a list of the regulatory documents referenced in this proposed rule. The list indicates the short name by which the document is referenced in this proposed rule, as well as the full titles of the cited documents. All of the documents can be found at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities and https://www.hstteis.com/. • NMFS June 26, 2018, HawaiiSouthern California Training and Testing (HSTT) proposed rule (83 FR 29872; hereafter ‘‘2018 HSTT proposed rule’’); • NMFS December 27, 2018, HawaiiSouthern California Training and Testing (HSTT) final rule (83 FR 66846; hereafter ‘‘2018 HSTT final rule’’); • Navy October 13, 2017, MMPA rulemaking and LOA application (hereafter ‘‘2017 Navy application’’); • Navy March 11, 2019, MMPA rulemaking and LOA extension application (hereafter ‘‘2019 Navy application’’); and • October 26, 2018, Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS/OEIS) (hereafter ‘‘2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS’’). khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Description of the Specified Activity The Navy requests authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting training and testing activities. The Navy has determined that acoustic and explosives stressors are most likely to result in impacts on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment. Detailed descriptions of these activities are provided in Chapter 2 of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and in the 2017 and 2019 Navy applications. Overview of Training and Testing Activities The Navy routinely trains in the HSTT Study Area in preparation for national defense missions. Training and testing activities and components covered in the 2019 Navy application are described in detail in the Overview of Training and Testing Activities sections of the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, the 2018 HSTT final rule, and Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS (https:// www.hstteis.com/). Each military training and testing activity described meets mandated Fleet requirements to deploy ready forces. The Navy proposes no changes to the specified activities described and analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule. The boundaries of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 HSTT Study Area (see Figure 2–1 of the 2019 Navy application); the training and testing activities (e.g., equipment and sources used, exercises conducted); manner of or amount of vessel movement; and standard operating procedures presented in this proposed rule are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule. Dates and Duration The specified activities would occur at any time during the seven-year period of validity of the regulations. The proposed number of training and testing activities are described in the Detailed Description of the Specified Activities section (Tables 1 through 9). Specified Geographical Region The Navy proposes no changes to the geographic extent of the HSTT Study Area as described in the 2018 HSTT final rule. The HSTT Study Area (see Figure 2–1 of the 2019 Navy 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. A Navy range complex consists of geographic areas that encompass a water component (above and below the surface) and airspace, and may encompass a land component where training and testing of military platforms, tactics, munitions, explosives, and electronic warfare systems occur. Range complexes include established OPAREAs, which may be further divided to provide better control of the area for safety reasons. Additional detail on range complexes and testing ranges was provided in the Duration and Location section of 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 2–1 of the 2019 Navy 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 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2018 HSTT proposed rule; please see the 2018 HSTT proposed rule or the 2017 Navy application for more information and maps. 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 specific components that could act as stressors by having direct or indirect impacts on the environment are described in detail in the Description of Acoustic and Explosive Stressors section of the 2018 HSTT final rule and Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ OEIS. The Navy proposes no changes to the nature of the specified activities and, therefore, the acoustic and explosive stressors are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule. Other Stressor—Vessel Strike Vessel strikes are not specific to any particular training or testing activity, but rather a 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. 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. By comparison, this is slower than most commercial vessels where full speed for a container ship is typically 24 knots (Bonney and Leach, 2010). 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 ship strike would result in serious injury or mortality. The Navy proposes no changes to the nature of the specified activities, the training and testing activities, the manner of or amount of vessel movement, or standard operating procedures described in the 2018 HSTT final rule. Therefore, the description of vessel strikes as a stressor is the same as those presented in the Other Stressor—Vessel Strike sections of the 2018 HSTT proposed rule and 2018 HSTT final rule. E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules Detailed Description of the Specified Activities The Navy’s proposed activities are presented and analyzed as a representative year of training to account for the natural fluctuation of training cycles and deployment schedules in any seven-year period. In the 2018 HSTT final rule, NMFS analyzed the potential impacts of these activities (i.e., incidental take of marine mammals) based on the Navy conducting three years of a representative level of activity and two years of a maximum level of activity. For the purposes of this rulemaking and analyzing potential impacts to marine mammals, the Navy proposes that the additional two years of training and testing would consist of one additional year of maximum training tempo and one representative year of training tempo consistent with the pattern set forth in the 2018 HSTT final rule, the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, and the 2017 Navy application. Proposed Training Activities The number of proposed training activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities remains identical to those presented in Table 4 48391 of the 2018 HSTT final rule, and are not repeated here. The number of proposed training activities that could occur over the seven-year period are presented in Table 1. The table is organized according to primary mission areas and includes the activity name, associated stressors applicable to these proposed regulations, sound source bin, number of proposed activities, and 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 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. TABLE 1—PROPOSED TRAINING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Acoustic ...................... Composite Training Unit Exercise 1. Aircraft carrier and carrier air wing integrates with surface and submarine units in a challenging multi-threat operational environment that certifies them ready to deploy. Acoustic ...................... Rim of the Pacific Exercise 1 A biennial multinational training exercise in which navies from Pacific Rim nations and the United Kingdom assemble in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, to conduct training throughout the Hawaiian Islands in a number of warfare areas. Marine mammal systems may be used during a Rim of the Pacific exercise. 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. Acoustic ...................... Fleet Exercise/Sustainment Exercise 1. Acoustic ...................... Undersea Warfare Exercise ... Aircraft carrier and carrier air wing integrates with surface and submarine units in a challenging multi-threat operational environment to maintain ability to deploy. Elements of the anti-submarine warfare tracking exercise combine in this exercise of multiple air, surface, and subsurface units, over a period of several days. Sonobuoys are released from aircraft. Active and passive sonar used. Location 7-Year number of events Major Training Events—Large Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare ASW1, ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, ASW5, HF1, LF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11, MF12. ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, HF1, HF3, HF4, M3, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11. SOCAL .............................. 18 HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 4 4 HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 7 35 HRC .................................. 17 HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 7 18 HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 12 12 ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, HF1, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11. HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 14 86 Large-caliber HE rounds (E5) HRC (W188) ..................... 105 ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, HF1, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11. ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, HF1, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11. ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, HF1, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11. SOCAL .............................. 18 SOCAL .............................. 18 SOCAL .............................. 18 Major Training Events—Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare ASW1, ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, HF1, LF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11, MF12. ASW3, ASW4, HF1, LF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11, MF12. Integrated/Coordinated Training—Small Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Acoustic ...................... Navy Undersea Warfare Training and Assessment Course Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training. Multiple ships, aircraft, and submarines integrate the use of their sensors to search for, detect, classify, localize, and track a threat submarine in order to launch an exercise torpedo. ASW3, ASW4, HF1, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5. Integrated/Coordinated Training—Medium Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Acoustic ...................... Submarine Commanders Course. Train prospective submarine Commanding Officers to operate against surface, air, and subsurface threats. Acoustic ...................... Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit Exercise Group Sail Independent Deployer Certification Exercise/Tailored Anti-Submarine Warfare Training. Small-scale, short duration, coordinated anti-submarine warfare exercises. Explosive .................... Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise—at Sea. Acoustic ...................... Amphibious Marine Expeditionary Unit Exercise. Surface ship uses large-caliber gun to support forces ashore; however, land target simulated at sea. Rounds impact water and are scored by passive acoustic hydrophones located at or near target area. Navy and Marine Corps forces conduct advanced integration training in preparation for deployment certification. Acoustic ...................... Amphibious Marine Expeditionary Unit Integration Exercise. Marine Expeditionary Unit Composite Training Unit Exercise. ASW3, ASW4, HF1, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, TORP1, TORP2. Integrated/Coordinated Training—Small Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Amphibious Warfare Acoustic ...................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Navy and Marine Corps forces conduct integration training at sea in preparation for deployment certification. Amphibious Ready Group exercises are conducted to validate the Marine Expeditionary Unit’s readiness for deployment and includes small boat raids; visit, board, search, and seizure training; helicopter and mechanized amphibious raids; and a non-combatant evacuation operation. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48392 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—PROPOSED TRAINING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued Stressor category Activity name Description 7-Year number of events Source bin Location Helicopter crews search for, track, and detect submarines. Recoverable air launched torpedoes are employed against submarine targets. Maritime patrol aircraft crews search for, track, and detect submarines. Recoverable air launched torpedoes are employed against submarine targets. 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. Helicopter crews search for, track, and detect submarines ... MF4, MF5, TORP1 ................ HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 42 728 MF5, TORP1 .......................... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 70 175 ASW3, MF1, TORP1 ............. Maritime patrol aircraft aircrews search for, track, and detect submarines. Recoverable air launched torpedoes are employed against submarine targets. Surface ship crews search for, track, and detect submarines MF5 ........................................ HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. HRC .................................. SOCAL, PMSR ................. HSTT Transit Corridor ...... HRC .................................. SOCAL, PMSR ................. 350 819 336 91 1,113 3,668 42 182 350 Submarine crews search for, track, and detect submarines ASW4, HF1, HF3, MF3 .......... Air, surface, or submarine crews employ explosive torpedoes against virtual targets. HF1, MF3, MF6, TORP2, Explosive torpedoes (E11). HRC .................................. SOCAL, PMSR ................. HRC .................................. SOCAL, PMSR ................. HSTT Transit Corridor ...... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 1,568 2,961 1,400 350 49 14 7 Anti-Submarine Warfare Acoustic ...................... Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Helicopter. Acoustic ...................... Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Ship. Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Submarine. Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Helicopter. Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Ship. Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Submarine. Service Weapons Test ........... Acoustic ...................... Acoustic ...................... Acoustic ...................... Acoustic ...................... Acoustic ...................... Acoustic ...................... Explosive, Acoustic .... ASW4, HF1, MF3, TORP2 .... MF4, MF5 ............................... ASW3, MF1, MF11, MF12 ..... Mine Warfare Acoustic ...................... Explosive, Acoustic .... Explosive .................... Acoustic ...................... Acoustic ...................... Explosive, Acoustic .... Explosive .................... Airborne Mine Countermeasure—Mine Detection. Civilian Port Defense—Homeland Security Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Exercises. Marine Mammal Systems ...... Mine Countermeasure Exercise—Ship Sonar. Mine Countermeasure Exercise—Surface. Mine Countermeasures Mine Neutralization Remotely Operated Vehicle. Mine Neutralization Explosive Ordnance Disposal. Acoustic ...................... Submarine Mine Exercise ...... Acoustic ...................... Surface Ship Object Detection Explosive .................... Underwater Demolitions Multiple Charge—Mat Weave and Obstacle Loading. Underwater Demolition Qualification and Certification. Explosive .................... Helicopter aircrews detect mines using towed or laser mine detection systems. Maritime security personnel train to protect civilian ports against enemy efforts to interfere with access to those ports. HF4 ........................................ SOCAL .............................. 70 HF4, SAS2, E2, E4 ................ Pearl Harbor, HI ............... San Diego, CA .................. 7 21 The Navy deploys trained bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) as part of the marine mammal mine-hunting and object-recovery system. Ship crews detect and avoid mines while navigating restricted areas or channels using active sonar. Mine countermeasure ship crews detect, locate, identify, and avoid mines while navigating restricted areas or channels, such as while entering or leaving port. Ship, small boat, and helicopter crews locate and disable mines using remotely operated underwater vehicles. E7 ........................................... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 70 1,225 HF4, HF8, MF1K .................... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. SOCAL .............................. 210 664 1,862 HF4, E4 .................................. HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 42 2,604 Personnel disable threat mines using explosive charges ...... E4, E5, E6, E7 ....................... HRC (Puuloa) ................... SOCAL (IB, TAR 2, TAR 3, TAR 21, SWAT 3, SOAR). HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. SOCAL (TAR 2, TAR 3) ... 140 1,358 E6, E7 .................................... HRC (Puuloa) ................... SOCAL (TAR 2) ................ 203 700 HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. HSTT Transit Corridor ...... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 1309 4480 35 70 98 HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. HSTT Transit Corridor ...... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. HSTT Transit Corridor ...... SOCAL .............................. 210 1,302 91 350 1,260 280 7 E1, E3, E6, E10 ..................... HRC (W188A) ................... SOCAL (SOAR) ................ 7 7 E6, E8, E10 ............................ HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. HRC (W188) ..................... SOCAL (W291) ................. HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 70 1,498 1,598 1,722 140 70 21 4 HF4 ........................................ Submarine crews practice detecting mines in a designated HF1 ........................................ area. Ship crews detect and avoid mines while navigating re- MF1K, HF8 ............................. stricted areas or channels using active sonar. Military personnel use explosive charges to destroy barriers E10, E13 ................................ or obstacles to amphibious vehicle access to beach areas. Navy divers conduct various levels of training and certification in placing underwater demolition charges. 280 84 287 1,134 126 Surface Warfare Explosive .................... Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface. Fixed-wing aircrews deliver bombs against surface targets .. E12 2 ....................................... Explosive .................... Gunnery Exercise Surface-toSurface Boat Medium-Caliber. Gunnery Exercise Surface-toSurface Ship Large-caliber. Small boat crews fire medium-caliber guns at surface targets. E1, E2 .................................... Surface ship crews fire large-caliber guns at surface targets E5 ........................................... Gunnery Exercise Surface-toSurface Ship Medium-Caliber. Independent Deployer Certification Exercise/Tailored Surface Warfare Training. Surface ship crews fire medium-caliber guns at surface targets. E1, E2 .................................... Multiple ships, aircraft and submarines conduct integrated multi-warfare training with a surface warfare emphasis. Serves as a ready-to-deploy certification for individual surface ships tasked with surface warfare missions. Naval Forces defend against a swarm of surface threats (ships or small boats) with bombs, missiles, rockets, and small-, medium- and large-caliber guns. Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews fire air-to-surface missiles at surface targets. Helicopter aircrews fire both precision-guided and unguided rockets at surface targets. Surface ship crews defend against surface threats (ships or small boats) and engage them with missiles. Aircraft, ship, and submarine crews deliberately sink a seaborne target, usually a decommissioned ship made environmentally safe for sinking according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards, with a variety of munitions. E1, E3, E6, E10 ..................... Explosive .................... Explosive .................... khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Explosive, Acoustic .... Explosive .................... Integrated Live Fire Exercise Explosive .................... Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface. Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface Rocket. Missile Exercise Surface-toSurface. Sinking Exercise .................... Explosive .................... Explosive .................... Explosive, Acoustic .... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E3 ........................................... E6, E10 .................................. TORP2, E5, E10, E12 ........... E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 48393 TABLE 1—PROPOSED TRAINING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Pile driving ................. Elevated Causeway System .. A pier is constructed off of the beach. Piles are driven into the bottom with an impact hammer. Piles are removed from seabed via vibratory extractor. Only in-water impacts are analyzed. Acoustic ...................... Kilo Dip ................................... Location 7-Year number of events Impact hammer or vibratory extractor. SOCAL .............................. 14 Functional check of the dipping sonar prior to conducting a full test or training event on the dipping sonar. Submarine Navigation ExerSubmarine crews operate sonar for navigation and object cise. detection while transiting into and out of port during reduced visibility. Submarine Sonar MainteMaintenance of submarine sonar systems is conducted nance and Systems Checks. pierside or at sea. MF4 ........................................ HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. Pearl Harbor, HI ............... San Diego Bay, CA .......... 420 16,800 1,540 560 Submarine Under-Ice CertifiSubmarine crews train to operate under ice. Ice conditions cation. are simulated during training and certification events. Surface Ship Sonar MainteMaintenance of surface ship sonar systems is conducted nance and Systems Checks. pierside or at sea. HF1 ........................................ Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Training—Certification and Development. FLS2, M3, SAS2 .................... HRC .................................. Pearl Harbor, HI ............... SOCAL .............................. San Diego Bay, CA .......... HSTT Transit Corridor ...... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. HRC .................................. Pearl Harbor, HI ............... SOCAL .............................. San Diego, CA .................. HSTT Transit Corridor ...... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 1,820 1,820 651 644 70 84 42 525 560 1,750 1,750 56 175 70 Other Training Exercises Acoustic ...................... Acoustic ...................... Acoustic ...................... Acoustic ...................... Acoustic ...................... Unmanned underwater vehicle certification involves training with unmanned platforms to ensure submarine crew proficiency. Tactical development involves training with various payloads for multiple purposes to ensure that the systems can be employed effectively in an operational environment. HF1, MF3 ............................... MF3 ........................................ HF8, MF1 ............................... Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing, PMSR = Point Mugu Sea Range Overlap, TAR = Training Area and Range, SOAR = Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, IB = Imperial Beach Minefield. 1 Any non-antisubmarine warfare activity that could occur is captured in the individual activities. 2 For the Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface, all activities were analyzed using E12 explosive bin, but smaller explosives are frequently used. Proposed Testing Activities The number of proposed testing activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities are identical to those presented in Tables 5 through 8 of the 2018 HSTT final rule, and are not repeated here. Similar to the 2017 Navy application, the Navy’s proposed testing activities here are based on the level of testing activities anticipated to be conducted into the reasonably foreseeable future, with adjustments that account for changes in the types and tempo (increases or decreases) of testing activities to meet current and future military readiness requirements. The number of proposed testing activities that could occur for the seven-year period are presented in Tables 2 through 5. Naval Air Systems Command The proposed Naval Air Systems Command testing activities that could occur over the seven-year period within the HSTT Study Area are presented in Table 2. TABLE 2—PROPOSED NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA Stressor category Activity name Description 7-Year number of events Source bin Location MF5, TORP1 .......................... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 134 353 MF4, MF5, E3 ........................ SOCAL .............................. 414 ASW2, ASW5, MF5, MF6, E1, E3. HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 399 436 ASW2, ASW5, HF5, HF6, SOCAL .............................. LF4, MF5, MF6, E1, E3, E4. 1,120 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Anti-Submarine Warfare Acoustic ...................... Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Test. Explosive, Acoustic .... Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test—Helicopter. Explosive, Acoustic .... Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test—Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Explosive, Acoustic .... Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance Test. This event is similar to the training event torpedo exercise. Test evaluates anti-submarine warfare systems onboard rotary-wing and fixed-wing aircraft and the ability to search for, detect, classify, localize, track, and attack a submarine or similar target. This event is similar to the training event anti-submarine tracking exercise—helicopter. The test evaluates the sensors and systems used to detect and track submarines and to ensure that helicopter systems used to deploy the tracking systems perform to specifications. The test evaluates the sensors and systems used by maritime patrol aircraft to detect and track submarines and to ensure that aircraft systems used to deploy the tracking systems perform to specifications and meet operational requirements. 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. Mine Warfare Acoustic ...................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 Airborne Dipping Sonar Minehunting Test. 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 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. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 HF4 ........................................ E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 SOCAL .............................. 24 48394 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2—PROPOSED NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued Stressor category Activity name Explosive .................... Airborne Mine Neutralization System Test. Acoustic ...................... Airborne Sonobuoy Minehunting Test. Explosive .................... Air-to-Surface Bombing Test Explosive .................... Air-to-Surface Gunnery Test .. Explosive .................... Air-to-Surface Missile Test ..... Explosive .................... Rocket Test ............................ Acoustic ...................... Kilo Dip ................................... Acoustic ...................... Undersea Range System Test 7-Year number of events Description Source bin Location 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. 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. E4 ........................................... SOCAL .............................. 117 HF6 ........................................ SOCAL .............................. 33 E9 ........................................... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 56 98 E1 ........................................... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 35 330 E6, E9, E10 ............................ HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 126 384 E3 ........................................... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 14 142 MF4 ........................................ SOCAL .............................. 12 MF9 ........................................ HRC .................................. 129 Surface Warfare This event is similar to the training event bombing exercise air-to-surface. Fixed-wing aircraft test the delivery of bombs against surface maritime targets with the goal of evaluating the bomb, the bomb carry and delivery system, and any associated systems that may have been newly developed or enhanced. This event is similar to the training event gunnery exercise air-to-surface. Fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircrews evaluate new or enhanced aircraft guns against surface maritime targets to test that the gun, gun ammunition, or associated systems meet required specifications or to train aircrew in the operation of a new or enhanced weapons system. This event is similar to the training event missile exercise air-to-surface. Test may involve both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft launching missiles at surface maritime targets to evaluate the weapons system or as part of another systems integration test. Rocket tests are conducted to evaluate the integration, accuracy, performance, and safe separation of guided and unguided 2.75-inch rockets fired from a hovering or forward flying helicopter or tilt rotor aircraft. Other Testing Activities Functional check of a helicopter deployed dipping sonar system (e.g., AN/AQS–22) prior to conducting a testing or training event using the dipping sonar system. Post installation node survey and test and periodic testing of range node transmit functionality. Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex. Naval Sea Systems Command The proposed Naval Sea Systems Command testing activities that could occur over the seven-year period within the HSTT Study Area are presented in Table 3. TABLE 3—PROPOSED NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA Stressor category Activity name Description Acoustic ...................... Anti-Submarine Warfare Mission Package Testing. Acoustic ...................... At-Sea Sonar Testing ............ Ships and their supporting platforms (e.g., rotary-wing aircraft and unmanned aerial systems) detect, localize, and prosecute submarines. At-sea testing to ensure systems are fully functional in an open ocean environment. Acoustic ...................... Countermeasure Testing ....... Acoustic ...................... Pierside Sonar Testing .......... Acoustic ...................... Submarine Sonar Testing/ Maintenance. Acoustic ...................... Surface Ship Sonar Testing/ Maintenance. Explosive, Acoustic .... Torpedo (Explosive) Testing .. 7-Year number of events Source bin Location ASW1, ASW2, ASW3, ASW5, MF1, MF4, MF5, MF12, TORP1. ASW3, ASW4, HF1, LF4, LF5, M3, MF1, MF1K, MF2, MF3, MF5, MF9, MF10, MF11. ASW3, ASW4, HF5, TORP1, TORP2. HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 154 161 HRC .................................. HRC–SOCAL .................... SOCAL .............................. 109 7 138 HRC .................................. HRC–SOCAL .................... SOCAL .............................. HSTT Transit Corridor ...... 56 28 77 14 HF1, HF3, HF8, M3, MF1, MF3, MF9. Pearl Harbor, HI ............... San Diego, CA .................. 49 49 HF1, HF3, M3, MF3 ............... HRC .................................. Pearl Harbor, HI ............... San Diego, CA .................. HRC .................................. Pearl Harbor, HI ............... San Diego, CA .................. SOCAL .............................. HRC (W188) ..................... HRC (W188) SOCAL ........ SOCAL .............................. 28 119 168 21 21 21 21 56 21 56 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Anti-Submarine Warfare VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 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. Pierside testing to ensure systems are fully functional in a controlled pierside environment prior to at-sea test activities. 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 maintenance. Air, surface, or submarine crews employ explosive and nonexplosive torpedoes against artificial targets. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 ASW3, MF1, MF1K, MF9, MF10. ASW3, HF1, HF5, HF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF6, TORP1, TORP2, E8, E11. E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 48395 TABLE 3—PROPOSED NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued Stressor category Activity name 7-Year number of events Description Source bin Location ASW3, ASW4, HF1, HF6, M3, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF6, TORP1, TORP2, TORP3. HRC .................................. HRC SOCAL ..................... SOCAL .............................. 56 63 56 HF4, E4 .................................. SOCAL .............................. 70 HF4, SAS2, E4 ...................... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. HRC .................................. HRC SOCAL ..................... SOCAL .............................. 118 406 14 10 77 HRC .................................. HRC–SOCAL .................... SOCAL .............................. HRC .................................. HRC–SOCAL .................... SOCAL .............................. HRC .................................. HRC–SOCAL .................... SOCAL .............................. 49 504 49 28 336 28 91 168 140 HF4, SAS2 ............................. HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 21 28 HF4, MF9 ............................... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 21 2,037 HF1, M3, MF3, MF9, MF10, TORP2. HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 7 7 E1, E5, E8 .............................. HRC .................................. HRC–SOCAL .................... SOCAL .............................. 63 441 102 ASW4, HF4, HF8, MF1, MF4, HRC .................................. MF5, MF6, TORP1, TORP2. HRC SOCAL ..................... SOCAL .............................. 49 60 69 Acoustic ...................... Torpedo (Non-Explosive) Testing. Air, surface, or submarine crews employ non-explosive torpedoes against submarines or surface vessels. Explosive, Acoustic .... Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Testing. Mine Countermeasure Mission Package Testing. Mine Detection and Classification Testing. Air, surface, and subsurface vessels neutralize threat mines and mine-like objects. Vessels and associated aircraft conduct mine countermeasure operations. Air, surface, and subsurface vessels detect and classify mines and mine-like objects. Vessels also assess their potential susceptibility to mines and mine-like objects. Explosive .................... Gun Testing—Large-Caliber .. Surface crews defend against surface targets with large-caliber guns. E3 ........................................... Explosive .................... Gun Testing—Medium-Caliber Surface crews defend against surface targets with mediumcaliber guns. E1 ........................................... Explosive .................... Missile and Rocket Testing .... Missile and rocket testing includes various missiles or rockets fired from submarines and surface combatants. Testing of the launching system and ship defense is performed. E6 ........................................... Acoustic ...................... Unmanned Surface Vehicle System Testing. Acoustic ...................... Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Testing. Testing involves the production or upgrade of unmanned surface vehicles. This may include tests of mine detection capabilities, evaluations of the basic functions of individual platforms, or complex events with multiple vehicles. Testing involves the production or upgrade of unmanned underwater vehicles. This may include tests of mine detection capabilities, evaluations of the basic functions of individual platforms, or complex events with multiple vehicles. Mine Warfare Explosive, Acoustic .... Acoustic ...................... HF1, HF8, MF1, MF5 ............. Surface Warfare Unmanned Systems Vessel Evaluation Acoustic ...................... Submarine Sea Trials–Weapons System Testing. Explosive .................... Surface Warfare Testing ........ Acoustic ...................... Undersea Warfare Testing ..... Acoustic ...................... Vessel Signature Evaluation .. Submarine weapons and sonar systems are tested at-sea to meet the integrated combat system certification requirements. Tests the capabilities of shipboard sensors to detect, track, and engage surface targets. Testing may include ships defending against surface targets using explosive and non-explosive rounds, gun system structural test firing, and demonstration of the response to Call for Fire against land-based targets (simulated by sea-based locations). 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. Surface ship, submarine and auxiliary system signature assessments. This may include electronic, radar, acoustic, infrared and magnetic signatures. ASW3 ..................................... HRC .................................. HRC SOCAL ..................... SOCAL .............................. 28 252 168 M3, MF9 ................................. HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 7 7 HF1, M3, MF9 ........................ HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 14 7 Other Testing Activities Acoustic ...................... Insertion/Extraction ................ Acoustic ...................... Signature Analysis Operations Testing of submersibles capable of inserting and extracting personnel and payloads into denied areas from strategic distances. Surface ship and submarine testing of electromagnetic, acoustic, optical, and radar signature measurements. Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing, CA = California, HI = Hawaii. Office of Naval Research khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 The proposed Office of Naval Research testing activities that could occur over the seven-year period within the HSTT Study Area are presented in Table 4. TABLE 4—PROPOSED OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location AG, ASW2, BB4, BB9, LF3, LF4, LF5, MF8, MF9, MF9, MF9, E3. HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. 7-Year number of events Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology Explosive, Acoustic .... VerDate Sep<11>2014 Acoustic and Oceanographic Research. 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Research using active transmissions from sources deployed from ships and unmanned underwater vehicles. Research sources can be used as proxies for current and future Navy systems. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 14 28 48396 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4—PROPOSED OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued Stressor category Activity name Acoustic ...................... Long Range Acoustic Communications. 7-Year number of events Description Source bin Location Bottom mounted acoustic source off of the Hawaiian Island of Kauai will transmit a variety of acoustic communications sequences. LF4 ......................................... HRC .................................. 21 Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex. Naval Information Warfare Systems Command activities that could occur over the seven-year period within the HSTT Study Area are presented in Table 5. The proposed Naval Information Warfare Systems Command testing TABLE 5—PROPOSED NAVAL INFORMATION WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVENYEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA 7-Year number of events Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location Acoustic ...................... Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection. Communications .................... Testing sensor systems that can detect threats to naval piers, ships, and shore infrastructure. Testing of underwater communications and networks to extend the principles of FORCEnet below the ocean surface. Develop, integrate, and demonstrate Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance systems and in-situ energy systems to support deployed systems. Testing of surface and subsurface vehicles and sensor systems that may involve Unmanned Underwater Vehicles, gliders, and Unmanned Surface Vehicles. SD1 ........................................ San Diego, CA .................. SOCAL .............................. HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. HSTT Transit Corridor ...... HRC .................................. SOCAL .............................. HSTT Transit Corridor ...... Acoustic ...................... Acoustic ...................... Acoustic ...................... Energy and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Sensor Systems. Vehicle Testing ...................... ASW2, ASW5, HF6, LF4 ....... AG, HF2, HF7, LF4, LF5, LF6, MF10. BB4, FLS2, FLS3, HF6, LF3, M3, MF9, MF13, SAS1, SAS2, SAS3. 98 112 5 70 87 357 56 8 1,141 14 Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing, CA = California. Summary of Acoustic and Explosive Sources Analyzed for Training and Testing Tables 6 through 9 show the acoustic and explosive source classes, bins, and numbers used, airgun sources and numbers used, and numbers of pile driving and removal activities associated with the Navy’s proposed training and testing activities over a seven-year period in the HSTT Study Area that were analyzed in the 2019 Navy application and for this proposed rule. The annual numbers for acoustic source classes, explosive source bins, and airgun sources, as well as the annual pile driving and removal activities associated with Navy training and testing activities in the HSTT Study Area are identical to those presented in Tables 9 through 12 of the 2018 HSTT final rule, and are not repeated here. Consistent with the periodicity in the 2018 HSTT final rule, the Navy proposes the addition of two pile driving/extraction activities for each of the two additional years. Table 6 describes the acoustic source classes (i.e., low-frequency (LF), midfrequency (MF), and high-frequency (HF)) that could occur over seven years under the proposed training and testing activities. Acoustic source bin use in the proposed activities would vary annually. The seven-year totals for the proposed training and testing activities take into account that annual variability. TABLE 6—ACOUSTIC SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA Source class category Bin Low-Frequency (LF): Sources produce signals less than 1 kHz. that LF3 LF4 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 LF5 LF6 Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and nontactical sources that produce signals between 1 and 10 kHz. MF1 MF1K MF2 2 MF3 MF4 MF5 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Training Testing 7-year total 7-year total Unit 1 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–61). H H C H H 0 0 0 65 956 1,365 4,496 140 14,458 360 H 38,489 8,692 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–22 and AN/AQS–13). Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g., DICASS). H 700 98 H 0 378 H 14,700 9,177 H 2,719 2,502 C 40,128 38,233 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48397 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 6—ACOUSTIC SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued Source class category Bin MF6 MF8 MF9 MF10 MF11 MF12 High-Frequency (HF): Tactical and nontactical sources that produce signals between 10 and 100 kHz. MF13 HF1 HF2 HF3 HF4 HF5 HF6 HF7 HF8 Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources (e.g., active sonobuoys and acoustic countermeasures systems) used during ASW training and testing activities. ASW1 ASW2 ASW3 ASW4 Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes associated with the active acoustic signals produced by torpedoes. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Forward Looking Sonar (FLS): Forward or upward looking object avoidance sonars used for ship navigation and safety. ASW5 3 TORP1 TORP2 TORP3 FLS2 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 SD1–SD2 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 Broadband Sound Sources (BB): Sonar systems with large frequency spectra, used for various purposes. BB4 BB7 BB9 Active underwater sound signal devices (e.g., MK 84). 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 source ...................................... 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., AN/SQS–20). Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned. Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned. Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB) not otherwise binned. Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/SQS–61). 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) ......... 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 .......................... H 0 490 H 0 36,056 H 0 13,104 H 5,205 392 H 1,260 4,620 H H 0 12,550 2,100 5,403 H H 0 1,919 840 769 H 15,012 114,069 H C H 0 0 0 6,720 280 7,015 H 0 9,660 H 711 5,136 H C 1,503 4,824 3,290 32,900 H 37,385 19,187 C 9,023 15,398 H C 1,780 1,605 3,854 6,454 C C H 3,515 0 196 2,756 315 3,424 H 0 18,480 H 274 3,623 H 0 70 H H H H 0 6,297 0 294 13,720 60,088 32,200 0 H C H 0 0 0 6,414 196 3,360 = hours; C = count (e.g., number of individual pings or individual sonobuoys). are sources on frigate class ships, which were decommissioned during Phase II. ASW2 (H) in Phase II. Notes: dB = decibel(s), kHz = kilohertz, VHF = very high frequency. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 7-year total 8,202 3 Formerly Jkt 247001 7-year total 63 2 MF2/MF2K 19:41 Sep 12, 2019 Testing C 1H VerDate Sep<11>2014 Training Unit 1 Description E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48398 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules Table 7 describes the number of air gun shots that could occur over seven years under the proposed training and testing activities. TABLE 7—TRAINING AND TESTING AIR GUN SOURCES QUANTITATIVELY ANALYZED IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA Source class category Air Guns (AG): small underwater air guns ...................................................... 1 Training Testing 7-year total 7-year total 0 5,908 Unit 1 Bin AG C C = count. One count (C) of AG is equivalent to 100 air gun firings. Table 8 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 seven-year period of the rule, the Navy will drive a total of 1,666 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 seven-year period of the rule, the Navy will extract a total of 1,666 piles by vibratory pile extraction. TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES PER 24-HOUR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA Piles per 24hour period Method Pile Driving (Impact) .................................................................................................................... Pile Removal (Vibratory) .............................................................................................................. Table 9 describes the number of inwater explosives that could be used in any year under the proposed training and testing activities. Under the proposed activities bin use would vary annually, and the seven-year totals for Time per pile (minutes) 6 12 Total estimated time of noise per 24hour period (minutes) 15 6 90 72 the proposed training and testing activities take into account that annual variability. TABLE 9—EXPLOSIVE SOURCE BINS ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA Modeled underwater detonation depths (ft.) Net explosive weight (lb.) 1 Example explosive source ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 0.1–0.25 ................... >0.25–0.5 ................. >0.5–2.5 ................... >2.5–5 ...................... Medium-caliber projectiles .......................... Medium-caliber projectiles .......................... Large-caliber projectiles ............................. Mine neutralization charge ......................... E5 ...................... E6 ...................... E7 ...................... E8 ...................... E9 ...................... E10 .................... E11 .................... E12 .................... E13 .................... >5–10 ....................... >10–20 ..................... >20–60 ..................... >60–100 ................... >100–250 ................. >250–500 ................. >500–650 ................. >650–1,000 .............. >1,000–1,740 ........... 5 in. projectiles ........................................... Hellfire missile ............................................ Demo block/shaped charge ........................ Lightweight torpedo .................................... 500 lb. bomb ............................................... Harpoon missile .......................................... 650 lb. mine ................................................ 2,000 lb. bomb ............................................ Multiple Mat Weave charges ...................... Bin E1 E2 E3 E4 0.3, 60 ...................... 0.3, 50 ...................... 0.3, 60 ...................... 10, 16, 33, 50, 61, 65, 650. 0.3, 10, 50 ................ 0.3, 10, 50, 60 .......... 10, 50, 60 ................. 0.3, 150 .................... 0.3 ............................ 0.3 ............................ 61, 150 ..................... 0.3 ............................ NA 2 .......................... Training Testing 7-year total 7-year total 20,580 12,222 19,579 266 87,012 0 20,848 4,372 33,310 4,056 91 241 2,950 1,543 69 114 63 9,800 230 0 399 28 210 84 0 0 1 Net Explosive Weight refers to the amount of explosives; the actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other components. Not modeled because charge is detonated in surf zone; not a single E13 charge, but multiple smaller charges detonated in quick succession. Notes: in. = inch(es), lb. = pound(s), ft. = feet. 2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 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 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 in the range of 8–13 knots (kn), while a few specialized vessels can travel at faster speeds. Small craft (for purposes of this analysis, less than 18 m in length) have much more variable speeds (0–50+ 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 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 varied from 5–10 kn with variations by ship class and location (i.e., slower 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. A full description of Navy vessels that are used during training and testing activities can be found in the 2017 Navy E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules application and Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. 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 typically be conducted near naval ports, piers, and range areas. Navy vessel traffic would be especially 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. The Navy proposes no changes to the manner in which Navy vessels would be used during training and testing activities, the speeds at which they operate, the number of vessels that would be used during various activities, or the locations in which Navy vessel movement would be concentrated within the HSTT Study Area from those analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule. The only change related to the Navy’s request regarding Navy vessel movement is the vessel use associated with the additional two years of Navy activities. Standard Operating Procedures khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 operating procedures are designed for the safety of personnel and equipment and to ensure the success of training and testing activities, their implementation often yields additional benefits on environmental, socioeconomic, public health and safety, and cultural resources. Because standard operating procedures are essential to safety and mission success, the Navy considers them to be part of the proposed activities and included them in the environmental analysis. Details on standard operating procedures were provided in the 2018 HSTT proposed rule; please see the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, the 2017 Navy application, and Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ OEIS for more information. The Navy proposes no changes to the Standard Operating Procedures from those included in the 2018 HSTT final rule. 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 10 along with the best/minimum abundance estimate and associated coefficient of variation value. Consistent with the 2018 HSTT final rule, the Navy still anticipates the take of individuals from 38 marine mammal species by Level A harassment and Level 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. The Navy requested authorization for 13 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 seven-year period. Two marine mammal species, the Hawaiian monk seal and the Main Hawaiian Islands Insular Distinct Population Segment PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48399 (DPS) of false killer whale, have critical habitat designated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the HSTT Study Area. We presented a detailed discussion of marine mammals and their occurrence in the HSTT Study Area, inclusive of important marine mammal habitat (e.g., ESA-designated critical habitat), biologically important areas (BIAs), national marine sanctuaries (NMSs), and unusual mortality events (UMEs) in the 2018 HSTT proposed rule and 2018 HSTT final rule; please see these rules and the 2017 and 2019 Navy applications for additional information. There have been no changes to important marine mammal habitat, BIAs, NMSs, or ESA designated critical habitat since the issuance of the 2018 HSTT final rule; therefore the information that supports our determinations here can be found in the 2018 HSTT proposed and final rules. NMFS has reviewed the most recent 2018 final Stock Assessment Reports (SARs); information on relevant UMEs; and other scientific literature, and determined that none of these nor any other new information changes our determination of which species or stocks have the potential to be affected by the Navy’s activities or the pertinent information in the Description of Marine Mammals and Their Habitat in the Area of the Specified Activities section in the 2018 HSTT proposed and final rules. Therefore the information presented in those sections of the 2018 HSTT proposed and final rules remains current and valid. 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. E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Humpback whale ........... Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 ............................................ ............................................ .................................................. .................................................. Peponocephala electra Feresa attenuata ........... Grampus griseus ........... Risso’s dolphins ............ Lagenorhynchus obliquidens. Stenella attenuata ......... Lissodelphis borealis ..... Pygmy killer whale ........ Northern right whale dolphin. Pacific white-sided dolphin. Pantropical spotted dolphin. Delphinus capensis ....... Lagenodelphis hosei ..... Orcinus orca .................. Fraser’s dolphin ............. Killer whale .................... Long-beaked common dolphin. Melon-headed whale ..... Pseudorca crassidens ... False killer whale ........... ............................................ ............................................ .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. Oahu ............................. 4-Islands ........................ Hawaii Island ................. Hawaii Pelagic .............. Tropical ......................... Hawaii ........................... CA/OR/WA .................... Hawaii ........................... ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................................ ............................................ .................................................. .................................................. CA/OR/WA .................... Hawaiian Islands ........... Kohala Resident ............ CA/OR/WA .................... ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ Endangered ....................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. Strategic, Depleted .................. ............................................ ............................................ CA/OR/WA Offshore ..... Hawaii Pelagic .............. Kauai and Niihau .......... Oahu ............................. 4-Islands ........................ Hawaii Island ................. Main Hawaiian Islands Insular. Hawaii Pelagic .............. Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii ........................... Eastern North Pacific Offshore. Eastern North Pacific Transient/West Coast Transient2. Hawaii ........................... California ....................... .................................................. .................................................. CA/OR/WA .................... California Coastal .......... ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ Endangered ....................... Endangered ....................... Endangered ....................... Endangered ....................... ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ Tursiops truncatus ........ Indopacetus pacificus ... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. Strategic, Depleted .................. Strategic, Depleted .................. Strategic, Depleted .................. Strategic, Depleted .................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. Hawaii ........................... Eastern North Pacific .... Hawaii ........................... CA/OR/WA .................... Hawaii ........................... CA/OR/WA .................... Hawaii ........................... CA/OR/WA .................... Hawaii ........................... CA/OR/WA .................... Hawaii ........................... ............................................ Endangered ....................... Endangered ....................... ............................................ Endangered ....................... Threatened/ Endangered 1 ............................................ ............................................ Mesoplodon spp. ........... Berardius bairdii ............ Mesoplodon densirostris Baird’s beaked whale .... Blainville’s beaked whale. Cuvier’s beaked whale .. .................................................. Strategic, Depleted .................. Strategic, Depleted .................. .................................................. Strategic, Depleted .................. Strategic, Depleted .................. Strategic ................................... .................................................. Hawaii ........................... CA/OR/WA .................... Hawaii ........................... Eastern North Pacific .... Western North Pacific ... CA/OR/WA .................... Central North Pacific ..... CA/OR/WA .................... Endangered ....................... Endangered ....................... ............................................ ESA CA/OR/WA .................... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Kogia sima .................... Dwarf sperm whale ....... Strategic, Depleted .................. Strategic, Depleted .................. .................................................. MMPA Status Eastern North Pacific .... Central North Pacific ..... Eastern Tropical Pacific Stock Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Southern California ....... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Southern California ....... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Occurrence ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... Winter & Spring .................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... Summer ................................ ............................................... Summer ................................ ............................................... ............................................... Winter and Fall ..................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... Summer ................................ ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... Summer ................................ ............................................... ............................................... Summer ................................ ............................................... Seasonal absence TABLE 10—MARINE MAMMAL OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA Ziphius cavirostris ......... Kogia breviceps ............ Pygmy sperm whale ...... Longman’s beaked whale. Mesoplodon beaked whales. Common Bottlenose dolphin. Physeter macrocephalus Sperm whale ................. Balaenoptera borealis ... Megaptera novaeangliae Gray whale .................... Sei whale ....................... Eschrichtius robustus .... Fin whale ....................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata. Balaenoptera physalus Bryde’s whale ................ Minke whale .................. Balaenoptera musculus Balaenoptera brydei/ edeni. Blue whale ..................... Scientific name Common name khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 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. 26,814 (0.28)/21,195. 8,666 (1.00)/4,299. 447 (0.12)/404. 26,556 (0.44)/18,608. 146 (0.96)/74. 101,305 (0.49)/68,432. 243 unknown/243. 51,491 (0.66)/31,034. 300 (0.1)/276. 1,540 (0.66)/928. 617 (1.11)/290. 1,924 (0.54)/1,255. 21,815 (0.57)/13,957. NA NA/97. NA. NA. NA NA/91. 167 (0.14)/149. 453 (0.06)/346. 3,044 (0.54)/1,967. 3,274 (0.67)/2,059. 723 0.69/428. 7,619 (0.66)/4,592. unknown. 519 (0.40)/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. unknown. 2,697 (0.60)/1,633. 2,105 (1.13)/980. 1,751 (0.29)/1,378. 9,029 (0.12)/8,127. 154 (1.05)/75. 26,960 (0.05)/25,849. 290 (NA)/271. 2,900 (0.05)/2,784. 10,103 (0.30)/7,891. 636 (0.72)/369. 1,647 (0.07)/1,551. 133 (1.09)/63. unknown. Stock abundance (CV)/minimum population 48400 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules Delphinus delphis .......... Short-beaked common dolphin. Short-finned pilot whale VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Stenella coeruleoalba ... Phocoenoides dalli ........ Phoca vitulina ................ Neomonachus schauinslandi. Mirounga angustirostris Zalophus californianus .. Arctocephalus townsendi. Callorhinus ursinus ....... Striped dolphin .............. Dall’s porpoise ............... Harbor seal .................... Hawaiian monk seal ...... Jkt 247001 California ....................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. Strategic, Depleted .................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. Strategic, Depleted .................. Hawaii ........................... Hawaii Pelagic .............. Hawaii Island ................. Oahu and 4-Islands ...... Kauai and Niihau .......... Kure and Midway .......... Pearl and Hermes ......... CA/OR/WA .................... Hawaii ........................... CA/OR/WA .................... California ....................... Hawaii ........................... California ....................... U.S. Stock ..................... Mexico to California ...... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. CA/OR/WA .................... NSD3 ............................. Hawaii ........................... CA/OR/WA .................... ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ Threatened ......................... ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ Endangered ....................... ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ Southern California ....... Southern California ....... Southern California ....... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... Southern California ....... Hawaii ........................... Southern California ....... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... 14,050 (NA)/7,524. 179,000 (NA)/81,368. 257,606 (NA)/233,515. 20,000 (NA)/15,830. 19,503 (0.49)/13,197. unknown. 665 (0.09)/617. NA. NA. unknown. unknown. 29,211 (0.20)/24,782. 61,021 (0.38)/44,922. 25,750 (0.45)/17,954 30,968 (NA)/27,348. 1,415 (0.03)/1,384. 836 (0.79)/466. unknown. 72,528 (0.39)/52,833. 969,861 (0.17)/839,325. two humpback whale Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) making up the California, Oregon, and Washington (CA/OR/WA) stock present in Southern California are the Mexico DPS, listed under the ESA as Threatened, and the Central America DPS, 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. 1 The Northern fur seal ........... Northern elephant seal .. California sea lion .......... Guadalupe fur seal ........ Stenella longirostris ....... Spinner dolphin ............. Globicephala macrorhynchus. Steno bredanensis ........ Rough-toothed dolphin .. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48401 48402 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat We provided a full discussion of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat in our 2018 HSTT proposed rule and 2018 HSTT final rule. In the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section of the 2018 HSTT proposed and final rules, NMFS provided a description of the ways marine mammals may be affected by the same activities that the Navy will be conducting during the seven-year period analyzed in this rule in the form of serious injury or mortality, physical trauma, sensory impairment (permanent and temporary threshold shifts and acoustic masking), physiological responses (particularly stress responses), behavioral disturbance, or habitat effects. Therefore, we do not repeat the information here, all of which remains current and applicable, but refer the reader to those rules and the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS (Chapter 3, Section 3.7 Marine Mammals), which NMFS participated in the development of via our cooperating agency status and adopted to meet our NEPA requirements. In addition, NMFS has reviewed new information in relevant SARs, any new information on active UMEs or new UMEs, and new scientific literature. Summaries of current UMEs and new scientific literature since publication of the 2018 HSTT final rule are presented below. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Unusual Mortality Events (UME) An UME is defined under Section 410(6) of the MMPA as a stranding that is unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal population; and demands immediate response. From 1991 to the present, there have been 17 formally recognized UMEs affecting marine mammals in California and Hawaii and involving species under NMFS’ jurisdiction. Three UMEs that could be relevant to informing the current analysis are discussed below. Specifically, the California sea lion UME in California is still open, but will be closed soon. The Guadalupe fur seal UME in California and the gray whale UME along the west coast of North America are active and involve ongoing investigations. California Sea Lion UME From January 2013 through September 2016, a greater than expected number of young malnourished California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) stranded along the coast VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 of California. Sea lions stranding from an early age (6–8 months old) through two years of age (hereafter referred to as juveniles) were consistently underweight without other disease processes detected. Of the 8,122 stranded juveniles attributed to the UME, 93 percent stranded alive (n=7,587, with 3,418 of these released after rehabilitation) and 7 percent (n=531) stranded dead. Several factors are hypothesized to have impacted the ability of nursing females and young sea lions to acquire adequate nutrition for successful pup rearing and juvenile growth. In late 2012, decreased anchovy and sardine recruitment (CalCOFI data, July 2013) may have led to nutritionally stressed adult females. Biotoxins were present at various times throughout the UME, and while they were not detected in the stranded juvenile sea lions (whose stomachs were empty at the time of stranding), biotoxins may have impacted the adult females’ ability to support their dependent pups by affecting their cognitive function (e.g. navigation, behavior towards their offspring). Therefore, the role of biotoxins in this UME, via its possible impact on adult females’ ability to support their pups, is unclear. The proposed primary cause of the UME was malnutrition of sea lion pups and yearlings due to ecological factors. These factors included shifts in distribution, abundance and/or quality of sea lion prey items around the Channel Island rookeries during critical sea lion life history events (nursing by adult females, and transitioning from milk to prey by young sea lions). These prey shifts were most likely driven by unusual oceanographic conditions at the time due to the ‘‘Warm Water Blob’’ and El Nin˜o. This investigation will soon be closed. Please refer to: https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-life-distress/2013-2017california-sea-lion-unusual-mortalityevent-california for more information on this UME. Guadalupe Fur Seal UME Increased strandings of Guadalupe fur seals began along the entire coast of California in January 2015 and were eight times higher than the historical average (approximately 10 seals/yr). Strandings have continued since 2015 and have remained well above average through 2017. Strandings have continued since 2015 and remained well above average through 2019. Numbers by year are as follows: 2015 (98), 2016 (76), 2017 (61), 2018 (45), 2019 (104, as of June 28, 2019). The total number of Guadalupe fur seals from January 1, 2015, through June 28, 2019, PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 in the UME is 438. Additionally, strandings of Guadalupe fur seals became elevated in the spring of 2019 in Washington and Oregon, subsequently strandings for seals in these two states have been added to the UME starting from January 1, 2019. The current total number of strandings for 2019 in Washington and Oregon is 55 seals as of June 28, 2019. Strandings are seasonal and generally peak in April through June of each year. The Guadalupe fur seal strandings have been mostly weaned pups and juveniles (1–2 years old) with both live and dead strandings occurring. Current findings from the majority of stranded animals include primary malnutrition with secondary bacterial and parasitic infections. This California portion of this UME is occurring in the same area as the 2013– 2016 California sea lion UME. This investigation is ongoing. Please refer to: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ national/marine-life-distress/2015-2019guadalupe-fur-seal-unusual-mortalityevent-california for more information on this UME. Gray Whale UME Since January 1, 2019, elevated gray whale strandings have occurred along the west coast of North America, from Mexico to Canada. As of June 28, 2019, there have been a total of 170 strandings along the coasts of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, with 84 of those strandings occurring along the U.S. coast. Partial necropsy examinations conducted on a subset of stranded whales have shown evidence of emaciation. As part of the UME investigation process, NOAA is assembling an independent team of scientists to coordinate with the Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events to review the data collected, sample stranded whales, and determine the next steps for the investigation. Please refer to: https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-life-distress/2019-gray-whaleunusual-mortality-event-along-westcoast for more information on this UME. New Pertinent Science Since Publication of the 2018 HSTT Final Rule Southall et al. (2019a) evaluated Southall et al. (2007) and used updated scientific information to propose revised noise exposure criteria to predict onset of auditory effects in marine mammals (i.e., PTS and TTS onset). Southall et al. (2019a) note that the quantitative processes described and the resulting exposure criteria (i.e., thresholds and auditory weighting functions) are largely identical to those in Finneran (2016) and NMFS (2016 and 2018). E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules However they differ in that the Southall et al. (2019a) exposure criteria are more broadly applicable as they include all marine mammal species (rather than only those under NMFS jurisdiction) for all noise exposures (both in air and underwater for amphibious species) and, while the hearing group compositions are identical, they renamed the hearing groups. Recent studies on the behavioral responses of cetaceans to sonar examine and continue to demonstrate the importance of not only sound source parameters, but exposure context (e.g., behavioral state, presence of other animals and social relationships, prey abundance, distance to source, presence of vessels, environmental parameters, etc.) in determining or predicting a behavioral response. Kastelein et al. (2018) examined the role of sound pressure level (SPL) and duty cycle on the behavior of two captive harbor porpoises when exposed to simulated Navy mid-frequency sonar (53C, 3.5 to 4.1 kHz). Neither harbor porpoise responded to the low duty cycle (2.7 percent) at any of the five SPLs presented, even at the maximum received SPL (143 dB re: 1 mPa). At the higher duty cycle (96 percent), one porpoise responded by increasing his respiration rate at a received SPL of greater than or equal to 119 dB re: 1 mPa, and moved away from the transducer at a received SPL of 143 dB re: 1 mPa. Kastelein et al. (2018) observed that at the same received SPL and duty cycle, harbor porpoises respond less to 53C sonar sounds than 1–2 kHz, 6–7 kHz, and 25 kHz sonar signals observed in previous studies, but noted that when examining behavioral responses it is important to take into account the spectrum and temporal structure of the signal, the duty cycle, and the psychological interpretation by the animal. Wensveen et al. (2019) examined the role of sound source (simulated sonar pulses) distance and received level in northern bottlenose whales in an environment without frequent sonar activity using multiscaled controlled exposure experiments. They observed behavioral avoidance of the sound source over a wide range of distances (0.8–28 km) and estimated avoidance thresholds ranging from received SPLs of 117–126 dB re: 1 mPa. The behavioral response characteristics and avoidance thresholds were comparable to those previously observed in beaked whale studies; however, they did not observe an effect of distance on behavioral response and found that onset and intensity of behavioral response were better VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 predicted by received SPL. When conducting controlled exposure experiments on blue whales Southall et al. (2019b) observed that after exposure to simulated and operational midfrequency active sonar, more than 50 percent of blue whales in deep-diving states responded to the sonar, while no behavioral response was observed in shallow-feeding blue whales. The behavioral responses they observed were generally brief, of low to moderate severity, and highly dependent on exposure context (behavioral state, source-to-whale horizontal range, and prey availability). Blue whale response did not follow a simple exposureresponse model based on received sound exposure level. In a review of the potential impacts of sonar on beaked whales, Bernaldo de Quiro´s et al. (2019) suggested that the effect of midfrequency active sonar on beaked whales varies among individuals or populations, and that predisposing conditions such as previous exposure to sonar and individual health risk factors may contribute to individual outcomes (such as decompression sickness). Having considered this information, we have preliminarily determined that there is no new information that substantively affects our analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat that appeared in the 2018 HSTT final rule, all of which remains applicable and valid for our assessment of the effects of the Navy’s activities during the seven-year period of this rule. Estimated Take of Marine Mammals This section indicates the number of takes that NMFS is proposing to authorize, 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 below. NMFS coordinated closely with the Navy in the development of their incidental take application, and preliminarily agrees that the methods the Navy has put forth described herein and in the 2018 HSTT proposed and final rules to estimate take (including the model, thresholds, and density estimates), and the resulting numbers are based on the best available science and appropriate for authorization. The number and type of incidental takes that could occur or are likely to occur annually remain identical to those authorized in the 2018 HSTT regulations. Takes are predominantly in the form of harassment, but a small number of serious injuries or mortalities are also possible. For military readiness PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48403 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). Proposed 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 behavioral disruption (rising to the level of a take as described above) or temporary threshold shift (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, no more than three serious injuries or mortalities total (over the seven-year period) of mysticetes (except for sei whales, minke whales, Bryde’s whales, Central North Pacific stock of blue whales, Hawaii stock of fin whales, and Western North Pacific stock of gray whales) and the Hawaii stock of sperm whales have the potential occur through vessel collisions. Although we analyze the impacts of these potential serious injuries or mortalities that are proposed to be authorized, the required mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the likelihood that ship strike or these high-level explosive exposures (and the associated serious injury or mortality) actually occur. Generally speaking, for acoustic impacts we estimate the amount and type of harassment by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be taken by Level B harassment (in this case, as defined in the military readiness definition of Level B harassment included above) or incur some degree of temporary or permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day or event; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and (4) and the number of days of activities or events. E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 48404 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 permanent threshold shift (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 take by 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 behavioral Level B harassment thresholds have been refined here to better consider the best available science (e.g., incorporating both received level and distance), they also still 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 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 behavioral Level B harassment thresholds are the most appropriate method for predicting behavioral Level B harassment given the best available science and the associated uncertainty. We described these acoustic thresholds and the methods used to determine thresholds, none of which have changed, in detail in the Acoustic Thresholds section of the 2018 HSTT final rule; please see the 2018 HSTT final rule for detailed information. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model The Navy proposes no changes to the Acoustic Effects Model as described in the 2018 HSTT final rule and there is no new information that would affect the applicability or validity of the model. Please see the 2018 HSTT final and proposed rules and Appendix E of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS for detailed information. Range to Effects The Navy proposes no changes from the 2018 HSTT final rule to the type and nature of the specified activities to be conducted during the seven-year period analyzed in this proposed rule, including equipment and sources used and exercises conducted. There is also no new information that would affect the applicability or validity of the ranges to effects previously analyzed for these activities. Therefore the ranges to effects in this proposed rule are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule, including received sound levels that may cause onset of significant behavioral response and TTS and PTS in hearing for each source type or explosives that may cause non-auditory injury. Please see the Range to Effects section and Tables 24 through 40 of the 2018 HSTT final rule for detailed information. Marine Mammal Density The Navy proposes no changes to the methods used to estimate marine mammal density described in the 2018 HSTT final rule and there is no new information that would affect the applicability or validity of these methods. Please see the 2018 HSTT final rule for detailed information. Take Requests As in the 2018 HSTT final rule, in its 2019 application, 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 NMFS 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); and • Physical Disturbance and Strike (vessel strike). NMFS reviewed and agrees with the Navy’s conclusion that acoustic and explosive sources have the potential to PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 proposed to be authorized, has been fully analyzed and is described below. Regarding the quantification of expected takes from acoustic and explosive sources (by Level A and Level B harassment, as well as mortality resulting from exposure to explosives), the number of takes are based directly on the level of activities (days, hours, counts, etc., of different activities and events) in a given year. In the 2018 HSTT final rule, take estimates across the five-years were based on the Navy conducting three years of a representative level of activity and two years of maximum level of activity. Consistent with the pattern set forth in the 2017 Navy application, the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, and the 2018 HSTT final rule, the Navy proposes to add one additional representative year and one additional maximum year to determine the predicted take numbers in this rule. Specifically, as in the 2018 HSTT final rule, the Navy proposes to use the maximum annual level to calculate annual takes (which would remain identical to what was determined in the 2018 HSTT final rule), and the sum of all years (four representative and three maximum) to calculate the seven-year totals for this rule. The quantitative analysis process used for the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and the 2017 and 2019 Navy applications 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 (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 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48405 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules assessment of mitigation. The Navy conservatively quantifies the manner in which procedural mitigation is expected to reduce the risk for model-estimated PTS for exposures to sonars and for model-estimated mortality for exposures to explosives, based on species sightability, observation area, visibility, and the ability to exercise positive control over the sound source. Where the analysis indicates mitigation would effectively reduce risk, the modelestimated PTS are considered reduced to TTS and the model-estimated mortalities are considered reduced to injury. For a complete explanation of the process for assessing the effects of mitigation, see the 2017 Navy application and the Take Requests section of the 2018 HSTT final rule. The extent to which the mitigation areas reduce impacts on the affected species and stocks is addressed separately in the Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section. No changes have been made to the quantitative analysis process to estimate potential exposures to marine mammals resulting from acoustic and explosive stressors and calculate take estimates. In addition, there is no new information that would call into question the validity of the Navy’s quantitative analysis process. Please see the documents described in the paragraph above, the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, and the 2018 HSTT final rule for detailed descriptions of these analyses. In summary, we believe the Navy’s methods, including the method for incorporating mitigation and avoidance, are the most appropriate methods for predicting PTS, TTS, and behavioral disruption. 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 be taken through PTS, TTS, or behavioral disruption. Summary of Requested Take From Training and Testing Activities Based on the methods discussed in the previous sections and the Navy’s model and quantitative assessment of mitigation, the Navy provided its take estimate and request for authorization of takes incidental to the use of acoustic and explosive sources for training and testing activities both annually (based on the maximum number of activities that could occur per 12-month period) and over the seven-year period covered by the 2019 Navy application. Annual takes (based on the maximum number of activities that could occur per 12-month period) from the use of acoustic and explosive sources are identical to those presented in Tables 41 and 42 and in the Explosives subsection of the Take Requests section of the 2018 HSTT final rule. The 2019 Navy application also includes the Navy’s take estimate and request for vessel strikes due to vessel movement in the HSTT Study Area. NMFS has reviewed the Navy’s data, methodology, and analysis and determined that it is complete and accurate. NMFS agrees that the estimates for incidental takes by harassment from all sources as well as the incidental takes by serious injury or mortality from explosives requested for authorization are the maximum number of instances in which marine mammals are reasonably expected to be taken. NMFS also agrees that the takes by serious injury or mortality as a result of vessel strikes could occur. Note that the total amount of estimated incidental take from acoustic and explosive sources over the total seven-year period covered by the 2019 Navy application is less than the annual total multiplied by seven because although the annual estimates are based on the maximum number of activities per year and therefore the maximum possible estimated takes, the seven-year total take estimates are based on the sum of three maximum years and four representative years. Not all activities occur every year. Some activities would occur multiple times within a year, and some activities would occur only a few times over the course of the seven-year period. Using seven years of the maximum number of activities each year would vastly overestimate the amount of incidental take that would occur over the seven-year period where the Navy knows that it will not conduct the maximum number of activities each and every year for the seven years. Estimated Harassment Take From Training Activities For training activities, Table 11 summarizes the Navy’s take estimate and request and the maximum amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment for the seven-year period covered by the 2019 Navy application that NMFS concurs is reasonably expected to occur by species or stock. For the estimated amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment annually, see Table 41 in the 2018 HSTT final rule. Note that take by Level B harassment includes both behavioral disruption and TTS. Navy Figures 6–12 through 6–50 in Section 6 of the 2017 Navy application illustrate the comparative amounts of TTS and behavioral disruption for each species annually, noting that if a modeled marine mammal was ‘‘taken’’ through exposure to both TTS and behavioral disruption in the model, it was recorded as a TTS. TABLE 11—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES- AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE ESTIMATES PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES 7-Year total Species Stock Level B Blue whale * ................................................. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Bryde’s whale † ........................................... Fin whale * ................................................... Humpback whale † ...................................... Minke whale ................................................ Sei whale * ................................................... Gray whale † ............................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Central North Pacific ...................................................................... Eastern North Pacific ..................................................................... Eastern Tropical Pacific ................................................................. Hawaiian † ...................................................................................... California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ California, Oregon, & Washington † .............................................. Central North Pacific ...................................................................... California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Eastern North Pacific ..................................................................... Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Eastern North Pacific ..................................................................... Western North Pacific † ................................................................. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 205 7,116 167 631 7,731 197 7,962 34,437 4,119 20,237 333 677 16,703 19 Level A 0 6 0 0 0 0 7 12 7 6 0 0 27 0 48406 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 11—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES- AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE ESTIMATES PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES—Continued 7-Year total Species Stock Level B Sperm whale * ............................................. California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Hawaiian ........................................................................................ California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Hawaiian ........................................................................................ California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. California Coastal .......................................................................... California, Oregon, & Washington Offshore .................................. Hawaiian Pelagic ........................................................................... Kauai & Niihau ............................................................................... Oahu .............................................................................................. 4-Island .......................................................................................... Hawaii ............................................................................................ Hawaii Pelagic ............................................................................... Main Hawaiian Islands Insular † .................................................... Northwestern Hawaiian Islands ..................................................... Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Eastern North Pacific Offshore ...................................................... Eastern North Pacific Transient/West Coast Transient ................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ California ........................................................................................ Hawaiian Islands ............................................................................ Kohala Resident ............................................................................ California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaii Island ................................................................................. Hawaii Pelagic ............................................................................... Oahu .............................................................................................. 4-Island .......................................................................................... Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Tropical .......................................................................................... California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Hawaiian ........................................................................................ NSD 1 ............................................................................................. California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Hawaii Island ................................................................................. Hawaii Pelagic ............................................................................... Kauai & Niihau ............................................................................... Oahu & 4-Island ............................................................................. California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. U.S. ................................................................................................ Mexico ............................................................................................ California ........................................................................................ California ........................................................................................ Hawaiian ........................................................................................ California ........................................................................................ Dwarf sperm whale ..................................... Pygmy sperm whale .................................... Kogia whales ............................................... Baird’s beaked whale .................................. Blainville’s beaked whale ............................ Cuvier’s beaked whale ................................ Longman’s beaked whale ........................... Mesoplodon spp (beaked whale guild) ....... Bottlenose dolphin ....................................... False killer whale † ...................................... Fraser’s dolphin ........................................... Killer whale .................................................. Long-beaked common dolphin .................... Melon-headed whale ................................... 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 ............................................ khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Dall’s porpoise ............................................. California sea lion ....................................... Guadalupe fur seal * .................................... Northern fur seal ......................................... Harbor seal .................................................. Hawaiian monk seal * .................................. Northern elephant seal ................................ 8,834 10,341 84,232 33,431 38,609 8,524 23,491 47,178 7,898 82,293 25,404 1,295 201,619 13,080 500 57,288 1,052 291 4,353 2,710 1,585 177,198 460 855 513 784,965 14,137 1,278 357,001 274,892 17,739 42,318 28,860 1,816 35,531 2,977 477,389 40,800 26,769 0 5,875,431 6,341 53,627 609 18,870 1,961 10,424 777,001 32,806 171,250 460,145 3,342 62,138 19,214 938 241,277 Level A 0 0 215 94 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 99 0 0 57 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 307 6 0 0 0 0 8 5 0 894 629 0 0 48 5 490 * ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. † Only designated stocks are ESA-listed. 1 NSD: No stock designation. Estimated Harassment Take From Testing Activities For testing activities, Table 12 summarizes the Navy’s take estimate and request and the maximum amount and type of Level A harassment and VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Level B harassment for the seven-year period covered by the 2019 Navy application that NMFS concurs is reasonably expected to occur by species or stock. For the estimated amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 harassment annually, see Table 42 in the 2018 HSTT final rule. Note that take by Level B harassment includes both behavioral disruption and TTS. Navy Figures 6–12 through 6–50 in Section 6 of the 2017 Navy application illustrate E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48407 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules the comparative amounts of TTS and behavioral disruption for each species annually, noting that if a modeled marine mammal was ‘‘taken’’ through exposure to both TTS and behavioral disruption in the model, it was recorded as a TTS. TABLE 12—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE ESTIMATES PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TESTING ACTIVITIES 7-Year total Species Stock Level B Blue whale * ................................................. Bryde’s whale † ........................................... Fin whale * ................................................... Humpback whale † ...................................... Minke whale ................................................ Sei whale * ................................................... Gray whale † ............................................... Sperm whale * ............................................. Dwarf sperm whale ..................................... Pygmy sperm whale .................................... Kogia whales ............................................... Baird’s beaked whale .................................. Blainville’s beaked whale ............................ Cuvier’s beaked whale ................................ Longman’s beaked whale ........................... Mesoplodon spp (beaked whale guild) ....... Bottlenose dolphin ....................................... False killer whale † ...................................... Fraser’s dolphin ........................................... Killer whale .................................................. Long-beaked common dolphin .................... Melon-headed whale ................................... Northern right whale dolphin ....................... Pacific white-sided dolphin .......................... Pantropical spotted dolphin ......................... Pygmy killer whale ...................................... Risso’s dolphin ............................................ khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Rough-toothed dolphin ................................ Short-beaked common dolphin ................... Short-finned pilot whale .............................. Spinner dolphin ........................................... Striped dolphin ............................................ Dall’s porpoise ............................................. California sea lion ....................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Central North Pacific ...................................................................... Eastern North Pacific ..................................................................... Eastern Tropical Pacific ................................................................. Hawaiian † ...................................................................................... California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ California, Oregon, & Washington † .............................................. Central North Pacific ...................................................................... California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Eastern North Pacific ..................................................................... Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Eastern North Pacific ..................................................................... Western North Pacific † ................................................................. California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Hawaiian ........................................................................................ California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Hawaiian ........................................................................................ California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. California Coastal .......................................................................... California, Oregon, & Washington Offshore .................................. Hawaiian Pelagic ........................................................................... Kauai & Niihau ............................................................................... Oahu .............................................................................................. 4-Island .......................................................................................... Hawaii ............................................................................................ Hawaii Pelagic ............................................................................... Main Hawaiian Islands Insular † .................................................... Northwestern Hawaiian Islands ..................................................... Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Eastern North Pacific Offshore ...................................................... Eastern North Pacific Transient/West Coast Transient ................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ California ........................................................................................ Hawaiian Islands ............................................................................ Kohala Resident ............................................................................ California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaii Island ................................................................................. Hawaii Pelagic ............................................................................... Oahu .............................................................................................. 4-Island .......................................................................................... Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Tropical .......................................................................................... California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Hawaiian ........................................................................................ NSD 1 ............................................................................................. California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ Hawaii Island ................................................................................. Hawaii Pelagic ............................................................................... Kauai & Niihau ............................................................................... Oahu & 4-Island ............................................................................. California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. Hawaiian ........................................................................................ California, Oregon, & Washington ................................................. U.S. ................................................................................................ PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 93 5,679 97 278 6,662 108 4,961 23,750 1,855 9,822 178 329 13,077 15 7,409 5,269 43,374 17,396 20,766 4,841 11,455 30,180 3,784 41,965 16,383 11,158 158,700 8,469 3,091 3,230 1,129 260 2,287 1,256 837 85,193 236 438 279 805,063 7,678 1,119 280,066 213,380 9,568 24,805 1,349 2,513 18,347 1,928 339,334 19,027 14,851 0 3,795,732 6,253 29,269 1,394 9,534 9,277 1,987 371,328 16,270 115,353 334,332 Level A 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 19 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 0 197 83 94 0 0 28 0 0 15 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 34 0 0 22 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 304 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 478 36 48408 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 12—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE ESTIMATES PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TESTING ACTIVITIES—Continued 7-Year total Species Stock Level B Guadalupe fur seal * .................................... Northern fur seal ......................................... Harbor seal .................................................. Hawaiian monk seal * .................................. Northern elephant seal ................................ Mexico ............................................................................................ California ........................................................................................ California ........................................................................................ Hawaiian ........................................................................................ California ........................................................................................ 6,167 36,921 15,898 372 151,754 Level A 0 7 12 0 187 * ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. † Only designated stocks are ESA-listed. 1 NSD: No stock designation. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Estimated Take From Vessel Strikes and Explosives by Serious Injury or Mortality 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). 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 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 during which the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Navy is 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 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (e.g., commercial merchant vessels). Key differences include: • Many military ships have their bridges positioned closer to the bow, offering better visibility ahead of the ship (compared to a commercial merchant vessel). • There are often aircraft associated with the training or testing activity (which can serve as Lookouts), which can more readily detect cetaceans in the vicinity of a vessel or ahead of a vessel’s present course before crew on the vessel would be able to detect them. • Military ships are generally more maneuverable than commercial merchant vessels, and if cetaceans are spotted in the path of the ship, could be capable of changing course more quickly. • The crew size on military vessels is generally larger than merchant ships, allowing for stationing more trained Lookouts on the bridge. At all times when vessels are underway, trained Lookouts and bridge navigation teams are used to detect objects on the surface of the water ahead of the ship, including cetaceans. Additional Lookouts, beyond those already stationed on the bridge and on navigation teams, are positioned as Lookouts during some training events. • When submerged, submarines are generally slow moving (to avoid detection) and therefore marine mammals at depth with a submarine are likely able to avoid collision with the submarine. When a submarine is transiting on the surface, there are Lookouts serving the same function as they do on surface ships. Vessel strike to marine mammals is not associated with any specific training or testing activity but is rather an extremely limited and sporadic, but possible, accidental result of Navy vessel movement within the 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 the Navy E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 seven-year period in particular, the Navy requested incidental takes based on probabilities derived from a Poisson distribution using ship strike data between 2009– 2018 in the HSTT Study Area (the time period from when current mitigations were instituted until the Navy conducted the analysis for the 2019 Navy application), as well as historical at-sea days in the HSTT Study Area from 2009–2018 and estimated potential at-sea days for the period from 2018 to 2025 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 2025. The analysis for the period of 2018 to 2023 is described in detail in Chapter 6 of the 2017 Navy application and has been updated for this seven-year proposed rulemaking. For the same reasons listed above, describing why a Navy vessel strike is comparatively unlikely, it is highly 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 sources, 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 additional mitigation measures during the seven years of this rule. The probability analysis concluded that there was a 22 percent chance that zero whales would be struck by Navy vessels over the seven-year period, and a 33, 25, 13, and 5 percent chance that one, two, three, or four whales, respectively, would be struck over the seven-year period (with a 78 percent chance that greater than one whale would be struck over the seven-year 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 seven years. The probability of the Navy striking up to three large whales over the sevenyear period (which is a 13 percent chance) as analyzed for this proposed rule using updated Navy vessel strike data and at-sea days is very close to the probability of the Navy striking up to three large whales over five years (which was a 10 percent chance). As the probability of striking three large whales does not differ significantly from the 2018 HSTT final rule, and the probability of striking four large whales over seven years remains very low to the point of being unlikely (less than 5 percent), the Navy has requested, and we are proposing, no change in the number of takes by serious injury or mortality due to vessel strikes. Small delphinids, porpoises, and pinnipeds are not expected 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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48409 the Navy’s assessment and recognizes the potential for (and is proposing for authorization) incidental take by vessel strike of large whales only (i.e., no dolphins, small whales, porpoises, or pinnipeds) over the course of the sevenyear regulations from training and testing activities as discussed below. As noted in the 2018 HSTT proposed and final rules, in the 2017 Navy application 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. 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. For this seven-year rule, we have reconsidered these two factors and updated the analysis with the Navy’s seven-year ship strike probability analysis and any new/updated ship strike data from the SARs. To address number (1) above, NMFS compiled information from NMFS’ SARs on detected annual rates of large whale serious injury or mortality from vessel collisions. The annual rates of large whale serious injury or 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 (the period used for the SARs). We summed the annual rates of serious injury or mortality 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 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., 78 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 in the SAR changes (and we E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48410 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 include the annual averages from 2017 and 2018 SARs in Table 13 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 2017 application, which includes relative abundance, total recorded strikes, and the overlay of all of this information with the Navy’s action area. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 We note that for all of the mortal take of species specifically denoted in Table 13 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 or Mortality subsection of the Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section), and those numbers help inform PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the relative likelihood that the Navy will hit those stocks. For each indicated stock, Table 13 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. (2017). The last column indicates the annual mortality proposed to be authorized: those stocks with one serious injury or mortality (M/SI) take proposed to be authorized over the seven-year period of the rule are shaded lightly, while those with two M/SI takes proposed to be authorized over the seven-year period of the rule are shaded more darkly. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 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 seven-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 seven-year 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 Study Area, have the three highest total strike records (21, 35, and 58 respectively), have three of the four PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48411 highest percent likelihoods based on the SAR records, have three of the four significantly higher relative abundances, and have up to a 3.4 percent likelihood of being struck twice based on NMFS’ SAR calculation (not shown in Table 13, 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 seven-year rule. Based on the information summarized in Table 13, and the fact that there is the potential for up to three large whales to be struck, it is considered reasonably likely that one individual from the E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 EP13SE19.000</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 48412 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules remaining three stocks could be one of the three whales 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 seven-year rule. The total strikes of Eastern North Pacific blue whales, the percent likelihood of 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 seven-year rule. The Navy has not hit a humpback whale in the HSTT Study Area and the relative abundance of the CA/OR/WA stock 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 from the CA/OR/WA stock (not two), and that that 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 humpback 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 humpback whale has been struck in SOCAL makes it highly unlikely, and thereby no strikes of whales 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 13) 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 13 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 proposed authorized take included in this rule, which is 1, 1, and 2, respectively over the seven-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 proposed for authorization. Accordingly, the Navy has requested take by M/SI from vessel strike of up to two of any of the following species/ stocks in the seven-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/ stocks in the seven-year period: Blue whale (Eastern North Pacific stock), humpback whale (CA/OR/WA stock, Mexico DPS), or sperm whale (Hawaii stock). As described above, the Navy analysis suggests, and NMFS analysis concurs, 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 proposing to authorize lethal take, PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 there is the potential of no more than three whales taken by M/SI over the seven-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), and 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 M/SI of 0.14 or 0.29 whales annually from each of these species or stocks (i.e., 1 or 2 takes, respectively, divided by seven years to get the annual number), along with the expected incidental takes by harassment. Explosives The Navy’s model and quantitative analysis process used for the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and in the Navy’s 2017 and 2019 applications 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. Department of the Navy, 2018). Specifically, over the course of a modelled maximum year of training and testing, the Navy’s model and quantitative analysis process estimates M/SI of two short-beaked common dolphin and one California sea lion as a result of exposure to explosive training and testing activities (please see Section 6 of the 2017 Navy application where it is explained how maximum annual estimates are calculated). Over the five-year period of the 2018 HSTT regulations, mortality of 6 short-beaked common dolphins and 4 California sea lions was estimated and authorized (10 marine mammals in total) as a result of exposure to explosive training and testing activities. In extending the same training and testing activities for an additional two years, over the seven-year period of the proposed E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 regulations M/SI of 8 short-beaked common dolphins and 5 California sea lions (13 marine mammals in total) is estimated as a result of exposure to explosive training and testing activities. As explained in the aforementioned Analytical Approach technical report, expected impacts were calculated considering spatial and seasonal differences in model inputs, as well as the expected variation in the number of training and testing events from year to year, described as representative and maximum levels of activity. The summed impacts over any multi-year period, therefore, are the expected value for impacts over that time period rather than a multiple of a single maximum year’s impacts. Therefore, calculating the seven-year total is not a matter of simply multiplying the annual estimate by seven, as the total amount of estimated mortalities over the seven years covered by the 2019 Navy application is less than the sum total of each year. As explained earlier, although the annual estimates are based on the maximum number of activities per year and therefore the maximum estimated takes, the seven-year total take estimates are based on the sum of three maximum years and four representative years. 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 or stock that could be taken by M/SI from explosives. Proposed Mitigation Measures Under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock(s) and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’). NMFS does not have a regulatory definition for least practicable adverse impact. The 2004 NDAA 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. For the full discussion of how NMFS interprets least practicable adverse impact, including how it relates to the negligible-impact standard, see the Mitigation Measures section in the 2018 HSTT final rule. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) requires NMFS to issue, in conjunction with its authorization, binding—and enforceable—restrictions (in the form of regulations) setting forth how the activity must be conducted, thus ensuring the activity has the ‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’ on the affected species or stocks. In situations where mitigation is specifically needed to reach a negligible impact determination, section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) also provides a mechanism for ensuring compliance with the ‘‘negligible impact’’ requirement. Finally, 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.2 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 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 2 Outside of the military readiness context, mitigation may also be appropriate to ensure compliance with the ‘‘small numbers’’ language in MMPA sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D). PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48413 calls for minimizing impacts to affected species or stocks, we recognize that the reduction of impacts to those species or stocks accrues through the application of mitigation measures that limit impacts to individual animals. Accordingly, NMFS’ analysis focuses on measures that are designed to avoid or minimize impacts on individual marine mammals that are likely to increase the probability or severity of populationlevel effects. While direct evidence of impacts to species or stocks from a specified activity is rarely available, and additional study is still needed to understand how specific disturbance events affect the fitness of individuals of certain species, there have been improvements in understanding the process by which disturbance effects are translated to the population. With recent scientific advancements (both marine mammal energetic research and the development of energetic frameworks), the relative likelihood or degree of impacts on species or stocks may often be inferred given a detailed understanding of the activity, the environment, and the affected species or stocks—and the best available science has been used here. 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 could become available in the future and necessitate 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. E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48414 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 its habitat, the greater the weight that measure is given when considered in combination with practicability to determine the appropriateness of the mitigation measure, and vice versa. In the evaluation of specific measures, the details of the specified activity will necessarily inform each of the two primary factors discussed above (expected reduction of impacts and practicability), and will be carefully considered to determine the types of mitigation that are appropriate under the least practicable adverse impact standard. For more detail on how we apply these factors, see the discussion in the Mitigation Measures section of the 2018 HSTT final rule. NMFS fully reviewed the Navy’s specified activities and the mitigation measures for the 2018 HSTT rulemaking and determined that the mitigation measures would result in the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals. There is no change in either the activities or the mitigation measures for this rule. See the 2019 Navy application and the 2018 HSTT final rule for detailed information on the Navy’s mitigation measures. NMFS worked with the Navy in the development of the Navy’s initially proposed measures, which were informed by years of implementation and monitoring. A complete discussion of the Navy’s evaluation process used to develop, assess, and select mitigation measures, which was informed by input from NMFS, can be found in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ OEIS. The process described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ OEIS robustly supported NMFS’ independent evaluation of whether the mitigation measures would meet the least practicable adverse impact standard. The Navy has implemented the mitigation measures under the 2018 HSTT regulations and would be required to continue implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this rule for the full seven years it covers to avoid or reduce potential impacts from acoustic, explosive, and physical disturbance and ship strike stressors. In its 2019 application, the Navy proposes no changes to the mitigation measures in the 2018 HSTT final rule and there is no new information that affects NMFS’ assessment of the applicability or effectiveness of those measures over the new seven-year period. See the 2018 HSTT proposed rule and the 2018 HSTT final rule for our full assessment of these measures. In summary, 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 M/SI 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 will also implement multiple time/area restrictions (several of which were added in the 2018 HSTT final rule since the previous 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. Summaries of the Navy’s procedural mitigation measures and mitigation areas for the HSTT Study Area are provided in Tables 14 and 15. TABLE 14—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 degrees on either side of the firing line out to 70 yd. • 600 yd. • 2,100 yd. • 1,000 yd (large-caliber projectiles). • 600 yd (medium-caliber projectiles during surface-to-surface activities). • 200 yd (medium-caliber projectiles during air-to-surface activities). • 2,000 yd (21–500 lb. net explosive weight). • 900 yd (0.6–20 lb. net explosive weight). • 2,500 yd. • 2.5 nmi. • 2,100 yd (6–650 lb net explosive weight). • 600 yd (0.1–5 lb net explosive weight). • 1,000 yd (21–60 lb net explosive weight for positive control charges and charges using time-delay fuses). • 500 yd (0.1–20 lb net explosive weight for positive control charges). • 700 yd. Air Guns .............................................................. Pile Driving .......................................................... Weapons Firing Noise ......................................... Explosive Sonobuoys .......................................... Explosive Torpedoes ........................................... Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber Projectiles. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 48415 TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL MITIGATION—Continued Stressor or activity Mitigation zone sizes and other requirements 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 ........... • 200 yd. • • • • 500 200 250 200 yd (whales). yd (other marine mammals). yd (marine mammals). yd. • 900 yd. • 1,000 yd. Notes: lb: Pounds; nmi: Nautical miles; yd: Yards. TABLE 15—SUMMARY OF MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS Summary of 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.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. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Mitigation Conclusions NMFS has carefully evaluated the Navy’s proposed mitigation measures— many of which were developed with NMFS’ input during the previous phases of Navy training and testing authorizations and none of which have changed since our evaluation during the 2018 HSTT rulemaking—and considered a broad range of other measures (i.e., the measures considered but eliminated in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ OEIS, which reflect many of the comments that have arisen via NMFS or public input in past years) in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 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. There is no new information that affects our analysis from the 2018 HSTT rulemaking, all of which remains applicable and valid for our assessment of the appropriateness of the mitigation measures during the seven-year period of this rule. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s proposed measures (which are being implemented under the 2018 HSTT regulations), as well as other measures considered by the Navy and NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the Navy’s proposed mitigation measures (which are identical to those in the 2018 HSTT final rule) are appropriate means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and 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 2018 HSTT final rule includes an adaptive management E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48416 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 provision, which the Navy proposes to extend, which ensures that mitigation is regularly assessed and provides a mechanism to improve the mitigation, based on the factors above, through modification as appropriate. The proposed rule comment period provides the public an opportunity to submit recommendations, views, and/or concerns regarding the Navy’s activities and the proposed mitigation measures. While NMFS has preliminarily determined that the Navy’s proposed mitigation measures would effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, NMFS will consider all public comments to help inform our final decision. Consequently, the proposed mitigation measures may be refined, modified, removed, or added to prior to the issuance of the final rule based on public comments received, and where appropriate, further analysis of any additional mitigation measures. Proposed Monitoring Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that in order to authorize incidental take for an activity, NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present. In its 2019 application, the Navy proposes no changes to the monitoring described in the 2018 HSTT final rule. They would continue implementation of the robust Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program and Strategic Planning Process described in the 2018 HSTT final rule. The Navy’s monitoring strategy, currently required by the 2018 HSTT regulations, is well-designed to work across Navy ranges to help better understand the impacts of the Navy’s activities on marine mammals and their habitat by focusing on learning more about marine mammal occurrence in different areas and exposure to Navy stressors, marine mammal responses to different sound sources, and the consequences of those exposures and responses on marine mammal populations. Similarly, the proposed seven-year regulations would include identical adaptive management provisions and reporting requirements as the 2018 HSTT regulations. There is no new information that would indicate VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 that the monitoring measures put in place under the 2018 HSTT final rule would not remain applicable and appropriate for the seven-year period of this proposed rule. See the Monitoring section of the 2018 HSTT final rule for more details on the monitoring that would be required under this rule. In addition, please see the 2019 Navy application, which references Chapter 13 of the 2017 Navy application for full details on the monitoring and reporting proposed by the Navy. Adaptive Management The 2018 HSTT 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 seven-year regulations. The 2019 Navy application proposes no changes to the adaptive management component included in the 2018 HSTT final rule. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs. The results from monitoring reports and other studies may be viewed at https:// www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. Reporting In order to issue incidental take authorization for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring. Reports from individual monitoring events, results of analyses, publications, and periodic progress reports for specific monitoring projects will be posted to the Navy’s Marine Species Monitoring web portal: https:// www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. The 2019 Navy application proposes no changes to the reporting requirements. Except as discussed below, reporting requirements would remain identical to those described in the 2018 HSTT final rule, and there is no new information that would indicate that the reporting requirements put in place under the 2018 HSTT final rule would not remain applicable and appropriate for the seven-year period of this proposed rule. See the Reporting section of the 2018 HSTT final rule for more details on the reporting that would be required under this rule. In addition, the 2018 HSTT proposed and final rules unintentionally failed to include the requirement for the Navy to submit a final activity ‘‘close out’’ report at the end of the regulatory period. That oversight is being corrected through this rulemaking. This comprehensive training and testing activity report would provide the annual totals for each sound source bin with a comparison to the annual allowance and the sevenyear total for each sound source bin with a comparison to the seven-year allowance. Additionally, if there were any changes to the sound source allowance, this report would include a discussion of why the change was made and include analysis to support how the change did or did not result in a change in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and final rule determinations. Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 11 and 12), NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS’ implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, other ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, ambient noise levels, and specific consideration of take by Level A harassment or M/SI previously authorized for other NMFS activities). In the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals sections of this proposed rule and the 2018 HSTT final rule (where the activities, species and stocks, potential effects, and mitigation measures are the same as for this rule), we identified the subset of potential effects that would be expected to rise to the level of takes both annually and over the seven-year period covered by this rule, and then identified the number of each of those mortality takes that we believe could occur or the maximum number of harassment takes that are reasonably expected 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.). For this proposed rule we evaluated the likely impacts of the enumerated maximum number of VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 harassment takes that are proposed for authorization and reasonably expected to occur, in the context of the specific circumstances surrounding these predicted takes. We also assessed M/SI takes that have the potential to occur, as well as considering the traits and statuses of the affected species and stocks. Last, we collectively evaluated this information, as well as other more taxa-specific information and mitigation measure effectiveness, in group-specific assessments that support our negligible impact conclusions for each stock. The Navy proposes no changes to the nature or level of the specified activities or the boundaries of the HSTT Study Area, and therefore the training and testing activities (e.g., equipment and sources used, exercises conducted) are the same as those analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule. In addition, the mitigation, monitoring, and nearly all reporting measures are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule. As described above, there is no new information since the publication of the 2018 HSTT final rule regarding the impacts of the specified activities on marine mammals, the status and distribution of any of the affected marine mammal species or stocks, or the effectiveness of the mitigation and monitoring measures that would change our analyses, except for one species. For that one species— gray whales—we have considered the effects of the new UME on the west coast of North America along with the effects of the Navy’s activities in the negligible impact analysis. Harassment As described in the Estimated Takes of Marine Mammals section, the annual number of takes proposed for authorization and reasonably expected to occur by Level A harassment and Level B harassment (based on the maximum number of activities per 12month period) are identical to those presented in Tables 41 through 42 in the Take Requests section of the 2018 HSTT final rule. As such, the negligible impact analyses and determinations of the effects of the estimated Level A harassment and Level B harassment takes on annual rates of recruitment or survival for each species and stock are nearly identical to and substantively unchanged from those presented in the 2018 HSTT final rule. The primary difference is that the annual levels of take and the associated effects on reproduction or survival would occur for the seven-year period of the proposed rule instead of the five-year PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48417 period of the 2018 HSTT final rule, which would make no difference in effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. The other differences in the analyses include our consideration of the newly-declared gray whale UME and slightly modified explosive take estimates, neither of which, as described below, affect the results of the analyses or our determinations. For detailed discussion of the impacts that affected individuals may experience given the specific characteristics of the specified activities and required mitigation (e.g., from behavioral disruption, masking, and temporary or permanent threshold shift), along with the effects of the expected Level A harassment and Level B harassment take on reproduction and survival, see the applicable subsections in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 HSTT final rule (83 FR 66977–67018). Serious Injury or Mortality Based on the information and methods discussed in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section (which are identical to those used in the 2018 HSTT final rule), the number of potential mortalities due to ship strike proposed to be authorized over the seven year period of this rule is the same as those authorized in the 2018 HSTT final rule. As the potential mortalities are now spread over seven years rather than five, an annual average of 0.29 gray whales (Eastern North Pacific stock), fin whales (CA/OR/WA stock), and humpback whales (Central North Pacific stock) and an annual average of 0.14 blue whales (Eastern North Pacific stock), humpback whales (CA/OR/WA stock, Mexico DPS), and sperm whales (Hawaii stock) as described in Table 16 (i.e., one, or two, take(s) over seven years divided by seven to get the annual number) are expected to potentially occur and are proposed for authorization. As this annual number is less than that analyzed and authorized in the 2018 HSTT final rule, which was an annual average of 0.4 whales or 0.2 whales respectively for the same species and stocks, and with the exception of the new gray whale UME on the U.S. west coast no other relevant information about the status, abundance, or effects of M/SI on each species or stock has changed, the analysis of the effects of vessel strike mirrors that presented in the 2018 HSTT final rule. E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48418 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 16—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO MORTALITIES REQUESTED FOR SHIP STRIKE, 2018–2025 Species (stock) Fisheries interactions (Y/N); annual rate of M/SI from fisheries interactions * Vessel collisions (Y/N); annual rate of M/SI from vessel collision * ≥43.5 139 Y; ≥0.5 ............. Y, 9.6 ............... Y, 1.6 ............... Y, 0.8 ............... 81 801 37.5 662 0.14 ≥40.2 Y; ≥15.7 ........... Y, 22 ................ 16.7 10,103 0.29 26 Y; 9.9 ............... Y, 1.5 ............... 4,559 6 1,647 0.14 0.14 0.7 ≥19 Y, 0.7 ............... ≥0.96 ............... N ...................... Y, 18 ................ Stock abundance (Nbest) * Annual authorized take by serious injury or mortality 1 9,029 26,960 0.29 0.29 2,900 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) 5. Sperm whale (Hawaii stock) .. Blue whale (Eastern North Pacific Stock). Total annual M/SI * 2 PBR * Residual PBR–PBR minus annual M/SI 3 Stock trend * 4 Recent UME (Y/N); number and year (since 2007) N. Y, 170, 2019. ¥23.5 ↑ ...................... stable since 2003. ↑ ...................... 83 57 ↑ ...................... N. 13.9 2.3 13.2 ¥16.7 ? ...................... stable ............... N. Y; 3, 2007. N. * Presented in the 2018 final SARs. 1 This column represents the annual take by serious injury or mortality (M/SI) by vessel collision and was calculated by the number of mortalities for authorization divided by seven 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. 5 Some values for the Central North Pacific stock of humpback whales were unintentionally presented incorrectly in Table 69 of the 2018 HSTT final rule. The correct values are provided here. These transcription errors do not affect the analysis or conclusions in the 2018 HSTT final rule, as the correct values were used in the analysis presented in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section. 6 The stock abundance for the Hawaii stock of sperm whales was unintentionally presented incorrectly as 5,559 in the 2018 HSTT final rule and has been corrected here. This transcription error does not affect the analysis or conclusions reached in the 2018 HSTT final rule. explosives: 5 California sea lions and 8 short-beaked common dolphins over the seven-year period (therefore 0.71 mortalities annually for California sea lions and 1.14 mortalities annually for short-beaked common dolphin), as described in Table 17. As this annual number is less than that analyzed and authorized in the 2018 HSTT final rule, which was an annual average of 0.8 The Navy has also requested a small number of takes by M/SI from explosives. To calculate the annual average of mortalities for explosives in Table 17 we used the same method as described for vessel strikes. The annual average is the total number of takes over seven years divided by seven. Specifically, NMFS is proposing to authorize the following M/SI takes from California sea lions and 1.2 short-beaked common dolphins, and no other relevant information about the status, abundance, or effects of mortality on each species or stock has changed, the analysis of the effects of explosives mirrors that presented in the 2018 HSTT final rule. TABLE 17—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO MORTALITIES FROM EXPLOSIVES, 2018–2025 Species (stock) khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 California sea lion (U.S. stock). Short-beaked common dolphin (CA/OR/WA stock). Stock abundance (Nbest) * Annual authorized take by serious injury or mortality 1 257,606 0.71 969,861 1.14 Fisheries interactions (Y/N); annual rate of M/SI from fisheries interactions * PBR * 319.4 Y;197 ............... ≥40 Y; ≥40 .............. Total annual M/SI * 2 SWFSC authorized take (annual) 3 Residual PBR— PBR minus annual M/ SI and SWFSC 4 14,011 ............. 6.6 13,685 ↑ ...................... Y; 2013. 8,393 ............... 2.8 8,350.2 ? ...................... N. Stock trend * 5 UME (Y/N); number and year * Presented in the 2018 final SARs. 1 This column represents the annual take by serious injury or mortality (M/SI) during explosive detonations and was calculated by the number of mortalities planned for authorization divided by seven 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 (322). 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 (319.4) 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. See the Serious Injury or Mortality subsection in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 HSTT final rule (83 FR 66985–66993) for detailed discussions of the impacts of M/SI, including a description of how the agency uses the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PBR metric and other factors to inform our analysis, and an analysis of the impacts on each species and stock for which M/SI is proposed for authorization, including the relationship of potential mortality for PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 each species to the insignificance threshold and residual PBR. Stocks With M/SI Below the Insignificance Threshold As noted in the Serious Injury or Mortality subsection of the Negligible E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Impact Analysis and Determination section in the 2018 HSTT final rule, 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 16 and 17, the following species or stocks have potential or estimated M/SI from ship strike and explosive takes, respectively, and proposed for authorization below their insignificance threshold: Fin whale (CA/OR/WA stock), gray whale (Eastern 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 proposed authorized M/SI of California sea lions (U.S. stock) and gray whales (Eastern North Pacific stock) are below the insignificance threshold, because of the recent UMEs, we further address how the proposed authorized M/SI and the UME inform the negligible impact determination immediately below. For the other four stocks with proposed authorized M/SI below the insignificance threshold, there are no other known factors, information, or unusual circumstances that indicate anticipated M/SI below the insignificance threshold could have adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival and they are not discussed further. For the remaining 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 proposed for authorization) lethal take of California sea lions is well below the insignificance threshold (0.71 as compared to a residual PBR of 13,686) and NMFS classifies the stock as ‘‘increasing’’ in the 2018 Final SARs. Nonetheless, we consider here how the 2013-present California Sea Lion UME informs our negligible impact determination. This UME was confined 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 UME VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Working Group to discuss closure by the summer of 2019 (Deb Fauquier, pers. comm.). NMFS’ findings to date indicate that a change in the availability of sea lion prey, especially anchovy and 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 were 1,000–3,000 more annually than they were 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 during the period of this proposed rule, 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 the mortality proposed for authorization on the stock. Gray Whales (Eastern North Pacific Stock) Since January 2019, gray whale strandings along the west coast of North America have been significantly higher than the previous 18-year averages. Preliminary findings from necropsies have shown evidence of emaciation. The seasonal pattern of elevated strandings in the spring and summer months is similar to that of the previous gray whale UME in 1999–2000. Current total monthly strandings are slightly higher than 1999 and lower than 2000. If strandings continue to follow a similar pattern, we would anticipate a decrease in strandings in late summer PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48419 and fall. However, 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 and the insignificance threshold. Because of the abundance, population trend (increasing, despite the UME in 1999–2000), and residual PBR (662) of this stock, this UME is not expected to have impacts on the population rate that, in combination with the effects of mortality proposed for authorization, would affect annual rates of recruitment or survival. Stocks With M/SI Above the Insignificance Threshold Humpback Whale (CA/OR/WA Stock, Mexico DPS) For this stock, PBR is currently set at 16.7 and the total annual M/SI is estimated at greater than or equal to 40.2, yielding a residual PBR of ¥23.5. NMFS proposes to authorize one M/SI over the seven-year duration of the rule (which is 0.14 annually for the purposes of comparing to PBR and considering other effects on annual rates of recruitment and survival), which means that residual PBR is exceeded by 23.64. In the 2018 HSTT final rule the PBR was incorrectly reported as 33.4 and the total annual M/SI was incorrectly reported as greater than or equal to 40.76 (yielding a residual PBR of ¥7.36). These transcription errors do not affect the fundamental analysis or conclusion reached in the 2018 HSTT final rule, however, and we have corrected these values here using data from the 2018 Final SARs. In the commercial fisheries setting for ESA-listed marine mammals (which is similar to the non-fisheries 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 here, the proposed authorized lethal take (0.14 annually) of humpback whales from the CA/OR/WA stock is significantly less than 10 percent of PBR (in fact less than E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 48420 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 1 percent of 16.7) and there are management measures in place to address M/SI from activities other than those the Navy is conducting (as discussed 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 mortality proposed for authorization is 0.14 (i.e., less than 1.45), which means that the mortality proposed to be authorized in this rule for HSTT activities would not delay the time to recovery by more than 1 percent. As described in the 2018 HSTT final rule, 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 M/SI to adversely affect the species or stock via impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival, which is discussed further below in the species- and stock-specific section. In June 2019, NMFS published 2018 final SARs in which PBR is reported as 16.7 with the predicted average annual mortality greater than or equal to 38.6 (including 22 estimated from vessel collisions and greater than 14.1 observed fisheries interactions). While the observed M/SI from vessel strikes remains low at 2.1, the 2018 draft and final SARs rely 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, and 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 this stock from vessel strikes. The authors (Rockwood et al., 2017) do not suggest that ship strike suddenly increased to 22. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 has been similarly exceeded by a notable amount, and yet the CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales is considered stable nevertheless. The CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales experienced a steady increase 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 earlier, we also take into consideration management measures in place to address M/SI 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 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (PCTRP) to reduce the risk of M/SI via fisheries interactions. In 1997, NMFS published final regulations formalizing the requirements of the PCTRP, including 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 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/whaleentanglement-working-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: • Development of Fact Sheets and Best Practices for specific Fisheries issues (e.g., California Dungeness Crab Fishing BMPs and the 2018–2019 Best Fishing Practices Guide); • 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 • 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 March 2019 Working Group Report reports on the status of the fishery closure, progress and continued development of the RAMP (though there is a separate RAMP report), discussed the role of the Working Group (development of a new Charter) and indicated next steps. E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules Importantly, in early 2019, as a result of a litigation settlement agreement, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) closed the Dungeness crab fishery three months early for the year, which is expected to reduce the number of likely entanglements. The agreement also limits the fishery duration over the next couple of years and has different triggers to reduce or close it further. Further, pursuant to the settlement, CDFW is required to apply for a Section 10 Incidental Take Permit under the ESA to address protected species interactions with fishing gear and crab fishing gear (pots), and they have agreed to do so by May 2020. Any request for such a 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. 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. In this case, 0.14 M/SI annually means the potential for one mortality in one of the seven years and zero mortalities in six of those seven years. Therefore, the Navy would not be contributing to the total human-caused mortality at all in six of the seven, or VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 85.7 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 six of the seven 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, we can 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 absence of M/SI in six of the years and due to the fact that a single strike could be of 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 seven-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 proposed) mortality is well below 10 percent (0.8 percent) of PBR, and management actions are in place to minimize both fisheries interactions and ship strike from other vessel activity in 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 seven 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 proposed mortality of 0.14 would not PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48421 delay the time to recovery by more than 1 percent, we do not expect the potential 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 human-caused 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 proposed authorized takes would have a negligible impact on the species and stock. Therefore this information will be considered in combination with our assessment of the impacts of harassment takes later in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses 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. This is unchanged since the 2018 HSTT final rule. NMFS proposes to authorize one M/SI for the Navy over the seven-year duration of the rule (indicated as 0.14 annually for the purposes of comparing to PBR and evaluating overall effects on annual rates of recruitment and survival), which means that residual PBR is exceeded by 16.84. 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 proposed authorized take from a specified activity to be negligible even if total human-caused mortality exceeds PBR, if the proposed 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 (0.14 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 M/SI from activities other than those the Navy is conducting (as discussed below). Perhaps more importantly, the population is considered ‘‘stable’’ and, specifically, the available data suggests that the current number of ship strikes E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 48422 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 seven years not creating the likelihood of adverse impact. Immediately below, we explain the information that supports our finding that the Navy’s proposed authorized M/ SI 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 in the stock-specific conclusion sections. As discussed in the 2018 HSTT final rule, the 2018 draft SAR and the recently published 2018 final SAR rely 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, and 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. 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 human-caused 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 recently. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 similarly exceeded by a notable amount, and yet the Eastern North Pacific stock of blue whales remains stable nevertheless. NMFS’ 2018 final 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 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. In fact, we note that this population has maintained this status throughout the years that the Navy has consistently tested and trained at similar levels (with similar vessel traffic) in areas that overlap with blue whale occurrence, which would be another indicator of population stability. 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 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 M/SI 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 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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. In this case, 0.14 M/SI means one mortality in one of the seven years and zero mortalities in six of those seven years. Therefore, the Navy would not be contributing to the total human-caused mortality at all in six of the seven, or 85.7 percent, of the years covered by this rule. That means that even if a blue whale were to be struck, in six of the seven years there could be no effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival from Navy-caused M/SI. Additionally, as with humpback whales discussed previously, the loss of a male would have far less, if any, effect on population rates and absent any information suggesting that one sex is more likely to be struck than another, we can 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 absence of M/SI in six of the seven years and the fact that the single strike could be a male. Lastly, as with the CA/OR/ WA stock of humpback whales above, 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 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 is especially important given the minor difference between zero and one across the seven-year period covered by this rule, which is the smallest distinction possible when considering mortality. As noted above, 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 indicates 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 proposed for authorization) M/SI is below 10 percent of PBR and management actions are in place to minimize ship strike from other vessel activity in 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 affect Eastern North Pacific blue whales through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Nonetheless, the fact that total human-caused mortality exceeds PBR necessitates close attention to the remainder of the impacts (i.e., harassment) on the Eastern North 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 proposed harassment takes in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section that follows. Group and Species-Specific Analyses In addition to broader analyses of the impacts of the Navy’s activities on mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds, the 2018 HSTT final rule contained detailed analyses of the effects of the Navy’s activities in the HSTT Study Area on each affected species and stock. All of that information and analyses remain applicable and valid for our analyses of the effects of the same Navy activities on the same species and stocks for the seven-year period of this proposed rule. See the Group and Species-Specific Analyses subsection in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 HSTT final rule (83 FR 66993–67018). In addition, no new information has been VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 received since the publication of the 2018 HSTT final rule that significantly changes the analyses on the effects of the Navy’s activities on each species and stock presented in the 2018 HSTT final rule (the potential impact of the new gray whale UME and the corrected numbers from the humpback whale SARs were discussed earlier in the rule). In the discussions below, 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 disruption) for species or stocks to their associated abundance estimates to evaluate the magnitude of impacts across the species or 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 times 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) 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 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48423 example, also be subject to behavioral disturbance at the same time. As described in the Harassment subsection of the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 HSTT final rule, the degree of PTS, and the degree and duration of TTS, 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 subject to behavioral disturbance would result in impacts to reproduction or survival. Alternately, we recognize that if an individual is subjected to behavioral disturbance 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 summaries). Accordingly, in analyzing the number of takes and the likelihood of repeated and sequential takes (which could result in reproductive impacts), we consider the total takes, not just the Level B harassment takes by behavioral disrupion, so that individuals potentially exposed to both threshold shift and behavioral disruption are appropriately considered. We note that the same reasoning applies with the potential addition of behavioral disruption 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. Having considered all of the information and analyses previously presented in the 2018 HSTT final rule, including the Group and SpeciesSpecific Analyses discussions organized by the different groups and species, below we present tables showing instances of total take as a percentage of stock abundance for each group, updated with the new explosion and vessel strike calculations. We then summarize the information for each species or stock, considering the analysis from the 2018 HSTT final rule and any new analysis. The analyses below in some cases address species collectively if they occupy the same functional hearing group (i.e., low, mid, and high-frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds in water), share similar life history strategies, and/or are known to behaviorally respond similarly to E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Mysticetes In Tables 18 and 19 below for mysticetes, we indicate the total annual mortality, Level A harassment, and Level B harassment, and a number indicating the instances of total take as a percentage of abundance. Tables 18 and 19 have been updated from Tables 71 and 72 in the 2018 HSTT final rule as appropriate with the 2018 final SARs PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 and updated information on mortality, as discussed above. For additional information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact analysis, see the Mysticetes discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the 2018 HSTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to this proposed rule unless specifically noted. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 EP13SE19.001</GPH> 48424 BILLING CODE 3510–22–C Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our preliminary determination that the Navy’s activities would not adversely affect any species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival for any of the affected mysticete species and stocks. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 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. NMFS proposes to authorize one mortality over the seven years covered by this rule, or 0.14 mortality annually. With the addition of this 0.14 annual mortality, residual PBR is exceeded, resulting in the total human-caused mortality exceeding PBR VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 by 16.84. However, as described in more detail in the Serious Injury or Mortality section above, 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 to reduce mortality from other sources, and the incremental addition of a single mortality over the course of the seven-year Navy rule is not expected to, alone, lead to adverse impacts on the stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. In addition, even with the additional two years of activities under this rule, no additional M/SI is estimated for this stock, leading to a slight decrease (from 0.2 to 0.14 annually) in annual mortality from the 2018 HSTT final rule. PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48425 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 19). 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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, E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 EP13SE19.002</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 48426 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 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 in the 2018 HSTT final rule 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 (as described in the 2018 HSTT final rule) 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 takes by behavioral disruption. Altogether, only a small portion of the stock is anticipated to be 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 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 preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would 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 proposed to be 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 19). 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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, 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 lowfrequency 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 anticipated to be impacted and any individual Bryde’s whale is likely to be disturbed at a low-moderate level, with few, if 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 preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would 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 proposes to authorize two mortalities over the seven years covered by this rule, or 0.29 mortality annually. The addition of this 0.29 annual mortality still leaves the total human-caused mortality well under residual PBR. PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 19). 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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 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, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and mostly not in a frequency band that would be expected to interfere with fin whale communication or other important low-frequency cues—and that the associated lost opportunities and capabilities are not at a level that would impact reproduction or survival. For similar reasons (as described in the 2018 HSTT final rule) 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 anticipated to be 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 proposed authorized mortality expected to adversely affect E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 this stock through impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, we have preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would 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 DPSs). NMFS proposes to authorize one mortality over the seven years covered by this rule, or 0.14 mortality annually (Mexico DPS only). With the addition of this 0.14 annual mortality, the total human-caused mortality exceeds PBR by 23.64. However, as described in more detail in the Serious Injury or Mortality section, 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, which is 16.7. 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 the Serious Injury or Mortality section, the authorized mortality of 0.14 will not delay the time to recovery by more than 1 percent. Given these factors, the incremental addition of a single mortality over the course of the sevenyear 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 69 percent, respectively (Table 19). 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 (perhaps up to 16 days within a year) of some VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 subset of individuals that spend extended time within the SOCAL complex. Regarding the severity of those individual Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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, 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 lowfrequency cues—and that the associated lost opportunities and capabilities are not at a level that would impact reproduction or survival. For similar reasons (as described in the 2018 HSTT final rule) 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 anticipated to be 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 result in impacts on the reproduction or survival of any individuals and, therefore, when combined with the proposed 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 preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would 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 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48427 mortality from vessel strike or tissue damage from explosive exposure is anticipated or proposed for authorization 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 19). 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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, 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 lowfrequency cues—and that the associated lost opportunities and capabilities are not at a level that would impact reproduction or survival. For similar reasons (as described in the 2018 HSTT final rule) 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 individual. Altogether, only a portion of the stock is anticipated to be impacted and any individual minke whale is likely to be disturbed at a low-moderate 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 preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48428 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would 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 proposed for authorization. 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 2,633 and 15 percent, respectively (Table 19), 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. 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 would be 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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-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, they are expected to be lowlevel, 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Altogether, only a small portion of the stock is anticipated to be impacted and any individual sei whale is likely to be disturbed at a low-moderate 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 preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would 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 is proposing to authorize two mortalities over the seven years covered by this rule, or 0.29 mortality annually. The addition of this 0.29 annual mortality still leaves the total human-caused mortality well under the insignificance threshold of residual PBR (663). On May 31, 2019, NMFS declared the unusual spike in strandings of gray whales along the west coast of North America since January 1, 2019 an UME. As of June 13, 2019, 155 gray whales have stranded along the west coast of North America (in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico). Including these mortalities in the calculated residual PBR still leaves the addition of 0.29 annual mortality well under the insignificance threshold of residual PBR (508 including known deaths due to the UME). 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 17 percent, respectively (Table 19). This information suggests that only some small portion of individuals in the stock are likely impacted (less than 17 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 4,678 total takes, we believe that it is more likely that a larger number of individuals would be taken one to a few times, while a small number staying in an area PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 to feed for several days may be taken on 5–10 days. Regarding the severity of those individual Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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, 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 lowfrequency 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, while we have considered the impacts of the gray whale UME, 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 anticipated to be impacted and any individual gray whale is likely to be disturbed at a lowmoderate level, with likely many animals exposed only once or twice and a subset potentially disturbed across 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 proposed authorized mortality of two whales over the seven year period expected to adversely affect this stock through impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, we have preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would have a negligible impact on the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales. E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules Gray Whale (Western North Pacific Stock) The Western North Pacific stock of gray whales is reported as increasing in the 2018 final SAR, but is listed as endangered under the ESA. No mortality or Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for authorization. This stock is expected to incur the very small number of 6 Level B harassment takes (2 behavioral disruption and 4 TTS) to a stock with a SAR-estimated abundance of 290 (Table 19). These takes will likely accrue to different individuals, the behavioral disturbances will be of a lowmoderate 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 preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would have a negligible impact on the Western North Pacific stock of gray whales. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Humpback Whale (Central North Pacific Stock) The 2018 final SAR identifies this stock as ‘‘increasing’’ and the DPS is not listed under the ESA. No Level A harassment by tissue damage is proposed for authorization. NMFS proposes to authorize two mortalities over the seven years covered by this rule, or 0.29 mortalities annually. The addition of this 0.29 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 180 and 161 percent (Table 18). 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 evoke a severe response). Additionally, as noted above, there are two mitigation areas implemented by the Navy that span a large area of the 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 severity of TTS takes, 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 lowfrequency 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 anticipated to be impacted and any individual humpback whale is likely to be disturbed at a low-moderate level, with the taken individuals likely exposed between one to several days per year, with little likelihood of take 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 authorized mortality expected to adversely affect this stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, we have preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would 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 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48429 listed under the ESA. No mortality or Level A harassment by tissue damage is anticipated or proposed for authorization 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 percent (Table 18). 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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, 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 (as described in the 2018 HSTT final rule) 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 anticipated to be 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 have impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, we have preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would have a negligible impact on these stocks. Odontocetes Sperm Whales, Dwarf Sperm Whales, and Pygmy Sperm Whales In Tables 20 and 21 below for sperm whale, dwarf sperm whales, and pygmy sperm whales, we indicate the total annual mortality, Level A and Level B E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48430 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules the Hawaii stock of sperm whales, as discussed above. For additional information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact analysis, see the Odontocetes discussion as well as the Sperm Whales, Dwarf Sperm Whales, harassment, and a number indicating the instances of total take as a percentage of abundance. Tables 20 and 21 are unchanged from Tables 73 and 74 in the 2018 HSTT final rule, except for updated information on mortality for and Pygmy Sperm Whales discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the 2018 HSTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to this proposed rule unless specifically noted. Table 20. Annual estimated takes by Level B harassment, Level A harassment, and mortality for sperm whales, dwarf sperm whales, and pygmy sperm whales in the HRC portion of the HSTT Study Area and number indicating the instances of total take as a percentage of stock abundance. h'utan.::es of total take as pert-.nt of To!aiToko• abundam:.• Takes {within Total Navy abundance i1'1lside NAVY EU) and outsld• EfZ Note: For the HI take estimates, we compare predicted takes to abundance estimates generated from the same underlying density estimates (as described in the Estimated Take ofMarineMammals section of the 2018 HSTT final rule), both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ. Because the portion of the Navy's study 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. Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing activities. The annual mortality of 0.14 is the result of no more than one mortality over the course of seven years from vessel strikes as described above in the Estimated Take ofMarine Mammals section. Table 21. Annual estimated takes by Level B harassment, Level A harassment, and mortality for sperm whales, dwarf sperm whales, and pygmy sperm whales in the SOCAL portion of the HSTT Study Area and number indicating the instances of total take as a percentage of stock abundance. lnstaneos of in<lie•tod typ .. of lneidontoltako ~"' cllsturbonze) level S Harusmtfnt Speties: Kogi<' wh,,les '\~>€!mwh~le Stock :.A/OR/W.O. :.A/Of!./WA S-ehavio:ral Disturbance 2,779 2..437 TotaiTakos tns.tances of total take a® pe~'ll!nt of abundane~ Al:m!1thtn.ce levei A Harassment TIS (may ol•o inetude "'" Morta~ity PTS disturbance) 6,353 56 Damage Ar••l 38 0 0 0 0 0 Tololtokeu Tot:af Takes (entire Study abundance Action Are-a 9,170 2,493 NMI'SSA!tS abundance percantage of total Navy abundance in Action Area 757 4,1!1 273 1.997 1.211 913 Total take ;a$ pen::enta.ge: of tota! SAR abuntbtnee 223 125 Note: For the SOCAL take estimates, because of the manner in which the Navy study area overlaps the ranges of many MMPA stocks (i.e., a stock may range far north to Washington state and beyond and abundance may only be predicted within the U.S. EEZ, while the Navy study area is limited to Southern California and northern Mexico, but extends beyond the U.S. EEZ), we compare predicted takes to both the abundance estimates for the study area, as well as the SARs (as described in the Estimated Take ofMarineMammals section ofthe 2018 HSTT final mle). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Sperm Whales, Dwarf Sperm Whales, and Pygmy Sperm Whales (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 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 proposed for authorization for any of these three stocks. E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 EP13SE19.004</GPH> Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our preliminary determination that the Navy’s activities would not adversely affect any species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival for any of the affected species and stocks addressed in this section. EP13SE19.003</GPH> khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment ±rom training and testing activities. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 are 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 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 21). 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, the duration of any exposure is expected to be between VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 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). 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, 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 lowfrequency 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 sperm 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 discussed in the 2018 HSTT final rule, however, foregone reproduction (especially for one year, which is the maximum predicted because the small number anticipated in PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48431 any one year makes the probability that any individual would be impacted in this way twice in seven 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. We also 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 preliminarily determined that the authorized take proposed would 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 proposed authorization. NMFS proposes to authorize one mortality over the seven years covered by this rule, which is 0.14 mortalities annually. The addition of this 0.14 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 20). This information and the sperm whale stock range suggest that likely only a smaller portion of the stock would be impacted, over one to several days per year, with little likelihood of take across sequential days. Regarding the severity of those individual Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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, 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 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48432 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 anticipated 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 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 preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would have a negligible impact on the Hawaii stock of sperm whales. Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whales (Hawaii Stocks) khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 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 anticipated or proposed for authorization. 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 20). 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 a subset of individuals may be taken over one to perhaps five days per year, with little likelihood of take across sequential days. Regarding the severity of those individual Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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 discussed 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, 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 lowfrequency 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, 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 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 more instances of Level B harassment by behavioral disruption. 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. 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 preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the expected and authorized take proposed would have a negligible impact on the Hawaii stocks of pygmy and dwarf sperm whales. Beaked Whales In Tables 22 and 23 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. Tables 22 and 23 are unchanged from Tables 75 and 76 in the 2018 HSTT final rule. For additional information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact analysis, see the Odontocetes discussion as well as the Beaked Whales discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the 2018 HSTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to this proposed rule unless specifically noted. E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 proposed for authorization 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 22). 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 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 year, with little likelihood of much take across sequential days. Regarding the severity of those individual Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 EP13SE19.006</GPH> Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our determination that the Navy’s activities would not adversely affect any species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival for any of the affected species or stocks addressed in this section. 48433 EP13SE19.005</GPH> khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 48434 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 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, 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 lowfrequency 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 anticipated to be 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 have impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, we have preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would 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 is expected or proposed for authorization for any of these three stocks and only two takes by Level A harassment (PTS) are proposed for authorization. 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. 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 Hubbs’ beaked whale is most commonly VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 2,762, 2,212, and 6,960 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 23). 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, and potentially more for Cuvier’s)— potentially over a fair number of sequential days, especially where individuals spend extensive time in the SOCAL Range. Note that we predict lower days of repeated exposure for these stocks than their percentages might have suggested because of the number of overall takes—i.e., using the higher percentage would suggest that an unlikely portion of the takes are taken up by a small portion of the stock incurring a very large number of repeat takes, with little room for take resulting from few or moderate numbers of repeats, which is unlikely. 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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). In addition, as noted, some of these takes could occur on a fair number of sequential days for these stocks. The severity of TTS takes is expected to be low-level, of short duration, and mostly not in a frequency band that PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 would be expected to interfere significantly with conspecific communication, echolocation, or other important low-frequency cues. Therefore, the associated lost opportunities and capabilities would not be expected to impact reproduction or survival. For similar reasons (as described in the 2018 HSTT final rule) 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 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 seven 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, 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 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 were higher than indicated by NMFS’ broad-scale visual surveys for the U.S. West Coast (Debich et al., 2015a; Debich 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 seven years apart (Falcone and Schorr, 2014). The documented residency by VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 preliminarily determined that the authorized take proposed would 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 In Tables 24 and 25 below for dolphins and small whales, we indicate PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48435 the total annual mortality, Level A and Level B harassment, and a number indicating the instances of total take as a percentage of abundance. Tables 24 and 25 are updated from Tables 77 and 78 in the 2018 HSTT final rule as appropriate with the 2018 final SARs and with updated information on mortality, as discussed above. For additional information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact analysis, see the Odontocetes discussion as well as the Small Whales and Dolphins discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the 2018 HSTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to this proposed rule unless specifically noted. E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48436 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules Table 24. Annual estimated takes by Level B harassment, Level A harassment, and mortality for dolphins and small whales in the HRC portion of the HSTT Study Area and number indicating the instances of total take as a percentage of stock abundance. Note: For the HI take estimates, we compare predicted takes to abundance estimates generated from the same underlying density estimates (as described in the Estimated Take ofMarine Mammals section of the 2018 HSTT final rule), both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ. Because the portion of the Navy's study 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 EP13SE19.007</GPH> khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing activities. Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our determination that the Navy’s activities would not adversely affect any species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival for any of the affected species or stocks addressed in this section. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Long-Beaked Common Dolphin (California Stock), Northern Right Whale Dolphin (CA/OR/WA Stock), and Short-Beaked 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. Eight mortalities or serious injuries of shortbeaked common dolphins are proposed for authorization over the seven-year rule, or 1.14 M/SI annually. The addition of this 1.14 annual mortality VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 still leaves the total human-caused mortality well under the insignificance threshold for residual PBR. The three stocks are expected to accrue 2, 1, and 10 Level A harassment takes from tissue damage resulting from exposure to explosives, respectively. As described in detail in the 2018 HSTT final rule, 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 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48437 reproduction has less of an impact on population rates than death (especially for only one year in seven, 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 seven five years very low), 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 2,411, 1,273, and 571 percent (respective to the stocks listed in the heading) and 244, 369, and 154 percent (respective to the stocks listed in the heading) (Table 25). Given the range of these stocks, this information suggests E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 EP13SE19.008</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 48438 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules that likely some portion (but not all or even the majority) of the individuals in the Northern right whale dolphin and short-beaked 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 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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 the percentage is not that high). 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, 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 in the 2018 HSTT final rule, 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 above, 1.14 annual lethal takes of short-beaked common dolphins are proposed for authorization, all three stocks may experience a very small VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 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 seven, 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 seven years very low) 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 8,353, 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 preliminarily determined that the authorized take proposed would 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 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 ‘‘stable.’’ No M/SI or Level A harassment via tissue damage from exposure to explosives is expected or proposed for authorization 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 to 2,675 percent and 36 to 2,881 percent, respectively (Table 25). 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 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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. The severity of TTS takes is expected to be low-level, of short duration, and mostly not in a frequency band that E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 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 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 seven, 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 seven five 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 the stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival, especially given the residual PBRs of the CA/OR/WA stocks of bottlenose dolphins, Pacific white-sided dolphins, and Risso’s dolphins (9.4, 183, and 84, respectively). For these reasons, in consideration of all of the effects of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Navy’s activities combined, we have preliminarily determined that the authorized take proposed would have a negligible impact on these stocks of dolphins. All HRC Dolphin Stocks With the exception of the Main Hawaiian Island stock of false killer whales (listed as endangered under the ESA, with the MMPA stock identified as ‘‘decreasing’’), none of these stocks are listed under the ESA and their stock statuses are considered ‘‘unknown.’’ No M/SI or Level A harassment via tissue damage from exposure to explosives is expected or proposed for authorization 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 46 to 1,169 percent and 41 to 2,130 percent, respectively (Table 24). Given the ranges of these stocks (many of them are small, resident, islandassociated stocks), this information suggests that a fairly large portion of the individuals of many of these stocks will be taken, but that most individuals will only be impacted across a smaller to moderate number of days within the year (1–15), and with no more than several potentially sequential days, although two stocks (the Oahu stocks of bottlenose dolphin and pantropical spotted dolphin) have a slightly higher percentage, suggesting they could be taken up to 23 days within a year, with perhaps a few more of those days being sequential. We note that although the percentage is higher for the tropical stock of pygmy killer whale within the U.S. EEZ (2,130), given (1) the low overall number of takes (760) and (2) the fact that the small within-U.S. EEZ abundance is not a static set of individuals, but rather individuals moving in and out of the U.S. EEZ making it more appropriate to use the percentage comparison for the total takes versus total abundance—it is highly unlikely that any individuals would be taken across the number of days the within-U.S. EEZ percentage suggests (42). 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48439 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 Oahu stocks of bottlenose dolphin and pantropical spotted dolphins. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and mostly not in a frequency band that would be expected to interfere significantly with conspecific communication, echolocation, or other important lowfrequency cues. 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, they 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 accrued to individuals that are also taken by behavioral harassment at the same time. Altogether, most of these stocks (all but the Oahu stocks of bottlenose dolphin and pantropical spotted dolphins) will likely be taken (at a low to occasionally moderate level) over several days a year, with some smaller portion of the stock potentially taken on a more moderate number of days across the year (perhaps up to 15 days for Fraser’s dolphin, though others notably less), some of which could be across a few sequential days, which is not expected to affect the reproductive success or survival of individuals. For the Oahu stocks of bottlenose dolphin and pantropical spotted dolphins, some subset of individuals could be taken up to 23 days in a year, with some small number being taken across several sequential days, such 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 seven years very low) has far less of an impact E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules on population rates than mortality and a small number of instances of foregone reproduction would not be expected to adversely affect these two stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, we have preliminarily determined that the authorized take proposed would have a negligible impact on all of the stocks of dolphins found in the vicinity of the HRC. In Table 26 below for porpoises, we indicate the total annual mortality, Level A and Level B harassment, and a number indicating the instances of total take as a percentage of abundance. Table 26 is unchanged from Table 79 in the 2018 HSTT final rule. For additional information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact analysis, see the Odontocetes discussion as well as the Dall’s Porpoise discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the 2018 HTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to this proposed rule unless specifically noted. Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our determination that the Navy’s activities would not adversely affect Dall’s porpoises through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Dall’s porpoise is not listed under the ESA and the stock status is considered ‘‘unknown.’’ No M/SI or Level A harassment via tissue damage from exposure to explosives is expected or proposed for authorization for this stock. Most Level B harassments to Dall’s porpoise from hull-mounted sonar (MF1) in the HSTT Study Area would result from received levels between 154 and 166 dB SPL (85 percent). While harbor porpoises have been observed to be especially sensitive to human activity, the same types of responses have not been observed in Dall’s porpoises. Dall’s porpoises are typically notably longer than, and weigh more than twice as much as, harbor porpoises, making them generally less likely to be preyed upon and likely differentiating their behavioral repertoire somewhat from harbor porpoises. Further, they are typically seen in large groups and feeding aggregations, or exhibiting bow-riding behaviors, which is very different from the group dynamics observed in the more typically solitary, cryptic harbor porpoises, which are not often seen bow-riding. For these reasons, Dall’s porpoises are not treated as especially sensitive species (as compared to harbor porpoises which have a lower threshold for Level B harassment by behavioral disruption and more distant cutoff) but, rather, are analyzed similarly to other odontocetes. Therefore, the majority of Level B harassment takes are expected to be in the form of milder responses compared to higher level exposures. As discussed more fully in the 2018 HSTT final rule, we anticipate more severe effects from takes when animals are exposed to higher received levels. 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 2,170 and 173 percent, respectively (Table 26). Given the range of this stock (up the U.S. West Coast through Washington and sometimes beyond the U.S. EEZ), this information suggests that some smaller portion of the individuals of this stock will be taken, and that some subset of individuals within the stock will be taken repeatedly within the year (perhaps up to 42 days)—potentially over a fair number of sequential days, especially where individuals spend extensive time in 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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 this stock. 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. Therefore, the associated lost opportunities and capabilities would not be expected to impact reproduction or survival. For these same reasons (low level and the likely frequency band), while a small permanent loss of hearing sensitivity may include some degree of VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Dall’s Porpoise PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 EP13SE19.009</GPH> khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 48440 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 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. Similarly, we acknowledge the potential for this to occur to a few individuals out of the 209 total that might incur a higher degree of PTS. As noted previously, however, foregone reproduction (especially for only one year in seven, 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 seven five years very low) has far less of an impact on population rates than mortality. Further, the small number of instances of foregone reproduction that could potentially result from PTS and/ or the few repeated, more severe Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption would not be expected to adversely affect the stock through effects PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 on annual rates of recruitment or survival, especially given the status of the species (not endangered or threatened; minimum population of 25,170 just within the U.S. EEZ) and residual PBR of Dall’s porpoise (171.4). For these reasons, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, we have preliminarily determined that the authorized take proposed would have a negligible impact on Dall’s porpoise. Pinnipeds In Tables 27 and 28 below for pinnipeds, we indicate the total annual mortality, Level A and Level B harassment, and a number indicating the instances of total take as a percentage of abundance. Tables 27 and 28 have been updated from Tables 80 and 81 in the 2018 HSTT final rule, as appropriate, with the 2018 final SARs and updated information on mortality, as discussed above. For additional information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact analysis, see the Pinnipeds discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the 2018 HSTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to this proposed rule unless specifically noted. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 EP13SE19.010</GPH> khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 energetic costs for compensating or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection capabilities, the estimated 209 Level A harassment takes by PTS for Dall’s porpoise would be unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities to a degree that would interfere with reproductive success or survival for most individuals. Because of the high number of PTS takes, however, we acknowledge that a few animals could potentially incur permanent hearing loss of a higher degree that could potentially interfere with their successful reproduction and growth. Given the status of the stock, even if this occurred, it would not adversely impact rates of recruitment or survival. Altogether, a portion of this stock will likely be taken (at a low to occasionally moderate level) over several days a year, and some smaller portion of the stock is expected to be taken on a relatively moderate to high number of days across the year, some of which could be sequential days. Though the majority of impacts are expected to be of a lower to sometimes moderate severity, the larger number of takes (in total and for certain individuals) for the Dall’s porpoise makes it more likely (probabilistically) that a small number of individuals 48441 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 3510–22–C Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our determination that the Navy’s activities would not adversely affect any pinnipeds through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival for any of the affected species or stocks addressed in this section. Five M/SI takes of California sea lions are proposed for authorization and when this mortality is combined with the other human-caused mortality from other sources, it still falls well below the insignificance threshold for residual PBR (13, 685). A small number of Level A harassment takes by tissue damage are also proposed for authorization (9 and 2 for California sea lions and northern elephant seals, respectively), which, as discussed in the 2018 HSTT final rule, could range in impact from minor to something just less than M/SI that could seriously impact fitness. However, given the Navy’s mitigation, exposure at the closer to the source and more severe end of the spectrum is less likely. Nevertheless, we cautiously assume some moderate impact on the individuals that experience these small numbers of take that could lower the 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 within seven years, 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 seven years very low) and these low numbers of instances (especially assuming the likelihood that only 50 percent of the takes would affect females) would not be expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, especially given the population sizes of these species. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), for Hawaiian monk seals and Guadalupe fur seals, the two species listed under the ESA, the estimated instances of takes as compared to the stock abundance does not exceed 124 percent, which suggests that some portion of these two stocks would be taken on one to a few days per year. For the remaining stocks, the number of estimated total instances of take compared to the abundance (measured against both the Navyestimated abundance and the SAR) for these stocks is 1,484 to 2,896 percent and 18 to 40 percent, respectively (Table 27). Given the ranges of these stocks (i.e., very large ranges, but with individuals often staying in the vicinity of haulouts), this information suggests that some very small portion of the individuals of these stocks will be taken, but that some subset of PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 individuals within the stock will be taken repeatedly within the year (perhaps up to 58 days)—potentially over a fair number of sequential days. Regarding the severity of those individual Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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, which is considered a relatively low to occasionally moderate level for pinnipeds. However, as noted, some of these takes could occur on a fair number of sequential days for this stock. As described in the 2018 HSTT final rule, the Hawaii and 4-Islands mitigation areas protect (by not using explosives and limiting MFAS within) a significant portion of the designated critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals in the Main Hawaiian Islands, including all of it around the islands of Hawaii and Lanai, most around Maui, and good portions around Molokai and Kaho’olawe. As discussed, this protection reduces the overall number of takes, and further reduces the severity of effects by minimizing impacts near pupping beaches and in important foraging habitat. The severity of TTS takes are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and mostly not in a frequency band that would be expected to interfere significantly with conspecific communication, echolocation, or other important low-frequency cues that E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 EP13SE19.011</GPH> 48442 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules would affect the individual’s 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, the one to eight estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for monk seals, northern fur seals, and harbor seals would be unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities to a degree that would interfere with reproductive success or survival of any individuals. Because of the high number of PTS takes for California sea lions and northern elephant seals (87 and 97, respectively); however, we acknowledge that a few animals could potentially incur permanent hearing loss of a higher degree that could potentially interfere with their successful reproduction and growth. Given the status of the stocks, even if this occurred, it would not adversely impact rates of recruitment or survival (residual PBR of 13,686 and 4,873, respectively). Altogether, an individual Hawaiian monk seal and Guadalupe fur seal would be taken no more than a few days in any year, with none of the expected take anticipated to affect individual reproduction or survival, let alone annual rates of recruitment and survival. With all other stocks, only a very small portion of the stock will be taken in any manner. Of those taken, some individuals will be taken by Level B harassment (at a moderate or sometimes low level) over several days a year, and some smaller portion of those taken will be on a relatively moderate to high number of days across the year (up to 58), a fair number of which would likely be sequential days. Though the majority of impacts are expected to be of a lower to sometimes moderate severity, the repeated takes over a potentially fair number of sequential days for some individuals makes it more likely that some 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 (especially for only one year within seven, 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 seven five years very low) has far less of an impact on population rates than mortality and a relatively small number of instances of foregone reproduction (as compared to the stock abundance and residual PBR) would not be expected to adversely affect the stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival, especially given the status of these stocks. Accordingly, we do not anticipate the relatively small number of individual Northern fur seals or harbor seals that might be taken over repeated days within the year in a manner that results in one year of foregone reproduction to adversely affect the stocks through effects on rates of recruitment or survival, given the status of the stocks, which are respectively increasing and stable with abundances and residual PBRs of 14,050/30,968 and 449/1,598. For California sea lions, given the very high abundance and residual PBR (257,606 and 13,685, respectively), as well as the increasing status of the stock in the presence of similar levels of Navy activities over past years—the impacts of 0.71 annual mortalities, potential foregone reproduction for up to nine individuals in a year taken by tissue damage, and some relatively small number of individuals taken as a result of repeated behavioral harassment over a fair number of sequential days are not expected to adversely affect the stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Similarly, for Northern elephant seals, given the very high abundance and residual PBR (179,000 and 4,873, respectively), as well as the increasing status of the stock in the presence of similar levels of Navy activities over past years, the impacts of potential foregone reproduction for up to two individuals in a year taken by tissue damage and some relatively small number of individuals taken as a result of repeated behavioral harassment over a fair number of sequential days are not expected to adversely affect the stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined (M/SI, Level A harassment, and Level B harassment), we have preliminarily determined that the authorized take proposed would have a negligible impact on all pinniped species and stocks. PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48443 Determination The 2018 HSTT final rule included a detailed discussion of all of the anticipated impacts on the affected species and stocks from serious injury or mortality, Level A harassment, and Level B harassment; impacts on habitat; and how the Navy’s mitigation and monitoring measures reduce the number and/or severity of adverse effects. We have evaluated how these impacts and mitigation measures are expected to combine, annually, to affect individuals of each species and stock. Those effects were then evaluated in the context of whether they are reasonably likely to impact reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and then, if so, further analyzed to determine whether there would be effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival that would adversely affect the species or stock. As described above, the basis for the negligible impact determination is the assessment of effects on annual rates of recruitment and survival. Accordingly, the analysis included in the 2018 HSTT final rule used annual activity levels, the best available science, and approved methods to predict the annual impacts to marine mammals, which were then analyzed in the context of whether each species or stock would incur more than a negligible impact based on anticipated adverse impacts to annual rates of recruitment or survival. As we have described above, none of the factors upon which the conclusions in the 2018 HSTT final rule were based have changed. Therefore, even though this proposed rule includes two additional years, because our findings are based on annual rates of recruitment and survival, and little has changed that would change our 2018 HSTT final rule annual analyses, it is appropriate to rely on those analyses, as well as the new information and analysis discussed above, for this proposed rule. Based on the applicable information and analysis from the 2018 HSTT final rule as updated with the information and analysis contained herein on the potential and likely effects of the specified activities on the affected marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the incidental take from the specified activities will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species and stocks. E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48444 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules Subsistence Harvest of Marine Mammals There are no subsistence uses or harvest of marine mammals in the geographic area affected by the specified activities. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the total taking affecting species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 ESA There are nine marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the HSTT Study Area: Blue whale (Eastern and Central North Pacific stocks), fin whale (CA/OR/ WA and Hawaii stocks), gray whale (Western North Pacific stock), humpback whale (Mexico and Central America DPSs), sei whale (Eastern North Pacific and Hawaii stocks), sperm whale (CA/OR/WA and Hawaii stocks), false killer whale (Main Hawaiian Islands Insular), Hawaiian monk seal (Hawaii stock), and Guadalupe fur seal (Mexico to California). There is also ESA-designated critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals and Main Hawaiian Islands Insular false killer whales. The Navy consulted with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA for HSTT activities. NMFS also consulted internally on the issuance of the 2018 HSTT regulations and LOAs under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on December 10, 2018 concluding that the issuance of the 2018 HSTT final rule and subsequent LOAs are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened and endangered species under NMFS’ jurisdiction and are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat in the HSTT Study Area. The Biological Opinion for this action is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ national/marine-mammal-protection/ incidental-take-authorizations-militaryreadiness-activities. NMFS’ Permits and Conservation Division is currently discussing the 2019 Navy application with NMFS’ ESA Interagency Cooperation Division. National Marine Sanctuaries Act Federal agency actions that are likely to injure national marine sanctuary resources are subject to consultation with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) under section 304(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). There are two VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 national marine sanctuaries in the HSTT Study Area, the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary and the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. NMFS will work with NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to fulfill our responsibilities under the NMSA as warranted and will complete any NMSA requirements prior to a determination on the issuance of the final rule and LOAs. National Environmental Policy Act To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216–6A, NMFS must evaluate our proposed actions and alternatives with respect to potential impacts on the human environment. NMFS participated as a cooperating agency on the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS (published on October 26, 2018, https:// www.hstteis.com) which evaluated impacts from Navy training and testing activities in the HSTT Study Area for the reasonably foreseeable future (including through 2025). In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3, NMFS independently reviewed and evaluated the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and determined that it was adequate and sufficient to meet our responsibilities under NEPA for the issuance of the 2018 HSTT final rule and associated LOAs. NOAA therefore adopted the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9 and the information and analysis contained in this proposed rule, the Navy and NMFS as a cooperating agency have made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule and any subsequent LOAs would not result in impacts that were not fully considered in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. As indicated in this proposed rule, the Navy has made no substantial changes to the activities nor are there significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns or their impacts. NMFS will make a final NEPA determination prior to a decision whether to issue a final rule. Classification The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA requires Federal agencies to prepare an analysis of a rule’s impact on small entities whenever the agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. However, a Federal agency may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Navy is the sole entity that would be affected by this rulemaking, and the Navy is not a small governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business, as defined by the RFA. Any requirements imposed by an LOA issued pursuant to these regulations, and any monitoring or reporting requirements imposed by these regulations, would be applicable only to the Navy. NMFS does not expect the issuance of these regulations or the associated LOAs to result in any impacts to small entities pursuant to the RFA. Because this action, if adopted, would directly affect the Navy and not a small entity, NMFS concludes the action would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218 Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental take, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, Sonar, Transportation. Dated: August 26, 2019. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 218 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 218—REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 1. The authority citation for part 218 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted. 2. Revise subpart H to part 218 to read as follows: ■ Subpart H—Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Sec. 218.70 Specified activity and geographical region. 218.71 Effective dates. 218.72 Permissible methods of taking. 218.73 Prohibitions. 218.74 Mitigation requirements. E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 48445 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 218.75 Requirements for monitoring and reporting. 218.76 Letters of Authorization. 218.77 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization. 218.78 and 218.79 [Reserved] OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] through December 20, 2025. § 218.72 Subpart H—Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s HawaiiSouthern California Training and Testing (HSTT) khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 218.70 Specified activity and geographical region. (a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the U.S. Navy for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area described in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to the activities listed in paragraph (c) of this section. (b) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy under this subpart may be authorized in Letters of Authorization (LOAs) only if it occurs within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area, which includes 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 (HRC), the Southern California Range Complex (SOCAL), 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 on the high seas where sonar training and testing may occur. (c) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy is only authorized if it occurs incidental to the Navy conducting training and testing activities, including: (1) Training. (i) Amphibious warfare; (ii) Anti-submarine warfare; (iii) Electronic warfare; (iv) Expeditionary warfare; (v) Mine warfare; (vi) Surface warfare; and (vii) Pile driving. (2) Testing. (i) Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities; (ii) Naval Sea System Command Testing Activities; (iii) Office of Naval Research Testing Activities; and (iv) Naval Information Warfare Systems Command. § 218.71 Effective dates. Regulations in this subpart are effective from [DATE OF PUBLICATION VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 Permissible methods of taking. (a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.76, the Holder of the LOAs (hereinafter ‘‘Navy’’) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the area described in § 218.70(b) by Level A harassment and Level B harassment associated with the use of active sonar and other acoustic sources and explosives as well as serious injury or mortality associated with vessel strikes and explosives, provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of these regulations in this subpart and the applicable LOAs. (b) The incidental take of marine mammals by the activities listed in § 218.70(c) is limited to the following species: TABLE 1 TO § 218.72 Species Stock Blue whale ............................. Blue whale ............................. Bryde’s whale ........................ Bryde’s whale ........................ Fin whale ............................... Fin whale ............................... Humpback whale ................... Humpback whale ................... Minke whale ........................... Minke whale ........................... Sei whale ............................... Sei whale ............................... Gray whale ............................ Gray whale ............................ Sperm whale .......................... Sperm whale .......................... Dwarf sperm whale ................ Pygmy sperm whale .............. Kogia whales ......................... Baird’s beaked whale ............ Blainville’s beaked whale ...... Cuvier’s beaked whale .......... Cuvier’s beaked whale .......... Longman’s beaked whale ...... Mesoplodon spp .................... Bottlenose dolphin ................. Bottlenose dolphin ................. Bottlenose dolphin ................. Bottlenose dolphin ................. Bottlenose dolphin ................. Bottlenose dolphin ................. Bottlenose dolphin ................. False killer whale ................... False killer whale ................... False killer whale ................... Fraser’s dolphin ..................... Killer whale ............................ Killer whale ............................ Killer whale ............................ Long-beaked common dolphin. Melon-headed whale ............. Melon-headed whale ............. Northern right whale dolphin Pacific white-sided dolphin .... Pantropical spotted dolphin ... Pantropical spotted dolphin ... Pantropical spotted dolphin ... Pantropical spotted dolphin ... Pygmy killer whale ................. Pygmy killer whale ................. Risso’s dolphin ...................... Risso’s dolphin ...................... Rough-toothed dolphin .......... PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Central North Pacific. Eastern North Pacific. Eastern Tropical Pacific. Hawaii. CA/OR/WA. Hawaiian. CA/OR/WA. Central North Pacific. CA/OR/WA. Hawaii. Eastern North Pacific. Hawaii. Eastern North Pacific. Western North Pacific. CA/OR/WA. Hawaii. Hawaii. Hawaii. CA/OR/WA. CA/OR/WA. Hawaii. CA/OR/WA. Hawaii. Hawaii. CA/OR/WA. California Coastal. CA/OR/WA Offshore. Hawaii Pelagic. Kauai & Niihau. Oahu. 4-Island. Hawaii. Hawaii Pelagic. Main Hawaiian Islands Insular. Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii. Eastern North Pacific (ENP) Offshore. ENP Transient/West Coast Transient. Hawaii. 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. Sfmt 4702 TABLE 1 TO § 218.72—Continued Species Stock Short-beaked common dolphin. Short-finned pilot whale ......... Short-finned pilot whale ......... Spinner dolphin ...................... Spinner dolphin ...................... Spinner dolphin ...................... Spinner dolphin ...................... Striped dolphin ....................... Striped dolphin ....................... Dall’s porpoise ....................... California sea lion .................. Guadalupe fur seal ................ Northern fur seal .................... Harbor seal ............................ Hawaiian monk seal .............. Northern elephant seal .......... Note to Table Washington. § 218.73 1: CA/OR/WA. CA/OR/WA. Hawaii. Hawaii Island. Hawaii Pelagic. Kauai & Niihau. Oahu & 4-Island. CA/OR/WA. Hawaii. CA/OR/WA. U.S. Mexico. California. California. Hawaii. California. CA/OR/WA = California/Oregon/ Prohibitions. Notwithstanding incidental takings contemplated in § 218.72(a) and authorized by LOAs issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.76, no person in connection with the activities listed in § 218.70(c) may: (a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.76; (b) Take any marine mammal not specified in § 218.72(b); (c) Take any marine mammal specified in § 218.72(b) in any manner other than as specified in the LOAs; or (d) Take a marine mammal specified in § 218.72(b) if NMFS determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine mammal. § 218.74 Mitigation requirements. When conducting the activities identified in § 218.70(c), the mitigation measures contained in any LOAs issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.76 must be implemented. These mitigation measures include, but are not limited to: (a) Procedural mitigation. Procedural mitigation is mitigation that the Navy must implement whenever and wherever an applicable training or testing activity takes place within the HSTT Study Area for each applicable activity category or stressor category and includes acoustic stressors (i.e., active sonar, air guns, pile driving, weapons firing noise), explosive stressors (i.e., sonobuoys, torpedoes, medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles, missiles and rockets, bombs, sinking exercises, mines, anti-swimmer grenades, and mat weave and obstacle loading), and physical disturbance and strike stressors (i.e., vessel movement; towed in-water devices; small-, medium-, and largecaliber non-explosive practice munitions; non-explosive missiles and rockets; and non-explosive bombs and mine shapes). E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 48446 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules (1) Environmental awareness and education. Appropriate Navy personnel (including civilian personnel) involved in mitigation and training or testing activity reporting under the specified activities will complete one or more modules of the U.S Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series, as identified in their career path training plan. Modules include: Introduction to the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series, Marine Species Awareness Training; U.S. Navy Protective Measures Assessment Protocol; and U.S. Navy Sonar Positional Reporting System and Marine Mammal Incident Reporting. (2) Active sonar. Active sonar includes low-frequency active sonar, mid-frequency active sonar, and highfrequency active sonar. For vessel-based 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 aircraftbased 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). (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform—(A) Hullmounted sources. One Lookout for platforms with space or manning restrictions while underway (at the forward part of a small boat or ship) and platforms using active sonar while moored or at anchor (including pierside); and two Lookouts for platforms without space or manning restrictions while underway (at the forward part of the ship). (B) Sources that are not hull-mounted sources. One Lookout on the ship or aircraft conducting the activity. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. During the activity, at 1,000 yards (yd) Navy personnel must power down 6 decibels (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 lowfrequency active sonar ≥200 dB and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar; or at 200 yd Navy personnel must shut down for low-frequency active sonar <200 dB, mid-frequency active sonar sources that are not hull-mounted, and high-frequency active sonar. (A) Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 personnel must relocate or delay the start of active sonar transmission until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel must also observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of active sonar transmission. (B) During the activity for lowfrequency active sonar at or above 200 dB and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals and power down active sonar transmission by 6 dB if marine mammals are observed within 1,000 yd of the sonar source; power down by an additional 4 dB (for a total of 10 dB total) if marine mammals are observed within 500 yd of the sonar source; and cease transmission if marine mammals are observed within 200 yd of the sonar source. (C) During the activity for lowfrequency active sonar below 200 dB, mid-frequency active sonar sources that are not hull mounted, and highfrequency active sonar, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals and cease active sonar transmission if marine mammals are observed within 200 yd of the sonar source. (D) 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: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the sonar source; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 minutes (min) for aircraft-deployed sonar sources or 30 min for vessel-deployed sonar sources; for mobile activities, the active sonar source has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting; or for activities using hull-mounted sonar where a dolphin(s) is observed in the mitigation zone, the Lookout concludes that the dolphin(s) 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). (ii) [RESERVED] PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (3) Air guns—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout positioned on a ship or pierside. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 150 yd around the air gun. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel must also observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of air gun use. (B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease air gun use. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing air gun use) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the air gun; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min; or for mobile activities, the air gun has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting. (4) Pile driving. Pile driving and pile extraction sound during Elevated Causeway System training. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned on the shore, the elevated causeway, or a small boat. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 100 yd around the pile driver. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (for 30 min), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must delay the start of pile driving or vibratory pile extraction. (B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules must cease impact pile driving or vibratory pile extraction. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity. The Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing pile driving or pile extraction) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the pile driving location; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min. (5) Weapons firing noise. Weapons firing noise associated with large-caliber gunnery activities. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned on the ship conducting the firing. Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one provided for under ‘‘Explosive mediumcaliber and large-caliber projectiles’’ or under ‘‘Small-, medium-, and largecaliber non-explosive practice munitions’’ in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) and (a)(18)(i) of this section. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. Thirty degrees on either side of the firing line out to 70 yd from the muzzle of the weapon being fired. (A) Prior to the start of the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of weapons firing until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel must also observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of weapons firing. (B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease weapons firing. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing weapons firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the firing ship; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min; or for mobile activities, the firing ship has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting. (6) Explosive sonobuoys—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned in an aircraft or on small boat. If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 600 yd around an explosive sonobuoy. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during deployment of a sonobuoy field, which typically lasts 20–30 min), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of sonobuoy or source/ receiver pair detonations until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel must conduct passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals and use information from detections to assist visual observations. Navy personnel also must visually observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of sonobuoy or source/receiver pair detonations. (B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease sonobuoy or source/receiver pair detonations. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the sonobuoy; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints (e.g., helicopter), or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained. PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48447 (D) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (7) Explosive torpedoes—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout positioned in an aircraft. If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 2,100 yd around the intended impact location. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during deployment of the target), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation and jellyfish aggregations; if floating vegetation or jellyfish aggregations are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of firing until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel must conduct passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals and use the information from detections to assist visual observations. Navy personnel also must visually observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of firing. (B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals and jellyfish aggregations; if marine mammals or jellyfish aggregations are observed, Navy personnel must cease firing. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or the mitigation zone E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 48448 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained. (D) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), Navy personnel must 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, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (8) Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles. Gunnery activities using explosive mediumcaliber and large-caliber projectiles. Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be on the vessel or aircraft conducting the activity. For activities using explosive large-caliber projectiles, depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described in ‘‘Weapons firing noise’’ in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section. If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. (A) 200 yd around the intended impact location for air-to-surface activities using explosive medium-caliber projectiles. (B) 600 yd around the intended impact location for surface-to-surface activities using explosive mediumcaliber projectiles. (C) 1,000 yd around the intended impact location for surface-to-surface activities using explosive large-caliber projectiles. (D) Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of firing until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of firing. (E) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease firing. (F) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 min for vessel-based firing; or for activities using mobile targets, the intended impact location has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting. (G) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), Navy personnel must, 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, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (9) Explosive missiles and rockets. Aircraft-deployed explosive missiles and rockets. Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned in an aircraft. If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. (A) 900 yd around the intended impact location for missiles or rockets with 0.6– 20 lb net explosive weight. (B) 2,000 yd around the intended impact location for missiles with 21– 500 lb net explosive weight. PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (C) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation zone), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of firing until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of firing. (D) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease firing. (E) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained. (F) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), Navy personnel must, 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, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets will assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (10) Explosive bombs—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned in an aircraft conducting the activity. If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 2,500 yd around the intended target. E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when arriving on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment. (B) During the activity (e.g., during target approach), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease bomb deployment. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing bomb deployment) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended target; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min; or for activities using mobile targets, the intended target has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting. (D) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), Navy personnel must, 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, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (11) Sinking exercises—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. Two Lookouts (one must be positioned in an aircraft and one must be positioned on a vessel). If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 resources while performing their regular duties. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 2.5 nautical miles (nmi) around the target ship hulk. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (90 min prior to the first firing), Navy personnel must conduct aerial observations of the mitigation zone for floating vegetation and jellyfish aggregations; if floating vegetation or jellyfish aggregations are observed, Navy personnel must delay the start of firing until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must conduct aerial observations of the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must delay the start of firing. (B) During the activity, Navy personnel must conduct passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals and use the information from detections to assist visual observations. Navy personnel must 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 two hours, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals from the aircraft and vessel; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must delay recommencement of firing. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the target ship hulk; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min. (D) After completion of the activity (for two hours after sinking the vessel or until sunset, whichever comes first), Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets will assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48449 (12) Explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. (A) One Lookout must be positioned on a vessel or in an aircraft when implementing the smaller mitigation zone. (B) Two Lookouts (one must be positioned in an aircraft and one must be on a small boat) when implementing the larger mitigation zone. (C) If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. (A) 600 yd around the detonation site for activities using 0.1–5 lb net explosive weight. (B) 2,100 yd around the detonation site for activities using 6–650 lb net explosive weight (including high explosive target mines). (C) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station; typically, 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of detonations until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of detonations. (D) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals, concentrations of seabirds, and individual foraging seabirds; if marine mammals, concentrations of seabirds, or individual foraging seabirds are observed, Navy personnel must cease detonations. (E) 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: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to detonation site; or E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 48450 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained. (F) After completion of the activity (typically 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained), Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (13) Explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. (A) Two Lookouts (two small boats with one Lookout each, or one Lookout must be on a small boat and one must be in a rotary-wing aircraft) when implementing the smaller mitigation zone. (B) Four Lookouts (two small boats with two Lookouts each), and a pilot or member of an aircrew must serve as an additional Lookout if aircraft are used during the activity, when implementing the larger mitigation zone. (C) All divers placing the charges on mines will support the Lookouts while performing their regular duties and will report applicable sightings to their supporting small boat or Range Safety Officer. (D) If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. (A) 500 yd around the detonation site during activities under positive control using 0.1–20 lb net explosive weight. (B) 1,000 yd around the detonation site during all activities using timedelay fuses (0.1–29 lb net explosive weight) and during activities under positive control using 21–60 lb net explosive weight charges. (C) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station for activities under positive control; 30 min for activities using timedelay firing devices), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of detonations VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 or fuse initiation until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of detonations or fuse initiation. (D) During the activity, Navy personnel must 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, or individual foraging seabirds are observed, Navy personnel must cease detonations or fuse initiation. To the maximum extent practicable depending on mission requirements, safety, and environmental conditions, Navy personnel must position boats near the mid-point of the mitigation zone radius (but outside of the detonation plume and human safety zone), must position themselves on opposite sides of the detonation location (when two boats are used), and must travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location with one Lookout observing inward toward the detonation site and the other observing outward toward the perimeter of the mitigation zone. If used, Navy 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. (E) 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: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the detonation site; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min during activities under positive control with aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min during activities under positive control with aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained and during activities using time-delay firing devices. (F) After completion of an activity (for 30 min), the Navy must observe for marine mammals for 30 min. Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (14) Maritime security operations— anti-swimmer grenades—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned on the small boat conducting the activity. If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 200 yd around the intended detonation location. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of detonations until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of detonations. (B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease detonations. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended detonation location; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min; or the intended detonation location has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting. (D) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), Navy personnel must, when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets will assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (15) Underwater demolition multiple charge—mat weave and obstacle loading exercises—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. Two Lookouts (one must be positioned on a small boat and one must be positioned 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. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 700 yd around the intended detonation location. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity, or 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, Navy personnel must delay the start of detonations until the mitigation zone is clear. 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, Navy personnel must delay the start of detonations. (B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease detonations. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the detonation location; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min (as determined by the Navy shore observer). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 (D) 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 Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (16) Vessel movement. The mitigation will not be applied if: The vessel’s safety is threatened; the vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver (e.g., during launching and recovery of aircraft or landing craft, during towing activities, when mooring); the vessel is operated autonomously; or when impracticable based on mission requirements (e.g., during Amphibious Assault—Battalion Landing exercise). (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be on the vessel that is underway. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. (A) 500 yd around whales. (B) 200 yd around all other marine mammals (except bow-riding dolphins and pinnipeds hauled out on man-made navigational structures, port structures, and vessels). (iii) During the activity. When underway Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must maneuver to maintain distance. (iv) Incident reporting procedures. If a marine mammal vessel strike occurs, Navy personnel must follow the established incident reporting procedures. (17) Towed in-water devices. Mitigation applies to devices that are towed from a manned surface platform or manned aircraft. The mitigation will not be applied if the safety of the towing platform or in-water device is threatened. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned on a manned towing platform. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 250 yd around marine mammals. (iii) During the activity. During the activity (i.e., when towing an in-water device), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must maneuver to maintain distance. (18) Small-, medium-, and largecaliber non-explosive practice munitions. Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48451 (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned on the platform conducting the activity. Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described for ‘‘Weapons firing noise’’ in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 200 yd around the intended impact location. (A) Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of firing until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of firing. (B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease firing. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 min for vessel-based firing; or for 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. (19) Non-explosive missiles and rockets. Aircraft-deployed nonexplosive missiles and rockets. Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned in an aircraft. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 900 yd around the intended impact location. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation zone), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 48452 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules or delay the start of firing until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of firing. (B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease firing. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting prior to or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained. (20) Non-explosive bombs and mine shapes. Non-explosive bombs and nonexplosive mine shapes during mine laying activities. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned in an aircraft. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 1,000 yd around the intended target. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when arriving on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment or mine laying until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment or mine laying. (B) During the activity (e.g., during approach of the target or intended minefield location), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals and, if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease bomb deployment or mine laying. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting prior to or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing bomb deployment or mine laying) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended target or minefield location; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min; or for activities using mobile targets, the intended target has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting. (b) Mitigation areas. In addition to procedural mitigation, Navy personnel must implement mitigation measures within mitigation areas to avoid or reduce potential impacts on marine mammals. (1) Mitigation areas for marine mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex for sonar, explosives, and vessel strikes—(i) Mitigation area requirements—(A) Hawaii Island Mitigation Area (year-round). (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A)(2) of this section, Navy personnel must not conduct more than 300 hours of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar or 20 hours of MF4 dipping sonar annually, or use explosives that could potentially result in takes of marine mammals during training and testing. (2) Should national security require conduct of more than 300 hours of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency 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. (B) 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area (November 15–April 15 for active sonar; year-round for explosives). (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B)(2) of this section, 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. (2) Should national security require use of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or explosives that could potentially result PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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. (C) 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. (D) Humpback Whale Awareness Notification Message Area (November– April). (1) 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. (2) 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). (3) 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. (ii) [Reserved] (2) Mitigation areas for marine mammals in the Southern California portion of the study area for sonar, explosives, and vessel strikes—(i) Mitigation area requirements—(A) San Diego Arc, San Nicolas Island, and Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Areas (June 1–October 31). (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(2) of this section, Navy personnel must not conduct more than a total of 200 hours of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar in the combined areas, excluding normal maintenance and systems checks, during training and testing. (2) Should national security require conduct of more than 200 hours of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency 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 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules advance notification and include the information (e.g., sonar hours) in its annual activity reports submitted to NMFS. (3) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(4) of this section, 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-inch rockets) activities during training and testing. (4) 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 2.75inch rockets) activities during training or testing within the San Diego Arc Mitigation Area, 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. (5) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(6) of this section, 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 2.75inch rockets) activities during training. (6) 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-inch rockets) activities during training in the San Nicolas Island Mitigation Area, 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. (7) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(8) of this section, 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-inch rockets) activities during training and testing. (8) 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 (including 2.75-inch rockets) activities during training or testing in the Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Area, 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. (B) Santa Barbara Island Mitigation Area (year-round). (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B)(2) of this section, 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 mediumcaliber or large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75-inch rockets) activities during training. (2) 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 mediumcaliber or large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75-inch 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. (C) Blue Whale (June–October), Gray Whale (November–March), and Fin Whale (November–May) Awareness Notification Message Areas. (1) 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, and fin whales. (2) 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. (3) 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. (ii) [Reserved] PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48453 § 218.75 Requirements for monitoring and reporting. (a) Unauthorized take. Navy personnel must notify NMFS immediately (or as soon as operational security considerations allow) if the specified activity identified in § 218.70 is thought to have resulted in the mortality or serious injury of any marine mammals, or in any Level A harassment or Level B harassment take of marine mammals not identified in this subpart. (b) Monitoring and reporting under the LOAs. The Navy must conduct all monitoring and reporting required under the LOAs, including abiding by the HSTT Study Area monitoring program. Details on program goals, objectives, project selection process, and current projects are available at www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. (c) Notification of injured, live stranded, or dead marine mammals. The Navy must consult the Notification and Reporting Plan, which sets out notification, reporting, and other requirements when dead, injured, or live stranded marine mammals are detected. The Notification and Reporting Plan is available at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-mammal-protection/ incidentaltake-authorizations-militaryreadinessactivities. (d) Annual HSTT Study Area marine species monitoring report. The Navy must submit an annual report of the HSTT Study Area monitoring describing the implementation and results from the previous calendar year. Data collection methods must be standardized across range complexes and study areas to allow for comparison in different geographic locations. The report must be submitted to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, either within three months after the end of the calendar year, or within three months after the conclusion of the monitoring year, to be determined by the Adaptive Management process. This report will describe progress of knowledge made with respect to intermediate scientific objectives within the HSTT Study Area associated with the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP). Similar study questions must be treated together so that progress on each topic can be summarized across all Navy ranges. The report need not include analyses and content that does not provide direct assessment of cumulative progress on the monitoring plan study questions. As an alternative, the Navy may submit a multi-Range Complex annual Monitoring Plan report to fulfill this requirement. Such a report will describe progress of knowledge made with respect to monitoring study E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 48454 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules questions across multiple Navy ranges associated with the ICMP. Similar study questions must be treated together so that progress on each topic can 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 the 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 Northwest Study Areas. (e) Annual HSTT Study Area training exercise report and testing activity report. Each year, the Navy must submit two preliminary reports (Quick Look Report) detailing the status of authorized sound sources within 21 days after the anniversary of the date of issuance of each LOA to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. Each year, the Navy must submit detailed reports to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 3 months after the one-year anniversary of the date of issuance of the LOA. The HSTT annual Training Exercise Report and Testing Activity Report can be consolidated with other exercise reports from other range complexes in the Pacific Ocean for a single Pacific Exercise Report, if desired. The annual reports must contain information on major training exercises (MTEs), Sinking Exercise (SINKEX) events, and a summary of all sound sources used, including within specific mitigation reporting areas as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section. The analysis in the detailed reports must be based on the accumulation of data from the current year’s report and data collected from previous reports. The detailed reports must contain information identified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) MTEs. This section of the report must contain the following information for MTEs conducted in the HSTT Study Area. (i) Exercise Information (for each MTE). (A) Exercise designator. (B) Date that exercise began and ended. (C) Location. (D) Number and types of active sonar sources used in the exercise. (E) Number and types of passive acoustic sources used in exercise. (F) Number and types of vessels, aircraft, and other platforms participating in exercise. (G) Total hours of all active sonar source operation. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 (H) Total hours of each active sonar source bin. (I) Wave height (high, low, and average) during exercise. (ii) Individual marine mammal sighting information for each sighting in each exercise where mitigation was implemented: (A) Date/Time/Location of sighting. (B) Species (if not possible, indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped). (C) Number of individuals. (D) Initial Detection Sensor (e.g., sonar, Lookout). (E) Indication of specific type of platform observation was made from (including, for example, what type of surface vessel or testing platform). (F) Length of time observers maintained visual contact with marine mammal. (G) Sea state. (H) Visibility. (I) Sound source in use at the time of sighting. (J) Indication of whether animal was less than 200 yd, 200 to 500 yd, 500 to 1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 yd, or greater than 2,000 yd from sonar source. (K) Whether operation of sonar sensor was delayed, or sonar was powered or shut down, and how long the delay. (L) If source in use was hull-mounted, true bearing of animal from the vessel, true direction of vessel’s travel, and estimation of animal’s motion relative to vessel (opening, closing, parallel). (M) Lookouts must report, in plain language and without trying to categorize in any way, the observed behavior of the animal(s) (such as animal closing to bow ride, paralleling course/speed, floating on surface and not swimming, etc.) and if any calves were present. (iii) An evaluation (based on data gathered during all of the MTEs) of the effectiveness of mitigation measures designed to minimize the received level to which marine mammals may be exposed. This evaluation must identify the specific observations that support any conclusions the Navy reaches about the effectiveness of the mitigation. (2) SINKEXs. This section of the report must include the following information for each SINKEX completed that year. (i) Exercise information (gathered for each SINKEX). (A) Location. (B) Date and time exercise began and ended. (C) Total hours of observation by Lookouts before, during, and after exercise. (D) Total number and types of explosive source bins detonated. (E) Number and types of passive acoustic sources used in exercise. PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (F) Total hours of passive acoustic search time. (G) Number and types of vessels, aircraft, and other platforms, participating in exercise. (H) Wave height in feet (high, low, and average) during exercise. (I) Narrative description of sensors and platforms utilized for marine mammal detection and timeline illustrating how marine mammal detection was conducted. (ii) Individual marine mammal observation (by Navy Lookouts) information for each sighting where mitigation was implemented. (A) Date/Time/Location of sighting. (B) Species (if not possible, indicate whale, dolphin, or pinniped). (C) Number of individuals. (D) Initial detection sensor (e.g., sonar or Lookout). (E) Length of time observers maintained visual contact with marine mammal. (F) Sea state. (G) Visibility. (H) Whether sighting was before, during, or after detonations/exercise, and how many minutes before or after. (I) Distance of marine mammal from actual detonations (or target spot if not yet detonated): Less than 200 yd, 200 to 500 yd, 500 to 1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 yd, or greater than 2,000 yd. (J) Lookouts must report, in plain language and without trying to categorize in any way, the observed behavior of the animal(s) (such as animal closing to bow ride, paralleling course/speed, floating on surface and not swimming etc.), including speed and direction and if any calves were present. (K) The report must indicate whether explosive detonations were delayed, ceased, modified, or not modified due to marine mammal presence and for how long. (L) If observation occurred while explosives were detonating in the water, indicate munition type in use at time of marine mammal detection. (3) Summary of sources used. This section of the report must include the following information summarized from the authorized sound sources used in all training and testing events: (i) Total annual hours or quantity (per the LOA) of each bin of sonar or other acoustic sources (e.g., pile driving and air gun activities); and (ii) Total annual expended/detonated ordinance (missiles, bombs, sonobuoys, etc.) for each explosive bin. (4) Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area (December 15–April 15). The Navy must report the total hours of operation of surface ship hull-mounted E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules mid-frequency active sonar used in the special reporting area. (5) HSTT Study Area Mitigation Areas. The Navy must report any use that occurred as specifically described in these areas. Information included in the classified annual reports may be used to inform future adaptive management of activities within the HSTT Study Area. (6) Geographic information presentation. The reports must present an annual (and seasonal, where practical) depiction of training and testing bin usage (as well as pile driving activities) geographically across the HSTT Study Area. (7) Sonar exercise notification. The Navy must submit to NMFS (contact as specified in the LOA) an electronic report within fifteen calendar days after the completion of any MTE indicating: (i) Location of the exercise; (ii) Beginning and end dates of the exercise; and (iii) Type of exercise. (f) Seven-year close-out comprehensive training and testing activity report. This report must be included as part of the 2025 annual training and testing report. This report must provide the annual totals for each sound source bin with a comparison to the annual allowance and the sevenyear total for each sound source bin with a comparison to the seven-year allowance. Additionally, if there were any changes to the sound source allowance, this report must include a discussion of why the change was made and include the analysis to support how the change did or did not result in a change in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and final rule determinations. The draft report must be submitted within three months after the expiration of this subpart to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. NMFS must submit comments on the draft close-out report, if any, within three months of receipt. The report will be considered final after the Navy has addressed NMFS’ comments, or 3 months after the submittal of the draft if NMFS does not provide comments. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 218.76 Letters of Authorization. (a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to the regulations in this subpart, the Navy must apply for and obtain LOAs in accordance with § 216.106 of this chapter. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Sep 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 (b) LOAs, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed December 20, 2025. (c) If an LOA expires prior to December 20, 2025, the Navy may apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA. (d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision of § 218.77(c)(1)) required by an LOA issued under this subpart, the Navy must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 218.77. (e) Each LOA must set forth: (1) Permissible methods of incidental taking; (2) Geographic areas for incidental taking; (3) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e., mitigation) on the species or stocks of marine mammals and their habitat; and (4) Requirements for monitoring and reporting. (f) Issuance of the LOA(s) must be based on a determination that the level of taking is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations in this subpart. (g) Notice of issuance or denial of the LOA(s) must be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of a determination. § 218.77 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization. (a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.76 for the activity identified in § 218.70(c) may be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that: (1) The planned specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for the regulations in this subpart (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section); and (2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA(s) were implemented. (b) For LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that include changes to the activity or to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 48455 provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or stock or years), NMFS may publish a notice of planned LOA in the Federal Register, including the associated analysis of the change, and solicit public comment before issuing the LOA. (c) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.76 may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances: (1) Adaptive management. After consulting with the Navy regarding the practicability of the modifications, NMFS may modify (including adding or removing measures) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring. (i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA include: (A) Results from the Navy’s monitoring from the previous year(s); (B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; or (C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by the regulations in this subpart or subsequent LOAs. (ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS will publish a notice of planned LOA in the Federal Register and solicit public comment. (2) Emergencies. If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in LOAs issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.76, an LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the Federal Register within thirty days of the action. § § 218.78–218.79 [Reserved] [FR Doc. 2019–18850 Filed 9–12–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48388-48455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18850]

[[Page 48387]]

Vol. 84

Friday,

No. 178

September 13, 2019

Part II

Department of Commerce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

50 CFR Part 218

Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental
to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Hawaii-Southern
California Training and Testing Study Area; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2019 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 48388]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 218

[190826-0018 ]
RIN 0648-BJ06

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

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) to
extend the time period from December 2023 to December 2025 for Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) regulations authorizing the take of marine
mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities conducted in
the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area.
In August 2018, the MMPA was amended by the John S. McCain National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 to allow for 7-
year authorizations for military readiness activities, as compared to
the previously allowed five years. The Navy's activities qualify as
military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA as amended by the
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2004. In making the request to extend the time
period covered by the MMPA HSTT regulations from five to seven years,
the Navy proposes no changes to their specified activities, the
geographical region in which those activities would be conducted,
mitigation measures, monitoring, or reporting over the longer seven-
year period. Pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS is requesting comments on the
proposed seven-year rule and associated Letters of Authorization (LOAs)
to cover the same activities covered by the existing 2018 HSTT
regulations. NMFS will consider all public comments prior to issuing
any final rule and making final decisions on the issuance of the
requested LOAs, and agency responses will be summarized in the notice
of the final decision.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than October
15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2019-0103, by any of the following methods:
Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0103, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information,
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word,
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
A copy of the Navy's applications, NMFS' proposed and final rules
and subsequent LOAs for the existing regulations, and other supporting
documents and documents cited herein may be obtained online at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities. In case of problems
accessing these documents, please use the contact listed here (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Piniak, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of Regulatory Action

These proposed regulations, issued under the authority of the MMPA
(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), would extend the framework for authorizing
the take of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's training and
testing activities (which qualify as military readiness activities)
from the use of sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations, air
guns, impact pile driving/vibratory extraction, and the movement of
vessels throughout the HSTT Study Area. The HSTT Study Area 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 on the high seas where sonar
training and testing may occur.
NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting to extend
NMFS' existing MMPA regulations (50 CFR part 218, subpart H; hereafter
``2018 HSTT regulations'') that authorize the take of marine mammals
incidental to Navy training and testing activities conducted in the
HSTT Study Area to cover seven years of the Navy's activities, instead
of five. Take is anticipated to occur by Level A harassment 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.

Background

The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA 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, the public is provided with notice of the
proposed incidental take authorization the opportunity to review and
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
stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in this rule as
``mitigation

[[Page 48389]]

measures''); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and
reporting of such takings. The MMPA defines ``take'' to mean to harass,
hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill
any marine mammal. The Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section below discusses the definition of ``negligible
impact.''
The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA) (Pub. L. 108-136) amended
section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to remove the ``small numbers'' and
``specified geographical region'' provisions indicated above and
amended the definition of ``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military
readiness activity'' to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA):
(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). In addition, the 2004 NDAA amended the MMPA as it
relates to military readiness activities such that least practicable
adverse impact shall include consideration of personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity.
More recently, section 316 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019
NDAA) (Pub. L. 115-232), signed on August 13, 2018, amended the MMPA to
allow incidental take rules for military readiness activities under
section 101(a)(5)(A) to be issued for up to seven years. Prior to this
amendment, all incidental take rules under section 101(a)(5)(A) were
limited to five years.

Summary of Request

On December 27, 2018, NMFS issued a five-year final rule governing
the taking of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing
activities conducted in the HSTT Study Area (83 FR 66846; hereafter
``2018 HSTT final rule''). Previously on August 13, 2018, and towards
the end of the time period in which NMFS was processing the Navy's
request for the 2018 regulations, the 2019 NDAA amended the MMPA for
military readiness activities to allow incidental take regulations to
be issued for up to seven years instead of the previous five years. The
Navy's training and testing activities conducted in the HSTT Study Area
qualify as military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as
amended by the 2004 NDAA. On March 11, 2019 the Navy submitted an
application requesting that NMFS extend the 2018 HSTT regulations and
associated LOAs such that they would cover take incidental to seven
years of training and testing activities instead of five, extending the
expiration date from December 20, 2023 to December 20, 2025.
In its 2019 application, the Navy proposes no changes to the nature
of the specified activities covered by the 2018 HSTT final rule, the
level of activity within and between years would be consistent with
that previously analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule, and all
activities would be conducted within the same boundaries of the HSTT
Study Area identified in the 2018 HSTT final rule. Therefore, the
training and testing activities (e.g., equipment and sources used,
exercises conducted) and the mitigation, monitoring, and nearly all
reporting measures are identical to those described and analyzed in the
2018 HSTT final rule. The only changes included in the Navy's request
are to conduct those same activities in the same region for an
additional two years. In its request, the Navy included all information
necessary to identify the type and amount of incidental take that may
occur in the two additional years so NMFS could determine whether the
analyses and conclusions regarding the impacts of the proposed
activities on marine mammal species and stocks previously reached for
five years of activities remain the same for seven years of identical
activity.
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. 8062), which ensures the readiness
of the naval forces of the United States. The Navy executes this
responsibility by establishing and executing training programs,
including at-sea training and exercises, and ensuring naval forces have
access to the ranges, operating areas (OPAREAs), and airspace needed to
develop and maintain skills for conducting naval activities.
The Navy proposes to continue conducting training and testing
activities within the HSTT Study Area. The Navy's March 11, 2019,
rulemaking and LOA extension application (hereafter ``2019 Navy
application'') reflects the same compilation of training and testing
activities presented in the Navy's October 13, 2017, initial rulemaking
and LOA application (hereafter ``2017 Navy application'') and the 2018
HSTT regulations that were subsequently promulgated, which can be found
at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities. These
activities are deemed by the Navy necessary to accomplish military
readiness requirements and are anticipated to continue into the
reasonably foreseeable future. The 2019 Navy application and this rule
cover training and testing activities that would occur over seven
years, including the five years already authorized under the 2018 HSTT
regulations, with the regulations valid from the publication date of
the final rule (if issued) through December 20, 2025.

Summary of the Proposed Regulations

NMFS is proposing to extend the incidental take regulations and
associated LOAs through December 20, 2025, to cover the same Navy
activities covered by the 2018 HSTT regulations. The 2018 HSTT final
rule was only recently published and its analysis remains current and
valid. In its 2019 application, the Navy proposes no changes to the
nature (e.g., equipment and sources used, exercises conducted) or level
of the specified activities within or between years or to the
boundaries of the HSTT Study Area. The mitigation, monitoring, and
nearly all reporting measures (described below) would be identical to
those described and analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule. The proposed
regulatory language included at the end of this proposed rule, which
would be published at 50 CFR part 218, subpart H, also is the same as
that under the HSTT 2018 regulations, except for a small number of
technical changes. No new information has been received from the Navy,
or otherwise become available to NMFS, since publication of the 2018
HSTT final rule that significantly changes the analyses supporting the
2018 findings. Where there is any new information pertinent to the
descriptions, analyses, or findings required to authorize incidental
take for military readiness activities under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(A),
that information is provided in the appropriate sections below.
Because the activities included in the 2019 Navy application have
not changed and the analyses and findings included in the documents
provided and produced in support of the recently published 2018 HSTT
final rule remain current and applicable, this proposed rule relies
heavily on and references to the applicable information and analyses

[[Page 48390]]

in those documents. Below is a list of the regulatory documents
referenced in this proposed rule. The list indicates the short name by
which the document is referenced in this proposed rule, as well as the
full titles of the cited documents. All of the documents can be found
at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities and https://www.hstteis.com/.
NMFS June 26, 2018, Hawaii-Southern California Training
and Testing (HSTT) proposed rule (83 FR 29872; hereafter ``2018 HSTT
proposed rule'');
NMFS December 27, 2018, Hawaii-Southern California
Training and Testing (HSTT) final rule (83 FR 66846; hereafter ``2018
HSTT final rule'');
Navy October 13, 2017, MMPA rulemaking and LOA application
(hereafter ``2017 Navy application'');
Navy March 11, 2019, MMPA rulemaking and LOA extension
application (hereafter ``2019 Navy application''); and
October 26, 2018, Hawaii-Southern California Training and
Testing (HSTT) Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS/OEIS) (hereafter ``2018 HSTT FEIS/
OEIS'').

Description of the Specified Activity

The Navy requests authorization to take marine mammals incidental
to conducting training and testing activities. The Navy has determined
that acoustic and explosives stressors are most likely to result in
impacts on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment.
Detailed descriptions of these activities are provided in Chapter 2 of
the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and in the 2017 and 2019 Navy applications.

Overview of Training and Testing Activities

The Navy routinely trains in the HSTT Study Area in preparation for
national defense missions. Training and testing activities and
components covered in the 2019 Navy application are described in detail
in the Overview of Training and Testing Activities sections of the 2018
HSTT proposed rule, the 2018 HSTT final rule, and Chapter 2
(Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) of the 2018 HSTT
FEIS/OEIS (https://www.hstteis.com/). Each military training and testing
activity described meets mandated Fleet requirements to deploy ready
forces. The Navy proposes no changes to the specified activities
described and analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule. The boundaries of
the HSTT Study Area (see Figure 2-1 of the 2019 Navy application); the
training and testing activities (e.g., equipment and sources used,
exercises conducted); manner of or amount of vessel movement; and
standard operating procedures presented in this proposed rule are
identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule.

Dates and Duration

The specified activities would occur at any time during the seven-
year period of validity of the regulations. The proposed number of
training and testing activities are described in the Detailed
Description of the Specified Activities section (Tables 1 through 9).

Specified Geographical Region

The Navy proposes no changes to the geographic extent of the HSTT
Study Area as described in the 2018 HSTT final rule. The HSTT Study
Area (see Figure 2-1 of the 2019 Navy 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Vessel transit corridors are the routes typically used by
Navy assets to traverse from one area to another. The route depicted
in Figure 2-1 of the 2019 Navy 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Navy range complex consists of geographic areas that encompass a
water component (above and below the surface) and airspace, and may
encompass a land component where training and testing of military
platforms, tactics, munitions, explosives, and electronic warfare
systems occur. Range complexes include established OPAREAs, which may
be further divided to provide better control of the area for safety
reasons. Additional detail on range complexes and testing ranges was
provided in the Duration and Location section of the 2018 HSTT proposed
rule; please see the 2018 HSTT proposed rule or the 2017 Navy
application for more information and maps.

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 specific components that could act as
stressors by having direct or indirect impacts on the environment are
described in detail in the Description of Acoustic and Explosive
Stressors section of the 2018 HSTT final rule and Chapter 2
(Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) of the 2018 HSTT
FEIS/OEIS. The Navy proposes no changes to the nature of the specified
activities and, therefore, the acoustic and explosive stressors are
identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule.

Other Stressor--Vessel Strike

Vessel strikes are not specific to any particular training or
testing activity, but rather a 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. 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. By comparison, this is slower than most
commercial vessels where full speed for a container ship is typically
24 knots (Bonney and Leach, 2010).
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 ship strike would result in
serious injury or mortality. The Navy proposes no changes to the nature
of the specified activities, the training and testing activities, the
manner of or amount of vessel movement, or standard operating
procedures described in the 2018 HSTT final rule. Therefore, the
description of vessel strikes as a stressor is the same as those
presented in the Other Stressor--Vessel Strike sections of the 2018
HSTT proposed rule and 2018 HSTT final rule.

[[Page 48391]]

Detailed Description of the Specified Activities

The Navy's proposed activities are presented and analyzed as a
representative year of training to account for the natural fluctuation
of training cycles and deployment schedules in any seven-year period.
In the 2018 HSTT final rule, NMFS analyzed the potential impacts of
these activities (i.e., incidental take of marine mammals) based on the
Navy conducting three years of a representative level of activity and
two years of a maximum level of activity. For the purposes of this
rulemaking and analyzing potential impacts to marine mammals, the Navy
proposes that the additional two years of training and testing would
consist of one additional year of maximum training tempo and one
representative year of training tempo consistent with the pattern set
forth in the 2018 HSTT final rule, the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, and the
2017 Navy application.
Proposed Training Activities
The number of proposed training activities that could occur
annually and the duration of those activities remains identical to
those presented in Table 4 of the 2018 HSTT final rule, and are not
repeated here. The number of proposed training activities that could
occur over the seven-year period are presented in Table 1. The table is
organized according to primary mission areas and includes the activity
name, associated stressors applicable to these proposed regulations,
sound source bin, number of proposed activities, and 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 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS.

Table 1--Proposed Training Activities Analyzed for Seven-Year Period in the HSTT Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Year
Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of
events
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Training Events--Large Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Composite Aircraft carrier ASW1, ASW2, SOCAL................... 18
Training Unit and carrier air ASW3, ASW4,
Exercise \1\. wing integrates ASW5, HF1,
with surface LF6, MF1, MF3,
and submarine MF4, MF5,
units in a MF11, MF12.
challenging
multi-threat
operational
environment
that certifies
them ready to
deploy.
Acoustic............. Rim of the A biennial ASW2, ASW3, HRC..................... 4
Pacific multinational ASW4, HF1, SOCAL................... 4
Exercise \1\. training HF3, HF4, M3,
exercise in MF1, MF3, MF4,
which navies MF5, MF11.
from Pacific
Rim nations and
the United
Kingdom
assemble in
Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii, to
conduct
training
throughout the
Hawaiian
Islands in a
number of
warfare areas.
Marine mammal
systems may be
used during a
Rim of the
Pacific
exercise.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Training Events--Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Fleet Exercise/ Aircraft carrier ASW1, ASW2, HRC..................... 7
Sustainment and carrier air ASW3, ASW4, SOCAL................... 35
Exercise \1\. wing integrates HF1, LF6, MF1,
with surface MF3, MF4, MF5,
and submarine MF11, MF12.
units in a
challenging
multi-threat
operational
environment to
maintain
ability to
deploy.
Acoustic............. Undersea Warfare Elements of the ASW3, ASW4, HRC..................... 17
Exercise. anti-submarine HF1, LF6, MF1,
warfare MF3, MF4, MF5,
tracking MF11, MF12.
exercise
combine in this
exercise of
multiple air,
surface, and
subsurface
units, over a
period of
several days.
Sonobuoys are
released from
aircraft.
Active and
passive sonar
used.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated/Coordinated Training--Small Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Navy Undersea Multiple ships, ASW3, ASW4, HRC..................... 7
Warfare aircraft, and HF1, MF1, MF3, SOCAL................... 18
Training and submarines MF4, MF5.
Assessment integrate the
Course Surface use of their
Warfare sensors to
Advanced search for,
Tactical detect,
Training. classify,
localize, and
track a threat
submarine in
order to launch
an exercise
torpedo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated/Coordinated Training--Medium Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Submarine Train ASW3, ASW4, HRC..................... 12
Commanders prospective HF1, MF1, MF3, SOCAL................... 12
Course. submarine MF4, MF5,
Commanding TORP1, TORP2.
Officers to
operate against
surface, air,
and subsurface
threats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated/Coordinated Training--Small Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Amphibious Ready Small-scale, ASW2, ASW3, HRC..................... 14
Group/Marine short duration, ASW4, HF1, SOCAL................... 86
Expeditionary coordinated MF1, MF3, MF4,
Unit Exercise anti-submarine MF5, MF11.
Group Sail warfare
Independent exercises.
Deployer
Certification
Exercise/
Tailored Anti-
Submarine
Warfare
Training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosive............ Naval Surface Surface ship Large-caliber HRC (W188).............. 105
Fire Support uses large- HE rounds (E5).
Exercise--at caliber gun to
Sea. support forces
ashore;
however, land
target
simulated at
sea. Rounds
impact water
and are scored
by passive
acoustic
hydrophones
located at or
near target
area.
Acoustic............. Amphibious Navy and Marine ASW2, ASW3, SOCAL................... 18
Marine Corps forces ASW4, HF1,
Expeditionary conduct MF1, MF3, MF4,
Unit Exercise. advanced MF5, MF11.
integration
training in
preparation for
deployment
certification.
Acoustic............. Amphibious Navy and Marine ASW2, ASW3, SOCAL................... 18
Marine Corps forces ASW4, HF1,
Expeditionary conduct MF1, MF3, MF4,
Unit integration MF5, MF11.
Integration training at sea
Exercise. in preparation
for deployment
certification.
Acoustic............. Marine Amphibious Ready ASW2, ASW3, SOCAL................... 18
Expeditionary Group exercises ASW4, HF1,
Unit Composite are conducted MF1, MF3, MF4,
Training Unit to validate the MF5, MF11.
Exercise. Marine
Expeditionary
Unit's
readiness for
deployment and
includes small
boat raids;
visit, board,
search, and
seizure
training;
helicopter and
mechanized
amphibious
raids; and a
non-combatant
evacuation
operation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 48392]]

Anti-Submarine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Anti-Submarine Helicopter crews MF4, MF5, TORP1 HRC..................... 42
Warfare Torpedo search for, SOCAL................... 728
Exercise--Helic track, and
opter. detect
submarines.
Recoverable air
launched
torpedoes are
employed
against
submarine
targets.
Acoustic............. Anti-Submarine Maritime patrol MF5, TORP1..... HRC..................... 70
Warfare Torpedo aircraft crews SOCAL................... 175
Exercise--Marit search for,
ime Patrol track, and
Aircraft. detect
submarines.
Recoverable air
launched
torpedoes are
employed
against
submarine
targets.
Acoustic............. Anti-Submarine Surface ship ASW3, MF1, HRC..................... 350
Warfare Torpedo crews search TORP1. SOCAL................... 819
Exercise--Ship. for, track, and
detect
submarines.
Exercise
torpedoes are
used during
this event.
Acoustic............. Anti-Submarine Submarine crews ASW4, HF1, MF3, HRC..................... 336
Warfare Torpedo search for, TORP2. SOCAL................... 91
Exercise--Subma track, and
rine. detect
submarines.
Exercise
torpedoes are
used during
this event.
Acoustic............. Anti-Submarine Helicopter crews MF4, MF5....... HRC..................... 1,113
Warfare search for, SOCAL, PMSR............. 3,668
Tracking track, and HSTT Transit Corridor... 42
Exercise--Helic detect
opter. submarines.
Acoustic............. Anti-Submarine Maritime patrol MF5............ HRC..................... 182
Warfare aircraft SOCAL, PMSR............. 350
Tracking aircrews search
Exercise--Marit for, track, and
ime Patrol detect
Aircraft. submarines.
Recoverable air
launched
torpedoes are
employed
against
submarine
targets.
Acoustic............. Anti-Submarine Surface ship ASW3, MF1, HRC..................... 1,568
Warfare crews search MF11, MF12. SOCAL, PMSR............. 2,961
Tracking for, track, and
Exercise--Ship. detect
submarines.
Acoustic............. Anti-Submarine Submarine crews ASW4, HF1, HF3, HRC..................... 1,400
Warfare search for, MF3. SOCAL, PMSR............. 350
Tracking track, and HSTT Transit Corridor... 49
Exercise--Subma detect
rine. submarines.
Explosive, Acoustic.. Service Weapons Air, surface, or HF1, MF3, MF6, HRC..................... 14
Test. submarine crews TORP2, SOCAL................... 7
employ Explosive
explosive torpedoes
torpedoes (E11).
against virtual
targets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Airborne Mine Helicopter HF4............ SOCAL................... 70
Countermeasure- aircrews detect
-Mine Detection. mines using
towed or laser
mine detection
systems.
Explosive, Acoustic.. Civilian Port Maritime HF4, SAS2, E2, Pearl Harbor, HI........ 7
Defense--Homela security E4. San Diego, CA........... 21
nd Security personnel train
Anti-Terrorism/ to protect
Force civilian ports
Protection against enemy
Exercises. efforts to
interfere with
access to those
ports.
Explosive............ Marine Mammal The Navy deploys E7............. HRC..................... 70
Systems. trained SOCAL................... 1,225
bottlenose
dolphins
(Tursiops
truncatus) and
California sea
lions (Zalophus
californianus)
as part of the
marine mammal
mine-hunting
and object-
recovery system.
Acoustic............. Mine Ship crews HF4, HF8, MF1K. HRC..................... 210
Countermeasure detect and SOCAL................... 664
Exercise--Ship avoid mines
Sonar. while
navigating
restricted
areas or
channels using
active sonar.
Acoustic............. Mine Mine HF4............ SOCAL................... 1,862
Countermeasure countermeasure
Exercise--Surfa ship crews
ce. detect, locate,
identify, and
avoid mines
while
navigating
restricted
areas or
channels, such
as while
entering or
leaving port.
Explosive, Acoustic.. Mine Ship, small HF4, E4........ HRC..................... 42
Countermeasures boat, and SOCAL................... 2,604
Mine helicopter
Neutralization crews locate
Remotely and disable
Operated mines using
Vehicle. remotely
operated
underwater
vehicles.
Explosive............ Mine Personnel E4, E5, E6, E7. HRC (Puuloa)............ 140
Neutralization disable threat SOCAL (IB, TAR 2, TAR 3, 1,358
Explosive mines using TAR 21, SWAT 3, SOAR).
Ordnance explosive
Disposal. charges.
Acoustic............. Submarine Mine Submarine crews HF1............ HRC..................... 280
Exercise. practice SOCAL................... 84
detecting mines
in a designated
area.
Acoustic............. Surface Ship Ship crews MF1K, HF8...... HRC..................... 287
Object detect and SOCAL................... 1,134
Detection. avoid mines
while
navigating
restricted
areas or
channels using
active sonar.
Explosive............ Underwater Military E10, E13....... SOCAL (TAR 2, TAR 3).... 126
Demolitions personnel use
Multiple explosive
Charge--Mat charges to
Weave and destroy
Obstacle barriers or
Loading. obstacles to
amphibious
vehicle access
to beach areas.
Explosive............ Underwater Navy divers E6, E7......... HRC (Puuloa)............ 203
Demolition conduct various SOCAL (TAR 2)........... 700
Qualification levels of
and training and
Certification. certification
in placing
underwater
demolition
charges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosive............ Bombing Exercise Fixed-wing E12 \2\........ HRC..................... 1309
Air-to-Surface. aircrews SOCAL................... 4480
deliver bombs HSTT Transit Corridor... 35
against surface
targets.
Explosive............ Gunnery Exercise Small boat crews E1, E2......... HRC..................... 70
Surface-to- fire medium- SOCAL................... 98
Surface Boat caliber guns at
Medium-Caliber. surface targets.
Explosive............ Gunnery Exercise Surface ship E5............. HRC..................... 210
Surface-to- crews fire SOCAL................... 1,302
Surface Ship large-caliber HSTT Transit Corridor... 91
Large-caliber. guns at surface
targets.
Explosive............ Gunnery Exercise Surface ship E1, E2......... HRC..................... 350
Surface-to- crews fire SOCAL................... 1,260
Surface Ship medium-caliber HSTT Transit Corridor... 280
Medium-Caliber. guns at surface
targets.
Explosive, Acoustic.. Independent Multiple ships, E1, E3, E6, E10 SOCAL................... 7
Deployer aircraft and
Certification submarines
Exercise/ conduct
Tailored integrated
Surface Warfare multi-warfare
Training. training with a
surface warfare
emphasis.
Serves as a
ready-to-deploy
certification
for individual
surface ships
tasked with
surface warfare
missions.
Explosive............ Integrated Live Naval Forces E1, E3, E6, E10 HRC (W188A)............. 7
Fire Exercise. defend against SOCAL (SOAR)............ 7
a swarm of
surface threats
(ships or small
boats) with
bombs,
missiles,
rockets, and
small-, medium-
and large-
caliber guns.
Explosive............ Missile Exercise Fixed-wing and E6, E8, E10.... HRC..................... 70
Air-to-Surface. helicopter SOCAL................... 1,498
aircrews fire
air-to-surface
missiles at
surface targets.
Explosive............ Missile Exercise Helicopter E3............. HRC..................... 1,598
Air-to-Surface aircrews fire SOCAL................... 1,722
Rocket. both precision-
guided and
unguided
rockets at
surface targets.
Explosive............ Missile Exercise Surface ship E6, E10........ HRC (W188).............. 140
Surface-to- crews defend SOCAL (W291)............ 70
Surface. against surface
threats (ships
or small boats)
and engage them
with missiles.
Explosive, Acoustic.. Sinking Exercise Aircraft, ship, TORP2, E5, E10, HRC..................... 21
and submarine E12. SOCAL................... 4
crews
deliberately
sink a seaborne
target, usually
a
decommissioned
ship made
environmentally
safe for
sinking
according to
U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
standards, with
a variety of
munitions.

[[Page 48393]]

Pile driving......... Elevated A pier is Impact hammer SOCAL................... 14
Causeway System. constructed off or vibratory
of the beach. extractor.
Piles are
driven into the
bottom with an
impact hammer.
Piles are
removed from
seabed via
vibratory
extractor. Only
in-water
impacts are
analyzed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Training Exercises
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Kilo Dip........ Functional check MF4............ HRC..................... 420
of the dipping SOCAL................... 16,800
sonar prior to
conducting a
full test or
training event
on the dipping
sonar.
Acoustic............. Submarine Submarine crews HF1, MF3....... Pearl Harbor, HI........ 1,540
Navigation operate sonar San Diego Bay, CA....... 560
Exercise. for navigation
and object
detection while
transiting into
and out of port
during reduced
visibility.
Acoustic............. Submarine Sonar Maintenance of MF3............ HRC..................... 1,820
Maintenance and submarine sonar Pearl Harbor, HI........ 1,820
Systems Checks. systems is SOCAL................... 651
conducted San Diego Bay, CA....... 644
pierside or at HSTT Transit Corridor... 70
sea.
Acoustic............. Submarine Under- Submarine crews HF1............ HRC..................... 84
Ice train to SOCAL................... 42
Certification. operate under
ice. Ice
conditions are
simulated
during training
and
certification
events.
Acoustic............. Surface Ship Maintenance of HF8, MF1....... HRC..................... 525
Sonar surface ship Pearl Harbor, HI........ 560
Maintenance and sonar systems SOCAL................... 1,750
Systems Checks. is conducted San Diego, CA........... 1,750
pierside or at HSTT Transit Corridor... 56
sea.
Acoustic............. Unmanned Unmanned FLS2, M3, SAS2. HRC..................... 175
Underwater underwater SOCAL................... 70
Vehicle vehicle
Training--Certi certification
fication and involves
Development. training with
unmanned
platforms to
ensure
submarine crew
proficiency.
Tactical
development
involves
training with
various
payloads for
multiple
purposes to
ensure that the
systems can be
employed
effectively in
an operational
environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California
Training and Testing, PMSR = Point Mugu Sea Range Overlap, TAR = Training Area and Range, SOAR = Southern
California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, IB = Imperial Beach Minefield.
\1\ Any non-antisubmarine warfare activity that could occur is captured in the individual activities.
\2\ For the Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface, all activities were analyzed using E12 explosive bin, but smaller
explosives are frequently used.

Proposed Testing Activities
The number of proposed testing activities that could occur annually
and the duration of those activities are identical to those presented
in Tables 5 through 8 of the 2018 HSTT final rule, and are not repeated
here. Similar to the 2017 Navy application, the Navy's proposed testing
activities here are based on the level of testing activities
anticipated to be conducted into the reasonably foreseeable future,
with adjustments that account for changes in the types and tempo
(increases or decreases) of testing activities to meet current and
future military readiness requirements. The number of proposed testing
activities that could occur for the seven-year period are presented in
Tables 2 through 5.

Naval Air Systems Command

The proposed Naval Air Systems Command testing activities that
could occur over the seven-year period within the HSTT Study Area are
presented in Table 2.

Table 2--Proposed Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities Analyzed for Seven-Year Period in the HSTT Study
Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Year
Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of
events
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Submarine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Anti-Submarine This event is MF5, TORP1..... HRC..................... 134
Warfare Torpedo similar to the SOCAL................... 353
Test. training event
torpedo
exercise. Test
evaluates anti-
submarine
warfare systems
onboard rotary-
wing and fixed-
wing aircraft
and the ability
to search for,
detect,
classify,
localize,
track, and
attack a
submarine or
similar target.
Explosive, Acoustic.. Anti-Submarine This event is MF4, MF5, E3... SOCAL................... 414
Warfare similar to the
Tracking Test-- training event
Helicopter. anti-submarine
tracking
exercise--helic
opter. 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, Acoustic.. Anti-Submarine The test ASW2, ASW5, HRC..................... 399
Warfare evaluates the MF5, MF6, E1, SOCAL................... 436
Tracking Test-- sensors and E3.
Maritime Patrol systems used by
Aircraft. maritime patrol
aircraft to
detect and
track
submarines and
to ensure that
aircraft
systems used to
deploy the
tracking
systems perform
to
specifications
and meet
operational
requirements.
Explosive, Acoustic.. Sonobuoy Lot Sonobuoys are ASW2, ASW5, SOCAL................... 1,120
Acceptance Test. deployed from HF5, HF6, LF4,
surface vessels MF5, MF6, E1,
and aircraft to E3, E4.
verify the
integrity and
performance of
a lot or group
of sonobuoys in
advance of
delivery to the
fleet for
operational use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Airborne Dipping A mine-hunting HF4............ SOCAL................... 24
Sonar dipping sonar
Minehunting system that is
Test. deployed from a
helicopter and
uses high-
frequency sonar
for the
detection and
classification
of bottom and
moored mines.

[[Page 48394]]

Explosive............ Airborne Mine A test of the E4............. SOCAL................... 117
Neutralization airborne mine
System Test. 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.
Acoustic............. Airborne A mine-hunting HF6............ SOCAL................... 33
Sonobuoy system made up
Minehunting of sonobuoys
Test. deployed from a
helicopter. A
field of
sonobuoys,
using high-
frequency
sonar, is used
for detection
and
classification
of bottom and
moored mines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosive............ Air-to-Surface This event is E9............. HRC..................... 56
Bombing Test. similar to the SOCAL................... 98
training event
bombing
exercise air-to-
surface. Fixed-
wing aircraft
test the
delivery of
bombs against
surface
maritime
targets with
the goal of
evaluating the
bomb, the bomb
carry and
delivery
system, and any
associated
systems that
may have been
newly developed
or enhanced.
Explosive............ Air-to-Surface This event is E1............. HRC..................... 35
Gunnery Test. similar to the SOCAL................... 330
training event
gunnery
exercise air-to-
surface. Fixed-
wing and rotary-
wing aircrews
evaluate new or
enhanced
aircraft guns
against surface
maritime
targets to test
that the gun,
gun ammunition,
or associated
systems meet
required
specifications
or to train
aircrew in the
operation of a
new or enhanced
weapons system.
Explosive............ Air-to-Surface This event is E6, E9, E10.... HRC..................... 126
Missile Test. similar to the SOCAL................... 384
training event
missile
exercise air-to-
surface. Test
may involve
both fixed-wing
and rotary-wing
aircraft
launching
missiles at
surface
maritime
targets to
evaluate the
weapons system
or as part of
another systems
integration
test.
Explosive............ Rocket Test..... Rocket tests are E3............. HRC..................... 14
conducted to SOCAL................... 142
evaluate the
integration,
accuracy,
performance,
and safe
separation of
guided and
unguided 2.75-
inch rockets
fired from a
hovering or
forward flying
helicopter or
tilt rotor
aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Testing Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Kilo Dip........ Functional check MF4............ SOCAL................... 12
of a helicopter
deployed
dipping sonar
system (e.g.,
AN/AQS-22)
prior to
conducting a
testing or
training event
using the
dipping sonar
system.
Acoustic............. Undersea Range Post MF9............ HRC..................... 129
System Test. installation
node survey and
test and
periodic
testing of
range node
transmit
functionality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex.

Naval Sea Systems Command

The proposed Naval Sea Systems Command testing activities that
could occur over the seven-year period within the HSTT Study Area are
presented in Table 3.

Table 3--Proposed Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities Analyzed for Seven-Year Period in the HSTT Study
Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Year
Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of
events
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Submarine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Anti-Submarine Ships and their ASW1, ASW2, HRC..................... 154
Warfare Mission supporting ASW3, ASW5, SOCAL................... 161
Package Testing. platforms MF1, MF4, MF5,
(e.g., rotary- MF12, TORP1.
wing aircraft
and unmanned
aerial systems)
detect,
localize, and
prosecute
submarines.
Acoustic............. At-Sea Sonar At-sea testing ASW3, ASW4, HRC..................... 109
Testing. to ensure HF1, LF4, LF5, HRC-SOCAL............... 7
systems are M3, MF1, MF1K, SOCAL................... 138
fully MF2, MF3, MF5,
functional in MF9, MF10,
an open ocean MF11.
environment.
Acoustic............. Countermeasure Countermeasure ASW3, ASW4, HRC..................... 56
Testing. testing HF5, TORP1, HRC-SOCAL............... 28
involves the TORP2. SOCAL................... 77
testing of HSTT Transit Corridor... 14
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.
Acoustic............. Pierside Sonar Pierside testing HF1, HF3, HF8, Pearl Harbor, HI........ 49
Testing. to ensure M3, MF1, MF3, San Diego, CA........... 49
systems are MF9.
fully
functional in a
controlled
pierside
environment
prior to at-sea
test activities.
Acoustic............. Submarine Sonar Pierside and at- HF1, HF3, M3, HRC..................... 28
Testing/ sea testing of MF3. Pearl Harbor, HI........ 119
Maintenance. submarine San Diego, CA........... 168
systems occurs
periodically
following major
maintenance
periods and for
routine
maintenance.
Acoustic............. Surface Ship Pierside and at- ASW3, MF1, HRC..................... 21
Sonar Testing/ sea testing of MF1K, MF9, Pearl Harbor, HI........ 21
Maintenance. ship systems MF10. San Diego, CA........... 21
occurs SOCAL................... 21
periodically
following major
maintenance
periods and for
routine
maintenance.
Explosive, Acoustic.. Torpedo Air, surface, or ASW3, HF1, HF5, HRC (W188).............. 56
(Explosive) submarine crews HF6, MF1, MF3, HRC (W188) SOCAL........ 21
Testing. employ MF4, MF5, MF6, SOCAL................... 56
explosive and TORP1, TORP2,
non-explosive E8, E11.
torpedoes
against
artificial
targets.

[[Page 48395]]

Acoustic............. Torpedo (Non- Air, surface, or ASW3, ASW4, HRC..................... 56
Explosive) submarine crews HF1, HF6, M3, HRC SOCAL............... 63
Testing. employ non- MF1, MF3, MF4, SOCAL................... 56
explosive MF5, MF6,
torpedoes TORP1, TORP2,
against TORP3.
submarines or
surface vessels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosive, Acoustic.. Mine Air, surface, HF4, E4........ SOCAL................... 70
Countermeasure and subsurface
and vessels
Neutralization neutralize
Testing. threat mines
and mine-like
objects.
Explosive, Acoustic.. Mine Vessels and HF4, SAS2, E4.. HRC..................... 118
Countermeasure associated SOCAL................... 406
Mission Package aircraft
Testing. conduct mine
countermeasure
operations.
Acoustic............. Mine Detection Air, surface, HF1, HF8, MF1, HRC..................... 14
and and subsurface MF5. HRC SOCAL............... 10
Classification vessels detect SOCAL................... 77
Testing. and classify
mines and mine-
like objects.
Vessels also
assess their
potential
susceptibility
to mines and
mine-like
objects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosive............ Gun Testing-- Surface crews E3............. HRC..................... 49
Large-Caliber. defend against HRC-SOCAL............... 504
surface targets SOCAL................... 49
with large-
caliber guns.
Explosive............ Gun Testing-- Surface crews E1............. HRC..................... 28
Medium-Caliber. defend against HRC-SOCAL............... 336
surface targets SOCAL................... 28
with medium-
caliber guns.
Explosive............ Missile and Missile and E6............. HRC..................... 91
Rocket Testing. rocket testing HRC-SOCAL............... 168
includes SOCAL................... 140
various
missiles or
rockets fired
from submarines
and surface
combatants.
Testing of the
launching
system and ship
defense is
performed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmanned Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Unmanned Surface Testing involves HF4, SAS2...... HRC..................... 21
Vehicle System the production SOCAL................... 28
Testing. or upgrade of
unmanned
surface
vehicles. This
may include
tests of mine
detection
capabilities,
evaluations of
the basic
functions of
individual
platforms, or
complex events
with multiple
vehicles.
Acoustic............. Unmanned Testing involves HF4, MF9....... HRC..................... 21
Underwater the production SOCAL................... 2,037
Vehicle Testing. or upgrade of
unmanned
underwater
vehicles. This
may include
tests of mine
detection
capabilities,
evaluations of
the basic
functions of
individual
platforms, or
complex events
with multiple
vehicles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessel Evaluation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Submarine Sea Submarine HF1, M3, MF3, HRC..................... 7
Trials-Weapons weapons and MF9, MF10, SOCAL................... 7
System Testing. sonar systems TORP2.
are tested at-
sea to meet the
integrated
combat system
certification
requirements.
Explosive............ Surface Warfare Tests the E1, E5, E8..... HRC..................... 63
Testing. capabilities of HRC-SOCAL............... 441
shipboard SOCAL................... 102
sensors to
detect, track,
and engage
surface
targets.
Testing may
include ships
defending
against surface
targets using
explosive and
non-explosive
rounds, gun
system
structural test
firing, and
demonstration
of the response
to Call for
Fire against
land-based
targets
(simulated by
sea-based
locations).
Acoustic............. Undersea Warfare Ships ASW4, HF4, HF8, HRC..................... 49
Testing. demonstrate MF1, MF4, MF5, HRC SOCAL............... 60
capability of MF6, TORP1, SOCAL................... 69
countermeasure TORP2.
systems and
underwater
surveillance,
weapons
engagement, and
communications
systems. This
tests ships
ability to
detect, track,
and engage
undersea
targets.
Acoustic............. Vessel Signature Surface ship, ASW3........... HRC..................... 28
Evaluation. submarine and HRC SOCAL............... 252
auxiliary SOCAL................... 168
system
signature
assessments.
This may
include
electronic,
radar,
acoustic,
infrared and
magnetic
signatures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Testing Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Insertion/ Testing of M3, MF9........ HRC..................... 7
Extraction. submersibles SOCAL................... 7
capable of
inserting and
extracting
personnel and
payloads into
denied areas
from strategic
distances.
Acoustic............. Signature Surface ship and HF1, M3, MF9... HRC..................... 14
Analysis submarine SOCAL................... 7
Operations. testing of
electromagnetic
, acoustic,
optical, and
radar signature
measurements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California
Training and Testing, CA = California, HI = Hawaii.

Office of Naval Research

The proposed Office of Naval Research testing activities that could
occur over the seven-year period within the HSTT Study Area are
presented in Table 4.

Table 4--Proposed Office of Naval Research Testing Activities Analyzed for Seven-Year Period in the HSTT Study
Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Year
Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of
events
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosive, Acoustic.. Acoustic and Research using AG, ASW2, BB4, HRC..................... 14
Oceanographic active BB9, LF3, LF4, SOCAL................... 28
Research. transmissions LF5, MF8, MF9,
from sources MF9, MF9, E3.
deployed from
ships and
unmanned
underwater
vehicles.
Research
sources can be
used as proxies
for current and
future Navy
systems.

[[Page 48396]]

Acoustic............. Long Range Bottom mounted LF4............ HRC..................... 21
Acoustic acoustic source
Communications. off of the
Hawaiian Island
of Kauai will
transmit a
variety of
acoustic
communications
sequences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex.

Naval Information Warfare Systems Command

The proposed Naval Information Warfare Systems Command testing
activities that could occur over the seven-year period within the HSTT
Study Area are presented in Table 5.

Table 5--Proposed Naval Information Warfare Systems Command Testing Activities Analyzed for Seven-Year Period in
the HSTT Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Year
Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of
events
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic............. Anti-Terrorism/ Testing sensor SD1............ San Diego, CA........... 98
Force systems that SOCAL................... 112
Protection. can detect
threats to
naval piers,
ships, and
shore
infrastructure.
Acoustic............. Communications.. Testing of ASW2, ASW5, HRC..................... 5
underwater HF6, LF4. SOCAL................... 70
communications
and networks to
extend the
principles of
FORCEnet below
the ocean
surface.
Acoustic............. Energy and Develop, AG, HF2, HF7, HRC..................... 87
Intelligence, integrate, and LF4, LF5, LF6, SOCAL................... 357
Surveillance, demonstrate MF10. HSTT Transit Corridor... 56
and Intelligence,
Reconnaissance Surveillance,
Sensor Systems. and
Reconnaissance
systems and in-
situ energy
systems to
support
deployed
systems.
Acoustic............. Vehicle Testing. Testing of BB4, FLS2, HRC..................... 8
surface and FLS3, HF6, SOCAL................... 1,141
subsurface LF3, M3, MF9, HSTT Transit Corridor... 14
vehicles and MF13, SAS1,
sensor systems SAS2, SAS3.
that may
involve
Unmanned
Underwater
Vehicles,
gliders, and
Unmanned
Surface
Vehicles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California
Training and Testing, CA = California.

Summary of Acoustic and Explosive Sources Analyzed for Training and
Testing

Tables 6 through 9 show the acoustic and explosive source classes,
bins, and numbers used, airgun sources and numbers used, and numbers of
pile driving and removal activities associated with the Navy's proposed
training and testing activities over a seven-year period in the HSTT
Study Area that were analyzed in the 2019 Navy application and for this
proposed rule. The annual numbers for acoustic source classes,
explosive source bins, and airgun sources, as well as the annual pile
driving and removal activities associated with Navy training and
testing activities in the HSTT Study Area are identical to those
presented in Tables 9 through 12 of the 2018 HSTT final rule, and are
not repeated here. Consistent with the periodicity in the 2018 HSTT
final rule, the Navy proposes the addition of two pile driving/
extraction activities for each of the two additional years.
Table 6 describes the acoustic source classes (i.e., low-frequency
(LF), mid-frequency (MF), and high-frequency (HF)) that could occur
over seven years under the proposed training and testing activities.
Acoustic source bin use in the proposed activities would vary annually.
The seven-year totals for the proposed training and testing activities
take into account that annual variability.

Table 6--Acoustic Source Classes Analyzed and Number Used for Seven-Year Period for Training and Testing
Activities in the HSTT Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training Testing
Source class category Bin Description Unit \1\ -------------------------------
7-year total 7-year total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF): Sources that LF3 LF sources greater than H 0 1,365
produce signals less than 1 kHz. LF4 200 dB. H 0 4,496
LF sources equal to 180 C 0 140
dB and up to 200 dB.
LF5 LF sources less than 180 H 65 14,458
dB.
LF6 LF sources greater than H 956 360
200 dB with long pulse
lengths.
Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and MF1 Hull-mounted surface H 38,489 8,692
non-tactical sources that ship sonars (e.g., AN/
produce signals between 1 and SQS-53C and AN/SQS-61).
10 kHz.
MF1K Kingfisher mode H 700 98
associated with MF1
sonars.
MF2 \2\ Hull-mounted surface H 0 378
ship sonars (e.g., AN/
SQS-56).
MF3 Hull-mounted submarine H 14,700 9,177
sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ-
10).
MF4 Helicopter-deployed H 2,719 2,502
dipping sonars (e.g.,
AN/AQS-22 and AN/AQS-
13).
MF5 Active acoustic C 40,128 38,233
sonobuoys (e.g.,
DICASS).

[[Page 48397]]

MF6 Active underwater sound C 63 8,202
signal devices (e.g.,
MK 84).
MF8 Active sources (greater H 0 490
than 200 dB) not
otherwise binned.
MF9 Active sources (equal to H 0 36,056
180 dB and up to 200
dB) not otherwise
binned.
MF10 Active sources (greater H 0 13,104
than 160 dB, but less
than 180 dB) not
otherwise binned.
MF11 Hull-mounted surface H 5,205 392
ship sonars with an
active duty cycle
greater than 80%.
MF12 Towed array surface ship H 1,260 4,620
sonars with an active
duty cycle greater than
80%.
MF13 MF sonar source......... H 0 2,100
High-Frequency (HF): Tactical HF1 Hull-mounted submarine H 12,550 5,403
and non-tactical sources that ......... sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ- ......... .............. ..............
produce signals between 10 and HF2 10). H 0 840
100 kHz. HF Marine Mammal
Monitoring System.
HF3 Other hull-mounted H 1,919 769
submarine sonars
(classified).
HF4 Mine detection, H 15,012 114,069
classification, and
neutralization sonar
(e.g., AN/SQS-20).
HF5 Active sources (greater H 0 6,720
than 200 dB) not C 0 280
otherwise binned.
HF6 Active sources (equal to H 0 7,015
180 dB and up to 200
dB) not otherwise
binned.
HF7 Active sources (greater H 0 9,660
than 160 dB, but less
than 180 dB) not
otherwise binned.
HF8 Hull-mounted surface H 711 5,136
ship sonars (e.g., AN/
SQS-61).
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): ASW1 MF systems operating H 1,503 3,290
Tactical sources (e.g., active ASW2 above 200 dB. C 4,824 32,900
sonobuoys and acoustic ......... MF Multistatic Active ......... .............. ..............
countermeasures systems) used ASW3 Coherent sonobuoy H 37,385 19,187
during ASW training and testing (e.g., AN/SSQ-125).
activities. MF towed active acoustic
countermeasure systems
(e.g., AN/SLQ-25).
ASW4 MF expendable active C 9,023 15,398
acoustic device
countermeasures (e.g..,
MK 3).
ASW5 \3\ MF sonobuoys with high H 1,780 3,854
duty cycles.
Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes TORP1 Lightweight torpedo C 1,605 6,454
associated with the active ......... (e.g., MK 46, MK 54, or ......... .............. ..............
acoustic signals produced by TORP2 Anti-Torpedo Torpedo). C 3,515 2,756
torpedoes. TORP3 Heavyweight torpedo C 0 315
(e.g., MK 48).
Forward Looking Sonar (FLS): FLS2 HF sources with short H 196 3,424
Forward or upward looking ......... pulse lengths, narrow ......... .............. ..............
object avoidance sonars used ......... beam widths, and ......... .............. ..............
for ship navigation and safety. FLS3 focused beam patterns. H 0 18,480
VHF sources with short
pulse lengths, narrow
beam widths, and
focused beam patterns.
Acoustic Modems (M): Systems M3 MF acoustic modems H 274 3,623
used to transmit data through (greater than 190 dB).
the water.
Swimmer Detection Sonars (SD): SD1-SD2 HF and VHF sources with H 0 70
Systems used to detect divers short pulse lengths,
and submerged swimmers. used for the detection
of swimmers and other
objects for the purpose
of port security.
Synthetic Aperture Sonars (SAS): SAS1 MF SAS systems.......... H 0 13,720
Sonars in which active acoustic SAS2 HF SAS systems.......... H 6,297 60,088
signals are post-processed to SAS3 VHF SAS systems......... H 0 32,200
form high-resolution images of SAS4 MF to HF broadband mine H 294 0
the seafloor. countermeasure sonar.
Broadband Sound Sources (BB): BB4 LF to MF oceanographic H 0 6,414
Sonar systems with large BB7 source. C 0 196
frequency spectra, used for BB9 LF oceanographic source. H 0 3,360
various purposes. MF optoacoustic source..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H = hours; C = count (e.g., number of individual pings or individual sonobuoys).
\2\ MF2/MF2K are sources on frigate class ships, which were decommissioned during Phase II.
\3\ Formerly ASW2 (H) in Phase II.
Notes: dB = decibel(s), kHz = kilohertz, VHF = very high frequency.

[[Page 48398]]

Table 7 describes the number of air gun shots that could occur over
seven years under the proposed training and testing activities.

Table 7--Training and Testing Air Gun Sources Quantitatively Analyzed in the HSTT Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training Testing
Source class category Bin Unit \1\ ---------------------------------
7-year total 7-year total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Guns (AG): small underwater air guns.... AG C 0 5,908
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ C = count. One count (C) of AG is equivalent to 100 air gun firings.

Table 8 summarizes the impact pile driving and vibratory pile
removal activities that would occur during a 24-hour period. Annually,
for impact pile driving, the Navy will drive 119 piles, two times a
year for a total of 238 piles. Over the seven-year period of the rule,
the Navy will drive a total of 1,666 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 seven-year
period of the rule, the Navy will extract a total of 1,666 piles by
vibratory pile extraction.

Table 8--Summary of Pile Driving and Removal Activities per 24-Hour Period in the HSTT Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
estimated time
Method Piles per 24- Time per pile of noise per
hour period (minutes) 24-hour period
(minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile Driving (Impact)........................................... 6 15 90
Pile Removal (Vibratory)........................................ 12 6 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 9 describes the number of in-water explosives that could be
used in any year under the proposed training and testing activities.
Under the proposed activities bin use would vary annually, and the
seven-year totals for the proposed training and testing activities take
into account that annual variability.

Table 9--Explosive Source Bins Analyzed and Number Used for Seven-Year Period for Training and Testing
Activities Within the HSTT Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeled Training Testing
Net explosive Example explosive underwater -------------------------------
Bin weight (lb.) source detonation
\1\ depths (ft.) 7-year total 7-year total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E1................... 0.1-0.25........ Medium-caliber 0.3, 60......... 20,580 87,012
projectiles.
E2................... >0.25-0.5....... Medium-caliber 0.3, 50......... 12,222 0
projectiles.
E3................... >0.5-2.5........ Large-caliber 0.3, 60......... 19,579 20,848
projectiles.
E4................... >2.5-5.......... Mine neutralization 10, 16, 33, 50, 266 4,372
charge. 61, 65, 650.
E5................... >5-10........... 5 in. projectiles.... 0.3, 10, 50..... 33,310 9,800
E6................... >10-20.......... Hellfire missile..... 0.3, 10, 50, 60. 4,056 230
E7................... >20-60.......... Demo block/shaped 10, 50, 60...... 91 0
charge.
E8................... >60-100......... Lightweight torpedo.. 0.3, 150........ 241 399
E9................... >100-250........ 500 lb. bomb......... 0.3............. 2,950 28
E10.................. >250-500........ Harpoon missile...... 0.3............. 1,543 210
E11.................. >500-650........ 650 lb. mine......... 61, 150......... 69 84
E12.................. >650-1,000...... 2,000 lb. bomb....... 0.3............. 114 0
E13.................. >1,000-1,740.... Multiple Mat Weave NA \2\.......... 63 0
charges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Net Explosive Weight refers to the amount of explosives; the actual weight of a munition may be larger due
to other components.
\2\ Not modeled because charge is detonated in surf zone; not a single E13 charge, but multiple smaller charges
detonated in quick succession.
Notes: in. = inch(es), lb. = pound(s), ft. = feet.

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 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 (kn), while a few specialized vessels can
travel at faster speeds. Small craft (for purposes of this analysis,
less than 18 m in length) have much more variable speeds (0-50+ 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 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. A full description of Navy vessels that are used during
training and testing activities can be found in the 2017 Navy

[[Page 48399]]

application and Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and
Alternatives) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS.
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 typically be
conducted near naval ports, piers, and range areas. Navy vessel traffic
would be especially 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.
The Navy proposes no changes to the manner in which Navy vessels
would be used during training and testing activities, the speeds at
which they operate, the number of vessels that would be used during
various activities, or the locations in which Navy vessel movement
would be concentrated within the HSTT Study Area from those analyzed in
the 2018 HSTT final rule. The only change related to the Navy's request
regarding Navy vessel movement is the vessel use associated with the
additional two years of Navy activities.

Standard Operating Procedures

For training and testing to be effective, personnel must be able to
safely use their sensors and weapon systems as they are intended to be
used in a real-world situation and to their optimum capabilities. While
standard operating procedures are designed for the safety of personnel
and equipment and to ensure the success of training and testing
activities, their implementation often yields additional benefits on
environmental, socioeconomic, public health and safety, and cultural
resources. Because standard operating procedures are essential to
safety and mission success, the Navy considers them to be part of the
proposed activities and included them in the environmental analysis.
Details on standard operating procedures were provided in the 2018 HSTT
proposed rule; please see the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, the 2017 Navy
application, and Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and
Alternatives) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS for more information. The Navy
proposes no changes to the Standard Operating Procedures from those
included in the 2018 HSTT final rule.

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 10
along with the best/minimum abundance estimate and associated
coefficient of variation value. Consistent with the 2018 HSTT final
rule, the Navy still anticipates the take of individuals from 38 marine
mammal species by Level A harassment and Level B harassment incidental
to training and testing activities from the use of sonar and other
transducers, in-water detonations, air guns, and impact pile driving/
vibratory extraction activities. The Navy requested authorization for
13 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 seven-year period. Two marine
mammal species, the Hawaiian monk seal and the Main Hawaiian Islands
Insular Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of false killer whale, have
critical habitat designated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in
the HSTT Study Area.
We presented a detailed discussion of marine mammals and their
occurrence in the HSTT Study Area, inclusive of important marine mammal
habitat (e.g., ESA-designated critical habitat), biologically important
areas (BIAs), national marine sanctuaries (NMSs), and unusual mortality
events (UMEs) in the 2018 HSTT proposed rule and 2018 HSTT final rule;
please see these rules and the 2017 and 2019 Navy applications for
additional information. There have been no changes to important marine
mammal habitat, BIAs, NMSs, or ESA designated critical habitat since
the issuance of the 2018 HSTT final rule; therefore the information
that supports our determinations here can be found in the 2018 HSTT
proposed and final rules. NMFS has reviewed the most recent 2018 final
Stock Assessment Reports (SARs); information on relevant UMEs; and
other scientific literature, and determined that none of these nor any
other new information changes our determination of which species or
stocks have the potential to be affected by the Navy's activities or
the pertinent information in the Description of Marine Mammals and
Their Habitat in the Area of the Specified Activities section in the
2018 HSTT proposed and final rules. Therefore the information presented
in those sections of the 2018 HSTT proposed and final rules remains
current and valid.
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.

[[Page 48400]]

Table 10--Marine Mammal Occurrence Within the HSTT Study Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Stock abundance
Common name Scientific name Stock ---------------------------------------------------------- Occurrence Seasonal absence (CV)/minimum
MMPA ESA population
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue whale................... Balaenoptera Eastern North Strategic, Depleted.......... Endangered............... Southern ........................... 1,647 (0.07)/1,551.
musculus. Pacific. California.
Central North Strategic, Depleted.......... Endangered............... Hawaii.......... Summer..................... 133 (1.09)/63.
Pacific.
Bryde's whale................ Balaenoptera Eastern Tropical ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... unknown.
brydei/edeni. Pacific. California.
Hawaii.......... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 1,751 (0.29)/1,378.
Fin whale.................... Balaenoptera CA/OR/WA........ Strategic, Depleted.......... Endangered............... Southern ........................... 9,029 (0.12)/8,127.
physalus. California.
Hawaii.......... Strategic, Depleted.......... Endangered............... Hawaii.......... Summer..................... 154 (1.05)/75.
Gray whale................... Eschrichtius Eastern North ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 26,960 (0.05)/
robustus. Pacific. California. 25,849.
Western North Strategic, Depleted.......... Endangered............... Southern ........................... 290 (NA)/271.
Pacific. California.
Humpback whale............... Megaptera CA/OR/WA........ Strategic, Depleted.......... Threatened/ Endangered Southern ........................... 2,900 (0.05)/2,784.
novaeangliae. \1\. California.
Central North Strategic.................... ......................... Hawaii.......... Summer..................... 10,103 (0.30)/7,891.
Pacific.
Minke whale.................. Balaenoptera CA/OR/WA........ ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 636 (0.72)/369.
acutorostrata. California.
Hawaii.......... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... Summer..................... unknown.
Sei whale.................... Balaenoptera Eastern North Strategic, Depleted.......... Endangered............... Southern ........................... 519 (0.40)/374.
borealis. Pacific. California.
Hawaii.......... Strategic, Depleted.......... Endangered............... Hawaii.......... Summer..................... 391 (0.90)/204.
Sperm whale.................. Physeter CA/OR/WA........ Strategic, Depleted.......... Endangered............... Southern ........................... 1,997 (0.57)/1,270.
macrocephalus. California.
Hawaii.......... Strategic, Depleted.......... Endangered............... Hawaii.......... ........................... 4,559 (0.33)/3,478.
Pygmy sperm whale............ Kogia breviceps. CA/OR/WA........ ............................. ......................... Southern Winter and Fall............ 4,111 (1.12)/1,924.
California.
Hawaii.......... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... unknown.
Dwarf sperm whale............ Kogia sima...... CA/OR/WA........ ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... unknown.
California.
Hawaii.......... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... unknown.
Baird's beaked whale......... Berardius CA/OR/WA........ ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 2,697 (0.60)/1,633.
bairdii. California.
Blainville's beaked whale.... Mesoplodon Hawaii.......... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 2,105 (1.13)/980.
densirostris.
Cuvier's beaked whale........ Ziphius CA/OR/WA........ ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 3,274 (0.67)/2,059.
cavirostris. California.
Hawaii.......... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 723 0.69/428.
Longman's beaked whale....... Indopacetus Hawaii.......... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 7,619 (0.66)/4,592.
pacificus.
Mesoplodon beaked whales..... Mesoplodon spp.. CA/OR/WA........ ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 3,044 (0.54)/1,967.
California.
Common Bottlenose dolphin.... Tursiops California ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 453 (0.06)/346.
truncatus. Coastal. California.
CA/OR/WA ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 1,924 (0.54)/1,255.
Offshore. California.
Hawaii Pelagic.. ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 21,815 (0.57)/
13,957.
Kauai and Niihau ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... NA NA/97.
Oahu............ ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... NA.
4-Islands....... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... NA.
Hawaii Island... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... NA NA/91.
False killer whale........... Pseudorca Main Hawaiian Strategic, Depleted.......... Endangered............... Hawaii.......... ........................... 167 (0.14)/149.
crassidens. Islands Insular.
Hawaii Pelagic.. ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 1,540 (0.66)/928.
Northwestern ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 617 (1.11)/290.
Hawaiian
Islands.
Fraser's dolphin............. Lagenodelphis Hawaii.......... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 51,491 (0.66)/
hosei. 31,034.
Killer whale................. Orcinus orca.... Eastern North ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 300 (0.1)/276.
Pacific California.
Offshore.
Eastern North ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 243 unknown/243.
Pacific California.
Transient/West
Coast
Transient\2\.
Hawaii.......... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 146 (0.96)/74.
Long-beaked common dolphin... Delphinus California...... ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 101,305 (0.49)/
capensis. California. 68,432.
Melon-headed whale........... Peponocephala Hawaiian Islands ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 8,666 (1.00)/4,299.
electra.
Kohala Resident. ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 447 (0.12)/404.
Northern right whale dolphin. Lissodelphis CA/OR/WA........ ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 26,556 (0.44)/
borealis. California. 18,608.
Pacific white-sided dolphin.. Lagenorhynchus CA/OR/WA........ ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 26,814 (0.28)/
obliquidens. California. 21,195.
Pantropical spotted dolphin.. Stenella Oahu............ ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... unknown.
attenuata.
4-Islands....... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... unknown.
Hawaii Island... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... unknown.
Hawaii Pelagic.. ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 55,795 (0.40)/
40,338.
Pygmy killer whale........... Feresa attenuata Tropical........ ............................. ......................... Southern Winter & Spring............ unknown.
California.
Hawaii.......... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 10,640 (0.53)/6,998.
Risso's dolphins............. Grampus griseus. CA/OR/WA........ ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 6,336 (0.32)/4,817.
California.
Hawaii.......... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 11,613 (0.43)/8,210.

[[Page 48401]]

Rough-toothed dolphin........ Steno NSD\3\.......... ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... unknown.
bredanensis. California.
Hawaii.......... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 72,528 (0.39)/
52,833.
Short-beaked common dolphin.. Delphinus CA/OR/WA........ ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 969,861 (0.17)/
delphis. California. 839,325.
Short-finned pilot whale..... Globicephala CA/OR/WA........ ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 836 (0.79)/466.
macrorhynchus. California.
Hawaii.......... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 19,503 (0.49)/
13,197.
Spinner dolphin.............. Stenella Hawaii Pelagic.. ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... unknown.
longirostris.
Hawaii Island... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 665 (0.09)/617.
Oahu and 4- ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... NA.
Islands.
Kauai and Niihau ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... NA.
Kure and Midway. ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... unknown.
Pearl and Hermes ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... unknown.
Striped dolphin.............. Stenella CA/OR/WA........ ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 29,211 (0.20)/
coeruleoalba. California. 24,782.
Hawaii.......... ............................. ......................... Hawaii.......... ........................... 61,021 (0.38)/
44,922.
Dall's porpoise.............. Phocoenoides CA/OR/WA........ ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 25,750 (0.45)/17,954
dalli. California.
Harbor seal.................. Phoca vitulina.. California...... ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 30,968 (NA)/27,348.
California.
Hawaiian monk seal........... Neomonachus Hawaii.......... Strategic, Depleted.......... Endangered............... Hawaii.......... ........................... 1,415 (0.03)/1,384.
schauinslandi.
Northern elephant seal....... Mirounga California...... ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 179,000 (NA)/81,368.
angustirostris. California.
California sea lion.......... Zalophus U.S. Stock...... ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 257,606 (NA)/
californianus. California. 233,515.
Guadalupe fur seal........... Arctocephalus Mexico to Strategic, Depleted.......... Threatened............... Southern ........................... 20,000 (NA)/15,830.
townsendi. California. California.
Northern fur seal............ Callorhinus California...... ............................. ......................... Southern ........................... 14,050 (NA)/7,524.
ursinus. California.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The two humpback whale Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) making up the California, Oregon, and Washington (CA/OR/WA) stock present in Southern California are the Mexico DPS, listed under
the ESA as Threatened, and the Central America DPS, 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.

[[Page 48402]]

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat

We provided a full discussion of the potential effects of the
specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat in our 2018
HSTT proposed rule and 2018 HSTT final rule. In the Potential Effects
of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section of
the 2018 HSTT proposed and final rules, NMFS provided a description of
the ways marine mammals may be affected by the same activities that the
Navy will be conducting during the seven-year period analyzed in this
rule in the form of serious injury or mortality, physical trauma,
sensory impairment (permanent and temporary threshold shifts and
acoustic masking), physiological responses (particularly stress
responses), behavioral disturbance, or habitat effects. Therefore, we
do not repeat the information here, all of which remains current and
applicable, but refer the reader to those rules and the 2018 HSTT FEIS/
OEIS (Chapter 3, Section 3.7 Marine Mammals), which NMFS participated
in the development of via our cooperating agency status and adopted to
meet our NEPA requirements.
In addition, NMFS has reviewed new information in relevant SARs,
any new information on active UMEs or new UMEs, and new scientific
literature. Summaries of current UMEs and new scientific literature
since publication of the 2018 HSTT final rule are presented below.

Unusual Mortality Events (UME)

An UME is defined under Section 410(6) of the MMPA as a stranding
that is unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal
population; and demands immediate response. From 1991 to the present,
there have been 17 formally recognized UMEs affecting marine mammals in
California and Hawaii and involving species under NMFS' jurisdiction.
Three UMEs that could be relevant to informing the current analysis are
discussed below. Specifically, the California sea lion UME in
California is still open, but will be closed soon. The Guadalupe fur
seal UME in California and the gray whale UME along the west coast of
North America are active and involve ongoing investigations.
California Sea Lion UME
From January 2013 through September 2016, a greater than expected
number of young malnourished California sea lions (Zalophus
californianus) stranded along the coast of California. Sea lions
stranding from an early age (6-8 months old) through two years of age
(hereafter referred to as juveniles) were consistently underweight
without other disease processes detected. Of the 8,122 stranded
juveniles attributed to the UME, 93 percent stranded alive (n=7,587,
with 3,418 of these released after rehabilitation) and 7 percent
(n=531) stranded dead. Several factors are hypothesized to have
impacted the ability of nursing females and young sea lions to acquire
adequate nutrition for successful pup rearing and juvenile growth. In
late 2012, decreased anchovy and sardine recruitment (CalCOFI data,
July 2013) may have led to nutritionally stressed adult females.
Biotoxins were present at various times throughout the UME, and while
they were not detected in the stranded juvenile sea lions (whose
stomachs were empty at the time of stranding), biotoxins may have
impacted the adult females' ability to support their dependent pups by
affecting their cognitive function (e.g. navigation, behavior towards
their offspring). Therefore, the role of biotoxins in this UME, via its
possible impact on adult females' ability to support their pups, is
unclear. The proposed primary cause of the UME was malnutrition of sea
lion pups and yearlings due to ecological factors. These factors
included shifts in distribution, abundance and/or quality of sea lion
prey items around the Channel Island rookeries during critical sea lion
life history events (nursing by adult females, and transitioning from
milk to prey by young sea lions). These prey shifts were most likely
driven by unusual oceanographic conditions at the time due to the
``Warm Water Blob'' and El Ni[ntilde]o. This investigation will soon be
closed. Please refer to: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2013-2017-california-sea-lion-unusual-mortality-event-california for more information on this UME.
Guadalupe Fur Seal UME
Increased strandings of Guadalupe fur seals began along the entire
coast of California in January 2015 and were eight times higher than
the historical average (approximately 10 seals/yr). Strandings have
continued since 2015 and have remained well above average through 2017.
Strandings have continued since 2015 and remained well above average
through 2019. Numbers by year are as follows: 2015 (98), 2016 (76),
2017 (61), 2018 (45), 2019 (104, as of June 28, 2019). The total number
of Guadalupe fur seals from January 1, 2015, through June 28, 2019, in
the UME is 438. Additionally, strandings of Guadalupe fur seals became
elevated in the spring of 2019 in Washington and Oregon, subsequently
strandings for seals in these two states have been added to the UME
starting from January 1, 2019. The current total number of strandings
for 2019 in Washington and Oregon is 55 seals as of June 28, 2019.
Strandings are seasonal and generally peak in April through June of
each year. The Guadalupe fur seal strandings have been mostly weaned
pups and juveniles (1-2 years old) with both live and dead strandings
occurring. Current findings from the majority of stranded animals
include primary malnutrition with secondary bacterial and parasitic
infections. This California portion of this UME is occurring in the
same area as the 2013-2016 California sea lion UME. This investigation
is ongoing. Please refer to: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2015-2019-guadalupe-fur-seal-unusual-mortality-event-california for more information on this UME.
Gray Whale UME
Since January 1, 2019, elevated gray whale strandings have occurred
along the west coast of North America, from Mexico to Canada. As of
June 28, 2019, there have been a total of 170 strandings along the
coasts of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, with 84 of those strandings
occurring along the U.S. coast. Partial necropsy examinations conducted
on a subset of stranded whales have shown evidence of emaciation. As
part of the UME investigation process, NOAA is assembling an
independent team of scientists to coordinate with the Working Group on
Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events to review the data collected,
sample stranded whales, and determine the next steps for the
investigation. Please refer to: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-gray-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-west-coast for more information on this UME.

New Pertinent Science Since Publication of the 2018 HSTT Final Rule

Southall et al. (2019a) evaluated Southall et al. (2007) and used
updated scientific information to propose revised noise exposure
criteria to predict onset of auditory effects in marine mammals (i.e.,
PTS and TTS onset). Southall et al. (2019a) note that the quantitative
processes described and the resulting exposure criteria (i.e.,
thresholds and auditory weighting functions) are largely identical to
those in Finneran (2016) and NMFS (2016 and 2018).

[[Page 48403]]

However they differ in that the Southall et al. (2019a) exposure
criteria are more broadly applicable as they include all marine mammal
species (rather than only those under NMFS jurisdiction) for all noise
exposures (both in air and underwater for amphibious species) and,
while the hearing group compositions are identical, they renamed the
hearing groups.
Recent studies on the behavioral responses of cetaceans to sonar
examine and continue to demonstrate the importance of not only sound
source parameters, but exposure context (e.g., behavioral state,
presence of other animals and social relationships, prey abundance,
distance to source, presence of vessels, environmental parameters,
etc.) in determining or predicting a behavioral response. Kastelein et
al. (2018) examined the role of sound pressure level (SPL) and duty
cycle on the behavior of two captive harbor porpoises when exposed to
simulated Navy mid-frequency sonar (53C, 3.5 to 4.1 kHz). Neither
harbor porpoise responded to the low duty cycle (2.7 percent) at any of
the five SPLs presented, even at the maximum received SPL (143 dB re: 1
[micro]Pa). At the higher duty cycle (96 percent), one porpoise
responded by increasing his respiration rate at a received SPL of
greater than or equal to 119 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa, and moved away from
the transducer at a received SPL of 143 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa. Kastelein
et al. (2018) observed that at the same received SPL and duty cycle,
harbor porpoises respond less to 53C sonar sounds than 1-2 kHz, 6-7
kHz, and 25 kHz sonar signals observed in previous studies, but noted
that when examining behavioral responses it is important to take into
account the spectrum and temporal structure of the signal, the duty
cycle, and the psychological interpretation by the animal. Wensveen et
al. (2019) examined the role of sound source (simulated sonar pulses)
distance and received level in northern bottlenose whales in an
environment without frequent sonar activity using multi-scaled
controlled exposure experiments. They observed behavioral avoidance of
the sound source over a wide range of distances (0.8-28 km) and
estimated avoidance thresholds ranging from received SPLs of 117-126 dB
re: 1 [micro]Pa. The behavioral response characteristics and avoidance
thresholds were comparable to those previously observed in beaked whale
studies; however, they did not observe an effect of distance on
behavioral response and found that onset and intensity of behavioral
response were better predicted by received SPL. When conducting
controlled exposure experiments on blue whales Southall et al. (2019b)
observed that after exposure to simulated and operational mid-frequency
active sonar, more than 50 percent of blue whales in deep-diving states
responded to the sonar, while no behavioral response was observed in
shallow-feeding blue whales. The behavioral responses they observed
were generally brief, of low to moderate severity, and highly dependent
on exposure context (behavioral state, source-to-whale horizontal
range, and prey availability). Blue whale response did not follow a
simple exposure-response model based on received sound exposure level.
In a review of the potential impacts of sonar on beaked whales,
Bernaldo de Quir[oacute]s et al. (2019) suggested that the effect of
mid-frequency active sonar on beaked whales varies among individuals or
populations, and that predisposing conditions such as previous exposure
to sonar and individual health risk factors may contribute to
individual outcomes (such as decompression sickness).
Having considered this information, we have preliminarily
determined that there is no new information that substantively affects
our analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat that
appeared in the 2018 HSTT final rule, all of which remains applicable
and valid for our assessment of the effects of the Navy's activities
during the seven-year period of this rule.

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals

This section indicates the number of takes that NMFS is proposing
to authorize, 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 below. NMFS
coordinated closely with the Navy in the development of their
incidental take application, and preliminarily agrees that the methods
the Navy has put forth described herein and in the 2018 HSTT proposed
and final rules to estimate take (including the model, thresholds, and
density estimates), and the resulting numbers are based on the best
available science and appropriate for authorization. The number and
type of incidental takes that could occur or are likely to occur
annually remain identical to those authorized in the 2018 HSTT
regulations.
Takes are predominantly in the form of harassment, but a small
number of serious injuries or mortalities are also possible. 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).
Proposed 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
behavioral disruption (rising to the level of a take as described
above) or temporary threshold shift (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, no more
than three serious injuries or mortalities total (over the seven-year
period) of mysticetes (except for sei whales, minke whales, Bryde's
whales, Central North Pacific stock of blue whales, Hawaii stock of fin
whales, and Western North Pacific stock of gray whales) and the Hawaii
stock of sperm whales have the potential occur through vessel
collisions. Although we analyze the impacts of these potential serious
injuries or mortalities that are proposed to be authorized, the
required mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize
the likelihood that ship strike or these high-level explosive exposures
(and the associated serious injury or mortality) actually occur.
Generally speaking, for acoustic impacts we estimate the amount and
type of harassment by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which
NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will
be taken by Level B harassment (in this case, as defined in the
military readiness definition of Level B harassment included above) or
incur some degree of temporary or permanent hearing impairment; (2) the
area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a
day or event; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within
these ensonified areas; and (4) and the number of days of activities or
events.

[[Page 48404]]

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 permanent threshold shift (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 take by 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 behavioral Level B harassment thresholds have been refined here to
better consider the best available science (e.g., incorporating both
received level and distance), they also still 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 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 behavioral Level B harassment thresholds
are the most appropriate method for predicting behavioral Level B
harassment given the best available science and the associated
uncertainty.
We described these acoustic thresholds and the methods used to
determine thresholds, none of which have changed, in detail in the
Acoustic Thresholds section of the 2018 HSTT final rule; please see the
2018 HSTT final rule for detailed information.

Navy's Acoustic Effects Model

The Navy proposes no changes to the Acoustic Effects Model as
described in the 2018 HSTT final rule and there is no new information
that would affect the applicability or validity of the model. Please
see the 2018 HSTT final and proposed rules and Appendix E of the 2018
HSTT FEIS/OEIS for detailed information.

Range to Effects

The Navy proposes no changes from the 2018 HSTT final rule to the
type and nature of the specified activities to be conducted during the
seven-year period analyzed in this proposed rule, including equipment
and sources used and exercises conducted. There is also no new
information that would affect the applicability or validity of the
ranges to effects previously analyzed for these activities. Therefore
the ranges to effects in this proposed rule are identical to those
described and analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule, including received
sound levels that may cause onset of significant behavioral response
and TTS and PTS in hearing for each source type or explosives that may
cause non-auditory injury. Please see the Range to Effects section and
Tables 24 through 40 of the 2018 HSTT final rule for detailed
information.

Marine Mammal Density

The Navy proposes no changes to the methods used to estimate marine
mammal density described in the 2018 HSTT final rule and there is no
new information that would affect the applicability or validity of
these methods. Please see the 2018 HSTT final rule for detailed
information.

Take Requests

As in the 2018 HSTT final rule, in its 2019 application, 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 NMFS
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); and
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 proposed to be authorized,
has been fully analyzed and is described below.
Regarding the quantification of expected takes from acoustic and
explosive sources (by Level A and Level B harassment, as well as
mortality resulting from exposure to explosives), the number of takes
are based directly on the level of activities (days, hours, counts,
etc., of different activities and events) in a given year. In the 2018
HSTT final rule, take estimates across the five-years were based on the
Navy conducting three years of a representative level of activity and
two years of maximum level of activity. Consistent with the pattern set
forth in the 2017 Navy application, the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, and the
2018 HSTT final rule, the Navy proposes to add one additional
representative year and one additional maximum year to determine the
predicted take numbers in this rule. Specifically, as in the 2018 HSTT
final rule, the Navy proposes to use the maximum annual level to
calculate annual takes (which would remain identical to what was
determined in the 2018 HSTT final rule), and the sum of all years (four
representative and three maximum) to calculate the seven-year totals
for this rule.
The quantitative analysis process used for the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS
and the 2017 and 2019 Navy applications 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 (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

[[Page 48405]]

assessment of mitigation. The Navy conservatively quantifies the manner
in which procedural mitigation is expected to reduce the risk for
model-estimated PTS for exposures to sonars and for model-estimated
mortality for exposures to explosives, based on species sightability,
observation area, visibility, and the ability to exercise positive
control over the sound source. Where the analysis indicates mitigation
would effectively reduce risk, the model-estimated PTS are considered
reduced to TTS and the model-estimated mortalities are considered
reduced to injury. For a complete explanation of the process for
assessing the effects of mitigation, see the 2017 Navy application and
the Take Requests section of the 2018 HSTT final rule. The extent to
which the mitigation areas reduce impacts on the affected species and
stocks is addressed separately in the Preliminary Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination section.
No changes have been made to the quantitative analysis process to
estimate potential exposures to marine mammals resulting from acoustic
and explosive stressors and calculate take estimates. In addition,
there is no new information that would call into question the validity
of the Navy's quantitative analysis process. Please see the documents
described in the paragraph above, the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, and the
2018 HSTT final rule for detailed descriptions of these analyses. In
summary, we believe the Navy's methods, including the method for
incorporating mitigation and avoidance, are the most appropriate
methods for predicting PTS, TTS, and behavioral disruption. 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 be
taken through PTS, TTS, or behavioral disruption.
Summary of Requested Take From Training and Testing Activities
Based on the methods discussed in the previous sections and the
Navy's model and quantitative assessment of mitigation, the Navy
provided its take estimate and request for authorization of takes
incidental to the use of acoustic and explosive sources for training
and testing activities both annually (based on the maximum number of
activities that could occur per 12-month period) and over the seven-
year period covered by the 2019 Navy application. Annual takes (based
on the maximum number of activities that could occur per 12-month
period) from the use of acoustic and explosive sources are identical to
those presented in Tables 41 and 42 and in the Explosives subsection of
the Take Requests section of the 2018 HSTT final rule. The 2019 Navy
application also includes the Navy's take estimate and request for
vessel strikes due to vessel movement in the HSTT Study Area. NMFS has
reviewed the Navy's data, methodology, and analysis and determined that
it is complete and accurate. NMFS agrees that the estimates for
incidental takes by harassment from all sources as well as the
incidental takes by serious injury or mortality from explosives
requested for authorization are the maximum number of instances in
which marine mammals are reasonably expected to be taken. NMFS also
agrees that the takes by serious injury or mortality as a result of
vessel strikes could occur. Note that the total amount of estimated
incidental take from acoustic and explosive sources over the total
seven-year period covered by the 2019 Navy application is less than the
annual total multiplied by seven because although the annual estimates
are based on the maximum number of activities per year and therefore
the maximum possible estimated takes, the seven-year total take
estimates are based on the sum of three maximum years and four
representative years. Not all activities occur every year. Some
activities would occur multiple times within a year, and some
activities would occur only a few times over the course of the seven-
year period. Using seven years of the maximum number of activities each
year would vastly overestimate the amount of incidental take that would
occur over the seven-year period where the Navy knows that it will not
conduct the maximum number of activities each and every year for the
seven years.
Estimated Harassment Take From Training Activities
For training activities, Table 11 summarizes the Navy's take
estimate and request and the maximum amount and type of Level A
harassment and Level B harassment for the seven-year period covered by
the 2019 Navy application that NMFS concurs is reasonably expected to
occur by species or stock. For the estimated amount and type of Level A
harassment and Level B harassment annually, see Table 41 in the 2018
HSTT final rule. Note that take by Level B harassment includes both
behavioral disruption and TTS. Navy Figures 6-12 through 6-50 in
Section 6 of the 2017 Navy application illustrate the comparative
amounts of TTS and behavioral disruption for each species annually,
noting that if a modeled marine mammal was ``taken'' through exposure
to both TTS and behavioral disruption in the model, it was recorded as
a TTS.

Table 11--Seven-Year Total Species- and Stock-Specific Take Estimates Proposed for Authorization From Acoustic
and Explosive Sound Source Effects for All Training Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Year total
Species Stock -------------------------------
Level B Level A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue whale *.................................. Central North Pacific........... 205 0
Eastern North Pacific........... 7,116 6
Bryde's whale [dagger]........................ Eastern Tropical Pacific........ 167 0
Hawaiian [dagger]............... 631 0
Fin whale *................................... California, Oregon, & Washington 7,731 0
Hawaiian........................ 197 0
Humpback whale [dagger]....................... California, Oregon, & Washington 7,962 7
[dagger].
Central North Pacific........... 34,437 12
Minke whale................................... California, Oregon, & Washington 4,119 7
Hawaiian........................ 20,237 6
Sei whale *................................... Eastern North Pacific........... 333 0
Hawaiian........................ 677 0
Gray whale [dagger]........................... Eastern North Pacific........... 16,703 27
Western North Pacific [dagger].. 19 0

[[Page 48406]]

Sperm whale *................................. California, Oregon, & Washington 8,834 0
Hawaiian........................ 10,341 0
Dwarf sperm whale............................. Hawaiian........................ 84,232 215
Pygmy sperm whale............................. Hawaiian........................ 33,431 94
Kogia whales.................................. California, Oregon, & Washington 38,609 149
Baird's beaked whale.......................... California, Oregon, & Washington 8,524 0
Blainville's beaked whale..................... Hawaiian........................ 23,491 0
Cuvier's beaked whale......................... California, Oregon, & Washington 47,178 0
Hawaiian........................ 7,898 0
Longman's beaked whale........................ Hawaiian........................ 82,293 0
Mesoplodon spp (beaked whale guild)........... California, Oregon, & Washington 25,404 0
Bottlenose dolphin............................ California Coastal.............. 1,295 0
California, Oregon, & Washington 201,619 13
Offshore.
Hawaiian Pelagic................ 13,080 0
Kauai & Niihau.................. 500 0
Oahu............................ 57,288 10
4-Island........................ 1,052 0
Hawaii.......................... 291 0
False killer whale [dagger]................... Hawaii Pelagic.................. 4,353 0
Main Hawaiian Islands Insular 2,710 0
[dagger].
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands... 1,585 0
Fraser's dolphin.............................. Hawaiian........................ 177,198 4
Killer whale.................................. Eastern North Pacific Offshore.. 460 0
Eastern North Pacific Transient/ 855 0
West Coast Transient.
Hawaiian........................ 513 0
Long-beaked common dolphin.................... California...................... 784,965 99
Melon-headed whale............................ Hawaiian Islands................ 14,137 0
Kohala Resident................. 1,278 0
Northern right whale dolphin.................. California, Oregon, & Washington 357,001 57
Pacific white-sided dolphin................... California, Oregon, & Washington 274,892 19
Pantropical spotted dolphin................... Hawaii Island................... 17,739 0
Hawaii Pelagic.................. 42,318 0
Oahu............................ 28,860 0
4-Island........................ 1,816 0
Pygmy killer whale............................ Hawaiian........................ 35,531 0
Tropical........................ 2,977 0
Risso's dolphin............................... California, Oregon, & Washington 477,389 45
Hawaiian........................ 40,800 0
Rough-toothed dolphin......................... Hawaiian........................ 26,769 0
NSD \1\......................... 0 0
Short-beaked common dolphin................... California, Oregon, & Washington 5,875,431 307
Short-finned pilot whale...................... California, Oregon, & Washington 6,341 6
Hawaiian........................ 53,627 0
Spinner dolphin............................... Hawaii Island................... 609 0
Hawaii Pelagic.................. 18,870 0
Kauai & Niihau.................. 1,961 0
Oahu & 4-Island................. 10,424 8
Striped dolphin............................... California, Oregon, & Washington 777,001 5
Hawaiian........................ 32,806 0
Dall's porpoise............................... California, Oregon, & Washington 171,250 894
California sea lion........................... U.S............................. 460,145 629
Guadalupe fur seal *.......................... Mexico.......................... 3,342 0
Northern fur seal............................. California...................... 62,138 0
Harbor seal................................... California...................... 19,214 48
Hawaiian monk seal *.......................... Hawaiian........................ 938 5
Northern elephant seal........................ California...................... 241,277 490
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area.
[dagger] Only designated stocks are ESA-listed.
\1\ NSD: No stock designation.

Estimated Harassment Take From Testing Activities
For testing activities, Table 12 summarizes the Navy's take
estimate and request and the maximum amount and type of Level A
harassment and Level B harassment for the seven-year period covered by
the 2019 Navy application that NMFS concurs is reasonably expected to
occur by species or stock. For the estimated amount and type of Level A
harassment and Level B harassment annually, see Table 42 in the 2018
HSTT final rule. Note that take by Level B harassment includes both
behavioral disruption and TTS. Navy Figures 6-12 through 6-50 in
Section 6 of the 2017 Navy application illustrate

[[Page 48407]]

the comparative amounts of TTS and behavioral disruption for each
species annually, noting that if a modeled marine mammal was ``taken''
through exposure to both TTS and behavioral disruption in the model, it
was recorded as a TTS.

Table 12--Seven-Year Total Species and Stock-Specific Take Estimates Proposed for Authorization From Acoustic
and Explosive Sound Source Effects for All Testing Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Year total
Species Stock -------------------------------
Level B Level A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue whale *.................................. Central North Pacific........... 93 0
Eastern North Pacific........... 5,679 0
Bryde's whale [dagger]........................ Eastern Tropical Pacific........ 97 0
Hawaiian [dagger]............... 278 0
Fin whale *................................... California, Oregon, & Washington 6,662 7
Hawaiian........................ 108 0
Humpback whale [dagger]....................... California, Oregon, & Washington 4,961 0
[dagger].
Central North Pacific........... 23,750 19
Minke whale................................... California, Oregon, & Washington 1,855 0
Hawaiian........................ 9,822 7
Sei whale *................................... Eastern North Pacific........... 178 0
Hawaiian........................ 329 0
Gray whale [dagger]........................... Eastern North Pacific........... 13,077 9
Western North Pacific [dagger].. 15 0
Sperm whale *................................. California, Oregon, & Washington 7,409 0
Hawaiian........................ 5,269 0
Dwarf sperm whale............................. Hawaiian........................ 43,374 197
Pygmy sperm whale............................. Hawaiian........................ 17,396 83
Kogia whales.................................. California, Oregon, & Washington 20,766 94
Baird's beaked whale.......................... California, Oregon, & Washington 4,841 0
Blainville's beaked whale..................... Hawaiian........................ 11,455 0
Cuvier's beaked whale......................... California, Oregon, & Washington 30,180 28
Hawaiian........................ 3,784 0
Longman's beaked whale........................ Hawaiian........................ 41,965 0
Mesoplodon spp (beaked whale guild)........... California, Oregon, & Washington 16,383 15
Bottlenose dolphin............................ California Coastal.............. 11,158 0
California, Oregon, & Washington 158,700 8
Offshore.
Hawaiian Pelagic................ 8,469 0
Kauai & Niihau.................. 3,091 0
Oahu............................ 3,230 0
4-Island........................ 1,129 0
Hawaii.......................... 260 0
False killer whale [dagger]................... Hawaii Pelagic.................. 2,287 0
Main Hawaiian Islands Insular 1,256 0
[dagger].
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands... 837 0
Fraser's dolphin.............................. Hawaiian........................ 85,193 9
Killer whale.................................. Eastern North Pacific Offshore.. 236 0
Eastern North Pacific Transient/ 438 0
West Coast Transient.
Hawaiian........................ 279 0
Long-beaked common dolphin.................... California...................... 805,063 34
Melon-headed whale............................ Hawaiian Islands................ 7,678 0
Kohala Resident................. 1,119 0
Northern right whale dolphin.................. California, Oregon, & Washington 280,066 22
Pacific white-sided dolphin................... California, Oregon, & Washington 213,380 14
Pantropical spotted dolphin................... Hawaii Island................... 9,568 0
Hawaii Pelagic.................. 24,805 0
Oahu............................ 1,349 0
4-Island........................ 2,513 0
Pygmy killer whale............................ Hawaiian........................ 18,347 0
Tropical........................ 1,928 0
Risso's dolphin............................... California, Oregon, & Washington 339,334 24
Hawaiian........................ 19,027 0
Rough-toothed dolphin......................... Hawaiian........................ 14,851 0
NSD \1\......................... 0 0
Short-beaked common dolphin................... California, Oregon, & Washington 3,795,732 304
Short-finned pilot whale...................... California, Oregon, & Washington 6,253 0
Hawaiian........................ 29,269 0
Spinner dolphin............................... Hawaii Island................... 1,394 0
Hawaii Pelagic.................. 9,534 0
Kauai & Niihau.................. 9,277 0
Oahu & 4-Island................. 1,987 0
Striped dolphin............................... California, Oregon, & Washington 371,328 20
Hawaiian........................ 16,270 0
Dall's porpoise............................... California, Oregon, & Washington 115,353 478
California sea lion........................... U.S............................. 334,332 36

[[Page 48408]]

Guadalupe fur seal *.......................... Mexico.......................... 6,167 0
Northern fur seal............................. California...................... 36,921 7
Harbor seal................................... California...................... 15,898 12
Hawaiian monk seal *.......................... Hawaiian........................ 372 0
Northern elephant seal........................ California...................... 151,754 187
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area.
[dagger] Only designated stocks are ESA-listed.
\1\ NSD: No stock designation.

Estimated Take From Vessel Strikes and Explosives by Serious Injury or
Mortality

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 (Berman-Kowalewski 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).
Numerous studies of interactions between surface vessels and marine
mammals have demonstrated that free-ranging 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;
F[eacute]lix, 2001; Goodwin and Cotton, 2004; Lemon et 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 during which the Navy is 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:
Many military ships have their bridges positioned closer
to the bow, offering better visibility ahead of the ship (compared to a
commercial merchant vessel).
There are often aircraft associated with the training or
testing activity (which can serve as Lookouts), which can more readily
detect cetaceans in the vicinity of a vessel or ahead of a vessel's
present course before crew on the vessel would be able to detect them.
Military ships are generally more maneuverable than
commercial merchant vessels, and if cetaceans are spotted in the path
of the ship, could be capable of changing course more quickly.
The crew size on military vessels is generally larger than
merchant ships, allowing for stationing more trained Lookouts on the
bridge. At all times when vessels are underway, trained Lookouts and
bridge navigation teams are used to detect objects on the surface of
the water ahead of the ship, including cetaceans. Additional Lookouts,
beyond those already stationed on the bridge and on navigation teams,
are positioned as Lookouts during some training events.
When submerged, submarines are generally slow moving (to
avoid detection) and therefore marine mammals at depth with a submarine
are likely able to avoid collision with the submarine. When a submarine
is transiting on the surface, there are Lookouts serving the same
function as they do on surface ships.
Vessel strike to marine mammals is not associated with any specific
training or testing activity but is rather an extremely limited and
sporadic, but possible, accidental result of Navy vessel movement
within the 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 the
Navy

[[Page 48409]]

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 seven-year
period in particular, the Navy requested incidental takes based on
probabilities derived from a Poisson distribution using ship strike
data between 2009-2018 in the HSTT Study Area (the time period from
when current mitigations were instituted until the Navy conducted the
analysis for the 2019 Navy application), as well as historical at-sea
days in the HSTT Study Area from 2009-2018 and estimated potential at-
sea days for the period from 2018 to 2025 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 2025. The analysis for the period of 2018 to 2023 is described in
detail in Chapter 6 of the 2017 Navy application and has been updated
for this seven-year proposed rulemaking.
For the same reasons listed above, describing why a Navy vessel
strike is comparatively unlikely, it is highly 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 sources, 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 seven years of this rule. The
probability analysis concluded that there was a 22 percent chance that
zero whales would be struck by Navy vessels over the seven-year period,
and a 33, 25, 13, and 5 percent chance that one, two, three, or four
whales, respectively, would be struck over the seven-year period (with
a 78 percent chance that greater than one whale would be struck over
the seven-year 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 seven years.
The probability of the Navy striking up to three large whales over
the seven-year period (which is a 13 percent chance) as analyzed for
this proposed rule using updated Navy vessel strike data and at-sea
days is very close to the probability of the Navy striking up to three
large whales over five years (which was a 10 percent chance). As the
probability of striking three large whales does not differ
significantly from the 2018 HSTT final rule, and the probability of
striking four large whales over seven years remains very low to the
point of being unlikely (less than 5 percent), the Navy has requested,
and we are proposing, no change in the number of takes by serious
injury or mortality due to vessel strikes.
Small delphinids, porpoises, and pinnipeds are not expected 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 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 faster-moving
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
proposing for authorization) incidental take by vessel strike of large
whales only (i.e., no dolphins, small whales, porpoises, or pinnipeds)
over the course of the seven-year regulations from training and testing
activities as discussed below.
As noted in the 2018 HSTT proposed and final rules, in the 2017
Navy application 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. 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. For this seven-year rule,
we have reconsidered these two factors and updated the analysis with
the Navy's seven-year ship strike probability analysis and any new/
updated ship strike data from the SARs.
To address number (1) above, NMFS compiled information from NMFS'
SARs on detected annual rates of large whale serious injury or
mortality from vessel collisions. The annual rates of large whale
serious injury or 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 (the period used for the SARs). We summed the annual rates
of serious injury or mortality 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 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., 78 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 in the SAR changes (and
we

[[Page 48410]]

include the annual averages from 2017 and 2018 SARs in Table 13 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 2017 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 13 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 or Mortality subsection
of the Preliminary 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 13 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. (2017). The last column
indicates the annual mortality proposed to be authorized: those stocks
with one serious injury or mortality (M/SI) take proposed to be
authorized over the seven-year period of the rule are shaded lightly,
while those with two M/SI takes proposed to be authorized over the
seven-year period of the rule are shaded more darkly.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 48411]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE19.000

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
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
seven-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 seven-year 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 Study Area, have the three highest total
strike records (21, 35, and 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 3.4
percent likelihood of being struck twice based on NMFS' SAR calculation
(not shown in Table 13, 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
seven-year rule.
Based on the information summarized in Table 13, and the fact that
there is the potential for up to three large whales to be struck, it is
considered reasonably likely that one individual from the

[[Page 48412]]

remaining three stocks could be one of the three whales 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 seven-year rule. The total strikes of
Eastern North Pacific blue whales, the percent likelihood of 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 seven-year rule. The Navy has not hit
a humpback whale in the HSTT Study Area and the relative abundance of
the CA/OR/WA stock 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
from the CA/OR/WA stock (not two), and that that 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 humpback 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 no strikes of whales 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 13)
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 13 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 proposed
authorized take included in this rule, which is 1, 1, and 2,
respectively over the seven-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 proposed for
authorization.
Accordingly, the Navy has requested take by M/SI from vessel strike
of up to two of any of the following species/stocks in the seven-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/stocks in the seven-year period: Blue whale
(Eastern North Pacific stock), humpback whale (CA/OR/WA stock, Mexico
DPS), or sperm whale (Hawaii stock).
As described above, the Navy analysis suggests, and NMFS analysis
concurs, 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 proposing to
authorize 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 there is the potential of no more than three
whales taken by M/SI over the seven-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), and 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 M/SI of 0.14 or 0.29 whales annually from each of
these species or stocks (i.e., 1 or 2 takes, respectively, divided by
seven years to get the annual number), along with the expected
incidental takes by harassment.

Explosives

The Navy's model and quantitative analysis process used for the
2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and in the Navy's 2017 and 2019 applications 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. Department of the Navy,
2018). Specifically, over the course of a modelled maximum year of
training and testing, the Navy's model and quantitative analysis
process estimates M/SI of two short-beaked common dolphin and one
California sea lion as a result of exposure to explosive training and
testing activities (please see Section 6 of the 2017 Navy application
where it is explained how maximum annual estimates are calculated).
Over the five[hyphen]year period of the 2018 HSTT regulations,
mortality of 6 short-beaked common dolphins and 4 California sea lions
was estimated and authorized (10 marine mammals in total) as a result
of exposure to explosive training and testing activities. In extending
the same training and testing activities for an additional two years,
over the seven[hyphen]year period of the proposed

[[Page 48413]]

regulations M/SI of 8 short-beaked common dolphins and 5 California sea
lions (13 marine mammals in total) is estimated as a result of exposure
to explosive training and testing activities. As explained in the
aforementioned Analytical Approach technical report, expected impacts
were calculated considering spatial and seasonal differences in model
inputs, as well as the expected variation in the number of training and
testing events from year to year, described as representative and
maximum levels of activity. The summed impacts over any multi-year
period, therefore, are the expected value for impacts over that time
period rather than a multiple of a single maximum year's impacts.
Therefore, calculating the seven-year total is not a matter of simply
multiplying the annual estimate by seven, as the total amount of
estimated mortalities over the seven years covered by the 2019 Navy
application is less than the sum total of each year. As explained
earlier, although the annual estimates are based on the maximum number
of activities per year and therefore the maximum estimated takes, the
seven-year total take estimates are based on the sum of three maximum
years and four representative years. 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 or
stock that could be taken by M/SI from explosives.

Proposed Mitigation Measures

Under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the
permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or
stock(s) and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (``least
practicable adverse impact''). NMFS does not have a regulatory
definition for least practicable adverse impact. The 2004 NDAA 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. For the full
discussion of how NMFS interprets least practicable adverse impact,
including how it relates to the negligible-impact standard, see the
Mitigation Measures section in the 2018 HSTT final rule.
Section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) requires NMFS to issue, in conjunction
with its authorization, binding--and enforceable--restrictions (in the
form of regulations) setting forth how the activity must be conducted,
thus ensuring the activity has the ``least practicable adverse impact''
on the affected species or stocks. In situations where mitigation is
specifically needed to reach a negligible impact determination, section
101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) also provides a mechanism for ensuring compliance
with the ``negligible impact'' requirement. Finally, 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.\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation of Least Practicable Adverse Impact Standard

Our evaluation of potential mitigation measures includes
consideration of two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, implementation of
the 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, 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--and the best available
science has been used here. 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 could
become available in the future and necessitate 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.

[[Page 48414]]

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
its habitat, the greater the weight that measure is given when
considered in combination with practicability to determine the
appropriateness of the mitigation measure, and vice versa. In the
evaluation of specific measures, the details of the specified activity
will necessarily inform each of the two primary factors discussed above
(expected reduction of impacts and practicability), and will be
carefully considered to determine the types of mitigation that are
appropriate under the least practicable adverse impact standard. For
more detail on how we apply these factors, see the discussion in the
Mitigation Measures section of the 2018 HSTT final rule.
NMFS fully reviewed the Navy's specified activities and the
mitigation measures for the 2018 HSTT rulemaking and determined that
the mitigation measures would result in the least practicable adverse
impact on marine mammals. There is no change in either the activities
or the mitigation measures for this rule. See the 2019 Navy application
and the 2018 HSTT final rule for detailed information on the Navy's
mitigation measures. NMFS worked with the Navy in the development of
the Navy's initially proposed measures, which were informed by years of
implementation and monitoring. A complete discussion of the Navy's
evaluation process used to develop, assess, and select mitigation
measures, which was informed by input from NMFS, can be found in
Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. The process
described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS robustly
supported NMFS' independent evaluation of whether the mitigation
measures would meet the least practicable adverse impact standard. The
Navy has implemented the mitigation measures under the 2018 HSTT
regulations and would be required to continue implementation of the
mitigation measures identified in this rule for the full seven years it
covers to avoid or reduce potential impacts from acoustic, explosive,
and physical disturbance and ship strike stressors.
In its 2019 application, the Navy proposes no changes to the
mitigation measures in the 2018 HSTT final rule and there is no new
information that affects NMFS' assessment of the applicability or
effectiveness of those measures over the new seven-year period. See the
2018 HSTT proposed rule and the 2018 HSTT final rule for our full
assessment of these measures. In summary, 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 M/SI 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 will also implement multiple time/area
restrictions (several of which were added in the 2018 HSTT final rule
since the previous 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. Summaries of the Navy's
procedural mitigation measures and mitigation areas for the HSTT Study
Area are provided in Tables 14 and 15.

Table 14--Summary of Procedural Mitigation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation zone sizes and other
Stressor or activity requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Awareness and Afloat Environmental
Education. Compliance Training program for
applicable personnel.
Active Sonar...................... Depending on sonar source:
1,000 yd power down, 500 yd
power down, and 200 yd shut down.
200 yd shut down.
Air Guns.......................... 150 yd.
Pile Driving...................... 100 yd.
Weapons Firing Noise.............. 30 degrees on either side
of the firing line out to 70 yd.
Explosive Sonobuoys............... 600 yd.
Explosive Torpedoes............... 2,100 yd.
Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large- 1,000 yd (large-caliber
Caliber Projectiles. projectiles).
600 yd (medium-caliber
projectiles during surface-to-
surface activities).
200 yd (medium-caliber
projectiles during air-to-surface
activities).
Explosive Missiles and Rockets.... 2,000 yd (21-500 lb. net
explosive weight).
900 yd (0.6-20 lb. net
explosive weight).
Explosive Bombs................... 2,500 yd.
Sinking Exercises................. 2.5 nmi.
Explosive Mine Countermeasure and 2,100 yd (6-650 lb net
Neutralization Activities. explosive weight).
600 yd (0.1-5 lb net
explosive weight).
Explosive Mine Neutralization 1,000 yd (21-60 lb net
Activities Involving Navy Divers. 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).
Underwater Demolition Multiple 700 yd.
Charge--Mat Weave and Obstacle
Loading.

[[Page 48415]]

Maritime Security Operations--Anti- 200 yd.
Swimmer Grenades.
Vessel Movement................... 500 yd (whales).
200 yd (other marine
mammals).
Towed In-Water Devices............ 250 yd (marine mammals).
Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber 200 yd.
Non-Explosive Practice Munitions.
Non-Explosive Missiles and Rockets 900 yd.
Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine 1,000 yd.
Shapes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: lb: Pounds; nmi: Nautical miles; yd: Yards.

Table 15--Summary of Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of 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.\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.

Mitigation Conclusions

NMFS has carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation
measures--many of which were developed with NMFS' input during the
previous phases of Navy training and testing authorizations and none of
which have changed since our evaluation during the 2018 HSTT
rulemaking--and considered a broad range of other measures (i.e., the
measures considered but eliminated in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, which
reflect many of the comments that have arisen via NMFS or public input
in past years) in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the
means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected
marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of
potential 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. There is no new information that affects
our analysis from the 2018 HSTT rulemaking, all of which remains
applicable and valid for our assessment of the appropriateness of the
mitigation measures during the seven-year period of this rule.
Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures (which are
being implemented under the 2018 HSTT regulations), as well as other
measures considered by the Navy and NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the Navy's proposed mitigation measures (which are
identical to those in the 2018 HSTT final rule) are appropriate means
of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal
species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and
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 2018 HSTT final rule includes an adaptive management

[[Page 48416]]

provision, which the Navy proposes to extend, which ensures that
mitigation is regularly assessed and provides a mechanism to improve
the mitigation, based on the factors above, through modification as
appropriate.
The proposed rule comment period provides the public an opportunity
to submit recommendations, views, and/or concerns regarding the Navy's
activities and the proposed mitigation measures. While NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the Navy's proposed mitigation measures
would effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected
species or stocks and their habitat, NMFS will consider all public
comments to help inform our final decision. Consequently, the proposed
mitigation measures may be refined, modified, removed, or added to
prior to the issuance of the final rule based on public comments
received, and where appropriate, further analysis of any additional
mitigation measures.

Proposed Monitoring

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that in order to authorize
incidental take for an activity, NMFS must set forth requirements
pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that
requests for incidental take authorizations must include the suggested
means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will
result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking
or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be
present.
In its 2019 application, the Navy proposes no changes to the
monitoring described in the 2018 HSTT final rule. They would continue
implementation of the robust Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring
Program and Strategic Planning Process described in the 2018 HSTT final
rule. The Navy's monitoring strategy, currently required by the 2018
HSTT regulations, is well-designed to work across Navy ranges to help
better understand the impacts of the Navy's activities on marine
mammals and their habitat by focusing on learning more about marine
mammal occurrence in different areas and exposure to Navy stressors,
marine mammal responses to different sound sources, and the
consequences of those exposures and responses on marine mammal
populations. Similarly, the proposed seven-year regulations would
include identical adaptive management provisions and reporting
requirements as the 2018 HSTT regulations. There is no new information
that would indicate that the monitoring measures put in place under the
2018 HSTT final rule would not remain applicable and appropriate for
the seven-year period of this proposed rule. See the Monitoring section
of the 2018 HSTT final rule for more details on the monitoring that
would be required under this rule. In addition, please see the 2019
Navy application, which references Chapter 13 of the 2017 Navy
application for full details on the monitoring and reporting proposed
by the Navy.

Adaptive Management

The 2018 HSTT 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 seven-year regulations. The 2019 Navy
application proposes no changes to the adaptive management component
included in the 2018 HSTT final rule.
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 incidental take authorization for an activity,
section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.
Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring
that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring. Reports
from individual monitoring events, results of analyses, publications,
and periodic progress reports for specific monitoring projects will be
posted to the Navy's Marine Species Monitoring web portal: https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. The 2019 Navy application proposes
no changes to the reporting requirements. Except as discussed below,
reporting requirements would remain identical to those described in the
2018 HSTT final rule, and there is no new information that would
indicate that the reporting requirements put in place under the 2018
HSTT final rule would not remain applicable and appropriate for the
seven-year period of this proposed rule. See the Reporting section of
the 2018 HSTT final rule for more details on the reporting that would
be required under this rule.
In addition, the 2018 HSTT proposed and final rules unintentionally
failed to include the requirement for the Navy to submit a final
activity ``close out'' report at the end of the regulatory period. That
oversight is being corrected through this rulemaking. This
comprehensive training and testing activity report would provide the
annual totals for each sound source bin with a comparison to the annual
allowance and the seven-year total for each sound source bin with a
comparison to the seven-year allowance. Additionally, if there were any
changes to the sound source allowance, this report would include a
discussion of why the change was made and include analysis to support
how the change did or did not result in a change in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/
OEIS and final rule determinations.

Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination

NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the

[[Page 48417]]

species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the
lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of
takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be taken through mortality, serious injury,
and Level A or Level B harassment (as presented in Tables 11 and 12),
NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses
(e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as
effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We
also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by
evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent
with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR 40338;
September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the
regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where
known, other ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, ambient noise
levels, and specific consideration of take by Level A harassment or M/
SI previously authorized for other NMFS activities).
In the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals sections of this proposed
rule and the 2018 HSTT final rule (where the activities, species and
stocks, potential effects, and mitigation measures are the same as for
this rule), we identified the subset of potential effects that would be
expected to rise to the level of takes both annually and over the
seven-year period covered by this rule, and then identified the number
of each of those mortality takes that we believe could occur or the
maximum number of harassment takes that are reasonably expected 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.). For this proposed rule we
evaluated the likely impacts of the enumerated maximum number of
harassment takes that are proposed for authorization and reasonably
expected to occur, in the context of the specific circumstances
surrounding these predicted takes. We also assessed M/SI takes that
have the potential to occur, as well as considering the traits and
statuses of the affected species and stocks. Last, we collectively
evaluated this information, as well as other more taxa-specific
information and mitigation measure effectiveness, in group-specific
assessments that support our negligible impact conclusions for each
stock.
The Navy proposes no changes to the nature or level of the
specified activities or the boundaries of the HSTT Study Area, and
therefore the training and testing activities (e.g., equipment and
sources used, exercises conducted) are the same as those analyzed in
the 2018 HSTT final rule. In addition, the mitigation, monitoring, and
nearly all reporting measures are identical to those described and
analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule. As described above, there is no
new information since the publication of the 2018 HSTT final rule
regarding the impacts of the specified activities on marine mammals,
the status and distribution of any of the affected marine mammal
species or stocks, or the effectiveness of the mitigation and
monitoring measures that would change our analyses, except for one
species. For that one species--gray whales--we have considered the
effects of the new UME on the west coast of North America along with
the effects of the Navy's activities in the negligible impact analysis.

Harassment

As described in the Estimated Takes of Marine Mammals section, the
annual number of takes proposed for authorization and reasonably
expected to occur by Level A harassment and Level B harassment (based
on the maximum number of activities per 12-month period) are identical
to those presented in Tables 41 through 42 in the Take Requests section
of the 2018 HSTT final rule. As such, the negligible impact analyses
and determinations of the effects of the estimated Level A harassment
and Level B harassment takes on annual rates of recruitment or survival
for each species and stock are nearly identical to and substantively
unchanged from those presented in the 2018 HSTT final rule. The primary
difference is that the annual levels of take and the associated effects
on reproduction or survival would occur for the seven-year period of
the proposed rule instead of the five-year period of the 2018 HSTT
final rule, which would make no difference in effects on annual rates
of recruitment or survival. The other differences in the analyses
include our consideration of the newly-declared gray whale UME and
slightly modified explosive take estimates, neither of which, as
described below, affect the results of the analyses or our
determinations. For detailed discussion of the impacts that affected
individuals may experience given the specific characteristics of the
specified activities and required mitigation (e.g., from behavioral
disruption, masking, and temporary or permanent threshold shift), along
with the effects of the expected Level A harassment and Level B
harassment take on reproduction and survival, see the applicable
subsections in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section
of the 2018 HSTT final rule (83 FR 66977-67018).

Serious Injury or Mortality

Based on the information and methods discussed in the Estimated
Take of Marine Mammals section (which are identical to those used in
the 2018 HSTT final rule), the number of potential mortalities due to
ship strike proposed to be authorized over the seven year period of
this rule is the same as those authorized in the 2018 HSTT final rule.
As the potential mortalities are now spread over seven years rather
than five, an annual average of 0.29 gray whales (Eastern North Pacific
stock), fin whales (CA/OR/WA stock), and humpback whales (Central North
Pacific stock) and an annual average of 0.14 blue whales (Eastern North
Pacific stock), humpback whales (CA/OR/WA stock, Mexico DPS), and sperm
whales (Hawaii stock) as described in Table 16 (i.e., one, or two,
take(s) over seven years divided by seven to get the annual number) are
expected to potentially occur and are proposed for authorization. As
this annual number is less than that analyzed and authorized in the
2018 HSTT final rule, which was an annual average of 0.4 whales or 0.2
whales respectively for the same species and stocks, and with the
exception of the new gray whale UME on the U.S. west coast no other
relevant information about the status, abundance, or effects of M/SI on
each species or stock has changed, the analysis of the effects of
vessel strike mirrors that presented in the 2018 HSTT final rule.

[[Page 48418]]

Table 16--Summary Information Related to Mortalities Requested for Ship Strike, 2018-2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
authorized Residual
Stock take by Total Fisheries interactions Vessel collisions (Y/ PBR-PBR Recent UME (Y/N);
Species (stock) abundance serious annual M/ (Y/N); annual rate of M/ N); annual rate of M/SI PBR * minus Stock trend * \4\ number and year (since
(Nbest) * injury or SI * \2\ SI from fisheries from vessel collision * annual M/ 2007)
mortality interactions * SI \3\
\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale (CA/OR/WA stock).......... 9,029 0.29 >=43.5 Y; >=0.5................ Y, 1.6................. 81 37.5 [uarr]................. N.
Gray whale (Eastern North Pacific 26,960 0.29 139 Y, 9.6.................. Y, 0.8................. 801 662 stable since 2003...... Y, 170, 2019.
stock).
Humpback whale (CA/OR/WA stock, 2,900 0.14 >=40.2 Y; >=15.7............... Y, 22.................. 16.7 -23.5 [uarr]................. N.
Mexico DPS).
Humpback whale (Central North 10,103 0.29 26 Y; 9.9.................. Y, 1.5................. 83 57 [uarr]................. N.
Pacific stock) \5\.
Sperm whale (Hawaii stock).......... 4,559 \6\ 0.14 0.7 Y, 0.7.................. N...................... 13.9 13.2 ?...................... N.
Blue whale (Eastern North Pacific 1,647 0.14 >=19 >=0.96.................. Y, 18.................. 2.3 -16.7 stable................. Y; 3, 2007.
Stock).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Presented in the 2018 final SARs.
\1\ This column represents the annual take by serious injury or mortality (M/SI) by vessel collision and was calculated by the number of mortalities for authorization divided by seven 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.
\5\ Some values for the Central North Pacific stock of humpback whales were unintentionally presented incorrectly in Table 69 of the 2018 HSTT final rule. The correct values are provided here.
These transcription errors do not affect the analysis or conclusions in the 2018 HSTT final rule, as the correct values were used in the analysis presented in the Analysis and Negligible
Impact Determination section.
\6\ The stock abundance for the Hawaii stock of sperm whales was unintentionally presented incorrectly as 5,559 in the 2018 HSTT final rule and has been corrected here. This transcription
error does not affect the analysis or conclusions reached in the 2018 HSTT final rule.

The Navy has also requested a small number of takes by M/SI from
explosives. To calculate the annual average of mortalities for
explosives in Table 17 we used the same method as described for vessel
strikes. The annual average is the total number of takes over seven
years divided by seven. Specifically, NMFS is proposing to authorize
the following M/SI takes from explosives: 5 California sea lions and 8
short-beaked common dolphins over the seven-year period (therefore 0.71
mortalities annually for California sea lions and 1.14 mortalities
annually for short-beaked common dolphin), as described in Table 17. As
this annual number is less than that analyzed and authorized in the
2018 HSTT final rule, which was an annual average of 0.8 California sea
lions and 1.2 short-beaked common dolphins, and no other relevant
information about the status, abundance, or effects of mortality on
each species or stock has changed, the analysis of the effects of
explosives mirrors that presented in the 2018 HSTT final rule.

Table 17--Summary Information Related to Mortalities From Explosives, 2018-2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
authorized SWFSC Residual
Stock take by Total Fisheries interactions authorized PBR--PBR
Species (stock) abundance serious annual M/ (Y/N); annual rate of PBR * take minus Stock trend * \5\ UME (Y/N); number and
(Nbest) * injury or SI * \2\ M/SI from fisheries (annual) annual M/ year
mortality interactions * \3\ SI and
\1\ SWFSC \4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion (U.S. stock)... 257,606 0.71 319.4 Y;197.................. 14,011................. 6.6 13,685 [uarr]................. Y; 2013.
Short-beaked common dolphin (CA/OR/ 969,861 1.14 >=40 Y; >=40................ 8,393.................. 2.8 8,350.2 ?...................... N.
WA stock).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Presented in the 2018 final SARs.
\1\ This column represents the annual take by serious injury or mortality (M/SI) during explosive detonations and was calculated by the number of mortalities planned for authorization divided
by seven 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 (322).
\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 (319.4) 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.

See the Serious Injury or Mortality subsection in the Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 HSTT final rule (83
FR 66985-66993) for detailed discussions of the impacts of M/SI,
including a description of how the agency uses the PBR metric and other
factors to inform our analysis, and an analysis of the impacts on each
species and stock for which M/SI is proposed for authorization,
including the relationship of potential mortality for each species to
the insignificance threshold and residual PBR.
Stocks With M/SI Below the Insignificance Threshold
As noted in the Serious Injury or Mortality subsection of the
Negligible

[[Page 48419]]

Impact Analysis and Determination section in the 2018 HSTT final rule,
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 16 and 17, the following species or stocks have potential or
estimated M/SI from ship strike and explosive takes, respectively, and
proposed for authorization below their insignificance threshold: Fin
whale (CA/OR/WA stock), gray whale (Eastern 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 proposed authorized M/SI of
California sea lions (U.S. stock) and gray whales (Eastern North
Pacific stock) are below the insignificance threshold, because of the
recent UMEs, we further address how the proposed authorized M/SI and
the UME inform the negligible impact determination immediately below.
For the other four stocks with proposed authorized M/SI below the
insignificance threshold, there are no other known factors,
information, or unusual circumstances that indicate anticipated M/SI
below the insignificance threshold could have adverse effects on annual
rates of recruitment or survival and they are not discussed further.
For the remaining 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 proposed for authorization) lethal take of
California sea lions is well below the insignificance threshold (0.71
as compared to a residual PBR of 13,686) and NMFS classifies the stock
as ``increasing'' in the 2018 Final SARs. Nonetheless, we consider here
how the 2013-present California Sea Lion UME informs our negligible
impact determination. This UME was confined 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 UME Working Group to discuss closure by the summer
of 2019 (Deb Fauquier, pers. comm.). NMFS' findings to date indicate
that a change in the availability of sea lion prey, especially anchovy
and 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 were 1,000-3,000 more annually than they were 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 during the period of this proposed rule, 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 the
mortality proposed for authorization on the stock.

Gray Whales (Eastern North Pacific Stock)

Since January 2019, gray whale strandings along the west coast of
North America have been significantly higher than the previous 18-year
averages. Preliminary findings from necropsies have shown evidence of
emaciation. The seasonal pattern of elevated strandings in the spring
and summer months is similar to that of the previous gray whale UME in
1999-2000. Current total monthly strandings are slightly higher than
1999 and lower than 2000. If strandings continue to follow a similar
pattern, we would anticipate a decrease in strandings in late summer
and fall. However, 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 and the insignificance
threshold. Because of the abundance, population trend (increasing,
despite the UME in 1999-2000), and residual PBR (662) of this stock,
this UME is not expected to have impacts on the population rate that,
in combination with the effects of mortality proposed for
authorization, would affect annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Stocks With M/SI Above the Insignificance Threshold

Humpback Whale (CA/OR/WA Stock, Mexico DPS)

For this stock, PBR is currently set at 16.7 and the total annual
M/SI is estimated at greater than or equal to 40.2, yielding a residual
PBR of -23.5. NMFS proposes to authorize one M/SI over the seven-year
duration of the rule (which is 0.14 annually for the purposes of
comparing to PBR and considering other effects on annual rates of
recruitment and survival), which means that residual PBR is exceeded by
23.64. In the 2018 HSTT final rule the PBR was incorrectly reported as
33.4 and the total annual M/SI was incorrectly reported as greater than
or equal to 40.76 (yielding a residual PBR of -7.36). These
transcription errors do not affect the fundamental analysis or
conclusion reached in the 2018 HSTT final rule, however, and we have
corrected these values here using data from the 2018 Final SARs.
In the commercial fisheries setting for ESA-listed marine mammals
(which is similar to the non-fisheries 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 here, the proposed authorized lethal take (0.14
annually) of humpback whales from the CA/OR/WA stock is significantly
less than 10 percent of PBR (in fact less than

[[Page 48420]]

1 percent of 16.7) and there are management measures in place to
address M/SI from activities other than those the Navy is conducting
(as discussed 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
mortality proposed for authorization is 0.14 (i.e., less than 1.45),
which means that the mortality proposed to be authorized in this rule
for HSTT activities would not delay the time to recovery by more than 1
percent.
As described in the 2018 HSTT final rule, 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 M/SI to
adversely affect the species or stock via impacts on annual rates of
recruitment or survival, which is discussed further below in the
species- and stock-specific section.
In June 2019, NMFS published 2018 final SARs in which PBR is
reported as 16.7 with the predicted average annual mortality greater
than or equal to 38.6 (including 22 estimated from vessel collisions
and greater than 14.1 observed fisheries interactions). While the
observed M/SI from vessel strikes remains low at 2.1, the 2018 draft
and final SARs rely 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,
and 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 this stock from vessel strikes. The authors
(Rockwood et al., 2017) do not suggest that ship strike suddenly
increased to 22. 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.
The CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales experienced a steady increase
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 earlier, we also take into consideration management
measures in place to address M/SI 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 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 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/whale-entanglement-working-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:
Development of Fact Sheets and Best Practices for specific
Fisheries issues (e.g., California Dungeness Crab Fishing BMPs and the
2018-2019 Best Fishing Practices Guide);
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
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 March 2019 Working Group Report
reports on the status of the fishery closure, progress and continued
development of the RAMP (though there is a separate RAMP report),
discussed the role of the Working Group (development of a new Charter)
and indicated next steps.

[[Page 48421]]

Importantly, in early 2019, as a result of a litigation settlement
agreement, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) closed
the Dungeness crab fishery three months early for the year, which is
expected to reduce the number of likely entanglements. The agreement
also limits the fishery duration over the next couple of years and has
different triggers to reduce or close it further. Further, pursuant to
the settlement, CDFW is required to apply for a Section 10 Incidental
Take Permit under the ESA to address protected species interactions
with fishing gear and crab fishing gear (pots), and they have agreed to
do so by May 2020. Any request for such a 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.
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.
In this case, 0.14 M/SI annually means the potential for one
mortality in one of the seven years and zero mortalities in six of
those seven years. Therefore, the Navy would not be contributing to the
total human-caused mortality at all in six of the seven, or 85.7
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 six of the
seven 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, we can 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 absence of M/SI in six of the years and due to
the fact that a single strike could be of 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
seven-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 proposed) mortality is well below
10 percent (0.8 percent) of PBR, and management actions are in place to
minimize both fisheries interactions and ship strike from other vessel
activity in 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 seven 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 proposed mortality of 0.14 would not delay the time to
recovery by more than 1 percent, we do not expect the potential 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 human-caused 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 proposed authorized
takes would have a negligible impact on the species and stock.
Therefore this information will be considered in combination with our
assessment of the impacts of harassment takes later in the Group and
Species-Specific Analyses 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. This is unchanged since the
2018 HSTT final rule. NMFS proposes to authorize one M/SI for the Navy
over the seven-year duration of the rule (indicated as 0.14 annually
for the purposes of comparing to PBR and evaluating overall effects on
annual rates of recruitment and survival), which means that residual
PBR is exceeded by 16.84. 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 proposed authorized take from
a specified activity to be negligible even if total human-caused
mortality exceeds PBR, if the proposed 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 (0.14 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 M/SI from activities
other than those the Navy is conducting (as discussed below). Perhaps
more importantly, the population is considered ``stable'' and,
specifically, the available data suggests that the current number of
ship strikes

[[Page 48422]]

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 seven years not creating the likelihood of adverse
impact. Immediately below, we explain the information that supports our
finding that the Navy's proposed authorized M/SI 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 in the stock-specific conclusion sections.
As discussed in the 2018 HSTT final rule, the 2018 draft SAR and
the recently published 2018 final SAR rely 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, and 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. 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 human-caused 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
recently. 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 Eastern North Pacific stock
of blue whales remains stable nevertheless.
NMFS' 2018 final 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 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. In fact, we note that this population has maintained this
status throughout the years that the Navy has consistently tested and
trained at similar levels (with similar vessel traffic) in areas that
overlap with blue whale occurrence, which would be another indicator of
population stability.
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 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 M/SI 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.
In this case, 0.14 M/SI means one mortality in one of the seven
years and zero mortalities in six of those seven years. Therefore, the
Navy would not be contributing to the total human-caused mortality at
all in six of the seven, or 85.7 percent, of the years covered by this
rule. That means that even if a blue whale were to be struck, in six of
the seven years there could be no effect on annual rates of recruitment
or survival from Navy-caused M/SI. Additionally, as with humpback
whales discussed previously, the loss of a male would have far less, if
any, effect on population rates and absent any information suggesting
that one sex is more likely to be struck than another, we can
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 absence of
M/SI in six of the seven years and the fact that the single strike
could be a male. Lastly, as with the CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales
above, 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

[[Page 48423]]

is especially important given the minor difference between zero and one
across the seven-year period covered by this rule, which is the
smallest distinction possible when considering mortality. As noted
above, 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 indicates that this blue
whale stock is stable, approaching carrying capacity, and has leveled
off because of density-dependence, not human-caused mortality, in spite
of what might be otherwise indicated from the calculated PBR. Further,
potential (and proposed for authorization) M/SI is below 10 percent of
PBR and management actions are in place to minimize ship strike from
other vessel activity in 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 affect Eastern
North Pacific blue whales through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival. Nonetheless, the fact that total human-caused
mortality exceeds PBR necessitates close attention to the remainder of
the impacts (i.e., harassment) on the Eastern North 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 proposed harassment takes in the Group and
Species-Specific Analyses section that follows.

Group and Species-Specific Analyses

In addition to broader analyses of the impacts of the Navy's
activities on mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds, the 2018 HSTT
final rule contained detailed analyses of the effects of the Navy's
activities in the HSTT Study Area on each affected species and stock.
All of that information and analyses remain applicable and valid for
our analyses of the effects of the same Navy activities on the same
species and stocks for the seven-year period of this proposed rule. See
the Group and Species-Specific Analyses subsection in the Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 HSTT final rule (83
FR 66993-67018). In addition, no new information has been received
since the publication of the 2018 HSTT final rule that significantly
changes the analyses on the effects of the Navy's activities on each
species and stock presented in the 2018 HSTT final rule (the potential
impact of the new gray whale UME and the corrected numbers from the
humpback whale SARs were discussed earlier in the rule).
In the discussions below, 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
disruption) for species or stocks to their associated abundance
estimates to evaluate the magnitude of impacts across the species or
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 times 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) 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 subject to behavioral disturbance at the same time. As
described in the Harassment subsection of the Analysis and Negligible
Impact Determination section of the 2018 HSTT final rule, the degree of
PTS, and the degree and duration of TTS, 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 subject to behavioral disturbance would result in impacts to
reproduction or survival. Alternately, we recognize that if an
individual is subjected to behavioral disturbance 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 summaries). Accordingly, in analyzing the number of
takes and the likelihood of repeated and sequential takes (which could
result in reproductive impacts), we consider the total takes, not just
the Level B harassment takes by behavioral disrupion, so that
individuals potentially exposed to both threshold shift and behavioral
disruption are appropriately considered. We note that the same
reasoning applies with the potential addition of behavioral disruption
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.
Having considered all of the information and analyses previously
presented in the 2018 HSTT final rule, including the Group and Species-
Specific Analyses discussions organized by the different groups and
species, below we present tables showing instances of total take as a
percentage of stock abundance for each group, updated with the new
explosion and vessel strike calculations. We then summarize the
information for each species or stock, considering the analysis from
the 2018 HSTT final rule and any new analysis. The analyses below in
some cases address species collectively if they occupy the same
functional hearing group (i.e., low, mid, and high-frequency cetaceans
and pinnipeds in water), share similar life history strategies, and/or
are known to behaviorally respond similarly to

[[Page 48424]]

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.
Mysticetes
In Tables 18 and 19 below for mysticetes, we indicate the total
annual mortality, Level A harassment, and Level B harassment, and a
number indicating the instances of total take as a percentage of
abundance. Tables 18 and 19 have been updated from Tables 71 and 72 in
the 2018 HSTT final rule as appropriate with the 2018 final SARs and
updated information on mortality, as discussed above. For additional
information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact analysis, see
the Mysticetes discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses
section of the 2018 HSTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to
this proposed rule unless specifically noted.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE19.001

[[Page 48425]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE19.002

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our
preliminary determination that the Navy's activities would not
adversely affect any species or stocks through effects on annual rates
of recruitment or survival for any of the affected mysticete species
and 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. NMFS proposes to authorize one mortality over the seven years
covered by this rule, or 0.14 mortality annually. With the addition of
this 0.14 annual mortality, residual PBR is exceeded, resulting in the
total human-caused mortality exceeding PBR by 16.84. However, as
described in more detail in the Serious Injury or Mortality section
above, 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 to reduce mortality from other
sources, and the incremental addition of a single mortality over the
course of the seven-year Navy rule is not expected to, alone, lead to
adverse impacts on the stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival. In addition, even with the additional two
years of activities under this rule, no additional M/SI is estimated
for this stock, leading to a slight decrease (from 0.2 to 0.14
annually) in annual mortality from the 2018 HSTT final rule.
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 19).
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 Level B
harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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,

[[Page 48426]]

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 in the 2018 HSTT final rule 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 (as described in the 2018
HSTT final rule) 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 takes by
behavioral disruption.
Altogether, only a small portion of the stock is anticipated to be
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 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 preliminarily determined, in
consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's activities combined,
that the authorized take proposed would 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 proposed to be 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 19). 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 Level B harassment takes by
behavioral disruption, 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, 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 anticipated to be
impacted and any individual Bryde's whale is likely to be disturbed at
a low-moderate level, with few, if 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 preliminarily determined, in consideration of
all of the effects of the Navy's activities combined, that the
authorized take proposed would 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 proposes to
authorize two mortalities over the seven years covered by this rule, or
0.29 mortality annually. The addition of this 0.29 annual mortality
still leaves the total human-caused 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 19).
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 Level
B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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 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,
they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and mostly not in
a frequency band that would be expected to interfere with fin whale
communication or other important low-frequency cues--and that the
associated lost opportunities and capabilities are not at a level that
would impact reproduction or survival. For similar reasons (as
described in the 2018 HSTT final rule) 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 anticipated to be 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 proposed authorized mortality
expected to adversely affect

[[Page 48427]]

this stock through impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
For these reasons, we have preliminarily determined, in consideration
of all of the effects of the Navy's activities combined, that the
authorized take proposed would 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 DPSs). NMFS
proposes to authorize one mortality over the seven years covered by
this rule, or 0.14 mortality annually (Mexico DPS only). With the
addition of this 0.14 annual mortality, the total human-caused
mortality exceeds PBR by 23.64. However, as described in more detail in
the Serious Injury or Mortality section, 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, which is 16.7. 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
the Serious Injury or Mortality section, the authorized mortality of
0.14 will not delay the time to recovery by more than 1 percent. Given
these factors, the incremental addition of a single mortality over the
course of the seven-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 69 percent, respectively (Table 19).
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 (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 Level B
harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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, 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 (as described in the 2018
HSTT final rule) 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 anticipated to be
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 result in impacts on the reproduction or survival of any individuals
and, therefore, when combined with the proposed 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
preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the
Navy's activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would
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 proposed for authorization 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 Navy-estimated abundance
and the SAR) is 568 and 146 percent, respectively (Table 19). 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 multi-day exercise on
a range while individuals were in the area for multiple days feeding.
Regarding the severity of those individual Level B harassment takes by
behavioral disruption, 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, 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 (as described in the 2018 HSTT final
rule) 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 individual.
Altogether, only a portion of the stock is anticipated to be
impacted and any individual minke whale is likely to be disturbed at a
low-moderate 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 preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of

[[Page 48428]]

the effects of the Navy's activities combined, that the authorized take
proposed would 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 proposed for
authorization. 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 2,633 and 15 percent, respectively
(Table 19), 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. 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 would be 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 Level B
harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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-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, 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 low-frequency 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 anticipated to be
impacted and any individual sei whale is likely to be disturbed at a
low-moderate 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
preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the
Navy's activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would
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 is proposing to authorize two
mortalities over the seven years covered by this rule, or 0.29
mortality annually. The addition of this 0.29 annual mortality still
leaves the total human-caused mortality well under the insignificance
threshold of residual PBR (663). On May 31, 2019, NMFS declared the
unusual spike in strandings of gray whales along the west coast of
North America since January 1, 2019 an UME. As of June 13, 2019, 155
gray whales have stranded along the west coast of North America (in the
U.S., Canada, and Mexico). Including these mortalities in the
calculated residual PBR still leaves the addition of 0.29 annual
mortality well under the insignificance threshold of residual PBR (508
including known deaths due to the UME).
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 17 percent, respectively (Table
19). This information suggests that only some small portion of
individuals in the stock are likely impacted (less than 17 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 4,678 total
takes, we believe that it is more likely that a larger number of
individuals would be 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 days.
Regarding the severity of those individual Level B harassment takes by
behavioral disruption, 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, 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, while we have considered the impacts of the gray whale
UME, 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 anticipated to be 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 proposed authorized mortality of two whales over the
seven year period expected to adversely affect this stock through
impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons,
we have preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the
effects of the Navy's activities combined, that the authorized take
proposed would have a negligible impact on the Eastern North Pacific
stock of gray whales.

[[Page 48429]]

Gray Whale (Western North Pacific Stock)

The Western North Pacific stock of gray whales is reported as
increasing in the 2018 final SAR, but is listed as endangered under the
ESA. No mortality or Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for
authorization. This stock is expected to incur the very small number of
6 Level B harassment takes (2 behavioral disruption and 4 TTS) to a
stock with a SAR-estimated abundance of 290 (Table 19). 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 preliminarily determined, in consideration of
all of the effects of the Navy's activities combined, that the
authorized take proposed would have a negligible impact on the Western
North Pacific stock of gray whales.

Humpback Whale (Central North Pacific Stock)

The 2018 final SAR identifies this stock as ``increasing'' and the
DPS is not listed under the ESA. No Level A harassment by tissue damage
is proposed for authorization. NMFS proposes to authorize two
mortalities over the seven years covered by this rule, or 0.29
mortalities annually. The addition of this 0.29 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 180 and 161 percent (Table 18).
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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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 the 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 severity of TTS takes, 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 anticipated to be impacted and any individual humpback whale
is likely to be disturbed at a low-moderate level, with the taken
individuals likely exposed between one to several days per year, with
little likelihood of take 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 authorized mortality expected to adversely affect
this stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
For these reasons, we have preliminarily determined, in consideration
of all of the effects of the Navy's activities combined, that the
authorized take proposed would 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
proposed for authorization 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 percent (Table
18). 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral
disruption, 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, 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
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 (as described in the 2018 HSTT final
rule) 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 anticipated to be
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 have impacts on annual rates of recruitment or
survival. For these reasons, we have preliminarily determined, in
consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's activities combined,
that the authorized take proposed would have a negligible impact on
these stocks.
Odontocetes

Sperm Whales, Dwarf Sperm Whales, and Pygmy Sperm Whales

In Tables 20 and 21 below for sperm whale, dwarf sperm whales, and
pygmy sperm whales, we indicate the total annual mortality, Level A and
Level B

[[Page 48430]]

harassment, and a number indicating the instances of total take as a
percentage of abundance. Tables 20 and 21 are unchanged from Tables 73
and 74 in the 2018 HSTT final rule, except for updated information on
mortality for the Hawaii stock of sperm whales, as discussed above. For
additional information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact
analysis, see the Odontocetes discussion as well as the Sperm Whales,
Dwarf Sperm Whales, and Pygmy Sperm Whales discussion in the Group and
Species-Specific Analyses section of the 2018 HSTT final rule, all of
which remains applicable to this proposed rule unless specifically
noted.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE19.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE19.004

Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our
preliminary determination that the Navy's activities would not
adversely affect any species or stocks through effects on annual rates
of recruitment or survival for any of the affected species and stocks
addressed in this section.

Sperm Whales, Dwarf Sperm Whales, and Pygmy Sperm Whales (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
proposed for authorization for any of these three stocks.

[[Page 48431]]

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 are 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 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 21). 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 Level B harassment
takes by behavioral disruption, 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). 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, 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 sperm 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 discussed in the 2018
HSTT final rule, 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 seven 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. We also 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 preliminarily
determined that the authorized take proposed would 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 proposed authorization. NMFS proposes to
authorize one mortality over the seven years covered by this rule,
which is 0.14 mortalities annually. The addition of this 0.14 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 20).
This information and the sperm whale stock range suggest that likely
only a smaller portion of the stock would be impacted, over one to
several days per year, with little likelihood of take across sequential
days. Regarding the severity of those individual Level B harassment
takes by behavioral disruption, 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, 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

[[Page 48432]]

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 anticipated
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 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
preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the
Navy's activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would
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
anticipated or proposed for authorization. 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 20). 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 taken
over one to perhaps five days per year, with little likelihood of take
across sequential days. Regarding the severity of those individual
Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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 discussed 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, 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
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 instances of Level B harassment by behavioral disruption.
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. 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 preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of
the effects of the Navy's activities combined, that the expected and
authorized take proposed would have a negligible impact on the Hawaii
stocks of pygmy and dwarf sperm whales.

Beaked Whales

In Tables 22 and 23 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.
Tables 22 and 23 are unchanged from Tables 75 and 76 in the 2018 HSTT
final rule. For additional information and analysis supporting the
negligible-impact analysis, see the Odontocetes discussion as well as
the Beaked Whales discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses
section of the 2018 HSTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to
this proposed rule unless specifically noted.

[[Page 48433]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE19.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE19.006

[[Page 48434]]

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, 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 anticipated to be
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 have impacts on annual
rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, we have
preliminarily determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the
Navy's activities combined, that the authorized take proposed would
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 is expected or proposed for authorization
for any of these three stocks and only two takes by Level A harassment
(PTS) are proposed for authorization.
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. 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
Hubbs' 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 2,762, 2,212, and 6,960
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 23).
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, and potentially
more for Cuvier's)--potentially over a fair number of sequential days,
especially where individuals spend extensive time in the SOCAL Range.
Note that we predict lower days of repeated exposure for these stocks
than their percentages might have suggested because of the number of
overall takes--i.e., using the higher percentage would suggest that an
unlikely portion of the takes are taken up by a small portion of the
stock incurring a very large number of repeat takes, with little room
for take resulting from few or moderate numbers of repeats, which is
unlikely. 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral
disruption, 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). In addition, as noted, some of these takes
could occur on a fair number of sequential days for these stocks.
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. Therefore, the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities would not be expected to impact
reproduction or survival. For similar reasons (as described in the 2018
HSTT final rule) 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 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 seven 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, 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

[[Page 48435]]

were higher than indicated by NMFS' broad-scale visual surveys for the
U.S. West Coast (Debich et al., 2015a; Debich et al., 2015b; Falcone
and Schorr, 2012, 2014; Hildebrand et al., 2009; Moretti, 2016;
[Scaron]irovi[cacute] 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 seven 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 preliminarily determined that the
authorized take proposed would 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

In Tables 24 and 25 below for dolphins and small whales, we
indicate the total annual mortality, Level A and Level B harassment,
and a number indicating the instances of total take as a percentage of
abundance. Tables 24 and 25 are updated from Tables 77 and 78 in the
2018 HSTT final rule as appropriate with the 2018 final SARs and with
updated information on mortality, as discussed above. For additional
information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact analysis, see
the Odontocetes discussion as well as the Small Whales and Dolphins
discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the
2018 HSTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to this proposed
rule unless specifically noted.

[[Page 48436]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE19.007

[[Page 48437]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE19.008

Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our
determination that the Navy's activities would not adversely affect any
species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival for any of the affected species or stocks addressed in this
section.
Long-Beaked Common Dolphin (California Stock), Northern Right Whale
Dolphin (CA/OR/WA Stock), and Short-Beaked 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. Eight mortalities or serious injuries of short-beaked
common dolphins are proposed for authorization over the seven-year
rule, or 1.14 M/SI annually. The addition of this 1.14 annual mortality
still leaves the total human-caused mortality well under the
insignificance threshold for residual PBR. The three stocks are
expected to accrue 2, 1, and 10 Level A harassment takes from tissue
damage resulting from exposure to explosives, respectively. As
described in detail in the 2018 HSTT final rule, 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 seven, 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 seven five years very
low), 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 2,411, 1,273, and 571 percent (respective to
the stocks listed in the heading) and 244, 369, and 154 percent
(respective to the stocks listed in the heading) (Table 25). Given the
range of these stocks, this information suggests

[[Page 48438]]

that likely some portion (but not all or even the majority) of the
individuals in the Northern right whale dolphin and short-beaked common
dolphin stocks are likely impacted, while it is entirely possible that
most or all of the range-limited 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 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 Level B
harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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 the percentage is not that high).
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, 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 in the 2018 HSTT final rule, 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 above, 1.14 annual
lethal takes of short-beaked common dolphins are proposed for
authorization, 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 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 seven, 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 seven years very low) 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 8,353, 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 preliminarily determined that the authorized take proposed would
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 proposed
for authorization 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 to 2,675 percent and 36 to 2,881
percent, respectively (Table 25). 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 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral
disruption, 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.
The severity of TTS takes is expected to be low-level, of short
duration, and mostly not in a frequency band that

[[Page 48439]]

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 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 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 seven, 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 seven five 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 the stocks through effects on annual rates
of recruitment or survival, especially given the residual PBRs of the
CA/OR/WA stocks of bottlenose dolphins, Pacific white-sided dolphins,
and Risso's dolphins (9.4, 183, and 84, respectively). For these
reasons, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's
activities combined, we have preliminarily determined that the
authorized take proposed would have a negligible impact on these stocks
of dolphins.
All HRC Dolphin Stocks
With the exception of the Main Hawaiian Island stock of false
killer whales (listed as endangered under the ESA, with the MMPA stock
identified as ``decreasing''), none of these stocks are listed under
the ESA and their stock statuses are considered ``unknown.'' No M/SI or
Level A harassment via tissue damage from exposure to explosives is
expected or proposed for authorization 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 46 to 1,169 percent and 41 to 2,130
percent, respectively (Table 24). Given the ranges of these stocks
(many of them are small, resident, island-associated stocks), this
information suggests that a fairly large portion of the individuals of
many of these stocks will be taken, but that most individuals will only
be impacted across a smaller to moderate number of days within the year
(1-15), and with no more than several potentially sequential days,
although two stocks (the Oahu stocks of bottlenose dolphin and
pantropical spotted dolphin) have a slightly higher percentage,
suggesting they could be taken up to 23 days within a year, with
perhaps a few more of those days being sequential. We note that
although the percentage is higher for the tropical stock of pygmy
killer whale within the U.S. EEZ (2,130), given (1) the low overall
number of takes (760) and (2) the fact that the small within-U.S. EEZ
abundance is not a static set of individuals, but rather individuals
moving in and out of the U.S. EEZ making it more appropriate to use the
percentage comparison for the total takes versus total abundance--it is
highly unlikely that any individuals would be taken across the number
of days the within-U.S. EEZ percentage suggests (42). 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 Level B
harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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 Oahu stocks of bottlenose dolphin and
pantropical spotted dolphins.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes, they are expected to be low-
level, of short duration, and mostly not in a frequency band that would
be expected to interfere significantly with conspecific communication,
echolocation, or other important low-frequency cues. 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, they 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 accrued to individuals that are also taken by behavioral
harassment at the same time.
Altogether, most of these stocks (all but the Oahu stocks of
bottlenose dolphin and pantropical spotted dolphins) will likely be
taken (at a low to occasionally moderate level) over several days a
year, with some smaller portion of the stock potentially taken on a
more moderate number of days across the year (perhaps up to 15 days for
Fraser's dolphin, though others notably less), some of which could be
across a few sequential days, which is not expected to affect the
reproductive success or survival of individuals. For the Oahu stocks of
bottlenose dolphin and pantropical spotted dolphins, some subset of
individuals could be taken up to 23 days in a year, with some small
number being taken across several sequential days, such 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 seven years very low) has far less of an
impact

[[Page 48440]]

on population rates than mortality and a small number of instances of
foregone reproduction would not be expected to adversely affect these
two stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
For these reasons, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's
activities combined, we have preliminarily determined that the
authorized take proposed would have a negligible impact on all of the
stocks of dolphins found in the vicinity of the HRC.

Dall's Porpoise

In Table 26 below for porpoises, we indicate the total annual
mortality, Level A and Level B harassment, and a number indicating the
instances of total take as a percentage of abundance. Table 26 is
unchanged from Table 79 in the 2018 HSTT final rule. For additional
information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact analysis, see
the Odontocetes discussion as well as the Dall's Porpoise discussion in
the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the 2018 HTT final
rule, all of which remains applicable to this proposed rule unless
specifically noted.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE19.009

Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our
determination that the Navy's activities would not adversely affect
Dall's porpoises through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
Dall's porpoise is not listed under the ESA and the stock status is
considered ``unknown.'' No M/SI or Level A harassment via tissue damage
from exposure to explosives is expected or proposed for authorization
for this stock.
Most Level B harassments to Dall's porpoise from hull-mounted sonar
(MF1) in the HSTT Study Area would result from received levels between
154 and 166 dB SPL (85 percent). While harbor porpoises have been
observed to be especially sensitive to human activity, the same types
of responses have not been observed in Dall's porpoises. Dall's
porpoises are typically notably longer than, and weigh more than twice
as much as, harbor porpoises, making them generally less likely to be
preyed upon and likely differentiating their behavioral repertoire
somewhat from harbor porpoises. Further, they are typically seen in
large groups and feeding aggregations, or exhibiting bow-riding
behaviors, which is very different from the group dynamics observed in
the more typically solitary, cryptic harbor porpoises, which are not
often seen bow-riding. For these reasons, Dall's porpoises are not
treated as especially sensitive species (as compared to harbor
porpoises which have a lower threshold for Level B harassment by
behavioral disruption and more distant cutoff) but, rather, are
analyzed similarly to other odontocetes. Therefore, the majority of
Level B harassment takes are expected to be in the form of milder
responses compared to higher level exposures. As discussed more fully
in the 2018 HSTT final rule, we anticipate more severe effects from
takes when animals are exposed to higher received levels.
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 2,170 and 173 percent, respectively (Table
26). Given the range of this stock (up the U.S. West Coast through
Washington and sometimes beyond the U.S. EEZ), this information
suggests that some smaller portion of the individuals of this stock
will be taken, and that some subset of individuals within the stock
will be taken repeatedly within the year (perhaps up to 42 days)--
potentially over a fair number of sequential days, especially where
individuals spend extensive time in 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 Level B harassment takes by behavioral disruption, 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 this stock.
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. Therefore, the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities would not be expected to impact
reproduction or survival. For these same reasons (low level and the
likely frequency band), while a small permanent loss of hearing
sensitivity may include some degree of

[[Page 48441]]

energetic costs for compensating or may mean some small loss of
opportunities or detection capabilities, the estimated 209 Level A
harassment takes by PTS for Dall's porpoise would be unlikely to impact
behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities to a degree that
would interfere with reproductive success or survival for most
individuals. Because of the high number of PTS takes, however, we
acknowledge that a few animals could potentially incur permanent
hearing loss of a higher degree that could potentially interfere with
their successful reproduction and growth. Given the status of the
stock, even if this occurred, it would not adversely impact rates of
recruitment or survival.
Altogether, a portion of this stock will likely be taken (at a low
to occasionally moderate level) over several days a year, and some
smaller portion of the stock is expected to be taken on a relatively
moderate to high number of days across the year, some of which could be
sequential days. Though the majority of impacts are expected to be of a
lower to sometimes moderate severity, the larger number of takes (in
total and for certain individuals) for the Dall's porpoise 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. Similarly, we acknowledge
the potential for this to occur to a few individuals out of the 209
total that might incur a higher degree of PTS. As noted previously,
however, foregone reproduction (especially for only one year in seven,
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 seven five years very low) has far less
of an impact on population rates than mortality. Further, the small
number of instances of foregone reproduction that could potentially
result from PTS and/or the few repeated, more severe Level B harassment
takes by behavioral disruption would not be expected to adversely
affect the stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival, especially given the status of the species (not endangered or
threatened; minimum population of 25,170 just within the U.S. EEZ) and
residual PBR of Dall's porpoise (171.4). For these reasons, in
consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's activities combined,
we have preliminarily determined that the authorized take proposed
would have a negligible impact on Dall's porpoise.

Pinnipeds

In Tables 27 and 28 below for pinnipeds, we indicate the total
annual mortality, Level A and Level B harassment, and a number
indicating the instances of total take as a percentage of abundance.
Tables 27 and 28 have been updated from Tables 80 and 81 in the 2018
HSTT final rule, as appropriate, with the 2018 final SARs and updated
information on mortality, as discussed above. For additional
information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact analysis, see
the Pinnipeds discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses
section of the 2018 HSTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to
this proposed rule unless specifically noted.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE19.010

[[Page 48442]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE19.011

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our
determination that the Navy's activities would not adversely affect any
pinnipeds through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival
for any of the affected species or stocks addressed in this section.
Five M/SI takes of California sea lions are proposed for
authorization and when this mortality is combined with the other human-
caused mortality from other sources, it still falls well below the
insignificance threshold for residual PBR (13, 685). A small number of
Level A harassment takes by tissue damage are also proposed for
authorization (9 and 2 for California sea lions and northern elephant
seals, respectively), which, as discussed in the 2018 HSTT final rule,
could range in impact from minor to something just less than M/SI that
could seriously impact fitness. However, given the Navy's mitigation,
exposure at the closer to the source and more severe end of the
spectrum is less likely. Nevertheless, we cautiously assume some
moderate impact on the individuals that experience these small numbers
of take that could lower the 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 within seven years, 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 seven years very low) and these low numbers of instances (especially
assuming the likelihood that only 50 percent of the takes would affect
females) would not be expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or
survival, especially given the population sizes of these species.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and
behavioral disruption), for Hawaiian monk seals and Guadalupe fur
seals, the two species listed under the ESA, the estimated instances of
takes as compared to the stock abundance does not exceed 124 percent,
which suggests that some portion of these two stocks would be taken on
one to a few days per year. For the remaining stocks, the number of
estimated total instances of take compared to the abundance (measured
against both the Navy-estimated abundance and the SAR) for these stocks
is 1,484 to 2,896 percent and 18 to 40 percent, respectively (Table
27). Given the ranges of these stocks (i.e., very large ranges, but
with individuals often staying in the vicinity of haulouts), this
information suggests that some very small portion of the individuals of
these stocks will be taken, but that some subset of individuals within
the stock will be taken repeatedly within the year (perhaps up to 58
days)--potentially over a fair number of sequential days. Regarding the
severity of those individual Level B harassment takes by behavioral
disruption, 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, which is considered a relatively low to
occasionally moderate level for pinnipeds. However, as noted, some of
these takes could occur on a fair number of sequential days for this
stock.
As described in the 2018 HSTT final rule, the Hawaii and 4-Islands
mitigation areas protect (by not using explosives and limiting MFAS
within) a significant portion of the designated critical habitat for
Hawaiian monk seals in the Main Hawaiian Islands, including all of it
around the islands of Hawaii and Lanai, most around Maui, and good
portions around Molokai and Kaho'olawe. As discussed, this protection
reduces the overall number of takes, and further reduces the severity
of effects by minimizing impacts near pupping beaches and in important
foraging habitat.
The severity of TTS takes are expected to be low-level, of short
duration, and mostly not in a frequency band that would be expected to
interfere significantly with conspecific communication, echolocation,
or other important low-frequency cues that

[[Page 48443]]

would affect the individual's 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, the one to eight estimated Level A harassment takes by
PTS for monk seals, northern fur seals, and harbor seals would be
unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities
to a degree that would interfere with reproductive success or survival
of any individuals. Because of the high number of PTS takes for
California sea lions and northern elephant seals (87 and 97,
respectively); however, we acknowledge that a few animals could
potentially incur permanent hearing loss of a higher degree that could
potentially interfere with their successful reproduction and growth.
Given the status of the stocks, even if this occurred, it would not
adversely impact rates of recruitment or survival (residual PBR of
13,686 and 4,873, respectively).
Altogether, an individual Hawaiian monk seal and Guadalupe fur seal
would be taken no more than a few days in any year, with none of the
expected take anticipated to affect individual reproduction or
survival, let alone annual rates of recruitment and survival. With all
other stocks, only a very small portion of the stock will be taken in
any manner. Of those taken, some individuals will be taken by Level B
harassment (at a moderate or sometimes low level) over several days a
year, and some smaller portion of those taken will be on a relatively
moderate to high number of days across the year (up to 58), a fair
number of which would likely be sequential days. Though the majority of
impacts are expected to be of a lower to sometimes moderate severity,
the repeated takes over a potentially fair number of sequential days
for some individuals makes it more likely that some 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 within seven, 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 seven five years very
low) has far less of an impact on population rates than mortality and a
relatively small number of instances of foregone reproduction (as
compared to the stock abundance and residual PBR) would not be expected
to adversely affect the stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival, especially given the status of these stocks.
Accordingly, we do not anticipate the relatively small number of
individual Northern fur seals or harbor seals that might be taken over
repeated days within the year in a manner that results in one year of
foregone reproduction to adversely affect the stocks through effects on
rates of recruitment or survival, given the status of the stocks, which
are respectively increasing and stable with abundances and residual
PBRs of 14,050/30,968 and 449/1,598.
For California sea lions, given the very high abundance and
residual PBR (257,606 and 13,685, respectively), as well as the
increasing status of the stock in the presence of similar levels of
Navy activities over past years--the impacts of 0.71 annual
mortalities, potential foregone reproduction for up to nine individuals
in a year taken by tissue damage, and some relatively small number of
individuals taken as a result of repeated behavioral harassment over a
fair number of sequential days are not expected to adversely affect the
stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Similarly, for Northern elephant seals, given the very high abundance
and residual PBR (179,000 and 4,873, respectively), as well as the
increasing status of the stock in the presence of similar levels of
Navy activities over past years, the impacts of potential foregone
reproduction for up to two individuals in a year taken by tissue damage
and some relatively small number of individuals taken as a result of
repeated behavioral harassment over a fair number of sequential days
are not expected to adversely affect the stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, in
consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's activities combined
(M/SI, Level A harassment, and Level B harassment), we have
preliminarily determined that the authorized take proposed would have a
negligible impact on all pinniped species and stocks.

Determination

The 2018 HSTT final rule included a detailed discussion of all of
the anticipated impacts on the affected species and stocks from serious
injury or mortality, Level A harassment, and Level B harassment;
impacts on habitat; and how the Navy's mitigation and monitoring
measures reduce the number and/or severity of adverse effects. We have
evaluated how these impacts and mitigation measures are expected to
combine, annually, to affect individuals of each species and stock.
Those effects were then evaluated in the context of whether they are
reasonably likely to impact reproductive success or survivorship of
individuals and then, if so, further analyzed to determine whether
there would be effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival that
would adversely affect the species or stock.
As described above, the basis for the negligible impact
determination is the assessment of effects on annual rates of
recruitment and survival. Accordingly, the analysis included in the
2018 HSTT final rule used annual activity levels, the best available
science, and approved methods to predict the annual impacts to marine
mammals, which were then analyzed in the context of whether each
species or stock would incur more than a negligible impact based on
anticipated adverse impacts to annual rates of recruitment or survival.
As we have described above, none of the factors upon which the
conclusions in the 2018 HSTT final rule were based have changed.
Therefore, even though this proposed rule includes two additional
years, because our findings are based on annual rates of recruitment
and survival, and little has changed that would change our 2018 HSTT
final rule annual analyses, it is appropriate to rely on those
analyses, as well as the new information and analysis discussed above,
for this proposed rule.
Based on the applicable information and analysis from the 2018 HSTT
final rule as updated with the information and analysis contained
herein on the potential and likely effects of the specified activities
on the affected marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the incidental take from the
specified activities will have a negligible impact on all affected
marine mammal species and stocks.

[[Page 48444]]

Subsistence Harvest of Marine Mammals

There are no subsistence uses or harvest of marine mammals in the
geographic area affected by the specified activities. Therefore, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the total taking affecting species or
stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

ESA

There are nine marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that
are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA with confirmed or
possible occurrence in the HSTT Study Area: Blue whale (Eastern and
Central North Pacific stocks), fin whale (CA/OR/WA and Hawaii stocks),
gray whale (Western North Pacific stock), humpback whale (Mexico and
Central America DPSs), sei whale (Eastern North Pacific and Hawaii
stocks), sperm whale (CA/OR/WA and Hawaii stocks), false killer whale
(Main Hawaiian Islands Insular), Hawaiian monk seal (Hawaii stock), and
Guadalupe fur seal (Mexico to California). There is also ESA-designated
critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals and Main Hawaiian Islands
Insular false killer whales. The Navy consulted with NMFS pursuant to
section 7 of the ESA for HSTT activities. NMFS also consulted
internally on the issuance of the 2018 HSTT regulations and LOAs under
section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on
December 10, 2018 concluding that the issuance of the 2018 HSTT final
rule and subsequent LOAs are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the threatened and endangered species under NMFS'
jurisdiction and are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat in the HSTT Study Area. The Biological
Opinion for this action is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities. NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division
is currently discussing the 2019 Navy application with NMFS' ESA
Interagency Cooperation Division.

National Marine Sanctuaries Act

Federal agency actions that are likely to injure national marine
sanctuary resources are subject to consultation with the Office of
National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) under section 304(d) of the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). There are two national marine
sanctuaries in the HSTT Study Area, the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
National Marine Sanctuary and the Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary. NMFS will work with NOAA's Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries to fulfill our responsibilities under the NMSA as warranted
and will complete any NMSA requirements prior to a determination on the
issuance of the final rule and LOAs.

National Environmental Policy Act

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must evaluate our proposed actions and alternatives with respect
to potential impacts on the human environment. NMFS participated as a
cooperating agency on the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS (published on October 26,
2018, https://www.hstteis.com) which evaluated impacts from Navy
training and testing activities in the HSTT Study Area for the
reasonably foreseeable future (including through 2025). In accordance
with 40 CFR 1506.3, NMFS independently reviewed and evaluated the 2018
HSTT FEIS/OEIS and determined that it was adequate and sufficient to
meet our responsibilities under NEPA for the issuance of the 2018 HSTT
final rule and associated LOAs. NOAA therefore adopted the 2018 HSTT
FEIS/OEIS. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9 and the information and
analysis contained in this proposed rule, the Navy and NMFS as a
cooperating agency have made a preliminary determination that this
proposed rule and any subsequent LOAs would not result in impacts that
were not fully considered in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. As indicated in
this proposed rule, the Navy has made no substantial changes to the
activities nor are there significant new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns or their impacts. NMFS will make a
final NEPA determination prior to a decision whether to issue a final
rule.

Classification

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this
proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel
for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this
proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA requires Federal
agencies to prepare an analysis of a rule's impact on small entities
whenever the agency is required to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking. However, a Federal agency may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
605(b), that the action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The Navy is the sole entity
that would be affected by this rulemaking, and the Navy is not a small
governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business, as
defined by the RFA. Any requirements imposed by an LOA issued pursuant
to these regulations, and any monitoring or reporting requirements
imposed by these regulations, would be applicable only to the Navy.
NMFS does not expect the issuance of these regulations or the
associated LOAs to result in any impacts to small entities pursuant to
the RFA. Because this action, if adopted, would directly affect the
Navy and not a small entity, NMFS concludes the action would not result
in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218

Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental take, Indians, Labeling, Marine
mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Seafood, Sonar, Transportation.

Dated: August 26, 2019.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 218 is proposed
to be amended as follows:

PART 218--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE
MAMMALS

0
1. The authority citation for part 218 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Revise subpart H to part 218 to read as follows:
Subpart H--Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy's Hawaii-
Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT)
Sec.
218.70 Specified activity and geographical region.
218.71 Effective dates.
218.72 Permissible methods of taking.
218.73 Prohibitions.
218.74 Mitigation requirements.

[[Page 48445]]

218.75 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
218.76 Letters of Authorization.
218.77 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.
218.78 and 218.79 [Reserved]

Subpart H--Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy's Hawaii-
Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT)

Sec. 218.70 Specified activity and geographical region.

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the U.S. Navy for the
taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area described in paragraph
(b) of this section and that occurs incidental to the activities listed
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy under this subpart may
be authorized in Letters of Authorization (LOAs) only if it occurs
within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study
Area, which includes 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 (HRC), the Southern California Range Complex
(SOCAL), 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 on the high seas where
sonar training and testing may occur.
(c) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy is only authorized if
it occurs incidental to the Navy conducting training and testing
activities, including:
(1) Training.
(i) Amphibious warfare;
(ii) Anti-submarine warfare;
(iii) Electronic warfare;
(iv) Expeditionary warfare;
(v) Mine warfare;
(vi) Surface warfare; and
(vii) Pile driving.
(2) Testing.
(i) Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities;
(ii) Naval Sea System Command Testing Activities;
(iii) Office of Naval Research Testing Activities; and
(iv) Naval Information Warfare Systems Command.

Sec. 218.71 Effective dates.

Regulations in this subpart are effective from [DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] through December 20, 2025.

Sec. 218.72 Permissible methods of taking.

(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. Sec. 216.106 of this
chapter and 218.76, the Holder of the LOAs (hereinafter ``Navy'') may
incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the
area described in Sec. 218.70(b) by Level A harassment and Level B
harassment associated with the use of active sonar and other acoustic
sources and explosives as well as serious injury or mortality
associated with vessel strikes and explosives, provided the activity is
in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of these
regulations in this subpart and the applicable LOAs.
(b) The incidental take of marine mammals by the activities listed
in Sec. 218.70(c) is limited to the following species:

Table 1 to Sec. 218.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Stock
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue whale................................ Central North Pacific.
Blue whale................................ Eastern North Pacific.
Bryde's whale............................. Eastern Tropical Pacific.
Bryde's whale............................. Hawaii.
Fin whale................................. CA/OR/WA.
Fin whale................................. Hawaiian.
Humpback whale............................ CA/OR/WA.
Humpback whale............................ Central North Pacific.
Minke whale............................... CA/OR/WA.
Minke whale............................... Hawaii.
Sei whale................................. Eastern North Pacific.
Sei whale................................. Hawaii.
Gray whale................................ Eastern North Pacific.
Gray whale................................ Western North Pacific.
Sperm whale............................... CA/OR/WA.
Sperm whale............................... Hawaii.
Dwarf sperm whale......................... Hawaii.
Pygmy sperm whale......................... Hawaii.
Kogia whales.............................. CA/OR/WA.
Baird's beaked whale...................... CA/OR/WA.
Blainville's beaked whale................. Hawaii.
Cuvier's beaked whale..................... CA/OR/WA.
Cuvier's beaked whale..................... Hawaii.
Longman's beaked whale.................... Hawaii.
Mesoplodon spp............................ CA/OR/WA.
Bottlenose dolphin........................ California Coastal.
Bottlenose dolphin........................ CA/OR/WA Offshore.
Bottlenose dolphin........................ Hawaii Pelagic.
Bottlenose dolphin........................ Kauai & Niihau.
Bottlenose dolphin........................ Oahu.
Bottlenose dolphin........................ 4-Island.
Bottlenose dolphin........................ Hawaii.
False killer whale........................ Hawaii Pelagic.
False killer whale........................ Main Hawaiian Islands
Insular.
False killer whale........................ Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands.
Fraser's dolphin.......................... Hawaii.
Killer whale.............................. Eastern North Pacific (ENP)
Offshore.
Killer whale.............................. ENP Transient/West Coast
Transient.
Killer whale.............................. Hawaii.
Long-beaked common dolphin................ California.
Melon-headed whale........................ Hawaiian Islands.
Melon-headed whale........................ Kohala Resident.
Northern right whale dolphin.............. CA/OR/WA.
Pacific white-sided dolphin............... CA/OR/WA.
Pantropical spotted dolphin............... Hawaii Island.
Pantropical spotted dolphin............... Hawaii Pelagic.
Pantropical spotted dolphin............... Oahu.
Pantropical spotted dolphin............... 4-Island.
Pygmy killer whale........................ Hawaii.
Pygmy killer whale........................ Tropical.
Risso's dolphin........................... CA/OR/WA.
Risso's dolphin........................... Hawaii.
Rough-toothed dolphin..................... Hawaii.
Short-beaked common dolphin............... CA/OR/WA.
Short-finned pilot whale.................. CA/OR/WA.
Short-finned pilot whale.................. Hawaii.
Spinner dolphin........................... Hawaii Island.
Spinner dolphin........................... Hawaii Pelagic.
Spinner dolphin........................... Kauai & Niihau.
Spinner dolphin........................... Oahu & 4-Island.
Striped dolphin........................... CA/OR/WA.
Striped dolphin........................... Hawaii.
Dall's porpoise........................... CA/OR/WA.
California sea lion....................... U.S.
Guadalupe fur seal........................ Mexico.
Northern fur seal......................... California.
Harbor seal............................... California.
Hawaiian monk seal........................ Hawaii.
Northern elephant seal.................... California.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note to Table 1: CA/OR/WA = California/Oregon/Washington.

Sec. 218.73 Prohibitions.

Notwithstanding incidental takings contemplated in Sec. 218.72(a)
and authorized by LOAs issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 of this chapter
and 218.76, no person in connection with the activities listed in Sec.
218.70(c) may:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and
requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106
of this chapter and 218.76;
(b) Take any marine mammal not specified in Sec. 218.72(b);
(c) Take any marine mammal specified in Sec. 218.72(b) in any
manner other than as specified in the LOAs; or
(d) Take a marine mammal specified in Sec. 218.72(b) if NMFS
determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the
species or stocks of such marine mammal.

Sec. 218.74 Mitigation requirements.

When conducting the activities identified in Sec. 218.70(c), the
mitigation measures contained in any LOAs issued under Sec. Sec.
216.106 of this chapter and 218.76 must be implemented. These
mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
(a) Procedural mitigation. Procedural mitigation is mitigation that
the Navy must implement whenever and wherever an applicable training or
testing activity takes place within the HSTT Study Area for each
applicable activity category or stressor category and includes acoustic
stressors (i.e., active sonar, air guns, pile driving, weapons firing
noise), explosive stressors (i.e., sonobuoys, torpedoes, medium-caliber
and large-caliber projectiles, missiles and rockets, bombs, sinking
exercises, mines, anti-swimmer grenades, and mat weave and obstacle
loading), and physical disturbance and strike stressors (i.e., vessel
movement; towed in-water devices; small-, medium-, and large-caliber
non-explosive practice munitions; non-explosive missiles and rockets;
and non-explosive bombs and mine shapes).

[[Page 48446]]

(1) Environmental awareness and education. Appropriate Navy
personnel (including civilian personnel) involved in mitigation and
training or testing activity reporting under the specified activities
will complete one or more modules of the U.S Navy Afloat Environmental
Compliance Training Series, as identified in their career path training
plan. Modules include: Introduction to the U.S. Navy Afloat
Environmental Compliance Training Series, Marine Species Awareness
Training; U.S. Navy Protective Measures Assessment Protocol; and U.S.
Navy Sonar Positional Reporting System and Marine Mammal Incident
Reporting.
(2) Active sonar. Active sonar includes low-frequency active sonar,
mid-frequency active sonar, and 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).
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform--(A) Hull-mounted
sources. One Lookout for platforms with space or manning restrictions
while underway (at the forward part of a small boat or ship) and
platforms using active sonar while moored or at anchor (including
pierside); and two Lookouts for platforms without space or manning
restrictions while underway (at the forward part of the ship).
(B) Sources that are not hull-mounted sources. One Lookout on the
ship or aircraft conducting the activity.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. During the activity, at
1,000 yards (yd) Navy personnel must power down 6 decibels (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 dB and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar; or
at 200 yd Navy personnel must shut down for low-frequency active sonar
<200 dB, mid-frequency active sonar sources that are not hull-mounted,
and high-frequency active sonar.
(A) Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on
station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must
relocate or delay the start of active sonar transmission until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel must also observe the
mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed,
Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of active sonar
transmission.
(B) During the activity for low-frequency active sonar at or above
200 dB and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar, Navy personnel must
observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals and power down active
sonar transmission by 6 dB if marine mammals are observed within 1,000
yd of the sonar source; power down by an additional 4 dB (for a total
of 10 dB total) if marine mammals are observed within 500 yd of the
sonar source; and cease transmission if marine mammals are observed
within 200 yd of the sonar source.
(C) During the activity for low-frequency active sonar below 200
dB, mid-frequency active sonar sources that are not hull mounted, and
high-frequency active sonar, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals and cease active sonar transmission if marine
mammals are observed within 200 yd of the sonar source.
(D) 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: The animal is observed
exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the
mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and
movement relative to the sonar source; the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for 10 minutes (min) for aircraft-
deployed sonar sources or 30 min for vessel-deployed sonar sources; for
mobile activities, the active sonar source has transited a distance
equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of
the last sighting; or for activities using hull-mounted sonar where a
dolphin(s) is observed in the mitigation zone, the Lookout concludes
that the dolphin(s) 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).
(ii) [RESERVED]
(3) Air guns--(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One
Lookout positioned on a ship or pierside.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 150 yd around the air gun.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when
maneuvering on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is
clear. Navy personnel must also observe the mitigation zone for marine
mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate
or delay the start of air gun use.
(B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel
must cease air gun use.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing air gun use) until one of the following conditions
has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the air
gun; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings
for 30 min; or for mobile activities, the air gun has transited a
distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the
location of the last sighting.
(4) Pile driving. Pile driving and pile extraction sound during
Elevated Causeway System training.
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned on the shore, the elevated causeway, or a small boat.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 100 yd around the pile
driver.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (for 30 min), Navy
personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if
floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must delay the start
until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe
the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed,
Navy personnel must delay the start of pile driving or vibratory pile
extraction.
(B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel

[[Page 48447]]

must cease impact pile driving or vibratory pile extraction.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity. The Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing pile driving or pile extraction) until one of the
following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation
zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement
relative to the pile driving location; or the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for 30 min.
(5) Weapons firing noise. Weapons firing noise associated with
large-caliber gunnery activities.
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned on the ship conducting the firing. Depending on the
activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one provided for under
``Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles'' or under
``Small-, medium-, and large-caliber non-explosive practice munitions''
in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) and (a)(18)(i) of this section.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. Thirty degrees on either
side of the firing line out to 70 yd from the muzzle of the weapon
being fired.
(A) Prior to the start of the activity, Navy personnel must observe
the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is
observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of weapons
firing until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel must also
observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are
observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of weapons
firing.
(B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel
must cease weapons firing.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing weapons firing) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation
zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on
a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the
firing ship; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for 30 min; or for mobile activities, the firing ship has
transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size
beyond the location of the last sighting.
(6) Explosive sonobuoys--(i) Number of Lookouts and observation
platform. One Lookout must be positioned in an aircraft or on small
boat. If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy
personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers,
evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable
biological resources while performing their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 600 yd around an explosive
sonobuoy.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during
deployment of a sonobuoy field, which typically lasts 20-30 min), Navy
personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if
floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay
the start of sonobuoy or source/receiver pair detonations until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel must conduct passive acoustic
monitoring for marine mammals and use information from detections to
assist visual observations. Navy personnel also must visually observe
the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed,
Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of sonobuoy or source/
receiver pair detonations.
(B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel
must cease sonobuoy or source/receiver pair detonations.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions
has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the
sonobuoy; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel
constraints (e.g., helicopter), or 30 min when the activity involves
aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained.
(D) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering
off station), when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained
by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy
personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where
detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are
observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g.,
providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual
observation of the area where detonations occurred.
(7) Explosive torpedoes--(i) Number of Lookouts and observation
platform. One Lookout positioned in an aircraft. If additional
platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned
in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support
observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while
performing their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 2,100 yd around the intended
impact location.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during
deployment of the target), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for floating vegetation and jellyfish aggregations; if floating
vegetation or jellyfish aggregations are observed, Navy personnel must
relocate or delay the start of firing until the mitigation zone is
clear. Navy personnel must conduct passive acoustic monitoring for
marine mammals and use the information from detections to assist visual
observations. Navy personnel also must visually observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel
must relocate or delay the start of firing.
(B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe for marine
mammals and jellyfish aggregations; if marine mammals or jellyfish
aggregations are observed, Navy personnel must cease firing.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has
been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the
intended impact location; or the mitigation zone

[[Page 48448]]

has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the
activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when
the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained.
(D) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering
off station), Navy personnel must 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, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g.,
providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual
observation of the area where detonations occurred.
(8) Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles. Gunnery
activities using explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber
projectiles. Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target.
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must
be on the vessel or aircraft conducting the activity. For activities
using explosive large-caliber projectiles, depending on the activity,
the Lookout could be the same as the one described in ``Weapons firing
noise'' in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section. If additional platforms
are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those
assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the
mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing
their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. (A) 200 yd around the
intended impact location for air-to-surface activities using explosive
medium-caliber projectiles.
(B) 600 yd around the intended impact location for surface-to-
surface activities using explosive medium-caliber projectiles.
(C) 1,000 yd around the intended impact location for surface-to-
surface activities using explosive large-caliber projectiles.
(D) Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on
station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must
relocate or delay the start of firing until the mitigation zone is
clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine
mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate
or delay the start of firing.
(E) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe for marine
mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease
firing.
(F) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has
been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the
intended impact location; the mitigation zone has been clear from any
additional sightings for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 min for
vessel-based firing; or for activities using mobile targets, the
intended impact location has transited a distance equal to double that
of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.
(G) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering
off station), Navy personnel must, 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, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g.,
providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual
observation of the area where detonations occurred.
(9) Explosive missiles and rockets. Aircraft-deployed explosive
missiles and rockets. Mitigation applies to activities using a surface
target.
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned in an aircraft. If additional platforms are participating
in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g.,
safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation
zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular
duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. (A) 900 yd around the
intended impact location for missiles or rockets with 0.6-20 lb net
explosive weight.
(B) 2,000 yd around the intended impact location for missiles with
21-500 lb net explosive weight.
(C) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-
over of the mitigation zone), Navy personnel must observe the
mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is
observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of firing
until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe
the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed,
Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of firing.
(D) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe for marine
mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease
firing.
(E) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has
been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the
intended impact location; or the mitigation zone has been clear from
any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft
that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves
aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained.
(F) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering
off station), Navy personnel must, 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, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g.,
providing range clearance), these Navy assets will assist in the visual
observation of the area where detonations occurred.
(10) Explosive bombs--(i) Number of Lookouts and observation
platform. One Lookout must be positioned in an aircraft conducting the
activity. If additional platforms are participating in the activity,
Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers,
evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable
biological resources while performing their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 2,500 yd around the intended
target.

[[Page 48449]]

(A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when arriving
on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for
floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel
must relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the
mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed,
Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment.
(B) During the activity (e.g., during target approach), Navy
personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if
marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease bomb deployment.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing bomb deployment) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation
zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on
a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the
intended target; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for 10 min; or for activities using mobile targets, the
intended target has transited a distance equal to double that of the
mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.
(D) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering
off station), Navy personnel must, 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, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g.,
providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual
observation of the area where detonations occurred.
(11) Sinking exercises--(i) Number of Lookouts and observation
platform. Two Lookouts (one must be positioned in an aircraft and one
must be positioned on a vessel). If additional platforms are
participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those
assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the
mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing
their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 2.5 nautical miles (nmi)
around the target ship hulk.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (90 min prior to the
first firing), Navy personnel must conduct aerial observations of the
mitigation zone for floating vegetation and jellyfish aggregations; if
floating vegetation or jellyfish aggregations are observed, Navy
personnel must delay the start of firing until the mitigation zone is
clear. Navy personnel also must conduct aerial observations of the
mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed,
Navy personnel must delay the start of firing.
(B) During the activity, Navy personnel must conduct passive
acoustic monitoring for marine mammals and use the information from
detections to assist visual observations. Navy personnel must 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 two hours, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone
for marine mammals from the aircraft and vessel; if marine mammals are
observed, Navy personnel must delay recommencement of firing.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has
been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the target
ship hulk; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for 30 min.
(D) After completion of the activity (for two hours after sinking
the vessel or until sunset, whichever comes first), Navy personnel must
observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations
occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy
personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If
additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing
range clearance), these Navy assets will assist in the visual
observation of the area where detonations occurred.
(12) Explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities--
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. (A) One Lookout must
be positioned on a vessel or in an aircraft when implementing the
smaller mitigation zone.
(B) Two Lookouts (one must be positioned in an aircraft and one
must be on a small boat) when implementing the larger mitigation zone.
(C) If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy
personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers,
evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable
biological resources while performing their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. (A) 600 yd around the
detonation site for activities using 0.1-5 lb net explosive weight.
(B) 2,100 yd around the detonation site for activities using 6-650
lb net explosive weight (including high explosive target mines).
(C) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when
maneuvering on station; typically, 10 min when the activity involves
aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity
involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained), Navy
personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if
floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay
the start of detonations until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy
personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if
marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the
start of detonations.
(D) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals, concentrations of seabirds, and individual
foraging seabirds; if marine mammals, concentrations of seabirds, or
individual foraging seabirds are observed, Navy personnel must cease
detonations.
(E) 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: The animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation
zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement
relative to detonation site; or

[[Page 48450]]

the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10
min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or
30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel
constrained.
(F) After completion of the activity (typically 10 min when the
activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when
the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel
constrained), Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals in the
vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine
mammals are observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident
reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this
activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must
assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations
occurred.
(13) Explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy
divers--(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. (A) Two
Lookouts (two small boats with one Lookout each, or one Lookout must be
on a small boat and one must be in a rotary-wing aircraft) when
implementing the smaller mitigation zone.
(B) Four Lookouts (two small boats with two Lookouts each), and a
pilot or member of an aircrew must serve as an additional Lookout if
aircraft are used during the activity, when implementing the larger
mitigation zone.
(C) All divers placing the charges on mines will support the
Lookouts while performing their regular duties and will report
applicable sightings to their supporting small boat or Range Safety
Officer.
(D) If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy
personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers,
evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for applicable
biological resources while performing their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. (A) 500 yd around the
detonation site during activities under positive control using 0.1-20
lb net explosive weight.
(B) 1,000 yd around the detonation site during all 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.
(C) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when
maneuvering on station for activities under positive control; 30 min
for activities using time-delay firing devices), Navy personnel must
observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating
vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start
of detonations or fuse initiation until the mitigation zone is clear.
Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine
mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate
or delay the start of detonations or fuse initiation.
(D) During the activity, Navy personnel must 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, or individual foraging seabirds are
observed, Navy personnel must cease detonations or fuse initiation. To
the maximum extent practicable depending on mission requirements,
safety, and environmental conditions, Navy personnel must position
boats near the mid-point of the mitigation zone radius (but outside of
the detonation plume and human safety zone), must position themselves
on opposite sides of the detonation location (when two boats are used),
and must travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location
with one Lookout observing inward toward the detonation site and the
other observing outward toward the perimeter of the mitigation zone. If
used, Navy 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.
(E) 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: The animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation
zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement
relative to the detonation site; or the mitigation zone has been clear
from any additional sightings for 10 min during activities under
positive control with aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min
during activities under positive control with aircraft that are not
typically fuel constrained and during activities using time-delay
firing devices.
(F) After completion of an activity (for 30 min), the Navy must
observe for marine mammals for 30 min. Navy personnel must observe for
marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any
injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must follow
established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are
supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy
assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where
detonations occurred.
(14) Maritime security operations--anti-swimmer grenades--(i)
Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be
positioned on the small boat conducting the activity. If additional
platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned
in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support
observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while
performing their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 200 yd around the intended
detonation location.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when
maneuvering on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the start of detonations until the
mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the
mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed,
Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of detonations.
(B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel
must cease detonations.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions
has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the
intended detonation location; the mitigation zone has been clear from
any additional sightings for 30 min; or the intended detonation
location has transited a distance equal to double that of the
mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.
(D) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering
off station), Navy personnel must, when practical (e.g., when platforms
are not constrained by fuel restrictions or

[[Page 48451]]

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, Navy personnel must follow established
incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting
this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets will
assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations
occurred.
(15) Underwater demolition multiple charge--mat weave and obstacle
loading exercises--(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. Two
Lookouts (one must be positioned on a small boat and one must be
positioned 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.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 700 yd around the intended
detonation location.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the activity, or 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, Navy personnel
must delay the start of detonations until the mitigation zone is clear.
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, Navy personnel must delay the
start of detonations.
(B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel
must cease detonations.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions
has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the
detonation location; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any
additional sightings for 10 min (as determined by the Navy shore
observer).
(D) 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 Navy assets must
assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations
occurred.
(16) Vessel movement. The mitigation will not be applied if: The
vessel's safety is threatened; the vessel is restricted in its ability
to maneuver (e.g., during launching and recovery of aircraft or landing
craft, during towing activities, when mooring); the vessel is operated
autonomously; or when impracticable based on mission requirements
(e.g., during Amphibious Assault--Battalion Landing exercise).
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must
be on the vessel that is underway.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. (A) 500 yd around whales.
(B) 200 yd around all other marine mammals (except bow-riding
dolphins and pinnipeds hauled out on man-made navigational structures,
port structures, and vessels).
(iii) During the activity. When underway Navy personnel must
observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are
observed, Navy personnel must maneuver to maintain distance.
(iv) Incident reporting procedures. If a marine mammal vessel
strike occurs, Navy personnel must follow the established incident
reporting procedures.
(17) Towed in-water devices. Mitigation applies to devices that are
towed from a manned surface platform or manned aircraft. The mitigation
will not be applied if the safety of the towing platform or in-water
device is threatened.
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned on a manned towing platform.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 250 yd around marine
mammals.
(iii) During the activity. During the activity (i.e., when towing
an in-water device), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone
for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must
maneuver to maintain distance.
(18) Small-, medium-, and large-caliber non-explosive practice
munitions. Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target.
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned on the platform conducting the activity. Depending on the
activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described for
``Weapons firing noise'' in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 200 yd around the intended
impact location.
(A) Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on
station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating
vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must
relocate or delay the start of firing until the mitigation zone is
clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine
mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate
or delay the start of firing.
(B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel
must cease firing.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has
been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the
intended impact location; the mitigation zone has been clear from any
additional sightings for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 min for
vessel-based firing; or for 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.
(19) Non-explosive missiles and rockets. Aircraft-deployed non-
explosive missiles and rockets. Mitigation applies to activities using
a surface target.
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned in an aircraft.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 900 yd around the intended
impact location.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-
over of the mitigation zone), Navy personnel must observe the
mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is
observed, Navy personnel must relocate

[[Page 48452]]

or delay the start of firing until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy
personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if
marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the
start of firing.
(B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel
must cease firing.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting prior to or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has
been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the
intended impact location; or the mitigation zone has been clear from
any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft
that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves
aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained.
(20) Non-explosive bombs and mine shapes. Non-explosive bombs and
non-explosive mine shapes during mine laying activities.
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned in an aircraft.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 1,000 yd around the intended
target.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when arriving
on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for
floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel
must relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment or mine laying
until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe
the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed,
Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment or
mine laying.
(B) During the activity (e.g., during approach of the target or
intended minefield location), Navy personnel must observe the
mitigation zone for marine mammals and, if marine mammals are observed,
Navy personnel must cease bomb deployment or mine laying.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting prior to or during the activity. Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing bomb deployment or mine laying) until one of the
following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation
zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement
relative to the intended target or minefield location; the mitigation
zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min; or for
activities using mobile targets, the intended target has transited a
distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the
location of the last sighting.
(b) Mitigation areas. In addition to procedural mitigation, Navy
personnel must implement mitigation measures within mitigation areas to
avoid or reduce potential impacts on marine mammals.
(1) Mitigation areas for marine mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex
for sonar, explosives, and vessel strikes--(i) Mitigation area
requirements--(A) Hawaii Island Mitigation Area (year-round). (1)
Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A)(2) of this section, 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 annually, or use explosives that could potentially result in
takes of marine mammals during training and testing.
(2) 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.
(B) 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area (November 15-April 15 for
active sonar; year-round for explosives). (1) Except as provided in
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B)(2) of this section, 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.
(2) 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.
(C) 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.
(D) Humpback Whale Awareness Notification Message Area (November-
April). (1) 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.
(2) 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).
(3) 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.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) Mitigation areas for marine mammals in the Southern California
portion of the study area for sonar, explosives, and vessel strikes--
(i) Mitigation area requirements--(A) San Diego Arc, San Nicolas
Island, and Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Areas (June 1-October
31). (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(2) of this
section, 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.
(2) 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

[[Page 48453]]

advance notification and include the information (e.g., sonar hours) in
its annual activity reports submitted to NMFS.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(4) of this
section, 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-inch rockets) activities during training and testing.
(4) 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-inch rockets)
activities during training or testing within the San Diego Arc
Mitigation Area, 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.
(5) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(6) of this
section, 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-inch rockets) activities during
training.
(6) 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-
inch rockets) activities during training in the San Nicolas Island
Mitigation Area, 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.
(7) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(8) of this
section, 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-inch rockets) activities
during training and testing.
(8) 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-
inch rockets) activities during training or testing in the Santa
Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Area, 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.
(B) Santa Barbara Island Mitigation Area (year-round). (1) Except
as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B)(2) of this section, 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-inch rockets) activities during training.
(2) 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-inch 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.
(C) Blue Whale (June-October), Gray Whale (November-March), and Fin
Whale (November-May) Awareness Notification Message Areas. (1) 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, and
fin whales.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(ii) [Reserved]

Sec. 218.75 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.

(a) Unauthorized take. Navy personnel must notify NMFS immediately
(or as soon as operational security considerations allow) if the
specified activity identified in Sec. 218.70 is thought to have
resulted in the mortality or serious injury of any marine mammals, or
in any Level A harassment or Level B harassment take of marine mammals
not identified in this subpart.
(b) Monitoring and reporting under the LOAs. The Navy must conduct
all monitoring and reporting required under the LOAs, including abiding
by the HSTT Study Area monitoring program. Details on program goals,
objectives, project selection process, and current projects are
available at www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us.
(c) Notification of injured, live stranded, or dead marine mammals.
The Navy must consult the Notification and Reporting Plan, which sets
out notification, reporting, and other requirements when dead, injured,
or live stranded marine mammals are detected. The Notification and
Reporting Plan is available at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities.
(d) Annual HSTT Study Area marine species monitoring report. The
Navy must submit an annual report of the HSTT Study Area monitoring
describing the implementation and results from the previous calendar
year. Data collection methods must be standardized across range
complexes and study areas to allow for comparison in different
geographic locations. The report must be submitted to the Director,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, either within three months after
the end of the calendar year, or within three months after the
conclusion of the monitoring year, to be determined by the Adaptive
Management process. This report will describe progress of knowledge
made with respect to intermediate scientific objectives within the HSTT
Study Area associated with the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring
Program (ICMP). Similar study questions must be treated together so
that progress on each topic can be summarized across all Navy ranges.
The report need not include analyses and content that does not provide
direct assessment of cumulative progress on the monitoring plan study
questions. As an alternative, the Navy may submit a multi-Range Complex
annual Monitoring Plan report to fulfill this requirement. Such a
report will describe progress of knowledge made with respect to
monitoring study

[[Page 48454]]

questions across multiple Navy ranges associated with the ICMP. Similar
study questions must be treated together so that progress on each topic
can 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 the 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
Northwest Study Areas.
(e) Annual HSTT Study Area training exercise report and testing
activity report. Each year, the Navy must submit two preliminary
reports (Quick Look Report) detailing the status of authorized sound
sources within 21 days after the anniversary of the date of issuance of
each LOA to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. Each
year, the Navy must submit detailed reports to the Director, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, within 3 months after the one-year
anniversary of the date of issuance of the LOA. The HSTT annual
Training Exercise Report and Testing Activity Report can be
consolidated with other exercise reports from other range complexes in
the Pacific Ocean for a single Pacific Exercise Report, if desired. The
annual reports must contain information on major training exercises
(MTEs), Sinking Exercise (SINKEX) events, and a summary of all sound
sources used, including within specific mitigation reporting areas as
described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section. The analysis in the
detailed reports must be based on the accumulation of data from the
current year's report and data collected from previous reports. The
detailed reports must contain information identified in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) MTEs. This section of the report must contain the following
information for MTEs conducted in the HSTT Study Area.
(i) Exercise Information (for each MTE).
(A) Exercise designator.
(B) Date that exercise began and ended.
(C) Location.
(D) Number and types of active sonar sources used in the exercise.
(E) Number and types of passive acoustic sources used in exercise.
(F) Number and types of vessels, aircraft, and other platforms
participating in exercise.
(G) Total hours of all active sonar source operation.
(H) Total hours of each active sonar source bin.
(I) Wave height (high, low, and average) during exercise.
(ii) Individual marine mammal sighting information for each
sighting in each exercise where mitigation was implemented:
(A) Date/Time/Location of sighting.
(B) Species (if not possible, indication of whale/dolphin/
pinniped).
(C) Number of individuals.
(D) Initial Detection Sensor (e.g., sonar, Lookout).
(E) Indication of specific type of platform observation was made
from (including, for example, what type of surface vessel or testing
platform).
(F) Length of time observers maintained visual contact with marine
mammal.
(G) Sea state.
(H) Visibility.
(I) Sound source in use at the time of sighting.
(J) Indication of whether animal was less than 200 yd, 200 to 500
yd, 500 to 1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 yd, or greater than 2,000 yd from
sonar source.
(K) Whether operation of sonar sensor was delayed, or sonar was
powered or shut down, and how long the delay.
(L) If source in use was hull-mounted, true bearing of animal from
the vessel, true direction of vessel's travel, and estimation of
animal's motion relative to vessel (opening, closing, parallel).
(M) Lookouts must report, in plain language and without trying to
categorize in any way, the observed behavior of the animal(s) (such as
animal closing to bow ride, paralleling course/speed, floating on
surface and not swimming, etc.) and if any calves were present.
(iii) An evaluation (based on data gathered during all of the MTEs)
of the effectiveness of mitigation measures designed to minimize the
received level to which marine mammals may be exposed. This evaluation
must identify the specific observations that support any conclusions
the Navy reaches about the effectiveness of the mitigation.
(2) SINKEXs. This section of the report must include the following
information for each SINKEX completed that year.
(i) Exercise information (gathered for each SINKEX).
(A) Location.
(B) Date and time exercise began and ended.
(C) Total hours of observation by Lookouts before, during, and
after exercise.
(D) Total number and types of explosive source bins detonated.
(E) Number and types of passive acoustic sources used in exercise.
(F) Total hours of passive acoustic search time.
(G) Number and types of vessels, aircraft, and other platforms,
participating in exercise.
(H) Wave height in feet (high, low, and average) during exercise.
(I) Narrative description of sensors and platforms utilized for
marine mammal detection and timeline illustrating how marine mammal
detection was conducted.
(ii) Individual marine mammal observation (by Navy Lookouts)
information for each sighting where mitigation was implemented.
(A) Date/Time/Location of sighting.
(B) Species (if not possible, indicate whale, dolphin, or
pinniped).
(C) Number of individuals.
(D) Initial detection sensor (e.g., sonar or Lookout).
(E) Length of time observers maintained visual contact with marine
mammal.
(F) Sea state.
(G) Visibility.
(H) Whether sighting was before, during, or after detonations/
exercise, and how many minutes before or after.
(I) Distance of marine mammal from actual detonations (or target
spot if not yet detonated): Less than 200 yd, 200 to 500 yd, 500 to
1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 yd, or greater than 2,000 yd.
(J) Lookouts must report, in plain language and without trying to
categorize in any way, the observed behavior of the animal(s) (such as
animal closing to bow ride, paralleling course/speed, floating on
surface and not swimming etc.), including speed and direction and if
any calves were present.
(K) The report must indicate whether explosive detonations were
delayed, ceased, modified, or not modified due to marine mammal
presence and for how long.
(L) If observation occurred while explosives were detonating in the
water, indicate munition type in use at time of marine mammal
detection.
(3) Summary of sources used. This section of the report must
include the following information summarized from the authorized sound
sources used in all training and testing events:
(i) Total annual hours or quantity (per the LOA) of each bin of
sonar or other acoustic sources (e.g., pile driving and air gun
activities); and
(ii) Total annual expended/detonated ordinance (missiles, bombs,
sonobuoys, etc.) for each explosive bin.
(4) Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area (December 15-April 15).
The Navy must report the total hours of operation of surface ship hull-
mounted

[[Page 48455]]

mid-frequency active sonar used in the special reporting area.
(5) HSTT Study Area Mitigation Areas. The Navy must report any use
that occurred as specifically described in these areas. Information
included in the classified annual reports may be used to inform future
adaptive management of activities within the HSTT Study Area.
(6) Geographic information presentation. The reports must present
an annual (and seasonal, where practical) depiction of training and
testing bin usage (as well as pile driving activities) geographically
across the HSTT Study Area.
(7) Sonar exercise notification. The Navy must submit to NMFS
(contact as specified in the LOA) an electronic report within fifteen
calendar days after the completion of any MTE indicating:
(i) Location of the exercise;
(ii) Beginning and end dates of the exercise; and
(iii) Type of exercise.
(f) Seven-year close-out comprehensive training and testing
activity report. This report must be included as part of the 2025
annual training and testing report. This report must provide the annual
totals for each sound source bin with a comparison to the annual
allowance and the seven-year total for each sound source bin with a
comparison to the seven-year allowance. Additionally, if there were any
changes to the sound source allowance, this report must include a
discussion of why the change was made and include the analysis to
support how the change did or did not result in a change in the 2018
HSTT FEIS/OEIS and final rule determinations. The draft report must be
submitted within three months after the expiration of this subpart to
the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. NMFS must submit
comments on the draft close-out report, if any, within three months of
receipt. The report will be considered final after the Navy has
addressed NMFS' comments, or 3 months after the submittal of the draft
if NMFS does not provide comments.

Sec. 218.76 Letters of Authorization.

(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to the regulations
in this subpart, the Navy must apply for and obtain LOAs in accordance
with Sec. 216.106 of this chapter.
(b) LOAs, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a
period of time not to exceed December 20, 2025.
(c) If an LOA expires prior to December 20, 2025, the Navy may
apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA.
(d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant
to the adaptive management provision of Sec. 218.77(c)(1)) required by
an LOA issued under this subpart, the Navy must apply for and obtain a
modification of the LOA as described in Sec. 218.77.
(e) Each LOA must set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Geographic areas for incidental taking;
(3) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e.,
mitigation) on the species or stocks of marine mammals and their
habitat; and
(4) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(f) Issuance of the LOA(s) must be based on a determination that
the level of taking is consistent with the findings made for the total
taking allowable under the regulations in this subpart.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of the LOA(s) must be published in
the Federal Register within 30 days of a determination.

Sec. 218.77 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.

(a) An LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 of this chapter and
218.76 for the activity identified in Sec. 218.70(c) may be renewed or
modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
(1) The planned specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as
those described and analyzed for the regulations in this subpart
(excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section); and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures required by the previous LOA(s) were implemented.
(b) For LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that
include changes to the activity or to the mitigation, monitoring, or
reporting measures (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive
management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not
change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than
a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution
by species or stock or years), NMFS may publish a notice of planned LOA
in the Federal Register, including the associated analysis of the
change, and solicit public comment before issuing the LOA.
(c) An LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 of this chapter and
218.76 may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive management. After consulting with the Navy regarding
the practicability of the modifications, NMFS may modify (including
adding or removing measures) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or
reporting measures if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more
effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring.
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision
to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA
include:
(A) Results from the Navy's monitoring from the previous year(s);
(B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or
studies; or
(C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken
in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by the regulations in
this subpart or subsequent LOAs.
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS
will publish a notice of planned LOA in the Federal Register and
solicit public comment.
(2) Emergencies. If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that
poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of
marine mammals specified in LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. Sec. 216.106
of this chapter and 218.76, an LOA may be modified without prior notice
or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the
Federal Register within thirty days of the action.

Sec. Sec. 218.78-218.79 [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2019-18850 Filed 9-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.