Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area, 70712-70794 [2019-27098]

Download as PDF 70712 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 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: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 218 [Docket No. 191211–0106] RIN 0648–BI85 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule; notification of issuance of Letters of Authorization. AGENCY: NMFS, upon request from the U.S. Navy (Navy), issues these regulations pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to the training and testing activities conducted in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area over the course of seven years, effectively extending the time period from November 13, 2023, to November 13, 2025. In August 2018, the MMPA was amended by the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 to allow for seven-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. These regulations, which allow for the issuance of Letters of Authorization (LOAs) for the incidental take of marine mammals during the described activities and timeframes, prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, and establish requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. DATES: Effective from December 23, 2019 to November 13, 2025. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Navy’s applications, NMFS’ proposed rule for these regulations, NMFS’ proposed and final rules and subsequent LOAs for the associated five-year AFTT Study Area regulations, other supporting documents cited herein, and a list of the references cited in this document may be obtained online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ national/marine-mammal-protection/ incidental-take-authorizations-military- lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 Purpose of Regulatory Action These regulations, issued under the authority of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), 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, inwater detonations, air guns, impact pile driving/vibratory extraction, and the movement of vessels throughout the AFTT Study Area, which includes areas of the western Atlantic Ocean along the East Coast of North America, portions of the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting to extend NMFS’ existing MMPA regulations (50 CFR part 218, subpart I; hereafter ‘‘2018 AFTT regulations’’) that authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities conducted in the AFTT 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. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings and issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking pursuant to that activity, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I, provide the legal basis for issuing this final rule and the subsequent LOAs. As directed by this legal authority, this final rule contains mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. Summary of Major Provisions Within the Final Rule Following is a summary of the major provisions of this final rule regarding PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 the Navy’s activities. Major provisions include, but are not limited to: • The use of defined powerdown and shutdown zones (based on activity); • Measures to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of ship strikes, especially for North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) (NARW); • Operational limitations in certain areas and times that are biologically important (i.e., for foraging, migration, reproduction) for marine mammals; • Implementation of a Notification and Reporting Plan (for dead, live stranded, or marine mammals struck by a vessel); and • Implementation of a robust monitoring plan to improve our understanding of the environmental effects resulting from Navy training and testing activities. Additionally, the rule includes an adaptive management component that allows for timely modification of mitigation or monitoring measures based on new information, when appropriate. Background 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, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review and the opportunity to submit comments. An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 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 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, E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. The 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 November 14, 2018, NMFS issued a five-year final rule governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities conducted in the AFTT Study Area (83 FR 57076; hereafter ‘‘2018 AFTT 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 AFTT Study Area qualify as military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the 2004 NDAA. On November 16, 2018, the Navy submitted an application requesting that VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 NMFS extend the 2018 AFTT 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 November 13, 2023 to November 13, 2025. A revised application correcting the estimated takes due to ship shock trials (Table 5.1–2) was submitted to NMFS by the Navy on January 18, 2019. In its November 16, 2018, application, as revised on January 18, 2019 (hereafter ‘‘2019 Navy application’’), the Navy proposed no changes to the nature of the specified activities covered by the 2018 AFTT final rule, the level of activity within and between years will be consistent with that previously analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule, and all activities will be conducted within the same boundaries of the AFTT Study Area identified in the 2018 AFTT final rule. Therefore, the training and testing activities (e.g., equipment and sources used, exercises conducted) and the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The only changes included in the Navy’s request were 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 applicable for seven years of identical activity. The purpose of the Navy’s training and testing activities is to ensure that the Navy meets its mission mandated by Federal law (10 U.S.C. 8062), which is to maintain, train, and equip combatready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas. 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’s mission is achieved in part by conducting training and testing within the AFTT Study Area. The 2019 Navy application reflects the same compilation of training and testing activities presented in the Navy’s June 16, 2017, initial rulemaking and LOA application (hereafter ‘‘2017 Navy application’’) and the 2018 AFTT PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70713 regulations that were subsequently promulgated, which can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ national/marine-mammal-protection/ incidental-take-authorizations-militaryreadiness-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 will occur over seven years, including the five years already authorized under the 2018 AFTT regulations, with the regulations valid from the publication date of this final rule through November 13, 2025. Summary of the Regulations NMFS is extending the incidental take regulations and associated LOAs through November 13, 2025, to cover the same Navy activities covered by the 2018 AFTT regulations. The 2018 AFTT final rule was recently published and its analysis remains current and valid. In its 2019 application, the Navy proposed 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 AFTT Study Area. The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The regulatory language included at the end of this final rule, which will be published at 50 CFR part 218, subpart I, also is the same as the AFTT 2018 regulations, except for a small number of minor, technical changes. No new information has been received from the Navy, or otherwise become available to NMFS, since publication of the 2018 AFTT 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 2018 AFTT final rule remain current and applicable, this final rule relies heavily on and references to the applicable information and analyses in those documents. Below is a list of the primary documents referenced in this final rule. The list indicates the short name by which the document is referenced in this final rule, as well as E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70714 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 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.public.navy.mil/usff/ environmental/Pages/aftt.aspx. • NMFS March 13, 2018, Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) proposed rule (83 FR 10954; hereafter ‘‘2018 AFTT proposed rule’’); • NMFS November 14, 2018, Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) final rule (83 FR 57076; hereafter ‘‘2018 AFTT final rule’’); • NMFS May 13, 2019, Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) proposed rule (84 FR 21126; hereafter ‘‘2019 AFTT proposed rule’’); • Navy June 16, 2017, MMPA rulemaking and LOA application (hereafter ‘‘2017 Navy application’’); • Navy January 18, 2019, MMPA rulemaking and LOA extension application (hereafter ‘‘2019 Navy application’’); and • September 14, 2018, Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS/OEIS) (hereafter ‘‘2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS’’). lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Description of the Specified Activity The Navy requested 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. A small number of serious injuries or mortalities are also possible from vessel strikes or exposure to explosive detonations. Detailed descriptions of these activities are provided in Chapter 2 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS and in the 2017 and 2019 Navy applications. Overview of Training and Testing Activities The Navy routinely trains in the AFTT 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 AFTT proposed rule and the 2018 AFTT final rule and Chapter 2 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS. Each military training and testing activity described meets mandated Fleet requirements to deploy ready forces. The Navy proposed no changes to the specified activities described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 The boundaries of the AFTT Study Area (see Figure 1.2–1 of the 2019 Navy application); the training and testing activities (e.g., equipment and sources used, exercises conducted); manner of and amount of vessel movement; and standard operating procedures presented in this final rule are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule. Dates and Duration The specified activities will occur at any time during the seven-year period of validity of the regulations. The number of training and testing activities are described in the Detailed Description of the Specified Activities section (Tables 1 through 4). Specified Geographical Region The geographic extent of the AFTT Study Area is identical to that described in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The AFTT Study Area (see Figure 2–1 of the 2019 Navy application) includes areas of the western Atlantic Ocean along the east coast of North America, the Gulf of Mexico, and portions of the Caribbean Sea. The AFTT Study Area begins at the mean high tide line along the U.S. coast and extends east to the 45-degree west longitude line, north to the 65-degree north latitude line, and south to approximately the 20-degree north latitude line. The AFTT Study Area also includes Navy pierside locations, bays, harbors, and inland waterways, and civilian ports where training and testing occurs. The AFTT Study Area generally follows the Commander Task Force 80 area of operations, covering approximately 2.6 million nautical miles squared (nmi2; approximately 6.7 million kilometers squared) of ocean area, and includes designated Navy range complexes and associated operating areas (OPAREAs) and special use airspace. While the AFTT Study Area itself is very large, the vast majority of Navy training and testing occurs in designated range complexes and testing ranges. A Navy range complex consists of geographic areas that encompass a water component (above and below the surface) and airspace, and may encompass a land component where training and testing of military platforms, tactics, munitions, explosives, and electronic warfare systems occur. Range complexes include established OPAREAs, which may be further divided to provide better control of the area for safety reasons. Additional detail on range complexes and testing ranges was provided in the Duration and Location section of the 2018 AFTT proposed rule; please see PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 the 2018 AFTT proposed rule or the 2017 Navy application for more information. 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 AFTT final rule and Chapter 2 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS. The Navy proposed 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 AFTT 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 AFTT 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 proposed no changes to the nature of the specified activities, the training and testing activities, the manner of or amount of vessel movement, and standard operating procedures. 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 AFTT proposed rule and 2018 AFTT final rule. Detailed Description of the Specified Activities The Navy’s specified activities are presented and analyzed as a representative year of training to E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations account for the natural fluctuation of training cycles and deployment schedules in any seven-year period. In the 2018 AFTT final rule, NMFS analyzed activities 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, the Navy presented and NMFS analyzed activities based on the additional two years of training and testing consisting of one additional year of a maximum level of activity and one year of a representative level of activity consistent with the pattern set forth in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS, and the 2017 Navy application. Training Activities The number of planned training activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities remains identical to those presented in Table 4 of the 2018 AFTT final rule, and are not repeated here. The number of planned training activities that could occur over 70715 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 regulations, sound source bin, number of activities, and locations of those activities in the AFTT Study Area. For further information regarding the primary platform used (e.g., ship or aircraft type) see Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/ OEIS. TABLE 1—TRAINING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA Stressor category Activity name Activity description 7-Year number of activities 1 Source bin Location 2 Major Training Exercise—Large Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Acoustic ................. Composite Training Unit Exercise. Aircraft carrier and its associated aircraft integrate with surface and submarine units in a challenging multithreat operational environment in order to certify them for deployment. ASW1, ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, ASW5, HF1, LF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11, MF12. 17 VACAPES RC Navy Cherry Point RC JAX RC. 28 14 JAX RC. VACAPES RC. 42 21 21 JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. 14 7 7 JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. 28 28 35 JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. 28 84 14 266 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. Major Training Exercises—Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Acoustic ................. Fleet Exercises/ Sustainment Exercise. Aircraft carrier and its associated aircraft integrates with surface and submarine units in a challenging multithreat operational environment in order to maintain their ability to deploy. ASW1, ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, HF1, LF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11, MF12. I Integrated/Coordinated Training—Small Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Acoustic ................. Naval Undersea Warfare Training Assessment Course. Multiple ships, aircraft, and submarines integrate the use of their sensors to search for, detect, classify, localize, and track a threat submarine in order to launch an exercise torpedo. ASW1, ASW3, ASW4, HF1, LF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF12. Integrated/Coordinated Training—Medium Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Acoustic ................. Anti-Submarine Warfare Tactical Development Exercise. Surface ships, aircraft, and submarines coordinate to search for, detect, and track submarines. ASW1, ASW3, ASW4, HF1, LF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11, MF12. Integrated/Coordinated Training—Small Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Acoustic ................. Group Sail ........................ Surface ships and helicopters search for, detect, and track threat submarines. ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, HF1, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11, MF12. Amphibious Warfare Explosive ............... Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise—At Sea. Surface ship crews use large-caliber guns to support forces ashore; however, the land target is simulated at sea. Rounds are scored by passive acoustic buoys located at or near the target area. E5 ..................................... I Anti-Submarine Warfare lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Acoustic ................. Acoustic ................. Acoustic ................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Anti-submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Helicopter. Helicopter aircrews search for, track, and detect submarines. Recoverable air launched torpedoes are employed against submarine targets. Anti-submarine Warfare Maritime patrol aircraft aircrews search Torpedo Exercise— for, track, and detect submarines. Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Recoverable air launched torpedoes are employed against submarine targets. Anti-Submarine Warfare Surface ship crews search for, track, Torpedo Exercise—Ship. and detect submarines. Exercise torpedoes are used. 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 MF4, MF5, TORP1 .......... 98 28 JAX RC. VACAPES RC. MF5, TORP1 .................... 98 28 JAX RC. VACAPES RC. ASW3, MF1, TORP1 ....... 112 35 JAX RC. VACAPES RC. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70716 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1—TRAINING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued Stressor category Activity name Activity description Source bin Acoustic ................. Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise— Submarine. Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Helicopter. Submarine crews search for, track, and detect submarines. Exercise torpedoes are used. Helicopter aircrews search for, track, and detect submarines. ASW4, HF1, MF3, TORP2 Acoustic ................. Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise— Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Maritime patrol aircraft aircrews search for, track, and detect submarines. ASW5, ASW2, MF5 ......... Acoustic ................. Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise— Ship. Surface ship crews search for, track, and detect submarines. ASW1, ASW3, MF1, MF11, MF12. Acoustic ................. Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise— Submarine. Submarine crews search for, track, and detect submarines. ASW4, HF1, MF3 ............. Acoustic ................. 7-Year number of activities 1 Location 2 84 42 14 168 2,590 84 56 630 1,232 3,675 322 * 35 * 770 * 35 * 3,080 * 385 * 1,540 308 7 91 126 42 JAX RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. Other AFTT Areas. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. Northeast RC. Other AFTT Areas. GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. Other AFTT Areas. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. E2 ..................................... 14 14 14 28 35 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. 462 2,219 2,597 1,708 10,780 4 MF4, MF5 ......................... Expeditionary Warfare Explosive ............... Maritime Security Operations—Anti-Swimmer Grenades. Small boat crews engage in force protection activities by using anti-swimmer grenades to defend against hostile divers. Mine Warfare Acoustic ................. Airborne Mine Countermeasure—Mine Detection. Helicopter aircrews detect mines using towed or laser mine detection systems. HF4 .................................. Acoustic, Explosive Civilian Port Defense— Homeland Security AntiTerrorism/Force Protection Exercise. Maritime security personnel train to protect civilian ports against enemy efforts to interfere with access to those ports. HF4, SAS2, E2, E4 .......... Acoustic ................. Coordinated Unit Level Helicopter Airborne Mine Countermeasure Exercise. HF4 .................................. 14 14 14 14 Acoustic, Explosive Mine Countermeasures— Mine Neutralization— Remotely Operated Vehicle. Mine Countermeasures— Ship Sonar. A detachment of helicopter aircrews train as a unit in the use of airborne mine countermeasures, such as towed mine detection and neutralization systems. Ship, small boat, and helicopter crews locate and disable mines using remotely operated underwater vehicles. HF4, E4 ............................ Ship crews detect and avoid mines while navigating restricted areas or channels using active sonar. Personnel disable threat mines using explosive charges. HF4 .................................. 924 497 497 4,410 154 371 371 42 112 140 119 112 3,668 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. GOMEX RC. JAX RC. VACAPES RC. Lower Chesapeake Bay. GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Key West RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. 469 3,038 756 2,303 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. Acoustic ................. Explosive ............... Mine Neutralization—Explosive Ordnance Disposal. E4, E5, E6, E7 ................. GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. NSWC Panama City. VACAPES RC. Beaumont, TX; Boston, MA; Corpus Christi, TX; Delaware Bay, DE; Earle, NJ; GOMEX RC, Hampton Roads, VA; JAX RC, Kings Bay, GA; NS Mayport, Morehead City, NC; Port Canaveral, FL; Savannah, GA; Tampa Bay, FL; VACAPES RC, Wilmington, NC. GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Surface Warfare Explosive ............... VerDate Sep<11>2014 Bombing Exercise Air-toSurface. 23:32 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 Fixed-wing aircrews deliver against surface targets. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 bombs E9, E10, E12 .................... Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 70717 TABLE 1—TRAINING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Stressor category Activity name Activity description Source bin Explosive ............... Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Medium-Caliber. Small boat crews fire medium-caliber guns at surface targets. E1 ..................................... Explosive ............... Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Large-Caliber. Surface ship crews fire large-caliber guns at surface targets. E3,E5 ............................... Explosive ............... Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Medium-Caliber. Surface ship crews fire medium-caliber guns at surface targets. E1 ..................................... Explosive ............... Integrated Live Fire Exercise. E1, E3, E6, E10 ............... Explosive ............... Missile Exercise Air-toSurface. Explosive ............... Missile Exercise Air-toSurface—Rocket. 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 precisionguided and unguided rockets at surface targets. Explosive ............... Missile Exercise Surfaceto-Surface. E6, E10 ............................ Acoustic, Explosive Sinking Exercise .............. Acoustic ................. Elevated Causeway System. Acoustic ................. Submarine Navigation ...... 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. A temporary pier is constructed off the beach. Supporting pilings are driven into the sand and then later removed. Submarine crews operate sonar for navigation and object detection while transiting into and out of port during reduced visibility. Acoustic ................. Submarine Sonar Maintenance. Maintenance of submarine sonar systems is conducted pierside or at sea. MF3 .................................. Acoustic ................. Submarine Under Ice Certification. Submarine crews train to operate under ice. Ice conditions are simulated during training and certification events. HF1 .................................. Acoustic ................. Surface Ship Object Detection. HF8, MF1K ....................... Acoustic ................. Surface Ship sonar Maintenance. Surface ship crews operate sonar for navigation and object detection while transiting in and out of port during reduced visibility. Maintenance of surface ship sonar systems is conducted pierside or at sea. 7-Year number of activities 1 E6, E8, E10 ...................... E3 ..................................... Location 2 42 182 896 14 1,820 70 63 357 245 525 287 231 1,127 504 2,247 14 14 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. Other AFTT Areas. GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. Other AFTT Areas. GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. VACAPES RC. JAX RC. 714 364 616 70 714 70 644 112 84 JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. JAX RC. VACAPES RC. TORP2, E5, E8, E9, E10, E11. 7 SINKEX Box. Impact hammer or vibratory extractor. 7 7 Lower Chesapeake Bay. Navy Cherry Point RC. HF1, MF3 ......................... HF8, MF1 ......................... 1,183 21 21 588 161 84 462 63 14 238 602 14 88 326 21 21 63 63 532 1,134 NSB New London. NSB Kings Bay. NS Mayport. NS Norfolk. Port Canaveral, FL. Other AFTT Areas. NSB New London. JAX RC. NSB Kings Bay. NS Norfolk. Northeast RC. Port Canaveral, FL. Navy Cherry Point RC. VACAPES RC. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. NS Mayport. NS Norfolk. 350 350 840 1,645 840 JAX RC. NS Mayport. Navy Cherry Point RC. NS Norfolk. VACAPES RC. 1 The number of training activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities remains identical to those presented in Table 4 of the 2018 AFTT final rule. 2 Locations given are areas where activities typically occur. However, activities could be conducted in other locations within the Study Area. Where multiple locations are provided within a single cell, the number of activities could occur in any of the locations, not in each of the locations. * For Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Ship, 50 percent of requirements are met through synthetic training or other training exercises. Notes: GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville; NS: Naval Station; NSB: Naval Submarine Base; NSWC: Naval Surface Warfare Center; RC: Range Complex; VACAPES: Virginia Capes. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70718 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations Testing Activities The number of planned testing activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities are identical to those presented in Tables 5 through 7 of the 2018 AFTT final rule, and are not repeated here. Similar to the 2017 Navy application, the Navy’s planned testing activities presented 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 planned testing activities that could occur for the seven-year period are presented in Tables 2 through 4. The number of ship shock trials for the seven-year period will remain the same as the number covered by the 2018 AFTT final rule. Naval Air Systems Command The Naval Air Systems Command testing activities that could occur over the seven-year period within the AFTT Study Area are presented in Table 2. TABLE 2—NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA Stressor category Activity name Activity description Source bin 7-Year number of activities 1 Location 2 Anti-Submarine Warfare Acoustic .......... Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Test. Acoustic, Explosive. Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test—Helicopter. Acoustic, Explosive. Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test—Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Acoustic .......... Kilo Dip ............................. Acoustic, Explosive. Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance Test. This event is similar to the training event torpedo exercise. Test evaluates anti-submarine warfare systems onboard rotary-wing (e.g., helicopter) and fixed-wing aircraft and the ability to search for, detect, classify, localize, track, and attack a submarine or similar target. This event is similar to the training event anti-submarine warfare tracking exercise—helicopter. The test evaluates the sensors and systems used to detect and track submarines and to ensure that helicopter systems used to deploy the tracking system perform to specifications. The test evaluates the sensors and systems used by maritime patrol aircraft to detect and track submarines and to ensure that aircraft systems used to deploy the tracking systems perform to specifications and meet operational requirements. Functional check of a helicopter deployed dipping sonar system prior to conducting a testing or training event using the dipping sonar system. MF5, TORP1 .................... 209 523 JAX RC. VACAPES RC. MF4, MF5, E3 .................. 34 36 64 442 1,368 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Key West RC. Northeast RC VACAPES RC. Sonobuoys are deployed from surface vessels and aircraft to verify the integrity and performance of a production lot or group of sonobuoys in advance of delivery to the fleet for operational use. ASW2, ASW5, HF5, HF6, LF4, MF5, MF6, E1, E3, E4. ASW2, ASW5, E1, E3, MF5, MF6. 85 133 76 101 279 175 MF4 .................................. 22 12 12 12 200 1,120 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Key West RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Key West RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. Key West RC. Mine Warfare lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Acoustic ................. Airborne Dipping Sonar Minehunting Test. Explosive ........ Airborne Mine Neutralization System Test. Acoustic .......... Airborne Sonobuoy Minehunting Test. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 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. A test of the airborne mine neutralization system evaluates the system’s ability to detect and destroy mines from an airborne mine countermeasures capable helicopter. The airborne mine neutralization system uses up to four unmanned underwater vehicles equipped with highfrequency sonar, video cameras, and explosive and non-explosive neutralizers. A mine-hunting system made up of a field of sonobuoys deployed by a helicopter. A field of sonobuoys, using high-frequency sonar, is used to detect and classify bottom and moored mines. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 HF4 .................................. 144 66 NSWC Panama City. VACAPES RC. E4 ..................................... 154 215 NSWC Panama City. VACAPES RC. HF6 .................................. 364 168 NSWC Panama City. VACAPES RC. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 70719 TABLE 2—NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued Stressor category Activity name Activity description Source bin 7-Year number of activities 1 Location 2 Surface Warfare Explosive ........ Air-to-Surface Bombing Test. Explosive ........ Air-to-Surface Gunnery Test. Explosive ........ Air-to-Surface Missile Test Explosive ........ Rocket Test ...................... 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 guns, gun ammunition, or associated systems meet required specifications or to train aircrews in the operation of a new or enhanced weapon 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 weapon system or as part of another system’s integration test. Rocket tests evaluate the integration, accuracy, performance, and safe separation of guided and unguided 2.75-inch rockets fired from a hovering or forward-flying helicopter. E9 ..................................... 140 VACAPES RC. E1 ..................................... 295 890 JAX RC. VACAPES RC. E6, E9, E10 ...................... 30 234 234 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. VACAPES RC. E3 ..................................... 121 233 JAX RC. VACAPES RC. Other Testing Activities Acoustic .......... 1 The Undersea Range System Test. I Following installation of a Navy underwater warfare training and testing range, tests of the nodes (components of the range) will be conducted to include node surveys and testing of node transmission functionality. MF9, BB4 ......................... I 66 JAX RC. I number of testing activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities are identical to those presented in Table 5 of the 2018 AFTT final rule. 2 Locations given are areas where activities typically occur. However, activities could be conducted in other locations within the Study Area. Notes: GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville; NSWC: Naval Surface Warfare Center; RC: Range Complex; VACAPES: Virginia Capes. Naval Sea Systems Command The Naval Sea Systems Command testing activities that could occur over the seven-year period within the AFTT Study Area are presented in Table 3. TABLE 3—NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA Stressor category Activity name Activity description Source bin 7-year number of activities 1 Location 2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Anti-Submarine Warfare Acoustic ...... Anti-Submarine Warfare Mission Package Testing. Acoustic ...... At-Sea Sonar Testing VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:27 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 Ships and their supporting platforms (e.g., helicopters, unmanned aerial systems) detect, localize, and attack submarines. At-sea testing to ensure systems are fully functional in an open ocean environment. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 ASW1, ASW2, ASW3, ASW5, MF1, MF4, MF5, MF12, TORP1. 294 28 28 182 ASW3, ASW4, HF1, LF5, M3, MF1, MF1K, MF3, MF5, MF9, MF11, TORP2. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 JAX RC. Newport, RI. NUWC Newport. VACAPES RC. 14 JAX RC, Navy Cherry Point RC, Northeast RC, VACAPES RC. 7 JAX RC, Navy Cherry Point RC, VACAPES RC. 70720 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 3—NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued Stressor category Activity name Activity description Source bin 7-year number of activities 1 14 28 14 Acoustic ...... Pierside Sonar Testing. Acoustic ...... Submarine Sonar Testing/Maintenance. Acoustic ...... Surface Ship Sonar Testing/Maintenance. Acoustic, Explosive. Torpedo (Explosive) Testing. Pierside testing to ensure systems are fully functional in a controlled pierside environment prior to at-sea test activities. Pierside testing of submarine systems occurs periodically following major maintenance periods and for routine maintenance. Pierside and at-sea testing of ship systems occur periodically following major maintenance periods and for routine maintenance. Air, surface, or submarine crews employ explosive and non-explosive torpedoes against artificial targets. 56 84 7 ASW3, HF1, HF3, HF8, M3, MF1, MF1K, MF3, MF9, MF10. 77 35 28 56 91 14 21 14 112 168 HF1, HF3, M3, MF3 .. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Acoustic ...... Torpedo (Non-Explosive) Testing. Countermeasure Testing. Air, surface, or submarine crews employ non-explosive torpedoes against submarines or surface vessels. When performed on a testing range, these torpedoes may be launched from a range craft or fixed structures and may use artificial targets. Countermeasure testing involves the testing of systems that will detect, localize, track, and attack incoming weapons including marine vessel targets. Testing includes surface ship torpedo defense systems and marine vessel stopping payloads. offshore Fort Pierce, FL, GOMEX RC, JAX RC, SFOMF, Northeast RC, VACAPES RC. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. NUWC Newport. VACAPES RC. NSB New London, NS Norfolk, Port Canaveral, FL. Bath, ME. NSB New London. NSB Kings Bay. Newport, RI. NS Norfolk. Pascagoula, MS. Port Canaveral, FL. PNS. Norfolk, VA. PNS. ASW3, MF1, MF1K, MF9, MF10. 7 7 21 21 JAX RC. NS Mayport. NS Norfolk. VACAPES RC. ASW3, HF1, HF5, HF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF6, TORP1, TORP2, E8, E11. 28 GOMEX RC, offshore Fort Pierce, FL, Key West RC, Navy Cherry Point RC, Northeast RC, VACAPES RC,. GOMEX RC, JAX RC, Northeast RC, VACAPES RC. GOMEX RC. offshore Fort Pierce, FL. JAX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. Northeast RC. NUWC Newport. VACAPES RC GOMEX RC, JAX RC, NUWC Newport, VACAPES RC, Key West RC. 14 Acoustic ...... Location 2 ASW3, ASW4, HF1, HF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF6, TORP1, TORP2, TORP 3. 49 77 12 49 54 210 77 35 ASW3, HF5, TORP1, TORP2. 20 GOMEX RC, JAX RC, Northeast RC, VACAPES RC. 91 42 NSWC Panama City. VACAPES RC. Mine Warfare Acoustic, Explosive. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Testing. 22:27 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 Air, surface, and subsurface vessels neutralize threat mines and mine-like objects. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 E4, E11 ..................... Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 70721 TABLE 3—NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued Stressor category Activity name Activity description Source bin Acoustic, Explosive. Mine Countermeasure Mission Package Testing. Vessels and associated aircraft conduct mine countermeasure operations. HF4, SAS2, E4 .......... Acoustic ...... Mine Detection and Classification Testing. Air, surface, and subsurface vessels and systems detect, classify, and avoid mines and mine-like objects. Vessels also assess their potential susceptibility to mines and mine-like objects. HF1,HF4, HF8, MF1, MF1K, MF9. 7-year number of activities 1 Location 2 133 70 77 14 35 42 70 359 66 28 21 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. NSWC Panama City. SFOMF. VACAPES RC. GOMEX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. NSWC Panama City. Riviera Beach, FL. SFOMF. VACAPES RC. Surface Warfare Explosive ..... Gun Testing—Large Caliber. Crews defend against targets with large-caliber guns. E3, E5 ....................... 84 7 7 7 7 Explosive ..... Explosive ..... Gun Testing—Medium-Caliber. Missile and Rocket Testing. Airborne and surface crews defend against targets with medium-caliber guns. 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. E1 .............................. 7 231 35 84 E6, E10 ..................... 714 34 91 GOMEX RC, JAX RC, Key West RC, Navy Cherry Point RC, Northeast RC, VACAPES RC. GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Key West RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. Northeast RC. NSWC Panama City. VACAPES RC. GOMEX RC, JAX RC, Key West RC, Navy Cherry Point RC, Northeast RC, VACAPES RC. NSWC Panama City. VACAPES RC. GOMEX RC, JAX RC, Key West RC, Navy Cherry Point RC, Northeast RC, VACAPES RC. 7 14 35 154 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. 112 GOMEX RC, JAX RC, NUWC Newport. Unmanned Systems lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Acoustic, Explosive. Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Testing. Testing involves the development or upgrade of unmanned underwater vehicles. This may include testing of mine detection capabilities, evaluating the basic functions of individual platforms, or complex events with multiple vehicles. ASW4, FLS2, HF1, HF4, HF5, HF6, HF7, LF5, MF9, MF10, SAS1, SA2, SAS3, VHF1, E8. 287 175 1,018 2,158 63 294 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. NSWC Panama City. NUWC Newport. Riviera Beach, FL. SFOMF. Vessel Evaluation Explosive ..... VerDate Sep<11>2014 Large Ship Shock Trial. 22:27 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 Underwater detonations are used to test new ships or major upgrades. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 E17 ............................ Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 1 23DER2 GOMEX RC, JAX RC, VACAPES RC. 70722 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 3—NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued Stressor category Activity name Explosive ..... Surface Warfare Testing. Acoustic ...... Undersea Warfare Testing. Explosive ..... Small Ship Shock Trial. Acoustic ...... Submarine Sea Trials—Weapons System Testing. Activity description Source bin 7-year number of activities 1 Tests capability of shipboard E1, E5, E8 ................. 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 ASW3, ASW4, HF4, countermeasure systems and HF8, MF1, MF1K, underwater surveillance, weapMF4, MF5, MF9, ons engagement, and commuMF10, TORP1, nications systems. This tests TORP2. ships’ ability to detect, track, and engage underwater targets. Underwater detonations are used to test new ships or major upgrades. Submarine weapons and sonar systems are tested at-sea to meet integrated combat system certification requirements. Location 2 14 91 7 70 63 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Key West RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. 14 6 JAX RC, VACAPES RC. JAX RC, Navy Cherry Point RC, SFOMF, VACAPES RC. 14 42 14 3 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. VACAPES RC. JAX RC, VACAPES RC. 14 28 28 28 Offshore Fort Pierce, FL, GOMEX RC, JAX RC, SFOMF, Northeast RC, VACAPES RC. JAX RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. MF3, MF9 .................. 28 1,848 Key West RC. NSWC Panama City. FLS2, HF5, HF7, LF5, MF9, SAS2. 231 AG, ASW3, ASW4, HF5, HF6, LF4, LF5, MF9, MF10, SD1, SD2. HF6, LF4, MF9 .......... 28 77 1,330 252 NUWC Newport. ASW2, HF1, LF4, LF5, LF6, M3, MF9, MF10. 7 413 JAX RC. SFOMF. E16 ............................ HF1, M3, MF3, MF9, MF10, TORP2. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Other Testing Activities Acoustic ...... Insertion/Extraction .... Acoustic ...... Acoustic Component Testing. Acoustic ...... Semi-Stationary Equipment Testing. Acoustic ...... Towed Equipment Testing. Acoustic ...... Signature Analysis Operations. Testing of submersibles capable of inserting and extracting personnel and payloads into denied areas from strategic distances. Various surface vessels, moored equipment, and materials are tested to evaluate performance in the marine environment. Semi-stationary equipment (e.g., hydrophones) is deployed to determine functionality. Surface vessels or unmanned surface vehicles deploy and tow equipment to determine functionality of towed systems. Surface ship and submarine testing of electromagnetic, acoustic, optical, and radar signature measurements. SFOMF. Newport, RI. NSWC Panama City. NUWC Newport. 1 The number of testing activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities are identical to those presented in Table 6 of the 2018 AFTT final rule. 2 Locations given are areas where activities typically occur. However, activities could be conducted in other locations within the Study Area. Where multiple locations are provided within a single cell, the number of activities could occur in any of the locations, not in each of the locations. Notes: JEB LC–FS: Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story; NS: Naval Station; NSB: Naval Submarine Base; NSWC: Naval Surface Warfare Center; NUWC: Naval Undersea Warfare Center; PNS: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard; SFOMF: South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:34 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70723 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations Office of Naval Research seven-year period within the AFTT Study Area are presented in Table 4. The Office of Naval Research testing activities that could occur over the TABLE 4—OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA Stressor category Activity name Activity description 7-Year number of activities 1 Source bin Location Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology Acoustic, Explosive Acoustic and Oceanographic Research. Acoustic ................. Emerging Mine Countermeasure Technology Research. 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. Test involves the use of broadband acoustic sources on unmanned underwater vehicles. AG, ASW2, BB4, BB5, BB6, BB7, LF3, LF4, LF5, MF8, MF9, MF14, E1. 30 60 16 14 GOMEX RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. Other AFTT Areas. BB1, BB2, SAS4 .............. 7 14 7 JAX RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. 1 The number of testing activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities are identical to those presented in Table 7 of the 2018 AFTT final rule. Notes: GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville, Florida; RC: Range Complex; VACAPES: Virginia Capes Summary of Acoustic and Explosive Sources Analyzed for Training and Testing Tables 5 through 8 show the acoustic source classes and numbers, explosive source bins and numbers, airgun sources, and pile driving and removal activities associated with the Navy’s planned training and testing activities over the seven-year period in the AFTT Study Area that were analyzed in the 2019 Navy application and for this final 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 AFTT Study Area are identical to those presented in Tables 8 through 11 of the 2018 AFTT final rule, and are not repeated here. Consistent with the periodicity in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Navy included the addition of two pile driving/extraction activities for each of the two additional years. Table 5 describes the acoustic source classes (i.e., low-frequency (LF), midfrequency (MF), and high-frequency (HF)) that could occur over seven years under the planned training and testing activities. Acoustic source bin use in the activities would vary annually. The seven-year totals for the planned training and testing activities take into account that annual variability. TABLE 5—ACOUSTIC SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA. 7-Year total Source class category Bin Unit 1 Description Training Low-Frequency (LF): Sources produce signals less than 1 kHz. that LF3 ........ LF sources greater than 200 dB .............. H ............ LF4 ......... 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. H C H H MF1 ........ MF1K ..... LF5 ......... LF6 ......... Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and nontactical sources that produce signals between 1–10 kHz. MF3 ........ MF4 ........ MF5 ........ lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 MF6 ........ MF8 ........ MF9 ........ MF10 ...... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Testing 0 9,156 ............ ............ ............ ............ 0 0 60 1,104 6,797 140 12,264 280 Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/SQS–53C and AN/SQS–61). H ............ 36,833 23,358 Kingfisher mode associated with MF1 sonars. Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ–10). Helicopter-deployed dipping sonars (e.g., AN/AQS–22 and AN/AQS–13). Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g., DICASS). Active underwater sound signal devices (e.g., MK84). Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned. H ............ 819 1,064 H ............ 14,604 8,799 H ............ 4,196 3,797 C ............ 47,340 38,663 C ............ 0 8,986 H ............ 0 2,436 Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up H ............ to 200 dB) not otherwise binned. Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but H ............ less than 180 dB) not otherwise binned. 0 52,128 6,088 39,830 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70724 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 5—ACOUSTIC SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA.—Continued 7-Year total Source class category Bin Unit 1 Description Training MF11 ...... MF12 ...... MF14 ...... High-Frequency (HF): Tactical and nontactical sources that produce signals between 10—100 kHz. 9,968 H ............ 2,658 9,716 H ............ 0 10,080 H ............ 13,504 2,772 HF3 ........ H ............ 34,275 215 H ............ 41,717 179,516 H ............ C ............ H ............ 0 0 0 13,624 280 15,254 H ............ 0 8,568 H ............ 140 14,587 VHF1 ...... Other hull-mounted submarine sonars (classified). Mine detection, classification, and neutralization sonar (e.g., AN/SQS–20). Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned. Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned. Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB) not otherwise binned. Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/SQS–61). VHF sources greater than 200 dB ........... H ............ 0 84 ASW1 ..... MF systems operating above 200 dB ...... H ............ 4,251 5,740 ASW2 ..... 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 ....... C ............ 10,572 35,842 H ............ 34,275 21,737 C ............ 2,994 24,043 H ............ 4,244 4,316 HF6 ........ HF7 ........ HF8 ........ ASW3 ..... ASW4 ..... ASW5 ..... lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 6,495 Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ–10). HF5 ........ Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes associated with the active acoustic signals produced by torpedoes. H ............ HF1 ........ HF4 ........ Very High-Frequency Sonars (VHF): Non-tactical sources that produce signals between 100—200 kHz. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources (e.g., active sonobuoys and acoustic counter-measures systems) used during ASW training and testing activities. Hull-mounted surface ship sonars with an active duty cycle greater than 80%. Towed array surface ship sonars with an active duty cycle greater than 80%. Oceanographic MF sonar ......................... Testing TORP1 ... Lightweight torpedo (e.g., MK 46, MK 54, or Anti-Torpedo Torpedo). C ............ 399 6,122 TORP2 ... TORP 3 .. Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK 48) ......... Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK 48) ......... C ............ C ............ 560 0 2,600 640 Forward Looking Sonar (FLS): Forward or upward looking object avoidance sonars used for ship navigation and safety. FLS2 ...... HF sources with short pulse lengths, narrow beam widths, and focused beam patterns. H ............ 0 8,568 Acoustic Modems (M): Systems used to transmit data through the water. M3 .......... MF acoustic modems (greater than 190 dB). H ............ 0 4,436 Swimmer Detection Sonars (SD): Systems used to detect divers and submerged swimmers. SD1— SD2. HF and VHF sources with short pulse lengths, used for the detection of swimmers and other objects for the purpose of port security. H ............ 0 1,232 Synthetic Aperture Sonars (SAS): Sonars in which active acoustic signals are post-processed to form high-resolution images of the seafloor. SAS1 ...... MF SAS systems ...................................... H ............ 0 6,720 SAS2 ...... SAS3 ...... SAS4 ...... H ............ H ............ H ............ 33,600 0 0 24,584 6,720 6,720 BB1 ........ HF SAS systems ...................................... VHF SAS systems .................................... MF to HF broadband mine countermeasure sonar. MF to HF mine countermeasure sonar .... H ............ 0 6,720 BB2 ........ HF to VHF mine countermeasure sonar .. H ............ 0 6,720 Broadband Sound Sources (BB): Sonar systems with large frequency spectra, used for various purposes. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70725 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 5—ACOUSTIC SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA.—Continued 7-Year total Source class category Bin Unit 1 Description Training BB4 BB5 BB6 BB7 ........ ........ ........ ........ LF to MF oceanographic source .............. LF to MF oceanographic source .............. HF oceanographic source ........................ LF oceanographic source ......................... H H H C ............ ............ ............ ............ Testing 0 0 0 0 10,884 4,704 4,704 840 1H = hours; C = count (e.g., number of individual pings or individual sonobuoys). Note: dB = decibel Table 6 describes the number of air gun shots that could occur over seven years under the planned training and testing activities. TABLE 6—TRAINING AND TESTING AIR GUN SOURCES QUANTITATIVELY ANALYZED IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA 7-Year total 2 Source class category Bin Unit 1 Training Air Guns (AG): Small underwater air guns ..................................................................... AG .......... C ............ Testing 0 4,228 1C = count. One count (C) of AG is equivalent to 100 air gun firings. 2 The annual numbers for airgun sources associated with Navy training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area are identical to those presented in Table 9 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. Table 7 summarizes the impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal activities that could 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 removal, the Navy will remove 119 piles, two times a year for a total of 238 piles. Over the seven-year period of the rule, the Navy will remove a total of 1,666 piles by vibratory pile removal. TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES PER 24-HOUR PERIOD IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA Piles per 24-hour period Method Pile Driving (Impact) .................................................................................................................... Pile Removal (Vibratory) .............................................................................................................. Table 8 describes the number of inwater explosives that could be used in any year under the planned training and testing activities. Under the activities, bin use would vary annually, and the seven-year totals for the planned Time per pile (minutes) 6 12 Total estimated time of noise per 24-hour period (minutes) 15 6 90 72 training and testing activities take into account that annual variability. TABLE 8—EXPLOSIVE SOURCE BINS ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE AFTT STUDY AREA Net explosive weight 1 (lb.) lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Bin . E1 ...................... E2 ...................... E3 ...................... E4 ...................... E5 ...................... E6 ...................... E7 ...................... E8 ...................... E9 ...................... E10 .................... E11 .................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 0.1–0.25 >0.25–0.5 >0.5–2.5 >2.5–5 >5–10 >10–20 > 20–60 >60–100 >100–250 >250–500 >500–650 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 7-Year Total 2 Example explosive source Training Medium-caliber projectile ............................................................................. Medium-caliber projectile ............................................................................. Large-caliber projectile ................................................................................. Mine neutralization charge ........................................................................... 5-inch projectile ............................................................................................ Hellfire missile .............................................................................................. Demo block/shaped charge ......................................................................... Light-weight torpedo ..................................................................................... 500 lb. bomb ................................................................................................ Harpoon missile ............................................................................................ 650 lb. mine .................................................................................................. Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 53,900 1,486 32,144 913 10,052 4,214 28 154 462 630 7 Testing 160,880 0 20,162 5,330 9,275 276 0 231 28 566 70 70726 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 8—EXPLOSIVE SOURCE BINS ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued Example explosive source >650–1,000 >7,250–14,500 >14,500– 58,000 2,000 lb. bomb ............................................................................................. Littoral Combat Ship full ship shock trial ...................................................... Aircraft carrier full ship shock trial ................................................................ Bin E12 .................... E16 2 ................. E17 2 ................. 7-Year Total 2 Net explosive weight 1 (lb.) Training 126 0 0 Testing 0 12 4 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 1 Net Explosive Weight refers to the equivalent amount of Trinitrotoluene (TNT) the actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other components. 2 The annual numbers for explosive source bins associated with Navy training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area are identical to those presented in Table 11 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. Note: Shock trials consist of four explosions each. In any given year there could be 0–3 small ship shock trials (E16) and 0–1 large ship shock trials (E17). Over a 7-year period, there could be three small ship shock trials (E16) and one large ship shock trial (E17) which is the same amount of ship shock trial events that could occur over the original five-year period. Therefore, there is no increase in ship shock trial events under this final rule. Vessel Movement Standard Operating Procedures Vessel movements associated with the planned activities include both surface and sub-surface operations. Vessels used as part of the activities include ships, submarines, unmanned vessels, and boats ranging in size from small, 22 feet (ft) (7 meters (m)) rigid hull inflatable boats to aircraft carriers with lengths up to 1,092 ft. (333 m). Large Navy ships greater than 60 ft (18 m) generally operate at speeds in the range of 10 to 15 kn for fuel conservation. Submarines generally operate at speeds in the range of 8 to 13 kn in transits and less than those speeds for certain tactical maneuvers. Small craft, less than 60 ft (18 m) in length, have much more variable speeds (dependent on the mission). For small craft types, sizes and speeds vary during training and testing. Speeds generally range from 10 to 14 kn. While these speeds for large and small crafts are representative of most events, some vessels need to temporarily operate outside of these parameters. A full description of Navy vessels that are used during training and testing activities and will be used under the seven-year period of this rule can be found in the 2017 Navy application and Chapter 2 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS. The manner in which Navy vessels will be used during training and testing activities, the speeds at which they operate, the number of vessels that will be used during various activities, and the locations in which Navy vessel movement will be concentrated within the AFTT Study Area are identical to those analyzed in the 2018 AFTT 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. For training and testing to be effective, personnel must be able to safely use their sensors and weapon systems as they are intended to be used in a real-world situation and to their optimum capabilities. While standard operating procedures are designed for the safety of personnel and equipment and to ensure the success of training and testing activities, their implementation often yields additional benefits on environmental, socioeconomic, public health and safety, and cultural resources. Because standard operating procedures are essential to safety and mission success, the Navy considers them to be part of the planned activities and has included them in the environmental analysis. Details on standard operating procedures were provided in the 2018 AFTT proposed rule; please see the 2018 AFTT proposed rule, the 2017 Navy application, and Chapter 2 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS for more information. The Standard Operating Procedures for the seven-year period will be identical to those in place under the 2018 AFTT final rule. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 Comments and Responses On February 1, 2019, we published a notice of receipt (NOR) of the Navy’s application in the Federal Register (84 FR 1069), and requested comments and information related to the Navy’s request. The review and comment period for the NOR ended on March 4, 2019. We reviewed and considered all comments and information received on the NOR in development of the proposed rule. We published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on May 13, 2019 (84 FR 21126), with a 30-day comment period. In that proposed rule, we requested public input on the request for authorization described PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 therein, our analyses, and the proposed authorizations and requested that interested persons submit relevant information, suggestions, and comments. During the 30-day comment period, we received eight comment letters. Of this total, one submission was from the Marine Mammal Commission (hereafter ‘‘Commission’’), one letter was from an organization or individual acting in an official capacity (e.g., nongovernmental organization (NGO)) and six submissions were from private citizens. NMFS has reviewed and considered all public comments received on the proposed rule and issuance of the LOAs. All relevant comments and our responses are described below. We provide no response to specific comments that addressed species or statutes not relevant to our proposed authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (e.g., comments related to sea turtles). The majority of the six comment letters from private citizens expressed general opposition toward the Navy’s proposed training and testing activities and requested that NMFS not issue the LOAs, but without providing information relevant to NMFS’ decisions. These comments appear to indicate a lack of understanding of the MMPA’s requirement that NMFS ‘‘shall issue’’ requested authorizations when certain findings (see the Background section) are met; therefore, these comments were not considered further. The remaining comments are addressed below. Both the Commission and NGO included their comments submitted on the 2018 AFTT proposed rule. The Commission did not reiterate their 2018 AFTT proposed rule recommendations in their comment letter but maintained that the recommendations that NMFS did not incorporate into the 2018 AFTT final rule are still relevant and pertain E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations to the extension of the five-year rule and asked that they be reviewed again in the course of considering the new sevenyear rule. The NGO attached their 2018 AFTT proposed rule comment letter and their comments on the Notice of Receipt of the 2019 Navy application. They stated that ‘‘most of the issues raised [in their 2018 AFTT proposed rule comment letter] were not adequately addressed in the 2018–2023 Final Rule’’ and asked that NMFS renew consideration of their prior comments. To the extent they raised concerns with how ‘‘most’’ issues were addressed previously, it did not identify which issues those were. NMFS reviewed, considered, and responded to all comments received on the 2018 AFTT proposed rule and issuance of the proposed LOAs. Please see the 2018 AFTT final rule Comments and Responses section for a summary of the comments received and NMFS’ responses to these comments. As the NGO resubmitted their comments on the Notice of Receipt of the 2019 Navy Application, we respond to those comments below. Comment 1: Commenters noted that NMFS did not propose to authorize beaked whale mortalities subsequent to MFA sonar use for any of the Navy’s Phase III activities and states that that approach is inconsistent with the tack taken for both the Trajectory Analysis Planner (TAP) I and Phase II activities. The Commenters noted that for the previous final rule for AFTT (78 FR 73009; December 4, 2013), NMFS authorized up to 10 beaked whale mortality takes during the five-year period of the final rule (78 FR 73067; December 4, 2013). They noted that NMFS justified authorizing those mortalities by stating that, although NMFS and the Navy do not anticipate any beaked whale strandings to occur and no strandings have ever been reported in the AFTT Study Area, NMFS cannot conclude with certainty the degree to which mitigation measures would eliminate or reduce the potential for serious injury or mortality (78 FR 73043; December 4, 2013). The Commenters stated that this justification is still applicable. The Commenters asserted that NMFS indicated that steep bathymetry, multiple hull-mounted platforms using sonar simultaneously, constricted channels, and strong surface ducts are not all present together in the AFTT Study Area during the specified activities (83 FR 57116; November 14, 2018), and that NMFS specified that it did not authorize beaked whale mortalities in the 2018 AFTT final rule based on the lack of those factors and VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 the lack of any strandings associated with Navy sonar use in the AFTT Study Area (83 FR 57116; November 14, 2018). The Commenters stated that this does not comport with NMFS’ acknowledgement in the 2018 AFTT proposed rule that all five of those factors are not necessary for a stranding to occur (83 FR 11012; March 13, 2018). They go on to state that ‘‘NMFS still cannot conclude with certainty the degree to which mitigation measures would eliminate or reduce the potential for serious injury or mortality. This is especially true for a species that is cryptic and difficult for researchers, let alone Navy Lookouts, to observe visually in order to implement mitigation measures, and while passive acoustic monitoring could readily detect beaked whales, it is not used by the Navy as part of its mitigation measures involving MFA sonar.’’ Given that the potential for beaked whale mortalities cannot be obviated, the Commenters recommend that NMFS authorize at least 10 mortality takes of beaked whales subsequent to MFA sonar use, consistent with the AFTT Phase II final rule (83 FR 57076). Response: NMFS does not disregard the fact that it is possible for naval activities using hull-mounted tactical sonar to contribute to the death of marine mammals in certain circumstances (that are not present in the AFTT Study Area) via strandings resulting from behaviorally mediated physiological impacts or other gasrelated injuries. NMFS included a discussion in the 2018 AFTT proposed and final rules of these potential causes and outlines the few cases where active naval sonar (in the U.S. or, largely, elsewhere) has either potentially contributed to or (as with the Bahamas example) been more definitively causally linked with marine mammal strandings. As noted, there are a suite of factors that have been associated with these specific cases of strandings directly associated with sonar (steep bathymetry, multiple hull-mounted platforms using sonar simultaneously, constricted channels, strong surface ducts, etc.). The Commenters are incorrect, however, in implying that NMFS found all these features must be present together. While not all of these factors must be present for a beaked whale stranding to occur, steep bathymetry and constricted channels specifically are not present in the AFTT Study Area, and surface ducts are not consistently present at any location. Further, in addition to the mitigation and monitoring measures in place (visual monitoring, passive acoustic PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70727 monitoring when practicable, etc., see the 2018 AFTT final rule Mitigation and Monitoring sections for a full description of these measures) the Navy minimizes active sonar military readiness activities when these features are present (in other areas outside of the AFTT Study Area) to the maximum extent practicable to meet specific training or testing requirements. Additionally, there have never been any strandings associated with Navy sonar use in the AFTT Study Area, including in the five years of Navy activities since the 2013 authorizations referenced by the Commenters. For these reasons as well as the other reasons discussed more fully in the 2018 AFTT final rule (e.g., mitigation measures, monitoring, etc.), NMFS does not anticipate that the Navy’s AFTT training and testing activities will result in beaked whale strandings and mortality, and none are authorized. Comment 2: Commenters stated that NMFS cannot amend the existing fiveyear rule without undertaking a new negligible impact analysis for the full seven years of AFTT activity. They stated that while the Navy has not proposed any changes in activity parameters for the take that NMFS previously authorized, the addition of two years of explosives, sonar, and other disruptive activities alters the scope of that previous analysis. They go one to state that barring a negligible impact finding predicated on seven years of activity, taking into account the full extent of mortality, injury, and significant behavioral disruption that that entails, NMFS cannot amend the rule as the Navy has requested. Response: NMFS agrees and conducted a negligible impact analysis for the full seven years of Navy training and testing activity in the AFTT Study Area in both the 2019 AFTT proposed rule and this final rule. Please see the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section below. Comment 3: Commenters stated that NMFS must rigorously assess cumulative impacts on the same populations from other authorized and reasonably foreseeable activities, including the five large-scale seismic surveys that NMFS authorized in November, 2018 as well as the additional five years of oil and gas exploration that BOEM included in its 2014 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Atlantic seismic, to which NMFS tiered its November environmental assessments. They note that NMFS has repeatedly recognized the importance of accounting for cumulative effects of human activity on marine mammal populations, including E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 70728 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations the cumulative effects of acoustic disturbance and masking, but that despite this NMFS has made its negligible impact findings as though each authorized activity were taking place in a vacuum, resulting in an acoustic environment where the same populations are repeatedly harmed. The Commenters note that at particular risk are range-restricted populations that are resident off Cape Hatteras; as well as species already suffering from poor individual fitness, most notably the North Atlantic right whale. Response: We recognize the need to address total impacts from the Navy’s activities, and that the total impacts of the Navy’s training and testing activities could be greater than the impacts of any one particular activity. The total impacts of the Navy’s training and testing activities were evaluated for each species and stock in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of this rule and the 2018 AFTT final rule. See also the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS, which evaluated the impacts of a maximum amount of activities, and which NMFS has adopted as the basis for its Record of Decision for the issuance of the final rule and LOAs. As described in the 2019 AFTT proposed rule and this final rule along with the 2018 AFTT final rule, the preamble for NMFS’ implementing regulations under section 101(a)(5) (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989) explains in responses to comments that the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into the negligible impact analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline. Consistent with that direction, NMFS here has factored into its negligible impact analyses the impacts of other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities via their impacts on the baseline (e.g., as reflected in the density/distribution and status of the species, population size and growth rate, and relevant stressors (such as incidental mortality in commercial fisheries, UMEs, or oil spills)). See the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of this rule and the 2018 AFTT final rule. Our 1989 final rule for the MMPA implementing regulations also addressed how cumulative effects from unrelated activities would be considered. There we stated that such effects are not considered in making findings under section 101(a)(5) concerning negligible impact, but that NMFS would consider cumulative effects that are reasonably foreseeable when preparing a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 analysis and also that reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects would be considered under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for ESAlisted species. The cumulative effects of the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (as well as the effects of climate change) were evaluated against the appropriate resources and regulatory baselines in the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OIES. The best available science and a comprehensive review of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (including the potential for oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic, as the commenter notes) was used to develop the Cumulative Impacts analysis. This analysis is contained in Chapter 4 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OIES. As required under NEPA, the level and scope of the analysis is commensurate with the scope of potential impacts of the action and the extent and character of the potentially-impacted resources (e.g., the geographic boundaries for cumulative impacts analysis for some resources are expanded to include activities outside the AFTT Study Area that might impact migratory or wide-ranging animals), as reflected in the resource-specific discussions in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences) of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/ OEIS. The 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS considered the proposed training and testing activities alongside other actions in the region whose impacts may be additive to those of the proposed training and testing. Past and present actions are also included in the analytical process as part of the affected environmental baseline conditions presented in Chapter 3 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS. The 2018 AFTT FEIS/ OEIS did so in accordance with 1997 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance. Per the guidance, a qualitative approach and best professional judgment are appropriate where precise measurements are not available. Where precise measurements and/or methodologies were available they were used. Guidance from CEQ states it ‘‘is not practical to analyze cumulative effects of an action on the universe; the list of environmental effects must focus on those that are truly meaningful.’’ Further, the U.S. EPA reviewed the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS and rated the document as LO—lack of objections—which means it did not identify any environmental impact requiring substantive changes to the proposal. Information on the NEPA PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 analysis is provided in Section 4.1.1 (Determination of Significance). Comment 4: Commenters stated that NMFS should rigorously review its adaptive management procedures for military readiness activities for transparency, enforceability, and effectiveness, to strengthen their integrity for a seven-year authorization cycle. They particularly noted the need to ensure that research required, or simply recommended, by NMFS during the rulemaking process is actually completed by the Navy, as adaptive management cannot proceed if the underlying research to resolve uncertainties is not performed. Response: NMFS has rigorously reviewed its adaptive management procedures for military readiness activities for transparency, enforceability, and effectiveness and continues to do so on an annual basis. In addition to the comprehensive written reports provided by the Navy and reviewed by NMFS, NMFS holds dual-purpose annual Monitoring and Adaptive Management meetings with the Navy that address all of the concerns the commenter raises. First, the Navy annually convenes the researchers conducting the monitoring studies required by the MMPA rules for Navy Training and Testing (along with NMFS and Commission staff) to discuss their work and results, allowing for direct meaningful discourse between the researchers on the ground and regulators, as well as the opportunity for the researchers to highlight challenges and recommendations for future work. Second, NMFS, the Commission, and Navy staff meet to specifically discuss: (1) Exercise Reports detailing the nonclassified extent of activities conducted, associated mitigation implemented, and marine mammals detected; (2) the list of monitoring projects and which are finishing, continuing, or newly starting; (3) new science potentially applicable in an adaptive management context, and; (4) whether any changes to monitoring or mitigation are appropriate pursuant to the Adaptive Management provisions. Comment 5: Commenters stated that NMFS must improve its negligible impact analysis and mitigation in issuing a new rule. They note that the Navy’s application proposed no substantial changes in its take estimation, impact assessment, or mitigation measures, notwithstanding the issues raised during the previous rulemaking by Commenters. Response: NMFS reviewed, considered, and responded to all comments received on the 2018 AFTT proposed rule and issuance of the proposed LOAs. Please see the 2018 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations AFTT final rule Comments and Responses section for a summary of the comments received and NMFS’ responses to these comments. The 2019 AFTT proposed rule and this final rule contain thorough and complete analysis of the incidental take that is estimated or has the potential to occur from the Navy’s activities, along with analysis of appropriate mitigation measures under the least practicable adverse impact standard. All analysis, including the negligible impact analysis for each species and stock, has been updated from the 2018 AFTT final rule as appropriate based on the Navy’s application, any new information, and in consideration of all comments received. Comment 6: Commenters stated that NMFS presents a flawed updated vessel strike analysis. The Commenters stated that the Navy made its take authorization request based on a Poisson distribution using ship-strike data (from strikes involving Navy vessels only) between 2009 and 2018 in the AFTT Study Area, as well as historical at-sea days in the AFTT Study Area from 2009–2018 and estimated potential at-sea days for the period from 2018–2025 covered by the requested regulations. This distribution predicted the probabilities of a specific number of strikes over the 2018–2025 period. The Commenters go on to state that in its take analysis, NMFS considered two factors in addition to those included in the Navy’s request: (1) the relative likelihood of hitting members of one stock versus another, based on available data from all vessel strikes enumerated in the agency’s Stock Assessment Reports (SARs); and (2) whether the Navy has ever definitively struck an individual from a particular stock and, if so, how many times. The Commenters stated that, thus in determining vessel strike probability, the agency’s analysis only factors in vessel strikes reported by the Navy, rather than more objectively taking into account the total number of Navy ships that will be operating in the AFTT Study Area. The Commenters stated that some conditions the Navy operates in, including darkness and high sea states, would likely make it impossible to detect every vessel strike that occurred. In addition, some of the features of military vessels that NMFS notes as reducing vessel strike probability, such as the use of marine mammal Lookouts, would also only be effective in periods of good visibility. Therefore, the agency should not use the number of vessel strikes reported by the Navy as the basis for its vessel strike analysis. The Commenters stated that VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 NMFS instead should analyze the likelihood of a ship hitting a particular stock in the AFTT Study Area (as based on the SARs) and the total number of Navy vessels, or the total amount of Navy vessel time spent operating within the AFTT Study Area. Response: The Commenters are correct in stating that the Navy requested incidental takes due to vessel strikes based on probabilities derived from a Poisson distribution using Navy ship strike data between 2009 and 2018 in the AFTT Study Area (the time period from when current vessel strike mitigation measures were instituted until the Navy conducted the analysis for the 2019 Navy application, with no new ship strikes occurring since this analysis), as well as historical at-sea days in the AFTT Study Area from 2009–2018 and estimated potential atsea days for the period from 2018 to 2025 covered by the requested regulations. NMFS concurs with the Navy that it is appropriate to use Navy ship strike data in this analysis, rather than all known ship strikes (as presented in the SARs), because there are key differences between Navy vessels and commercial vessels, as described in the Authorized Take from Vessel Strikes section, which reduce the potential of ship strikes by Navy vessels and provide confidence that any ship strike that did occur would be detected and reported. The Navy also implements mitigation measures (Lookouts, passive sonar when practicable, etc.) that are not implemented by commercial vessels. While visibility is decreased in certain situations, such as nighttime as described by the commenters, ships operated by or for the Navy have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when underway for safety of navigation, collision avoidance, range clearance, and manoverboard precautions. After sunset and prior to sunrise, watch personnel employ night visual search techniques, which can include the use of night vision devices. The Navy is able to detect if a whale is struck due to the diligence of standard watch personnel and Lookouts stationed specifically to observe for marine mammals while a vessel is underway, day and night. These measures make it highly unlikely that a Navy vessel would strike a whale, dolphin, porpoise, or pinniped without detecting and reporting it and, accordingly, NMFS is confident that the Navy’s reported strikes are accurate and appropriate for use in the analysis. NMFS uses all available information to determine the likelihood of vessel strike to a particular stock. As the PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70729 commenter correctly asserts, NMFS considered two factors in addition to those considered in the Navy’s 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 a detailed description of the methods used to analyze the likelihood of vessel strikes, see the Authorized Take from Vessel Strikes section. However, the analysis does take into account the total number of Navy ships that will be operating in the AFTT Study Area. The estimated potential at-sea days for the period from 2018 to 2025 takes into account both the number of vessels and the number of days each vessel will operate in the AFTT Study Area. In other words, the number of vessel at-sea days directly reflects the number of vessels. Indeed this metric does exactly what the commenter suggests, which is that NMFS ‘‘analyze the likelihood of a ship hitting a particular stock in the AFTT Study Area (as based on the SARs) and the total number of Navy vessels, or the total amount of Navy vessel time spent operating within the AFTT Study Area.’’ Comment 7: Commenters stated that NMFS’ adjustment of injury and mortality numbers for ‘‘mitigation effectiveness’’ remains arbitrary. The Commenters noted that in the 2018 AFTT final rule, NMFS stated that the Navy quantitatively assessed the effectiveness of its monitoring-based mitigation on a per-scenario basis using four factors: (1) Species sightability; (2) a Lookout’s ability to observe the range to permanent threshold shift and range to mortality; (3) the portion of time when mitigation could be observed during periods of poor visibility or at night; and (4) the ability of sound sources to be positively controlled (i.e., powered down) (83 FR 57076, 57115; November 14, 2018). The Commenters noted that NMFS then concluded that the Navy adequately accounted for mitigation effectiveness in its adjustment of take. The Commenters stated that while NMFS explained its support of the Navy’s approach, as requested in these Commenters’ comments on the 2018 AFTT proposed rule, the adjustments the Navy makes to account for reduced mitigation effectiveness at night or during periods of poor visibility still overestimate the potential level of mitigation effectiveness. The Commenters provided the following example to support this statement: ‘‘If a scenario occurs in a high sea state (Beaufort sea E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 70730 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations state of 4 or higher), then the Navy applies a visibility reduction factor of 0.25. However, the probability of sighting a North Atlantic right whale, for example, changed by a factor of 0.628 (95 percent CI: 0.428–0.921) for every unit increase in sea state. From the findings of Baumgartner et al. (2003), we would expect a reduction in detection probability of North Atlantic right whales by up to 84.5 percent based on an average Beaufort Sea State of 4, relative to ideal sighting conditions (i.e., Beaufort Sea State = 0). The reduction of the effectiveness of a Navy lookout watching for North Atlantic right whales in Beaufort Sea State 4, would therefore be significantly greater than the 0.25 factored into the Navy’s analysis.’’ The Commenters reiterated their caution to NMFS against creating an undersupported, nonconservative adjustment for avoidance in the current AFTT final rule. Response: As described 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 conservatively factored mitigation effectiveness (i.e., underestimated mitigation effectiveness) into its quantitative analysis process. To calculate a mitigation effectiveness score for each scenario, the Navy multiplied the Species Sightability Factor, g(0), by a Visibility Factor [0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1], then by an Observation Area Factor [0, 0.5, 1], and lastly by a Positive Control Factor [0, 0.5, 1]. Using a logistic regression model, Baumgartner et al. (2003) presented evidence to suggest there is an effect of sea state on the probability of sighting that changes by a factor of 0.628 for every unit increase in sea state. However, the authors did not suggest that the 0.628 factor should be applied to further reduce g(0) values that already consider sea state. The North Atlantic right whale g(0) value used by the Navy already takes into account perception bias (including sea state). Therefore, the Navy’s approach to calculating mitigation effectiveness is more conservative than what is being suggested by Baumgartner et al. (2003) because the Navy reduced mitigation effectiveness twice based on sea state: once by using g(0) values that already incorporate perception bias, and again by multiplying g(0) by additional visibility factors. Another example of how the Navy’s method for calculating mitigation effectiveness is conservative is that the Navy assigns worst-case VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 scores (instead of typical-case scores) to each effectiveness factor. For example, the Navy assigns a visibility reduction factor of 0.25 if a scenario has the ‘‘potential’’ to occur in Beaufort sea state 4 or higher, even if it typically occurs in Beaufort sea state 3 or lower. Similarly, the Navy assigns another visibility reduction factor of 0.25 or 0.50 if the scenario ‘‘could’’ occur at night, rounding up to the most conservative reduction factor based on percent chance of nighttime occurrence. Below is a simplified hypothetical calculation for a scenario involving hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar. The furthest average range to a potential permanent threshold shift (PTS) exposure for the largest source bin used in this scenario, MF1, is 192 m. The hypothetical scenario uses a positive control sound source, would rarely occur in a Beaufort 4 sea state, and has a 10 percent chance of occurring at night. Lookouts are able to observe the entire range to PTS (192 m around the ship) for the duration of the scenario. This hypothetical scenario has 10 model-estimated PTS impacts. Mitigation Effectiveness = Species Sightability [vessel sightability g(0) of 0.645 (Palka 2006)] × Visibility [1 ¥ (0.25 reduction for sea state + 0.25 reduction for night) = 0.50] × Observation Area [1] × Positive Control [1] = 0.323 Number of animals assumed sighted by Lookouts = Mitigation Effectiveness [0.323] × Model-Estimated Impacts [10 model-estimated PTS impacts] = 3.23 (rounded down to 3) This hypothetical calculation results in 3 out of 10 marine mammals being sighted by Lookouts within the average range to PTS (192 m from the ship). Mitigation measures would be implemented for these three individuals, and therefore, these animals would not be exposed to PTSlevel impacts. The Navy corrects the category of predicted impact for these three animals (i.e., shifts the level of three impacts from PTS to temporary threshold shift (TTS)), but does not modify the total number of impacts predicted from the scenario. For reasons detailed in the technical report, the small range to PTS and close proximity to the observation platform would in reality result in a much higher likelihood that Lookouts would detect more than three marine mammals within 192 m from the ship hull. For example, the Species Sightability reduction factors, g(0), are based on values obtained during line-transect surveys, where each primary observer looks for marine species in the forward PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90-degree quadrant on their side of the survey platform out to the limit of the available optics (i.e., the horizon). In this example, Navy Lookouts would focus their observations directly on the sea space in front of the ship in an area several degrees of magnitude smaller than that used to calculate species sightability. However, as previously described, the Navy’s approach to estimating marine mammal impacts integrates a host of conservative assumptions to ensure that potential impacts are overestimated instead of underestimated. Description of Marine Mammals and Their Habitat in the Area of the Specified Activities Marine mammal species and their associated stocks that have the potential to occur in the AFTT Study Area are presented in Table 9 along with the best/minimum abundance estimate and associated coefficient of variation value. Some marine mammal species, such as manatees, are not managed by NMFS, but by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and therefore not discussed below. Consistent with the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Navy anticipates the take of individuals of 39 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 nine serious injuries or mortalities combined from four marine mammal stocks during ship shock trials, and four takes of large whales by serious injury or mortality from vessel strikes over the seven-year period. We presented a detailed discussion of marine mammals and their occurrence in the AFTT Study Area, inclusive of important marine mammal habitat (e.g., critical habitat), biologically important areas (BIAs), national marine sanctuaries (NMSs), and unusual mortality events (UMEs) in the 2018 AFTT proposed rule and 2018 AFTT 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 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; ESA) designated critical habitat since the issuance of the 2018 AFTT final rule; therefore the information that supports our determinations here can be found in the 2018 AFTT proposed and final rules. NMFS has reviewed and incorporated into this rule the most recent Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) (Hayes et al., 2019, which can be found E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70731 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ national/marine-mammal-protection/ marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region); updated information on relevant UMEs (see below); and new scientific literature (see the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat section), 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 AFTT proposed and final rules. Therefore, the information presented in those sections of the 2018 proposed and final rules remains current and valid. As described in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the species carried forward for analysis are those likely to be found in the AFTT Study Area based on the most recent data available, and do not include stocks or species that may have once inhabited or transited the area but have not been sighted in recent years and therefore are extremely unlikely to occur in the AFTT Study Area (e.g., species which were extirpated because of factors such as nineteenth and twentieth century commercial exploitation). The species not carried forward for analysis (addressed in more detail in the Description of Marine Mammals and Their Habitat in the Area of the Specified Activities section of the 2018 AFTT final rule) include the bowhead whale, beluga whale, and narwhal, as these would be considered extralimital and are not part of the AFTT Study Area seasonal species assemblage. Additionally, for multiple bottlenose dolphin stocks, there was no potential for overlap with any stressors from Navy activities; therefore, there would be no adverse effects (or takes), and those stocks were not considered further. Specifically, with the exception of the Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau stock of bottlenose dolphins (which is addressed in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section below), there is no potential for overlap of any Navy stressor with any other bay, sound, or estuary stocks in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Also, the following bottlenose dolphin stocks for the Atlantic do not have any potential for overlap with Navy activity stressors (or take), and therefore are not considered further: Northern South Carolina Estuarine System, Charleston Estuarine System, Northern Georgia/Southern South Carolina Estuarine System, Central Georgia Estuarine System, Southern Georgia Estuarine System, Biscayne Bay, and Florida Bay stocks. For the same reason, bottlenose dolphins off the coasts of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands were also not considered further. TABLE 9—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA Common name Scientific name 1 ESA/MMPA Status 3 Stock 2 Occurrence in AFTT study area 5 Stock Abundance 4 Best/minimum population Open ocean I Large marine ecosystems Inland waters I Order Cetacea Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Balaenidae (right whales): Bowhead whale. North Atlantic right whale. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals): Blue whale ............. Bryde’s whale ........ VerDate Sep<11>2014 Balaena mysticetus Eastern CanadaWest Greenland. Endangered, strategic, depleted. 7,660 (4,500– 11,100) 6. Labrador Current Eubalaena glacialis Western .............. Endangered, strategic, depleted. 451 (0)/445 ......... Gulf Stream, Labrador Current, North Atlantic Gyre. Balaenoptera musculus. Western North Atlantic (Gulf of St. Lawrence). Endangered, strategic, depleted. Unknown/440 11 .. Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current. Balaenoptera brydei/edeni. Northern Gulf of Mexico and NSD 21. Endangered, strategic. 33 (1.07)/16 ........ Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre. 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, Gulf of Mexico (extralimital). Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico (strandings only). Gulf of Mexico .... 23DER2 NA. NA. NA. NA. 70732 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 9—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued Common name Fin whale ............... Scientific name 1 Balaenoptera physalus. ESA/MMPA Status 3 Stock 2 Occurrence in AFTT study area 5 Stock Abundance 4 Best/minimum population Open ocean Large marine ecosystems Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf. West Greenland Shelf. NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf. Caribbean Sea, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf. West Greenland Shelf. Western North Atlantic. Endangered, strategic, depleted. 1,618 ................... (0. 33)/1,234 ....... Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current. West Greenland .. 4,468 (1,343– 14,871) 9. 328 (306–350) 10 Labrador Current Gulf of St. Lawrence. Endangered, strategic, depleted. Endangered, strategic, depleted. Gulf of St. Lawrence. Humpback whale ... Megaptera novaeangliae. Gulf of Maine ...... NA ....................... 896 (0)/896 ......... Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current. Minke whale .......... Balaenoptera acutorostrata. Canadian Eastern Coastal. NA ....................... 2,591 (0.81)/ 1,425. Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current. West Greenland 7 NA ....................... Labrador Current Nova Scotia ........ Endangered, strategic, depleted. 16,609 (range: 7,172–38,461)/ NA 7. 357 (0.52)/236 .... Labrador Sea ...... Endangered, strategic, depleted. Sei whale ............... Balaenoptera borealis. Unknown 8 ........... Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre. Labrador Current Inland waters NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, Southeast Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf. NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf. NA. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, Caribbean Sea. Gulf of Mexico .... NA. Caribbean Sea .... NA. NA. Family Physeteridae (sperm whale) Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales) lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Sperm whale ......... VerDate Sep<11>2014 Physeter macrocephalus. 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 North Atlantic ...... Endangered, strategic, depleted. 2,288 (0.28)/ 1,815. Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. Endangered, strategic, depleted. Endangered, strategic, depleted. 763 (0.38)/560 .... NA ....................... Unknown ............. North Atlantic Gyre. Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 NA. 70733 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 9—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued Common name Scientific name 1 ESA/MMPA Status 3 Stock 2 Occurrence in AFTT study area 5 Stock Abundance 4 Best/minimum population Open ocean I Large marine ecosystems Inland waters I Family Kogiidae (sperm whales) Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales. Kogia breviceps and Kogia sima. Western North Atlantic. NA ....................... 3,785 (0.47)/ 2,59812. Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre. Northern Gulf of Mexico. NA ....................... 186 (1.04)/9012 ... NA ....................... Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, Caribbean Sea. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. NA. West Greenland Shelf. West Greenland Shelf. NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf. NA. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Caribbean Sea .... NA. NA. Family Monodontidae (beluga whale and narwhal) Beluga whale ......... Narwhal ................. Delphinapterus leucas. Eastern High Arctic/Baffin Bay 13. West Greenland 14. NA 15 ................... Monodon monoceros. NA ....................... NA ....................... NA ....................... 21,213 (10,985– 32,619) 13. 10,595 (4.904– 24,650) 14. NA 15 ................... Labrador Current NA ....................... NA ....................... NA. NA. Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales) Blainville’s beaked whale. Cuvier’s beaked whale. Ziphius cavirostris .. Gervais’ beaked whale. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Mesoplodon densirostris. Mesoplodon europaeus. Western North Atlantic 16. NA ....................... 7,092 (0.54)/ 4,63217. Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic 16. NA ....................... 149 (0.91)/77 18 ... NA ....................... NA ....................... 6,532 (0.32)/ 5,021. Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16. Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. Western North Atlantic 16. NA ....................... 74 (1.04)/36 ........ NA ....................... Strategic .............. Unknown ............. NA ....................... NA ....................... 7,092 (0.54)/ 4,632 17. Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16. NA ....................... 149 (0.91)/77 18 ... Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre. Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current. Northern bottlenose whale. Hyperoodon ampullatus. Western North Atlantic. NA ....................... Unknown ............. Sowerby’s beaked whale. Mesoplodon bidens Western North Atlantic 16. NA ....................... 7,092 (0.54)/ 4,632 17. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre. E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast United States Continental Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf. Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf. 23DER2 NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. 70734 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 9—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued Common name True’s beaked whale. Scientific name 1 Mesoplodon mirus ESA/MMPA Status 3 Stock 2 Western North Atlantic 16. NA ....................... Occurrence in AFTT study area 5 Stock Abundance 4 Best/minimum population 7,092 (0.54)/ 4,632 17. Open ocean Large marine ecosystems Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf. NA. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Caribbean Sea .... NA. Inland waters Family Delphinidae (dolphins) Atlantic spotted dolphin. Atlantic white-sided dolphin. Lagenorhynchus acutus. Clymene dolphin ... Stenella clymene ... Common bottlenose dolphin. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Stenella frontalis .... Tursiops truncatus Western North Atlantic 16. NA ....................... 44,715 (0.43)/ 31,610. Gulf Stream ........ Northern Gulf of Mexico. Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. Western North Atlantic. NA ....................... Unknown ............. NA ....................... Strategic .............. Unknown ............. NA ....................... NA ....................... 48,819 (0.61)/ 30,403. Gulf Stream, Labrador Current. Western North Atlantic 16. NA ....................... Unknown ............. Gulf Stream ........ Northern Gulf of Mexico 16. Western North Atlantic Offshore 19. NA ....................... 129 (1.0)/64 ........ NA ....................... NA ....................... 77,532 (0.40)/ 56,053. Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre. Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal 20. Strategic, depleted. 6,639 (0.41)/ 4,759. NA ....................... Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal 20. Strategic, depleted. 3,751 (0.06)/ 2,353. NA ....................... Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Western North Atlantic South Carolina/Georgia Coastal 20. Northern North Carolina Estuarine System 20. Strategic, depleted. 6,027 (0.34)/ 4,569. NA ....................... Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Strategic .............. 823 (0.06)/782 .... NA ....................... Strategic .............. Unknown ............. NA ....................... Strategic .............. Unknown ............. NA ....................... Strategic .............. Unknown ............. NA ....................... Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Southern North Carolina Estuarine System 20. Northern South Carolina Estuarine System 20. Charleston Estuarine System 20. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. 23DER2 NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. Long Island Sound, Sandy Hook Bay, Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River, Elizabeth River. Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River, Elizabeth River, Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River, Kings Bay, St. Johns River. Kings Bay, St. Johns River. Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River. Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River. NA. NA. 70735 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 9—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued Common name Scientific name 1 ESA/MMPA Status 3 Stock 2 Northern Georgia/ Southern South Carolina Estuarine System 20. Central Georgia Estuarine System 20. Southern Georgia Estuarine System 20. Western North Atlantic Northern Florida Coastal 20. Jacksonville Estuarine System 20. Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal 20. Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System 20. Biscayne Bay 16 .. Florida Bay 16 ...... Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf 20. Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal 20. Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal 20. Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal 20. Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic 20. Laguna Madre 20 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Nueces Bay/Corpus Christi Bay 20. Copano Bay/ Aransas Bay/ San Antonio Bay/Redfish Bay/Espiritu Santo Bay 20. Matagorda Bay/ Tres Palacios Bay/Lavaca Bay 20. West Bay 20 ......... Galveston Bay/ East Bay/Trinity Bay 20. Sabine Lake 20 .... Calcasieu Lake 20 Vermilion Bay/ West Cote Blanche Bay/ Atchafalaya Bay 20. Terrebonne Bay/ Timbalier Bay 20. Barataria Bay Estuarine System 20. Mississippi River Delta 20. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Occurrence in AFTT study area 5 Stock Abundance 4 Large marine ecosystems Best/minimum population Open ocean Strategic .............. Unknown ............. NA ....................... Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. NA. Strategic .............. 192 (0.04)/185 .... NA ....................... NA. Strategic .............. 194 (0.05)/185 .... NA ....................... Strategic, depleted. 877 (0.49)/595 .... NA ....................... Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Strategic .............. Unknown ............. NA ....................... Strategic, depleted. 1,218 (0.35)/913 NA ....................... Strategic .............. Unknown ............. NA ....................... Strategic .............. Unknown ............. NA ....................... NA ....................... NA ....................... Unknown ............. 51,192 (0.10)/ 46,926. NA ....................... Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Inland waters Kings Bay, St. Johns River. Kings Bay, St. Johns River. Kings Bay, St. Johns River. Port Canaveral. NA ....................... NA ....................... Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Gulf of Mexico .... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA. 12,388 (0.13)/ 11,110. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA ....................... 7,185 (0.21)/ 6,044. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA ....................... 20,161 (0.17)/ 17,491. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA ....................... 5,806 (0.39)/ 4,230. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... St. Andrew Bay, Pascagoula River. Corpus Christi Bay, Galveston Bay. NA. Strategic .............. 80 (1.57)/Unknown. 58 (0.61)/Unknown. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. Strategic .............. Port Canaveral. NA. Strategic .............. 55 (0.82)/Unknown. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. Strategic .............. 61 (0.45)/Unknown. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA ....................... 32 (0.015)/Unknown. 152 (0.43)/Unknown. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. Strategic .............. Strategic .............. Strategic .............. 0 .......................... 0 .......................... 0 .......................... NA ....................... NA ....................... NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... Gulf of Mexico .... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA. NA. NA ....................... 3,870 (0.15)/ 3,426. 2,306 (0.09)/ 2,138. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. Strategic .............. Strategic .............. Strategic .............. Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 332 (0.93)/170 .... Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70736 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 9—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued Common name Scientific name 1 ESA/MMPA Status 3 Stock 2 Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau 20. Mobile Bay/ Bonsecour Bay 20. Perdido Bay 20 .... Pensacola Bay/ East Bay 20. Choctawhatchee Bay 20. St. Andrew Bay 20 Fraser’s dolphin ..... lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Open ocean Large marine ecosystems Inland waters Strategic .............. 3,046 (0.06)/ 2,896. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. Strategic .............. 122 (0.34)/Unknown. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. Strategic .............. Strategic .............. 0 .......................... 33 (0.80)/Unknown. 179 (0.04)/Unknown. 124 (0.57)/Unknown. 152 (0.08)/Unknown. 439 (0.14)/Unknown. NA ....................... NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. Strategic .............. Strategic .............. Strategic .............. St. Vincent Sound/Apalachicola Bay/ St. George Sound 20. Apalachee Bay 20 Strategic .............. Strategic .............. Strategic .............. Unknown ............. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. Strategic .............. NA ....................... Unknown ............. 158 (0.27)/126 .... NA ....................... NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA. Strategic .............. 826 (0.09)/Unknown. NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. Strategic .............. 0 .......................... NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. Strategic .............. Strategic .............. Unknown ............. Unknown ............. NA ....................... NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA. Strategic .............. Strategic .............. Unknown ............. Unknown ............. NA ....................... NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico .... Gulf of Mexico .... NA. NA. Strategic .............. Unknown ............. NA ....................... Caribbean Sea .... NA. Pseudorca crassidens. Waccasassa Bay/ Withlacoochee Bay/Crystal Bay 20. St. Joseph Sound/Clearwater Harbor 20. Tampa Bay 20 ...... Sarasota Bay/Little Sarasota Bay 20. Pine Island Sound/Charlotte Harbor/ Gasparilla Sound/Lemon Bay 20. Caloosahatchee River 20. Estero Bay 20 ...... Chokoloskee Bay/ Ten Thousand Islands/Gullivan Bay 20. Whitewater Bay 20 Florida Keys (Bahia Honda to Key West) 20. Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. Western North Atlantic 22. 491 (0.39)/Unknown. Unknown ............. Strategic .............. 442 (1.06)/212 .... NA ....................... NA. NA ....................... Unknown ............. NA ....................... Lagenodelphis hosei. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16. Western North Atlantic 23. NA ....................... Unknown ............. Gulf Stream ........ NA ....................... Unknown ............. NA ....................... Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Best/minimum population Bay 20 St. Joseph False killer whale .. Occurrence in AFTT study area 5 Stock Abundance 4 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Strategic .............. Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 NA. NA. NA. 70737 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 9—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued Common name Killer Whale ........... Orcinus orca .......... Long-finned pilot whale. Globicephala melas Melon-headed Whale. Peponocephala electra. Pantropical spotted-dolphin. Stenella attenuate .. Pygmy Killer Whales. Feresa attenuata ... Risso’s dolphin ...... Rough-toothed dolphin. Short-finned pilot whale. Striped dolphin ...... VerDate Sep<11>2014 Grampus griseus ... Steno bredanensis Globicephala macrorhynchus. Spinner dolphin ..... lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Scientific name 1 Stenella longirostris Stenella coeruleoalba. 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 ESA/MMPA Status 3 Stock 2 Occurrence in AFTT study area 5 Stock Abundance 4 Best/minimum population Open ocean Large marine ecosystems Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast United States Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast United States Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Caribbean Sea Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Northeast Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Caribbean Sea .... Western North Atlantic 22. NA ....................... Unknown ............. Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16. Western North Atlantic. NA ....................... 28 (1.02)/14 ........ NA ....................... NA ....................... 5,636 (0.63)/ 3,464. Gulf Stream ........ Western North Atlantic 23. NA ....................... Unknown ............. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16. Western North Atlantic 16. NA ....................... 2,235 (0.75)/ 1,274. 3,333 (0.91)/ 1,733. Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre. NA ....................... NA ....................... NA ....................... 50,880 (0.27)/ 40,699. Unknown ............. NA ....................... 152 (1.02)/75 ...... NA ....................... 18,250 (0.46)/ 12,619. Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic 16. NA ....................... NA ....................... NA ....................... 2,442 (0.57)/ 1,563. 136 (1.00)/67 ...... Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. NA ....................... 624 (0.99)/311 .... NA ....................... NA ....................... 28,924 (0.24)/ 23,637. NA ....................... NA ....................... NA ....................... Strategic .............. 2,415 (0.66)/ 1,456. Unknown ............. NA ....................... Unknown ............. Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre. NA ....................... 11,441 (0.83)/ 6,221. Unknown ............. NA ....................... Northern Gulf of Mexico 22. Western North Atlantic 16. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico 22. Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. Western North Atlantic 16. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16. Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. Western North Atlantic 16. Jkt 250001 PO 00000 NA ....................... Gulf Stream ........ Strategic .............. NA ....................... Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 54,807 (0.30)/ 42,804. Sfmt 4700 NA ....................... Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre. NA ....................... Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre. NA ....................... NA ....................... Gulf Stream ........ E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Caribbean Sea .... Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf. 23DER2 Inland waters NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. NA. 70738 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 9—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued Common name Scientific name 1 Short-beaked common dolphin. Delphinus delphis .. White-beaked dolphin. Lagenorhynchus, albirostris. ESA/MMPA Status 3 Stock 2 Northern Gulf of Mexico 16. Western North Atlantic. Western North Atlantic 23. NA ....................... NA ....................... NA ....................... Occurrence in AFTT study area 5 Stock Abundance 4 Best/minimum population 1,849 (0.77)/ 1,041. 70,184 (0.28)/ 55,690. 2,003 (0.94)/ 1,023. Open ocean Large marine ecosystems NA ....................... Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf. Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf. Gulf Stream ........ Labrador Current Inland waters NA. NA. NA. Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) Harbor porpoise .... Phocoena phocoena. Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy. NA ....................... 79,883 (0.32)/ 61,415. NA ....................... Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf. Gulf of St. Lawrence 24. NA ....................... Unknown 24 ......... Labrador Current Newfoundland 25 NA ....................... Unknown 25 ......... Labrador Current Greenland 26 ....... NA ....................... Unknown 26 ......... Labrador Current Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf. Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf. Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, Long Island Sound, Piscataqua River, Thames River, Kennebec River. NA. NA. NA. Order Carnivora Suborder Pinnipedia lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Family Phocidae (true seals): Gray seal ............... VerDate Sep<11>2014 Halichoerus grypus 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Western North Atlantic. Jkt 250001 PO 00000 NA ....................... Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 27,131 (0.19)/ 23,158. Sfmt 4700 NA ....................... E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf. 23DER2 Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, Long Island Sound, Piscataqua River, Thames River, Kennebeck River. 70739 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 9—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA—Continued lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Common name Scientific name 1 ESA/MMPA Status 3 Stock 2 Occurrence in AFTT study area 5 Stock Abundance 4 Best/minimum population Open ocean Large marine ecosystems Inland waters Chesapeake Bay, Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, Long Island Sound, Piscataqua River, Thames River, Kennebeck River. NA. Harbor seal ............ Phoca vitulina ........ Western North Atlantic. NA ....................... 75,834 (0.15)/ 66,884. NA ....................... Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf. Harp seal ............... Pagophilus groenlandicus. Western North Atlantic. NA ....................... Unknown ............. NA ....................... Hooded seal .......... Cystophora cristata Western North Atlantic. NA ....................... Unknown ............. NA ....................... Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, Long Island Sound, Piscataqua River, Thames River, Kennebec River. Notes: CV coefficient of variation; ESA: Endangered Species Act; MMPA: Marine Mammal Protection Act; NA: not applicable. 1 Taxonomy follows (Committee on Taxonomy, 2016). 2 Stock designations for the U.S. EEZ and abundance estimates are from Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs prepared by NMFS (Hayes et al., 2019) and the final 2018 SARs, unless specifically noted. 3 Populations or stocks defined by the MMPA as ‘‘strategic’’ for one of the following reasons: (1) the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (2) based on the best available scientific information, numbers are declining and species are likely to be listed as threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; (3) species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; (4) species are designated as depleted under the MMPA. 4 Stock abundance, CV, and minimum population are numbers provided by the Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; Hayes et al., 2019). The stock abundance is an estimate of the number of animals within the stock. The CV is a statistical metric used as an indicator of the uncertainty in the abundance estimate. The minimum population estimate is either a direct count (e.g., pinnipeds on land) or the lower 20th percentile of a statistical abundance estimate. 5 Occurrence in the AFTT Study Area includes open ocean areas—Labrador Current, North Atlantic Gyre, Gulf Stream, and coastal/shelf waters of seven large marine ecosystems—West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, and Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and inland waters of Kennebec River, Piscataqua River, Thames River, Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, Long Island Sound, Sandy Hook Bay, Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River, Elizabeth River, Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River, Kings Bay, St. Johns River, Port Canaveral, St. Andrew Bay, Pascagoula River, Sabine Lake, Corpus Christi Bay, and Galveston Bay. 6 The bowhead whale population off the West Coast of Greenland is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent highest density interval were presented in (Frasier et al., 2015). 7 The West Greenland stock of minke whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval were presented in (Heide-J<rgensen et al., 2010). 8 The Labrador Sea stock of sei whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Information was obtained in (Prieto et al., 2014). 9 The West Greenland stock of fin whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval were presented in (Heide-J<rgensen et al., 2010). 10 The Gulf of St. Lawrence stock of fin whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval were presented in (Ramp et al., 2014). 11 Photo identification catalogue count of 440 recognizable blue whale individuals from the Gulf of St. Lawrence is considered a minimum population estimate for the western North Atlantic stock (Waring et al., 2010). 12 Estimates include both the pygmy and dwarf sperm whales in the western North Atlantic (Waring et al., 2014) and the northern Gulf of Mexico (Waring et al., 2013). 13 Beluga whales in the Atlantic are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval for the Eastern High Arctic/Baffin Bay stock were presented in (Innes et al., 2002). 14 Beluga whales in the Atlantic are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval for the West Greenland stock were presented in (Heide-J<rgensen et al., 2009). 15 NA = Not applicable. Narwhals in the Atlantic are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. 16 Estimates for these western North Atlantic stocks are from Waring et al. (2014) and the northern Gulf of Mexico stock are from (Waring et al., 2013) as applicable. 17 Estimate includes undifferentiated Mesoplodon species. 18 Estimate includes Gervais’ and Blainville’s beaked whales. 19 Estimate may include sightings of the coastal form. 20 Estimates for these Gulf of Mexico stocks are from SARs. 21 These Bryde’s whales span the mid- and southern Atlantic and have not been designated as a stock (NSD) under the MMPA and therefore have no associated Stock Assessment Report. 22 Estimates for these stocks are from Waring et al., (2015). 23 Estimates for these western North Atlantic stocks are from (Waring et al., 2007). 24 Harbor porpoise in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. 25 Harbor porpoise in Newfoundland are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. 26 Harbor porpoise in Greenland are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70740 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs) 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. The six active UMEs with ongoing investigations in the AFTT Study Area that inform our analysis are discussed below. The impacts to Barataria Bay bottlenose dolphins from the closed Northern Gulf of Mexico UME (discussed in the 2018 AFTT proposed rule) associated with the Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are thought to be persistent and continue to inform population analyses. The other more recent UMEs closed several years ago, and little is known about how the effects of those events might be appropriately applied to an impact assessment several years later. North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW) UME NOAA declared an UME for NARWs from January 1, 2017, to the present. The current total number of mortalities included in the event is approximately 30 whales, including potentially 21 NARW carcasses (1 carcass from 2019 is currently unconfirmed) from Canada in 2017 and 2019 and nine carcasses in the United States (5 in 2017; 3 in 2018; 1 in 2019). In 2017, 17 right whale mortalities were documented, in 2018, three right whale mortalities were documented, and in the summer and fall of 2019 (as of October 24, 2019) an additional 10 right whale mortalities have been documented (9 confirmed, 1 unconfirmed). Of the 12 NARW carcasses found in Canadian waters in 2017, six were necropsied and died as a direct result of human activities (either confirmed, probable, or suspect), from either rope entanglements (2) or vessel strikes (4) (Daoust et al., 2017). Of the eight carcasses found in U.S. waters in 2017–2018, the cause of death was determined in six whales, with deaths attributable to either rope entanglement (5) or vessel strikes (1) (Sharp et al., 2019). Eight carcasses were not able to be examined. Of the 10 whales documented in 2019, 8 carcasses were able to be examined at some level. Of the examined whales, three had evidence of vessel strikes and one had evidence of entanglement, the results from the remaining four whales are pending. Daoust et al. (2018) also concluded there were no oil and gas seismic surveys authorized in the months prior to or during the period over which these mortalities occurred, as well as no blasting or major marine development projects. Navy was VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 consulted as to sonar use and they confirmed none was used in the vicinity of any of the strandings. As part of the UME investigation process for NARW, NOAA assembled an independent team of scientists (Investigative Team) that coordinates with the Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events to review the data collected, sample future whales that strand, and determine the next steps for the investigation. For more information on this UME, please refer to https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ national/marine-life-distress/2017-2019north-atlantic-right-whale-unusualmortality-event#causes-of-the-northatlantic-right-whale-ume. While data are not yet available to statistically estimate the population’s trend beyond 2015, three lines of evidence indicate the population is still in decline. First, calving rates in 2016, 2017, and 2018 were low. Only five new calves were documented in 2017 (Pettis et al., 2017a), well below the number needed to compensate for expected mortalities (Pace et al., 2017), and no new calves were reported for 2018. Long-term photographic identification data indicate new calves rarely go undetected, so these years likely represent a continuation of the low calving rates that began in 2012 (Kraus et al., 2007; Pace et al., 2017). So far in 2019, seven calves have been documented. Second, the abundance estimate for 2016 is 451 individuals, down approximately 1.5 percent from 458 in 2015. Third, since January, 2017, approximately 30 NARWs have died in what has been declared an UME as discussed above (Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2018; NMFS, 2017). Humpback Whale UME Along the Atlantic Coast NOAA declared an UME for humpback whales from January 1, 2016, to the present, along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida. As of October 24, 2019, 107 humpback strandings have occurred (26, 34, 25, and 22 whales in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively). As of April 2019, partial or full necropsy examinations have been conducted on 43 cases, or approximately half of the 92 strandings (at that time). Of the 43 whales examined, approximately 20 had evidence of blunt force trauma or premortem propeller wounds indicative of vessel strike and approximately 6 had evidence of entanglements. NOAA, in coordination with our stranding network partners, continues to investigate the recent mortalities and environmental conditions, and conduct population monitoring to better PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 understand the recent humpback whale mortalities. At this time, vessel parameters (including size) are not known for each vessel-whale collision that led to the death of a whale. Therefore, NOAA considers all sizes of vessels to be a potential risk for whale species in highly trafficked areas. The Navy has investigated potential strikes and confirmed that it had none. Please refer to https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ national/marine-life-distress/2016-2019humpback-whale-unusual-mortalityevent-along-atlantic-coast for more information on this UME. Minke Whale UME Along the Atlantic Coast NOAA declared an UME for minke whales from January 1, 2017, to the present, along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida. As of October 24, 2019, 75 strandings have occurred (27, 30, and 18 whales in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively). As of April 1, 2019, full or partial necropsy examinations have been conducted on 33 whales. Preliminary findings on several of the whales have shown evidence of human interactions, primarily fisheries interactions, or infectious disease. These findings are not consistent across all of the whales examined, and final diagnostic results are still pending for many of the cases. Please refer to https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-life-distress/2017-2019-minkewhale-unusual-mortality-event-alongatlantic-coast for more information on this UME. Northeast Pinniped UME Along the Atlantic Coast NOAA declared an UME on August 30, 2018, due to increased numbers of harbor seal and gray seal strandings along the U.S. coasts of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts during July and August of 2018. Strandings remained elevated in these three states and expanded south to Virginia primarily in late 2018 to early 2019 with additional cases on-going throughout 2019. In December 2018 and early 2019, harp and hooded seals began stranding as these seals migrated from Canada into U.S. waters and have been included in the investigation. From July 1, 2018, to October 24, 2019, 2,964 seals have stranded with approximately 95 percent of the seals stranding in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Full or partial necropsy examinations have been conducted on many of the seals and samples have been collected for testing. Based on testing conducted so far, the main pathogen found in the seals is phocine distemper virus, with E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations most positive cases stranded in 2018 and early 2019. Active phocine distemper virus infections have only been detected in harbor and gray seals to date. Please refer to https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-englandmid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/20182019-pinniped-unusual-mortality-eventalong for more information on this UME. Southwest Florida Bottlenose Dolphin UME Along the Gulf of Mexico NOAA declared an UME in the summer of 2018 due to elevated bottlenose dolphin mortalities occurring along the Southwest coast of Florida including Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota, Manatee, Hillsborough, and Pinellas counties. From July 1, 2018, to October 24, 2019, 193 dolphins have been confirmed stranded in this event. Stranding network partners have conducted full or partial necropsy examinations on several dolphins, with positive results for the red tide toxin (brevetoxin) indicating this UME is primarily related to the severe bloom of a red tide that occurred in the area from November, 2017 through February, 2019. Please refer to https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/ marine-life-distress/2018-2019bottlenose-dolphin-unusual-mortalityevent-southwest for more information on this UME. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Bottlenose Dolphin UME Along the Northern Gulf of Mexico NMFS declared an UME in the spring of 2019 due to elevated bottlenose dolphin strandings occurring in the Northern Gulf of Mexico including Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the panhandle of Florida (Alabama border through Franklin County). From February 1, 2019 to October 24, 2019, 320 dolphins have stranded, which is approximately three times higher than the average. Testing is underway of tissue samples for morbillivirus, harmful algal bloom toxins and other common causes of stranding. Please refer to https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ national/marine-life-distress/2019bottlenose-dolphin-unusual-mortalityevent-along-northern-gulf for more information on this UME. 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 AFTT proposed rule and 2018 AFTT final rule. In the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat sections of the 2018 AFTT proposed and VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 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 AFTT 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. NMFS has reviewed new relevant information from the scientific literature since publication of the 2018 AFTT final rule. Summaries of new scientific literature since publication of the 2018 AFTT final rule are presented below. 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 NOAA (2016 and 2018). 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 those only under NMFS jurisdiction) for all noise exposures (both in air and underwater for amphibious species), and that while the hearing group compositions are identical they renamed the hearing groups. In continued investigations of pinniped hearing, Kastelein et al. (2019a) exposed two female captive harbor seals to 6.5 kHz continuous, sinusoidal tones for 60 minutes (cumulative sound exposure levels (SELs) of 159–195 dB re: 1 mPa2s), then measured TTS using behavioral (psychoacoustic) methods at the center frequency of the fatiguing sound (6.5 kHz) and 0.5 and 1 octave above that frequency (9.2 and 13 kHz). Susceptibility to TTS was similar in both individuals tested. At cumulative SELs below 179 dB re: 1 mPa2s, maximum TTS was induced at the center frequency (6.5 kHz), and at cumulative SELs above 179 dB re: 1 mPa2s, maximum TTS was induced at PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70741 0.5 octave above the center frequency (9.2 kHz). The highest TTSs were produced in the one-half octave band above the exposure frequency. Both seals recovered within 1–2 hours for up to 6 dB of TTS. One seal showed 19 dB of TTS after a dB re: 1 mPa2s exposure and recovered within 24 hours. Overall, this study combined with previous work showed that for harbor seals, recovery times are consistent for similarmagnitude TTS, regardless of the type of fatiguing sound exposure (impulsive, continuous noise band, or sinusoidal wave), and that susceptibility to TTS in the fatiguing frequency range tested (2.5–6.5 kHz) varies little with hearing frequency. The two harbor seals in this study (and Kastelein et al., 2012) had similar susceptibility to TTS as the seal in Kastak et al. (2005). The authors note that more fatiguing sound frequencies need to be tested in harbor seals to produce equal TTS curves, for generating weighting functions that can be used to develop exposure criteria for broadband sounds in the marine environment (Houser et al., 2017). To determine the distances at which Helicopter Long Range Active Sonar (HELRAS) signals (∼1.3–1.4 kHz) can be detected, Kastelein et al. (2019b) measured hearing thresholds using behavioral (psychoacoustic) techniques to simulated HELRAS signals in two captive harbor seals. Both seals showed similar thresholds (51 dB re: 1 mPa rms, approximately 4 dB lower than the detection thresholds for the same individuals in Kastelein et al., 2009) to previously obtained data for stimuli having the same center frequencies, which suggests that the harmonics present within HELRAS sources do not impact hearing threshold and that a tonal audiogram can be used to estimate the audibility of more complex narrowband tonal signals in harbor seals. 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 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 70742 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 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. • To investigate the effect of signal to noise ratio (SNR) on behavioral responses, Kastelein et al. (2019c) observed respiration rates (an indicator of behavioral response) of two captive harbor porpoises when exposed to simulated 30-minute playbacks of Navy mid-frequency sonar (53C, 3.5 to 4.1 kHz, 96 percent duty cycle), in noise simulating sea state 6 conditions. No behavioral responses were observed when the porpoises were exposed to sonar signals at an SPL of 117 dB re: 1 mPa (SNR equal to 49 dB re: 1 Hz). Both porpoises responded when exposed to sonar signals at an SPL of 122 dB re: 1 mPa (SNR equal to 54 dB re: 1 Hz), however in quiet conditions one porpoise responded at similar levels (Kastelein et al. 2018), suggesting the behavioral responses of harbor porpoises to sonar signals are not affected in sea state 6 ambient noise conditions. • 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 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 predicted by received SPL. • Joyce et al. (2019) presented movement and dive behavior data from seven Blainville’s beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) that were satellite tagged prior to naval sonar exercises using mid-frequency active sonar (MFAS, 3–8kHz) at the Atlantic VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 Undersea Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC) in the Bahamas. Five of the seven tagged were displaced 28–68 km after the onset of sonar exposure and returned to the AUTEC range 2–4 days after exercises ended. Three of the individuals for which modeled received SPLs were available during this movement showed declining received SPLs from initial maxima of 145–172 dB re: 1 mPa to maxima of 70–150 dB re: 1 mPa after displacements. Tagged individuals exhibited a continuation of deep diving activity consistent with foraging during MFAS exposure periods, but data also suggested that time spent on deep dives during initial exposure periods was reduced. These findings provide additional data for ongoing Population Consequences of Acoustic Disturbance assessments of disturbance as authors note that previous studies have suggested foraging dives may be lost in response to MFAS exposure, which could cause a decrease in energy intake and have potential effects on vital parameters. The data presented by Joyce et al. (2019) support the initial potential loss of foraging time, however they also suggest that Blainville’s beaked whales may have the ability to partially compensate for this loss (assuming they have ample recovery times between dives) by increasing time spent at foraging depths following displacement. • 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 previously published data (included in the 2018 AFTT EIS/OEIS analysis) on 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 determined that there is no PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 new information that substantively affects our analysis of potential impacts on marine mammals and their habitat that appeared in the 2018 AFTT 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 authorizing, which are based on the amount of take that NMFS anticipates could occur or is likely to occur, depending on the type of take and the methods used to estimate it, as described below. NMFS coordinated closely with the Navy in the development of their incidental take application, and agrees that the methods the Navy has put forth described herein and in the 2018 AFTT 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 AFTT regulations. Takes are predominantly in the form of harassment, but a small number of serious injuries or mortalities are also authorized. For military readiness activities, the MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B harassment). Authorized takes will 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, a limited number of serious injuries or mortalities could occur for four species of mid-frequency E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 cetaceans during ship shock trials and no more than four serious injuries or mortalities total (over the seven-year period) of mysticetes (except for blue whales, Bryde’s whales, and North Atlantic right whales) and North Atlantic sperm whales could occur through vessel collisions. Although we analyze the impacts of these potential serious injuries or mortalities that are 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. 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 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., VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 incorporating both received level and distance), they also still, accordingly, have some built-in conservative factors to address the challenge noted. For example, while duration of observed responses in the data are now considered in the thresholds, some of the responses that are informing take thresholds are of a very short duration, such that it is possible some of these responses might not always rise to the level of disrupting behavior patterns to a point where they are abandoned or significantly altered. We describe the application of this Level B 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, none of which have changed, in detail in the Acoustic Thresholds section and Tables 13 through 22 of the 2018 AFTT final rule; please see the 2018 AFTT final rule for detailed information. Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model The Navy proposed no changes to the Acoustic Effects Model as described in the 2018 AFTT final rule and there is no new information that would affect the applicability or validity of the Model. Please see the 2018 AFTT final rule and Appendix E of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/ OEIS for detailed information. Range to Effects The Navy proposed no changes from the 2018 AFTT final rule to the type and nature of the specified activities to be conducted during the seven-year period analyzed in this final 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 final rule are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT 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 23 through 38 of the 2018 AFTT final rule for detailed information. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70743 Marine Mammal Density The Navy proposed no changes to the methods used to estimate marine mammal density described in the 2018 AFTT final rule and there is no new information that would affect the applicability or validity of these methods. Please see the 2018 AFTT final rule for detailed information. Take Requests As in the 2018 AFTT 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 • 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 specifically requested coverage for these species. Therefore, the likelihood of vessel strikes, and later the effects of the incidental take that is being authorized, has been fully analyzed and is described below. 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 AFTT 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 application, the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS, and the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Navy included one additional E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70744 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 representative year and one additional maximum year to determine the predicted take numbers in this rule. Specifically, as in the 2018 AFTT final rule, here the Navy uses the maximum annual level to calculate annual takes (which would remain identical to what was determined in the 2018 AFTT final rule), and the sum of all years (four representative and three maximum) to calculate the seven-year totals for this rule. The Navy will not conduct any additional ship shock activities, and therefore both the total number and annual number of ship shock takes estimated and authorized for the sevenyear period is the same as the number requested in the five-year period under the 2018 AFTT final rule. The quantitative analysis process used for the 2018 AFTT 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 assessment of mitigation. The Navy conservatively quantifies the manner in which procedural mitigation is expected to reduce model-estimated PTS to TTS for exposures to sonar and other transducers, and reduces modelestimated mortality to injury for exposures to explosives. For a complete explanation of the process for assessing the effects of mitigation, see the 2017 Navy application and the 2018 AFTT final rule. The extent to which the mitigation areas reduce impacts on the affected species and stocks is addressed separately in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination sections of this rule and the 2018 AFTT final rule. No changes have been made to the quantitative analysis process to estimate potential exposures to marine mammals VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 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 AFTT proposed rule, and the 2018 AFTT 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 Authorized 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) are identical to those presented in Tables 39 through 41 in the Take Requests section of the 2018 AFTT final rule. The 2019 Navy application also includes the Navy’s take estimate and request for vessel strikes due to vessel movement in the AFTT Study Area and individual small and large ship shock trials over a seven-year period. The Navy will not conduct additional ship shock trials, so the estimated and requested takes from ship shock trials are the same as those authorized in the 2018 AFTT final rule. NMFS has reviewed the Navy’s data, methodology, and analysis and determined that it is complete and accurate. NMFS agrees PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 reasonably expected to occur. NMFS also agrees that the takes by serious injury or mortality as a result of vessel strikes could occur. 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. Authorized Harassment Take From Training Activities For training activities, Table 10 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, and is therefore authorized. For the authorized amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment annually, see Table 39 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. Note that take by Level B harassment includes both behavioral disruption and TTS. Navy Figures 6.4– 10 through 6.5–39 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. E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70745 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 10—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES- AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE AUTHORIZED FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES 7-Year total 1 Species Stock Level A I Level B Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Balaenidae (right whales): North Atlantic right whale * .................................... Family Balaenopteridae (roquals): Blue whale * ........................................................... Bryde’s whale ........................................................ Minke whale .......................................................... Fin whale * ............................................................. Humpback whale ................................................... Sei whale * ............................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. 1,644 0 Western North Atlantic ................................................. (Gulf of St. Lawrence) .................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico * ............................................. No Stock Designation ................................................... Canadian East Coast ................................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Gulf of Maine ................................................................ Nova Scotia .................................................................. 171 0 5 1,351 15,824 10,225 1,564 1,964 0 0 0 19 4 0 Gulf of Mexico Oceanic ................................................ North Atlantic ................................................................ 167 96,479 0 0 Gulf of Mexico Oceanic ................................................ Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. 103 56,060 103 56,060 0 68 0 68 Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. 244 85,661 242 317,180 244 85,661 7,504 85,661 85,661 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. Choctawhatchee Bay .................................................... Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal ................................... Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal .................................. Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal .................................. Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System ........................ Jacksonville Estuarine System ..................................... Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau ......... Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf .................. Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic ................................. Northern North Carolina Estuarine System .................. Southern North Carolina Estuarine System ................. Western North Atlantic Northern Florida Coastal ......... Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal ........... Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal ..... Western North Atlantic Offshore .................................. Western North Atlantic South Carolina/Georgia Coastal. Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal .... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... . 26,155 ........................................................................... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... 246,178 ......................................................................... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... 6,584 804,058 99,615 46 166 1,524 16,778 1,980 589 0 10,918 1,356 16,089 0 6,060 35,861 175,237 2,062,942 28,814 0 64 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 30 269 0 81,155 694 463,220 291 54,818 418 14 0 19 0 0 0 Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales) Family Physeteridae (sperm whale): Sperm whale * ....................................................... Family Kogiidae (sperm whales): Dwarf sperm whale ............................................... Pygmy sperm whale .............................................. Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales): Blainville’s beaked whale ...................................... Cuvier’s beaked whale .......................................... Gervais’ beaked whale .......................................... Northern bottlenose whale .................................... Sowersby’s beaked whale ..................................... True’s beaked whale ............................................. Family Delphinidae (dolphins): Atlantic spotted dolphin ......................................... Atlantic white-sided dolphin ................................... Bottlenose dolphin ................................................. Clymene dolphin .................................................... False killer whale ................................................... lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Fraser’s dolphin ..................................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Killer whale ............................................................ Long-finned pilot whale ......................................... Melon-headed whale ............................................. Western North Atlantic .......................................... Pantropical spotted dolphin ................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:34 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 0 5 522 116,412 493 4 3,959 0 0 0 0 0 70746 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 10—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES- AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE AUTHORIZED FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES—Continued 7-Year total 1 Species Stock Level A Level B White-beaked dolphin ............................................ Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. 964,072 118 43,009 276 140,368 606 129,594 1,467,625 251 210,736 1,593 487,644 471 631,680 269 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 9 0 22 0 Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): Harbor porpoise ..................................................... Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ......................................... 206,071 1,121 10,038 16,277 59,063 882 0 0 6 0 Pygmy killer whale ................................................ Risso’s dolphin ...................................................... Rough-toothed dolphin .......................................... Short-beaked common dolphin ............................. Short-finned pilot whale ......................................... Spinner dolphin ..................................................... Striped dolphin ...................................................... Suborder Pinnipedia Family Phocidae (true seals): Gray seal ............................................................... Harbor seal ............................................................ Harp seal ............................................................... Hooded seal .......................................................... Western Western Western Western North North North North Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic ................................................. ................................................. ................................................. ................................................. 1 The estimated amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment annually are identical to those presented in Table 39 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. * ESA-listed species or stocks within the AFTT Study Area. † NSD: No stock designated. Authorized Harassment Take From Testing Activities For testing activities (excluding ship shock trials), 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, and is therefore authorized. For the authorized amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment annually, see Table 40 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. Note that take by Level B harassment includes both behavioral disruption and TTS. Navy Figures 6.4–10 through 6.5– 39 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 AUTHORIZED FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TESTING ACTIVITIES [Excluding Ship Shock Trials] 7-Year total 1 Species Stock Level B I Level A Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales) lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Family Balaenidae (right whales): North Atlantic right whale * .................................... Family Balaenopteridae (roquals): Blue whale * ........................................................... Bryde’s whale ........................................................ Minke whale .......................................................... Fin whale * ............................................................. Humpback whale ................................................... Sei whale * ............................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. 1,528 0 Western North Atlantic (Gulf of St. Lawrence) ............. Northern Gulf of Mexico * ............................................. No Stock Designation ................................................... Canadian East Coast ................................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Gulf of Maine ................................................................ Nova Scotia .................................................................. 127 358 856 11,155 24,808 3,380 3,262 0 0 0 9 22 0 0 7,315 0 Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales) Family Physeteridae (sperm whale): Sperm whale * ....................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Gulf of Mexico Oceanic ................................................ Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70747 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 11—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE AUTHORIZED FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TESTING ACTIVITIES—Continued [Excluding Ship Shock Trials] 7-Year total 1 Species Stock Level B Family Kogiidae (sperm whales): Dwarf sperm whale ............................................... Pygmy sperm whale .............................................. Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales): Blainville’s beaked whale ...................................... Cuvier’s beaked whale .......................................... Gervais’ beaked whale .......................................... Northern bottlenose whale .................................... Sowersby’s beaked whale ..................................... True’s beaked whale ............................................. Family Delphinidae (dolphins): Atlantic spotted dolphin ......................................... Atlantic white-sided dolphin ................................... Bottlenose dolphin ................................................. Clymene dolphin .................................................... False killer whale ................................................... Fraser’s dolphin ..................................................... Killer whale ............................................................ Long-finned pilot whale ......................................... Melon-headed whale ............................................. Pantropical spotted dolphin ................................... Pygmy killer whale ................................................ Risso’s dolphin ...................................................... Rough-toothed dolphin .......................................... lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Short-beaked common dolphin ............................. Short-finned pilot whale ......................................... Spinner dolphin ..................................................... Striped dolphin ...................................................... White-beaked dolphin ............................................ Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): Harbor porpoise ..................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Level A North Atlantic ................................................................ 71,820 0 Gulf of Mexico Oceanic ................................................ Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. 4,787 29,368 4,787 29,368 38 91 38 91 Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. 9,368 68,738 9,757 252,367 9,368 68,738 6,231 68,903 68,903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. Choctawhatchee Bay .................................................... Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal ................................... Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal .................................. Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal .................................. Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System ........................ Jacksonville Estuarine System ..................................... Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau ......... Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf .................. Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic ................................. Northern North Carolina Estuarine System .................. Southern North Carolina Estuarine System ................. Western North Atlantic Northern Florida Coastal ......... Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal ........... Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal ..... Western North Atlantic Offshore .................................. Western North Atlantic South Carolina/Georgia Coastal. Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal .... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................................... Western North Atlantic ................................................. Western North Atlantic ................................................. 473,262 708,931 210,578 6,297 0 108,154 25,200 21 20 5 841,076 95,044 746 0 2,263 15,409 79,042 794,581 11,232 18 72 8 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 56 8 0 0 0 0 20 161 0 29,176 27,841 234,001 12,788 24,580 7,452 8,270 212 264 131,095 20,324 109,192 169,678 495,207 4,771 18,609 10,929 132,141 26,033 58,008 2,351,361 12,041 111,326 51,039 218,786 16,344 652,197 300 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 6 6 26 0 0 0 9 0 0 101 0 10 0 10 0 32 0 Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ......................................... 811,201 1,405 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70748 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 11—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE AUTHORIZED FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TESTING ACTIVITIES—Continued [Excluding Ship Shock Trials] 7-Year total 1 Species Stock Level B Level A I Suborder Pinnipedia Family Phocidae (true seals): Gray seal ............................................................... Harbor seal ............................................................ Harp seal ............................................................... Hooded seal .......................................................... Western Western Western Western North North North North Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic ................................................. ................................................. ................................................. ................................................. 6,130 9,941 53,646 5,335 14 23 17 0 1 The estimated amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment annually are identical to those presented in Table 40 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. * ESA-listed species or stocks within the AFTT Study Area. † NSD: No stock designated. Authorized Take From Ship Shock For ship shock trials, Table 12 summarizes the Navy’s take estimate and request and the maximum amount and type of Level A and Level B harassment and serious injury/mortality for the seven-year period covered by the Navy application that NMFS concurs is reasonably expected to occur by species or stock per small and large ship shock events, and is therefore authorized. For the authorized amount and type of Level A harassment, Level B harassment, and serious injury/mortality annually, see Table 41 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The Navy will not conduct additional ship shock trials over the additional two years covered by the 2019 Navy application, so the amount and type of authorized takes are the same as those authorized in the 2018 AFTT final rule. TABLE 12—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE ESTIMATES AUTHORIZED FROM SHIP SHOCK TRIALS Small ship shock Species/stock Level B harassment I Level A harassment I Large ship shock Level B harassment Mortality I Level A harassment I 7-Year total Level B harassment Mortality I Level A harassment I Mortality Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Balaenidae (right whales): North Atlantic right whale * Western North Atlantic Family Balaenopteridae (roquals): Blue whale * ....................... Western North Atlantic (Gulf of St. Lawrence) ...................... Bryde’s whale ..................... Northern Gulf of Mexico * .......................... NSD † .......................... Minke whale ....................... Canadian East Coast .. Fin whale * .......................... Western North Atlantic Humpback whale ............... Gulf of Maine .............. Sei whale * ......................... Nova Scotia ................ 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 0 0 1 15 0 1 0 0 0 3 19 19 131 131 8 8 12 12 0 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 39 39 234 234 20 20 27 27 1 0 3 3 27 27 2 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 15 96 96 627 627 44 44 63 63 1 0 6 6 36 36 2 2 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales) Family Physeteridae (sperm whale): Sperm whale * .................... Gulf of Mexico Oceanic .......................... North Atlantic .............. Family Kogiidae (sperm whales): Dwarf sperm whale ............ Gulf of Mexico Oceanic .......................... Western North Atlantic Pygmy sperm whale .......... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 1 1 0 3 4 0 6 7 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 4 0 0 2 6 0 7 0 0 46 28 0 91 70 0 229 154 0 0 46 46 0 28 28 0 0 0 51 91 91 64 70 70 0 0 0 51 229 229 64 154 154 0 0 0 0 46 0 28 0 0 51 91 64 70 0 0 51 229 64 154 0 0 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70749 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 12—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE ESTIMATES AUTHORIZED FROM SHIP SHOCK TRIALS—Continued Small ship shock lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Species/stock Level B harassment Level A harassment 1 0 0 1 2 Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales): Blainville’s beaked whale ... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic Cuvier’s beaked whale ....... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic Gervais’ beaked whale ...... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic Northern bottlenose whale Western North Atlantic Sowerby’s beaked whale ... Western North Atlantic True’s beaked whale .......... Western North Atlantic Family Delphinidae (dolphins): Atlantic spotted dolphin ...... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic Atlantic white-sided dolphin Western North Atlantic Bottlenose dolphin ............. Choctawhatchee Bay .. Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal .................... Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal .............. Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal .............. Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System .... Jacksonville Estuarine System .................... Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau ................. Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic ............. Northern North Carolina Estuarine System .......................... Southern North Carolina Estuarine System .......................... Western North Atlantic Northern Florida Coastal .................... Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal .................... Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal .................... Western North Atlantic Offshore ................... Western North Atlantic South Carolina/ Georgia Coastal ...... Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal .................... Clymene dolphin ................ Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic False killer whale ............... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Large ship shock Level B harassment Level A harassment 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7-Year total Level B harassment Level A harassment 0 4 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 4 8 0 1 6 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 8 4 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 4 4 4 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 12 0 26 24 0 0 6 1 1 13 0 0 4 1 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 3 3 16 0 1 12 9 9 24 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 26 6 6 55 0 1 24 12 12 54 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 0 10 6 0 0 0 0 10 9 0 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 10 0 16 24 0 55 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 9 0 8 0 0 0 15 0 23 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 8 9 2 6 8 1 0 0 0 8 15 2 6 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Mortality Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Mortality E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Mortality 70750 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 12—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE ESTIMATES AUTHORIZED FROM SHIP SHOCK TRIALS—Continued Small ship shock Species/stock Level B harassment Level A harassment 0 0 0 0 0 Fraser’s dolphin ................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic Killer whale ......................... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic Long-finned pilot whale ...... Western North Atlantic Melon-headed whale .......... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic Pantropical spotted dolphin Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic Pygmy killer whale ............. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic Risso’s dolphin ................... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic Rough-toothed dolphin ....... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic Short-beaked common dolphin ................................. Western North Atlantic Short-finned pilot whale ..... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic Spinner dolphin .................. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic Striped dolphin ................... Northern Gulf of Mexico ............................ Western North Atlantic White-beaked dolphin ........ Western North Atlantic Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): Harbor porpoisE ................. Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ...................... Large ship shock Level B harassment Level A harassment 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 7-Year total Level B harassment Level A harassment 0 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 6 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 8 0 0 12 12 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 25 4 1 20 0 0 1 4 8 31 4 4 29 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 25 7 1 20 3 1 1 0 0 25 13 1 20 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 6 6 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 40 40 2 51 51 2 1 1 0 67 67 4 107 107 5 3 3 0 187 187 10 260 260 11 6 6 0 0 2 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 4 37 3 5 45 0 0 1 2 10 46 3 11 48 0 0 1 0 3 4 0 1 8 0 0 0 37 7 10 45 3 12 1 0 0 37 16 22 45 6 36 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 10 0 0 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 22 0 0 3 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 41 0 120 81 0 249 204 0 43 41 0 120 81 0 249 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mortality Mortality Mortality Suborder Pinnipedia Family Phocidae (true seals): Gray seal ............................ Western North Atlantic Harbor seal ........................ Western North Atlantic Harp seal ............................ Western North Atlantic Hooded seal ....................... Western North Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Note: The table displays maximum ship shock impacts to marine mammals by species (in bold text), as well as maximum impacts on individual stocks. * ESA-listed species or stocks within the AFTT Study Area. † NSD: No stock designated. Authorized Take From Vessel Strikes Vessel strikes from commercial, recreational, and military vessels are known to affect large whales and have resulted in serious injury and occasional VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 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 that the Navy is conducting training or testing activities using active sonar or explosives. The marine mammals most vulnerable to vessel strikes are those that spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In addition, some baleen whales, such as the NARW seem generally unresponsive to vessel sound, making them more susceptible to vessel collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These species are primarily large, slower moving whales. Some researchers have suggested the relative risk of a vessel strike can be assessed as a function of animal density and the magnitude of vessel traffic (e.g., Fonnesbeck et al., 2008; Vanderlaan et al., 2008). Differences among vessel types also influence the probability of a vessel strike. The ability of any ship to detect a marine mammal and avoid a collision depends on a variety of factors, including environmental conditions, ship design, size, speed, and personnel, as well as the behavior of the animal. Vessel speed, size, and mass are all important factors in determining if injury or death of a marine mammal is likely due to a vessel strike. For large vessels, speed and angle of approach can influence the severity of a strike. For example, Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) found that between vessel speeds of 8.6 and 15 knots, the probability that VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 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 activities. • When submerged, submarines are generally slow moving (to avoid detection) and therefore marine mammals at depth with a submarine are likely able to avoid collision with the submarine. When a submarine is transiting on the surface, there are Lookouts serving the same function as they do on surface ships. Vessel strike to marine mammals is not associated with any specific training or testing activity but is rather an extremely limited and sporadic, but possible, accidental result of Navy vessel movement within the AFTT Study Area or while in transit. There have been three recorded Navy vessel strikes (one in 2011 and two in 2012) of large whales in the AFTT Study Area from 2009 through 2018 (ten years), the period in which the Navy PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70751 began implementing effective mitigation measures to reduce the likelihood of vessel strikes. Two of the vessel strikes occurred in the Virginia Capes Range Complex and one occurred in the lower Chesapeake Bay. One of the whales in 2012 had features suggesting it was most likely a humpback whale. Note that while the Navy was unable to identify the species of whale, it is unlikely the unidentified whales were NARW as the strikes occurred in areas where, or times of year when, NARW are not known to be present. 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 AFTT Study Area within the seven-year period, the Navy requested incidental takes based on probabilities derived from a Poisson distribution using ship strike data between 2009 and 2018 in the AFTT Study Area (the time period from when current mitigation measures were instituted until the Navy conducted the analysis for the 2019 Navy application, with no new ship strikes occurring since this analysis), as well as historical at-sea days in the AFTT 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 is described in detail in Chapter 6 of the Navy’s 2017 and 2019 applications. 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. Unlike the situation for non-Navy ships engaged in commercial activities, NMFS and the Navy have no evidence that the Navy has struck a whale and not detected it. 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. E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70752 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations The Navy used the three whale strikes since 2009 in their calculations to determine the number of strikes likely to result from their activities (although worldwide strike information, from all Navy activities and other strikes, was used to inform the species that may be struck). The Navy 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 updated probability analysis in the 2019 Navy application concluded that there was a 12 percent chance that zero whales would be struck by Navy vessels over the next seven years in the AFTT Study Area, indicating an 88 percent chance that at least one whale would be struck over the next seven years. The analysis also concludes that there is a 10 percent chance of striking four whales over the seven-year period. Based on the revised analysis, the Navy requested coverage for one additional large whale mortality not previously included in the 2018 AFTT final rule bringing the total from three vessel strikes over five years to four vessel strikes over seven years. NMFS agrees that there is some probability that the Navy could strike, and take by serious injury or mortality, up to four large whales incidental to training and testing activities within the AFTT Study Area over the course of the seven years covered by this final rule. Small whales, 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.), the following are additional reasons that vessel strike of dolphins, small whales, porpoises, and pinnipeds is 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 the Navy’s assessment and recognizes the potential for incidental take by vessel strike of large whales only (i.e., no dolphins, small whales, porpoises, or pinnipeds) over the course of the sevenyear period analyzed here from training and testing activities. Taking into account the available information regarding how many of any given stock could be struck and therefore should be authorized for take NMFS considered two factors in addition to those considered in the Navy’s request: (1) The relative likelihood of hitting one stock versus another based on available strike data from all vessel types as denoted in the SARs and (2) whether the Navy has ever definitively struck an individual from a particular stock and, if so, how many times. To address number (1) above, NMFS compiled information from NMFS’ SARs on detected annual rates of large whale serious injury and mortality from vessel collisions (Table 13). The annual rates of large whale serious injury and mortality from vessel collisions from the SARs help inform the relative susceptibility of large whale species to vessel strike in the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. We summed the annual rates of mortality and serious injury from vessel collisions as reported in the SARs, then divided each species’ annual rate by this sum to get the relative likelihood. To estimate the percent likelihood of 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., 88 percent, as described by the Navy’s probability analysis). 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, as analyzed in the SARS, changes (and we include the annual averages from 2017 and 2018 draft 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 analysis indicates that there is a very low percent chance of striking any particular species or stock more than once except for humpback whales, as shown in Table 13. 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 AFTT Study Area since 1995 (since they started tracking consistently). 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 percentage 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. TABLE 13—ANNUAL RATES OF MORTALITY AND SERIOUS INJURY (M/SI) FROM VESSEL COLLISIONS COMPILED FROM NMFS 2018 FINAL STOCK ASSESSMENT REPORTS (SARS) AND ESTIMATED PERCENT CHANCE OF STRIKING EACH LARGE WHALE SPECIES IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA OVER A SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD Annual rate of M/SI from vessel collision (2017 SARs) lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Species (stock) 1 Fin whale (Western North Atlantic) .......... Sei whale (Nova Scotia) .......................... Minke whale (Canadian East Coast) ....... Humpback whale (Gulf of Maine) ............ Sperm whale (North Atlantic) ................... Bryde’s whale (Northern Gulf of Mexico) Sperm whale (Gulf of Mexico) ................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 Annual rate of M/SI from vessel collision (2018 SARs) 1.6 0.8 1.4 1.8 0.2 0.2 0 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Percent chance of ONE strike 1.4 0.8 1 2.6 0.2 0.2 0 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Percent chance of TWO strikes 19.83 11.33 14.16 36.82 2.83 2.83 0 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 3.93 1.28 2.01 13.55 0.08 0.08 0 23DER2 Annual authorized take 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.29 0.14 0 0 Take authorized over 7 years 1 1 1 2 21 30 0 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 70753 TABLE 13—ANNUAL RATES OF MORTALITY AND SERIOUS INJURY (M/SI) FROM VESSEL COLLISIONS COMPILED FROM NMFS 2018 FINAL STOCK ASSESSMENT REPORTS (SARS) AND ESTIMATED PERCENT CHANCE OF STRIKING EACH LARGE WHALE SPECIES IN THE AFTT STUDY AREA OVER A SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD—Continued Annual rate of M/SI from vessel collision (2017 SARs) Species (stock) 1 Blue whale (Western North Atlantic) ....... Annual rate of M/SI from vessel collision (2018 SARs) 0 Percent chance of ONE strike 0 Percent chance of TWO strikes 0 Annual authorized take 0 Take authorized over 7 years 0 0 1 North lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Atlantic right whales are not included in this analysis as NARWs are not anticipated to be struck due to the additional extensive mitigation the Navy implements to minimize the risk of striking this particular species. In addition, the Navy has not struck this species since prior to 2009 when the Navy’s current vessel movement mitigation, reporting, and monitoring requirements have been in place. 2 The analysis indicates only a very small likelihood (less than 3 percent) that a North Atlantic sperm whale would be struck over the seven years, however, the Navy has struck a sperm whale previously in the Atlantic, which may indicate a higher possibility that it could occur and suggests that authorizing one mortality over the seven years would be appropriate. 3 Due to their low population abundance within the Study Area and lack of previous vessel strikes by the Navy, along with the Navy’s enhanced mitigation measures in the Bryde’s Whale Mitigation Area, Bryde’s whales are not anticipated to be struck, and therefore have zero mortality/serious injury takes. The annual rate of mortality (0.2) is estimated from 1 Bryde’s whale in 2009 (no more recent strikes have been documented). For the reasons discussed in detail in the 2018 AFTT final rule and discussed further below, due to enhanced mitigation measures, NARWs are not anticipated to be struck by Navy vessels and are anticipated to have zero mortality/serious injury takes over the seven years of the rule. In addition, based on the quantitative method described above, blue whales and Gulf of Mexico sperm whales have a zero percent chance of being struck. After considering this result, along with additional factors discussed below, the Navy found that any vessel strike of these two stocks is highly unlikely. After fully considering all relevant information, NMFS agreed with this conclusion. Finally, the quantitative analysis outlined above indicates only a very small likelihood the Navy would strike a Bryde’s whale (3 percent). Due to their low population abundance and lack of previous vessel strikes by the Navy, Bryde’s whales are also unlikely to be struck and we have not authorized any mortality/serious injury takes. Alternately, the quantitative analysis discussed above also indicates only a very small likelihood that the Navy would strike a North Atlantic sperm whale over the seven years covered by the 2019 Navy application (less than 3 percent), however, the Navy has struck a sperm whale previously in the Atlantic (2005), which points to a higher possibility that it could occur and suggests that authorizing a single mortality/serious injury would be appropriate. Additional discussion relevant to our determinations for North Atlantic blue whales, Gulf of Mexico sperm whale, NARW, and Bryde’s whale is included below. In addition to the zero probability predicted by the quantitative model, there are no recent confirmed records of vessel collision to blue whales in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 U.S. Atlantic waters, although there is one older historical record pointing to a ship strike that likely occurred beyond the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; outside of where most Navy activities occur, so less relevant) and one 1998 record of a dead 20 m (66 ft) male blue whale brought into Rhode Island waters on the bow of a tanker. The cause of death was determined to be ship strike; however, some of the injuries were difficult to explain from the necropsy. As noted previously, the Navy has been conducting Marine Species Awareness Training and implementing additional mitigation measures to protect against vessel strikes since 2009. Therefore, given the absence of any strikes in the recent past since the Navy has implemented its current mitigation measures, the very low abundance of North Atlantic blue whales throughout the AFTT Study Area (Nmin = 440 for the Western North Atlantic stock, Waring et al., 2010), and the very low number of blue whales ever known to be struck in the area by any type of vessel (and none known to be struck by Navy vessels), we believe the likelihood of the Navy hitting a blue whale is discountable. In addition to the zero probability of hitting a sperm whale in the Gulf of Mexico predicted by the quantitative model, there have been no vessel strikes of sperm whales by any entity since 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico per the SAR (2009–2013) and no Navy strikes of any large whales since 1995 (based on our records, which include Navy’s records) in the Gulf of Mexico. Further, the Navy has comparatively fewer steaming days in the Gulf of Mexico and there is a fairly low abundance of sperm whales occurring there. As noted previously, the Navy has been conducting Marine Species Awareness Training and implementing additional mitigation PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 measures to protect against vessel strikes since 2009. Therefore, NMFS believes that the likelihood of the Navy hitting a Gulf of Mexico sperm whale is discountable. Although the quantitative analysis would indicate that NARWs do have a low probability of being struck one time within the seven-year period when vessel strikes across all activity types (including non-Navy) are considered (annual mortality and serious injury, hereafter abbreviated as M/SI, from vessel strikes is calculated as 0.41 in the 2018 SAR), when the enhanced mitigation measures (discussed below) that the Navy has been implementing and will continue to implement for NARWs are considered in combination with this low probability, a vessel strike is highly unlikely. Therefore, lethal take of NARWs was not requested by the Navy and is not authorized by NMFS. We further note that while there have been two strikes of unidentified whales by the Navy since 2009, it is unlikely they were NARW as the strikes occurred in areas where, or times of year when, NARW are not known to be present. Regarding the Bryde’s whale, due to the fact that the Navy has not struck a Bryde’s whale (as no Navy strikes have occurred in the Gulf of Mexico), the very low abundance numbers (Nbest = 33 individuals, Hayes et al., 2019), and the limited Navy ship traffic that overlaps with Bryde’s whale habitat, neither the Navy nor NMFS anticipate any vessel-strike takes, and none were requested or authorized. The Navy is now also limiting activities (i.e., 200 hr cap on hull-mounted MFAS) and will not use explosives (except during mine warfare activities) in the Bryde’s Whale Mitigation Area. For a complete discussion and analysis of these mitigation areas, see the Mitigation Measures section in the 2018 AFTT E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 70754 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations final rule along with a summary in the Mitigation Measures section of this final rule; see also Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS. In addition to procedural mitigation, the Navy will continue to implement measures in mitigation areas used by NARW for foraging, calving, and migration. For a complete discussion and analysis of these mitigation areas, see the Mitigation Measures section in the 2018 AFTT final rule along with a summary in the Mitigation Measures section of this final rule; see also Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS. These measures, which go above and beyond those focused on other species (e.g., funding of and communication with sightings systems, implementation of speed reductions during applicable circumstances in certain areas) have succeeded in the Navy avoiding strike of a NARW during training and testing activities in the past and essentially eliminate the potential for vessel strikes to occur during the seven-year period of this rule. In particular, the mitigation pertaining to vessels, including the continued participation in and sponsoring of the Early Warning System, will help Navy vessels avoid NARW during transits and training and testing activities. The Early Warning System is a comprehensive information exchange network dedicated to reducing the risk of vessel strikes to NARW off the southeast United States from all mariners (i.e., Navy and non-Navy vessels). Navy participants include the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville; Commander, Naval Submarine Forces, Norfolk, Virginia; and Naval Submarine Support Command. The Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and NMFS collaboratively sponsor daily aerial surveys from December 1 through March 31 (weather permitting) to observe for NARW from the shoreline out to approximately 30–35 nmi offshore. Aerial surveyors relay sightings information to all mariners transiting within the NARW calving habitat (e.g., commercial vessels, recreational boaters, and Navy ships). In the Northeast NARW Mitigation Area, before all vessel transits, the Navy conducts a web query or email inquiry of NOAA’s NARW Sighting Advisory System to obtain the latest NARW sightings information. Navy vessels currently use and will continue to use the obtained sightings information to reduce potential interactions with NARW during transits and prevent ship strikes. In this mitigation area, vessels will continue to implement speed reductions after they observe a NARW; VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 if they are within 5 nmi of the location of a sighting reported to the NARW Sighting Advisory System within the past week; and when operating at night or during periods of reduced visibility. During transits and normal firing involving non-explosive torpedos activities, the Navy ships will continue to maintain a speed of no more than 10 kn. During submarine target firing, ships would maintain speeds of no more than 18 kn. During vessel target firing, vessel speeds would exceed 18 kn for only brief periods of time (e.g., 10–15 min). In the Southeast NARW Mitigation Area, before transiting or conducting training or testing activities within the mitigation area, the Navy will continue to initiate communication with the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville to obtain Early Warning System NARW whale sightings data. The Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville will continue to advise vessels of all reported whale sightings in the vicinity to help vessels and aircraft reduce potential interactions with NARWs and prevent ship strikes. Commander Submarine Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet will coordinate any submarine activities that may require approval from the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville. Vessels will continue to use the sightings information to reduce potential interactions with NARW during transits and prevent ship strikes. Vessels will also implement speed reductions after they observe a NARW, if they are within 5 nmi of a sighting reported within the past 12 hours (hrs), or when operating in the mitigation area at night or during periods of poor visibility. To the maximum extent practicable, vessels will continue to minimize north-south transits in the mitigation area. Finally, the Navy will continue to broadcast awareness notification messages with NARW Dynamic Management Area information (e.g., location and dates) to applicable Navy vessels operating in the vicinity of the Dynamic Management Area. The information will continue to alert assets to the possible presence of a NARW to maintain safety of navigation and further reduce the potential for a vessel strike. Navy platforms would use the information to assist their visual observation of applicable mitigation zones during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation, including but not limited to, mitigation for vessel movement. Implementation of these measures significantly reduces the possibility of striking NARWs during the seven-year period of the rule. The probability for PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 any particular ship to strike a marine mammal is primarily a product of the ability of the ship to detect a marine mammal and the ability to effectively act to avoid it. Navy combat ships are inherently among the best at both of these because compared to large commercial vessels, they have trained Lookouts which have received specialized Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) training, and they are the most maneuverable ships, which means that they are more likely to sight a marine mammal and more likely to be able to maneuver to avoid it in the available time—both of which decrease the probability of striking a marine mammal below what it would have been in the absence of those abilities. In the case of the NARW, the extensive communication/detection network described above, which is in use in the areas of highest NARW occurrence and where they may be more susceptible to strike, further increases the likelihood of detecting a NARW and thereby avoiding it, which further reduces the probability of NARW strike. Further, detection of NARW in some areas/times is associated with reduced speed requirements, which may reduce the strike probability further by slightly increasing the time within which an operator has to maneuver away from a whale. Because of these additional mitigation measures combined with the already low probability that a NARW will be struck, it is extremely unlikely the Navy would strike a NARW, and mortality/serious injury of a NARW from vessel strike is neither anticipated nor authorized. In conclusion, although it is generally unlikely that any whales will be struck in a year, based on the information and analysis above, NMFS anticipates that no more than four whales have the potential to be taken by serious injury or mortality over the seven-year period of the rule. Of those four whales over the seven years, no more than two would be humpback whales (Gulf of Maine stock) and no more than one would come from any of the four following stocks: Fin whale (Western North Atlantic stock), minke (Canadian East Coast stock), sperm whale (North Atlantic stock), and sei whale (Nova Scotia stock). Accordingly in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section, NMFS has evaluated under the negligible impact standard the serious injury or mortality of 0.14 whales annually from each of these species or stocks (i.e., 1 take over the 7 years divided by 7 to get the annual number), except for the humpback whale (North Atlantic stock) for which we used 0.29 (i.e., 2 takes over E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations the 7 years divided by 7 to get the annual number) along with other expected harassment incidental take. impacts, and the practicability of implementing those measures, as we describe below. Mitigation Measures 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, under section 101(a)(5)(A)(ii) specifically considers personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity. While the language of the least practicable adverse impact standard calls for minimizing impacts to affected species or stocks and their habitats, we recognize that the reduction of impacts to those species or stocks accrues through the application of mitigation measures that limit impacts to individual animals. Accordingly, NMFS’ analysis focuses on measures that are designed to avoid or minimize impacts on individual marine mammals when those impacts 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 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 their 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 AFTT 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, we reiterate that the least practicable adverse impact standard also requires consideration of measures for marine mammal habitat, with particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and other areas of similar significance, and for subsistence impacts, whereas the negligible impact standard is concerned solely with conclusions about the impact of an activity on annual rates of recruitment and survival.1 In evaluating what mitigation measures are appropriate, NMFS considers the potential impacts of the Specified Activities, the availability of measures to minimize those potential 1 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). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70755 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 and their habitat. We also acknowledge that there is always the potential that new information, or a new recommendation that we had not previously considered becomes available in the future and necessitates reevaluation of mitigation measures (which may be addressed through adaptive management) to see if further reductions of population impacts are possible and practicable. In the evaluation of specific measures, the details of the specified activity will necessarily inform each of the two primary factors discussed above (expected reduction of impacts and practicability), and are carefully considered to determine the types of mitigation that are appropriate under the least practicable adverse impact standard. Analysis of how a potential mitigation measure may reduce adverse impacts on a marine mammal stock or species, consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and consideration of the impact on effectiveness of military readiness activities are not issues that can be meaningfully evaluated through a yes/ no lens. The manner in which, and the degree to which, implementation of a measure is expected to reduce impacts, as well as its practicability in terms of these considerations, can vary widely. For example, a time/area restriction could be of very high value for decreasing population-level impacts (e.g., avoiding disturbance of feeding females in an area of established biological importance) or it could be of lower value (e.g., decreased disturbance in an area of high productivity but of less firmly established biological importance). Regarding practicability, a measure might involve restrictions in an area or time that impede the Navy’s ability to certify a strike group (higher impact on mission effectiveness), or it could mean delaying a small in-port training event by 30 minutes to avoid exposure of a marine mammal to injurious levels of sound (lower impact). A responsible evaluation of ‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’ considers 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 stocks or their habitat, the greater the weight that measure is given when considered in combination with practicability to determine the appropriateness of the mitigation measure, and vice versa. In E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70756 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations the evaluation of specific measures, the details of the specified activity 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. For more detail on how we apply these factors, see the discussion in the Mitigation Measures section of the 2018 AFTT final rule. NMFS fully reviewed the Navy’s specified activities and the mitigation measures for the 2018 AFTT rulemaking and determined that the mitigation measures would result in the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals and their habitat. There is no change in either the activities or the mitigation measures for this seven-year rule. See the 2019 Navy application and the 2018 AFTT 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 AFTT FEIS/ OEIS. The process described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the 2018 AFTT 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 AFTT regulations and will continue implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this rule for the full seven years to avoid or reduce potential impacts from acoustic, explosive, and physical disturbance and ship strike stressors. In its 2019 application, the Navy proposed no changes to the mitigation measures in the 2018 AFTT 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 AFTT proposed rule and the 2018 AFTT final rule for our full assessment and description 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 serious injury or mortality, minimize the likelihood or severity of PTS or other injury, and reduce instances of TTS or more severe behavioral disruption caused by acoustic sources or explosives. The Navy also will implement multiple time/area restrictions (several of which were added in the 2018 AFTT final rule since the previous AFTT MMPA incidental take rule) that would reduce take of marine mammals in areas or at times where they are known to engage in important behaviors, such as feeding or calving, where the disruption of those behaviors would have a higher probability of resulting in impacts on reproduction or survival of individuals that could lead to population-level impacts. Summaries of the Navy’s procedural mitigation measures and mitigation areas for the AFTT Study Area are provided in Tables 14 and 15. TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL MITIGATION Stressor or activity Mitigation zones sizes and other requirements Environmental Awareness and Education ............................... Active Sonar ............................................................................. • Afloat Environmental Compliance Training program for applicable personnel. Depending on sonar source: • 1,000 yd power down, 500 yd power down, and 200 yd shut down. • 200 yd shut down. • 150 yd. • 100 yd. • 30 degrees on either side of the firing line out to 70 yd. • 600 yd. • 2,100 yd. • 1,000 yd (large-caliber projectiles). • 600 yd (medium-caliber projectiles during surface-to-surface activities). • 200 yd (medium-caliber projectiles during air-to-surface activities). • 2,000 yd (21–500 lb net explosive weight). • 900 yd (0.6–20 lb net explosive weight). • 2,500 yd. • 2.5 nmi. • 2,100 yd (6–650 lb net explosive weight). • 600 yd (0.1–5 lb net explosive weight). • 1,000 yd (21–60 lb net explosive weight for positive control charges and charges using time-delay fuses). • 500 yd (0.1–20 lb net explosive weight for positive control charges). • 200 yd. • 900 yd. • 3.5 nmi. • 500 yd (whales). • 200 yd (other marine mammals). • North Atlantic right whale Dynamic Management Area notification messages. • 250 yd. • 200 yd. Air Guns ................................................................................... Pile Driving ............................................................................... Weapons Firing Noise .............................................................. Explosive Sonobuoys ............................................................... Explosive Torpedoes ................................................................ Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber Projectiles ........ Explosive Missiles and Rockets ............................................... Explosive Bombs ...................................................................... Sinking Exercises ..................................................................... Explosive Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Activities Explosive Mine Neutralization Activities Involving Navy Divers lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Maritime Security Operations—Anti-Swimmer Grenades ........ Line Charge Testing ................................................................. Ship Shock Trials ..................................................................... Vessel Movement ..................................................................... Towed In-Water Devices .......................................................... Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive Practice Munitions. Non-Explosive Missiles and Rockets ....................................... Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine Shapes ................................ • 900 yd. • 1,000 yd. Notes: lb: pounds; nmi: nautical miles; yd: yards. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 70757 TABLE 15—SUMMARY OF MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS Summary of mitigation area requirements Northeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area • The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and testing activity reports. • The Navy must minimize use of active sonar to the maximum extent practicable and must not use explosives that detonate in the water. • The Navy must conduct non-explosive torpedo testing during daylight hrs in Beaufort sea state 3 or less using three Lookouts (one on a vessel, two in an aircraft during aerial surveys) and an additional Lookout on the submarine when surfaced; during transits, ships must maintain a speed of no more than 10 knots; during firing, ships must maintain a speed of no more than 18 knots except brief periods of time during vessel target firing. • Vessels must obtain the latest North Atlantic right whale sightings data and implement speed reductions after they observe a North Atlantic right whale, if within 5 nmi of a sighting reported within the past week, and when operating at night or during periods of reduced visibility. Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness Mitigation Area • The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and testing activity reports. • The Navy must not conduct major training exercises and must not conduct >200 hrs of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar per year. Northeast Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas and Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas • The Navy must avoid conducting major training exercises to the maximum extent practicable. • The Navy must not conduct more than four major training exercises per year. Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area (November 15–April 15) • The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and testing activity reports. • The Navy must not use active sonar except as necessary for navigation training, object detection training, and dipping sonar. • The Navy must not expend explosive or non-explosive ordnance. • Vessels must obtain the latest North Atlantic right whale sightings data; must implement speed reductions after they observe a North Atlantic right whale, if within 5 nmi of a sighting reported within the past 12 hrs, and when operating at night or during periods of reduced visibility; and must minimize north-south transits to the maximum extent practicable. Jacksonville Operating Area (November 15–April 15) • Navy units conducting training or testing activities in the Jacksonville Operating Area must obtain and use Early Warning System North Atlantic right whale sightings data as they plan specific details of events to minimize potential interactions with North Atlantic right whales to the maximum extent practicable. The Navy must use the reported sightings information to assist visual observations of applicable mitigation zones and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation. Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat Special Reporting Area (November 15–April 15) • The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and testing activity reports. Navy Cherry Point Range Complex Nearshore Mitigation Area (March–September) • The Navy must not conduct explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers in the mitigation area. • To the maximum extent practicable, the Navy must not use explosive sonobuoys, explosive torpedoes, explosive medium-caliber and largecaliber projectiles, explosive missiles and rockets, explosive bombs, explosive mines during mine countermeasure and neutralization activities, and anti-swimmer grenades in the mitigation area. Bryde’s Whale Mitigation Area • The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and testing activity reports. • The Navy must not conduct >200 hrs of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar per year and must not use explosives (except during explosive mine warfare activities). Gulf of Mexico Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas • The Navy must not conduct any major training exercises under the action. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Notes: min.: minutes; nmi: nautical miles. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 authorizations and none of which have changed since our evaluation during the 2018 AFTT rulemaking—and considered a broad range of other measures (i.e., the measures considered but eliminated in the 2018 AFTT FEIS/ PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70758 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 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 AFTT 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 measures (which are currently being implemented under the 2018 AFTT regulations), as well as other measures considered by the Navy and NMFS, NMFS has determined that the Navy’s mitigation measures are appropriate means of effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, 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 AFTT final rule included an adaptive management provision, which NMFS has extended for the additional two years of this rule, which ensures that mitigation is regularly assessed and provides a mechanism to improve the mitigation, based on the factors above, through modification as appropriate. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 mammals that are expected to be present. In its 2019 application, the Navy proposed no changes to the monitoring described in the 2018 AFTT final rule. They would continue implementation of the robust Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program and Strategic Planning Process described in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The Navy’s monitoring strategy, currently required by the 2018 AFTT regulations and extended for two years under this final rule, is welldesigned 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 seven-year regulations include identical adaptive management provisions and reporting requirements as the 2018 AFTT regulations. There is no new information to indicate that the monitoring measures put in place under the 2018 AFTT final rule do not remain applicable and appropriate for the seven-year period of this final rule. See the Monitoring section of the 2018 AFTT final rule for more details on the monitoring that is required under this rule. Adaptive Management The 2018 AFTT regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area contain an adaptive management component. Our understanding of the effects of Navy training and testing activities (e.g., acoustic and explosive stressors) on marine mammals continues to evolve, which makes the inclusion of an adaptive management component both valuable and necessary within the context of seven-year regulations. The 2019 Navy application proposed no changes to the adaptive management component included in the 2018 AFTT 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 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 research and development 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 proposed no changes to the reporting requirements identified in the 2018 AFTT final rule. Reporting requirements under this final rule remain identical to those described in the 2018 AFTT final rule, where there is no new information to indicate that the reporting requirements put in place under the 2018 AFTT final rule do not remain applicable and appropriate for the seven-year period of this final rule. See the Reporting section of the 2018 AFTT final rule for more details on the reporting that is required under this rule. E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 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 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 10–13), 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, and ambient noise levels). In the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals sections of this final rule and the 2018 AFTT 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 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 final rule we evaluated the likely impacts of the enumerated maximum number of harassment takes proposed to be authorized 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 nature and level of the specified activities and the boundaries of the AFTT 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 AFTT final rule. In addition, the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule. As described above, there is no new information available since the publication of the 2018 AFTT 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. Harassment As described in the Estimated Takes of Marine Mammals section, the annual number of takes authorized 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 39 through 41 in the Take Requests section of the 2018 AFTT 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 identical to that presented in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The only difference is that the annual levels of take and the associated effects on reproduction or survival will occur for PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70759 the seven-year period of the rule instead of the five-year period of the 2018 AFTT final rule, which will make no difference in effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. 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 harassment, 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 AFTT final rule (83 FR 57211–57217; November 14, 2018). Serious Injury or Mortality No additional ship shock trials will occur during the seven-year period of the rule, so the requested and authorized total takes by M/SI due to explosives used during ship shock trials over seven years are the same as those authorized in the existing 2018 AFTT regulations. There is no new information that affects the methodology or results of the shipshock analysis presented in the 2018 AFTT final rule. But as these same activities would occur over seven years rather than five years, the estimated annual take is calculated as the number of total takes divided by seven. For each of the dolphin species and stocks listed in Table 16 there would be an annual take of 0.14 dolphins (i.e., for those species and stocks where one take could occur divided by seven years to get the annual number of M/SIs) or 0.86 dolphins in the case of short-beaked common dolphin (i.e., where six takes could occur divided by seven years to get the annual number of M/SIs). This is a decrease from the annual take of 0.2 dolphins (for the three species where one lethal take could occur) and annual take of 1.2 short-beaked common dolphins (where six lethal takes could occur) over the five-year period of the 2018 AFTT regulations, as shown in Table 70 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. As this annual number is less than that analyzed and authorized in the 2018 AFTT final rule and no other relevant information about the status, abundance, or effects of mortality on each species and stock has changed, the analysis of the effects of take from ship shock trials mirrors that presented in the 2018 AFTT final rule. E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70760 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 16—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO AFTT SERIOUS INJURY OR MORTALITY FROM EXPLOSIVES (SHIP SHOCK TRIALS), 2018–2025 Stock abundance (Nbest)* Species (stock) Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Western N. Atlantic). Pantropical spotted dolphin (Northern GOMEX). Short-beaked common dolphin (Western N. Atlantic). Spinner dolphin (Northern GOMEX) Annual estimated take by serious injury or mortality (M/SI) 1 48,819 Fisheries interactions (Y/N); annual rate of M/SI from fisheries interactions * Total annual M/SI * 2 0.14 30 Potential biological removal (PBR) * 3 30 Residual PBR-PBR minus annual M/SI and NEFSC authorized take 4 NEFSC authorized take (annual) 304 Stock trend * 5 0.6 273.4 ? UME (Y/N); number and year N 50,880 0.14 4.4 4.4 407 0 402.6 ? Y; 3 in 2010–2014 70,184 0.86 406 406 557 2 149 ? N 11,441 0.14 0 0 62 0 62 ? Y; 7 in 2010–2014 * Presented in the 2018 SARS. 1 This column represents the annual take by M/SI during ship shock trials 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 or NEFSC takes as noted in the SARs to ensure they are not double-counted against PBR. However, for these species, there were no takes from either Navy or NEFSC as noted in the SARs to deduct that would be considered double-counting. 3 Potential biological removal (PBR) is defined in section 3 of the MMPA. See the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 AFTT final rule for a description of PBR. 4 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 2018 SARs) and authorized take for NEFSC. 5 See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends. The other facet of the analysis for which there is a quantitative change from the 2018 AFTT final rule is the number of potential mortalities due to ship strike authorized over the sevenyear period. First, based on the information and methods discussed in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section (which are identical to those used in the 2018 AFTT final rule), NMFS has predicted that mortal takes of four large whales over the course of the seven-year rule could occur (as compared to three large whales over five years in the 2018 AFTT final rule). Second, while no more than one whale over the seven years of any species of fin whale, sei whale, minke whale, or sperm whale (North Atlantic stock) would occur (which is the same as in the five-year 2018 AFTT final rule), as described above in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, the number of potential mortality takes of humpback whales has increased from one to two. This means an annual average of 0.29 humpback whales and an annual average of 0.14 whales for each of the other four species or stocks as described in Table 17 (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 authorized. As this annual number is less than that analyzed and authorized in the 2018 AFTT final rule for fin whale, sei whale, minke whale, and sperm whale (North Atlantic stock), which was an annual average of 0.2 whales for the same four species and stocks, 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 vessel strike mirrors that presented in the 2018 AFTT final rule. For humpback whales, the annual number for potential mortality takes is slightly higher than in the 2018 AFTT final rule, but the number still falls below the insignificance threshold of 10 percent of residual Potential Biological Removal (PBR), which indicates an insignificant incremental increase in ongoing anthropogenic mortality that alone will not adversely affect annual rates of recruitment or survival. The analysis of the effects of this potential mortality on humpback whales’ annual rates of recruitment and survival, considered in combination with other estimated harassment takes, appears in the Group and Species- Specific Analyses section for Mysticetes below. See the Serious Injury and Mortality subsection in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 AFTT final rule (83 FR 57217–57223; November 14, 2018) 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 mortality is authorized, including the relationship of potential mortality for each species to the insignificance threshold and residual PBR. Because the annual number of potential mortality takes for humpback whales remains below the insignificance threshold, the discussion for humpback whales (83 FR 57221– 57222; November 14, 2018) remains fully applicable. For discussion specifically on the role of the calculated PBR in evaluating the effects of M/SI, see both the 2018 AFTT final rule and the 2018 Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area final rule (83 FR 66846; December 27, 2018). TABLE 17—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO AFTT SHIP STRIKE, 2018–2025. Stock abundance (Nbest) * lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Species (stock) Fin whale (Western North Atlantic). Sei whale (Nova Scotia). Minke Whale (Canadian East Coast). VerDate Sep<11>2014 Annual estimated take by serious injury or mortality (M/SI) 1 Total annual M/SI * 2 Fisheries interactions (Y/N); Annual rate of M/SI from fisheries interactions * Vessel collisions (Y/N); Annual rate of M/SI from vessel collision * PBR * NEFSC authorized take (annual) Residual PBR–PBR minus annual M/SI and NEFSC authorized take 3 Stock trend *4 UME (Y/N); number and year 5 1,618 0.14 2.5 Y; 1.1 .......... Y; 1.4 .......... 2.5 0 0 ? N. 357 0.14 0.8 N; 0 ............ Y; 0.8 * ....... 0.5 0 -0.3 ? N. 2,591 0.14 7.5 Y; 6.5 .......... Y; 1† ........... 14 1 5.5 ? Y; 18 in 2019 as of 10/24/2019 (27 in 2017 and 30 in 2018). 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 70761 TABLE 17—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO AFTT SHIP STRIKE, 2018–2025.—Continued Stock abundance (Nbest) * Species (stock) Annual estimated take by serious injury or mortality (M/SI) 1 Total annual M/SI * 2 Fisheries interactions (Y/N); Annual rate of M/SI from fisheries interactions * Vessel collisions (Y/N); Annual rate of M/SI from vessel collision * PBR * NEFSC authorized take (annual) Residual PBR–PBR minus annual M/SI and NEFSC authorized take 3 Stock trend *4 UME (Y/N); number and year 5 Y; 22 in 2019 as of 10/24/2019 (26 in 2016, 34 in 2017 and 25 in 2018). N. Humpback whale (Gulf of Maine). 896 0.29 9.7 Y; 7.1 .......... Y; 2.6 .......... 14.6 0 4.9 ↑ Sperm whale (North Atlantic). 2,288 0.14 0.8 Y; 0.6 .......... Y; 0.2 .......... 3.6 0 2.8 ? * Presented in the 2018 SARS. † Value presented incorrectly in the 2018 AFTT final rule and corrected here. 1 This column represents the annual take by M/SI by vessel collision 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 strikes or NEFSC takes as noted in the SARs to ensure they are not double-counted against PBR. However, for these species, there were no takes from either Navy or NEFSC as noted in the SARs to deduct that would be considered double-counting. 3 This value represents the calculated PBR less the average annual estimate of ongoing anthropogenic mortalities (i.e., total annual human-caused M/SI, which is presented in the 2018 SARs) and authorized take for NEFSC. 4 See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends. 5 This column presents UME information updated since the 2018 AFTT final rule, as discussed in the earlier section Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 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 AFTT final rule contained detailed analyses of the effects of the Navy’s activities in the AFTT 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 final rule. See the Group and SpeciesSpecific Analyses subsection in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 AFTT final rule (83 FR 57223–57247; November 14, 2018). In addition, no new information has been received since the publication of the 2018 AFTT final rule that significantly changes the analyses on the effects of the Navy’s activities on each species and stock presented in the 2018 AFTT final 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 stock and to individuals. Specifically, when an VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 abundance percentage comparison is below 100, it means that that percentage or less of the individuals in the stock will be affected (i.e., some individuals will not be taken at all), that the average for those taken is one day per year, and that we would not expect any individuals to be taken more than a few times in a year. When it is more than 100 percent, it means there will definitely be some number of repeated takes of individuals. For example, if the percentage is 300, the average would be each individual is taken on three days in a year if all were taken, but it is more likely that some number of individuals will be taken more than three times and some number of individuals fewer or not at all. While it is not possible to know the maximum number of days across which individuals of a stock might be taken, in acknowledgement of the fact that it is more than the average, for the purposes of this analysis, we assume a number approaching twice the average. For example, if the percentage of take compared to the abundance is 800, we estimate that some individuals might be taken as many as 16 times. Those comparisons are included in the sections below. For some stocks these numbers have been adjusted slightly (with these adjustments being in the single digits) 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. In the annual estimated take tables below, takes within the U.S. EEZ include only those takes within the PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 U.S. EEZ where most Navy activities occur and where we often have the best information on species and stock presence and abundance. Takes inside and outside the EEZ include all takes in the AFTT Study Area. An individual that incurs a PTS or TTS take may sometimes, for example, also be behaviorally disturbed at the same time. As described in the Harassment subsection of the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 AFTT 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 also behaviorally harassed would result in impacts to reproduction or survival. Alternately, we recognize that if an individual is behaviorally harassed repeatedly for a longer duration and on consecutive days, effects could accrue to the point that reproductive success is jeopardized (as discussed below in the stock-specific 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 behavioral Level B harassment takes, 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 (harassment) to tissue damage from explosives, the difference E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70762 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 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 AFTT final rule, including the information presented in the Overview, the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) Oil Spill discussion, and 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 vessel strike and ship shock calculations for some species. We then summarize the information for each species or stock, considering the analysis from the 2018 AFTT 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 highfrequency cetaceans and pinnipeds in water), share similar life history strategies, and/or are known to behaviorally respond similarly to acoustic stressors. Because some of these groups or species share characteristics that inform the impact analysis similarly, it would be duplicative to repeat the same analysis for each species or stock. In addition, animals belonging to each stock within a species typically have the same hearing capabilities and behaviorally PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 respond in the same manner as animals in other stocks within the species. Mysticetes In Table 18 below for mysticetes, we indicate the total annual mortality, Level A and Level B harassment, and a number indicating the instances of total take as a percentage of abundance. Table 18 is unchanged from Table 72 in the 2018 AFTT final rule, except for 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 AFTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to this final rule unless specifically noted. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 70763 Table 18 -- Annual Estimated Takes by Level B Harassment, Level A Harassment, and Mortality for Mysticetes in the AFTT Study Area and Number Indicating the Instances of Total Take as a Percentage of Stock Abundance. Instances of Indicated types of Incidental take (not all takes represent separate indiVlduals, especially for disturbance) Level BHarassment Bluewhate• BehlJVioral TTS (may Disturbance also Include dlsturban~) Stock Species Westem North Atlantic (Gulf of St. Lawrence) Total takes Abundance Level A Harassment PTS nssue MortaHty Damage Inside and In EEZ Outside Instances of total take as percentage of abundante In EEZ lnsideand Outside EEZ In EEZ Inside and Outside EEZ EEZ 12 35 0 0 0 44 47 9 104 489 45 24 31 1 0 0 56 S6 so 112 112 77 563 0 s 0 0 0 0.14 313 3,913 337 796 260 3,284 so so Minke whale Northem Gulf of Mexico NSO Canadian East Coast 4,085 730 7,686 626 536 60 53 Flnwhate• Westem North Atlantic 1,716 3,671 33 0 0.14 5,368 5,420 1,660 14,769 323 37 Humpback whale Gulf of Maine 498 556 0.29 0.14 749 496 4 0 0 698 Nova Scotia 248 245 3 Selwhate• 779 805 246 4,580 11,737 141 317 16 7 Bryde's whale Note: In the table we compare estimated takes to abundance estimates generated from the same underlying density estimate (as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the 2018 AFTT f"rnal rule), versus abundance estimates directly from NMFS' SARs, which are not based on the same data and would not be appropriate for this purpose. Note that comparisons are made both within the U.S. EEZ only (where density estimates have lesser uncertainty) and across the whole Study Area (which offers a more comprehensive comparison for many stocks). Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing plus harassment take from one large ship shock trial. BILLING CODE 3510–22–C Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our determination that the Navy’s activities will 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. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 North Atlantic Right Whale (Western Stock) As described in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the status of NARW is precarious and they are listed as endangered under the ESA. There is an active UME associated with the recent unusually high number of deaths, some of which have been attributed to entanglement or vessel strike, although no vessel strikes have been attributed to the Navy. The number of births in recent years has been unusually low and recent studies VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 have reported individuals showing poor health or high stress levels. Accordingly, as described above and in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Navy is implementing and will continue to implement a suite of mitigation measures that not only avoid the likelihood of ship strikes, but also minimize the severity of behavioral disruption by minimizing impacts in areas that are important for feeding and calving, thus ensuring that the relatively small number of Level B harassment takes that do occur are not expected to affect reproductive success or survivorship via detrimental impacts to energy intake or cow/calf interactions. Specifically, no mortality or Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 disruption), the number of estimated instances compared to the abundance (137 percent) combined with the fact that the AFTT Study Area overlaps most if not all of the range, suggests that many to most of the individuals in the stock will likely be taken, but only on one or two days per year, with no reason to think the days will likely be sequential. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short), the received sound levels are largely below 172 dB with some lesser portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, less likely to evoke a severe response), and because of the mitigation measures the exposures will E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 ER23DE19.000</GPH> The annual mortality of0.14 is the result ofno more than one mortality over the course of seven years from vessel strikes as described above in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section. The annual mortality of0.29 is the result ofno more than two mortalities over the course of seven years from vessel strikes as described above in the same section. 70764 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 not occur in areas or at times where impacts would be likely to affect feeding and energetics or important cow/calf interactions that could lead to reduced reproductive success or survival. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level and of short duration and the associated lost opportunities and capabilities are not at a level that would impact reproduction or survival. Altogether, any individual NARW is likely to be disturbed at a low-moderate level on no more than a couple of likely non-sequential days per year (and not in biologically important areas). Even given the fact that some of the affected individuals may have compromised health, there is nothing to suggest that such a low magnitude and severity of effects would result in impacts on reproduction or survival of any individual, much less annual rates of recruitment or survival for the stock. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on NARW. Blue Whale (Western North Atlantic Stock) This is a wide-ranging stock that is best considered as ‘‘an occasional visitor’’ to the U.S. EEZ, which may represent the southern limit of its feeding range (Hayes et al., 2018), though no specific feeding areas have been identified. For this reason, the abundances calculated by the Navy based on survey data in the U.S. EEZ are very low (9 and 104, in the U.S. EEZ and throughout the range respectively) and while NMFS’ SAR does not predict an abundance, it does report an Nmin (minimum abundance) of 440. There is no currently reported trend for the population and there are no specific issues with the status of the stock that cause particular concern (e.g., no UMEs), although the species is listed as endangered under the ESA. We note, however, that this species was originally listed under the ESA as a result of the impacts from commercial whaling, which is no longer affecting the species. No mortality or Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized for blue whales. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), given the number of total takes (47), the large range and wide-ranging nature of blue whales, and the minimum abundance identified in the SAR, there is no reason to think that any single animal will be taken by Level B harassment more than one time (though perhaps a few could VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 be) and less than 10 percent of the population is likely to be impacted. Regarding the severity of those individual Level B harassment behavioral takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels are largely below 172 dB with a portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, less likely to evoke a severe response). Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be lowlevel and of short duration and the associated lost opportunities and capabilities not at a level that would impact reproduction or survival. Altogether, less than 10 percent of the stock is likely to be impacted and any individual blue whale is likely to be disturbed at a low-moderate level on no more than a day or two days per year and not in any known biologically important areas. This low magnitude and severity of effects is unlikely to result in impacts on the reproduction or survival of any individual, much less annual rates of recruitment or survival for the stock. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on blue whales. Bryde’s Whale (Northern Gulf of Mexico Stock) The Northern Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale is a small resident population and is listed as endangered under the ESA. Although there is no current UME, the small size of the population and its constricted range, combined with the lingering effects of exposure to oil from the DWH oil spill (which include adverse health effects on individuals, as well as population effects) are cause for considerable caution. Accordingly, as described above, the Navy is implementing and will continue to implement considerable time/area mitigation to minimize impacts within their limited range, including not planning major training exercises (which include the most powerful sound sources operating in a more concentrated area), limiting the hours of other sonar use, and not using explosives, with the exception of mine warfare activities, which has both reduced the amount of take and reduced the likely severity of impacts. No mortality or Level A harassment by tissue damage injury is anticipated or authorized, and only one Level A harassment take by PTS is estimated and authorized. PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances compared to the abundance (112 percent) combined with the fact that the AFTT Study Area overlaps all of the small range, suggests that most to all of the individuals in the stock will likely be taken, but only on one or two days per year, with no reason to think the days would likely be sequential. Regarding the severity of those individual Level B harassment behavioral takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short); the received sound levels are largely below 172 dB with a portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, less likely to evoke a severe response); and because of the mitigation the exposures will be of a less impactful nature. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be lowlevel and of short duration and the associated lost opportunities and capabilities not at a level that would impact reproduction or survival. For similar reasons the one estimated Level A harassment take by PTS for this stock is unlikely to have any effect on the reproduction or survival of that individual, even if it were to be experienced by an individual that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. Altogether, any individual Bryde’s whale is likely to be disturbed at a lowmoderate level on no more than one or two days per year. Even given the fact that some of the affected individuals may have compromised health, there is nothing to suggest that such a low magnitude and severity of effects would result in impacts on the reproduction or survival of any individual, much less annual rates of recruitment or survival for the stock. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on the Gulf of Mexico stock of Bryde’s whales. Bryde’s Whale (No Stock Designated— NSD) These Bryde’s whales span the midand southern Atlantic and have not been designated as a stock under the MMPA. There is no currently reported trend for the population and there are no specific issues with the status of these whales that cause particular concern (e.g., UMEs). No mortality or Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances compared to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is 626 percent and 60 percent, though the percentages would be far lower if compared against the abundance of the entire range of this species in the Atlantic. This information suggests that only a portion of the stock is likely impacted (significantly less than 60 percent given the large range), but that there is likely some repeat exposure (5 to 12 days within a year) of some subset of individuals within the U.S. EEZ if some animals spend extended time within the U.S. EEZ. Regarding the severity of those individual Level B harassment behavioral takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels are largely below 172 dB with a portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, less likely to evoke a severe response). Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be lowlevel and of short duration and the associated lost opportunities and capabilities not at a level that would impact reproduction or survival. Altogether, only a portion of the population is impacted and any individual Bryde’s whale is likely to be disturbed at a low to moderate level, with many animals likely exposed only once or twice and a subset potentially disturbed across 5 to 12 likely nonsequential days not in any known biologically important areas. This low magnitude and severity of effects is not expected to result in impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival for the stock. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on Bryde’s whales. Minke Whale (Canadian East Coast Stock) This stock of minke whales spans the East Coast and far into Northern Canada waters. Minke whales in the Atlantic are currently experiencing an UME wherein there have been unexpectedly elevated deaths along the Atlantic Coast, some of which have been preliminarily attributed to human interaction (primarily fisheries interactions) or infectious disease. As of July 26, 2019, six whales have stranded in 2019 (30 whales stranded in 2018 and 27 whales stranded in 2017). Because the most recent population estimate is based only VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 on surveys in U.S. waters and slightly into Canada, and did not cover the habitat of the entire Canadian East Coast stock, the abundance is underestimated in the SAR and is likely significantly greater than what is reflected in the current SAR. NMFS authorizes one mortality in seven years, and the resulting 0.14 annual mortality which falls below 10 percent of residual PBR (0.55), remains under the insignificance threshold, and would be considerably even lower if compared against a more appropriate PBR. As discussed in the 2018 AFTT final rule, there are no known factors, information, or unusual circumstances that indicate that this potential M/SI below the insignificance threshold could have adverse effects on the stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Consideration of all applicable information indicates that the authorized mortality of one whale over the seven years will not result in more than a negligible impact on this stock. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances compared to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is 536 percent and 53 percent. This information suggests that approximately less than half of the individuals are likely impacted, but that there is likely some repeat exposure (5 to 10 days within a year) of some subset of individuals within the U.S. EEZ if some animals spend extended time within the U.S. EEZ. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels largely below 172 dB, with a portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, less likely to evoke a severe response). Also, the Navy currently implements and will continue to implement time/ area mitigation in the Northeast that minimizes major training exercises and total sonar hours in an area that significantly overlaps an important feeding area for minke whales. This mitigation will reduce the severity of impacts to minke whales by reducing interference in feeding that could result in lost feeding opportunities or necessitate additional energy expenditure to find other good foraging opportunities. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level and of short duration and the associated lost opportunities and PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70765 capabilities not at a level that would impact reproduction or survival. For similar reasons the five estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for this stock are unlikely to have an effect on the reproduction or survival of any individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an individual that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. Altogether, only a portion of the stock will be impacted and any individual minke whale is likely to be disturbed at a low to moderate level, with many animals likely exposed only once or twice and a subset potentially disturbed across 5 to 10 likely non-sequential days, minimized in biologically important areas. Even given the potential for compromised health of some individuals, this low magnitude and severity of effects is not expected to result in impacts on the reproduction or survival of individuals, nor are these harassment takes combined with the potential mortality expected to adversely affect this stock through impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival for the stock. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on minke whales. Fin Whale (Western North Atlantic Stock) This stock spans the East Coast north into the Newfoundland waters of Canada. There is no currently reported trend for the population and there are no specific issues with the status of the stock that cause particular concern (e.g., no UMEs), although the species is listed as endangered under the ESA. NMFS authorizes one mortality over the seven years of the rule, or 0.14 annually. With the addition of this 0.14 annual mortality, residual PBR is exceeded, which means the total human-caused mortality would exceed residual PBR by 0.14. However, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, this does not mean that the stock is not at or increasing toward its optimum sustainable population level (OSP) or that one lethal take by the Navy over the seven years covered by this rule would adversely affect the stock through effects on annual rates of reproduction or survival. Consideration of all applicable information indicates that the authorized mortality will not result in more than a negligible impact on this stock. The abundance of fin whales is likely significantly greater than what is reflected in the current SAR because, as noted in the SAR, the most recent population estimate is based only on E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 70766 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations surveys in U.S. waters and slightly into Canada which does not include the habitat of the entire stock as it extends over a very large additional area into Nova Scotian and Newfoundland waters. Accordingly, if the PBR in the SAR reflected the actual abundance across the entire range of the stock, residual PBR would be notably higher. Additionally, the current abundance estimate does not account for availability bias due to submerged animals (i.e., estimates are not corrected to account for the fact that given X number of animals seen at the surface, we can appropriately assume that Y number were submerged and not counted). Without a correction for this bias, the abundance estimate is likely further biased low. Because of these limitations, the current calculated PBR is not a reliable indicator of how removal of animals will affect the stock’s ability to reach or maintain OSP. We note that, generally speaking, while the abundance may be underestimated in this manner for some stocks due to the lack of surveys in areas outside of the U.S. EEZ, it is also possible that the human-caused mortality could be underestimated in the un-surveyed area. However, in the case of fin whales, most mortality is caused by entanglement in gear that is deployed relatively close to shore and, therefore, unrecorded mortality offshore would realistically be proportionally less as compared to the unsurveyed abundance and therefore the premise that PBR is likely underestimated still holds. Given the small amount by which residual PBR is exceeded and more significant degree (proportionally) to which abundance is likely underestimated, it is reasonable to conclude that if a more realistic PBR were used, the anticipated total humancaused mortality would be notably under it. We also note that 0.14 mortalities/ serious injuries means one mortality/ serious injury in one of the seven years and zero mortalities/serious injuries in six of the seven years. Therefore residual PBR would not be exceeded in 86 percent of the years covered by this rule. In situations where mortality/ serious injury is fractional, consideration must be given to the lessened impacts due to the absence of mortality in six of the seven years. Further, as described in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan directs multiple efforts and requirements towards reducing mortality from commercial fishing (via gear modifications, area closures, and other mechanisms) and NOAA Office of Law Enforcement has VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 reported high compliance rates. Nonetheless, the exceedance of residual PBR calls for close attention to the remainder of impacts on fin whales from this activity to ensure that the total authorized impacts are negligible. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances compared to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is 323 percent and 37 percent. This information suggests that less than a third of the individuals are likely impacted, but that there is likely some repeat exposure (2–6 days within a year) of some subset of individuals within the U.S. EEZ if some animals spend extended time within the U.S. EEZ. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels largely below 172 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, less likely to evoke a severe response). Also, the Navy currently implements, and will continue to implement time/area mitigation in the Northeast that minimizes major training exercises and total sonar hours in an area that significantly overlaps an important BIA feeding area for fin whales. This mitigation will reduce the severity of impacts to fin whales by reducing interference in feeding that could result in lost feeding opportunities or necessitate additional energy expenditure to find other good opportunities. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, 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 lowfrequency cues, and the associated lost opportunities and capabilities are not at a level that would impact reproduction or survival. For these same reasons (low level and frequency band), while a small permanent loss of hearing sensitivity may include some degree of energetic costs for compensating or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection capabilities, at the expected scale the 33 estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for fin whales would be unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities to a degree that would interfere with reproductive success or survival of any individuals, even if PTS were experienced by an individual that also PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. Altogether, only a portion of the stock will be impacted and any individual fin whale is likely to be disturbed at a low to moderate level, with many animals likely exposed only once or twice and a subset potentially disturbed across approximately six likely non-sequential days, minimized in biologically important areas. This low magnitude and severity of effects is not expected to result in impacts on reproduction or survival of individuals, nor are these harassment takes combined with the single potential mortality expected to adversely affect this stock through impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival for the stock. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on fin whales. Humpback Whale The feeding group stock of humpback whales found in the Gulf of Maine is one of several associated with the larger, and increasing, West Indies DPS. The Gulf of Maine stock is reported in the SAR as increasing in abundance. Nonetheless, humpback whales in the Atlantic are currently experiencing an UME in which a portion of the whales have shown evidence of entanglement or vessel strike. There have been 22 strandings so far in 2019 (2018 had 25 total strandings and 2017 had 34 total strandings). NMFS authorizes two mortalities over the seven-year period (versus the one mortality over the fiveyear period of the 2018 AFTT final rule), as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section above. Though an increase from the 2018 AFTT final rule, this amount of mortality (0.29 per year) still falls below the insignificance threshold of 10 percent of residual PBR (0.49) for the Gulf of Maine stock based on a stock abundance of 896 from the 2018 SAR. As discussed in the 2018 AFTT final rule, there are no known factors, information, or unusual circumstances that indicate that this potential M/SI below the insignificance threshold could have adverse effects on the stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Also, importantly, deaths of humpback whales along the Atlantic coast (whether by ship strike or other source) must be considered within the context of the larger West Indies DPS, as animals along the coast could come from the Gulf of Maine stock or any of three or more other associated feeding groups. Specifically, the West Indies DPS, the larger population from which E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations a humpback whale could potentially be taken, numbers in excess of 10,000 whales and has an increasing growth trend of 3.1 percent (Bettridge et al., 2015), with an associated PBR, if calculated, much larger than that presented for the Gulf of Maine stock. Further, as described in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan directs multiple efforts and requirements towards reducing mortality from commercial fishing (via gear modifications, area closures, and other mechanisms) and NOAA Office of Law Enforcement has reported high compliance rates. Therefore, even though the potential for M/SI from the Navy’s activities has increased since the 2018 AFTT final rule, there is no information to indicate that the loss of two whales over seven years, even if it were to occur, would adversely affect the stock or the overall species through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. See the Humpback Whale section in the 2018 AFTT final rule for additional supporting information. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances (of any humpbacks) compared to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is 141 percent and 16 percent. This suggests that only a small portion of the humpback whales in the AFTT Study Area would be likely impacted, with perhaps some individuals taken on a few days of the year. It would be impossible to determine exactly what portion of the takes are from the Gulf of Maine stock. However, based on information in the 2018 AFTT final rule, which indicated about one third of the humpback whales traversing the Atlantic Coast likely come from the Gulf of Maine stock, we estimate that approximately 250 of the 749 total humpback whale takes (both by Level A harassment and Level B harassment) might be from the Gulf of Maine stock. Two hundred and fifty represents about 28 percent of the minimum population estimate for the Gulf of Maine humpback whale abundance in NMFS’ 2018 SAR, equating to an expectation that few animals would be exposed more than one time. The remaining approximately 499 Level A and Level B harassment takes would affect individuals from the much larger West Indies DPS, with a relatively small percentage of individuals affected as the estimated abundance is greater than 10,000. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by behavioral Level B VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels largely below 172 dB with a portion above 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, less likely to evoke a severe response). Also, the Navy currently implements and will continue to implement time/ area mitigation in the Northeast that minimizes major training exercises and total sonar hours in an area that significantly overlaps with an important feeding area for humpbacks. This mitigation will reduce the severity of impacts to humpbacks by reducing interference in feeding that could result in lost feeding opportunities or necessitate additional energy expenditure to find other good opportunities. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level and of short duration and the associated lost opportunities and capabilities not at a level that would impact reproduction or survival. For similar reasons the three estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for this stock are unlikely to have any effect on the reproduction or survival of any individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an individual that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. Altogether, only a portion of the stock or species is impacted and any individual humpback whale will likely be disturbed at a low-moderate level, with most animals exposed only once or twice, and minimized in biologically important areas. This low magnitude and severity of effects is not expected to result in impacts on the reproduction or survival of any individuals, nor are these harassment takes combined with the potential mortalities of up to two whales expected to adversely affect the stock or species through impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on humpback whales, including the Gulf of Maine stock, as well as the larger species as a whole. Sei Whale (Nova Scotia Stock) This stock spans the northern East Coast and up to southern Newfoundland. There is no currently reported trend for the population and there are no specific issues with the status of the stock that cause particular concern (e.g., no UMEs), although the species is listed as endangered under the ESA. NMFS authorizes one PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70767 mortality over the seven years of the rule, or 0.14 annually. With the addition of this 0.14 annual mortality, residual PBR is exceeded, which means the total human-caused mortality would exceed residual PBR by 0.44. However, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, this does not mean that the stock is not at or increasing toward its OSP or that one lethal take by the Navy over the seven years covered by this rule would adversely affect the stock through effects on annual rates of reproduction or survival. Consideration of all applicable information indicates that the authorized mortality will not result in more than a negligible impact on this stock. As noted in the SAR, the abundance of sei whales is likely significantly greater than what is reflected in the current SAR because the population estimate is based only on surveys in U.S. waters and slightly into Canada, which does not cover the habitat of the entire stock, as it extends over a large additional area around to the south of Newfoundland. Accordingly, if a PBR were calculated based on an appropriately enlarged abundance, it would be higher. Additionally, the current abundance estimate does not account for availability bias due to submerged animals (i.e., estimates are not corrected to account for the fact that given X number of animals seen at the surface, we can appropriate assume that Y number were submerged and not counted). Without a correction for this bias, the abundance estimate is likely biased low. Because of these limitations, the current calculated PBR is not a reliable indicator of how removal of animals will affect the stock’s ability to reach or maintain OSP. We note that, generally speaking, while the abundance may be underestimated in this manner for some stocks due to the lack of surveys in areas outside of the U.S. EEZ, it is also possible that the human-caused mortality could be underestimated in the un-surveyed area. However, in the case of sei whales, most mortality is caused by ship strike and the density of ship traffic is higher the closer you are to shore (making strikes more likely closer to shore) and, therefore, unrecorded mortality offshore would realistically be proportionally less as compared to the unsurveyed abundance and therefore the premise that PBR is likely underestimated still holds. Given the small amount by which residual PBR is exceeded and more significant degree (proportionally) to which abundance is likely underestimated, it is reasonable to think that if a more realistic PBR were used, E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70768 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 the anticipated total human-caused mortality would be notably under residual PBR. We also note that 0.14 mortalities/serious injuries means one mortality/serious injury in one of the seven years and zero mortalities/serious injuries in six of the seven years. Further, as described in the 2018 AFTT final rule the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan directs multiple efforts and requirements towards reducing mortality from commercial fishing (via gear modifications, area closures, and other mechanisms) and NOAA Office of Law Enforcement has reported high compliance rates. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances compared to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is 317 percent and 7 percent. This information suggests that only a very small portion of individuals in the stock will be likely impacted, but that there will likely be some repeat exposure (several days within a year) of some subset of individuals within the U.S. EEZ if some animals spend extended time within the U.S. EEZ. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, less likely to evoke a severe response). Also, the Navy implements time/area mitigation in the Northeast that minimizes major training exercises and total sonar hours in an area that significantly overlaps an important BIA feeding area for sei whales, which will reduce the severity of impacts to sei whales by reducing interference in feeding that could result in lost feeding opportunities or necessitate additional energy expenditure to find other good opportunities. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level and of short duration and the associated lost opportunities and capabilities not at a level that would impact reproduction or survival. For similar reasons the four estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for this stock are unlikely to have any effect on the reproduction or survival of any individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an individual that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. Altogether, only a small portion of the stock will be impacted and any individual sei whale will likely be disturbed at a lowmoderate level, with many animals likely exposed only once or twice and a subset potentially disturbed across a few days, minimized in biologically important areas. This low magnitude and severity of harassment effects is not PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 expected to result in impacts on individual reproduction or survival, nor are these harassment takes combined with the single potential mortality expected to adversely affect this stock through impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on sei whales. Odontocetes Sperm Whales, Dwarf Sperm Whales, and Pygmy Sperm Whales In Table 19 below for sperm whales, dwarf sperm whales, and pygmy sperm whales, we indicate the total annual mortality, Level A and Level B harassment, and a number indicating the instances of total take as a percentage of abundance. Table 19 is unchanged from Table 73 in the 2018 AFTT final rule, except for updated information on mortality, as discussed above. For additional information and analysis supporting the negligibleimpact 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 AFTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to this final rule unless specifically noted. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70769 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations Table 19 -- Annual Estimated Takes by Level B Harassment, Level A Harassment, and Mortality for Sperm Whales, Dwarf Sperm Whales, and Pygmy Sperm Whales in the AFTT Study Area and Number Indicating the Instances of Total Take as a Percentage of Stock Abundance. Instances of lncllcated types of lndclental tau (not all takes repre$ent separate Individuals, espedaHVfor disturbance) Level 8 Harassment Dwalf spermwhale Pygmy sperm whale Disturbance Abundance Instances of total take as pen:entage of abundance Level AHarassment TIS (may also Behavioral Stock Total takes include disturbance) Tissue Damage MortaNtv lnEEZ Inside and Outside EEZ lnEtt Inside and Ouulde lnEEZ Inside and Ouulde EEZ EEZ Gulf of Mexico oceanic 339 453 70 0 0 862 862 1,107 1,107 78 78 Westffll North Atlantic 3,900 !1,102 !14 0 0 12852 13096 6U 3,641 2105 360 Northam Gulf of Mexico Westffll North Atlantic 339 453 70 0 0 862 862 .1,107 1,107 78 78 3,900 !1,102 !14 0 0 12852 13096 6U 3,641 2105 360 Note: In this table we compare estimated takes to abnndance estimates generated from the same underlying density estimate (as described in the Estimated Take ofMarine Mammals section in the 2018 AFTT final rule), versos abundance estimates directly from NMFS' SARs, which are not based on the same data and would not be appropriate for this purpose. Note that comparisons are made both within the U.S. EEZ only (where density estimates have lesser uncertainty) and across the whole Study Area (which offers a more comprehensive comparison for many stocks). Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of armual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing plus harassment take from one large ship shock trial. BILLING CODE 3510–22–C Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our determination that the Navy’s activities will 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. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Sperm Whale (North Atlantic Stock) This stock spans the East Coast out into oceanic waters well beyond the U.S. EEZ. There is no currently reported trend for the stock and, although the species is listed as endangered under the ESA, there are no specific issues with the status of the stock that cause particular concern (e.g., no UMEs). NMFS authorizes one mortality over the seven years covered by this rule, and the resulting 0.14 annual mortality which falls below 10 percent of residual PBR (0.28), remains below the PBR insignificance threshold. As discussed in the 2018 AFTT final rule, there are no known factors, information, or unusual circumstances that indicate that this potential M/SI below the insignificance threshold could have adverse effects on the stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 survival. One Level A harassment take by tissue damage is also estimated and authorized which, as discussed in the 2018 AFTT 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 and the sperm whale’s large size, which improves detection by Lookouts, exposure at the closer to the source and more severe end of the spectrum is less likely, and we cautiously assume some moderate impact for this single take that could lower one individual’s fitness within the year such that a female (assuming a 50 percent chance of the one take being a female) might forego reproduction for one year. As discussed in the 2018 AFTT final rule, foregone reproduction has less of an impact on population rates than death (especially for one year) and one instance would not be expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, even if it were a female. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of harassment compared to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is 544 percent and 41 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 percent. This information, combined with the known range of the stock, suggests that something less than one half of the individuals in the stock will likely be impacted, but that there will likely be some repeat exposure (2–11 days within a year) of some subset of individuals that remain within the U.S. EEZ for an extended time. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels largely between 160 and 172 dB (i.e., of a lower, to occasionally moderate, level). Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level and of short duration and the associated lost opportunities and capabilities not at a level that would impact reproduction or survival. For similar reasons three estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for this stock is unlikely to have any effect on the reproduction or survival of any individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an individual that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 ER23DE19.001</GPH> 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 of Marine Mammals section. 70770 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Altogether, less than one half of the stock will be impacted and any individual sperm whale will likely be disturbed at a low-moderate level, with the majority of animals likely disturbed once or not at all, and a subset potentially disturbed across 2–11 likely non-sequential days. Even for an animal disturbed at the high end of this range (11 days over a year), given the low to moderate impact from each incident, and the fact that few days with take will likely be sequential, no impacts to individual fitness are expected. This low to occasionally moderate magnitude and severity of effects is not expected to result in impacts on reproduction or survival, and nor are these harassment takes combined with the single authorized mortality and one possible instance of foregone reproduction expected to adversely affect the stock through annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on North Atlantic sperm whales. Sperm Whale, Dwarf Sperm Whale, and Pygmy Sperm Whale (Gulf of Mexico Stocks) These stocks suffer from lingering health issues from the DWH oil spill (6– 7 percent of individuals of these stocks have adverse health effects), which means that some could be more susceptible to exposure to other stressors, and negative population effects (21–42 years until the DWH oilinjured population trajectory is projected to catch up with the baseline population trajectory (i.e., in the absence of DWH, reported as years to recovery)). Neither mortality nor tissue damage from explosives is anticipated or authorized for any of these three stocks, and sperm whales are not expected to incur PTS. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of harassment compared to the abundance is 54–78 percent, which suggests that for each of the three species/stocks either this percentage of the individuals in these stocks will all be taken by harassment on a single day each within a year, or a small subset may be taken on a few days and the remainder not taken at all. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels are largely between 160 and 172 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 dB (i.e., of a lower level, less likely to evoke a severe response). Additionally, the Navy is currently implementing and will continue to implement mitigation areas for sperm whales that are expected to reduce impacts in important feeding areas, further lessening the severity of impacts. In the Gulf of Mexico Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas, the Navy will not conduct any major training exercises. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be lowlevel, of short duration, and mostly not in a frequency band that would be expected to interfere significantly with conspecific communication, echolocation, or other important lowfrequency cues. Also, there is no reason to believe that any individual would incur these TTS takes more than a few days in a year, and the associated lost opportunities and capabilities would not be expected to impact reproduction or survival. For these same reasons (low level and frequency band), while a small permanent loss of hearing sensitivity may include some degree of energetic costs for compensating or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection capabilities, 70 estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for each of the two Kogia stocks in the Gulf of Mexico would be unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities to a degree that would interfere with reproductive success or survival of any individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an animal that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. Altogether, only a portion of these stocks will be impacted and any individual sperm, dwarf sperm, or pygmy sperm whale is likely to be disturbed at a low to occasionally moderate level and no more than a few days per year. Even given the fact that some of the affected individuals may have compromised health, there is nothing to suggest that such a low magnitude and severity of effects would result in impacts on the reproduction or survival of individuals, much less annual rates of recruitment or survival for any of the stocks. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on Gulf of Mexico sperm whales, dwarf sperm whales, and pygmy sperm whales. Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whales (Western North Atlantic Stocks) These stocks span the deeper waters of the East Coast north to Canada and out into oceanic waters beyond the U.S. EEZ. There is no currently reported PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 trend for these populations and there are no specific issues with the status of the stocks that cause particular concern. Neither mortality nor tissue damage from explosives is anticipated or authorized for these stocks. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of harassment compared to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is 2,105 percent and 360 percent. This information, combined with the known range of the stock, suggests that while not all of the individuals in these stocks will most likely be taken (because they span well into oceanic waters) of those that are taken, most would be taken over several repeated days (though likely not sequential) and some subset that spends extended time within the U.S. EEZ will likely be taken over a larger amount of days (likely 15–42 days during a year), some of which could be sequential. Regarding the severity of the individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected to be between minutes and hours (and likely not more than 24 hours) and the received sound levels are largely between 160 and 172 dB (i.e., of a lower level, less likely to evoke a severe response). Additionally, while interrupted feeding bouts are a known response and concern for odontocetes, we also know that there are often viable alternative habitat options in the relative vicinity. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration and mostly not in a frequency band that would be expected to interfere significantly with conspecific communication, echolocation, or other important lowfrequency cues. Also, there is no reason to believe that any individual would incur these TTS takes more than a few days in a year, and the associated lost opportunities and capabilities would not be expected to impact reproduction or survival. For these same reasons (low level and frequency band), while a small permanent loss of hearing sensitivity may include some degree of energetic costs for compensating or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection capabilities, at the expected scale the 94 estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for each of the two Kogia stocks in the North Atlantic would be unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities to a degree that would interfere with reproductive success or survival of any E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an individual that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. Altogether, a large portion of each stock will likely be taken (at a low to occasionally moderate level) over several days a year, and some smaller portion of the stock will likely 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 them to forego reproduction for a year (energetic impacts to males generally have little impact on 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 pygmy or dwarf sperm whale). As noted previously and discussed more fully in the 2018 AFTT final rule, however, foregone reproduction (especially for one year) has far less of an impact on population rates than mortality, and a small number of instances of foregone reproduction would not be expected to adversely impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, especially given that residual PBR for both of these stocks is 17.5. For these reasons, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, we have determined that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on Western PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70771 North Atlantic pygmy and dwarf sperm whales. Dolphins and Small Whales In Table 20 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. Table 20 is unchanged from Table 74 in the 2018 AFTT final rule, except for updated information on mortality, as discussed above. For additional information and analysis supporting the negligibleimpact analysis, see the Odontocetes discussion as well as the Dolphins and Small Whales discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the 2018 AFTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to this final rule unless specifically noted. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70772 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations Table 20 -- Annual Estimated Takes by Level B Harassment, Level A Harassment, and Mortality for Dolphins and Small Whales in the AFTT Study Area and Number Indicating the Instances of Total Take as a Percentage of Stock Abundance. -u~ -·-~A-......._, - - - -oflndlClll41dtyp11oflncldlnllltalletnolll ..,._._.~~for -oftoUI I...-IIHlllllwlotal SIIICI< Species ~ ~ Jadcsorwlh-Syl\fffl ~5olol<l,lm Botp•,8"r""""Noltllem!WfofC'ionllnllllll$llell N01111tmlilffofOooonl¢ llotllMosedolllhlll N01111tmNor111Clrolln1 Estuarfne$y$1em Soullwn-Qrollna (stuarflleSystatn -NcrtllAllollllc N01111tmflolldla..ul --Allollllcc.ntnl l'IOllclaColslll WesttmllorlhAllollllc -~IOIVC'oalllal --Allllltlt OMole ---lleSollth C'oalllal d\tnenedolphln ,.,lilwwhllle hasendolphlll Klllerwhale tons-lllmld plot ....... MIIOn beaded ....... l'lllm,picll$p0lled do\>litl l'\iPIY ldhr10hlle IUtso'sdolpl,ln ~ dolphln Shon-bolted .... -dd!lhlll Shon-tinned plot lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Spim«dolpl,ln Slrlpeddolpl,ln ~ ~ VerDate Sep<11>2014 ---lie ---lie SOUll!em Mfl,ato,yC'olmll -...a!Afof- l!OrthenllWfof--Allollllc lfDl'lhemlilffolWesllm NollhAll111lle --Allllllle --Allollllc -Gllfol- ---lie ----lie --lie NortltlmCMlol- Norlhemlilff of Wts1llffl NollllAtlllllle NorlhemGIAfof- m 72,831 47,676 47,f,76 227"16 52,118 250,649 U07 7 3 0.14 44.210 <111,294 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 m 42 32 0 42 42 9,888 " 9.888 1$,144 114 2 0 0 1"480 16,480 11,47' 7,191 m 0 0 0 7,82f 1,826 33,903 255 31 0 0 0 74 :II 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 941 C'oalllal m IIIUZ 72,ua 4',077 Wllof-lndlan_..._ __ ~•nd 10&,8JA --Allanlle C'oalllal Dillllafl mm 0 0 21111,201 Glllof-bslomC'oalllal Gullof-- MoNII\V 0 fi 69,225 --Altlnlle Choclhlllltdlu Bay 'llsale i 26 - G i f fo f - dolphln Atlallllc10h-ed 11,610 Pl'$ u,au Allanllc spatt«I dolphln m;(mly abolndude ._...., - 14,332 ofab<lndiia ._...., 1nm 153 m 153 !11 137,30$ 309 34 " 984 984 0 0 11,47' 1M 1M 33,903 n a 2116 36 36 l'90 l'90 87 81 27 17 320 320 1 1 1911 1911 1 1 117,sa& 72,043 12,043 117 117 111,964 111,964 80 80 w.m t,217 lS 1 0 127,526 lJ,947 706 8 2 0 14.669 14,663 2,844 48S 0 0 0 3,327 UZ7 U22 il.Rl 92 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,14$ 90 0 0 0 1,235 1,235 90li 90li 136 136 7,!00 513 0 0 0 7,fiU 7,613 4,5211 4,528 11111 11111 ».nJ J,051 7 0 0 37,0S,. 37,0S,. 9,962 9.9112 372 m l9il,4lf 34,681 11 t 0 421,295 428,188 14,2!18 18f,2f0 '5S 230 5,544 41& 0 0 0 5.91111 5.91111 M22 M22 HS 165 WU 1,30S 2 0 0 U.718 16,718 7,2,4$ 7,24$ 231 2U 4,174 99 4 10 , 1ll,!l42 171,202 11111 19 62 1.902 1 0 4,2111 105,781 1,975 19 7,816 72 4,ffl 92,364 1,ffl 10,942 97,9$2 11,171 1,123 80 58 0 11,131 u.ou 0 8811 15 2 0 1 1,:184 4,931 33 291 0 0 l.:184 5,222 0 0 n n ' • 0 0 0 4U 171 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 ut 7 1 0 33,ffl 3 1 0 0 S5.890 Ufi7 1,flG so.ow S,792 a 25,ffl 596 "lltl:m 15,304 720 16 8,702 1,647 Qt S8,ll7 3,849 U20 15 8 l 0 l 2 117 l 2 6 1 1U70 D 3,UG il,136 1,J54 lG,144 1,07 17,588 !152 19 lS 17G 472 72 90 19 747 25 37,554 a.80 447,4U ffl 8 3,137 a.137 6,725 6,725 47 47 0 0.14 49,707 26,541 Sil,853 5,821 '9,526 IS4 77 26,541 82,0$5 112.0SS » n 19G,ll9II U2.st2 30,Gll8 l7S,9G4 652 ZOfll ll,HG 36 80!I 81 3G a.oil& ss ss 4,824 1tl5 IS 81 3.1114 i.m 72 25,857 2,471 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,450 28,333 Z79S 34.7li8 717 IS !147 -NollllAllollllc 540M2 30,SGl 101 36 0.1& $7J,100 $71,Ml 7il,481 mJl.7 m uo Norlhemlilffol -NollllAllollllc -GlilfolWts111111NollhA11111lle N01111tmCMfof-NollllAllllllle 1,ISS 0 0 1,864 2.0n 6,578 277 0.14 8,125 48,ffl 8,US 92 528 92 34.760 J,032 450,MG 7,Q 111,653 1111 uaz um 98,GGS 2,449 107,IID 11,280 US,S73 871 2.!121 2.!121 4,871 4,871 52 18l,10t 11,992 16 4 0 0 0 9U17 2 0 1 14 1 1 1,864 4$,724 26 Zffl 167,438 195,115 52.222 il22.S42 m 52 60 Wesllm-Allllllle llO 4 0 0 0 84 84 42 42 200 200 NOl'lhemlilffof- flOl'lhem (Mf o f Wts111111 Nollll-lle 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 .u • Frm 00062 , $ " 5 0 0 0 0 1 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 737 737 8.$07 t.331 l.fl,ll1 l.691 2,0G2 1,052 il,096 40,144 4,11211 41,109 4,.028 5,G01 4,824 ·- E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 71 11 60 79 ER23DE19.002</GPH> ~ Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 70773 Note: In the table we compare estimated takes to abundance estimates generated from the same underlying density estimate (as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the 2018 AFFT final rule), versus abundance estimates directly from NMFS' SARs, which are not based on the same data and would not be appropriate for this purpose. Note that comparisons are made both within the U.S. EEZ only (where density estimates have lesser uncertainty) and across the whole Study Area (which offers a more comprehensive comparison for many stocks). Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing plus take from one large ship shock trial. BILLING CODE 3510–22–C Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our determination that the Navy’s activities will 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. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin and Short-Beaked Common Dolphin (Western North Atlantic Stocks) There is no currently reported trend for these stocks and there are no specific issues with the status of these stocks that cause particular concern (e.g., no UMEs). We anticipate and therefore authorize one and six mortalities over the course of seven years for these two stocks, which is 0.14 and 0.86 annual mortalities for each stock, respectively. Given the large residual PBR values for these stocks (248 and 148), this number of mortalities falls well under the insignificance threshold. There are no known factors, information, or unusual circumstances that indicate that this estimated M/SI below the insignificance threshold could have adverse effects on these stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Some Level A harassment take by tissue damage from explosives has also been estimated and authorized for these stocks (3 and 36, respectively). As discussed previously and in the 2018 AFTT final rule, tissue damage effects could range in impact from minor to something just less than M/SI that could seriously impact fitness. However, given the Navy’s mitigation, which makes exposure at the closer to the source and more severe end of the spectrum less likely, we cautiously assume some moderate impact for this category of take that could lower an individual’s fitness within the year such that females (assuming a 50 percent chance that a take is a female) might forego reproduction for one year. As noted previously, foregone reproduction has less of an impact on population rates VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 than death (especially for one year) and the number of takes anticipated for each stock would not be expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, even if all of the takes were females (which would be highly unlikely), especially given the high residual PBRs of these stocks. In other words, if the stocks can absorb the numbers of mortalities indicated through each stock’s residual PBR without impacting ability to approach OSP, they could absorb the significantly lesser effects of a small number of one-year delay in calving. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of harassment compared to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ for these two stocks, respectively, is 308 and 777 percent and 34 and 110 percent. This information suggests that some portion of these stocks will likely not be taken at all, but that there will likely be some repeat exposure (2–15 days within a year) of some subset of individuals. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels largely below 172 dB (i.e., of a lower level, less likely to evoke a severe response). Additionally, while we do not have information that indicates that these takes would occur sequentially on more than several days in a row or be more severe in nature, the probability of this occurring increases the higher the total take numbers. 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. Given the higher number of takes and the associated abundances (especially for short-beaked common dolphin) we acknowledge the possibility that some smaller subset of individuals could experience behavioral PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 disruption of a degree that impacts energetic budgets such that reproduction could be delayed for a year. However, considering the potential reproductive effects from tissue damage and from these levels of take by behavioral Level B harassment, in combination with the estimated mortality, this degree of effect on the small subset of individuals that could be affected is still not expected to adversely affect the stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and not in a frequency band that would be expected to significantly interfere with dolphin communication, or echolocation or other important low-frequency cues. Therefore, the associated lost opportunities and capabilities would not be expected to impact reproduction or survival of any individuals. For these same reasons (low level and the likely frequency band), while a small permanent loss of hearing sensitivity may include some degree of energetic costs for compensating or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection capabilities, the estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for the two dolphin stocks (7 and 101, respectively) would be unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities to a degree that would interfere with reproductive success or survival of any individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an animal that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. Altogether, individual dolphins will likely be taken at a low level, with some animals likely taken once or not at all, many potentially disturbed at low levels across 2–15 predominantly nonsequential days, and a small number potentially experiencing a level of effects that could result in curtailed reproduction for one year. This magnitude and severity of effects, E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 ER23DE19.003</GPH> For mortality takes there was an annual average of0.14 dolphins from each dolphin species/stock listed above (i.e., for those species or stocks where one take could potentially occur divided by seven years to get the annual number of mortalities/serious injuries) or 0.86 dolphins in the case of short-beaked common dolphin (i.e., where six takes could potentially occur divided by seven years to get the annual number of mortalities/serious injuries). 70774 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 including consideration of the estimated mortality, is not expected to result in impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival for either of the stocks, especially given the status of the stocks. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on these two Western North Atlantic dolphins. Pantropical Spotted Dolphin and Spinner Dolphin (Gulf of Mexico Stocks) As described in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Gulf of Mexico dolphin stocks indicated in Table 20 suffer from lingering health issues resulting from the DWH oil spill (7 and 17 percent of individuals of these stocks, respectively, have adverse health effects), which means that some of them could be more susceptible to exposure to other stressors, as well as negative population effects (predicting it will take up to 39 and 105 years, respectively, for stocks to return to population growth rates predicted in the absence of DWH effects). We authorize one mortality over the course of seven years for each of these two stocks, which is 0.14 annual mortalities for each stock. Given the large residual PBR values for these stocks (402 and 62, respectively), this number of mortalities falls well under the insignificance threshold. As discussed in the 2018 AFTT final rule, there are no known factors, information, or unusual circumstances that indicate that this estimated M/SI below the insignificance threshold could have adverse effects on these stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Some Level A harassment take by tissue damage from explosives has also been estimated and authorized for these stocks (6 and 14, respectively). As noted previously, tissue damage effects could range in impact from minor to something just less than M/SI that could seriously impact fitness. However, given the Navy’s mitigation, which makes exposure at the closer to the source and more severe end of the spectrum less likely, we cautiously assume some moderate impact for this category of take that could lower an individual’s fitness within the year such that females (assuming a 50 percent chance that a take is a female) might forego reproduction for one year. As noted previously, foregone reproduction has less of an impact on population rates than death (especially for one year) and the number of takes anticipated for each stock would not be expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, even if all of the takes were females VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 (which would be highly unlikely), especially given the high residual PBRs of these stocks. In other words, if the stocks can absorb the numbers indicated through each stock’s residual PBR without impacting ability to approach OSP, they can absorb the significantly lesser effect of a very small number of one-year delay in calving. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of harassment compared to the abundance is 32 percent and 60 percent, respectively, reflecting that only a subset of each stock will be taken by behavioral Level B harassment within a year. Of that subset, those taken would likely be taken one time, but if taken more than that, the 2 or 3 days would not likely be sequential. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels largely below 172 dB (i.e., of a lower to occasionally moderate severity). Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and not in a frequency band that would be expected to significantly interfere with dolphin communication, or echolocation or other important low-frequency cues. Therefore, the associated lost opportunities and capabilities are not expected to impact reproduction or survival. For these same reasons (low level and the likely frequency band), while a small permanent loss of hearing sensitivity may include some degree of energetic costs for compensating or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection capabilities, the estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for the dolphin stocks addressed here (15 and 31, respectively) would be unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities to a degree that would interfere with reproductive success or survival of any individuals. Altogether, any individual dolphin will likely be taken at a low to occasionally moderate level, with most animals likely not taken at all and with a subset of animals being taken up to a few non-sequential days. Even given the fact that some of the affected individuals may have compromised health, there is nothing to suggest that such a low magnitude and severity of effects, including the potential tissue damage and the estimated mortality of one dolphin from each stock over the seven years, would result in impacts on PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 annual rates of recruitment or survival for either of these two stocks. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on Gulf of Mexico pantropical spotted dolphins and spinner dolphins. Western North Atlantic Dolphin Stocks (All Stocks in Table 20 Except Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin and Short-Beaked Common Dolphin) There are no specific issues with the status of these stocks that cause particular concern (e.g., no UMEs). No mortality is expected nor authorized for these stocks. For some of these stocks, some tissue damage has been estimated and authorized (1–9 depending on the stock). As discussed previously, tissue damage effects could range in impact from minor to something just less than M/SI that could seriously impact fitness. However, given the Navy’s mitigation, which makes exposure at the closer to the source and more severe end of the spectrum less likely, we cautiously assume some moderate impact for all these takes that could lower an individual’s fitness within the year such that a small number of females (assuming a 50 percent chance of being a female) might forego reproduction for one year. As noted previously, foregone reproduction has less of an impact on population rates than death (especially for one year) and one to a few instances would not be expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, even if all of the takes were females (which would be highly unlikely), especially given the higher residual PBRs, which is known for the majority of stocks. For stocks with no calculated residual PBR or where abundance is unknown, the limited information available on population size indicates that the very low number of females who might forego reproduction would have no effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of harassment compared to the abundance ranges up to 984 percent inside the U.S. EEZ (though some are significantly lower) and is generally much lower across the whole range of most stocks, reflecting that for many stocks only a subset of the stock will be impacted—although alternately for a few of the smaller bay stocks all individuals are expected to be taken across multiple days. Generally, individuals of most stocks (especially bottlenose dolphins) might be taken no more than several times each, while the E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations other species in this group will only accrue takes to a portion of the stock, but individuals might be taken across 2– 20 days within a year. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels largely below 172 dB (i.e., of a lower level, less likely to evoke a severe response). While we do not have information to indicate that these takes would occur sequentially on more than several days in a row or be more severe in nature, the probability of this occurring increases the higher the total take numbers. Given higher percentages when compared to abundances, and especially where the absolute number of takes is higher (e.g., spinner dolphin), we acknowledge the possibility that some smaller subset of individuals (especially in the larger stocks with higher total take numbers) could experience behavioral disruption of a degree that impacts energetic budgets such that reproduction could be delayed for a year. However, considering the very small number of potential reproductive effects from Level A harassment by tissue damage (1–9 depending on stock and assuming all individuals are female, which is very unlikely) in addition to the possible reproductive effect on a smaller subset of individuals from the takes by behavioral Level B harassment, this degree of effects on a small subset of individuals is still not expected to adversely affect annual rates of recruitment or survival. For the smaller Estuarine stocks with the potential repeated days of disturbance, we note that as described in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the activities that the Navy conducts in inland areas (not MTEs, etc.) are expected to generally result in lower severity responses, further decreasing the likelihood that they would cause effects on reproduction or survival, even if accrued over several sequential days. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and not in a frequency band that would be expected to significantly interfere with dolphin communication, or echolocation or other important 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 sensitivity may include some degree of energetic costs for compensating or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection capabilities, the estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for the dolphin stocks addressed here (between 1 and 77) would be unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities to a degree that would interfere with reproductive success or survival of any individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an individual that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. Altogether, any individual dolphin will likely be taken at a low to occasionally moderate level, with some animals likely taken once or not at all, a subset potentially disturbed across 2– 20 predominantly non-sequential days, and a small number potentially experiencing a level of effects that could curtail reproduction for one year. The magnitude and severity of effects described is not expected to result in impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival for any of the stocks. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on these Western North Atlantic dolphins. Gulf of Mexico Dolphin Stocks (All of the Stocks Indicated in Table 20 Except Pantropical Spotted Dolphin and Spinner Dolphin) As mentioned above and discussed in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Gulf of Mexico stocks indicated in Table 20 suffer from lingering health issues resulting from the DWH oil spill (3–30 percent of individuals of these stocks have adverse health effects), which means that some of them could be more susceptible to exposure to other stressors, as well as negative population effects (predicting it will take up to 76 years, with that number varying across stocks, for stocks to return to population growth rates predicted in the absence of DWH effects). Of note, the Northern Coastal bottlenose dolphin adverse effect statistics are about twice as high as the others (i.e., all other stocks are below 17 percent). As described above there is an active UME for bottlenose dolphins in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and in southwest Florida along the Gulf of Mexico. These UMEs could affect bottlenose dolphins from several stocks in the Gulf of Mexico, including those that are anticipated to be impacted by Navy activities and those that are not anticipated to be impacted by Navy activities. No mortality has been estimated or authorized for these stocks, however a few Level A harassment takes PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70775 by tissue damage from explosives (zero for most, 1–2 for a few, and 6 for the Atlantic spotted dolphin stock) are estimated and authorized. As noted previously, tissue damage effects could range in impact from minor to something just less than M/SI that could seriously impact fitness. However, given the Navy’s mitigation, which makes exposure at the closer to the source and more severe end of the spectrum less likely, we cautiously assume some moderate impact for these Level A harassment takes that could lower an individual’s fitness within the year such that a female (assuming a 50 percent chance of being a female) might forego reproduction for one year. As noted previously, foregone reproduction has less of an impact on population rates than death (especially for one year) and a few instances, even up to six for the Atlantic spotted dolphin stock, would not be expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, even if all of the takes were of females (which is highly unlikely). Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of harassment compared to the abundance ranges up to 177 percent, but is generally much lower for most stocks, reflecting that generally only a subset of each stock will be taken, with those in the subset taken only a few nonsequential days of the year. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by Level B behavioral harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels largely below 172 dB (i.e., of a lower to occasionally moderate severity). Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and not in a frequency band that would be expected to significantly interfere with dolphin communication, or echolocation or other important low-frequency cues. Therefore, the associated lost opportunities and capabilities would not be expected to impact reproduction or survival. For these same reasons (low level and the likely frequency band), while a small permanent loss of hearing sensitivity may include some degree of energetic costs for compensating or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection capabilities, the estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for the dolphin stocks addressed here (all 3 or below, with the exception of three stocks with much larger abundances with 4, 8, and 15 PTS takes) would be E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70776 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities to a degree that would interfere with reproductive success or survival of any individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an animal that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. Altogether, any individual dolphin will likely be taken at a low to occasionally moderate level, with many animals likely not taken at all and with a subset of animals being taken up to a few times. A very small number could potentially experience tissue damage that could curtail reproduction for one year. Even given the fact that some of the affected individuals may have compromised health, there is nothing to suggest that such a low magnitude and severity of effects would result in impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival for any of the Gulf of Mexico stocks indicated in Table 20. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on these Gulf of Mexico dolphins. Harbor Porpoise In Table 21 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 21 is unchanged from Table 75 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. For additional information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact analysis, see the Odontocetes discussion as well as the Harbor Porpoise discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the 2018 AFTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to this final rule unless specifically noted. Table 21 -- Annual Estimated Takes by Level B Harassment, Level A Harassment, and Mortality for Porpoises in the AFTT Study Area and Number Indicating the Instances of Total Take as a Percentage of Stock Abundance lnstallces of Indicated types of lndclental take (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance) Level BHarassment Species Stock Total takes Abundance Instances of total take as percentaae of abundance Level A Harassment TTS(may Behavioral also include Disturbance disturbance) PTS Tissue Mortality Damage ln£EZ Inside and OUtslde EEZ ln£EZ Inside and Outside ln£EZ E£Z Inside and OUtslde EEZ Note: In the table we compare estimated takes to abundance estimates generated from the same underlying density estimate (as described in the Estimated Take ofMarine Mammals section of the 2018 AFTT final rule), versus abundance estimates directly from NMFS' SARs, which are not based on the same data and would not be appropriate for this purpose. Note that comparisons are made both within the U.S. EEZ only (where density estimates have lesser uncertainty) and across the whole Study Area (which offers a more comprehensive comparison for many stocks). Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our determination that the Navy’s activities will not adversely affect harbor porpoises through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. The Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise is found predominantly in northern U.S. coastal waters (<150 m depth) and up into Canada’s Bay of Fundy. No mortality or tissue damage by explosives are anticipated or authorized for this stock and there are no specific issues with the status of the stock that cause particular concern (e.g., no UMEs). Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances compared to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is 941 percent and 80 percent. This information, combined with the known range of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 stock, suggests that only a portion of the individuals in the stock will likely be impacted (i.e., notably less than 80 percent given the likely repeats; in other words more than 20 percent would be taken zero times), but that there will likely be some amount of repeat exposures across days (perhaps 6–19 days within a year) for some subset of individuals that spend extended times within the U.S. EEZ. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected to be from minutes to hours and not likely exceeding 24 hrs, and the received sound levels of the MF1 bin are largely between 154 and 166 dB, which, for a harbor porpoise (which have a lower behavioral Level B harassment threshold) would mostly be considered a moderate level. PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and not in a frequency band that would be expected to significantly interfere with harbor porpoise communication, or echolocation or other important lowfrequency cues. Therefore, the associated lost opportunities and capabilities would not be expected to impact reproduction or survival. For these same reasons (low level and the likely frequency band), while a small permanent loss of hearing sensitivity may include some degree of energetic costs for compensating or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection capabilities, the estimated 454 Level A harassment takes by PTS for harbor porpoise would be unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities to a degree that would interfere with reproductive E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 ER23DE19.004</GPH> lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing plus harassment take from one large ship shock trial. Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations success or survival for most individuals, even if PTS were to be experienced by an individual that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. Because of the high number of PTS takes, we acknowledge that a few animals could potentially incur permanent hearing loss of a higher degree that could potentially interfere with their successful reproduction and growth. However, given the status of the stock (high abundance and residual PBR of 451), even if this occurred, it would not adversely impact rates of recruitment or survival. Altogether, because harbor porpoises are particularly sensitive, it is likely that a fair number of the responses would be of a moderate nature. Additionally, as noted, some portion of the stock may be taken repeatedly on up to 19 days within a year, with some of those being sequential. Given this and the larger number of total takes (both to the stock and to individuals), it is more likely (probabilistically) that some small number of individuals could be interrupted during foraging in a manner and amount such that impacts to the energy budgets of females (from either losing feeding opportunities or expending considerable energy to find alternative feeding options) could cause them to forego reproduction for a year (energetic impacts to males generally have limited impact on 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 harbor porpoise). As noted previously, however, foregone reproduction (especially for one year) has far less of an impact on population rates than mortality and a small number of instances would not be expected to adversely impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, especially given that the residual PBR of harbor porpoises is 451. All indications are that the number of times in which reproduction would be likely to be 70777 foregone would not affect the stock’s annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on harbor porpoises. Beaked Whales In Table 22 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. Table 22 is unchanged from Table 76 in the 2018 AFTT 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 AFTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to this final rule unless specifically noted. Table 22 -- Annual Estimated Takes by Level B Harassment, Level A Harassment, and Mortality for Beaked Whales in the AFTT Study Area and Number Indicating the Instances of Total Take as a Percentage of Stock Abundance. Instances of indicated types of Incidental take (not all takes represent separate Individuals, especially for disturbance) Level 8 Harassment TTS(may Behavioral also Include Olsturbance disturbance) Stock BlainvlHe's beaked whale Cuvier's beaked whale GeMls' beaked whale Northern bottlenose whale Sowersby's beaked whale Northern Gulf of Mexico Western North Atlantic Northern Gulf of Mexico Western North Atlantic Northern Gulf of Mexico Western North Atlantic Abundance Totaltakes Level A Harassment PTS Tissue Mortality Damage lnEEZ Inside and OUtslde EEZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,428 23,100 1,420 22,902 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,428 19,959 8 724 8 197 0 1 0 3 0 1 1,495 73,799 1,428 19,959 1,495 85,187 1,428 23,100 Western North Atlantle 2,()40 4 0 0 0 1,836 Western North Atlantic 22,930 197 1 0 0 True's beaked whale Western North Atlantic 22,930 197 1 0 0 1,420 22,902 8 197 1,487 84,460 Instances of total take as percentase of abundance lnEEZ Inside and OUtslde EEZ 966 966 1,274 966 14,277 966 4,704 52,716 lnEEZ Inside and Outside EEZ 148 1,567 148 162 155 162 148 162 966 966 1,274 14,2n 155 1,569 148 1,567 2,044 100 688 1,836 297 19,987 23,128 1,274 14,277 1,569 162 19,987 23,128 1,274 14,m 1,569 162 Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing plus harassment take from one large ship shock trial. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 ER23DE19.005</GPH> lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Note: In the table we compare estimated takes to abundance estimates generated from the same underlying density estimate (as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the 2018 AFTT final rule), versus abundance estimates directly from NMFS' SARs, which are not based on the same data and would not be appropriate for this purpose. Note that comparisons are made both within the U.S. EEZ only (where density estimates have lesser uncertainty) and across the whole Study Area (which offers a more comprehensive comparison for many stocks). 70778 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our determination that the Navy’s activities will 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. Beaked Whales, Including Northern Bottlenose Whale (Western North Atlantic Stocks) These stocks span the deeper waters of the East Coast of the U.S. north to Canada and out into oceanic waters beyond the U.S. EEZ. There is no currently reported trend for these populations and there are no specific issues with the status of the stocks that cause particular concern. Neither mortality nor tissue damage from explosives is anticipated or authorized for these stocks. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of harassment compared to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ is 1,567–1,836 percent and 162–297 percent, respectively. This information, combined with the known range of the stocks, suggests that while not all of the individuals in these stocks would most likely be taken (because they span well into oceanic waters, beyond the AFTT Study Area), of those that are, most would be taken over a few days (though likely not sequential) and some subset that spends extended time within the U.S. EEZ will likely be taken over a larger amount of days (maybe 15–37), some of which could be sequential. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected to generally be between minutes and hours and largely between 148 and 160 dB, though with beaked whales, which are considered somewhat more sensitive, this could mean that some individuals will leave preferred habitat for a day or two. However, while interrupted feeding bouts are a known response and concern for odontocetes, we also know that there are often viable alternative habitat options in the relative vicinity in the Western North Atlantic. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and not in a frequency band that would adversely affect communication, inhibit echolocation, or otherwise interfere with other lowfrequency cues. Therefore any associated lost opportunities and VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 capabilities would not impact reproduction or survival. For the same reasons (low level and frequency band) the one to three estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for these stocks are unlikely to have any effect on the reproduction or survival of any individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an individual that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. Altogether, a small portion of the stock will likely be taken (at a relatively moderate level) on a relatively moderate to high number of days across the year, some of which could be sequential. Though the majority of impacts are expected to be of a sometimes low, but more likely, moderate magnitude and severity, the sensitivity of beaked whales and larger number of takes makes it more likely (probabilistically) that a small number of individuals could be interrupted during foraging in a manner and amount such that impacts to the energy budgets of females (from either losing feeding opportunities or expending considerable energy to find alternative feeding options) could cause them to forego reproduction for a year (energetic impacts to males generally have limited impact on 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 beaked whale). As noted previously, however, foregone reproduction (especially for one year) has far less of an impact on population rates than mortality and a small number of instances would not be expected to adversely impact annual rates of recruitment or survival. Based on the abundance of these stocks in the area and the evidence of little, if any, known human-caused mortality, all indications are that the small number of times in which reproduction would be likely to be foregone would not affect the stocks’ annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on Western North Atlantic beaked whales. Beaked Whales (Gulf of Mexico Stocks) The animals in these stocks suffer from lingering health issues resulting from the DWH oil spill (four percent of individuals of these stocks have adverse health effects), which means that some of them could be more susceptible to exposure to other stressors, and negative population effects (10 years for their growth rate to recover to the rate predicted for the stocks if they had not PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 incurred spill impacts). Neither mortality nor tissue damage from explosives is anticipated or authorized for these stocks. Level A harassment take from PTS is also unlikely to occur. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of harassment compared to the abundance is 148–155 percent. This information indicates that either the individuals in these stocks would all be taken by harassment one or two days within a year, or that a subset would not be taken at all and a small subset may be taken several times. Regarding the severity of those individual takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected to generally be between minutes and hours and largely between 148 and 160 dB, though with beaked whales, which are considered somewhat more sensitive, this could mean that some individuals will leave preferred habitat for a day or two. However, while interrupted feeding bouts are a known response and concern for odontocetes, we also know that there are often viable alternative habitat options in the relative vicinity in the Gulf of Mexico. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and not in a frequency band that would adversely affect communication, inhibit echolocation, or otherwise interfere with other low frequency cues. Therefore any associated lost opportunities and capabilities would not impact reproduction or survival. Altogether, likely only a portion of these stocks will be impacted and any individual beaked whale likely would be disturbed at a moderate level for no more than a few days per year. Even given the fact that some of the affected individuals may have compromised health, there is nothing to suggest that this magnitude and severity of effects would result in impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival for any of the stocks. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on Gulf of Mexico beaked whales included in Table 22. Pinnipeds In Table 23 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. Table 23 is unchanged from Table 77 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. For additional E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact analysis, see the Pinnipeds discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the 2018 AFTT final rule, all of which 70779 remains applicable to this final rule unless specifically noted. Table 23 -- Annual Estimated Takes by Level B Harassment, Level A Harassment, and Mortality for Pinnipeds in the AFTT Study Area and Number Indicating the Instances of Total Take as a Percentage of Stock Abundance. Instances of Indicated types of Incidental take (not all takes represent separate Individuals, especially for disturbance) Level BHarassment Species Abundance Level A Harassment TI'S{may Behavioral also Include Disturbance disturbance) Stock Total takes PTS Tissue Mortality Damage lnEEZ Inside and Outside EEZ lnEEZ Inside and Outside EEZ Instances of total take as percentage ofabundance lnEEZ Inside and Outside EEZ 95 Gray seal Harborseal Western North Atlantic 810 1,528 2 0 2,340 2,472 2,472 95 1,312 2,477 4 0 0 0 2,340 Western North Atlantic 3,793 3,793 11,122 11,122 34 34 Harp seal Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic 6,339 9,955 3 7,242 225 0 16,297 914 7,242 466 0 0 16,297 448 0 0 880 880 104 225 104 Hooded seal 914 Note: In the table we compare estimated takes to abundance estimates generated from the same underlying density estimate (as described in the Estimated Take ofMarine Mammals section of the 2018 AFTT final rule), versus abundance estimates directly from NMFS' SARs, which are not based on the same data and would not be appropriate for this purpose. Note that comparisons are made both within the U.S. EEZ only (where density estimates have lesser uncertainty) and across the whole Study Area (which offers a more comprehensive comparison for many stocks). Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our determination that the Navy’s activities will 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. The Western North Atlantic pinniped (harp seal, harbor seal, hooded seal, and gray seal) stocks are northern, but highly migratory species. While harp seals are limited to the northern portion of the U.S. EEZ, gray and harbor seals may be found as far south as the Chesapeake Bay in late fall and hooded seals migrate as far south as Puerto Rico. An UME has been designated for seals from Maine to Virginia and the main pathogen found in the seals that have been tested is phocine distemper virus. Neither mortality nor tissue damage from explosives is anticipated or authorized for any of these stocks. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of harassment compared to the abundance that is expected within the AFTT Study Area is 34–225 percent, which suggests that only a subset of the animals in the AFTT Study Area would be taken, but VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 that a few might be taken on several days within the year (1–5 days), but not likely on sequential days. When the fact that some of these seals are residing in areas near Navy activities is considered, we can estimate that perhaps some of those individuals might be taken some higher number of days within the year (up to approximately 10 days), but still with no reason to think that these takes would occur on sequential days, which means that we would not expect effects on reproduction or survival. Regarding the severity of those individual behavioral Level B harassment takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels are largely below 172 dB, with some up to 178 dB (i.e., of a lower to moderate level, less likely to evoke a severe response) and therefore there is no indication that the expected takes by behavioral Level B harassment would have any effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and not in a frequency band that would adversely affect PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 communication or otherwise interfere with other low-frequency cues. Therefore any associated lost opportunities and capabilities would not impact reproduction or survival. For the same reasons (low level and frequency band) the two to four estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for these stocks are unlikely to have any effect on the reproduction or survival of any individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an animal that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. Even given the fact that some of the affected harbor seal individuals may have compromised health due to the UME, there is nothing to suggest that such a low magnitude and severity of effects would result in impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival, especially given that the stock abundance in the SAR is 75,839 with a residual PBR of 1,651. Similarly, given the low magnitude and severity of effects, there is no indication that these activities would affect reproduction or survival of harp or hooded seals, much less adversely affect rates of recruitment or survival, especially given that harp seal abundance is estimated at 6.9 million and hooded seal residual PBR is E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 ER23DE19.006</GPH> lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ representthe sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing plus harassment take from one large ship shock trial. 70780 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 13,950. Gray seals are experiencing an UME as well as an exceedance of more than 4,299 M/SI above PBR, as reported in the SAR. The NMFS SAR notes, however, that the U.S. portion of average annual human-caused M/SI in U.S. waters does not exceed the portion of PBR in U.S. waters, and while the status of the gray seal population relative to OSP in U.S. Atlantic EEZ waters is unknown, despite the exceedance of the reported PBR the stock abundance appears to be increasing in both U.S. and Canadian waters (Hayes et al., 2018). Also, given the low magnitude (take compared to abundance is 95 percent, meaning the subset of individuals taken may be taken a few times on non-sequential days) and low to occasionally moderate severity of impacts, no impacts to individual reproduction or survival are expected and therefore no effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival would occur. For these reasons, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy’s activities combined, we have determined that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on gray seals, harbor seals, hooded seals, and harp seals. Determination The 2018 AFTT final rule included a detailed discussion of all of the anticipated impacts on the affected species and stocks from serious injury and 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 evaluated how these impacts and mitigation measures are expected to combine to affect individuals of each 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 AFTT final rule, as updated in this rule to consider new information and include the two additional years of activities, mitigation measures, and monitoring and reporting requirements, uses 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 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 annually-based conclusions in the 2018 AFTT final rule were based have changed in a manner that changes our determinations. Therefore, even though this final rule includes two additional years, because our findings are based on annual rates of recruitment and survival, and nothing has changed in a manner that would change our 2018 AFTT rule annual analyses, it is appropriate to rely on those analyses, in addition to the updated information and analysis discussed above, for this final rule. Based on the applicable information and analysis from the 2018 AFTT 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 finds that the incidental take from the specified activities will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species and stocks. Subsistence Harvest of Marine Mammals There are no subsistence uses or harvest of marine mammals in the geographic area affected by the specified activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking affecting species or stocks will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes. Classifications Endangered Species Act There are six marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the AFTT Study Area: Blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, sperm whale, North Atlantic right whale, and Gulf of Mexico subspecies of Bryde’s whale. The Navy consulted with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA for AFTT activities. NMFS also consulted internally on the issuance of the AFTT regulations and LOAs under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. NMFS issued a Biological and Conference Opinion on October 22, 2018, concluding that the issuance of the 2018 AFTT final rule and subsequent LOAs are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened and endangered species PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 under NMFS’ jurisdiction and are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat in the AFTT Study Area. The 2018 Biological and Conference Opinion included specified conditions under which NMFS would be required to reinitiate section 7 consultation. The agency reviewed these specified conditions for this rulemaking and determined that reinitiation of consultation was not warranted. The incidental take statement that accompanied the 2018 Biological and Conference Opinion has been amended to cover the seven-year period of the rule. NMFS also requested that the Conference Opinion for Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale, which was listed as an endangered species on April 15, 2019, be adopted as a Biological Opinion, which was completed on October 24, 2019. The 2018 Biological and Conference Opinion for this action is available at https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities. National Marine Sanctuaries Act Federal agency actions that are likely to injure national marine sanctuary resources are subject to consultation with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) under section 304(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). On December 15, 2017, the Navy initiated consultation with ONMS and submitted a Sanctuary Resource Statement (SRS) that discussed the effects of the Navy’s AFTT activities in the vicinity of Stellwagen Bank, Gray’s Reef, and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuaries on sanctuary resources. NMFS worked with the Navy in the development of the SRS to ensure that it could serve jointly as an SRS for NMFS’ action under the MMPA as well. On December 20, 2017, NMFS initiated consultation with ONMS on MMPA incidental take regulations for the Navy’s AFTT activities. NMFS requested that ONMS consider the description and assessment of the effects of the Navy’s activities included in the joint SRS submitted by the Navy, which included an assessment of the effects on marine mammals, as satisfying NMFS’ need to provide an SRS. ONMS reviewed the SRS, as well as an addendum the Navy provided on April 3, 2018. On April 12, 2018, ONMS found the SRS and addendum sufficient for the purposes of making an injury determination and developing recommended alternatives as required E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 by the NMSA. On May 15, 2018, ONMS recommended two reasonable and prudent measures to the Navy and NMFS (one of which applied to NMFS) to minimize injury and to protect sanctuary resources. ONMS subsequently provided a slight modification of those recommendations to the Navy and NMFS on August 1, 2018. On August 17, 2018, the Navy agreed to implement both ONMS recommendations and on October 30, 2018, NMFS agreed to implement the recommendation that applied to NMFS. For this rulemaking, NMFS reviewed the conditions for reinitiation of NMSA consultation in ONMS’ August 1, 2018, letter. The agency has determined that the current NMSA consultation remains valid for the issuance of the seven-year MMPA incidental take regulations and subsequent LOAs, and that reinitiation of consultation under the NMSA is not warranted. The Navy and NMFS will continue to implement the reasonable and prudent alternatives recommended by ONMS during the 2018 consultation. 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 AFTT FEIS/OEIS (published on September 14, 2018, https:// www.public.navy.mil/usff/ environmental/Pages/aftt.aspx) which evaluated impacts from Navy training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area for the reasonably foreseeable future. In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3, NMFS independently reviewed and evaluated the 2018 AFTT FEIS/ OEIS and determined that it was adequate and sufficient to meet our responsibilities under NEPA for the issuance of the 2018 AFTT final rule and associated LOAs. NOAA therefore adopted the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9 and the information and analysis contained in this final rule, NMFS has determined that this final rule and the subsequent LOAs will not result in impacts that were not fully considered in the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS. In addition, as indicated in this final rule, the addition of two years of authorized incidental take associated with the same activities conducted in the same geographic area and having the same potential effects on the same species and stocks is not a substantial change to the action, nor are there significant new VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns or its impacts. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS and 2018 NMFS Record of Decision (ROD) remain valid, and there is no need to supplement either document for this rulemaking. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared. Waiver of Delay in Effective Date Under the Administrative Procedure Act NMFS has determined that there is good cause under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date for this rule. This rule relieves the Navy from the restrictions of the take prohibitions under the MMPA by granting the Navy’s request for incidental take authorization under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(A). In addition, there is good cause to waive the 30-day effective date period because the regulations are identical to those that the Navy has been implementing since November 2018 (except for a small number of minor, technical clarifications that do not affect implementation). The only substantive change in the regulations is to extend the mitigation measures and the monitoring and reporting requirements for an additional two years, until November 13, 2025. The Navy is the only entity affected by the regulations, the Navy specifically requested extension of the regulatory requirements for the two years, and the Navy has fully agreed to these requirements for the additional two years through its application for incidental take authorization. The Navy is anticipating finalization of the rule. For all these reasons, there is no need for a period of time following publication of the rule for the Navy to bring its training and PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70781 testing operations into compliance with the requirements of the rule. 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: December 11, 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 amended as follows: PART 218—REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 1. The authority citation for part 218 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted. ■ 2. Revise subpart I to read as follows: Subpart I—Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Sec. 218.80 Specified activity and specified geographical region. 218.81 Effective dates. 218.82 Permissible methods of taking. 218.83 Prohibitions. 218.84 Mitigation requirements. 218.85 Requirements for monitoring and reporting. 218.86 Letters of Authorization. 218.87 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization. 218.88–218.89 [Reserved] Subpart I—Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) § 218.80 Specified activity and geographical region. (a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the U.S. Navy for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area described in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to the activities listed in paragraph (c) of this section. (b) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy under this subpart may be authorized in Letters of Authorization (LOAs) only if it occurs within the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area, which includes areas of the western Atlantic Ocean along the East Coast of North America, portions of the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico. The AFTT Study Area begins at the mean high tide line along the U.S. East Coast and extends east to E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70782 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations the 45-degree west longitude line, north to the 65-degree north latitude line, and south to approximately the 20-degree north latitude line. The AFTT Study Area also includes Navy pierside locations, bays, harbors, and inland waterways, and civilian ports where training and testing occurs. (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; and (iii) Office of Naval Research Testing Activities. § 218.81 Effective dates. Regulations in this subpart are effective from December 23, 2019 through November 13, 2025. § 218.82 Permissible methods of taking. (a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.86, the Holder of the LOAs (hereinafter ‘‘Navy’’) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the area described in § 218.80(b) by Level A harassment and Level B harassment associated with the use of active sonar and other acoustic sources and explosives as well as serious injury or mortality associated with ship shock trials and vessel strikes, provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart and the applicable LOAs. (b) The incidental take of marine mammals by the activities listed in § 218.80(c) is limited to the following species: TABLE 1 TO § 218.82 Species Stock Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Balaenidae (right whales): North Atlantic right whale .................................................................. Family Balaenopteridae (roquals): Blue whale ......................................................................................... Bryde’s whale .................................................................................... Minke whale ...................................................................................... Fin whale ........................................................................................... Humpback whale ............................................................................... Sei whale ........................................................................................... Western. Western North Atlantic (Gulf of St. Lawrence). Northern Gulf of Mexico NSD. Canadian East Coast. Western North Atlantic. Gulf of Maine. Nova Scotia. Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales) Family Physeteridae (sperm whale): Sperm whale ..................................................................................... Family Kogiidae (sperm whales): Dwarf sperm whale ........................................................................... Pygmy sperm whale .......................................................................... Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales): Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................. Cuvier’s beaked whale ...................................................................... Gervais’ beaked whale ...................................................................... Northern bottlenose whale ................................................................ Sowersby’s beaked whale ................................................................. True’s beaked whale ......................................................................... Family Delphinidae (dolphins): Atlantic spotted dolphin ..................................................................... lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Atlantic white-sided dolphin ............................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Gulf of Mexico Oceanic. North Atlantic. Gulf of Mexico Oceanic. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Western North Atlantic. Western North Atlantic. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Western North Atlantic. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 70783 TABLE 1 TO § 218.82—Continued Species Stock Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................. Clymene dolphin ................................................................................ False killer whale ............................................................................... Fraser’s dolphin ................................................................................. Killer whale ........................................................................................ Long-finned pilot whale ..................................................................... Melon-headed whale ......................................................................... Pantropical spotted dolphin ............................................................... Pygmy killer whale ............................................................................ Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................. Rough-toothed dolphin ...................................................................... Short-beaked common dolphin ......................................................... Short-finned pilot whale ..................................................................... Spinner dolphin ................................................................................. Striped dolphin .................................................................................. White-beaked dolphin ........................................................................ Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): Harbor porpoise ................................................................................. Choctawhatchee Bay. Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal. Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal. Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal. Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System. Jacksonville Estuarine System. Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau. Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf. Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic. Northern North Carolina Estuarine System. Southern North Carolina Estuarine System. Western North Atlantic Northern Florida Coastal. Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal. Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal. Western North Atlantic Offshore. Western North Atlantic South Carolina/Georgia Coastal. Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Western North Atlantic. Western North Atlantic. Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy. Suborder Pinnipedia Family Phocidae (true seals): Gray seal ........................................................................................... Harbor seal ........................................................................................ Harp seal ........................................................................................... Hooded seal ...................................................................................... lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 § 218.83 Prohibitions. Notwithstanding incidental takings contemplated in § 218.82(a) and authorized by LOAs issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.86, no person in connection with the activities listed in § 218.80(c) may: (a) Violate, or fail to comply with the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.86; (b) Take any marine mammal not specified in § 218.82(b); VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 Western Western Western Western North North North North Atlantic. Atlantic. Atlantic. Atlantic. (c) Take any marine mammal specified § 218.82(b) in any manner other than as specified in the LOAs; or (d) Take a marine mammal specified § 218.82(b) if the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine mammal. § 218.84 Mitigation requirements. When conducting the activities identified in § 218.80(c), the mitigation measures contained in any LOAs issued PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.86 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 AFTT Study Area for each applicable activity category or stressor category and includes acoustic stressors (i.e., active sonar, air guns, pile driving, weapons E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 70784 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations firing noise), explosive stressors (i.e., sonobuoys, torpedoes, medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles, missiles and rockets, bombs, sinking exercises, mines, anti-swimmer grenades, line charge testing and ship shock trials), and physical disturbance and strike stressors (i.e., vessel movement; towed in-water devices; small-, medium-, and large-caliber non-explosive practice munitions; non-explosive missiles and rockets; non-explosive bombs and mine shapes). (1) Environmental awareness and education. Appropriate personnel (including civilian personnel) involved in mitigation and training or testing activity reporting under the specified activities must complete one or more modules of the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series, as identified in their career path training plan. Modules include: Introduction to the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series, Marine Species Awareness Training, U.S. Navy Protective Measures Assessment Protocol, and U.S. Navy Sonar Positional Reporting System and Marine Mammal Incident Reporting. (2) Active sonar. Active sonar includes low-frequency active sonar, mid-frequency active sonar, and highfrequency active sonar. For vessel-based active sonar activities, mitigation applies only to sources that are positively controlled and deployed from manned surface vessels (e.g., sonar sources towed from manned surface platforms). For aircraft-based active sonar activities, mitigation applies only to sources that are positively controlled and deployed from manned aircraft that do not operate at high altitudes (e.g., rotary-wing aircraft). Mitigation does not apply to active sonar sources deployed from unmanned aircraft or aircraft operating at high altitudes (e.g., maritime patrol aircraft). (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform—(A) Hullmounted sources. One Lookout for platforms with space or manning restrictions while underway (at the forward part of a small boat or ship) and platforms using active sonar while moored or at anchor (including pierside); two Lookouts for platforms without space or manning restrictions while underway (at the forward part of the ship); and four Lookouts for pierside sonar testing activities at Port Canaveral, Florida and Kings Bay, Georgia. (B) Sources that are not hull-mounted sources. One Lookout on the ship or aircraft conducting the activity. (ii) Mitigation zones and requirements. During the activity, at 1,000 yard (yd) Navy personnel must VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 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 midfrequency 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 highfrequency active sonar. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of active sonar transmission. (B) During low-frequency active sonar at or above 200 dB and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals and power down active sonar transmission by 6 dB if marine mammals are observed within 1,000 yd of the sonar source; power down by an additional 4 dB (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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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) is deliberately closing in on the ship to ride the ship’s bow wave, and is therefore out of the main transmission axis of the sonar (and there are no other marine mammal sightings within the mitigation zone). (3) Air guns—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned on a ship or pierside. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 150 yd around the air gun. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if 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 use of air guns. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing air gun use) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the air gun; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min; or for mobile activities, the air gun has 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 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 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 must cease impact pile driving or vibratory pile extraction. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing pile driving or pile extraction) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the pile driving location; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min. (5) Weapons firing noise. Weapons firing noise associated with large-caliber gunnery activities. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned on the ship conducting the firing. Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one provided for under explosive mediumcaliber and large-caliber projectiles or under small-, medium-, and largecaliber non-explosive practice munitions in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) and (a)(19)(i) of this section. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. Thirty degrees on either side of the firing line out to 70 yd from the muzzle of the weapon being fired. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 sighting before or during the activity: Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing weapons firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the firing ship; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min; or for mobile activities, the firing ship has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting. (6) Explosive sonobuoys—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned in an aircraft or on small boat. If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other 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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70785 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 marine mammals and other applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 2,100 yd around the intended impact location. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during deployment of the target), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must conduct passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals and use the information from detections to assist visual observations. Navy personnel must visually observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals and jellyfish aggregations; if marine mammals or jellyfish aggregations 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 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 70786 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained. (D) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (8) Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles. Gunnery activities using explosive mediumcaliber and large-caliber projectiles. Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be on the vessel or aircraft conducting the activity. For activities using explosive large-caliber projectiles, depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described for 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 marine mammals and other 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 initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 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 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), when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (9) Explosive missiles and rockets. Aircraft-deployed explosive missiles and rockets. Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned in an aircraft. If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other applicable biological PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 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), when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (10) Explosive bombs—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned in an aircraft conducting the activity. If additional platforms are participating in E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 2,500 yd around the intended target. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when arriving on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if 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 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), when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (11) Sinking exercises—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. Two Lookouts (one must be positioned in an aircraft and one must be positioned on a vessel). If additional VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other 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; if floating vegetation is observed Navy personnel must delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must conduct aerial observations of the mitigation zone for marine mammals and jellyfish aggregations; if marine mammals or jellyfish aggregations 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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70787 activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (12) Explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. (A) One Lookout must be positioned on a vessel or in an aircraft when implementing the smaller mitigation zone defined at paragraph (a)(12)(ii)(A) of this section (using 0.1– 5 lb net explosive weight charges). (B) Two Lookouts (one must be in an aircraft and one must be on a small boat) when implementing the larger mitigation zone defined at paragraph (a)(12)(ii)(B) of this section (using 6–650 lb net explosive weight charges). (C) If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other 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 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; if marine mammals are observed, the Navy must cease detonations. (E) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 70788 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to detonation site; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained. (F) After completion of the activity (typically 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically 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 must be positioned (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 defined at paragraph (a)(13)(ii)(A) of this section. (B) Four Lookouts must be positioned (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 defined at paragraph (a)(13)(ii)(B) of this section. (C) All divers placing the charges on mines must support the Lookouts while performing their regular duties and must report applicable sightings to their supporting small boat or Range Safety Officer. (D) If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other 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 (0.1–20 lb net explosive weight) and during activities under positive control using 21–60 lb net explosive weight charges. (C) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 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 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 detonation or fuse initiation. (D) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease detonation or fuse initiation. To the maximum extent practicable depending on mission requirements, safety, and environmental conditions, boats must position themselves near the mid-point of the mitigation zone radius (but outside of the detonation plume and human safety zone), must position themselves on opposite sides of the detonation location (when two boats are used), and must travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location with one Lookout observing inward toward the detonation site and the other observing outward toward the perimeter of the mitigation zone. If used, aircraft must travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location to the maximum extent practicable. Navy personnel must not set time-delay firing devices (0.1–20 lb. net explosive weight) to exceed 10 min. (E) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the detonation site; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min during activities under positive control with aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min during activities under positive control with aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained and during activities using time-delay firing devices. (F) After completion of an activity (for 30 min), Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where any detonations have occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 marine mammals and other 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 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 detonation. (B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease detonation. (C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended detonation location; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min; or the intended detonation location has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting. (D) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (15) Line charge testing—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned on a vessel. If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 900 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 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 detonations. (B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe 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; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min. (D) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (16) Ship shock trials—(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. (A) A minimum of ten Lookouts or trained marine species observers (or a combination thereof) must be positioned either in an aircraft or on multiple vessels (i.e., a Marine Animal Response Team boat and the test ship). (1) If aircraft are used, Lookouts or trained marine species observers must be in an aircraft and on multiple vessels. (2) If aircraft are not used, a sufficient number of additional Lookouts or trained marine species observers must be used to provide vessel-based visual observation comparable to that achieved by aerial surveys. (B) If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 3.5 nmi around the ship hull. (A) The Navy must not conduct ship shock trials in the Jacksonville Operating Area during North Atlantic right whale calving season from November 15 through April 15. (B) The Navy must develop detailed ship shock trial monitoring and mitigation plans approximately one-year prior to an event and must continue to provide these to NMFS for review and approval. (C) Pre-activity planning must include selection of one primary and two secondary areas where marine mammal populations are expected to be the lowest during the event, with the primary and secondary locations located more than 2 nmi from the western boundary of the Gulf Stream for events in the Virginia Capes Range Complex or Jacksonville Range Complex. (D) If it is determined during preactivity surveys that the primary area is environmentally unsuitable (e.g., observations of marine mammals or presence of concentrations of floating vegetation), the shock trial can be moved to a secondary site in accordance with the detailed mitigation and monitoring plan provided to NMFS. (E) Prior to the initial start of the activity at the shock trial location (in intervals of 5 hrs, 3 hrs, 40 min, and immediately before the detonation), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must delay the start until the PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70789 mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must delay triggering the detonation. (F) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals, large schools of fish, jellyfish aggregations, and flocks of seabirds; if marine mammals, large schools of fish, jellyfish aggregations, and flocks of seabirds are observed, Navy personnel must cease triggering the detonation. After completion of each detonation, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures and halt any remaining detonations until Navy personnel can consult with NMFS and review or adapt the mitigation, if necessary. (G) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: Navy personnel must allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the ship hull; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min. (H) After completion of the activity (during the following two days at a minimum, and up to seven days at a maximum), Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred. (17) Vessel movement. The mitigation must not be applied if: The vessel’s safety is threatened; the vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver (e.g., during launching and recovery of aircraft or landing craft, during towing activities, when mooring, etc.); or the vessel is operated autonomously. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be on the vessel that is underway. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. (A) 500 yd around whales. (B) 200 yd around all other marine mammals (except bow-riding dolphins E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 70790 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations and pinnipeds hauled out on man-made navigational structures, port structures, and vessels). (C) During the activity, when underway, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if any marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must maneuver to maintain distance. (D) Additionally, Navy personnel must broadcast awareness notification messages with North Atlantic right whale Dynamic Management Area information (e.g., location and dates) to applicable Navy assets operating in the vicinity of the Dynamic Management Area. The information will alert assets to the possible presence of a North Atlantic right whale to maintain safety of navigation and further reduce the potential for a vessel strike. Platforms must use the information to assist their visual observation of applicable mitigation zones during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation, including but not limited to, mitigation for vessel movement. If a marine mammal vessel strike occurs, Navy personnel must follow the established incident reporting procedures. (18) Towed in-water devices. Mitigation applies to devices that are towed from a manned surface platform or manned aircraft. The mitigation will not be applied if the safety of the towing platform or in-water device is threatened. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned on a manned towing platform. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 250 yd around marine mammals. During the activity, when towing an in-water device, Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must maneuver to maintain distance. (19) Small-, medium-, and largecaliber non-explosive practice munitions. Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned on the platform conducting the activity. Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described for weapons firing noise in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 200 yd around the intended impact location. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if 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; 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. (20) Non-explosive missiles and rockets. Aircraft-deployed nonexplosive missiles and rockets. Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned in an aircraft. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 900 yd around the intended impact location. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation zone), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if 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; 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 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained. (21) Non-explosive bombs and mine shapes. Non-explosive bombs and nonexplosive mine shapes during mine laying activities. (i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must be positioned in an aircraft. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 1,000 yd around the intended target. (A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when arriving on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if 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; 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 E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations zone size beyond the location of the last sighting. (b) Mitigation areas. In addition to procedural mitigation, the Navy must implement mitigation measures within mitigation areas to avoid potential impacts on marine mammals. (1) Mitigation areas off the Northeastern United States for sonar, explosives, and physical disturbance and strikes—(i) Mitigation area requirements—(A) Northeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area (year-round). (1) Navy personnel must report the total hours and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area (which includes North Atlantic right whale ESA-designated critical habitat) in its annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS. (2) Navy personnel must minimize the use of low-frequency active sonar, midfrequency active sonar, and highfrequency active sonar to the maximum extent practicable within the mitigation area. (3) Navy personnel must not use Improved Extended Echo Ranging sonobuoys in or within 3 nmi of the mitigation area or use explosive and non-explosive bombs, in-water detonations, and explosive torpedoes within the mitigation area. (4) For activities using non-explosive torpedoes within the mitigation area, Navy personnel must conduct activities during daylight hours in Beaufort sea state 3 or less. The Navy must use three Lookouts (one positioned on a vessel and two positioned in an aircraft during dedicated aerial surveys) to observe the vicinity of the activity. An additional Lookout must be positioned on the submarine, when surfaced. Immediately prior to the start of the activity, Navy personnel must observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if floating vegetation or marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must not commence the activity until the vicinity is clear or the activity is relocated to an area where the vicinity is clear. During the activity, Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals; if observed, Navy personnel must cease the activity. To allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the area, Navy personnel must not recommence the activity until one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the vicinity of the activity; the animal is thought to have exited the vicinity of the activity based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the activity location; or the area has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min. During transits and normal firing, ships VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 must maintain a speed of no more than 10 knots (kn). During submarine target firing, ships must maintain speeds of no more than 18 kn. During vessel target firing, vessel speeds may exceed 18 kn for brief periods of time (e.g., 10–15 min). (5) For all activities, before a vessel transits within the mitigation area, Navy personnel must conduct a web query or email inquiry to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System to obtain the latest North Atlantic right whale sightings information. Navy personnel on vessels must use the sightings information to reduce potential interactions with North Atlantic right whales during transits. Navy personnel on vessels must implement speed reductions within the mitigation area after observing a North Atlantic right whale, if transiting within 5 nmi of a sighting reported to the North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System within the past week, and if transiting at night or during periods of reduced visibility. (B) Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness Mitigation Area (year-round). (1) Navy personnel must report the total hours and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS. (2) Navy personnel must not conduct greater than 200 hrs of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar per year within the mitigation area. (3) Navy personnel must not conduct major training exercises (Composite Training Unit Exercises or Fleet Exercises/Sustainment Exercises) within the mitigation area. If the Navy needs to conduct a major training exercise within the mitigation area in support of training requirements driven by national security concerns, Navy personnel must confer with NMFS to verify that potential impacts are adequately addressed. (C) Northeast Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas (year-round). (1) Navy personnel will avoid planning major training exercises (Composite Training Unit Exercises or Fleet Exercises/ Sustainment Exercises) within the mitigation area to the maximum extent practicable. (2) Navy personnel must not conduct more than four major training exercises per year (all or a portion of the exercise) within the mitigation area. (3) If the Navy needs to conduct additional major training exercises in the mitigation area in support of training requirements driven by national PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70791 security concerns, Navy personnel must provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in its annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS. (ii) [Reserved] (2) Mitigation areas off the MidAtlantic and Southeastern United States for sonar, explosives, and physical disturbance and strikes—(i) Mitigation area requirements—(A) Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area (November 15 through April 15). (1) Navy personnel must report the total hours and counts of active sonar and inwater explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS. (2) The Navy must not conduct: Lowfrequency active sonar (except as noted in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(3) of this section), mid-frequency active sonar (except as noted in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(3) of this section), highfrequency active sonar, missile and rocket activities (explosive and nonexplosive), small-, medium-, and largecaliber gunnery activities, Improved Extended Echo Ranging sonobuoy activities, explosive and non-explosive bombing activities, in-water detonations, and explosive torpedo activities within the mitigation area. (3) To the maximum extent practicable, Navy personnel must minimize the use of: Helicopter dipping sonar, low-frequency active sonar and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar used for navigation training, and low-frequency active sonar and hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar used for object detection exercises within the mitigation area. (4) Before transiting or conducting training or testing activities within the mitigation area, Navy personnel must initiate communication with the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville to obtain Early Warning System North Atlantic right whale sightings data. The Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville must advise Navy personnel on vessels of all reported whale sightings in the vicinity to help Navy personnel on vessels and aircraft reduce potential interactions with North Atlantic right whales. Commander Submarine Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet must coordinate any submarine activities that may require approval from the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville. Navy personnel on vessels must use the sightings information to reduce potential interactions with North Atlantic right whales during transits. (5) Navy personnel on vessels must implement speed reductions after they observe a North Atlantic right whale, if E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 70792 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations they are within 5 nmi of a sighting reported within the past 12 hrs, or when operating in the mitigation area at night or during periods of poor visibility. (6) To the maximum extent practicable, Navy personnel on vessels must minimize north-south transits in the mitigation area. (B) Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat Special Reporting Area (November 15 through April 15). (1) Navy personnel must report the total hours and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the Special Reporting Area (which includes southeast North Atlantic right whale ESA-designated critical habitat) in its annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS. (2) [Reserved] (C) Jacksonville Operating Area (November 15 through April 15). (1) Navy units conducting training or testing activities in the Jacksonville Operating Area must initiate communication with the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville to obtain Early Warning System North Atlantic right whale sightings data. The Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville must advise Navy personnel on vessels of all reported whale sightings in the vicinity to help Navy personnel on vessels and aircraft reduce potential interactions with North Atlantic right whales. Commander Submarine Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet must coordinate any submarine activities that may require approval from the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville. Navy personnel must use the reported sightings information as they plan specific details of events (e.g., timing, location, duration) to minimize potential interactions with North Atlantic right whales to the maximum extent practicable. Navy personnel must use the reported sightings information to assist visual observations of applicable mitigation zones and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation. (2) [Reserved] (D) Navy Cherry Point Range Complex Nearshore Mitigation Area (March through September). (1) Navy personnel must not conduct explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers in the mitigation area. (2) To the maximum extent practicable, Navy personnel must not use explosive sonobuoys, explosive torpedoes, explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles, explosive missiles and rockets, explosive bombs, explosive mines during mine countermeasure and neutralization VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 activities, and anti-swimmer grenades in the mitigation area. (E) Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas (year-round). (1) Navy personnel will avoid planning major training exercises (Composite Training Unit Exercises or Fleet Exercises/ Sustainment Exercises) to the maximum extent practicable. (2) Navy personnel must not conduct more than four major training exercises per year (all or a portion of the exercise) within the mitigation area. (3) If the Navy needs to conduct additional major training exercises in the mitigation area in support of training requirements driven by national security concerns, Navy personnel must provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in its annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS. (ii) [Reserved] (3) Mitigation areas in the Gulf of Mexico for sonar and explosives—(i) Mitigation area requirements—(A) Gulf of Mexico Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas (year-round). (1) Navy personnel must not conduct major training exercises within the mitigation area (all or a portion of the exercise). (2) If the Navy needs to conduct a major training exercise within the mitigation areas in support of training requirements driven by national security concerns, Navy personnel must confer with NMFS to verify that potential impacts are adequately addressed. (B) Bryde’s Whale Mitigation Area (year-round). (1) Navy personnel must report the total hours and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS. (2) Navy personnel must not conduct greater than 200 hrs of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar per year within the mitigation area. (3) Navy personnel must not use explosives (except during mine warfare activities) within the mitigation area. (ii) [Reserved] § 218.85 Requirements for monitoring and reporting. (a) Unauthorized take. The Navy must notify NMFS immediately (or as soon as operational security considerations allow) if the specified activity identified in § 218.80 is thought to have resulted in the mortality or serious injury of any marine mammals, or in any Level A or Level B harassment take of marine mammals not identified in this subpart. (b) Monitoring and reporting under the LOAs. The Navy must conduct all monitoring and required reporting PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 under the LOAs, including abiding by the AFTT Study Area monitoring program. Details on program goals, objectives, project selection process, and current projects are available at www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. (c) Notification of injured, live stranded, or dead marine mammals. The Navy must consult the Notification and Reporting Plan, which sets out notification, reporting, and other requirements when dead, injured, or live stranded marine mammals are detected. The Notification and Reporting Plan is available at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities. (d) Annual AFTT Study Area marine species monitoring report. The Navy must submit an annual report of the AFTT Study Area monitoring describing the implementation and results from the previous calendar year. Data collection methods must be standardized across range complexes and study areas to allow for comparison in different geographic locations. The report must be submitted to the Director, Office of Protected Resources of NMFS either within 90 days after the calendar year, or within 90 days after the conclusion of the monitoring year to be determined by the Adaptive Management process. This report will describe progress of knowledge made with respect to monitoring plan study questions across all Navy ranges associated with the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program. Similar study questions must be treated together so that progress on each topic can be summarized across all Navy ranges. The report need not include analyses and content that does not provide direct assessment of cumulative progress on the monitoring plan study questions. (e) Annual AFTT Study Area training and testing reports. Each year, the Navy must submit a preliminary report (Quick Look Report) detailing the status of authorized sound sources within 21 days after the anniversary of the date of issuance of each LOA to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. Each year, the Navy must submit a detailed report within 3 months after the anniversary of the date of issuance of each LOA to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. The annual reports must contain information on major training exercises (MTEs), sinking exercise (SINKEX) events, and a summary of all sound sources used, including within specified mitigation reporting areas, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section. The analysis in the detailed report must be E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations based on the accumulation of data from the current year’s report and data collected from the previous report. The detailed reports must contain information identified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Major training exercises (MTEs). This section of the report must contain the following information for MTEs conducted in the AFTT Study Area: (i) Exercise information (for each MTE): (A) Exercise designator; (B) Date that exercise began and ended; (C) Location; (D) Number and types of active sonar sources used in the exercise; (E) Number and types of passive acoustic sources used in exercise; (F) Number and types of vessels, aircraft, and other platforms participating in exercise; (G) Total hours of all active sonar source operation; (H) Total hours of each active sonar source bin; and (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 made from (including, for example, what type of surface vessel or testing platform); (F) Length of time observers maintained visual contact with marine mammal; (G) Sea state; (H) Visibility; (I) Sound source in use at the time of sighting; (J) Indication of whether animal was less than 200 yd, 200 to 500 yd, 500 to 1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 yd, or greater than 2,000 yd from sonar source; (K) Mitigation implementation (e.g. whether operation of sonar sensor was delayed, or sonar was powered or shut down, and how long the delay was); (L) If source in use was hull-mounted, true bearing of animal from the vessel, true direction of vessel’s travel, and estimation of animal’s motion relative to vessel (opening, closing, parallel); and (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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 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) Sinking exercises (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; and (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 sighting 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; and (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 (e.g. less than 200 yd, 200 to 500 yd, 500 to 1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 yd, or greater than 2,000 yd, or target spot if not yet detonated). (J) 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. PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 70793 (K) Resulting mitigation implementation: The report must indicate whether explosive detonations were delayed, ceased, modified, or not modified due to marine mammal presence and for how long. (L) If observation occurred while explosives were detonating in the water, indicate munition type in use at time of marine mammal detection. (3) Summary of sources used. This section must include the following information summarized from the authorized sound sources used in all training and testing events: (i) Total annual hours or quantity (per the LOA) of each bin of sonar or other acoustic sources (pile driving and air gun activities); and (ii) Total annual expended/detonated ordnance (missiles, bombs, sonobuoys, etc.) for each explosive bin. (4) Geographic information presentation. The reports must present an annual (and seasonal, where practical) depiction of training and testing bin usage (as well as pile driving activities) geographically across the AFTT Study Area. (5) Sonar exercise notification. The Navy must submit to NMFS (contact as specified in the LOA) an electronic report within fifteen calendar days after the completion of any MTE indicating: (i) Location of the exercise; (ii) Beginning and end dates of the exercise; and (iii) Type of exercise. (f) Seven-year close-out comprehensive training and testing 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 EIS 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. E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2 70794 § 218.86 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations Letters of Authorization. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 (a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to the regulations in this subpart, the Navy must apply for and obtain Letters of Authorization (LOAs) in accordance with § 216.106 of this chapter. (b) LOAs, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of the regulations in this subpart. (c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of the regulations in this subpart, the Navy may apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA. (d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision of § 218.87(c)(1) as required by an LOA issued under this subpart, the Navy must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 218.87. (e) Each LOA will set forth: (1) Permissible methods of incidental taking; (2) Specified geographic areas for incidental taking; (3) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e., mitigation) on the species or stocks of marine mammals and their habitat; and (4) Requirements for monitoring and reporting. (f) Issuance of the LOA(s) will be based on a determination that the level of taking must be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations in this subpart. (g) Notice of issuance or denial of the LOA(s) will be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of a determination. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:56 Dec 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 § 218.87 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization. (a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this subchapter and 218.86 may be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that: (1) The planned specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for the regulations in this subpart (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section); and (2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA(s) under the regulations in this subpart were implemented. (b) For LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that include changes to the activity or to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the findings made for the regulations in this subpart 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 subchapter and 218.86 may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances: (1) Adaptive management. After consulting with the Navy regarding the practicability of the modifications, PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 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 218.86, an LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the Federal Register within thirty days of the action. § § 218.88–218.89 [Reserved] [FR Doc. 2019–27098 Filed 12–20–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P E:\FR\FM\23DER2.SGM 23DER2

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70712-70794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27098]

[[Page 70711]]

Vol. 84

Monday,

No. 246

December 23, 2019

Part III

Department of Commerce

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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

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

50 CFR Part 218

Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental
to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet
Training and Testing Study Area; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 70712]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 218

[Docket No. 191211-0106]
RIN 0648-BI85

Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the
Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area

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

ACTION: Final rule; notification of issuance of Letters of
Authorization.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS, upon request from the U.S. Navy (Navy), issues these
regulations pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to
govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to the training and
testing activities conducted in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing
(AFTT) Study Area over the course of seven years, effectively extending
the time period from November 13, 2023, to November 13, 2025. In August
2018, the MMPA was amended by the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 to allow for seven-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. These regulations, which allow for the
issuance of Letters of Authorization (LOAs) for the incidental take of
marine mammals during the described activities and timeframes,
prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species
or stocks and their habitat, and establish requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.

DATES: Effective from December 23, 2019 to November 13, 2025.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Navy's applications, NMFS' proposed rule for
these regulations, NMFS' proposed and final rules and subsequent LOAs
for the associated five-year AFTT Study Area regulations, other
supporting documents cited herein, and a list of the references cited
in this document may be obtained online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities. In case of problems accessing these
documents, please 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 regulations, issued under the authority of the MMPA (16
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), 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 AFTT Study Area, which includes areas of the western Atlantic Ocean
along the East Coast of North America, portions of the Caribbean Sea,
and the Gulf of Mexico.
NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting to extend
NMFS' existing MMPA regulations (50 CFR part 218, subpart I; hereafter
``2018 AFTT regulations'') that authorize the take of marine mammals
incidental to Navy training and testing activities conducted in the
AFTT 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.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs
the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region
if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings
and issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking
pursuant to that activity, as well as monitoring and reporting
requirements. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I, provide the legal basis for
issuing this final rule and the subsequent LOAs. As directed by this
legal authority, this final rule contains mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements.

Summary of Major Provisions Within the Final Rule

Following is a summary of the major provisions of this final rule
regarding the Navy's activities. Major provisions include, but are not
limited to:
The use of defined powerdown and shutdown zones (based on
activity);
Measures to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of ship
strikes, especially for North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena
glacialis) (NARW);
Operational limitations in certain areas and times that
are biologically important (i.e., for foraging, migration,
reproduction) for marine mammals;
Implementation of a Notification and Reporting Plan (for
dead, live stranded, or marine mammals struck by a vessel); and
Implementation of a robust monitoring plan to improve our
understanding of the environmental effects resulting from Navy training
and testing activities.
Additionally, the rule includes an adaptive management component
that allows for timely modification of mitigation or monitoring
measures based on new information, when appropriate.

Background

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, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review and the opportunity to submit
comments.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
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 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,

[[Page 70713]]

hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. The 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 November 14, 2018, NMFS issued a five-year final rule governing
the taking of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing
activities conducted in the AFTT Study Area (83 FR 57076; hereafter
``2018 AFTT 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 AFTT Study Area
qualify as military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as
amended by the 2004 NDAA. On November 16, 2018, the Navy submitted an
application requesting that NMFS extend the 2018 AFTT 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 November 13, 2023 to November 13, 2025. A revised
application correcting the estimated takes due to ship shock trials
(Table 5.1-2) was submitted to NMFS by the Navy on January 18, 2019.
In its November 16, 2018, application, as revised on January 18,
2019 (hereafter ``2019 Navy application''), the Navy proposed no
changes to the nature of the specified activities covered by the 2018
AFTT final rule, the level of activity within and between years will be
consistent with that previously analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule,
and all activities will be conducted within the same boundaries of the
AFTT Study Area identified in the 2018 AFTT final rule. Therefore, the
training and testing activities (e.g., equipment and sources used,
exercises conducted) and the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT
final rule. The only changes included in the Navy's request were 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 applicable for seven years of identical activity.
The purpose of the Navy's training and testing activities is to
ensure that the Navy meets its mission mandated by Federal law (10
U.S.C. 8062), which is to maintain, train, and equip combat-ready naval
forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining
freedom of the seas. 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's mission is achieved
in part by conducting training and testing within the AFTT Study Area.
The 2019 Navy application reflects the same compilation of training
and testing activities presented in the Navy's June 16, 2017, initial
rulemaking and LOA application (hereafter ``2017 Navy application'')
and the 2018 AFTT 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
will occur over seven years, including the five years already
authorized under the 2018 AFTT regulations, with the regulations valid
from the publication date of this final rule through November 13, 2025.

Summary of the Regulations

NMFS is extending the incidental take regulations and associated
LOAs through November 13, 2025, to cover the same Navy activities
covered by the 2018 AFTT regulations. The 2018 AFTT final rule was
recently published and its analysis remains current and valid. In its
2019 application, the Navy proposed 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 AFTT Study Area. The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures
are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final
rule. The regulatory language included at the end of this final rule,
which will be published at 50 CFR part 218, subpart I, also is the same
as the AFTT 2018 regulations, except for a small number of minor,
technical changes. No new information has been received from the Navy,
or otherwise become available to NMFS, since publication of the 2018
AFTT 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 2018 AFTT final rule remain
current and applicable, this final rule relies heavily on and
references to the applicable information and analyses in those
documents. Below is a list of the primary documents referenced in this
final rule. The list indicates the short name by which the document is
referenced in this final rule, as well as

[[Page 70714]]

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.public.navy.mil/usff/environmental/Pages/aftt.aspx.
NMFS March 13, 2018, Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing
(AFTT) proposed rule (83 FR 10954; hereafter ``2018 AFTT proposed
rule'');
NMFS November 14, 2018, Atlantic Fleet Training and
Testing (AFTT) final rule (83 FR 57076; hereafter ``2018 AFTT final
rule'');
NMFS May 13, 2019, Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing
(AFTT) proposed rule (84 FR 21126; hereafter ``2019 AFTT proposed
rule'');
Navy June 16, 2017, MMPA rulemaking and LOA application
(hereafter ``2017 Navy application'');
Navy January 18, 2019, MMPA rulemaking and LOA extension
application (hereafter ``2019 Navy application''); and
September 14, 2018, Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing
(AFTT) Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS/OEIS) (hereafter ``2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS'').

Description of the Specified Activity

The Navy requested 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. A
small number of serious injuries or mortalities are also possible from
vessel strikes or exposure to explosive detonations. Detailed
descriptions of these activities are provided in Chapter 2 of the 2018
AFTT FEIS/OEIS and in the 2017 and 2019 Navy applications.

Overview of Training and Testing Activities

The Navy routinely trains in the AFTT 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
AFTT proposed rule and the 2018 AFTT final rule and Chapter 2 of the
2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS. Each military training and testing activity
described meets mandated Fleet requirements to deploy ready forces. The
Navy proposed no changes to the specified activities described and
analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The boundaries of the AFTT Study
Area (see Figure 1.2-1 of the 2019 Navy application); the training and
testing activities (e.g., equipment and sources used, exercises
conducted); manner of and amount of vessel movement; and standard
operating procedures presented in this final rule are identical to
those described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule.

Dates and Duration

The specified activities will occur at any time during the seven-
year period of validity of the regulations. The number of training and
testing activities are described in the Detailed Description of the
Specified Activities section (Tables 1 through 4).

Specified Geographical Region

The geographic extent of the AFTT Study Area is identical to that
described in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The AFTT Study Area (see Figure
2-1 of the 2019 Navy application) includes areas of the western
Atlantic Ocean along the east coast of North America, the Gulf of
Mexico, and portions of the Caribbean Sea. The AFTT Study Area begins
at the mean high tide line along the U.S. coast and extends east to the
45-degree west longitude line, north to the 65-degree north latitude
line, and south to approximately the 20-degree north latitude line. The
AFTT Study Area also includes Navy pierside locations, bays, harbors,
and inland waterways, and civilian ports where training and testing
occurs. The AFTT Study Area generally follows the Commander Task Force
80 area of operations, covering approximately 2.6 million nautical
miles squared (nmi\2\; approximately 6.7 million kilometers squared) of
ocean area, and includes designated Navy range complexes and associated
operating areas (OPAREAs) and special use airspace. While the AFTT
Study Area itself is very large, the vast majority of Navy training and
testing occurs in designated range complexes and testing ranges.
A Navy range complex consists of geographic areas that encompass a
water component (above and below the surface) and airspace, and may
encompass a land component where training and testing of military
platforms, tactics, munitions, explosives, and electronic warfare
systems occur. Range complexes include established OPAREAs, which may
be further divided to provide better control of the area for safety
reasons. Additional detail on range complexes and testing ranges was
provided in the Duration and Location section of the 2018 AFTT proposed
rule; please see the 2018 AFTT proposed rule or the 2017 Navy
application for more information.

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 AFTT final rule and Chapter 2 of the 2018
AFTT FEIS/OEIS. The Navy proposed 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
AFTT 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 AFTT 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 proposed no changes to the nature
of the specified activities, the training and testing activities, the
manner of or amount of vessel movement, and standard operating
procedures. 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 AFTT proposed rule and 2018 AFTT final rule.

Detailed Description of the Specified Activities

The Navy's specified activities are presented and analyzed as a
representative year of training to

[[Page 70715]]

account for the natural fluctuation of training cycles and deployment
schedules in any seven-year period. In the 2018 AFTT final rule, NMFS
analyzed activities 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, the Navy presented and
NMFS analyzed activities based on the additional two years of training
and testing consisting of one additional year of a maximum level of
activity and one year of a representative level of activity consistent
with the pattern set forth in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the 2018 AFTT
FEIS/OEIS, and the 2017 Navy application.
Training Activities
The number of planned training activities that could occur annually
and the duration of those activities remains identical to those
presented in Table 4 of the 2018 AFTT final rule, and are not repeated
here. The number of planned 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 regulations, sound source bin,
number of activities, and locations of those activities in the AFTT
Study Area. For further information regarding the primary platform used
(e.g., ship or aircraft type) see Appendix A (Navy Activity
Descriptions) of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS.

Table 1--Training Activities Analyzed for Seven-Year Period in the AFTT Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Year number
Stressor category Activity name Activity Source bin of activities Location \2\
description \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Training Exercise--Large Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic.............. Composite Aircraft carrier ASW1, ASW2, 17 VACAPES RC Navy
Training Unit and its ASW3, ASW4, Cherry Point RC
Exercise. associated ASW5, HF1, LF6, JAX RC.
aircraft MF1, MF3, MF4,
integrate with MF5, MF11, MF12.
surface and
submarine units
in a challenging
multi-threat
operational
environment in
order to certify
them for
deployment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Training Exercises--Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic.............. Fleet Exercises/ Aircraft carrier ASW1, ASW2, 28 JAX RC.
Sustainment and its ASW3, ASW4, 14 VACAPES RC.
Exercise. associated HF1, LF6, MF1,
aircraft MF3, MF4, MF5,
integrates with MF11, MF12.
surface and
submarine units
in a challenging
multi-threat
operational
environment in
order to
maintain their
ability to
deploy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated/Coordinated Training--Small Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic.............. Naval Undersea Multiple ships, ASW1, ASW3, 42 JAX RC.
Warfare Training aircraft, and ASW4, HF1, LF6, 21 Navy Cherry
Assessment submarines MF1, MF3, MF4, 21 Point RC.
Course. integrate the MF5, MF12. VACAPES RC.
use of their
sensors to
search for,
detect,
classify,
localize, and
track a threat
submarine in
order to launch
an exercise
torpedo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated/Coordinated Training--Medium Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic.............. Anti-Submarine Surface ships, ASW1, ASW3, 14 JAX RC.
Warfare Tactical aircraft, and ASW4, HF1, LF6, 7 Navy Cherry
Development submarines MF1, MF3, MF4, 7 Point RC.
Exercise. coordinate to MF5, MF11, MF12. VACAPES RC.
search for,
detect, and
track submarines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated/Coordinated Training--Small Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic.............. Group Sail....... Surface ships and ASW2, ASW3, 28 JAX RC.
helicopters ASW4, HF1, MF1, 28 Navy Cherry
search for, MF3, MF4, MF5, 35 Point RC.
detect, and MF11, MF12. VACAPES RC.
track threat
submarines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosive............. Naval Surface Surface ship E5.............. 28 GOMEX RC.
Fire Support crews use large- 84 JAX RC.
Exercise--At Sea. caliber guns to 14 Navy Cherry
support forces 266 Point RC.
ashore; however, VACAPES RC.
the land target
is simulated at
sea. Rounds are
scored by
passive acoustic
buoys located at
or near the
target area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Submarine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic.............. Anti-submarine Helicopter MF4, MF5, TORP1. 98 JAX RC.
Warfare Torpedo aircrews search 28 VACAPES RC.
Exercise--Helico for, track, and
pter. detect
submarines.
Recoverable air
launched
torpedoes are
employed against
submarine
targets.
Acoustic.............. Anti-submarine Maritime patrol MF5, TORP1...... 98 JAX RC.
Warfare Torpedo aircraft 28 VACAPES RC.
Exercise--Mariti aircrews search
me Patrol for, track, and
Aircraft. detect
submarines.
Recoverable air
launched
torpedoes are
employed against
submarine
targets.
Acoustic.............. Anti-Submarine Surface ship ASW3, MF1, TORP1 112 JAX RC.
Warfare Torpedo crews search 35 VACAPES RC.
Exercise--Ship. for, track, and
detect
submarines.
Exercise
torpedoes are
used.

[[Page 70716]]

Acoustic.............. Anti-Submarine Submarine crews ASW4, HF1, MF3, 84 JAX RC.
Warfare Torpedo search for, TORP2. 42 Northeast RC.
Exercise--Submar track, and 14 VACAPES RC.
ine. detect
submarines.
Exercise
torpedoes are
used.
Acoustic.............. Anti-Submarine Helicopter MF4, MF5........ 168 Other AFTT
Warfare Tracking aircrews search 2,590 Areas.
Exercise--Helico for, track, and 84 JAX RC.
pter. detect 56 Navy Cherry
submarines. Point RC.
VACAPES RC.
Acoustic.............. Anti-Submarine Maritime patrol ASW5, ASW2, MF5. 630 Northeast RC.
Warfare Tracking aircraft 1,232 VACAPES RC.
Exercise--Mariti aircrews search 3,675 JAX RC.
me Patrol for, track, and 322 Navy Cherry
Aircraft. detect Point RC.
submarines.
Acoustic.............. Anti-Submarine Surface ship ASW1, ASW3, MF1, * 35 Northeast RC.
Warfare Tracking crews search MF11, MF12. * 770 Other AFTT
Exercise--Ship. for, track, and * 35 Areas.
detect * 3,080 GOMEX RC.
submarines. * 385 JAX RC.
* 1,540 Navy Cherry
Point RC.
VACAPES RC.
Acoustic.............. Anti-Submarine Submarine crews ASW4, HF1, MF3.. 308 Other AFTT
Warfare Tracking search for, 7 Areas.
Exercise--Submar track, and 91 JAX RC.
ine. detect 126 Navy Cherry
submarines. 42 Point RC.
Northeast RC.
VACAPES RC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expeditionary Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosive............. Maritime Security Small boat crews E2.............. 14 GOMEX RC.
Operations--Anti- engage in force 14 JAX RC.
Swimmer Grenades. protection 14 Navy Cherry
activities by 28 Point RC.
using anti- 35 Northeast RC.
swimmer grenades VACAPES RC.
to defend
against hostile
divers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic.............. Airborne Mine Helicopter HF4............. 462 GOMEX RC.
Countermeasure-- aircrews detect 2,219 JAX RC.
Mine Detection. mines using 2,597 Navy Cherry
towed or laser 1,708 Point RC.
mine detection 10,780 NSWC Panama
systems. City.
VACAPES RC.
Acoustic, Explosive... Civilian Port Maritime security HF4, SAS2, E2, 4 Beaumont, TX;
Defense--Homelan personnel train E4. Boston, MA;
d Security Anti- to protect Corpus Christi,
Terrorism/Force civilian ports TX; Delaware
Protection against enemy Bay, DE; Earle,
Exercise. efforts to NJ; GOMEX RC,
interfere with Hampton Roads,
access to those VA; JAX RC,
ports. Kings Bay, GA;
NS Mayport,
Morehead City,
NC; Port
Canaveral, FL;
Savannah, GA;
Tampa Bay, FL;
VACAPES RC,
Wilmington, NC.
Acoustic.............. Coordinated Unit A detachment of HF4............. 14 GOMEX RC.
Level Helicopter helicopter 14 JAX RC.
Airborne Mine aircrews train 14 Navy Cherry
Countermeasure as a unit in the 14 Point RC.
Exercise. use of airborne VACAPES RC.
mine
countermeasures,
such as towed
mine detection
and
neutralization
systems.
Acoustic, Explosive... Mine Ship, small boat, HF4, E4......... 924 GOMEX RC.
Countermeasures- and helicopter 497 JAX RC.
-Mine crews locate and 497 Navy Cherry
Neutralization-- disable mines 4,410 Point RC.
Remotely using remotely VACAPES RC.
Operated Vehicle. operated
underwater
vehicles.
Acoustic.............. Mine Ship crews detect HF4............. 154 GOMEX RC.
Countermeasures- and avoid mines 371 JAX RC.
-Ship Sonar. while navigating 371 VACAPES RC.
restricted areas
or channels
using active
sonar.
Explosive............. Mine Personnel disable E4, E5, E6, E7.. 42 Lower Chesapeake
Neutralization-- threat mines 112 Bay.
Explosive using explosive 140 GOMEX RC.
Ordnance charges. 119 JAX RC.
Disposal. 112 Key West RC.
3,668 Navy Cherry
Point RC.
VACAPES RC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosive............. Bombing Exercise Fixed-wing E9, E10, E12.... 469 GOMEX RC.
Air-to-Surface. aircrews deliver 3,038 JAX RC.
bombs against 756 Navy Cherry
surface targets. 2,303 Point RC.
VACAPES RC.

[[Page 70717]]

Explosive............. Gunnery Exercise Small boat crews E1.............. 42 GOMEX RC.
Surface-to- fire medium- 182 JAX RC.
Surface Boat caliber guns at 896 Navy Cherry
Medium-Caliber. surface targets. 14 Point RC.
1,820 Northeast RC.
VACAPES RC.
Explosive............. Gunnery Exercise Surface ship E3,E5........... 70 Other AFTT
Surface-to- crews fire large- 63 Areas.
Surface Ship caliber guns at 357 GOMEX RC.
Large-Caliber. surface targets. 245 JAX RC.
525 Navy Cherry
Point RC.
VACAPES RC.
Explosive............. Gunnery Exercise Surface ship E1.............. 287 Other AFTT
Surface-to- crews fire 231 Areas.
Surface Ship medium-caliber 1,127 GOMEX RC.
Medium-Caliber. guns at surface 504 JAX RC.
targets. 2,247 Navy Cherry
Point RC.
VACAPES RC.
Explosive............. Integrated Live Naval forces E1, E3, E6, E10. 14 VACAPES RC.
Fire Exercise. defend against a 14 JAX RC.
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..... 714 JAX RC.
Air-to-Surface. helicopter 364 Navy Cherry
aircrews fire 616 Point RC.
air-to-surface VACAPES RC.
missiles at
surface targets.
Explosive............. Missile Exercise Helicopter E3.............. 70 GOMEX RC.
Air-to-Surface-- aircrews fire 714 JAX RC.
Rocket. both precision- 70 Navy Cherry
guided and 644 Point RC.
unguided rockets VACAPES RC.
at surface
targets.
Explosive............. Missile Exercise Surface ship E6, E10......... 112 JAX RC.
Surface-to- crews defend 84 VACAPES RC.
Surface. against surface
threats (ships
or small boats)
and engage them
with missiles.
Acoustic, Explosive... Sinking Exercise. Aircraft, ship, TORP2, E5, E8, 7 SINKEX Box.
and submarine E9, E10, E11.
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.
Acoustic.............. Elevated Causeway A temporary pier Impact hammer or 7 Lower Chesapeake
System. is constructed vibratory 7 Bay.
off the beach. extractor. Navy Cherry
Supporting Point RC.
pilings are
driven into the
sand and then
later removed.
Acoustic.............. Submarine Submarine crews HF1, MF3........ 1,183 NSB New London.
Navigation. operate sonar 21 NSB Kings Bay.
for navigation 21 NS Mayport.
and object 588 NS Norfolk.
detection while 161 Port Canaveral,
transiting into FL.
and out of port
during reduced
visibility.
Acoustic.............. Submarine Sonar Maintenance of MF3............. 84 Other AFTT
Maintenance. submarine sonar 462 Areas.
systems is 63 NSB New London.
conducted 14 JAX RC.
pierside or at 238 NSB Kings Bay.
sea. 602 NS Norfolk.
14 Northeast RC.
88 Port Canaveral,
326 FL.
Navy Cherry
Point RC.
VACAPES RC.
Acoustic.............. Submarine Under Submarine crews HF1............. 21 JAX RC.
Ice train to operate 21 Navy Cherry
Certification. under ice. Ice 63 Point RC.
conditions are 63 Northeast RC.
simulated during VACAPES RC.
training and
certification
events.
Acoustic.............. Surface Ship Surface ship HF8, MF1K....... 532 NS Mayport.
Object Detection. crews operate 1,134 NS Norfolk.
sonar for
navigation and
object detection
while transiting
in and out of
port during
reduced
visibility.
Acoustic.............. Surface Ship Maintenance of HF8, MF1........ 350 JAX RC.
sonar surface ship 350 NS Mayport.
Maintenance. sonar systems is 840 Navy Cherry
conducted 1,645 Point RC.
pierside or at 840 NS Norfolk.
sea. VACAPES RC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The number of training activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities remains
identical to those presented in Table 4 of the 2018 AFTT final rule.
\2\ Locations given are areas where activities typically occur. However, activities could be conducted in other
locations within the Study Area. Where multiple locations are provided within a single cell, the number of
activities could occur in any of the locations, not in each of the locations.
* For Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise--Ship, 50 percent of requirements are met through synthetic
training or other training exercises.
Notes: GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville; NS: Naval Station; NSB: Naval Submarine Base; NSWC: Naval
Surface Warfare Center; RC: Range Complex; VACAPES: Virginia Capes.

[[Page 70718]]

Testing Activities
The number of planned testing activities that could occur annually
and the duration of those activities are identical to those presented
in Tables 5 through 7 of the 2018 AFTT final rule, and are not repeated
here. Similar to the 2017 Navy application, the Navy's planned testing
activities presented 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 planned testing
activities that could occur for the seven-year period are presented in
Tables 2 through 4. The number of ship shock trials for the seven-year
period will remain the same as the number covered by the 2018 AFTT
final rule.
Naval Air Systems Command
The Naval Air Systems Command testing activities that could occur
over the seven-year period within the AFTT Study Area are presented in
Table 2.

Table 2--Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities Analyzed for Seven-Year Period in the AFTT Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Year number
Stressor category Activity name Activity Source bin of activities Location \2\
description \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Submarine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic.......... Anti-Submarine This event is MF5, TORP1...... 209 JAX RC.
Warfare Torpedo similar to the 523 VACAPES RC.
Test. training event
torpedo
exercise. Test
evaluates anti-
submarine
warfare systems
onboard rotary-
wing (e.g.,
helicopter) and
fixed-wing
aircraft and the
ability to
search for,
detect,
classify,
localize, track,
and attack a
submarine or
similar target.
Acoustic, Anti-Submarine This event is MF4, MF5, E3.... 34 GOMEX RC.
Explosive. Warfare Tracking similar to the 36 JAX RC.
Test--Helicopter. training event 64 Key West RC.
anti-submarine 442 Northeast RC
warfare tracking 1,368 VACAPES RC.
exercise--helico
pter. The test
evaluates the
sensors and
systems used to
detect and track
submarines and
to ensure that
helicopter
systems used to
deploy the
tracking system
perform to
specifications.
Acoustic, Anti-Submarine The test ASW2, ASW5, E1, 85 GOMEX RC.
Explosive. Warfare Tracking evaluates the E3, MF5, MF6. 133 JAX RC.
Test--Maritime sensors and 76 Key West RC.
Patrol Aircraft. systems used by 101 Navy Cherry
maritime patrol 279 Point RC.
aircraft to 175 Northeast RC.
detect and track VACAPES RC.
submarines and
to ensure that
aircraft systems
used to deploy
the tracking
systems perform
to
specifications
and meet
operational
requirements.
Acoustic.......... Kilo Dip......... Functional check MF4............. 22 GOMEX RC.
of a helicopter 12 JAX RC.
deployed dipping 12 Key West RC.
sonar system 12 Northeast RC.
prior to 200 VACAPES RC.
conducting a
testing or
training event
using the
dipping sonar
system.
Acoustic, Sonobuoy Lot Sonobuoys are ASW2, ASW5, HF5, 1,120 Key West RC.
Explosive. Acceptance Test. deployed from HF6, LF4, MF5,
surface vessels MF6, E1, E3, E4.
and aircraft to
verify the
integrity and
performance of a
production lot
or group of
sonobuoys in
advance of
delivery to the
fleet for
operational use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic.............. Airborne Dipping A mine-hunting HF4............. 144 NSWC Panama
Sonar dipping sonar 66 City.
Minehunting Test. system that is VACAPES RC.
deployed from a
helicopter and
uses high-
frequency sonar
for the
detection and
classification
of bottom and
moored mines.
Explosive......... Airborne Mine A test of the E4.............. 154 NSWC Panama
Neutralization airborne mine 215 City.
System Test. neutralization VACAPES RC.
system evaluates
the system's
ability to
detect and
destroy mines
from an airborne
mine
countermeasures
capable
helicopter. The
airborne mine
neutralization
system uses up
to four unmanned
underwater
vehicles
equipped with
high-frequency
sonar, video
cameras, and
explosive and
non-explosive
neutralizers.
Acoustic.......... Airborne Sonobuoy A mine-hunting HF6............. 364 NSWC Panama
Minehunting Test. system made up 168 City.
of a field of VACAPES RC.
sonobuoys
deployed by a
helicopter. A
field of
sonobuoys, using
high-frequency
sonar, is used
to detect and
classify bottom
and moored mines.

[[Page 70719]]

Surface Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosive......... Air-to-Surface This event is E9.............. 140 VACAPES RC.
Bombing Test. 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.
Explosive......... Air-to-Surface This event is E1.............. 295 JAX RC.
Gunnery Test. similar to the 890 VACAPES RC.
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
guns, gun
ammunition, or
associated
systems meet
required
specifications
or to train
aircrews in the
operation of a
new or enhanced
weapon system.
Explosive......... Air-to-Surface This event is E6, E9, E10..... 30 GOMEX RC.
Missile Test. similar to the 234 JAX RC.
training event 234 VACAPES RC.
missile exercise
air-to-surface.
Test may involve
both fixed-wing
and rotary-wing
aircraft
launching
missiles at
surface maritime
targets to
evaluate the
weapon system or
as part of
another system's
integration test.
Explosive......... Rocket Test...... Rocket tests E3.............. 121 JAX RC.
evaluate the 233 VACAPES RC.
integration,
accuracy,
performance, and
safe separation
of guided and
unguided 2.75-
inch rockets
fired from a
hovering or
forward-flying
helicopter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Testing Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic.......... Undersea Range Following MF9, BB4........ 66 JAX RC.
System Test. installation of
a Navy
underwater
warfare training
and testing
range, tests of
the nodes
(components of
the range) will
be conducted to
include node
surveys and
testing of node
transmission
functionality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The number of testing activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities are
identical to those presented in Table 5 of the 2018 AFTT final rule.
\2\ Locations given are areas where activities typically occur. However, activities could be conducted in other
locations within the Study Area.
Notes: GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville; NSWC: Naval Surface Warfare Center; RC: Range Complex; VACAPES:
Virginia Capes.

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

Table 3--Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities Analyzed for Seven-Year Period in the AFTT Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-year number
Stressor category Activity name Activity Source bin of activities Location \2\
description \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Submarine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic.......... Anti-Submarine Ships and their ASW1, ASW2, 294 JAX RC.
Warfare Mission supporting ASW3, ASW5, 28 Newport, RI.
Package Testing. platforms (e.g., MF1, MF4, MF5, 28 NUWC Newport.
helicopters, MF12, TORP1. 182 VACAPES RC.
unmanned aerial
systems) detect,
localize, and
attack
submarines.
Acoustic.......... At-Sea Sonar At-sea testing to ASW3, ASW4, HF1, 14 JAX RC, Navy
Testing. ensure systems LF5, M3, MF1, Cherry Point
are fully MF1K, MF3, MF5, RC, Northeast
functional in an MF9, MF11, RC, VACAPES RC.
open ocean TORP2.
environment.
7 JAX RC, Navy
Cherry Point
RC, VACAPES RC.

[[Page 70720]]

14 offshore Fort
Pierce, FL,
GOMEX RC, JAX
RC, SFOMF,
Northeast RC,
VACAPES RC.
28 JAX RC.
14 Navy Cherry
Point RC.
56 NUWC Newport.
84 VACAPES RC.
Acoustic.......... Pierside Sonar Pierside testing ASW3, HF1, HF3, 7 NSB New London,
Testing. to ensure HF8, M3, MF1, NS Norfolk,
systems are MF1K, MF3, MF9, Port Canaveral,
fully functional MF10. FL.
in a controlled
pierside
environment
prior to at-sea
test activities.
77 Bath, ME.
35 NSB New London.
28 NSB Kings Bay.
56 Newport, RI.
91 NS Norfolk.
14 Pascagoula, MS.
21 Port Canaveral,
FL.
14 PNS.
Acoustic.......... Submarine Sonar Pierside testing HF1, HF3, M3, 112 Norfolk, VA.
Testing/ of submarine MF3. 168 PNS.
Maintenance. systems occurs
periodically
following major
maintenance
periods and for
routine
maintenance.
Acoustic.......... Surface Ship Pierside and at- ASW3, MF1, MF1K, 7 JAX RC.
Sonar Testing/ sea testing of MF9, MF10. 7 NS Mayport.
Maintenance. ship systems 21 NS Norfolk.
occur 21 VACAPES RC.
periodically
following major
maintenance
periods and for
routine
maintenance.
Acoustic, Torpedo Air, surface, or ASW3, HF1, HF5, 28 GOMEX RC,
Explosive. (Explosive) submarine crews HF6, MF1, MF3, offshore Fort
Testing. employ explosive MF4, MF5, MF6, Pierce, FL, Key
and non- TORP1, TORP2, West RC, Navy
explosive E8, E11. Cherry Point
torpedoes RC, Northeast
against RC, VACAPES
artificial RC,.
targets.
14 GOMEX RC, JAX
RC, Northeast
RC, VACAPES RC.
Acoustic.......... Torpedo (Non- Air, surface, or ASW3, ASW4, HF1, 49 GOMEX RC.
Explosive) submarine crews HF6, MF1, MF3, 77 offshore Fort
Testing. employ non- MF4, MF5, MF6, .............. Pierce, FL.
explosive TORP1, TORP2, 12 JAX RC.
torpedoes TORP 3. 49 Navy Cherry
against .............. Point RC.
submarines or 54 Northeast RC.
surface vessels. 210 NUWC Newport.
When performed 77 VACAPES RC
on a testing
range, these
torpedoes may be
launched from a
range craft or
fixed structures
and may use
artificial
targets.
Acoustic.......... Countermeasure Countermeasure ASW3, HF5, 35 GOMEX RC, JAX
Testing. testing involves TORP1, TORP2. RC, NUWC
the testing of Newport,
systems that VACAPES RC, Key
will detect, West RC.
localize, track,
and attack
incoming weapons
including marine
vessel targets.
Testing includes
surface ship
torpedo defense
systems and
marine vessel
stopping
payloads.
20 GOMEX RC, JAX
RC, Northeast
RC, VACAPES RC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic, Mine Air, surface, and E4, E11......... 91 NSWC Panama
Explosive. Countermeasure subsurface 42 City.
and vessels VACAPES RC.
Neutralization neutralize
Testing. threat mines and
mine-like
objects.

[[Page 70721]]

Acoustic, Mine Vessels and HF4, SAS2, E4... 133 GOMEX RC.
Explosive. Countermeasure associated 70 JAX RC.
Mission Package aircraft conduct 77 NSWC Panama
Testing. mine 14 City.
countermeasure 35 SFOMF.
operations. VACAPES RC.
Acoustic.......... Mine Detection Air, surface, and HF1,HF4, HF8, 42 GOMEX RC.
and subsurface MF1, MF1K, MF9. 70 Navy Cherry
Classification vessels and .............. Point RC.
Testing. systems detect, 359 NSWC Panama
classify, and 66 City.
avoid mines and 28 Riviera Beach,
mine-like 21 FL.
objects. Vessels SFOMF.
also assess VACAPES RC.
their potential
susceptibility
to mines and
mine-like
objects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Warfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosive......... Gun Testing-- Crews defend E3, E5.......... 84 GOMEX RC, JAX
Large Caliber. against targets RC, Key West
with large- RC, Navy Cherry
caliber guns. Point RC,
Northeast RC,
VACAPES RC.
7 GOMEX RC.
7 JAX RC.
7 Key West RC.
7 Navy Cherry
Point RC.
7 Northeast RC.
231 NSWC Panama
City.
35 VACAPES RC.
Explosive......... Gun Testing-- Airborne and E1.............. 84 GOMEX RC, JAX
Medium-Caliber. surface crews RC, Key West
defend against RC, Navy Cherry
targets with Point RC,
medium-caliber Northeast RC,
guns. VACAPES RC.
714 NSWC Panama
City.
34 VACAPES RC.
Explosive......... Missile and Missile and E6, E10......... 91 GOMEX RC, JAX
Rocket Testing. rocket testing RC, Key West
includes various RC, Navy Cherry
missiles or Point RC,
rockets fired Northeast RC,
from submarines VACAPES RC.
and surface
combatants.
Testing of the
launching system
and ship defense
is performed.
7 GOMEX RC.
14 JAX RC.
35 Northeast RC.
154 VACAPES RC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmanned Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic, Unmanned Testing involves ASW4, FLS2, HF1, 112 GOMEX RC, JAX
Explosive. Underwater the development HF4, HF5, HF6, RC, NUWC
Vehicle Testing. or upgrade of HF7, LF5, MF9, Newport.
unmanned MF10, SAS1,
underwater SA2, SAS3,
vehicles. This VHF1, E8.
may include
testing of mine
detection
capabilities,
evaluating the
basic functions
of individual
platforms, or
complex events
with multiple
vehicles.
287 GOMEX RC.
175 JAX RC.
1,018 NSWC Panama
City.
2,158 NUWC Newport.
63 Riviera Beach,
FL.
294 SFOMF.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessel Evaluation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosive......... Large Ship Shock Underwater E17............. 1 GOMEX RC, JAX
Trial. detonations are RC, VACAPES RC.
used to test new
ships or major
upgrades.

[[Page 70722]]

Explosive......... Surface Warfare Tests capability E1, E5, E8...... 14 GOMEX RC.
Testing. of shipboard 91 JAX RC.
sensors to 7 Key West RC.
detect, track, 70 Northeast RC.
and engage 63 VACAPES RC.
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 demonstrate ASW3, ASW4, HF4, 14 JAX RC, VACAPES
Testing. capability of HF8, MF1, MF1K, 6 RC.
countermeasure MF4, MF5, MF9, JAX RC, Navy
systems and MF10, TORP1, Cherry Point
underwater TORP2. RC, SFOMF,
surveillance, VACAPES RC.
weapons
engagement, and
communications
systems. This
tests ships'
ability to
detect, track,
and engage
underwater
targets.
14 GOMEX RC.
42 JAX RC.
14 VACAPES RC.
Explosive......... Small Ship Shock Underwater E16............. 3 JAX RC, VACAPES
Trial. detonations are RC.
used to test new
ships or major
upgrades.
Acoustic.......... Submarine Sea Submarine weapons HF1, M3, MF3, 14 Offshore Fort
Trials--Weapons and sonar MF9, MF10, Pierce, FL,
System Testing. systems are TORP2. GOMEX RC, JAX
tested at-sea to RC, SFOMF,
meet integrated Northeast RC,
combat system VACAPES RC.
certification
requirements.
28 JAX RC.
28 Northeast RC.
28 VACAPES RC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Testing Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic.......... Insertion/ Testing of MF3, MF9........ 28 Key West RC.
Extraction. submersibles 1,848 NSWC Panama
capable of City.
inserting and
extracting
personnel and
payloads into
denied areas
from strategic
distances.
Acoustic.......... Acoustic Various surface FLS2, HF5, HF7, 231 SFOMF.
Component vessels, moored LF5, MF9, SAS2.
Testing. equipment, and
materials are
tested to
evaluate
performance in
the marine
environment.
Acoustic.......... Semi-Stationary Semi-stationary AG, ASW3, ASW4, 28 Newport, RI.
Equipment equipment (e.g., HF5, HF6, LF4, 77 NSWC Panama
Testing. hydrophones) is LF5, MF9, MF10, 1,330 City.
deployed to SD1, SD2. NUWC Newport.
determine
functionality.
Acoustic.......... Towed Equipment Surface vessels HF6, LF4, MF9... 252 NUWC Newport.
Testing. or unmanned
surface vehicles
deploy and tow
equipment to
determine
functionality of
towed systems.
Acoustic.......... Signature Surface ship and ASW2, HF1, LF4, 7 JAX RC.
Analysis submarine LF5, LF6, M3, 413 SFOMF.
Operations. testing of MF9, MF10.
electromagnetic,
acoustic,
optical, and
radar signature
measurements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The number of testing activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities are
identical to those presented in Table 6 of the 2018 AFTT final rule.
\2\ Locations given are areas where activities typically occur. However, activities could be conducted in other
locations within the Study Area. Where multiple locations are provided within a single cell, the number of
activities could occur in any of the locations, not in each of the locations.
Notes: JEB LC-FS: Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story; NS: Naval Station; NSB: Naval Submarine
Base; NSWC: Naval Surface Warfare Center; NUWC: Naval Undersea Warfare Center; PNS: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard;
SFOMF: South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range.

[[Page 70723]]

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

Table 4--Office of Naval Research Testing Activities Analyzed for Seven-Year Period in the AFTT Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Year number
Stressor category Activity name Activity Source bin of activities Location
description \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic, Explosive... Acoustic and Research using AG, ASW2, BB4, 30 GOMEX RC.
Oceanographic active BB5, BB6, BB7, 60 Northeast RC.
Research. transmissions LF3, LF4, LF5, 16 VACAPES RC.
from sources MF8, MF9, MF14, 14 Other AFTT
deployed from E1. Areas.
ships and
unmanned
underwater
vehicles.
Research sources
can be used as
proxies for
current and
future Navy
systems.
Acoustic.............. Emerging Mine Test involves the BB1, BB2, SAS4.. 7 JAX RC.
Countermeasure use of broadband 14 Northeast RC.
Technology acoustic sources 7 VACAPES RC.
Research. on unmanned
underwater
vehicles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The number of testing activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities are
identical to those presented in Table 7 of the 2018 AFTT final rule.
Notes: GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville, Florida; RC: Range Complex; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Summary of Acoustic and Explosive Sources Analyzed for Training and
Testing

Tables 5 through 8 show the acoustic source classes and numbers,
explosive source bins and numbers, airgun sources, and pile driving and
removal activities associated with the Navy's planned training and
testing activities over the seven-year period in the AFTT Study Area
that were analyzed in the 2019 Navy application and for this final
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 AFTT Study Area are identical to those presented in Tables 8
through 11 of the 2018 AFTT final rule, and are not repeated here.
Consistent with the periodicity in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Navy
included the addition of two pile driving/extraction activities for
each of the two additional years.
Table 5 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 planned training and testing activities.
Acoustic source bin use in the activities would vary annually. The
seven-year totals for the planned training and testing activities take
into account that annual variability.

Table 5--Acoustic Source Classes Analyzed and Number Used for Seven-Year Period for Training and Testing
Activities in the AFTT Study Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Year total
Source class category Bin Description Unit \1\ -------------------------------
Training Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF): Sources LF3........... LF sources H............ 0 9,156
that produce signals less greater than 200
than 1 kHz. dB.
LF4........... LF sources equal H............ 0 6,797
to 180 dB and up C............ 0 140
to 200 dB.
LF5........... LF sources less H............ 60 12,264
than 180 dB.
LF6........... LF sources H............ 1,104 280
greater than 200
dB with long
pulse lengths.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical MF1........... Hull-mounted H............ 36,833 23,358
and non-tactical sources that surface ship
produce signals between 1-10 sonars (e.g., AN/
kHz. SQS-53C and AN/
SQS-61).
MF1K.......... Kingfisher mode H............ 819 1,064
associated with
MF1 sonars.
MF3........... Hull-mounted H............ 14,604 8,799
submarine sonars
(e.g., AN/BQQ-
10).
MF4........... Helicopter- H............ 4,196 3,797
deployed dipping
sonars (e.g., AN/
AQS-22 and AN/
AQS-13).
MF5........... Active acoustic C............ 47,340 38,663
sonobuoys (e.g.,
DICASS).
MF6........... Active underwater C............ 0 8,986
sound signal
devices (e.g.,
MK84).
MF8........... Active sources H............ 0 2,436
(greater than
200 dB) not
otherwise binned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MF9........... Active sources H............ 0 52,128
(equal to 180 dB
and up to 200
dB) not
otherwise binned.
MF10.......... Active sources H............ 6,088 39,830
(greater than
160 dB, but less
than 180 dB) not
otherwise binned.

[[Page 70724]]

MF11.......... Hull-mounted H............ 6,495 9,968
surface ship
sonars with an
active duty
cycle greater
than 80%.
MF12.......... Towed array H............ 2,658 9,716
surface ship
sonars with an
active duty
cycle greater
than 80%.
MF14.......... Oceanographic MF H............ 0 10,080
sonar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Frequency (HF): Tactical HF1........... Hull-mounted H............ 13,504 2,772
and non-tactical sources that submarine sonars
produce signals between 10-- (e.g., AN/BQQ-
100 kHz. 10).
HF3........... Other hull- H............ 34,275 215
mounted
submarine sonars
(classified).
HF4........... Mine detection, H............ 41,717 179,516
classification,
and
neutralization
sonar (e.g., AN/
SQS-20).
HF5........... Active sources H............ 0 13,624
(greater than C............ 0 280
200 dB) not
otherwise binned.
HF6........... Active sources H............ 0 15,254
(equal to 180 dB
and up to 200
dB) not
otherwise binned.
HF7........... Active sources H............ 0 8,568
(greater than
160 dB, but less
than 180 dB) not
otherwise binned.
HF8........... Hull-mounted H............ 140 14,587
surface ship
sonars (e.g., AN/
SQS-61).
Very High-Frequency Sonars VHF1.......... VHF sources H............ 0 84
(VHF): Non-tactical sources greater than 200
that produce signals between dB.
100--200 kHz.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): ASW1.......... MF systems H............ 4,251 5,740
Tactical sources (e.g., operating above
active sonobuoys and acoustic 200 dB.
counter-measures systems)
used during ASW training and
testing activities.
ASW2.......... MF Multistatic C............ 10,572 35,842
Active Coherent
sonobuoy (e.g.,
AN/SSQ-125).
ASW3.......... MF towed active H............ 34,275 21,737
acoustic
countermeasure
systems (e.g.,
AN/SLQ-25).
ASW4.......... MF expendable C............ 2,994 24,043
active acoustic
device
countermeasures
(e.g., MK 3).
ASW5.......... MF sonobuoys with H............ 4,244 4,316
high duty cycles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Torpedoes (TORP): Source TORP1......... Lightweight C............ 399 6,122
classes associated with the torpedo (e.g.,
active acoustic signals MK 46, MK 54, or
produced by torpedoes. Anti-Torpedo
Torpedo).
TORP2......... Heavyweight C............ 560 2,600
torpedo (e.g.,
MK 48).
TORP 3........ Heavyweight C............ 0 640
torpedo (e.g.,
MK 48).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward Looking Sonar (FLS): FLS2.......... HF sources with H............ 0 8,568
Forward or upward looking short pulse
object avoidance sonars used lengths, narrow
for ship navigation and beam widths, and
safety. focused beam
patterns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic Modems (M): Systems M3............ MF acoustic H............ 0 4,436
used to transmit data through modems (greater
the water. than 190 dB).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swimmer Detection Sonars (SD): SD1--SD2...... HF and VHF H............ 0 1,232
Systems used to detect divers sources with
and sub- merged swimmers. short pulse
lengths, used
for the
detection of
swimmers and
other objects
for the purpose
of port security.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Synthetic Aperture Sonars SAS1.......... MF SAS systems... H............ 0 6,720
(SAS): Sonars in which active
acoustic signals are post-
processed to form high-
resolution images of the
seafloor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAS2.......... HF SAS systems... H............ 33,600 24,584
SAS3.......... VHF SAS systems.. H............ 0 6,720
SAS4.......... MF to HF H............ 0 6,720
broadband mine
countermeasure
sonar.
Broadband Sound Sources (BB): BB1........... MF to HF mine H............ 0 6,720
Sonar systems with large countermeasure
frequency spectra, used for sonar.
various purposes.
BB2........... HF to VHF mine H............ 0 6,720
countermeasure
sonar.

[[Page 70725]]

BB4........... LF to MF H............ 0 10,884
oceanographic
source.
BB5........... LF to MF H............ 0 4,704
oceanographic
source.
BB6........... HF oceanographic H............ 0 4,704
source.
BB7........... LF oceanographic C............ 0 840
source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H = hours; C = count (e.g., number of individual pings or individual sonobuoys).
Note: dB = decibel

Table 6 describes the number of air gun shots that could occur over
seven years under the planned training and testing activities.

Table 6--Training and Testing Air Gun Sources Quantitatively Analyzed in the AFTT Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Year total \2\
Source class category Bin Unit \1\ -------------------------------
Training Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Guns (AG): Small underwater air AG.................. C................... 0 4,228
guns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ C = count. One count (C) of AG is equivalent to 100 air gun firings.
\2\ The annual numbers for airgun sources associated with Navy training and testing activities in the AFTT Study
Area are identical to those presented in Table 9 in the 2018 AFTT final rule.

Table 7 summarizes the impact pile driving and vibratory pile
removal activities that could 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 removal, the Navy will remove 119 piles,
two times a year for a total of 238 piles. Over the seven-year period
of the rule, the Navy will remove a total of 1,666 piles by vibratory
pile removal.

Table 7--Summary of Pile Driving and Removal Activities per 24-Hour Period in the AFTT Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
estimated
Piles per 24- Time per pile time of noise
Method hour period (minutes) per 24-hour
period
(minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile Driving (Impact)........................................... 6 15 90
Pile Removal (Vibratory)........................................ 12 6 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 8 describes the number of in-water explosives that could be
used in any year under the planned training and testing activities.
Under the activities, bin use would vary annually, and the seven-year
totals for the planned training and testing activities take into
account that annual variability.

Table 8--Explosive Source Bins Analyzed and Number Used for Seven-Year Period for Training and Testing
Activities Within the AFTT Study Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive 7-Year Total \2\
Bin weight \1\ Example explosive source -------------------------------
(lb.) Training Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E1................................ 0.1-0.25 Medium-caliber projectile... 53,900 160,880
E2................................ >0.25-0.5 Medium-caliber projectile... 1,486 0
E3................................ >0.5-2.5 Large-caliber projectile.... 32,144 20,162
E4................................ >2.5-5 Mine neutralization charge.. 913 5,330
E5................................ >5-10 5-inch projectile........... 10,052 9,275
E6................................ >10-20 Hellfire missile............ 4,214 276
E7................................ > 20-60 Demo block/shaped charge.... 28 0
E8................................ >60-100 Light-weight torpedo........ 154 231
E9................................ >100-250 500 lb. bomb................ 462 28
E10............................... >250-500 Harpoon missile............. 630 566
E11............................... >500-650 650 lb. mine................ 7 70

[[Page 70726]]

E12............................... >650-1,000 2,000 lb. bomb.............. 126 0
E16 \2\........................... >7,250-14,500 Littoral Combat Ship full 0 12
ship shock trial.
E17 \2\........................... >14,500-58,000 Aircraft carrier full ship 0 4
shock trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Net Explosive Weight refers to the equivalent amount of Trinitrotoluene (TNT) the actual weight of a
munition may be larger due to other components.
\2\ The annual numbers for explosive source bins associated with Navy training and testing activities in the
AFTT Study Area are identical to those presented in Table 11 in the 2018 AFTT final rule.
Note: Shock trials consist of four explosions each. In any given year there could be 0-3 small ship shock trials
(E16) and 0-1 large ship shock trials (E17). Over a 7-year period, there could be three small ship shock
trials (E16) and one large ship shock trial (E17) which is the same amount of ship shock trial events that
could occur over the original five-year period. Therefore, there is no increase in ship shock trial events
under this final rule.

Vessel Movement

Vessel movements associated with the planned activities include
both surface and sub-surface operations. Vessels used as part of the
activities include ships, submarines, unmanned vessels, and boats
ranging in size from small, 22 feet (ft) (7 meters (m)) rigid hull
inflatable boats to aircraft carriers with lengths up to 1,092 ft. (333
m). Large Navy ships greater than 60 ft (18 m) generally operate at
speeds in the range of 10 to 15 kn for fuel conservation. Submarines
generally operate at speeds in the range of 8 to 13 kn in transits and
less than those speeds for certain tactical maneuvers. Small craft,
less than 60 ft (18 m) in length, have much more variable speeds
(dependent on the mission). For small craft types, sizes and speeds
vary during training and testing. Speeds generally range from 10 to 14
kn. While these speeds for large and small crafts are representative of
most events, some vessels need to temporarily operate outside of these
parameters. A full description of Navy vessels that are used during
training and testing activities and will be used under the seven-year
period of this rule can be found in the 2017 Navy application and
Chapter 2 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS.
The manner in which Navy vessels will be used during training and
testing activities, the speeds at which they operate, the number of
vessels that will be used during various activities, and the locations
in which Navy vessel movement will be concentrated within the AFTT
Study Area are identical to those analyzed in the 2018 AFTT 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
planned activities and has included them in the environmental analysis.
Details on standard operating procedures were provided in the 2018 AFTT
proposed rule; please see the 2018 AFTT proposed rule, the 2017 Navy
application, and Chapter 2 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS for more
information. The Standard Operating Procedures for the seven-year
period will be identical to those in place under the 2018 AFTT final
rule.

Comments and Responses

On February 1, 2019, we published a notice of receipt (NOR) of the
Navy's application in the Federal Register (84 FR 1069), and requested
comments and information related to the Navy's request. The review and
comment period for the NOR ended on March 4, 2019. We reviewed and
considered all comments and information received on the NOR in
development of the proposed rule. We published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register on May 13, 2019 (84 FR 21126), with a 30-day comment
period. In that proposed rule, we requested public input on the request
for authorization described therein, our analyses, and the proposed
authorizations and requested that interested persons submit relevant
information, suggestions, and comments. During the 30-day comment
period, we received eight comment letters. Of this total, one
submission was from the Marine Mammal Commission (hereafter
``Commission''), one letter was from an organization or individual
acting in an official capacity (e.g., non-governmental organization
(NGO)) and six submissions were from private citizens. NMFS has
reviewed and considered all public comments received on the proposed
rule and issuance of the LOAs. All relevant comments and our responses
are described below. We provide no response to specific comments that
addressed species or statutes not relevant to our proposed
authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (e.g., comments
related to sea turtles).
The majority of the six comment letters from private citizens
expressed general opposition toward the Navy's proposed training and
testing activities and requested that NMFS not issue the LOAs, but
without providing information relevant to NMFS' decisions. These
comments appear to indicate a lack of understanding of the MMPA's
requirement that NMFS ``shall issue'' requested authorizations when
certain findings (see the Background section) are met; therefore, these
comments were not considered further. The remaining comments are
addressed below.
Both the Commission and NGO included their comments submitted on
the 2018 AFTT proposed rule. The Commission did not reiterate their
2018 AFTT proposed rule recommendations in their comment letter but
maintained that the recommendations that NMFS did not incorporate into
the 2018 AFTT final rule are still relevant and pertain

[[Page 70727]]

to the extension of the five-year rule and asked that they be reviewed
again in the course of considering the new seven-year rule. The NGO
attached their 2018 AFTT proposed rule comment letter and their
comments on the Notice of Receipt of the 2019 Navy application. They
stated that ``most of the issues raised [in their 2018 AFTT proposed
rule comment letter] were not adequately addressed in the 2018-2023
Final Rule'' and asked that NMFS renew consideration of their prior
comments. To the extent they raised concerns with how ``most'' issues
were addressed previously, it did not identify which issues those were.
NMFS reviewed, considered, and responded to all comments received on
the 2018 AFTT proposed rule and issuance of the proposed LOAs. Please
see the 2018 AFTT final rule Comments and Responses section for a
summary of the comments received and NMFS' responses to these comments.
As the NGO resubmitted their comments on the Notice of Receipt of the
2019 Navy Application, we respond to those comments below.
Comment 1: Commenters noted that NMFS did not propose to authorize
beaked whale mortalities subsequent to MFA sonar use for any of the
Navy's Phase III activities and states that that approach is
inconsistent with the tack taken for both the Trajectory Analysis
Planner (TAP) I and Phase II activities. The Commenters noted that for
the previous final rule for AFTT (78 FR 73009; December 4, 2013), NMFS
authorized up to 10 beaked whale mortality takes during the five-year
period of the final rule (78 FR 73067; December 4, 2013). They noted
that NMFS justified authorizing those mortalities by stating that,
although NMFS and the Navy do not anticipate any beaked whale
strandings to occur and no strandings have ever been reported in the
AFTT Study Area, NMFS cannot conclude with certainty the degree to
which mitigation measures would eliminate or reduce the potential for
serious injury or mortality (78 FR 73043; December 4, 2013). The
Commenters stated that this justification is still applicable. The
Commenters asserted that NMFS indicated that steep bathymetry, multiple
hull-mounted platforms using sonar simultaneously, constricted
channels, and strong surface ducts are not all present together in the
AFTT Study Area during the specified activities (83 FR 57116; November
14, 2018), and that NMFS specified that it did not authorize beaked
whale mortalities in the 2018 AFTT final rule based on the lack of
those factors and the lack of any strandings associated with Navy sonar
use in the AFTT Study Area (83 FR 57116; November 14, 2018). The
Commenters stated that this does not comport with NMFS' acknowledgement
in the 2018 AFTT proposed rule that all five of those factors are not
necessary for a stranding to occur (83 FR 11012; March 13, 2018). They
go on to state that ``NMFS still cannot conclude with certainty the
degree to which mitigation measures would eliminate or reduce the
potential for serious injury or mortality. This is especially true for
a species that is cryptic and difficult for researchers, let alone Navy
Lookouts, to observe visually in order to implement mitigation
measures, and while passive acoustic monitoring could readily detect
beaked whales, it is not used by the Navy as part of its mitigation
measures involving MFA sonar.'' Given that the potential for beaked
whale mortalities cannot be obviated, the Commenters recommend that
NMFS authorize at least 10 mortality takes of beaked whales subsequent
to MFA sonar use, consistent with the AFTT Phase II final rule (83 FR
57076).
Response: NMFS does not disregard the fact that it is possible for
naval activities using hull-mounted tactical sonar to contribute to the
death of marine mammals in certain circumstances (that are not present
in the AFTT Study Area) via strandings resulting from behaviorally
mediated physiological impacts or other gas-related injuries. NMFS
included a discussion in the 2018 AFTT proposed and final rules of
these potential causes and outlines the few cases where active naval
sonar (in the U.S. or, largely, elsewhere) has either potentially
contributed to or (as with the Bahamas example) been more definitively
causally linked with marine mammal strandings. As noted, there are a
suite of factors that have been associated with these specific cases of
strandings directly associated with sonar (steep bathymetry, multiple
hull-mounted platforms using sonar simultaneously, constricted
channels, strong surface ducts, etc.). The Commenters are incorrect,
however, in implying that NMFS found all these features must be present
together. While not all of these factors must be present for a beaked
whale stranding to occur, steep bathymetry and constricted channels
specifically are not present in the AFTT Study Area, and surface ducts
are not consistently present at any location. Further, in addition to
the mitigation and monitoring measures in place (visual monitoring,
passive acoustic monitoring when practicable, etc., see the 2018 AFTT
final rule Mitigation and Monitoring sections for a full description of
these measures) the Navy minimizes active sonar military readiness
activities when these features are present (in other areas outside of
the AFTT Study Area) to the maximum extent practicable to meet specific
training or testing requirements. Additionally, there have never been
any strandings associated with Navy sonar use in the AFTT Study Area,
including in the five years of Navy activities since the 2013
authorizations referenced by the Commenters. For these reasons as well
as the other reasons discussed more fully in the 2018 AFTT final rule
(e.g., mitigation measures, monitoring, etc.), NMFS does not anticipate
that the Navy's AFTT training and testing activities will result in
beaked whale strandings and mortality, and none are authorized.
Comment 2: Commenters stated that NMFS cannot amend the existing
five-year rule without undertaking a new negligible impact analysis for
the full seven years of AFTT activity. They stated that while the Navy
has not proposed any changes in activity parameters for the take that
NMFS previously authorized, the addition of two years of explosives,
sonar, and other disruptive activities alters the scope of that
previous analysis. They go one to state that barring a negligible
impact finding predicated on seven years of activity, taking into
account the full extent of mortality, injury, and significant
behavioral disruption that that entails, NMFS cannot amend the rule as
the Navy has requested.
Response: NMFS agrees and conducted a negligible impact analysis
for the full seven years of Navy training and testing activity in the
AFTT Study Area in both the 2019 AFTT proposed rule and this final
rule. Please see the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination
section below.
Comment 3: Commenters stated that NMFS must rigorously assess
cumulative impacts on the same populations from other authorized and
reasonably foreseeable activities, including the five large-scale
seismic surveys that NMFS authorized in November, 2018 as well as the
additional five years of oil and gas exploration that BOEM included in
its 2014 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Atlantic
seismic, to which NMFS tiered its November environmental assessments.
They note that NMFS has repeatedly recognized the importance of
accounting for cumulative effects of human activity on marine mammal
populations, including

[[Page 70728]]

the cumulative effects of acoustic disturbance and masking, but that
despite this NMFS has made its negligible impact findings as though
each authorized activity were taking place in a vacuum, resulting in an
acoustic environment where the same populations are repeatedly harmed.
The Commenters note that at particular risk are range-restricted
populations that are resident off Cape Hatteras; as well as species
already suffering from poor individual fitness, most notably the North
Atlantic right whale.
Response: We recognize the need to address total impacts from the
Navy's activities, and that the total impacts of the Navy's training
and testing activities could be greater than the impacts of any one
particular activity. The total impacts of the Navy's training and
testing activities were evaluated for each species and stock in the
Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination section of this rule and the 2018 AFTT
final rule. See also the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS, which evaluated the
impacts of a maximum amount of activities, and which NMFS has adopted
as the basis for its Record of Decision for the issuance of the final
rule and LOAs.
As described in the 2019 AFTT proposed rule and this final rule
along with the 2018 AFTT final rule, the preamble for NMFS'
implementing regulations under section 101(a)(5) (54 FR 40338;
September 29, 1989) explains in responses to comments that the impacts
from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated
into the negligible impact analysis via their impacts on the
environmental baseline. Consistent with that direction, NMFS here has
factored into its negligible impact analyses the impacts of other past
and ongoing anthropogenic activities via their impacts on the baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the density/distribution and status of the
species, population size and growth rate, and relevant stressors (such
as incidental mortality in commercial fisheries, UMEs, or oil spills)).
See the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of this
rule and the 2018 AFTT final rule.
Our 1989 final rule for the MMPA implementing regulations also
addressed how cumulative effects from unrelated activities would be
considered. There we stated that such effects are not considered in
making findings under section 101(a)(5) concerning negligible impact,
but that NMFS would consider cumulative effects that are reasonably
foreseeable when preparing a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
analysis and also that reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects would
be considered under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for
ESA-listed species.
The cumulative effects of the incremental impact of the proposed
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions (as well as the effects of climate change) were
evaluated against the appropriate resources and regulatory baselines in
the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OIES. The best available science and a comprehensive
review of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (including
the potential for oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic, as the
commenter notes) was used to develop the Cumulative Impacts analysis.
This analysis is contained in Chapter 4 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OIES. As
required under NEPA, the level and scope of the analysis is
commensurate with the scope of potential impacts of the action and the
extent and character of the potentially-impacted resources (e.g., the
geographic boundaries for cumulative impacts analysis for some
resources are expanded to include activities outside the AFTT Study
Area that might impact migratory or wide-ranging animals), as reflected
in the resource-specific discussions in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment
and Environmental Consequences) of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS. The 2018
AFTT FEIS/OEIS considered the proposed training and testing activities
alongside other actions in the region whose impacts may be additive to
those of the proposed training and testing. Past and present actions
are also included in the analytical process as part of the affected
environmental baseline conditions presented in Chapter 3 of the 2018
AFTT FEIS/OEIS. The 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS did so in accordance with 1997
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance. Per the guidance, a
qualitative approach and best professional judgment are appropriate
where precise measurements are not available. Where precise
measurements and/or methodologies were available they were used.
Guidance from CEQ states it ``is not practical to analyze cumulative
effects of an action on the universe; the list of environmental effects
must focus on those that are truly meaningful.'' Further, the U.S. EPA
reviewed the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS and rated the document as LO--lack of
objections--which means it did not identify any environmental impact
requiring substantive changes to the proposal. Information on the NEPA
analysis is provided in Section 4.1.1 (Determination of Significance).
Comment 4: Commenters stated that NMFS should rigorously review its
adaptive management procedures for military readiness activities for
transparency, enforceability, and effectiveness, to strengthen their
integrity for a seven-year authorization cycle. They particularly noted
the need to ensure that research required, or simply recommended, by
NMFS during the rulemaking process is actually completed by the Navy,
as adaptive management cannot proceed if the underlying research to
resolve uncertainties is not performed.
Response: NMFS has rigorously reviewed its adaptive management
procedures for military readiness activities for transparency,
enforceability, and effectiveness and continues to do so on an annual
basis. In addition to the comprehensive written reports provided by the
Navy and reviewed by NMFS, NMFS holds dual-purpose annual Monitoring
and Adaptive Management meetings with the Navy that address all of the
concerns the commenter raises. First, the Navy annually convenes the
researchers conducting the monitoring studies required by the MMPA
rules for Navy Training and Testing (along with NMFS and Commission
staff) to discuss their work and results, allowing for direct
meaningful discourse between the researchers on the ground and
regulators, as well as the opportunity for the researchers to highlight
challenges and recommendations for future work. Second, NMFS, the
Commission, and Navy staff meet to specifically discuss: (1) Exercise
Reports detailing the non-classified extent of activities conducted,
associated mitigation implemented, and marine mammals detected; (2) the
list of monitoring projects and which are finishing, continuing, or
newly starting; (3) new science potentially applicable in an adaptive
management context, and; (4) whether any changes to monitoring or
mitigation are appropriate pursuant to the Adaptive Management
provisions.
Comment 5: Commenters stated that NMFS must improve its negligible
impact analysis and mitigation in issuing a new rule. They note that
the Navy's application proposed no substantial changes in its take
estimation, impact assessment, or mitigation measures, notwithstanding
the issues raised during the previous rulemaking by Commenters.
Response: NMFS reviewed, considered, and responded to all comments
received on the 2018 AFTT proposed rule and issuance of the proposed
LOAs. Please see the 2018

[[Page 70729]]

AFTT final rule Comments and Responses section for a summary of the
comments received and NMFS' responses to these comments. The 2019 AFTT
proposed rule and this final rule contain thorough and complete
analysis of the incidental take that is estimated or has the potential
to occur from the Navy's activities, along with analysis of appropriate
mitigation measures under the least practicable adverse impact
standard. All analysis, including the negligible impact analysis for
each species and stock, has been updated from the 2018 AFTT final rule
as appropriate based on the Navy's application, any new information,
and in consideration of all comments received.
Comment 6: Commenters stated that NMFS presents a flawed updated
vessel strike analysis. The Commenters stated that the Navy made its
take authorization request based on a Poisson distribution using ship-
strike data (from strikes involving Navy vessels only) between 2009 and
2018 in the AFTT Study Area, as well as historical at-sea days in the
AFTT Study Area from 2009-2018 and estimated potential at-sea days for
the period from 2018-2025 covered by the requested regulations. This
distribution predicted the probabilities of a specific number of
strikes over the 2018-2025 period. The Commenters go on to state that
in its take analysis, NMFS considered two factors in addition to those
included in the Navy's request: (1) the relative likelihood of hitting
members of one stock versus another, based on available data from all
vessel strikes enumerated in the agency's Stock Assessment Reports
(SARs); and (2) whether the Navy has ever definitively struck an
individual from a particular stock and, if so, how many times. The
Commenters stated that, thus in determining vessel strike probability,
the agency's analysis only factors in vessel strikes reported by the
Navy, rather than more objectively taking into account the total number
of Navy ships that will be operating in the AFTT Study Area. The
Commenters stated that some conditions the Navy operates in, including
darkness and high sea states, would likely make it impossible to detect
every vessel strike that occurred. In addition, some of the features of
military vessels that NMFS notes as reducing vessel strike probability,
such as the use of marine mammal Lookouts, would also only be effective
in periods of good visibility. Therefore, the agency should not use the
number of vessel strikes reported by the Navy as the basis for its
vessel strike analysis. The Commenters stated that NMFS instead should
analyze the likelihood of a ship hitting a particular stock in the AFTT
Study Area (as based on the SARs) and the total number of Navy vessels,
or the total amount of Navy vessel time spent operating within the AFTT
Study Area.
Response: The Commenters are correct in stating that the Navy
requested incidental takes due to vessel strikes based on probabilities
derived from a Poisson distribution using Navy ship strike data between
2009 and 2018 in the AFTT Study Area (the time period from when current
vessel strike mitigation measures were instituted until the Navy
conducted the analysis for the 2019 Navy application, with no new ship
strikes occurring since this analysis), as well as historical at-sea
days in the AFTT Study Area from 2009-2018 and estimated potential at-
sea days for the period from 2018 to 2025 covered by the requested
regulations. NMFS concurs with the Navy that it is appropriate to use
Navy ship strike data in this analysis, rather than all known ship
strikes (as presented in the SARs), because there are key differences
between Navy vessels and commercial vessels, as described in the
Authorized Take from Vessel Strikes section, which reduce the potential
of ship strikes by Navy vessels and provide confidence that any ship
strike that did occur would be detected and reported. The Navy also
implements mitigation measures (Lookouts, passive sonar when
practicable, etc.) that are not implemented by commercial vessels.
While visibility is decreased in certain situations, such as nighttime
as described by the commenters, ships operated by or for the Navy have
personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when
underway for safety of navigation, collision avoidance, range
clearance, and man-overboard precautions. After sunset and prior to
sunrise, watch personnel employ night visual search techniques, which
can include the use of night vision devices. The Navy is able to detect
if a whale is struck due to the diligence of standard watch personnel
and Lookouts stationed specifically to observe for marine mammals while
a vessel is underway, day and night. These measures make it highly
unlikely that a Navy vessel would strike a whale, dolphin, porpoise, or
pinniped without detecting and reporting it and, accordingly, NMFS is
confident that the Navy's reported strikes are accurate and appropriate
for use in the analysis.
NMFS uses all available information to determine the likelihood of
vessel strike to a particular stock. As the commenter correctly
asserts, NMFS considered two factors in addition to those considered in
the Navy's 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 a detailed description of the methods used to analyze the
likelihood of vessel strikes, see the Authorized Take from Vessel
Strikes section. However, the analysis does take into account the total
number of Navy ships that will be operating in the AFTT Study Area. The
estimated potential at-sea days for the period from 2018 to 2025 takes
into account both the number of vessels and the number of days each
vessel will operate in the AFTT Study Area. In other words, the number
of vessel at-sea days directly reflects the number of vessels. Indeed
this metric does exactly what the commenter suggests, which is that
NMFS ``analyze the likelihood of a ship hitting a particular stock in
the AFTT Study Area (as based on the SARs) and the total number of Navy
vessels, or the total amount of Navy vessel time spent operating within
the AFTT Study Area.''
Comment 7: Commenters stated that NMFS' adjustment of injury and
mortality numbers for ``mitigation effectiveness'' remains arbitrary.
The Commenters noted that in the 2018 AFTT final rule, NMFS stated that
the Navy quantitatively assessed the effectiveness of its monitoring-
based mitigation on a per-scenario basis using four factors: (1)
Species sightability; (2) a Lookout's ability to observe the range to
permanent threshold shift and range to mortality; (3) the portion of
time when mitigation could be observed during periods of poor
visibility or at night; and (4) the ability of sound sources to be
positively controlled (i.e., powered down) (83 FR 57076, 57115;
November 14, 2018). The Commenters noted that NMFS then concluded that
the Navy adequately accounted for mitigation effectiveness in its
adjustment of take. The Commenters stated that while NMFS explained its
support of the Navy's approach, as requested in these Commenters'
comments on the 2018 AFTT proposed rule, the adjustments the Navy makes
to account for reduced mitigation effectiveness at night or during
periods of poor visibility still overestimate the potential level of
mitigation effectiveness. The Commenters provided the following example
to support this statement: ``If a scenario occurs in a high sea state
(Beaufort sea

[[Page 70730]]

state of 4 or higher), then the Navy applies a visibility reduction
factor of 0.25. However, the probability of sighting a North Atlantic
right whale, for example, changed by a factor of 0.628 (95 percent CI:
0.428-0.921) for every unit increase in sea state. From the findings of
Baumgartner et al. (2003), we would expect a reduction in detection
probability of North Atlantic right whales by up to 84.5 percent based
on an average Beaufort Sea State of 4, relative to ideal sighting
conditions (i.e., Beaufort Sea State = 0). The reduction of the
effectiveness of a Navy lookout watching for North Atlantic right
whales in Beaufort Sea State 4, would therefore be significantly
greater than the 0.25 factored into the Navy's analysis.'' The
Commenters reiterated their caution to NMFS against creating an under-
supported, nonconservative adjustment for avoidance in the current AFTT
final rule.
Response: As described 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 conservatively factored
mitigation effectiveness (i.e., underestimated mitigation
effectiveness) into its quantitative analysis process. To calculate a
mitigation effectiveness score for each scenario, the Navy multiplied
the Species Sightability Factor, g(0), by a Visibility Factor [0.25,
0.5, 0.75, 1], then by an Observation Area Factor [0, 0.5, 1], and
lastly by a Positive Control Factor [0, 0.5, 1]. Using a logistic
regression model, Baumgartner et al. (2003) presented evidence to
suggest there is an effect of sea state on the probability of sighting
that changes by a factor of 0.628 for every unit increase in sea state.
However, the authors did not suggest that the 0.628 factor should be
applied to further reduce g(0) values that already consider sea state.
The North Atlantic right whale g(0) value used by the Navy already
takes into account perception bias (including sea state). Therefore,
the Navy's approach to calculating mitigation effectiveness is more
conservative than what is being suggested by Baumgartner et al. (2003)
because the Navy reduced mitigation effectiveness twice based on sea
state: once by using g(0) values that already incorporate perception
bias, and again by multiplying g(0) by additional visibility factors.
Another example of how the Navy's method for calculating mitigation
effectiveness is conservative is that the Navy assigns worst-case
scores (instead of typical-case scores) to each effectiveness factor.
For example, the Navy assigns a visibility reduction factor of 0.25 if
a scenario has the ``potential'' to occur in Beaufort sea state 4 or
higher, even if it typically occurs in Beaufort sea state 3 or lower.
Similarly, the Navy assigns another visibility reduction factor of 0.25
or 0.50 if the scenario ``could'' occur at night, rounding up to the
most conservative reduction factor based on percent chance of nighttime
occurrence.
Below is a simplified hypothetical calculation for a scenario
involving hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar. The furthest average
range to a potential permanent threshold shift (PTS) exposure for the
largest source bin used in this scenario, MF1, is 192 m. The
hypothetical scenario uses a positive control sound source, would
rarely occur in a Beaufort 4 sea state, and has a 10 percent chance of
occurring at night. Lookouts are able to observe the entire range to
PTS (192 m around the ship) for the duration of the scenario. This
hypothetical scenario has 10 model-estimated PTS impacts.

Mitigation Effectiveness = Species Sightability [vessel sightability
g(0) of 0.645 (Palka 2006)] x Visibility [1 - (0.25 reduction for sea
state + 0.25 reduction for night) = 0.50] x Observation Area [1] x
Positive Control [1] = 0.323
Number of animals assumed sighted by Lookouts = Mitigation
Effectiveness [0.323] x Model-Estimated Impacts [10 model-estimated PTS
impacts] = 3.23 (rounded down to 3)

This hypothetical calculation results in 3 out of 10 marine mammals
being sighted by Lookouts within the average range to PTS (192 m from
the ship). Mitigation measures would be implemented for these three
individuals, and therefore, these animals would not be exposed to PTS-
level impacts. The Navy corrects the category of predicted impact for
these three animals (i.e., shifts the level of three impacts from PTS
to temporary threshold shift (TTS)), but does not modify the total
number of impacts predicted from the scenario.
For reasons detailed in the technical report, the small range to
PTS and close proximity to the observation platform would in reality
result in a much higher likelihood that Lookouts would detect more than
three marine mammals within 192 m from the ship hull. For example, the
Species Sightability reduction factors, g(0), are based on values
obtained during line-transect surveys, where each primary observer
looks for marine species in the forward 90-degree quadrant on their
side of the survey platform out to the limit of the available optics
(i.e., the horizon). In this example, Navy Lookouts would focus their
observations directly on the sea space in front of the ship in an area
several degrees of magnitude smaller than that used to calculate
species sightability. However, as previously described, the Navy's
approach to estimating marine mammal impacts integrates a host of
conservative assumptions to ensure that potential impacts are
overestimated instead of underestimated.

Description of Marine Mammals and Their Habitat in the Area of the
Specified Activities

Marine mammal species and their associated stocks that have the
potential to occur in the AFTT Study Area are presented in Table 9
along with the best/minimum abundance estimate and associated
coefficient of variation value. Some marine mammal species, such as
manatees, are not managed by NMFS, but by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and therefore not discussed below. Consistent with the 2018
AFTT final rule, the Navy anticipates the take of individuals of 39
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 nine serious injuries or mortalities combined from
four marine mammal stocks during ship shock trials, and four takes of
large whales by serious injury or mortality from vessel strikes over
the seven-year period.
We presented a detailed discussion of marine mammals and their
occurrence in the AFTT Study Area, inclusive of important marine mammal
habitat (e.g., critical habitat), biologically important areas (BIAs),
national marine sanctuaries (NMSs), and unusual mortality events (UMEs)
in the 2018 AFTT proposed rule and 2018 AFTT 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 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.;
ESA) designated critical habitat since the issuance of the 2018 AFTT
final rule; therefore the information that supports our determinations
here can be found in the 2018 AFTT proposed and final rules. NMFS has
reviewed and incorporated into this rule the most recent Stock
Assessment Reports (SARs) (Hayes et al., 2019, which can be found

[[Page 70731]]

at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region); updated information on
relevant UMEs (see below); and new scientific literature (see the
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their
Habitat section), 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 AFTT proposed
and final rules. Therefore, the information presented in those sections
of the 2018 proposed and final rules remains current and valid.
As described in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the species carried
forward for analysis are those likely to be found in the AFTT Study
Area based on the most recent data available, and do not include stocks
or species that may have once inhabited or transited the area but have
not been sighted in recent years and therefore are extremely unlikely
to occur in the AFTT Study Area (e.g., species which were extirpated
because of factors such as nineteenth and twentieth century commercial
exploitation).
The species not carried forward for analysis (addressed in more
detail in the Description of Marine Mammals and Their Habitat in the
Area of the Specified Activities section of the 2018 AFTT final rule)
include the bowhead whale, beluga whale, and narwhal, as these would be
considered extralimital and are not part of the AFTT Study Area
seasonal species assemblage. Additionally, for multiple bottlenose
dolphin stocks, there was no potential for overlap with any stressors
from Navy activities; therefore, there would be no adverse effects (or
takes), and those stocks were not considered further. Specifically,
with the exception of the Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau
stock of bottlenose dolphins (which is addressed in the Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination section below), there is no potential
for overlap of any Navy stressor with any other bay, sound, or estuary
stocks in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Also, the following bottlenose
dolphin stocks for the Atlantic do not have any potential for overlap
with Navy activity stressors (or take), and therefore are not
considered further: Northern South Carolina Estuarine System,
Charleston Estuarine System, Northern Georgia/Southern South Carolina
Estuarine System, Central Georgia Estuarine System, Southern Georgia
Estuarine System, Biscayne Bay, and Florida Bay stocks. For the same
reason, bottlenose dolphins off the coasts of Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands were also not considered further.

Table 9--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the AFTT Study Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock Abundance Occurrence in AFTT study area \5\
\4\ --------------------------------------------------
Common name Scientific name Stock \2\ ESA/MMPA Status ------------------
\1\ \3\ Best/minimum Open ocean Large marine Inland waters
population ecosystems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetacea
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae (right
whales):
Bowhead whale............ Balaena Eastern Canada- Endangered, 7,660 (4,500- Labrador Newfoundland- NA.
mysticetus. West Greenland. strategic, 11,100) \6\. Current. Labrador
depleted. Shelf, West
Greenland
Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf.
North Atlantic right whale... Eubalaena Western......... Endangered, 451 (0)/445..... Gulf Stream, Southeast U.S. NA.
glacialis. strategic, Labrador Continental
depleted. Current, North Shelf,
Atlantic Gyre. Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador
Shelf, Gulf of
Mexico
(extralimital).
Family Balaenopteridae
(rorquals):
Blue whale................... Balaenoptera Western North Endangered, Unknown/440 \11\ Gulf Stream, Northeast U.S. NA.
musculus. Atlantic (Gulf strategic, North Atlantic Continental
of St. depleted. Gyre, Labrador Shelf, Scotian
Lawrence). Current. Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador
Shelf,
Southeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf,
Caribbean Sea,
and Gulf of
Mexico
(strandings
only).
Bryde's whale................ Balaenoptera Northern Gulf of Endangered, 33 (1.07)/16.... Gulf Stream, Gulf of Mexico. NA.
brydei/edeni. Mexico and NSD strategic. North Atlantic
\21\. Gyre.

[[Page 70732]]

Fin whale.................... Balaenoptera Western North Endangered, 1,618........... Gulf Stream, Caribbean Sea, NA.
physalus. Atlantic. strategic, (0. 33)/1,234... North Atlantic Gulf of
depleted. Gyre, Labrador Mexico,
Current. Southeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
West Greenland.. Endangered, 4,468 (1,343- Labrador West Greenland NA.
strategic, 14,871) \9\. Current. Shelf.
depleted.
Gulf of St. Endangered, 328 (306-350) Gulf of St. Newfoundland- NA.
Lawrence. strategic, \10\. Lawrence. Labrador
depleted. Shelf, Scotian
Shelf.
Humpback whale............... Megaptera Gulf of Maine... NA.............. 896 (0)/896..... Gulf Stream, Gulf of Mexico, NA.
novaeangliae. North Atlantic Caribbean Sea,
Gyre, Labrador Southeast U.S.
Current. Continental
Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
Minke whale.................. Balaenoptera Canadian Eastern NA.............. 2,591 (0.81)/ Gulf Stream, Caribbean Sea, NA.
acutorostrata. Coastal. 1,425. North Atlantic Southeast U.S.
Gyre, Labrador Continental
Current. Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
West Greenland NA.............. 16,609 (range: Labrador West Greenland NA.
\7\. 7,172-38,461)/ Current. Shelf.
NA \7\.
Sei whale.................... Balaenoptera Nova Scotia..... Endangered, 357 (0.52)/236.. Gulf Stream, Gulf of Mexico, NA.
borealis. strategic, North Atlantic Caribbean Sea,
depleted. Gyre. Southeast
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
Labrador Sea.... Endangered, Unknown \8\..... Labrador Newfoundland- NA.
strategic, Current. Labrador
depleted. Shelf, West
Greenland
Shelf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale.................. Physeter North Atlantic.. Endangered, 2,288 (0.28)/ Gulf Stream, Southeast U.S. NA.
macrocephalus. strategic, 1,815. North Atlantic Continental
depleted. Gyre, Labrador Shelf,
Current. Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador
Shelf,
Caribbean Sea.
Northern Gulf of Endangered, 763 (0.38)/560.. NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Mexico. strategic,
depleted.
Puerto Rico and Endangered, Unknown......... North Atlantic Caribbean Sea.. NA.
U.S. Virgin strategic, Gyre.
Islands. depleted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70733]]

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales. Kogia breviceps Western North NA.............. 3,785 (0.47)/ Gulf Stream, Southeast U.S. NA.
and Kogia sima. Atlantic. 2,598\12\. North Atlantic Continental
Gyre. Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador
Shelf,
Caribbean Sea.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 186 (1.04)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico. 90\12\. Caribbean Sea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Monodontidae (beluga whale and narwhal)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale................. Delphinapterus Eastern High NA.............. 21,213 (10,985- Labrador West Greenland NA.
leucas. Arctic/Baffin 32,619) \13\. Current. Shelf.
Bay \13\.
West Greenland NA.............. 10,595 (4.904- NA............. West Greenland NA.
\14\. 24,650) \ 14\. Shelf.
Narwhal...................... Monodon NA \15\......... NA.............. NA \15\......... NA............. Newfoundland- NA.
monoceros. Labrador
Shelf, West
Greenland
Shelf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blainville's beaked whale.... Mesoplodon Western North NA.............. 7,092 (0.54)/ Gulf Stream, Southeast U.S. NA.
densirostris. Atlantic \16\. 4,632\17\. North Atlantic Continental
Gyre, Labrador Shelf,
Current. Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 149 (0.91)/77 NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico. \18\. Caribbean Sea.
Cuvier's beaked whale........ Ziphius Western North NA.............. 6,532 (0.32)/ Gulf Stream, Southeast U.S. NA.
cavirostris. Atlantic \16\. 5,021. North Atlantic Continental
Gyre. Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 74 (1.04)/36.... NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico \16\. Caribbean Sea.
Puerto Rico and Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Caribbean Sea.. NA.
U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Gervais' beaked whale........ Mesoplodon Western North NA.............. 7,092 (0.54)/ Gulf Stream, Southeast U.S. NA.
europaeus. Atlantic \16\. 4,632 \17\. North Atlantic Continental
Gyre. Shelf,
Northeast
United States
Continental
Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 149 (0.91)/77 Gulf Stream, Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico \16\. \18\. North Atlantic Caribbean Sea.
Gyre.
Northern bottlenose whale.... Hyperoodon Western North NA.............. Unknown......... Gulf Stream, Northeast U.S. NA.
ampullatus. Atlantic. North Atlantic Continental
Gyre, Labrador Shelf, Scotian
Current. Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
Sowerby's beaked whale....... Mesoplodon Western North NA.............. 7,092 (0.54)/ Gulf Stream, Northeast U.S. NA.
bidens. Atlantic \16\. 4,632 \17\. North Atlantic Continental
Gyre. Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.

[[Page 70734]]

True's beaked whale.......... Mesoplodon mirus Western North NA.............. 7,092 (0.54)/ Gulf Stream, Southeast U.S. NA.
Atlantic \16\. 4,632 \17\. North Atlantic Continental
Gyre. Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae (dolphins)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic spotted dolphin..... Stenella Western North NA.............. 44,715 (0.43)/ Gulf Stream.... Southeast U.S. NA.
frontalis. Atlantic \16\. 31,610. Continental
Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. Unknown......... NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico. Caribbean Sea.
Puerto Rico and Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Caribbean Sea.. NA.
U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Atlantic white-sided dolphin. Lagenorhynchus Western North NA.............. 48,819 (0.61)/ Gulf Stream, Northeast U.S. NA.
acutus. Atlantic. 30,403. Labrador Continental
Current. Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
Clymene dolphin.............. Stenella clymene Western North NA.............. Unknown......... Gulf Stream.... Southeast U.S. NA.
Atlantic \16\. Continental
Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 129 (1.0)/64.... NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico \16\. Caribbean Sea.
Common bottlenose dolphin.... Tursiops Western North NA.............. 77,532 (0.40)/ Gulf Stream, Southeast U.S. NA.
truncatus. Atlantic 56,053. North Atlantic Continental
Offshore \19\. Gyre. Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf.
Western North Strategic, 6,639 (0.41)/ NA............. Southeast U.S. Long Island
Atlantic depleted. 4,759. Continental Sound, Sandy
Northern Shelf, Hook Bay,
Migratory Northeast U.S. Lower
Coastal \20\. Continental Chesapeake
Shelf. Bay, James
River,
Elizabeth
River.
Western North Strategic, 3,751 (0.06)/ NA............. Southeast U.S. Lower
Atlantic depleted. 2,353. Continental Chesapeake
Southern Shelf. Bay, James
Migratory River,
Coastal \20\. Elizabeth
River,
Beaufort
Inlet, Cape
Fear River,
Kings Bay, St.
Johns River.
Western North Strategic, 6,027 (0.34)/ NA............. Southeast U.S. Kings Bay, St.
Atlantic South depleted. 4,569. Continental Johns River.
Carolina/ Shelf.
Georgia Coastal
\20\.
Northern North Strategic....... 823 (0.06)/782.. NA............. Southeast U.S. Beaufort Inlet,
Carolina Continental Cape Fear
Estuarine Shelf, River.
System \20\. Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf.
Southern North Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Southeast U.S. Beaufort Inlet,
Carolina Continental Cape Fear
Estuarine Shelf. River.
System \20\.
Northern South Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Southeast U.S. NA.
Carolina Continental
Estuarine Shelf.
System \20\.
Charleston Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Southeast U.S. NA.
Estuarine Continental
System \20\. Shelf.

[[Page 70735]]

Northern Georgia/ Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Southeast U.S. NA.
Southern South Continental
Carolina Shelf.
Estuarine
System \20\.
Central Georgia Strategic....... 192 (0.04)/185.. NA............. Southeast U.S. NA.
Estuarine Continental
System \20\. Shelf.
Southern Georgia Strategic....... 194 (0.05)/185.. NA............. Southeast U.S. Kings Bay, St.
Estuarine Continental Johns River.
System \20\. Shelf.
Western North Strategic, 877 (0.49)/595.. NA............. Southeast U.S. Kings Bay, St.
Atlantic depleted. Continental Johns River.
Northern Shelf.
Florida Coastal
\20\.
Jacksonville Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Southeast U.S. Kings Bay, St.
Estuarine Continental Johns River.
System \20\. Shelf.
Western North Strategic, 1,218 (0.35)/913 NA............. Southeast U.S. Port Canaveral.
Atlantic depleted. Continental
Central Florida Shelf.
Coastal \20\.
Indian River Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Southeast U.S. Port Canaveral.
Lagoon Continental
Estuarine Shelf.
System \20\.
Biscayne Bay Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Southeast U.S. NA.
\16\. Continental
Shelf.
Florida Bay \16\ NA.............. Unknown......... NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 51,192 (0.10)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Mexico 46,926.
Continental
Shelf \20\.
Gulf of Mexico NA.............. 12,388 (0.13)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Eastern Coastal 11,110.
\20\.
Gulf of Mexico NA.............. 7,185 (0.21)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. St. Andrew Bay,
Northern 6,044. Pascagoula
Coastal \20\. River.
Gulf of Mexico NA.............. 20,161 (0.17)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. Corpus Christi
Western Coastal 17,491. Bay, Galveston
\20\. Bay.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 5,806 (0.39)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Mexico Oceanic 4,230.
\20\.
Laguna Madre Strategic....... 80 (1.57)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
\20\. Unknown.
Nueces Bay/ Strategic....... 58 (0.61)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Corpus Christi Unknown.
Bay \20\.
Copano Bay/ Strategic....... 55 (0.82)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Aransas Bay/San Unknown.
Antonio Bay/
Redfish Bay/
Espiritu Santo
Bay \20\.
Matagorda Bay/ Strategic....... 61 (0.45)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Tres Palacios Unknown.
Bay/Lavaca Bay
\20\.
West Bay \20\... NA.............. 32 (0.015)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Unknown.
Galveston Bay/ Strategic....... 152 (0.43)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
East Bay/ Unknown.
Trinity Bay
\20\.
Sabine Lake \20\ Strategic....... 0............... NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Calcasieu Lake Strategic....... 0............... NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
\20\.
Vermilion Bay/ Strategic....... 0............... NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
West Cote
Blanche Bay/
Atchafalaya Bay
\20\.
Terrebonne Bay/ NA.............. 3,870 (0.15)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Timbalier Bay 3,426.
\20\.
Barataria Bay Strategic....... 2,306 (0.09)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Estuarine 2,138.
System \20\.
Mississippi Strategic....... 332 (0.93)/170.. NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
River Delta
\20\.

[[Page 70736]]

Mississippi Strategic....... 3,046 (0.06)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Sound, Lake 2,896.
Borgne, Bay
Boudreau \20\.
Mobile Bay/ Strategic....... 122 (0.34)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Bonsecour Bay Unknown.
\20\.
Perdido Bay \20\ Strategic....... 0............... NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Pensacola Bay/ Strategic....... 33 (0.80)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
East Bay \20\. Unknown.
Choctawhatchee Strategic....... 179 (0.04)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Bay \20\. Unknown.
St. Andrew Bay Strategic....... 124 (0.57)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
\20\. Unknown.
St. Joseph Bay Strategic....... 152 (0.08)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
\20\. Unknown.
St. Vincent Strategic....... 439 (0.14)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Sound/ Unknown.
Apalachicola
Bay/St. George
Sound \20\.
Apalachee Bay Strategic....... 491 (0.39)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
\20\. Unknown.
Waccasassa Bay/ Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Withlacoochee
Bay/Crystal Bay
\20\.
St. Joseph Sound/ Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Clearwater
Harbor \20\.
Tampa Bay \20\.. Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Sarasota Bay/ NA.............. 158 (0.27)/126.. NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Little Sarasota
Bay \20\.
Pine Island Strategic....... 826 (0.09)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Sound/Charlotte Unknown.
Harbor/
Gasparilla
Sound/Lemon Bay
\20\.
Caloosahatchee Strategic....... 0............... NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
River \20\.
Estero Bay \20\. Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Chokoloskee Bay/ Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
Ten Thousand
Islands/
Gullivan Bay
\20\.
Whitewater Bay Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
\20\.
Florida Keys Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Gulf of Mexico. NA.
(Bahia Honda to
Key West) \ 20\.
Puerto Rico and Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Caribbean Sea.. NA.
U.S. Virgin
Islands.
False killer whale........... Pseudorca Western North Strategic....... 442 (1.06)/212.. NA............. Southeast U.S. NA.
crassidens. Atlantic \22\. Continental
Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. Unknown......... NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico \16\. Caribbean Sea.
Fraser's dolphin............. Lagenodelphis Western North NA.............. Unknown......... Gulf Stream.... Northeast U.S. NA.
hosei. Atlantic \23\. Continental
Shelf,
Southeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. Unknown......... NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico \16\. Caribbean Sea.

[[Page 70737]]

Killer Whale................. Orcinus orca.... Western North NA.............. Unknown......... Gulf Stream, Southeast U.S. NA.
Atlantic \22\. North Atlantic Continental
Gyre, Labrador Shelf,
Current. Northeast
United States
Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 28 (1.02)/14.... NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico \16\. Caribbean Sea.
Long-finned pilot whale...... Globicephala Western North NA.............. 5,636 (0.63)/ Gulf Stream.... Northeast U.S. NA.
melas. Atlantic. 3,464. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
Melon-headed Whale........... Peponocephala Western North NA.............. Unknown......... Gulf Stream, Southeast U.S. NA.
electra. Atlantic \23\. North Atlantic Continental
Gyre. Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 2,235 (0.75)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico \16\. 1,274. Caribbean Sea.
Pantropical spotted-dolphin.. Stenella Western North NA.............. 3,333 (0.91)/ Gulf Stream.... Southeast U.S. NA.
attenuate. Atlantic \16\. 1,733. Continental
Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 50,880 (0.27)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico \22\. 40,699. Caribbean Sea.
Pygmy Killer Whales.......... Feresa attenuata Western North NA.............. Unknown......... Gulf Stream, Southeast U.S. NA.
Atlantic \16\. North Atlantic Continental
Gyre. Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 152 (1.02)/75... NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico \16\. Caribbean Sea.
Risso's dolphin.............. Grampus griseus. Western North NA.............. 18,250 (0.46)/ Gulf Stream, Southeast U.S. NA.
Atlantic. 12,619. North Atlantic Continental
Gyre. Shelf,
Northeast
United States
Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 2,442 (0.57)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico. 1,563. Caribbean Sea.
Rough-toothed dolphin........ Steno Western North NA.............. 136 (1.00)/67... Gulf Stream, Caribbean Sea NA.
bredanensis. Atlantic \16\. North Atlantic Southeast U.S.
Gyre. Continental
Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 624 (0.99)/311.. NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico. Caribbean Sea.
Short-finned pilot whale..... Globicephala Western North NA.............. 28,924 (0.24)/ NA............. Northeast NA.
macrorhynchus. Atlantic. 23,637. Continental
Shelf,
Southeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 2,415 (0.66)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico \22\. 1,456. Caribbean Sea.
Puerto Rico and Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Caribbean Sea.. NA.
U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Spinner dolphin.............. Stenella Western North NA.............. Unknown......... Gulf Stream, Southeast U.S. NA.
longirostris. Atlantic \16\. North Atlantic Continental
Gyre. Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf.
Northern Gulf of NA.............. 11,441 (0.83)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico \16\. 6,221. Caribbean Sea.
Puerto Rico and Strategic....... Unknown......... NA............. Caribbean Sea.. NA.
U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Striped dolphin.............. Stenella Western North NA.............. 54,807 (0.30)/ Gulf Stream.... Northeast U.S. NA.
coeruleoalba. Atlantic \16\. 42,804. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf.

[[Page 70738]]

Northern Gulf of NA.............. 1,849 (0.77)/ NA............. Gulf of Mexico, NA.
Mexico \16\. 1,041. Caribbean Sea.
Short-beaked common dolphin.. Delphinus Western North NA.............. 70,184 (0.28)/ Gulf Stream.... Southeast U.S. NA.
delphis. Atlantic. 55,690. Continental
Shelf,
Northeast U.S.
Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
White-beaked dolphin......... Lagenorhynchus, Western North NA.............. 2,003 (0.94)/ Labrador Northeast U.S. NA.
albirostris. Atlantic \23\. 1,023. Current. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise.............. Phocoena Gulf of Maine/ NA.............. 79,883 (0.32)/ NA............. Northeast U.S. Narragansett
phocoena. Bay of Fundy. 61,415. Continental Bay, Rhode
Shelf, Scotian Island Sound,
Shelf, Block Island
Newfoundland- Sound,
Labrador Shelf. Buzzards Bay,
Vineyard
Sound, Long
Island Sound,
Piscataqua
River, Thames
River,
Kennebec
River.
Gulf of St. NA.............. Unknown \24\.... Labrador Northeast U.S. NA.
Lawrence \24\. Current. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
Newfoundland NA.............. Unknown \25\.... Labrador Northeast U.S. NA.
\25\. Current. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
Greenland \26\.. NA.............. Unknown \26\.... Labrador Northeast U.S. NA.
Current. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador
Shelf, West
Greenland
Shelf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (true seals):
Gray seal.................... Halichoerus Western North NA.............. 27,131 (0.19)/ NA............. Northeast U.S. Narragansett
grypus. Atlantic. 23,158. Continental Bay, Rhode
Shelf, Scotian Island Sound,
Shelf, Block Island
Newfoundland- Sound,
Labrador Shelf. Buzzards Bay,
Vineyard
Sound, Long
Island Sound,
Piscataqua
River, Thames
River,
Kennebeck
River.

[[Page 70739]]

Harbor seal.................. Phoca vitulina.. Western North NA.............. 75,834 (0.15)/ NA............. Southeast U.S. Chesapeake Bay,
Atlantic. 66,884. Continental Narragansett
Shelf, Bay, Rhode
Northeast U.S. Island Sound,
Continental Block Island
Shelf, Scotian Sound,
Shelf, Buzzards Bay,
Newfoundland- Vineyard
Labrador Shelf. Sound, Long
Island Sound,
Piscataqua
River, Thames
River,
Kennebeck
River.
Harp seal.................... Pagophilus Western North NA.............. Unknown......... NA............. Northeast U.S. NA.
groenlandicus. Atlantic. Continental
Shelf, Scotian
Shelf,
Newfoundland-
Labrador Shelf.
Hooded seal.................. Cystophora Western North NA.............. Unknown......... NA............. Southeast U.S. Narragansett
cristata. Atlantic. Continental Bay, Rhode
Shelf, Island Sound,
Northeast U.S. Block Island
Continental Sound,
Shelf, Scotian Buzzards Bay,
Shelf, Vineyard
Newfoundland- Sound, Long
Labrador Island Sound,
Shelf, West Piscataqua
Greenland River, Thames
Shelf. River,
Kennebec
River.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: CV coefficient of variation; ESA: Endangered Species Act; MMPA: Marine Mammal Protection Act; NA: not applicable.
\1\ Taxonomy follows (Committee on Taxonomy, 2016).
\2\ Stock designations for the U.S. EEZ and abundance estimates are from Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs prepared by NMFS (Hayes et al., 2019) and the
final 2018 SARs, unless specifically noted.
\3\ Populations or stocks defined by the MMPA as ``strategic'' for one of the following reasons: (1) the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds
the potential biological removal level; (2) based on the best available scientific information, numbers are declining and species are likely to be
listed as threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; (3) species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; (4)
species are designated as depleted under the MMPA.
\4\ Stock abundance, CV, and minimum population are numbers provided by the Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; Hayes et al., 2019). The stock abundance is
an estimate of the number of animals within the stock. The CV is a statistical metric used as an indicator of the uncertainty in the abundance
estimate. The minimum population estimate is either a direct count (e.g., pinnipeds on land) or the lower 20th percentile of a statistical abundance
estimate.
\5\ Occurrence in the AFTT Study Area includes open ocean areas--Labrador Current, North Atlantic Gyre, Gulf Stream, and coastal/shelf waters of seven
large marine ecosystems--West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, and Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and inland waters of Kennebec River, Piscataqua River, Thames River, Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, Long Island Sound, Sandy Hook Bay, Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River, Elizabeth River,
Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River, Kings Bay, St. Johns River, Port Canaveral, St. Andrew Bay, Pascagoula River, Sabine Lake, Corpus Christi Bay, and
Galveston Bay.
\6\ The bowhead whale population off the West Coast of Greenland is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment
Report. Abundance and 95 percent highest density interval were presented in (Frasier et al., 2015).
\7\ The West Greenland stock of minke whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and
95 percent confidence interval were presented in (Heide-J[oslash]rgensen et al., 2010).
\8\ The Labrador Sea stock of sei whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Information was
obtained in (Prieto et al., 2014).
\9\ The West Greenland stock of fin whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95
percent confidence interval were presented in (Heide-J[oslash]rgensen et al., 2010).
\10\ The Gulf of St. Lawrence stock of fin whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance
and 95 percent confidence interval were presented in (Ramp et al., 2014).
\11\ Photo identification catalogue count of 440 recognizable blue whale individuals from the Gulf of St. Lawrence is considered a minimum population
estimate for the western North Atlantic stock (Waring et al., 2010).
\12\ Estimates include both the pygmy and dwarf sperm whales in the western North Atlantic (Waring et al., 2014) and the northern Gulf of Mexico (Waring
et al., 2013).
\13\ Beluga whales in the Atlantic are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval
for the Eastern High Arctic/Baffin Bay stock were presented in (Innes et al., 2002).
\14\ Beluga whales in the Atlantic are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval
for the West Greenland stock were presented in (Heide-J[oslash]rgensen et al., 2009).
\15\ NA = Not applicable. Narwhals in the Atlantic are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report.
\16\ Estimates for these western North Atlantic stocks are from Waring et al. (2014) and the northern Gulf of Mexico stock are from (Waring et al.,
2013) as applicable.
\17\ Estimate includes undifferentiated Mesoplodon species.
\18\ Estimate includes Gervais' and Blainville's beaked whales.
\19\ Estimate may include sightings of the coastal form.
\20\ Estimates for these Gulf of Mexico stocks are from SARs.
\21\ These Bryde's whales span the mid- and southern Atlantic and have not been designated as a stock (NSD) under the MMPA and therefore have no
associated Stock Assessment Report.
\22\ Estimates for these stocks are from Waring et al., (2015).
\23\ Estimates for these western North Atlantic stocks are from (Waring et al., 2007).
\24\ Harbor porpoise in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report.
\25\ Harbor porpoise in Newfoundland are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report.
\26\ Harbor porpoise in Greenland are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report.

[[Page 70740]]

Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs)

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. The six active UMEs with
ongoing investigations in the AFTT Study Area that inform our analysis
are discussed below. The impacts to Barataria Bay bottlenose dolphins
from the closed Northern Gulf of Mexico UME (discussed in the 2018 AFTT
proposed rule) associated with the Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico are thought to be persistent and continue to inform
population analyses. The other more recent UMEs closed several years
ago, and little is known about how the effects of those events might be
appropriately applied to an impact assessment several years later.
North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW) UME
NOAA declared an UME for NARWs from January 1, 2017, to the
present. The current total number of mortalities included in the event
is approximately 30 whales, including potentially 21 NARW carcasses (1
carcass from 2019 is currently unconfirmed) from Canada in 2017 and
2019 and nine carcasses in the United States (5 in 2017; 3 in 2018; 1
in 2019). In 2017, 17 right whale mortalities were documented, in 2018,
three right whale mortalities were documented, and in the summer and
fall of 2019 (as of October 24, 2019) an additional 10 right whale
mortalities have been documented (9 confirmed, 1 unconfirmed). Of the
12 NARW carcasses found in Canadian waters in 2017, six were necropsied
and died as a direct result of human activities (either confirmed,
probable, or suspect), from either rope entanglements (2) or vessel
strikes (4) (Daoust et al., 2017). Of the eight carcasses found in U.S.
waters in 2017-2018, the cause of death was determined in six whales,
with deaths attributable to either rope entanglement (5) or vessel
strikes (1) (Sharp et al., 2019). Eight carcasses were not able to be
examined. Of the 10 whales documented in 2019, 8 carcasses were able to
be examined at some level. Of the examined whales, three had evidence
of vessel strikes and one had evidence of entanglement, the results
from the remaining four whales are pending. Daoust et al. (2018) also
concluded there were no oil and gas seismic surveys authorized in the
months prior to or during the period over which these mortalities
occurred, as well as no blasting or major marine development projects.
Navy was consulted as to sonar use and they confirmed none was used in
the vicinity of any of the strandings.
As part of the UME investigation process for NARW, NOAA assembled
an independent team of scientists (Investigative Team) that coordinates
with the Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events to
review the data collected, sample future whales that strand, and
determine the next steps for the investigation. For more information on
this UME, please refer to https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2019-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event#causes-of-the-north-atlantic-right-whale-ume.
While data are not yet available to statistically estimate the
population's trend beyond 2015, three lines of evidence indicate the
population is still in decline. First, calving rates in 2016, 2017, and
2018 were low. Only five new calves were documented in 2017 (Pettis et
al., 2017a), well below the number needed to compensate for expected
mortalities (Pace et al., 2017), and no new calves were reported for
2018. Long-term photographic identification data indicate new calves
rarely go undetected, so these years likely represent a continuation of
the low calving rates that began in 2012 (Kraus et al., 2007; Pace et
al., 2017). So far in 2019, seven calves have been documented. Second,
the abundance estimate for 2016 is 451 individuals, down approximately
1.5 percent from 458 in 2015. Third, since January, 2017, approximately
30 NARWs have died in what has been declared an UME as discussed above
(Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2018; NMFS, 2017).
Humpback Whale UME Along the Atlantic Coast
NOAA declared an UME for humpback whales from January 1, 2016, to
the present, along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida. As of
October 24, 2019, 107 humpback strandings have occurred (26, 34, 25,
and 22 whales in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively). As of April
2019, partial or full necropsy examinations have been conducted on 43
cases, or approximately half of the 92 strandings (at that time). Of
the 43 whales examined, approximately 20 had evidence of blunt force
trauma or pre-mortem propeller wounds indicative of vessel strike and
approximately 6 had evidence of entanglements. NOAA, in coordination
with our stranding network partners, continues to investigate the
recent mortalities and environmental conditions, and conduct population
monitoring to better understand the recent humpback whale mortalities.
At this time, vessel parameters (including size) are not known for each
vessel-whale collision that led to the death of a whale. Therefore,
NOAA considers all sizes of vessels to be a potential risk for whale
species in highly trafficked areas. The Navy has investigated potential
strikes and confirmed that it had none. Please refer to https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2019-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast for more
information on this UME.
Minke Whale UME Along the Atlantic Coast
NOAA declared an UME for minke whales from January 1, 2017, to the
present, along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida. As of
October 24, 2019, 75 strandings have occurred (27, 30, and 18 whales in
2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively). As of April 1, 2019, full or
partial necropsy examinations have been conducted on 33 whales.
Preliminary findings on several of the whales have shown evidence of
human interactions, primarily fisheries interactions, or infectious
disease. These findings are not consistent across all of the whales
examined, and final diagnostic results are still pending for many of
the cases. Please refer to https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2019-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast for more information on this UME.
Northeast Pinniped UME Along the Atlantic Coast
NOAA declared an UME on August 30, 2018, due to increased numbers
of harbor seal and gray seal strandings along the U.S. coasts of Maine,
New Hampshire, and Massachusetts during July and August of 2018.
Strandings remained elevated in these three states and expanded south
to Virginia primarily in late 2018 to early 2019 with additional cases
on-going throughout 2019. In December 2018 and early 2019, harp and
hooded seals began stranding as these seals migrated from Canada into
U.S. waters and have been included in the investigation. From July 1,
2018, to October 24, 2019, 2,964 seals have stranded with approximately
95 percent of the seals stranding in Maine, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts. Full or partial necropsy examinations have been
conducted on many of the seals and samples have been collected for
testing. Based on testing conducted so far, the main pathogen found in
the seals is phocine distemper virus, with

[[Page 70741]]

most positive cases stranded in 2018 and early 2019. Active phocine
distemper virus infections have only been detected in harbor and gray
seals to date. Please refer to https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2019-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along for more information on this UME.
Southwest Florida Bottlenose Dolphin UME Along the Gulf of Mexico
NOAA declared an UME in the summer of 2018 due to elevated
bottlenose dolphin mortalities occurring along the Southwest coast of
Florida including Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota, Manatee,
Hillsborough, and Pinellas counties. From July 1, 2018, to October 24,
2019, 193 dolphins have been confirmed stranded in this event.
Stranding network partners have conducted full or partial necropsy
examinations on several dolphins, with positive results for the red
tide toxin (brevetoxin) indicating this UME is primarily related to the
severe bloom of a red tide that occurred in the area from November,
2017 through February, 2019. Please refer to https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/marine-life-distress/2018-2019-bottlenose-dolphin-unusual-mortality-event-southwest for more
information on this UME.
Bottlenose Dolphin UME Along the Northern Gulf of Mexico
NMFS declared an UME in the spring of 2019 due to elevated
bottlenose dolphin strandings occurring in the Northern Gulf of Mexico
including Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the panhandle of Florida
(Alabama border through Franklin County). From February 1, 2019 to
October 24, 2019, 320 dolphins have stranded, which is approximately
three times higher than the average. Testing is underway of tissue
samples for morbillivirus, harmful algal bloom toxins and other common
causes of stranding. Please refer to https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-bottlenose-dolphin-unusual-mortality-event-along-northern-gulf for more information on this UME.

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
AFTT proposed rule and 2018 AFTT final rule. In the Potential Effects
of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat sections of
the 2018 AFTT 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 AFTT 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.
NMFS has reviewed new relevant information from the scientific
literature since publication of the 2018 AFTT final rule. Summaries of
new scientific literature since publication of the 2018 AFTT final rule
are presented below.
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 NOAA (2016 and 2018). 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 those
only under NMFS jurisdiction) for all noise exposures (both in air and
underwater for amphibious species), and that while the hearing group
compositions are identical they renamed the hearing groups.
In continued investigations of pinniped hearing, Kastelein et al.
(2019a) exposed two female captive harbor seals to 6.5 kHz continuous,
sinusoidal tones for 60 minutes (cumulative sound exposure levels
(SELs) of 159-195 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa\2\s), then measured TTS using
behavioral (psychoacoustic) methods at the center frequency of the
fatiguing sound (6.5 kHz) and 0.5 and 1 octave above that frequency
(9.2 and 13 kHz). Susceptibility to TTS was similar in both individuals
tested. At cumulative SELs below 179 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa\2\s, maximum
TTS was induced at the center frequency (6.5 kHz), and at cumulative
SELs above 179 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa\2\s, maximum TTS was induced at 0.5
octave above the center frequency (9.2 kHz). The highest TTSs were
produced in the one-half octave band above the exposure frequency. Both
seals recovered within 1-2 hours for up to 6 dB of TTS. One seal showed
19 dB of TTS after a dB re: 1 [micro]Pa\2\s exposure and recovered
within 24 hours. Overall, this study combined with previous work showed
that for harbor seals, recovery times are consistent for similar-
magnitude TTS, regardless of the type of fatiguing sound exposure
(impulsive, continuous noise band, or sinusoidal wave), and that
susceptibility to TTS in the fatiguing frequency range tested (2.5-6.5
kHz) varies little with hearing frequency. The two harbor seals in this
study (and Kastelein et al., 2012) had similar susceptibility to TTS as
the seal in Kastak et al. (2005). The authors note that more fatiguing
sound frequencies need to be tested in harbor seals to produce equal
TTS curves, for generating weighting functions that can be used to
develop exposure criteria for broadband sounds in the marine
environment (Houser et al., 2017). To determine the distances at which
Helicopter Long Range Active Sonar (HELRAS) signals (~1.3-1.4 kHz) can
be detected, Kastelein et al. (2019b) measured hearing thresholds using
behavioral (psychoacoustic) techniques to simulated HELRAS signals in
two captive harbor seals. Both seals showed similar thresholds (51 dB
re: 1 [micro]Pa rms, approximately 4 dB lower than the detection
thresholds for the same individuals in Kastelein et al., 2009) to
previously obtained data for stimuli having the same center
frequencies, which suggests that the harmonics present within HELRAS
sources do not impact hearing threshold and that a tonal audiogram can
be used to estimate the audibility of more complex narrow-band tonal
signals in harbor seals.
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

[[Page 70742]]

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.
To investigate the effect of signal to noise ratio (SNR)
on behavioral responses, Kastelein et al. (2019c) observed respiration
rates (an indicator of behavioral response) of two captive harbor
porpoises when exposed to simulated 30-minute playbacks of Navy mid-
frequency sonar (53C, 3.5 to 4.1 kHz, 96 percent duty cycle), in noise
simulating sea state 6 conditions. No behavioral responses were
observed when the porpoises were exposed to sonar signals at an SPL of
117 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa (SNR equal to 49 dB re: 1 Hz). Both porpoises
responded when exposed to sonar signals at an SPL of 122 dB re: 1
[micro]Pa (SNR equal to 54 dB re: 1 Hz), however in quiet conditions
one porpoise responded at similar levels (Kastelein et al. 2018),
suggesting the behavioral responses of harbor porpoises to sonar
signals are not affected in sea state 6 ambient noise conditions.
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.
Joyce et al. (2019) presented movement and dive behavior
data from seven Blainville's beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris)
that were satellite tagged prior to naval sonar exercises using mid-
frequency active sonar (MFAS, 3-8kHz) at the Atlantic Undersea Test and
Evaluation Center (AUTEC) in the Bahamas. Five of the seven tagged were
displaced 28-68 km after the onset of sonar exposure and returned to
the AUTEC range 2-4 days after exercises ended. Three of the
individuals for which modeled received SPLs were available during this
movement showed declining received SPLs from initial maxima of 145-172
dB re: 1 [mu]Pa to maxima of 70-150 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa after
displacements. Tagged individuals exhibited a continuation of deep
diving activity consistent with foraging during MFAS exposure periods,
but data also suggested that time spent on deep dives during initial
exposure periods was reduced. These findings provide additional data
for ongoing Population Consequences of Acoustic Disturbance assessments
of disturbance as authors note that previous studies have suggested
foraging dives may be lost in response to MFAS exposure, which could
cause a decrease in energy intake and have potential effects on vital
parameters. The data presented by Joyce et al. (2019) support the
initial potential loss of foraging time, however they also suggest that
Blainville's beaked whales may have the ability to partially compensate
for this loss (assuming they have ample recovery times between dives)
by increasing time spent at foraging depths following displacement.
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 previously published data (included in
the 2018 AFTT EIS/OEIS analysis) on 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 determined that there
is no new information that substantively affects our analysis of
potential impacts on marine mammals and their habitat that appeared in
the 2018 AFTT 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
authorizing, which are based on the amount of take that NMFS
anticipates could occur or is likely to occur, depending on the type of
take and the methods used to estimate it, as described below. NMFS
coordinated closely with the Navy in the development of their
incidental take application, and agrees that the methods the Navy has
put forth described herein and in the 2018 AFTT 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 AFTT regulations.
Takes are predominantly in the form of harassment, but a small
number of serious injuries or mortalities are also authorized. For
military readiness activities, the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as (i)
Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal
or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural
behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration,
surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where
such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level
B harassment).
Authorized takes will 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, a limited
number of serious injuries or mortalities could occur for four species
of mid-frequency

[[Page 70743]]

cetaceans during ship shock trials and no more than four serious
injuries or mortalities total (over the seven-year period) of
mysticetes (except for blue whales, Bryde's whales, and North Atlantic
right whales) and North Atlantic sperm whales could occur through
vessel collisions. Although we analyze the impacts of these potential
serious injuries or mortalities that are 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.

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 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, accordingly, have some
built-in conservative factors to address the challenge noted. For
example, while duration of observed responses in the data are now
considered in the thresholds, some of the responses that are informing
take thresholds are of a very short duration, such that it is possible
some of these responses might not always rise to the level of
disrupting behavior patterns to a point where they are abandoned or
significantly altered. We describe the application of this Level B
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, none of which have changed,
in detail in the Acoustic Thresholds section and Tables 13 through 22
of the 2018 AFTT final rule; please see the 2018 AFTT final rule for
detailed information.

Navy's Acoustic Effects Model

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

Range to Effects

The Navy proposed no changes from the 2018 AFTT final rule to the
type and nature of the specified activities to be conducted during the
seven-year period analyzed in this final 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 final rule are identical to those described and
analyzed in the 2018 AFTT 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 23
through 38 of the 2018 AFTT final rule for detailed information.

Marine Mammal Density

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

Take Requests

As in the 2018 AFTT 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
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 specifically requested coverage for these species.
Therefore, the likelihood of vessel strikes, and later the effects of
the incidental take that is being authorized, has been fully analyzed
and is described below.
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
AFTT 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 application, the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS, and the 2018
AFTT final rule, the Navy included one additional

[[Page 70744]]

representative year and one additional maximum year to determine the
predicted take numbers in this rule. Specifically, as in the 2018 AFTT
final rule, here the Navy uses the maximum annual level to calculate
annual takes (which would remain identical to what was determined in
the 2018 AFTT final rule), and the sum of all years (four
representative and three maximum) to calculate the seven-year totals
for this rule. The Navy will not conduct any additional ship shock
activities, and therefore both the total number and annual number of
ship shock takes estimated and authorized for the seven-year period is
the same as the number requested in the five-year period under the 2018
AFTT final rule.
The quantitative analysis process used for the 2018 AFTT 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 assessment of mitigation.
The Navy conservatively quantifies the manner in which procedural
mitigation is expected to reduce model-estimated PTS to TTS for
exposures to sonar and other transducers, and reduces model-estimated
mortality to injury for exposures to explosives. For a complete
explanation of the process for assessing the effects of mitigation, see
the 2017 Navy application and the 2018 AFTT final rule. The extent to
which the mitigation areas reduce impacts on the affected species and
stocks is addressed separately in the Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination sections of this rule and the 2018 AFTT final rule.
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 AFTT proposed rule, and the
2018 AFTT 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 Authorized 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) are identical to those presented in Tables 39 through 41 in the
Take Requests section of the 2018 AFTT final rule. The 2019 Navy
application also includes the Navy's take estimate and request for
vessel strikes due to vessel movement in the AFTT Study Area and
individual small and large ship shock trials over a seven-year period.
The Navy will not conduct additional ship shock trials, so the
estimated and requested takes from ship shock trials are the same as
those authorized in the 2018 AFTT final rule. 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 reasonably expected to occur. NMFS also agrees that the takes by
serious injury or mortality as a result of vessel strikes could occur.
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.
Authorized Harassment Take From Training Activities
For training activities, Table 10 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, and is therefore authorized. For the
authorized amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment
annually, see Table 39 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. Note that take by
Level B harassment includes both behavioral disruption and TTS. Navy
Figures 6.4-10 through 6.5-39 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.

[[Page 70745]]

Table 10--Seven-Year Total Species- and Stock-Specific Take Authorized From Acoustic and Explosive Sound Source
Effects for All Training Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Year total \1\
Species Stock -------------------------------
Level A Level B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae (right whales):
North Atlantic right whale *.............. Western North Atlantic.......... 1,644 0
Family Balaenopteridae (roquals):
Blue whale *.............................. Western North Atlantic.......... 171 0
(Gulf of St. Lawrence)..........
Bryde's whale............................. Northern Gulf of Mexico *....... 5 0
No Stock Designation............ 1,351 0
Minke whale............................... Canadian East Coast............. 15,824 0
Fin whale *............................... Western North Atlantic.......... 10,225 19
Humpback whale............................ Gulf of Maine................... 1,564 4
Sei whale *............................... Nova Scotia..................... 1,964 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae (sperm whale):
Sperm whale *............................. Gulf of Mexico Oceanic.......... 167 0
North Atlantic.................. 96,479 0
Family Kogiidae (sperm whales):
Dwarf sperm whale......................... Gulf of Mexico Oceanic.......... 103 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 56,060 68
Pygmy sperm whale......................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 103 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 56,060 68
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales):
Blainville's beaked whale................. Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 244 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 85,661 0
Cuvier's beaked whale..................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 242 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 317,180 0
Gervais' beaked whale..................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 244 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 85,661 0
Northern bottlenose whale................. Western North Atlantic.......... 7,504 0
Sowersby's beaked whale................... Western North Atlantic.......... 85,661 0
True's beaked whale....................... Western North Atlantic.......... 85,661 0
Family Delphinidae (dolphins):
Atlantic spotted dolphin.................. Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 6,584 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 804,058 64
Atlantic white-sided dolphin.............. Western North Atlantic.......... 99,615 3
Bottlenose dolphin........................ Choctawhatchee Bay.............. 46 0
Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal.. 166 0
Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal. 1,524 0
Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal.. 16,778 0
Indian River Lagoon Estuarine 1,980 0
System.
Jacksonville Estuarine System... 589 0
Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, 0 0
Bay Boudreau.
Northern Gulf of Mexico 10,918 13
Continental Shelf.
Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic. 1,356 0
Northern North Carolina 16,089 0
Estuarine System.
Southern North Carolina 0 0
Estuarine System.
Western North Atlantic Northern 6,060 0
Florida Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Central 35,861 0
Florida Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Northern 175,237 30
Migratory Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Offshore. 2,062,942 269
Western North Atlantic South 28,814 0
Carolina/Georgia Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Southern 81,155 14
Migratory Coastal.
Clymene dolphin........................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 694 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 463,220 19
False killer whale........................ Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 291 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 54,818 0
Fraser's dolphin.......................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 418 0
................................
Western North Atlantic........................ 26,155.......................... 0
Killer whale.............................. Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 5 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 522 0
Long-finned pilot whale................... Western North Atlantic.......... 116,412 0
Melon-headed whale........................ Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 493 0
Western North Atlantic.................... 246,178......................... 4
Pantropical spotted dolphin............... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 3,959 0

[[Page 70746]]

Western North Atlantic.......... 964,072 16
Pygmy killer whale........................ Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 118 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 43,009 0
Risso's dolphin........................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 276 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 140,368 0
Rough-toothed dolphin..................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 606 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 129,594 0
Short-beaked common dolphin............... Western North Atlantic.......... 1,467,625 87
Short-finned pilot whale.................. Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 251 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 210,736 0
Spinner dolphin........................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 1,593 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 487,644 9
Striped dolphin........................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 471 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 631,680 22
White-beaked dolphin...................... Western North Atlantic.......... 269 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise........................... Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy...... 206,071 1,121
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Pinnipedia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (true seals):
Gray seal................................. Western North Atlantic.......... 10,038 0
Harbor seal............................... Western North Atlantic.......... 16,277 0
Harp seal................................. Western North Atlantic.......... 59,063 6
Hooded seal............................... Western North Atlantic.......... 882 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The estimated amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment annually are identical to those
presented in Table 39 in the 2018 AFTT final rule.
* ESA-listed species or stocks within the AFTT Study Area.
[dagger] NSD: No stock designated.

Authorized Harassment Take From Testing Activities
For testing activities (excluding ship shock trials), 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, and is therefore
authorized. For the authorized amount and type of Level A harassment
and Level B harassment annually, see Table 40 in the 2018 AFTT final
rule. Note that take by Level B harassment includes both behavioral
disruption and TTS. Navy Figures 6.4-10 through 6.5-39 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 Authorized From Acoustic and Explosive Sound Source
Effects for All Testing Activities
[Excluding Ship Shock Trials]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Year total \1\
Species Stock -------------------------------
Level B Level A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae (right whales):
North Atlantic right whale *.............. Western North Atlantic.......... 1,528 0
Family Balaenopteridae (roquals):
Blue whale *.............................. Western North Atlantic (Gulf of 127 0
St. Lawrence).
Bryde's whale............................. Northern Gulf of Mexico *....... 358 0
No Stock Designation............ 856 0
Minke whale............................... Canadian East Coast............. 11,155 9
Fin whale *............................... Western North Atlantic.......... 24,808 22
Humpback whale............................ Gulf of Maine................... 3,380 0
Sei whale *............................... Nova Scotia..................... 3,262 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae (sperm whale):
Sperm whale *............................. Gulf of Mexico Oceanic.......... 7,315 0

[[Page 70747]]

North Atlantic.................. 71,820 0
Family Kogiidae (sperm whales):
Dwarf sperm whale......................... Gulf of Mexico Oceanic.......... 4,787 38
Western North Atlantic.......... 29,368 91
Pygmy sperm whale......................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 4,787 38
Western North Atlantic.......... 29,368 91
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales):
Blainville's beaked whale................. Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 9,368 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 68,738 0
Cuvier's beaked whale..................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 9,757 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 252,367 0
Gervais' beaked whale..................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 9,368 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 68,738 0
Northern bottlenose whale................. Western North Atlantic.......... 6,231 0
Sowersby's beaked whale................... Western North Atlantic.......... 68,903 0
True's beaked whale....................... Western North Atlantic.......... 68,903 0
Family Delphinidae (dolphins):
Atlantic spotted dolphin.................. Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 473,262 18
Western North Atlantic.......... 708,931 72
Atlantic white-sided dolphin.............. Western North Atlantic.......... 210,578 8
Bottlenose dolphin........................ Choctawhatchee Bay.............. 6,297 0
Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal.. 0 0
Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal. 108,154 7
Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal.. 25,200 0
Indian River Lagoon Estuarine 21 0
System.
Jacksonville Estuarine System... 20 0
Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, 5 0
Bay Boudreau.
Northern Gulf of Mexico 841,076 56
Continental Shelf.
Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic. 95,044 8
Northern North Carolina 746 0
Estuarine System.
Southern North Carolina 0 0
Estuarine System.
Western North Atlantic Northern 2,263 0
Florida Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Central 15,409 0
Florida Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Northern 79,042 20
Migratory Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Offshore. 794,581 161
Western North Atlantic South 11,232 0
Carolina/Georgia Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Southern 29,176 0
Migratory Coastal.
Clymene dolphin........................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 27,841 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 234,001 12
False killer whale........................ Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 12,788 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 24,580 0
Fraser's dolphin.......................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 7,452 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 8,270 0
Killer whale.............................. Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 212 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 264 0
Long-finned pilot whale................... Western North Atlantic.......... 131,095 11
Melon-headed whale........................ Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 20,324 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 109,192 6
Pantropical spotted dolphin............... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 169,678 6
Western North Atlantic.......... 495,207 26
Pygmy killer whale........................ Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 4,771 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 18,609 0
Risso's dolphin........................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 10,929 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 132,141 9
Rough-toothed dolphin..................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 26,033 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 58,008 0
Short-beaked common dolphin............... Western North Atlantic.......... 2,351,361 101
Short-finned pilot whale.................. Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 12,041 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 111,326 10
Spinner dolphin........................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 51,039 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 218,786 10
Striped dolphin........................... Northern Gulf of Mexico......... 16,344 0
Western North Atlantic.......... 652,197 32
White-beaked dolphin...................... Western North Atlantic.......... 300 0
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise........................... Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy...... 811,201 1,405
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70748]]

Suborder Pinnipedia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (true seals):
Gray seal................................. Western North Atlantic.......... 6,130 14
Harbor seal............................... Western North Atlantic.......... 9,941 23
Harp seal................................. Western North Atlantic.......... 53,646 17
Hooded seal............................... Western North Atlantic.......... 5,335 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The estimated amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment annually are identical to those
presented in Table 40 in the 2018 AFTT final rule.
* ESA-listed species or stocks within the AFTT Study Area.
[dagger] NSD: No stock designated.

Authorized Take From Ship Shock
For ship shock trials, Table 12 summarizes the Navy's take estimate
and request and the maximum amount and type of Level A and Level B
harassment and serious injury/mortality for the seven-year period
covered by the Navy application that NMFS concurs is reasonably
expected to occur by species or stock per small and large ship shock
events, and is therefore authorized. For the authorized amount and type
of Level A harassment, Level B harassment, and serious injury/mortality
annually, see Table 41 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The Navy will not
conduct additional ship shock trials over the additional two years
covered by the 2019 Navy application, so the amount and type of
authorized takes are the same as those authorized in the 2018 AFTT
final rule.

Table 12--Seven-Year Total Species and Stock-Specific Take Estimates Authorized From Ship Shock Trials
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small ship shock Large ship shock 7-Year total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species/stock Level B Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A
harassment harassment Mortality harassment harassment Mortality harassment harassment Mortality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae (right whales):
North Atlantic right whale *... 1 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0
Western North Atlantic..... 1 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0
Family Balaenopteridae (roquals):
Blue whale *................... 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Western North Atlantic 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
(Gulf of St. Lawrence)....
Bryde's whale.................. 3 0 0 6 1 0 15 1 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico *.. 0 0 0 3 1 0 3 1 0
NSD [dagger]............... 3 0 0 6 0 0 15 0 0
Minke whale.................... 19 1 0 39 3 0 96 6 0
Canadian East Coast........ 19 1 0 39 3 0 96 6 0
Fin whale *.................... 131 3 0 234 27 0 627 36 0
Western North Atlantic..... 131 3 0 234 27 0 627 36 0
Humpback whale................. 8 0 0 20 2 0 44 2 0
Gulf of Maine.............. 8 0 0 20 2 0 44 2 0
Sei whale *.................... 12 1 0 27 4 0 63 7 0
Nova Scotia................ 12 1 0 27 4 0 63 7 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae (sperm whale):
Sperm whale *.................. 1 1 0 3 4 0 6 7 0
Gulf of Mexico Oceanic..... 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0
North Atlantic............. 1 1 0 3 4 0 6 7 0
Family Kogiidae (sperm whales):
Dwarf sperm whale.............. 46 28 0 91 70 0 229 154 0
Gulf of Mexico Oceanic..... 0 0 0 51 64 0 51 64 0
Western North Atlantic..... 46 28 0 91 70 0 229 154 0
Pygmy sperm whale.............. 46 28 0 91 70 0 229 154 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 51 64 0 51 64 0
Western North Atlantic..... 46 28 0 91 70 0 229 154 0

[[Page 70749]]

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales):
Blainville's beaked whale...... 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Western North Atlantic..... 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 0
Cuvier's beaked whale.......... 2 1 0 2 3 0 8 6 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Western North Atlantic..... 2 1 0 2 3 0 8 6 0
Gervais' beaked whale.......... 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Western North Atlantic..... 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 0
Northern bottlenose whale...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western North Atlantic..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sowerby's beaked whale......... 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 0
Western North Atlantic..... 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 0
True's beaked whale............ 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 0
Western North Atlantic..... 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 0
Family Delphinidae (dolphins):
Atlantic spotted dolphin....... 6 4 0 8 12 0 26 24 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
Western North Atlantic..... 6 4 0 8 12 0 26 24 0
Atlantic white-sided dolphin... 1 1 0 3 9 1 6 12 1
Western North Atlantic..... 1 1 0 3 9 1 6 12 1
Bottlenose dolphin............. 13 10 0 16 24 0 55 54 0
Choctawhatchee Bay......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gulf of Mexico Eastern 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coastal...................
Gulf of Mexico Northern 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Coastal...................
Gulf of Mexico Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coastal...................
Indian River Lagoon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estuarine System..........
Jacksonville Estuarine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
System....................
Mississippi Sound, Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Borgne, Bay Boudreau......
Northern Gulf of Mexico 0 0 0 10 6 0 10 6 0
Continental Shelf.........
Northern Gulf of Mexico 0 0 0 10 9 0 10 9 0
Oceanic...................
Northern North Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estuarine System..........
Southern North Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estuarine System..........
Western North Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Northern Florida Coastal..
Western North Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central Florida Coastal...
Western North Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Northern Migratory Coastal
Western North Atlantic 13 10 0 16 24 0 55 54 0
Offshore..................
Western North Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
South Carolina/Georgia
Coastal...................
Western North Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Southern Migratory Coastal
Clymene dolphin................ 2 5 0 9 8 0 15 23 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 8 6 0 8 6 0
Western North Atlantic..... 2 5 0 9 8 0 15 23 0
False killer whale............. 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
Western North Atlantic..... 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0

[[Page 70750]]

Fraser's dolphin............... 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 3 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 3 0
Western North Atlantic..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Killer whale................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western North Atlantic..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Long-finned pilot whale........ 2 2 0 5 6 0 11 12 0
Western North Atlantic..... 2 2 0 5 6 0 11 12 0
Melon-headed whale............. 1 1 0 5 4 0 8 7 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 4 0
Western North Atlantic..... 1 1 0 5 1 0 8 4 0
Pantropical spotted dolphin.... 2 3 0 25 20 1 31 29 1
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 25 20 1 25 20 1
Western North Atlantic..... 2 3 0 7 3 0 13 12 0
Pygmy killer whale............. 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Western North Atlantic..... 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Risso's dolphin................ 1 1 0 3 1 0 6 4 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
Western North Atlantic..... 1 1 0 3 1 0 6 4 0
Rough-toothed dolphin.......... 1 0 0 3 2 0 6 2 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0
Western North Atlantic..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Short-beaked common dolphin.... 40 51 1 67 107 3 187 260 6
Western North Atlantic..... 40 51 1 67 107 3 187 260 6
Short-finned pilot whale....... 2 2 0 4 5 0 10 11 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 3 0
Western North Atlantic..... 2 2 0 4 5 0 10 11 0
Spinner dolphin................ 3 1 0 37 45 1 46 48 1
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 37 45 1 37 45 1
Western North Atlantic..... 3 1 0 7 3 0 16 6 0
Striped dolphin................ 4 8 0 10 12 0 22 36 0
Northern Gulf of Mexico.... 0 0 0 4 3 0 4 3 0
Western North Atlantic..... 4 8 0 10 12 0 22 36 0
White-beaked dolphin........... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western North Atlantic..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoisE................ 43 41 0 120 81 0 249 204 0
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy. 43 41 0 120 81 0 249 204 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (true seals):
Gray seal...................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western North Atlantic..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harbor seal.................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western North Atlantic..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harp seal...................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western North Atlantic..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hooded seal.................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western North Atlantic..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The table displays maximum ship shock impacts to marine mammals by species (in bold text), as well as maximum impacts on individual stocks.
* ESA-listed species or stocks within the AFTT Study Area.
[dagger] NSD: No stock designated.

Authorized Take From Vessel Strikes
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

[[Page 70751]]

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 that the Navy is conducting training or testing activities
using active sonar or explosives.
The marine mammals most vulnerable to vessel strikes are those that
spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to restore
oxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives (e.g., the sperm
whale). In addition, some baleen whales, such as the NARW seem
generally unresponsive to vessel sound, making them more susceptible to
vessel collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These species are primarily
large, slower moving whales.
Some researchers have suggested the relative risk of a vessel
strike can be assessed as a function of animal density and the
magnitude of vessel traffic (e.g., Fonnesbeck et al., 2008; Vanderlaan
et al., 2008). Differences among vessel types also influence the
probability of a vessel strike. The ability of any ship to detect a
marine mammal and avoid a collision depends on a variety of factors,
including environmental conditions, ship design, size, speed, and
personnel, as well as the behavior of the animal. Vessel speed, size,
and mass are all important factors in determining if injury or death of
a marine mammal is likely due to a vessel strike. For large vessels,
speed and angle of approach can influence the severity of a strike. For
example, Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) found that between vessel speeds
of 8.6 and 15 knots, the probability that 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 activities.
When submerged, submarines are generally slow moving (to
avoid detection) and therefore marine mammals at depth with a submarine
are likely able to avoid collision with the submarine. When a submarine
is transiting on the surface, there are Lookouts serving the same
function as they do on surface ships.
Vessel strike to marine mammals is not associated with any specific
training or testing activity but is rather an extremely limited and
sporadic, but possible, accidental result of Navy vessel movement
within the AFTT Study Area or while in transit.
There have been three recorded Navy vessel strikes (one in 2011 and
two in 2012) of large whales in the AFTT Study Area from 2009 through
2018 (ten years), the period in which the Navy began implementing
effective mitigation measures to reduce the likelihood of vessel
strikes. Two of the vessel strikes occurred in the Virginia Capes Range
Complex and one occurred in the lower Chesapeake Bay. One of the whales
in 2012 had features suggesting it was most likely a humpback whale.
Note that while the Navy was unable to identify the species of whale,
it is unlikely the unidentified whales were NARW as the strikes
occurred in areas where, or times of year when, NARW are not known to
be present. 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 AFTT Study Area within the seven-year
period, the Navy requested incidental takes based on probabilities
derived from a Poisson distribution using ship strike data between 2009
and 2018 in the AFTT Study Area (the time period from when current
mitigation measures were instituted until the Navy conducted the
analysis for the 2019 Navy application, with no new ship strikes
occurring since this analysis), as well as historical at-sea days in
the AFTT 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 is described in detail in Chapter 6 of the Navy's 2017 and
2019 applications.
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. Unlike the
situation for non-Navy ships engaged in commercial activities, NMFS and
the Navy have no evidence that the Navy has struck a whale and not
detected it. 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.

[[Page 70752]]

The Navy used the three whale strikes since 2009 in their
calculations to determine the number of strikes likely to result from
their activities (although worldwide strike information, from all Navy
activities and other strikes, was used to inform the species that may
be struck). The Navy 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 updated probability analysis in the 2019 Navy application
concluded that there was a 12 percent chance that zero whales would be
struck by Navy vessels over the next seven years in the AFTT Study
Area, indicating an 88 percent chance that at least one whale would be
struck over the next seven years. The analysis also concludes that
there is a 10 percent chance of striking four whales over the seven-
year period. Based on the revised analysis, the Navy requested coverage
for one additional large whale mortality not previously included in the
2018 AFTT final rule bringing the total from three vessel strikes over
five years to four vessel strikes over seven years. NMFS agrees that
there is some probability that the Navy could strike, and take by
serious injury or mortality, up to four large whales incidental to
training and testing activities within the AFTT Study Area over the
course of the seven years covered by this final rule.
Small whales, 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.), the following are additional
reasons that vessel strike of dolphins, small whales, porpoises, and
pinnipeds is 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 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 period
analyzed here from training and testing activities.
Taking into account the available information regarding how many of
any given stock could be struck and therefore should be authorized for
take NMFS considered two factors in addition to those considered in the
Navy's request: (1) The relative likelihood of hitting one stock versus
another based on available strike data from all vessel types as denoted
in the SARs and (2) whether the Navy has ever definitively struck an
individual from a particular stock and, if so, how many times. To
address number (1) above, NMFS compiled information from NMFS' SARs on
detected annual rates of large whale serious injury and mortality from
vessel collisions (Table 13). The annual rates of large whale serious
injury and mortality from vessel collisions from the SARs help inform
the relative susceptibility of large whale species to vessel strike in
the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. We summed the annual rates
of mortality and serious injury from vessel collisions as reported in
the SARs, then divided each species' annual rate by this sum to get the
relative likelihood. To estimate the percent likelihood of 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., 88 percent, as described by the Navy's
probability analysis). 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, as analyzed in the SARS,
changes (and we include the annual averages from 2017 and 2018 draft
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 analysis indicates
that there is a very low percent chance of striking any particular
species or stock more than once except for humpback whales, as shown in
Table 13. 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 AFTT Study Area since 1995
(since they started tracking consistently). 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 percentage 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.

Table 13--Annual Rates of Mortality and Serious Injury (M/SI) From Vessel Collisions Compiled From NMFS 2018 Final Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) and
Estimated Percent Chance of Striking Each Large Whale Species in the AFTT Study Area Over a Seven-Year Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual rate of Annual rate of
M/SI from M/SI from Annual Take
Species (stock) \1\ vessel vessel Percent chance Percent chance authorized authorized
collision collision of ONE strike of TWO strikes take over 7 years
(2017 SARs) (2018 SARs)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale (Western North Atlantic)...................... 1.6 1.4 19.83 3.93 0.14 1
Sei whale (Nova Scotia)................................. 0.8 0.8 11.33 1.28 0.14 1
Minke whale (Canadian East Coast)....................... 1.4 1 14.16 2.01 0.14 1
Humpback whale (Gulf of Maine).......................... 1.8 2.6 36.82 13.55 0.29 2
Sperm whale (North Atlantic)............................ 0.2 0.2 2.83 0.08 0.14 \2\ 1
Bryde's whale (Northern Gulf of Mexico)................. 0.2 0.2 2.83 0.08 0 \3\ 0
Sperm whale (Gulf of Mexico)............................ 0 0 0 0 0 0

[[Page 70753]]

Blue whale (Western North Atlantic)..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North Atlantic right whales are not included in this analysis as NARWs are not anticipated to be struck due to the additional extensive mitigation
the Navy implements to minimize the risk of striking this particular species. In addition, the Navy has not struck this species since prior to 2009
when the Navy's current vessel movement mitigation, reporting, and monitoring requirements have been in place.
\2\ The analysis indicates only a very small likelihood (less than 3 percent) that a North Atlantic sperm whale would be struck over the seven years,
however, the Navy has struck a sperm whale previously in the Atlantic, which may indicate a higher possibility that it could occur and suggests that
authorizing one mortality over the seven years would be appropriate.
\3\ Due to their low population abundance within the Study Area and lack of previous vessel strikes by the Navy, along with the Navy's enhanced
mitigation measures in the Bryde's Whale Mitigation Area, Bryde's whales are not anticipated to be struck, and therefore have zero mortality/serious
injury takes. The annual rate of mortality (0.2) is estimated from 1 Bryde's whale in 2009 (no more recent strikes have been documented).

For the reasons discussed in detail in the 2018 AFTT final rule and
discussed further below, due to enhanced mitigation measures, NARWs are
not anticipated to be struck by Navy vessels and are anticipated to
have zero mortality/serious injury takes over the seven years of the
rule. In addition, based on the quantitative method described above,
blue whales and Gulf of Mexico sperm whales have a zero percent chance
of being struck. After considering this result, along with additional
factors discussed below, the Navy found that any vessel strike of these
two stocks is highly unlikely. After fully considering all relevant
information, NMFS agreed with this conclusion. Finally, the
quantitative analysis outlined above indicates only a very small
likelihood the Navy would strike a Bryde's whale (3 percent). Due to
their low population abundance and lack of previous vessel strikes by
the Navy, Bryde's whales are also unlikely to be struck and we have not
authorized any mortality/serious injury takes. Alternately, the
quantitative analysis discussed above also indicates only a very small
likelihood that the Navy would strike a North Atlantic sperm whale over
the seven years covered by the 2019 Navy application (less than 3
percent), however, the Navy has struck a sperm whale previously in the
Atlantic (2005), which points to a higher possibility that it could
occur and suggests that authorizing a single mortality/serious injury
would be appropriate. Additional discussion relevant to our
determinations for North Atlantic blue whales, Gulf of Mexico sperm
whale, NARW, and Bryde's whale is included below.
In addition to the zero probability predicted by the quantitative
model, there are no recent confirmed records of vessel collision to
blue whales in the U.S. Atlantic waters, although there is one older
historical record pointing to a ship strike that likely occurred beyond
the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; outside of where most
Navy activities occur, so less relevant) and one 1998 record of a dead
20 m (66 ft) male blue whale brought into Rhode Island waters on the
bow of a tanker. The cause of death was determined to be ship strike;
however, some of the injuries were difficult to explain from the
necropsy. As noted previously, the Navy has been conducting Marine
Species Awareness Training and implementing additional mitigation
measures to protect against vessel strikes since 2009. Therefore, given
the absence of any strikes in the recent past since the Navy has
implemented its current mitigation measures, the very low abundance of
North Atlantic blue whales throughout the AFTT Study Area (Nmin = 440
for the Western North Atlantic stock, Waring et al., 2010), and the
very low number of blue whales ever known to be struck in the area by
any type of vessel (and none known to be struck by Navy vessels), we
believe the likelihood of the Navy hitting a blue whale is
discountable.
In addition to the zero probability of hitting a sperm whale in the
Gulf of Mexico predicted by the quantitative model, there have been no
vessel strikes of sperm whales by any entity since 2009 in the Gulf of
Mexico per the SAR (2009-2013) and no Navy strikes of any large whales
since 1995 (based on our records, which include Navy's records) in the
Gulf of Mexico. Further, the Navy has comparatively fewer steaming days
in the Gulf of Mexico and there is a fairly low abundance of sperm
whales occurring there. As noted previously, the Navy has been
conducting Marine Species Awareness Training and implementing
additional mitigation measures to protect against vessel strikes since
2009. Therefore, NMFS believes that the likelihood of the Navy hitting
a Gulf of Mexico sperm whale is discountable.
Although the quantitative analysis would indicate that NARWs do
have a low probability of being struck one time within the seven-year
period when vessel strikes across all activity types (including non-
Navy) are considered (annual mortality and serious injury, hereafter
abbreviated as M/SI, from vessel strikes is calculated as 0.41 in the
2018 SAR), when the enhanced mitigation measures (discussed below) that
the Navy has been implementing and will continue to implement for NARWs
are considered in combination with this low probability, a vessel
strike is highly unlikely. Therefore, lethal take of NARWs was not
requested by the Navy and is not authorized by NMFS. We further note
that while there have been two strikes of unidentified whales by the
Navy since 2009, it is unlikely they were NARW as the strikes occurred
in areas where, or times of year when, NARW are not known to be
present.
Regarding the Bryde's whale, due to the fact that the Navy has not
struck a Bryde's whale (as no Navy strikes have occurred in the Gulf of
Mexico), the very low abundance numbers (Nbest = 33 individuals, Hayes
et al., 2019), and the limited Navy ship traffic that overlaps with
Bryde's whale habitat, neither the Navy nor NMFS anticipate any vessel-
strike takes, and none were requested or authorized. The Navy is now
also limiting activities (i.e., 200 hr cap on hull-mounted MFAS) and
will not use explosives (except during mine warfare activities) in the
Bryde's Whale Mitigation Area. For a complete discussion and analysis
of these mitigation areas, see the Mitigation Measures section in the
2018 AFTT

[[Page 70754]]

final rule along with a summary in the Mitigation Measures section of
this final rule; see also Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/
OEIS.
In addition to procedural mitigation, the Navy will continue to
implement measures in mitigation areas used by NARW for foraging,
calving, and migration. For a complete discussion and analysis of these
mitigation areas, see the Mitigation Measures section in the 2018 AFTT
final rule along with a summary in the Mitigation Measures section of
this final rule; see also Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/
OEIS. These measures, which go above and beyond those focused on other
species (e.g., funding of and communication with sightings systems,
implementation of speed reductions during applicable circumstances in
certain areas) have succeeded in the Navy avoiding strike of a NARW
during training and testing activities in the past and essentially
eliminate the potential for vessel strikes to occur during the seven-
year period of this rule. In particular, the mitigation pertaining to
vessels, including the continued participation in and sponsoring of the
Early Warning System, will help Navy vessels avoid NARW during transits
and training and testing activities. The Early Warning System is a
comprehensive information exchange network dedicated to reducing the
risk of vessel strikes to NARW off the southeast United States from all
mariners (i.e., Navy and non-Navy vessels). Navy participants include
the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville;
Commander, Naval Submarine Forces, Norfolk, Virginia; and Naval
Submarine Support Command. The Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, and NMFS collaboratively sponsor daily aerial surveys
from December 1 through March 31 (weather permitting) to observe for
NARW from the shoreline out to approximately 30-35 nmi offshore. Aerial
surveyors relay sightings information to all mariners transiting within
the NARW calving habitat (e.g., commercial vessels, recreational
boaters, and Navy ships).
In the Northeast NARW Mitigation Area, before all vessel transits,
the Navy conducts a web query or email inquiry of NOAA's NARW Sighting
Advisory System to obtain the latest NARW sightings information. Navy
vessels currently use and will continue to use the obtained sightings
information to reduce potential interactions with NARW during transits
and prevent ship strikes. In this mitigation area, vessels will
continue to implement speed reductions after they observe a NARW; if
they are within 5 nmi of the location of a sighting reported to the
NARW Sighting Advisory System within the past week; and when operating
at night or during periods of reduced visibility. During transits and
normal firing involving non-explosive torpedos activities, the Navy
ships will continue to maintain a speed of no more than 10 kn. During
submarine target firing, ships would maintain speeds of no more than 18
kn. During vessel target firing, vessel speeds would exceed 18 kn for
only brief periods of time (e.g., 10-15 min).
In the Southeast NARW Mitigation Area, before transiting or
conducting training or testing activities within the mitigation area,
the Navy will continue to initiate communication with the Fleet Area
Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville to obtain Early Warning
System NARW whale sightings data. The Fleet Area Control and
Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville will continue to advise vessels of
all reported whale sightings in the vicinity to help vessels and
aircraft reduce potential interactions with NARWs and prevent ship
strikes. Commander Submarine Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet will coordinate
any submarine activities that may require approval from the Fleet Area
Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville. Vessels will continue
to use the sightings information to reduce potential interactions with
NARW during transits and prevent ship strikes. Vessels will also
implement speed reductions after they observe a NARW, if they are
within 5 nmi of a sighting reported within the past 12 hours (hrs), or
when operating in the mitigation area at night or during periods of
poor visibility. To the maximum extent practicable, vessels will
continue to minimize north-south transits in the mitigation area.
Finally, the Navy will continue to broadcast awareness notification
messages with NARW Dynamic Management Area information (e.g., location
and dates) to applicable Navy vessels operating in the vicinity of the
Dynamic Management Area. The information will continue to alert assets
to the possible presence of a NARW to maintain safety of navigation and
further reduce the potential for a vessel strike. Navy platforms would
use the information to assist their visual observation of applicable
mitigation zones during training and testing activities and to aid in
the implementation of procedural mitigation, including but not limited
to, mitigation for vessel movement.
Implementation of these measures significantly reduces the
possibility of striking NARWs during the seven-year period of the rule.
The probability for any particular ship to strike a marine mammal is
primarily a product of the ability of the ship to detect a marine
mammal and the ability to effectively act to avoid it. Navy combat
ships are inherently among the best at both of these because compared
to large commercial vessels, they have trained Lookouts which have
received specialized Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) training, and they
are the most maneuverable ships, which means that they are more likely
to sight a marine mammal and more likely to be able to maneuver to
avoid it in the available time--both of which decrease the probability
of striking a marine mammal below what it would have been in the
absence of those abilities. In the case of the NARW, the extensive
communication/detection network described above, which is in use in the
areas of highest NARW occurrence and where they may be more susceptible
to strike, further increases the likelihood of detecting a NARW and
thereby avoiding it, which further reduces the probability of NARW
strike. Further, detection of NARW in some areas/times is associated
with reduced speed requirements, which may reduce the strike
probability further by slightly increasing the time within which an
operator has to maneuver away from a whale. Because of these additional
mitigation measures combined with the already low probability that a
NARW will be struck, it is extremely unlikely the Navy would strike a
NARW, and mortality/serious injury of a NARW from vessel strike is
neither anticipated nor authorized.
In conclusion, although it is generally unlikely that any whales
will be struck in a year, based on the information and analysis above,
NMFS anticipates that no more than four whales have the potential to be
taken by serious injury or mortality over the seven-year period of the
rule. Of those four whales over the seven years, no more than two would
be humpback whales (Gulf of Maine stock) and no more than one would
come from any of the four following stocks: Fin whale (Western North
Atlantic stock), minke (Canadian East Coast stock), sperm whale (North
Atlantic stock), and sei whale (Nova Scotia stock). Accordingly in the
Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section, NMFS has
evaluated under the negligible impact standard the serious injury or
mortality of 0.14 whales annually from each of these species or stocks
(i.e., 1 take over the 7 years divided by 7 to get the annual number),
except for the humpback whale (North Atlantic stock) for which we used
0.29 (i.e., 2 takes over

[[Page 70755]]

the 7 years divided by 7 to get the annual number) along with other
expected harassment incidental take.

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 their 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 AFTT 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, we reiterate that
the least practicable adverse impact standard also requires
consideration of measures for marine mammal habitat, with particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and other areas of similar
significance, and for subsistence impacts, whereas the negligible
impact standard is concerned solely with conclusions about the impact
of an activity on annual rates of recruitment and survival.\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 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, under section 101(a)(5)(A)(ii) specifically
considers personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact
on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
While the language of the least practicable adverse impact standard
calls for minimizing impacts to affected species or stocks and their
habitats, we recognize that the reduction of impacts to those species
or stocks accrues through the application of mitigation measures that
limit impacts to individual animals. Accordingly, NMFS' analysis
focuses on measures that are designed to avoid or minimize impacts on
individual marine mammals when those impacts 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 and their habitat. We also acknowledge
that there is always the potential that new information, or a new
recommendation that we had not previously considered becomes available
in the future and necessitates reevaluation of mitigation measures
(which may be addressed through adaptive management) to see if further
reductions of population impacts are possible and practicable.
In the evaluation of specific measures, the details of the
specified activity will necessarily inform each of the two primary
factors discussed above (expected reduction of impacts and
practicability), and are carefully considered to determine the types of
mitigation that are appropriate under the least practicable adverse
impact standard. Analysis of how a potential mitigation measure may
reduce adverse impacts on a marine mammal stock or species,
consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and
consideration of the impact on effectiveness of military readiness
activities are not issues that can be meaningfully evaluated through a
yes/no lens. The manner in which, and the degree to which,
implementation of a measure is expected to reduce impacts, as well as
its practicability in terms of these considerations, can vary widely.
For example, a time/area restriction could be of very high value for
decreasing population-level impacts (e.g., avoiding disturbance of
feeding females in an area of established biological importance) or it
could be of lower value (e.g., decreased disturbance in an area of high
productivity but of less firmly established biological importance).
Regarding practicability, a measure might involve restrictions in an
area or time that impede the Navy's ability to certify a strike group
(higher impact on mission effectiveness), or it could mean delaying a
small in-port training event by 30 minutes to avoid exposure of a
marine mammal to injurious levels of sound (lower impact). A
responsible evaluation of ``least practicable adverse impact''
considers 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 stocks or
their habitat, the greater the weight that measure is given when
considered in combination with practicability to determine the
appropriateness of the mitigation measure, and vice versa. In

[[Page 70756]]

the evaluation of specific measures, the details of the specified
activity 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. For
more detail on how we apply these factors, see the discussion in the
Mitigation Measures section of the 2018 AFTT final rule.
NMFS fully reviewed the Navy's specified activities and the
mitigation measures for the 2018 AFTT rulemaking and determined that
the mitigation measures would result in the least practicable adverse
impact on marine mammals and their habitat. There is no change in
either the activities or the mitigation measures for this seven-year
rule. See the 2019 Navy application and the 2018 AFTT 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
AFTT FEIS/OEIS. The process described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the
2018 AFTT 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 AFTT regulations and will continue
implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this rule for
the full seven years to avoid or reduce potential impacts from
acoustic, explosive, and physical disturbance and ship strike
stressors.
In its 2019 application, the Navy proposed no changes to the
mitigation measures in the 2018 AFTT 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 AFTT proposed rule and the 2018 AFTT final rule for our full
assessment and description 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 serious
injury or mortality, minimize the likelihood or severity of PTS or
other injury, and reduce instances of TTS or more severe behavioral
disruption caused by acoustic sources or explosives. The Navy also will
implement multiple time/area restrictions (several of which were added
in the 2018 AFTT final rule since the previous AFTT MMPA incidental
take rule) that would reduce take of marine mammals in areas or at
times where they are known to engage in important behaviors, such as
feeding or calving, where the disruption of those behaviors would have
a higher probability of resulting in impacts on reproduction or
survival of individuals that could lead to population-level impacts.
Summaries of the Navy's procedural mitigation measures and mitigation
areas for the AFTT Study Area are provided in Tables 14 and 15.

Table 14--Summary of Procedural Mitigation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation zones sizes and
Stressor or activity other requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Awareness and Education.. Afloat Environmental
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 Projectiles. caliber 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).
Maritime Security Operations--Anti- 200 yd.
Swimmer Grenades.
Line Charge Testing.................... 900 yd.
Ship Shock Trials...................... 3.5 nmi.
Vessel Movement........................ 500 yd (whales).
200 yd (other marine
mammals).
North Atlantic right
whale Dynamic Management Area
notification messages.
Towed In-Water Devices................. 250 yd.
Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non- 200 yd.
Explosive Practice Munitions.
Non-Explosive Missiles and Rockets..... 900 yd.
Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine Shapes.... 1,000 yd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: lb: pounds; nmi: nautical miles; yd: yards.

[[Page 70757]]

Table 15--Summary of Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of mitigation area requirements
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar
and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual
training and testing activity reports.
The Navy must minimize use of active sonar to the maximum
extent practicable and must not use explosives that detonate in the
water.
The Navy must conduct non-explosive torpedo testing during
daylight hrs in Beaufort sea state 3 or less using three Lookouts (one
on a vessel, two in an aircraft during aerial surveys) and an
additional Lookout on the submarine when surfaced; during transits,
ships must maintain a speed of no more than 10 knots; during firing,
ships must maintain a speed of no more than 18 knots except brief
periods of time during vessel target firing.
Vessels must obtain the latest North Atlantic right whale
sightings data and implement speed reductions after they observe a
North Atlantic right whale, if within 5 nmi of a sighting reported
within the past week, and when operating at night or during periods of
reduced visibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness Mitigation Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar
and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual
training and testing activity reports.
The Navy must not conduct major training exercises and must not
conduct >200 hrs of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar per year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas and Mid-Atlantic Planning
Awareness Mitigation Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navy must avoid conducting major training exercises to the
maximum extent practicable.
The Navy must not conduct more than four major training
exercises per year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area (November 15-April
15)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar
and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual
training and testing activity reports.
The Navy must not use active sonar except as necessary for
navigation training, object detection training, and dipping sonar.
The Navy must not expend explosive or non-explosive ordnance.
Vessels must obtain the latest North Atlantic right whale
sightings data; must implement speed reductions after they observe a
North Atlantic right whale, if within 5 nmi of a sighting reported
within the past 12 hrs, and when operating at night or during periods
of reduced visibility; and must minimize north-south transits to the
maximum extent practicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacksonville Operating Area (November 15-April 15)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy units conducting training or testing activities in the
Jacksonville Operating Area must obtain and use Early Warning System
North Atlantic right whale sightings data as they plan specific details
of events to minimize potential interactions with North Atlantic right
whales to the maximum extent practicable. The Navy must use the
reported sightings information to assist visual observations of
applicable mitigation zones and to aid in the implementation of
procedural mitigation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat Special Reporting
Area (November 15-April 15)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar
and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual
training and testing activity reports.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy Cherry Point Range Complex Nearshore Mitigation Area (March-
September)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navy must not conduct explosive mine neutralization
activities involving Navy divers in the mitigation area.
To the maximum extent practicable, the Navy must not use
explosive sonobuoys, explosive torpedoes, explosive medium-caliber and
large-caliber projectiles, explosive missiles and rockets, explosive
bombs, explosive mines during mine countermeasure and neutralization
activities, and anti-swimmer grenades in the mitigation area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryde's Whale Mitigation Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navy must report the total hrs and counts of active sonar
and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual
training and testing activity reports.
The Navy must not conduct >200 hrs of hull-mounted mid-
frequency active sonar per year and must not use explosives (except
during explosive mine warfare activities).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf of Mexico Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navy must not conduct any major training exercises under
the action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: min.: minutes; nmi: nautical miles.

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 AFTT
rulemaking--and considered a broad range of other measures (i.e., the
measures considered but eliminated in the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS, which
reflect many of the comments that have arisen via NMFS or public input
in past years) in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the
means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the

[[Page 70758]]

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 AFTT 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 measures (which are currently
being implemented under the 2018 AFTT regulations), as well as other
measures considered by the Navy and NMFS, NMFS has determined that the
Navy's mitigation measures are appropriate means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impacts on marine mammal species or stocks and
their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar significance, 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 AFTT final
rule included an adaptive management provision, which NMFS has extended
for the additional two years of this rule, which ensures that
mitigation is regularly assessed and provides a mechanism to improve
the mitigation, based on the factors above, through modification as
appropriate.

Monitoring

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that in order to authorize
incidental take for 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 proposed no changes to the
monitoring described in the 2018 AFTT final rule. They would continue
implementation of the robust Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring
Program and Strategic Planning Process described in the 2018 AFTT final
rule. The Navy's monitoring strategy, currently required by the 2018
AFTT regulations and extended for two years under this final rule, 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 seven-year
regulations include identical adaptive management provisions and
reporting requirements as the 2018 AFTT regulations. There is no new
information to indicate that the monitoring measures put in place under
the 2018 AFTT final rule do not remain applicable and appropriate for
the seven-year period of this final rule. See the Monitoring section of
the 2018 AFTT final rule for more details on the monitoring that is
required under this rule.

Adaptive Management

The 2018 AFTT regulations governing the take of marine mammals
incidental to Navy training and testing activities in the AFTT Study
Area contain an adaptive management component. Our understanding of the
effects of Navy training and testing activities (e.g., acoustic and
explosive stressors) on marine mammals continues to evolve, which makes
the inclusion of an adaptive management component both valuable and
necessary within the context of seven-year regulations. The 2019 Navy
application proposed no changes to the adaptive management component
included in the 2018 AFTT 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 research and
development 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 proposed
no changes to the reporting requirements identified in the 2018 AFTT
final rule. Reporting requirements under this final rule remain
identical to those described in the 2018 AFTT final rule, where there
is no new information to indicate that the reporting requirements put
in place under the 2018 AFTT final rule do not remain applicable and
appropriate for the seven-year period of this final rule. See the
Reporting section of the 2018 AFTT final rule for more details on the
reporting that is required under this rule.

[[Page 70759]]

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 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 10-13), 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, and ambient noise levels).
In the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals sections of this final rule
and the 2018 AFTT 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 final rule we
evaluated the likely impacts of the enumerated maximum number of
harassment takes proposed to be authorized 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 nature and level of the specified activities and the boundaries
of the AFTT 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 AFTT final rule. In addition,
the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are identical to
those described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule. As described
above, there is no new information available since the publication of
the 2018 AFTT 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.

Harassment

As described in the Estimated Takes of Marine Mammals section, the
annual number of takes authorized 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 39 through 41 in the Take Requests section of the 2018 AFTT
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 identical to that presented in the 2018 AFTT
final rule. The only difference is that the annual levels of take and
the associated effects on reproduction or survival will occur for the
seven-year period of the rule instead of the five-year period of the
2018 AFTT final rule, which will make no difference in effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival. 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 harassment, 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 AFTT final rule (83 FR 57211-57217;
November 14, 2018).

Serious Injury or Mortality

No additional ship shock trials will occur during the seven-year
period of the rule, so the requested and authorized total takes by M/SI
due to explosives used during ship shock trials over seven years are
the same as those authorized in the existing 2018 AFTT regulations.
There is no new information that affects the methodology or results of
the ship-shock analysis presented in the 2018 AFTT final rule. But as
these same activities would occur over seven years rather than five
years, the estimated annual take is calculated as the number of total
takes divided by seven. For each of the dolphin species and stocks
listed in Table 16 there would be an annual take of 0.14 dolphins
(i.e., for those species and stocks where one take could occur divided
by seven years to get the annual number of M/SIs) or 0.86 dolphins in
the case of short-beaked common dolphin (i.e., where six takes could
occur divided by seven years to get the annual number of M/SIs). This
is a decrease from the annual take of 0.2 dolphins (for the three
species where one lethal take could occur) and annual take of 1.2
short-beaked common dolphins (where six lethal takes could occur) over
the five-year period of the 2018 AFTT regulations, as shown in Table 70
in the 2018 AFTT final rule. As this annual number is less than that
analyzed and authorized in the 2018 AFTT final rule and no other
relevant information about the status, abundance, or effects of
mortality on each species and stock has changed, the analysis of the
effects of take from ship shock trials mirrors that presented in the
2018 AFTT final rule.

[[Page 70760]]

Table 16--Summary Information Related to AFTT Serious Injury or Mortality From Explosives (Ship Shock Trials), 2018-2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Fisheries Residual PBR-
estimated take interactions Potential PBR minus
Stock by serious Total annual M/ (Y/N); annual biological NEFSC annual M/SI Stock
Species (stock) abundance injury or SI * \2\ rate of M/SI removal (PBR) authorized and NEFSC trend * UME (Y/N); number and year
(Nbest)* mortality (M/ from fisheries * \3\ take (annual) authorized \5\
SI) \1\ interactions * take \4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Western 48,819 0.14 30 30 304 0.6 273.4 ? N
N. Atlantic).
Pantropical spotted dolphin (Northern 50,880 0.14 4.4 4.4 407 0 402.6 ? Y; 3 in 2010-2014
GOMEX).
Short-beaked common dolphin (Western 70,184 0.86 406 406 557 2 149 ? N
N. Atlantic).
Spinner dolphin (Northern GOMEX)...... 11,441 0.14 0 0 62 0 62 ? Y; 7 in 2010-2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Presented in the 2018 SARS.
\1\ This column represents the annual take by M/SI during ship shock trials 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 or NEFSC takes as noted in the SARs to ensure they are not double-counted against PBR. However, for these species, there were no takes from either Navy or NEFSC as noted in
the SARs to deduct that would be considered double-counting.
\3\ Potential biological removal (PBR) is defined in section 3 of the MMPA. See the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 AFTT final rule for a description of PBR.
\4\ 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 2018 SARs)
and authorized take for NEFSC.
\5\ See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends.

The other facet of the analysis for which there is a quantitative
change from the 2018 AFTT final rule is the number of potential
mortalities due to ship strike authorized over the seven-year period.
First, based on the information and methods discussed in the Estimated
Take of Marine Mammals section (which are identical to those used in
the 2018 AFTT final rule), NMFS has predicted that mortal takes of four
large whales over the course of the seven-year rule could occur (as
compared to three large whales over five years in the 2018 AFTT final
rule). Second, while no more than one whale over the seven years of any
species of fin whale, sei whale, minke whale, or sperm whale (North
Atlantic stock) would occur (which is the same as in the five-year 2018
AFTT final rule), as described above in the Estimated Take of Marine
Mammals section, the number of potential mortality takes of humpback
whales has increased from one to two. This means an annual average of
0.29 humpback whales and an annual average of 0.14 whales for each of
the other four species or stocks as described in Table 17 (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 authorized. As this
annual number is less than that analyzed and authorized in the 2018
AFTT final rule for fin whale, sei whale, minke whale, and sperm whale
(North Atlantic stock), which was an annual average of 0.2 whales for
the same four species and stocks, 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 vessel strike mirrors
that presented in the 2018 AFTT final rule. For humpback whales, the
annual number for potential mortality takes is slightly higher than in
the 2018 AFTT final rule, but the number still falls below the
insignificance threshold of 10 percent of residual Potential Biological
Removal (PBR), which indicates an insignificant incremental increase in
ongoing anthropogenic mortality that alone will not adversely affect
annual rates of recruitment or survival. The analysis of the effects of
this potential mortality on humpback whales' annual rates of
recruitment and survival, considered in combination with other
estimated harassment takes, appears in the Group and Species-Specific
Analyses section for Mysticetes below.
See the Serious Injury and Mortality subsection in the Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 AFTT final rule (83
FR 57217-57223; November 14, 2018) 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 mortality is authorized,
including the relationship of potential mortality for each species to
the insignificance threshold and residual PBR. Because the annual
number of potential mortality takes for humpback whales remains below
the insignificance threshold, the discussion for humpback whales (83 FR
57221-57222; November 14, 2018) remains fully applicable. For
discussion specifically on the role of the calculated PBR in evaluating
the effects of M/SI, see both the 2018 AFTT final rule and the 2018
Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area final
rule (83 FR 66846; December 27, 2018).

Table 17--Summary Information Related to AFTT Ship Strike, 2018-2025.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Residual
estimated Fisheries PBR-PBR
Stock take by Total interactions (Y/N); Vessel collisions (Y/ NEFSC minus
Species (stock) abundance serious annual M/ Annual rate of M/SI N); Annual rate of M/ PBR * authorized annual M/SI Stock trend UME (Y/N); number and year
(Nbest) * injury or SI * \2\ from fisheries SI from vessel take and NEFSC *\4\ \5\
mortality interactions * collision * (annual) authorized
(M/SI) \1\ take \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale (Western North Atlantic). 1,618 0.14 2.5 Y; 1.1.............. Y; 1.4.............. 2.5 0 0 ? N.
Sei whale (Nova Scotia)............ 357 0.14 0.8 N; 0................ Y; 0.8 *............ 0.5 0 -0.3 ? N.
Minke Whale (Canadian East Coast).. 2,591 0.14 7.5 Y; 6.5.............. Y; 1[dagger]........ 14 1 5.5 ? Y; 18 in 2019 as of 10/24/
2019 (27 in 2017 and 30 in
2018).

[[Page 70761]]

Humpback whale (Gulf of Maine)..... 896 0.29 9.7 Y; 7.1.............. Y; 2.6.............. 14.6 0 4.9 [uarr] Y; 22 in 2019 as of 10/24/
2019 (26 in 2016, 34 in
2017 and 25 in 2018).
Sperm whale (North Atlantic)....... 2,288 0.14 0.8 Y; 0.6.............. Y; 0.2.............. 3.6 0 2.8 ? N.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Presented in the 2018 SARS.
[dagger] Value presented incorrectly in the 2018 AFTT final rule and corrected here.
\1\ This column represents the annual take by M/SI by vessel collision 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 strikes or NEFSC takes as noted in the SARs to ensure they are not double-counted against PBR. However, for these species, there were no takes from either Navy or NEFSC as
noted in the SARs to deduct that would be considered double-counting.
\3\ This value represents the calculated PBR less the average annual estimate of ongoing anthropogenic mortalities (i.e., total annual human-caused M/SI, which is presented in the 2018 SARs)
and authorized take for NEFSC.
\4\ See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends.
\5\ This column presents UME information updated since the 2018 AFTT final rule, as discussed in the earlier section Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their
Habitat.

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 AFTT
final rule contained detailed analyses of the effects of the Navy's
activities in the AFTT 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 final rule. See
the Group and Species-Specific Analyses subsection in the Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 AFTT final rule (83
FR 57223-57247; November 14, 2018). In addition, no new information has
been received since the publication of the 2018 AFTT final rule that
significantly changes the analyses on the effects of the Navy's
activities on each species and stock presented in the 2018 AFTT final
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 stock and to
individuals. Specifically, when an abundance percentage comparison is
below 100, it means that that percentage or less of the individuals in
the stock will be affected (i.e., some individuals will not be taken at
all), that the average for those taken is one day per year, and that we
would not expect any individuals to be taken more than a few times in a
year. When it is more than 100 percent, it means there will definitely
be some number of repeated takes of individuals. For example, if the
percentage is 300, the average would be each individual is taken on
three days in a year if all were taken, but it is more likely that some
number of individuals will be taken more than three times and some
number of individuals fewer or not at all. While it is not possible to
know the maximum number of days across which individuals of a stock
might be taken, in acknowledgement of the fact that it is more than the
average, for the purposes of this analysis, we assume a number
approaching twice the average. For example, if the percentage of take
compared to the abundance is 800, we estimate that some individuals
might be taken as many as 16 times. Those comparisons are included in
the sections below. For some stocks these numbers have been adjusted
slightly (with these adjustments being in the single digits) 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. In the
annual estimated take tables below, takes within the U.S. EEZ include
only those takes within the U.S. EEZ where most Navy activities occur
and where we often have the best information on species and stock
presence and abundance. Takes inside and outside the EEZ include all
takes in the AFTT Study Area. An individual that incurs a PTS or TTS
take may sometimes, for example, also be behaviorally disturbed at the
same time. As described in the Harassment subsection of the Analysis
and Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 AFTT 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 also behaviorally harassed
would result in impacts to reproduction or survival. Alternately, we
recognize that if an individual is behaviorally harassed repeatedly for
a longer duration and on consecutive days, effects could accrue to the
point that reproductive success is jeopardized (as discussed below in
the stock-specific 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 behavioral Level B harassment takes, 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 (harassment) to
tissue damage from explosives, the difference

[[Page 70762]]

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 AFTT final rule, including the information
presented in the Overview, the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) Oil Spill
discussion, and 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 vessel strike and ship shock
calculations for some species. We then summarize the information for
each species or stock, considering the analysis from the 2018 AFTT
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 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 Table 18 below for mysticetes, we indicate the total annual
mortality, Level A and Level B harassment, and a number indicating the
instances of total take as a percentage of abundance. Table 18 is
unchanged from Table 72 in the 2018 AFTT final rule, except for 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 AFTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to
this final rule unless specifically noted.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 70763]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE19.000

North Atlantic Right Whale (Western Stock)

As described in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the status of NARW is
precarious and they are listed as endangered under the ESA. There is an
active UME associated with the recent unusually high number of deaths,
some of which have been attributed to entanglement or vessel strike,
although no vessel strikes have been attributed to the Navy. The number
of births in recent years has been unusually low and recent studies
have reported individuals showing poor health or high stress levels.
Accordingly, as described above and in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the
Navy is implementing and will continue to implement a suite of
mitigation measures that not only avoid the likelihood of ship strikes,
but also minimize the severity of behavioral disruption by minimizing
impacts in areas that are important for feeding and calving, thus
ensuring that the relatively small number of Level B harassment takes
that do occur are not expected to affect reproductive success or
survivorship via detrimental impacts to energy intake or cow/calf
interactions. Specifically, no mortality or Level A harassment is
anticipated or authorized. Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of
estimated instances compared to the abundance (137 percent) combined
with the fact that the AFTT Study Area overlaps most if not all of the
range, suggests that many to most of the individuals in the stock will
likely be taken, but only on one or two days per year, with no reason
to think the days will likely be sequential. Regarding the severity of
those individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained
in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure is expected
to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short), the received
sound levels are largely below 172 dB with some lesser portion up to
178 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, less likely to evoke a
severe response), and because of the mitigation measures the exposures
will

[[Page 70764]]

not occur in areas or at times where impacts would be likely to affect
feeding and energetics or important cow/calf interactions that could
lead to reduced reproductive success or survival. Regarding the
severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they
are expected to be low-level and of short duration and the associated
lost opportunities and capabilities are not at a level that would
impact reproduction or survival.
Altogether, any individual NARW is likely to be disturbed at a low-
moderate level on no more than a couple of likely non-sequential days
per year (and not in biologically important areas). Even given the fact
that some of the affected individuals may have compromised health,
there is nothing to suggest that such a low magnitude and severity of
effects would result in impacts on reproduction or survival of any
individual, much less annual rates of recruitment or survival for the
stock. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all
of the effects of the Navy's activities combined, that the authorized
take will have a negligible impact on NARW.

Blue Whale (Western North Atlantic Stock)

This is a wide-ranging stock that is best considered as ``an
occasional visitor'' to the U.S. EEZ, which may represent the southern
limit of its feeding range (Hayes et al., 2018), though no specific
feeding areas have been identified. For this reason, the abundances
calculated by the Navy based on survey data in the U.S. EEZ are very
low (9 and 104, in the U.S. EEZ and throughout the range respectively)
and while NMFS' SAR does not predict an abundance, it does report an
Nmin (minimum abundance) of 440. There is no currently reported trend
for the population and there are no specific issues with the status of
the stock that cause particular concern (e.g., no UMEs), although the
species is listed as endangered under the ESA. We note, however, that
this species was originally listed under the ESA as a result of the
impacts from commercial whaling, which is no longer affecting the
species. No mortality or Level A harassment is anticipated or
authorized for blue whales. Regarding the magnitude of Level B
harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), given the number of
total takes (47), the large range and wide-ranging nature of blue
whales, and the minimum abundance identified in the SAR, there is no
reason to think that any single animal will be taken by Level B
harassment more than one time (though perhaps a few could be) and less
than 10 percent of the population is likely to be impacted. Regarding
the severity of those individual Level B harassment behavioral takes,
as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure
is expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short)
and the received sound levels are largely below 172 dB with a portion
up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, less likely to evoke
a severe response). Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained
in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level and of
short duration and the associated lost opportunities and capabilities
not at a level that would impact reproduction or survival.
Altogether, less than 10 percent of the stock is likely to be
impacted and any individual blue whale is likely to be disturbed at a
low-moderate level on no more than a day or two days per year and not
in any known biologically important areas. This low magnitude and
severity of effects is unlikely to result in impacts on the
reproduction or survival of any individual, much less annual rates of
recruitment or survival for the stock. For these reasons, we have
determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's
activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible
impact on blue whales.

Bryde's Whale (Northern Gulf of Mexico Stock)

The Northern Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale is a small resident
population and is listed as endangered under the ESA. Although there is
no current UME, the small size of the population and its constricted
range, combined with the lingering effects of exposure to oil from the
DWH oil spill (which include adverse health effects on individuals, as
well as population effects) are cause for considerable caution.
Accordingly, as described above, the Navy is implementing and will
continue to implement considerable time/area mitigation to minimize
impacts within their limited range, including not planning major
training exercises (which include the most powerful sound sources
operating in a more concentrated area), limiting the hours of other
sonar use, and not using explosives, with the exception of mine warfare
activities, which has both reduced the amount of take and reduced the
likely severity of impacts. No mortality or Level A harassment by
tissue damage injury is anticipated or authorized, and only one Level A
harassment take by PTS is estimated and authorized.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and
behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances compared to
the abundance (112 percent) combined with the fact that the AFTT Study
Area overlaps all of the small range, suggests that most to all of the
individuals in the stock will likely be taken, but only on one or two
days per year, with no reason to think the days would likely be
sequential. Regarding the severity of those individual Level B
harassment behavioral takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule,
the duration of any exposure is expected to be between minutes and
hours (i.e., relatively short); the received sound levels are largely
below 172 dB with a portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower
level, less likely to evoke a severe response); and because of the
mitigation the exposures will be of a less impactful nature. Regarding
the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule,
they are expected to be low-level and of short duration and the
associated lost opportunities and capabilities not at a level that
would impact reproduction or survival. For similar reasons the one
estimated Level A harassment take by PTS for this stock is unlikely to
have any effect on the reproduction or survival of that individual,
even if it were to be experienced by an individual that also
experiences one or more Level B harassment takes.
Altogether, any individual Bryde's whale is likely to be disturbed
at a low-moderate level on no more than one or two days per year. Even
given the fact that some of the affected individuals may have
compromised health, there is nothing to suggest that such a low
magnitude and severity of effects would result in impacts on the
reproduction or survival of any individual, much less annual rates of
recruitment or survival for the stock. For these reasons, we have
determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's
activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible
impact on the Gulf of Mexico stock of Bryde's whales.

Bryde's Whale (No Stock Designated--NSD)

These Bryde's whales span the mid- and southern Atlantic and have
not been designated as a stock under the MMPA. There is no currently
reported trend for the population and there are no specific issues with
the status of these whales that cause particular concern (e.g., UMEs).
No mortality or Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and

[[Page 70765]]

behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances compared to
the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S.
EEZ, respectively, is 626 percent and 60 percent, though the
percentages would be far lower if compared against the abundance of the
entire range of this species in the Atlantic. This information suggests
that only a portion of the stock is likely impacted (significantly less
than 60 percent given the large range), but that there is likely some
repeat exposure (5 to 12 days within a year) of some subset of
individuals within the U.S. EEZ if some animals spend extended time
within the U.S. EEZ. Regarding the severity of those individual Level B
harassment behavioral takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule,
the duration of any exposure is expected to be between minutes and
hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels are
largely below 172 dB with a portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate
or lower level, less likely to evoke a severe response). Regarding the
severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they
are expected to be low-level and of short duration and the associated
lost opportunities and capabilities not at a level that would impact
reproduction or survival.
Altogether, only a portion of the population is impacted and any
individual Bryde's whale is likely to be disturbed at a low to moderate
level, with many animals likely exposed only once or twice and a subset
potentially disturbed across 5 to 12 likely non-sequential days not in
any known biologically important areas. This low magnitude and severity
of effects is not expected to result in impacts on annual rates of
recruitment or survival for the stock. For these reasons, we have
determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's
activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible
impact on Bryde's whales.

Minke Whale (Canadian East Coast Stock)

This stock of minke whales spans the East Coast and far into
Northern Canada waters. Minke whales in the Atlantic are currently
experiencing an UME wherein there have been unexpectedly elevated
deaths along the Atlantic Coast, some of which have been preliminarily
attributed to human interaction (primarily fisheries interactions) or
infectious disease. As of July 26, 2019, six whales have stranded in
2019 (30 whales stranded in 2018 and 27 whales stranded in 2017).
Because the most recent population estimate is based only on surveys in
U.S. waters and slightly into Canada, and did not cover the habitat of
the entire Canadian East Coast stock, the abundance is underestimated
in the SAR and is likely significantly greater than what is reflected
in the current SAR. NMFS authorizes one mortality in seven years, and
the resulting 0.14 annual mortality which falls below 10 percent of
residual PBR (0.55), remains under the insignificance threshold, and
would be considerably even lower if compared against a more appropriate
PBR. As discussed in the 2018 AFTT final rule, there are no known
factors, information, or unusual circumstances that indicate that this
potential M/SI below the insignificance threshold could have adverse
effects on the stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival. Consideration of all applicable information indicates that
the authorized mortality of one whale over the seven years will not
result in more than a negligible impact on this stock.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and
behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances compared to
the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S.
EEZ, respectively, is 536 percent and 53 percent. This information
suggests that approximately less than half of the individuals are
likely impacted, but that there is likely some repeat exposure (5 to 10
days within a year) of some subset of individuals within the U.S. EEZ
if some animals spend extended time within the U.S. EEZ. Regarding the
severity of those individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as
explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure is
expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and
the received sound levels largely below 172 dB, with a portion up to
178 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, less likely to evoke a
severe response). Also, the Navy currently implements and will continue
to implement time/area mitigation in the Northeast that minimizes major
training exercises and total sonar hours in an area that significantly
overlaps an important feeding area for minke whales. This mitigation
will reduce the severity of impacts to minke whales by reducing
interference in feeding that could result in lost feeding opportunities
or necessitate additional energy expenditure to find other good
foraging opportunities. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as
explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-
level and of short duration and the associated lost opportunities and
capabilities not at a level that would impact reproduction or survival.
For similar reasons the five estimated Level A harassment takes by
PTS for this stock are unlikely to have an effect on the reproduction
or survival of any individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an
individual that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes.
Altogether, only a portion of the stock will be impacted and any
individual minke whale is likely to be disturbed at a low to moderate
level, with many animals likely exposed only once or twice and a subset
potentially disturbed across 5 to 10 likely non-sequential days,
minimized in biologically important areas. Even given the potential for
compromised health of some individuals, this low magnitude and severity
of effects is not expected to result in impacts on the reproduction or
survival of individuals, nor are these harassment takes combined with
the potential mortality expected to adversely affect this stock through
impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival for the stock. For
these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the
effects of the Navy's activities combined, that the authorized take
will have a negligible impact on minke whales.

Fin Whale (Western North Atlantic Stock)

This stock spans the East Coast north into the Newfoundland waters
of Canada. There is no currently reported trend for the population and
there are no specific issues with the status of the stock that cause
particular concern (e.g., no UMEs), although the species is listed as
endangered under the ESA. NMFS authorizes one mortality over the seven
years of the rule, or 0.14 annually. With the addition of this 0.14
annual mortality, residual PBR is exceeded, which means the total
human-caused mortality would exceed residual PBR by 0.14. However, as
explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, this does not mean that the
stock is not at or increasing toward its optimum sustainable population
level (OSP) or that one lethal take by the Navy over the seven years
covered by this rule would adversely affect the stock through effects
on annual rates of reproduction or survival. Consideration of all
applicable information indicates that the authorized mortality will not
result in more than a negligible impact on this stock.
The abundance of fin whales is likely significantly greater than
what is reflected in the current SAR because, as noted in the SAR, the
most recent population estimate is based only on

[[Page 70766]]

surveys in U.S. waters and slightly into Canada which does not include
the habitat of the entire stock as it extends over a very large
additional area into Nova Scotian and Newfoundland waters. Accordingly,
if the PBR in the SAR reflected the actual abundance across the entire
range of the stock, residual PBR would be notably higher. Additionally,
the current abundance estimate does not account for availability bias
due to submerged animals (i.e., estimates are not corrected to account
for the fact that given X number of animals seen at the surface, we can
appropriately assume that Y number were submerged and not counted).
Without a correction for this bias, the abundance estimate is likely
further biased low. Because of these limitations, the current
calculated PBR is not a reliable indicator of how removal of animals
will affect the stock's ability to reach or maintain OSP. We note that,
generally speaking, while the abundance may be underestimated in this
manner for some stocks due to the lack of surveys in areas outside of
the U.S. EEZ, it is also possible that the human-caused mortality could
be underestimated in the un-surveyed area. However, in the case of fin
whales, most mortality is caused by entanglement in gear that is
deployed relatively close to shore and, therefore, unrecorded mortality
offshore would realistically be proportionally less as compared to the
unsurveyed abundance and therefore the premise that PBR is likely
underestimated still holds. Given the small amount by which residual
PBR is exceeded and more significant degree (proportionally) to which
abundance is likely underestimated, it is reasonable to conclude that
if a more realistic PBR were used, the anticipated total human-caused
mortality would be notably under it.
We also note that 0.14 mortalities/serious injuries means one
mortality/serious injury in one of the seven years and zero
mortalities/serious injuries in six of the seven years. Therefore
residual PBR would not be exceeded in 86 percent of the years covered
by this rule. In situations where mortality/serious injury is
fractional, consideration must be given to the lessened impacts due to
the absence of mortality in six of the seven years. Further, as
described in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Plan directs multiple efforts and requirements towards
reducing mortality from commercial fishing (via gear modifications,
area closures, and other mechanisms) and NOAA Office of Law Enforcement
has reported high compliance rates. Nonetheless, the exceedance of
residual PBR calls for close attention to the remainder of impacts on
fin whales from this activity to ensure that the total authorized
impacts are negligible.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and
behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances compared to
the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S.
EEZ, respectively, is 323 percent and 37 percent. This information
suggests that less than a third of the individuals are likely impacted,
but that there is likely some repeat exposure (2-6 days within a year)
of some subset of individuals within the U.S. EEZ if some animals spend
extended time within the U.S. EEZ. Regarding the severity of those
individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the
2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure is expected to be
between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received
sound levels largely below 172 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level,
less likely to evoke a severe response). Also, the Navy currently
implements, and will continue to implement time/area mitigation in the
Northeast that minimizes major training exercises and total sonar hours
in an area that significantly overlaps an important BIA feeding area
for fin whales. This mitigation will reduce the severity of impacts to
fin whales by reducing interference in feeding that could result in
lost feeding opportunities or necessitate additional energy expenditure
to find other good opportunities. Regarding the severity of TTS takes,
as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, 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 the associated lost opportunities and
capabilities are not at a level that would impact reproduction or
survival. For these same reasons (low level and frequency band), while
a small permanent loss of hearing sensitivity may include some degree
of energetic costs for compensating or may mean some small loss of
opportunities or detection capabilities, at the expected scale the 33
estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for fin whales would be
unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities
to a degree that would interfere with reproductive success or survival
of any individuals, even if PTS were experienced by an individual that
also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes.
Altogether, only a portion of the stock will be impacted and any
individual fin whale is likely to be disturbed at a low to moderate
level, with many animals likely exposed only once or twice and a subset
potentially disturbed across approximately six likely non-sequential
days, minimized in biologically important areas. This low magnitude and
severity of effects is not expected to result in impacts on
reproduction or survival of individuals, nor are these harassment takes
combined with the single potential mortality expected to adversely
affect this stock through impacts on annual rates of recruitment or
survival for the stock. For these reasons, we have determined, in
consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's activities combined,
that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on fin whales.

Humpback Whale

The feeding group stock of humpback whales found in the Gulf of
Maine is one of several associated with the larger, and increasing,
West Indies DPS. The Gulf of Maine stock is reported in the SAR as
increasing in abundance. Nonetheless, humpback whales in the Atlantic
are currently experiencing an UME in which a portion of the whales have
shown evidence of entanglement or vessel strike. There have been 22
strandings so far in 2019 (2018 had 25 total strandings and 2017 had 34
total strandings). NMFS authorizes two mortalities over the seven-year
period (versus the one mortality over the five-year period of the 2018
AFTT final rule), as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section above. Though an increase from the 2018 AFTT final rule, this
amount of mortality (0.29 per year) still falls below the
insignificance threshold of 10 percent of residual PBR (0.49) for the
Gulf of Maine stock based on a stock abundance of 896 from the 2018
SAR. As discussed in the 2018 AFTT final rule, there are no known
factors, information, or unusual circumstances that indicate that this
potential M/SI below the insignificance threshold could have adverse
effects on the stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival. Also, importantly, deaths of humpback whales along the
Atlantic coast (whether by ship strike or other source) must be
considered within the context of the larger West Indies DPS, as animals
along the coast could come from the Gulf of Maine stock or any of three
or more other associated feeding groups. Specifically, the West Indies
DPS, the larger population from which

[[Page 70767]]

a humpback whale could potentially be taken, numbers in excess of
10,000 whales and has an increasing growth trend of 3.1 percent
(Bettridge et al., 2015), with an associated PBR, if calculated, much
larger than that presented for the Gulf of Maine stock. Further, as
described in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Plan directs multiple efforts and requirements towards
reducing mortality from commercial fishing (via gear modifications,
area closures, and other mechanisms) and NOAA Office of Law Enforcement
has reported high compliance rates. Therefore, even though the
potential for M/SI from the Navy's activities has increased since the
2018 AFTT final rule, there is no information to indicate that the loss
of two whales over seven years, even if it were to occur, would
adversely affect the stock or the overall species through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival. See the Humpback Whale section
in the 2018 AFTT final rule for additional supporting information.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and
behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances (of any
humpbacks) compared to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in
and outside of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is 141 percent and 16
percent. This suggests that only a small portion of the humpback whales
in the AFTT Study Area would be likely impacted, with perhaps some
individuals taken on a few days of the year. It would be impossible to
determine exactly what portion of the takes are from the Gulf of Maine
stock. However, based on information in the 2018 AFTT final rule, which
indicated about one third of the humpback whales traversing the
Atlantic Coast likely come from the Gulf of Maine stock, we estimate
that approximately 250 of the 749 total humpback whale takes (both by
Level A harassment and Level B harassment) might be from the Gulf of
Maine stock. Two hundred and fifty represents about 28 percent of the
minimum population estimate for the Gulf of Maine humpback whale
abundance in NMFS' 2018 SAR, equating to an expectation that few
animals would be exposed more than one time. The remaining
approximately 499 Level A and Level B harassment takes would affect
individuals from the much larger West Indies DPS, with a relatively
small percentage of individuals affected as the estimated abundance is
greater than 10,000. Regarding the severity of those individual takes
by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final
rule, the duration of any exposure is expected to be between minutes
and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels
largely below 172 dB with a portion above 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate
or lower level, less likely to evoke a severe response). Also, the Navy
currently implements and will continue to implement time/area
mitigation in the Northeast that minimizes major training exercises and
total sonar hours in an area that significantly overlaps with an
important feeding area for humpbacks. This mitigation will reduce the
severity of impacts to humpbacks by reducing interference in feeding
that could result in lost feeding opportunities or necessitate
additional energy expenditure to find other good opportunities.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT
final rule, they are expected to be low-level and of short duration and
the associated lost opportunities and capabilities not at a level that
would impact reproduction or survival. For similar reasons the three
estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for this stock are unlikely
to have any effect on the reproduction or survival of any individual,
even if PTS were to be experienced by an individual that also
experiences one or more Level B harassment takes.
Altogether, only a portion of the stock or species is impacted and
any individual humpback whale will likely be disturbed at a low-
moderate level, with most animals exposed only once or twice, and
minimized in biologically important areas. This low magnitude and
severity of effects is not expected to result in impacts on the
reproduction or survival of any individuals, nor are these harassment
takes combined with the potential mortalities of up to two whales
expected to adversely affect the stock or species through impacts on
annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, we have
determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's
activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible
impact on humpback whales, including the Gulf of Maine stock, as well
as the larger species as a whole.

Sei Whale (Nova Scotia Stock)

This stock spans the northern East Coast and up to southern
Newfoundland. There is no currently reported trend for the population
and there are no specific issues with the status of the stock that
cause particular concern (e.g., no UMEs), although the species is
listed as endangered under the ESA. NMFS authorizes one mortality over
the seven years of the rule, or 0.14 annually. With the addition of
this 0.14 annual mortality, residual PBR is exceeded, which means the
total human-caused mortality would exceed residual PBR by 0.44.
However, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, this does not mean
that the stock is not at or increasing toward its OSP or that one
lethal take by the Navy over the seven years covered by this rule would
adversely affect the stock through effects on annual rates of
reproduction or survival. Consideration of all applicable information
indicates that the authorized mortality will not result in more than a
negligible impact on this stock.
As noted in the SAR, the abundance of sei whales is likely
significantly greater than what is reflected in the current SAR because
the population estimate is based only on surveys in U.S. waters and
slightly into Canada, which does not cover the habitat of the entire
stock, as it extends over a large additional area around to the south
of Newfoundland. Accordingly, if a PBR were calculated based on an
appropriately enlarged abundance, it would be higher. Additionally, the
current abundance estimate does not account for availability bias due
to submerged animals (i.e., estimates are not corrected to account for
the fact that given X number of animals seen at the surface, we can
appropriate assume that Y number were submerged and not counted).
Without a correction for this bias, the abundance estimate is likely
biased low. Because of these limitations, the current calculated PBR is
not a reliable indicator of how removal of animals will affect the
stock's ability to reach or maintain OSP. We note that, generally
speaking, while the abundance may be underestimated in this manner for
some stocks due to the lack of surveys in areas outside of the U.S.
EEZ, it is also possible that the human-caused mortality could be
underestimated in the un-surveyed area. However, in the case of sei
whales, most mortality is caused by ship strike and the density of ship
traffic is higher the closer you are to shore (making strikes more
likely closer to shore) and, therefore, unrecorded mortality offshore
would realistically be proportionally less as compared to the
unsurveyed abundance and therefore the premise that PBR is likely
underestimated still holds.
Given the small amount by which residual PBR is exceeded and more
significant degree (proportionally) to which abundance is likely
underestimated, it is reasonable to think that if a more realistic PBR
were used,

[[Page 70768]]

the anticipated total human-caused mortality would be notably under
residual PBR. We also note that 0.14 mortalities/serious injuries means
one mortality/serious injury in one of the seven years and zero
mortalities/serious injuries in six of the seven years. Further, as
described in the 2018 AFTT final rule the Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Plan directs multiple efforts and requirements towards
reducing mortality from commercial fishing (via gear modifications,
area closures, and other mechanisms) and NOAA Office of Law Enforcement
has reported high compliance rates.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and
behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances compared to
the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S.
EEZ, respectively, is 317 percent and 7 percent. This information
suggests that only a very small portion of individuals in the stock
will be likely impacted, but that there will likely be some repeat
exposure (several days within a year) of some subset of individuals
within the U.S. EEZ if some animals spend extended time within the U.S.
EEZ. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by behavioral
Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the
duration of any exposure is expected to be between minutes and hours
(i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels largely below
172 dB with a portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level,
less likely to evoke a severe response). Also, the Navy implements
time/area mitigation in the Northeast that minimizes major training
exercises and total sonar hours in an area that significantly overlaps
an important BIA feeding area for sei whales, which will reduce the
severity of impacts to sei whales by reducing interference in feeding
that could result in lost feeding opportunities or necessitate
additional energy expenditure to find other good opportunities.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT
final rule, they are expected to be low-level and of short duration and
the associated lost opportunities and capabilities not at a level that
would impact reproduction or survival. For similar reasons the four
estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for this stock are unlikely
to have any effect on the reproduction or survival of any individual,
even if PTS were to be experienced by an individual that also
experiences one or more Level B harassment takes. Altogether, only a
small portion of the stock will be impacted and any individual sei
whale will likely be disturbed at a low-moderate level, with many
animals likely exposed only once or twice and a subset potentially
disturbed across a few days, minimized in biologically important areas.
This low magnitude and severity of harassment effects is not expected
to result in impacts on individual reproduction or survival, nor are
these harassment takes combined with the single potential mortality
expected to adversely affect this stock through impacts on annual rates
of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, we have determined, in
consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's activities combined,
that the authorized take will have a negligible impact on sei whales.
Odontocetes
Sperm Whales, Dwarf Sperm Whales, and Pygmy Sperm Whales
In Table 19 below for sperm whales, dwarf sperm whales, and pygmy
sperm whales, we indicate the total annual mortality, Level A and Level
B harassment, and a number indicating the instances of total take as a
percentage of abundance. Table 19 is unchanged from Table 73 in the
2018 AFTT final rule, except for 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 Sperm Whales, Dwarf Sperm Whales, and Pygmy Sperm Whales discussion
in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the 2018 AFTT
final rule, all of which remains applicable to this final rule unless
specifically noted.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 70769]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE19.001

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our
determination that the Navy's activities will 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 Whale (North Atlantic Stock)
This stock spans the East Coast out into oceanic waters well beyond
the U.S. EEZ. There is no currently reported trend for the stock and,
although the species is listed as endangered under the ESA, there are
no specific issues with the status of the stock that cause particular
concern (e.g., no UMEs). NMFS authorizes one mortality over the seven
years covered by this rule, and the resulting 0.14 annual mortality
which falls below 10 percent of residual PBR (0.28), remains below the
PBR insignificance threshold. As discussed in the 2018 AFTT final rule,
there are no known factors, information, or unusual circumstances that
indicate that this potential M/SI below the insignificance threshold
could have adverse effects on the stock through effects on annual rates
of recruitment or survival. One Level A harassment take by tissue
damage is also estimated and authorized which, as discussed in the 2018
AFTT 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 and the sperm whale's large size, which improves
detection by Lookouts, exposure at the closer to the source and more
severe end of the spectrum is less likely, and we cautiously assume
some moderate impact for this single take that could lower one
individual's fitness within the year such that a female (assuming a 50
percent chance of the one take being a female) might forego
reproduction for one year. As discussed in the 2018 AFTT final rule,
foregone reproduction has less of an impact on population rates than
death (especially for one year) and one instance would not be expected
to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, even if it were a
female.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and
behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of harassment
compared to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside
of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is 544 percent and 41 percent. This
information, combined with the known range of the stock, suggests that
something less than one half of the individuals in the stock will
likely be impacted, but that there will likely be some repeat exposure
(2-11 days within a year) of some subset of individuals that remain
within the U.S. EEZ for an extended time. Regarding the severity of
those individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained
in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is
expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and
the received sound levels largely between 160 and 172 dB (i.e., of a
lower, to occasionally moderate, level). Regarding the severity of TTS
takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to
be low-level and of short duration and the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities not at a level that would impact
reproduction or survival. For similar reasons three estimated Level A
harassment takes by PTS for this stock is unlikely to have any effect
on the reproduction or survival of any individual, even if PTS were to
be experienced by an individual that also experiences one or more Level
B harassment takes.

[[Page 70770]]

Altogether, less than one half of the stock will be impacted and
any individual sperm whale will likely be disturbed at a low-moderate
level, with the majority of animals likely disturbed once or not at
all, and a subset potentially disturbed across 2-11 likely non-
sequential days. Even for an animal disturbed at the high end of this
range (11 days over a year), given the low to moderate impact from each
incident, and the fact that few days with take will likely be
sequential, no impacts to individual fitness are expected. This low to
occasionally moderate magnitude and severity of effects is not expected
to result in impacts on reproduction or survival, and nor are these
harassment takes combined with the single authorized mortality and one
possible instance of foregone reproduction expected to adversely affect
the stock through annual rates of recruitment or survival. For these
reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of
the Navy's activities combined, that the authorized take will have a
negligible impact on North Atlantic sperm whales.
Sperm Whale, Dwarf Sperm Whale, and Pygmy Sperm Whale (Gulf of Mexico
Stocks)
These stocks suffer from lingering health issues from the DWH oil
spill (6-7 percent of individuals of these stocks have adverse health
effects), which means that some could be more susceptible to exposure
to other stressors, and negative population effects (21-42 years until
the DWH oil-injured population trajectory is projected to catch up with
the baseline population trajectory (i.e., in the absence of DWH,
reported as years to recovery)). Neither mortality nor tissue damage
from explosives is anticipated or authorized for any of these three
stocks, and sperm whales are not expected to incur PTS. Regarding the
magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption),
the number of estimated instances of harassment compared to the
abundance is 54-78 percent, which suggests that for each of the three
species/stocks either this percentage of the individuals in these
stocks will all be taken by harassment on a single day each within a
year, or a small subset may be taken on a few days and the remainder
not taken at all. Regarding the severity of those individual takes by
behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final
rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected to be between
minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received sound
levels are largely between 160 and 172 dB (i.e., of a lower level, less
likely to evoke a severe response). Additionally, the Navy is currently
implementing and will continue to implement mitigation areas for sperm
whales that are expected to reduce impacts in important feeding areas,
further lessening the severity of impacts. In the Gulf of Mexico
Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas, the Navy will not conduct any
major training exercises. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as
explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-
level, of short duration, and mostly not in a frequency band that would
be expected to interfere significantly with conspecific communication,
echolocation, or other important low-frequency cues. Also, there is no
reason to believe that any individual would incur these TTS takes more
than a few days in a year, and the associated lost opportunities and
capabilities would not be expected to impact reproduction or survival.
For these same reasons (low level and frequency band), while a small
permanent loss of hearing sensitivity may include some degree of
energetic costs for compensating or may mean some small loss of
opportunities or detection capabilities, 70 estimated Level A
harassment takes by PTS for each of the two Kogia stocks in the Gulf of
Mexico would be unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or
detection capabilities to a degree that would interfere with
reproductive success or survival of any individual, even if PTS were to
be experienced by an animal that also experiences one or more Level B
harassment takes.
Altogether, only a portion of these stocks will be impacted and any
individual sperm, dwarf sperm, or pygmy sperm whale is likely to be
disturbed at a low to occasionally moderate level and no more than a
few days per year. Even given the fact that some of the affected
individuals may have compromised health, there is nothing to suggest
that such a low magnitude and severity of effects would result in
impacts on the reproduction or survival of individuals, much less
annual rates of recruitment or survival for any of the stocks. For
these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the
effects of the Navy's activities combined, that the authorized take
will have a negligible impact on Gulf of Mexico sperm whales, dwarf
sperm whales, and pygmy sperm whales.
Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whales (Western North Atlantic Stocks)
These stocks span the deeper waters of the East Coast north to
Canada and out into oceanic waters beyond the U.S. EEZ. There is no
currently reported trend for these populations and there are no
specific issues with the status of the stocks that cause particular
concern. Neither mortality nor tissue damage from explosives is
anticipated or authorized for these stocks. Regarding the magnitude of
Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of
estimated instances of harassment compared to the abundance within the
U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is
2,105 percent and 360 percent. This information, combined with the
known range of the stock, suggests that while not all of the
individuals in these stocks will most likely be taken (because they
span well into oceanic waters) of those that are taken, most would be
taken over several repeated days (though likely not sequential) and
some subset that spends extended time within the U.S. EEZ will likely
be taken over a larger amount of days (likely 15-42 days during a
year), some of which could be sequential.
Regarding the severity of the individual takes by behavioral Level
B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of
any exposure response is expected to be between minutes and hours (and
likely not more than 24 hours) and the received sound levels are
largely between 160 and 172 dB (i.e., of a lower level, less likely to
evoke a severe response). Additionally, while interrupted feeding bouts
are a known response and concern for odontocetes, we also know that
there are often viable alternative habitat options in the relative
vicinity. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018
AFTT final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration
and mostly not in a frequency band that would be expected to interfere
significantly with conspecific communication, echolocation, or other
important low-frequency cues. Also, there is no reason to believe that
any individual would incur these TTS takes more than a few days in a
year, and the associated lost opportunities and capabilities would not
be expected to impact reproduction or survival. For these same reasons
(low level and frequency band), while a small permanent loss of hearing
sensitivity may include some degree of energetic costs for compensating
or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection capabilities,
at the expected scale the 94 estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS
for each of the two Kogia stocks in the North Atlantic would be
unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities
to a degree that would interfere with reproductive success or survival
of any

[[Page 70771]]

individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an individual that
also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes.
Altogether, a large portion of each stock will likely be taken (at
a low to occasionally moderate level) over several days a year, and
some smaller portion of the stock will likely 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 generally have little impact on 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 pygmy or dwarf sperm whale). As noted previously and discussed
more fully in the 2018 AFTT final rule, however, foregone reproduction
(especially for one year) has far less of an impact on population rates
than mortality, and a small number of instances of foregone
reproduction would not be expected to adversely impact annual rates of
recruitment or survival, especially given that residual PBR for both of
these stocks is 17.5. For these reasons, in consideration of all of the
effects of the Navy's activities combined, we have determined that the
authorized take will have a negligible impact on Western North Atlantic
pygmy and dwarf sperm whales.

Dolphins and Small Whales

In Table 20 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.
Table 20 is unchanged from Table 74 in the 2018 AFTT final rule, except
for 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 Dolphins and
Small Whales discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses
section of the 2018 AFTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to
this final rule unless specifically noted.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 70772]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE19.002

[[Page 70773]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE19.003

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin and Short-Beaked Common Dolphin (Western
North Atlantic Stocks)

There is no currently reported trend for these stocks and there are
no specific issues with the status of these stocks that cause
particular concern (e.g., no UMEs). We anticipate and therefore
authorize one and six mortalities over the course of seven years for
these two stocks, which is 0.14 and 0.86 annual mortalities for each
stock, respectively. Given the large residual PBR values for these
stocks (248 and 148), this number of mortalities falls well under the
insignificance threshold. There are no known factors, information, or
unusual circumstances that indicate that this estimated M/SI below the
insignificance threshold could have adverse effects on these stocks
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Some Level
A harassment take by tissue damage from explosives has also been
estimated and authorized for these stocks (3 and 36, respectively). As
discussed previously and in the 2018 AFTT final rule, tissue damage
effects could range in impact from minor to something just less than M/
SI that could seriously impact fitness. However, given the Navy's
mitigation, which makes exposure at the closer to the source and more
severe end of the spectrum less likely, we cautiously assume some
moderate impact for this category of take that could lower an
individual's fitness within the year such that females (assuming a 50
percent chance that a take is a female) might forego reproduction for
one year. As noted previously, foregone reproduction has less of an
impact on population rates than death (especially for one year) and the
number of takes anticipated for each stock would not be expected to
impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, even if all of the
takes were females (which would be highly unlikely), especially given
the high residual PBRs of these stocks. In other words, if the stocks
can absorb the numbers of mortalities indicated through each stock's
residual PBR without impacting ability to approach OSP, they could
absorb the significantly lesser effects of a small number of one-year
delay in calving. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes
(TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of
harassment compared to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in
and outside of the U.S. EEZ for these two stocks, respectively, is 308
and 777 percent and 34 and 110 percent. This information suggests that
some portion of these stocks will likely not be taken at all, but that
there will likely be some repeat exposure (2-15 days within a year) of
some subset of individuals. Regarding the severity of those individual
takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT
final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected to be
between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the received
sound levels largely below 172 dB (i.e., of a lower level, less likely
to evoke a severe response). Additionally, while we do not have
information that indicates that these takes would occur sequentially on
more than several days in a row or be more severe in nature, the
probability of this occurring increases the higher the total take
numbers. 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. Given the higher
number of takes and the associated abundances (especially for short-
beaked common dolphin) we acknowledge the possibility that some smaller
subset of individuals could experience behavioral disruption of a
degree that impacts energetic budgets such that reproduction could be
delayed for a year. However, considering the potential reproductive
effects from tissue damage and from these levels of take by behavioral
Level B harassment, in combination with the estimated mortality, this
degree of effect on the small subset of individuals that could be
affected is still not expected to adversely affect the stocks through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT
final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and
not in a frequency band that would be expected to significantly
interfere with dolphin communication, or echolocation or other
important low-frequency cues. Therefore, the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities would not be expected to impact
reproduction or survival of any individuals. For these same reasons
(low level and the likely frequency band), while a small permanent loss
of hearing sensitivity may include some degree of energetic costs for
compensating or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection
capabilities, the estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for the two
dolphin stocks (7 and 101, respectively) would be unlikely to impact
behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities to a degree that
would interfere with reproductive success or survival of any
individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an animal that also
experiences one or more Level B harassment takes.
Altogether, individual dolphins will likely be taken at a low
level, with some animals likely taken once or not at all, many
potentially disturbed at low levels across 2-15 predominantly non-
sequential days, and a small number potentially experiencing a level of
effects that could result in curtailed reproduction for one year. This
magnitude and severity of effects,

[[Page 70774]]

including consideration of the estimated mortality, is not expected to
result in impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival for either
of the stocks, especially given the status of the stocks. For these
reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the effects of
the Navy's activities combined, that the authorized take will have a
negligible impact on these two Western North Atlantic dolphins.
Pantropical Spotted Dolphin and Spinner Dolphin (Gulf of Mexico Stocks)
As described in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Gulf of Mexico
dolphin stocks indicated in Table 20 suffer from lingering health
issues resulting from the DWH oil spill (7 and 17 percent of
individuals of these stocks, respectively, have adverse health
effects), which means that some of them could be more susceptible to
exposure to other stressors, as well as negative population effects
(predicting it will take up to 39 and 105 years, respectively, for
stocks to return to population growth rates predicted in the absence of
DWH effects). We authorize one mortality over the course of seven years
for each of these two stocks, which is 0.14 annual mortalities for each
stock. Given the large residual PBR values for these stocks (402 and
62, respectively), this number of mortalities falls well under the
insignificance threshold. As discussed in the 2018 AFTT final rule,
there are no known factors, information, or unusual circumstances that
indicate that this estimated M/SI below the insignificance threshold
could have adverse effects on these stocks through effects on annual
rates of recruitment or survival. Some Level A harassment take by
tissue damage from explosives has also been estimated and authorized
for these stocks (6 and 14, respectively). As noted previously, tissue
damage effects could range in impact from minor to something just less
than M/SI that could seriously impact fitness. However, given the
Navy's mitigation, which makes exposure at the closer to the source and
more severe end of the spectrum less likely, we cautiously assume some
moderate impact for this category of take that could lower an
individual's fitness within the year such that females (assuming a 50
percent chance that a take is a female) might forego reproduction for
one year. As noted previously, foregone reproduction has less of an
impact on population rates than death (especially for one year) and the
number of takes anticipated for each stock would not be expected to
impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, even if all of the
takes were females (which would be highly unlikely), especially given
the high residual PBRs of these stocks. In other words, if the stocks
can absorb the numbers indicated through each stock's residual PBR
without impacting ability to approach OSP, they can absorb the
significantly lesser effect of a very small number of one-year delay in
calving.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and
behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of harassment
compared to the abundance is 32 percent and 60 percent, respectively,
reflecting that only a subset of each stock will be taken by behavioral
Level B harassment within a year. Of that subset, those taken would
likely be taken one time, but if taken more than that, the 2 or 3 days
would not likely be sequential. Regarding the severity of those
individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the
2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected
to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the
received sound levels largely below 172 dB (i.e., of a lower to
occasionally moderate severity).
Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT
final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and
not in a frequency band that would be expected to significantly
interfere with dolphin communication, or echolocation or other
important low-frequency cues. Therefore, the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities are not expected to impact reproduction
or survival. For these same reasons (low level and the likely frequency
band), while a small permanent loss of hearing sensitivity may include
some degree of energetic costs for compensating or may mean some small
loss of opportunities or detection capabilities, the estimated Level A
harassment takes by PTS for the dolphin stocks addressed here (15 and
31, respectively) would be unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities,
or detection capabilities to a degree that would interfere with
reproductive success or survival of any individuals.
Altogether, any individual dolphin will likely be taken at a low to
occasionally moderate level, with most animals likely not taken at all
and with a subset of animals being taken up to a few non-sequential
days. Even given the fact that some of the affected individuals may
have compromised health, there is nothing to suggest that such a low
magnitude and severity of effects, including the potential tissue
damage and the estimated mortality of one dolphin from each stock over
the seven years, would result in impacts on annual rates of recruitment
or survival for either of these two stocks. For these reasons, we have
determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's
activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible
impact on Gulf of Mexico pantropical spotted dolphins and spinner
dolphins.
Western North Atlantic Dolphin Stocks (All Stocks in Table 20 Except
Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin and Short-Beaked Common Dolphin)
There are no specific issues with the status of these stocks that
cause particular concern (e.g., no UMEs). No mortality is expected nor
authorized for these stocks. For some of these stocks, some tissue
damage has been estimated and authorized (1-9 depending on the stock).
As discussed previously, tissue damage effects could range in impact
from minor to something just less than M/SI that could seriously impact
fitness. However, given the Navy's mitigation, which makes exposure at
the closer to the source and more severe end of the spectrum less
likely, we cautiously assume some moderate impact for all these takes
that could lower an individual's fitness within the year such that a
small number of females (assuming a 50 percent chance of being a
female) might forego reproduction for one year. As noted previously,
foregone reproduction has less of an impact on population rates than
death (especially for one year) and one to a few instances would not be
expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, even if all
of the takes were females (which would be highly unlikely), especially
given the higher residual PBRs, which is known for the majority of
stocks. For stocks with no calculated residual PBR or where abundance
is unknown, the limited information available on population size
indicates that the very low number of females who might forego
reproduction would have no effect on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and
behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of harassment
compared to the abundance ranges up to 984 percent inside the U.S. EEZ
(though some are significantly lower) and is generally much lower
across the whole range of most stocks, reflecting that for many stocks
only a subset of the stock will be impacted--although alternately for a
few of the smaller bay stocks all individuals are expected to be taken
across multiple days. Generally, individuals of most stocks (especially
bottlenose dolphins) might be taken no more than several times each,
while the

[[Page 70775]]

other species in this group will only accrue takes to a portion of the
stock, but individuals might be taken across 2-20 days within a year.
Regarding the severity of those individual takes by behavioral Level B
harassment, as explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of
any exposure response is expected to be between minutes and hours
(i.e., relatively short) and the received sound levels largely below
172 dB (i.e., of a lower level, less likely to evoke a severe
response). While we do not have information to indicate that these
takes would occur sequentially on more than several days in a row or be
more severe in nature, the probability of this occurring increases the
higher the total take numbers. Given higher percentages when compared
to abundances, and especially where the absolute number of takes is
higher (e.g., spinner dolphin), we acknowledge the possibility that
some smaller subset of individuals (especially in the larger stocks
with higher total take numbers) could experience behavioral disruption
of a degree that impacts energetic budgets such that reproduction could
be delayed for a year. However, considering the very small number of
potential reproductive effects from Level A harassment by tissue damage
(1-9 depending on stock and assuming all individuals are female, which
is very unlikely) in addition to the possible reproductive effect on a
smaller subset of individuals from the takes by behavioral Level B
harassment, this degree of effects on a small subset of individuals is
still not expected to adversely affect annual rates of recruitment or
survival. For the smaller Estuarine stocks with the potential repeated
days of disturbance, we note that as described in the 2018 AFTT final
rule, the activities that the Navy conducts in inland areas (not MTEs,
etc.) are expected to generally result in lower severity responses,
further decreasing the likelihood that they would cause effects on
reproduction or survival, even if accrued over several sequential days.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT
final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and
not in a frequency band that would be expected to significantly
interfere with dolphin communication, or echolocation or other
important low-frequency cues. Therefore, the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities would not be expected to impact
reproduction or survival. For these same reasons (low level and the
likely frequency band), while a small permanent loss of hearing
sensitivity may include some degree of energetic costs for compensating
or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection capabilities,
the estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for the dolphin stocks
addressed here (between 1 and 77) would be unlikely to impact
behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities to a degree that
would interfere with reproductive success or survival of any
individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an individual that
also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes.
Altogether, any individual dolphin will likely be taken at a low to
occasionally moderate level, with some animals likely taken once or not
at all, a subset potentially disturbed across 2-20 predominantly non-
sequential days, and a small number potentially experiencing a level of
effects that could curtail reproduction for one year. The magnitude and
severity of effects described is not expected to result in impacts on
annual rates of recruitment or survival for any of the stocks. For
these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of all of the
effects of the Navy's activities combined, that the authorized take
will have a negligible impact on these Western North Atlantic dolphins.
Gulf of Mexico Dolphin Stocks (All of the Stocks Indicated in Table 20
Except Pantropical Spotted Dolphin and Spinner Dolphin)
As mentioned above and discussed in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the
Gulf of Mexico stocks indicated in Table 20 suffer from lingering
health issues resulting from the DWH oil spill (3-30 percent of
individuals of these stocks have adverse health effects), which means
that some of them could be more susceptible to exposure to other
stressors, as well as negative population effects (predicting it will
take up to 76 years, with that number varying across stocks, for stocks
to return to population growth rates predicted in the absence of DWH
effects). Of note, the Northern Coastal bottlenose dolphin adverse
effect statistics are about twice as high as the others (i.e., all
other stocks are below 17 percent). As described above there is an
active UME for bottlenose dolphins in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and
in southwest Florida along the Gulf of Mexico. These UMEs could affect
bottlenose dolphins from several stocks in the Gulf of Mexico,
including those that are anticipated to be impacted by Navy activities
and those that are not anticipated to be impacted by Navy activities.
No mortality has been estimated or authorized for these stocks, however
a few Level A harassment takes by tissue damage from explosives (zero
for most, 1-2 for a few, and 6 for the Atlantic spotted dolphin stock)
are estimated and authorized. As noted previously, tissue damage
effects could range in impact from minor to something just less than M/
SI that could seriously impact fitness. However, given the Navy's
mitigation, which makes exposure at the closer to the source and more
severe end of the spectrum less likely, we cautiously assume some
moderate impact for these Level A harassment takes that could lower an
individual's fitness within the year such that a female (assuming a 50
percent chance of being a female) might forego reproduction for one
year. As noted previously, foregone reproduction has less of an impact
on population rates than death (especially for one year) and a few
instances, even up to six for the Atlantic spotted dolphin stock, would
not be expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, even
if all of the takes were of females (which is highly unlikely).
Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and
behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of harassment
compared to the abundance ranges up to 177 percent, but is generally
much lower for most stocks, reflecting that generally only a subset of
each stock will be taken, with those in the subset taken only a few
non-sequential days of the year. Regarding the severity of those
individual takes by Level B behavioral harassment, as explained in the
2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected
to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the
received sound levels largely below 172 dB (i.e., of a lower to
occasionally moderate severity).
Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT
final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and
not in a frequency band that would be expected to significantly
interfere with dolphin communication, or echolocation or other
important low-frequency cues. Therefore, the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities would not be expected to impact
reproduction or survival. For these same reasons (low level and the
likely frequency band), while a small permanent loss of hearing
sensitivity may include some degree of energetic costs for compensating
or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection capabilities,
the estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for the dolphin stocks
addressed here (all 3 or below, with the exception of three stocks with
much larger abundances with 4, 8, and 15 PTS takes) would be

[[Page 70776]]

unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection capabilities
to a degree that would interfere with reproductive success or survival
of any individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an animal that
also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes.
Altogether, any individual dolphin will likely be taken at a low to
occasionally moderate level, with many animals likely not taken at all
and with a subset of animals being taken up to a few times. A very
small number could potentially experience tissue damage that could
curtail reproduction for one year. Even given the fact that some of the
affected individuals may have compromised health, there is nothing to
suggest that such a low magnitude and severity of effects would result
in impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival for any of the
Gulf of Mexico stocks indicated in Table 20. For these reasons, we have
determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's
activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible
impact on these Gulf of Mexico dolphins.
Harbor Porpoise
In Table 21 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 21 is
unchanged from Table 75 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. For additional
information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact analysis, see
the Odontocetes discussion as well as the Harbor Porpoise discussion in
the Group and Species-Specific Analyses section of the 2018 AFTT final
rule, all of which remains applicable to this final rule unless
specifically noted.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE19.004

Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our
determination that the Navy's activities will not adversely affect
harbor porpoises through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
The Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise is found
predominantly in northern U.S. coastal waters (<150 m depth) and up
into Canada's Bay of Fundy. No mortality or tissue damage by explosives
are anticipated or authorized for this stock and there are no specific
issues with the status of the stock that cause particular concern
(e.g., no UMEs). Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes
(TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances
compared to the abundance within the U.S. EEZ and both in and outside
of the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is 941 percent and 80 percent. This
information, combined with the known range of the stock, suggests that
only a portion of the individuals in the stock will likely be impacted
(i.e., notably less than 80 percent given the likely repeats; in other
words more than 20 percent would be taken zero times), but that there
will likely be some amount of repeat exposures across days (perhaps 6-
19 days within a year) for some subset of individuals that spend
extended times within the U.S. EEZ. Regarding the severity of those
individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the
2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected
to be from minutes to hours and not likely exceeding 24 hrs, and the
received sound levels of the MF1 bin are largely between 154 and 166
dB, which, for a harbor porpoise (which have a lower behavioral Level B
harassment threshold) would mostly be considered a moderate level.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT
final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and
not in a frequency band that would be expected to significantly
interfere with harbor porpoise communication, or echolocation or other
important low-frequency cues. Therefore, the associated lost
opportunities and capabilities would not be expected to impact
reproduction or survival. For these same reasons (low level and the
likely frequency band), while a small permanent loss of hearing
sensitivity may include some degree of energetic costs for compensating
or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection capabilities,
the estimated 454 Level A harassment takes by PTS for harbor porpoise
would be unlikely to impact behaviors, opportunities, or detection
capabilities to a degree that would interfere with reproductive

[[Page 70777]]

success or survival for most individuals, even if PTS were to be
experienced by an individual that also experiences one or more Level B
harassment takes. Because of the high number of PTS takes, we
acknowledge that a few animals could potentially incur permanent
hearing loss of a higher degree that could potentially interfere with
their successful reproduction and growth. However, given the status of
the stock (high abundance and residual PBR of 451), even if this
occurred, it would not adversely impact rates of recruitment or
survival.
Altogether, because harbor porpoises are particularly sensitive, it
is likely that a fair number of the responses would be of a moderate
nature. Additionally, as noted, some portion of the stock may be taken
repeatedly on up to 19 days within a year, with some of those being
sequential. Given this and the larger number of total takes (both to
the stock and to individuals), it is more likely (probabilistically)
that some small number of individuals could be interrupted during
foraging in a manner and amount such that impacts to the energy budgets
of females (from either losing feeding opportunities or expending
considerable energy to find alternative feeding options) could cause
them to forego reproduction for a year (energetic impacts to males
generally have limited impact on 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
harbor porpoise). As noted previously, however, foregone reproduction
(especially for one year) has far less of an impact on population rates
than mortality and a small number of instances would not be expected to
adversely impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, especially
given that the residual PBR of harbor porpoises is 451. All indications
are that the number of times in which reproduction would be likely to
be foregone would not affect the stock's annual rates of recruitment or
survival. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of
all of the effects of the Navy's activities combined, that the
authorized take will have a negligible impact on harbor porpoises.

Beaked Whales

In Table 22 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. Table 22 is
unchanged from Table 76 in the 2018 AFTT 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 AFTT final
rule, all of which remains applicable to this final rule unless
specifically noted.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE19.005

[[Page 70778]]

Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our
determination that the Navy's activities will 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.
Beaked Whales, Including Northern Bottlenose Whale (Western North
Atlantic Stocks)
These stocks span the deeper waters of the East Coast of the U.S.
north to Canada and out into oceanic waters beyond the U.S. EEZ. There
is no currently reported trend for these populations and there are no
specific issues with the status of the stocks that cause particular
concern. Neither mortality nor tissue damage from explosives is
anticipated or authorized for these stocks. Regarding the magnitude of
Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of
estimated instances of harassment compared to the abundance within the
U.S. EEZ and both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ is 1,567-1,836 percent
and 162-297 percent, respectively. This information, combined with the
known range of the stocks, suggests that while not all of the
individuals in these stocks would most likely be taken (because they
span well into oceanic waters, beyond the AFTT Study Area), of those
that are, most would be taken over a few days (though likely not
sequential) and some subset that spends extended time within the U.S.
EEZ will likely be taken over a larger amount of days (maybe 15-37),
some of which could be sequential. Regarding the severity of those
individual takes by behavioral Level B harassment, as explained in the
2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is expected
to generally be between minutes and hours and largely between 148 and
160 dB, though with beaked whales, which are considered somewhat more
sensitive, this could mean that some individuals will leave preferred
habitat for a day or two. However, while interrupted feeding bouts are
a known response and concern for odontocetes, we also know that there
are often viable alternative habitat options in the relative vicinity
in the Western North Atlantic.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT
final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and
not in a frequency band that would adversely affect communication,
inhibit echolocation, or otherwise interfere with other low-frequency
cues. Therefore any associated lost opportunities and capabilities
would not impact reproduction or survival. For the same reasons (low
level and frequency band) the one to three estimated Level A harassment
takes by PTS for these stocks are unlikely to have any effect on the
reproduction or survival of any individual, even if PTS were to be
experienced by an individual that also experiences one or more Level B
harassment takes.
Altogether, a small portion of the stock will likely be taken (at a
relatively moderate level) on a relatively moderate to high number of
days across the year, some of which could be sequential. Though the
majority of impacts are expected to be of a sometimes low, but more
likely, moderate magnitude and severity, the sensitivity of beaked
whales and larger number of takes makes it more likely
(probabilistically) that a small number of individuals could be
interrupted during foraging in a manner and amount such that impacts to
the energy budgets of females (from either losing feeding opportunities
or expending considerable energy to find alternative feeding options)
could cause them to forego reproduction for a year (energetic impacts
to males generally have limited impact on 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 beaked whale). As noted previously, however, foregone
reproduction (especially for one year) has far less of an impact on
population rates than mortality and a small number of instances would
not be expected to adversely impact annual rates of recruitment or
survival. Based on the abundance of these stocks in the area and the
evidence of little, if any, known human-caused mortality, all
indications are that the small number of times in which reproduction
would be likely to be foregone would not affect the stocks' annual
rates of recruitment or survival. For these reasons, we have
determined, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's
activities combined, that the authorized take will have a negligible
impact on Western North Atlantic beaked whales.
Beaked Whales (Gulf of Mexico Stocks)
The animals in these stocks suffer from lingering health issues
resulting from the DWH oil spill (four percent of individuals of these
stocks have adverse health effects), which means that some of them
could be more susceptible to exposure to other stressors, and negative
population effects (10 years for their growth rate to recover to the
rate predicted for the stocks if they had not incurred spill impacts).
Neither mortality nor tissue damage from explosives is anticipated or
authorized for these stocks. Level A harassment take from PTS is also
unlikely to occur. Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment takes
(TTS and behavioral disruption), the number of estimated instances of
harassment compared to the abundance is 148-155 percent. This
information indicates that either the individuals in these stocks would
all be taken by harassment one or two days within a year, or that a
subset would not be taken at all and a small subset may be taken
several times. Regarding the severity of those individual takes, as
explained in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure
response is expected to generally be between minutes and hours and
largely between 148 and 160 dB, though with beaked whales, which are
considered somewhat more sensitive, this could mean that some
individuals will leave preferred habitat for a day or two. However,
while interrupted feeding bouts are a known response and concern for
odontocetes, we also know that there are often viable alternative
habitat options in the relative vicinity in the Gulf of Mexico.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT
final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and
not in a frequency band that would adversely affect communication,
inhibit echolocation, or otherwise interfere with other low frequency
cues. Therefore any associated lost opportunities and capabilities
would not impact reproduction or survival.
Altogether, likely only a portion of these stocks will be impacted
and any individual beaked whale likely would be disturbed at a moderate
level for no more than a few days per year. Even given the fact that
some of the affected individuals may have compromised health, there is
nothing to suggest that this magnitude and severity of effects would
result in impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival for any of
the stocks. For these reasons, we have determined, in consideration of
all of the effects of the Navy's activities combined, that the
authorized take will have a negligible impact on Gulf of Mexico beaked
whales included in Table 22.

Pinnipeds

In Table 23 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. Table 23 is
unchanged from Table 77 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. For additional

[[Page 70779]]

information and analysis supporting the negligible-impact analysis, see
the Pinnipeds discussion in the Group and Species-Specific Analyses
section of the 2018 AFTT final rule, all of which remains applicable to
this final rule unless specifically noted.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE19.006

Below we compile and summarize the information that supports our
determination that the Navy's activities will 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.
The Western North Atlantic pinniped (harp seal, harbor seal, hooded
seal, and gray seal) stocks are northern, but highly migratory species.
While harp seals are limited to the northern portion of the U.S. EEZ,
gray and harbor seals may be found as far south as the Chesapeake Bay
in late fall and hooded seals migrate as far south as Puerto Rico. An
UME has been designated for seals from Maine to Virginia and the main
pathogen found in the seals that have been tested is phocine distemper
virus. Neither mortality nor tissue damage from explosives is
anticipated or authorized for any of these stocks. Regarding the
magnitude of Level B harassment takes (TTS and behavioral disruption),
the number of estimated instances of harassment compared to the
abundance that is expected within the AFTT Study Area is 34-225
percent, which suggests that only a subset of the animals in the AFTT
Study Area would be taken, but that a few might be taken on several
days within the year (1-5 days), but not likely on sequential days.
When the fact that some of these seals are residing in areas near Navy
activities is considered, we can estimate that perhaps some of those
individuals might be taken some higher number of days within the year
(up to approximately 10 days), but still with no reason to think that
these takes would occur on sequential days, which means that we would
not expect effects on reproduction or survival. Regarding the severity
of those individual behavioral Level B harassment takes, as explained
in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the duration of any exposure response is
expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) and
the received sound levels are largely below 172 dB, with some up to 178
dB (i.e., of a lower to moderate level, less likely to evoke a severe
response) and therefore there is no indication that the expected takes
by behavioral Level B harassment would have any effect on annual rates
of recruitment or survival.
Regarding the severity of TTS takes, as explained in the 2018 AFTT
final rule, they are expected to be low-level, of short duration, and
not in a frequency band that would adversely affect communication or
otherwise interfere with other low-frequency cues. Therefore any
associated lost opportunities and capabilities would not impact
reproduction or survival. For the same reasons (low level and frequency
band) the two to four estimated Level A harassment takes by PTS for
these stocks are unlikely to have any effect on the reproduction or
survival of any individual, even if PTS were to be experienced by an
animal that also experiences one or more Level B harassment takes.
Even given the fact that some of the affected harbor seal
individuals may have compromised health due to the UME, there is
nothing to suggest that such a low magnitude and severity of effects
would result in impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival,
especially given that the stock abundance in the SAR is 75,839 with a
residual PBR of 1,651. Similarly, given the low magnitude and severity
of effects, there is no indication that these activities would affect
reproduction or survival of harp or hooded seals, much less adversely
affect rates of recruitment or survival, especially given that harp
seal abundance is estimated at 6.9 million and hooded seal residual PBR
is

[[Page 70780]]

13,950. Gray seals are experiencing an UME as well as an exceedance of
more than 4,299 M/SI above PBR, as reported in the SAR. The NMFS SAR
notes, however, that the U.S. portion of average annual human-caused M/
SI in U.S. waters does not exceed the portion of PBR in U.S. waters,
and while the status of the gray seal population relative to OSP in
U.S. Atlantic EEZ waters is unknown, despite the exceedance of the
reported PBR the stock abundance appears to be increasing in both U.S.
and Canadian waters (Hayes et al., 2018). Also, given the low magnitude
(take compared to abundance is 95 percent, meaning the subset of
individuals taken may be taken a few times on non-sequential days) and
low to occasionally moderate severity of impacts, no impacts to
individual reproduction or survival are expected and therefore no
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival would occur. For
these reasons, in consideration of all of the effects of the Navy's
activities combined, we have determined that the authorized take will
have a negligible impact on gray seals, harbor seals, hooded seals, and
harp seals.

Determination

The 2018 AFTT final rule included a detailed discussion of all of
the anticipated impacts on the affected species and stocks from serious
injury and 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
evaluated how these impacts and mitigation measures are expected to
combine to affect individuals of each 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 AFTT final rule, as updated in this rule to consider new
information and include the two additional years of activities,
mitigation measures, and monitoring and reporting requirements, uses
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 annually-based
conclusions in the 2018 AFTT final rule were based have changed in a
manner that changes our determinations. Therefore, even though this
final rule includes two additional years, because our findings are
based on annual rates of recruitment and survival, and nothing has
changed in a manner that would change our 2018 AFTT rule annual
analyses, it is appropriate to rely on those analyses, in addition to
the updated information and analysis discussed above, for this final
rule.
Based on the applicable information and analysis from the 2018 AFTT
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 finds that the incidental take from the specified
activities will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal
species and stocks.

Subsistence Harvest of Marine Mammals

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

Classifications

Endangered Species Act

There are six marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that
are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA with confirmed or
possible occurrence in the AFTT Study Area: Blue whale, fin whale, sei
whale, sperm whale, North Atlantic right whale, and Gulf of Mexico
subspecies of Bryde's whale. The Navy consulted with NMFS pursuant to
section 7 of the ESA for AFTT activities. NMFS also consulted
internally on the issuance of the AFTT regulations and LOAs under
section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. NMFS issued a Biological and
Conference Opinion on October 22, 2018, concluding that the issuance of
the 2018 AFTT 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 AFTT
Study Area.
The 2018 Biological and Conference Opinion included specified
conditions under which NMFS would be required to reinitiate section 7
consultation. The agency reviewed these specified conditions for this
rulemaking and determined that reinitiation of consultation was not
warranted. The incidental take statement that accompanied the 2018
Biological and Conference Opinion has been amended to cover the seven-
year period of the rule. NMFS also requested that the Conference
Opinion for Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale, which was listed as an
endangered species on April 15, 2019, be adopted as a Biological
Opinion, which was completed on October 24, 2019. The 2018 Biological
and Conference Opinion for this action is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities.

National Marine Sanctuaries Act

Federal agency actions that are likely to injure national marine
sanctuary resources are subject to consultation with the Office of
National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) under section 304(d) of the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA).
On December 15, 2017, the Navy initiated consultation with ONMS and
submitted a Sanctuary Resource Statement (SRS) that discussed the
effects of the Navy's AFTT activities in the vicinity of Stellwagen
Bank, Gray's Reef, and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuaries on
sanctuary resources. NMFS worked with the Navy in the development of
the SRS to ensure that it could serve jointly as an SRS for NMFS'
action under the MMPA as well.
On December 20, 2017, NMFS initiated consultation with ONMS on MMPA
incidental take regulations for the Navy's AFTT activities. NMFS
requested that ONMS consider the description and assessment of the
effects of the Navy's activities included in the joint SRS submitted by
the Navy, which included an assessment of the effects on marine
mammals, as satisfying NMFS' need to provide an SRS.
ONMS reviewed the SRS, as well as an addendum the Navy provided on
April 3, 2018. On April 12, 2018, ONMS found the SRS and addendum
sufficient for the purposes of making an injury determination and
developing recommended alternatives as required

[[Page 70781]]

by the NMSA. On May 15, 2018, ONMS recommended two reasonable and
prudent measures to the Navy and NMFS (one of which applied to NMFS) to
minimize injury and to protect sanctuary resources. ONMS subsequently
provided a slight modification of those recommendations to the Navy and
NMFS on August 1, 2018. On August 17, 2018, the Navy agreed to
implement both ONMS recommendations and on October 30, 2018, NMFS
agreed to implement the recommendation that applied to NMFS.
For this rulemaking, NMFS reviewed the conditions for reinitiation
of NMSA consultation in ONMS' August 1, 2018, letter. The agency has
determined that the current NMSA consultation remains valid for the
issuance of the seven-year MMPA incidental take regulations and
subsequent LOAs, and that reinitiation of consultation under the NMSA
is not warranted. The Navy and NMFS will continue to implement the
reasonable and prudent alternatives recommended by ONMS during the 2018
consultation.

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 AFTT FEIS/OEIS (published on September
14, 2018, https://www.public.navy.mil/usff/environmental/Pages/aftt.aspx) which evaluated impacts from Navy training and testing
activities in the AFTT Study Area for the reasonably foreseeable
future. In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3, NMFS independently reviewed
and evaluated the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS and determined that it was
adequate and sufficient to meet our responsibilities under NEPA for the
issuance of the 2018 AFTT final rule and associated LOAs. NOAA
therefore adopted the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS.
In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9 and the information and analysis
contained in this final rule, NMFS has determined that this final rule
and the subsequent LOAs will not result in impacts that were not fully
considered in the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS. In addition, as indicated in
this final rule, the addition of two years of authorized incidental
take associated with the same activities conducted in the same
geographic area and having the same potential effects on the same
species and stocks is not a substantial change to the action, nor are
there significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns or its impacts. Therefore, NMFS has determined
that the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS and 2018 NMFS Record of Decision (ROD)
remain valid, and there is no need to supplement either document for
this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule
is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel
for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the
proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual
basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is
not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this
certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not
required and none was prepared.

Waiver of Delay in Effective Date Under the Administrative Procedure
Act

NMFS has determined that there is good cause under the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) to waive the 30-day
delay in the effective date for this rule. This rule relieves the Navy
from the restrictions of the take prohibitions under the MMPA by
granting the Navy's request for incidental take authorization under
MMPA section 101(a)(5)(A). In addition, there is good cause to waive
the 30-day effective date period because the regulations are identical
to those that the Navy has been implementing since November 2018
(except for a small number of minor, technical clarifications that do
not affect implementation). The only substantive change in the
regulations is to extend the mitigation measures and the monitoring and
reporting requirements for an additional two years, until November 13,
2025. The Navy is the only entity affected by the regulations, the Navy
specifically requested extension of the regulatory requirements for the
two years, and the Navy has fully agreed to these requirements for the
additional two years through its application for incidental take
authorization. The Navy is anticipating finalization of the rule. For
all these reasons, there is no need for a period of time following
publication of the rule for the Navy to bring its training and testing
operations into compliance with the requirements of the rule.

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: December 11, 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 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 I to read as follows:

Subpart I--Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy's
Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT)

Sec.
218.80 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
218.81 Effective dates.
218.82 Permissible methods of taking.
218.83 Prohibitions.
218.84 Mitigation requirements.
218.85 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
218.86 Letters of Authorization.
218.87 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.
218.88-218.89 [Reserved]

Subpart I--Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy's
Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT)

Sec. 218.80 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 Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area, which
includes areas of the western Atlantic Ocean along the East Coast of
North America, portions of the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico.
The AFTT Study Area begins at the mean high tide line along the U.S.
East Coast and extends east to

[[Page 70782]]

the 45-degree west longitude line, north to the 65-degree north
latitude line, and south to approximately the 20-degree north latitude
line. The AFTT Study Area also includes Navy pierside locations, bays,
harbors, and inland waterways, and civilian ports where training and
testing occurs.
(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; and
(iii) Office of Naval Research Testing Activities.

Sec. 218.81 Effective dates.

Regulations in this subpart are effective from December 23, 2019
through November 13, 2025.

Sec. 218.82 Permissible methods of taking.

(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. Sec. 216.106 of this
chapter and 218.86, the Holder of the LOAs (hereinafter ``Navy'') may
incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the
area described in Sec. 218.80(b) by Level A harassment and Level B
harassment associated with the use of active sonar and other acoustic
sources and explosives as well as serious injury or mortality
associated with ship shock trials and vessel strikes, provided the
activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements
of this subpart and the applicable LOAs.
(b) The incidental take of marine mammals by the activities listed
in Sec. 218.80(c) is limited to the following species:

Table 1 to Sec. 218.82
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Stock
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae (right whales):
North Atlantic right whale......... Western.
Family Balaenopteridae (roquals):
Blue whale......................... Western North Atlantic (Gulf of
St. Lawrence).
Bryde's whale...................... Northern Gulf of Mexico
NSD.
Minke whale........................ Canadian East Coast.
Fin whale.......................... Western North Atlantic.
Humpback whale..................... Gulf of Maine.
Sei whale.......................... Nova Scotia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae (sperm whale):
Sperm whale........................ Gulf of Mexico Oceanic.
North Atlantic.
Family Kogiidae (sperm whales):
Dwarf sperm whale.................. Gulf of Mexico Oceanic.
Western North Atlantic.
Pygmy sperm whale.................. Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales):
Blainville's beaked whale.......... Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Cuvier's beaked whale.............. Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Gervais' beaked whale.............. Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Northern bottlenose whale.......... Western North Atlantic.
Sowersby's beaked whale............ Western North Atlantic.
True's beaked whale................ Western North Atlantic.
Family Delphinidae (dolphins):
Atlantic spotted dolphin........... Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Atlantic white-sided dolphin....... Western North Atlantic.

[[Page 70783]]

Bottlenose dolphin................. Choctawhatchee Bay.
Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal.
Gulf of Mexico Northern
Coastal.
Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal.
Indian River Lagoon Estuarine
System.
Jacksonville Estuarine System.
Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne,
Bay Boudreau.
Northern Gulf of Mexico
Continental Shelf.
Northern Gulf of Mexico
Oceanic.
Northern North Carolina
Estuarine System.
Southern North Carolina
Estuarine System.
Western North Atlantic Northern
Florida Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Central
Florida Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Northern
Migratory Coastal.
Western North Atlantic
Offshore.
Western North Atlantic South
Carolina/Georgia Coastal.
Western North Atlantic Southern
Migratory Coastal.
Clymene dolphin.................... Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
False killer whale................. Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Fraser's dolphin................... Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Killer whale....................... Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Long-finned pilot whale............ Western North Atlantic.
Melon-headed whale................. Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Pantropical spotted dolphin........ Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Pygmy killer whale................. Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Risso's dolphin.................... Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Rough-toothed dolphin.............. Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Short-beaked common dolphin........ Western North Atlantic.
Short-finned pilot whale........... Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Spinner dolphin.................... Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
Striped dolphin.................... Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Western North Atlantic.
White-beaked dolphin............... Western North Atlantic.
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise.................... Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Pinnipedia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (true seals):
Gray seal.......................... Western North Atlantic.
Harbor seal........................ Western North Atlantic.
Harp seal.......................... Western North Atlantic.
Hooded seal........................ Western North Atlantic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 218.83 Prohibitions.

Notwithstanding incidental takings contemplated in Sec. 218.82(a)
and authorized by LOAs issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 of this chapter
and 218.86, no person in connection with the activities listed in Sec.
218.80(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 218.86;
(b) Take any marine mammal not specified in Sec. 218.82(b);
(c) Take any marine mammal specified Sec. 218.82(b) in any manner
other than as specified in the LOAs; or
(d) Take a marine mammal specified Sec. 218.82(b) if the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determines such taking results in more
than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine
mammal.

Sec. 218.84 Mitigation requirements.

When conducting the activities identified in Sec. 218.80(c), the
mitigation measures contained in any LOAs issued under Sec. Sec.
216.106 of this chapter and 218.86 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 AFTT Study Area for each
applicable activity category or stressor category and includes acoustic
stressors (i.e., active sonar, air guns, pile driving, weapons

[[Page 70784]]

firing noise), explosive stressors (i.e., sonobuoys, torpedoes, medium-
caliber and large-caliber projectiles, missiles and rockets, bombs,
sinking exercises, mines, anti-swimmer grenades, line charge testing
and ship shock trials), and physical disturbance and strike stressors
(i.e., vessel movement; towed in-water devices; small-, medium-, and
large-caliber non-explosive practice munitions; non-explosive missiles
and rockets; non-explosive bombs and mine shapes).
(1) Environmental awareness and education. Appropriate personnel
(including civilian personnel) involved in mitigation and training or
testing activity reporting under the specified activities must complete
one or more modules of the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance
Training Series, as identified in their career path training plan.
Modules include: 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 active sonar activities, mitigation applies only to
sources that are positively controlled and deployed from manned surface
vessels (e.g., sonar sources towed from manned surface platforms). For
aircraft-based active sonar activities, mitigation applies only to
sources that are positively controlled and deployed from manned
aircraft that do not operate at high altitudes (e.g., rotary-wing
aircraft). Mitigation does 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); two Lookouts for platforms without space or manning
restrictions while underway (at the forward part of the ship); and four
Lookouts for pierside sonar testing activities at Port Canaveral,
Florida and Kings Bay, Georgia.
(B) Sources that are not hull-mounted sources. One Lookout on the
ship or aircraft conducting the activity.
(ii) Mitigation zones and requirements. During the activity, at
1,000 yard (yd) 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 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 also must 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 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 (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 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) is deliberately closing in on the ship to ride the
ship's bow wave, and is therefore out of the main transmission axis of
the sonar (and there are no other marine mammal sightings within the
mitigation zone).
(3) Air guns--(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One
Lookout must be positioned on a ship or pierside.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 150 yd around the air gun.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when
maneuvering on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy
personnel must relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is
clear. Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine
mammals; if 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 use of air guns.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity: Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing air gun use) until one of the following conditions
has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the air
gun; the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings
for 30 min; or for mobile activities, the air gun has 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

[[Page 70785]]

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
must cease impact pile driving or vibratory pile extraction.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity: Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing pile driving or pile extraction) until one of the
following conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the
mitigation zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation
zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement
relative to the pile driving location; or the mitigation zone has been
clear from any additional sightings for 30 min.
(5) Weapons firing noise. Weapons firing noise associated with
large-caliber gunnery activities.
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned on the ship conducting the firing. Depending on the
activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one provided for under
explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles or under small-,
medium-, and large-caliber non-explosive practice munitions in
paragraphs (a)(8)(i) and (a)(19)(i) of this section.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. Thirty degrees on either
side of the firing line out to 70 yd from the muzzle of the weapon
being fired.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the activity, Navy personnel must
observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if floating
vegetation is observed, Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start
until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy personnel also must observe
the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if 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,
personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers,
evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for marine
mammals and other 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 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 marine mammals and other applicable
biological resources while performing their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 2,100 yd around the intended
impact location.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during
deployment of the target), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation
zone for floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed,
relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. Navy
personnel also must conduct passive acoustic monitoring for marine
mammals and use the information from detections to assist visual
observations. Navy personnel must visually observe the mitigation zone
for marine mammals and jellyfish aggregations; if marine mammals or
jellyfish aggregations 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

[[Page 70786]]

the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following
conditions has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation
zone; the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on
a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the
intended impact location; or the mitigation zone has been clear from
any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft
that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves
aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained.
(D) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering
off station), when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained
by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy
personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where
detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are
observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g.,
providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual
observation of the area where detonations occurred.
(8) Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles. Gunnery
activities using explosive 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 for 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 marine mammals and other 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 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 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), when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained
by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy
personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where
detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are
observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g.,
providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual
observation of the area where detonations occurred.
(9) Explosive missiles and rockets. Aircraft-deployed explosive
missiles and rockets. Mitigation applies to activities using a surface
target.
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned in an aircraft. If additional platforms are participating
in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g.,
safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation
zone for marine mammals and other 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 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), when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained
by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy
personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where
detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are
observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g.,
providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual
observation of the area where detonations occurred.
(10) Explosive bombs--(i) Number of Lookouts and observation
platform. One Lookout must be positioned in an aircraft conducting the
activity. If additional platforms are participating in

[[Page 70787]]

the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety
observers, evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for
marine mammals and other applicable biological resources while
performing their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 2,500 yd around the intended
target.
(A) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when arriving
on station), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for
floating vegetation; if floating vegetation is observed, Navy personnel
must relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear.
Navy personnel also must observe the mitigation zone for marine
mammals; if 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 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), when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained
by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy
personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where
detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are
observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g.,
providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual
observation of the area where detonations occurred.
(11) Sinking exercises--(i) Number of Lookouts and observation
platform. Two Lookouts (one must be positioned in an aircraft and one
must be positioned on a vessel). If additional platforms are
participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those
assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support observing the
mitigation zone for marine mammals and other 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; if floating vegetation is
observed Navy personnel must delay the start until the mitigation zone
is clear. Navy personnel also must conduct aerial observations of the
mitigation zone for marine mammals and jellyfish aggregations; if
marine mammals or jellyfish aggregations 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 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 must assist in the visual
observation of the area where detonations occurred.
(12) Explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities--
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. (A) One Lookout must
be positioned on a vessel or in an aircraft when implementing the
smaller mitigation zone defined at paragraph (a)(12)(ii)(A) of this
section (using 0.1-5 lb net explosive weight charges).
(B) Two Lookouts (one must be in an aircraft and one must be on a
small boat) when implementing the larger mitigation zone defined at
paragraph (a)(12)(ii)(B) of this section (using 6-650 lb net explosive
weight charges).
(C) If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy
personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers,
evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for marine
mammals and other 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 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; if marine mammals are observed, the Navy must
cease detonations.
(E) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity: Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions
has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a

[[Page 70788]]

determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to detonation
site; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel
constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not
typically fuel constrained.
(F) After completion of the activity (typically 10 min when the
activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when
the activity involves aircraft that are not typically 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 must be positioned (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 defined at
paragraph (a)(13)(ii)(A) of this section.
(B) Four Lookouts must be positioned (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 defined at paragraph
(a)(13)(ii)(B) of this section.
(C) All divers placing the charges on mines must support the
Lookouts while performing their regular duties and must report
applicable sightings to their supporting small boat or Range Safety
Officer.
(D) If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy
personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers,
evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for marine
mammals and other 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 (0.1-20 lb net explosive weight) and during activities
under positive control using 21-60 lb net explosive weight charges.
(C) Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when
maneuvering on station for activities under positive control; 30 min
for activities using 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
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 detonation or fuse
initiation.
(D) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe for marine
mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease
detonation or fuse initiation. To the maximum extent practicable
depending on mission requirements, safety, and environmental
conditions, boats must position themselves near the mid-point of the
mitigation zone radius (but outside of the detonation plume and human
safety zone), must position themselves on opposite sides of the
detonation location (when two boats are used), and must travel in a
circular pattern around the detonation location with one Lookout
observing inward toward the detonation site and the other observing
outward toward the perimeter of the mitigation zone. If used, aircraft
must travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location to the
maximum extent practicable. Navy personnel must not set time-delay
firing devices (0.1-20 lb. net explosive weight) to exceed 10 min.
(E) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity: Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions
has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the
detonation site; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any
additional sightings for 10 min during activities under positive
control with aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min during
activities under positive control with aircraft that are not typically
fuel constrained and during activities using time-delay firing devices.
(F) After completion of an activity (for 30 min), Navy personnel
must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where any
detonations have 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 marine mammals and other 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 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 detonation.
(B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe for marine
mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease
detonation.
(C) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity: Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions
has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the
intended detonation location; the mitigation zone has been clear from
any additional sightings for 30 min; or the intended detonation
location has transited a distance equal to double that of the
mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.
(D) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering
off station), when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained
by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy
personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where
detonations occurred;

[[Page 70789]]

if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must
follow established incident reporting procedures. If additional
platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range
clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual observation of
the area where detonations occurred.
(15) Line charge testing--(i) Number of Lookouts and observation
platform. One Lookout must be positioned on a vessel. If additional
platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned
in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must support
observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other applicable
biological resources while performing their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 900 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 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
detonations.
(B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe 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; or the mitigation zone has been clear
from any additional sightings for 30 min.
(D) After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering
off station), when practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained
by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy
personnel must observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where
detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are
observed, Navy personnel must follow established incident reporting
procedures. If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g.,
providing range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual
observation of the area where detonations occurred.
(16) Ship shock trials--(i) Number of Lookouts and observation
platform. (A) A minimum of ten Lookouts or trained marine species
observers (or a combination thereof) must be positioned either in an
aircraft or on multiple vessels (i.e., a Marine Animal Response Team
boat and the test ship).
(1) If aircraft are used, Lookouts or trained marine species
observers must be in an aircraft and on multiple vessels.
(2) If aircraft are not used, a sufficient number of additional
Lookouts or trained marine species observers must be used to provide
vessel-based visual observation comparable to that achieved by aerial
surveys.
(B) If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy
personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers,
evaluators) must support observing the mitigation zone for marine
mammals and other applicable biological resources while performing
their regular duties.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 3.5 nmi around the ship
hull.
(A) The Navy must not conduct ship shock trials in the Jacksonville
Operating Area during North Atlantic right whale calving season from
November 15 through April 15.
(B) The Navy must develop detailed ship shock trial monitoring and
mitigation plans approximately one-year prior to an event and must
continue to provide these to NMFS for review and approval.
(C) Pre-activity planning must include selection of one primary and
two secondary areas where marine mammal populations are expected to be
the lowest during the event, with the primary and secondary locations
located more than 2 nmi from the western boundary of the Gulf Stream
for events in the Virginia Capes Range Complex or Jacksonville Range
Complex.
(D) If it is determined during pre-activity surveys that the
primary area is environmentally unsuitable (e.g., observations of
marine mammals or presence of concentrations of floating vegetation),
the shock trial can be moved to a secondary site in accordance with the
detailed mitigation and monitoring plan provided to NMFS.
(E) Prior to the initial start of the activity at the shock trial
location (in intervals of 5 hrs, 3 hrs, 40 min, and immediately before
the detonation), Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for
floating vegetation; if 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 triggering the
detonation.
(F) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe for marine
mammals, large schools of fish, jellyfish aggregations, and flocks of
seabirds; if marine mammals, large schools of fish, jellyfish
aggregations, and flocks of seabirds are observed, Navy personnel must
cease triggering the detonation. After completion of each detonation,
Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if
any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must
follow established incident reporting procedures and halt any remaining
detonations until Navy personnel can consult with NMFS and review or
adapt the mitigation, if necessary.
(G) Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal
sighting before or during the activity: Navy personnel must allow a
sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial
start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity
(by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions
has been met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; the
animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a
determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the ship
hull; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional
sightings for 30 min.
(H) After completion of the activity (during the following two days
at a minimum, and up to seven days at a maximum), Navy personnel must
observe for marine mammals in the vicinity of where detonations
occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy
personnel must follow established incident reporting procedures. If
additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing
range clearance), these Navy assets must assist in the visual
observation of the area where detonations occurred.
(17) Vessel movement. The mitigation must not be applied if: The
vessel's safety is threatened; the vessel is restricted in its ability
to maneuver (e.g., during launching and recovery of aircraft or landing
craft, during towing activities, when mooring, etc.); or the vessel is
operated autonomously.
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must
be on the vessel that is underway.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. (A) 500 yd around whales.
(B) 200 yd around all other marine mammals (except bow-riding
dolphins

[[Page 70790]]

and pinnipeds hauled out on man-made navigational structures, port
structures, and vessels).
(C) During the activity, when underway, Navy personnel must observe
the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if any marine mammals are
observed, Navy personnel must maneuver to maintain distance.
(D) Additionally, Navy personnel must broadcast awareness
notification messages with North Atlantic right whale Dynamic
Management Area information (e.g., location and dates) to applicable
Navy assets operating in the vicinity of the Dynamic Management Area.
The information will alert assets to the possible presence of a North
Atlantic right whale to maintain safety of navigation and further
reduce the potential for a vessel strike. Platforms must use the
information to assist their visual observation of applicable mitigation
zones during training and testing activities and to aid in the
implementation of procedural mitigation, including but not limited to,
mitigation for vessel movement. If a marine mammal vessel strike
occurs, Navy personnel must follow the established incident reporting
procedures.
(18) Towed in-water devices. Mitigation applies to devices that are
towed from a manned surface platform or manned aircraft. The mitigation
will not be applied if the safety of the towing platform or in-water
device is threatened.
(i) Number of Lookouts and observation platform. One Lookout must
be positioned on a manned towing platform.
(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 250 yd around marine
mammals. During the activity, when towing an in-water device, Navy
personnel must observe for marine mammals; if marine mammals are
observed, Navy personnel must maneuver to maintain distance.
(19) 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 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 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 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.
(20) 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 or 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 relocate or delay the start of firing.
(B) During the activity, Navy personnel must observe 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.
(21) 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 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; 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

[[Page 70791]]

zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.
(b) Mitigation areas. In addition to procedural mitigation, the
Navy must implement mitigation measures within mitigation areas to
avoid potential impacts on marine mammals.
(1) Mitigation areas off the Northeastern United States for sonar,
explosives, and physical disturbance and strikes--(i) Mitigation area
requirements--(A) Northeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area
(year-round). (1) Navy personnel must report the total hours and counts
of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area
(which includes North Atlantic right whale ESA-designated critical
habitat) in its annual training and testing activity reports submitted
to NMFS.
(2) Navy personnel must minimize the use of low-frequency active
sonar, mid-frequency active sonar, and high-frequency active sonar to
the maximum extent practicable within the mitigation area.
(3) Navy personnel must not use Improved Extended Echo Ranging
sonobuoys in or within 3 nmi of the mitigation area or use explosive
and non-explosive bombs, in-water detonations, and explosive torpedoes
within the mitigation area.
(4) For activities using non-explosive torpedoes within the
mitigation area, Navy personnel must conduct activities during daylight
hours in Beaufort sea state 3 or less. The Navy must use three Lookouts
(one positioned on a vessel and two positioned in an aircraft during
dedicated aerial surveys) to observe the vicinity of the activity. An
additional Lookout must be positioned on the submarine, when surfaced.
Immediately prior to the start of the activity, Navy personnel must
observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if floating
vegetation or marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must not
commence the activity until the vicinity is clear or the activity is
relocated to an area where the vicinity is clear. During the activity,
Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals; if observed, Navy
personnel must cease the activity. To allow a sighted marine mammal to
leave the area, Navy personnel must not recommence the activity until
one of the following conditions has been met: The animal is observed
exiting the vicinity of the activity; the animal is thought to have
exited the vicinity of the activity based on a determination of its
course, speed, and movement relative to the activity location; or the
area has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min. During
transits and normal firing, ships must maintain a speed of no more than
10 knots (kn). During submarine target firing, ships must maintain
speeds of no more than 18 kn. During vessel target firing, vessel
speeds may exceed 18 kn for brief periods of time (e.g., 10-15 min).
(5) For all activities, before a vessel transits within the
mitigation area, Navy personnel must conduct a web query or email
inquiry to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
Northeast Fisheries Science Center's North Atlantic Right Whale
Sighting Advisory System to obtain the latest North Atlantic right
whale sightings information. Navy personnel on vessels must use the
sightings information to reduce potential interactions with North
Atlantic right whales during transits. Navy personnel on vessels must
implement speed reductions within the mitigation area after observing a
North Atlantic right whale, if transiting within 5 nmi of a sighting
reported to the North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System
within the past week, and if transiting at night or during periods of
reduced visibility.
(B) Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness Mitigation Area (year-round).
(1) Navy personnel must report the total hours and counts of active
sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual
training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS.
(2) Navy personnel must not conduct greater than 200 hrs of hull-
mounted mid-frequency active sonar per year within the mitigation area.
(3) Navy personnel must not conduct major training exercises
(Composite Training Unit Exercises or Fleet Exercises/Sustainment
Exercises) within the mitigation area. If the Navy needs to conduct a
major training exercise within the mitigation area in support of
training requirements driven by national security concerns, Navy
personnel must confer with NMFS to verify that potential impacts are
adequately addressed.
(C) Northeast Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas (year-round). (1)
Navy personnel will avoid planning major training exercises (Composite
Training Unit Exercises or Fleet Exercises/Sustainment Exercises)
within the mitigation area to the maximum extent practicable.
(2) Navy personnel must not conduct more than four major training
exercises per year (all or a portion of the exercise) within the
mitigation area.
(3) If the Navy needs to conduct additional major training
exercises in the mitigation area in support of training requirements
driven by national security concerns, Navy personnel must provide NMFS
with advance notification and include the information in its annual
training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) Mitigation areas off the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United
States for sonar, explosives, and physical disturbance and strikes--(i)
Mitigation area requirements--(A) Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale
Mitigation Area (November 15 through April 15). (1) Navy personnel must
report the total hours and counts of active sonar and in-water
explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and
testing activity reports submitted to NMFS.
(2) The Navy must not conduct: Low-frequency active sonar (except
as noted in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(3) of this section), mid-frequency
active sonar (except as noted in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(3) of this
section), high-frequency active sonar, missile and rocket activities
(explosive and non-explosive), small-, medium-, and large-caliber
gunnery activities, Improved Extended Echo Ranging sonobuoy activities,
explosive and non-explosive bombing activities, in-water detonations,
and explosive torpedo activities within the mitigation area.
(3) To the maximum extent practicable, Navy personnel must minimize
the use of: Helicopter dipping sonar, low-frequency active sonar and
hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar used for navigation training,
and low-frequency active sonar and hull-mounted mid-frequency active
sonar used for object detection exercises within the mitigation area.
(4) Before transiting or conducting training or testing activities
within the mitigation area, Navy personnel must initiate communication
with the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville to
obtain Early Warning System North Atlantic right whale sightings data.
The Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville must
advise Navy personnel on vessels of all reported whale sightings in the
vicinity to help Navy personnel on vessels and aircraft reduce
potential interactions with North Atlantic right whales. Commander
Submarine Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet must coordinate any submarine
activities that may require approval from the Fleet Area Control and
Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville. Navy personnel on vessels must use
the sightings information to reduce potential interactions with North
Atlantic right whales during transits.
(5) Navy personnel on vessels must implement speed reductions after
they observe a North Atlantic right whale, if

[[Page 70792]]

they are within 5 nmi of a sighting reported within the past 12 hrs, or
when operating in the mitigation area at night or during periods of
poor visibility.
(6) To the maximum extent practicable, Navy personnel on vessels
must minimize north-south transits in the mitigation area.
(B) Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat Special
Reporting Area (November 15 through April 15). (1) Navy personnel must
report the total hours and counts of active sonar and in-water
explosives used in the Special Reporting Area (which includes southeast
North Atlantic right whale ESA-designated critical habitat) in its
annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS.
(2) [Reserved]
(C) Jacksonville Operating Area (November 15 through April 15). (1)
Navy units conducting training or testing activities in the
Jacksonville Operating Area must initiate communication with the Fleet
Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville to obtain Early
Warning System North Atlantic right whale sightings data. The Fleet
Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville must advise Navy
personnel on vessels of all reported whale sightings in the vicinity to
help Navy personnel on vessels and aircraft reduce potential
interactions with North Atlantic right whales. Commander Submarine
Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet must coordinate any submarine activities that
may require approval from the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance
Facility, Jacksonville. Navy personnel must use the reported sightings
information as they plan specific details of events (e.g., timing,
location, duration) to minimize potential interactions with North
Atlantic right whales to the maximum extent practicable. Navy personnel
must use the reported sightings information to assist visual
observations of applicable mitigation zones and to aid in the
implementation of procedural mitigation.
(2) [Reserved]
(D) Navy Cherry Point Range Complex Nearshore Mitigation Area
(March through September). (1) Navy personnel must not conduct
explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers in the
mitigation area.
(2) To the maximum extent practicable, Navy personnel must not use
explosive sonobuoys, explosive torpedoes, explosive medium-caliber and
large-caliber projectiles, explosive missiles and rockets, explosive
bombs, explosive mines during mine countermeasure and neutralization
activities, and anti-swimmer grenades in the mitigation area.
(E) Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas (year-round).
(1) Navy personnel will avoid planning major training exercises
(Composite Training Unit Exercises or Fleet Exercises/Sustainment
Exercises) to the maximum extent practicable.
(2) Navy personnel must not conduct more than four major training
exercises per year (all or a portion of the exercise) within the
mitigation area.
(3) If the Navy needs to conduct additional major training
exercises in the mitigation area in support of training requirements
driven by national security concerns, Navy personnel must provide NMFS
with advance notification and include the information in its annual
training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) Mitigation areas in the Gulf of Mexico for sonar and
explosives--(i) Mitigation area requirements--(A) Gulf of Mexico
Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas (year-round). (1) Navy personnel
must not conduct major training exercises within the mitigation area
(all or a portion of the exercise).
(2) If the Navy needs to conduct a major training exercise within
the mitigation areas in support of training requirements driven by
national security concerns, Navy personnel must confer with NMFS to
verify that potential impacts are adequately addressed.
(B) Bryde's Whale Mitigation Area (year-round). (1) Navy personnel
must report the total hours and counts of active sonar and in-water
explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training and
testing activity reports submitted to NMFS.
(2) Navy personnel must not conduct greater than 200 hrs of hull-
mounted mid-frequency active sonar per year within the mitigation area.
(3) Navy personnel must not use explosives (except during mine
warfare activities) within the mitigation area.
(ii) [Reserved]

Sec. 218.85 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.

(a) Unauthorized take. The Navy must notify NMFS immediately (or as
soon as operational security considerations allow) if the specified
activity identified in Sec. 218.80 is thought to have resulted in the
mortality or serious injury of any marine mammals, or in any Level A or
Level B harassment take of marine mammals not identified in this
subpart.
(b) Monitoring and reporting under the LOAs. The Navy must conduct
all monitoring and required reporting under the LOAs, including abiding
by the AFTT Study Area monitoring program. Details on program goals,
objectives, project selection process, and current projects are
available at www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us.
(c) Notification of injured, live stranded, or dead marine mammals.
The Navy must consult the Notification and Reporting Plan, which sets
out notification, reporting, and other requirements when dead, injured,
or live stranded marine mammals are detected. The Notification and
Reporting Plan is available at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities.
(d) Annual AFTT Study Area marine species monitoring report. The
Navy must submit an annual report of the AFTT Study Area monitoring
describing the implementation and results from the previous calendar
year. Data collection methods must be standardized across range
complexes and study areas to allow for comparison in different
geographic locations. The report must be submitted to the Director,
Office of Protected Resources of NMFS either within 90 days after the
calendar year, or within 90 days after the conclusion of the monitoring
year to be determined by the Adaptive Management process. This report
will describe progress of knowledge made with respect to monitoring
plan study questions across all Navy ranges associated with the
Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program. Similar study questions
must be treated together so that progress on each topic can be
summarized across all Navy ranges. The report need not include analyses
and content that does not provide direct assessment of cumulative
progress on the monitoring plan study questions.
(e) Annual AFTT Study Area training and testing reports. Each year,
the Navy must submit a preliminary report (Quick Look Report) detailing
the status of authorized sound sources within 21 days after the
anniversary of the date of issuance of each LOA to the Director, Office
of Protected Resources, NMFS. Each year, the Navy must submit a
detailed report within 3 months after the anniversary of the date of
issuance of each LOA to the Director, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS. The annual reports must contain information on major training
exercises (MTEs), sinking exercise (SINKEX) events, and a summary of
all sound sources used, including within specified mitigation reporting
areas, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section. The analysis
in the detailed report must be

[[Page 70793]]

based on the accumulation of data from the current year's report and
data collected from the previous report. The detailed reports must
contain information identified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Major training exercises (MTEs). This section of the report
must contain the following information for MTEs conducted in the AFTT
Study Area:
(i) Exercise information (for each MTE):
(A) Exercise designator;
(B) Date that exercise began and ended;
(C) Location;
(D) Number and types of active sonar sources used in the exercise;
(E) Number and types of passive acoustic sources used in exercise;
(F) Number and types of vessels, aircraft, and other platforms
participating in exercise;
(G) Total hours of all active sonar source operation;
(H) Total hours of each active sonar source bin; and
(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 made from
(including, for example, what type of surface vessel or testing
platform);
(F) Length of time observers maintained visual contact with marine
mammal;
(G) Sea state;
(H) Visibility;
(I) Sound source in use at the time of sighting;
(J) Indication of whether animal was less than 200 yd, 200 to 500
yd, 500 to 1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 yd, or greater than 2,000 yd from
sonar source;
(K) Mitigation implementation (e.g. whether operation of sonar
sensor was delayed, or sonar was powered or shut down, and how long the
delay was);
(L) If source in use was hull-mounted, true bearing of animal from
the vessel, true direction of vessel's travel, and estimation of
animal's motion relative to vessel (opening, closing, parallel); and
(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) Sinking exercises (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;
and
(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 sighting 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; and
(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 (e.g. less
than 200 yd, 200 to 500 yd, 500 to 1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 yd, or
greater than 2,000 yd, or target spot if not yet detonated).
(J) Lookouts must report, in plain language and without trying to
categorize in any way, the observed behavior of the animal(s) (such as
animal closing to bow ride, paralleling course/speed, floating on
surface and not swimming etc.), including speed and direction and if
any calves were present.
(K) Resulting mitigation implementation: The report must indicate
whether explosive detonations were delayed, ceased, modified, or not
modified due to marine mammal presence and for how long.
(L) If observation occurred while explosives were detonating in the
water, indicate munition type in use at time of marine mammal
detection.
(3) Summary of sources used. This section must include the
following information summarized from the authorized sound sources used
in all training and testing events:
(i) Total annual hours or quantity (per the LOA) of each bin of
sonar or other acoustic sources (pile driving and air gun activities);
and
(ii) Total annual expended/detonated ordnance (missiles, bombs,
sonobuoys, etc.) for each explosive bin.
(4) Geographic information presentation. The reports must present
an annual (and seasonal, where practical) depiction of training and
testing bin usage (as well as pile driving activities) geographically
across the AFTT Study Area.
(5) Sonar exercise notification. The Navy must submit to NMFS
(contact as specified in the LOA) an electronic report within fifteen
calendar days after the completion of any MTE indicating:
(i) Location of the exercise;
(ii) Beginning and end dates of the exercise; and
(iii) Type of exercise.
(f) Seven-year close-out comprehensive training and testing 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 EIS 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.

[[Page 70794]]

Sec. 218.86 Letters of Authorization.

(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to the regulations
in this subpart, the Navy must apply for and obtain Letters of
Authorization (LOAs) in accordance with Sec. 216.106 of this chapter.
(b) LOAs, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a
period of time not to exceed the expiration date of the regulations in
this subpart.
(c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of the
regulations in this subpart, the Navy may apply for and obtain a
renewal of the LOA.
(d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant
to the adaptive management provision of Sec. 218.87(c)(1) as required
by an LOA issued under this subpart, the Navy must apply for and obtain
a modification of the LOA as described in Sec. 218.87.
(e) Each LOA will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Specified geographic areas for incidental taking;
(3) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e.,
mitigation) on the species or stocks of marine mammals and their
habitat; and
(4) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(f) Issuance of the LOA(s) will be based on a determination that
the level of taking must be consistent with the findings made for the
total taking allowable under the regulations in this subpart.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of the LOA(s) will be published in
the Federal Register within 30 days of a determination.

Sec. 218.87 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.

(a) An LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 of this subchapter and
218.86 may be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant,
provided that:
(1) The planned specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as
those described and analyzed for the regulations in this subpart
(excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section); and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures required by the previous LOA(s) under the regulations in this
subpart were implemented.
(b) For LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that
include changes to the activity or to the mitigation, monitoring, or
reporting measures (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive
management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not
change the findings made for the regulations in this subpart 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 subchapter and
218.86 may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive management. After consulting with the Navy regarding
the practicability of the modifications, NMFS may modify (including
adding or removing measures) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or
reporting measures if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more
effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring.
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision
to modify the 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 218.86, an LOA may be modified without prior notice
or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the
Federal Register within thirty days of the action.

Sec. Sec. 218.88-218.89 [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2019-27098 Filed 12-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

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