Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 133/Friday, July 10, 2020/Rules and Regulations

Home , Acoustic torpedo, Animal echolocation, Cortes Bank, HELRAS, Hydrophone, Passive acoustics

41780 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE national/marine-mammal-protection/ Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 incidental-take-authorizations-military- U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric readiness-activities. In case of problems Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to Administration accessing these documents, please use NMFS) to allow, upon request, the the contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER incidental, but not intentional taking of 50 CFR Part 218 INFORMATION CONTACT). small numbers of marine mammals by [Docket No. 200625–0169] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. citizens who engage in a specified Wendy Piniak, Office of Protected activity (other than commercial fishing) RIN 0648–BJ06 Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. within a specified geographical region if, after notice and public comment, the Taking and Importing Marine SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: agency makes certain findings and Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Purpose of Regulatory Action issues regulations that set forth Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training These regulations, issued under the permissible methods of taking pursuant and Testing Activities in the Hawaii- authority of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 to that activity, as well as monitoring Southern California Training and et seq.), extend the framework for and reporting requirements. Section Testing Study Area authorizing the take of marine mammals 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries incidental to the Navy’s training and implementing regulations at 50 CFR part Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and testing activities (which qualify as 216, subpart I, provide the legal basis for Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), military readiness activities) from the issuing this final rule and the Commerce. use of sonar and other transducers, in- subsequent LOAs. As directed by this ACTION: Final rule; notification of water detonations, air guns, impact pile legal authority, this final rule contains issuance of Letters of Authorization. driving/vibratory extraction, and the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting movement of vessels throughout the requirements. SUMMARY: NMFS, upon request from the HSTT Study Area. The HSTT Study U.S. Navy (Navy), issues these Area is comprised of established Summary of Major Provisions Within regulations pursuant to the Marine operating and warning areas across the the Final Rule Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to north-central Pacific Ocean, from the Following is a summary of the major govern the taking of marine mammals mean high tide line in Southern provisions of this final rule regarding incidental to the training and testing California west to Hawaii and the the Navy’s activities. Major provisions activities conducted in the Hawaii- International Date Line. The Study Area include, but are not limited to: Southern California Training and includes the at-sea areas of three • The use of defined powerdown and Testing (HSTT) Study Area over the existing range complexes (the Hawaii shutdown zones (based on activity); • course of seven years, effectively Range Complex, the Southern California Measures to reduce or eliminate the (SOCAL) Range Complex, and the Silver likelihood of ship strikes; extending the time period from • December 20, 2023, to December 20, Strand Training Complex), and overlaps Activity limitations in certain areas 2025. In August 2018, the MMPA was a portion of the Point Mugu Sea Range and times that are biologically amended by the John S. McCain (PMSR). Also included in the Study important (i.e., for foraging, migration, Area are Navy pierside locations in reproduction) for marine mammals; National Defense Authorization Act • (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 to allow Hawaii and Southern California, Pearl Implementation of a Notification for seven-year authorizations for Harbor, San Diego Bay, and the transit and Reporting Plan (for dead, live military readiness activities, as corridor 1 on the high seas where sonar stranded, or marine mammals struck by compared to the previously allowed five training and testing may occur. a vessel); and • Implementation of a robust years. The Navy’s activities qualify as NMFS received an application from monitoring plan to improve our military readiness activities pursuant to the Navy requesting to extend NMFS’ understanding of the environmental the MMPA as amended by the NDAA existing MMPA regulations (50 CFR part effects resulting from the Navy training for Fiscal Year 2004. These regulations, 218, subpart H; hereafter ‘‘2018 HSTT and testing activities. which allow for the issuance of Letters regulations’’) that authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to Navy Additionally, the rule includes an of Authorization (LOAs) for the adaptive management component that incidental take of marine mammals training and testing activities conducted in the HSTT Study Area to cover seven allows for timely modification of during the described activities and mitigation or monitoring measures timeframes, prescribe the permissible years of the Navy’s activities, instead of five. Take is anticipated to occur by based on new information, when methods of taking and other means of appropriate. effecting the least practicable adverse Level A harassment and Level B impact on marine mammal species or harassment as well as a very small Background number of serious injuries or mortalities stocks and their habitat, and establish The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of incidental to the Navy’s training and requirements pertaining to the marine mammals, with certain testing activities. monitoring and reporting of such taking. exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and DATES: Effective from July 10, 2020, to 1 Vessel transit corridors are the routes typically (D) of the MMPA direct the Secretary of December 20, 2025. used by Navy assets to traverse from one area to Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to ADDRESSES: Copies of the Navy’s another. The route depicted in Figure 2–1 of the allow, upon request, the incidental, but applications, NMFS’ proposed rule for Navy’s March 2019 rulemaking/LOA application is not intentional, taking of small numbers the shortest route between Hawaii and Southern these regulations, NMFS’ proposed and California, making it the quickest and most fuel of marine mammals by U.S. citizens final rules and subsequent LOAs for the efficient. The depicted vessel transit corridor is who engage in a specified activity (other associated five-year HSTT Study Area notional and may not represent the actual routes than commercial fishing) within a regulations, other supporting documents used by ships and submarines transiting from specified geographical region if certain Southern California to Hawaii and back. Actual cited herein, and a list of the references routes navigated are based on a number of factors findings are made and either regulations cited in this document may be obtained including, but not limited to, weather, training, and are issued or, if the taking is limited to online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ operational requirements. harassment, a notice of a proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41781

authorization is provided to the public 101(a)(5)(A) to be issued for up to seven federal law (10 U.S.C. 8062), which is to for review and the opportunity to years. Prior to this amendment, all maintain, train, and equip combat-ready submit comments. incidental take rules under section naval forces capable of winning wars, An authorization for incidental 101(a)(5)(A) were limited to five years. deterring aggression, and maintaining takings shall be granted if NMFS finds freedom of the seas. The Navy executes Summary of Request that the taking will have a negligible this responsibility by establishing and impact on the species or stocks and will On December 27, 2018, NMFS executing training programs, including not have an unmitigable adverse impact published a five-year final rule at-sea training and exercises, and on the availability of the species or governing the taking of marine ensuring naval forces have access to the stocks for taking for subsistence uses mammals incidental to Navy training ranges, operating areas (OPAREAs), and (where relevant). Further, NMFS must and testing activities conducted in the airspace needed to develop and prescribe the permissible methods of HSTT Study Area (83 FR 66846; maintain skills for conducting naval taking and other means of effecting the hereafter ‘‘2018 HSTT final rule’’). activities. The Navy’s mission is least practicable adverse impact on the Previously, on August 13, 2018, and achieved in part by conducting training affected species or stocks and their towards the end of the time period in and testing within the HSTT Study habitat, paying particular attention to which NMFS was processing the Navy’s Area. rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of request for the 2018 regulations, the The Navy’s March 11, 2019, similar significance, and on the 2019 NDAA amended the MMPA for rulemaking and LOA extension availability of such species or stocks for military readiness activities to allow application (hereafter ‘‘2019 Navy taking for certain subsistence uses incidental take regulations to be issued application’’) reflects the same (referred to in this rule as ‘‘mitigation for up to seven years instead of the compilation of training and testing measures’’); and requirements previous five years. The Navy’s training activities presented in the Navy’s pertaining to the monitoring and and testing activities conducted in the October 13, 2017, initial rulemaking and reporting of such takings. The MMPA HSTT Study Area qualify as military LOA application (hereafter ‘‘2017 Navy defines ‘‘take’’ to mean to harass, hunt, readiness activities pursuant to the application’’) and the 2018 HSTT capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, MMPA, as amended by the 2004 NDAA. regulations that were subsequently hunt, capture, or kill any marine On March 11, 2019 the Navy submitted promulgated, which can be found at: mammal. The Analysis and Negligible an application requesting that NMFS https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ Impact Determination section below extend the 2018 HSTT regulations and national/marine-mammal-protection/ discusses the definition of ‘‘negligible associated LOAs such that they would incidental-take-authorizations-military- impact.’’ cover take incidental to seven years of readiness-activities. These activities are The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 training and testing activities instead of deemed by the Navy necessary to NDAA) (Pub. L. 108–136) amended five, extending the expiration date from accomplish military readiness section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to December 20, 2023 to December 20, requirements and are anticipated to remove the ‘‘small numbers’’ and 2025. continue into the reasonably foreseeable ‘‘specified geographical region’’ In its 2019 application, the Navy future. The 2019 Navy application and provisions indicated above and proposed no changes to the nature of the this rule cover training and testing amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ specified activities covered by the 2018 activities that will occur over seven as applied to a ‘‘military readiness HSTT final rule, the level of activity years, including the five years already activity.’’ The definition of harassment within and between years will be authorized under the 2018 HSTT for military readiness activities (section consistent with that previously analyzed regulations, with the regulations valid 3(18)(B) of the MMPA) is: (i) Any act in the 2018 HSTT final rule, and all from the publication date of this final that injures or has the significant activities will be conducted within the rule through December 20, 2025. potential to injure a marine mammal or same boundaries of the HSTT Study marine mammal stock in the wild (Level Area identified in the 2018 HSTT final Summary of the Regulations A Harassment); or (ii) Any act that rule. Therefore, the training and testing NMFS is extending the incidental take disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine activities (e.g., equipment and sources regulations and associated LOAs mammal or marine mammal stock in the used, exercises conducted) and the through December 20, 2025, to cover the wild by causing disruption of natural mitigation, monitoring, and nearly all same Navy activities covered by the behavioral patterns, including, but not reporting measures are identical to those 2018 HSTT regulations. The 2018 HSTT limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, described and analyzed in the 2018 final rule was recently published and its breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a HSTT final rule. The only changes analysis remains current and valid. In point where such behavioral patterns included in the Navy’s request were to its 2019 application, the Navy proposed are abandoned or significantly altered conduct those same activities in the no changes to the nature (e.g., (Level B Harassment). In addition, the same region for an additional two years. equipment and sources used, exercises 2004 NDAA amended the MMPA as it In its request, the Navy included all conducted) or level of the specified relates to military readiness activities information necessary to identify the activities within or between years or to such that least practicable adverse type and amount of incidental take that the boundaries of the HSTT Study Area. impact shall include consideration of may occur in the two additional years The mitigation, monitoring, and nearly personnel safety, practicality of so NMFS could determine whether the all reporting measures (described below) implementation, and impact on the analyses and conclusions regarding the will be identical to those described and effectiveness of the military readiness impacts of the proposed activities on analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule. activity. marine mammal species and stocks The regulatory language included at the More recently, section 316 of the previously reached for five years of end of this final rule, which will be NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019 activities remain applicable for seven published at 50 CFR part 218, subpart NDAA) (Pub. L. 115–232), signed on years of identical activity. H, also is the same as the HSTT 2018 August 13, 2018, amended the MMPA to The purpose of the Navy’s training regulations, except for a small number allow incidental take rules for military and testing activities is to ensure that of technical changes. No new readiness activities under section the Navy meets its mission mandated by information has been received from the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41782 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Navy, or otherwise become available to serious injuries or mortalities are also corridor 2 on the high seas where sonar NMFS, since publication of the 2018 possible from vessel strikes or exposure training and testing may occur. HSTT final rule that significantly to explosive detonations. Detailed A Navy range complex consists of changes the analyses supporting the descriptions of these activities are geographic areas that encompass a water 2018 findings. Where there is any new provided in Chapter 2 of the 2018 HSTT component (above and below the information pertinent to the FEIS/OEIS and in the 2017 and 2019 surface) and airspace, and may descriptions, analyses, or findings Navy applications. encompass a land component where required to authorize incidental take for training and testing of military Overview of Training and Testing military readiness activities under platforms, tactics, munitions, Activities MMPA section 101(a)(5)(A), that explosives, and electronic warfare information is provided in the The Navy routinely trains and tests in systems occur. Range complexes appropriate sections below. the HSTT Study Area in preparation for include established OPAREAs, which Because the activities included in the national defense missions. Training and may be further divided to provide better 2019 Navy application have not testing activities and components control of the area for safety reasons. changed and the analyses and findings covered in the 2019 Navy application Additional detail on range complexes included in the documents provided are described in detail in the Overview and testing ranges was provided in the and produced in support of the recently of Training and Testing Activities Duration and Location section of the published 2018 HSTT final rule remain sections of the 2018 HSTT proposed 2018 HSTT proposed rule; please see current and applicable, this final rule rule, the 2018 HSTT final rule, and the 2018 HSTT proposed rule or the relies heavily on and references to the Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 2017 Navy application for more applicable information and analyses in Action and Alternatives) of the 2018 information and maps. those documents. Below is a list of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS. Each military training Description of Acoustic and Explosive primary documents referenced in this and testing activity described meets Stressors final rule. The list indicates the short mandated Fleet requirements to deploy name by which the document is combat-ready forces. The Navy The Navy uses a variety of sensors, referenced in this final rule, as well as proposed no changes to the specified platforms, weapons, and other devices, the full titles of the cited documents. All activities described and analyzed in the including ones used to ensure the safety of the documents can be found at: 2018 HSTT final rule. The boundaries of of Sailors and Marines, to meet its www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ the HSTT Study Area (see Figure 2–1 of statutory mission. Training and testing marine-mammal-protection/incidental- the 2019 Navy application); the training with these systems may introduce take-authorizations-military-readiness- and testing activities (e.g., equipment acoustic (sound) energy or shock waves activities and http://www.hstteis.com/. and sources used, exercises conducted); from explosives into the environment. • NMFS June 26, 2018, Hawaii- manner of or amount of vessel The specific components that could act Southern California Training and movement; and standard operating as stressors by having direct or indirect Testing (HSTT) proposed rule (83 FR procedures presented in this final rule impacts on the environment are 29872; hereafter ‘‘2018 HSTT proposed are identical to those described and described in detail in the Description of rule’’); analyzed in the 2018 HSTT final rule. Acoustic and Explosive Stressors • NMFS December 27, 2018, Hawaii- section of the 2018 HSTT final rule and Southern California Training and Dates and Duration Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Testing (HSTT) final rule (83 FR 66846; The specified activities will occur at Action and Alternatives) of the 2018 hereafter ‘‘2018 HSTT final rule’’); HSTT FEIS/OEIS. The Navy proposes • any time during the seven-year period of NMFS September 13, 2019, Hawaii- validity of the regulations. The number no changes to the nature of the specified Southern California Training and of training and testing activities are activities and, therefore, the acoustic Testing (HSTT) proposed rule (84 FR described in the Detailed Description of and explosive stressors are identical to 48388; hereafter ‘‘2019 HSTT proposed the Specified Activities section (Tables 1 those described and analyzed in the rule’’); through 5). 2018 HSTT final rule. • Navy October 13, 2017, MMPA rulemaking and LOA application Geographical Region Other Stressor—Vessel Strike Vessel strikes are not specific to any (hereafter ‘‘2017 Navy application’’); The geographic extent of the HSTT • Navy March 11, 2019, MMPA particular training or testing activity, Study Area is identical to that described rulemaking and LOA extension but rather a limited, sporadic, and in the 2018 HSTT final rule. The HSTT application (hereafter ‘‘2019 Navy incidental result of Navy vessel Study Area (see Figure 2–1 of the 2019 application’’); and movement within the HSTT Study Area. Navy application) is comprised of • October 26, 2018, Hawaii-Southern Navy vessels transit at speeds that are established operating and warning areas California Training and Testing (HSTT) optimal for fuel conservation or to meet across the north-central Pacific Ocean, Final Environmental Impact Statement/ training and testing requirements. The from the mean high tide line in Overseas Environmental Impact average speed of large Navy ships ranges Southern California west to Hawaii and Statement (FEIS/OEIS) (hereafter ‘‘2018 between 10 and 15 knots and HSTT FEIS/OEIS’’). the International Date Line. The Study Area includes the at-sea areas of three 2 Vessel transit corridors are the routes typically Description of the Specified Activity existing range complexes (the Hawaii used by Navy assets to traverse from one area to The Navy requested authorization to Range Complex, the Southern California another. The route depicted in Figure 2–1 of the take marine mammals incidental to (SOCAL) Range Complex, and the Silver 2019 Navy application is the shortest route between Strand Training Complex), and overlaps Hawaii and Southern California, making it the conducting training and testing quickest and most fuel efficient. The depicted activities. The Navy has determined that a portion of the Point Mugu Sea Range vessel transit corridor is notional and may not acoustic and explosives stressors are (PMSR). Also included in the Study represent the actual routes used by ships and most likely to result in impacts on Area are Navy pierside locations in submarines transiting from Southern California to Hawaii and Southern California, Pearl Hawaii and back. Actual routes navigated are based marine mammals that could rise to the on a number of factors including, but not limited level of harassment. A small number of Harbor, San Diego Bay, and the transit to, weather, training, and operational requirements.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41783

submarines generally operate at speeds Vessel Strike sections of the 2018 HSTT the 2018 HSTT final rule, the 2018 in the range of 8 to 13 knots, while a few proposed rule and 2018 HSTT final rule. HSTT FEIS/OEIS, and the 2017 Navy specialized vessels can travel at faster Detailed Description of the Specified application. speeds. By comparison, this is slower Activities than most commercial vessels where Training Activities full speed for a container ship is The Navy’s specified activities are presented and analyzed as a The number of planned training typically 24 knots (Bonney and Leach, activities that could occur annually and 2010), with average vessel speeds along representative year of training to the duration of those activities remains the California coast recently reported to account for the natural fluctuation of identical to those presented in Table 4 be between 14 and 18 knots (Moore et training cycles and deployment of the 2018 HSTT final rule, and are not al., 2018). schedules in any seven-year period. In Should a vessel strike occur, it would the 2018 HSTT final rule, NMFS repeated here. The number of planned likely result in incidental take from analyzed the potential impacts of these training activities that could occur over serious injury and/or mortality and, activities (i.e., incidental take of marine the seven-year period are presented in accordingly, for the purposes of the mammals) based on the Navy Table 1. The table is organized analysis we assume that any ship strike conducting three years of a according to primary mission areas and would result in serious injury or representative level of activity and two includes the activity name, associated mortality. The Navy proposed no years of a maximum level of activity. stressors applicable to these regulations, changes to the nature of the specified For the purposes of this rulemaking, the sound source bin, number of proposed activities, the training and testing Navy presented and NMFS analyzed activities, and locations of those activities, the manner of or amount of activities based on the additional two activities in the HSTT Study Area. For vessel movement, or standard operating years of training and testing consisting further information regarding the procedures described in the 2018 HSTT of an additional one year of a maximum primary platform used (e.g., ship or final rule. Therefore, the description of level of activity and one year of a aircraft type) see Appendix A (Navy vessel strikes as a stressor is the same representative level of activity Activity Descriptions) of the 2018 HSTT as that presented in the Other Stressor— consistent with the pattern set forth in FEIS/OEIS. TABLE 1—TRAINING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

7-year Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of events

Major Training Events—Large Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Acoustic ...... Composite Training Unit Aircraft carrier and carrier air wing integrates with ASW1, ASW2, ASW3, SOCAL ...... 18 Exercise 1. surface and submarine units in a challenging multi- ASW4, ASW5, HF1, threat operational environment that certifies them LF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, ready to deploy. MF5, MF11, MF12. Acoustic ...... Rim of the Pacific Exer- A biennial multinational training exercise in which na- ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, HRC ...... 4 cise 1. vies from Pacific Rim nations and the United King- HF1, HF3, HF4, M3, SOCAL ...... 4 dom assemble in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, to conduct MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, training throughout the Hawaiian Islands in a num- MF11. ber of warfare areas. Marine mammal systems may be used during a Rim of the Pacific exercise. Components of a Rim of the Pacific exercise, such as certain mine warfare and amphibious training, may be conducted in the Southern California Range Complex.

Major Training Events—Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Acoustic ...... Fleet Exercise/ Aircraft carrier and carrier air wing integrates with ASW1, ASW2, ASW3, HRC ...... 7 Sustainment Exercise 1. surface and submarine units in a challenging multi- ASW4, HF1, LF6, MF1, SOCAL ...... 35 threat operational environment to maintain ability to MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11, deploy. MF12. Acoustic ...... Undersea Warfare Exer- Elements of the anti-submarine warfare tracking ex- ASW3, ASW4, HF1, LF6, HRC ...... 17 cise. ercise combine in this exercise of multiple air, sur- MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, face, and subsurface units, over a period of sev- MF11, MF12. eral days. Sonobuoys are released from aircraft. Active and passive sonar used.

Integrated/Coordinated Training—Small Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Acoustic ...... Navy Undersea Warfare Multiple ships, aircraft, and submarines integrate the ASW3, ASW4, HF1, MF1, HRC ...... 7 Training and Assess- use of their sensors to search for, detect, classify, MF3, MF4, MF5. SOCAL ...... 18 ment Course Surface localize, and track a threat submarine in order to Warfare Advanced Tac- launch an exercise torpedo. tical Training.

Integrated/Coordinated Training—Medium Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Acoustic ...... Submarine Commanders Train prospective submarine Commanding Officers to ASW3, ASW4, HF1, MF1, HRC ...... 12 Course. operate against surface, air, and subsurface MF3, MF4, MF5, SOCAL ...... 12 threats. TORP1, TORP2.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41784 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1—TRAINING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued

7-year Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of events

Integrated/Coordinated Training—Small Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Acoustic ...... Amphibious Ready Group/ Small-scale, short duration, coordinated anti-sub- ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, HRC ...... 14 Marine Expeditionary marine warfare exercises. HF1, MF1, MF3, MF4, SOCAL ...... 86 Unit Exercise Group Sail MF5, MF11. Independent Deployer Certification Exercise/ Tailored Anti-Submarine Warfare Training.

Amphibious Warfare

Explosive ...... Naval Surface Fire Sup- Surface ship uses large-caliber gun to support forces Large-caliber HE rounds HRC (W188) ...... 105 port Exercise—at Sea. ashore; however, land target simulated at sea. (E5). Rounds impact water and are scored by passive acoustic hydrophones located at or near target area. Acoustic ...... Amphibious Marine Expe- Navy and Marine Corps forces conduct advanced in- ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, SOCAL ...... 18 ditionary Unit Exercise. tegration training in preparation for deployment cer- HF1, MF1, MF3, MF4, tification. MF5, MF11. Acoustic ...... Amphibious Marine Expe- Navy and Marine Corps forces conduct integration ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, SOCAL ...... 18 ditionary Unit Integration training at sea in preparation for deployment certifi- HF1, MF1, MF3, MF4, Exercise. cation. MF5, MF11. Acoustic ...... Marine Expeditionary Unit Amphibious Ready Group exercises are conducted to ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, SOCAL ...... 18 Composite Training Unit validate the Marine Expeditionary Unit’s readiness HF1, MF1, MF3, MF4, Exercise. for deployment and includes small boat raids; visit, MF5, MF11. board, search, and seizure training; helicopter and mechanized amphibious raids; and a non-combatant evacuation operation.

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Acoustic ...... Anti-Submarine Warfare Helicopter crews search for, track, and detect sub- MF4, MF5, TORP1 ...... HRC ...... 42 Torpedo Exercise—Heli- marines. Recoverable air launched torpedoes are SOCAL ...... 728 copter. employed against submarine targets. Acoustic ...... Anti-Submarine Warfare Maritime patrol aircraft crews search for, track, and MF5, TORP1 ...... HRC ...... 70 Torpedo Exercise—Mar- detect submarines. Recoverable air launched tor- SOCAL ...... 175 itime Patrol Aircraft. pedoes are employed against submarine targets. Acoustic ...... Anti-Submarine Warfare Surface ship crews search for, track, and detect sub- ASW3, MF1, TORP1 ...... HRC ...... 350 Torpedo Exercise—Ship. marines. Exercise torpedoes are used during this SOCAL ...... 819 event. Acoustic ...... Anti-Submarine Warfare Submarine crews search for, track, and detect sub- ASW4, HF1, MF3, TORP2 HRC ...... 336 Torpedo Exercise—Sub- marines. Exercise torpedoes are used during this SOCAL ...... 91 marine. event. Acoustic ...... Anti-Submarine Warfare Helicopter crews search for, track, and detect sub- MF4, MF5 ...... HRC ...... 1,113 Tracking Exercise—Heli- marines. SOCAL, PMSR ... 3,668 copter. HSTT Transit 42 Corridor. Acoustic ...... Anti-Submarine Warfare Maritime patrol aircraft aircrews search for, track, and MF5 ...... HRC ...... 182 Tracking Exercise—Mar- detect submarines. Recoverable air launched tor- SOCAL, PMSR ... 350 itime Patrol Aircraft. pedoes are employed against submarine targets. Acoustic ...... Anti-Submarine Warfare Surface ship crews search for, track, and detect sub- ASW3, MF1, MF11, MF12 HRC ...... 1,568 Tracking Exercise—Ship. marines. SOCAL, PMSR ... 2,961 Acoustic ...... Anti-Submarine Warfare Submarine crews search for, track, and detect sub- ASW4, HF1, HF3, MF3 .... HRC ...... 1,400 Tracking Exercise— marines. SOCAL, PMSR ... 350 Submarine. HSTT Transit 49 Corridor. Explosive, Acous- Service Weapons Test ..... Air, surface, or submarine crews employ explosive HF1, MF3, MF6, TORP2, HRC ...... 14 tic. torpedoes against virtual targets. Explosive torpedoes SOCAL ...... 7 (E11).

Mine Warfare

Acoustic ...... Airborne Mine Counter- Helicopter aircrews detect mines using towed or laser HF4 ...... SOCAL ...... 70 measure–Mine Detec- mine detection systems. tion. Explosive, Acous- Civilian Port Defense— Maritime security personnel train to protect civilian HF4, SAS2 ...... Pearl Harbor, HI 7 tic. Homeland Security Anti- ports against enemy efforts to interfere with access E2, E4 ...... San Diego, CA ... 21 Terrorism/Force Protec- to those ports. tion Exercises. Explosive ...... Marine Mammal Systems The Navy deploys trained bottlenose dolphins E7 ...... HRC ...... 70 (Tursiops truncatus) and California sea lions SOCAL ...... 1,225 (Zalophus californianus) as part of the marine mammal mine-hunting and object-recovery system. Acoustic ...... Mine Countermeasure Ex- Ship crews detect and avoid mines while navigating HF4, HF8, MF1K ...... HRC ...... 210 ercise—Ship Sonar. restricted areas or channels using active sonar. SOCAL ...... 664 Acoustic ...... Mine Countermeasure Ex- Mine countermeasure ship crews detect, locate, iden- HF4 ...... SOCAL ...... 1,862 ercise—Surface. tify, and avoid mines while navigating restricted areas or channels, such as while entering or leaving port.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41785

TABLE 1—TRAINING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued

7-year Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of events

Explosive, Acous- Mine Countermeasures Ship, small boat, and helicopter crews locate and dis- HF4, E4 ...... HRC ...... 42 tic. Mine Neutralization Re- able mines using remotely operated underwater SOCAL ...... 2,604 motely Operated Vehicle. vehicles. Explosive ...... Mine Neutralization Explo- Personnel disable threat mines using explosive E4, E5, E6, E7 ...... HRC (Puuloa) ..... 140 sive Ordnance Disposal. charges. SOCAL (IB, TAR 1,358 2, TAR 3, TAR 21, SWAT 3, SOAR). Acoustic ...... Submarine Mine Exercise Submarine crews practice detecting mines in a des- HF1 ...... HRC ...... 280 ignated area. SOCAL ...... 84 Acoustic ...... Surface Ship Object De- Ship crews detect and avoid mines while navigating MF1K, HF8 ...... HRC ...... 287 tection. restricted areas or channels using active sonar. SOCAL ...... 1,134 Explosive ...... Underwater Demolitions Military personnel use explosive charges to destroy E10, E13 ...... SOCAL (TAR 2, 126 Multiple Charge—Mat barriers or obstacles to amphibious vehicle access TAR 3). Weave and Obstacle to beach areas. Loading. Explosive ...... Underwater Demolition Navy divers conduct various levels of training and E6, E7 ...... HRC (Puuloa) ..... 203 Qualification and Certifi- certification in placing underwater demolition SOCAL (TAR 2) 700 cation. charges.

Surface Warfare

Explosive ...... Bombing Exercise Air-to- Fixed-wing aircrews deliver bombs against surface E12 2 ...... HRC ...... 1,309 Surface. targets. SOCAL ...... 4,480 HSTT Transit 35 Corridor. Explosive ...... Gunnery Exercise Sur- Small boat crews fire medium-caliber guns at surface E1, E2 ...... HRC ...... 70 face-to-Surface Boat targets. SOCAL ...... 98 Medium-Caliber. Explosive ...... Gunnery Exercise Sur- Surface ship crews fire large-caliber guns at surface E5 ...... HRC ...... 210 face-to-Surface Ship targets. SOCAL ...... 1,302 Large-caliber. HSTT Transit 91 Corridor. Explosive ...... Gunnery Exercise Sur- Surface ship crews fire medium-caliber guns at sur- E1, E2 ...... HRC ...... 350 face-to-Surface Ship face targets. SOCAL ...... 1,260 Medium-Caliber. HSTT Transit 280 Corridor. Explosive, Acous- Independent Deployer Multiple ships, aircraft and submarines conduct inte- E1, E3, E6, E10 ...... SOCAL ...... 7 tic. Certification Exercise/ grated multi-warfare training with a surface warfare Tailored Surface War- emphasis. Serves as a ready-to-deploy certification fare Training. for individual surface ships tasked with surface warfare missions. Explosive ...... Integrated Live Fire Exer- Naval Forces defend against a swarm of surface E1, E3, E6, E10 ...... HRC (W188A) .... 7 cise. threats (ships or small boats) with bombs, missiles, SOCAL (SOAR) 7 rockets, and small-, medium- and large-caliber guns. Explosive ...... Missile Exercise Air-to- Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews fire air-to-surface E6, E8, E10 ...... HRC ...... 70 Surface. missiles at surface targets. SOCAL ...... 1,498 Explosive ...... Missile Exercise Air-to- Helicopter aircrews fire both precision-guided and E3 ...... HRC ...... 1,598 Surface Rocket. unguided rockets at surface targets. SOCAL ...... 1,722 Explosive ...... Missile Exercise Surface- Surface ship crews defend against surface threats E6, E10 ...... HRC (W188) ...... 140 to-Surface. (ships or small boats) and engage them with mis- SOCAL (W291) .. 70 siles. Explosive, Acous- Sinking Exercise ...... Aircraft, ship, and submarine crews deliberately sink TORP2, E5, E10, E12 ...... HRC ...... 21 tic. a seaborne target, usually a decommissioned ship SOCAL ...... 4 made environmentally safe for sinking according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards, with a variety of munitions. Pile driving ...... Elevated Causeway Sys- A pier is constructed off of the beach. Piles are driv- Impact hammer or vibra- SOCAL ...... 14 tem. en into the bottom with an impact hammer. Piles tory extractor. are removed from seabed via vibratory extractor. Only in-water impacts are analyzed.

Other Training Exercises

Acoustic ...... Kilo Dip ...... Functional check of the dipping sonar prior to con- MF4 ...... HRC ...... 420 ducting a full test or training event on the dipping SOCAL ...... 16,800 sonar. Acoustic ...... Submarine Navigation Ex- Submarine crews operate sonar for navigation and HF1, MF3 ...... Pearl Harbor, HI 1,540 ercise. object detection while transiting into and out of port San Diego Bay, 560 during reduced visibility. CA. Acoustic ...... Submarine Sonar Mainte- Maintenance of submarine sonar systems is con- MF3 ...... HRC ...... 1,820 nance and Systems ducted pierside or at sea. Pearl Harbor, HI 1,820 Checks. SOCAL ...... 651 San Diego Bay, 644 CA. HSTT Transit 70 Corridor.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:07 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41786 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1—TRAINING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued

7-year Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of events

Acoustic ...... Submarine Under-Ice Cer- Submarine crews train to operate under ice. Ice con- HF1 ...... HRC ...... 84 tification. ditions are simulated during training and certifi- SOCAL ...... 42 cation events. Acoustic ...... Surface Ship Sonar Main- Maintenance of surface ship sonar systems is con- HF8, MF1 ...... HRC ...... 525 tenance and Systems ducted pierside or at sea. Pearl Harbor, HI 560 Checks. SOCAL ...... 1,750 San Diego, CA ... 1,750 HSTT Transit 56 Corridor. . Acoustic ...... Unmanned Underwater Unmanned underwater vehicle certification involves FLS2, M3, SAS2 ...... HRC ...... 175 Vehicle Training—Cer- training with unmanned platforms to ensure sub- SOCAL ...... 70 tification and Develop- marine crew proficiency. Tactical development in- ment. volves training with various payloads for multiple purposes to ensure that the systems can be employed effectively in an operational environment. Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing, PMSR = Point Mugu Sea Range Overlap, TAR = Training Area and Range, SOAR = Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, IB = Imperial Beach Minefield. 1. Any non-antisubmarine warfare activity that could occur is captured in the individual activities. 2. For the Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface, all activities were analyzed using E12 explosive bin, but smaller explosives are frequently used.

Testing Activities planned testing activities here are based testing activities that could occur for the on the level of testing activities seven-year period are presented in The number of planned testing anticipated to be conducted into the Tables 2 through 5. activities that could occur annually and reasonably foreseeable future, with Naval Air Systems Command the duration of those activities are adjustments that account for changes in identical to those presented in Tables 5 the types and tempo (increases or The Naval Air Systems Command through 8 of the 2018 HSTT final rule, decreases) of testing activities to meet testing activities that could occur over and are not repeated here. Similar to the current and future military readiness the seven-year period within the HSTT 2017 Navy application, the Navy’s requirements. The number of planned Study Area are presented in Table 2. TABLE 2—NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

7-year Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of events

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Acoustic ...... Anti-Submarine Warfare Tor- This event is similar to the training event torpedo exer- MF5, TORP1 ...... HRC ...... 134 pedo Test. cise. Test evaluates anti-submarine warfare systems SOCAL .. 353 onboard rotary-wing and fixed-wing aircraft and the ability to search for, detect, classify, localize, track, and at- tack a submarine or similar target. Explosive, Anti-Submarine Warfare This event is similar to the training event anti-submarine MF4, MF5, E3 ...... SOCAL .. 414 Acoustic. Tracking Test–Helicopter. tracking exercise–helicopter. The test evaluates the sensors and systems used to detect and track submarines and to ensure that helicopter systems used to deploy the tracking systems perform to specifications. Explosive, Anti-Submarine Warfare The test evaluates the sensors and systems used by mar- ASW2, ASW5, MF5, MF6, HRC ...... 399 Acoustic. Tracking Test–Maritime itime patrol aircraft to detect and track submarines and E1, E3. SOCAL .. 436 Patrol Aircraft. to ensure that aircraft systems used to deploy the tracking systems perform to specifications and meet operational requirements. Explosive, Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance Sonobuoys are deployed from surface vessels and aircraft ASW2, ASW5, HF5, HF6, SOCAL .. 1,120 Acoustic. Test. to verify the integrity and performance of a lot or group LF4, MF5, MF6, E1, E3, of sonobuoys in advance of delivery to the fleet for E4. operational use.

Mine Warfare

Acoustic ...... Airborne Dipping Sonar A mine-hunting dipping sonar system that is deployed HF4 ...... SOCAL .. 24 Minehunting Test. from a helicopter and uses high-frequency sonar for the detection and classification of bottom and moored mines. Explosive ...... Airborne Mine Neutralization A test of the airborne mine neutralization system that E4 ...... SOCAL .. 117 System Test. evaluates the system’s ability to detect and destroy mines from an airborne mine countermeasures capable helicopter (e.g., MH–60). The airborne mine neutralization system uses up to four unmanned underwater vehicles equipped with high-frequency sonar, video cam- eras, and explosive and non-explosive neutralizers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41787

TABLE 2—NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued

7-year Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of events

Acoustic ...... Airborne Sonobuoy A mine-hunting system made up of sonobuoys deployed HF6 ...... SOCAL .. 33 Minehunting Test. from a helicopter. A field of sonobuoys, using high-frequency sonar, is used for detection and classification of bottom and moored mines.

Surface Warfare

Explosive ...... Air-to-Surface Bombing Test This event is similar to the training event bombing exer- E9 ...... HRC ...... 56 cise air-to-surface. Fixed-wing aircraft test the delivery SOCAL .. 98 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 Gunnery Test This event is similar to the training event gunnery exercise E1 ...... HRC ...... 35 air-to-surface. Fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircrews SOCAL .. 330 evaluate new or enhanced aircraft guns against surface maritime targets to test that the gun, gun ammunition, or associated systems meet required specifications or to train aircrew in the operation of a new or enhanced weapons system. Explosive ...... Air-to-Surface Missile Test ... This event is similar to the training event missile exercise E6, E9, E10 ...... HRC ...... 126 air-to-surface. Test may involve both fixed-wing and ro- SOCAL .. 384 tary-wing aircraft launching missiles at surface maritime targets to evaluate the weapons system or as part of another systems integration test. Explosive ...... Rocket Test ...... Rocket tests are conducted to evaluate the integration, E3 ...... HRC ...... 14 accuracy, performance, and safe separation of guided SOCAL .. 142 and unguided 2.75-inch rockets fired from a hovering or forward flying helicopter or tilt rotor aircraft.

Other Testing Activities

Acoustic ...... Kilo Dip ...... Functional check of a helicopter deployed dipping sonar MF4 ...... SOCAL .. 12 system (e.g., AN/AQS–22) prior to conducting a testing or training event using the dipping sonar system. Acoustic ...... Undersea Range System Post installation node survey and test and periodic testing MF9 ...... HRC ...... 129 Test. of range node transmit functionality. Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex.

Naval Sea Systems Command the seven-year period within the HSTT The Naval Sea Systems Command Study Area are presented in Table 3. testing activities that could occur over TABLE 3—NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

7-year Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of events

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Acoustic ...... Anti-Submarine Warfare Ships and their supporting platforms (e.g., rotary- ASW1, ASW2, ASW3, HRC ...... 154 Mission Package Test- wing aircraft and unmanned aerial systems) detect, ASW5, MF1, MF4, MF5, SOCAL ...... 161 ing. localize, and prosecute submarines. MF12, TORP1. Acoustic ...... At-Sea Sonar Testing ...... At-sea testing to ensure systems are fully functional ASW3, ASW4, HF1, LF4, HRC ...... 109 in an open ocean environment. LF5, M3, MF1, MF1K, HRC—SOCAL .... 7 MF2, MF3, MF5, MF9, SOCAL ...... 138 MF10, MF11. Acoustic ...... Countermeasure Testing .. Countermeasure testing involves the testing of sys- ASW3, ASW4, HF5, HRC ...... 56 tems that will detect, localize, and track incoming TORP1, TORP2. HRC—SOCAL .... 28 weapons, including marine vessel targets. Testing SOCAL ...... 77 includes surface ship torpedo defense systems and HSTT Transit 14 marine vessel stopping payloads. Corridor. Acoustic ...... Pierside Sonar Testing ..... Pierside testing to ensure systems are fully functional HF1, HF3, HF8, M3, MF1, Pearl Harbor, HI 49 in a controlled pierside environment prior to at-sea MF3, MF9. San Diego, CA ... 49 test activities. Acoustic ...... Submarine Sonar Testing/ Pierside and at-sea testing of submarine systems oc- HF1, HF3, M3, MF3 ...... HRC ...... 28 Maintenance. curs periodically following major maintenance peri- Pearl Harbor, HI 119 ods and for routine maintenance. San Diego, CA ... 168 Acoustic ...... Surface Ship Sonar Test- Pierside and at-sea testing of ship systems occurs ASW3, MF1, MF1K, MF9, HRC ...... 21 ing/Maintenance. periodically following major maintenance periods MF10. Pearl Harbor, HI 21 and for routine maintenance. San Diego, CA ... 21 SOCAL ...... 21

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41788 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 3—NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued

7-year Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of events

Explosive, Acous- Torpedo (Explosive) Test- Air, surface, or submarine crews employ explosive ASW3, HF1, HF5, HF6, HRC (W188) ...... 56 tic. ing. and non-explosive torpedoes against artificial tar- MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, HRC (W188) 21 gets. MF6, TORP1, TORP2, SOCAL. E8, E11. SOCAL ...... 56 Acoustic ...... Torpedo (Non-Explosive) Air, surface, or submarine crews employ non-explo- ASW3, ASW4, HF1, HF6, HRC ...... 56 Testing. sive torpedoes against submarines or surface ves- M3, MF1, MF3, MF4, HRC SOCAL ...... 63 sels. MF5, MF6, TORP1, SOCAL ...... 56 TORP2, TORP3.

Mine Warfare

Explosive, Acous- Mine Countermeasure and Air, surface, and subsurface vessels neutralize threat HF4, E4 ...... SOCAL ...... 70 tic. Neutralization Testing. mines and mine-like objects. Explosive, Acous- Mine Countermeasure Vessels and associated aircraft conduct mine coun- HF4, SAS2, E4 ...... HRC ...... 118 tic. Mission Package Test- termeasure operations. SOCAL ...... 406 ing. Acoustic ...... Mine Detection and Clas- Air, surface, and subsurface vessels detect and clas- HF1, HF8, MF1, MF5 ...... HRC ...... 14 sification Testing. sify mines and mine-like objects. Vessels also as- HRC SOCAL ...... 10 sess their potential susceptibility to mines and SOCAL ...... 77 mine-like objects.

Surface Warfare

Explosive ...... Gun Testing—Large-Cal- Surface crews defend against surface targets with E3 ...... HRC ...... 49 iber. large-caliber guns. HRC—SOCAL .... 504 SOCAL ...... 49 Explosive ...... Gun Testing—Medium- Surface crews defend against surface targets with E1 ...... HRC ...... 28 Caliber. medium-caliber guns. HRC—SOCAL .... 336 SOCAL ...... 28 Explosive ...... Missile and Rocket Test- Missile and rocket testing includes various missiles or E6 ...... HRC ...... 91 ing. rockets fired from submarines and surface combat- HRC—SOCAL .... 168 ants. Testing of the launching system and ship de- SOCAL ...... 140 fense is performed.

Unmanned Systems

Acoustic ...... Unmanned Surface Vehi- Testing involves the production or upgrade of un- HF4, SAS2 ...... HRC ...... 21 cle System Testing. manned surface vehicles. This may include tests of SOCAL ...... 28 mine detection capabilities, evaluations of the basic functions of individual platforms, or complex events with multiple vehicles. Acoustic ...... Unmanned Underwater Testing involves the production or upgrade of un- HF4, MF9 ...... HRC ...... 21 Vehicle Testing. manned underwater vehicles. This may include SOCAL ...... 2,037 tests of mine detection capabilities, evaluations of the basic functions of individual platforms, or complex events with multiple vehicles.

Vessel Evaluation

Acoustic ...... Submarine Sea Trials— Submarine weapons and sonar systems are tested HF1, M3, MF3, MF9, HRC ...... 7 Weapons System Test- at-sea to meet the integrated combat system cer- MF10, TORP2. SOCAL ...... 7 ing. tification requirements. Explosive ...... Surface Warfare Testing .. Tests the capabilities of shipboard sensors to detect, E1, E5, E8 ...... HRC ...... 63 track, and engage surface targets. Testing may in- HRC—SOCAL .... 441 clude ships defending against surface targets using SOCAL ...... 102 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 Testing Ships demonstrate capability of countermeasure sys- ASW4, HF4, HF8, MF1, HRC ...... 49 tems and underwater surveillance, weapons en- MF4, MF5, MF6, HRC SOCAL\ ..... 60 gagement, and communications systems. This TORP1, TORP2. SOCAL ...... 69 tests ships ability to detect, track, and engage undersea targets. Acoustic ...... Vessel Signature Evalua- Surface ship, submarine and auxiliary system signa- ASW3 ...... HRC ...... 28 tion. ture assessments. This may include electronic, HRC SOCAL ...... 252 radar, acoustic, infrared and magnetic signatures. SOCAL ...... 168

Other Testing Activities

Acoustic ...... Insertion/Extraction ...... Testing of submersibles capable of inserting and ex- M3, MF9 ...... HRC ...... 7 tracting personnel and payloads into denied areas SOCAL ...... 7 from strategic distances. Acoustic ...... Signature Analysis Oper- Surface ship and submarine testing of electro- HF1, M3, MF9 ...... HRC ...... 14 ations. magnetic, acoustic, optical, and radar signature SOCAL ...... 7 measurements. Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing, CA = California, HI = Hawaii.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41789

Office of Naval Research seven-year period within the HSTT The Office of Naval Research testing Study Area are presented in Table 4. activities that could occur over the TABLE 4—OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

7-year Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of events

Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology

Explosive, Acous- Acoustic and Oceano- Research using active transmissions from sources AG, ASW2, BB4, BB9, HRC ...... 14 tic. graphic Research. deployed from ships and unmanned underwater LF3, LF4, LF5, MF8, SOCAL ...... 28 vehicles. Research sources can be used as prox- MF9, MF9, MF9, E3. ies for current and future Navy systems. Acoustic ...... Long Range Acoustic Bottom mounted acoustic source off of the Hawaiian LF4 ...... HRC ...... 21 Communications. Island of Kauai will transmit a variety of acoustic communications sequences. Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex.

Naval Information Warfare Systems could occur over the seven-year period Command within the HSTT Study Area are The Naval Information Warfare presented in Table 5. Systems Command testing activities that TABLE 5—NAVAL INFORMATION WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

7-year Stressor category Activity name Description Source bin Location number of events

Acoustic ...... Anti-Terrorism/Force Pro- Testing sensor systems that can detect threats to SD1 ...... San Diego, CA ... 98 tection. naval piers, ships, and shore infrastructure. SOCAL ...... 112 Acoustic ...... Communications ...... Testing of underwater communications and networks ASW2, ASW5, HF6, LF4 .. HRC ...... 5 to extend the principles of FORCEnet below the SOCAL ...... 70 ocean surface. Acoustic ...... Energy and Intelligence, Develop, integrate, and demonstrate Intelligence, AG, HF2, HF7, LF4, LF5, HRC ...... 87 Surveillance, and Re- Surveillance, and Reconnaissance systems and in- LF6, MF10. SOCAL ...... 357 connaissance Sensor situ energy systems to support deployed systems. HSTT Transit 56 Systems. Corridor. Acoustic ...... Vehicle Testing ...... Testing of surface and subsurface vehicles and sen- BB4, FLS2, FLS3, HF6, HRC ...... 8 sor systems that may involve Unmanned Under- LF3, M3, MF9, MF13, SOCAL ...... 1,141 water Vehicles, gliders, and Unmanned Surface SAS1, SAS2, SAS3. HSTT Transit 14 Vehicles. Corridor. Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing, CA = California.

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

TABLE 6—ACOUSTIC SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Training Testing Source class category Bin Description Unit 1 7-year total 7-year total

Low-Frequency (LF): Sources that produce LF3 ...... LF sources greater than 200 dB ...... H .... 0 1,365 signals less than 1 kHz.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41790 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 6—ACOUSTIC SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued

Training Testing Source class category Bin Description Unit 1 7-year total 7-year total

LF4 ...... LF sources equal to 180 dB and up to 200 H .... 0 4,496 dB. C .... 0 140 LF5 ...... LF sources less than 180 dB ...... H .... 65 14,458 LF6 ...... LF sources greater than 200 dB with long H .... 956 360 pulse lengths. Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tac- MF1 ...... Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/ H .... 38,489 8,692 tical sources that produce signals be- SQS–53C and AN/SQS–61). tween 1 and 10 kHz. MF1K ..... Kingfisher mode associated with MF1 so- H .... 700 98 nars. MF2 2 ..... Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/ H .... 0 378 SQS–56). MF3 ...... Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/ H .... 14,700 9,177 BQQ–10). MF4 ...... Helicopter-deployed dipping sonars (e.g., H .... 2,719 2,502 AN/AQS–22 and AN/AQS–13). MF5 ...... Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g., DICASS) C .... 40,128 38,233 MF6 ...... Active underwater sound signal devices C .... 63 8,202 (e.g., MK 84). MF8 ...... Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not H .... 0 490 otherwise binned. MF9 ...... Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to H .... 0 36,056 200 dB) not otherwise binned. MF10 ...... Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but H .... 0 13,104 less than 180 dB) not otherwise binned. MF11 ...... Hull-mounted surface ship sonars with an H .... 5,205 392 active duty cycle greater than 80%. MF12 ...... Towed array surface ship sonars with an H .... 1,260 4,620 active duty cycle greater than 80%. MF13 ...... MF sonar source ...... H .... 0 2,100 High-Frequency (HF): Tactical and non-tac- HF1 ...... Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/ H .... 12,550 5,403 tical sources that produce signals be- BQQ–10). tween 10 and 100 kHz. HF2 ...... HF Marine Mammal Monitoring System ...... H .... 0 840 HF3 ...... Other hull-mounted submarine sonars H .... 1,919 769 (classified). HF4 ...... Mine detection, classification, and neutral- H .... 15,012 114,069 ization sonar (e.g., AN/SQS–20). HF5 ...... Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not H .... 0 6,720 otherwise binned. C .... 0 280 HF6 ...... Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to H .... 0 7,015 200 dB) not otherwise binned. HF7 ...... Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but H .... 0 9,660 less than 180 dB) not otherwise binned. HF8 ...... Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/ H .... 711 5,136 SQS–61). Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical ASW1 ..... MF systems operating above 200 dB ...... H .... 1,503 3,290 sources (e.g., active sonobuoys and acoustic countermeasures systems) used during ASW training and testing activities. ASW2 ..... MF Multistatic Active Coherent sonobuoy C .... 4,824 32,900 (e.g., AN/SSQ–125). ASW3 ..... MF towed active acoustic countermeasure H .... 37,385 19,187 systems (e.g., AN/SLQ–25). ASW4 ..... MF expendable active acoustic device C .... 9,023 15,398 countermeasures (e.g., MK 3). ASW5 3 .. MF sonobuoys with high duty cycles ...... H .... 1,780 3,854 Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes associ- TORP1 ... Lightweight torpedo (e.g., MK 46, MK 54, C .... 1,605 6,454 ated with the active acoustic signals pro- or Anti-Torpedo Torpedo). duced by torpedoes. TORP2 ... Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK 48) ...... C .... 3,515 2,756 TORP3 ... C .... 0 315 Forward Looking Sonar (FLS): Forward or FLS2 ...... HF sources with short pulse lengths, nar- H .... 196 3,424 upward looking object avoidance sonars row beam widths, and focused beam pat- used for ship navigation and safety. terns. FLS3 ...... VHF sources with short pulse lengths, nar- H .... 0 18,480 row beam widths, and focused beam patterns.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41791

TABLE 6—ACOUSTIC SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued

Training Testing Source class category Bin Description Unit 1 7-year total 7-year total

Acoustic Modems (M): Systems used to M3 ...... MF acoustic modems (greater than 190 dB) H .... 274 3,623 transmit data through the water. Swimmer Detection Sonars (SD): Systems SD1–SD2 HF and VHF sources with short pulse H .... 0 70 used to detect divers and submerged lengths, used for the detection of swim- swimmers. mers and other objects for the purpose of port security. Synthetic Aperture Sonars (SAS): Sonars in SAS1 ...... MF SAS systems ...... H .... 0 13,720 which active acoustic signals are post- processed to form high-resolution images of the seafloor. SAS2 ...... HF SAS systems ...... H .... 6,297 60,088 SAS3 ...... VHF SAS systems ...... H .... 0 32,200 SAS4 ...... MF to HF broadband mine countermeasure H .... 294 0 sonar. Broadband Sound Sources (BB): Sonar BB4 ...... LF to MF oceanographic source ...... H .... 0 6,414 systems with large frequency spectra, used for various purposes. BB7 ...... LF oceanographic source ...... C .... 0 196 BB9 ...... MF optoacoustic source ...... H .... 0 3,360 1 H = hours; C = count (e.g., number of individual pings or individual sonobuoys). 2 MF2/MF2K are sources on frigate class ships, which were decommissioned during Phase II. 3 Formerly ASW2 (H) in Phase II. Notes: dB = decibel(s), kHz = kilohertz, VHF = very high frequency.

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

TABLE 7—TRAINING AND TESTING AIR GUN SOURCES QUANTITATIVELY ANALYZED IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Training Testing Source class category Bin Unit 1 7-year total 7-year total

Air Guns (AG): Small underwater air guns ...... AG ...... C ...... 0 5,908 1 C = count. One count (C) of AG is equivalent to 100 air gun firings.

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

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES PER 24-HOUR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Total estimated Piles per Time per pile time of noise Method 24-hour period (minutes) per 24-hour period (minutes)

Pile Driving (Impact) ...... 6 15 90 Pile Removal (Vibratory) ...... 12 6 72

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:50 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41792 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 9—EXPLOSIVE SOURCE BINS ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED FOR SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Modeled Training Testing Net underwater Bin explosive Example explosive source detonation weight (lb.) 1 depths 7-year total 7-year total (ft.)

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

Vessel Movement dispersed throughout the HSTT Study the safety of personnel and equipment Area, but would typically be conducted and to ensure the success of training Vessels used as part of the planned near naval ports, piers, and range areas. and testing activities, their activities include ships, submarines, Navy vessel traffic will be especially implementation often yields additional unmanned vessels, and boats ranging in concentrated near San Diego, California benefits on environmental, size from small, 22 ft (7 m) rigid hull and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. There is no socioeconomic, public health and inflatable boats to aircraft carriers with seasonal differentiation in Navy vessel safety, and cultural resources. Because lengths up to 1,092 ft (333 m). The use because of continual operational standard operating procedures are average speed of large Navy ships ranges requirements from Combatant essential to safety and mission success, between 10 and 15 knots and Commanders. The majority of large the Navy considers them to be part of submarines generally operate at speeds vessel traffic occurs between the the planned activities and included in the range of 8–13 knots (kn), while installations and the OPAREAs. Support them in the environmental analysis. a few specialized vessels can travel at craft will be more concentrated in the Details on standard operating faster speeds. Small craft (for purposes coastal waters in the areas of naval procedures were provided in the 2018 of this analysis, less than 18 m in installations, ports, and ranges. HSTT proposed rule; please see the length) have much more variable speeds Activities involving vessel movements 2018 HSTT proposed rule, the 2017 (0–50+ kn, dependent on the activity), occur intermittently and are variable in Navy application, and Chapter 2 but generally range from 10 to 14 kn. duration, ranging from a few hours up (Description of Proposed Action and From unpublished Navy data, average to weeks. Alternatives) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ median speed for large Navy ships in The manner in which Navy vessels OEIS for more information. The the HSTT Study Area from 2011–2015 will be used during training and testing Standard Operating Procedures for the varied from 5–10 kn with variations by activities, the speeds at which they seven-year period will be identical to ship class and location (i.e., slower operate, the number of vessels that will those in place under the 2018 HSTT speeds close to the coast). While these be used during various activities, and final rule. speeds for large and small craft are the locations in which Navy vessel Comments and Responses representative of most events, some movement will be concentrated within vessels need to temporarily operate the HSTT Study Area have not changed On May 8, 2019, we published a outside of these parameters. A full from those analyzed in the 2018 HSTT notice of receipt (NOR) in the Federal description of Navy vessels that are final rule. The only change related to Register (84 FR 20105) for the Navy’s used during training and testing the Navy’s request regarding Navy application to effectively extend the activities can be found in the 2017 Navy vessel movement is the vessel use five-year 2018 HSTT regulations to application and Chapter 2 (Description associated with the additional two years seven years, and requested comments of Proposed Action and Alternatives) of of Navy activities. and information related to the Navy’s the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. request. The review and comment The number of Navy vessels used in Standard Operating Procedures period for the NOR ended on June 7, the HSTT Study Area varies based on For training and testing to be 2019. We reviewed and considered all military training and testing effective, personnel must be able to comments and information received on requirements, deployment schedules, safely use their sensors and weapon the NOR in development of the annual budgets, and other dynamic systems as they are intended to be used proposed rule. We published the factors. Most training and testing in a real-world situation and to their proposed seven-year rule for the Navy’s activities involve the use of vessels. optimum capabilities. While standard HSTT activities in the Federal Register These activities could be widely operating procedures are designed for on September 13, 2019 (83 FR 48388),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41793

with a 30-day comment period. In that (e.g., comments related to sea turtles) or Impact Analysis proposed rule, we requested public species or stocks that do not occur in General input on the request for authorization the HSTT Study Area (e.g., Southern described therein, our analyses, and the Resident Killer whales). Comment 3: In a comment on the proposed authorizations and requested 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter that interested persons submit relevant General Comments recommended that the Navy provide NMFS with an acoustics analysis that information, suggestions, and The majority of the 18 comment comments. During the 30-day comment addresses noise impacts on land, from letters received on the 2018 HSTT the air, and underwater. Full period, we received 30 comment letters. proposed rule and 27 comment letters Of this total, one submission was from environmental analysis of the noise received on the 2019 HSTT proposed the Marine Mammal Commission would examine a suite of metrics rule from private citizens expressed (hereafter ‘‘Commission’’), two letters appropriate to the array of resources general opposition toward the Navy’s were from organizations or individuals impacted. The impacts should discuss acting in an official capacity (e.g., non- proposed training and testing activities potential effects on wildlife, visitors, governmental organizations (NGOs)) and requested that NMFS not issue the and other noise-sensitive receivers. and 27 submissions were from private LOAs while one comment on the 2019 The commenter also recommended citizens. Both the Commission and HSTT proposed rule expressed general that the Navy consider the following as NGOs included their comments support, with none of these general it plans to conduct activities in the commenters providing information HSTT Study Area: submitted on the 2018 HSTT proposed • five-year rule, which the seven-year rule relevant to NMFS’ decisions. Therefore, Use appropriate metrics to assess here is nearly identical to. The these comments were not considered potential environmental impacts on further. The remaining comments are land and water. Commission did not reiterate their 2018 • HSTT proposed rule recommendations addressed below. Determine natural ambient acoustic in their comment letter but maintained conditions as a baseline for analysis. Comment 1: Some commenters • Assess effects from cumulative that the recommendations that NMFS expressed concern with issuing LOAs noise output, incorporating noise did not incorporate into the 2018 HSTT for seven years. generated from other anthropogenic final rule are still relevant and pertain Response: Under section 101(a)(5)(A) sources. to the extension of the five-year rule and • Determine distance at which noise asked that they be reviewed again in the of the MMPA, applicants may apply for the incidental take coverage that they will attenuate to natural levels. course of considering the new seven- • need for their activities and NMFS Assess effects that these noise levels year rule. One letter from NGOs would have on terrestrial wildlife, attached their 2018 HSTT proposed rule ‘‘shall issue’’ the requested authorizations provided certain findings marine wildlife, and visitors. comment letter. They stated that ‘‘most • Appropriate and effective (see the Background section) can be of the issues raised [in their 2018 HSTT mitigation measures should be made. In August 2018, Congress proposed rule comment letter] were not developed and used to reduce vessel amended the MMPA through the NDAA adequately addressed in the 2018–2023 strike (e.g., timing activities to avoid Final Rule’’ and asked that NMFS renew for Fiscal Year 2019 to allow for seven- migration, and searching for marine consideration of their prior comments. year authorizations for military mammals before and during activities To the extent they raised concerns with readiness activities, as compared to the and taking avoidance measures). how ‘‘most’’ issues were addressed previously allowed five years. Response: The analysis conducted by previously, they did not identify which Following the statutory amendment, the the Navy and provided to NMFS was issues those were. The second letter Navy applied for longer term coverage based on the best available science and from NGOs also attached their for its testing and training activities in provided NMFS with all information comments on the 2018 HSTT proposed the HSTT Study Area, and with NMFS needed to conduct a complete and rule and the Notice of Receipt of the making the required findings through thorough analysis of the effects of Navy 2017 Navy application. this rulemaking, issuance of regulations activities on affected marine mammals NMFS has reviewed and considered and LOAs for the longer period is and their habitat. In addition, NMFS all public comments received on the appropriate. refers the Commenter to the 2018 HSTT 2019 HSTT proposed rule and issuance Comment 2: Several Commenters FEIS/OEIS which conducted an of the LOAs. In considering the expressed concern and the need for assessment of all of the activities which comments received we realized that our increased reporting and assessment of comprised the proposed action and their responses to some of the comments on impacts due to impacts of climate impacts (including cumulative impacts) the 2018 HSTT proposed rule could change on marine mammal populations. along with alternatives to the proposed benefit from additional detail and/or action and their impacts to relevant clarification. Accordingly, we are Response: We note that the Navy is resources. In the context of this MMPA republishing the responses to comments required to provide annual reports to rule, the Navy was not required to do received on the 2018 HSTT proposed NMFS and the Adaptive Management ambient noise monitoring or assess rule, some of which have been updated, process allows for timely modification impacts to wildlife other than marine along with providing our responses to of mitigation or monitoring measures mammals or to visitors/tourists. The new comments on the 2019 proposed based on new information, when mitigation measures in this rule include rule. Therefore, all relevant comments appropriate (see the Mitigation procedural measures to use trained received on both the 2018 and 2019 Measures and Monitoring sections for Lookouts to observe for marine HSTT proposed rules and our responses additional detail). The reporting mammals within a mitigation zone are presented below. We provide no requirements included in this final rule before, during, and after applicable response to specific comments that are consistent with NMFS’ regulations activities to avoid or reduce potential addressed species or statutes not and the goals of the monitoring and impacts wherever and whenever relevant to our proposed authorization reporting program, as discussed in the training and testing activities occur. under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA 2018 HSTT final rule. Additionally, the Navy will implement

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41794 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

measures within mitigation areas to resources (e.g., computational and uncertainty for an abundance when the avoid potential impacts in key areas of storage requirements). This would authors of the cited studies and the SAR importance for marine mammal divert these resources from conducting have not. For additional information foraging, reproduction, and migration. other more consequential analysis regarding use of pinniped density data, The mitigation measures in this rule without providing for meaningfully see the cited ‘‘U.S. Navy Marine Species also include procedural measures to improved data. The Navy has Density Database Phase III for the minimize vessel strike (avoiding whales communicated that it is continually Hawaii-Southern California Training by 500 yds, etc.), mitigation areas to looking at ways to improve NAEMO and and Testing Study Area’’ Section 11 minimize strike in biologically reduce data and computational (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b). important areas, and Awareness requirements. As technologies and As a result of the lack of published Notification Message areas wherein all computational efficiencies improve, the applicable measures of uncertainty for vessels are alerted to stay vigilant to the Navy will evaluate these advances and pinnipeds during this analysis, the Navy presence of large whales. incorporate them where appropriate. did not incorporate measures of NMFS has reviewed the Navy’s Density Estimates uncertainty into the pinniped density approach and concurs that it is estimates. NMFS independently Comment 4: In a comment on the technically sound and reflects the best reviewed the methods and densities 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter available science. used by the Navy and concur that they stated that 30 iterations or Monte Carlo Comment 5: In a comment on the are appropriate and reflect the best simulations is low for general 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter available science. bootstrapping methods used in those had concerns regarding the Navy’s Comment 6: In a comment on the models but understands that increasing pinniped density estimates. Given that a 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter the number of iterations in turn single density was provided for the had concerns regarding the various increases the computational time respective areas and pinnipeds were areas, abundance estimates, and needed to run the models. Accordingly, assumed to occur at sea as individual correction factors that the Navy used for the Commenter suggested that the Navy animals, uncertainty does not appear to pinnipeds. The Commenter referenced a consider increasing the iterations from have been incorporated in the Navy’s lot of information in the context of both 30 to at least 200 for activities that have animat modeling for pinnipeds. The what the Navy used and what the yet to be modeled for upcoming MMPA Navy primarily used sightings or Commenter argued they could have rulemakings for Navy testing and abundance data, assuming certain used instead and summarized the training activities. correction factors, divided by an area to discussion with several Response: In areas where there are estimate pinniped densities. Many, if recommendations. four seasons, 30 iterations are used in not all, of the abundance estimates had NAEMO which results in a total of 120 associated measures of uncertainty (i.e., For harbor seals, the area was based iterations per year for each event. coefficients of variation (CV), standard on the NMFS SOCAL stratum However, in areas where there are only deviation (SD), or standard error (SE)). (extending to the extent of the U.S. two seasons, warm and cold, the Therefore, the Commenter exclusive economic zone (EEZ), 370 km number of iterations per season is recommended that NMFS require the from the coast) for its vessel-based increased to 60 so that 120 iterations per Navy to specify whether and how it surveys (i.e., Barlow 2010) and the Navy year are maintained. The Navy reached incorporated uncertainty in the applied the density estimates from the this number of iterations by running two pinniped density estimates into its coast to 80 km offshore. The Commenter iterations of a scenario and calculating animat modeling and if it did not, believes that this approach is the mean of exposures, then running a require the Navy to use measures of inappropriate and that the Navy should third iteration and calculating the uncertainty inherent in the abundance use the area of occurrence to estimate running mean of exposures, then a data (i.e., CV, SD, SE) similar to the the densities for harbor seals. For harbor fourth iteration and so on. This is done methods used for cetaceans. seals, the Navy assumed that 22 percent until the running mean becomes stable. Response: As noted in the cited of the stock occurred in SOCAL, citing Through this approach, it was technical report ‘‘Quantifying Acoustic Department of the Navy (2015). The determined 120 iterations was sufficient Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea Commenter had two concerns with this to converge to a statistically valid Turtles: Methods and Analytical approach. First, one has to go to answer and provides a reasonable Approach for Phase III Training and Department of the Navy (2015) to uniformity of exposure predictions for Testing’’ (U.S. Department of the Navy, determine the original source of the most species and areas. There are a few 2018), the Navy did not apply statistical information (Lowry et al., 2008; see the exceptions for species with sparsely uncertainty outside the survey commenter’s February 20, 2014, letter populated distributions or highly boundaries into non-surveyed areas, on this matter). Second, Lowry et al. variable distributions. In these cases, the since it deemed application of statistical (2008) indicated that 23.3 percent of the running mean may not flatten out (or uncertainty would not be meaningful or harbor seal population occurred in become stable); however, there were so appropriate. We note that there are no SOCAL, not 22 percent as used by the few exposures in these cases that while measures of uncertainty (i.e., no CV, SD, Navy. Therefore, the Commenter the mean may fluctuate, the overall or SE) provided in NMFS Pacific Stock recommended that, at the very least, number of exposures did not result in Assessment Report (SAR) Appendix 3 NMFS require the Navy to revise the significant differences in the totals. In (Carretta et al., 2019) associated with the pinniped density estimates using the total, the number of simulations abundance data for any of the pinniped extent of the coastal range (e.g., from conducted for HSTT Phase III exceeded species present in Southern California. shore to 80 km offshore) of harbor seals six million simulations and produced Although some measures of uncertainty as the applicable area, 23.3 percent of hundreds of terabytes of data. Increasing are presented in some citations within the California abundance estimate based the number of iterations, based on the the SAR and in other relevant on Lowry et al. (2008), and an at-sea discussion above, would not result in a publications for some survey findings, it correction factor of 65 percent based on significant change in the results, but is not appropriate for the Navy to Harvey and Goley (2011) for both would incur a significant increase in attempt to derive summations of total seasons.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41795

For monk seals the area was based on Response: The Navy provided Harvey, 2005), the extent of the range the areas within the 200-m isobaths in additional clarification regarding the for harbor seals in the HSTT Study Area both the Main and Northwest Hawaiian referenced concerns about areas, used by the Navy (a 50 Nmi buffer Islands (MHI and NWHI, respectively) abundance estimates, and correction around all known haul-out sites; and areas beyond the 200-m isobaths in factors that were used for pinnipeds. We approximately 93 km) is more the U.S. EEZ. The Commenter asserted note that take estimation is not an exact appropriate than the suggested 80 km that some of the abundances used were science. There are many inputs that go offshore suggested by Commenter. not based on best available science. The into an estimate of marine mammal The comment is incorrect in its claim Navy noted that its monk seal exposure, and the data upon which that the NMFS and Navy did not use the abundance was less than that reported those inputs are based come with best available science. Regarding the by Baker et al. (2016), but that those varying levels of uncertainty and appropriate percentage of the California more recent data were not available precision. Also, differences in life Current Ecosystem abundance to assign when the Navy’s modeling process histories, behaviors, and distributions of to the HSTT Study Area, the 22 percent began. The Baker et al. (2016) data have stocks can support different decisions that the Navy used is based on the most been available for almost two years and regarding methods in different recent of the two years provided in should have been incorporated situations. Different methods may be Lowry et al. (2008) rather than the mean accordingly, particularly since the data supportable in different situations, and, of two years, which is one valid would yield greater densities and the further, there may be more than one approach. Additionally, since species is endangered. For monk seals, acceptable method to estimate take in a approximately 74 percent of the harbor the Commenter recommended using the particular situation. Accordingly, while seal population in the Channel Islands 2015 monk seal abundance estimate NMFS always ensures that the methods (Lowry et al., 2017) is present outside from Baker et al. (2016) and an at-sea are technically supportable and reflect and to the north of the HSTT Study correction factor of 63 percent for the the best available science, NMFS does Area, it is a reasonable assumption that MHI based on Baker et al. (2016) and 69 not prescribe any one method for the 22 percent used already provides a percent for the NWHI based on Harting estimating take (or calculating some of conservative overestimate and that it et al. (2017). the specific take estimate components would not be appropriate to apply a For the northern fur seals, the area that the Commenter is concerned about). higher percentage of the overall was based on the NMFS SOCAL stratum NMFS reviewed the areas, abundances, population for distribution into the (extending to the extent of the U.S. EEZ, and correction factors used by the Navy Navy’s modeling areas. Again, the comment is incorrect in its 370 km from the coast) for its vessel- to estimate take and concurs that they claim that the correction factors applied based surveys (i.e., Barlow, 2010). For are appropriate. We note the following to population estimates were either elephant seals, California sea lions, and in further support of the analysis: while unsubstantiated or incorrect. Regarding some of the suggestions the Commenter Guadalupe fur seals, the area was based the Commenter’s recommended use of makes could provide alternate valid on the Navy SOCAL modeling area. The an at-sea correction factor of 65 percent ways to conduct the analyses, these Commenter had concerns that these for both seasons based on Harvey and modifications are not required in order areas are not based on the biology or Goley (2011), that correction factor was to have equally valid and supportable ecology of these species. The specifically meant to apply to the single analyses and, further, would not change Commenter recommended using the molting season when harbor seals are NMFS’ determinations for pinnipeds. In same representative area for elephant traditionally surveyed (see discussion in addition, we note that (1) many of the seals, northern fur seals, Guadalupe fur Lowry et al., 2017). Additionally, the seals, and California sea lions. specific recommendations that the authors of that study provided a The Commenter recommended using Commenter makes are largely minor in correction factor (CF = 2.86; 35 percent) an increasing trend of 3.8 percent nature: ‘‘44 not 47 percent,’’ ‘‘63 not 61 for Southern California but left open the annually for the last 15 years for percent,’’ ‘‘23.3 not 22 percent’’ or ‘‘area appropriateness of that factor given the elephant seals as part of the California being approximately 13 percent larger;’’ limited data available at the time. For population and at least 31,000 as and (2) even where the recommendation these reasons, having separate representative of the Mexico population is somewhat larger in scale, given the correction factors for each of the seasons based on Lowry et al. (2014). ranges of these stocks, the size of the is more appropriate as detailed in Additionally, the commenter stocks, and the number and nature of Section 11.1.5 (Phoca vitulina, Pacific recommended using an at-sea correction pinniped takes, recalculating the harbor seal) of the ‘‘U.S. Navy Marine factor of 44 percent for the cold season estimated take for any of these pinniped Species Density Database Phase III for and 48 percent for the warm season for stocks using the Commenter’s the Hawaii-Southern California Training California sea lions based on Lowry and recommended changes would not and Testing Study Area’’ (U.S. Forney (2005). change NMFS’ assessment of impacts on Department of the Navy, 2017b). Finally, the Commenter the recruitment or survival of any of For monk seals, as detailed in Section recommended that NMFS require the these stocks, or the negligible impact 11.1.4 (Neomonachus schauinslandi, Navy to (1) specify the assumptions determination. Below, we address the Hawaiian monk seal) of the ‘‘U.S. Navy made and the underlying data that were Commenter’s issues in more detail and, Marine Species Density Database Phase used for the at-sea correction factors for while we do not explicitly note it in III for the Hawaii-Southern California Guadalupe and northern fur seals and every section, NMFS has reviewed the Training and Testing Study Area’’ (U.S. (2) consult with experts in academia Navy’s analysis and choices in relation Department of the Navy, 2017b), the and at the NMFS Science Centers to to these comments and concurs that Navy consulted with the researchers develop more refined pinniped density they are technically sound and reflect and subject matter experts at the Pacific estimates that account for pinniped the best available science. Science Center and the Monk Seal movements, distribution, at-sea For harbor seals—Based on the results Recovery Team regarding the abundance correction factors, and density gradients from satellite tracking of harbor seals at estimates, at sea correction factors, and associated with proximity to haul-out Monterey, California and the distribution for monk seals in the sites or rookeries. documented dive depths (Eguchi and Hawaiian Islands during development

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41796 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS throughout these species and based on those California Bight (SCB) and in Mexico, 2015 and the Summer of 2016, and as consultations and the literature . . .’’ Given the waters of the Southern used subsequently in its MMPA available, the Navy and NMFS believe California Bight and off Mexico overlap application. The Navy incorporated the that the findings presented in the 2018 the HSTT Study Area and since the results of those consultations, including HSTT FEIS/OEIS and supporting authors of the cited study specifically unpublished data, into the analysis of technical reports provide the most recommended not using the correction monk seals. Additional details in this accurate assessments available for these factor in the manner the Commenter regard to monk seal distributions and species. Given the demonstrated suggested, the Navy does not believe use population trends as reflected by the differences in the at-sea distributions of of that correction factor for the HSTT abundance in the Hawaiian Islands are elephant seals, northern fur seals, Study Area would be appropriate. presented in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS Guadalupe fur seals, and California sea NMFS concurs with this approach. in Section 3.7.2.2.9.2 (Habitat and lions (Gearin et al., 2017; Lowry et al., For Guadalupe fur seal—Additional Geographic Range) and Section 2014; Lowry, et al., 2017; Norris, 2017; detail regarding the data used for the 3.7.2.2.9.3 (Population Trends). The Norris, et al., 2015; Robinson et al., analysis of Guadalupe fur seals was Navy has indicated that it has continued 2012; University of California Santa added to the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS ongoing communications with Cruz and National Marine Fisheries Section 3.7.2.2.8 (Arctocephalus researchers at the Pacific Islands Service, 2016), it would not be townsendi, Guadalupe Fur Seal). The Science Center and elsewhere, has appropriate to use the same Navy had integrated the latest accounted for the findings in the representative area for distributions of (September 2017) unpublished data for citations noted by the Commenter these species’ population abundances. Guadalupe fur seals from researchers in (Baker et al., 2016; Harting et al., 2017) For example, California sea lions forage the United States and Mexico into the as well as information in forthcoming predominantly within 20 nmi from at-sea correction factor and density publications provided ahead of shore (Lowry and Forney, 2005), while distribution of the species used in the publication via those researchers (cited tag data shows that many elephant seals modeling, but consultations with as in preparation), and specifically (Robinson et al., 2012) and Guadalupe experts in academia and at the NMFS asked for and received concurrence fur seals (Norris, 2017) seasonally forage Science Centers and their from subject matter experts regarding in deep waters of the Pacific well recommendations had not been specific findings presented in the 2018 outside the boundaries of the HSTT finalized before release of the Draft EIS/ HSTT FEIS/OEIS regarding monk seals. Study Area. OEIS. Subsequently, this revision of the The Navy also considered (subsequent For northern elephant seals text was not considered critical for the to publication of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ (Mirounga angustirostris, Northern final NEPA document since the new OEIS) the new Main Hawaiian Islands elephant seal), as detailed in Section data did not provide any significant haul-out correction factor presented in 11.1.3 of the technical report titled U.S. change to the conclusions reached the publication by Wilson et al. (2017, Navy Marine Species Density Database regarding the Guadalupe fur seal which would be inconsistent with the Phase III for the Hawaii-Southern population. In fact, the data indicates an use of the Baker et al. (2016) correction California Training and Testing Study increase in the population and factors suggested by the Commenter), Area (U.S. Department of the Navy, expansion of their range concurrent and the Harting et al. (2017) correction 2017b), the Navy considered a number with decades of ongoing Navy training of factors in the development of the data and testing in the SOCAL range factor, and considered the new for this species, including the fact that complex. The Navy recently supported abundance numbers presented in the not all of the elephant seal population new census and at-sea satellite tagging 2016 Stock Assessment Report, which is likely to occur exclusively within the of Guadalupe fur seals in 2018 and first became available in January 2018. Southern California portion of the HSTT 2019. These data were not available It is the Navy’s assessment that a Study Area. Given that the three main during the development of the 2018 revision of the monk seal at-sea density rookeries considered in this analysis are HSTT FEIS/OEIS, but the results do not would only result in small changes to located at the northern boundary of the change the overall conclusions. For the predicted effects and certainly HSTT Study Area and that elephant instance, Guadalupe fur seals tagged to would not change the conclusions seals migrate northward after the date are truly pelagic and mainly transit presented in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS breeding season, the Navy, in the offshore (<2000 m) waters of the regarding impact on the population or consultation with subject matter HSTT SOCAL area (Norris et al., 2019a, the impact on the species. NMFS experts, believes the current abundance 2019b; Norris et al., 2020). Therefore, concurs with this conclusion. The Navy used in the analysis is based on the best modeled takes are likely an over- has communicated that it assumes that available science and represents a prediction of exposure. NMFS agrees as part of the ongoing regulatory conservative overestimate of the number with this assessment, and it was used in discussions with NMFS, changes to of elephant seals likely to be affected by the MMPA analysis. estimates of effects can be best dealt Navy activities in the HSTT Study Area. For Northern Fur Seal—As presented with in the next rulemaking given NMFS agrees with this assessment, and in Section 11.1.2 (Callorhinus ursinus, Wilson et al. (2017) has now also it was used in the MMPA analysis. Northern fur seal) of the Navy’s Density provided a totally new haulout For California sea lions, the citation Technical Report (U.S. Department of correction factor for the Main Hawaiian (Lowry and Forney, 2005) used as the the Navy, 2017b), the correction factor Islands that was not considered in Baker basis for this recommendation percentages for northern fur seals et al. (2016), Harting et al. (2017), or the specifically addressed the use of the potentially at sea were derived from the 2016 SAR. NMFS agrees. Central and Northern California at-sea published literature as cited (Antonelis For northern fur seals, elephant seals, correction factor elsewhere, with the et al., 1990; Ream, et al., 2005; Roppel, California sea lions, and Guadalupe fur authors stating; ‘‘In particular, [use of 1984). seals, the Navy consulted with various the Central and Northern California at- For future EISs, the Navy explained subject matter experts regarding the sea correction factor] would not be that it did and will continue to consult abundances and distributions used in appropriate for regions where sea lions with authors of the papers relevant to the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS analyses for reproduce, such as in the Southern the analyses as well as other experts in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41797

academia and at the NMFS Science specifically discuss pinnipeds and data researchers and subject matter experts at Centers during the development of the available for density surface modelling NMFS’ Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Navy’s analyses. During the in the future. It was also discussed at the Center and the Monk Seal Recovery development of the 2018 HSTT EIS/ Density Modeling Workshop in October Team regarding the abundance OEIS and as late as September 2017, the 2018. The Navy has convened a estimates, at sea correction factors, and Navy had ongoing communications with pinniped working group and NMFS distribution for monk seals in the various subject matter experts and Alaska Fisheries Science Center is Hawaiian Islands. The Navy specifically discussed pinniped sponsoring a demonstration project to incorporated the results of those movements, the distribution of use haul-out and telemetry data from consultations, including unpublished populations within the study area to seals in Alaska to determine the data from Wilson et al., then in review, support the analyses, the pinniped viability of such an approach. into the analysis of monk seals for the haulout or at-sea correction factors, and Therefore, consistent with previous 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and the 2017 and the appropriateness of density gradients assessments and based on recent 2019 Navy Applications. When associated with proximity to haul-out discussions with subject matter experts developing the analysis for monk seals, sites or rookeries. As shown in the in academia, the NMFS Science Centers, the Navy, in consultation with references cited, the personal and the National Marine Mammal researchers at the NMFS Pacific Islands communications with researchers have Laboratory, and given there is no Fisheries Science Center, incorporated been made part of the public record, currently established methodology for an estimated increased monk seal although many other informal implementing the approach suggested abundance. The published SAR for discussions with colleagues have also by the Commenter, the Navy believes Hawaiian monk seals at the time (2015) assisted in the Navy’s approach to the that attempting to create and apply a reported a population size of 1,112, analyses presented. new density derivation method at this however in consultation with NMFS the The Navy acknowledges that there point would introduce additional levels Navy used a population size of 1,300. have been previous comments provided of uncertainty into density estimations. This estimate was also in agreement by this Commenter on other Navy range For these reasons, the Navy and with the population size estimates complex documents regarding the use of NMFS did not use density estimates reported by Baker et al. (2016) (2013 = satellite tag movement and location data based on pinniped tracking data. 1,291, 2014 = 1,309, 2015 = 1,324). The to derive at-sea pinniped density data, Publications reporting on satellite tag most recent draft 2019 SARs report a and the Navy asserts that previous location data have been and will population size of 1,351 and the responses to those comments remain continue to be used to aid in the abundance estimate used in the Navy’s valid. Additionally, the Commenter has understanding of pinniped distributions analyses is within the 95 percent noted that the ‘‘. . . Commenter and density calculations as referenced confidence interval (1,294–1,442; CV = continues to believe that data regarding in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and the 0.03). It is the Navy’s assessment that a movements and dispersion of tagged Navy’s ‘‘U.S. Navy Marine Species revision of the monk seal at-sea density pinnipeds could yield better Density Database Phase III for the (given the most recent abundance approximations of densities than the Hawaii-Southern California Training estimate of 1,351) would result in only methods the Navy currently uses.’’ The and Testing Study Area’’ report (U.S. very small changes to the predicted Navy acknowledges that in comments to Department of the Navy, 2017b). The effects (particularly given the previous HSTT EIS/OEIS analyses, the Navy has communicated that it will distribution of monk seals in the HSTT Commenter has recommended this continue, as it has in the past, to refine Study Area) and would not change the untried approach; responses to those pinniped density and distributions conclusions presented in the 2018 previous comments have been provided. using telemetry data and evolving new HSTT FEIS/OEIS and 2017 and 2019 The Navy also notes that there have techniques (such as passive acoustic Navy applications regarding impact on been papers suggesting the future survey data) in development of the the population or the impact on the application of Bayesian or Markov chain Navy’s analyses. As noted above, NMFS species. NMFS concurs with this techniques for use in habitat modeling has reviewed the Navy’s methods and conclusion. NMFS and the Navy will (e.g., Redfern et al., 2006) and concurs that they are appropriate and continue to consider the most recent overcoming the bias introduced by reflect the best available science. and best available data in future EIS and interpretation of population habitat use Comment 7: Commenters noted that MMPA rule analyses. based on non-randomized tagging in the 2018 HSTT final rule, NMFS Comment 8: In a comment on the locations (e.g., Whitehead and Jonsen, stated that it would incorporate the best 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter 2013). However, the use of satellite tag and most recently available abundance recommended that NMFS require the location data in a Bayesian approach to and haul out data for monk seals into its Navy to (1) specify what modeling derive cetacean or pinniped densities at next rulemaking, but failed to do so in method and underlying assumptions, sea has yet to be accepted, the 2019 HSTT proposed rule. They including any relevant source spectra implemented, or even introduced in the argued that in light of the critical status and assumed animal swim speeds and scientific literature. of the monk seals, which number turnover rates, were used to estimate the This issue was in fact recently approximately 1,415 individuals, there ranges to PTS and TTS for impact and discussed as part of the Density is no justification for NMFS’ failure to vibratory pile-driving activities, (2) Modeling Workshop associated with the comply with the MMPA’s command to accumulate the energy for the entire day October 2017 Society for Marine incorporate the best available science of proposed activities to determine the Mammalogy conference. The consensus into the proposed extension rule. ranges to PTS and TTS for impact and of the marine mammal scientists present Response: As described in the vibratory pile-driving activities, and (3) was that while pinniped tag data could response to Comment 6, in developing clarify why the PTS and TTS ranges provide a good test case, it realistically the Marine Species Density Database were estimated to be the same for LF was unlikely to be a focus of the near- Phase III for the Hawaii-Southern and HF cetaceans during impact pile term research. The working group California Training and Testing Study driving. determined that a focused technical Area, as part of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ Response: As explained in Section group should be established to OEIS, the Navy consulted with 3.7.3.1.4.1 of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41798 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

the Navy measured values for source away from the expanding ensonified functions included in the current levels and transmission loss from pile zone of TTS/PTS within 60 seconds, version of the Acoustic Technical driving of the Elevated Causeway especially considering the soft start Guidance (NMFS, 2018). System, the only pile driving activity procedure, or avoid the zone altogether NMFS will continue to review and included in the Specified Activity. The if they are outside of the immediate area evaluate new relevant data as it becomes Navy reviewed the source levels and upon startup. Marine mammals are available and consider the impacts of how the spectrum was used to calculate likely to leave the immediate area of those studies on the Acoustic Technical the range to effects; NMFS supports the pile driving and extraction activities Guidance to determine what revisions/ use of these measured values for the and be less likely to return as activities updates may be appropriate. Thus far, MMPA analysis. These recorded source persist. However, some ‘‘naive’’ animals no new information has been published waveforms were weighted using the may enter the area during the short or otherwise conveyed that would auditory weighting functions. Low- period of time when pile driving and fundamentally change the assessment of frequency and high-frequency cetaceans extraction equipment is being re- impacts or conclusions of this rule. have similar ranges for impact pile positioned between piles. Therefore, an Furthermore, the recent peer-reviewed driving since low-frequency cetaceans animal ‘‘refresh rate’’ of 10 percent was updated marine mammal noise would be relatively more sensitive to selected. This means that 10 percent of exposure criteria by Southall et al. the low-frequency sound which is the single pile ZOI was added for each (2019a) provide identical PTS and TTS below high-frequency cetaceans’ best consecutive pile within a given 24-hour thresholds to those provided in NMFS’ range of hearing. Neither the NMFS user period to generate the daily ZOI per Acoustic Technical Guidance. spreadsheet nor NAEMO were required effect category. These daily ZOIs were Comment 10: In a comment on the for calculations. An area density model then multiplied by the number of days 2018 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters was developed in MS Excel which of pile driving and pile extraction and stated that the criteria that NMFS has calculated zones of influence (ZOI) to then summed to generate a total ZOI per produced to estimate temporary thresholds of interest (e.g., behavioral effect category (i.e., behavioral response, threshold shift (TTS) and permanent response) based on durations of pile TTS, PTS). The small size of the threshold shift (PTS) in marine driving and the aforementioned mitigation zone and its close proximity mammals are erroneous and non- measured and weighted source level to the observation platform will result in conservative. Commenters cited values. The resulting area was then a high likelihood that Lookouts would multiple purported issues with NMFS’ multiplied by density of each marine be able to detect marine mammals Acoustic Technical Guidance, such as mammal species that could occur throughout the mitigation zone. NMFS pseudoreplication and inconsistent within the vicinity. This produced an concurs with the Navy’s approach, and treatment of data, broad extrapolation from a small number of individuals, and estimated number of animals that could it was used in the MMPA analysis. disregarding ‘‘non-linear accumulation be impacted per pile, per day, and PTS/TTS Thresholds of uncertainty.’’ Commenters suggested overall during the entire activity for Comment 9: In a comment on the that NMFS not rely exclusively on its both the impact pile driving and 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter auditory guidance for determining Level vibratory removal phases. NMFS supported the weighting functions and A harassment take, but should at a reviewed the manner in which the Navy associated thresholds as stipulated in minimum retain the historical 180-dB applied the frequency weighting and Finneran (2016), which are the same as rms Level A harassment threshold as a calculated all values and concurred those used for Navy Phase III activities, ‘‘conservative upper bound’’ or conduct with the approach. but points to additional recent studies a ‘‘sensitivity analysis’’ to ‘‘understand Regarding the appropriateness of that provide additional behavioral the potential magnitude’’ of the accumulating energy for the entire day, audiograms (e.g., Branstetter et al., 2017; supposed errors. based on the best available science Kastelein et al., 2017b) and information Response: NMFS disagrees with this regarding animal reaction to sound, on TTS (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2017a, characterization of the Acoustic selecting a reasonable SEL calculation 2017c). However, they commented that Technical Guidance and the associated period is necessary to more accurately the Navy should provide a discussion of recommendation. The Acoustic reflect the time period an animal would whether those new data corroborate the Technical Guidance is a compilation, likely be exposed to the sound. The current weighting functions and interpretation, and synthesis of the Navy factored both mitigation associated thresholds. scientific literature that provides the effectiveness and animal avoidance of Response: The NMFS Revised best scientific information regarding the higher sound levels into the impact pile Technical Guidance for Assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on driving analysis. For impact pile Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on marine mammals’ hearing. The driving, the mitigation zone extends Marine Mammal Hearing (NMFS 2018) technical guidance was classified as a beyond the average ranges to PTS for all (Acoustic Technical Guidance), which Highly Influential Scientific Assessment hearing groups; therefore, mitigation was used in the assessment of effects for and, as such, underwent three will help prevent or reduce the potential this rulemaking, compiled, interpreted, independent peer reviews, at three for exposure to PTS. The impact pile and synthesized the best available different stages in its development, driving mitigation zone also extends scientific information for noise-induced including a follow-up to one of the peer beyond or into a portion of the average hearing effects for marine mammals to reviews, prior to its dissemination by ranges to TTS; therefore, mitigation will derive updated thresholds for assessing NMFS. In addition, there were three help prevent or reduce the potential for the impacts of noise on marine mammal separate public comment periods, exposure to all TTS or some higher hearing, including the articles that the during which time we received and levels of TTS, depending on the hearing Commenter referenced that were responded to similar comments on the group. Mitigation effectiveness and published subsequent to the publication guidance (81 FR 51694), which we animal avoidance of higher sound levels of the first version of 2016 Acoustic cross-reference here, and more recent were both factored into the impact pile Technical Guidance. The new data public and interagency review under driving analysis as most marine included in those articles are consistent Executive Order 13795. This review mammals should be able to easily move with the thresholds and weighting process was scientifically rigorous and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41799

ensured that the Guidance represents Arguments from Wright (2015) every data point that informs the the best scientific data available. regarding pseudoreplication within the agency’s pinniped function, and nearly Furthermore, the recent peer-reviewed TTS data are therefore largely irrelevant two-thirds of the data points informing updated marine mammal noise in a practical sense because there are so the odontocete function (30/49), are exposure criteria by Southall et al. few data. Multiple data points were not derived from a captive animal study. (2019a) provide identical PTS and TTS included for the same individual at a Additionally, Commenters asserted that thresholds to those provided in NMFS’ single frequency. If multiple data the risk functions do not incorporate Acoustic Technical Guidance. existed at one frequency, the lowest TTS (nor does NMFS apparently consider) a The Acoustic Technical Guidance onset was always used. There is only a number of relevant studies on wild updates the historical 180 dB rms injury single frequency where TTS onset data marine mammals. The Commenters threshold, which was based on exist for two individuals of the same stated that it is not clear from the professional judgement (i.e., no data species: 3 kHz for dolphins. Their TTS proposed rule, or from the Navy’s recent were available on the effects of noise on (unweighted) onset values were 193 and technical report on acoustic ‘‘criteria marine mammal hearing at the time this 194 dB re 1 mPa2s. Thus, NMFS believes and thresholds,’’ on which NMFS’ original threshold was derived). NMFS that the current approach makes the best approach in the rule is based, exactly disagrees with any suggestion that the use of the given data. Appropriate how each of the studies that NMFS use of the Acoustic Technical Guidance means of reducing pseudoreplication employed was applied in the analysis, provides erroneous results. The 180-dB may be considered in the future, if more or how the functions were fitted to the rms threshold is plainly outdated, as the data become available. Many other data, but the available evidence on best available science indicates that rms comments from Wright (2015) and the behavioral response raises concerns that SPL is not even an appropriate metric comments from Racca et al. (2015b) the functions are not conservative for by which to gauge potential auditory appear to be erroneously based on the some species. Commenters injury. idea that the shapes of the auditory recommended NMFS make additional Multiple studies from humans, weighting functions and TTS/PTS technical information available, terrestrial mammals, and marine exposure thresholds are directly related including from any expert elicitation mammals have demonstrated less TTS to the audiograms; i.e., that changes to and peer review, so that the public can from intermittent exposures compared the composite audiograms would fully comment. to continuous exposures with the same directly influence the TTS/PTS Response: The ‘‘Criteria and total energy because hearing is known to exposure functions (e.g., Wright (2015) Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and experience some recovery in between describes weighting functions as Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals noise exposures, which means that the ‘‘effectively the mirror image of an and Sea Turtles Technical Report’’ (U.S. effects of intermittent noise sources audiogram’’ (p. 2) and states, ‘‘The Department of the Navy, 2017a) details such as tactical sonars are likely underlying goal was to estimate how how the Navy’s proposed method, overestimated. Marine mammal TTS much a sound level needs to be above which was determined appropriate and data have also shown that, for two hearing threshold to induce TTS.’’ (p. adopted by NMFS, accounted for the exposures with equal energy, the longer 3)). Both statements are incorrect and differences in captive and wild animals duration exposure tends to produce a suggest a fundamental in the development of the behavioral larger amount of TTS. Most marine misunderstanding of the criteria/ response functions. The Navy used the mammal TTS data have been obtained threshold derivation. This would best available science, which has been using exposure durations of tens of require a constant (frequency- reviewed by external scientists and seconds up to an hour, much longer independent) relationship between approved by NMFS, in the analysis. The than the durations of many tactical hearing threshold and TTS onset that is Navy and NMFS have utilized all sources (much less the continuous time not reflected in the actual marine available data that relate known or that a marine mammal in the field mammal TTS data. Attempts to create a estimable received levels to would be exposed consecutively to ‘‘cautionary’’ outcome by artificially observations of individual or group those levels), further suggesting that the lowering the composite audiogram behavior as a result of sonar exposure use of these TTS data are likely to thresholds would not necessarily result (which is needed to inform the overestimate the effects of sonars with in lower TTS/PTS exposure levels, since behavioral response function) for the shorter duration signals. the exposure functions are to a large development of updated thresholds. Regarding the suggestion of extent based on applying mathematical Limiting the data to the small number pseudoreplication and erroneous functions to fit the existing TTS data. of field studies that include these models, since marine mammal hearing necessary data would not provide and noise-induced hearing loss data are Behavioral Harassment Thresholds enough data with which to develop the limited, both in the number of species Comment 11: In a comment on the new risk functions. In addition, NMFS and in the number of individuals 2018 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters agrees with the assumptions made by available, attempts to minimize commented on what they assert is the Navy, including the fact that captive pseudoreplication would further reduce NMFS’ failure to set proper thresholds animals may be less sensitive, in that these already limited data sets. for behavioral impacts. Referencing the the scale at which a moderate to severe Specifically, with marine mammal biphasic function that assumes an response was considered to have behavioral temporary threshold shift unmediated dose response relationship occurred is different for captive animals studies, behaviorally derived data are at higher received levels and a context- than for wild animals, as the agency only available for two mid-frequency influenced response at lower received understands those responses will be cetacean species (bottlenose dolphin, levels that NMFS uses to quantify different. beluga) and two phocids (in-water) behavioral harassment from sonar, The new risk functions were pinniped species (harbor seal and Commenters commented that resulting developed in 2016, before several recent northern elephant seal), with otariid (in- functions depend on some papers were published or the data were water) pinnipeds and high-frequency inappropriate assumptions that tend to available. As new science is published, cetaceans only having behaviorally- significantly underestimate effects. NMFS and the Navy continue to derived data from one species. Commenters expressed concern that evaluate the information. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41800 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

thresholds have been rigorously vetted (Phase III)’’. To account for non- Response: The Navy relied upon the among scientists and within the Navy applicable contextual factors, all best science that was available to community and then reviewed by the available data on marine mammal develop the behavioral response public before being applied—all reactions to actual Navy activities and functions in consultation with NMFS. applicable technical information other sound sources (or other large scale The Navy’s current beaked whale BRF considered has been shared with the activities such as seismic surveys when acknowledges and incorporates the public. It is not possible to revise and information on proximity to sonar increased sensitivity observed in beaked update the criteria and risk functions sources is not available for a given whales during both behavioral response every time a new paper is published. species group) were reviewed to find the studies and during actual Navy training These new papers provide additional farthest distance to which significant events, as well as the fact that dipping information, and the Navy has behavioral reactions were observed. sonar can have greater effects than some considered them for updates to the These distances were rounded up to the other sources with the same source thresholds in the future, when the next nearest 5 or 10 km interval, and for level. Specifically, the distance cut-off round of updated criteria will be moderate to large scale activities using for beaked whales is 50 km, larger than developed. Thus far, no new multiple or louder sonar sources, these any other group. Moreover, although information has been published or distances were greatly increased— dipping sonar has a significantly lower otherwise conveyed that would doubled in most cases. The Navy’s BRFs source level than hull-mounted sonar, it fundamentally change the assessment of applied within these distances provide is included in the category of sources impacts or conclusions of the HSTT technically sound methods reflective of with larger distance cut-offs, specifically FEIS/OEIS or this rule. To be included the best available science to estimate the in acknowledgement of its in the behavioral response function, impact and potential take under military unpredictability and association with data sets need to relate known or readiness for the actions analyzed observed effects. This means that estimable received levels to within the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and ‘‘takes’’ are reflected at lower received observations of individual or group included in these regulations. NMFS levels that would have been excluded behavior. Melcon et al. (2012) does not has independently assessed the Navy’s because of the distance for other source relate observations of individual/group behavioral harassment thresholds and types. behavior to known or estimable received believes that they appropriately apply The referenced article (Falcone et al., levels (at that individual/group). In the best available science and it is not 2017) was not available at the time the Melcon et al. (2012), received levels at necessary to recalculate take estimates. BRFs were developed. However, NMFS the HARP buoy averaged over many The Commenter also specifically and the Navy have reviewed the article hours are related to probabilities of D- expressed concern that distance ‘‘cut- and concur that neither this article nor calls, but the received level at the blue offs’’ alleviate some of the exposures any other new information that has been whale individuals/group are unknown. that would otherwise have been counted published or otherwise conveyed since As noted, the derivation of the if the received level alone were the 2018 HSTT proposed rule was behavioral response functions is considered. It is unclear why the published would change the assessment provided in the 2017 technical report Commenter finds this inherently of impacts or conclusions in the 2018 titled ‘‘Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. inappropriate, as this is what the data HSTT FEIS/OEIS or in this rulemaking. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects show. As noted previously, there are Nonetheless, the new information and Analysis (Phase III)’’. The appendices to multiple studies illustrating that in data presented in the new article were this report detail the specific data points situations where one would expect a thoroughly reviewed by the Navy and used to generate the behavioral response behavioral harassment because of the will be quantitatively incorporated into functions. Data points come from received levels at which previous future behavioral response functions, as published data that is readily available responses were observed, it has not appropriate, when and if other new data and cited within the technical report. occurred when the distance from the that would meaningfully change the Comment 12: In a comment on the source was larger than the distance of functions would necessitate their 2018 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters the first observed response. revision. stated concerns with the use of distance Comment 13: In a comment on the Furthermore, ongoing Navy funded ‘‘cut-offs’’ in the behavioral harassment 2018 HSTT proposed rule regarding cut- beaked whale monitoring at the same thresholds, and one commenter off distances, Commenters noted that site where the dipping sonar tests were recommended that NMFS refrain from dipping sonar appears to be a significant conducted has not documented habitat using cut-off distances in conjunction predictor of deep-dive rates in beaked abandonment by beaked whales. Passive with the Bayesian BRFs and re-estimate whales on Southern California Anti- acoustic detections of beaked whales the numbers of marine mammal takes submarine Warfare Range (SOAR), with have not significantly changed over ten based solely on the Bayesian BRFs. the dive rate falling significantly (e.g., to years of monitoring (DiMarzio et al., Response: The consideration of 35 percent of that individual’s control 2018, updated in 2020). From visual proximity (cut-off distances) was part of rate) during sonar exposure, and surveys in the area since 2006 there the criteria developed in consultation likewise appears associated with habitat have been repeated sightings of: The between the Navy and NMFS, is abandonment. Importantly, these effects same individual beaked whales, beaked appropriate based on the best available were observed at substantially greater whale mother-calf pairs, and beaked science which shows that marine distances (e.g., 30 or more km) from whale mother-calf pairs with mothers mammal responses to sound vary based dipping sonar than would otherwise be on their second calf (Schorr et al., 2018, on both sound level and distance, and expected given the systems’ source 2020). Satellite tracking studies of was applied within the Navy’s acoustic levels and the beaked whale response beaked whale documented high site effects model. The derivation of the thresholds developed from research on fidelity to this area (Schorr et al., 2018, behavioral response functions and hull-mounted sonar. Commenters updated in 2020). associated cut-off distances is provided suggested that the analysis, and Comment 14: In a comment on the in the 2017 technical report titled associated cut-off distances, do not 2018 HSTT proposed rule regarding the ‘‘Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy properly consider the impacts of behavioral thresholds for explosives, Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis dipping sonar. Commenters recommended that NMFS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41801

estimate and ultimately authorize www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring. hemorrhage is a level of injury that behavioral takes of marine mammals us/). NMFS will continue to review would result in mortality for a wild during all explosive activities, including applicable monitoring and science data animal (Department of the Navy 2017a). those that involve single detonations. and consider modifying these criteria Thus, the Commenter asserted that it is Response: The derivation of the when and if new information suggests it unclear why the Navy did not follow explosive injury criteria is provided in is appropriate. through with that premise. The the 2017 technical report titled ‘‘Criteria Commenter recommended that NMFS Mortality and injury thresholds for and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic use onset mortality, onset slight lung explosions and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase injury, and onset GI tract injury III),’’ and NMFS has applied the general Comment 15: In a comment on the thresholds to estimate both the numbers rule a commenter referenced to single 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter of marine mammal takes and the explosives for years, i.e., that marine recommended that NMFS require the respective ranges to effect. mammals are unlikely to respond to a Navy to (1) explain why the constants Response: Based on an extensive single instantaneous detonation at and exponents for onset mortality and review of the incident referred to by the received levels below the TTS threshold onset slight lung injury thresholds for Commenter, in coordination with NMFS in a manner that would rise to the level Phase III have been amended, (2) ensure the Navy revised and updated the of a take. Neither NMFS nor the Navy that the modified equations are correct, mitigation for these types of events. are aware of evidence to support the and (3) specify any additional There have been no further incidents assertion that animals will have assumptions that were made. since these mitigation changes were significant behavioral reactions (i.e., Response: The derivation of the instituted in 2011. The Navy used the those that would rise to the level of a explosive injury equations, including range to one percent risk of mortality take) to temporally and spatially any assumptions, is provided in the and injury (referred to as ‘‘onset’’ in the isolated explosions below the TTS 2017 technical report titled ‘‘Criteria Draft EIS/OEIS) to inform the threshold. and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic development of mitigation zones for Marine mammals may be exposed to and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase explosives. In all cases, the mitigation isolated impulses in their natural III)’’. It is our understanding that the zones for explosives extend beyond the environment (e.g., lightning). There is constants and exponents for onset range to one percent risk of non- no evidence to support that animals mortality and onset slight lung injury auditory injury, even for a small animal have significant behavioral responses to were amended by the Navy since Phase (representative mass = 5 kg). The 2018 temporally and spatially isolated II to better account for the best available HSTT FEIS/OEIS clarified that the impulses (such as military explosions) science. Specifically, the equations were ‘‘onset’’ non-auditory injury and that may rise to the level of modified in Phase III to fully mortality criteria are actually one ‘‘harassment’’ under the MMPA for incorporate the injury model in percent risk criteria. military readiness activities. Still, the Goertner (1982), specifically to include Over-predicting impacts, which analysis conservatively assumes that lung compression with depth. NMFS would occur with the use of one percent any modeled instance of temporally or independently reviewed and concurred non-auditory injury risk criteria in the spatially separated detonations with this approach. quantitative analysis, would not afford occurring in a single 24-hour period Comment 16: In a comment on the extra protection to any animal. The would result in harassment under the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter Navy, in coordination with NMFS, has MMPA for military readiness activities. stated that the Navy only used the onset determined that the 50 percent The Navy has been monitoring mortality and onset slight lung injury incidence of occurrence is a reasonable detonations since the 1990s and has not criteria to determine the range to effects, representation of a potential effect and observed these types of reactions. To be while it used the 50 percent mortality appropriate for take estimation. clear, this monitoring has occurred and 50 percent slight lung injury criteria Although the commenter implies that under the monitoring plans developed to estimate the numbers of marine the Navy did not use extensive lung specifically for shock trials, the mammal takes. The Commenter believes hemorrhage as indicative of mortality, detonations with the largest net that this approach is inconsistent with that statement is incorrect. Extensive explosive weight conducted by the the manner in which the Navy lung hemorrhage is assumed to result in Navy, and no shock trials are proposed estimated the numbers of takes for PTS, mortality, and the explosive mortality in this Study Area. TTS, and behavioral disruption for criteria are based on extensive lung Further, to clarify, the current take explosive activities. All of those takes injury data. See the 2017 technical estimate framework does not preclude have been and continue to be based on report titled ‘‘Criteria and Thresholds the consideration of animals being onset, not 50-percent values. The for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive behaviorally disturbed during single Commenter commented on Effects Analysis (Phase III).’’ explosions as they are counted as ‘‘taken circumstances of the deaths of multiple by Level B harassment’’ if they are common dolphins during one of the Range to Effects exposed above the TTS threshold, Navy’s underwater detonation events in Comment 17: In a comment on the which is only 5 dB higher than the March 2011 (Danil and St. Leger, 2011) 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter behavioral harassment threshold. We and indicated that the Navy’s mitigation noted that regarding TTS, the ranges to acknowledge in our analysis that measures are not fully effective, effect provided in Table 25 of the individuals exposed above the TTS especially for explosive activities. The Federal Register notice of the 2018 threshold may also be behaviorally Commenter believes it would be more HSTT proposed rule and Table 6–4 of harassed and those potential impacts are prudent for the Navy to estimate injuries the 2017 Navy application appear to be considered in the negligible impact and mortalities based on onset rather incorrect. The ranges for LF cetaceans determination. than a 50-percent incidence of should increase with increasing sonar All of the Navy’s monitoring projects, occurrence. The Navy did indicate that emission time. Therefore, the reports, and publications are available it is reasonable to assume for its impact Commenter recommended that NMFS on the marine species monitoring web analysis—thus its take estimation determine what the appropriate ranges page (https:// process—that extensive lung to TTS for bin LF5 should be and amend

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:50 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41802 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

the ranges for the various functional could cause injury to their ear. As calculation; if they can see more than hearing groups in the tables accordingly. discussed in the Navy’s 2018 technical half the area, they get half credit; if they Response: The table regarding the report titled ‘‘Quantifying Acoustic can see less than half the area, they get Range to Temporary Threshold Shift for Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea no credit. Not considering animal sonar bin LF5 over a representative Turtles: Methods and Analytical avoidance and mitigation effectiveness range of environments within the HSTT Approach for Phase III Training and would lead to a great overestimate of Study Area (Table 25 in the Proposed Testing,’’ animats in the Navy’s acoustic injurious impacts. NMFS concurs with and Final Rules) is correct. The reason effects model do not move horizontally the analytical approach used, i.e., we the values in the tables in the rules and or ‘‘react’’ to sound in any way. believe the estimated Level A take the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS do not However, the current best available numbers represent the maximum change over the indicated interval (1 science based on a growing body of number of these takes that are likely to sec, 30 sec, 60 sec, 120 sec) is that the behavioral response research shows that occur and it would not be appropriate LF5 pulse interval is longer than these animals do in fact avoid the immediate to authorize a higher number or values, hence the same range to TTS in area around sound sources to a distance consider a higher number in the the table. The values are consistent of a few hundred meters or more negligible impact analysis. Lastly, the across the board because the max source depending upon the species (see Navy’s 2018 technical report titled level of LF5 (<180 dB SPL) is so close Appendix B of the ‘‘Criteria and ‘‘Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on to the LF cetacean TTS threshold 179 Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles: dB SEL. At such small range to effects, Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals Methods and Analytical Approach for the resolution of NAEMO comes into and Sea Turtles Technical Report’’ (U.S. Phase III Training and Testing’’ very play, and such small changes in range Department of the Navy, 2017a)) and clearly explains in detail how species to effects cannot be discerned between Southall et al. (2019a). Avoidance to sightability, the Lookout’s ability to the example durations. this distance greatly reduces the observe the range to PTS (for sonar and Mitigation and Avoidance Calculations likelihood of impacts to hearing such as other transducers) and mortality (for TTS and PTS. Accordingly, NMFS and explosives), the portion of time when Comment 18: In a comment on the the Navy’s analysis appropriately mitigation could potentially be 2018 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters applies a quantitative adjustment to the conducted during periods of reduced cited concerns that there was not exposure results calculated by the daytime visibility (to include inclement enough information by which to model (which does not consider weather and high sea state) and the evaluate the Navy’s post-modeling avoidance or mitigation). portion of time when mitigation could calculations to account for mitigation Specifically, behavioral response potentially be conducted at night, and and avoidance and imply that Level A literature, including the recent 3S and takes and mortality takes may be the ability for sound sources to be SOCAL BRS studies, indicate that the positively controlled (powered down) underestimated. One Commenter multiple species from different cetacean recommended that NMFS (1) authorize are considered in the post-modeling suborders do in fact avoid approaching calculation to account for mitigation the total numbers of model-estimated sound sources by a few hundred meters Level A harassment (PTS) and mortality and avoidance. It is not necessary to or more, which would reduce received view the many tables of numbers takes rather than reduce the estimated sound levels for individual marine numbers of takes based on the Navy’s generated in the assessment to evaluate mammals to levels below those that the method. post-model analyses and (2) use those could cause PTS. The ranges to PTS for numbers, in addition to the revised most marine mammal groups are within Comment 19: In a comment on the Level B harassment takes, to inform its a few tens of meters and the ranges for 2019 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters negligible impact determination the most sensitive group, the HF noted that the Navy and NMFS failed to analyses. cetaceans, average about 200 m, to a consider the maximum amount of take Response: The consideration of maximum of 270 m in limited cases. For that is likely to occur because the marine mammal avoidance and blue whales and other LF cetaceans, the Navy’s computer modeled take is mitigation effectiveness is integral to the range to PTS is 65 m for MF1 30 sec reduced based on unsubstantiated Navy’s overall analysis of impacts from duration exposure, which is well within assumptions concerning the sonar and explosive sources. NMFS has the mitigation zones for hull-mounted effectiveness of the Navy’s procedural independently evaluated the method MFAS. mitigation measures (primarily and agrees that it is appropriately As discussed in the Navy’s 2018 Lookouts with some passive acoustic applied to augment the model in the technical report titled ‘‘Quantifying monitoring) and the rates at which prediction and authorization of injury Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals mammals avoid permanent threshold and mortality as described in the rule. and Sea Turtles: Methods and shift (PTS) exposure levels. Therefore, Details of this analysis are provided in Analytical Approach for Phase III they assert that the PTS and injury the Navy’s 2018 technical report titled Training and Testing’’ and the 2018 (Level A) take estimates are low, and the ‘‘Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on HSTT final rule, the Navy’s acoustic negligible impact analysis is invalid Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles: effects model does not consider because the numbers considered by Methods and Analytical Approach for procedural mitigations (i.e., power- NMFS are arbitrary. They provide the Phase III Training and Testing’’; down or shut-down of sonars, or following example to illustrate their additional information on the mitigation pausing explosive activities when point: 2013 model-estimated PTS for analysis also was included in the 2018 animals are detected in specific zones blue whales was 116 individual HSTT final rule. adjacent to the source), which instances of take (see Navy Marine Sound levels diminish quickly below necessitates consideration of these Mammal Program, Space and Naval levels that could cause PTS. Studies factors in the Navy’s overall acoustic Warfare Systems Center Pacific, Post- have shown that all animals observed analysis. Credit taken for mitigation Model Quantitative Analysis of Animal avoid areas well beyond these zones; effectiveness is extremely conservative. Avoidance Behavior and Mitigation therefore, the vast majority of animals For example, if Lookouts can see the Effectiveness for Hawaii-Southern are likely to avoid sound levels that whole area, they get credit for it in the California Training and Testing, 39

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41803

(Table 5–1) (August 27, 2013)). After range of PTS for the first few pings will ranges to PTS for most marine mammal implementation of mitigation, the be able to avoid it and incur only TTS, groups are within a few tens of meters estimated instances of PTS were which results in a 95 percent reduction and the ranges for the most sensitive reduced to 9 instances, and after in the number of estimated PTS takes group, the HF cetaceans, average about assumed rates of animal avoidance were predicted by the model), given that 200 m, to a maximum of 270 m in added, the estimated instances of take sound sources are moving, it may not be limited cases. Querying the dosimeters were reduced to 0. The Commenters until later in an exercise that the animal of the animats would not produce useful asserted that in other words, the Navy is close enough to experience PTS, and information since, as discussed assumed that it would be able to reduce it is those few close pings that previously, the animats do not move in 92 percent of modeled PTS for blue contribute to the potential to experience the horizontal and are not programmed whales based on the effectiveness of its PTS. An animal being beyond the PTS to ‘‘react’’ to sound or any other Lookouts and that PTS take estimates zone initially has no bearing on whether stimulus. The Commenter referenced for other cetaceans are reduced at it will come within close range later comments that they have previously similar rates. The Commenters noted during an exercise since both sources submitted on the Navy’s Gulf of Alaska that there is no apparent rational basis and animals are moving. In addition, incidental take regulations and we refer for the extremely high rates of Navy vessels may move faster than the the Commenter to NMFS’ responses, effectiveness (over 90 percent) the Navy ability of the animals to evacuate the which were included in the Federal claims for its procedural mitigation. area. The Navy should have been able Register document announcing the They asserted that it is difficult to assess to query the dosimeters of the animats issuance of the final regulations (82 FR these claims, as neither the Navy nor to verify whether its 5-percent 19572, April 27, 2017). NMFS has disclosed the actual numbers assumption was valid. The Commenter Underestimated Beaked Whale Injury used to assess mitigation effectiveness expressed concerned that this method and Mortality for cetaceans along the four factors underestimates the number of PTS (species sightability, observation area, takes. Comment 21: In a comment on the visibility, positive control). The 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter Response: The consideration of stated that the Navy and NMFS both Commenters requested that NMFS marine mammals avoiding the area disclose those numbers and justify its underestimate take for Cuvier’s beaked immediately around the sound source is reliance on them. The Commenters also whales because they are extremely provided in the Navy’s 2018 technical incorporated the critiques raised by the sensitive to sonar. A new study of report titled ‘‘Quantitative Analysis for Marine Mammal Commission in its Cuvier’s beaked whales in Southern Estimating Acoustic and Explosive 2017 comment letter concerning: (i) The California exposed to mid and high- Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea comparative ineffectiveness of marine power sonar confirmed that they modify Turtles.’’ As the Commenter correctly observers compared to line-transect their diving behavior up to 100-km articulates: ‘‘For avoidance, the Navy observers; and (ii) the assumed 95 away (Falcone et al., 2017). The assumed that animals present beyond percent animal avoidance rate for PTS. Commenter asserted that this science the range to onset PTS for the first three In particular, they assert that references disproves NMFS’ assumption that cited by NMFS and the Navy do not to four pings are assumed to avoid any beaked whales will find suitable habitat support the conclusion that cetaceans additional exposures at levels that could nearby within their small range. This (other than beaked whales) regularly cause PTS. That equated to modified diving behavior, which was avoid sonar sources so as to mitigate approximately 5 percent of the total particularly strong when exposed to PTS. pings or 5 percent of the overall time mid-power sonar, indicates disruption Response: As noted in response to a active; therefore, 95 percent of marine of feeding. Accordingly, impacts on similar comment on the 2018 HSTT mammals predicted to experience PTS Cuvier’s beaked whales could include proposed rule (see Comment 18 above), due to sonar and other transducers were interference with essential behaviors the consideration of marine mammal instead assumed to experience TTS.’’ In that will have more than a negligible avoidance and mitigation effectiveness regard to the comment about vessels impact on this species. In addition, is integral to the Navy’s overall analysis moving faster than animals’ ability to Lookouts and shutdowns do not protect of impacts from sonar and explosive get out of the way, as discussed in the Cuvier’s beaked whales from Navy sonar sources. NMFS has independently Navy’s 2018 technical report titled because this is a deep-diving species evaluated the method and agrees that it ‘‘Quantitative Analysis for Estimating that is difficult to see from ships. is appropriately applied to augment the Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Response: Takes of Cuvier’s beaked model in the prediction and Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles,’’ whales are not underestimated. The authorization of injury and mortality as animats in the Navy’s acoustic effects behavioral harassment threshold for described in the rule. The example model do not move horizontally or beaked whales has two components, presented by the Commenters is based ‘‘react’’ to sound in any way, both of which consider the sensitivity of on the analysis conducted during the necessitating the additional step of beaked whales. First, the biphasic 2013–2018 rulemaking (Phase II), rather considering animal avoidance of close- behavioral harassment function for than the current Phase III analysis used in PTS zones. NMFS independently beaked whales, which is based on data for this rule, so it is not applicable to reviewed this approach and concurs on beaked whale responses, has a this final rule. See the response to that it is supported by the best available significantly lower mid-point than other Comment 20 below for more science. Based on a growing body of groups and also reflects a significantly information on how avoidance and behavioral response research, animals higher probability of ‘‘take’’ at lower mitigation effectiveness are evaluated. do in fact avoid the immediate area levels (e.g., close to 15 percent at 120 Comment 20: In a comment on the around sound sources to a distance of a dB). Additionally, the distance cut-off 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter few hundred meters or more depending used for beaked whales is farther than stated in regard to the method in which upon the species. Avoidance to this for any other group (50 km, for both the the Navy’s post-model calculation distance greatly reduces the likelihood MF1 and MF4 bins, acknowledging the considers avoidance specifically (i.e., of impacts to hearing such as TTS and fact that the unpredictability of dipping assuming animals present beyond the PTS, respectively. Specifically, the sonar likely results in takes at greater

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41804 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

distances than other more predictable relationship between Navy MFAS use takes care across the world not to sources of similar levels). Regarding the and beaked whale strandings has not operate under without additional referenced article, the Commenter has been established in all instances, and monitoring). There have been no cited only part of it. The study, which that, in some cases, sonar was documented beaked whale mortalities compiles information from multiple considered to be only one of several from Navy activities within the HSTT studies, found that shallow dives were factors that, in aggregate, may have Study Area. Further, none of the beaked predicted to increase in duration as the contributed to the stranding event, whale strandings causally associated distance to both high-and mid-power NMFS does ‘‘not expect strandings, with Navy sonar stranding are in the MFAS sources decreased, beginning at serious injury, or mortality of beaked Pacific. For these reasons, NMFS does approximately 100 km away and, whales to occur as a result of training not anticipate that the Navy’s HSTT specifically, the differences only varied activities.’’ (83 FR 30007). The training or testing activities will result from approximately 20 minutes without Commenter asserted that this opinion is in beaked whale marine mammal MFAS to about 24 minutes with MFAS inconsistent with best available science strandings, and none are authorized. at the closest distance (i.e., the dive time and does not take into account the fact Furthermore, ongoing Navy funded varied from 20 to 24 minutes over the that the leading explanation for the beaked whale monitoring at a heavily distance of 100 km away to the closest mechanism of sonar-related injuries— used training and testing area in SOCAL distance measured). Further, the same that whales suffer from bubble growth has not documented mortality or habitat article predicted that deep dive duration in organs that is similar to abandonment by beaked whales. Passive (which is more directly associated with decompression sickness, or ‘‘the bends’’ acoustic detections of beaked whales feeding and linked to potential energetic in human divers—has now been have not significantly changed over ten effects) was predicted to increase with supported by numerous papers. At the years of monitoring (DiMarzio et al., proximity to mid-power MFAS from same time, the Commenter argued that 2018, 2019, 2020). From visual surveys approximately 60 minutes to NMFS fails to seriously acknowledge in the area since 2006 there have been approximately 90 minutes beginning at that sonar can seriously injure or kill repeated sightings of: The same around 40 km (10 dives). There were marine mammals at distances well individual beaked whales, beaked whale four deep dives exposed to high-power beyond those established for permanent mother-calf pairs, and beaked whale MFAS within 20 km, the distance at hearing loss (83 FR 29916) and mother-calf pairs with mothers on their which deep dive durations increased dismisses the risk of stranding and other second calf (Schorr et al., 2018, 2020). with the lower power source types. mortality events (83 FR 30007) based on Satellite tracking studies of beaked Other responses to MFAS included deep the argument that such effects can whale documented high site fidelity to dives that were shorter than typical and transpire only under the same set of this area even though the study area is shallower, and instances where there circumstances that occurred during located in one of the most used Navy were no observed responses at closer known sonar-related events—an areas in the Pacific (Schorr et al., 2018, distances. The threshold for Level B assumption that is arbitrary and 2020). harassment is higher than just ‘‘any capricious. In conclusion, the Comment 23: In a comment on the measurable response’’ and NMFS and Commenter argued that none of NMFS’ 2019 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters the Navy worked closely together to assumptions regarding the expected lack noted that NMFS did not propose to identify behavioral response functions of serious injury and mortality for authorize beaked whale mortalities and distance cut-offs that reflect the best beaked whales are supported by the subsequent to MFA sonar use for any of available science to identify when record, and all lead to an the Navy’s Phase III activities and states marine mammal behavioral patterns underestimation of impacts. that that approach is inconsistent with will be disrupted to a point where they Response: The Commenter’s the tack taken for both TAP I and Phase are abandoned or significantly altered. characterization of NMFS’ analysis is II activities. The Commenters noted that Further, the take estimate is in no way incorrect. NMFS does not disregard the for the 2013–2018 final rule for HSTT, based on an assumption that beaked fact that it is possible for naval activities NMFS authorized up to 10 beaked whales will always be sighted by using hull-mounted tactical sonar to whale mortality takes during the five- Lookouts—and adjustment to account contribute to the death of marine year period of the final rule (78 FR for Lookout effectiveness considers the mammals in certain circumstances via 78153; December 24, 2013). They noted variable detectability of different strandings resulting from behaviorally that NMFS justified authorizing those species. In this rule, both the take mediated physiological impacts or other mortalities by stating that, although estimate and the negligible impact gas-related injuries. NMFS discussed NMFS does not expect injury or analysis appropriately consider the these potential causes and outlined the mortality of any beaked whales to occur sensitivity of, and scale of impacts to few cases where active naval sonar (in as a result of active sonar training (we address impacts to feeding and the United States or, largely, elsewhere) exercises, there remains the potential for energetics), Cuvier’s (and all) beaked had either potentially contributed to or the operation of mid-frequency active whales. Finally, new passive acoustic (as with the Bahamas example) been sonar to contribute to the mortality of monitoring in the HSTT Study Area more definitively causally linked with beaked whales (78 FR 78149; December documents more extensive beaked marine mammal strandings in the 24, 2013). The Commenters stated that whale distribution across the entire proposed rule. As noted, there are a this justification is still applicable. The Study Area, wherever sensors are suite of factors that have been associated Commenters state that previously deployed (Griffiths and Barlow 2016, with these specific cases of strandings unrecognized sensitivities have been Rice et al. 2020). directly associated with sonar (steep elucidated since the previous final rule Comment 22: In a comment on the bathymetry, multiple hull-mounted was authorized (December 24, 2013), 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter platforms using sonar simultaneously, noting that Falcone et al., (2017) stated that NMFS underestimated constricted channels, strong surface indicated that responses of Cuvier’s serious injury and mortality for beaked ducts, etc.) that are not present together beaked whales to mid-frequency active whales. They noted the statement in the in the HSTT Study Area and during the sonar within and near the Navy’s proposed rule that because a causal specified activities (and which the Navy Southern California Anti-submarine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41805

Warfare Range (SOAR) were more physiological impacts or other gas- platforms using sonar simultaneously, pronounced during mid-power (i.e., related injuries. However, the constricted channels, and strong surface helicopter-dipping sonar, MF4) than Commenters are incorrect that NMFS ducts). The Commenters are incorrect, high-power (i.e., hull-mounted sonar, must either obviate the potential for however, in implying that NMFS found MF1) sonar use. The Commenters state mortality or authorize it. If the best that all these features must be present that this indicates lower received levels available science indicates that a take is together—rather, we have suggested that from a less predictable source caused reasonably likely to occur, then NMFS all else being equal, the fewer of these more marked responses than higher should analyze it, and will authorize it factors that are present, the less likely received levels from a predictable if the necessary findings can be made. they are, in combination, to lead to a source traveling along a seemingly Sometimes, especially where there is stranding. Further, in addition to the consistent course. The Commenters greater uncertainty, NMFS will analyze mitigation and monitoring measures in noted that since multiple species of and authorize (where appropriate) place (visual monitoring, passive beaked whales are regularly observed on impacts with a smaller likelihood of acoustic monitoring when practicable, the Navy’s ranges in both Hawaii and occurring to be precautionary and/or mitigation areas including the Hawaii Southern California, including its where an applicant specifically requests Island Mitigation Area, etc.; see the instrumented ranges, those species have the legal coverage. However, the MMPA 2018 HSTT final rule Mitigation been a priority for the Navy’s does not require NMFS to authorize Measures and Monitoring sections for a monitoring program and that this impacts that are unlikely to occur. For full description of these measures) the indicates that research involving beaked example, any marine vessel has the Navy minimizes active sonar military whales continues to be a priority for the potential of striking and killing a marine readiness activities when these features Navy and some of the whales’ mammal—however, the probability is so are present to the maximum extent sensitivities to anthropogenic sound are low for any particular vessel that practicable to meet specific training or just being discovered. The Commenters authorization for ship strike is neither testing requirements. Additionally, as assert that until such time that NMFS requested nor authorized by NMFS noted above, there have never been any can better substantiate its conclusion except in cases where the aggregated strandings associated with Navy sonar that the Navy’s activities do not have impacts of large fleets of vessels are use in the HSTT Study Area, including the potential to kill beaked whales, under consideration and the probability in the six years of Navy activities since taking by mortality should be included of a strike is high enough to the 2013 authorizations referenced by in all related rulemakings. meaningfully consider and to expect it the Commenters were issued. The Commenters asserted that NMFS could occur within the period of the The Navy acknowledges that it has indicated that steep bathymetry, authorization. In this case, the multiple hull-mounted platforms using funded research on the impacts of their likelihood of a stranding resulting from activities on beaked whales in the HSTT sonar simultaneously, constricted the Navy’s activity is so low as to be channels, and strong surface ducts are Study Area since 2008 and plans to discountable. In an excess of caution, continue to do so during the seven years not all present together in the HSTT NMFS included authorization for Study Area during the specified covered by this rule (DiMarzio et al., beaked whale mortality by stranding in 2019, 2020; Falcone et al., 2012, 2017; activities (83 FR 66882; December 27, the 2013–2018 HSTT rule. However, 2018), and that NMFS specified that it Rice et al., 2019, 2020; Schorr et al., there is no evidence that any such 2014, 2019, 2020). NMFS also did not authorize beaked whale strandings subsequently actually mortalities in the 2018 HSTT final rule acknowledges the Commenters’ occurred as a result of the Navy’s based on the lack of those factors and statements that beaked whales have activities. Each rulemaking involves the lack of any strandings associated been documented through Navy-funded review of the best available science with Navy sonar use in the HSTT Study studies responding to active sonar independent of take that was authorized Area (83 FR 66882; December 27, 2018). sources. However, these are behavioral during previous periods based on the The Commenters stated that this does responses with animals eventually science available at that time. Upon not comport with NMFS’ returning after the sources have consideration in this rulemaking of the acknowledgement in the 2018 HSTT departed (DiMarzio et al. 2019, 2020; statutory standards and the best proposed rule that all five of those Schorr et al. 2019, 2020). Further, available science, including full factors are not necessary for a stranding controlled exposure experiments have to occur (83 FR 29930; June 26, 2018). consideration of Falcone et al., (2017), not documented any beaked whale They go on to state that ‘‘NMFS cannot we have determined that mortality of mortalities (Falcone et al., 2017). ignore that there remains the potential beaked whales is unlikely to occur and Additionally, while beaked whales have for the operation of MFA sonar to it is therefore not appropriate to shown avoidance responses to active contribute to the mortality of beaked authorize beaked whale mortality. sonar sources, to date, no population whales.’’ Given that the potential for As described in Comment 22, NMFS impacts have been detected on two of beaked whale mortalities cannot be included a full discussion in the 2018 the most heavily used anti-submarine obviated, the Commenters recommend HSTT proposed rule of these potential warfare training areas in the HSTT that NMFS authorize at least 10 causes of mortality and specifically Study Area. This includes no significant mortality takes of beaked whales discussed the few cases where active change in beaked whale foraging subsequent to MFA sonar use, naval sonar (in the U.S. or, largely, echolocation levels on a monthly or consistent with the HSTT Phase II final elsewhere) has either potentially annual basis as determined from over rule. contributed to or (as with the Bahamas ten years of passive acoustic monitoring Response: NMFS does not disregard example) been more definitively (DiMarzio et al., 2019, 2020). the fact that it is possible for naval causally linked with marine mammal Furthermore, visual, photo- activities using hull-mounted tactical strandings. As noted, there are a suite of identification, and satellite tagging sonar to contribute to the death of factors that have been associated with studies at a Navy range in Southern marine mammals in certain these specific cases of strandings California have documented repeated circumstances via strandings resulting directly associated with sonar (steep sightings of the same beaked whale from behaviorally mediated bathymetry, multiple hull-mounted individuals, sightings of new beaked

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41806 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

whale individuals, sightings of beaked occasionally occurred), in the unlikely asserted that the fact that the Navy itself whale mother-calf pairs, and most event ship personnel do not feel the has not previously hit whales from importantly, repeated sighting of beaked strike. The Navy’s strict internal either stock does not alone justify whale mothers with their second calf procedures and mitigation requirements removal, especially when the Navy (Falcone et al., 2012; Schorr et al., 2014, include reporting of any vessel strikes of admits that it was unable to identify the 2019, 2020). New passive acoustic marine mammals, and the Navy’s species of over one-third (36 percent) of monitoring in the HSTT Study Area discipline, extensive training (not only the whales it struck during the relevant documents more extensive beaked for detecting marine mammals, but for time period. The Commenters stated whale distribution across the entire detecting and reporting any potential that given the historic strike data and Study Area, wherever sensors are navigational obstruction), and strict calculated percent likelihood of being deployed (Griffiths and Barlow 2016, chain of command give NMFS a high struck as indicated in Table 43 of the Rice et al., 2019, 2020). level of confidence that all strikes 2018 HSTT final rule, NMFS had no For these reasons as well as the other actually get reported. Accordingly, valid basis to conclude that Navy reasons discussed more fully in the NMFS is confident that the information vessels are not likely to strike sei whales 2018 HSTT final rule (e.g., mitigation used to support the analysis is accurate from the Eastern North Pacific stock or measures, monitoring, etc.), NMFS does and complete. sperm whales from the CA/OR/WA not anticipate that the Navy’s HSTT There is no evidence that Navy stock. training and testing activities will result training and testing activities (or other Response: The Commenters are in beaked whale strandings and acoustic activities) increase the risk of correct that the probabilities calculated mortality, and therefore, no takes are nearby non-Navy vessels (or other for vessel strike for each stock were authorized. nearby Navy vessels not involved in the considered in combination with the referenced training or testing) striking information indicating the species that Ship Strike marine mammals. More whales are the Navy has definitively hit in the Comment 24: In a comment on the struck by non-Navy vessels off HSTT Study Area since 1991 (since they 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter California in areas outside of the HSTT started tracking vessel strikes stated that the Navy’s current approach Study Area such as approaches to Los consistently), as well as the information to determine the risk of a direct vessel Angeles and San Francisco. on relative abundance, total recorded collision with marine mammals is Comment 25: Commenters noted that strikes (by any vessel), and the overlay flawed and fails to account for the between publication of the 2018 HSTT of all of this information with the likelihood that ship strikes since 2009 proposed rule and the 2018 HSTT final Navy’s area of testing and training were unintentionally underreported. rule, NMFS removed seven whale stocks activities. In Navy strikes over the last The Commenter noted that vessel from the list of whales the Navy 11 years in the HSTT Study Area (2009– collisions are generally underreported determined were likely to be struck and 2019), the species struck has been in part because they can be difficult to killed by a vessel in the initial five-year identified. The Eastern North Pacific detect, especially for large vessels and period, including sei whales from the stock of sei whales have never been that the distribution, being based on Hawaii and Eastern North Pacific stocks, struck by the Navy, have rarely been reported strikes, does not account for and sperm whales from the California/ struck by other vessels (only one other this problem. Additionally, the Oregon/Washington (CA/OR/WA) stock. vessel strike is known), have a low Commenter asserted that the Navy’s The Commenters asserted that NMFS percent likelihood of being struck based analysis does not address the potential has not sufficiently justified its decision on the SAR calculations (2.3 percent), for increased strike risk of non-Navy to remove the Eastern North Pacific and a very low relative abundance vessels as a consequence of acoustic stock of sei whales and the CA/OR/WA (0.007). The CA/OR/WA stock of sperm disturbance. For example, some types of stock of sperm whales from the list of whales have also never been struck by anthropogenic noise have been shown whale stocks the Navy initially the Navy, have rarely been struck by to induce near-surfacing behavior in determined had the potential to be other vessels (only one other vessel right whales, increasing the risk of ship- struck and killed by a vessel. They strike is known, even given their higher strike—by not only the source vessel but noted that while NMFS cited relative abundance, as noted by the potentially by third-party vessels in the purportedly new considerations in its Commenter), and have a low percent area—at relatively moderate levels of decision (relative likelihood of hitting likelihood of being struck based on the exposure (Nowacek et al., 2004). An one stock versus another and whether SAR calculations (2.3 percent). Because analysis based on reported strikes by the Navy has ever definitively struck an of these reasons, these stocks are Navy vessels per se does not account for individual from a particular stock), the unlikely to be struck by the Navy during this additional risk. In assessing ship- underlying data doesn’t support its the seven years covered by this rule. strike risk, the Navy should include conclusions as the strike probability for Comment 26: In a comment on the offsets to account for potentially both stocks is the same as for the 2019 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters undetected and unreported collisions. Eastern North Pacific Blue whale which stated that the Navy arbitrarily failed to Response: While NMFS agrees that remains on the list of whales that the increase its vessel strike estimate broadly speaking the number of total Commenters characterize as those likely upwards to account for the greater ship strikes may be underestimated due to die from a vessel strike. The number of at-sea days. They stated that to incomplete information from other Commenters further noted that unlike applying the historic strike rate of sectors (shipping, etc.), NMFS is the other five stocks that NMFS 0.00006 whales per day by the increased confident that whales struck by Navy removed from the list, individuals from number of at-sea days over seven years vessels are detected and reported, and both the Eastern North Pacific stock of (assumed by the Commenters to be Navy strikes are the numbers used in sei whales and CA/OR/WA stock of 31,728) the new base strike estimate NMFS’ analysis to support the sperm whales have been hit by a vessel should be 1.9 whales rather than 1.34 authorized number of strikes. Navy in the past, and that the CA/OR/WA whales. They further state that applying ships have multiple Lookouts, including stock of sperm whales is as relatively the Poisson distribution to this new base on the forward part of the ship that can abundant as other stocks included in the strike estimate indicates that there is an visually detect a hit whale (which has final strike list. The Commenters 8 percent chance that 4 large whales

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41807

will be hit during the extended seven- capricious for NMFS to assume that the whales (CA/OR/WA stock, Mexico year time period. They asserted that annualized strike rate for each of the six DPS), and sperm whales (Hawaii stock) NMFS neither considers nor explains large whales species that NMFS (i.e., one, or two, take(s) over five years why the chance of striking 4 whales is determined have the potential to be divided by five to get the annual not considered likely during the struck would decrease over the seven- number) were expected to potentially extended seven-year period of year extension period as compared to occur and were authorized. NMFS did authorization, and how this may impact the initial five-year period. They not arbitrarily reduce the annualized overall strike probability assessments asserted that given that the same level strike rate in the seven-year analysis. for individual whale stocks and that of training and testing activities will Following these same methods, as the NMFS’ reliance on a total vessel strike continue under the proposed extension three total potential mortalities are now number derived for only five years of rule for a longer amount of time, at spread over seven years rather than five, HSTT activities to authorize those minimum, the annual strike rate should an annual average of 0.29 gray whales activities to continue for seven years is remain constant at the levels authorized (Eastern North Pacific stock), fin whales arbitrary and capricious. in the 2018 HSTT final rule. They (CA/OR/WA stock), and humpback Response: Based on the revised seven- asserted that NMFS’ arbitrary reduction whales (Central North Pacific stock) and year ship strike analysis that was used of the annual strike rate precludes an annual average of 0.14 blue whales in the 2019 HSTT proposed rule (which reasoned analysis of whether vessel (Eastern North Pacific stock), humpback incorporates all ship strike data in the strikes will inflict non-negligible whales (CA/OR/WA stock, Mexico HSTT Study Area from 2009 through impacts on whale stocks. The 2018, rather than 2016 as previously DPS), and sperm whales (Hawaii stock) Commenters noted of particular concern as described in Table 16 (i.e., one, or analyzed for the 2017 Navy application), were the CA/OR/WA stock of humpback the strike rate is 0.000047 whales strikes two, take(s) over seven years divided by whales and the Eastern North Pacific seven to get the annual number) are per day at sea. Over a seven year period stock of blue whales, both of which the number of at-sea days is 31,729, expected to potentially occur and are suffer annual human-caused mortality at authorized. leading to an estimate of 1.5 whales over levels much higher than the established seven years. When applying the Poisson PBR (Potential Biological Removal; as As explained in the Serious Injury or distribution to this strike estimate, as represented by the negative residual Mortality subsection of the Negligible reported in the Vessel Strike section, the PBR numbers). They asserted that by Impact Analysis and Determination probability analysis concluded that definition, any mortality above PBR will section of the 2018 HSTT final rule and there was a 22 percent chance that zero decrease a marine mammal stock below this rule, in the commercial fisheries whales would be struck by Navy vessels its optimum sustainable population, setting for ESA-listed marine mammals over the seven-year period, and a 33.5, thereby inducing population level, non- (which is similar to the non-fisheries 25.1, 12.5, and 4.7 percent chance that negligible impacts. The Commenters incidental take setting, in that a one, two, three, or four whales, asserted that NMFS’ analysis does not negligible impact determination is respectively, would be struck over the sufficiently consider the effects of required that is based on the assessment seven-year period. The probability of further increasing mortality above of take caused by the activity being the Navy striking up to three large established PBR levels, especially in analyzed), NMFS may find the impact of whales over the seven-year period light of the fact that annual take the authorized take from a specified (which is a 12.5 percent chance) as estimates have been arbitrarily reduced. activity to be negligible even if total analyzed for this final rule using They noted that an additional 0.2 human-caused mortality exceeds PBR, if updated Navy vessel strike data and at- mortalities per year is a potentially the authorized mortality is less than 10 sea days is very close to the probability significant stressor for the populations percent of PBR and management of the Navy striking up to three large of both the CA/OR/WA stock of measures are being taken to address whales over five years (which was a 10 humpback whales and the Eastern North serious injuries and mortalities from the percent chance). As the probability of Pacific stock of blue whales, and that other activities causing mortality (i.e., striking three large whales does not NMFS failed to adequately consider this other than the specified activities differ significantly from the 2018 HSTT potential through population viability covered by the incidental take final rule, and the probability of striking analyses or other accepted method for authorization in consideration). When four large whales over seven years remains very low to the point of being determining long-term population level those considerations are applied in the unlikely (less than 5 percent), the Navy effects. They further asserted that NMFS section 101(a)(5)(A) context here, the has requested, and we are authorizing, does not separately address the authorized lethal take (0.14 annually) of no change in the number of takes by possibility of striking and killing a humpback whales from the CA/OR/WA serious injury or mortality due to vessel reproductive female. They stated that stock, and blue whales from the Eastern strikes over the seven-year period of this NMFS’s failure to adequately consider North Pacific stock are less than 10 rule. Furthermore, these are statistical the effects of these additional percent of PBR (33.4 for humpback calculations of probabilities of strike mortalities, including the potential whales from the CA/OR/WA stock and that do not factor in Navy operating death of a reproductive female, is 2.1 for blue whales from the Eastern procedures and mitigations to avoid arbitrary and capricious. North Pacific stock) and there are large whales. There has not been an Response: In the 2018 HSTT final management measures in place to actual Navy ship strike to a large whale rule, potential mortalities of three address the mortality and serious injury in the HSTT Study Area since 2010. whales due to ship strike were spread from the activities other than those the This lack of vessel strikes is factored over five years and therefore, the annual Navy is conducting. For the complete into the revised seven-year statistical average of 0.4 gray whales (Eastern discussion of how NMFS carefully calculation and is reflected in the North Pacific stock), fin whales (CA/OR/ considered potential mortalities from probabilities shown above. WA stock), and humpback whales the Navy’s activities in light of PBR Comment 27: In a comment on the (Central North Pacific stock) and an levels, including an explanation for why 2019 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters annual average of 0.2 blue whales mortality above PBR will not necessarily asserted that it was arbitrary and (Eastern North Pacific stock), humpback induce population-level non-negligible

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41808 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

impacts, see the discussion in this rule large populations, one mortality may whether a potential impact on marine and the 2018 HSTT final rule. fall well within typical known annual mammals or their habitat is adverse and NMFS acknowledges that the removal variation and not have any effect on whether possible mitigation measures of a reproductive female (or any female) population rates. Further, we do not would be effective. In this regard, the could be more impactful to the status of understand the problem that the Commenter asserted that it seems as a population than the removal of a male. Commenter’s recommendation is though the proposed ‘‘effectiveness’’ However, the PBR framework that attempting to fix. Applicants generally criterion more appropriately fits as an supports the negligible impact finding do not express reluctance to mitigate element of practicability and should be inherently considers the likelihood that mortality, and we believe that addressed under that prong of the the human-caused mortalities being modifications of this nature would analysis. In other words, a measure not considered may consist of a random confuse the issue. expected to be effective should not be distribution of individuals of different Comment 29: In a comment on the considered a practicable means of sex in different life stages. Also, beyond 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter reducing impacts. the low likelihood of striking a whale at recommended that NMFS address the Response: In the Mitigation Measures all, the likelihood of hitting a habitat component of the least section, NMFS has explained in detail reproductive female is even lower. practicable adverse impact provision in our interpretation of the least greater detail. It asserted that NMFS’ practicable adverse impact standard, the Mitigation and Monitoring discussion of critical habitat, marine rationale for our interpretation, and our Least Practicable Adverse Impact sanctuaries, and BIAs in the proposed approach for implementing our Determination rule is not integrated with the interpretation. The ability of a measure discussion of the least practicable to reduce effects on marine mammals is Comment 28: In a comment on the adverse impact standard. It would seem entirely related to its ‘‘effectiveness’’ as 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter that, under the least practicable adverse a measure, whereas the effectiveness of stated that deaths of, or serious injuries impact provision, adverse impacts on a measure is not connected to its to marine mammals that occur pursuant important habitat should be avoided practicability. The Commenter provides to activities conducted under an whenever practicable. Therefore, to the no support for its argument, and NMFS incidental take authorization, while extent that activities would be allowed has not implemented the suggestion. perhaps negligible to the overall health to proceed in these areas, NMFS should Comment 31: In a comment on the and productivity of the species or stock explain why it is not practicable to 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter and of little consequence at that level, constrain them further. recommended that NMFS recast its nevertheless are clearly adverse to the Response: Marine mammal habitat conclusions to provide sufficient detail individuals involved and results in value is informed by marine mammal as to why additional measures either are some quantifiable (though negligible) presence and use and, in some cases, not needed (i.e., there are no remaining adverse impact on the population; it there may be overlap in measures for the adverse impacts) or would not be reduces the population to some degree. species or stock directly and for use of practicable to implement. The Under the least practicable adverse habitat. In this rule, we have required Commenter stated that the most impact requirement, and more generally time-area mitigations based on a concerning element of NMFS’ under the purposes and policies of the combination of factors that include implementation of the least practicable MMPA, the Commenter asserted that higher densities and observations of adverse impact standard is its Congress embraced a policy to specific important behaviors of marine suggestion that the mitigation measures minimize, whenever practicable, the mammals themselves, but also that proposed by the Navy will ‘‘sufficiently risk of killing or seriously injuring a clearly reflect preferred habitat (e.g., reduce impacts on the affected mammal marine mammal incidental to an calving areas in Hawaii, feeding areas in species and stocks and their habitats’’ activity subject to section 101(a)(5)(A), SOCAL). In addition to being delineated (83 FR 11045). That phrase suggests that including providing measures in an based on physical features that drive NMFS is applying a ‘‘good-enough’’ authorization to eliminate or reduce the habitat function (e.g., bathymetric standard to the Navy’s activities. Under likelihood of lethal taking. The features among others for some BIAs), the statutory criteria, however, those Commenter recommended that NMFS the high densities and concentration of proposed measures are ‘‘sufficient’’ only address this point explicitly in its certain important behaviors (e.g., if they have either (1) eliminated all analysis and clarify whether it agrees feeding) in these particular areas clearly adverse impacts on marine mammal that the incidental serious injury or indicate the presence of preferred species and stocks and their habitat or death of a marine mammal always habitat. The Commenter seems to (2) if adverse impacts remain, it is not should be considered an adverse impact suggest that NMFS must always practicable to reduce them further. for purposes of applying the least consider separate measures aimed at Response: The statement that the practicable adverse impact standard. marine mammal habitat; however, the Commenter references does not indicate Response: NMFS disagrees that it is MMPA does not specify that effects to that NMFS applies a ‘‘good-enough’’ necessary or helpful to explicitly habitat must be mitigated in separate standard to determining least address the point the Commenter raises measures, and NMFS has clearly practicable adverse impact. Rather, it in the discussion on the least identified measures that provide indicates that the mitigation measures practicable adverse impact standard. It significant reduction of impacts to both are sufficient to meet the statutory legal is always NMFS’ practice to mitigate ‘‘marine mammal species and stocks standard. In addition, as NMFS has mortality to the greatest degree possible, and their habitat,’’ as required by the explained in our description of the least as death is the impact that is most easily statute. practicable adverse impact standard, linked to reducing the probability of Comment 30: In a comment on the NMFS does not view the necessary adverse impacts to populations. 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter analysis through the yes/no lens that the However, we cannot agree that one recommended that NMFS rework its Commenter seeks to prescribe. Rather, mortality will always decrease any evaluation criteria for applying the least NMFS’ least practicable adverse impact population in a quantifiable or practicable adverse impact standard to analysis considers both the reduction of meaningful way. For example, for very separate the factors used to determine adverse effects and their practicability.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41809

Further, since the 2018 HSTT proposed NMFS, while clarifying that population- mitigation areas that protect small rule was published, the Navy and NMFS level impacts are mitigated ‘‘through the resident odontocete populations in evaluated additional measures in the application of mitigation measures that Hawaii, it has further expanded the context of both their practicability and limit impacts to individual animals,’’ protections in those areas such that it their ability to further reduce impacts to has again set population-level impact as does not use explosives or MFAS in the marine mammals and have determined the basis for mitigation in the proposed areas (MF1 bin in both areas, MF4 bin that the addition of several measures rule. Because NMFS’ mitigation analysis in the Hawaii Island area). (see Mitigation Measures section) is is opaque, it is not clear what practical Nonetheless, NMFS agrees that the appropriate. Regardless, beyond these effect this position may have on its agency must conduct its own analysis, new additional measures, where the rulemaking. The Commenter stated that which it has done here, and not just Navy’s HSTT activities are concerned, the proposed rule is also unclear in its accept what is provided by the Navy. the Navy has indicated that further application of the ‘‘habitat’’ emphasis in That does not mean, however, that procedural or area mitigation of any the MMPA’s mitigation standard, and NMFS cannot review the Navy’s kind (beyond that prescribed in this that while NMFS’ analysis is opaque, its analysis of effectiveness and final rule) would be impracticable. failure to incorporate or even, practicability, and concur with those NMFS has reviewed documentation and apparently, to consider viable time-area aspects of the Navy’s analysis with analysis provided by the Navy measures suggests that the agency has which NMFS agrees. The Commenter explaining how and why specific not addressed this aspect of the Pritzker seems to suggest that NMFS must procedural and geographic based decision. The Commenter argued that describe in the rule in detail the mitigation measures impact the MMPA sets forth a ‘‘stringent rationale for not adopting every practicability, and NMFS concurs with standard’’ for mitigation that requires conceivable permutation of mitigation, these assessments and has determined the agency to minimize impacts to the which is neither reasonable nor required that the mitigation measures outlined in lowest practicable level, and that the by the MMPA. NMFS has described our the final rule satisfy the statutory agency must conduct its own analysis well-reasoned process for identifying standard and that any adverse impacts and clearly articulate it: It ‘‘cannot just the measures needed to meet the least that remain cannot practicably be parrot what the Navy says.’’ practicable adverse impact standard in further mitigated. Response: NMFS disagrees with much the Mitigation Measures section in this Comment 32: In a comment on the of what the Commenter asserts. First, we rule, and we have followed the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter have carefully explained our approach described there when recommended that any ‘‘formal interpretation of the least practicable analyzing potential mitigation for the interpretation’’ of the least practicable adverse impact standard and how it Navy’s activities in the HSTT Study adverse impact standard by NMFS be applies to both stocks and individuals, Area. Discussion regarding specific issued in a stand-alone, generally including in the context of the Pritzker recommendations for mitigation applicable rulemaking (e.g., in decision, in the Mitigation Measures measures provided by the Commenter amendments to 50 CFR 216.103 or section. Further, we have applied the on the proposed rule are discussed 216.105) or in a separate policy standard correctly in this rule in separately. directive, rather than in the preambles requiring measures that reduce impacts Procedural Mitigation Effectiveness and to individual proposed rules. to individual marine mammals in a Recommendations Response: We appreciate the manner that reduces the probability Commenter’s recommendation and may and/or severity of population-level Comment 34: In a comment on the consider the recommended approach in impacts. Regarding the comment about 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter the future. We note, however, that mitigation of habitat impacts, it has stated that the Navy’s proposed providing relevant explanations in a been addressed above in the response to mitigation zones are similar to the zones proposed incidental take rule is an Comment 29. previously used during Phase II effective and efficient way to provide When a suggested or recommended activities and are intended, based on the information to the reader and solicit mitigation measure is not practicable, Phase III HSTT DEIS/OEIS, to avoid the focused input from the public, and NMFS has explored variations of that potential for marine mammals to be ultimately affords the same mitigation to determine if a practicable exposed to levels of sound that could opportunities for public comment as a form of related mitigation exists. This is result in injury (i.e., PTS). However, the stand-alone rulemaking would. NMFS clearly illustrated in NMFS’ Commenter believed that Phase III has provided similar explanations of the independent mitigation analysis process proposed mitigation zones would not least practicable adverse impact explained in the Mitigation Measures protect various functional hearing standard in other recent section section of the 2018 HSTT final rule. groups from PTS. For example, the 101(a)(5)(A) rules, including: U.S. Navy First, the type of mitigation required mitigation zone for an explosive Operations of Surveillance Towed Array varies by mitigation area, demonstrating sonobuoy is 549 m but the mean PTS Sensor System Low Frequency Active that NMFS has engaged in a site-specific zones range from 2,113–3,682 m for HF. (SURTASS LFA) Sonar; Geophysical analysis to ensure mitigation is tailored Similarly, the mitigation zone for an Surveys Related to Oil and Gas when practicability demands, i.e., some explosive torpedo is 1,920 m but the Activities in the Gulf of Mexico; and the forms of mitigation were practicable in mean PTS zones range from 7,635– final rule for U.S. Navy Training and some areas but not others. Examples of 10,062 m for HF, 1,969–4,315 m for LF, Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet NMFS’ analysis on this issue appear and 3,053–3,311 for PW. The Study Area. throughout the rule. For instance, while appropriateness of such zones is further Comment 33: In a comment on the it was not practicable for the Navy to complicated by platforms firing 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter include a mitigation area for the Tanner- munitions (e.g., for missiles and rockets) cited two judicial decisions and Cortes blue whale BIA, the Navy did at targets that are 28 to 139 km away commented that the ‘‘least practicable agree to expand mitigation protection to from the firing platform. An aircraft adverse impact’’ standard has not been all of the other blue whale BIAs in the would clear the target area well before met. The Commenter stated that SOCAL region. Additionally, while the it positions itself at the launch location contrary to the Pritzker Court decision, Navy cannot alleviate all training in the and launches the missile or rocket.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41810 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Ships, on the other hand, do not clear Commenter believed that rather than vicinity of the detonation area to help the target area before launching the simply reducing the size of the with this monitoring. missile or rocket. In either case, marine mitigation zones it plans to monitor, the As discussed in the comment mammals could be present in the target Navy should supplement its visual (referencing the use of sonobuoys or area unbeknownst to the Navy at the monitoring efforts with other hydrophones), the Navy does employ time of the launch. monitoring measures including passive passive acoustic monitoring when Response: NMFS is aware that some acoustic monitoring. practicable to do so (i.e., when assets mitigation zones do not fully cover the The Commenter suggested that that have passive acoustic monitoring area in which an animal from a certain sonobuoys could be deployed with the capabilities are already participating in hearing group may incur PTS. For this target in the various target areas prior to the activity). For other explosive events, small subset of circumstances, NMFS the activity. This approach would allow there are no platforms participating that discussed potential enlargement of the the Navy to better determine whether have passive acoustic monitoring mitigation zones with the Navy, but the target area is clear and remains clear capabilities. Adding a passive acoustic concurred with the Navy’s assessment until the munition is launched. monitoring capability (either by adding that further enlargement would be Although the Navy indicated that it a passive acoustic monitoring device impracticable. Specifically, the Navy was continuing to improve its (e.g., hydrophone) to a platform already explained that, as discussed in Chapter capabilities for using range participating in the activity, or by 5 (Mitigation) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ instrumentation to aid in the passive adding a platform with integrated OEIS, for explosive mitigation zones any acoustic detection of marine mammals, passive acoustic monitoring capabilities additional increases in mitigation zone it also stated that it didn’t have the to the activity, such as a sonobuoy) for size (beyond what is depicted for each capability or resources to monitor mitigation is not practicable. As explosive activity), or additional instrumented ranges in real time for the discussed in Section 5.5.3 (Active and observation requirements, would be purpose of mitigation. That capability Passive Acoustic Monitoring Devices) of impracticable to implement due to clearly exists. While available resources the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, there are implications for safety, sustainability, could be a limiting factor, the significant manpower and logistical the Navy’s ability to meet Title 10 Commenter notes that personnel who constraints that make constructing and requirements to successfully accomplish monitor the hydrophones on the maintaining additional passive acoustic military readiness objectives, and the operational side do have the ability to monitoring systems or platforms for each training and testing activity Navy’s ability to conduct testing monitor for marine mammals as well. associated with required acquisition impracticable. Additionally, diverting The Commenter has supported the use milestones or as required to meet platforms that have passive acoustic of the instrumented ranges to fulfill operational requirements. Additionally, monitoring platforms would impact mitigation implementation for quite Navy Senior Leadership has approved their ability to meet their Title 10 some time and contends that localizing and determined that the mitigation requirements and reduce the service life certain species (or genera) provides detailed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) of the of those systems. more effective mitigation than localizing 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS provides the Regarding the use of instrumented none at all. greatest extent of protection that is ranges for real-time mitigation, the practicable to implement. NMFS has The Commenter recommended that Commenter is correct that the Navy analyzed the fact that despite these NMFS require the Navy to use passive continues to develop the technology and mitigation measures, some Level A and active acoustic monitoring, capabilities on its Ranges for use in harassment may occur in some whenever practicable, to supplement marine mammal monitoring, which can circumstances; the Navy is authorized visual monitoring during the be effectively compared to operational for these takes by Level A harassment. implementation of its mitigation information after the fact to gain Comment 35: In a comment on the measures for all activities that have the information regarding marine mammal 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter potential to cause injury or mortality response. However, the Navy’s made several comments regarding visual beyond those explosive activities for instrumented ranges were not and acoustic detection as related to which passive acoustic monitoring developed for the purpose of mitigation. mitigating impacts that can cause injury. already was proposed, including those As discussed above, the manpower and The Commenter noted that the Navy activities that would occur on the logistical complexity involved in indicated in the 2018 HSTT DEIS/OEIS Southern California Offshore Range detecting and localizing marine that Lookouts would not be 100 percent (SCORE) and Pacific Missing Range mammals in relation to multiple fast- effective at detecting all species of Facility (PMRF) ranges. moving sound source platforms in order marine mammals for every activity Response: For explosive mitigation to implement real-time mitigation is because of the inherent limitations of zones, any additional increases in significant. A more detailed discussion observing marine species and because mitigation zone size (beyond what is of the limitations for on-range passive the likelihood of sighting individual depicted for each explosive activity) or acoustic detection as real-time animals is largely dependent on observation requirements would be mitigation is provided in Comment 42 observation conditions (e.g., time of day, impracticable to implement due to and is not practicable for the Navy. For sea state, mitigation zone size, implications for safety, sustainability, example, beaked whales produce highly observation platform). The Navy has and the Navy’s ability to meet Title 10 directed echolocation clicks that are been collaborating with researchers at requirements to successfully accomplish difficult to simultaneously detect on the University of St. Andrews to study military readiness objectives. We do multiple hydrophones within the Navy Lookout effectiveness and the note, however, that since the 2018 instrumented range at PMRF; therefore, Commenter anticipates that the Lookout HSTT proposed rule, the Navy has there is a high probability that a effectiveness study will be very committed to implementing pre-event vocalizing animal would be assigned a informative once completed, but notes observations for all in-water explosives false location on the range (i.e., the Navy that in the interim, the preliminary data events (including some that were not would not be able to verify its presence do provide an adequate basis for taking previously monitored) and to using in a mitigation zone). Although the a precautionary approach. The additional platforms if available in the Navy is continuing to improve its

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41811

capabilities to use range Takes that cannot be mitigated are ship mitigation ranges for mid- instrumentation to aid in the passive analyzed and authorized provided the frequency active sonars on surface ships acoustic detection of marine mammals, necessary findings can be made. (<1,000 yds), and would not be at this time it would not be effective or Comment 38: In a comment on the significantly better than the current practicable for the Navy to monitor 2018 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters system developed by the Navy in instrumented ranges for the purpose of stated that NMFS should cap the consultation with NMFS. real-time mitigation for the reasons maximum level of activities each year. The purpose of Navy Lookouts is to discussed in Section 5.5.3 (Active and Response: The Commenters offer no provide sighting information for marine Passive Acoustic Monitoring Devices) of rationale for why a cap is needed and mammals and other protected species, the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. nor do they suggest what an appropriate as well as other boats and vessels in the Comment 36: In a comment on the cap might be. The Navy is responsible area, in-water debris, and other safety of 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter under Title 10 for conducting the navigation functions. During active recommended that NMFS require the needed amount of testing and training to sonar use, additional personnel are Navy to conduct additional pre-activity maintain military readiness, which is assigned for the duration of the sonar overflights before conducting any what they have proposed and NMFS has event. In addition, the other Navy activities involving detonations barring analyzed. Further, the MMPA states that personnel on a given bridge watch along any safety issues (e.g., low fuel), as well NMFS shall issue MMPA authorizations with designated Lookouts are also as post-activity monitoring for activities if the necessary findings can be made, constantly watching the water for safety involving medium- and large caliber as they have been here. Importantly, as of navigation and marine mammals. projectiles, missiles, rockets, and described in the Mitigation Areas Navy training and testing activities bombs. section, the Navy will limit activities often occur simultaneously and in Response: The Navy has agreed to (active sonar, explosive use, etc.) to various regions throughout the HSTT implement pre-event observation varying degrees in multiple areas that Study Area, with underway time that mitigation, as well as post-event are important to sensitive species or for could last for days or multiple weeks at observation, for all in-water explosive critical behaviors in order to minimize a time. The pool of certified marine event mitigation measures. If there are impacts that are more likely to lead to mammal observers across the U.S. West other platforms participating in these adverse effects on rates of recruitment or Coast is rather limited, with many events and in the vicinity of the survival. already engaged in regional NMFS detonation area, they will also visually Comment 39: In a comment on the survey efforts. Relative to the number of observe this area as part of the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter dedicated MMOs that would be required mitigation team. suggested the Navy could improve to implement this condition, as of July Comment 37: In a comment on the observer effectiveness through the use of 2018, there are approximately 22 sonar- 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter NMFS-certified marine mammal equipped Navy ships (i.e., surface ships recommended that the Navy implement observers. with hull-mounted active sonars) larger shutdown zones. Response: The Navy currently stationed in San Diego. Six additional Response: The Navy mitigation zones requires at least one qualified Lookout vessels from the Pacific Northwest also represent the maximum surface area the on watch at all times a vessel is transit to Southern California for Navy can effectively observe based on underway. In addition, on surface ships training (28 ships times 2 observers per the platform involved, number of with hull-mounted sonars during sonar watch times 2 watches per day = personnel that will be involved, and the events, the number increases with two minimum of 112 observers). There are number and type of assets and resources additional Lookouts on the forward currently not enough certified marine available. As mitigation zone sizes portion of the vessel (i.e., total of three mammal observers to cover these Navy increase, the potential for observing Lookouts). Furthermore, unlike civilian activities, even if it were practicable for marine mammals and thus reducing commercial ships, there are additional the other reasons explained above. impacts decreases, because the number bridge watch standers on Navy ships Senior Navy commands in the Pacific of observers cannot increase although viewing the water during all activities. continuously reemphasize the the area to observe increases. For The Navy’s Marine Species Awareness importance of Lookout responsibilities instance, if a mitigation zone increases training that all bridge watchstanders to all ships. Further, the Navy has an from 1,000 to 2,000 yd, the area that including Lookouts take has been ongoing study in which certified Navy must be observed increases four-fold. reviewed and approved by NMFS. This civilian scientist observers embark NMFS has analyzed the Navy’s required training is conducted annually and prior periodically on Navy ships in support of mitigation and found that it will effect to MTEs. In addition, unit-based passive a comparative Lookout effectiveness the least practicable adverse impact. acoustic detection is used when study. Results from this study will be The Navy’s mitigation measures available and appropriate. used to make recommendations for consider both the need to reduce As we understand from the Navy, further improvements to Lookout potential impacts and the ability to mandating NMFS-certified marine training. provide effective observations mammal observers on all platforms Additionally, we note that the throughout a given mitigation zone. To would require setting up and necessity to include trained NMFS- implement these mitigation zones, Navy administering a certification program, approved PSOs on Navy vessels, while Lookouts are trained to use a providing security clearance for adding little or no additional protective combination of unaided eye and optics certified people, ensuring that all or data-gathering value, would be very as they search the surface around a platforms are furnished with these expensive and those costs would need vessel, detonation location, or individuals, and housing these people to be offset—most likely through applicable sound source. In addition, on ships for extended times from weeks reductions in the budget for Navy there are other Navy personnel on a to months. This would be an extreme monitoring, through which invaluable given bridge watch (in addition to logistical burden on realistic training. data is gathered. designated Lookouts), who are also The requirement for additional non- Comment 40: In a comment on the constantly watching the water for safety Navy observers would provide little 2018 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters of navigation and marine mammals. additional benefit, especially at the near stated that NMFS should consider

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41812 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

increasing the exclusion zone to the 120 The main driver for ship speed ships that make Navy vessels much less dB isopleth because some animals are reduction is reducing the possibility and likely to strike a whale. sensitive to sonar at low levels of severity of ship strikes to large whales. When developing Phase III mitigation exposure. However, even given the wide ranges of measures, the Navy analyzed the Response: First, it is important to note speeds from slow to fast that Navy ships potential for implementing additional that the Commenters are suggesting that must use to meet training and testing types of mitigation, such as vessel speed NMFS require mitigation that would requirements, the Navy has a very low restrictions within the HSTT Study eliminate all take, which is not what the strike history to large whales in Area. The Navy determined that based applicable standard requires. Rather, Southern California and Hawaii, with on how the training and testing NMFS is required to put in place no whales struck by the Navy from activities will be conducted within the measures that effect the ‘‘least 2010–2019. There have been no whales HSTT Study Area, vessel speed practicable adverse impact.’’ Separately, struck in Hawaii since 2008 (4 whales restrictions would be incompatible with NMFS acknowledges that some marine were struck between 2000 and 2008). practicability criteria for safety, mammals may respond to sound at 120 Current Navy Standard Operating sustainability, and training and testing dB in some circumstances; however, Procedures and mitigations require a missions, as described in Chapter 5 based on the best available data, only a minimum of at least one Lookout on (Mitigation), Section 5.3.4.1 (Vessel subset of those exposed at that low level duty while underway (in addition to Movement) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ respond in a manner that would be bridge watch personnel) and, so long as OEIS. NMFS fully reviewed this considered harassment under the safety of navigation is maintained, to analysis and concurs with the Navy’s MMPA. NMFS and the Navy have keep 500 yards away from large whales conclusions. quantified those individuals of certain and 200 yards away from other marine Comment 42: In a comment on the stocks where appropriate, analyzed the mammals (except for bow-riding 2018 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters impacts, and authorized take where dolphins and pinnipeds hauled out on stated that NMFS should improve needed. Further, NMFS and the Navy shore or man-made navigational detection of marine mammals with have identified exclusion zone sizes that structures, port structures, and vessels). restrictions on low-visibility activities are best suited to minimize impacts to Furthermore, there is no Navy ship and alternative detection such as marine mammal species and stocks and strike of a marine mammal on record in thermal or acoustic methods. Response: The Navy has compiled their habitat while also being SOCAL that has occurred in the coastal information related to the effectiveness practicable (see Mitigation Measures area (∼40 nmi from shore), which is of certain equipment to detect marine section). where speed restrictions are most mammals in the context of their Comment 41: In a comment on the requested. Finally, the most recent activities, as well as the practicality and 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter model estimate of the potential for stated that NMFS should impose a 10- effect on mission effectiveness of using civilian ship strike risk to blue, kn ship speed limit in biologically various equipment. NMFS has reviewed humpback, and fin whales off the coast important areas and critical habitat for this evaluation and concurs with the of California found the highest risk near marine mammals to reduce vessel characterizations and the conclusions San Francisco and Long Beach strikes. The Commenter also specifically below. associated with commercial ship routes referenced this measure in regard to Low visibility—Anti-submarine to and from those ports (Rockwood et humpback whales and blue whales. warfare training involving the use of Response: This issue also is addressed al., 2017). There was no indication of a mid-frequency active sonar typically elsewhere in the Comments and similar high risk to these species off San involves the periodic use of active sonar Responses section for specific Diego, where the HSTT Study Area to develop the ‘‘tactical picture,’’ or an mitigation areas. However, generally occurs. understanding of the battle space (e.g., speaking, it is impracticable (because of Previously, the Navy commissioned a area searched or unsearched, presence impacts to mission effectiveness) to vessel density and speed report based of false contacts, and an understanding further reduce ship speeds for Navy on an analysis of Navy ship traffic in the of the water conditions). Developing the activities, and, moreover, given the HSTT Study Area between 2011 and tactical picture can take several hours or maneuverability of Navy ships at higher 2015. Median speed of all Navy vessels days, and typically occurs over vast speeds and the presence of effective within the HSTT Study Area is typically waters with varying environmental and Lookouts, any further reduction in already low, with median speeds oceanographic conditions. Training speed would reduce the already low between 5 and 12 knots. Further, the during both high visibility (e.g., probability of ship strike little, if any. presence and transits of commercial and daylight, favorable weather conditions) The Navy is unable to impose a 10-kn recreational vessels, annually and low visibility (e.g., nighttime, ship speed limit because it would not be numbering in the thousands, poses a inclement weather conditions) is vital practical to implement and would more significant risk to large whales because sonar operators must be able to impact the effectiveness of Navy’s than the presence of Navy vessels. The understand the environmental activities by putting constraints on Vessel Strike subsection of the differences between day and night and training, testing, and scheduling. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals varying weather conditions and how Navy requires flexibility in use of section of this rule and the 2018 HSTT they affect sound propagation and the variable ship speeds for training, testing, FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 (Affected detection capabilities of sonar. operational, safety, and engineering Environment and Environmental Temperature layers move up and down qualification requirements. Navy ships Consequences) Section 3.7.3.4.1 in the water column and ambient noise typically use the lowest speed practical (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water levels can vary significantly between given individual mission needs. NMFS Devices) and Appendix K, Section night and day, affecting sound has reviewed the Navy’s analysis of K.4.1.6.2 (San Diego (Arc) Blue Whale propagation and how sonar systems are these additional restrictions and the Feeding Area Mitigation operated. Reducing or securing power in impacts they would have on military Considerations), explain the important low-visibility conditions as a mitigation readiness and concurs with the Navy’s differences between most Navy vessels would affect a commander’s ability to assessment that they are impracticable. and their operation and commercial develop the tactical picture and would

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41813

prevent sonar operators from training in detection technology being researched undergoing demonstration and realistic conditions. Further, during by the Navy, which is largely based on validation under Navy funding. integrated training multiple vessels and existing foreign military grade Thermal detection systems aircraft may participate in an exercise hardware, is designed to allow observers specifically for marine mammal using different dimensions of warfare and eventually automated software to detection have not been sufficiently simultaneously (e.g., submarine warfare, detect the difference in temperature studied both in terms of their surface warfare, air warfare, etc.). If one between a surfaced marine mammal effectiveness within the environmental of these training elements were (i.e., the body or blow of a whale) and conditions found in the HSTT Study adversely impacted (e.g., if sonar the environment (i.e., the water and air). Area and their compatibility with Navy training reflecting military operations Although thermal detection may be training and testing (i.e., polar waters vs. were not possible), the training value of reliable in some applications and temperate waters). The effectiveness of other integrated elements would also be environments, the current technologies even the most advanced thermal degraded. Additionally, failure to test are limited by their: (1) Low sensor detection systems with technological such systems in realistic military resolution and a narrow fields of view, designs specific to marine mammal operational scenarios increases the (2) reduced performance in certain surveys is highly dependent on likelihood these systems could fail environmental conditions, (3) inability environmental conditions, animal during military operations, thus to detect certain animal characteristics characteristics, and animal behaviors. unacceptably placing Sailors’ lives and and behaviors, and (4) high cost and At this time, thermal detection systems the Nation’s security at risk. Some uncertain long term reliability. have not been proven to be more systems have a nighttime testing Thermal detection systems for effective than, or equally effective as, requirement; therefore, these tests military applications are deployed on traditional techniques currently cannot occur only in daylight hours. various Department of Defense (DoD) employed by the Navy to observe for Reducing or securing power in low platforms. These systems were initially marine mammals (i.e., naked-eye visibility conditions would decrease the developed for night time targeting and scanning, hand-held binoculars, high- Navy’s ability to determine whether object detection such as a boat, vehicle, powered binoculars mounted on a ship systems are operationally effective, or people. Existing specialized DoD deck). The use of thermal detection suitable, survivable, and safe for their infrared/thermal capabilities on Navy systems instead of traditional intended use by the fleet even in aircraft and surface ships are designed techniques would compromise the reduced visibility or difficult weather for fine-scale targeting. Viewing arcs of Navy’s ability to observe for marine conditions. these thermal systems are narrow and mammals within its mitigation zones in Thermal detection—Thermal focused on a target area. Furthermore, the range of environmental conditions detection systems are more useful for sensors are typically used only in select found throughout the Study Area. detecting marine mammals in some training events, not optimized for Furthermore, thermal detection systems marine environments than others. marine mammal detection, and have a are designed to detect marine mammals Current technologies have limitations limited lifespan before requiring and do not have the capability to detect regarding water temperature and survey expensive replacement. Some sensor other resources for which the Navy is conditions (e.g., rain, fog, sea state, elements can cost upward of $300,000 required to implement mitigation, glare, ambient brightness), for which to $500,000 per device, so their use is including sea turtles. Focusing on further effectiveness studies are predicated on a distinct military need. thermal detection systems could also required. Thermal detection systems are One example of trying to use existing provide a distraction from and generally thought to be most effective in DoD thermal system is being proposed compromise to the Navy’s ability to cold environments, which have a large by the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force implement its established observation temperature differential between an agreed to attempt to use specialized U.S. and mitigation requirements. The animal’s temperature and the Air Force aircraft with military thermal mitigation measures discussed in environment. Current thermal detection detection systems for marine mammal Chapter 5 (Mitigation), Section 5.3 systems have proven more effective at detection and mitigation during a (Procedural Mitigation to be detecting large whale blows than the limited at-sea testing event. It should be Implemented) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ bodies of small animals, particularly at noted, however, these systems are OEIS include the maximum number of a distance. The effectiveness of current specifically designed for and integrated Lookouts the Navy can assign to each technologies has not been demonstrated into a small number of U.S. Air Force activity based on available manpower for small marine mammals. Thermal aircraft and cannot be added or and resources; therefore, it would be detection systems exhibit varying effectively transferred universally to impractical to add personnel to serve as degrees of false positive detections (i.e., Navy aircraft. The effectiveness remains additional Lookouts. For example, the incorrect notifications) due in part to unknown in using a standard DoD Navy does not have available manpower their low sensor resolution and reduced thermal system for the detection of to add Lookouts to use thermal performance in certain environmental marine mammals without the addition detection systems in tandem with conditions. False positive detections of customized system-specific computer existing Lookouts who are using may incorrectly identify other features software to provide critical reliability traditional observation techniques. (e.g., birds, waves, boats) as marine (enhanced detection, cueing for an The Defense Advanced Research mammals. In one study, a false positive operator, reduced false positive, etc.) Projects Agency funded six initial rate approaching one incorrect Finally, current DoD thermal sensors studies to test and evaluate infrared- notification per 4 min of observation are not always optimized for marine based thermal detection technologies was noted. mammal detections versus object and algorithms to automatically detect The Navy has been investigating the detection, nor do these systems have the marine mammals on an unmanned use of thermal detection systems with automated marine mammal detection surface vehicle. Based on the outcome automated marine mammal detection algorithms the Navy is testing via its of these initial studies, the Navy is algorithms for future mitigation during ongoing research program. The pursuing additional follow-on research training and testing, including on combination of thermal technology and efforts. Additional studies are currently autonomous platforms. Thermal automated algorithms are still being planned for 2020+ but additional

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41814 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

information on the exact timing and information to NMFS about the status predetermined area is not assured. scope of these studies is not currently and findings of Navy-funded thermal Detecting vocalizations on a available (still in development stage). detection studies and any associated hydrophone does not determine The Office of Naval Research Marine practicability assessments at the annual whether vocalizing individuals would Mammals and Biology program also adaptive management meetings. be within the established mitigation funded a project (2013–2019) to test the Passive Acoustic Monitoring—The zone in the timeframes required for thermal limits of infrared-based Navy does employ passive acoustic mitigation. Since detection ranges are automatic whale detection technology. monitoring when practicable to do so generally larger than current mitigation That project focused on capturing whale (i.e., when assets that have passive zones for many activities, this would spouts at two different locations acoustic monitoring capabilities are unnecessarily delay events due to featuring subtropical and tropical water already participating in the activity). For uncertainty in the animal’s location and temperatures, optimizing detector/ other explosive events, there are no put at risk event realism. classifier performance on the collected platforms participating that have Furthermore, PAM at SOAR does not data, and testing system performance by passive acoustic monitoring capabilities. account for animals not vocalizing. For comparing system detections with Adding a passive acoustic monitoring instance, there have been many concurrent visual observations. Results capability (either by adding a passive documented occurrences during PAM indicated that thermal detection systems acoustic monitoring device to a platform verification testing at SOAR of small in subtropical and tropical waters can already participating in the activity, or boats on the water coming across marine be a valuable addition to marine by adding a platform with integrated mammals such as baleen whales that mammal surveys within a certain passive acoustic monitoring capabilities were not vocalizing and therefore not distance from the observation platform to the activity, such as a sonobuoy) for detected by the range hydrophones. (e.g., during seismic surveys, vessel mitigation is not practicable. As Animals must vocalize to be detected by movements), but have challenges discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), PAM; the lack of detections on a associated with false positive detections Section 5.5.3 (Active and Passive hydrophone may give the false of waves and birds (Boebel, 2017). Acoustic Monitoring Devices) of the impression that the area is clear of While Zitterbart et al. (2020) reported 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, there are marine mammals. The lack of on the results of land-based thermal significant manpower and logistical vocalization detections is not a direct imaging of passing whales, their constraints that make constructing and measure of the absence of marine conclusion was that thermal technology maintaining additional passive acoustic mammals. If an event were to be moved under the right conditions and from monitoring systems or platforms for based upon low-confidence land can detect a whale within 3 km each training and testing activity localizations, it may inadvertently be although there could also be lots of false impracticable. Additionally, diverting moved to an area where non-vocalizing positives, especially if there are birds, platforms that have passive acoustic animals of undetermined species are boats, and breaking waves at sea. monitoring platforms would impact present. The Navy plans to continue their ability to meet their Title 10 To develop an estimated position for researching thermal detection systems requirements and reduce the service life an individual, it must be vocalizing and for marine mammal detection to of those systems. its vocalizations must be detected on at determine their effectiveness and The use of real-time passive acoustic least three hydrophones. The compatibility with Navy applications. If monitoring (PAM) for mitigation at the hydrophones must have the required the technology matures to the state Southern California Anti-submarine bandwidth, and dynamic range to where thermal detection is determined Warfare Range (SOAR) exceeds the capture the signal. In addition, calls to be an effective mitigation tool during capability of current technology. The must be sufficiently loud so as to training and testing, NMFS and the Navy has a significant research provide the required signal to noise Navy will assess the practicability of investment in the Marine Mammal ratio on the surrounding hydrophones. using the technology during training Monitoring on Navy Ranges (M3R) Typically, small odontocetes echolocate and testing events and retrofitting the system at three ocean locations with a directed beam that makes Navy’s observation platforms with including SOAR. However, this system detection of the call on multiple thermal detection devices. The was designed and intended to support hydrophones difficult. Developing an assessment will include an evaluation of marine mammal research for select estimated position of selected species the budget and acquisition process species, and not as a mitigation tool. requires the presence of whistles which (including costs associated with Marine mammal PAM using may or may not be produced depending designing, building, installing, instrumented hydrophones is still under on the behavioral state. Beaked whales maintaining, and manning the development and while it has produced at SOAR vocalize only during deep equipment); logistical and physical meaningful results for marine species foraging dives which occur at a rate of considerations for device installment, monitoring, abundance estimation, and approximately 10 per day. They repair, and replacement (e.g., research, it was not developed for nor is produce highly directed echolocation conducting engineering studies to it appropriate for real-time mitigation. clicks that are difficult to ensure there is no electronic or power The ability to detect, classify, and simultaneously detect on multiple interference with existing shipboard develop an estimated position (and the hydrophones. Current real-time systems systems); manpower and resource associated area of uncertainty) differs cannot follow individuals and at best considerations for training personnel to across species, behavioral context, produce sparse positions with multiple effectively operate the equipment; and animal location vs. receiver geometry, false locations. The position estimation considerations of potential security and source level, etc. Based on current process must occur in an area with classification issues. New system capabilities, and given adequate time, hydrophones spaced to allow the integration on Navy assets can entail up vocalizing animals within an detection of the same echolocation click to 5 to 10 years of effort to account for indeterminate radius around a on at least three hydrophones. acquisition, engineering studies, and particular hydrophone are detected, but Typically, a spacing of less than 4 km development and execution of systems obtaining an estimated position for all in water depths of approximately 2 km training. The Navy will provide individual animals passing through a is preferred. In the absence of detection,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41815

the analyst can only determine with matter, where an applicant proposes resulting settlement agreement confidence if a group of beaked whales measures that are likely to reduce prohibited or restricted Navy activities is somewhere within 6 km of a impacts to marine mammals, the fact within specific areas in the HSTT Study hydrophone. Beaked whales produce that they are included in the application Area. These provisional prohibitions stereotypic click trains during deep indicates that the measures are and restrictions on activities within the (<500 m) foraging dives. The presence of practicable, and it is not necessary for HSTT Study Area were derived a vocalizing group can be readily NMFS to conduct a detailed analysis of pursuant to negotiations with the detected by an analyst by examining the the measures the applicant proposed plaintiffs in that lawsuit and were click structure and repetition rate. (rather, they are simply included). specifically not evaluated or selected However, estimating position is possible However, it is necessary for NMFS to based on the type of thorough only if the same train of clicks is consider whether there are additional examination of best available science detected on multiple hydrophones practicable measures that could also that occurs through the rulemaking which is often precluded by the contribute to effecting the least process under the MMPA, or through animal’s narrow beam pattern. practicable adverse impact on the related analyses conducted under the Currently, this is not an automated species or stocks and their habitat. In National Environmental Policy Act routine. the case of the Navy’s HSTT (NEPA) or the ESA. The agreement did In summary, the analytical and application, we worked with the Navy not constitute a concession by the Navy technical capabilities required to use prior to the publication of the 2018 as to the potential impacts of Navy PAM such as M3R at SOAR as a HSTT proposed rule and ultimately the activities on marine mammals or any required mitigation tool are not Navy agreed to increase geographic other marine species, or to the sufficiently robust to rely upon due to mitigation areas adjacent to the island of practicability of the measures. The limitations with near real-time Hawaii to more fully encompass specific Navy’s adoption of restrictions on its classification and determining estimated biologically important areas and the HSTT activities as part of a relatively positions. The level of uncertainty as to Alenuihaha Channel and to limit short-term settlement did not mean that a species presence or absence and additional anti-submarine warfare mid- those restrictions were necessarily location are too high to provide the frequency active sonar (ASW) source supported by the best available science, accuracy required for real-time bins (MF4) within some geographic likely to reduce impacts to marine mitigation. As discussed in Chapter 5 mitigation areas. mammal species or stocks and their (Mitigation) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ During the public comment period on habitat, or practicable to implement OEIS, existing Navy visual mitigation the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, NMFS from a military readiness standpoint procedures and measures, when received numerous recommendations over the longer term in the HSTT Study performed by individual units at-sea, for the Navy to implement additional Area. Accordingly, as required by still remain the most effective and mitigation measures, both procedural statute, NMFS analyzed the Navy’s practical means of protection for marine and time/area limitations. Extensive activities, impacts, mitigation and species. discussion of the recommended potential mitigation (including the Comment 43: In a comment on the mitigation measures in the context of settlement agreement measures) 2018 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters the factors considered in the least pursuant to the least practicable adverse stated that NMFS should add mitigation practicable adverse impact analysis impact standard to determine the for other marine mammal stressors such (considered in the Mitigation Measures appropriate mitigation to include in as dipping sonar, pile driving, and section of the final rule and described these regulations. Some of the measures multiple exposures near homeports. below), as well as considerations of included in the settlement agreement Response: The Navy implements a alternate iterations or portions of the are included in the final rule, while 200-yd shutdown for dipping sonar and recommended measures considered to some are not. Other measures that were a 100-yd exclusion zone for pile-driving. better address practicability concerns, not included in the settlement It is unclear what the Commenter means resulted in the addition of several agreement are included in the final rule. by adding mitigation for ‘‘multiple procedural mitigations and expansion of Ultimately, the Navy adopted all exposures’’ near homeports, and multiple time/area mitigations (see the mitigation measures that are practicable therefore no explanation can be Mitigation Measures section in the final without jeopardizing its mission and provided. rule). These additional areas reflect, for Title 10 responsibilities. In other words, example, concerns about blue whales in a comprehensive assessment by Navy Mitigation Areas SOCAL and small resident odontocete leadership of the final, entire list of Introduction populations in Hawaii (which resulted mitigation measures concluded that the in expanded time/area mitigation), focus inclusion of any further mitigation The Navy included a comprehensive on areas where important behaviors and beyond those measures identified here proposal of mitigation measures in their habitat are found (e.g., in BIAs), and in the final rule would be impracticable. 2017 application that included enhancement of the Navy’s ability to NMFS independently reviewed the procedural mitigations that reduce the detect and reduce injury and mortality Navy’s practicability determinations for likelihood of mortality, injury, hearing (which resulted in expanded monitoring specific mitigation areas and concurs impairment, and more severe behavioral before and after explosive events). with the Navy’s analysis. responses for most species. The Navy Through extensive discussion, NMFS As we outlined in the Mitigation also included time/area mitigation that and the Navy worked to identify and Measures section of the 2018 HSTT final further protects areas where important prioritize additional mitigation rule, NMFS reviewed Appendix K behaviors are conducted and/or measures that are likely to reduce (Geographic Mitigation Assessment) in sensitive species congregate, which impacts on marine mammal species or the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and the reduces the likelihood of takes that are stocks and their habitat and are also information contained there reflects the likely to impact reproduction or possible for the Navy to implement. best available science as well as a robust survival (as described in the Mitigation Following the publication of the 2013 evaluation of the practicability of Measures section of the final rule and HSTT MMPA incidental take rule, the different measures. NMFS used the Navy’s application). As a general Navy and NMFS were sued and the Appendix K to support our independent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41816 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

least practicable adverse impact from mean high tide to 6 nmi offshore further avoid or reduce impacts on analysis. Below is additional discussion around each of these five islands which marine mammals from acoustic and regarding specific recommendations for would also encompass the surrounding explosive stressors and vessel strikes mitigation measures. ocean waters of the Channel Islands NP. from Navy training and testing in this Comment 44: With respect to the Only 92 nmi2 of Santa Barbara Island, or location. The Navy is limiting MF1 national security exemption related to about 8 percent of the Channel Islands surface ship hull-mounted MFAS even mitigation areas, in a comment on the NMS, occurs within the SOCAL portion further in the San Diego Arc Mitigation 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter of the HSTT Study Area, but the entirety Area. The Navy will not conduct more recommended that NMFS should of that piece is included in the Santa than 200 hrs of MF1 MFAS in the specify that authorization may be given Barbara Mitigation Area. The Navy will combined areas of the San Diego Arc only by high-level officers, consistent continue to implement a mitigation area Mitigation Area and newly added San with the Settlement Agreement or with out to 6 nmi of Santa Barbara Island, Nicolas Island and Santa Monica/Long previous HSTT rulings. which includes a portion of the Channel Beach Mitigation Areas. As described in Response: The Navy provided the Islands NMS (inclusive of the Channels the 2018 rule and this rule, the Navy technical analyses contained in Island NP portion) where the Navy will will not use explosives that could Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation restrict the use of MF1 sonar sources potentially result in the take of marine Assessment) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ and some explosives during training. mammals during large-caliber gunnery, OEIS that included details regarding Therefore, no impacts are expected to torpedo, bombing, and missile changing the measure to the appropriate occur within the waters of the Channel (including 2.75-in rockets) activities delegated Command designee (see Islands NP. Please refer to Figure 5.4– during training and testing in the San specifically Appendix K, Section K.2.2.1 4 in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, which Diego Mitigation Area. Regarding the (Proposed Mitigation Areas within the shows the spatial extent of the Santa recommended increase in seasonality to HSTT Study Area), for each of the Barbara Island Mitigation Area. Cabrillo proposed areas). The Commenter December 31, the San Diego Arc current National Monument in San Diego only seasonality is based on the Biologically proposed ‘‘authorization may be given contains some intertidal areas, but no only by high-level officers’’ and Important Area associated with this marine waters. No Navy activities mitigation area (Calambokidis et al., therefore appears to have missed the overlap with the Cabrillo National 2015), which identifies the primary designations made within the cited Monument; therefore, no impacts are months for feeding. While blue whale sections since those do constitute expected. positions that could only be considered Comment 46: In a comment on the calls have been detected in Southern ‘‘high level officers.’’ The decision 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter California through December (Rice et ˇ ´ would be delegated to high-level recommended to extend the seasonality al., 2017, Lewis and Sirovic, 2018), officers. This delegation has been of the San Diego Arc Mitigation Area to given a large propagation range (10–50 clarified in this rule as ‘‘permission December 31 for blue whales that are km or more) for low-frequency blue from the appropriate designated present off southern California almost whale vocalization, blue whale call Command authority.’’ year round, and relatively higher levels detection from a Navy-funded single passive acoustic device near the San SOCAL Areas from June 1 through December 31. Response: Analysis of the San Diego Diego Arc may not be a direct Comment 45: In a comment on the Arc Mitigation Area and its correlation with blue whale presence 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter consideration for additional geographic within the San Diego Arc from recommended that the Navy consider mitigation is provided in the 2018 HSTT November through December. In units of the National Park Service (NPS) FEIS/OEIS in Appendix K (Geographic addition, passive acoustic call detection system and similar areas that occur near Mitigation Assessment), Section K.4.1.6 data does not currently allow for direct the Navy’s training and testing locations (San Diego (Arc) Blue Whale Feeding abundance estimates. Calls may indicate in Southern California and which may Area; Settlement Areas 3–A through 3– some level of blue whale presence, but be affected by noise, including Channel C, California Coastal Commission 3 nmi not abundance or individual residency Islands National Park and Cabrillo Shore Area, and San Diego Arc Area), time. In the most recent Navy-funded National Monument, as it plans its Section K.5.5 (Settlement Areas within passive acoustic monitoring report activities in the HSTT Study Area. the Southern California Portion of the including the one site in the northern Response: Both NMFS and the Navy HSTT Study Area), and Section K.6.2 San Diego Arc from June 2015 to April did consider the effects of Navy (San Diego Arc: Area Parallel to the 2016, blue whale call detection activities on NPS sites and National Coastline from the Gulf of California frequency near the San Diego Arc Monuments. National Parks (NP) and Border to just North of Del Mar). This started declining in November after an National Monuments are addressed in analysis included consideration of October peak (Rice et al., 2017, Sˇ irovic´, Chapter 6 of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. seasonality and the potential personal communication). The Navy- The Channel Islands NP consists of the effectiveness of restrictions to use of funded research on blue whale five islands and surrounding ocean MFAS by the Navy in the area. Based on movements from 2014 to 2017 along the environment out to 1 nmi of Anacapa further discussion between NMFS and U.S. West Coast based on satellite Island, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Rosa the Navy in consideration of the tagging, has shown that individual blue Island, San Miguel Island, and Santa Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation whale movement is wide ranging with Barbara Island. Similarly, the Channel Assessment) analyses, with the 2018 large distances covered daily (Mate et Islands National Marine Sanctuary HSTT final rule the Navy implemented al., 2017). Nineteen (19) blue whales (NMS) consists of the ocean waters additional mitigation within the San were tagged in 2016, the most recent within an area of 1,109 nmi2 that also Diego Arc Mitigation Area, as detailed reporting year available (Mate et al., surround the same islands of Anacapa in this 2020 rule and Chapter 5 2017). Only 5 of the 19 blue whales Island, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Rosa (Mitigation) Section 5.4.3 (Mitigation spent time in the SOCAL portion of the Island, San Miguel Island and Santa Areas for Marine Mammals in the HSTT Study Area, and only spent a few Barbara Island to the south. The Southern California Portion of the Study days within the range complex (2–13 Channel Islands NMS waters extend Area) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, to days). Average distance from shore for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41817

blue whales was 113 km. None of the 19 required for proximity to airfields in sonars. Limited ping time and lower blue whales tagged in 2016 spent time San Diego such as Naval Air Station power settings therefore would limit the within the San Diego Arc. From North Island and for airspace impact from dipping sonar to any previous year efforts (2014–2015), only management. However, helicopters only marine mammal species. It should be a few tagged blue whales passed use these areas in the Arc for a Kilo Dip. pointed out that the Commenter’s through the San Diego Arc. In addition, A Kilo Dip is a functional check of recommendation is based on new Navy and non-Navy-funded blue whale approximately 1–2 pings of active sonar behavioral response research specific to satellite tagging studies started in the to confirm the system is operational beaked whales (Falcone et al., 2017). early 1990s and have continued before the helicopter heads to more The Navy relied upon the best science irregularly through 2017. In general, remote offshore training areas. This that was available to develop behavioral most blue whales start a south-bound ensures proper system operation and response functions in consultation with migration from the ‘‘summer foraging avoids loss of limited training time, NMFS for the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. areas’’ in the mid- to late-fall time expenditure of fuel, and cumulative The article cited in the comment period, unless food has not been engine use in the event of equipment (Falcone et al., 2017) was not available plentiful, which can lead to a much malfunction. The potential effects of at the time the 2017 HSTT DEIS/OEIS earlier migration south. Therefore, while dipping sonar have been accounted for was published. NMFS and the Navy blue whales have been documented in the rule’s analysis. Dipping sonar is have reviewed the article and concur within the San Diego Arc previously, further discussed below in Comment 48. that neither this article nor any other individual use of the area is variable, Comment 48: In a comment on the new information that has been likely of short duration, and declining 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter after October. Considering the newest recommended prohibiting the use of air- published or otherwise conveyed since passive acoustic and satellite tagging deployed MFAS in the San Diego Arc the 2018 HSTT proposed rule was data, there is no scientific justification Mitigation Area. published would fundamentally change for extending the San Diego Arc Response: The 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS the assessment of impacts or Mitigation Area period from October 31 and specifically Appendix K conclusions in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ to December 31. (Geographic Mitigation Assessment) OEIS or in this rulemaking. Comment 47: In a comment on the analyze MFAS and LFAS restrictions Nonetheless, the new information and 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter within the San Diego Arc. Other sonar data presented in the new article were recommended limiting all MF1 use systems are used less frequently in the thoroughly reviewed by the Navy and within the San Diego Arc Mitigation vicinity of the San Diego Arc than will be quantitatively incorporated into Area. A Commenter also recommended surface ship MFAS. In regard to the future behavioral response functions, as NMFS should carefully consider recommendation to prohibit ‘‘air- appropriate, when and if other new data prohibiting use of other LFAS and deployed’’ or dipping MFAS, the only that would meaningfully change the MFAS during the time period the San helicopter dipping sonar activity that functions would necessitate their Diego Arc Mitigation Area is in place, would likely be conducted in the San revision. The new information and data and for the MTEs to be planned for Diego Arc area is a Kilo Dip, which presented in the article was thoroughly other months of the year. occurs relatively infrequently and reviewed when it became available and Response: Based on further discussion involves a functional check of further considered in discussions with between NMFS and the Navy in approximately 1–2 pings of active sonar some of the paper’s authors. Many of the consideration of the proposed before moving offshore beyond the San variables requiring further analysis for mitigation presented in the 2018 HSTT Diego Arc to conduct the training beaked whales and dipping sonar proposed rule, the Navy is now limiting activity. During use of this sonar, the impact assessment are still being MF1 surface ship hull-mounted MFAS Navy will implement the procedural researched under continued Navy even further in the San Diego Arc mitigation described in the Mitigation funding through 2023. The small Mitigation Area. The Navy will not Measures section of this rule. The Kilo portion of designated Kilo Dip areas that conduct more than 200 hrs of MF1 Dip functional check needs to occur overlap the southern part of the San MFAS in the combined areas of the San close to Naval Air Station North Island Diego Arc is not of sufficient depth for Diego Arc Mitigation Area and newly in San Diego to ensure all systems are preferred habitat of beaked whales (see added San Nicolas Island and Santa functioning properly, before moving Figure 2.1–9 in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Areas. offshore. This ensures proper system OEIS). Further, passive acoustic The Mitigation Measures section of the operation and avoids loss of limited monitoring for the past several years in 2018 HSTT final rule and Appendix K training time, expenditure of fuel, and the San Diego Arc confirms a lack of (Geographic Mitigation Assessment) of cumulative engine use in the event of beaked whale detections (Rice et al., the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS discuss equipment malfunction. The potential 2017). Also, behavioral responses of MFAS restrictions within the San Diego effects of dipping sonar have been beaked whales from dipping and other Arc Mitigation Area. Other training accounted for in the rule’s analysis. sonars cannot be universally applied to MFAS systems are likely to be used less Further, due to lower power settings for other species including blue whales. frequently in the vicinity of the San dipping sonar, potential behavioral Navy-funded behavioral response Diego Arc area than surface ship MFAS. impact ranges of dipping sonar are studies of blue whales to simulated Given water depths, the San Diego Arc significantly lower than surface ship surface ship sonar has demonstrated area is not conducive for large scale sonars. For example, the HSTT average anti-submarine warfare exercises, nor is modeled range to temporary threshold there are distinct individual variations it near areas where other anti-submarine shift of dipping sonar for a 1-second as well as strong behavioral state warfare training and testing occurs. Due ping on low-frequency cetacean (i.e., considerations that influence any to the presence of existing Navy blue whale) is 77 m (2018 HSTT FEIS/ response or lack of response (Goldbogen subareas in the southern part of the San OEIS Table 3.7–7). This range is easily et al., 2013). Diego Arc, a limited amount of monitored for large whales by a Comment 49: In a comment on the helicopter dipping MFAS could occur. hovering helicopter and is accounted for 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter These designated range areas are in the mitigation ranges for dipping recommended requiring vessel speed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41818 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

restrictions within the San Diego Arc possibility of ship strike in the San Behavioral responses of beaked Mitigation Area. Diego Arc Mitigation Area, the Navy whales from dipping and other sonars Response: Previously, the Navy will implement procedural mitigation cannot be universally applied to other commissioned a vessel density and for vessel movements based on guidance marine mammal species. For example, speed report for the HSTT Study Area from NMFS for vessel strike avoidance. Navy-funded behavioral response (CNA, 2016). Based on an analysis of The Navy will also issue seasonal studies of blue whales to simulated Navy ship traffic in the HSTT Study awareness notification messages to all surface ship sonar has demonstrated Area between 2011 and 2015, median Navy vessels of blue, fin, and gray there are distinct individual variations speed of all Navy vessels within whale occurrence to increase ships as well as strong behavioral state Southern California is typically already awareness of marine mammal presence considerations that influence any low, with median speeds between 5 and as a means of improving detection and response or lack of response (Goldbogen 12 kn (CNA, 2016). Slowest speeds avoidance of whales in SOCAL. When et al., 2013). The same conclusion on occurred closer to the coast including developing the mitigation for the 2018 the importance of exposure and the general area of the San Diego Arc HSTT final rule, NMFS and the Navy behavioral context was stressed by and approaches to San Diego Bay. The analyzed the potential for implementing Harris et al. (2017). Therefore, it is presence and transits of commercial and additional types of mitigation, such as expected that other species would also recreational vessels, numbering in the developing vessel speed restrictions have highly variable individual many hundreds, far outweighs the within the HSTT Study Area. The Navy responses ranging from some response presence of Navy vessels. Regarding determined that based on how the to no response to any anthropogenic strikes by vessels other than Navy training and testing activities will be sound. This variability is accounted for vessels, two blue whale ship strike conducted within the HSTT Study Area in the current behavioral response deaths were observed during the most under the planned activities, vessel curves described in the 2018 HSTT recent five-year period of 2013–2017 speed restrictions would be FEIS/OEIS and supporting technical (Carretta et al. 2019, final 2018 SARs). incompatible with the practicability reports, and used by NMFS in the There were no reported ship-strike assessment criteria for safety, MMPA rule. sustainability, and Title 10 The potential effects of dipping sonar related serious injuries during this time requirements, as described in Section have been rigorously accounted for in period (Carretta et al. 2019). 5.3.4.1 (Vessel Movement) of the 2018 the analysis. Parameters such as power Observations of blue whale ship strikes HSTT FEIS/OEIS. level and propagation range for typical have been highly-variable in previous Comment 50: In a comment on the dipping sonar use are factored into five-year periods, with as many as 10 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter HSTT acoustic impact analysis along observed (nine deaths and one serious recommended prohibiting the use of air- with guild specific criteria and other injury) during 2007–2011 (Carretta et deployed MFAS in the Santa Barbara modeling variables as detailed in the al., 2013). The highest number of blue Island Mitigation Area. 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and associated whale ship strikes observed in a single Response: The Commenter’s request technical reports for criteria and year (2007) was five whales (Carretta et to prohibit ‘‘air-deployed’’ MFAS is acoustic modeling. Due to lower power al. 2013). Additionally, ship strike based on one paper (Falcone et al., settings for dipping sonar, potential mortality was estimated for blue whales 2017), which is a Navy-funded project impact ranges of dipping sonar are in the U.S. West Coast EEZ (Rockwood designed to study behavioral responses significantly lower than surface ship et al., 2017), using an encounter theory of a single species, Cuvier’s beaked sonars. For example, the HSTT average model (Martin et al., 2016) that whales, to MFAS. The Navy in modeled range to temporary threshold combined species distribution models of consultation with NMFS relied upon the shift of dipping sonar for a 1-second whale density (Becker et al., 2016), best science that was available to ping on low-frequency cetacean (i.e., vessel traffic characteristics (size, speed, develop behavioral response functions blue whale) is 77 m, and for mid- and spatial use), along with whale for beaked whales and other marine frequency cetaceans including beaked movement patterns obtained from mammals for the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. whales is 22 m (2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS satellite-tagged whales in the region to NMFS and the Navy have reviewed the Table 3.7–7). This range is monitored estimate encounters that would result in article and concur that neither this for marine mammals by a hovering mortality and predicted higher annual article (Falcone et al., 2017) nor any helicopter and is accounted for in the numbers of mortality. But as discussed other new information that has been mitigation ranges for dipping sonars in this final rule, the SAR further cites published or otherwise conveyed since (200 yd or 183 m). Limited ping time to Monnahan et al. (2015), which used the 2018 HSTT proposed rule was and lower power settings therefore a population dynamics model to published would fundamentally change would limit the impact from dipping estimate that the Eastern North Pacific the assessment of impacts or sonar to any marine mammal species. blue whale population was at 97 percent conclusions in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ For other marine mammal species, the of carrying capacity in 2013 and to OEIS or in this rulemaking. small area around Santa Barbara Island suggest that the observed lack of a Nonetheless, the new information and does not have resident marine population increase since the early data presented in the new article were mammals, identified biologically 1990s was explained by density thoroughly reviewed by the Navy and important areas, nor is it identified as a dependence, not impacts from ship will be quantitatively incorporated into breeding or persistent foraging location strike. Ship strike in the West Coast EEZ future behavioral response functions, as for cetaceans. Instead, the same marine continues to be complex with vessel appropriate, when and if other new data mammals that range throughout the speeds, types, and routes of travel all that would meaningfully change the offshore Southern California area could contributing to variability in ship traffic functions would necessitate their pass at some point through the marine and animal vulnerability. That said, revision. Many of the variables requiring waters of Santa Barbara Island. As there has been no confirmed Navy ship further analysis for beaked whales and discussed in the mitigation section of strike to a blue whale in the entire dipping sonar impact assessment are the rule, the Navy will implement (and Pacific over the 14-year period from still being researched under continued is currently implementing) year-round 2005 to 2019. To minimize the Navy funding through 2023. limitations to MFAS and larger

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41819

explosive use. The Navy will not use biologically important areas, nor is it Southern California is typically already MF1 surface ship hull-mounted MFAS identified as a breeding or persistent low, with median speeds between 5 and during training or testing, or explosives foraging location for cetaceans. Instead, 12 kn (CNA, 2016). Slowest speeds that could potentially result in the take the same marine mammals that range occurred closer to the coast and islands. of marine mammals during medium- throughout the offshore Southern Given the history of no documented caliber or large-caliber gunnery, California area could pass at some point Navy ship strikes over the last 10 years torpedo, bombing, and missile through the marine waters of Santa (2010–2019) throughout SOCAL during (including 2.75-in rockets) activities Barbara Island. As discussed in this rule Navy activities, lack of significant and during training in the Santa Barbara the Navy is implementing year-round repeated use of the small portion of Island Mitigation Area. Other MFAS limitations to MFAS and larger waters within the Santa Barbara Island systems within SOCAL are used less explosive use. Other MFAS systems for Mitigation Area by marine mammals, frequently than surface ship sonars, and which the Navy sought coverage within anticipated low individual residency more importantly are of much lower SOCAL are used less frequently than times within the Santa Barbara Island power with correspondingly lower surface ship sonars, and more Mitigation Area, application of propagation ranges and reduced importantly are of much lower power mitigation and protective measures as potential behavioral impacts. with correspondingly lower propagation outlined in this rule and the 2018 HSTT Comment 51: In a comment on the ranges and reduced potential behavioral final rule, documented lower speeds 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter impacts. Therefore, further limitations Navy vessels already navigate by, recommended prohibiting other sources of active sonars within this area are not detailed assessments of realistic training of MFAS in the Santa Barbara anticipated to be meaningfully more and testing requirements, and potential Mitigation Area. protective to marine mammal impacts of further restrictions, NMFS Response: Appendix K (Geographic populations than existing mitigation has determined that vessel speed Mitigation Assessment) of the 2018 measures within the entire SOCAL restrictions in the Santa Barbara Island HSTT FEIS/OEIS, which NMFS portion of the HSTT Study Area. Mitigation Area are not warranted. reviewed, concurred with, and used to Comment 52: In a comment on the Comment 53: In a comment on the support our MMPA least practicable 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter adverse impact analysis, discusses the recommended implementing vessel recommended additional mitigation Navy’s analysis of MFAS restrictions speed restrictions in the Santa Barbara areas for important beaked whale around Santa Barbara Island. Other Island Mitigation Area (Channel Islands habitat in the Southern California Bight. training MFAS systems are likely to be Sanctuary Cautionary Area). The Commenter asserted that it is used less frequently in the vicinity of Response: The Channel Islands important to focus substantial Santa Barbara Island than surface ship Sanctuary Cautionary Area was management efforts on beaked whales MFASs. Although not prohibiting the renamed the Santa Barbara Island within the Navy’s SOCAL Range use of other sources of MFAS, the Navy Mitigation Area for the rule. All Complex, which sees the greatest annual will not use MF1 surface ship hull- locations within the HSTT Study Area amount of sonar and explosives activity mounted MFAS during training or have been used for Navy training and of any Navy range in the Pacific. testing, or explosives that could testing for decades. There has not been Response: The basis for this comment potentially result in the take of marine any Navy ship strike to marine includes incorrect or outdated mammals during medium-caliber or mammals in SOCAL over the 10-year information or information that does not large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, period from 2010–2019, and there has reflect the environment present in the and missile (including 2.75-in rockets) never been a Navy strike within the HSTT Study Area, such as, ‘‘. . . beaked activities during training in the Santa boundary of the Channel Islands whale populations in the California Barbara Island Mitigation Area. National Marine Sanctuary over the Current have shown significant, The relatively small area surrounding course of strike record collection dating possibly drastic declines in abundance the Santa Barbara Island Mitigation Area back 20 years. Therefore, ship strike risk over the last twenty years.’’ The citation represents less than 0.08 percent of the to marine mammals transiting the Santa provided in the footnote to the comment entire HSTT SOCAL area. An even Barbara Island Mitigation Area is and postulated ‘‘decline’’ was for smaller portion of this area meets the minimal. Additionally, as discussed in beaked whales up until 2008 (which scientifically accepted minimum depth this rule, the 2018 HSTT final rule, and does not take into account information criteria expected for beaked whale the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS Section from the last 10 years) and was a habitat, in Southern California usually 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In- postulated trend for the entire U.S. West greater than 800 m. The bathymetric Water Devices) and Appendix K Coast, not data which is specific to the area greater than 800 m depth and (Geographic Mitigation Assessment), HSTT Study Area. As noted in Section within the Santa Barbara Island there are important differences between 3.7.3.1.1.7 (Long-Term Consequences) of Mitigation Area is approximately 24 most Navy vessels and their operation the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the square Nmi (26 percent of the total and commercial ships that individually postulated decline was in fact not Mitigation Area spatial extent or only make Navy vessels much less likely to present within the SOCAL portion of 0.02 percent of the total HSTT SOCAL strike a whale. Navy vessels already the HSTT Study Area, where area). Beaked whale monitoring at other operate at lower speeds given a abundances of beaked whales have locations within SOCAL have shown particular transit or activity need. remained higher than other locations off that even in ocean basins thought to Mitigation measures include a provision the U.S. West Coast. In addition, the have Cuvier’s beaked whale sub- to avoid large whales by 500 yd, so long authors of the 2013 citation (Moore and population, there is still quite a bit of as safety of navigation and safety of Barlow, 2013) have published trends variation in occurrence and movement operations is maintained. Previously, based on survey data gathered since of beaked whales within a given basin the Navy commissioned a vessel density 2008 for beaked whales in the California (Schorr et al., 2017, 2018, 2020). The and speed report for HSTT (CNA, 2016). Current, which now includes the small area around Santa Barbara Island Based on an analysis of Navy ship traffic highest abundance estimate in the is not known to have resident marine in HSTT between 2011 and 2015, the history of these surveys (Barlow 2016; mammals, formally identified average speed of all Navy vessels within Carretta et al., 2017; Moore and Barlow,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41820 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

2017). Also, when considering the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, which NMFS subsequently sighted with a calf. The portion of the beaked whale population reviewed, concurred with, and used to latter whale was sighted for a third within the SOCAL portion of the HSTT support the mitigation analysis in the consecutive year in 2017, this time Study Area and as presented in the 2018 rule. See Chapter 5 (Mitigation), Section without a calf, along with two other HSTT FEIS/OEIS, multiple studies have 5.4.1.2 (Mitigation Area Assessment) of adult females with calves who had not documented continued high abundance the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS for additional been previously sighted. These sightings of beaked whales and the long-term details regarding the assessments of of known reproductive females with and residency of documented individual areas considered for mitigation. Further, without calves over time (n = 45) are beaked whales, specifically where the the Mitigation Measures, Brief providing critically needed calving and Navy has been training and testing for Comparison of 2015 Settlement weaning rate data for Population decades (see for example Debich et al., Mitigation and Final HSTT Mitigation in Consequences of Disturbance (PcoD) 2015a, 2015b; Dimarzio et al., 2018, the Rule section of the 2018 HSTT final models currently being developed for 2020; Falcone and Schorr, 2012, 2014, rule explicitly discusses NMFS this species on SOAR. 2018, 2020; Hildebrand et al., 2009; consideration of mitigation that was From August 2010 through October Moretti, 2016; Sˇ irovic´ et al., 2016; included in the settlement agreement 2019, an estimate of overall abundance Smultea and Jefferson, 2014). There is versus what was included in the final of Cuvier’s beaked whales at the Navy’s no evidence that there have been any rule in the context of the MMPA least instrumented range in San Nicolas population-level impacts to beaked practicable adverse impact standard. Basin was obtained using new dive- whales resulting from Navy training and Within the San Nicolas Basin, there is counting acoustic methods and an testing in the SOCAL portion of the a documented, recurring number of archive of passive acoustic M3R data HSTT Study Area. NMFS and the Navy Cuvier’s beaked whales strongly representing 49,855 hours of data considered additional geographic indicating that the Navy’s activities are (DiMarzio et al., 2020). Over the 10-year mitigation for beaked whales in the not having a population-level impact on interval from 2010–2019, there was no Southern California Bight, as described this species. This is supported by observed change and perhaps a slight in Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation repeated visual re-sighting rates of increase in annual Cuvier’s beaked Assessment), Section K.7.2 (Southern individuals, sightings of calves and, whale abundance within San Nicolas California Public Comment Mitigation more importantly, reproductive females, Basin (DiMarzio et al., 2020). There Area Assessment) and specifically and passive acoustic assessments of does appear to be a repeated dip in Section K.7.2.7 (Northern Catalina Basin steady vocalization rates and abundance population numbers and associated and the San Clemente Basin) of the 2018 over at least the most recent seven-year echolocation clicks during the fall HSTT FEIS/OEIS, which NMFS used in interval. It is incorrect to conclude that centered around August and September support of this rule. See Chapter 5 there is a ‘‘population sink,’’ such as has (DiMarzio et al., 2020; Moretti, 2017). A (Mitigation), Section 5.4.1.2 (Mitigation been seen on the Navy’s AUTEC range. similar August and September dip was Area Assessment) of the 2018 HSTT In the citation provided (Claridge, noted by researchers using stand-alone FEIS/OEIS for additional details 2013), that statement is merely a off-range bottom passive acoustic regarding the assessments of areas hypothesis, yet to be demonstrated. devices in Southern California (Rice et considered for mitigation. The Navy has been funding Cuvier’s al., 2017, 2019, 2020; Sˇ irovic´ et al., Comment 54: In a comment on the beaked whale research specifically in 2016). This dip in abundance 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter the San Nicolas Basin since 2006. This documented over 10 years of monitoring recommended additional mitigation research is planned to continue through may be tied to some as of yet unknown areas in the San Nicolas Basin. The the duration of this MMPA population dynamic or oceanographic Commenter noted that the settlement authorization. Cumulative from 2006 to and prey availability dynamic. It is agreement established a ‘‘refuge’’ from 2016, over 170 individual Cuvier’s unknown scientifically if this represents sonar and explosives activities in a beaked whales have been catalogued a movement to different areas by parts portion of the whales’ secondary within the San Nicolas Basin. Schorr et of the population, or a change in habitat, outside the Southern California al. (2018) stated for the field season behavioral states without movement Anti-submarine Warfare Range (SOAR), from 2016 to 2017 that: Identification (i.e., breeding versus foraging). Navy with more management effort being photos of suitable quality were collected training and testing events are spatially necessary in the long term. The from 69 of the estimated 81 individual and temporally spread out across the Commenter recommended at a Cuvier’s beaked whales encountered in SOCAL portion of the HSTT Study minimum that NMFS should prescribe 2016–2017. These represented 48 Area. In some years events occur in the the ‘‘refuge’’ during the next five-year unique individuals, with eight of these fall, yet in other years events do not. operation period and should consider whales sighted on two different days, Yet, the same dip has consistently been all possible habitat-based management and another three on three different observed lending further evidence this efforts, including but not limited to the days during the study period. Nineteen is likely a population biological expansion of this area further south (39 percent) of these whales had been function. towards SOAR, to address impacts on sighted in previous years. Many more Comment 55: In a comment on the the small population of Cuvier’s beaked whales identified in 2016 had been 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter whales associated with San Clemente sighted in a previous year (16/28 recommended additional mitigation Island. individuals, 57 percent), compared to areas in the Santa Catalina Basin. A Response: NMFS and the Navy 2017 (5/22 individuals, 23 percent), Commenter commented that there is considered additional geographic though both years had sightings of likely a small, resident population of mitigation for beaked whales in the San whales seen as early as 2007. There Cuvier’s beaked whales that resides in Nicolas Basin, as described in Appendix were three adult females photographed the Santa Catalina Basin and that this K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment), in 2016 that had been sighted with population is subject to regular acoustic Section K.7.2 (Southern California calves in previous years, one of which disturbance due to the presence of the Public Comment Mitigation Area was associated with her second calf. Shore Bombardment Area (SHOBA) and Assessment), and specifically Section Additionally, a fourth adult female, first 3803XX. The population may also be K.7.2.1 (San Nicolas Basin) of the 2018 identified in 2015 without a calf, was exposed to training activities that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41821

occupy waters between Santa Catalina of 2015 Settlement Mitigation and Final collected. Specifically, devices have and San Clemente Islands. Similar to HSTT Mitigation in the Rule section, of been deployed and removed from the San Nicolas population, the the 2018 HSTT final rule explicitly various locations with some sites having settlement agreement established a discusses NMFS’ consideration of multiple years of data, and others ‘‘refuge’’ from sonar and explosives mitigation that was included in the significantly less, with perhaps just a activities in the northern portion of the settlement agreement versus what was few months out of a year. For instance, Santa Catalina Basin. A Commenter included in the final rule in the context Site E, located west of Tanner and recommended that, at a minimum, the of the MMPA least practicable adverse Cortes Banks and used by the Navy should carefully consider impact standard. Commenter to justify restrictions in this implementing the ‘‘refuge’’ during the Comment 56: In a comment on the area, was only monitored for 322 days next five-year authorization period and 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter from September 2006 through July 2009 should continue to consider all possible recommended additional mitigation (obtaining slightly less than a full year’s habitat-based management efforts to areas for the southernmost edge of the worth of data). address impacts on the population. California Current, west of Tanner and Site E was also used again for another Response: The water space areas Cortes Banks. In light of the importance 63 days from Dec 2010 through mentioned in the comment as of the Southernmost edge of the February 2011. During this second ‘‘(SHOBA)’’ off the southern end of San California Current, west of Tanner and monitoring period at Site E, Gassman et Clemente Island are waters designated Cortes banks, Commenters recommend al. (2015) reported detection of only as Federal Danger and Safety Zones via assessing the designation of the three Cuvier’s beaked whales over six formal rulemaking (Danger Zone—33 southern offshore waters of the separate encounters with time intervals CFR 334.950 and Safety Zone—33 CFR Southern California Bight as a seasonal of 10–33 minutes. As sources of data 165.1141) because they are adjacent to time-area management area for Cuvier’s associated with a single monitoring the shore bombardment impact area that beaked whales between November and point, the two monitoring episodes is on land at the southern end of San June. The approximate coordinates are conducted at Site E may not be Clemente Island. Waters designated as 32.75 N., 119.46 W (referenced as Site indicative of Cuvier’s beaked whale ‘‘3803XX,’’ which are associated with E). As part of this assessment, the presence at other locations within the Wilson Cove anchorages and Commenter recommended that the Southern California, which lack moorings, where ship calibration tests, boundaries be refined via expert comparable monitoring devices. Nor sonobuoy lot testing, and special consideration of acoustic and other would they be indicative of overall projects take place, are designated as relevant information pertaining to importance or lack of importance of the Federal Safety and Restricted Zones via beaked whale biology and bathymetric area west of Tanner and Cortes Banks. formal rulemaking (Safety Zone—33 and oceanographic data. Further, more recent acoustic sampling CFR 165.1141 and Restricted Zone—33 Response: Baumann-Pickering et al. of bathymetrically featureless areas off CFR 334.920). (2014a, b, 2015), as the Commenter Southern California with drifting The comment states a concern that a referenced, did not specify this area as hydrophones conducted by NMFS, population of Cuvier’s beaked whale is, biologically important and the author’s detected many beaked whales over ‘‘subject to regular acoustic disturbance data only indicated there have been abyssal plains and not associated with due to the presence of the Shore detections of the Cuvier’s beaked whales slope or seamount features. This Bombardment Area,’’ is not correct. The within this area. Further, the species is counters a common misperception that SHOBA is a naval gun impact area widely distributed within Southern beaked whales are primarily found over located on land at the southern end of California and across the Pacific with slope waters, in deep basins, or over San Clemente Island. This area is an almost all suitable deep water habitat seamounts (Griffins and Barlow, 2016). instrumented land training range used greater than 800 m in Southern Most importantly, older passive for a variety of bombardment training California conceivably containing acoustic data prior to 2009 may not be and testing activities. The in-water Cuvier’s beaked whales. Only limited indicative of current or future administrative boundary for SHOBA population vital rates exist for beaked occurrence of beaked whales, especially does not delineate the locations where whales, covering numbers of animals, in terms of potential impact of climate a ship firing at land targets must be populations vs. subpopulations change on species distributions within located and does not represent where determination, and residency time for Southern California. To summarize, gunfire rounds are targeted. The water individual animals (Schorr et al., 2017, these limited periods of monitoring (322 area in Santa Catalina Basin is a 2018). The science of passive acoustic days in a three-year period prior to 2010 controlled safety zone in the very monitoring is positioned to answer and 63 days in 2011) may or may not unlikely event a round goes over the some questions on occurrence and be reflective of current beaked whale island and lands in the water. With the seasonality of beaked whales, but distributions within Southern California modern advent of better precision cannot as of yet address all fundamental and into the future. Furthermore, munitions, computers, and advanced population parameters including passive acoustic-only detection of fire control, that probability is very individual residency time. beaked whales, without additional remote. Navy vessels use the waters Furthermore, while passive acoustic population parameters, can only south of San Clemente Island (SHOBA monitoring within Southern California determine relative occurrence, which West and SHOBA East) from which to has been ongoing for 28 years, with could be highly variable over sub- fire into land targets on southern San many sites funded by the Navy, not all regions and through time. Clemente Island (see the 2018 HSTT sites have been consecutively monitored While Cuvier’s beaked whales have FEIS/OEIS Figure 2.1–7). Therefore, for each year. All of the single bottom- been detected west of Tanner and Cortes there would not be any underwater mounted passive acoustic devices used Banks, as noted above this species is acoustic disturbance to Cuvier’s beaked for the analysis by Baumann-Pickering also detected in most all Southern whales located within the Santa et al. (2014a, b, 2015), and used in the California locations greater than 800 m Catalina Basin from in-water explosives comment to support its argument, are in depth. Furthermore, the Navy has or ship firing. Further, the Mitigation not continuous and have various been training and testing in and around Measures subsection, Brief Comparison periodicities from which data have been Tanner and Cortes Banks with the same

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41822 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

basic systems for over 40 years, with no final rule. Also see Chapter 3, Section both based on location of HARP evidence of any adverse impacts having 3.7.2.3.24 (Cuvier’s Beaked Whale deployments (referenced as sites ‘‘A’’ occurred. Further, there are no (Ziphius cavirostris)) of the 2018 HSTT and ‘‘S’’), be considered as management indications that Navy training and FEIS/OEIS for additional information areas for Perrin’s beaked whales. The testing in the SOCAL portion of the regarding this species. Commenter recommended that the HSTT Study Area has had any adverse As noted in Appendix K (Geographic boundaries of any restrictions be impacts on populations of beaked Mitigation Assessment), the waters west established via expert consideration. whales in Southern California. In of Tanner and Cortes Banks are also Response: All of the single bottom- particular, a reoccurring population of critical to the Navy’s training and mounted passive acoustic devices used Cuvier’s beaked whales co-exists within testing activities; therefore, it is not for the analysis by Baumann-Pickering San Nicolas Basin to the east, an area practicable to preclude activities within et al. (2014b) and used by the with significantly more in-water sonar that water space in the SOCAL portion Commenter to support their argument use than west of Tanner and Cortes of the HSTT Study Area. Reasonable are not continuous and have various Banks. mitigation measures, as discussed in periodicities for which data have been To gain further knowledge on the Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation collected. As single point sources of presence of beaked whales in Southern Assessment), would limit the impact of data, these passive acoustic devices may California, the Navy continues to fund training and testing on marine not be indicative of Perrin’s beaked additional passive acoustic field mammals, and especially beaked whale presence at other locations within monitoring, as well as research whales, in this area. In addition, with Southern California without comparable advancements for density derivation new deployments of HARP buoys from devices. Nor would older data prior to from passive acoustic data. For the five- 2019–2021, the Navy has expanded 2009 be indicative of current or future year period from 2013 to 2019, U.S. passive acoustic monitoring for beaked occurrence especially in terms of Pacific Fleet on behalf of the U.S. Navy whales to include new areas west of potential impact of climate change on funded $18 million in marine species Tanner Bank and areas off Baja Mexico. species distributions. monitoring within Hawaii and Southern Given that there is no evidence that Navy-funded passive acoustic California. Specifically, in terms of Navy training and testing activities are monitoring within the SOCAL portion beaked whales, the Navy has been having significant impacts to of the HSTT Study Area has been funding beaked whale population populations of beaked whales anywhere ongoing for the past 21 years, but not all dynamics, tagging, and passive acoustic in the SOCAL portion of the HSTT areas are monitored continuously, and studies within the HSTT Study Area Study Area, the uncertainty of current devices have been deployed and since 2007 (DiMarzio et al., 2018, 2019, use by Cuvier’s beaked whales of the removed from various locations. Santa 2020; Moretti, 2017; Rice et al., 2017, area west of Tanner and Cortes Banks, Catalina Basin was only monitored from 2018, 2019, 2020; Schorr et al., 2017, the fact that general occurrence of August 2005 to July 2009. Santa 2018, 2019, 2020; Sˇ irovic´, et al., 2017). beaked whales in Southern California Catalina Basin has not been monitored Variations of these efforts are planned to may not necessarily equate to factors under Navy funding since 2009 because continue through the duration of the typically associated with biologically other areas in Southern California were seven-year rule using a variety of important areas, and consideration of prioritized for passive acoustic device passive acoustic, visual, tagging, photo the importance of Navy training and placement by the researchers. For San ID, and genetics research tools. This testing activities in the areas around Clemente Island, the single monitoring Navy effort is in addition and Tanner and Cortes Banks discussed in site ‘‘S’’ used in Baumann-Pickering et complementary to any planned NMFS Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation al. (2014b) and cited as the source of the efforts for beaked whales and other Assessment) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ comment’s claim for San Clemente marine mammals. For instance, the OEIS, additional geographic mitigation Basin was only deployed for a limited Navy co-funded with NMFS and the specifically for the area west of Tanner time of approximately 1.5 years, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management a and Cortes Banks is not warranted. resulting in 409 days of data (September summer-fall 2018 visual and passive As noted in Appendix K (Geographic 2009–May 2011). For both sites acoustic survey along the U.S. West Mitigation Assessment) and Chapter 5 combined, only 41 hours of BW43 signal Coast and off Baja Mexico (Henry et al. (Mitigation), Section 5.3 (Procedural types were detected over a cumulative in press). New passive detection Mitigation to be Implemented) of the approximately five-and-a-half years of technologies focusing on beaked whales 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy will monitoring. The 41 hours of BW43 were deployed during these surveys continue to implement procedural detections therefore only represents a (similar to Griffiths and Barlow, 2016). mitigation measures throughout the small fraction of overall recording time The Navy continues SOCAL beaked HSTT Study Area. (less than 1 percent). whale occurrence and impact studies Comment 57: In a comment on the The beaked whale signal type with additional effort anticipated 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter detected called BW43 has been through 2020. stated that the same long-term passive suggested as coming from Perrin’s Analysis of the southernmost edge of acoustic study of the Southern beaked whales (Baumann-Pickering et the California Current, west of Tanner- California Bight as discussed for al., 2014b), but not yet conclusively and Cortes Bank and the presence of Cuvier’s beaked whales above in scientifically confirmed. Cuvier’s beaked whales was addressed Comment 56 also suggests that A different Navy-funded single site in Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation southern-central waters represent south of San Clemente Island within the Assessment), Section K.7.2.4 biologically important habitat for San Clemente Basin has had a passive (Southernmost Edge of California Perrin’s beaked whale. The Commenter acoustic device in place from July 2014 Current, West of Tanner-Cortes Bank), recommended that the Northern through current. Sˇ irovic´ et al. (2016) and Section K.7.2.6 (Cuvier’s Beaked Catalina Basin and the waters southeast and Rice et al. (2017) contain the most Whale Habitat Areas Mitigation of Santa Catalina Island (approximate current results from San Clemente Basin Assessment) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ coordinates of 33.28 N, –118.25 W), and site ‘‘N.’’ While Sˇ irovic´ et al. (2016) and OEIS, which NMFS used to support its the San Clemente Basin (approximate Rice et al. (2017) do report periodic mitigation analysis described in this coordinates of 32.52 N, –118.32 W), passive acoustic detections of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41823

Mesoplodon beaked whales thought to in the Catalina Basin and waters south assessed for time-area management so be Perrin’s beaked whale in San of San Clemente Island are associated that, at minimum, ship strike awareness Clemente Basin, the overall detection with commercial vessel traffic measures for fin whales can be rate, periodicity, and occurrence has not concentrated in the northbound and implemented during the months of been high. Between May 2015 and June southbound lanes of the San Pedro November through February, when the 2016, there were only seven weeks in Channel that runs next to Santa Catalina whales aggregate in the area. which potential Perrin’s beaked whale Island and leads to and from the ports Response: As described and detailed echolocation clicks were detected, with of Los Angeles/Long Beach and other in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy each week having less than 0.14 hours/ commercial traffic from San Diego and implements a number of ship-strike risk week of detections. Acoustic sampling ports to the north and south of Southern reduction measures for all vessels, in all of bathymetrically featureless areas off California. These waters in and around locations and seasons, and for all Southern California with drifting Northern Catalina Basin and waters marine mammal species. New research hydrophones by NMFS detected many southeast of Santa Catalina Island are by Sˇ irovic´ et al. (2017) supports a beaked whales over abyssal plains and critical to the Navy’s training and hypothesis that between the Gulf of not always associated with slope or testing activities, and so it is not California and Southern California, seamount features, which counters a practicable to limit or reduce access or there could be up to four distinct sub- common misperception that beaked preclude activities within that water populations based on fin whale call whales are primarily found over slope space in the SOCAL portion of the types, including a Southern California waters, in deep basins, or over HSTT Study Area. resident population. There is also NMFS and the Navy considered the seamounts (Griffins and Barlow, 2016). evidence that there can be both sub- Santa Catalina Basin area and Perrin’s One of these devices was deployed population shifts and overlap within beaked whales, as described in within the SOCAL portion of the HSTT Southern California (Sˇ irovic´ et al., Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation Study Area. In addition, analysis of 2017). Scales et al. (2017) also Assessment), Section K.7.2.3 (Catalina NMFS visual survey data from 2014, the postulated two Southern California sub- Basin) and K.7.2.7 (Northern Catalina most recent year available, showed an populations of fin whales based on Basin and the San Clemente Basin) of increase in Mesoplodon beaked whales satellite tagging and habitat modeling. the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. Also see along the entire U.S. West Coast, which Scales et al. (2017) stated that some fin Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation the authors attributed to an influx of whales may not follow the typical Assessment), Section K.7.2.7.2 tropical species of Mesoplodon during baleen whale migration paradigm, with the unusually warm water condition (Northern Catalina Basin and Waters Southeast of Catalina Island Perrin’s some individuals found in both warm, that year (Barlow, 2016; Moore and shallow nearshore waters less than 500 Barlow, 2017). Perrin’s beaked whale, Beaked Whale Habitat Mitigation Considerations) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ m, and deeper cool waters over complex part of the Mesoplodon guild, could be seafloor topographies. Collectively, the part of these sightings. In summary, San OEIS for additional information regarding this species. Additional author’s spatial habitat models with Clemente Basin and Santa Catalina highest predicted occurrence for fin Basin with similar low passive acoustic limitations as discussed in Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment) whales cover the entire core training detection rates are likely to be part of and testing portion of the SOCAL Perrin beaked whale’s general would limit training and impact readiness. Given that there is no portion of the HSTT Study Area, not distribution along the U.S. West Coast evidence of impacts to the population of just areas between 200 and 1,000 m. and in particular Southern California beaked whales in the area, and low Results from Navy-funded long-term and Baja Mexico. This distribution is potential occurrence of Perrin’s beaked satellite tagging of fin whales in likely to be wide ranging for Perrin’s whales in the Southern California Southern and Central California still beaked whales as a species and highly portion of the HSTT Study Area, shows some individual fin whales correlated to annual oceanographic geographic mitigation would not engage in wide-ranging movements conditions. Santa Catalina and San effectively balance a reduction of along the U.S. West Coast, as well as Clemente basins do have infrequent biological impacts with an acceptable large daily movements well within suspected Perrin’s beaked whale passive level of impact on military readiness subareas (Mate et al., 2017; Schorr et al., acoustic detections from a limited activities and, as described in the 2020). In support of further refining the number of devices, but these areas may Mitigation Measures section of this final science on Southern California fin not specifically represent unique high rule, NMFS has included the mitigation whales, Falcone and Schorr (2014) occurrence locations warranting requirements necessary to achieve the examined fin whale movements through geographic protection beyond existing least practicable adverse impact on the photo ID and short-to-medium term Navy protective measures. Current affected species or stocks and their (days-to-several weeks) satellite tag funded Navy passive acoustic habitat. As noted in Appendix K tracking under funding from the Navy. monitoring for beaked whales continues (Geographic Mitigation Assessment) and The authors conducted small boat to report limited BW43 detections (Rice Chapter 5, Section 5.3 (Procedural surveys from June 2010 through January et al. 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020). Mitigation to be Implemented) of the 2014, approximately three-and-a-half The Navy has been training and 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy will years. Of interest in terms of the testing in and around the Northern continue to implement procedural comment and the 200–1,000 m isobaths Catalina Basin and waters southeast of mitigation measures throughout the occurrence, more fin whale tag locations Santa Catalina Island with the same HSTT Study Area. were reported off the Palos Verdes systems for over 40 years, and there is Comment 58: In a comment on the Peninsula and off of the Los Angeles/ no evidence of any adverse impacts 2018 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters Long Beach commercial shipping ports having occurred and no indications that recommended additional mitigation in fall, both areas north of and outside Navy training and testing has had any areas for important fin whale habitat off of the Navy’s SOCAL Range Complex. adverse impacts on populations of Southern California. The Commenters Compared to the above areas, there were beaked whales in Southern California. recommended that the waters between not as many tag locations in the similar The main source of anthropogenic noise the 200 m and 1,000 m isobaths be isobaths region off San Diego associated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41824 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

with the Navy range area. Falcone and otherwise intended as a representative attempting to do so (Calambokidis et al., Schorr (2014) did document an apparent sample of all waters off California or the 2015). inshore-offshore distribution between entire habitat of the fin whale Navy vessels already operate at slower Winter-Spring and Summer-Fall. Given population in the area; speeds given a particular transit or the apparent resident nature of some fin 3. It is not correct to assume detected activity need. This also includes a whales in Southern California as vocalizations (a ‘‘call index’’) reported provision to avoid large whales by 500 discussed in Falcone and Schorr (2014), in Sˇ irovic´ et al. (2015) for fin whales yd, so long as safety of navigation and Scales et al. (2017), and Sˇ irovic´ et al. equates with where fin whales are safety of operations is maintained. (2017), it remains uncertain if the aggregated in the Southern California Previously, the Navy commissioned a inshore-offshore seasonal pattern as Bight. For example, the acoustic vessel density and speed report for well as sub-population occurrence will monitoring data did not pick up or HSTT (CNA, 2016). Based on an persist into the future, or if fin whales otherwise correspond to the observed analysis of Navy ship traffic in the will change distribution based on seasonal distribution shift of fin whales HSTT Study Area between 2011 and oceanographic impacts on available indicated by visual survey data covering 2015, median speed of all Navy vessels prey (e.g. El Nino, climate change, etc.). the same time periods (Campbell et al., within Southern California is typically The efforts from Falcone and Schorr on 2015; Douglas et al., 2014); already low, with median speeds fin whales began in 2010, and Navy 4. Sˇ irovic´ et al. (2015) make no such between 5 and 12 kn (CNA, 2016). The monitoring funding to further refine fin claim of aggregations during the winter slowest speeds occurred closer to the whale population structure and months but instead compare call index coast and islands. occurrence within Southern California rates and state that the purpose for the Therefore, NMFS has determined that is planned to continue for the duration paper was to demonstrate that passive vessel speed restrictions within 200– 1,000 m are not warranted given the of this rule. acoustics can be a powerful tool to wide range of fin whale movements The data from the various single monitor population trends, not relative along the U.S. West Coast including bottom-mounted passive acoustic abundances; devices used in the analysis to support areas within and outside of 200–1,000 m 5. There is no science to support the this comment are not continuous and contours, sometimes large-scale daily contention that fin whales are ‘‘at have various periodicities for which movements within regional areas as particular risk of ship-strike on the data have been collected. Many of these documented from Navy-funded satellite naval range.’’ Two fin whales were devices are purposely placed in 200– tagging, the current lack of ship strike struck by the Navy in 2009 in the 1,000 m of water. Given these are point risk from Navy vessels in Southern SOCAL portion of the HSTT Study Area sources of data, they may or may not be California (as well as throughout the as Navy noted in Appendix K indicative of fin whale calling or HSTT Study Area) (2010–2019), the (Geographic Mitigation Assessment), but presence at other locations within lower training and testing ship speeds since that time there have been no fin Southern California without devices. Navy uses within the HSTT Study Area, Passive acoustic analysis is only useful whales struck or any species of whales and existing Navy mitigation measures for those individuals that are calling and struck despite a documented increase in including provisions to avoid large may not indicate total population the fin whale population inhabiting the whales by 500 yds where safe to do so. occurrence. Low-frequency fin whale area (Barlow, 2016; Moore and Barlow, In addition, the Navy agreed to send calls by their very nature have relatively 2011; Smultea and Jefferson, 2014). out seasonal awareness messages of fin, long underwater propagation ranges so Furthermore, one of those vessel strikes blue, and gray whale occurrence to detections at a single device could occurred at the end of the recommended improve awareness of all vessels account for individuals 10–50 miles mitigation timeframe (February) and the operating to the presence of these away if not further, depending on local other well outside the time period species in SOCAL from November propagation conditions. This would (May), so the proposed mitigation through May (fin whales), November mean calling whales are not in the 200– would only have been marginally through March (gray whales), and June 1,000 m area. Sˇ irovic´ et al. (2015) effective, if at all. Neither of these Navy through October (blue whales). The acknowledge in discussing their data fin whale strike locations were close to Navy will also review WhaleWatch, a biases, that their use of ‘‘call index’’ shore (both >50–60 Nmi from shore), or program coordinated by NMFS’ West may best indicate a period of peak associated with coastal shipping lanes. Coast Region as an additional calling. But fin whales produce multiple Based on an analysis of Navy ship traffic information source to inform the call types depending on behavioral in the HSTT Study Area between 2011 drafting of the seasonal awareness state. Based on technology limitations, and 2015, median speed of all Navy message to alert vessels in the area to some fin whale call types were not vessels within Southern California is the possible presence of concentrations included in Sˇ irovic´ et al. (2015). The typically already low, with median of large whales, including fin whales in following are factors supporting NMFS’ speeds between 5 and 12 kn (CNA, SOCAL. determination that ship speed reduction 2016). This includes areas within and Hawaii Areas is specifically not warranted in this outside of 200–1,000 m within Southern area. California, with slowest speeds closer to Comment 59: In a comment on the 1. The study cited by a Commenter the coast; and 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter (Sˇ irovic´ et al., 2015) and used as the 6. As presented in the 2018 HSTT recommended that the Navy consider basis for ‘‘Figure 3’’ concerns trends FEIS/OEIS, fin whales are present off all the following as it plans to conduct seen within the Southern California the waters of Southern California year- activities in the HSTT Study Area. The Bight, not exclusively the SOCAL Range round (Sˇ irovic´ et al., 2015, 2017). Using Commenter notes units of the NPS Complex; available quantitative density and system that occur near training and 2. The research used as the basis for distribution mapping, the best available testing areas around Hawaii and Figure 3 was funded by the Navy to science, and expert elicitation, identifies which may be affected by develop baseline information for the definitive areas of importance for fin noise. The Units are: Kaloko-Honokohau areas where Navy trains and tests and whales could not be determined by a National Historical Park (NHP), was by no means designed to or panel of scientists specifically Pu’uhonua o Honaunau NHP,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41825

Pu’ukolhola Heiau National Historic mid-frequency active sonar from Areas) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. Site, Kalaupapa NHP, Hawaii Volcanoes November 15 through April 15. NMFS concurs with the analysis NP, Haleakala NP, and the World War We note, however, that the majority of included in this document and has used II Valor in the Pacific National the Kalaupapa NHP is not in the 4- it to support our findings in this rule. Monument. Islands Region Mitigation Area as it is Additional information on the marine Response: National Parks and mainly land-based, but just outside it. mammals mentioned in the comment is National Monuments are addressed in The Kalaupapa NHP was designated to also provided in the species-specific Chapter 6 of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. protect the two historic leper colonies sub-sections in Chapter 3, Section 3.7.2 Kalaupapa NHP is discussed in on the property and was not designated (Affected Environment) of the 2018 Comment 60 below. No planned with the purpose of protecting marine HSTT FEIS/OEIS. Based on these activities overlap with Kaloko- species. The boundaries of the analyses, the Navy will implement Honokohau NHP; therefore, no impacts Kalaupapa NHP extend a quarter mile additional mitigation within the Hawaii are expected within the Kaloko- offshore. The Navy does propose Island Mitigation Area (year-round), as Honokohau NHP. The Pu’uhonua o conducting activities associated with described in the Mitigation Measures Honaunau NHP, Haleakala NP, and the planned activities in the boundary section in the 2018 HSTT final rule and Pu’ukolhola Heiau National Historic of the Kalaupapa NHP. There would be this rule, to further avoid or reduce Site are not specifically addressed in no effect to Hawaiian monk seal impacts on marine mammals from Chapter 6 of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, pupping on NHP land as the Navy does acoustic and explosive stressors from but none of these sites appear to contain not have any planned activities in the the planned activities. any marine waters. The Navy’s planned boundary of the Kalaupapa NHP, The mitigation requirement of activities do not occur on land except in especially on land. The Navy’s planned prohibiting the use of explosives year- designated training areas on Navy activities do not include any land-based round during training and testing across properties (i.e., for amphibious assaults, activities except for a few activities the entire Hawaii Island Mitigation Area etc.); therefore, there are no activities which are conducted on designated satisfies the previous mitigation that overlap with these sites and no Navy property (i.e., amphibious assaults requirement of a prohibition on the use impacts are expected. For the Hawaii on Silver Strand, etc.). Further, as the of in-water explosives for training and Volcanoes NP, the Navy’s planned sea space adjacent to the Kalaupapa testing activities of the Settlement activities addressed in the 2018 HSTT NHP is not an established training or Agreement for Areas 1–A, 1–C, and 1– FEIS/OEIS do not include aircraft or testing area, it is unlikely naval activity D, and further extends that requirement unmanned aerial systems flights over or would occur in this area. to the Alenuiha¯ha¯ Channel (Area 1–B). near the Hawaii Volcanoes National Comment 61: In a comment on the The Hawaii Island Mitigation Area still Park; therefore, no impacts are expected. 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter includes 100 percent of Settlement The World War II Valor in the Pacific recommended expanding the Hawaii Areas 1–C and 1–D and includes a large Monument is for the USS Arizona, Island Mitigation Area westward to majority of the BIAs for Cuvier’s beaked which is a Navy war memorial. No protect resident Cuvier’s beaked whales whale (Hawaii Island BIA) and rough- activities occur within the boundary of and rough-toothed dolphins. The toothed Dolphins (Hawaii Island BIA) the site itself, and the monument was boundaries of the Hawaii Island (the areas in question by this comment). not designated to protect marine Mitigation Area should be expanded Particularly, it covers 93.30 percent of species. There are training and testing westward to remain consistent with the the Cuvier’s beaked whale BIA activities that occur within Pearl Harbor boundaries of the BIAs defined in Baird westward of Hawaii Island and 83.58 as a whole, and impacts to marine et al. (2015), which informed the percent of rough-toothed dolphins mammals in the waters of Pearl Harbor boundaries of Conservation Council Hawaii Island BIA westward of Hawaii were included in the Navy’s proposed Settlement Areas 1–C and 1–D. This Island. activities and therefore analyzed by expansion will cover habitat for Cuvier’s Only the northern portion of the NMFS in the final rule. beaked whales and toothed dolphins Cuvier’s beaked whale BIA in Comment 60: In a comment on the that are resident around the Big Island. Alenuihaha Channel and a smaller 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter Response: Please see the Mitigation offshore portion of the BIA west of noted the presence of marine mammal Measures, Brief Comparison of 2015 Hawaii are not covered by mitigations species in the Kalaupapa NHP (on the Settlement Mitigation and Final HSTT included in the Hawaii Island north shore of Molokai), and is Mitigation in the Rule section of the Mitigation Area on the west and east of concerned about potential take of 2018 HSTT final rule, which discusses Hawaii Island. The BIA is based on the protected species that inhabit water out NMFS analysis and decisions in regard known range of the island-associated to 1,000 fathoms, and recommended the to required mitigation areas with population, and the authors suggest that Navy consider alternate training areas to explicit consideration of areas that were ‘‘the range of individuals from this avoid impacts to these species. Species previously required by the settlement population is likely to increase as that occur year-round include the false agreement. Analyses of the marine additional satellite-tag data become killer whale, sperm whale, pygmy mammal species mentioned in the available’’ (Baird et al., 2015). Cuvier’s sperm whale, spinner dolphin, and comment and considered within the beaked whales are not expected to be bottlenose dolphin. Humpback whales Hawaii Island Mitigation Area are displaced from their habitat due to are seasonal visitors from November to discussed in Appendix K (Geographic training and testing activities further April. The Hawaiian monk seal pups are Mitigation Assessment), Section K.3 offshore in these small areas of the within the Kalaupapa NHP during the (Biologically Important Areas within the biologically important area, given that spring and summer. Hawaii Range Complex Portion of the the BIA covers 23,583 km2, is unbroken Response: Part of the Kalaupapa NHP HSTT Study Area) and Sections K.5.1 and continuous surrounding the island, (northern portion) is protected by the (Settlement Areas Within the Hawaii and the BIA likely underrepresents their measures employed inside the 4-Islands Portion of the HSTT Study Area) range. The small portion of the BIA that Region Mitigation Area such as year- through K.5.4 (Proposed Mitigation does not overlap the Hawaii Island round prohibition on explosives and no Areas that Overlap the Hawaii Portion Mitigation Area is offshore, and use of MF1 surface ship hull mounted of the HSTT Settlement Agreement according to the most recent stock

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41826 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

assessment approximately 95 percent of island of Hawaii (Baird et al., 2008), but Comment 62: In a comment on the all sighting locations were within 45 km those surveys were conducted primarily 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter of shore. Additionally, consequences to with 40 km of shore and may recommended limiting MTEs to reduce individuals or populations are not underestimate the population. Data do cumulative exposure in the Hawaii unknown. No PTS is estimated or suggest high site fidelity and low Island Mitigation Area. authorized. A small number of TTS and population size for the island-associated Response: Prohibiting MTEs outright Level B behavioral harassment takes for population. There are no tagging data to or spatially separating them within the Cuvier’s beaked whales are estimated provide information about the range of Hawaii Island Mitigation Area was across the entire Hawaii portion of the the island-associated population; the proposed as additional mitigation to HSTT Study Area due to acoustic BIA is based on sighting locations and ensure that ‘‘marine mammal stressors. Most of the TTS and Level B encompasses 7,175 km2. Generally, this populations with highly discrete site behavioral harassment takes for Cuvier’s species is typically found close to shore fidelity . . . are not exposed to MTEs beaked whales are associated with around oceanic islands. Only within a single year.’’ The goal of testing in the Hawaii Temporary approximately half of the BIA offshore geographic mitigation is not to be an Operating Area, impacting the pelagic is not covered by the Hawaii Island absolute, outright barrier and stop population (see Figure 3.7–36 of the Mitigation Area, where the BIA overlaps exposing animals to exercises per se; it 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS). It is extremely with special use airspace. Consequences is to reduce adverse impacts to the unlikely that any modeled takes would to individuals or populations are not maximum extent practicable. Impacts be of individuals in this small portion unknown. No PTS is estimated or associated with MTEs, including cumulative impacts, are addressed in of the BIA that extends outside the authorized. Some TTS and Level B the 2018 HSTT proposed and final Hawaii Island Mitigation Area. behavioral harassment takes due to Long-term and relatively rules, as well as in Chapters 3 (Affected acoustic stressors are authorized for this comprehensive research has found no Environment and Environmental species across the entire HSTT Study evidence of any apparent effects while Consequences) and Chapter 4 Area (see Figure 3.7–66 of the 2018 documenting the continued existence of (Cumulative Impacts) of the 2018 HSTT HSTT FEIS/OEIS). Significant impacts multiple small and resident populations FEIS/OEIS. The Navy’s quantitative on rough-toothed dolphin natural of various species as well as long-term analysis using the best available science behaviors or abandonment due to residency by individual beaked whales has determined that training and testing training with sonar and other spanning the length of the current activities will not have population-level studies that exceed a decade. Further, transducers are unlikely to occur within impacts on any species, and the the Navy has considered research the small and resident population area. operational and time/area mitigation showing that in specific contexts (such A few minor to moderate TTS or Level measures required by the MMPA rule as associated with urban noise, B behavioral harassment takes to an further reduce impacts on marine commercial vessel traffic, eco-tourism, individual over the course of a year are mammals and their habitat. As or whale watching, Chapter 3, Section unlikely to have any significant costs or determined in Chapter 3, Section 3.7.4 3.7.2.1.5.2 (Commercial Industries)) of long-term consequences for that (Summary of Potential Impacts on the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS that chronic individual, and nothing in the planned Marine Mammals) of the 2018 HSTT repeated displacement and foraging activities is expected to cause a FEIS/OEIS, it is not anticipated that the disruption of populations with ‘‘catastrophic event.’’ The Navy planned activities will result in residency or high site fidelity can result operating areas west of Hawaii Island significant impacts to marine mammals. in population-level effects. As also are used commonly for larger events for To date, the findings from research and detailed in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, a variety of reasons described further in monitoring and the regulatory however, the Navy training and testing Section K.3 (Appendix K of the 2018 conclusions from previous analyses by activities do not equate with the types HSTT FEIS/OEIS, Biologically NMFS are that the majority of impacts of disturbance in this body of research, Important Areas Within the Hawaiian from Navy training and testing activities nor do they rise to the level of chronic Range Complex Portion of the HSTT are not expected to have deleterious disturbance where such effects have Study Area) (e.g., the relatively large impacts on the fitness of any been demonstrated because Navy group of seamounts in the open ocean individuals or long-term consequences activities are typically sporadic and offers challenging bathymetry in the to populations of marine mammals the dispersed. There is no evidence to open ocean far away from civilian vessel Commenter references. suggest there have been any population- traffic and air lanes where ships, MTEs cannot be further limited in level effects in the waters around Oahu, submarines, and aircraft are completely space or time within the Hawaii Island Kauai, and Niihau or anywhere in the free to maneuver) and sonar may be Mitigation Area, given that those HSTT Study Area. In the waters around used by a variety of platforms. Enlarging activities are specifically located to Oahu, Kauai, and Niihau, documented the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area is not leverage particular features like the long-term residency by individuals and anticipated to realistically reduce Alenuihaha Channel and the the existence of multiple small and adverse impacts. Expanding the Hawaii approaches to Kawaihae Harbor. This resident populations are precisely Island Mitigation Area has a limited recommendation is not, therefore, where Navy training and testing have likelihood of further reducing impacts appropriate in consideration of NMFS’ been occurring for decades, strongly on marine mammal species or stocks least practicable adverse impact suggesting a lack of significant impact to and their habitat, while these open standard. those individuals and populations from ocean operating areas are important for To limit impacts, the Navy will not the continuation of Navy training and training and testing and, in conduct more than 300 hrs of MF1 testing. consideration of these factors (and the surface ship hull-mounted MFAS or 20 Mark-recapture estimates derived broader least practicable adverse impact hrs of MF4 dipping sonar, or use from photographs of rough-toothed considerations discussed in the explosives that could potentially result dolphins taken between 2003 and 2006 introduction), NMFS has determined in takes of marine mammals during resulted in a small and resident that requiring this additional mitigation training and testing in the Hawaii Island population estimate of 198 around the is not appropriate. Mitigation Area.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41827

Comment 63: In a comment on the Whale Special Reporting Area in Kaiwi K.3.1.6 (4-Islands Region and Penguin 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter Channel, reducing or limiting Navy Bank Humpback Whale Reproduction recommended prohibiting or restricting training and testing in the Southeast Area, and Settlement Area 2–A and 2– other sources of MFAS in the Hawaii Oahu area is not likely to be effective in B)), which NMFS concurs with and Island Mitigation Area including reducing or avoiding impacts given that used to support the mitigation analysis prohibiting the use of helicopter- the Navy does not routinely conduct for the rule. Penguin Bank is deployed MFAS in the Hawaii Island activities that involve sonar or other particularly used for shallow water Mitigation Area. transducers or explosives in this portion submarine testing and anti-submarine Response: The Navy is already of the Humpback Whale Reproduction warfare training because of its large limiting other sources of MFAS. Area (included in the Humpback Whale expanse of shallow bathymetry. The Between the application and the Special Reporting Area in Kaiwi conditions in Penguin Bank offer ideal proposed rule, the Navy added new Channel). The portion of the special bathymetric and oceanographic mitigation that includes a limit to the reporting area that extends into Kaiwi conditions allowing for realistic training annual use of helicopter dipping sonar Channel over Penguin Bank (equivalent and testing and serve as surrogate in the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area. to settlement area 2A) is generally not environments for active theater Specifically, the Navy will not conduct a higher use area for Main Hawaiian locations. more than 20 hrs of MF4 dipping sonar Island insular false killer whales and Additionally, this mitigation would that could potentially result in takes of does not overlap significantly with the further increase reporting requirements. marine mammals during training and BIA. As presented in Chapter 3 of the As discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) testing. Helicopters deploy MFAS from 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS (Affected Section 5.5.2.6 (Increasing Reporting a hover position in bouts generally Environment and Environmental Requirements) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ lasting under 20 minutes, moving Consequences), which supports NMFS’ OEIS, the Navy developed its reporting rapidly between sequential deployment analysis for the rule, the Navy’s requirements in conjunction with and their duration of use and source quantitative analysis indicates that NMFS, balancing the usefulness of the level (217 dB) are generally well below significant impacts on false killer whale information to be collected with the those of hull-mounted frequency sonar natural behaviors or abandonment due practicability of collecting it. An (235 dB). All locations within the HSTT to training with sonar and other increase in reporting requirements as a Study Area have been used for Navy transducers are unlikely to occur within mitigation would draw the event training and testing for decades. There the entire small and resident population participants’ attention away from the has been no scientific evidence to area, let alone in the small sub-portion complex tactical tasks they are primarily indicate the Navy’s activities are having of the biologically important area that obligated to perform (such as driving a adverse effects on populations of marine overlaps the proposed extension. warship), which would adversely mammals, many of which continue to Additionally, most of the modeled takes impact personnel safety, public health increase in number or are maintaining are for the Hawaii pelagic population of and safety, and the effectiveness of the populations based on what regional false killer whale (see Figure 3.7–46 and military readiness activity. Expanding conditions can support. Navy research Table 3.7–31 in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ the Mitigation Area and extending the and monitoring funding continues OEIS). Also, as described in more detail restrictions is not, therefore, appropriate within the HSTT Study Area under in Appendix K of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ in consideration of NMFS’ least current NMFS MMPA and ESA permits, OEIS, due to training and testing needs, practicable adverse impact standard. and is planned through the duration of the expansion of this area is considered Comment 66: In a comment on the any future permits. Given the lack of impracticable. 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter effects to marine mammal populations Comment 65: In a comment on the recommended implementing vessel in the HSTT Study Area from larger, 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter speed restrictions within the 4-Islands more powerful surface ship sonars, the recommended extending the seasonal Region Mitigation Area. effects from intermittent, less frequent restrictions to year-round restrictions in Response: This mitigation measure use of lower powered MF dipping sonar the 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area was proposed to address impacts on or other MFAS would also not and proposed extending the Mitigation humpback whales due to both ship significantly affect small and resident Area into the Kaiwi Channel Humpback noise and ship strikes. As described and populations. Whale Special Reporting Area. detailed in the Mitigation Measures Comment 64: In a comment on the Response: The proposed extension of section of the 2018 HSTT final rule, this 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter the 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area rule, and the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the recommended extending the 4-Islands into Kaiwi Channel was addressed Navy already implements a number of Region Mitigation Area westward to above in Comment 64. The additional ship-strike risk reduction measures for encompass the Humpback Whale expansion requested in the comment is all vessels, in all locations and seasons, Special Reporting Area in Kaiwi not expected to reduce adverse impacts and for all marine mammal species. The Channel. Additionally, they argue that to an extent that would outweigh the Navy cannot implement mitigation that the 4-Island Region Mitigation Area is negative impacts if unit commanders restricts vessel speed during training or inadequate to protect endangered Main were unable to conduct unit-level testing in the HSTT Study Area because Hawaiian Island insular false killer training and testing, especially as they it is not practicable. Vessels must be whales as the Main Hawaiian Island pass over Penguin Bank while transiting able to maneuver freely as required by insular false killer whale is highly between Pearl Harbor and other parts of their tactics in order for training events range-restricted to certain high-use the Study Area. Prohibiting mid- to be effective. Imposition of vessel areas, one of which includes the ESA frequency active sonar would preclude speed restrictions would interfere with critical habitat and the BIA north of the Submarine Command Course from the Navy’s ability to complete tests that Maui and Molokai (‘‘False killer whale meeting its objectives and leveraging the must occur in specific bathymetric and Hawaii Island to Niihau’’ BIA). important and unique characteristics of oceanic conditions and at specific Response: In regard to extending the the 4-Islands Region, as described in speeds. Navy vessel operators must test 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area multiple sections of Appendix K of the and train with vessels in such a manner westward to encompass the Humpback 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS (e.g., Section that ensures their ability to operate

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41828 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

vessels as they would in military activity. The Navy will provide NMFS MFAS (the source that results in, by far, missions and combat operations with advance notification and include the highest numbers of take) from (including being able to react to the information (e.g., sonar hours or November 15 through April 15 or use changing tactical situations and evaluate explosives usage) in its annual activity explosives in this area at any time of the system capabilities). Furthermore, reports submitted to NMFS. year. While the Navy has been training testing of new platforms requires testing Comment 68: In a comment on the and testing in the area with the same at the full range of propulsion 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter basic systems for over 40 years, there is capabilities and is required to ensure recommended prohibiting other sources no evidence of any adverse impacts the delivered platform meets of MFAS in the 4-Islands Region having occurred, and there are multiple requirements. Based on an analysis of Mitigation Area. lines of evidence demonstrating the Navy ship traffic in the HSTT Study Response: NMFS fully assessed the small odontocete population high site Area between 2011 and 2015, median mitigation for the 4-Islands Region fidelity to the area. speed of all Navy vessels within Hawaii Mitigation Area (see the Mitigation Comment 69: In a comment on the is typically already low, with median Measures section in the 2018 HSTT 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter speeds between 8–16 kn (CNA, 2016). final rule). As the Navy has described, recommended prohibiting the use of Speed restrictions in the Cautionary this area provides a unique and helicopter-deployed mid-frequency Area (renamed the 4-Islands Region irreplaceable shallow water training active sonar in the 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area) are unwarranted given capability for units to practice Mitigation Area. the movement of all social groups operations in littoral areas that are both Response: The Commenter’s request throughout the islands outside the shallow and navigationally constrained to prohibit ‘‘air-deployed’’ MFAS is Mitigation Area, the current lack of ship (2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS Appendix K based on one paper (Falcone et al., strike risk from Navy vessels in Hawaii (Geographic Mitigation Assessment), 2017), which is a Navy-funded project (2010–2017), the already safe training Section K.3.3.1.6). The 4-Islands Region designed to study the behavioral and testing ship speeds the Navy uses provides an environment for anti- responses of a single species, Cuvier’s within the HSTT Study Area, and submarine warfare search, tracking and beaked whales, to MFAS. The Navy existing Navy mitigation measures, avoidance of opposing anti-submarine relied upon the best science that was including provisions to avoid large warfare forces. The bathymetry provides available to develop behavioral response whales by 500 yards where safe to do so. unique attributes and unmatched functions for beaked whales and other Implementing speed restrictions in the opportunity to train in searching for marine mammals in consultation with Mitigation Area is not, therefore, submarines in shallow water. Littoral NMFS for the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. appropriate in consideration of NMFS’ training allows units to continue to NMFS and the Navy have reviewed the least practicable adverse impact deploy improved sensors or tactics in article and concur that neither this standard. littoral waters. In the Hawaii portion of article nor any other new information Information on the response of baleen the HSTT Study Area specifically, anti- that has been published or otherwise whales to vessel noise is presented in submarine warfare training in shallow conveyed since the 2018 HSTT Section 3.7.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral water is vitally important to the Navy proposed rule was published would Reactions) and Section 3.7.3.1.5 since diesel submarines typically hide fundamentally change the assessment of (Impacts from Vessel Noise) of the 2018 in that extremely noisy and complex impacts or conclusions in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, which supports marine environment (Arabian Gulf, HSTT FEIS/OEIS or in this rulemaking. NMFS analyses. Impacts, if they did Strait of Malacca, Sea of Japan, and the Nonetheless, the new information and occur, would most likely be short-term Yellow Sea all contain water less than data presented in the new article were masking and minor behavioral 200 m deep). There is no other area in thoroughly reviewed by the Navy and responses. Therefore, significant this portion of the HSTT Study Area will be quantitatively incorporated into impacts on humpback whale with the bathymetry and sound future behavioral response functions, as reproductive behaviors from vessel propagation analogous to seas where the appropriate, when and if other new data noise associated with training activities Navy conducts real operations that this that would meaningfully change the are not expected. Navy vessels are training could relocate to. The Navy functions would necessitate their intentionally designed to be quieter than cannot conduct realistic shallow water revision. The new information and data civilian vessels, and ship speed training exercises without training in presented in the article was thoroughly reductions are not expected to reduce and around the 4-Islands Region reviewed when it became available and adverse impacts on humpback whales Mitigation Area. In addition, this area further considered in discussions with due to vessel noise. includes unique shallow water training some of the paper’s authors following its Comment 67: In a comment on the opportunities for unit-level training, first presentation in October 2017 at a 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter including opportunity to practice recent scientific conference. Many of the recommended prohibiting the use of in- operations in littoral areas that are both variables requiring further analysis for water explosives in the 4-Islands Region shallow, and navigationally constrained, beaked whales and dipping sonar Mitigation Area. and in close proximity to deeper open impact assessment are still being Response: The Navy has agreed to ocean environments. While MFAS is researched under continued Navy implement a year-round restriction on used infrequently in this area, a funding through 2023. the use of in-water explosives that could complete prohibition of all active sonars There are no beaked whale potentially result in takes of marine would impact Navy training readiness biologically important areas in the 4- mammals during training and testing. in an area identified as important for the Islands Region Mitigation Area, and the Should national security present a Navy based on its unique bathymetry. Mitigation Area is generally shallower requirement to use explosives that could However, the Navy recognizes the than beaked whales’ preferred habitat. potentially result in the take of marine biological importance of this area to Behavioral responses of beaked whales mammals during training or testing, humpback whales during the from dipping and other sonars cannot be naval units will obtain permission from reproductive season and in the 4-Islands universally applied to other marine the appropriate designated Command Region Mitigation Area the Navy will mammal species. Research indicates authority prior to commencement of the not use MF1 surface hull-mounted that there are distinct individual

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41829

variations as well as strong behavioral novaeangliae), Hawaii DPS) of the 2018 encompasses all of the BIA for Main state considerations that influence any HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the best available Hawaiian Islands insular false killer response or lack of response (Goldbogen science has demonstrated humpback whales around that island, and the 4- et al., 2013; Harris et al., 2017). whale population increases and an Islands Region Mitigation Area (which Therefore, it is expected that other estimated abundance greater than some captures approximately 40 percent of species would have highly variable pre-whaling estimates. This data does the BIAs in the 4-Islands area). As individual responses ranging from some not indicate any population-level discussed in the Mitigation Areas in response to no response to any impacts from decades of ongoing Navy Hawaii section of the 2018 HSTT final anthropogenic sound. This variability is training and testing in the Hawaiian rule, these mitigation areas are expected accounted for in the Navy’s current Islands. The LFAS sources used in the to significantly reduce impacts to this behavioral response curves described in HSTT Study Area are typically low stock and its habitat. NMFS has the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and powered (less than 200 dB source level). determined that the Navy’s current supporting technical reports. Restrictions on the use of LFAS would training and testing activities are not Furthermore, the potential effects of have a significant impact on the testing expected to have fitness consequences dipping sonar have been rigorously of current systems and the development for individual Main Hawaiian Islands accounted for in the Navy’s analysis. of new systems. This would deny insular false killer whales and are not Parameters such as power level and research, testing, and development likely to reduce the viability of the propagation range for typical dipping program managers the flexibility to populations those individual whales sonar use are factored into HSTT rapidly field or develop necessary represent. Further limitation of acoustic impact analysis along with systems requiring testing in the area and activities in the area identified by the guild specific criteria and other the ability to conduct these activities in commenter would not be practicable modeling variables, as detailed in the the unique bathymetric environment of and is not included as a measure. 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and associated the 4-Islands Region. Comment 72: In a comment on the technical reports for criteria and Comment 71: In a comment on the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters acoustic modeling. Further, due to 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter recommended additional mitigation lower power settings for dipping sonar, recommended additional mitigation areas for important habitat areas off potential impact ranges of dipping sonar areas including critical habitat for the Oahu, Kauai, and Niihau, providing are significantly lower than surface ship Main Hawaiian Islands insular false mitigation measures for select activities sonars. For example, the HSTT average killer whale. NMFS issued the Final during even a limited season within modeled range to TTS of dipping sonar Rule designating critical habitat under some important habitat areas. The for a 1-second ping on low-frequency the ESA on July 24, 2018. The waters off Oahu, Kauai, and Niihau cetacean (i.e., blue whale) is 77 m, and Commenter stated that in light of the include a number of important habitat for mid-frequency cetaceans including 2018 listing under the ESA, NMFS must areas for a variety of species, including beaked whales is 22 m (2018 HSTT protect this species from the noise and false killer whale critical habitat (see FEIS/OEIS Table 3.7–7). This range is other disturbance resulting from naval above), five NOAA-identified BIAs off easily monitored for marine mammals activities, including by mitigating Oahu (false killer whale, humpback by a hovering helicopter and is impacts within its critical habitat. The whale, pantropical spotted dolphin, accounted for in the Navy’s proposed Commenter recommended that, at bottlenose dolphin, and spinner mitigation ranges for dipping sonars minimum, the Navy establish protective (200 yds or 183 m). Limited ping time Mitigation Areas in all the BIAs dolphin) and three BIAs off Kauai and (i.e., less dipping sonar use as compared identified for this species by NOAA and Niihau (humpback whale, spinner to typical surface ship sonar use) and that NMFS should revisit and revise its dolphin, and bottlenose dolphin) (Baird lower power settings therefore would Mitigation Areas and mitigation et al., 2012). limit the impact from dipping sonar to requirements based on the final critical Response: The 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS any marine mammal species. habitat designation. considered the science, the Navy This is an area of extremely low use Response: Critical habitat includes requirements, and the mitigation value for air-deployed MFAS. Prohibiting air- waters from the 45-m depth contour to of identified habitat areas off Oahu, deployed MFAS in the Mitigation Area the 3,200-m depth contour around the Kauai, and Niihau as presented in would not be any more protective to main Hawaiian Islands from Niihau east Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation marine mammal populations generally, to Hawaii (82 FR 51186). With regard to Assessment) Section K.3 (Biologically or the Main Hawaiian Islands insular the analysis of the identified Important Areas within the Hawaii false killer whale in particular, than Biologically Important Areas for the Range Complex Portion of the HSTT currently implemented procedural Main Hawaiian Islands insular false Study Area), which NMFS used to mitigation measures for air-deployed killer whales, see Section K.3.3 in the support our analysis for the MMPA rule. MFAS and is not, therefore, appropriate 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS (False Killer This includes the five identified BIAs in consideration of NMFS’ least Whale Small and Resident Population off Oahu (false killer whale, humpback practicable adverse impact standard. Area: Main Hawaiian Island Insular whale, pantropical spotted dolphin, Comment 70: In a comment on the stock), which NMFS used to support our bottlenose dolphin, and spinner 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter analysis for the MMPA rule. With regard dolphin) and three BIAs off Kauai and recommended prohibiting use of LFAS to the identified threats to the species, Niihau (humpback whale, spinner in the 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area. see Section 3.7.2.2.7.5 in the 2018 HSTT dolphin, and bottlenose dolphin) as Response: The Commenter suggested FEIS/OEIS (Species-Specific Threats) well as a discussion in Appendix K that ‘‘Baleen whales are vulnerable to and specifically the documented (Geographic Mitigation Assessment), the impacts of LFAS, particularly in incidental take by commercial fisheries Section K.1.1.5 (Mitigation Areas calving areas where low-amplitude (Bradford and Forney, 2016; Oleson et Currently Implemented) regarding the 4- communication calls between mothers al., 2010; Reeves et al., 2009; West, Islands Region Mitigation Area. See aslo and calves can be easily masked.’’ As 2016). the discussion in Appendix K described in Chapter 3, Section 3.7.2.3.1 The Navy is implementing the Hawaii (Geographic Mitigation Assessment), (Humpback Whale (Megaptera Island Mitigation Area which Section K.2.1.2 (Biological Effectiveness

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41830 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Assessment) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ hearing impairment are greatly reduced. November and May. NMFS should also OEIS. See the responses to comments 71 and consider habitat-based management The Mitigation Areas in Hawaii 64 for additional discussion of false measures for other nearby seamounts. section of the 2018 HSTT final rule killer whale mitigation. Response: NMFS and the Navy describes in detail the significant The Commenters cite concerns for considered Cross Seamount and ‘‘other reduction of impacts afforded by the population-level effects. As detailed in nearby seamounts’’ for additional required 4-Islands Region Mitigation the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and geographic mitigation as described in Area and Hawaii Island Mitigation Area indicated in this final rule, the planned Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation to the species and stocks cited by the Navy training and testing activities are Assessment), Section K.7.1 (Hawaii Commenters. Together, these two areas not likely to result in impacts on Public Comment Mitigation Area significantly reduce impacts in this reproduction or survival. There is no Assessment), including sub-sections important calving and breeding area for evidence to suggest there have been any K.7.1.1 (General Biological Assessment Humpback whales—please see the population-level effects in the waters of Seamounts in the Hawaii Portion of response to Comment 74 for additional around Oahu, Kauai, and Niihau or in the Study Area) and K.7.1.2 (Cross details regarding why additional the HSTT Study Area resulting from the Seamount) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ mitigation areas for humpback whales training and testing activities that have OEIS, which was used to support NMFS off Oahu, Niihua, or Kauai are not been ongoing for decades, which the mitigation evaluation for this rule. As discussed in Appendix K included. Further, the Hawaii Island Commenters recommend the need to stop, or at a minimum, be mitigated. In (Geographic Mitigation Assessment), Mitigation Area overlaps multiple small the waters around Oahu, Kauai, and Section 4.7.1.3 (Mitigation Assessment) resident populations (BIAs) of Niihau, documented long-term of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, odontocetes that span multiple islands, residency by individuals and the implementing new geographic and this mitigation area overlaps all of existence of multiple small and resident mitigation measures in addition to the stock’s range around the island of populations precisely where Navy ongoing procedural mitigation within Hawaii for false killer whales (Main training and testing have been occurring the vicinity of Cross Seamount would Hawaiian Island insular stock) and for decades strongly suggests a lack of not be effective at reducing adverse spinner dolphins (Hawaiian Islands significant impact to those individuals impacts on beaked whales or other stock), and approximately 90 percent of and populations from the continuation marine mammal populations. The Navy the range around the island of Hawaii of Navy training and testing. Appendix has been training and testing in the for pantropical spotted dolphins K of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS further broad ocean area around Cross (Hawaii stock). Additionally, critical describes the importance of these areas Seamount with the same basic systems habitat has been designated, pursuant to for Navy training and testing and why for over 40 years, and there is no the ESA, for false killer whales (Main implementation of additional mitigation evidence of any adverse impacts to Hawaiian Island insular stock) in waters areas would be impracticable. marine species. Additionally, the between 45 and 3,200 m depth around Last, as discussed previously, the suggested mitigation would not be all of the Main Hawaiian Islands, and Navy adopted all mitigation measures practicable for the Navy to implement. this mitigation area captures more than that are practicable without jeopardizing The broad ocean area around Cross 95 percent of this area around the island its mission and Title 10 responsibilities. Seamount and the seamounts to the of Hawaii. The 4-Islands Region In other words, a comprehensive north are unique in that there are no Mitigation Area also overlaps multiple assessment by Navy leadership of the similar broad ocean areas in the vicinity small resident populations of marine final, entire list of mitigation measures of the Hawaiian Islands that are not mammals (BIAs) that span multiple concluded that the inclusion of any otherwise encumbered by commercial islands, including about 80 percent of further mitigation beyond those vessel traffic and commercial air traffic the pantropical spotted dolphin (Hawaii measures identified here in the final routes. In addition, beaked whales may stock) area adjacent to these four islands rule would be impracticable. NMFS be more widely distributed than (one of three discrete areas of the BIA), independently reviewed the Navy’s currently believed. For example, Martin about 40 percent of the portion of the practicability determinations for et al. (2019) detected Cross Seamount false killer whale’s (Main Hawaiian specific mitigation areas and concurs beaked whale vocalizations at PMRF. Island insular stock) range that spans an with the Navy’s analysis. Given the Ongoing passive acoustic efforts from area north of Molokai and Maui (one of significant protection already afforded NMFS and Navy within the Pacific have the two significantly larger areas that by the required measures, and the documented beaked whale detections at comprise the false killer whale BIA), impracticability of further geographic many locations beyond slopes and and a good portion of the BIA for restrictions, NMFS has determined that seamounts to include areas over abyssal spinner dolphins (Hawaiian Islands these measures are not warranted. plains (Klinck et al. 2015, Griffiths and stock), which spans the Main Hawaiian Comment 73: In a comment on the Barlow 2016, Rice et al., 2018). Islands in one large continuous area. As 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter Comment 74: In a comment on the noted above, the ESA-designated critical recommended an additional mitigation 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter habitat for false killer whales extends area for Cross Seamount, as Cross stated that NMFS must ensure that the fairly far offshore (to 3,200 m depth) Seamount represents important foraging activities are having the least practicable around all the Main Hawaiian Islands. habitat for a potentially rare or adverse impact, so it must do a As described in the Hawaii Island evolutionary distinct species of beaked comprehensive analysis of whether the Mitigation Area section noted above, by whale. The Commenter strongly proposed mitigation areas sufficiently limiting exposure to the most impactful recommended that the 2018 HSTT EIS/ protect marine mammals. They asserted sonar source and explosives for these OEIS assess the designation of a year- that NMFS must require the Navy to stocks in this 4-Islands Region round management area to protect the implement additional, practicable Mitigation Area, in addition to the seamount. Such a designation would measures to mitigate further the adverse Hawaii Island Mitigation Area, both the have secondary benefits for a variety of impacts of its activities. To ensure least magnitude and severity of both other odontocete species foraging at practicable adverse impacts, NMFS behavioral impacts and potential Cross Seamount seasonally between must consider additional mitigation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41831

time/area restrictions, including but not for the Navy to implement and would letter did not specify an exact location. limited to: (1) Expanded areas in prevent the Navy from meeting training The beaked whale species detected most Southern California to include all of the and testing missions. As discussed in frequently in Southern California is biologically important areas for whales; detail in Appendix K (Geographic Cuvier’s beaked whale. Cuvier’s beaked (2) add a Cuvier’s beaked whale Mitigation Assessment) of the 2018 whales are widely distributed within mitigation area in Southern California to HSTT FEIS/OEIS, during the Navy’s Southern California and across the protect that small, declining population practicability and biological review of Pacific with almost all suitable deep that has high site fidelity; (3) add the Tanner Bank BIA, it was concluded water habitat >800 m conceivably mitigation areas for the biologically that implementation of a mitigation area containing Cuvier’s beaked whales. In important areas off of Oahu and Kauai; was not practical for this species. The new unpublished Navy funded data, (4) the entire Humpback National area in and around Tanner Banks is a beaked whales have even been detected Marine Sanctuary should be afforded core high priority training and testing over deep water, open abyssal plains protections from Navy activities because venue for SOCAL combining unique (>14,000 ft). The Commenter’s declining it is an important habitat for breeding, bathymetry and existing infrastructure. beaked whale statement does not fully calving and nursing; and (5) limits on This includes an existing bottom represent the current state of the sonar and explosives should be adopted training minefield adjacent to Tanner science. Moore and Barlow (2013) noted in the designated critical habitat for the Banks, future Shallow Water Training a decline in the overall beaked whale Hawaiian monk seal and false killer Range (SWTR West) expansion as well population in a broad area of the Pacific whale. as proximity to critical tactical Ocean along the U.S. West Coast. New Response: In regard to expanded areas maneuver areas to the south and the data has been published raising in Southern California to include all of Navy’s underwater instrumented range uncertainties over whether a decline in the biologically important areas for to the northeast. Furthermore, the the beaked whale population occurred whales, the Navy has agreed to general area is in or adjacent to critical off the U.S. West Coast between 1996 expanded areas in SOCAL, a portion of Navy training that cannot occur at other and 2014 (Barlow, 2016). Moore and the San Nicolas Island BIA and the locations due to available, existing Barlow (2017) have since incorporated Santa Monica/Long Beach BIA are now infrastructure, operationally relevant information from the entire 1991 to included as part of the San Diego Arc bathymetry, sea space, proximity to San 2014 time series, which suggests an Mitigation Area but also named the San Clemente Island and San Diego, etc. Of increasing abundance trend and a Nicolas Island Mitigation Area and the all the blue whale BIAs designated, the reversal of the declining trend along the Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Tanner Banks BIA had the fewest blue U.S. West Coast that had been noted in Area. The Santa Monica Bay/Long whale sighting records supporting its their previous (2013) analysis. Beach and San Nicolas Island BIA only designation. New science since Furthermore, there is no evidence of any partially overlaps a small portion of the designation funded by the Navy further declining beaked whale populations in northern part of the SOCAL portion of highlights how infrequently Tanner Southern California. Schorr et al. (2020) the HSTT Study Area. The Santa Bank is used by blue whales as and DiMarzio et al. (2020) continue to Monica Bay/Long Beach BIA overlap in compared to the rest of their movements document repeated sightings of the SOCAL is 13.9 percent. The San Nicolas in SOCAL. Out of 73 blue whales tagged same beaked whales and steady if not Island BIA overlap in SOCAL is 23.5 with satellite transmitters, only a few increasing population in SOAR. Only percent. transits through Tanner Banks were limited population vital rates exist for The Navy will limit surface ship sonar documented between 2014 and 2017. beaked whales, covering numbers of and not exceed 200 hours of MFAS The longest cumulative time any animals, populations vs. subpopulations sensor MF1 June 1 through October 31 individual whale stayed within the determination, and residency time for during unit-level training and MTEs in boundaries of the Tanner Banks BIA the Santa Monica Bay/Long Beach BIA individual animals. While Cuvier’s was less than one-and-a-half days. beaked whales have been detected north and San Nicolas Island Mitigation Areas Typical average blue whale daily (as well as San Diego Arc Mitigation and west of Tanner and Cortes Banks, as movement along the U.S. West Coast is noted above this species is also detected Area). The Navy has also agreed to limit often up to 13–27 nautical miles a day in most all Southern California locations explosives. Specifically, within the San (Oregon State University, unpublished 800 m in depth. The Navy’s Marine Nicolas Island Mitigation Area, the data). Most blue whale area restricted Mammal Monitoring on Navy Ranges Navy will not use explosives that could foraging occurred around the northern (M3R) program has documented potentially result in the take of marine Channel Islands, north of and outside of continual Cuvier’s beaked whale mammals during mine warfare, large- the HSTT SOCAL Study Area. caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and The feeding areas as recommended by presence on SOAR over ten years from missile (including 2.75 in rockets) the Commenter north of Los Angeles for 2010–2019 with slight abundance activities during training. Within the humpbacks (Santa Barbara Channel— increases through 2019 (DiMarzio et al., Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation San Miguel BIA and Morro Bay to Pt 2018, 2019, 2020). Area, the Navy will not use explosives Sal) and blue whales (Santa Barbara Navy-funded research on Cuvier’s that could potentially result in the take Channel to San Miguel BIA, Pt beaked whales within the SOCAL Range of marine mammals during mine Conception/Arguello to Pt Sal) are Complex began in 2006. In 2008, warfare, large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, outside of the HSTT Study Area; researchers began deploying satellite bombing, and missile (including 2.75-in therefore, they are not applicable for tags as a part of this research. To date, rockets) activities during training and inclusion. 27 Low-Impact Minimally-Percutaneous testing. In regard to adding a Cuvier’s beaked External-electronics Transmitting For the Tanner–Cortes Bank BIA, whale mitigation area in Southern (LIMPET) tags have been deployed NMFS and the Navy have discussed this California to protect that small, within the complex. Twenty-five of extensively, and the Navy is unable to declining population that has high site those whales were tagged within the incorporate this area into geographic fidelity, NMFS is assuming the San Nicolas Basin and two were tagged mitigation because it is impracticable. Commenter is referring to the area west in the Catalina Basin. Average Specifically, it would not be practical of San Clemente Island as the comment transmission duration was 36.6 days (sd

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41832 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

= 29.8), with the longest transmitting for afforded protections from Navy operations. Surface ships and aircraft 121.3 days. Movement data suggest that activities because it is an important mimicking opposition forces present Cuvier’s beaked whales have a high habitat for breeding, calving and submarines with a realistic and degree of site-fidelity to the Southern nursing, the Humpback National Marine complicated acoustic and tactical California Range Complex, and the San Sanctuary largely overlaps both the environment. The Navy expects real- Nicolas basin in particular. Overall, Hawaii Island Mitigation Area as well as world adversaries to target our there were 3,207 filtered location the 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area. In submarines with active sonar. Without estimates from the 27 tagged whales, 91 the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area (year- active sonar from opposition forces, percent of which were within the SoCal round), the Navy will not conduct more submarines do not get a realistic picture Range Complex. 54 percent of all than 300 hours of MF1 surface ship regarding if they successfully evaded location estimates were within the San hull-mounted mid-frequency active detection. Surface warfare training is Nicolas Basin, with twelve tagged sonar or 20 hours of MF4 dipping sonar, designed to support unit-level training whales spending more than 80 percent or use explosives that could potentially requirements and group cross-platform of their transmission duration within result in takes of marine mammals events in 28 mission areas for surface the basin. The two whales tagged in the during training and testing. In the 4- ship certification prior to deployment. Catalina Basin never entered the San Islands Region Mitigation Area Additionally, the Navy will Nicolas Basin. Only three whales tagged (November 15–April 15 for active sonar; implement the Humpback Whale in the San Nicolas Basin crossed into year-round for explosives), the Navy Special Reporting Area (December 15 the Catalina Basin (1.3 percent of all will not use MF1 surface ship hull- through April 15), comprised of locations); two of those whales had just mounted mid-frequency active sonar or additional areas of high humpback one Catalina Basin location each, explosives that could potentially result whale densities that overlap the though the remaining whale had 28 in takes of marine mammals during Humpback Whale National Marine percent of its locations there. Five training and testing. This seasonal Sanctuary. This reporting is included in whales tagged in the San Nicolas Basin limitation is specifically during the exercise and monitoring reports that moved into the Santa Cruz Basin for important breeding, calving, and are an ongoing Navy requirement and anywhere from 1–62 percent of their nursing times/habitat for humpback are submitted to NMFS annually. time (6 percent of all locations). In whales and was expanded for Special reporting data, along with all contrast, 20 of 25 whales tagged in the humpback whales as the previous other reporting requirements, are San Nicolas Basin moved south of the season for this mitigation area was considered during adaptive basin at some point. Of these 20 whales, December 15–April 15. management to determine if additional most remained within either Tanner There are areas of the Humpback mitigation may be required. The Navy Canyon or the San Clemente Basin Whale National Marine Sanctuary currently reports to NMFS the total immediately to the south, but one around the islands of Niihau, Kauai, hours (from December 15 through April traveled north to near San Miguel Island Oahu, and west of Molokai (Penguin 15) of all hull-mounted mid-frequency and four traveled south towards Bank) that are outside of the Navy’s active sonar usage occurring in the Guadalupe Island. Three of these whales mitigation areas. However, none of the Humpback Whale Special Reporting have not been documented in the San Navy’s training and testing areas for Area, plus a 5 km buffer, but not Nicolas basin since, though to date at explosives around Kauai and Niihau are including the Pacific Missile Range least six whales tagged in the San within the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Facility. The Navy will continue this Nicolas Basin have been re-sighted there Whale National Marine Sanctuary. reporting for the Humpback Whale a year or more after the deployment. There may be limited sonar use as units Special Reporting Area. Additionally, one of the whales that was transit to/from PMRF ranges. In regard to the comment that limits south of San Nicolas when the tag Part of the Humpback Whale National on sonar and explosives should be stopped transmitting has since been Marine Sanctuary, west of the island of adopted in the ESA-designated critical sighted three times since. Molokai, Penguin Bank, is not included habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal and Given the uncertainty regarding in the 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area. false killer whale, the Navy will cap residence of Cuvier’s beaked whales in Penguin Bank particularly is used for MFAS for the entire false killer whale the areas north and west of SOAR, the shallow water submarine testing and BIA adjacent to the island of Hawaii and fact that general occurrence of beaked anti-submarine warfare training because a portion of the false killer whale BIA whales in Southern California may not of its large expanse of shallow north of Maui and Molokai as follows. necessarily relate to factors typically bathymetry. While submarines do not The Navy already will limit explosive associated with biologically important typically use mid-frequency active use in the entire false killer whale BIA areas (i.e., one area not being more sonar, relying primarily on passive adjacent to the island of Hawaii. Per the important than another), the likely sonar (listening mode) to avoid 2018 HSTT final rule, the Navy increasing abundance trend in Cuvier’s detection from adversaries, submarines currently implements year-round beaked whales in the area, and are required to train in counter limitation on explosives to the 4-Islands consideration of the importance of Navy detection tactics, techniques and Region Mitigation Area, which includes training and testing in the areas around procedures against threat surface a portion of the false killer whale BIA SOAR and Tanner and Cortes Banks vessels, airborne anti-submarine warfare north of Maui and Molokai. (i.e., the impracticability of additional units and other threat submarines using For the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area area mitigation in this area; see mid-frequency active sonar as part of (year-round): The Navy will not conduct Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation both their perspective Commanding more than 300 hours of surface ship Assessment)), additional geographic Officers qualification course and pre- hull-mounted MFAS sonar MF1 (MF1) mitigation to create a ‘‘refuge’’ in the deployment certification. The ability for or 20 hours of MFAS dipping sonar MF4 recommended area is not scientifically surface vessels and air assets to simulate (MF4), or use explosives during training supported or warranted. opposing forces, using mid-frequency and testing year-round. In regard to the comment proposing active sonar when training with For the 4-Islands Region Mitigation that the entire Humpback Whale submarines, is critical to submarine Area (November 15–April 15 for active National Marine Sanctuary should be crew training for deployed and combat sonar, year-round for explosives): The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41833

Navy will not use surface ship hull- Commenter asserted NMFS must immediately adjacent to the protected mounted MFAS sonar MF1 from consider additional mitigation in the area. November 15–April 15 and explosives designated critical habitat, as well as These issues were considered here, year-round during training or testing excluded areas, to ensure a negligible and the Navy has indicated that the activities. The remaining false killer impact on false killer whales. mitigation included in the final rule whale BIA overlaps with areas (e.g., Response: The Commenter is represents the maximum mitigation Kaiwi Channel) where additional conflating expected numbers of Level B within mitigation areas and the mitigations were found to be behavioral harassment take with the maximum size of mitigation areas that impractical. PBR number presented in the SAR. are practicable to implement under the In regard to limits on sonar and There are no insular false killer whale specified activities. The Navy has explosives in ESA-designated critical mortality takes modeled, anticipated, or communicated (and NMFS concurs with habitat for Hawaiian monk seal, the authorized. Four hundred percent of the the assessment) that implementing Navy’s training and testing activities do population would mean that all animals additional mitigation (e.g., stand-off occur in a portion of the ESA-designated would be behaviorally harassed an distances that would extend the size of critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals, average of four times per year, or once the mitigation areas) beyond what is which is of specific importance to the per season. The short term biological described here would be impracticable species. However, monk seals in the reaction of an animal for periods of due to implications for safety (the main Hawaiian Islands have increased minutes to hours a few times a year ability to avoid potential hazards), while the Navy has continued its would not have any fitness impacts to sustainability (based on the amount and activities, even though the Hawaiian the individual let alone any population type of resources available, such as monk seal overall population trend has level impacts. NMFS confirms that these funding, personnel, and equipment), been on a decline from 2004 through impacts are negligible. Additionally, and the Navy’s ability to continue 2013, with the total number of Hawaiian much of the Navy’s mitigations on meeting its Title 10 requirements. monk seals decreasing by 3.4 percent Hawaii and the 4 islands region Comment 77: In a comment on the 2019 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters per year (Carretta et al., 2017). While the encompass areas that overlap with high noted that Southall et al. (2019c) decline has been driven by the use insular false killer whale habitat and investigated Cuvier’s beaked whale prey population segment in the northwestern thus already mitigate impacts. From the dynamics on SOAR and found that Hawaiian Islands, the number of Navy consultation with NMFS under Cuvier’s beaked whales, as well as their documented sightings and annual births the ESA for insular false killer whale prey, were concentrated on the western in the main Hawaiian Islands has critical habitat, less than 12 percent of side of SOAR. They stated that if beaked increased since the mid-1990s (Baker, modeled takes would take place in or whales were to leave their preferred 2004; Baker et al., 2016). In the main near insular false killer whale critical Hawaiian Islands, the estimated habitat on SOAR due to disturbance, habitat. These takes as explained population growth rate is 6.5 percent Southall et al. (2019c) stipulated that previously would be transitory (short- per year (Baker et al., 2011; Carretta et the animals could encounter both the duration), and spread out in time and al., 2017). Of note, in the 2013 HRC energetic costs of moving and space. Monitoring Report, tagged monk seals substantially poorer foraging options in did not show any behavioral changes Comment 76: In a comment on the the alternative areas (both offshore of during periods of MFAS. 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter SOAR and on the eastern side of SOAR). The Hawaii Island Mitigation Area recommended establishing stand-off Given the very large differences in prey overlaps all of their critical habitat distances around the Navy’s mitigation quality measured between those areas, around the Island of Hawaii (as well as areas to the greatest extent practicable, the researchers asserted that it may the southern end of Maui) and, by not allowing for variability in size given the prove challenging for individual beaked using explosives or the most impactful location of the area, the type of whales to meet basic energetic sonar sources in this, thereby reduces operation at issue, and the species of requirements in some of those areas, the likelihood that take might impact concern. which could have population-level reproduction or survival by interfering Response: Mitigation areas are consequences (Southall et al. 2019c). with important feeding or resting typically developed in consideration of The Commenters note that it is unclear behaviors (potentially having adverse both the area that is being protected and the timescale over which the prey impacts on energy budgets) or the distance from the stressor in surveys were conducted by Southall et separating mothers and pups in times question that is appropriate to maintain al. (2019) and whether the prey when pups are more susceptible to to ensure the protection. Sometimes this dynamics were reflective of seasonal or predation and less able to feed or results in the identification of the area year-round patterns. However, they otherwise take care of themselves. The plus a buffer, and sometimes both the noted that the researchers’ contention 4-Islands Mitigation Area overlaps with protected area and the buffer are that mitigation measures that would ESA-designated critical habitat around considered together in the designation concentrate MFA sonar operations to Maui, Lanai, and Molokai. of the edge of the area. We note that the the eastern rather than western side of Comment 75: In a comment on the edges of a protected area are typically of SOAR would be beneficial for reducing 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter less importance to a protected stock or the potential consequences of noted that in the 2018 HSTT proposed behavior, since important areas often disturbance, particularly for those rule, NMFS estimates 588 takes have a density gradient that lessens operations that use higher-intensity annually will cause multiple instances towards the edge. Also, while a buffer sonar. Commenters asserted that the of exposure to insular false killer of a certain size may be ideal to alleviate findings of Southall et al. (2019c) whales, taking 400 percent of the all impacts of concern, a lessened buffer suggest that the off-range refuge areas population. As the potential biological does not mean that the protective value established by consent order in removal (PBR) is 0.18 animals, the loss is significantly reduced, as the core of Conservation Council for Hawaii v. of a single individual, or an impairment the area is still protected. Also, one NMFS, while presenting foraging habitat to its health and fitness, could place the should not assume that activities are that is superior to that on the eastern species on an extinction trajectory. The constantly occurring in the area side of the range, are markedly inferior

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41834 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

to the whales’ preferred foraging habitat are critical to the Navy’s training and activities be established in, at minimum, on the western side. Commenters testing activities and it is not practicable the Gray Whale Awareness Notification recommended NMFS investigate to preclude activities within that water Message Area, and that the mitigation whether the findings of Southall et al. space. Given the lack of sufficient period be extended from November– (2019) are applicable to seasonal or evidence to support the specific March (the current period of operations year-round conditions at SOAR and significance of the western side of for the Message Area) to November– whether implementation of mitigation SOAR and the stability of beaked whale May. areas on the western side of SOAR populations across SOAR, which Response: The Gray Whale Awareness would be a prudent approach for suggests that Navy training and testing Notification Message Area includes all meeting its negligible impact and least activities are not having significant waters in the SOCAL portion of the practicable adverse impact impacts to the population of beaked HSTT Study Area. As discussed in determinations under the MMPA. whales anywhere in SOAR (DiMarzio et Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation Response: Prey data analyzed by al., 2020, Schorr et al., 2020), and in Assessment Section K4.2) of the 2018 Southall et al. (2019c) were published in consideration of the importance of Navy HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the gray whale Benoit-Bird et al. (2016) and collected in training and testing activities in this migration BIA overlaps with a 2013. The field effort only encompassed area discussed in Appendix K significant portion of the SOCAL four days of survey in September 2013 (Geographic Mitigation Assessment) of portion of the HSTT Study Area out to to include five transits in Western the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, additional 100 nmi from shore over 10 months of the year. There is no indication that SOAR, five transits in eastern SOAR, geographic mitigation specifically for infrequent behavioral disruptions from and two transits off-range. Southern, SOAR is not warranted. Comment 78: In a comment on the Navy activities interrupt or significantly western, and eastern SOAR, areas also 2019 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters delay transit, and gray whales are not used by beaked whales as shown by stated that the California (or Eastern anticipated to be foraging in this area. satellite tracking, were not surveyed. North Pacific) gray whale is presently Therefore, creating a new mitigation Furthermore, based on passive acoustic experiencing a major die-off which was area excluding sonar and explosive monitoring from two different sensor declared an Unusual Mortality Event activities for the SOCAL portion of the types, there is a repeated dip in (UME). They asserted that it is well HSTT Study Area is not warranted. The Southern California beaked whale established that animals already Navy’s current awareness notification occurrence in the August and exposed to one stressor may be less message includes information that gray September timeframes. Therefore, there capable of responding successfully to whales may be present in the SOCAL appears to be a factor, such as another, and that stressors can combine portion of the HSTT Study Area from oceanography, prey availability, or other to produce adverse synergistic effects mid-October through mid-July every biological parameter from August to (Wright et al., 2007). They noted that year, which includes the November– September that influences beaked whale disruption in gray whale behavior can May timeframe suggested by the occurrence unrelated to Navy activities. act adversely with the inanition caused Commenters. Given ocean basin level oceanographic by lack of food, increasing the risk of Comment 79: In a comment on the fluctuations since 2013, it is also stranding and lowering the risk of 2019 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters unclear if the 2013 prey results from survival in compromised animals. The noted that long-term passive acoustic Benoit-Bird et al. (2016) remain Commenters further asserted that monitoring conducted in the Navy’s unchanged as of 2019. Recent research starving gray whales may travel into SOCAL Range Complex from January has also suggested that Cuvier’s beaked unexpected areas in search of food—a 2013 to January 2017 detected a peak in whales tend to be visually sighted and likely contributing cause of some of the Northeast Pacific blue whale B calls passively acoustically detected more ship-strikes observed in recently from summer through late winter with frequently in the western portion of stranded animals. a peak from September through SOAR (DiMarzio et al., 2020, Schorr et Due to the circumstances for gray December, and a peak in Northeast al., 2020). An important fact remains whales, the Commenters recommended Pacific blue whale D calls in May and that cumulatively throughout the entire that NMFS strengthen the geographic June (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2018; year, beaked whale occurrence and protections proposed by the Navy to Rice et al., 2017). They further asserted overall population abundance remains reduce activities in habitat used that the fall peak in blue whale consistently stable in a heavily used seasonally by gray whales. They noted vocalizations coincides with a peak in training area as discussed previously that new scientific information on detections of mid-frequency active sonar (DiMarzio et al., 2020; Schorr et al., spatial and temporal interannual in September through November. 2020). Given the parameters of Southall changes in the eastern North Pacific Resulting maximum cumulative sound et al. (2019) and Benoit-Bird et al. gray whale migration across seven exposure levels of wave trains during (2016) which include short-term migration seasons (2008–2009 to 2014– these times were greater than 170 dB re: seasonal sampling and limited sampling 2015) indicates that an increasing 1 mPa2 -s, and the majority of mid- throughout SOAR, as well as potential proportion of the population is using frequency active sonar wave trains variations in oceanographic parameters, the nearshore migration corridor in the occurred in November 2016 during a it is premature and speculative to Southern California Bight, especially major training exercise (Rice et al., designate additional mitigation areas near Los Angeles (Guazzo et al., 2019). 2017). Explosions (including those specifically for western SOAR. Also, In addition, the time period over which associated with Naval training exercises current and ongoing beaked whale gray whales are detected visually off Los and fishing activity) occurred relatively research on SOAR appears to Angeles, and acoustically across the constantly throughout the monitoring demonstrate a stable beaked whale broader region, is extending into April period at the sites where Northeast population using SOAR (DiMarzio et al., (for acoustic detections) and May (for Pacific blue whale vocalizations were 2020; Schorr et al., 2020). Further, as visual observations) (Guazzo et al., detected most frequently (Rice et al., noted in Appendix K (Geographic 2019). The Commenters strongly 2017). The Commenters asserted that Mitigation Assessment) of the 2018 recommended that a Mitigation Area this new information demonstrates a HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the waters in SOAR excluding sonar and explosives peak in Northeast Pacific blue whale

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41835

presence in the late fall, a time that has around the Hawaiian Islands and off the type of inconvenience that the Court historically coincided with heightened Southern California demonstrates the considered insufficient to meet the periods of MFA sonar deployment and practicability of implementing those stringent practicability standard during explosives use. The Commenters specific time/area restrictions. The Navy the last round of HSTT authorizations. recommended that the seasonality of the implemented these measures for over They asserted that NMFS cannot simply San Diego Arc Mitigation Area and the three years during which time it never ‘‘summarize the Navy’s indication of Blue Whale Awareness Notification invoked its right under the settlement impracticality without analyzing it all,’’ Message Area be extended from June– agreement to train in these areas if but that is exactly what it has done here. October to May–December, and again necessary for national security. The The Commenters state that NMFS urge the Navy to strengthen its Commenters asserted that the Navy has should reinstate additional protections restrictions on activities during this a heavy burden to show these areas are around eastern Moloka‘i and other period. now required for training and testing biologically important marine habitat Response: Rice et al. 2020 (the most activities when it successfully included in the 2015 settlement recent report referenced by the maintained military readiness subject to agreement, and expand protections Commenters was Rice et al. 2017) the settlement agreement restrictions for throughout the Ka‘iwi Channel area as reports on Navy supported monitoring over three years and that NMFS has not described above. at various locations within the Southern held the Navy to its burden. Response: Appendix K (Geographic California Range Complex portion of the The Commenters note that of Mitigation Assessment) of the 2018 HSTT Study Area. While the blue whale particular concern are areas to the HSTT FEIS/OEIS described the switch from D calls to B calls has been northeast and southeast of Moloka‘i comprehensive method for analyzing documented by Rice et al. 2018 and leading into the Ka‘iwi Channel as this potential geographic mitigation that others, call detection may not be area includes biologically important included consideration of both a representative of the total blue whale areas (BIAs) for the humpback whale, biological assessment of how the population or relative proportion in the the Main Hawaiian Island Insular (MHI) potential time/area limitation would SOCAL area. Nor do the call data stock of false killer whales, and spinner benefit the species or stock and its collected by offshore passive acoustic dolphins. This area was partially habitat (e.g., is a key area of biological devices necessarily reflect the amount of protected as part of settlement areas 2A, importance or would result in time or number of animals that would 2C, and 2D, all of which included a avoidance or reduction of impacts) in be in the San Diego Arc Mitigation Area. the context of the stressors of concern in For example, over four years of blue year-round ban on the use of explosives, whale tagging in SOCAL, most whales as well as a prohibition on use of mid- the specific area and an operational with long-term satellite tracking tags frequency active sonar during multi-unit assessment of the practicability of typically have begun their southern training exercises (areas 2A and 2C). implementation (e.g., including an migration by October (Mate et al. 2018). They asserted that the 2018 HSTT final assessment of the specific importance of The amount of time blue whales spent rule and the proposed extension rule that area for training, considering in the San Diego Arc as a proportion of provide no protections for the BIAs proximity to training ranges and the total tag attachment time was very located to the northeast and southeast of emergency landing fields and other small. Based on 90 blue whales tagged Moloka‘i. They noted that the Navy issues). The analysis included an from 2014–2017, blue whales spent an admits that the primary use of the extensive list of areas, including areas in average total of 1.2 days in the San northeast Ka‘iwi Channel is for transit, which certain Navy activities were Diego Mitigation Area (1.5 days 2014, and some limited unit-level straits limited under the terms of the 2015 1.0 days 2015, 0 days 2016, 0.3 days training when ships are transiting HSTT settlement agreement, areas 2017) (Mate et al., 2018). Furthermore, through the area, however, straits identified by the California Coastal the Navy reports that MTEs and unit training is primarily conducted in the Commission, and areas suggested during level training spread throughout the ‘Alenuiha¯ha¯ channel and the Pailolo scoping. As discussed in the 2018 HSTT year. There is no basis for the and Kalohi channels. The Commenters final rule and applicable to this rule, Commenters’ statement of heightened asserted that the inconvenience NMFS also specifically considered the sonar and explosive use in the fall. Rice associated with longer transit times measures from the 2015 settlement et al. (2017) captured a MTE in around northeast Moloka‘i and Ka‘iwi agreement and how they compared to November in one year’s data at one of Channel which the Navy invoked to both new procedural mitigation the recording sites (Site N). Site N is explain the alleged impracticability of measures and mitigation areas (see the where trains with cSELs >170 dB were additional protections for this area does section Brief Comparison of 2015 observed (not the other sites in Rice et not meet the ‘‘stringent standard’’ test Settlement Mitigation and Final HSTT al. 2017), however, Site N is not near the imposed by courts. The Commenters Mitigation in the Rule in the 2018 HSTT San Diego Arc Mitigation Area—it is also noted that the Penguin Bank final rule). For those areas that were south of San Clemente Island. training area, which is located wholly in previously covered under the 2015 Therefore, extending the timeframe of previous settlement area 2A and to the settlement agreement, it is essential to these mitigation areas is not warranted. southeast of Moloka‘i, is used for understand that: (1) The measures were Comment 80: In a comment on the specific submarine training and testing developed pursuant to negotiations with 2019 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters activities identified by the Navy. the plaintiffs and were specifically not stated that the least practicable adverse However, the Navy proffers no selected and never evaluated based on impact requirement imposes a explanation why sonar and explosive an examination of the best available ‘‘stringent standard’’ on NMFS to ensure restriction cannot be imposed for a science that NMFS otherwise applies to that marine mammals are protected to limited five-month period annually, as a mitigation assessment and (2) the the greatest extent practical without in the rest of the 4-Islands Region Navy’s agreement to restrictions on its interfering with military readiness. The Mitigation Area, leaving the remaining activities as part of a relatively short- Commenters noted that the Navy’s seven months free for military readiness term settlement (which did not extend agreement to restrict the use of sonar activities. The Commenters noted that beyond the expiration of the 2013 and explosives in specified habitat areas an increased reporting burden is exactly regulations) did not mean that those

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41836 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

restrictions were practicable to which sends out a message to all Navy for fuel conservation or to meet implement over the longer term. The vessels in Hawaii during the time that operational requirements. Operational 2018 HSTT final rule then provided the humpback whales are present. Last, we input indicated that implementing rationale, again applicable to this final note that the 2015 settlement mitigation additional vessel speed restrictions rule, for not adopting the relatively areas with MFAS restrictions sometimes beyond what is identified in Chapter 5 small subset of measures that were not excluded all MFAS, while sometimes (Mitigation), Section 5.4 (Mitigation carried forward (i.e., why some areas they limited the number of MTEs that Areas to be Implemented) of the 2018 from the 2015 settlement agreement could occur (with no limit on any HSTT FEIS/OEIS would be were fully or partially retained, and particular type of sonar, meaning that impracticable to implement due to others were not, based upon the hull-mounted surface ship sonar could implications for safety and standards of the MMPA). be operated), whereas the sonar sustainability. In its assessment of As explained in more detail in the restrictions in this final rule limit the potential mitigation, the Navy 2018 HSTT final rule and in the full use of surface ship hull-mounted sonar, considered implementing additional analysis in Section 3 of Appendix K which is the source that results in the vessel speed restrictions (e.g., (Geographic Mitigation Assessment) of vast majority of incidental takes. expanding the 10 kn restriction to other the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, Penguin Additional Mitigation Research activities). The Navy determined that Bank offers critical shallow and implementing additional vessel speed Comment 81: In a comment on the constrained conditions for Navy training restrictions beyond what is described in 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter Chapter 5 (Mitigation), Section 5.5.2.2 (especially submarines) that are not recommended NMFS consider available anywhere else in Hawaii. The (Restricting Vessel Speed) of the 2018 additional mitigation measures to HSTT FEIS/OEIS would be areas north of Molokai and Maui that prescribe or research including: (1) are not included in the current 4-Islands impracticable due to implications for Research into sonar signal safety (the ability to avoid potential Mitigation Area are similarly critical for modifications; (2) mitigation and certain exercises that specifically hazards), sustainability (maintain research on Navy ship speeds (the readiness), and the Navy’s ability to include torpedo exercises, deliberately Commenter recommended that the conducted in this area north of the continue meeting its Title 10 agency require the Navy to collect and requirements to successfully accomplish islands to avoid the other suitable report data on ship speed as part of the training areas between the four islands military readiness objectives. EIS process); and (3) compensatory Additionally, as described in Chapter 5 where humpback whale density is mitigation for the adverse impacts of the (Mitigation), Section 5.5.2.2 (Restricting higher. The 2015 settlement agreement activities on marine mammals and their Vessel Speed) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, mitigation restricted all MFAS and habitat that cannot be prevented or any additional vessel speed restrictions explosive use on Penguin Bank (area 2– mitigated. A), however, as the Navy explained, this Response: NMFS consulted with the would prevent vessel operators from MFAS restriction is impracticable for Navy regarding potential research into gaining skill proficiency, would prevent the period covered by this rule because additional mitigation measures and the Navy from properly testing vessel it would have unacceptable impacts on discussion is included below. capabilities, or would increase the time their training and testing capabilities. In 1. Research into sonar signal on station during training or testing addition, the Navy does not typically modification—Sonar signals are activities as required to achieve skill use explosives in this area. For the designed explicitly to provide optimum proficiency or properly test vessel settlement areas north of Molokai and performance at detecting underwater capabilities, which would significantly Maui that are not covered in the rule objects (e.g., submarines) in a variety of increase fuel consumption. NMFS (area 2–B and part of area 2–C), the acoustic environments. The Navy thoroughly reviewed and considered settlement agreement restricted acknowledges that there is very limited this information and determined that explosive use but did not restrict MFAS data, and some suggest that up or down additional vessel speed restrictions in the 2–B area. Explosive use in these sweeps of the sonar signal may result in would be impracticable. As discussed in areas is also already rare, but for the different animal reactions; however, this Chapter 5 (Mitigation), Section 5.3.4.1 reasons described in Appendix K of the is a very small data sample, and this (Vessel Movement) of the HSTT FEIS/ 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, restricting science requires further development. If OEIS, the Navy implements mitigation MFAS use is impracticable and would future studies indicate this could be an to avoid vessel strikes throughout the have unacceptable impacts on training effective approach, then NMFS and the Study Area. As directed by the Chief of and testing. We also note that while it Navy will investigate the feasibility and Naval Operations Instruction is not practicable to restrict MFAS use practicability to modify signals, based (OPNAVINST) 5090.1D, Environmental on Penguin Bank, MFAS use is on tactical considerations and cost, to Readiness Program and as discussed in relatively low and we have identified it determine how it will affect the sonar’s this rule and the 2018 HSTT final rule, as a special reporting area for which the performance. Navy vessels report all marine mammal Navy reports the MFAS use in that area 2. Mitigation and research on Navy incidents worldwide, including ship to inform adaptive management ship speeds inclusive of Navy collecting speed. Therefore, the data required for discussions in the future. Additionally, and reporting data on ship speed as part ship strike analysis discussed in the some of the areas that the 2015 of the EIS—The Navy conducted an comment is already being collected. settlement agreement identified operational analysis of potential Any additional data collection required included language regarding extra mitigation areas throughout the entire would create an unnecessary and vigilance intended to avoid vessel Study Area to consider a wide range of impracticable administrative burden on strikes. Neither NMFS nor the Navy mitigation options, including but not the Navy. thought that inclusion of this term as limited to vessel speed restrictions. As 3. Compensatory mitigation—For written would necessarily reduce the discussed in Chapter 3, Section years, the Navy has implemented a very probability of a vessel strike, so instead 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water broad and comprehensive range of we have included the Humpback Whale Devices) of the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, Navy measures to mitigate potential impacts Awareness Notification provision, ships transit at speeds that are optimal to marine mammals from military

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41837

readiness activities. As described in this mammals, and certain promising types that provide early skill repetition and rule, the 2018 HSTT final rule, and the of modifications, such as converting enhance teamwork; however, they 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS documents in upsweeps to downsweeps—which cannot duplicate the complexity faced Chapter 5 (Mitigation), NMFS and the would not alter the signal’s spectral by Navy personnel during military Navy have expanded these measures output in any way—may well be missions and combat operations for the further where practicable. Aside from practicable and should be studied types of active sonar used for the direct mitigation, as noted by the further, especially for reducing impacts proposed activities (e.g., hull-mounted Commenter, the Navy engages in an in cases where spatial conflicts are mid-frequency active sonar). Simulators extensive spectrum of other activities unavoidable. are used at unit-level training for basic that greatly benefit marine species in a Response: As described in the 2018 system familiarity and refresher more general manner that is not HSTT final rule, sonar signals are training. In addition, several annual necessarily tied to just military designed explicitly to provide optimum exercises in the Pacific Ocean, readiness activities. As noted in Chapter performance at detecting underwater simulating many hundreds of hours of 3, Section 3.0.1.1 (Marine Species objects (e.g., submarines) in a variety of sonar use are conducted virtually for Monitoring and Research Programs) of acoustic environments. NMFS and the command staff training. the HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy provides Navy acknowledge that there is very As described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) extensive investment for research limited data available on behavioral of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy programs in basic and applied research. responses to modified sonar signals, and needs to train and test in the conditions The U.S. Navy is one of the largest some suggest that up or down sweeps of in which it fights—and these types of sources of funding for marine mammal the sonar signal may result in different modifications would fundamentally research in the world, which has greatly animal reactions; however, this science change the activity in a manner that enhanced the scientific community’s requires further development. Further, would not support the purpose and understanding of marine species more the references cited by the Commenter need for the training and testing (i.e., are generally. The Navy’s support of marine pertain to harbor porpoises and harbor entirely impracticable). NMFS finds the mammal research includes: Marine seals. Harbor porpoises are not found in Navy’s explanation for why adoption of mammal detection, including the the HSTT Study Area. The reaction of these recommendations would development and testing of new these two more coastal species may not unacceptably undermine the purpose of autonomous hardware platforms and be indicative of how all other species the testing and training persuasive. As signal processing algorithms for may react to the same stimuli. The described in the Mitigation Measures detection, classification, and Navy’s research programs continue to section of the 2018 HSTT final rule, localization of marine mammals; support new hearing and response after independent review, NMFS finds improvements in density information studies and results of these studies will Navy’s judgment on the impacts of and development of abundance models be incorporated into future analyses. If potential mitigation measures, including of marine mammals; and advancements future studies indicate this could be an simulators, to personnel safety, in the understanding and effective approach, then NMFS and the practicality of implementation, and the characterization of the behavioral, Navy will investigate the feasibility and undermining of the effectiveness of physiological (hearing and stress practicability to modify signals, based training and testing persuasive. Comment 84: In a comment on the response), and potentially population- on tactical considerations and cost, to determine how it will affect the sonar’s 2019 HSTT proposed rule, due to the level consequences of sound exposure performance. circumstances for gray whales on marine life. Compensatory mitigation Comment 83: In a comment on the (described in Comment 78) Commenters is not required to be imposed upon LOA 2019 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters recommended that consistent with its holders under the MMPA. Importantly, asserted that NMFS should require the responsibilities under the MMPA’s the Commenter did not recommend any Navy, through the Center for Naval provisions on UMEs (e.g., 16 U.S.C. specific measure(s), rendering it Analyses or a similar organization, to 1421c), as well as with the requirements impossible to conduct any meaningful study whether active sonar activities in under NEPA to obtain information evaluation of its recommendation. the HSTT Study Area can be reduced essential to its analysis of reasonable Finally, many of the methods of through the use of simulators. alternatives (40 CFR 1502.22), that compensatory mitigation that have Response: The Navy has extensively NMFS urgently fund research to assess proven successful in terrestrial settings studied and evaluated the degree to the extent of prey availability loss for (purchasing or preserving land with which simulations can be utilized to California gray whales and to determine important habitat, improving habitat meet their mission requirements, and the cause of that loss of prey. through plantings, etc.) are not NMFS and the Navy have further Response: Since January 1, 2019, applicable in a marine setting with such considered the information in the elevated gray whale strandings have far-ranging species. Thus, any presumed context of measures that could occurred along the west coast of North conservation value from such an idea potentially reduce impacts to marine America, from Mexico to Canada. This would be purely speculative at this mammals. We disagree that NMFS event has been declared an Unusual time. should require additional study. Mortality Event (UME). As part of the Comment 82: In a comment on the As described by the Navy, it already UME investigation process, NOAA has 2019 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters uses simulators, and the proposed assembled an independent team of asserted that NMFS should consider activities were specifically built with scientists to coordinate with the source-based approaches to mitigate the assumption that a certain percentage Working Group on Marine Mammal impacts on frequently exposed of training activities would be Unusual Mortality Events to review the populations. They stated that several accomplished through simulation data collected, sample stranded whales, recent studies (described in their versus live training. The Navy currently and determine the next steps for the comments on the 2018 HSTT proposed uses, and will continue to use, computer investigation. The investigative team rule) suggest that modifying the sonar simulation to augment training has not as of yet identified a primary signal might reduce behavioral response whenever possible. Simulators and cause for the UME. The team is in at least some species of marine synthetic training are critical elements investigating various causes that could

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41838 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

be contributing to the increased to its predictive habitat models, and flexibility. The purpose of the Navy’s strandings including disease, biotoxins, evidence of additional important habitat quantitative acoustic analysis is to human interactions, environmental areas within the HSTT Study Area provide the best estimate of impact/take drivers, carrying capacity, etc. For the provide the opportunity for the agencies to marine mammals and ESA listed environmental and oceanographic to improve upon their current approach species for the MMPA regulatory and impacts, the team is working with (and to the development of alternatives by ESA section 7 consultation analyses. in part, financially supporting) a improving resolution of their analysis of Specifically, the analysis must take into subgroup of researchers (both internal operations. The Commenter offered the account multiple Navy training and and external to NMFS) that are currently following thoughts for consideration. testing activities over large areas of the researching changes in oceanographic They state that recognizing that ocean for multiple years; therefore, temperatures, primary productivity, and important habitat areas imply the non- analyzing activities in multiple prey impacts (and other indicators) random distribution and density of locations over multiple seasons during the UME to help us understand marine mammals in space and time, produces the best estimate of impacts/ what if any environmental drivers may both the spatial location and the timing take to inform the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ be impacting the whales. of training and testing events in relation OEIS and NMFS. Also, the scale at Comment 85: In a comment on the to those areas is a significant which spatially explicit marine mammal 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter determining factor in the assessment of density models are structured is recommended that given the paucity of acoustic impacts. Levels of acoustic determined by the data collection information on marine mammal habitat impact derived from the NAEMO model method and the environmental variables currently available for the HSTT Study are likely to be under- or over-estimated that are used to build the model. Area, efforts should be undertaken in an depending on whether the location of Therefore, altogether, given the iterative manner by NMFS, and the the modeled event is further from the variables that determine when and Navy, to identify additional important important habitat area, or closer to it, where the Navy trains and tests, as well habitat areas across the HSTT Study than the actual event. Thus, there is a as the resolution of the density data, the Area, using the full range of data and need for the Navy to compile more analysis of potential impacts is scaled to information available to the agencies information regarding the number, the level that the data fidelity will (e.g., habitat-based density models, nature, and timing of testing and support. NMFS has worked with the NOAA-recognized BIAs, survey data, training events that take place within, or Navy over the years to increase the oceanographic and other environmental in close proximity to, important habitat spatio-temporal specificity of the data, etc.). areas, and to refine its scale of analysis descriptions of activities planned in or Response: NMFS and the Navy used of operations to match the scale of the near areas of biological importance (e.g., the best available scientific information habitat areas that are considered to be in BIAs or national marine sanctuaries), (e.g., SARs and numerous study reports important. While the 2018 HSTT when possible, and NMFS is confident from Navy-funded monitoring and proposed rule, in assessing that the granularity of information research in the specific geographic environmental impacts on marine provided sufficiently allows for an region) in assessing density, mammals, breaks down estimated accurate assessment of both the impacts distribution, and other information impacts by general region (i.e., HRC and of the Navy’s activities on marine regarding marine mammal use of SOCAL), the resolution is seldom mammal populations and the protective habitats in the HSTT Study Area. In greater than range complex or homeport measures evaluated to mitigate those addition, NMFS consulted LaBrecque et and is not specifically focused on areas impacts. al. (2015), which provides a specific, of higher biological importance. Current detailed assessment of known BIAs. and ongoing efforts to identify Monitoring Recommendations These BIAs may be region-, species-, important habitat areas for marine Comment 87: In a comment on the and/or time-specific, include mammals should be used by NMFS and 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter reproductive areas, feeding areas, by the Navy as a guide to the most recommended that NMFS require that migratory corridors, and areas in which appropriate scale(s) for the analysis of the Navy continue to conduct long-term small and resident populations are operations. monitoring with the aim to provide concentrated. While the science of Response: In their take request and baseline information on occurrence, marine mammal occurrence, effects analysis provided to NMFS, the distribution, and population structure of distribution, and density resides as a Navy considered historic use (number marine mammal species and stocks, and core NMFS mission, the Navy does and nature of training and testing baseline information upon which the provide extensive support to the NMFS activities) and locational information of extent of exposure to disturbance from mission via ongoing HSTT specific training and testing activities when training and testing activities at the monitoring as detailed in this final rule. developing modelling boxes. The timing individual, and ultimately, population The Navy also provides funding support of training cycles and testing needs level-impacts, and the effectiveness of to NMFS for programmatic marine varies based on deployment mitigation measures, can be evaluated. mammal surveys in Hawaii and the U.S. requirements to meet current and The Commenter recommended West Coast, and spatial habitat model emerging threats. Due to the variability, individual-level behavioral-response improvements. NMFS and the Navy in the Navy’s description of its specified studies, such as focal follows and collaboration with experts are currently activities is structured to provide tagging using DTAGs, be carried out working to assess and update current flexibility in training and testing before, during, and after Navy training BIAs, and identify new BIAs for marine locations, timing, and number. In and testing activities. The Commenter mammals. addition, information regarding the recommended prioritizing DTAG Comment 86: In a comment on the exact location of sonar usage is studies that further characterize the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter classified. Due to the variety of factors, suite of vocalizations related to social recommended integration of important many of which influence locations that interactions. The Commenter habitat areas to improve resolution of cannot be predicted in advance (e.g., recommends the use of unmanned aerial operations. The delineation of BIAs by weather), the analysis is completed at a vehicles. The Commenter recommended NOAA, the updates made by the Navy scale that is necessary to allow for that NMFS require the Navy to use these

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41839

technologies for assessing marine Details on the Navy’s involvement 2018–2020 (Organization: University of mammal behavior before, during, and with future research will continue to be California Santa Cruz); after Navy training and testing (e.g., developed and refined by the Navy and • Behavioral response evaluations swim speed and direction, group NMFS through the consultation and employing robust baselines and actual cohesion). Additionally, the Commenter adaptive management processes, which Navy training (BREVE) 2016–2020 recommended that the Navy support regularly consider and evaluate the (Organizations: Naval Information studies to explore how these development and use of new science Warfare Center Pacific, National Marine technologies can be used to assess body and technologies for Navy applications. Mammal Foundation Inc.); condition, as this can provide an The Navy has indicated that it will • Blue and Fin Whale Density important indication of energy budget continue to be a leader in funding of Estimation in the Southern California and health, which can inform the research to better understand the Offshore Range Using PAM Data 2015– assessment of population-level impacts. potential impacts of Navy training and 2020 (Organization: Texas A&M testing activities and to operate with the University Galveston); Response: Broadly speaking, in order • to ensure that the monitoring the Navy least possible impacts while meeting Cetaceans, pinnipeds, and humans: conducts satisfies the requirements of training and testing requirements. (1) Monitoring marine mammals in the the MMPA, NMFS works closely with Individual-level behavioral-response Arctic and characterizing their acoustic the Navy in the identification of studies—In addition to the Navy’s spaces 2018–2021 (Organization: marine species monitoring program, University of Washington); monitoring priorities and the selection • of projects to conduct, continue, modify, investments for individual-level Collection of auditory evoked and/or stop through the Adaptive behavioral-response studies, the Office potential hearing thresholds in minke Management process, which includes of Naval Research Marine Mammals and whales 2019–2023 (Organization: annual review and debriefs by all Biology program and the Navy’s Living National Marine Mammal Foundation scientists conducting studies pursuant Marine Resources program continue to Inc.) [in partnership with Subcommittee to the MMPA authorization. The process heavily invest in this topic. For on Ocean Science and Technology NMFS and the Navy have developed example, as of March, 2020 the (SOST)]; • Cuvier’s Beaked Whale and Fin allows for comprehensive and timely following representative studies are Whale Behavior During Military Sonar input from the Navy and other currently being funded: Operations: Using Medium-term Tag stakeholders that is based on rigorous • Behavioral Responses of Cetaceans Technology to Develop Empirical Risk reporting out from the Navy and the to Naval Sonar 2016–2021 Functions 2017–2021 (Organization: researchers doing the work. Further, the (Organizations: Norwegian Defense Marine Ecology and Telemetry Navy is pursuing many of the topics that Research Establishment, Forsvarets Research); the Commenter identifies, either forskningsinstitutt, University of St. • Demographics and diving behavior through the Navy monitoring required Andrews Sea Mammal Research Unit); of Cuvier’s beaked whales at Guadalupe under the MMPA and ESA, or through • ACCURATE: ACoustic CUe RATEs Island, Mexico: A comparative study to Navy-funded research programs (ONR for Passive Acoustics Density better understand sonar impacts at and LMR). We are confident that the Estimation 2019–2023 (Organization: SCORE 2018–2021 (Organization: monitoring conducted by the Navy University of St. Andrews); Marine Ecology and Telemetry satisfies the requirements of the MMPA. • Acoustic Metadata Management for Research); With extensive input from NMFS, the Navy Fleet Operations 2015–2020 • Demonstration and Validation of Navy established the Strategic Planning (Organization: San Diego State Passive Acoustic Density Estimation for Process under the marine species University); • Right Whales 2019–2022 (Organization: monitoring program to help structure Acoustic startle responses as Syracuse University, University of St. the evaluation and prioritization of aversive reactions and hearing Andrews Centre for Research into projects for funding. Chapter 5 indicators in cetaceans 2016–2020 Ecological and Environmental (Mitigation), Section 5.1.2.2.1.3 (Organization: University of St. Modelling); (Strategic Planning Process) of the 2018 Andrews); • DenMod: Working Group for the • HSTT FEIS/OEIS provides a brief Analytical Methods to Support the Advancement of Marine Species Density overview of the Strategic Planning Development of Noise Exposure Criteria Surface Modeling 2017–2021 Process. More detail, including the for Behavioral Response 2018–2022 (Organization: University of St. current intermediate scientific (Organizations: University of St. Andrews Centre for Research into objectives, is available on the Andrews Centre for Research into Ecological and Environmental monitoring portal as well as in the Ecological and Environmental Modelling); Strategic Planning Process report. The Modelling and Harris); • Dynamic marine mammal Navy’s evaluation and prioritization • Assessing resilience of beaked distribution estimation using coupled process is driven largely by a standard whale populations to human impacts: acoustic propagation, habitat suitability set of criteria that help the steering Population structure and genetic and soundscape models 2018–2020 committee evaluate how well a potential diversity in impacted and semi-pristine (Organization: Woods Hole project would address the primary areas 2016–2020 (Organization: Oceanographic Institution); objectives of the monitoring program. University of La Laguna); • Environmentally influenced NMFS has opportunities to provide • Behavioral and physiological Behavioral Response Evaluations (E– input regarding the Navy’s intermediate response studies (BPRS) with social BREVE) 2019–2022 (Organization: Naval scientific objectives as well as providing delphinid cetaceans using operational Information Warfare Center Pacific); feedback on individual projects through and simulated military mid-frequency • Frequency-dependent Growth and the annual program review meeting and active sonar 2019–2022 (Organization: Recovery of TTS in Bottlenose Dolphins annual report. For additional Southall Environmental Associates 2017–2020 (Organization: Naval information, please visit: https:// Inc.); Information Warfare Center Pacific); www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ • Behavioral Assessment of Auditory • Integrating information on about/strategic-planning-process/. Sensitivity in Hawaiian Monk Seals displacement caused by mid-frequency

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41840 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

active sonar and measurements of prey (2) Tags and other detection this technology have hindered its useful field into a population consequences of technologies to characterize social application in behavioral response disturbance model for beaked whales communication between individuals of studies in association with Navy 2018–2021 (Organizations: Naval a species or stock, including mothers training and testing events. For safety, Undersea Warfare Center Newport, and calves—DTAGs are just one research vessels cannot remain in close University of St. Andrews, Monterey example of animal movement and proximity to Navy vessels during Navy Bay Aquarium Research Institute); acoustics tag. From the Navy’s Office of training or testing events, so battery life • Investigating bone conduction as a Naval Research and Living Marine of the unmanned aerial vehicles has pathway for mysticete hearing 2019– Resource programs, Navy funding is been an issue. However, as the 2023 (Organization: San Diego State being used to improve a suite of marine technology improves, the Navy will University); mammal tags to increase attachment continue to assess the applicability of • Measuring the Effect of Range on times, improve data being collected, and this technology for the Navy’s research the Behavioral Response of Marine improve data satellite transmission. The and monitoring programs. An example Mammals Through the Use of Navy Navy has funded a variety of projects project is integrating remote sensing Sonar 2017–2021 (Organization: Naval that are collecting data that can be used methods to measure baseline behavior Undersea Warfare Center Newport); to study social interactions amongst and responses of social delphinids to • Multi-spaced Measurement of individuals. For example, as of March Navy sonar 2016–2019 (Organization: Underwater Sound Fields from 2020 the following studies are currently Southall Environmental Associates Explosive Sources 2019–2020 being funded: Inc.). (Organization: University of • Assessing performance and effects (4) Modeling methods that could Washington); of new integrated transdermal large provide indicators of population-level • Off-range beaked whale study: whale satellite tags 2018–2021 effects—NMFS asked the Navy to Behavior and demography of Cuvier’s (Organization: Marine Ecology and expand funding to explore the utility of beaked whale at the Azores 2017–2020 Telemetry Research); other, simpler modeling methods that (Organization: Kelp); • Autonomous Floating Acoustic could provide at least an indicator of • Passive and active acoustic tracking Array and Tags for Cue Rate Estimation population-level effects, even if each of mooring 2019–2020 (Organization: 2019–2020 (Organization: Texas A&M the behavioral and physiological Scripps Institution of Oceanography); University Galveston); mechanisms are not fully characterized. • Single sensor and compact array • Development of the next generation The Office of Naval Research Marine localization methods 2016–2020 automatic surface whale detection Mammals and Biology program has (Organization: University of Hawaii); system for marine mammal mitigation invested in the Population • Standardizing Methods and and distribution estimation 2019–2021 Consequences of Disturbance (PCoD) Nomenclature for Automated Detection (Organization: Woods Hole model, which provides a theoretical of Navy Sonar 2018–2021 Project Oceanographic Institution); framework and the types of data that #LMR–34 (Organization: Naval • High Fidelity Acoustic and Fine- would be needed to assess population Information Warfare Center Pacific, scale Movement Tags 2016–2020 level impacts. Although the process is Naval Undersea Warfare Center (Organization: University of Michigan); complicated and many species are data Newport); • Improved Tag Attachment System poor, this work has provided a • The diet composition of pilot for Remotely-deployed Medium-term foundation for the type of data that is whales, dwarf sperm whales and pygmy Cetacean Tags 2019–2023 (Organization: needed. Therefore, in the future, sperm whales in the North Pacific 2017– Marine Ecology and Telemetry relevant data that is needed for 2020 (Organization: University of Research); improving the analytical approaches for Hawaii); • Next generation sound and population level consequences resulting • The use of Navy range bottom- movement tags for behavioral studies on from disturbances will be collected mounted, bi-directional transducers for whales 2016–2020 (Organization: during projects funded by the Navy’s long-term, deep-ocean prey mapping University of St. Andrews); marine species monitoring program. 2017–2020 (Organization: Monterey Bay • On-board calculation and telemetry General population level trend analysis Aquarium Research Institute); of the body condition of individual is conducted by NMFS through its stock • Towards a mysticete audiogram marine mammals 2017–2021 assessment reports and regulatory using humpback whales’ behavioral (Organization: University of St. determinations. The Navy’s analysis of response thresholds 2019–2023 Andrews, Sea Mammal Research Unit); effects to populations (species and (Organization: University of Queensland and stocks) of all potentially exposed marine Cetacean Ecology and Acoustics • The wide-band detection and species, including marine mammals and Laboratory) [in partnership with SOST]; classification system 2018–2020 sea turtles, is based on the best available • Unifying modeling approaches for (Organization: Woods Hole science as discussed in Sections 3.7 better understanding and characterizing Oceanographic Institution). (Marine Mammals) and 3.8 (Reptiles) of the effects of sound on marine mammals (3) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. PCoD 2019–2022 (Organization: University of assess marine mammal behavior before, models, similar to many fisheries stock California Santa Cruz); during, and after Navy training and assessment models, once developed will • Use of ‘Chirp’ Stimuli for Non- testing activities (e.g., swim speed and be powerful analytical tools when invasive, Low-frequency Measurement direction, group cohesion)—Studies that mature. However, currently they are of Marine Mammal Auditory Evoked use unmanned aerial vehicles to assess dependent on too many unknown Potentials 2019–2021 Project #LMR–39 marine mammal behaviors and body factors for these types of models to (Organization: Naval Information condition are being funded by the Office produce a reliable answer. Current ONR Warfare Center Pacific); and of Naval Research Marine Mammals and and LMR projects supporting improved • Using context to improve marine Biology program. Although the modeling include (as of March, 2020): mammal classification 2017–2020 technology shows promise (as reviewed • A model for linking physiological (Organization: San Diego State by Verfuss et al., 2019), the field measures of individual health to University). limitations associated with the use of population vital rates for cetaceans

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41841

2017–2020 (Organization: National • Reconstructing stress and stressor general, NMFS has based negligible Marine Mammal Foundation Inc.); profiles in baleen whale earplugs 2017– impact determinations associated with • Body condition as a predictor of 2020 (Organization: Baylor University). incidental take authorizations on behavioral responses of cetaceans to As discussed in the Monitoring abundance estimates provided either in sonar 2019–2021 (Organization: section of the final rule, the Navy’s its Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) or University of St. Andrews); marine species monitoring program other more recent published literature. • Integrating the results of behavioral typically supports 10–15 projects in the For the HSTT proposed rule, NMFS response studies into models of the Pacific at any given time. Current used abundance estimates as population consequences of disturbance projects cover a range of species and determined by the Navy’s underlying 2019–2021 (Organizations: University of topics from collecting baseline data on density estimates rather than abundance Washington, Naval Undersea Warfare occurrence and distribution, to tracking estimates from either the SARs or Center Newport); whales, to conducting behavioral published literature. NMFS also did not • Developing metrics of animal response studies on beaked whales and specify how it determined the actual condition and their linkage to vital pilot whales. The Navy’s marine species abundance given that many of the rates: Further development of the PCoD monitoring web portal provides details densities differ on orders of kilometers. model 2018–2021 (Organization: on past and current monitoring projects, Interpolation or smoothing, and University of California Santa Cruz); including technical reports, potentially extrapolation, of data likely • Development of an index to publications, presentations, and access would be necessary to achieve NMFS’ measure body condition of free-ranging to available data and can be found at: intended goal—it is unclear whether cetaceans 2016–2020 (Organization: https:// any such methods were implemented. University of California Santa Cruz); www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ In addition, it is unclear whether NMFS • Double Mocha: Phase II Multi- regions/atlantic/current-projects/. A list estimated the abundances in the same Study Ocean acoustic Human effects of the monitoring studies that the Navy manner beyond the U.S. EEZ as it did Analysis 2018–2021 (Organization: will be conducting under this rule are within the U.S. EEZ for HRC and why University of St. Andrews Centre for listed at the bottom of the Monitoring it did not compare takes within the U.S. Research into Ecological and section of the 2018 HSTT final rule. EEZ and beyond the U.S. EEZ for Environmental Modelling); In summary, NMFS and the Navy • SOCAL, given that a larger proportion of Dynamics of eDNA 2018–2020 work closely together to prioritize, the Navy’s SOCAL action area is beyond (Organization: Oregon State University); review, and adaptively manage the • the U.S.EEZ than HRC. Furthermore, Further investigation of blow or extensive suite of monitoring that the NMFS did not specify how it exhaled breath condensate as a non- Navy conducts in order to ensure that it determined the proportion of total takes invasive tool to monitor the satisfies the MMPA requirements. that would occur beyond the U.S. EEZ. physiological response to stressors in NMFS has laid out a broad set of goals Moreover, the ‘‘instances’’ of the cetaceans 2018–2020 (Organization: that are appropriate for any entity specific types of taking (i.e., mortality, Mystic Aquarium); authorized under the MMPA to pursue, Level A and B harassment) do not match • Heart rate logging in deep diving and then we have worked with the Navy the total takes ‘‘inside and outside the toothed whales: A new tool for assessing to manage their projects to best target EEZ’’ in Tables 69–81 (where responses to disturbance 2016–2020 the most appropriate goals given their applicable) or those take estimates in (Organization: San Jose State activities, impacts, and assets in the Tables 41–42 and 67–68 of the 2018 University); HSTT Study Area. Given the scale of the HSTT proposed rule. It also appears the • Measuring heart rate to assess the HSTT Study Area and the variety of ‘‘instances’’ of take columns were based stress response in large whales 2019– activities conducted, there are many on only those takes in the U.S. EEZ for 2021 (Organization: Stanford possible combinations of projects that HRC rather than the area within and University); could satisfy the MMPA standard for the • Measuring stress hormone levels beyond the U.S. EEZ. It further is rule. The Commenter has recommended and reproductive rates in two species of unclear why takes were not apportioned more and/or different monitoring than common dolphins relative to mid- within and beyond the U.S. EEZ for NMFS is requiring and the Navy is frequency active sonar within the SOCAL. Given that the negligible conducting or currently plans to greater region of the SOAR range, San impact determination is based on the conduct, but has in no way Clemente Island, California 2017–2020 total taking in the entire study area, demonstrated that the monitoring (Organization: Southwest Fisheries NMFS should have partitioned the takes currently being conducted does not Science Center); in the ‘‘instances’’ of take columns in satisfy the MMPA standard. NMFS • MSM4PCoD: Marine Species Tables 69–81 of the 2018 HSTT appreciates the Commenter’s input, and Monitoring for the Population proposed rule for all activities that will consider it as appropriate in the Consequences of Disturbance 2019– occur within and beyond the U.S. EEZ. context of our adaptive management, 2023 (Organization: University of St. One Commenter further asserts that any but is not recommending any changes at Andrews, Sea Mammal Research Unit); ‘‘small numbers’’ determination that • Neurobiological and physiological this time. relies on abundance estimates derived measurements from free swimming Negligible Impact Determination simplistically from modeled densities is marine mammals 2019–2022 both arbitrary and capricious. The (Organization: Fundacion Oceanografic); General Commenters assert that NMFS should, • Physiological consequences of flight Comment 88: In a comment on the at least for data rich species, derive its responses in diving mammals: Critical 2018 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters absolute abundance estimates from metrics for assessing the impacts of stated that NMFS’ analytical approach NMFS’ SARs or more recently novel environmental stimuli on for negligible impact determination is published literature. cetaceans and other marine living not transparent and that the methods Response: NMFS’ Analysis and species 2017–2020 (Organization: and resulting data cannot be Negligible Impact Determination section University of California Santa Cruz); substantiated with the information was updated and expanded in the 2018 and provided. Commenters stated that in HSTT final rule to clarify the issues the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41842 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Commenters raised here (as well as and displace blue whales from high- injury and behavioral disturbance. others). Specifically, though, NMFS quality prey patches, significantly Similarly, the Commenter stated that uses both the Navy-calculated impacting their foraging ecology, NMFS cannot consider the proposed abundance (based on the Navy- individual fitness, and population authorization for 0.4 annual mortality/ calculated densities described in detail health. They also state that mid- serious injury to have a negligible in the Estimated Take of Marine frequency sonar has been associated impact on the CA/OR/WA stock of Mammal section) and the SARs with several cases of blue whale humpback whales in the 2018 HSTT abundances, where appropriate, in the stranding events and that low-frequency proposed rule because take is already negligible impact analysis—noting that anthropogenic noise can mask calling exceeding the potential biological the nature of the overlap of the Navy behavior, reduce communication range, removal, and especially concerning is Study Area with the U.S. EEZ is and damage hearing. These impacts any take authorized for the critically different in Hawaii versus SOCAL, from sonar on blue whales suggest that endangered Central America population supporting different analytical the activities’ impacts would have long- that would have significant adverse comparisons. term, non-negligible impacts on the blue population impacts. NMFS acknowledges that there were whale population. Response: As described in detail in a few small errors in the take numbers Response: As described in this final the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals in the proposed rule; however, they rule in the Analysis and Negligible section, the Navy and NMFS revisited have been corrected (i.e., the take totals Impact Determination section, NMFS and re-analyzed the Navy’s initial in Tables 41 and 42 of the 2018 HSTT has fully considered the effects that request of takes by mortality of blue and proposed rule for a given stock now exposure to sonar can have on blue humpback whales from vessel strike and equal the ‘‘in and outside the U.S. EEZ’’ whales, including impacts on calls and determined that only one strike of either take totals in Tables 41 and 42 (of the feeding and those outlined in the would be possible over the course of HSTT final rule) and the minor changes Goldbogen study. However, as five years in the 2018 HSTT final rule, do not affect the analysis or discussed, any individual blue whale is and therefore authorized the lesser determinations in the rule. not expected to be exposed to sonar and amount. Further, NMFS has expanded Also, the Commenters are incorrect taken on more than several days per and refined the discussion of mortality that the instances of take for HRC do not year. Thus, while vocalizations may be take, PBR, and our negligible impact reflect the take both within and outside impacted or feeding behaviors finding in the Serious Injury and the U.S. EEZ. They do. Lastly, the temporarily disrupted, this small scale Mortality subsection of the Analysis and Commenter mentions the agency of impacts is not expected to affect Negligible Impact Determination section making a ‘‘small numbers’’ reproductive success or survival of any and does not repeat it here. determination, but such a determination individuals, especially given the Comment 92: In a comment on the is not applicable in the context of limitations on sonar and explosive use 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter military readiness activities. within blue whale BIAs. Of additional stated that the estimated population size Comment 89: In a comment on the note, while the blue whale behavioral for the Hawaii stock of sei whales is 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter response study (BRS) in Southern only 178 animals, and the potential stated that the activities proposed by the California documented some foraging biological removal is 0.2 whales per Navy include high-intensity noise responses by blue whales to simulated year. According to the Commenter, pollution, vessel traffic, explosions, pile Navy sonar, any response was highly NMFS admits that the mortality for the driving, and more at a massive scale. variable by individual and context of Hawaii stock of sei whales is above According to the Commenter, NMFS has the exposure. There were, for instance, potential biological removal. The underestimated the amount of take and some individual blue whales that did Commenter asserted that the conclusion the adverse impact that it will have on not respond. Recent Navy-funded blue that the action will have a negligible marine mammals and their habitat. whale tracking has documented wide impact on this stock is arbitrary and Response: NMFS has provided ranging movements through Navy areas capricious. extensive information demonstrating such that any one area is not used Response: As described in detail in that the best available science has been extensively for foraging. More long-term the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals used to estimate the amount of take, and blue whale residency occurs north of section, the Navy and NMFS revisited further to analyze the impacts that all of and outside of the HSTT Study Area. and re-analyzed the Navy’s initial these takes combined will have on the Further, we disagree with the assertion request for the take of a sei whale from affected species and stocks. As that MFAS has been causally associated vessel strike and determined that this described in the Analysis and Negligible with blue whale strandings. This topic take is unlikely to occur and, therefore, Impact Determination section, this was discussed at length in the proposed it is not authorized. information and our associated analyses rule and there is no data causally Comment 93: In a comment on the support the negligible impact linking MFAS use with blue whale 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter determinations necessary to issue these strandings. stated that any take of Hawaiian monk regulations. Comment 91: In a comment on the seal by the proposed activities will have Comment 90: In a comment on the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter a non-negligible impact given the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter stated that NMFS cannot consider the precarious status of this species. stated that blue whales exposed to mid- additional mortality/serious injury, Response: NMFS’ rationale for finding frequency sonar (with received levels of including the 0.2 in the proposed that the Navy’s activity will have a 110 to 120 dB re: 1 mPa) are less likely authorization for ship strike for blue negligible impact on monk seals is to produce calls associated with feeding whales in the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, included in the Pinniped subsection of behavior. They cite the Goldbogen et al. to have a negligible impact for this the Analysis and Negligible Impact (2013) study (and a subsequent study) as stock. They also state that counts of Determination section and is not re- extremely concerning because of the mortality/serious injury do not account printed here. Nonetheless, we reiterate potential impacts of sonar on the for the additional takes proposed to be that no mortality or injury due to tissue essential life functions of blue whales as authorized that cumulatively can have damage is anticipated or authorized, it found that sonar can disrupt feeding population level impacts from auditory only one instance of PTS is estimated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41843

and authorized, and no individual monk instrumented range in San Nicolas previously, both the Eastern Pacific seal is expected to be exposed to Basin was obtained using new dive- stock (not ESA listed) and the Western stressors that would result in take more counting acoustic methods and an Pacific stock of gray whales is described than a few days a year. Further, the archive of passive acoustic M3R data as increasing in the 2018 final SARs (the Hawaii Island and 4-Island Region representing 49,855 hrs of data most recent SARs for these stocks). The mitigation areas provide significant (DiMarzio et al., 2020; Moretti, 2017). population size of the Eastern North protection of monk seal critical habitat Over the ten-year period from 2010– Pacific gray whale stock has increased in the Main Hawaiian Islands, reducing 2019, there was no observed decrease over several decades despite an UME in impacts from sonar and explosives and perhaps a slight increase in annual 1999 and 2000. around a large portion of pupping Cuvier’s beaked whale abundance Cumulative and Aggregate Effects beaches and foraging habitat, as within San Nicolas Basin (DiMarzio et described in the Mitigation Measures al., 2020). There does appear to be a Comment 96: In a comment on the section. repeated dip in population numbers and 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter Comment 94: In a comment on the associated echolocation clicks during asserted that NMFS has not apparently 2019 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters the fall centered around August and considered the impact of Navy activities stated that satellite telemetry data and September (Moretti, 2017, DiMarzio et on a population basis for many of the eight years’ worth of photo- al., 2020). A similar August and marine mammal populations within the identification and mark-recapture data, September dip was noted by researchers HSTT Study Area. Instead, it has lodged representing the best available science, using stand-alone off-range bottom discussion for many populations within indicate that San Nicolas Basin passive acoustic devices in Southern broader categories, most prominently represents an area of high site fidelity, California (Sˇ irovic´ et al., 2016; Rice et ‘‘mysticetes’’ (14 populations) and and residency, for a small population of al., 2017, 2019, 2020). This dip in ‘‘odontocetes’’ (37 populations), that in Cuvier’s beaked whales associated with abundance may be tied to some as of yet some cases correspond to general San Clemente Island (Falcone et al., unknown population dynamic or taxonomic groups. Such grouping of 2009; Falcone et al., 2014; Schorr et al., oceanographic and prey availability stocks elides important differences in 2014). They stated that the population’s dynamics. abundance, demography, distribution, primary habitat overlaps directly with Comment 95: In a comment on the and other population-specific factors, the SOAR Range. They asserted that 2019 HSTT proposed rule, due to the making it difficult to assume ‘‘that the many factors—their repeated exposure circumstances for gray whales effects of an activity on the different to Navy activities, their clear foraging- (described in Comment 78) Commenters stock populations’’ are identical. That is related responses to both controlled asserted that in considering the effects particularly true where small, resident sonar playbacks (DeRuiter et al., 2013) of acoustic exposure on gray whales, populations are concerned, and and live exercises (Falcone et al., 2017), NMFS cannot presume that the differences in population abundance, and their small abundance and consequences of the Navy’s behavioral habitat use, and distribution relative to apparently limited range—raise obvious disruption will be ‘‘minor’’ or ‘‘short- Navy activities can be profoundly concerns about population-level term.’’ They asserted that NMFS must significant. Additionally, the consequences for these whales (Claridge carefully consider the biological context Commenter stated that NMFS assumed and Dunn, 2014, Moretti et al., 2015). of behavioral disruption on that species that all of the Navy’s estimated impacts The Commenters asserted that without and evaluate the meaningful risk of would not affect individuals or meaningful additional mitigation, they serious or severe consequences, populations through repeated activity— do not see how NMFS can conclude that including mortality. even though the takes anticipated each population-level harm would not occur Response: NMFS acknowledges that year would affect the same populations or, ultimately, how NMFS can credibly individual marine mammals that are and, indeed, would admittedly involve reach a finding of negligible impact with emaciated or have underlying health extensive use of some of the same respect to this population. issues, such as some gray whales have biogeographic areas. Response: As noted in our response to experienced, may be impacted more Response: NMFS provides a similar comment (Comment 97 below) severely by exposure to additional information regarding broader groups in on the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, NMFS stressors than healthy animals. order to avoid repeating information acknowledges the sensitivity of small However, the expected nature and short that is applicable across multiple resident populations both in our duration of any individual gray whale’s species or stocks, but analyses have analyses and in the identification of exposure to Navy activity is still such been conducted and determinations mitigation measures, where appropriate. that impacts would not be expected to made specific to each stock. The method However, we are required to make our be compounded to the point where used to avoid repeating information negligible impact determination in the individual fitness is affected. applicable to a number of species or context of the MMPA-designated stock, Specifically, gray whales seasonally stocks while also presenting and which, in the case of the CA/OR/WA migrate through the Southern California integrating all information applicable to stock of Cuvier’s beaked whale, spans portion of the HSTT Study Area and are particular species or stocks is described the U.S. EEZ off the U.S. West Coast. As not known to forage in the HSTT Study in the rule. Also, NMFS’ analysis does described in our responses to previous Area. Most gray whales spend only brief address the fact that some individuals comments, NMFS and the Navy have periods of time (days) in the HSTT may be repeatedly impacted and how fully accounted for the sensitivity of Study Area and we have no reason to those impacts may or may not accrue to Cuvier’s beaked whales in the expect that the anticipated incremental, more serious effects. The Analysis and behavioral thresholds and the short term, and predominately low-level Negligible Impact Determination section estimation of take. NMFS has also behavioral responses to transitory has been expanded and refined to better considered the potential impacts of stressors such as Navy training and explain this. repeated takes on individuals that show testing activities will have impacts on Comment 97: In a comment on the site fidelity. Nonetheless, in 2020, an individual gray whale fitness, much less 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter estimate of overall abundance of adversely affect the stock at the stated that NMFS’ negligible impact Cuvier’s beaked whales at the Navy’s population level. Also, as noted analysis for Cuvier’s beaked whales is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41844 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

predicated on a single take estimate for associated echolocation clicks during context of the negligible impact the CA/OR/WA stock. This is deeply the fall centered around August and determination under section problematic as the species is known to September (Moretti, 2017, DiMarzio et 101(a)(5)(A) (see the Serious Injury and occur in small, resident populations al., 2020). A similar August and Mortality sub-section of the Analysis within the SOCAL Range Complex. September dip was noted by researchers and Negligible Impact Determination These populations are acutely using stand-alone off-range bottom section) and is not repeated here. That vulnerable to Navy sonar. Cuvier’s passive acoustic devices in Southern discussion includes how PBR is beaked whales have repeatedly been California (Sˇ irovic´ et al., 2016; Rice et calculated and therefore how it is associated with sonar-related pathology, al., 2017, 2019, 2020). This dip in possible for anticipated M/SI to exceed are known to react strongly to sonar at abundance may be tied to some as of yet PBR or residual PBR and yet not distances up to 100 kilometers, and are unknown population dynamic or adversely affect a particular species or universally regarded to be among the oceanographic and prey availability stock through effects on annual rates of most sensitive of all marine mammals to dynamics. recruitment and survival. anthropogenic noise (Falcone et al., Comment 98: In a comment on the Regarding the insignificance 2017). Some populations, such as the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter threshold, as explained in the rule, one in San Nicolas Basin that coincides asserted that with respect to mortalities residual PBR is a metric that can be with the Navy’s much-used Southern and serious injuries, NMFS’ application used to inform the assessment of M/SI California ASW Range (SOAR), are of potential biological removal (PBR) is impacts, and the insignificance repeatedly exposed to sonar, posing the unclear and may not be consistent with threshold is an analytical tool to help same risk of population-wide harm its prior interpretations. The agency prioritize analyst effort. But the documented on a Navy range in the recognizes that PBR is a factor in insignificance threshold is not applied Bahamas (Falcone and Schorr, 2013). determining whether the negligible as a strict presumption as described by The broad take estimates presented in impact threshold has been exceeded, the Commenter. Although it is true that the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, and the but argues that, since PBR and as a general matter M/SI that is less than negligible impact analysis that they are negligible impact are different statutory 10 percent of residual PBR should have meant to support, provide no insight standards, NMFS might find that an no effect on rates of recruitment or into the specific impacts proposed for activity that kills marine mammals survival, the agency will consider these small populations. beyond what PBR could support would whether there are other factors that not necessarily exceed the negligible should be considered, such as whether Response: NMFS acknowledges the impact threshold. Regardless, however, an UME is affecting the species or stock. sensitivity of small resident populations of whether Congress intended PBR as a The 10 percent insignificance both in our analyses and in the formal constraint on NMFS’ ability to threshold is an analytical tool that identification of mitigation measures, issue incidental take permits under indicates that the potential mortality or where appropriate. However, we are section 101(a)(5), NMFS’ own definition serious injury is an insignificant required to make our negligible impact of ‘‘negligible impact’’ prevents it from incremental increase in anthropogenic determination in the context of the authorizing mortalities or other takes mortality and serious injury that alone MMPA-designated stock, which, in the that would threaten the sustainability of (in the absence of any other take and case of the CA/OR/WA stock of Cuvier’s marine mammal stocks. Mortalities and any other unusual circumstances) beaked whale, spans the U.S. EEZ off serious injuries exceeding potential would clearly not affect rates of the West Coast. As described in our biological removal levels would do just recruitment or survival. As such, responses to previous comments, NMFS that. potential mortality and serious injury at and the Navy have fully accounted for Additionally, in assessing the the insignificance-threshold level or the sensitivity of Cuvier’s beaked consequences of authorized mortality below is evaluated in light of other whales in the behavioral thresholds and below PBR, NMFS applies an relevant factors (such as an ongoing the estimation of take. Further, contrary ‘‘insignificance’’ standard, such that any UME) and then considered in to the assertions of the Commenter, lethal take below 10 percent of residual conjunction with any anticipated Level NMFS has absolutely considered the PBR is presumed not to exceed the A or Level B harassment take to potential impacts of repeated takes on negligible impact threshold. This determine if the total take would affect individuals that show site fidelity and approach seems inconsistent, however, annual rates of recruitment or survival. that analysis can be found in the with the regulatory thresholds Ten percent was selected because it Analysis and Negligible Impact established for action under the corresponds to the insignificance Determination section, which has been commercial fisheries provision of the threshold under the MMPA framework refined and updated since the proposed Act, where bycatch of 1 percent of total for authorizing incidental take of marine rule based on public input. Nonetheless, PBR triggers mandatory take reduction mammals resulting from commercial in 2020, an estimate of overall procedures for strategic marine mammal fisheries. There the insignificance abundance of Cuvier’s beaked whales at stocks. See 16 U.S.C. 1387(f)(1); 83 FR threshold, which also is 10 percent of the Navy’s instrumented range in San 5349, 5349 (Feb. 7, 2018). NMFS should PBR, is ‘‘the upper limit of annual Nicolas Basin was obtained using new clarify why it has chosen 10 percent incidental mortality and serious injury dive-counting acoustic methods and an rather than, for example, 1 percent as its of marine mammal stocks by archive of passive acoustic M3R data ‘‘insignificance’’ threshold, at least for commercial fisheries that can be representing 49,855 hrs of data endangered species and other considered insignificant levels (DiMarzio et al., 2020; Moretti, 2017). populations designated as strategic approaching a zero mortality and Over the ten-year period from 2010– under the MMPA. serious injury rate’’ (see 50 CFR 229.2). 2019, there was no observed decrease Response: NMFS disagrees that the A threshold that represents an and perhaps a slight increase in annual consideration of PBR is unclear and insignificant level of mortality or Cuvier’s beaked whale abundance notes that the narrative describing the serious injury approaching a zero within San Nicolas Basin (DiMarzio et application of PBR has been updated in mortality and serious injury rate was al., 2020). There does appear to be a this final rule to further explain how the thought to be an appropriate level to repeated dip in population numbers and agency considers this metric in the indicate when, absent other factors, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41845

agency can be confident that expected publications/protected_species/marine_ which is essential to any negligible mortality and serious injury will not mammals/cetaceans/gray_whales/ impact determination, represents a affect annual rates of recruitment and makah_deis_feb_2015.pdf). Consistent glaring omission from the proposed survival, without the need for with what the Georgia Aquarium Court rule. While NMFS states that Level B significant additional analysis. found, in both of those documents PBR behavioral harassment (aside from those Regarding the claim that NMFS’ was one consideration in developing caused by masking effects) involves a interpretation of PBR may be alternatives for the agency’s EIS and not stress response that may contribute to inconsistent with prior interpretations, determinative in any decision-making an animal’s allostatic load, it assumes we disagree. Rather, NMFS’ process. without further analysis that any such interpretation of PBR has been utilized After 2013 in response to an impacts would be insignificant. appropriately within the context of the incidental take authorization request Response: NMFS did analyze the different MMPA programs and from NMFS’ Southwest Fisheries potential for aggregate effects from associated statutory standards it has Science Center that contained PBR mortality, injury, masking, habitat informed. The application of PBR under analysis and more particularly in effects, energetic costs, stress, hearing section 101(a)(5)(A) also has developed response to a District Court’s March loss, and behavioral harassment from and been refined in response to 2015 ruling that NMFS’ failure to the Navy’s activities in reaching the litigation and as the amount of and consider PBR when evaluating lethal negligible impact determinations. nature of M/SI requested pursuant to take under section 101(a)(5)(A) violated Significant additional discussion has this section has changed over time, the requirement to use the best available been added to the Analysis and thereby calling for the agency to take a science (see Conservation Council for Negligible Impact Determination section closer look at how M/SI relative to PBR Hawaii v. National Marine Fisheries of the final rule to better explain the relates to effects on rates of recruitment Service, 97 F. Supp.3d 1210 (D. Haw. potential for aggregate or cumulative and survival. 2015)), NMFS began to systematically effects on individuals as well as how Specifically, until recently, NMFS consider the role of PBR when these effects on individuals relate to had used PBR relatively few times to evaluating the effects of M/SI during potential effects on annual rates of support determinations outside of the section 101(a)(5)(A) rulemakings. recruitment and survival for each context of MMPA commercial fisheries Previously, in 1996 shortly after the PBR species or stock. assessments and decisions. Indeed, in metric was first introduced, NMFS In addition, NMFS fully considers the Georgia Aquarium, Inc. v. Pritzker, 135 denied a request from the U.S. Coast potential for aggregate effects from all F. Supp.3d 1280 (N.D. Ga. 2015), in Guard for an incidental take Navy activities. We also consider UMEs ruling on a lawsuit in which the authorization for their vessel and and previous environmental impacts, plaintiffs sought to use PBR as the aircraft operations, seemingly solely on where appropriate, to inform the reason they should be allowed to import the basis of the potential for ship strike baseline levels of both individual health animals from the Sahklin-Amur stock of in relation to PBR. The decision did not and susceptibility to additional beluga whales for public display, the appear to consider other factors that stressors, as well as stock status. Court summarized a ‘‘handful’’ of cases might also have informed the potential Further, the species and stock-specific where NMFS had used PBR to support for ship strike of a North Atlantic right assessments in the Analysis and certain agency findings. The Court whale in relation to the negligible Negligible Impact Determination section agreed that the agency does not have a impact standard. (which have been updated and ‘‘practice and policy’’ of applying PBR During the following years and until expanded) pull together and address the in all circumstances. Importantly, the the Court’s decision in Conservation combined mortality, injury, behavioral Court stated that ‘‘NMFS has shown that Council and the agency issuing the harassment, and other effects of the where the Agency has considered PBR proposed incidental take authorization aggregate HSTT activities (and in outside of the U.S. commercial fisheries for the Southwest Fisheries Science consideration of applicable mitigation) context, it has treated PBR as only one Center, NMFS issued incidental take as well as other information that ‘quantitative tool’ and that it is not used regulations without referencing PBR. supports our determinations that the as the sole basis for its impact Thereafter, however, NMFS began Navy activities will not adversely affect analyses,’’ just as NMFS has done here considering and articulating the any species or stocks via impacts on for its negligible impact analyses. appropriate role of PBR when rates of recruitment or survival. We refer The examples considered by the processing incidental take requests for the reader to the Analysis and Negligible Georgia Aquarium Court involved M/SI under section 101(a)(5)(A). Impact Determination section for this scientific research permits or Consistent with the interpretation of analysis. subsistence harvest decisions where PBR across the rest of the agency, Widespread, extensive monitoring reference to PBR was one consideration NMFS’ Permits and Conservation since 2006 on Navy ranges that have among several. Thus, in one of the Division has been using PBR as a tool been used for training and testing for examples referenced by the Court, PBR to inform the negligible impact analysis decades has demonstrated no evidence was included to evaluate different under section 101(a)(5)(A), recognizing of population-level impacts. Based on alternatives in a 2007 EIS developed in that it is not a dispositive threshold that the best available research from NMFS support of future grants and permits automatically determines whether a and Navy-funded marine mammal related to research on northern fur seals given amount of M/SI either does or studies, there is no evidence that and Steller sea lions (available at does not exceed a negligible impact on ‘‘population-level harm’’ to marine https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/ the affected species or stock. mammals, including beaked whales, is noaa/17331). Similarly, in the 2015 Comment 99: In a comment on the occurring in the HSTT Study Area. The draft EIS on the Makah Tribe’s request 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter presence of numerous small, resident to hunt gray whales, different levels of stated that NMFS failed to adequately populations of cetaceans, documented harvest were compared against PBR assess the aggregate effects of all of the high abundances, and populations along with other considerations in the Navy’s activities included in the rule. trending to increase for many marine various alternatives (available at https:// The Commenter alleges that NMFS’ lack mammals species in the area suggests www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/ of analysis of these aggregate impacts, there are not likely population-level

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41846 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

consequences resulting from decades of that such effects are not considered in comments and concerns have been ongoing Navy training and testing making findings under section 101(a)(5) adequately addressed. There is no activities. Through the process concerning negligible impact. We requirement in CEQ regulations that described in the rule and the LOAs, the indicated that NMFS would consider NMFS, as a cooperating agency, issue a Navy will work with NMFS to assure cumulative effects that are reasonably separate purpose and need statement in that the aggregate or cumulative impacts foreseeable when preparing a NEPA order to ensure adequacy and remain at the negligible impact level. analysis and also that reasonably sufficiency for adoption. Nevertheless, Regarding the consideration of stress foreseeable cumulative effects would be the Navy, in coordination with NMFS, responses, NMFS does not assume that considered under section 7 of the ESA has clarified the statement of purpose the impacts are insignificant. There is for ESA-listed species. and need in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS currently neither adequate data nor a Also, as described further in the to more explicitly acknowledge NMFS’ mechanism by which the impacts of Analysis and Negligible Impact action of issuing an MMPA incidental stress from acoustic exposure can be Determination section of the final rule, take authorization. NMFS also clarified reliably and independently quantified. NMFS evaluated the impacts of HSTT how its regulatory role under the MMPA However, stress effects that result from authorized mortality on the affected related to the Navy’s activities. NMFS’ noise exposure likely often occur stocks in consideration of other early participation in the NEPA process concurrently with behavioral anticipated human-caused mortality, and role in shaping and informing harassment and many are likely including the mortality predicted in the analyses using its special expertise captured and considered in the SARs for other activities along with ensured that the analysis in the 2018 quantification of other takes by other NMFS-permitted mortality (i.e., HSTT FEIS/OEIS is sufficient for harassment that occur when individuals authorized as part of the Southwest purposes of NMFS’ own NEPA come within a certain distance of a Fisheries Science Center rule), using obligations related to its issuance of sound source (behavioral harassment, multiple factors, including PBR. As incidental take authorization under the PTS, and TTS). described in more detail in the Analysis MMPA. Comment 100: In a comment on the and Negligible Impact Determination Regarding the alternatives, NMFS’ 2018 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters section, PBR was designed to identify early involvement in development of asserted that in reaching our MMPA the maximum number of animals that the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and role in negligible impact finding, NMFS did not may be removed from a stock (not evaluating the effects of incidental take adequately consider the cumulative including natural mortalities) while under the MMPA ensured that the 2018 impacts of the Navy’s activities when allowing that stock to reach or maintain HSTT FEIS/OEIS would include combined with the effects of other non- its OSP and is also helpful in informing adequate analysis of a reasonable range Navy activities. whether mortality will adversely affect of alternatives. The 2018 HSTT FEIS/ Response: Both the statute and the annual rates of recruitment or survival OEIS includes a No Action Alternative agency’s implementing regulations call in the context of a section 101(a)(5)(A). specifically to address what could for analysis of the effects of the happen if NMFS did not issue an NEPA applicant’s activities on the affected MMPA authorization. The other two species and stocks, not analysis of other Comment 101: In a comment on the Alternatives address two action options unrelated activities and their impacts on 2018 HSTT proposed rule, Commenters that the Navy could potentially pursue the species and stocks. That does not stated that NMFS cannot rely on the while also meeting their mandated Title mean, however, that effects on the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS to fulfill its 10 training and testing responsibilities. species and stocks caused by other non- obligations under NEPA because the More importantly, these alternatives Navy activities are ignored. The purpose and need is too narrow and fully analyze a comprehensive variety of preamble for NMFS’ implementing does not support NMFS’ MMPA action, mitigation measures. This mitigation regulations under section 101(a)(5) (54 and therefore the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS analysis supported NMFS’ evaluation of FR 40338; September 29, 1989) explains does not explore a reasonable range of our options in potentially issuing an in response to comments that the alternatives. MMPA authorization, which, if the impacts from other past and ongoing Response: The proposed action at authorization may be issued, primarily anthropogenic activities are to be issue is the Navy’s proposal to conduct revolves around the appropriate incorporated into the negligible impact testing and training activities in the mitigation to prescribe. This approach analysis via their impacts on the HSTT Study Area. NMFS is a to evaluating a reasonable range of environmental baseline. Consistent with cooperating agency for that proposed alternatives is consistent with NMFS that direction, NMFS has factored into action, as it has jurisdiction by law and policy and practice for issuing MMPA its negligible impact analyses the special expertise over marine resources incidental take authorizations. NOAA impacts of other past and ongoing impacted by the proposed action, has independently reviewed and anthropogenic activities via their including marine mammals and evaluated the EIS, including the impacts on the baseline (e.g., as federally-listed threatened and purpose and need statement and range reflected in the density/distribution and endangered species. Consistent with the of alternatives, and determined that the status of the species, population size regulations published by the Council on 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS fully satisfies and growth rate, and other relevant Environmental Quality (CEQ), it is NMFS’ NEPA obligations related to its stressors (such as incidental mortality in common and sound NEPA practice for decision to issue the MMPA final rule commercial fisheries or UMEs)). See the NOAA to adopt a lead agency’s NEPA and associated LOAs, and we have Analysis and Negligible Impact analysis when, after independent adopted it. Determination section of this rule and review, NOAA determines the the 2018 HSTT final rule. document to be sufficient in accordance Endangered Species Act Our 1989 final rule for the MMPA with 40 CFR 1506.3. Specifically here, Comment 102: In a comment on the implementing regulations also NOAA must be satisfied that the EIS 2018 HSTT proposed rule, a Commenter addressed public comments regarding adequately addresses the impacts of stated that under the ESA NMFS has the cumulative effects from future, issuing the MMPA incidental take discretion to impose terms, conditions, unrelated activities. There we stated authorization and that NOAA’s and mitigation on any authorization.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41847

They believe the proposed action clearly pile driving/vibratory extraction Area, and NMFS proposed to exclude affects listed whales, sea turtles, and activities. The Navy requested this unit from the critical habitat Hawaiian monk seals, triggering the authorization for 13 serious injuries or designation based on consideration of duty to consult. The Commenter urged mortalities combined of two marine national security. A final rule NMFS to fully comply with the ESA and mammal stocks from explosives, and designating critical habitat for these two implement robust reasonable and three takes of large whales by serious DPSs of humpback whales has not been prudent alternatives and conservation injury or mortality from vessel strikes published. measures to avoid harm to endangered over the seven-year period. Two marine NMFS also has reviewed the most species and their habitats. mammal species, the Hawaiian monk recent 2019 draft Stock Assessment Response: NMFS has fully complied seal and the Main Hawaiian Islands Reports (SARs) and 2018 final SARs with the ESA. The agency consulted Insular Distinct Population Segment (Carretta et al., 2019, which can be pursuant to section 7 of the ESA and (DPS) of false killer whale, have critical found at: https:// NMFS’ ESA Interagency Cooperation habitat designated under the www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ Division provided a biological opinion Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 marine-mammal-protection/marine- concluding that NMFS’ action of issuing et seq.; ESA) in the HSTT Study Area. mammal-stock-assessments); MMPA incidental take regulations for We presented a detailed discussion of information on relevant UMEs; and new the Navy HSTT activities would not marine mammals and their occurrence scientific literature (see the Potential jeopardize the continued existence of in the HSTT Study Area, inclusive of Effects of Specified Activities on Marine any threatened or endangered species important marine mammal habitat (e.g., Mammals and their Habitat section), and nor would it adversely modify any ESA-designated critical habitat, and determined that none of these nor designated critical habitat. The biologically important areas (BIAs), any other new information changes our biological opinion may be viewed at: national marine sanctuaries (NMSs)), determination of which species or https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ and unusual mortality events (UMEs) in stocks have the potential to be affected national/marine-mammal-protection/ the 2018 HSTT proposed rule and 2018 by the Navy’s activities or the pertinent incidental-take-authorizations-military- HSTT final rule; please see these rules information in the Description of Marine readiness-activities. and the 2017 and 2019 Navy applications for complete information. Mammals and Their Habitat in the Area Description of Marine Mammals and There have been no changes to of the Specified Activities section in the Their Habitat in the Area of the important marine mammal habitat, 2018 HSTT proposed and final rules. Specified Activities BIAs, NMSs, or ESA designated critical Therefore, the information presented in Marine mammal species and their habitat since the issuance of the 2018 those sections of the 2018 HSTT associated stocks that have the potential HSTT final rule; therefore the proposed and final rules remains to occur in the HSTT Study Area are information that supports our current and valid. presented in Table 10 along with the determinations here can be found in the The species considered but not best/minimum abundance estimate and 2018 HSTT proposed and final rules. carried forward for analysis are two associated coefficient of variation value. However, since publication of the 2018 American Samoa stocks of spinner The Navy anticipates the take of HSTT final rule, NMFS published a dolphins—(1) the Kure and Midway individuals from 38 marine mammal proposed rule to designate ESA critical stock and (2) the Pearl and Hermes species 3 by Level A harassment and habitat for the Central America and stock. There is no potential for overlap Level B harassment incidental to Mexico DPSs of humpback whales on with any stressors from Navy activities training and testing activities from the October 9, 2019 (84 FR 54354). In the and therefore there would be no use of sonar and other transducers, in- proposed rule only critical habitat Unit incidental takes, in which case, these water detonations, air guns, and impact 19 overlapped with the HSTT Study stocks are not considered further. TABLE 10—MARINE MAMMAL OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

1 Status Seasonal Stock abundance Common name Scientific name Stock Occurrence absence (CV)/minimum MMPA ESA population 2

Blue whale ...... Balaenoptera musculus ...... Eastern North Pa- Strategic, Depleted Endangered ...... Southern California ...... 1,496 (0.44)/1,050 cific. Central North Pa- Strategic, Depleted Endangered ...... Hawaii ...... Summer ...... 133 (1.09)/63 cific. Bryde’s whale ...... Balaenoptera brydei/edeni ... Eastern Tropical Pa- ...... Southern California ...... unknown cific. Hawaii ...... Hawaii ...... 1,751 (0.29)/1,378 Fin whale ...... Balaenoptera physalus ...... CA/OR/WA ...... Strategic, Depleted Endangered ...... Southern California ...... 9,029 (0.12)/8,127 Hawaii ...... Strategic, Depleted Endangered ...... Hawaii ...... Summer ...... 154 (1.05)/75 Gray whale ...... Eschrichtius robustus ...... Eastern North Pa- ...... Southern California ...... 26,960 (0.05)/ cific. 25,849 Western North Pa- Strategic, Depleted Endangered ...... Southern California ...... 290 (NA)/271 cific. Humpback whale .... Megaptera novaeangliae ..... CA/OR/WA ...... Strategic, Depleted Threatened/ Endan- Southern California ...... 2,900 (0.05)/2,784 gered 3. Central North Pa- Strategic ...... Hawaii ...... Summer ...... 10,103 (0.30)/7,891 cific. Minke whale ...... Balaenoptera acutorostrata CA/OR/WA ...... Southern California ...... 636 (0.72)/369 Hawaii ...... Hawaii ...... Summer ...... unknown Sei whale ...... Balaenoptera borealis ...... Eastern North Pa- Strategic, Depleted Endangered ...... Southern California ...... 519 (0.40)/374 cific. Hawaii ...... Strategic, Depleted Endangered ...... Hawaii ...... Summer ...... 391 (0.90)/204 Sperm whale ...... Physeter macrocephalus ..... CA/OR/WA ...... Strategic, Depleted Endangered ...... Southern California ...... 1,997 (0.57)/1,270 Hawaii ...... Strategic, Depleted Endangered ...... Hawaii ...... 4,559 (0.33)/3,478 Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps ...... CA/OR/WA ...... Southern California Winter and Fall ...... 4,111 (1.12)/1,924 Hawaii ...... Hawaii ...... unknown

3 In the 2018 HSTT final rule the number of as 39 and is corrected here. This transcription error does not affect the analysis or conclusions reached species was unintentionally presented incorrectly in the 2018 HSTT final rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41848 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 10—MARINE MAMMAL OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued

1 Status Seasonal Stock abundance Common name Scientific name Stock Occurrence absence (CV)/minimum MMPA ESA population 2

Dwarf sperm whale Kogia sima ...... CA/OR/WA ...... Southern California ...... unknown Hawaii ...... Hawaii ...... unknown Baird’s beaked Berardius bairdii ...... CA/OR/WA ...... Southern California ...... 2,697 (0.60)/1,633 whale. Blainville’s beaked Mesoplodon densirostris ...... Hawaii ...... Hawaii ...... 2,105 (1.13)/980 whale. Cuvier’s beaked Ziphius cavirostris ...... CA/OR/WA ...... Southern California ...... 3,274 (0.67)/2,059 whale. Hawaii ...... Hawaii ...... 723 0.69/428 Longman’s beaked Indopacetus pacificus ...... Hawaii ...... Hawaii ...... 7,619 (0.66)/4,592 whale. Mesoplodon beaked Mesoplodon spp...... CA/OR/WA ...... Southern California ...... 3,044 (0.54)/1,967 whales. Common Bottlenose Tursiops truncatus ...... California Coastal ...... Southern California ...... 453 (0.06)/346 dolphin. CA/OR/WA Offshore ...... Southern California ...... 1,924 (0.54)/1,255 Hawaii Pelagic ...... Hawaii ...... 21,815 (0.57)/ 13,957 Kauai and Niihau ...... Hawaii ...... NA NA/97 Oahu ...... Hawaii ...... NA 4-Islands ...... Hawaii ...... NA Hawaii Island ...... Hawaii ...... NA NA/91 False killer whale .... Pseudorca crassidens ...... Main Hawaiian Is- Strategic, Depleted Endangered ...... Hawaii ...... 167 (0.14)/149 lands Insular. Hawaii Pelagic ...... Hawaii ...... 1,540 (0.66)/928 Northwestern Ha- ...... Hawaii ...... 617 (1.11)/290 waiian Islands. Fraser’s dolphin ...... Lagenodelphis hosei ...... Hawaii ...... Hawaii ...... 51,491 (0.66)/ 31,034 Killer whale ...... Orcinus orca ...... Eastern North Pa- ...... Southern California ...... 300 (0.1)/276 cific Offshore. West Coast Tran- ...... Southern California ...... 243 unknown/243 sient. Hawaii ...... Hawaii ...... 146 (0.96)/74 Long-beaked com- Delphinus capensis ...... California ...... Southern California ...... 101,305 (0.49)/ mon dolphin. 68,432 Melon-headed whale Peponocephala electra ...... Hawaiian Islands ...... Hawaii ...... 8,666 (1.00)/4,299 Kohala Resident ...... Hawaii ...... 447 (0.12)/404 Northern right whale Lissodelphis borealis ...... CA/OR/WA ...... Southern California ...... 26,556 (0.44)/ dolphin. 18,608 Pacific white-sided Lagenorhynchus obliquidens CA/OR/WA ...... Southern California ...... 26,814 (0.28)/ dolphin. 21,195 Pantropical spotted Stenella attenuata ...... Oahu ...... Hawaii ...... unknown dolphin. 4-Islands ...... Hawaii ...... unknown Hawaii Island ...... Hawaii ...... unknown Hawaii Pelagic ...... Hawaii ...... 55,795 (0.40)/ 40,338 Pygmy killer whale .. Feresa attenuata ...... Tropical ...... Southern California Winter & Spring ...... unknown Hawaii ...... Hawaii ...... 10,640 (0.53)/6,998 Risso’s dolphins ...... Grampus griseus ...... CA/OR/WA ...... Southern California ...... 6,336 (0.32)/4,817 Hawaii ...... Hawaii ...... 11,613 (0.43)/8,210 Rough-toothed dol- Steno bredanensis ...... NSD4 ...... Southern California ...... unknown phin. Hawaii ...... Hawaii ...... 72,528 (0.39)/ 52,833 Short-beaked com- Delphinus delphis ...... CA/OR/WA ...... Southern California ...... 969,861 (0.17)/ mon dolphin. 839,325 Short-finned pilot Globicephala CA/OR/WA ...... Southern California ...... 836 (0.79)/466 whale. macrorhynchus. Hawaii ...... Hawaii ...... 19,503 (0.49)/ 13,197 Spinner dolphin ...... Stenella longirostris ...... Hawaii Pelagic ...... Hawaii ...... unknown Hawaii Island ...... Hawaii ...... 665 (0.09)/617 Oahu and 4-Islands ...... Hawaii ...... NA Kauai and Niihau ...... Hawaii ...... NA Kure and Midway ...... Hawaii ...... unknown Pearl and Hermes ...... Hawaii ...... unknown Striped dolphin ...... Stenella coeruleoalba ...... CA/OR/WA ...... Southern California ...... 29,211 (0.20)/ 24,782 Hawaii ...... Hawaii ...... 61,021 (0.38)/ 44,922 Dall’s porpoise ...... Phocoenoides dalli ...... CA/OR/WA ...... Southern California ...... 25,750 (0.45)/ 17,954 Harbor seal ...... Phoca vitulina ...... California ...... Southern California ...... 30,968 (NA)/27,348 Hawaiian monk seal Neomonachus schauinslandi Hawaii ...... Strategic, Depleted Endangered ...... Hawaii ...... 1,351 (0.03)/1,325 Northern elephant Mirounga angustirostris ...... California ...... Southern California ...... 179,000 (NA)/ seal. 81,368 California sea lion ... Zalophus californianus ...... U.S. Stock ...... Southern California ...... 257,606 (NA)/ 233,515 Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus townsendi ..... Mexico to California Strategic, Depleted Threatened ...... Southern California ...... 34,187 (NA)/31,019 Northern fur seal ..... Callorhinus ursinus ...... California ...... Southern California ...... 14,050 (NA)/7,524 1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered, Threatened. MMPA status: Strategic, Depleted. A dash (-) indicates that the species/stock is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted/strategic under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds potential biological removal (PBR) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3 The two humpback whale Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) making up the California/Oregon/Washington (CA/OR/WA) stock present in Southern California are the Mexico DPS, listed under the ESA as Threatened, and the Central America DPS, which is listed under the ESA as Endangered. 4 NSD—No stock designation. Rough-toothed dolphin has a range known to include the waters off Southern California, but there is no recognized stock or data available for the U.S West Coast.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41849

Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs) adult females, and transitioning from California. Partial necropsy An UME is defined under Section milk to prey by young sea lions). These examinations conducted on a subset of 410(6) of the MMPA as a stranding that prey shifts were most likely driven by stranded whales have shown evidence is unexpected; involves a significant unusual oceanographic conditions at the of poor to thin body condition. As part die-off of any marine mammal time due to the ‘‘Warm Water Blob’’ and of the UME investigation process, population; and demands immediate El Nin˜ o. This investigation closed on NOAA is assembling an independent response. From 1991 to the present, May 6, 2020. Please refer to: https:// team of scientists to coordinate with the there have been 17 formally recognized www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ Working Group on Marine Mammal UMEs affecting marine mammals in marine-life-distress/2013-2017- Unusual Mortality Events to review the California and Hawaii and involving california-sea-lion-unusual-mortality- data collected, sample stranded whales, event-california for more information on and determine the next steps for the species under NMFS’ jurisdiction. Three this UME. investigation. Please refer to: https:// UMEs with ongoing or recently closed www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ investigations in the HSTT Study Area Guadalupe Fur Seal UME marine-life-distress/2019-gray-whale- that inform our analysis are discussed Increased strandings of Guadalupe fur unusual-mortality-event-along-west- below. The California sea lion UME in seals began along the entire coast of coast for more information on this UME. California was closed on May 6, 2020. California in January 2015 and were The Guadalupe fur seal UME in eight times higher than the historical Potential Effects of Specified Activities California and the gray whale UME average (approximately 10 seals/yr). on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat along the west coast of North America Strandings have continued since 2015 We provided a full discussion of the are active and involve ongoing and remained well above average potential effects of the specified investigations. through 2019. Numbers by year are as activities on marine mammals and their California Sea Lion UME follows: 2015 (98), 2016 (76), 2017 (62), habitat in our 2018 HSTT proposed and 2018 (45), 2019 (116), 2020 (3 as of 3/ final rules. In the Potential Effects of From January 2013 through 6/2020). The total number of Guadalupe Specified Activities on Marine September 2016, a greater than expected fur seals stranding in California from Mammals and Their Habitat section of number of young malnourished January 1, 2015, through March 6, 2020, the 2018 HSTT proposed and final California sea lions (Zalophus in the UME is 400. While outside the rules, NMFS provided a description of californianus) stranded along the coast HSTT Study Area, strandings of the ways marine mammals may be of California. Sea lions stranding from Guadalupe fur seals became elevated in affected by the same activities that the an early age (6–8 months old) through the spring of 2019 in Washington and Navy will be conducting during the two years of age (hereafter referred to as Oregon; subsequently, strandings for seven-year period analyzed in this rule juveniles) were consistently seals in these two states have been in the form of serious injury or underweight without other disease added to the UME starting from January mortality, physical trauma, sensory processes detected. Of the 8,122 1, 2019. The current total number of impairment (permanent and temporary stranded juveniles attributed to the strandings in Washington and Oregon is threshold shifts and acoustic masking), UME, 93 percent stranded alive 94 seals, including 91 in 2019 and 3 in physiological responses (particularly (n=7,587, with 3,418 of these released 2020 as of March 6, 2020. Strandings are stress responses), behavioral after rehabilitation) and 7 percent seasonal and generally peak in April disturbance, or habitat effects. (n=531) stranded dead. Several factors through June of each year. The Therefore, we do not repeat the are hypothesized to have impacted the Guadalupe fur seal strandings have been information here, all of which remains ability of nursing females and young sea mostly weaned pups and juveniles (1– current and applicable, but refer the lions to acquire adequate nutrition for 2 years old) with both live and dead reader to those rules and the 2018 HSTT successful pup rearing and juvenile strandings occurring. Current findings FEIS/OEIS (Chapter 3, Section 3.7 growth. In late 2012, decreased anchovy from the majority of stranded animals Marine Mammals), which NMFS and sardine recruitment (CalCOFI data, include primary malnutrition with participated in the development of via July 2013) may have led to nutritionally secondary bacterial and parasitic our cooperating agency status and stressed adult females. Biotoxins were infections. The California portion of this adopted to meet our National present at various times throughout the UME was occurring in the same area as Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) UME, and while they were not detected the 2013–2016 California sea lion UME. requirements. in the stranded juvenile sea lions This investigation is ongoing. Please NMFS has reviewed new relevant (whose stomachs were empty at the time refer to: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ information from the scientific literature of stranding), biotoxins may have national/marine-life-distress/2015-2019- since publication of the 2018 HSTT impacted the adult females’ ability to guadalupe-fur-seal-unusual-mortality- final rule. Summaries of new scientific support their dependent pups by event-california for more information on literature since publication of the 2018 affecting their cognitive function (e.g., this UME. HSTT final rule are presented below. navigation, behavior towards their Nachtigall et al. (2018) and Finneran offspring). Therefore, the role of Gray Whale UME (2018) describe the measurements of biotoxins in this UME, via its possible Since January 1, 2019, elevated gray hearing sensitivity of multiple impact on adult females’ ability to whale strandings have occurred along odontocete species (bottlenose dolphin, support their pups, is unclear. The the west coast of North America, from harbor porpoise, beluga, and false killer proposed primary cause of the UME was Mexico to Canada. As of March 13, whale) when a relatively loud sound malnutrition of sea lion pups and 2020, there have been a total of 264 was preceded by a warning sound. yearlings due to ecological factors. strandings along the coasts of the United These captive animals were shown to These factors included shifts in States, Canada, and Mexico, with 129 of reduce hearing sensitivity when warned distribution, abundance and/or quality those strandings occurring along the of an impending intense sound. Based of sea lion prey items around the U.S. coast. Of the strandings on the U.S. on these experimental observations of Channel Island rookeries during critical coast, 48 have occurred in Alaska, 35 in captive animals, the authors suggest that sea lion life history events (nursing by Washington, 6 in Oregon, and 40 in wild animals may dampen their hearing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41850 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

during prolonged exposures or if compositions are identical they Accomando et al. (2020) examined conditioned to anticipate intense renamed the hearing groups. the directional dependence of hearing sounds. Finneran (2018) recommends In continued investigations of thresholds for 2, 10, 20 and 30 kHz in further investigation of the mechanisms pinniped hearing, Kastelein et al. two adult bottlenose dolphins. They of hearing sensitivity reduction in order (2019a) exposed two female captive observed that source direction (i.e., the to understand the implications for harbor seals to 6.5 kHz continuous, relative angle between the sound source interpretation of existing TTS data sinusoidal tones for 60 minutes location and the dolphin) impacted obtained from captive animals, notably (cumulative sound exposure levels hearing thresholds for these frequencies. for considering TTS due to short (SELs) of 159–195 dB re: 1 mPa2s), then Sounds projected from directly behind duration, unpredictable exposures. No measured TTS using behavioral the dolphins resulted in frequency- modification of the 2018 HSTT EIS/ (psychoacoustic) methods at the center dependent increases in hearing OEIS analysis of auditory impacts is frequency of the fatiguing sound (6.5 thresholds of up to 18.5 dB when necessary based on this research, as kHz) and 0.5 and 1 octave above that compared to sounds projected from in these findings suggest additional frequency (9.2 and 13 kHz). front of the dolphins. Sounds projected research is required to understand Susceptibility to TTS was similar in directly above the dolphins resulted in implications on TTS data, and the both individuals tested. At cumulative thresholds that were approximately 8 current auditory impact thresholds are SELs below 179 dB re: 1 mPa2s, dB higher than those obtained when based on best available data for both maximum TTS was induced at the sounds were projected below the impulsive and non-impulsive exposures center frequency (6.5 kHz), and at dolphins. These findings suggest that to marine mammals. cumulative SELs above 179 dB re: 1 dolphins may receive lower source 2 Several publications described mPa s, maximum TTS was induced at levels when they are oriented 180 models developed to examine the long- 0.5 octave above the center frequency degrees away from the sound source, term effects of environmental or (9.2 kHz). The highest TTSs were and dolphins are less sensitive to sound anthropogenic disturbance of foraging produced in the one-half octave band projected from above (likely leading to on various life stages of selected species above the exposure frequency. Both some spatial release from masking). (sperm whale, Farmer et al. (2018); seals recovered within 1–2 hours for up Directional or spatial hearing also California sea lion, McHuron et al. to 6 dB of TTS. One seal showed 19 dB allows animals to locate sound sources. m 2 (2018); and blue whale, Pirotta, et al. of TTS after a dB re: 1 Pa s exposure This study indicates dolphins can detect (2018a)). These models, taken into and recovered within 24 hours. Overall, source direction at lower frequencies this study combined with previous work consideration with similar models than previously thought, allowing them showed that for harbor seals, recovery described in the 2018 HSTT EIS/OEIS, to successfully avoid or approach times are consistent for similar- continue to add to refinement to the biologically significant or anthropogenic magnitude TTS, regardless of the type of approaches to the population sound sources at these frequencies. fatiguing sound exposure (impulsive, Recent studies on the behavioral consequences of disturbance (PCOD) continuous noise band, or sinusoidal responses of cetaceans to sonar examine framework. Such models also help wave), and that susceptibility to TTS in and continue to demonstrate the identify what data inputs require further the fatiguing frequency range tested importance of not only sound source investigation. Pirotta et al. (2018b) (2.5–6.5 kHz) varies little with hearing parameters, but exposure context (e.g., provides a review of the PCOD frequency. The two harbor seals in this behavioral state, presence of other framework with details on each step of study (and Kastelein et al., 2012) had animals and social relationships, prey the process and approaches to applying similar susceptibility to TTS as the seal abundance, distance to source, presence real data or simulations to achieve each in Kastak et al. (2005). The authors note of vessels, environmental parameters) in step. As described in the 2018 HSTT that more fatiguing sound frequencies determining or predicting a behavioral EIS/OEIS, many of the inputs required need to be tested in harbor seals to response. by such models are not yet known for produce equal TTS curves, for • Kastelein et al. (2018) examined the acoustic and explosive impacts. NMFS generating weighting functions that can role of sound pressure level (SPL) and will continue to assess the applicability be used to develop exposure criteria for duty cycle on the behavior of two of population consequences models in broadband sounds in the marine captive harbor porpoises when exposed our analyses. environment (Houser et al., 2017). to simulated Navy mid-frequency sonar Southall et al. (2019a) evaluated To determine the distances at which (53C, 3.5 to 4.1 kHz). Neither harbor Southall et al. (2007) and used updated Helicopter Long Range Active Sonar porpoise responded to the low duty scientific information to propose revised (HELRAS) signals (∼1.3–1.4 kHz) can be cycle (2.7 percent) at any of the five noise exposure criteria to predict onset detected, Kastelein et al. (2019b) SPLs presented, even at the maximum of auditory effects in marine mammals measured hearing thresholds using received SPL (143 dB re: 1 mPa). At the (i.e., PTS and TTS onset). Southall et al. behavioral (psychoacoustic) techniques higher duty cycle (96 percent), one (2019a) note that the quantitative to simulated HELRAS signals in two porpoise responded by increasing his processes described and the resulting captive harbor seals. Both seals showed respiration rate at a received SPL of exposure criteria (i.e., thresholds and similar thresholds (51 dB re: 1 mPa rms, greater than or equal to 119 dB re: 1 mPa, auditory weighting functions) are approximately 4 dB lower than the and moved away from the transducer at largely identical to those in Finneran detection thresholds for the same a received SPL of 143 dB re: 1 mPa. (2016) and NOAA (2016 and 2018). individuals in Kastelein et al., 2009) to Kastelein et al. (2018) observed that at However, they differ in that the Southall previously obtained data for stimuli the same received SPL and duty cycle, et al. (2019a) exposure criteria are more having the same center frequencies, harbor porpoises respond less to 53C broadly applicable as they include all which suggests that the harmonics sonar sounds than 1–2 kHz, 6–7 kHz, marine mammal species (rather than present within HELRAS sources do not and 25 kHz sonar signals observed in those only under NMFS jurisdiction) for impact hearing threshold and that a previous studies, but noted that when all noise exposures (both in air and tonal audiogram can be used to estimate examining behavioral responses it is underwater for amphibious species), the audibility of more complex narrow- important to take into account the and that while the hearing group band tonal signals in harbor seals. spectrum and temporal structure of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41851

signal, the duty cycle, and the responded differently to the airgun returned to the AUTEC range 2–4 days psychological interpretation by the sounds, with one being more responsive after exercises ended. Three of the animal. than the other. When the bubble screen individuals for which modeled received • To investigate the effect of signal to was deployed neither individual SPLs were available during this noise ratio (SNR) on behavioral responded to the airgun sounds, movement showed declining received responses, Kastelein et al. (2019c) supporting the hypothesis that the SPLs from initial maxima of 145–172 dB observed respiration rates (an indicator frequency content of impulsive sounds re: 1 mPa to maxima of 70–150 dB re: 1 of behavioral response) of two captive is an important factor in behavioral mPa after displacements. Tagged harbor porpoises when exposed to responses of harbor porpoises. The individuals exhibited a continuation of simulated 30-minute playbacks of Navy authors suggest that small bubble deep diving activity consistent with mid-frequency sonar (53C, 3.5 to 4.1 screens, such as those tested in this foraging during MFAS exposure kHz, 96 percent duty cycle), in noise study, could be an important tool in periods, but data also suggested that simulating sea state 6 conditions. No improving living conditions for captive time spent on deep dives during initial behavioral responses were observed harbor porpoises by reducing exposure periods was reduced. These when the porpoises were exposed to background noise levels. findings provide additional data for sonar signals at an SPL of 117 dB re: 1 • Kastelein et al. (2019f) examined ongoing Population Consequences of mPa (SNR equal to 49 dB re: 1 Hz). Both fish catching efficiency in two captive Acoustic Disturbance assessments of porpoises responded when exposed to harbor porpoises exposed to pile-driving disturbance as authors note that sonar signals at an SPL of 122 dB re: 1 playback sound (single strike exposure previous studies have suggested mPa (SNR equal to 54 dB re: 1 Hz), levels between 125 and 143 dB re: 1 foraging dives may be lost in response however in quiet conditions one mPa2s) and ambient (quiet) sound. They to MFAS exposure, which could cause porpoise responded at similar levels observed substantial individual a decrease in energy intake and have (Kastelein et al. 2018), suggesting the variation in responses between the two potential effects on vital parameters. behavioral responses of harbor harbor porpoises, with no change in fish The data presented by Joyce et al. (2019) porpoises to sonar signals are not catch success in one porpoise and support the initial potential loss of affected in sea state 6 ambient noise decline in fish-catch success and trial foraging time, however they also suggest conditions. termination in the second porpoise. that Blainville’s beaked whales may • To determine if sonar sounds with These results suggest that high- have the ability to partially compensate different harmonic contents and amplitude pile driving sounds may for this loss (assuming they have ample amplitude envelopes had different negatively affect foraging behavior in recovery times between dives) by impacts on harbor porpoise behavior, some harbor porpoises. However, increasing time spent at foraging depths Kastelein et al. (2019d) examined the additional information is needed to following displacement. behavioral responses of one male harbor determine the role of individual • When conducting controlled porpoise to four different low-frequency differences in responses to sound, exposure experiments on blue whales, HELRAS (1.33 to 1.43 kHz) sonar signals termination rates, and fish-catching Southall et al. (2019b) observed that (1.25 s in duration, 107 dB re: 1 mPa success to accurately estimate and after exposure to simulated and SPL). The sonar sounds with sensation quantify potential impacts. operational mid-frequency active sonar, levels of approximately 21 dB (and 8 • Wensveen et al. (2019) examined more than 50 percent of blue whales in percent duty cycle) caused a very small the role of sound source (simulated deep-diving states responded to the displacement (mean increased distance sonar pulses) distance and received sonar, while no behavioral response was of 0.11 m), slight increase in respiration level in northern bottlenose whales in observed in shallow-feeding blue rate, and a small increase in swimming an environment without frequent sonar whales. The behavioral responses they speed, and these effects did not activity using multi-scaled controlled observed were generally brief, of low to continue after the sound exposure exposure experiments. They observed moderate severity, and highly ceased. The authors concluded that if behavioral avoidance of the sound dependent on exposure context porpoises at sea were exposed to sonar source over a wide range of distances (behavioral state, source-to-whale signals of similar SPLs, the effects (0.8–28 km) and estimated avoidance horizontal range, and prey availability). would be expected to be minimal. The thresholds ranging from modeled Blue whale response did not follow a authors noted that harbor porpoises are received SPLs of 117–126 dB re: 1 mPa simple exposure-response model based relatively insensitive to low-frequency as described by von Benda-Beckmann et on received sound exposure level. signals below 4 kHz, however high SPL al. (2019). The behavioral response • In an effort to compare behavioral harmonics of low-frequency sonar characteristics and avoidance thresholds responses to continuous active sonar sound sounds can impact the behavior were comparable to those previously (CAS) and pulsed (intermittent) active of harbor porpoises. They suggest new observed in beaked whale studies; sonar (PAS), Isojunno et al. (2020) sonar systems be designed to reduce the however, they did not observe an effect conducted at-sea experiments on 16 level of harmonics. of distance on behavioral response and sperm whales equipped with animal- • In an effort to examine potential found that onset and intensity of attached sound- and movement- mitigation measures to reduce impacts behavioral response were better recording tags in Norway. They of seismic airguns on harbor porpoises, predicted by received SPL. examined changes in foraging effort and Kastelein et al. (2019e) examined the • Joyce et al. (2019) presented proxies for foraging success and cost effect of a bubble screen on behavioral movement and dive behavior data from during sonar and control exposures after responses of two captive harbor seven Blainville’s beaked whales that accounting for baseline variation. They porpoises exposed to airgun sounds. were satellite tagged prior to naval sonar observed no reduction in time spent The bubble screen reduced the exercises using mid-frequency active foraging during exposures to medium- transmission of high-frequency airgun sonar (MFAS, 3–8 kHz) at the Atlantic level PAS transmitted at the same peak sounds by 20–30 dB above 250 Hz, Undersea Test and Evaluation Center amplitude as CAS, however they however the broadband SELs-s was only (AUTEC) in the Bahamas. Five of the observed similar reductions in foraging ∼3 dB lower when the bubble screen seven tagged were displaced 28–68 km during CAS and PAS when they were was present. The harbor porpoises after the onset of sonar exposure and received at similar energy levels (SELs).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41852 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

The authors note that these results individuals impacted. They suggest density estimates), and the resulting support the hypothesis that sound using a dose–response function to numbers are based on the best available energy (SEL) is the main cause of derive more accurate estimates of science and appropriate for behavioral responses rather than sound animals impacted and to set a threshold authorization. The number and type of amplitude (SPL), and that exposure (the Effective Response Level) that incidental takes that could occur or are context and measurements of corrects issues with the RLp50 estimate. likely to occur annually remain cumulative sound energy are important The authors note that the Navy has identical to those authorized in the 2018 considerations for future research and calculated estimates of marine mammal HSTT regulations. noise impact assessments. takes using methods similar to the ones Takes are predominantly in the form • Frankel and Stein (2020) used they recommend. Those methods were of harassment, but a small number of shoreline theodolite tracking to examine used to estimate take for this rule (see serious injuries or mortalities are also potential behavioral responses of the Technical Report ‘‘Criteria and authorized. For military readiness southbound migrating eastern gray Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and activities, the MMPA defines whales to a high-frequency active sonar Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III)’’). ‘‘harassment’’ as (i) Any act that injures system transmitted by a vessel located • Houser et al. (2020) measured or has the significant potential to injure off the coast of California. The sonar cortisol, aldosterone, and epinephrine a marine mammal or marine mammal transducer deployed from the vessel levels in the blood samples of 30 stock in the wild (Level A harassment); transmitted 21–25 kHz sweeps for half bottlenose dolphins before and after or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely of each day (experimental period), and exposure to simulated U.S. Navy mid- to disturb a marine mammal or marine no sound the other half of the day frequency sonar from 115–185 dB re: 1 mammal stock in the wild by causing (control period). In contrast to low- mPa. They collected blood samples disruption of natural behavioral frequency active sonar tests conducted approximately one week prior to, patterns, including, but not limited to, in the same area (Clark et al., 1999; immediately following, and migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, Tyack and Clark, 1998), no overt approximately one week after exposures feeding, or sheltering, to a point where behavioral responses or deflections were and analyzed for hormones via such behavioral patterns are abandoned observed in field or visual data. radioimmunoassay. Aldosterone levels or significantly altered (Level B However, statistical analysis of the were below the detection limits in all harassment). tracking data indicated that during samples. While the observed severity of Authorized takes will primarily be in experimental periods at received levels behavioral responses scaled (increased) the form of Level B harassment, as use of approximately 148 dB re: 1 mPa2 (134 with SPL, levels of cortisol and of the acoustic and explosive sources dB re: 1 mPa2s) and less than 2 km of epinephrine did not show consistent (i.e., sonar, air guns, pile driving, the transmitting vessel, gray whales relationships with received SPL. explosives) is more likely to result in deflected their migration paths inshore Authors note that it is still unclear behavioral disruption (rising to the level from the vessel. The authors indicate whether intermittent, high-level of a take as described above) or that these data suggest the functional acoustic stimuli elicit endocrine temporary threshold shift (TTS) for hearing sensitivity of gray whales responses consistent with a stress marine mammals than other forms of extends to at least 21 kHz. These response, and that additional research is take. There is also the potential for findings agree with the predicted needed to determine the relationship Level A harassment, however, in the mysticete hearing curve and behavioral between behavioral responses and form of auditory injury and/or tissue response functions used in the analysis physiological responses. damage (the latter from explosives only) to estimate take by Level A harassment Having considered this information, to result from exposure to the sound (PTS) and Level B harassment and information provided in public sources utilized in training and testing (behavioral response) for this rule (see comments on the 2019 HSTT proposed activities. No more than 13 serious the Technical Report ‘‘Criteria and rule, we have determined that there is injuries or mortalities (eight short- Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and no new information that substantively beaked common dolphins and five Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III)’’). affects our analysis of potential impacts California sea lions over the seven-year • In a review of the previously on marine mammals and their habitat period) are estimated as a result of published data (considered in the 2018 that appeared in the 2018 HSTT exposure to explosive training and HSTT final rule and 2018 HSTT EIS/ proposed and final rules, all of which testing activities. Lastly, no more than OEIS analysis) on the potential impacts remains applicable and valid for our three serious injuries or mortalities total of sonar on beaked whales, Bernaldo de assessment of the effects of the Navy’s (over the seven-year period) of Quiro´s et al. (2019) suggested that the activities during the seven-year period mysticetes (except for sei whales, minke effect of mid-frequency active sonar on of this rule. whales, Bryde’s whales, Central North beaked whales varies among individuals Pacific stock of blue whales, Hawaii or populations, and that predisposing Estimated Take of Marine Mammals stock of fin whales, and Western North conditions such as previous exposure to This section indicates the number of Pacific stock of gray whales) and the sonar and individual health risk factors takes that NMFS is authorizing, which Hawaii stock of sperm whales could may contribute to individual outcomes are based on the amount of take that occur through vessel collisions. (such as decompression sickness). NMFS anticipates could occur or is Although we analyze the impacts of • In an effort to improve estimates of likely to occur, depending on the type these potential serious injuries or behavioral responses to anthropogenic of take and the methods used to mortalities that are authorized, the sound, Tyack and Thomas (2019) estimate it, as described below. NMFS required mitigation and monitoring compared the approach of using a single coordinated closely with the Navy in measures are expected to minimize the threshold to newly developed dose- the development of their incidental take likelihood that ship strike or these high- response functions. They demonstrated applications, and agrees that the level explosive exposures (and the that the common approach of selecting methods the Navy has put forth associated serious injury or mortality) the threshold at which half of the described herein and in the 2018 HSTT actually occur. animals respond (RLp50) proposed and final rules to estimate take Generally speaking, for acoustic underestimates the number of (including the model, thresholds, and impacts we estimate the amount and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41853

type of harassment by considering: (1) to experience a disruption in behavior accurate, and NMFS agrees that the Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS patterns to a point where they are following stressors have the potential to believes the best available science abandoned or significantly altered. In result in takes of marine mammals from indicates marine mammals will be taken summary, we believe these behavioral the Navy’s planned activities: by behavioral Level B harassment (in Level B harassment thresholds are the • Acoustics (sonar and other this case, as defined in the military most appropriate method for predicting transducers; air guns; pile driving/ readiness definition of Level B behavioral Level B harassment given the extraction); harassment included above) or incur best available science and the associated • Explosives (explosive shock wave some degree of temporary or permanent uncertainty. and sound, assumed to encompass the hearing impairment; (2) the area or We described these acoustic risk due to fragmentation); and • volume of water that will be ensonified thresholds and the methods used to Vessel strike. above these levels in a day or event; (3) determine thresholds, none of which NMFS reviewed and agrees with the the density or occurrence of marine have changed, in detail in the Acoustic Navy’s conclusion that acoustic and mammals within these ensonified areas; Thresholds section of the 2018 HSTT explosive sources have the potential to and (4) and the number of days of final rule; please see the 2018 HSTT result in incidental takes of marine activities or events. final rule for detailed information. mammals by harassment, serious injury, or mortality. NMFS carefully reviewed Acoustic Thresholds Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model the Navy’s analysis and conducted its Using the best available science, The Navy proposed no changes to the own analysis of vessel strikes, NMFS, in coordination with the Navy, Acoustic Effects Model as described in determining that the likelihood of any has established acoustic thresholds that the 2018 HSTT final rule and there is no particular species of large whale being identify the most appropriate received new information that would affect the struck is quite low. Nonetheless, NMFS level of underwater sound above which applicability or validity of the model. agrees that vessel strikes have the marine mammals exposed to these Please see the 2018 HSTT final rule and potential to result in incidental take sound sources could be reasonably Appendix E of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ from serious injury or mortality for expected to experience a disruption in OEIS for detailed information. certain species of large whales and the behavior patterns to a point where they Navy specifically requested coverage for are abandoned or significantly altered, Range to Effects these species. Therefore, the likelihood or to incur TTS (equated to Level B The Navy proposed no changes from of vessel strikes, and later the effects of harassment) or permanent threshold the 2018 HSTT final rule to the type and the incidental take that is being shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to nature of the specified activities to be authorized, has been fully analyzed and Level A harassment). Thresholds have conducted during the seven-year period is described below. also been developed to identify the analyzed in this final rule, including Regarding the quantification of pressure levels above which animals equipment and sources used and expected takes from acoustic and may incur non-auditory injury from exercises conducted. There is also no explosive sources (by Level A and Level exposure to pressure waves from new information that would affect the B harassment, as well as mortality explosive detonation. applicability or validity of the ranges to resulting from exposure to explosives), Despite the quickly evolving science, effects previously analyzed for these the number of takes are based directly there are still challenges in quantifying activities. Therefore, the ranges to on the level of activities (days, hours, expected behavioral responses that effects in this final rule are identical to counts, etc., of different activities and qualify as take by Level B harassment, those described and analyzed in the events) in a given year. In the 2018 especially where the goal is to use one 2018 HSTT final rule, including HSTT final rule, take estimates across or two predictable indicators (e.g., received sound levels that may cause the five-years were based on the Navy received level and distance) to predict onset of significant behavioral response conducting three years of a responses that are also driven by and TTS and PTS in hearing for each representative level of activity and two additional factors that cannot be easily source type or explosives that may years of maximum level of activity. incorporated into the thresholds (e.g., cause non-auditory injury. Please see Consistent with the pattern set forth in context). So, while the new behavioral the Range to Effects section and Tables the 2017 Navy application, the 2018 Level B harassment thresholds have 24 through 40 of the 2018 HSTT final HSTT FEIS/OEIS, and the 2018 HSTT been refined here to better consider the rule for detailed information. final rule, the Navy included one best available science (e.g., additional representative year and one incorporating both received level and Marine Mammal Density additional maximum year to determine distance), they also still, accordingly, The Navy proposed no changes to the the predicted take numbers in this rule. have some built-in conservative factors methods used to estimate marine Specifically, as in the 2018 HSTT final to address the challenge noted. For mammal density described in the 2018 rule, the Navy uses the maximum example, while duration of observed HSTT final rule and there is no new annual level to calculate annual takes responses in the data are now information that would affect the (which would remain identical to what considered in the thresholds, some of applicability or validity of these was determined in the 2018 HSTT final the responses that are informing take methods. Please see the 2018 HSTT rule), and the sum of all years (four thresholds are of a very short duration, final rule for detailed information. representative and three maximum) to such that it is possible some of these calculate the seven-year totals for this responses might not always rise to the Take Requests rule. level of disrupting behavior patterns to As in the 2018 HSTT final rule, in its The quantitative analysis process a point where they are abandoned or 2019 application, the Navy determined used for the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and significantly altered. We describe the that the three stressors below could the 2017 and 2019 Navy applications to application of this Level B harassment result in the incidental taking of marine estimate potential exposures to marine threshold as identifying the maximum mammals. NMFS has reviewed the mammals resulting from acoustic and number of instances in which marine Navy’s data and analysis and explosive stressors is detailed in the mammals could be reasonably expected determined that it is complete and technical report titled ‘‘Quantifying

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41854 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals incorporating mitigation and avoidance, also agrees that the takes by serious and Sea Turtles: Methods and are the most appropriate methods for injury or mortality as a result of vessel Analytical Approach for Phase III predicting PTS, tissue damage, TTS, and strikes could occur. The total amount of Training and Testing’’ (U.S. Department behavioral disruption. But even with the estimated incidental take from acoustic of the Navy, 2018). The Navy Acoustic consideration of mitigation and and explosive sources over the total Effects Model estimates acoustic and avoidance, given some of the more seven-year period covered by the 2019 explosive effects without taking conservative components of the Navy application is less than the annual mitigation into account; therefore, the methodology (e.g., the thresholds do not total multiplied by seven, because model overestimates predicted impacts consider ear recovery between pulses), although the annual estimates are based on marine mammals within mitigation we would describe the application of on the maximum number of activities zones. To account for mitigation for these methods as identifying the per year and therefore the maximum marine species in the take estimates, the maximum number of instances in which possible estimated takes, the seven-year Navy conducts a quantitative marine mammals would be reasonably total take estimates are based on the assessment of mitigation. The Navy expected to be taken through PTS, tissue sum of three maximum years and four conservatively quantifies the manner in damage, TTS, or behavioral disruption. representative years. Not all activities which procedural mitigation is expected occur every year. Some activities would Summary of Authorized Take From to reduce the risk for model-estimated occur multiple times within a year, and Training and Testing Activities PTS for exposures to sonars and for some activities would occur only a few model-estimated mortality for exposures Based on the methods discussed in times over the course of the seven-year to explosives, based on species the previous sections and the Navy’s period. Using seven years of the sightability, observation area, visibility, model and quantitative assessment of maximum number of activities each and the ability to exercise positive mitigation, the Navy provided its take year would vastly overestimate the control over the sound source. Where estimates and request for authorization amount of incidental take that would the analysis indicates mitigation would of takes incidental to the use of acoustic occur over the seven-year period where effectively reduce risk, the model- and explosive sources for training and the Navy knows that it will not conduct estimated PTS are considered reduced testing activities both annually (based the maximum number of activities each to TTS and the model-estimated on the maximum number of activities and every year for the seven years. mortalities are considered reduced to that could occur per 12-month period) Authorized Harassment Take from injury. For a complete explanation of and over the seven-year period covered Training Activities the process for assessing the effects of by the 2019 Navy application. Annual mitigation, see the 2017 Navy takes (based on the maximum number of For training activities, Table 11 application and the Take Requests activities that could occur per 12-month summarizes the Navy’s take estimate section of the 2018 HSTT final rule. The period) from the use of acoustic and and request and the maximum amount extent to which the mitigation areas explosive sources are identical to those and type of Level A harassment and reduce impacts on the affected species presented in Tables 41 and 42 and in Level B harassment for the seven-year and stocks is addressed separately in the the Explosives subsection of the Take period covered by the 2019 Navy Analysis and Negligible Impact Requests section of the 2018 HSTT final application that NMFS concurs is Determination sections of this rule and rule. The 2019 Navy application also reasonably expected to occur by species the 2018 HSTT final rule. includes the Navy’s take estimate and or stock, and is therefore authorized. For No changes have been made to the request for vessel strikes due to vessel the authorized amount and type of Level quantitative analysis process to estimate movement in the HSTT Study Area. The A harassment and Level B harassment potential exposures to marine mammals No Stock Designation stock of rough- annually, see Table 41 in the 2018 resulting from acoustic and explosive toothed was modeled by the Navy and HSTT final rule. Note that take by Level stressors and calculate take estimates. In estimated to have 0 takes of any type B harassment includes both behavioral addition, there is no new information from any activity source. NMFS has disruption and TTS. Navy Figures 6–12 that would call into question the reviewed the Navy’s data, methodology, through 6–50 in Section 6 of the 2017 validity of the Navy’s quantitative and analysis and determined that it is Navy application illustrate the analysis process. Please see the complete and accurate. NMFS agrees comparative amounts of TTS and documents described in the paragraph that the estimates for incidental takes by behavioral disruption for each species above, the 2018 HSTT proposed rule, harassment from all sources as well as annually, noting that if a modeled and the 2018 HSTT final rule for the incidental takes by serious injury or marine mammal was ‘‘taken’’ through detailed descriptions of these analyses. mortality from explosives requested for exposure to both TTS and behavioral In summary, we believe the Navy’s authorization are the maximum number disruption in the model, it was recorded methods, including the method for reasonably expected to occur. NMFS as a TTS.

TABLE 11—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES- AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE AUTHORIZED FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES

7-year total Species Stock Level B Level A

Blue whale * ...... Central North Pacific ...... 205 0 Eastern North Pacific ...... 7,116 6 Bryde’s whale † ...... Eastern Tropical Pacific ...... 167 0 Hawaiian † ...... 631 0 Fin whale * ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 7,731 0 Hawaiian ...... 197 0 Humpback whale † ...... CA/OR/WA † ...... 7,962 7

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41855

TABLE 11—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES- AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE AUTHORIZED FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES—Continued

7-year total Species Stock Level B Level A

Central North Pacific ...... 34,437 12 Minke whale ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 4,119 7 Hawaiian ...... 20,237 6 Sei whale * ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 333 0 Hawaiian ...... 677 0 Gray whale † ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 16,703 27 Western North Pacific † ...... 19 0 Sperm whale * ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 8,834 0 Hawaiian ...... 10,341 0 Dwarf sperm whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 84,232 215 Pygmy sperm whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 33,431 94 Kogia whales ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 38,609 149 Baird’s beaked whale ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 8,524 0 Blainville’s beaked whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 23,491 0 Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 47,178 0 Hawaiian ...... 7,898 0 Longman’s beaked whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 82,293 0 Mesoplodon species (beaked whale guild) ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 25,404 0 Bottlenose dolphin ...... California Coastal ...... 1,295 0 CA/OR & WAOffshore ...... 201,619 13 Hawaiian Pelagic ...... 13,080 0 Kauai & Niihau ...... 500 0 Oahu ...... 57,288 10 4-Island ...... 1,052 0 Hawaii ...... 291 0 False killer whale † ...... Hawaii Pelagic ...... 4,353 0 Main Hawaiian Islands Insular † ...... 2,710 0 Northwestern Hawaiian Islands ...... 1,585 0 Fraser’s dolphin ...... Hawaiian ...... 177,198 4 Killer whale ...... Eastern North Pacific Offshore ...... 460 0 Eastern North Pacific Transient/West Coast Transient 855 0 Hawaiian ...... 513 0 Long-beaked common dolphin ...... California ...... 784,965 99 Melon-headed whale ...... Hawaiian Islands ...... 14,137 0 Kohala Resident ...... 1,278 0 Northern right whale dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 357,001 57 Pacific white-sided dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 274,892 19 Pantropical spotted dolphin ...... Hawaii Island ...... 17,739 0 Hawaii Pelagic ...... 42,318 0 Oahu ...... 28,860 0 4-Island ...... 1,816 0 Pygmy killer whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 35,531 0 Tropical ...... 2,977 0 Risso’s dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 477,389 45 Hawaiian ...... 40,800 0 Rough-toothed dolphin ...... Hawaiian ...... 26,769 0 NSD 1 ...... 0 0 Short-beaked common dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 5,875,431 307 Short-finned pilot whale ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 6,341 6 Hawaiian ...... 53,627 0 Spinner dolphin ...... Hawaii Island ...... 609 0 Hawaii Pelagic ...... 18,870 0 Kauai & Niihau ...... 1,961 0 Oahu & 4-Island ...... 10,424 8 Striped dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 777,001 5 Hawaiian ...... 32,806 0 Dall’s porpoise ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 171,250 894 California sea lion ...... U.S...... 460,145 629 Guadalupe fur seal* ...... Mexico ...... 3,342 0 Northern fur seal ...... California ...... 62,138 0 Harbor seal ...... California ...... 19,214 48 Hawaiian monk seal* ...... Hawaiian ...... 938 5 Northern elephant seal ...... California ...... 241,277 490 * ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. † Only designated stocks are ESA-listed. 1 NSD: No stock designation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41856 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Authorized Harassment Take From application that NMFS concurs is through 6–50 in Section 6 of the 2017 Testing Activities reasonably expected to occur by species Navy application illustrate the or stock, and is therefore authorized. For comparative amounts of TTS and For testing activities, Table 12 the estimated amount and type of Level behavioral disruption for each species summarizes the Navy’s take estimate A harassment and Level B harassment annually, noting that if a modeled and request and the maximum amount annually, see Table 42 in the 2018 marine mammal was ‘‘taken’’ through and type of Level A harassment and HSTT final rule. Note that take by Level exposure to both TTS and behavioral Level B harassment for the seven-year B harassment includes both behavioral disruption in the model, it was recorded period covered by the 2019 Navy disruption and TTS. Navy Figures 6–12 as a TTS.

TABLE 12—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE AUTHORIZED FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TESTING ACTIVITIES

7-year total Species Stock Level B Level A

Blue whale * ...... Central North Pacific ...... 93 0 Eastern North Pacific ...... 5,679 0 Bryde’s whale † ...... Eastern Tropical Pacific ...... 97 0 Hawaiian † ...... 278 0 Fin whale * ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 6,662 7 Hawaiian ...... 108 0 Humpback whale † ...... CA/OR/WA† ...... 4,961 0 Central North Pacific ...... 23,750 19 Minke whale ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 1,855 0 Hawaiian ...... 9,822 7 Sei whale * ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 178 0 Hawaiian ...... 329 0 Gray whale † ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 13,077 9 Western North Pacific † ...... 15 0 Sperm whale * ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 7,409 0 Hawaiian ...... 5,269 0 Dwarf sperm whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 43,374 197 Pygmy sperm whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 17,396 83 Kogia whales ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 20,766 94 Baird’s beaked whale ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 4,841 0 Blainville’s beaked whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 11,455 0 Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 30,180 28 Hawaiian ...... 3,784 0 Longman’s beaked whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 41,965 0 Mesoplodon species (beaked whale guild) ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 16,383 15 Bottlenose dolphin ...... California Coastal ...... 11,158 0 CA/OR & WA Offshore ...... 158,700 8 Hawaiian Pelagic ...... 8,469 0 Kauai & Niihau ...... 3,091 0 Oahu ...... 3,230 0 4-Island ...... 1,129 0 Hawaii ...... 260 0 False killer whale † ...... Hawaii Pelagic ...... 2,287 0 Main Hawaiian Islands Insular † ...... 1,256 0 Northwestern Hawaiian Islands ...... 837 0 Fraser’s dolphin ...... Hawaiian ...... 85,193 9 Killer whale ...... Eastern North Pacific Offshore ...... 236 0 Eastern North Pacific Transient/West Coast Transient 438 0 Hawaiian ...... 279 0 Long-beaked common dolphin ...... California ...... 805,063 34 Melon-headed whale ...... Hawaiian Islands ...... 7,678 0 Kohala Resident ...... 1,119 0 Northern right whale dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 280,066 22 Pacific white-sided dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 213,380 14 Pantropical spotted dolphin ...... Hawaii Island ...... 9,568 0 Hawaii Pelagic ...... 24,805 0 Oahu ...... 1,349 0 4-Island ...... 2,513 0 Pygmy killer whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 18,347 0 Tropical ...... 1,928 0 Risso’s dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 339,334 24 Hawaiian ...... 19,027 0 Rough-toothed dolphin ...... Hawaiian ...... 14,851 0 NSD 1 ...... 0 0 Short-beaked common dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 3,795,732 304 Short-finned pilot whale ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 6,253 0 Hawaiian ...... 29,269 0 Spinner dolphin ...... Hawaii Island ...... 1,394 0

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41857

TABLE 12—SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES AND STOCK-SPECIFIC TAKE AUTHORIZED FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TESTING ACTIVITIES—Continued

7-year total Species Stock Level B Level A

Hawaii Pelagic ...... 9,534 0 Kauai & Niihau ...... 9,277 0 Oahu & 4-Island ...... 1,987 0 Striped dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 371,328 20 Hawaiian ...... 16,270 0 Dall’s porpoise ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 115,353 478 California sea lion ...... U.S...... 334,332 36 Guadalupe fur seal * ...... Mexico ...... 6,167 0 Northern fur seal ...... California ...... 36,921 7 Harbor seal ...... California ...... 15,898 12 Hawaiian monk seal * ...... Hawaiian ...... 372 0 Northern elephant seal ...... California ...... 151,754 187 * ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. † Only designated stocks are ESA-listed. 1 NSD: No stock designation.

Authorized Take From Vessel Strikes be a factor. These studies suggest that Large whales also do not have to be at and Explosives by Serious Injury or the behavioral responses of marine the water’s surface to be struck. Silber Mortality mammals to surface vessels are similar et al. (2010) found when a whale is to their behavioral responses to below the surface (about one to two Vessel Strike predators. Avoidance behavior is times the vessel draft), there is likely to Vessel strikes from commercial, expected to be even stronger in the be a pronounced propeller suction recreational, and military vessels are subset of instances during which the effect. This suction effect may draw the known to affect large whales and have Navy is conducting training or testing whale into the hull of the ship, resulted in serious injury and occasional activities using active sonar or increasing the probability of propeller fatalities to cetaceans (Berman- explosives. strikes. Kowalewski et al., 2010; Calambokidis, The marine mammals most vulnerable There are some key differences 2012; Douglas et al., 2008; Laggner to vessel strikes are those that spend between the operation of military and 2009; Lammers et al., 2003). Records of extended periods of time at the surface non-military vessels, which make the collisions date back to the early 17th in order to restore oxygen levels within likelihood of a military vessel striking a century, and the worldwide number of their tissues after deep dives (e.g., sperm whale lower than some other vessels collisions appears to have increased whales). In addition, some baleen (e.g., commercial merchant vessels). Key steadily during recent decades (Laist et whales seem generally unresponsive to differences include: al., 2001; Ritter 2012). vessel sound, making them more • Many military ships have their Numerous studies of interactions susceptible to vessel collisions bridges positioned closer to the bow, between surface vessels and marine (Nowacek et al., 2004). These species offering better visibility ahead of the mammals have demonstrated that free- are primarily large, slow moving ship (compared to a commercial ranging marine mammals often, but not whales. merchant vessel). always (e.g., McKenna et al., 2015), Some researchers have suggested the • There are often aircraft associated engage in avoidance behavior when relative risk of a vessel strike can be with the training or testing activity surface vessels move toward them. It is assessed as a function of animal density (which can serve as Lookouts), which not clear whether these responses are and the magnitude of vessel traffic (e.g., can more readily detect cetaceans in the caused by the physical presence of a Fonnesbeck et al., 2008; Vanderlaan et vicinity of a vessel or ahead of a vessel’s surface vessel, the underwater noise al., 2008). Differences among vessel present course before crew on the vessel generated by the vessel, or an types also influence the probability of a would be able to detect them. interaction between the two (Amaral vessel strike. The ability of any ship to • Military ships are generally more and Carlson, 2005; Au and Green, 2000; detect a marine mammal and avoid a maneuverable than commercial Bain et al., 2006; Bauer 1986; Bejder et collision depends on a variety of factors, merchant vessels, and if cetaceans are al., 1999; Bejder and Lusseau, 2008; including environmental conditions, spotted in the path of the ship, could be Bejder et al., 2009; Bryant et al., 1984; ship design, size, speed, and ability and capable of changing course more Corkeron, 1995; Erbe, 2002; Fe´lix, 2001; number of personnel observing, as well quickly. Goodwin and Cotton, 2004; Lemon et as the behavior of the animal. Vessel • The crew size on military vessels is al., 2006; Lusseau, 2003; Lusseau, 2006; speed, size, and mass are all important generally larger than merchant ships, Magalhaes et al., 2002; Nowacek et al., factors in determining if injury or death allowing for stationing more trained 2001; Richter et al., 2003; Scheidat et of a marine mammal is likely due to a Lookouts on the bridge. At all times al., 2004; Simmonds, 2005; Watkins, vessel strike. For large vessels, speed when vessels are underway, trained 1986; Williams et al., 2002; Wursig et and angle of approach can influence the Lookouts and bridge navigation teams al., 1998). Several authors suggest that severity of a strike. For example, are used to detect objects on the surface the noise generated during motion is Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) found of the water ahead of the ship, including probably an important factor (Blane and that between vessel speeds of 8.6 and 15 cetaceans. Additional Lookouts, beyond Jaakson, 1994; Evans et al., 1992; Evans knots, the probability that a vessel strike those already stationed on the bridge et al., 1994). Water disturbance may also is lethal increases from 0.21 to 0.79. and on navigation teams, are positioned

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41858 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

as Lookouts during some training Navy has struck a whale and not unlikely that the Navy will hit a large events. detected it. Navy’s strict internal whale (more maneuverable ships, larger • When submerged, submarines are procedures and mitigation requirements crew, etc.), the following are the generally slow moving (to avoid include reporting of any vessel strikes of additional reasons that vessel strike of detection) and therefore marine marine mammals, and the Navy’s dolphins, small whales, porpoises, and mammals at depth with a submarine are discipline, extensive training (not only pinnipeds is considered very unlikely. likely able to avoid collision with the for detecting marine mammals, but for Dating back more than 20 years and for submarine. When a submarine is detecting and reporting any potential as long as it has kept records, the Navy transiting on the surface, there are navigational obstruction), and strict has no records of individuals of these Lookouts serving the same function as chain of command give NMFS a high groups being struck by a vessel as a they do on surface ships. level of confidence that all strikes result of Navy activities and, further, Vessel strike to marine mammals is actually get reported. these species’ smaller size and not associated with any specific training The Navy used the two fin whale maneuverability make a strike unlikely. or testing activity but is rather an strikes in their calculations to determine Also, NMFS has never received any extremely limited and sporadic, but the number of strikes likely to result reports from other authorized activities possible, accidental result of Navy from their activities (although indicating that these species have been vessel movement within the HSTT worldwide strike information, from all struck by vessels. Worldwide ship strike Study Area or while in transit. Navy activities and other sources, was records show little evidence of strikes of There have been two recorded Navy used to inform the species that may be these groups from the shipping sector vessel strikes of large whales in the struck) and evaluated data beginning in and larger vessels, and the majority of HSTT Study Area from 2009 through 2009, as that was the start of the Navy’s the Navy’s activities involving faster- 2018, the period in which the Navy Marine Species Awareness Training and moving vessels (that could be began implementing effective mitigation adoption of additional mitigation considered more likely to hit a marine measures to reduce the likelihood of measures to address ship strike, which mammal) are located in offshore areas vessel strikes. Both strikes occurred in will remain in place along with where smaller delphinid, porpoise, and 2009 and both were to fin whales. In additional mitigation measures during pinniped densities are lower. Based on order to account for the accidental the seven years of this rule. The this information, NMFS concurs with nature of vessel strikes to large whales probability analysis concluded that the Navy’s assessment and recognizes in general, and the potential risk from there was a 22 percent chance that no the potential for incidental take by any vessel movement within the HSTT whales would be struck by Navy vessels vessel strike of large whales only (i.e., Study Area within the seven-year period over the seven-year period, and a 33, 25, no dolphins, small whales, porpoises, or in particular, the Navy requested 13, and 5 percent chance that one, two, pinnipeds) over the course of the seven- incidental takes based on probabilities three, or four whales, respectively, year regulations from training and derived from a Poisson distribution would be struck over the seven-year testing activities as discussed further using ship strike data between 2009– period. All other alternatives (i.e. one, below. 2018 in the HSTT Study Area (the time two, three, or more whales) represent a As noted in the 2018 HSTT proposed period from when current mitigations 78 percent chance that at least one and final rules, in the 2017 Navy were instituted until the Navy whale would be struck over the seven- application the Navy initially conducted the analysis for the 2019 year period. Therefore, the Navy considered a weight of evidence Navy application), as well as historical estimates, and NMFS agrees, that there approach that considered relative at-sea days in the HSTT Study Area is some probability that the Navy could abundance, historical strike data over from 2009–2018 and estimated potential strike, and take by serious injury or many years, and the overlap of Navy at-sea days for the period from 2018 to mortality, up to three large whales activities with the stock distribution in 2025 covered by the requested incidental to training and testing their request. NMFS and the Navy regulations. This distribution predicted activities within the HSTT Study Area further discussed the available the probabilities of a specific number of over the course of the seven years. information and considered two factors strikes (n=0, 1, 2, etc.) over the period The probability of the Navy striking in addition to those considered in the from 2018 to 2025. The analysis for the up to three large whales over the seven- Navy’s request: (1) The relative period of 2018 to 2023 is described in year period (which is a 13 percent likelihood of hitting one stock versus detail in Chapter 6 of the 2017 Navy chance) as analyzed for this final rule another based on available strike data application and has been updated for using updated Navy vessel strike data from all vessel types as denoted in the this seven-year rulemaking. and at-sea days is very close to the SARs and (2) whether the Navy has ever For the same reasons listed above, probability of the Navy striking up to definitively struck an individual from a describing why a Navy vessel strike is three large whales over five years particular stock and, if so, how many comparatively unlikely, it is highly (which was a 10 percent chance). As the times. For this seven-year rule, we have unlikely that a Navy vessel would strike probability of striking three large whales reconsidered these two factors and a whale, dolphin, porpoise, or pinniped does not differ significantly from the updated the analysis with the Navy’s without detecting it and, accordingly, 2018 HSTT final rule, and the seven-year ship strike probability NMFS is confident that the Navy’s probability of striking four large whales analysis and any new/updated ship reported strikes are accurate and over seven years remains very low to the strike data from the SARs. appropriate for use in the analysis. point of being unlikely (less than 5 To address number (1) above, NMFS Specifically, Navy ships have multiple percent), the Navy has requested, and compiled information from NMFS’ Lookouts, including on the forward part we are authorizing no change in the SARs on detected annual rates of large of the ship that can visually detect a hit number of takes by serious injury or whale serious injury or mortality from animal, in the unlikely event ship mortality due to vessel strikes. vessel collisions (Table 13). The annual personnel do not feel the strike. Unlike Small whales, delphinids, porpoises, rates of large whale serious injury or the situation for non-Navy ships and pinnipeds are not expected to be mortality from vessel collisions from the engaged in commercial activities, NMFS struck by Navy vessels. In addition to SARs help inform the relative and the Navy have no evidence that the the reasons listed above that make it susceptibility of large whale species to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41859

vessel strike in SOCAL and Hawaii as and 2018 SARs in Table 13 to illustrate), Rockwood et al. (2017) modeled the recorded systematically over the last however, over the years and through likely vessel strike of blue whales, fin five years (the period used for the changing SARs, stocks tend to whales, and humpback whales on the SARs). We summed the annual rates of consistently maintain a relatively higher U.S. West Coast (discussed in more serious injury or mortality from vessel or relatively lower likelihood of being detail in the Serious Injury or Mortality collisions as reported in the SARs, then struck. subsection of the Analysis and divided each species’ annual rate by this The probabilities calculated as Negligible Impact Determination sum to get the proportion of strikes for described above are then considered in section), and those numbers help inform each species/stock. To inform the combination with the information the relative likelihood that the Navy likelihood of striking a particular indicating the species that the Navy has will hit those stocks. species of large whale, we multiplied definitively hit in the HSTT Study Area For each indicated stock, Table 13 the proportion of strikes for each species since 1991 (since they started tracking includes the percent likelihood of by the probability of striking a whale consistently), as well as the information hitting an individual whale once based (i.e., 78 percent, as described by the originally considered by the Navy in on SAR data, total strikes from Navy Navy’s probability analysis above). We their 2017 application, which includes vessels and from all other vessels, also estimated the percent likelihood of relative abundance, total recorded relative abundance, and modeled vessel striking a particular species of large strikes, and the overlay of all of this strikes from Rockwood et al. (2017). The whale twice by squaring the value information with the Navy’s Study Area. last column indicates the annual estimated for the probability of striking We note that for all of the take of species mortality that has the reasonable a particular species of whale once (i.e., specifically denoted in Table 13 below, potential to occur and is authorized: generally, to calculate the probability of 19 percent of the individuals struck Those stocks with one serious injury or an event occurring twice, multiply the overall by any vessel type remained mortality (M/SI) take authorized over probability of the first event by the unidentified and 36 percent of those the seven-year period of the rule are second). We note that these probabilities struck by the Navy (5 of 14 in the shaded lightly, while those with two M/ vary from year to year as the average Pacific) remain unidentified. However, SI takes that have the potential to occur annual mortality for a given five-year given the information on known species and are authorized over the seven-year window in the SAR changes (and we or stocks struck, the analysis below period of the rule are shaded more include the annual averages from 2017 remains appropriate. We also note that darkly.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41860 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Accordingly, stocks that have no have a low percent likelihood based on North Pacific and Western North Pacific record of ever having been struck by any the SAR calculation and a low relative gray whales, given their small vessel are considered unlikely to be abundance are also considered unlikely population size and the comparative struck by the Navy in the seven-year to be struck by the Navy during the rarity with which individuals from the period of the rule. Stocks that have seven years covered by this rule. We Western North Pacific stock are detected never been struck by the Navy, have note that while vessel strike records off the U.S. West Coast, it is highly rarely been struck by other vessels, and have not differentiated between Eastern unlikely that they would be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 ER10JY20.000 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41861

encountered, much less struck. This SOCAL area (the majority are outside), of the Mexico DPS, could reasonably rules out all but six stocks. supports the reasonable likelihood that likely occur and is authorized. Three of the six stocks (CA/OR/WA the Navy could strike one individual Accordingly, the Navy has requested, stock of fin whale, Eastern North Pacific humpback whale from the CA/OR/WA and NMFS authorizes, take by M/SI stock of gray whale, and Central North stock (not two), and that that individual from vessel strike of up to two of any Pacific stock of humpback whale) are would be highly likely to be from the of the following species/stocks in the the only stocks to have been hit more Mexico DPS, as described below. seven-year period: Gray whale (Eastern than one time each by the Navy in the Specifically, regarding the likelihood North Pacific stock), fin whale (CA/OR/ HSTT Study Area, have the three of striking a humpback whale from a WA stock), humpback whale (Central highest total strike records (21, 35, and particular DPS, as suggested in Wade et North Pacific stock); and one of any of 58 respectively), have three of the four al. (2016), the probability of the following species/stocks in the highest percent likelihoods based on the encountering (which is thereby applied seven-year period: Blue whale (Eastern SAR records, have three of the four to striking) humpback whales from each North Pacific stock), humpback whale significantly higher relative abundances, DPS in the CA/OR area is 89.6 percent (CA/OR/WA stock, Mexico DPS), or and have up to a 3.4 percent likelihood and 19.7 percent for the Mexico and sperm whale (Hawaii stock). As described above, the Navy analysis of being struck twice based on NMFS’ Central America DPSs, respectively suggests, and NMFS analysis concurs, SAR calculation (not shown in Table 13, (note that these percentages reflect the that vessel strikes to the stocks below but proportional to percent likelihood of upper limit of the 95 percent confidence are very unlikely to occur due to the being struck once). Based on all of these interval to reduce the likelihood of factors, it is considered reasonably stocks’ relatively low occurrence in the underestimating take, and thereby do likely that these stocks could be struck HSTT Study Area, particularly in core not total to 100). This suggests that the twice during the seven-year rule. HSTT training and testing subareas, and Based on the information summarized chance of striking a humpback whale the fact that the stocks have not been in Table 13, and the fact that there is the from the Central America DPS is one struck by the Navy and are rarely, if potential for up to three large whales to tenth to one fifth of the overall chance ever, recorded struck by other vessels. be struck, it is considered reasonably of hitting a CA/OR/WA humpback Therefore, the Navy is not requesting likely that one individual from the whale in general in the SOCAL part of lethal take authorization, and NMFS is remaining three stocks could be one of the HSTT Study Area, which in not authorizing lethal take, for the the three whales struck. Sperm whales combination with the fact that no following stocks: Bryde’s whale (Eastern have only been struck a total of two humpback whale has been struck in Tropical Pacific stock), Bryde’s whale times by any vessel type in the whole SOCAL makes it highly unlikely, and (Hawaii stock), humpback whale (CA/ HSTT Study Area, however, the Navy thereby no strikes of whales from the OR/WA stock, Central America DPS), struck a sperm whale once in Hawaii Central America DPS are anticipated or minke whale (CA/OR/WA stock), minke prior to 2009 and the relative abundance authorized. If a humpback whale were whale (Hawaii stock), sei whale (Hawaii of sperm whales in Hawaii is the highest struck in SOCAL, it is likely it would be stock), sei whale (Eastern North Pacific of any of the stocks present. Therefore, of the Mexico DPS. However, regarding stock), and sperm whale (CA/OR/WA we consider it reasonably likely that the the overall likelihood of striking a stock). Hawaii stock of sperm whales could be humpback whale at all and the likely In conclusion, although it is generally struck once during the seven-year rule. number of times, we note that the unlikely that any whales will be struck The total strikes of Eastern North Pacific majority of strikes of the CA/OR/WA in a year, based on the information and blue whales, the percent likelihood of humpback whale stock (i.e., the analysis above, NMFS anticipates that striking one based on the SAR numbers reflected in Table 13) take no more than three whales have the calculation, and their relative place outside of SOCAL. Whereas the potential to be taken by M/SI over the abundance can all be considered comparative DPS numbers cited above seven-year period of the rule, and that moderate compared to other stocks, and apply in the California and Oregon those three whales may include no more the Navy has struck one in the past prior feeding area and in the Washington and than two of any of the following stocks: to 2009 (with the likelihood of striking Southern British Columbia feeding area, Gray whale (Eastern North Pacific two based on the SAR calculation being Wade et al. (2016) suggest that 52.9, stock), fin whale (CA/OR/WA stock), below one percent). Therefore, we 41.9, and 14.7 percent of humpback and humpback whale (Central North consider it reasonably likely that the whales encountered will come from the Pacific stock); and no more than one of Navy could strike one individual over Hawaii, Mexico, and Central America any of the following stocks: Blue whale the course of the seven-year rule. The DPSs, respectively. This means that the (Eastern North Pacific stock), humpback Navy has not hit a humpback whale in numbers in Table 13 indicating the whale (CA/OR/WA, Mexico DPS), and the HSTT Study Area and the relative overall strikes of CA/OR/WA humpback sperm whale (Hawaii stock). abundance of the CA/OR/WA stock is whales and SAR calculations based on Accordingly, NMFS has evaluated very low. However, a U.S. Coast Guard average annual mortality over the last under the negligible impact standard the vessel escorting a Navy vessel struck a five years are actually lower than M/SI of 0.14 or 0.29 whales annually humpback whale in the Northwest indicated for the Mexico DPS, which from each of these species or stocks (i.e., (outside of the HSTT Study Area) and would only be a subset of those 1 or 2 takes, respectively, divided by as a species, humpback whales have a mortalities. Lastly, the Rockwood et al. seven years to get the annual number), moderate to high number of total strikes paper supports a relative likelihood of along with the expected incidental takes and percent likelihood of being struck. 1:1:2 for striking blue whales, by harassment. Although the likelihood of CA/OR/WA humpback whales, and fin whales off humpback whales being struck overall the U.S. West Coast, which supports the Explosives is moderate to high relative to other authorized take included in this rule, The Navy’s model and quantitative stocks, the distribution of the Mexico which is 1, 1, and 2, respectively over analysis process used for the 2018 HSTT DPS versus the Central America DPS, as the seven-year period. For these reasons, FEIS/OEIS and in the Navy’s 2017 and well as the distribution of overall vessel one M/SI take of CA/OR/WA humpback 2019 applications to estimate potential strikes inside versus outside of the whales, which would be expected to be exposures of marine mammals to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41862 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

explosive stressors is detailed in the Mitigation Measures Implementation of Least Practicable technical report titled ‘‘Quantifying Adverse Impact Standard Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals Under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the Our evaluation of potential mitigation and Sea Turtles: Methods and measures includes consideration of two Analytical Approach for Phase III permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of primary factors: Training and Testing’’ (U.S. Department (1) The manner in which, and the effecting the least practicable adverse of the Navy, 2018). Specifically, over the degree to which, implementation of the impact on the species or stock(s) and its course of a modelled maximum year of potential measure(s) is expected to habitat, paying particular attention to training and testing, the Navy’s model reduce adverse impacts to marine rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of and quantitative analysis process mammal species or stocks, their habitat, similar significance, and on the estimates M/SI of two short-beaked and their availability for subsistence availability of the species or stock(s) for common dolphins and one California uses (where relevant). This analysis sea lion as a result of exposure to subsistence uses (‘‘least practicable considers such things as the nature of explosive training and testing activities adverse impact’’). NMFS does not have the potential adverse impact (such as (please see Section 6 of the 2017 Navy a regulatory definition for least likelihood, scope, and range), the application where it is explained how practicable adverse impact. The 2004 likelihood that the measure will be maximum annual estimates are NDAA amended the MMPA as it relates effective if implemented, and the calculated). Over the five-year period of to military readiness activities and the likelihood of successful the 2018 HSTT regulations, mortality of incidental take authorization process implementation; and 6 short-beaked common dolphins and 4 such that a determination of ‘‘least (2) The practicability of the measures California sea lions was estimated and practicable adverse impact’’ shall for applicant implementation. include consideration of personnel authorized (10 marine mammals in Practicability of implementation may safety, practicality of implementation, total) as a result of exposure to consider such things as cost, impact on and impact on the effectiveness of the explosive training and testing activities. activities, and, in the case of a military military readiness activity. For the full In extending the same training and readiness activity, under section discussion of how NMFS interprets least testing activities for an additional two 101(a)(5)(A)(ii) specifically considers practicable adverse impact, including years, over the seven-year period of the personnel safety, practicality of how it relates to the negligible-impact regulations M/SI of 8 short-beaked implementation, and impact on the standard, see the Mitigation Measures common dolphins and 5 California sea effectiveness of the military readiness section in the 2018 HSTT final rule. lions (13 marine mammals in total) is activity. estimated as a result of exposure to Section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) requires While the language of the least explosive training and testing activities, NMFS to issue, in conjunction with its practicable adverse impact standard and is therefore authorized. As authorization, binding—and calls for minimizing impacts to affected explained in the aforementioned enforceable—restrictions (in the form of species or stocks, we recognize that the Analytical Approach technical report, regulations) setting forth how the reduction of impacts to those species or stocks accrues through the application expected impacts were calculated activity must be conducted, thus of mitigation measures that limit considering spatial and seasonal ensuring the activity has the ‘‘least impacts to individual animals. differences in model inputs, as well as practicable adverse impact’’ on the Accordingly, NMFS’ analysis focuses on the expected variation in the number of affected species or stocks. In situations measures that are designed to avoid or training and testing events from year to where mitigation is specifically needed to reach a negligible impact minimize impacts on individual marine year, described as representative and mammals that are likely to increase the maximum levels of activity. The determination, section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) also provides a mechanism for ensuring probability or severity of population- summed impacts over any multi-year level effects. period, therefore, are the expected value compliance with the ‘‘negligible impact’’ requirement. Finally, the least While direct evidence of impacts to for impacts over that time period rather species or stocks from a specified than a multiple of a single maximum practicable adverse impact standard also requires consideration of measures for activity is rarely available, and year’s impacts. Therefore, calculating additional study is still needed to the seven-year total is not a matter of marine mammal habitat, with particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, understand how specific disturbance simply multiplying the annual estimate events affect the fitness of individuals of by seven, as the total amount of and other areas of similar significance, and for subsistence impacts, whereas certain species, there have been estimated mortalities over the seven improvements in understanding the years covered by the 2019 Navy the negligible impact standard is concerned solely with conclusions process by which disturbance effects are application is less than the sum total of about the impact of an activity on translated to the population. With each year. As explained earlier, annual rates of recruitment and recent scientific advancements (both although the annual estimates are based survival.4 marine mammal energetic research and on the maximum number of activities In evaluating what mitigation measures are appropriate, NMFS the development of energetic per year and therefore the maximum frameworks), the relative likelihood or considers the potential impacts of the estimated takes, the seven-year total degree of impacts on species or stocks Specified Activities, the availability of take estimates are based on the sum of may often be inferred given a detailed measures to minimize those potential three maximum years and four understanding of the activity, the impacts, and the practicability of representative years. NMFS coordinated environment, and the affected species or implementing those measures, as we with the Navy in the development of stocks—and the best available science describe below. their take estimates and concurs with has been used here. This same the Navy’s approach for estimating the information is used in the development number of animals from each species or 4 Outside of the military readiness context, mitigation may also be appropriate to ensure of mitigation measures and helps us stock that could be taken by M/SI from compliance with the ‘‘small numbers’’ language in understand how mitigation measures explosives. MMPA sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D). contribute to lessening effects (or the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41863

risk thereof) to species or stocks. We practicable adverse impact’’ will least practicable adverse impact also acknowledge that there is always consider the factors along these realistic standard. The Navy has implemented the potential that new information, or a scales. Accordingly, the greater the the mitigation measures under the 2018 new recommendation could become likelihood that a measure will HSTT regulations and will be required available in the future and necessitate contribute to reducing the probability or to continue implementation of the reevaluation of mitigation measures severity of adverse impacts to the mitigation measures identified in this (which may be addressed through species or stock or its habitat, the greater rule for the full seven years it covers to adaptive management) to see if further the weight that measure is given when avoid or reduce potential impacts from reductions of population impacts are considered in combination with acoustic, explosive, and physical possible and practicable. practicability to determine the disturbance and ship strike stressors. In the evaluation of specific measures, appropriateness of the mitigation In its 2019 application, the Navy the details of the specified activity will measure, and vice versa. In the proposed no changes to the mitigation necessarily inform each of the two evaluation of specific measures, the measures in the 2018 HSTT final rule primary factors discussed above details of the specified activity will and there is no new information that (expected reduction of impacts and necessarily inform each of the two affects NMFS’ assessment of the practicability), and are carefully primary factors discussed above applicability or effectiveness of those considered to determine the types of (expected reduction of impacts and measures over the new seven-year mitigation that are appropriate under practicability), and will be carefully period. See the 2018 HSTT proposed the least practicable adverse impact considered to determine the types of rule and the 2018 HSTT final rule for standard. Analysis of how a potential mitigation that are appropriate under our full assessment of these measures. mitigation measure may reduce adverse the least practicable adverse impact In summary, the Navy has agreed to impacts on a marine mammal stock or standard. For more detail on how we procedural mitigation measures that species, consideration of personnel apply these factors, see the discussion will reduce the probability and/or safety, practicality of implementation, in the Mitigation Measures section of severity of impacts expected to result and consideration of the impact on the 2018 HSTT final rule. from acute exposure to acoustic sources effectiveness of military readiness NMFS fully reviewed the Navy’s or explosives, ship strike, and impacts activities are not issues that can be specified activities and the mitigation to marine mammal habitat. Specifically, meaningfully evaluated through a yes/ measures for the 2018 HSTT rulemaking the Navy will use a combination of no lens. The manner in which, and the and determined that the mitigation delayed starts, powerdowns, and degree to which, implementation of a measures would result in the least shutdowns to minimize or avoid M/SI, measure is expected to reduce impacts, practicable adverse impact on marine minimize the likelihood or severity of as well as its practicability in terms of mammals. There is no change in either PTS or other injury, and reduce these considerations, can vary widely. the activities or the mitigation measures instances of TTS or more severe For example, a time/area restriction for this rule. See the 2019 Navy behavioral disruption caused by could be of very high value for application and the 2018 HSTT final acoustic sources or explosives. The decreasing population-level impacts rule for detailed information on the Navy will also implement multiple (e.g., avoiding disturbance of feeding Navy’s mitigation measures. NMFS time/area restrictions (several of which females in an area of established worked with the Navy in the were added in the 2018 HSTT final rule biological importance) or it could be of development of the Navy’s initially since the previous HSTT MMPA lower value (e.g., decreased disturbance proposed measures, which were incidental take rule) that will reduce in an area of high productivity but of informed by years of implementation take of marine mammals in areas or at less firmly established biological and monitoring. A complete discussion times where they are known to engage importance). Regarding practicability, a of the Navy’s evaluation process used to in important behaviors, such as feeding measure might involve restrictions in an develop, assess, and select mitigation or calving, where the disruption of those area or time that impede the Navy’s measures, which was informed by input behaviors would have a higher ability to certify a strike group (higher from NMFS, can be found in Chapter 5 probability of resulting in impacts on impact on mission effectiveness), or it (Mitigation) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ reproduction or survival of individuals could mean delaying a small in-port OEIS. The process described in Chapter that could lead to population-level training event by 30 minutes to avoid 5 (Mitigation) of the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ impacts. Summaries of the Navy’s exposure of a marine mammal to OEIS robustly supported NMFS’ procedural mitigation measures and injurious levels of sound (lower impact). independent evaluation of whether the mitigation areas for the HSTT Study A responsible evaluation of ‘‘least mitigation measures would meet the Area are provided in Tables 14 and 15.

TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL MITIGATION

Stressor or activity Mitigation zone sizes and other requirements

Environmental Awareness and Education ...... • 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-Caliber Projectiles ...... • 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). Explosive Missiles and Rockets ...... • 2,000 yd (21–500 lb net explosive weight).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41864 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL MITIGATION—Continued

Stressor or activity Mitigation zone sizes and other requirements

• 900 yd (0.6–20 lb net explosive weight). Explosive Bombs ...... • 2,500 yd. Sinking Exercises ...... • 2.5 nmi. Explosive Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Activities • 2,100 yd (6–650 lb net explosive weight). • 600 yd (0.1–5 lb net explosive weight). Explosive Mine Neutralization Activities Involving Navy Divers • 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). Underwater Demolition Multiple Charge—Mat Weave and • 700 yd. Obstacle Loading. Maritime Security Operations—Anti-Swimmer Grenades ...... • 200 yd. Vessel Movement ...... • 500 yd (whales). • 200 yd (other marine mammals). Towed In-Water Devices ...... • 250 yd (marine mammals). Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive Practice • 200 yd. 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.

TABLE 15—SUMMARY OF MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS

Summary of mitigation area requirements 1

Hawaii Island Mitigation Area (year-round) • Navy personnel must not conduct more than 300 hours of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or 20 hours of MF4 dipping sonar, or use explosives that could potentially result in takes of marine mammals during training and testing.1 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area (November 15–April 15 for active sonar; year-round for explosives) • Navy personnel must not use MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or explosives that could potentially result in takes of marine mammals during training and testing.2 Humpback Whale Special Reporting Areas (December 15–April 15) • Navy personnel must report the total hours of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar used in the special reporting areas in its annual training and testing activity reports submitted to NMFS. San Diego Arc, San Nicolas Island, and Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Areas (June 1—October 31) • Navy personnel must not conduct more than a total of 200 hours of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar in the combined areas, excluding normal maintenance and systems checks, during training and testing.1 • Within the San Diego Arc Mitigation Area, Navy personnel must not use explosives that could potentially result in the take of marine mammals during large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75 inch rockets) activities during training and testing.1 • Within the San Nicolas Island Mitigation Area, Navy personnel must not use explosives that could potentially result in the take of marine mammals during mine warfare, large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75 inch rockets) activities during training.1 • Within the Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Area, Navy personnel must not use explosives that could potentially result in the take of marine mammals during mine warfare, large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75 inch rockets) activities during training and testing.1 Santa Barbara Island Mitigation Area (year-round) • Navy personnel must not use MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during training and testing, or explosives that could potentially result in the take of marine mammals during medium-caliber or large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75 inch rockets) activities during training.1 Awareness Notification Message Areas (seasonal according to species) • Navy personnel must issue awareness notification messages to alert ships and aircraft to the possible presence of humpback whales (November–April), blue whales (June–October), gray whales (November–March), or fin whales (November–May). 1 In the 2018 HSTT Final Rule we inadvertently included ‘‘Mitigation Areas for Shallow-water Coral Reefs and Precious Coral Beds (year- round)’’ in this table. As this mitigation area does not relate to marine mammals we have not included it here. 2 If Naval units need to conduct more than the specified amount of training or testing, they will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in its annual activity reports submitted to NMFS.

Mitigation Conclusions measures (i.e., the measures considered consideration of the following factors in but eliminated in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/ relation to one another: the manner in NMFS has carefully evaluated the OEIS, which reflect many of the which, and the degree to which, the Navy’s proposed mitigation measures— comments that have arisen via NMFS or successful implementation of the many of which were developed with public input in past years) in the mitigation measures is expected to NMFS’ input during the previous context of ensuring that NMFS reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude phases of Navy training and testing prescribes the means of effecting the of adverse impacts to marine mammal authorizations and none of which have least practicable adverse impact on the species and stocks and their habitat; the changed since our evaluation during the affected marine mammal species and proven or likely efficacy of the 2018 HSTT rulemaking—and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation measures; and the practicability of the considered a broad range of other of potential measures included measures for applicant implementation,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41865

including consideration of personnel strategy, currently required by the 2018 accomplishing the goals of the safety, practicality of implementation, HSTT regulations and extended for two mitigation and monitoring and if the and impact on the effectiveness of the years under this final rule, is well- measures are practicable. If the military readiness activity. There is no designed to work across Navy ranges to modifications to the mitigation, new information that affects our help better understand the impacts of monitoring, or reporting measures are analysis from the 2018 HSTT the Navy’s activities on marine substantial, NMFS will publish a notice rulemaking, all of which remains mammals and their habitat by focusing of the planned LOA in the Federal applicable and valid for our assessment on learning more about marine mammal Register and solicit public comment. of the appropriateness of the mitigation occurrence in different areas and The following are some of the measures during the seven-year period exposure to Navy stressors, marine possible sources of applicable data to be of this rule. mammal responses to different sound considered through the adaptive Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s sources, and the consequences of those management process: (1) Results from measures (which are being implemented exposures and responses on marine monitoring and exercises reports, as under the 2018 HSTT regulations), as mammal populations. Similarly, the required by MMPA authorizations; (2) well as other measures considered by seven-year regulations include identical compiled results of Navy funded R&D the Navy and NMFS, NMFS has adaptive management provisions and studies; (3) results from specific determined that the Navy’s mitigation reporting requirements as the 2018 stranding investigations; (4) results from measures are appropriate means of HSTT regulations. There is no new general marine mammal and sound effecting the least practicable adverse information to indicate that the research; and (5) any information which impact on marine mammal species or monitoring measures put in place under reveals that marine mammals may have stocks and their habitat, paying the 2018 HSTT final rule do not remain been taken in a manner, extent, or particular attention to rookeries, mating applicable and appropriate for the number not authorized by these grounds, and areas of similar seven-year period of this rule. See the regulations or subsequent LOAs. The significance, and considering Monitoring section of the 2018 HSTT results from monitoring reports and specifically personnel safety, final rule for more details on the other studies may be viewed at https:// practicality of implementation, and monitoring that would be required www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. impact on the effectiveness of the under this rule. In addition, please see Reporting military readiness activity. the 2019 Navy application, which Additionally, as described in more references Chapter 13 of the 2017 Navy In order to issue incidental take detail below, the 2018 HSTT final rule application for full details on the authorization for an activity, section includes an adaptive management monitoring and reporting that will be 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that provision, which NMFS has extended conducted by the Navy. NMFS must set forth requirements for the additional two years of this rule, pertaining to the monitoring and which ensures that mitigation is Adaptive Management reporting of such taking. Effective regularly assessed and provides a The 2018 HSTT regulations governing reporting is critical both to compliance mechanism to improve the mitigation, the take of marine mammals incidental as well as ensuring that the most value based on the factors above, through to Navy training and testing activities in is obtained from the required modification as appropriate. Thus, the HSTT Study Area contain an monitoring. Reports from individual NMFS concludes that the mitigation adaptive management component. Our monitoring events, results of analyses, measures outlined in the final rule understanding of the effects of Navy publications, and periodic progress satisfy the statutory standard and that training and testing activities (e.g., reports for specific monitoring projects any adverse impacts that remain cannot acoustic and explosive stressors) on will be posted to the Navy’s Marine practicably be further mitigated. marine mammals continues to evolve, Species Monitoring web portal: http:// which makes the inclusion of an www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. Monitoring adaptive management component both The 2019 Navy application proposed no Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA valuable and necessary within the changes to the reporting requirements. states that in order to authorize context of seven-year regulations. The Except as discussed below, reporting incidental take for an activity, NMFS 2019 Navy application proposed no requirements would remain identical to must set forth requirements pertaining changes to the adaptive management those described in the 2018 HSTT final to the monitoring and reporting of such component included in the 2018 HSTT rule, and there is no new information to taking. The MMPA implementing final rule. indicate that the reporting requirements regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) The reporting requirements associated put in place under the 2018 HSTT final indicate that requests for incidental take with this rule are designed to provide rule do not remain applicable and authorizations must include the NMFS with monitoring data from the appropriate for the seven-year period of suggested means of accomplishing the previous year to allow NMFS to this final rule. See the Reporting section necessary monitoring and reporting that consider whether any changes to of the 2018 HSTT final rule for more will result in increased knowledge of existing mitigation and monitoring details on the reporting that is required the species and of the level of taking or requirements are appropriate. The use of under this rule. impacts on populations of marine adaptive management allows NMFS to In addition, the 2018 HSTT proposed mammals that are expected to be consider new information from different and final rules unintentionally failed to present. sources to determine (with input from include the requirement for the Navy to In its 2019 application, the Navy the Navy regarding practicability) on an submit a final activity ‘‘close out’’ report proposed no changes to the monitoring annual or biennial basis if mitigation or at the end of the regulatory period. That described in the 2018 HSTT final rule. monitoring measures should be oversight is being corrected through this They would continue implementation of modified (including additions or rulemaking. This comprehensive the robust Integrated Comprehensive deletions). Mitigation measures could be training and testing activity report will Monitoring Program and Strategic modified if new data suggests that such provide the annual totals for each sound Planning Process described in the 2018 modifications would have a reasonable source bin with a comparison to the HSTT final rule. The Navy’s monitoring likelihood of more effectively annual allowance and the seven-year

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41866 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

total for each sound source bin with a described. The impact that any given identical to those presented in Tables 41 comparison to the seven-year allowance. take will have is dependent on many through 42 in the Take Requests section Additionally, if there are any changes to case-specific factors that need to be of the 2018 HSTT final rule. As such, the sound source allowance, this report considered in the negligible impact the negligible impact analyses and will include a discussion of why the analysis (e.g., the context of behavioral determinations of the effects of the change was made and include analysis exposures such as duration or intensity estimated Level A harassment and Level to support how the change did or did of a disturbance, the health of impacted B harassment takes on annual rates of not affect the analysis in the 2018 HSTT animals, the status of a species that recruitment or survival for each species FEIS/OEIS and MMPA final rule. incurs fitness-level impacts to and stock are nearly identical to and individuals, etc.). For this final rule we substantively unchanged from those Analysis and Negligible Impact evaluated the likely impacts of the presented in the 2018 HSTT final rule. Determination enumerated maximum number of The primary difference is that the NMFS has defined negligible impact harassment takes that were proposed for annual levels of take and the associated as an impact resulting from the authorization and reasonably expected effects on reproduction or survival specified activity that cannot be to occur, in the context of the specific would occur for the seven-year period of reasonably expected to, and is not circumstances surrounding these this rule instead of the five-year period reasonably likely to, adversely affect the predicted takes. We also assessed M/SI of the 2018 HSTT final rule, which will species or stock through effects on takes that have the potential to occur, as make no difference in effects on annual annual rates of recruitment or survival well as considering the traits and rates of recruitment or survival. The (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact statuses of the affected species and other differences in the analyses include finding is based on the lack of likely stocks. Lastly, we collectively evaluated our consideration of the newly-declared adverse effects on annual rates of this information, as well as other more gray whale UME and slightly modified recruitment or survival (i.e., population- taxa-specific information and mitigation explosive take estimates, neither of level effects). An estimate of the number measure effectiveness, in group-specific which, as described below, affect the of takes alone is not enough information assessments that support our negligible results of the analyses or our on which to base an impact impact conclusions for each stock. determinations. For detailed discussion determination. In addition to Because all of the Navy’s specified of the impacts that affected individuals considering estimates of the number of activities would occur within the ranges may experience given the specific marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ of the marine mammal stocks identified characteristics of the specified activities through mortality, serious injury, and in the rule, all negligible impact and required mitigation (e.g., from Level A or Level B harassment (as analyses and determinations are at the behavioral disruption, masking, and presented in Tables 11 and 12), NMFS stock level (i.e., additional species-level temporary or permanent threshold considers other factors, such as the determinations are not needed). shift), along with the effects of the likely nature of any responses (e.g., The Navy proposed no changes to the expected Level A harassment and Level intensity, duration), the context of any nature or level of the specified activities B harassment take on reproduction and responses (e.g., critical reproductive or the boundaries of the HSTT Study survival, see the applicable subsections time or location, migration), as well as Area, and therefore the training and in the Analysis and Negligible Impact effects on habitat, and the likely testing activities (e.g., equipment and Determination section of the 2018 HSTT effectiveness of the mitigation. We also sources used, exercises conducted) are final rule (83 FR 66977–67018; assess the number, intensity, and the same as those analyzed in the 2018 December 27, 2018). context of estimated takes by evaluating HSTT final rule. In addition, the this information relative to population mitigation, monitoring, and nearly all Serious Injury or Mortality status. Consistent with the 1989 reporting measures are identical to those Based on the information and preamble for NMFS’ implementing described and analyzed in the 2018 methods discussed in the Estimated regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, HSTT final rule. As described above, Take of Marine Mammals section 1989), the impacts from other past and there is no new information since the (which are identical to those used in the ongoing anthropogenic activities are publication of the 2018 HSTT final rule 2018 HSTT final rule), the number of incorporated into this analysis via their regarding the impacts of the specified potential mortalities due to ship strike impacts on the environmental baseline activities on marine mammals, the requested and authorized over the (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status status and distribution of any of the seven-year period of this rule is the of the species, population size and affected marine mammal species or same as those authorized in the 2018 growth rate where known, other ongoing stocks, or the effectiveness of the HSTT final rule. As the potential sources of human-caused mortality, and mitigation and monitoring measures mortalities are now spread over seven ambient noise levels). that would change our analyses, except years rather than five, an annual average In the Estimated Take of Marine for one species. For that one species— of 0.29 gray whales (Eastern North Mammals sections of this final rule and gray whales—we have considered the Pacific stock), fin whales (CA/OR/WA the 2018 HSTT final rule (where the effects of the new UME on the west stock), and humpback whales (Central activities, species and stocks, potential coast of North America along with the North Pacific stock) and an annual effects, and mitigation measures are the effects of the Navy’s activities in the average of 0.14 blue whales (Eastern same as for this rule), we identified the negligible impact analysis. North Pacific stock), humpback whales subset of potential effects that would be (CA/OR/WA stock, Mexico DPS), and expected to rise to the level of takes Harassment sperm whales (Hawaii stock) as both annually and over the seven-year As described in the Estimated Takes described in Table 16 (i.e., one, or two, period covered by this rule, and then of Marine Mammals section, the annual take(s) over seven years divided by identified the number of each of those number of takes authorized and seven to get the annual number) are mortality takes that we believe could reasonably expected to occur by Level A expected to potentially occur and are occur or the maximum number of harassment and Level B harassment authorized. As this annual number is harassment takes that are reasonably (based on the maximum number of less than that analyzed and authorized expected to occur based on the methods activities per 12-month period) are in the 2018 HSTT final rule, which was

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41867

an annual average of 0.4 whales or 0.2 information for the Eastern North species or stock has changed, the whales respectively for the same species Pacific stock of blue whales (available in analysis of the effects of vessel strike and stocks, and with the exception of the 2019 draft SARs), no other relevant mirrors that presented in the 2018 HSTT the new gray whale UME on the U.S. information about the status, final rule. West Coast and updated abundance abundance, or effects of M/SI on each TABLE 16—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO MORTALITIES REQUESTED FOR SHIP STRIKE, 2018–2025

Fisheries Annual interactions Vessel collisions Recent UME Potential Residual PBR Stock authorized Total annual (Y/N); (Y/N); biological Stock (Y/N); Species abundance take by annual rate annual rate (PBR minus (stock) M/SI * 2 removal trend * 5 number and year (Nbest) * serious injury of M/SI from of M/SI from annual M/SI) 4 (PBR) * 3 (since 2007) or mortality 1 fisheries vessel collision * interactions *

Fin whale (CA/OR/WA 9,029 0.29 ≥43.5 Y; ≥0.5 ...... Y, 43 ...... 81 37.5 ↑ ...... N. stock). Gray whale (Eastern 26,960 0.29 139 Y, 9.6 ...... Y, 0.8 ...... 801 662 stable since Y, 264, 2019. North Pacific stock). 2003. Humpback whale (CA/ 2,900 0.14 ≥42.1 Y; ≥17.3 ...... Y, 22 ...... 33.4 ¥8.7 ↑ (histori- N. OR/WA stock, Mexico cally); DPS). stable. Humpback whale (Cen- 10,103 0.29 25 Y; 18 ...... Y, 1.4 ...... 83 58 ↑ ...... N. tral North Pacific stock) 6. Sperm whale (Hawaii 7 4,559 0.14 0.7 Y, 0.7 ...... N ...... 14 13.3 ?...... N. stock). Blue whale (Eastern 1,496 0.14 ≥19.4 ≥1.44 ...... Y, 18 ...... 2.1 ¥17.3 stable ...... Y; 3, 2007. North Pacific Stock). * Presented in the 2018 final SARs and draft 2019 SARs. 1 This column represents the annual take by serious injury or mortality (M/SI) by vessel collision and was calculated by the number of mortalities for authorization divided by seven years (the length of the rule and LOAs). 2 This column represents the total number of incidents of M/SI that could potentially accrue to the specified species or stock. This number comes from the SAR, but deducts the takes accrued from either other Navy strikes or NMFS’ Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) takes in the SARs to ensure not double-counted against PBR. However, for these species, there were no takes from either other Navy activities or SWFSC in the SARs to deduct that would be considered double-counting. 3 Potential biological removal (PBR) is defined in section 3 of the MMPA. See the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of the 2018 HSTT 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 SARs). This value represents the residual PBR for the stock in the stock’s entire range. 5 See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends. 6 Some values for the Central North Pacific stock of humpback whales were unintentionally presented incorrectly in Table 69 of the 2018 HSTT final rule. The correct values are provided here. These transcription errors do not affect the analysis or conclusions in the 2018 HSTT final rule, as the correct values were used in the analysis presented in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section. 7 The stock abundance for the Hawaii stock of sperm whales was unintentionally presented incorrectly as 5,559 in the 2018 HSTT final rule and has been corrected here. This transcription error does not affect the analysis or conclusions reached in the 2018 HSTT final rule.

The Navy has also requested a small California sea lions and 8 short-beaked lions and 1.2 short-beaked common number of takes by M/SI from common dolphins over the seven-year dolphins, and no other relevant explosives. To calculate the annual period (therefore 0.71 mortalities information about the status, average of mortalities for explosives in annually for California sea lions and abundance, or effects of mortality on Table 17 we used the same method as 1.14 mortalities annually for short- each species or stock has changed, the described for vessel strikes. The annual beaked common dolphins), as described analysis of the effects of explosives average is the total number of takes over in Table 17. As this annual number is mirrors that presented in the 2018 HSTT seven years divided by seven. less than that analyzed and authorized final rule. Specifically, NMFS is authorizing the in the 2018 HSTT final rule, which was following M/SI takes from explosives: 5 an annual average of 0.8 California sea TABLE 17—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO MORTALITIES FROM EXPLOSIVES, 2018–2025

Fisheries Annual interactions SWFSC Residual Species Stock authorized Total annual (Y/N); authorized PBR-PBR Stock UME (Y/N); abundance take by 2 annual rate PBR * minus annual 5 (stock) (Nbest) * serious injury M/SI * of M/SI from take M/SI and trend * number and year (annual) 3 or mortality 1 fisheries SWFSC 4 interactions *

California sea lion (U.S. 257,606 0.71 319.4 Y;197...... 14,011 ...... 6.6 13,685 ↑ ...... Y; 8,112; 2013. stock). Short-beaked common 969,861 1.14 ≥40 Y; ≥40 ...... 8,393 ...... 2.8 8,350.2 ?...... N. dolphin (CA/OR/WA stock). * Presented in the 2018 final SARs. No changes for these stocks were included in the 2019 draft SARs. 1 This column represents the annual take by serious injury or mortality (M/SI) during explosive detonations and was calculated by the number of mortalities planned for authorization divided by seven years (the length of the rule and LOAs). 2 This column represents the total number of incidents of M/SI that could potentially accrue to the specified species or stock. This number comes from the SAR, but deducts the takes accrued from either other Navy activities or NMFS’ SWFSC takes in the SARs to ensure they are not double-counted against PBR. In this case, for California sea lion 0.8 annual M/SI from the U.S. West Coast during scientific trawl and longline operations conducted by NMFS and 1.8 annual M/SI from marine mammal research related mortalities authorized by NMFS was deducted from total annual M/SI (322). 3 This column represents annual take authorized through NMFS’ SWFSC rulemaking/LOAs (80 FR 58982). 4 This value represents the calculated PBR less the average annual estimate of ongoing anthropogenic mortalities (i.e., total annual human-caused M/SI column and the annual authorized take from the SWFSC column). In the case of California sea lion the M/SI column (319.4) and the annual authorized take from the SWFSC (6.6) were subtracted from the calculated PBR of 14,011. In the case of Short-beaked common dolphin the M/SI column (40) and the annual authorized take from the SWFSC (2.8) were subtracted from the calculated PBR of 8,393. 5 See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends.

See the Serious Injury or Mortality 66985–66993; December 27, 2018) for other factors to inform our analysis, and subsection in the Analysis and detailed discussions of the impacts of an analysis of the impacts on each Negligible Impact Determination section M/SI, including a description of how species and stock for which M/SI was of the 2018 HSTT final rule (83 FR the agency uses the PBR metric and proposed for authorization, including

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41868 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

the relationship of potential mortality This UME was confined to pup and higher than 1999 and lower than 2000. for each species to the insignificance yearling sea lions and many were If strandings continue to follow a threshold and residual PBR. emaciated, dehydrated, and similar pattern, we would anticipate a underweight. NMFS staff confirmed that decrease in strandings in late summer Stocks With M/SI Below the the mortality of pups and yearlings and fall. However, combined with other Insignificance Threshold returned to normal in 2017 and 2018. annual human-caused mortalities, and As noted in the Serious Injury or The UME Working Group recommended viewed through the PBR lens (for Mortality subsection of the Negligible closure of UME in April, 2020 and the human-caused mortalities), total Impact Analysis and Determination UME was closed on May 6, 2020. human-caused mortality (inclusive of section in the 2018 HSTT final rule, for NMFS’ findings indicate that a change the potential for additional UME deaths) a species or stock with incidental M/SI in the availability of sea lion prey, would still fall well below residual PBR less than 10 percent of residual PBR, we especially anchovy and sardines, a high and the insignificance threshold. consider M/SI from the specified value food source for nursing mothers, Because of the abundance, population activities to represent an insignificant was a likely contributor to the large trend (increasing, despite the UME in incremental increase in ongoing number of strandings. Sardine spawning 1999–2000), and residual PBR (662) of anthropogenic M/SI that alone (i.e., in grounds shifted further offshore in 2012 this stock, this UME is not expected to the absence of any other take and and 2013, and while other prey were have impacts on the population rate barring any other unusual available (market squid and rockfish), that, in combination with the effects of circumstances) will clearly not these may not have provided adequate mortality authorized, would affect adversely affect annual rates of nutrition in the milk of sea lion mothers annual rates of recruitment or survival. recruitment and survival. In this case, as supporting pups, or for newly-weaned shown in Tables 16 and 17, the pups foraging on their own. Although Stocks with M/SI above the following species or stocks have the pups showed signs of some viruses Insignificance Threshold potential or estimated M/SI from ship and infections, findings indicate that Humpback Whale (CA/OR/WA Stock, strike and explosive takes, respectively, this event was not caused by disease, Mexico DPS) authorized below their insignificance but rather by the lack of high quality, For this stock, PBR is currently set at threshold: fin whale (CA/OR/WA stock), close-by food sources for nursing 16.7 for U.S. waters and 33.4 for the gray whale (Eastern North Pacific stock), mothers. Average mortalities from humpback whale (Central North Pacific 2013–2017 were 1,000–3,000 more stock’s entire range. In the 2018 HSTT stock), sperm whale (Hawaii stock), annually than they were in the previous final rule and 2019 HSTT proposed rule California sea lion (U.S stock), and 10 years. However, even if these we inadvertently considered only the short-beaked common dolphin (CA/OR/ unusual mortalities were still occurring PBR for U.S. waters (as presented in the WA stock). While the authorized M/SI (with current data suggesting they are SAR summary tables). As the HSTT of California sea lions (U.S. stock) and not), combined with other annual Study Area extends beyond U.S. waters gray whales (Eastern North Pacific human-caused mortalities, and viewed and activities have the potential to stock) are below the insignificance through the PBR lens (for human-caused impact the entire stock, we have threshold, because of the recent UMEs, mortalities), total human-caused corrected this here and present the we further address how the authorized mortality (inclusive of the potential for analysis using the PBR for the stock’s M/SI and the UME inform the negligible additional UME deaths) would still fall entire range. The total annual M/SI is impact determination immediately well below residual PBR. Further, the estimated at greater than or equal to below. For the other four stocks with loss of pups and yearlings is not 42.1, yielding a residual PBR of –8.7. authorized M/SI below the expected to have as much of an effect on With the corrected PBR, this potential insignificance threshold, there are no annual population rates as the death of impact on the stock is less than what other known factors, information, or adult females. In conclusion, because of was presented in both the 2018 HSTT unusual circumstances that indicate the abundance, population trend, and final rule and 2019 HSTT proposed rule. anticipated M/SI below the residual PBR of this stock, as well as the NMFS authorizes one M/SI over the insignificance threshold could have fact that the increased mortality stopped seven-year duration of the rule (which adverse effects on annual rates of two years ago, this UME is not expected is 0.14 annually for the purposes of recruitment or survival and they are not to have any impacts on individuals comparing to PBR and considering other discussed further. For the remaining during the period of this final rule, nor effects on annual rates of recruitment two stocks with anticipated potential M/ is it thought to have had impacts on the and survival), which means that SI above the insignificance threshold, population rate when it was occurring residual PBR is exceeded by 8.84. In the how that M/SI compares to residual that would influence our evaluation of 2018 HSTT final rule the PBR was PBR, as well as additional factors, as the effects of the mortality authorized correctly reported as 33.4 (PBR for the appropriate, are discussed below as on the stock. stock’s entire range), however the total well. annual M/SI was incorrectly reported as Gray Whales (Eastern North Pacific greater than or equal to 40.76 (yielding California Sea Lion (U.S. Stock) Stock) a residual PBR of –7.36). These The estimated (and authorized) lethal Since January 2019, gray whale transcription errors do not affect the take of California sea lions is well below strandings along the west coast of North fundamental analysis or conclusion the insignificance threshold (0.71 as America have been significantly higher reached in the 2018 HSTT final rule, compared to a residual PBR of 13,686) than the previous 18-year averages. however, and we have corrected these and NMFS classifies the stock as Preliminary findings from necropsies values here using data from the 2019 ‘‘increasing’’ in the 2018 final SAR, the have shown evidence of emaciation. draft SARs. most recent SAR available for this stock. The seasonal pattern of elevated In the commercial fisheries setting for Nonetheless, we consider here how the strandings in the spring and summer ESA-listed marine mammals (which is 2013–2016 (UME closed on May 6, months is similar to that of the previous similar to the non-fisheries incidental 2020) California Sea Lion UME informs gray whale UME in 1999–2000. Current take setting, in that a negligible impact our negligible impact determination. total monthly strandings are slightly determination is required that is based

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41869

on the assessment of take caused by the estimate encounters that would result in concluded that the DPS was unlikely to activity being analyzed) NMFS may find mortality (Rockwood et al., 2017). The be declining because of the population the impact of the authorized take from model predicts 22 annual mortalities of growth throughout most of its feeding a specified activity to be negligible even humpback whales from this stock from areas, in California/Oregon and the Gulf if total human-caused mortality exceeds vessel strikes. The authors (Rockwood et of Alaska, but they did not have PBR, if the authorized mortality is less al., 2017) do not suggest that ship strike evidence that the Mexico DPS was than 10 percent of PBR and management suddenly increased to 22. In fact, the actually increasing in overall population measures are being taken to address model is not specific to a year, but size. serious injuries and mortalities from the rather offers a generalized prediction of As discussed earlier, we also take into other activities causing mortality (i.e., ship strike off the U.S. West Coast. consideration management measures in other than the specified activities Therefore, if the Rockwood et al. (2017) place to address M/SI caused by other covered by the incidental take model is an accurate representation of activities. The California swordfish and authorization under consideration). vessel strike, then similar levels of ship thresher shark drift gillnet fishery is one When those considerations are applied strike have been occurring in past years of the primary causes of M/SI take from in the section 101(a)(5)(A) context here, as well. Put another way, if the model fisheries interactions for humpback the authorized lethal take (0.14 is correct, for some number of years whales on the West Coast. NMFS annually) of humpback whales from the total human-caused mortality has been established the Pacific Offshore CA/OR/WA stock is significantly less significantly underestimated, and PBR Cetacean Take Reduction Team in 1996 than 10 percent of PBR (in fact less than has been similarly exceeded by a and prepared an associated Plan 1 percent of 33.4) and there are notable amount, and yet the CA/OR/WA (PCTRP) to reduce the risk of M/SI via management measures in place to stock of humpback whales is considered fisheries interactions. In 1997, NMFS address M/SI from activities other than stable nevertheless. published final regulations formalizing the requirements of the PCTRP, those the Navy is conducting (as The CA/OR/WA stock of humpback including the use of pingers following discussed below). whales experienced a steady increase Based on identical simulations as several specific provisions and the from the 1990s through approximately those conducted to identify Recovery employment of Skipper education 2008, and more recent estimates through Factors for PBR in Wade et al. (1998), workshops. 2014 indicate a leveling off of the but where values less than 0.1 were Commercial fisheries such as crab pot, population size. This stock is comprised investigated (P. Wade, pers. comm.), we gillnet, and prawn fisheries are also a predict that where the mortality from a of the feeding groups of three DPSs. significant source of mortality and specified activity does not exceed Nmin Two DPSs associated with this stock are serious injury for humpback whales and listed under the ESA as either * 1⁄2 Rmax * 0.013, the contemplated other large whales and, unfortunately, mortality for the specific activity will endangered (Central America DPS) or have increased mortalities and serious not delay the time to recovery by more threatened (Mexico DPS), while the injuries over recent years (Carretta et al., than 1 percent. For this stock of third is not listed. The mortality 2019). However, the 2019 draft SAR authorized by this rule is for an humpback whales, Nmin * 1⁄2 Rmax * notes that a recent increase in 0.013 = 1.45 and the annual mortality individual from the Mexico DPS only. disentanglement efforts has resulted in proposed for authorization is 0.14 (i.e., As described in the Final Rule an increase in the fraction of cases that less than 1.45), which means that the Identifying 14 DPSs of the Humpback are reported as non-serious injuries as a mortality authorized in this rule for Whale and Revision of Species-Wide result of successful disentanglement. HSTT activities would not delay the Listing (81 FR 62260, September 8, More importantly, since 2015, NMFS time to recovery by more than 1 percent. 2016), the Mexico DPS was initially has engaged in a multi-stakeholder As described in the 2018 HSTT final proposed not to be listed as threatened process in California (including rule, NMFS must also ensure that or endangered, but the final decision California State resource managers, impacts by the applicant on the species was changed in consideration of a new fishermen, non-governmental or stock from other types of take (i.e., abundance estimate using a new organizations (NGOs), and scientists) to harassment) do not combine with the methodology that was more accurate identify and develop solutions and impacts from M/SI to adversely affect (less bias from capture heterogeneity make recommendations to regulators the species or stock via impacts on and lower coefficient of variation) and and the fishing industry for reducing annual rates of recruitment or survival, resulted in a lower abundance than was whale entanglements (see http:// which is discussed further below in the previously estimated. To be clear, the www.opc.ca.gov/whale-entanglement- species- and stock-specific section. new abundance estimate did not working-group/), referred to as the In November 2019, NMFS published indicate that the numbers had Whale Entanglement Working Group. 2019 draft SARs in which PBR is decreased, but rather, the more accurate The Whale Entanglement Working reported as 33.4 with the predicted new abundance estimate (3,264), Group has made significant progress average annual mortality greater than or derived from the same data but based on since 2015 and is tackling the problem equal to 42.1 (including 22 estimated an integrated spatial multi-strata mark from multiple angles, including: from vessel collisions and greater than recapture model (Wade et al., 2016) was • Development of Fact Sheets and 17.3 observed fisheries interactions). simply notably lower than earlier Best Practices for specific Fisheries While the observed M/SI from vessel estimates, which were 6,000–7,000 from issues (e.g., California Dungeness Crab strikes remains low at 2.2 per year, the the SPLASH project (Calambokidis et Fishing BMPs and the 2018–2019 Best 2018 final and 2019 draft SARs rely on al., 2008) or higher (Barlow et al., 2011). Fishing Practices Guide); a new method to estimate annual deaths The updated abundance was still higher • 2018–2019 Risk Assessment and by ship strike utilizing an encounter than 2,000, which is the Biological Mitigation Program (RAMP) to support theory model that combined species Review Team’s (BRT) threshold between the state of California in working distribution models of whale density, ‘‘not likely to be at risk of extinction due collaboratively with experts (fishermen, vessel traffic characteristics, and whale to low abundance alone’’ and researchers, NGOs, etc.) to identify and movement patterns obtained from ‘‘increasing risk from factors associated assess elevated levels of entanglement satellite-tagged animals in the region to with low abundance.’’ Further, the BRT risk and determine the need for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41870 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

management options to reduce risk of presence, movement, and general from which the current PBR equation is entanglement; and distribution patterns of large whales is derived, note that ‘‘Estimating • Support of pilot studies to test new shared with mariners, NMFS’ Office of incidental mortality in one year to be fisheries technologies to reduce take Protected Resources, the U.S. Coast greater than the PBR calculated from a (e.g., Exploring Ropeless Fishing Guard, the California Department of single abundance survey does not prove Technologies for the California Fish and Game, the Santa Barbara the mortality will lead to depletion; it Dungeness Crab Fishery). Museum of Natural History, the Marine identifies a population worthy of careful The Working Group meets regularly, Exchange of Southern California, and future monitoring and possibly posts reports and annual whale scientists. Real time and indicates that mortality-mitigation recommendations, and makes all of historical whale observation data efforts should be initiated.’’ their products and guidance documents collected from multiple sources can be The information included here readily accessible for the public. The viewed on the Point Blue Whale illustrates that this humpback whale March 2019 Working Group Report Database. stock is currently stable, the potential reported on the status of the fishery More recently, similar efforts to (and authorized) mortality is well below closure, progress and continued reduce entanglement risk and severity 10 percent (0.4 percent) of PBR, and development of the RAMP (though there have also been initiated in Oregon and management actions are in place to is a separate RAMP report), discussed Washington. Both Oregon and minimize both fisheries interactions and the role of the Working Group Washington are developing applications ship strike from other vessel activity in (development of a new Charter), and for ESA Incidental Take Permits for one of the highest-risk areas for strikes. indicated next steps. their commercial crab fisheries. They More specifically, although the total Importantly, in early 2019, as a result advocate similar best practices for their human-mortality exceeds PBR, the of a litigation settlement agreement, the fishermen as California, and they are authorized mortality for the Navy’s California Department of Fish and taking regulatory steps related to gear specified activities would incrementally Wildlife (CDFW) closed the Dungeness marking and pot limits. contribute less than 1 percent of that crab fishery three months early for the In this case, 0.14 M/SI annually and, further, given the fact that it would year, which is expected to reduce the means the potential for one mortality in occur in only one of seven years and number of likely entanglements. The one of the seven years and zero could be comprised of a male (far less agreement also limits the fishery mortalities in six of those seven years. impactful to the population), the duration over the next couple of years Therefore, the Navy would not be potential impacts on population rates and has different triggers to reduce or contributing to the total human-caused are even less. Based on all of the close it further. Further, pursuant to the mortality at all in six of the seven, or considerations described above, settlement, CDFW is required to apply 85.7 percent, of the years covered by including consideration of the fact that for a Section 10 Incidental Take Permit this rule. That means that even if a the authorized mortality of 0.14 would under the ESA to address protected humpback whale from the CA/OR/WA not delay the time to recovery by more species interactions with fishing gear stock were to be struck, in six of the than 1 percent, we do not expect the and crab fishing gear (pots), and they seven years there could be no effect on potential lethal take from Navy have agreed to prepare a Conservation annual rates of recruitment or survival activities, alone, to adversely affect the Plan by May 2020. Any request for such from Navy-caused M/SI. Additionally, CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales a permit must include a Conservation as discussed in the Analysis and through effects on annual rates of Plan that specifies, among other things, Negligible Impact Determination section recruitment or survival. Nonetheless, what steps the applicant will take to of the 2018 HSTT final rule, the loss of the fact that total human-caused minimize and mitigate the impacts, and a male would have far less, if any, of an mortality exceeds PBR necessitates close the funding that will be available to effect on population rates and absent attention to the remainder of the implement such steps. any information suggesting that one sex impacts (i.e., harassment) on the CA/ Regarding measures in place to reduce is more likely to be struck than another, OR/WA stock of humpback whales from mortality from other sources, the we can reasonably assume that there is the Navy’s activities to ensure that the Channel Islands NMS staff coordinates, a 50 percent chance that the single total authorized takes would have a collects, and monitors whale sightings strike authorized by this rule would be negligible impact on the species and in and around a Whale Advisory Zone a male, thereby further decreasing the stock. Therefore, this information will and the Channel Islands NMS region, likelihood of impacts on the population be considered in combination with our which is within the area of highest rate. In situations like this where assessment of the impacts of authorized vessel strike mortality (90th percentile) potential M/SI is fractional, harassment takes later in the Group and for humpback whales on the U.S. West consideration must be given to the Species-Specific Analyses section. Coast (Rockwood et al., 2017). The lessened impacts anticipated due to the seasonally established Whale Advisory absence of M/SI in six of the years and Blue Whale (Eastern North Pacific Zone spans from Point Arguello to Dana due to the fact that a single strike could Stock) Point, including the Traffic Separation be of a male. For blue whales (Eastern North Pacific Schemes in the Santa Barbara Channel Lastly, we reiterate that PBR is a stock), PBR is currently set at 1.23 for and San Pedro Channel. Vessels conservative metric and also not U.S. waters and 2.1 for the stock’s entire transiting the area from June through sufficiently precise to serve as an range. In the 2018 HSTT final rule and November are recommended to exercise absolute predictor of population effects 2019 HSTT proposed rule we caution and voluntarily reduce speed to upon which mortality caps would inadvertently presented only the PBR 10 kn or less for blue, humpback, and appropriately be based. This is for U.S. waters (as presented in the SAR fin whales. Channel Island NMS especially important given the minor summary tables). As the HSTT Study observers collect information from aerial difference between zero and one across Area extends beyond U.S. waters and surveys conducted by NOAA, the U.S. the seven-year period covered by this activities have the potential to impact Coast Guard, California Department of rule, which is the smallest distinction the entire stock, we have corrected this Fish and Game, and Navy chartered possible when considering mortality. here and present the analysis using the aircraft. Information on seasonal Wade et al. (1998), authors of the paper PBR for the stock’s entire range. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41871

total annual M/SI is estimated at greater density, vessel traffic characteristics, throughout the years that the Navy has than or equal to 19.4, yielding a residual and whale movement patterns obtained consistently tested and trained at PBR of ¥17.3. NMFS authorizes one M/ from satellite-tagged animals in the similar levels (with similar vessel SI for the Navy over the seven-year region to estimate encounters that traffic) in areas that overlap with blue duration of the rule (indicated as 0.14 would result in mortality (Rockwood et whale occurrence, which would be annually for the purposes of comparing al., 2017). The model predicts 18 annual another indicator of population to PBR and evaluating overall effects on mortalities of blue whales from vessel stability. annual rates of recruitment and strikes, which, with the additional M/SI Monnahan et al. (2015) modeled survival), which means that residual of 1.44 from fisheries interactions, vessel numbers, ship strikes, and the PBR is exceeded by 17.44. However, as results in the current estimate of population of the Eastern North Pacific described previously, in the commercial residual PBR equal to ¥17.3. Although blue whale population from 1905 out to fisheries setting for ESA-listed marine NMFS’ Permits and Conservation 2050 using a Bayesian framework to mammals (which is similar to the Division in the Office of Protected incorporate informative biological incidental take setting, in that the Resources has independently reviewed information and assign probability negligible impact determination is based the new ship strike model and its results distributions to parameters and derived on the assessment of take caused by the and agrees that it is appropriate for quantities of interest. The authors tested activity being analyzed) NMFS may find estimating blue whale mortality by ship multiple scenarios with differing the impact of the authorized take from strike on the U.S. West Coast, for assumptions, incorporated uncertainty, a specified activity to be negligible even analytical purposes we also note that if and further tested the sensitivity of if total human-caused mortality exceeds the historical method were used to multiple variables. Their results PBR, if the authorized mortality is less predict vessel strike (i.e., using observed indicated that there is no immediate than 10 percent of PBR and management mortality by vessel strike, or 0.4, instead threat (i.e., through 2050) to the measures are being taken to address of 18), then total human-caused population from any of the scenarios serious injuries and mortalities from the mortality including the Navy’s potential tested, which included models with 10 other activities causing mortality (i.e., take would not exceed PBR. We further and 35 strike mortalities per year. other than the specified activities note that the authors (Rockwood et al., Broadly, the authors concluded that, covered by the incidental take 2017) do not suggest that ship strike unlike other blue whale stocks, the authorization in consideration). When suddenly increased to 18 recently. In Eastern North Pacific blue whales have those considerations are applied in the fact, the model is not specific to a year, recovered from 70 years of whaling and section 101(a)(5)(A) context, the but rather offers a generalized are in no immediate threat from ship authorized lethal take (0.14 annually) of prediction of ship strike off the U.S. strikes. They further noted that their blue whales from the Eastern North West Coast. Therefore, if the Rockwood conclusion conflicts with the depleted Pacific stock is less than 10 percent of et al. (2017) model is an accurate and strategic designation under the PBR (which is 2.1) and there are representation of vessel strike, then MMPA, as well as PBR specifically. As discussed, we also take into management measures in place to similar levels of ship strike have been consideration management measures in address M/SI from activities other than occurring in past years as well. Put place to address M/SI caused by other those the Navy is conducting (as another way, if the model is correct, for activities. The Channel Islands NMS discussed below). Perhaps more some number of years total-human- staff coordinates, collects, and monitors importantly, the population is caused mortality has been significantly whale sightings in and around the underestimated and PBR has been considered ‘‘stable’’ and, specifically, Whale Advisory Zone and the Channel the available data suggests that the similarly exceeded by a notable amount, Islands NMS region. Redfern et al. current number of ship strikes is not and yet the Eastern North Pacific stock (2013) note that the areas of highest risk likely to have an adverse impact on the of blue whales remains stable for blue whales is the Santa Barbara population, despite the fact that it nevertheless. Channel, where shipping lanes intersect exceeds PBR, with the Navy’s minimal NMFS’ 2018 final SAR and 2019 draft with common feeding areas. The additional mortality of one whale in the SAR state that the stock is ‘‘stable’’ and seasonally established Whale Advisory seven years not creating the likelihood there is no indication of a population Zone spans from Point Arguello to Dana of adverse impact. Immediately below, size increase in this blue whale Point, including the Traffic Separation we explain the information that population since the early 1990s. The Schemes in the Santa Barbara Channel supports our finding that the Navy’s lack of a species’ or stock’s population and San Pedro Channel. Vessels authorized M/SI is not expected to increase can have several causes, some transiting the area from June through result in more than a negligible impact of which are positive. The SAR further November are recommended to exercise on this stock. As described previously, cites to Monnahan et al. (2015), which caution and voluntarily reduce speed to NMFS must also ensure that impacts by used a population dynamics model to 10 kn or less for blue, humpback, and the applicant on the species or stock estimate that the Eastern North Pacific fin whales. Channel Island NMS from other types of take (i.e., blue whale population was at 97 percent observers collect information from aerial harassment) do not combine with the of carrying capacity in 2013, suggesting surveys conducted by NOAA, the U.S. impacts from mortality to adversely that the observed lack of a population Coast Guard, California Department of affect the species or stock via impacts increase since the early 1990s was Fish and Game, and U.S. Navy chartered on annual rates of recruitment or explained by density dependence, not aircraft. Information on seasonal survival, which occurs further below in impacts from ship strike. This would presence, movement, and general the stock-specific discussion sections. mean that this stock of blue whales distribution patterns of large whales is As discussed in the 2018 HSTT final shows signs of stability and is not shared with mariners, NMFS Office of rule, the 2018 final SAR and 2019 draft increasing in population size because Protected Resources, U.S. Coast Guard, SAR rely on a new method to estimate the population size is at or nearing California Department of Fish and annual deaths by ship strike utilizing an carrying capacity for its available Game, the Santa Barbara Museum of encounter theory model that combined habitat. In fact, we note that this Natural History, the Marine Exchange of species distribution models of whale population has maintained this status Southern California, and whale

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41872 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

scientists. Real time and historical for strikes. Based on all of the below 100, it means that that percentage whale observation data collected from considerations described above, we do or less of the individuals in the stock multiple sources can be viewed on the not expect lethal take from Navy will be affected (i.e., some individuals Point Blue Whale Database. activities, alone, to adversely affect will not be taken at all), that the average In this case, 0.14 M/SI annually Eastern North Pacific blue whales for those taken is one day per year, and means one mortality in one of the seven through effects on annual rates of that we would not expect any years and zero mortalities in six of those recruitment or survival. Nonetheless, individuals to be taken more than a few seven years. Therefore, the Navy would the fact that total human-caused times in a year. When it is more than not be contributing to the total human- mortality exceeds PBR necessitates close 100 percent, it means there will caused mortality at all in six of the attention to the remainder of the definitely be some number of repeated seven, or 85.7 percent, of the years impacts (i.e., harassment) on the Eastern takes of individuals. For example, if the covered by this rule. That means that North Pacific stock of blue whales from percentage is 300, the average would be even if a blue whale were to be struck, the Navy’s activities to ensure that the each individual is taken on three days in six of the seven years there could be total authorized takes have a negligible in a year if all were taken, but it is more no effect on annual rates of recruitment impact on the species or stock. likely that some number of individuals or survival from Navy-caused M/SI. Therefore, this information will be will be taken more than three times and Additionally, as with humpback whales considered in combination with our some number of individuals fewer times discussed previously, the loss of a male assessment of the impacts of authorized or not at all. While it is not possible to would have far less, if any, effect on harassment takes in the Group and know the maximum number of days population rates and absent any Species-Specific Analyses section that across which individuals of a stock information suggesting that one sex is follows. might be taken, in acknowledgement of the fact that it is more than the average, more likely to be struck than another, Group and Species-Specific Analyses we can reasonably assume that there is for the purposes of this analysis, we In addition to broader analyses of the assume a number approaching twice the a 50 percent chance that the single impacts of the Navy’s activities on strike authorized by this rule would be average. For example, if the percentage mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds, of take compared to the abundance is a male, thereby further decreasing the the 2018 HSTT final rule contained 800, we estimate that some individuals likelihood of impacts on the population detailed analyses of the effects of the might be taken as many as 16 times. rate. In situations like this where Navy’s activities in the HSTT Study Those comparisons are included in the potential M/SI is fractional, Area on each affected species and stock. sections below. For some stocks these consideration must be given to the All of that information and analyses numbers have been adjusted slightly lessened impacts anticipated due to the remain applicable and valid for our (with these adjustments being in the absence of M/SI in six of the seven years analyses of the effects of the same Navy single digits) so as to more consistently and the fact that the single strike could activities on the same species and stocks apply this approach, but these minor be a male. Lastly, as with the CA/OR/ for the seven-year period of this rule. changes did not change the analysis or WA stock of humpback whales above, See the Group and Species-Specific findings. we reiterate that PBR is a conservative Analyses subsection in the Analysis and To assist in understanding what this metric and also not sufficiently precise Negligible Impact Determination section analysis means, we clarify a few issues to serve as an absolute predictor of of the 2018 HSTT final rule (83 FR related to estimated takes and the population effects upon which mortality 66993–67018; December 27, 2018). In analysis here. In the annual estimated caps would appropriately be based. This addition, no new information has been take tables below, takes within the U.S. is especially important given the minor received since the publication of the EEZ include only those takes within the difference between zero and one across 2018 HSTT final rule that significantly U.S. EEZ, where most Navy activities the seven-year period covered by this changes the analyses on the effects of occur and where we often have the best rule, which is the smallest distinction the Navy’s activities on each species information on species and stock possible when considering mortality. As and stock presented in the 2018 HSTT presence and abundance. Takes inside noted above, Wade et al. (1998), authors final rule (the potential impact of the and outside the EEZ include all takes in of the paper from which the current PBR new gray whale UME and the corrected the HSTT Study Area. equation is derived, note that numbers from the humpback whale An individual that incurs a PTS or ‘‘Estimating incidental mortality in one SARs were discussed earlier in the rule). TTS take may sometimes also be subject year to be greater than the PBR In the discussions below, the to behavioral disturbance at the same calculated from a single abundance estimated Level B harassment takes time. As described in the Harassment survey does not prove the mortality will represent instances of take, not the subsection of the Analysis and lead to depletion; it identifies a number of individuals taken (the much Negligible Impact Determination section population worthy of careful future lower and less frequent Level A of the 2018 HSTT final rule, the degree monitoring and possibly indicates that harassment takes are far more likely to of PTS, and the degree and duration of mortality-mitigation efforts should be be associated with separate individuals), TTS, expected to be incurred from the initiated.’’ The information included and in many cases some individuals are Navy’s activities are not expected to here indicates that this blue whale stock expected to be taken more than one impact marine mammals such that their is stable, approaching carrying capacity, time, while in other cases a portion of reproduction or survival could be and has leveled off because of density- individuals will not be taken at all. affected. Similarly, data do not suggest dependence, not human-caused Below, we compare the total take that a single instance in which an mortality, in spite of what might be numbers (including PTS, TTS, and animal accrues PTS or TTS and is otherwise indicated from the calculated behavioral disruption) for species or subject to behavioral disturbance would PBR. Further, potential (and authorized) stocks to their associated abundance result in impacts to reproduction or M/SI is below 10 percent of PBR and estimates to evaluate the magnitude of survival. Nonetheless, we recognize that management actions are in place to impacts across the species or stock and if an individual is subjected to minimize ship strike from other vessel to individuals. Specifically, when an behavioral disturbance repeatedly for a activity in one of the highest-risk areas abundance percentage comparison is longer duration and on consecutive

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41873

days, effects could accrue to the point (84 FR 54354). In the proposed rule only summarize the information for each that reproductive success is jeopardized critical habitat Unit 19 overlapped with species or stock, considering the (as discussed below in the stock-specific the HSTT Study Area, and NMFS analysis from the 2018 HSTT final rule summaries). Accordingly, in analyzing proposed to exclude this unit from the and any new analysis. The analyses the number of takes and the likelihood critical habitat designation based on below in some cases address species of repeated and sequential takes (which consideration of national security. A collectively if they occupy the same could result in reproductive impacts), final rule designating critical habitat for functional hearing group (i.e., low, mid, we consider the total takes, not just the these two DPSs of humpback whales has and high-frequency cetaceans and Level B harassment takes by behavioral not been published. pinnipeds in water), share similar life disruption, so that individuals All species in the HSTT Study Area history strategies, and/or are known to potentially exposed to both threshold will benefit from the procedural behaviorally respond similarly to shift and behavioral disruption are mitigation measures summarized in the acoustic stressors. Because some of appropriately considered. We note that Mitigation Measures section of this rule, these groups or species share the same reasoning applies with the and described in detail in the Mitigation characteristics that inform the impact potential addition of behavioral Measures section of the 2018 HSTT final analysis similarly, it would be disruption to tissue damage from rule. Additionally, the Navy will limit duplicative to repeat the same analysis explosives, the difference being that we activities and employ other measures in for each species or stock. In addition, do already consider the likelihood of mitigation areas that will avoid or animals belonging to each stock within reproductive impacts whenever tissue reduce impacts to several species and a species typically have the same damage occurs. Further, the number of stocks. These mitigation areas and the hearing capabilities and behaviorally associated limitations on activities are Level A harassment takes by either PTS respond in the same manner as animals summarized in Table 15 above and or tissue damage are so low compared in other stocks within the species. to abundance numbers that it is described in detail in the Mitigation considered highly unlikely that any Measures section of the 2018 HSTT final Mysticetes individual would be taken at those rule. The manner and extent to which levels more than once. the limitations in these mitigation areas In Tables 18 and 19 below for As noted previously, we presented a will prevent or minimize potential mysticetes, we indicate the total annual detailed discussion of important marine impacts on specific species and stocks mortality, Level A harassment, Level B mammal habitat (e.g., ESA-designated in the HSTT Study Area is discussed in harassment, and a number indicating critical habitat, biologically important the Mitigation Measures section of the the instances of total take as a areas (BIAs), and national marine 2018 HSTT final rule under Final percentage of abundance. Tables 18 and sanctuaries (NMSs)) for all species and Mitigation Areas, all of which remains 19 have been updated from Tables 71 stocks in the HSTT Study Area in the valid and applicable for this final rule. and 72 in the 2018 HSTT final rule as 2018 HSTT proposed final rules. All of Having considered all of the appropriate with the 2018 final SARs that information remains valid and information and analyses previously and 2019 draft SARs and updated applicable to the species- and stock- presented in the 2018 HSTT final rule, information on mortality, as discussed specific negligible impact analyses including the Group and Species- above. For additional information and below. Please see the 2018 rules for Specific Analyses discussions organized analysis supporting the negligible- complete information. In addition, since by the different groups and species, impact analysis, see the Mysticetes publication of the 2018 HSTT final rule, below we present tables showing discussion in the Group and Species- NMFS published a proposed rule to instances of total take as a percentage of Specific Analyses section of the 2018 designate ESA critical habitat for the stock abundance for each group, HSTT final rule, all of which remains Central America and Mexico DPSs of updated with the new explosion and applicable to this final rule unless humpback whales on October 9, 2019 vessel strike calculations. We then specifically noted. TABLE 18—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, LEVEL A HARASSMENT, AND MORTALITY FOR MYSTICETES IN THE HRC PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Total takes Abundance Instance of total take as (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance) percent of abundance Level B harassment Total Navy Species Stock Level A harassment Total takes Takes abundance Within EEZ Total take as EEZ take as TTS (entire study (within Navy inside and Navy percentage of percentage of Behavioral (may also Mortality area) EEZ) outside of abundance total Navy Navy EEZ disturbance include Tissue EEZ (HRC) abundance abundance disturbance) PTS damage (HRC) (HRC) (HRC)

Blue whale Central 15 33 0 0 0 48 40 43 33 112 121 North Pacific. Bryde’s Hawaii ..... 40 106 0 0 0 146 123 108 89 135 138 whale. Fin whale Hawaii ..... 21 27 0 0 0 48 41 52 40 92 103 Humpback Central 2,837 6,289 3 0 0.29 9,129 7,389 5,078 4,595 180 161 whale. North Pacific. Minke Hawaii ..... 1,233 3,697 2 0 0 4,932 4,030 3,652 2,835 135 142 whale. Sei whaleHawaii ..... 46 121 0 0 0 167 135 138 107 121 126 Note: For the HI take estimates, we compare predicted takes to abundance estimates generated from the same underlying density estimates (as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the 2018 HSTT final rule), both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ. Because the portion of the Navy’s study area inside the U.S. EEZ is generally concomitant with the area used to generate the abundance estimates in the SARs, and the abundance predicted by the same underlying density estimates is the preferred abundance to use, there is no need to separately compare the take to the SARs abundance estimate. Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing activities. The annual mortality of 0.29 is the result of no more than two mortalities over the course of seven years from vessel strikes as described above in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41874 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 19—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, LEVEL A HARASSMENT, AND MORTALITY FOR MYSTICETES IN THE SOCAL PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE.

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Total takes Abundance Instance of total take as (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance) percent of abundance Level B harassment Navy Total take as Species Stock Level A harassment Total takes abundance NMFS percentage of Total take as TTS (may Mortality (entire in Action SARS total Navy percentage of Behavioral also include Tissue Study Area) Area abundance abundance in total SAR disturbance disturbance) PTS damage (SOCAL) Action Area abundance

Blue whale ...... Eastern North Pa- 792 1,196 1 0 0.14 1,989 785 1,496 253 133 cific. Bryde’s whale ...... Eastern Tropical 14 27 0 0 0 41 1 unknown 3,154 unknown Pacific. Fin whale...... CA/OR/WA ...... 835 1,390 1 0 0.29 2,226 363 9,029 613 25 Humpback whaleCA/OR/WA ...... 480 1,514 1 0 0.14 1,995 247 2,900 808 69 Minke whale ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 259 666 1 0 0 926 163 636 568 146 Sei whale ...... Eastern North Pa- 27 52 0 0 0 79 3 519 2,633 15 cific. Gray whale ...... Eastern North Pa- 1,316 3,355 7 0 0.29 4,678 193 26,960 2,424 17 cific. Gray whale ...... Western North 2 4 0 0 0 6 0 290 0 2 Pacific. Note: For the SOCAL take estimates, because of the manner in which the Navy study area overlaps the ranges of many MMPA stocks (i.e., a stock may range far north to Washington state and beyond and abundance may only be predicted within the U.S. EEZ, while the Navy study area is limited to Southern California and northern Mexico, but extends beyond the U.S. EEZ), we compare predicted takes to both the abundance estimates for the study area, as well as the SARs (as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the 2018 HSTT final rule). Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing activities. The annual mortality of 0.14 is the result of no more than one mortality over the course of seven years from vessel strikes as described above in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section. The annual mortality of 0.29 is the result of no more than two mortalities over the course of seven years from vessel strikes.

Below we compile and summarize the annual rates of recruitment or survival. of impacts to blue whales by reducing information that supports our In addition, even with the additional interference in feeding that could result determination that the Navy’s activities two years of activities under this rule, in lost feeding opportunities or will not adversely affect any species or no additional M/SI is estimated for this necessitate additional energy stocks through effects on annual rates of stock, leading to a slight decrease (from expenditure to find other good recruitment or survival for any of the 0.2 to 0.14 annually) in annual mortality opportunities. Regarding the severity of affected mysticete stocks. from the 2018 HSTT final rule. TTS takes, we have explained in the Regarding the magnitude of Level B 2018 HSTT final rule that they are Blue Whale (Eastern North Pacific harassment takes (TTS and behavioral expected to be low-level, of short Stock) disruption), the number of estimated duration, and mostly not in a frequency The SAR identifies this stock as total instances of take compared to the band that would be expected to interfere ‘‘stable’’ even though the larger species abundance (measured against both the with blue whale communication or is listed as endangered under the ESA. Navy-estimated abundance and the other important low-frequency cues— We further note that this species was SAR) is 253 and 133 percent, and the associated lost opportunities originally listed under the ESA as a respectively. Given the range of blue and capabilities are not at a level that result of the impacts from commercial whales, this information suggests that will impact reproduction or survival. whaling, which is no longer affecting only some smaller portion of For similar reasons (as described in the the species. No Level A harassment by individuals in the stock are likely 2018 HSTT final rule) the single tissue damage is anticipated or impacted, but that there will likely be estimated Level A harassment take by authorized. NMFS will authorize one some repeat exposure (maybe 5 or 6 PTS for this stock is unlikely to have mortality over the seven years covered days within a year) of some subset of any effect on the reproduction or by this rule, or 0.14 mortality annually. individuals that spend extended time survival of that one individual, even if With the addition of this 0.14 annual within the SOCAL Range. Some of these it were to be experienced by an animal mortality, residual PBR is exceeded, takes could occur on a few sequential that also experiences one or more Level resulting in the total human-caused days for some small number of B harassment takes by behavioral mortality exceeding PBR by 17.44. individuals, for example, if they disruption. However, as described in more detail in resulted from a multi-day exercise on a Altogether, this population is stable, the Serious Injury or Mortality section range while individuals were in the area only a smaller portion of the stock is above, when total human-caused for multiple days feeding. However, anticipated to be impacted, and any mortality exceeds PBR, we consider these amounts are still not expected to individual blue whale is likely to be whether the incremental addition of a adversely impact reproduction or disturbed at a low-moderate level, with small amount of authorized mortality survival of any individuals. Regarding likely many animals exposed only once from the specified activity may still the severity of those individual Level B or twice and a subset potentially result in a negligible impact, in part by harassment takes by behavioral disturbed across five or six days, but identifying whether it is less than 10 disruption, the duration of any exposure minimized in biologically important percent of PBR. In this case, the is expected to be between minutes and areas. This low magnitude and severity authorized mortality is well below 10 hours (i.e., relatively short) and the of harassment effects is not expected to percent of PBR, management measures received sound levels largely below 172 result in impacts on the reproduction or are in place to reduce mortality from dB with a portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of survival of any individuals, let alone other sources, and the incremental a moderate or lower level, less likely to have impacts on annual rates of addition of a single mortality over the evoke a severe response). Additionally, recruitment or survival. One individual course of the seven-year Navy rule is not the Navy implements time/area is expected to be taken by PTS annually expected to, alone, lead to adverse mitigation in SOCAL in the majority of of likely low severity. A small impacts on the stock through effects on the BIAs, which will reduce the severity permanent loss of hearing sensitivity

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41875

(PTS) may include some degree of evoke a severe response). Regarding the within the SOCAL complex. Some of energetic costs for compensating or may severity of TTS takes, they are expected these takes could occur on a few mean some small loss of opportunities to be low-level, of short duration, and sequential days for some small number or detection capabilities, but at the mostly not in a frequency band that of individuals, for example, if they expected scale the estimated one Level would be expected to interfere with resulted from a multi-day exercise on a A harassment take by PTS would be Bryde’s whale communication or other range while individuals were in the area unlikely to impact behaviors, important low-frequency cues. Any for multiple days feeding. However, opportunities, or detection capabilities associated lost opportunities and these amounts are still not expected to to a degree that would interfere with capabilities are not at a level that will adversely impact reproduction or reproductive success or survival of that impact reproduction or survival. survival of any individuals. Regarding individual, let alone have effects on Altogether, in spite of the unknown the severity of those individual Level B annual rates of recruitment or survival. status and calculated number of harassment takes by behavioral Nor are these harassment takes instances of take compared to disruption, the duration of any exposure combined with the one authorized abundance, only a small portion of the is expected to be between minutes and mortality (which our earlier analysis stock is anticipated to be impacted hours (i.e., relatively short) and the indicated will not have more than a based on the more likely minimum received sound levels largely below 172 negligible impact on this stock of blue population level and any individual dB with a portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of whales), expected to adversely affect Bryde’s whale is likely to be disturbed a moderate or lower level, less likely to this stock through impacts on annual at a low-moderate level, with few, if evoke a severe response). Additionally, rates of recruitment or survival. For any, individuals exposed over more while there are no BIAs for fin whales these reasons, we have determined, in than one day in the year. No mortality in the SOCAL range, the Navy consideration of all of the effects of the and no Level A harassment is implements time/area mitigation in Navy’s activities combined, that the anticipated or proposed for SOCAL in blue whale BIAs, and fin authorized take will have a negligible authorization. This low magnitude and whales are known to sometimes feed in impact on the Eastern North Pacific severity of harassment effects is not some of the same areas, which means stock of blue whales. expected to result in impacts on they could potentially accrue some individual reproduction or survival, benefits from the mitigation. Regarding Bryde’s Whale (Eastern Tropical Pacific much less annual rates of recruitment or Stock) the severity of TTS takes, they are survival. For these reasons, we have expected to be low-level, of short Little is known about this stock, or its determined, in consideration of all of duration, and mostly not in a frequency status, and it is not listed under the the effects of the Navy’s activities band that would be expected to interfere ESA. No mortality or Level A combined, that the authorized take will with fin whale communication or other harassment is anticipated or authorized. have a negligible impact on the Eastern important low-frequency cues—and the Regarding the magnitude of Level B Tropical Pacific stock of Bryde’s whales. associated lost opportunities and harassment takes (TTS and behavioral capabilities are not at a level that will disruption), the number of estimated Fin Whale (CA/OR/WA Stock) impact reproduction or survival. For total instances of take compared to the The SAR identifies this stock as similar reasons (as described in the 2018 abundance is 3,154 percent, however, ‘‘increasing,’’ even though the larger HSTT final rule) the single estimated the abundance upon which this species is listed as endangered under percentage is based (1.3 whales from the the ESA. No Level A harassment by Level A harassment take by PTS for this Navy estimate, which is extrapolated tissue damage is anticipated or stock is unlikely to have any effects on from density estimates based on very authorized. NMFS authorizes two the reproduction or survival of that one few sightings) is clearly erroneous and mortalities over the seven years covered individual, even if it were to be the SAR does not include an abundance by this rule, or 0.29 mortality annually. experienced by an animal that also estimate because all of the survey data The addition of this 0.29 annual experiences one or more Level B is outdated (Table 19). However, the mortality still leaves the total human- harassment takes by behavioral abundance in the early 1980s was caused mortality well under the disruption. estimated as 22,000 to 24,000, a portion insignificance threshold of residual Altogether, this population is of the stock was estimated at 13,000 in PBR. In addition, even with the increasing, only a small portion of the 1993, and the minimum number in the additional two years of activities under stock is anticipated to be impacted, and Gulf of California alone was estimated at this rule, no additional M/SI is any individual fin whale is likely to be 160 in 1990. Given this information and estimated for this stock, leading to a disturbed at a low-moderate level, with there being no indication of dramatic slight decrease (from 0.4 to 0.29 the taken individuals likely exposed decline since these population annually) in annual mortality from the between one and twelve days, with a estimates, along with the fact that 41 2018 HSTT final rule. few individuals potentially taken on a total takes of Bryde’s whales were Regarding the magnitude of Level B few sequential days. This low estimated, this information suggests that harassment takes (TTS and behavioral magnitude and severity of harassment only a small portion of the individuals disruption), the number of estimated effects is not expected to result in in the stock are likely to be impacted, total instances of take compared to the impacts on the reproduction or survival and few, if any, are likely to be taken abundance (measured against both the for any individuals, let alone have over more than one day. Regarding the Navy-estimated abundance and the impacts on annual rates of recruitment severity of those individual Level B SAR) is 613 and 25 percent, or survival. One individual is expected harassment takes by behavioral respectively. This information suggests to be taken by PTS annually of likely disruption, the duration of any exposure that only some portion (less than 25 low severity. A small permanent loss of is expected to be between minutes and percent) of individuals in the stock are hearing sensitivity (PTS) may include hours (i.e., relatively short) and the likely impacted, but that there is likely some degree of energetic costs for received sound levels largely below 172 some repeat exposure (perhaps up to 12 compensating or may mean some small dB with a portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of days within a year) of some subset of loss of opportunities or detection a moderate or lower level, less likely to individuals that spend extended time capabilities, but at the expected scale

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41876 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

the estimated one Level A harassment M/SI is estimated for this stock, leading result in impacts on the reproduction or take by PTS would be unlikely to to a slight decrease (from 0.2 to 0.14 survival of any individuals, let alone impact behaviors, opportunities, or annually) in annual mortality from the have impacts on annual rates of detection capabilities to a degree that 2018 HSTT final rule. recruitment or survival. One individual would interfere with reproductive Regarding the magnitude of Level B is expected to be taken by PTS annually success or survival of that individual, harassment takes (TTS and behavioral of likely low severity. A small let alone have effects on annual rates of disruption), the number of estimated permanent loss of hearing sensitivity recruitment or survival. Nor are these total instances of take compared to the (PTS) may include some degree of harassment takes combined with the abundance (measured against both the energetic costs for compensating or may two authorized mortalities expected to Navy-estimated abundance and the mean some small loss of opportunities adversely affect this stock through SAR) is 808 and 69 percent, or detection capabilities, but at the impacts on annual rates of recruitment respectively. Given the range of expected scale the estimated one Level or survival. For these reasons, we have humpback whales, this information A harassment take by PTS would be determined, in consideration of all of suggests that only some portion of unlikely to impact behaviors, the effects of the Navy’s activities individuals in the stock are likely opportunities, or detection capabilities combined, that the authorized take will impacted, but that there is likely some to a degree that would interfere with have a negligible impact on the CA/OR/ repeat exposure (perhaps up to 16 days reproductive success or survival of that WA stock of fin whales. within a year) of some subset of individual, let alone have effects on individuals that spend extended time annual rates of recruitment or survival. Humpback Whale (CA/OR/WA Stock) within the SOCAL complex. Regarding Nor are these harassment takes The SAR identifies this stock as stable the severity of those individual Level B combined with the one authorized (having shown a long-term increase harassment takes by behavioral mortality (which our earlier analysis from 1990 and then leveling off between disruption, the duration of any exposure indicated will not have more than a 2008 and 2014) and the individuals in is expected to be between minutes and negligible impact on this stock of this stock are associated with three hours (i.e., relatively short) and the humpback whales) expected to DPSs, one of which is not listed under received sound levels largely below 172 adversely affect this stock through the ESA (Hawaii), one of which is listed dB with a portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of impacts on annual rates of recruitment as threatened (Mexico), and one of a moderate or lower level, less likely to or survival. For these reasons, we have which is listed as endangered (Central evoke a severe response). Some of these determined, in consideration of all of America). Individuals encountered in takes could occur on several sequential the effects of the Navy’s activities the SOCAL portion of the HSTT Study days for some small number of combined, that the authorized take will Area are likely to come from the latter individuals, for example, if they have a negligible impact on the CA/OR/ two DPSs. No Level A harassment by resulted from a multi-day exercise on a WA stock of humpback whales. tissue damage is anticipated or range while individuals were in the area authorized. NMFS authorizes one for multiple days feeding. However, Minke Whale (CA/OR/WA Stock) mortality over the seven years covered these amounts are still not expected to The status of this stock is unknown by this rule, or 0.14 mortality annually adversely impact reproduction or and it is not listed under the ESA. No (Mexico DPS only). With the addition of survival of any individuals. mortality from vessel strike or Level A this 0.14 annual mortality, the total Regarding the severity of TTS takes, harassment by tissue damage from human-caused mortality exceeds PBR they are expected to be low-level, of explosive exposure is anticipated or by 8.84. However, as described in more short duration, and mostly not in a authorized for this species. Regarding detail in the Serious Injury or Mortality frequency band that would be expected the magnitude of Level B harassment section, when total human-caused to interfere with humpback whale takes (TTS and behavioral disruption), mortality exceeds PBR, we consider communication or other important low- the number of estimated total instances whether the incremental addition of a frequency cues—and the associated lost of take compared to the abundance small amount of authorized mortality opportunities and capabilities are not at (measured against both the Navy- from the specified activity may still a level that will impact reproduction or estimated abundance and the SAR) is result in a negligible impact, in part by survival. For similar reasons (as 568 and 146 percent, respectively. identifying whether it is less than 10 described in the 2018 HSTT final rule) Based on the behaviors of minke percent of PBR, which is 33.4. In this the single estimated Level A harassment whales, which often occur along case, the authorized mortality is well take by PTS for this stock is unlikely to continental shelves and sometimes below 10 percent of PBR (less than one have any effects on the reproduction or establish home ranges along the West percent, in fact) and management survival of that one individual, even if Coast, this information suggests that measures are in place to reduce it were to be experienced by an animal only a portion of individuals in the mortality from other sources. More that also experiences one or more Level stock are likely impacted, but that there importantly, as described above in the B harassment takes by behavioral is likely some repeat exposure (perhaps Serious Injury or Mortality section, the disruption. up to 11 days within a year) of some authorized mortality of 0.14 will not Altogether, this population is stable, subset of individuals that spend delay the time to recovery by more than only a small portion of the stock is extended time within the SOCAL 1 percent. Given these considerations anticipated to be impacted and any complex. Some of these takes could along with those discussed earlier, the individual humpback whale is likely to occur on a few sequential days for some incremental addition of a single be disturbed at a low-moderate level, small number of individuals, for mortality over the course of the seven- with likely many animals exposed only example, if they resulted from a multi- year Navy rule is not expected to, alone, once or twice and a subset potentially day exercise on a range while lead to adverse impacts on the stock disturbed up to 16 days, but with no individuals were in the area for multiple through effects on annual rates of reason to think that more than several days feeding. However, these amounts recruitment or survival. In addition, of those days would be sequential. This are still not expected to adversely even with the additional two years of low magnitude and severity of impact reproduction or survival of any activities under this rule, no additional harassment effects is not expected to individuals. Regarding the severity of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41877

those individual Level B harassment ESA. No mortality or Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized. takes by behavioral disruption, the harassment is anticipated or authorized. This low magnitude and severity of duration of any exposure is expected to Regarding the magnitude of Level B harassment effects is not expected to be between minutes and hours (i.e., harassment takes (TTS and behavioral result in impacts on individual relatively short) and the received sound disruption), the number of estimated reproduction or survival, much less levels largely below 172 dB with a total instances of take compared to the annual rates of recruitment or survival portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate abundance (measured against both the for the stock. For these reasons, we have or lower level, less likely to evoke a Navy-estimated abundance and the determined, in consideration of all of severe response). Regarding the severity SAR) is 2,633 and 15 percent, the effects of the Navy’s activities of TTS takes, they are expected to be respectively, however, the abundance combined, that the authorized take will low-level, of short duration, and mostly upon which the Navy percentage is have a negligible impact on the Eastern not in a frequency band that would be based (3 from the Navy estimate, which North Pacific stock of sei whales. expected to interfere with minke whale is extrapolated from density estimates Gray Whale (Eastern North Pacific communication or other important low- based on very few sightings) is likely an Stock) frequency cues—and the associated lost underestimate of the number of opportunities and capabilities are not at individuals in the HSTT Study Area, The SAR identifies this stock as a level that will impact reproduction or resulting in an overestimated ‘‘increasing’’ and the species is not survival. For similar reasons (as percentage. Given this information and listed under the ESA. No Level A described in the 2018 HSTT final rule) the large range of sei whales, and the harassment by tissue damage is the single estimated Level A harassment fact that only 79 total Level B anticipated or authorized. NMFS is take by PTS for this stock is unlikely to harassment takes of sei whales were authorizing two mortalities over the have any effects on the reproduction or estimated, it is likely that some very seven years covered by this rule, or 0.29 survival of that individual, even if it small number of sei whales would be mortality annually. The addition of this were to be experienced by an animal taken repeatedly, potentially up to 15 0.29 annual mortality still leaves the that also experiences one or more Level days in a year (typically 2,633 percent total human-caused mortality well B harassment takes by behavioral would lead to the estimate of 52 days/ under the insignificance threshold of disruption. year, however, given that there are only residual PBR (663). On May 31, 2019, Altogether, while the status of this 79 sei whale total takes, we used the NMFS declared the unusual spike in strandings of gray whales along the west population is unknown, only a portion conservative assumption that five coast of North America since January 1, of the stock is anticipated to be individuals might be taken up to 15 2019 an UME. As of March 13, 2020, impacted and any individual minke times, with the few remaining takes 264 gray whales have stranded along the whale is likely to be disturbed at a low- distributed among other individuals). west coast of North America (in the moderate level, with the taken Regarding the severity of those U.S., Canada, and Mexico). Including individuals likely exposed between one individual Level B harassment takes by these mortalities in the calculated and eleven days, with a few individuals behavioral disruption, the duration of residual PBR still leaves the addition of potentially taken on a few sequential any exposure is expected to be between 0.29 annual mortality well under the days. No mortality is anticipated or minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) proposed for authorization. This low insignificance threshold of residual PBR and the received sound levels largely (399 including known deaths due to the magnitude and severity of harassment below 172 dB with a portion up to 178 effects is not expected to result in UME). In addition, even with the dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, impacts on individual reproduction or additional two years of activities under less likely to evoke a severe response). survival, let alone have impacts on this rule, no additional M/SI is Some of these takes could occur on a annual rates of recruitment or survival. estimated for this stock, leading to a few sequential days for some small One individual is expected to be taken slight decrease (from 0.4 to 0.29 number of individuals, for example, if by PTS annually of likely low severity. annually) in annual mortality from the they resulted from a multi-day exercise A small permanent loss of hearing 2018 HSTT final rule. on a range while individuals were in the sensitivity (PTS) may include some Regarding the magnitude of Level B area for multiple days feeding, however, degree of energetic costs for harassment takes (TTS and behavioral these amounts are still not expected to compensating or may mean some small disruption), the number of estimated loss of opportunities or detection adversely impact reproduction or total instances of take compared to the capabilities, but at the expected scale survival of any individuals. Regarding abundance (measured against both the the estimated one Level A harassment the severity of TTS takes, they are Navy-estimated abundance and the take by PTS would be unlikely to expected to be low-level, of short SAR) is 2,424 and 17 percent, impact behaviors, opportunities, or duration, and mostly not in a frequency respectively. This information suggests detection capabilities to a degree that band that would be expected to interfere that only some small portion of would interfere with reproductive with sei whale communication or other individuals in the stock are likely success or survival of that individual, important low-frequency cues—and the impacted (less than 17 percent), but that let alone have effects on annual rates of associated lost opportunities and there is likely some level of repeat recruitment or survival. For these capabilities are not at a level that will exposure of some subset of individuals reasons, we have determined, in impact reproduction or survival. that spend extended time within the consideration of all of the effects of the Altogether, while the status of this SOCAL complex. Typically, 2,424 Navy’s activities combined, that the population is unknown, only a small percent would lead to the estimate of 48 authorized take will have a negligible portion of the stock is anticipated to be days/year, however, given that a large impact on the CA/OR/WA stock of impacted and any individual sei whale number of gray whales are known to minke whales. is likely to be disturbed at a low- migrate through the SOCAL complex moderate level, with only a few and the fact that there are 4,678 total Sei Whale (Eastern North Pacific Stock) individuals exposed over one to 15 days takes, we believe that it is more likely The status of this stock is unknown in a year, with no more than a few that a larger number of individuals and it is listed as endangered under the sequential days. No mortality or Level A would be taken one to a few times,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41878 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

while a small number staying in an area have effects on annual rates of disruption), the number of estimated to feed for several days may be taken on recruitment or survival. Nor are these instances of take compared to the 5–10 days. Regarding the severity of harassment takes combined with the abundance, both throughout the HSTT those individual Level B harassment two authorized mortalities expected to Study Area and within the U.S. EEZ, takes by behavioral disruption, the adversely affect this stock through respectively, is 180 and 161 percent. duration of any exposure is expected to impacts on annual rates of recruitment This information and the complicated be between minutes and hours (i.e., or survival. For these reasons, we have far-ranging nature of the stock structure relatively short) and the received sound determined, in consideration of all of suggests that some portion of the stock levels largely below 172 dB with a the effects of the Navy’s activities (but not all) are likely impacted, over portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate combined, that the authorized take will one to several days per year, with little or lower level, less likely to evoke a have a negligible impact on the Eastern likelihood of take across sequential severe response). Some of these takes North Pacific stock of gray whales. days. Regarding the severity of those could occur on a few sequential days for Gray Whale (Western North Pacific individual Level B harassment takes by some small number of individuals, Stock) behavioral disruption, the duration of however, these amounts are still not any exposure is expected to be between expected to adversely impact The Western North Pacific stock of minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) reproduction or survival of any gray whales is reported as increasing in and the received sound levels largely individuals. the 2018 final SAR, but is listed as below 172 dB with a portion up to 178 Regarding the severity of TTS takes, endangered under the ESA. No dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, they are expected to be low-level, of mortality or Level A harassment is less likely to evoke a severe response). short duration, and mostly not in a anticipated or authorization. This stock Additionally, as noted above, there are frequency band that would be expected is expected to incur the very small two mitigation areas implemented by to interfere with gray whale number of 6 Level B harassment takes the Navy that span a large area of the communication or other important low- (2 behavioral disruption and 4 TTS) to important humpback reproductive area frequency cues, and the associated lost a stock with a SAR-estimated (BIA) and minimize impacts by limiting opportunities and capabilities are not at abundance of 290. These takes will the use of MF1 active sonar and a level that will impact reproduction or likely accrue to different individuals, explosives, thereby reducing both the survival. For these same reasons (low the behavioral disturbances will be of a number and severity of takes of level and frequency band), while a small low-moderate level, and the TTS humpback whales. Regarding the instances will be at a low level and of permanent loss of hearing sensitivity severity of TTS takes, they are expected short duration (with the same expected may include some degree of energetic to be low-level, of short duration, and effects as described for the Eastern costs for compensating or may mean mostly not in a frequency band that North Pacific stock of gray whales some small loss of opportunities or would be expected to interfere with described above). This low magnitude detection capabilities, at the expected humpback whale communication or and severity of harassment effects is not scale the 7 estimated Level A other important low-frequency cues, expected to result in impacts on harassment takes by PTS for gray whales and the associated lost opportunities individual reproduction or survival, will be unlikely to impact behaviors, and capabilities are not at a level that much less to adversely affect this stock opportunities, or detection capabilities will impact reproduction or survival. through impacts on annual rates of to a degree that would interfere with For these same reasons (low level and reproductive success or survival of any recruitment or survival. For these frequency band), while a small individuals, even if it were to be reasons, we have determined, in permanent loss of hearing sensitivity experienced by an animal that also consideration of all of the effects of the may include some degree of energetic experiences one or more Level B Navy’s activities combined, that the costs for compensating or may mean harassment takes by behavioral authorized take will have a negligible some small loss of opportunities or disruption. impact on the Western North Pacific detection capabilities, at the expected Altogether, while we have considered stock of gray whales. the impacts of the gray whale UME, gray scale the three estimated Level A whales are not endangered or threatened Humpback Whale (Central North Pacific harassment takes by PTS for humpback under the ESA and the Eastern North Stock) whales will be unlikely to impact Pacific stock is increasing. Only a small The 2018 final SAR identifies this behaviors, opportunities, or detection portion of the stock is anticipated to be stock as ‘‘increasing’’ and the DPS is not capabilities to a degree that would impacted and any individual gray whale listed under the ESA. No Level A interfere with reproductive success or is likely to be disturbed at a low- harassment by tissue damage is survival of any individuals, even if it moderate level, with likely many anticipated or authorized. NMFS were to be experienced by an animal animals exposed only once or twice and authorizes two mortalities over the that also experiences one or more Level a subset potentially disturbed across seven years covered by this rule, or 0.29 B harassment takes by behavioral five to ten days. This low magnitude mortalities annually. The addition of disruption. and severity of harassment effects is not this 0.29 annual mortality still leaves Altogether, this stock is increasing expected to result in impacts to the total human-caused mortality well and the DPS is not listed as endangered reproduction or survival for any under the insignificance threshold for or threatened under the ESA. Only a individuals, let alone have impacts on residual PBR. In addition, even with the small portion of the stock is anticipated annual rates of recruitment or survival. additional two years of activities under to be impacted and any individual Seven individuals are expected to be this rule, no additional M/SI is humpback whale is likely to be taken by PTS annually of likely low estimated for this stock, leading to a disturbed at a low-moderate level, with severity, with this unlikely to impact slight decrease (from 0.4 to 0.29 the taken individuals likely exposed behaviors, opportunities, or detection annually) in annual mortality from the between one to several days per year, capabilities to a degree that would 2018 HSTT final rule. with little likelihood of take across interfere with reproductive success or Regarding the magnitude of Level B sequential days. This low magnitude survival of those individuals, let alone harassment takes (TTS and behavioral and severity of harassment effects is not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41879

expected to result in impacts on days per year, with little likelihood of Hawaii stock are estimated to be taken individual reproduction or survival, let take across sequential days. Regarding by PTS annually of likely low severity. alone have impacts on annual rates of the severity of those individual Level B A small permanent loss of hearing recruitment or survival. Three harassment takes by behavioral sensitivity (PTS) may include some individuals are estimated to be taken by disruption, the duration of any exposure degree of energetic costs for PTS annually of likely low severity, is expected to be between minutes and compensating or may mean some small with this unlikely to impact behaviors, hours (i.e., relatively short) and the loss of opportunities or detection opportunities, or detection capabilities received sound levels largely below 172 capabilities, but at the expected scale to a degree that would interfere with dB with a portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of the estimated Level A harassment take reproductive success or survival of a moderate or lower level, less likely to by PTS would be unlikely to impact those individuals, let alone have effects evoke a severe response). Regarding the behaviors, opportunities, or detection on annual rates of recruitment or severity of TTS takes, they are expected capabilities to a degree that would survival. Nor are these harassment takes to be low-level, of short duration, and interfere with reproductive success or combined with the two authorized mostly not in a frequency band that survival of those individuals, let alone mortalities expected to adversely affect would be expected to interfere with have effects on annual rates of this stock through impacts on annual mysticete communication or other recruitment or survival. For these rates of recruitment or survival. For important low-frequency cues—and the reasons, we have determined, in these reasons, we have determined, in associated lost opportunities and consideration of all of the effects of the consideration of all of the effects of the capabilities are not at a level that will Navy’s activities combined, that the Navy’s activities combined, that the impact reproduction or survival. For authorized take will have a negligible authorized take will have a negligible similar reasons (as described in the 2018 impact on these stocks. impact on the Central North Pacific HSTT final rule) the two estimated Odontocetes stock of humpback whales. Level A harassment takes by PTS for the Hawaii stock of minke whales are Sperm Whales, Dwarf Sperm Whales, Blue Whale (Central North Pacific unlikely to have any effects on the and Pygmy Sperm Whales Stock) and the Hawaii Stocks of Bryde’s reproduction or survival of those two Whale, Fin Whale, Minke Whale, and individuals, even if it were to be In Tables 20 and 21 below for sperm Sei Whale experienced by an animal that also whales, dwarf sperm whales, and The status of these stocks is not experiences one or more Level B pygmy sperm whales, we indicate the identified in the SARs. Blue whales, fin harassment takes by behavioral total annual mortality, Level A and whales, and sei whales are listed as disruption. Level B harassment, and a number endangered under the ESA; minke Altogether, while the status of these indicating the instances of total take as whales and Bryde’s whales (other than populations is unknown, only a portion a percentage of abundance. Tables 20 the Gulf of Mexico DPS) are not listed of these stocks are anticipated to be and 21 are unchanged from Tables 73 under the ESA. No mortality or Level A impacted and any individuals of these and 74 in the 2018 HSTT final rule, harassment by tissue damage is stocks are likely to be disturbed at a except for updated information on anticipated or authorized for any of low-moderate level, with the taken mortality for the Hawaii stock of sperm these stocks. individuals likely exposed between one whales, as discussed above. For Regarding the magnitude of Level B and several days, with little chance that additional information and analysis harassment takes (TTS and behavioral any are taken across sequential days. No supporting the negligible-impact disruption), the number of estimated mortality is anticipated or authorized analysis, see the Odontocetes discussion instances of take compared to the for any of these stocks. This low as well as the Sperm Whales, Dwarf abundance, both throughout the HSTT magnitude and severity of harassment Sperm Whales, and Pygmy Sperm Study Area and within the U.S. EEZ, effects is not expected to result in Whales discussion in the Group and respectively, is 92–135 and 103–142 impacts on individual reproduction or Species-Specific Analyses section of the percent. This information suggests that survival, let alone have impacts on 2018 HSTT final rule, all of which some portion of the stocks (but not all) annual rates of recruitment or survival. remains applicable to this final rule are likely impacted, over one to several Two individual minke whales from the unless specifically noted. TABLE 20—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, LEVEL A HARASSMENT, AND MORTALITY FOR SPERM WHALES, DWARF SPERM WHALES, AND PYGMY SPERM WHALES IN THE HRC PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Total takes Abundance Instances of total take as (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance) percent of abundance Level B harassment Total Navy Species Stock Level A harassment Total takes Takes abundance Within EEZ Total take as EEZ take as TTS (entire study (within inside and Navy percentage of percentage of Behavioral (may also Mortality area) NAVY EEZ) outside abundance total Navy EEZ disturbance include Tissue EEZ (HRC) abundance abundance disturbance) PTS damage (HRC) (HRC) (HRC)

Dwarf Hawaii ..... 5,870 14,550 64 0 0 20,484 15,310 8,218 6,379 249 240 sperm whale. Pygmy Hawaii ..... 2,329 5,822 29 0 0 8,180 6,098 3,349 2,600 244 235 sperm whale. Sperm Hawaii ..... 2,466 30 0 0 0.14 2,496 1,317 1,656 1,317 151 147 whale. Note: For the HI take estimates, we compare predicted takes to abundance estimates generated from the same underlying density estimates (as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the 2018 HSTT final rule), both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ. Because the portion of the Navy’s study area inside the U.S. EEZ is generally concomitant with the area used to generate the abundance estimates in the SARs, and the abundance predicted by the same underlying density estimates is the preferred abundance to use, there is no need to separately compare the take to the SARs abundance estimate. Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing activities.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41880 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

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.

TABLE 21—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, LEVEL A HARASSMENT, AND MORTALITY FOR SPERM WHALES, DWARF SPERM WHALES, AND PYGMY SPERM WHALES IN THE SOCAL PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Total takes Abundance Instances of total take as (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance) percent of abundance Level B harassment Species Stock Level A harassment Total takes Navy NMFS Total take as Total take as TTS (entire study abundance SARS percentage of percentage of Behavioral (may also Mortality area) in action abundance total Navy total SAR disturbance include Tissue area abundance in abundance disturbance) PTS damage action area

Kogia whales ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 2,779 6,353 38 0 0 9,170 757 4,111 1,211 223 Sperm whale ...... CA/OR/WA ...... 2,437 56 0 0 0 2,493 273 1,997 913 125 Note: For the SOCAL take estimates, because of the manner in which the Navy study area overlaps the ranges of many MMPA stocks (i.e., a stock may range far north to Washington state and beyond and abundance may only be predicted within the U.S. EEZ, while the Navy study area is limited to Southern California and northern Mexico, but extends beyond the U.S. EEZ), we compare predicted takes to both the abundance estimates for the study area, as well as the SARs (as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the 2018 HSTT final rule). Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing activities.

Below we compile and summarize the amount of Level A harassment and occur on a fair number of sequential information that supports our Level B harassment take of dwarf sperm days for some number of individuals. determination that the Navy’s activities whales and therefore take estimates are Regarding the severity of TTS takes, will not adversely affect any species or identified as Kogia whales (including they are expected to be low-level, of stocks through effects on annual rates of both pygmy and dwarf sperm whales). short duration, and mostly not in a recruitment or survival for any of the We assume only a small portion of those frequency band that would be expected affected stocks addressed in this section. takes are likely to be dwarf sperm to interfere with any of these three whales as the available information species’ communication or other Sperm Whale, Dwarf Sperm Whale, and indicates that the density and important low-frequency cues, and that Pygmy Sperm Whale (CA/OR/WA abundance in the U.S. EEZ is low. the associated lost opportunities and Stocks) Regarding the magnitude of Level B capabilities are not at a level that will The SAR identifies the CA/OR/WA harassment takes (TTS and behavioral impact reproduction or survival. For stock of sperm whales as ‘‘stable’’ and disruption), the number of estimated these same reasons (low level and the species is listed as endangered total instances of take compared to the frequency band), while a small under the ESA. The status of the CA/ abundance (measured against both the permanent loss of hearing sensitivity OR/WA stocks of pygmy and dwarf Navy-estimated abundance and the (PTS) may include some degree of sperm whales is unknown and neither SAR) is, respectively, 913 and 125 energetic costs for compensating or may are listed under the ESA. Neither percent for sperm whales and 1,211 and mean some small loss of opportunities mortality nor Level A harassment by 223 percent for Kogia whales, with a or detection capabilities, at the expected tissue damage from exposure to large proportion of the Kogia whales scale the estimated Level A harassment explosives is expected or authorized for anticipated to be pygmy sperm whales takes by PTS for the dwarf and pygmy any of these three stocks. due to the low abundance and density sperm whale stocks will be unlikely to Due to their pelagic distribution, of dwarf sperm whales in the HSTT impact behaviors, opportunities, or small size, and cryptic behavior, pygmy Study Area. Given the range of these detection capabilities to a degree that sperm whales and dwarf sperm whales stocks (which extends the entire length would interfere with reproductive (Kogia species) are rarely sighted during of the West Coast, as well as beyond the success or survival of any individuals at-sea surveys and are difficult to U.S. EEZ boundary), this information (and no Level A harassment takes are distinguish between when visually suggests that some portion of the anticipated or authorized for sperm observed in the field. Many of the individuals in these stocks will not be whales), even if it were to be relatively few observations of Kogia impacted, but that there is likely some experienced by an animal that also species off the U.S. West Coast were not repeat exposure (perhaps up to 24 days experiences one or more Level B identified to species. All at-sea sightings within a year for Kogia species and 18 harassment takes by behavioral of Kogia species have been identified as days a year for sperm whales) of some disruption. Thus the 38 Level A pygmy sperm whales or Kogia species small subset of individuals that spend harassment takes by PTS for the two generally. Stranded dwarf sperm and extended time within the SOCAL Range. Kogia stocks are unlikely to affect rates pygmy sperm whales have been found Regarding the severity of those of recruitment and survival for the on the U.S. West Coast, however dwarf individual Level B harassment takes by stocks. sperm whale strandings are rare. NMFS behavioral disruption, the duration of Altogether, while this population of SARs suggest that the majority of Kogia any exposure is expected to be between sperm whales is stable and the status of sighted off the U.S. West Coast were minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) the Kogia species stocks are unknown, likely pygmy sperm whales. As such, and the received sound levels largely most members of the stocks will likely the stock estimate in the NMFS SAR for below 172 dB (i.e., of a lower, to be taken by Level B harassment at a low pygmy sperm whales is the estimate occasionally moderate, level and less to occasionally moderate level over derived for all Kogia species in the likely to evoke a severe response). several days a year, and some smaller region (Barlow, 2016), and no separate Additionally, while interrupted feeding portion of the stocks are expected to be abundance estimate can be determined bouts are a known response and concern taken on a relatively moderate to high for dwarf sperm whales, though some for odontocetes, we also know that there number of days (up to 18 or 24) across low number likely reside in the U.S. are often viable alternative habitat the year, some of which could be EEZ. Due to the lack of an abundance options in the relative vicinity. sequential days. No mortality is estimate it is not possible to predict the However, some of these takes could anticipated or authorized for any of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41881

these stocks. Thirty-eight individuals under the insignificance threshold for listed under the ESA. No mortality or from the two Kogia stocks are expected residual PBR. In addition, even with the Level A harassment by tissue damage is to be taken by PTS annually of likely additional two years of activities under anticipated or authorized. Regarding the low severity, with this unlikely to this rule, no additional M/SI is magnitude of Level B harassment takes impact behaviors, opportunities, or estimated for this stock, leading to a (TTS and behavioral disruption), the detection capabilities to a degree that slight decrease (from 0.2 to 0.14 number of estimated instances of take would interfere with reproductive annually) in annual mortality from the compared to the abundance, both success or survival of those individuals. 2018 HSTT final rule. throughout the HSTT Study Area and Though the majority of impacts are Regarding the magnitude of Level B within the U.S. EEZ, respectively, is expected to be of a lower to sometimes harassment takes (TTS and behavioral 244–249 and 235–240 percent. This moderate severity, the larger number of disruption), the number of estimated information and the pygmy and dwarf takes for a subset of individuals makes instances of take compared to the sperm whale stock ranges (at least it more likely that a small number of abundance, both throughout the HSTT throughout the U.S. EEZ around the individuals could be interrupted during Study Area and within the U.S. EEZ, entire Hawaiian Islands) suggest that foraging in a manner and amount such respectively, is 151 and 147 percent. likely a fair portion of each stock is not that impacts to the energy budgets of This information and the sperm whale impacted, but that a subset of females (from either losing feeding stock range suggest that likely only a individuals may be taken over one to opportunities or expending considerable smaller portion of the stock will be perhaps five days per year, with little energy to find alternative feeding impacted, over one to a few days per likelihood of take across sequential options) could cause them to forego year, with little likelihood of take across days. Regarding the severity of those reproduction for a year. Energetic sequential days. Regarding the severity individual Level B harassment takes by impacts to males are generally of those individual Level B harassment behavioral disruption, the duration of meaningless to population rates unless takes by behavioral disruption, the any exposure is expected to be between they cause death, and it takes extreme duration of any exposure is expected to minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) energy deficits beyond what would ever be between minutes and hours (i.e., and the received sound levels largely be likely to result from these activities relatively short) and the received sound below 172 dB (i.e., of a lower, to to cause the death of an adult marine levels largely below 172 dB (i.e., of a occasionally moderate, level and less mammal. As discussed in the 2018 lower, to occasionally moderate, level likely to evoke a severe response). HSTT final rule, however, foregone and less likely to evoke a severe Additionally, as discussed earlier, reproduction (especially for one year, response). Regarding the severity of TTS within the Hawaii Island Mitigation which is the maximum predicted takes, they are expected to be low-level, Area, explosives are not used and the because the small number anticipated in of short duration, and mostly not in a use of MF1 and MF4 active sonar is any one year makes the probability that frequency band that would be expected limited, greatly reducing the severity of any individual would be impacted in to interfere with sperm whale impacts within the small resident this way twice in seven years very low) communication or other important low- population BIA for dwarf sperm whales, has far less of an impact on population frequency cues, and the associated lost which is entirely contained within this rates than mortality and a small number opportunities and capabilities are not at mitigation area. of instances of foregone reproduction is a level that will impact reproduction or not expected to adversely affect these survival. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, stocks through effects on annual rates of Altogether, while the status of this they are expected to be low-level, of recruitment or survival. We also note population is unknown, a relatively short duration, and mostly not in a that residual PBR is 19.2 for pygmy small portion of this stock is anticipated frequency band that would be expected sperm whales and 1.6 for sperm whales. to be impacted and any individuals are to interfere with pygmy or dwarf sperm Both the abundance and PBR are likely to be disturbed at a low-moderate whale communication or other unknown for dwarf sperm whales, level, with the taken individuals likely important low-frequency cues—and the however, we know that take of this exposed between one and a few days, associated lost opportunities and stock is likely significantly lower in with little chance that any are taken capabilities are not at a level that will magnitude and severity (i.e., lower across sequential days. No Level A impact reproduction or survival. For number of total takes and repeated takes harassment by PTS or tissue damage is these same reasons (low level and of any individual) than pygmy sperm expected or authorized. This low frequency band), while a small whales. For these reasons, in magnitude and severity of harassment permanent loss of hearing sensitivity consideration of all of the effects of the effects is not expected to result in may include some degree of energetic Navy’s activities combined, we have impacts on individual reproduction or costs for compensating or may mean determined that the authorized take will survival, nor are these harassment takes some small loss of opportunities or have a negligible impact on the CA/OR/ combined with the one authorized detection capabilities, at the expected WA stocks of sperm whales and pygmy mortality expected to adversely affect scale, estimated Level A harassment and dwarf sperm whales. the stock through impacts on annual takes by PTS for these stocks of dwarf rates of recruitment or survival. For and pygmy sperm whales will be Sperm Whale (Hawaii Stock) these reasons, we have determined, in unlikely to impact behaviors, The SAR does not identify a trend for consideration of all of the effects of the opportunities, or detection capabilities this stock and the species is listed as Navy’s activities combined, that the to a degree that will interfere with endangered under the ESA. No Level A authorized take will have a negligible reproductive success or survival of any harassment by PTS or tissue damage is impact on the Hawaii stock of sperm individuals, even if it were to be expected or authorized. NMFS whales. experienced by an animal that also authorizes one mortality over the seven experiences one or more instances of years covered by this rule, which is 0.14 Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whales Level B harassment by behavioral mortalities annually. The addition of (Hawaii Stocks) disruption. Thus the 64 and 29 total this 0.14 annual mortality still leaves The SAR does not identify a trend for Level A harassment takes by PTS for the total human-caused mortality well these stocks and the species are not dwarf and pygmy sperm whales,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41882 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

respectively, will be unlikely to affect or survival for these stocks. Sixty-four Beaked Whales rates of recruitment and survival for dwarf sperm whales and 29 pygmy these stocks. sperm whales are estimated to be taken In Tables 22 and 23 below for beaked Altogether, while the status of these by PTS annually of likely low severity, whales, we indicate the total annual populations is unknown, only a portion with this unlikely to impact behaviors, mortality, Level A and Level B of these stocks are likely to be impacted opportunities, or detection capabilities harassment, and a number indicating the instances of total take as a and any individuals are likely to be to a degree that would interfere with percentage of abundance. Tables 22 and disturbed at a low-moderate level, with reproductive success or survival of the taken individuals likely exposed 23 are unchanged from Tables 75 and 76 those individuals, let alone have effects between one and five days, with little in the 2018 HSTT final rule. For on annual rates of recruitment or chance that any are taken across additional information and analysis sequential days. No mortality is survival. For these reasons, we have supporting the negligible-impact anticipated or authorized. This low determined, in consideration of all of analysis, see the Odontocetes discussion magnitude and severity of Level B the effects of the Navy’s activities as well as the Beaked Whales discussion harassment effects is not expected to combined, that the expected and in the Group and Species-Specific result in impacts on individual authorized take will have a negligible Analyses section of the 2018 HSTT final reproduction or survival, let alone have impact on the Hawaii stocks of pygmy rule, all of which remains applicable to impacts on annual rates of recruitment and dwarf sperm whales. 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 HRC PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Total takes Abundance Instances of total take as per- (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance) cent of abundance Level B harassment Total Navy Species Stock Level A harassment Total takes Takes abundance Within EEZ Total take as EEZ take as TTS (entire study (within inside and Navy percentage of percentage of Behavioral (may also Mortality area) NAVY EEZ) outside abundance total Navy EEZ disturbance include dis- Tissue EEZ (HRC) (HRC) abundance abundance turbance) PTS damage (HRC) (HRC)

Blainville’s Hawaii ..... 5,369 16 0 0 0 5,385 4,140 989 768 545 539 beaked whale. Cuvier’s Hawaii ..... 1,792 4 0 0 0 1,796 1,377 345 268 521 514 beaked whale. Longman’s Hawaii ..... 19,152 81 0 0 0 19,233 14,585 3,568 2,770 539 527 beaked whale. Note: For the HI take estimates, we compare predicted takes to abundance estimates generated from the same underlying density estimates (as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the 2018 HSTT final rule), both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ. Because the portion of the Navy’s study area inside the U.S. EEZ is generally concomitant with the area used to generate the abundance estimates in the SARs, and the abundance predicted by the same underlying density estimates is the preferred abundance to use, there is no need to separately compare the take to the SARs abundance estimate. Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing activities.

TABLE 23—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, LEVEL A HARASSMENT, AND MORTALITY FOR BEAKED WHALES IN THE SOCAL PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Total takes Abundance Instances of total take as (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance) percent of abundance Level B harassment Species Stock Level A harassment Total takes Navy NMFS Total take as Total take as TTS (entire study abundance SARS percentage of percentage of Behavioral (may also Mortality area) in action abundance total Navy total SAR disturbance include Tissue area abundance in abundance disturbance) PTS damage action area

Baird’s beaked CA/OR/WA ...... 2,030 14 0 0 0 2,044 74 2,697 2,762 76 whale. Cuvier’s beaked CA/OR/WA ...... 11,373 127 1 0 0 11,501 520 3,274 2,212 351 whale. Mesoplodon spe- CA/OR/WA ...... 6,125 68 1 0 0 6,194 89 3,044 6,960 203 cies. Note: For the SOCAL take estimates, because of the manner in which the Navy study area overlaps the ranges of many MMPA stocks (i.e., a stock may range far north to Washington state and beyond and abundance may only be predicted within the U.S. EEZ, while the Navy study area is limited to Southern California and northern Mexico, but extends beyond the U.S. EEZ), we compare predicted takes to both the abundance estimates for the study area, as well as the SARs (as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the 2018 HSTT final rule). Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing activities.

Below we compile and summarize the Blainville’s, Cuvier’s, and Longman’s disruption), the number of estimated information that supports our Beaked Whales (Hawaii Stocks) instances of take compared to the determination that the Navy’s activities abundance, both throughout the HSTT will not adversely affect any species or The SAR does not identify a trend for Study Area and within the U.S. EEZ, stocks through effects on annual rates of these stocks and the species are not respectively, is 521–545 and 514–539 recruitment or survival for any of the listed under the ESA. No mortality or percent. This information and the stock affected stocks addressed in this section. Level A harassment are expected or ranges (at least of the small, resident authorized for any of these three stocks. Island associated stocks around Hawaii) Regarding the magnitude of Level B suggest that likely a fair portion of the harassment takes (TTS and behavioral stocks (but not all) will be impacted,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41883

over one to perhaps eleven days per is expected or authorized for any of Regarding the severity of those year, with little likelihood of much take these stocks and only two takes by Level individual Level B harassment takes by across sequential days. Regarding the A harassment (PTS) are expected and behavioral disruption, we have severity of those individual Level B authorized (one each for Cuvier’s explained that the duration of any harassment takes by behavioral beaked whale and the Mesoplodon exposure is expected to be between disruption, the duration of any exposure species). No Level A harassment by minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) is expected to be between minutes and tissue damage is anticipated or and the received sound levels largely hours (i.e., relatively short) and the authorized. below 160 dB, though with beaked received sound levels largely below 160 No methods are available to whales, which are considered somewhat dB, though with beaked whales, which distinguish between the six Mesoplodon more sensitive, this could mean that are considered somewhat more beaked whale CA/OR/WA stocks some individuals will leave preferred sensitive, this could mean that some (Blainville’s beaked whale (M. habitat for a day or two (i.e., of a individuals will leave preferred habitat densirostris), Perrin’s beaked whale (M. moderate level). While interrupted for a day or two (i.e., moderate level perrini), Lesser beaked whale (M. feeding bouts are a known response and takes). However, while interrupted peruvianus), Stejneger’s beaked whale concern for odontocetes, we also know feeding bouts are a known response and (M. stejnegeri), Gingko-toothed beaked that there are often viable alternative concern for odontocetes, we also know whale (M. gingkodens), and Hubbs’ habitat options in the relative vicinity. that there are often viable alternative beaked whale (M. carlhubbsi)) when However, as noted, some of these takes habitat options nearby. Additionally, as observed during at-sea surveys (Carretta could occur on a fair number of noted earlier, within the Hawaii Island et al., 2018). Bycatch and stranding sequential days for these stocks. mitigation area (which entirely contains records from the region indicate that the The severity of TTS takes are the BIAs for Cuvier’s and Blainville’s Hubbs’ beaked whale is most commonly expected to be low-level, of short beaked whales), explosives are not used encountered (Carretta et al., 2008, duration, and mostly not in a frequency and the use of MF1 and MF4 active Moore and Barlow, 2013). As indicated band that would be expected to interfere sonar is limited, greatly reducing the in the SAR, no species-specific significantly with conspecific severity of impacts to these two small abundance estimates are available, the communication, echolocation, or other resident populations. abundance estimate includes all CA/ important low-frequency cues. Regarding the severity of TTS takes, OR/WA Mesoplodon species, and the Therefore, the associated lost opportunities and capabilities are not they are expected to be low-level, of six species are managed as one unit. short duration, and mostly not in a expected to impact reproduction or Due to the lack of species-specific frequency band that would be expected survival. For similar reasons (as abundance estimates it is not possible to to interfere with beaked whale described in the 2018 HSTT final rule) predict the take of individual species communication or other important low- the single Level A harassment take each and take estimates are also identified as frequency cues, and the associated lost by PTS for the Cuvier’s beaked whale Mesoplodon species. opportunities and capabilities are not at stock and the Mesoplodon species is a level that will impact reproduction or Regarding the magnitude of Level B unlikely to have any effects on the survival. harassment takes (TTS and behavioral reproduction or survival of those Altogether, the population trend for disruption), the number of estimated individuals, even if it were to be the three stocks is unknown, a fair total instances of take compared to the experienced by an animal that also portion of these stocks are anticipated to abundance for these stocks is 2,762, experiences one or more Level B be impacted, and any individuals are 2,212, and 6,960 percent (measured harassment takes by behavioral likely to be disturbed at a moderate against Navy-estimated abundance) and disruption. level, with the taken individuals likely 76, 351, and 203 percent (measured Altogether, a portion of these stocks exposed between one and eleven days, against the SAR) for Baird’s beaked will likely be taken (at a moderate or with little chance that individuals are whales, Cuvier’s beaked whales, and sometimes low level) over several days taken across sequential days. No Mesoplodon species, respectively. Given a year, and some smaller portion of the mortality or Level A harassment are the ranges of these stocks, this stock is expected to be taken on a expected or authorized for any of these information suggests that some smaller relatively moderate to high number of three stocks. This low, to occasionally portion of the individuals of these days across the year, some of which moderate, magnitude and severity of stocks will be taken, and that some could be sequential days. No mortality harassment effects is not expected to subset of individuals within the stock is expected or authorized for any of result in impacts on individual will be taken repeatedly within the year these stocks. Two individuals (one each reproduction or survival, much less (perhaps up to 20–25 days, and for Cuvier’s beaked whale and the have impacts on annual rates of potentially more for Cuvier’s)— Mesoplodon species) are expected to be recruitment or survival for these stocks. potentially over a fair number of taken by PTS annually of likely low For these reasons, we have determined, sequential days, especially where severity. A small permanent loss of in consideration of all of the effects of individuals spend extensive time in the hearing sensitivity (PTS) may include the Navy’s activities combined, that the SOCAL Range. Note that we predict some degree of energetic costs for authorized take will have a negligible fewer days of repeated exposure for compensating or may mean some small impact on the Hawaii stocks of beaked these stocks than their percentages loss of opportunities or detection whales. might have suggested because of the capabilities, but at the expected scale number of overall takes—i.e., using the the estimated one Level A harassment Baird’s and Cuvier’s Beaked Whales and higher percentage would suggest that an take by PTS would be unlikely to Mesoplodon Species (all CA/OR/WA unlikely portion of the takes are taken impact behaviors, opportunities, or Stocks) up by a small portion of the stock detection capabilities to a degree that These species are not listed under the incurring a very large number of repeat would interfere with reproductive ESA and their populations have been takes, with little room for take resulting success or survival of that individual. identified as ‘‘stable,’’ ‘‘decreasing,’’ and from few or moderate numbers of Though the majority of impacts are ‘‘increasing,’’ respectively. No mortality repeats, which is unlikely. expected to be of a moderate severity,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41884 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

the repeated takes over a potentially fair Further, Navy activities have been population may exist in that small number of sequential days for some conducted in SOCAL for many years at portion of the stock’s overall range (e.g., individuals makes it more likely that a similar levels and the SAR considers Falcone et al., 2009; Falcone and small number of individuals could be Mesoplodon species as increasing and Schorr, 2014; Schorr et al., 2017). interrupted during foraging in a manner Baird’s beaked whales as stable. While For these reasons, in consideration of and amount such that impacts to the NMFS’ SAR indicates that Cuvier’s all of the effects of the Navy’s activities energy budgets of females (from either beaked whales on the U.S. West Coast combined, we have determined that the losing feeding opportunities or are declining based on a Bayesian trend authorized take will have a negligible expending considerable energy to find analysis of NMFS’ survey data collected impact on the CA/OR/WA stocks of alternative feeding options) could cause from 1991 through 2014, results from Baird’s and Cuvier’s beaked whales, as them to forego reproduction for a year. passive acoustic monitoring and other well as all six species included within Energetic impacts to males are generally research have estimated regional the Mesoplodon CA/OR/WA stocks. Cuvier’s beaked whale densities that meaningless to population rates unless Small Whales and Dolphins they cause death, and it takes extreme were higher than indicated by NMFS’ broad-scale visual surveys for the U.S. In Tables 24 and 25 below for energy deficits beyond what would ever West Coast (Debich et al., 2015a; Debich dolphins and small whales, we indicate be likely to result from these activities et al., 2015b; Falcone and Schorr, 2012, the total annual mortality, Level A and to cause the death of an adult marine 2014; Hildebrand et al., 2009; Moretti, Level B harassment, and a number mammal. As noted previously, however, 2016; Sˇ irovic´ et al., 2016; Smultea and indicating the instances of total take as foregone reproduction (especially for Jefferson, 2014). Research also indicates a percentage of abundance. Tables 24 one year, which is the maximum higher than expected residency in the and 25 are updated from Tables 77 and predicted because the small number Navy’s instrumented Southern 78 in the 2018 HSTT final rule as anticipated in any one year makes the California Anti-Submarine Warfare appropriate with the 2018 final SARs probability that any individual would Range in particular (Falcone and Schorr, and with updated information on be impacted in this way twice in seven 2012) and photo identification studies mortality, as discussed above. For years very low) has far less of an impact in the SOCAL have identified additional information and analysis on population rates than mortality and approximately 100 individual Cuvier’s supporting the negligible-impact a small number of instances of foregone beaked whale individuals with 40 analysis, see the Odontocetes discussion reproduction is not expected to percent having been seen in one or more as well as the Small Whales and adversely affect these stocks through prior years, with re-sightings up to Dolphins discussion in the Group and effects on annual rates of recruitment or seven years apart (Falcone and Schorr, Species-Specific Analyses section of the survival, especially given the residual 2014). The documented residency by 2018 HSTT final rule, all of which PBR of these three beaked whale stocks many Cuvier’s beaked whales over remains applicable to this final rule (16, 21, and 20, respectively). multiple years suggests that a stable unless specifically noted. TABLE 24—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, LEVEL A HARASSMENT, AND MORTALITY FOR DOLPHINS AND SMALL WHALES IN THE HRC PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Total takes Abundance Instance of total take as (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance) percent of abundance Level B harassment Takes Total Navy Species Stock Level A harassment Total takes (within Navy abundance Within EEZ Total take as EEZ take as TTS (entire study EEZ) inside and Navy percentage of percentage of Behavioral (may also Mortality area) outside of abundance total Navy Navy EEZ disturbance include Tissue EEZ (HRC) abundance abundance disturbance) PTS damage (HRC) (HRC) (HRC)

Bottlenose Hawaii Pe- 3,196 132 0 0 0 3,328 2,481 1,528 1,442 218 172 dolphin. lagic. Bottlenose Kauai & 534 31 0 0 0 565 264 184 184 307 143 dolphin. Niihau. Bottlenose Oahu ...... 8,600 61 1 0 0 8,662 8,376 743 743 1,169 1,130 dolphin. Bottlenose 4-Island ... 349 10 0 0 0 359 316 189 189 190 167 dolphin. Bottlenose Hawaii ..... 74 6 0 0 0 80 42 131 131 61 32 dolphin. False killer Hawaii Pe- 999 42 0 0 0 1,041 766 645 507 161 151 whale. lagic. False killer Main Ha- 572 17 0 0 0 589 476 147 147 400 324 whale. waiian Islands Insular. False killer North- 365 16 0 0 0 381 280 215 169 177 166 whale. western Hawai- ian Is- lands. Fraser’s Hawaii ..... 39,784 1,289 2 0 0 41,075 31,120 5,408 18,763 760 166 dolphin. Killer Hawaii ..... 118 6 0 0 0 124 93 69 54 180 172 whale. Melon- Hawaii Is- 3,261 231 0 0 0 3,492 2,557 1,782 1,782 196 143 headed lands. whale. Melon- Kohala 341 9 0 0 0 350 182 447 447 78 41 headed Resident. whale. Pantropical Hawaii Is- 3,767 227 0 0 0 3,994 2,576 2,405 2,405 166 107 spotted land. dolphin.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41885

TABLE 24—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, LEVEL A HARASSMENT, AND MORTALITY FOR DOLPHINS AND SMALL WHALES IN THE HRC PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE—Continued

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Total takes Abundance Instance of total take as (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance) percent of abundance Level B harassment Takes Total Navy Species Stock Level A harassment Total takes (within Navy abundance Within EEZ Total take as EEZ take as TTS (entire study EEZ) inside and Navy percentage of percentage of Behavioral (may also Mortality area) outside of abundance total Navy Navy EEZ disturbance include Tissue EEZ (HRC) abundance abundance disturbance) PTS damage (HRC) (HRC) (HRC)

Pantropical Hawaii Pe- 9,973 476 0 0 0 10,449 7,600 5,462 4,637 191 164 spotted lagic. dolphin. Pantropical Oahu ...... 4,284 45 0 0 0 4,329 4,194 372 372 1,164 1,127 spotted dolphin. Pantropical 4-Island ... 701 17 0 0 0 718 634 657 657 109 96 spotted dolphin. Pygmy kill- Hawaii ..... 8,122 402 0 0 0 8,524 6,538 4,928 3,931 173 166 er whale. Pygmy kill- Tropical ... 710 50 0 0 0 760 490 159 23 478 2,130 er whale. Risso’s Hawaii ..... 8,950 448 0 0 0 9,398 7,318 1,210 4,199 777 174 dolphin. Rough- Hawaii ..... 6,112 373 0 0 0 6,485 4,859 3,054 2,808 212 173 toothed dolphin. Short- Hawaii ..... 12,499 433 0 0 0 12,932 9,946 6,433 5,784 201 172 finned pilot whale. Spinner Hawaii Is- 279 12 0 0 0 291 89 629 629 46 14 dolphin. land. Spinner Hawaii Pe- 4,332 202 0 0 0 4,534 3,491 2,885 2,229 157 157 dolphin. lagic. Spinner Kauai & 1,683 63 0 0 0 1,746 812 604 604 289 134 dolphin. Niihau. Spinner Oahu & 4- 1,790 34 1 0 0 1,825 1,708 354 354 516 482 dolphin. Island. Striped Hawaii ..... 7,379 405 0 0 0 7,784 6,034 4,779 3,646 163 165 dolphin. Note: For the HI take estimates, we compare predicted takes to abundance estimates generated from the same underlying density estimates (as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the 2018 HSTT final rule), both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ. Because the portion of the Navy’s study area inside the U.S. EEZ is generally concomitant with the area used to generate the abundance estimates in the SARs, and the abundance predicted by the same underlying density estimates is the preferred abundance to use, there is no need to separately compare the take to the SARs abundance estimate. Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing activities.

TABLE 25—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, LEVEL A HARASSMENT, AND MORTALITY FOR DOLPHINS AND SMALL WHALES IN THE SOCAL PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE.

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Total takes Abundance Instance of total take as (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance) percent of abundance Level B harassment Navy Total take as Species Stock Level A harassment Total takes abundance NMFS percentage of Total take as TTS (may Mortality (entire study in action SARS total Navy percentage of Behavioral also include Tissue area) area abundance abundance in total SAR disturbance disturbance) PTS damage (SOCAL) action area abundance

Bottlenose dolphin California Coastal 1,771 38 0 0 0 1,809 238 453 760 399 Bottlenose dolphin CA/OR/WA Off- 51,727 3,695 3 0 0 55,425 5,946 1,924 932 2,881 shore. Killer whale ...... Eastern North Pa- 96 11 0 0 0 107 4 300 2,675 36 cific (ENP) Off- shore. Killer whale ...... ENP Transient/ 179 20 0 0 0 199 30 243 663 82 West Coast Transient. Long-beaked com- California ...... 233,485 13,787 18 2 0 247,292 10,258 101,305 2,411 244 mon dolphin. Northern right CA/OR/WA ...... 90,052 8,047 10 1 0 98,110 7,705 26,556 1,273 369 whale dolphin. Pacific white-sided CA/OR/WA ...... 69,245 6,093 5 0 0 75,343 6,626 26,814 1,137 281 dolphin. Risso’s dolphin .... CA/OR/WA ...... 116,143 10,118 9 0 0 126,270 7,784 6,336 1,622 1,993 Short-beaked CA/OR/WA ...... 1,374,048 118,525 79 10 1.14 1,492,664 261,438 969,861 571 154 common dolphin. Short-finned pilot CA/OR/WA ...... 1,789 124 1 0 0 1,914 208 836 920 229 whale. Striped dolphin.... CA/OR/WA ...... 163,640 11,614 3 0 0 175,257 39,862 29,211 440 600 Note: For the SOCAL take estimates, because of the manner in which the Navy study area overlaps the ranges of many MMPA stocks (i.e., a stock may range far north to Washington state and beyond and abundance may only be predicted within the U.S. EEZ, while the Navy study area is limited to Southern California and northern Mexico, but extends beyond the U.S. EEZ), we compare predicted takes to both the abundance estimates for the study area, as well as the SARs (as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the 2018 HSTT final rule). Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing activities. For mortality takes there is an annual average of 1.14 short-beaked common dolphins (i.e., where eight takes could potentially occur divided by seven years to get the annual number of mortalities/serious injuries). Mortality for the CA/OR/WA stock of short-beaked common dolphins was unintentionally presented incorrectly as 2 in Table 78 of the 2018 HSTT final rule. The correct value (updated for seven years of activity) is provided here. This transcription error does not affect the analysis or conclusions in the 2018 HSTT final rule, as the correct value was used in the analysis presented in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41886 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Below we compile and summarize the suggests that likely some portion (but survival of any individuals, even if it information that supports our not all or even the majority) of the were to be experienced by an animal determination that the Navy’s activities individuals in the northern right whale that also experiences one or more Level will not adversely affect any species or dolphin and short-beaked common B harassment takes by behavioral stocks through effects on annual rates of dolphin stocks are likely impacted, disruption. recruitment or survival for any of the while it is entirely possible that most or Altogether these stock statuses are affected stocks addressed in this section. all of the range-limited long-beaked considered ‘‘increasing,’’ ‘‘unknown,’’ Long-Beaked Common Dolphin common dolphin is taken. All three and ‘‘stable,’’ respectively. Eight (California Stock), Northern Right stocks likely will experience some mortalities of short-beaked common Whale Dolphin (CA/OR/WA Stock), and repeat Level B harassment exposure dolphins are authorized (1.14 takes Short-Beaked Common Dolphin (CA/ (perhaps up to 48, 25, and 11 days annually), and all three stocks may OR/WA Stock) within a year for long-beaked common experience a very small number of Level dolphins, northern right whale A harassment takes (relative to the stock None of these species is listed under dolphins, and short-beaked common abundance and PBR) by tissue damage the ESA and their stock statuses are dolphins, respectively) of some subset or PTS. The 18, 10, and 79 takes by PTS considered ‘‘increasing,’’ ‘‘unknown,’’ of individuals that spend extended time annually of likely low severity are and ‘‘stable,’’ respectively. Eight within the SOCAL range complex. unlikely to impact behaviors, mortalities or serious injuries of short- Regarding the severity of those opportunities, or detection capabilities beaked common dolphins are estimated individual Level B harassment takes by to a degree that would interfere with and authorized over the seven-year rule, behavioral disruption, the duration of reproductive success or survival of or 1.14 M/SI annually. The addition of any exposure is expected to be between this 1.14 annual mortality still leaves those individuals, let alone have effects minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) on annual rates of recruitment or the total human-caused mortality well and the received sound levels largely under the insignificance threshold for survival. Nonetheless, a moderate to below 172 dB with a portion up to 178 large portion of all three stocks will residual PBR. The three stocks are dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, expected to accrue 2, 1, and 10 Level A likely be taken (at a low to occasionally less likely to evoke a severe response). moderate level) over several days a year, harassment takes from tissue damage While interrupted feeding bouts are a resulting from exposure to explosives, and some smaller portion of these stocks known response and concern for is expected to be taken on a relatively respectively. As described in detail in odontocetes, we also know that there are the 2018 HSTT final rule, the impacts of moderate to high number of days across often viable alternative habitat options a Level A harassment take by tissue the year, some of which could be in the relative vicinity. However, some damage could range in impact from sequential days. Though the majority of of these takes could occur on a fair minor to something just less than M/SI impacts are expected to be of a lower to number of sequential days for long- that could seriously impact fitness. sometimes moderate severity, the larger beaked common dolphins or northern However, given the Navy’s procedural number of takes (in total and for certain right whale dolphins, or even some mitigation, exposure at the closer to the individuals) makes it more likely number of short-beaked common source and more severe end of the (probabilistically) that a small number dolphins, given the higher number of spectrum is less likely and we of individuals could be interrupted total takes (i.e., the probability that some cautiously assume some moderate during foraging in a manner and amount impact for these takes that could lower number of individuals get taken on a such that impacts to the energy budgets the affected individual’s fitness within higher number of sequential days is of females (from either losing feeding the year such that a female (assuming a higher, because the total take number is opportunities or expending considerable 50 percent chance of it being a female) relatively high, even though the energy to find alternative feeding might forego reproduction for one year. percentage is not that high). options) could cause them to forego As noted previously, foregone The severity of TTS takes is expected reproduction for a year. Energetic reproduction has less of an impact on to be low-level, of short duration, and impacts to males are generally population rates than death (especially mostly not in a frequency band that meaningless to population rates unless for only one year in seven, which is the would be expected to interfere they cause death, and it takes extreme maximum predicted because the small significantly with conspecific energy deficits beyond what would ever number anticipated in any one year communication, echolocation, or other be likely to result from these activities makes the probability that any important low-frequency cues, and the to cause the death of an adult marine individual would be impacted in this associated lost opportunities and mammal. As noted previously, however, way twice in seven years very low), and capabilities is not expected to impact foregone reproduction (especially for 1 to 10 instances is not expected to reproduction or survival. For these same only one year out of seven, which is the impact annual rates of recruitment or reasons (low level and frequency band), maximum predicted because the small survival for these stocks. while a small permanent loss of hearing number anticipated in any one year Regarding the magnitude of Level B sensitivity may include some degree of makes the probability that any harassment takes (TTS and behavioral energetic costs for compensating or may individual would be impacted in this disruption), the number of estimated mean some small loss of opportunities way twice in seven years very low) has total instances of take compared to the or detection capabilities, as discussed in far less of an impact on population rates abundance is 2,411, 1,273, and 571 the 2018 HSTT final rule, the 18, 10, than mortality and a small number of percent (measured against the Navy- and 79 Level A harassment takes by PTS instances of foregone reproduction estimated abundance) and 244, 369, and for long-beaked common dolphins, (including in combination with that 154 percent (measured against the SAR northern right whale dolphins, and which might result from the small abundance) for long-beaked common short-beaked common dolphins, number of Level A harassment takes dolphins, northern right whale respectively are unlikely to impact from tissue damage) along with the dolphins, and short-beaked common behaviors, opportunities, or detection estimated eight mortalities or serious dolphins, respectively. Given the range capabilities to a degree that would injuries for short-beaked common of these stocks, this information interfere with reproductive success or dolphins is not expected to adversely

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41887

affect any of the stocks through effects Regarding the severity of those number of individuals could be on annual rates of recruitment or individual Level B harassment takes by interrupted during foraging in a manner survival, especially given the very high behavioral disruption, we have and amount such that impacts to the residual PBRs of these stocks (621, 175, explained that the duration of any energy budgets of females (from either and 8,353, respectively). For these exposure is expected to be between losing feeding opportunities or reasons, in consideration of all of the minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) expending considerable energy to find effects of the Navy’s activities combined and the received sound levels largely alternative feeding options) could cause (mortality, Level A harassment, and below 172 dB (i.e., of a lower, or them to forego reproduction for a year. Level B harassment), we have sometimes moderate level, less likely to Energetic impacts to males are generally determined that the authorized take will evoke a severe response). While meaningless to population rates unless have a negligible impact on these three interrupted feeding bouts are a known they cause death, and it takes extreme stocks of dolphins. response and concern for odontocetes, energy deficits beyond what would ever we also know that there are often viable be likely to result from these activities All Other SOCAL Dolphin Stocks alternative habitat options in the to cause the death of an adult marine (Except Long-Beaked Common Dolphin, relative vicinity. However, as noted, mammal. As noted previously, however, Northern Right Whale Dolphin, and some of these takes could occur on a fair foregone reproduction (especially for Short-Beaked Common Dolphin) number of sequential days for the three only one year in seven, which is the None of these species is listed under stocks listed earlier. maximum predicted because the small the ESA and their stock statuses are The severity of TTS takes is expected number anticipated in any one year considered ‘‘unknown,’’ except for the to be low-level, of short duration, and makes the probability that any bottlenose dolphin (California coastal mostly not in a frequency band that individual would be impacted in this stock) and killer whale (Eastern North would be expected to interfere way twice in seven years very low) has Pacific stock), which are considered significantly with conspecific far less of an impact on population rates ‘‘stable.’’ No mortality or Level A communication, echolocation, or other than mortality and a small number of harassment via tissue damage from important low-frequency cues. For these instances of foregone reproduction is exposure to explosives is expected or same reasons (low level and frequency not expected to adversely affect the authorized for these stocks. band), while a small permanent loss of stocks through effects on annual rates of Regarding the magnitude of Level B hearing sensitivity (PTS) may include recruitment or survival, especially given harassment takes (TTS and behavioral some degree of energetic costs for the residual PBRs of the CA/OR/WA disruption), the number of estimated compensating or may mean some small stocks of bottlenose dolphins, Pacific total instances of take compared to the loss of opportunities or detection white-sided dolphins, and Risso’s abundance (measured against both the capabilities, it is unlikely to impact dolphins (9.4, 183, and 84, Navy-estimated abundance and the behaviors, opportunities, or detection respectively). For these reasons, in SAR) is from 440 to 2,675 percent and capabilities to a degree that would consideration of all of the effects of the 36 to 2,881 percent, respectively. Given interfere with reproductive success or Navy’s activities combined, we have the range of these stocks (along the survival of any individuals, even if it determined that the authorized take will entire U.S. West Coast, or even beyond, were to be experienced by an animal have a negligible impact on these stocks with some also extending seaward of the that also experiences one or more Level of dolphins. HSTT Study Area boundaries), this B harassment takes by behavioral information suggests that some portion disruption. All HRC Dolphin Stocks (but not all or even the majority) of the Altogether, the status of these stocks With the exception of the Main individuals of any of these stocks will is either unknown or stable. The small Hawaiian Island DPS of false killer be taken, with the exception that most number of annual estimated takes by whales (listed as endangered under the or all of the individuals of the more PTS of likely low severity for several ESA, with the MMPA stock identified as range-limited California coastal stock of stocks are unlikely to impact behaviors, ‘‘decreasing’’), none of these species are bottlenose dolphin may be taken. It is opportunities, or detection capabilities listed under the ESA and their stock also likely that some subset of to a degree that would interfere with statuses are considered ‘‘unknown.’’ No individuals within most of these stocks reproductive success or survival of mortality or Level A harassment via will be taken repeatedly within the year those individuals, let alone have effects tissue damage from exposure to (perhaps up to 10–15 days within a on annual rates of recruitment or explosives is expected or authorized for year), but for no more than several survival. A portion of all of these stocks these stocks. potentially sequential days, although will likely be taken (at a low to Regarding the magnitude of Level B the CA/OR/WA stocks of bottlenose occasionally moderate level) over harassment takes (TTS and behavioral dolphins, Pacific white-sided dolphins, several days a year, and some smaller disruption), the number of estimated and Risso’s dolphins may include portion of the CA/OR/WA stocks of total instances of take compared to the individuals that are taken repeatedly bottlenose dolphins, Pacific white-sided abundance (measured against both the within the year over a higher number of dolphins, and Risso’s dolphins, Navy-estimated abundance and the days (up to 57, 22, and 40 days, specifically, are expected to be taken on SAR) is from 46 to 1,169 percent and 41 respectively) and potentially over a fair a relatively moderate to high number of to 2,130 percent, respectively. Given the number of sequential days, especially days across the year, some of which ranges of these stocks (many of them are where individuals spend extensive time could be sequential days. Though the small, resident, island-associated in the SOCAL range complex. Note that majority of impacts are expected to be stocks), this information suggests that a though percentages are high for the of a lower to sometimes moderate fairly large portion of the individuals of Eastern North Pacific stock of killer severity, the larger number of takes (in many of these stocks will be taken, but whales and short-finned pilot whales, total and for certain individuals) for the that most individuals will only be given the low overall number of takes, CA/OR/WA stocks of bottlenose impacted across a smaller to moderate it is highly unlikely that any individuals dolphins, Pacific white-sided dolphins, number of days within the year (1–15), would be taken across the number of and Risso’s dolphins makes it more and with no more than several days their percentages suggest. likely (probabilistically) that a small potentially sequential days, although

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41888 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

two stocks (the Oahu stocks of sensitivity (PTS) may include some to cause the death of an adult marine bottlenose dolphin and pantropical degree of energetic costs for mammal. As noted previously, however, spotted dolphin) have a slightly higher compensating or may mean some small foregone reproduction (especially for percentage, suggesting they could be loss of opportunities or detection one year, which is the maximum taken up to 23 days within a year, with capabilities, they will be unlikely to predicted because the small number perhaps a few more of those days being impact behaviors, opportunities, or anticipated in any one year makes the sequential. We note that although the detection capabilities to a degree that probability that any individual would percentage is higher for the tropical would interfere with reproductive be impacted in this way twice in seven stock of pygmy killer whale within the success or survival of the one or two years very low) has far less of an impact U.S. EEZ (2,130), given (1) the low individuals from the three affected on population rates than mortality and overall number of takes (760) and (2) the stocks, even if accrued to individuals a small number of instances of foregone fact that the small within-U.S. EEZ that are also taken by behavioral reproduction is not expected to abundance is not a static set of harassment at the same time. adversely affect these two stocks individuals, but rather individuals Altogether, the status these stocks is through effects on annual rates of moving in and out of the U.S. EEZ unknown (with the exception of the recruitment or survival. No mortality is making it more appropriate to use the anticipated or authorized for any of percentage comparison for the total Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock identified as ‘‘decreasing’’) and most of these stocks. One or two individuals takes versus total abundance—it is from three stocks (see Table 24) are highly unlikely that any individuals these stocks (all but the Oahu stocks of bottlenose dolphin and pantropical expected to be taken by PTS annually of would be taken across the number of likely low severity, with this unlikely to days that the within-U.S. EEZ spotted dolphins) will likely be taken at a low to occasionally moderate level impact behaviors, opportunities, or percentage suggests which is 42. detection capabilities to a degree that Regarding the severity of those over several days a year, with some smaller portion of the stock potentially would interfere with reproductive individual Level B harassment takes by success or survival of those individuals, behavioral disruption, the duration of taken on a more moderate number of days across the year (perhaps up to 15 let alone have effects on annual rates of any exposure is expected to be between recruitment or survival. For these minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) days for Fraser’s dolphin, though others notably less), some of which could be reasons, in consideration of all of the and the received sound levels largely effects of the Navy’s activities below 172 dB (i.e., of a lower, or across a few sequential days, which is not expected to affect the reproductive combined, we have determined that the sometimes moderate level, less likely to authorized take will have a negligible evoke a severe response). While success or survival of individuals. For impact on all of the stocks of dolphins interrupted feeding bouts are a known the Oahu stocks of bottlenose dolphin found in the vicinity of the HRC. response and concern for odontocetes, and pantropical spotted dolphins, some we also know that there are often viable subset of individuals could be taken up Dall’s Porpoise alternative habitat options in the to 23 days in a year, with some small relative vicinity. However, as noted, number being taken across several In Table 26 below for porpoises, we some of these takes could occur on a fair sequential days, such that a small indicate the total annual mortality, number of sequential days for the Oahu number of individuals could be Level A and Level B harassment, and a stocks of bottlenose dolphin and interrupted during foraging in a manner number indicating the instances of total pantropical spotted dolphins. and amount such that impacts to the take as a percentage of abundance. Table Regarding the severity of TTS takes, energy budgets of females (from either 26 is unchanged from Table 79 in the they are expected to be low-level, of losing feeding opportunities or 2018 HSTT final rule. For additional short duration, and mostly not in a expending considerable energy to find information and analysis supporting the frequency band that would be expected alternative feeding options) could cause negligible-impact analysis, see the to interfere significantly with them to forego reproduction for a year. Odontocetes discussion as well as the conspecific communication, Energetic impacts to males are generally Dall’s Porpoise discussion in the Group echolocation, or other important low- meaningless to population rates unless and Species-Specific Analyses section frequency cues. For these same reasons they cause death, and it takes extreme of the 2018 HSTT final rule, all of which (low level and frequency band), while a energy deficits beyond what would ever remains applicable to this final rule small permanent loss of hearing be likely to result from these activities unless specifically noted. TABLE 26—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, LEVEL A HARASSMENT, AND MORTALITY FOR POR- POISES IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Total takes Abundance Instances of total take as (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance) percent of abundance Level B harassment Species Stock Level A harassment Total takes Navy NMFS Total take as Total take as TTS (entire study abundance SARS percentage of percentage of Behavioral (may also Mortality area) in action abundance total Navy total SAR disturbance include Tissue area abundance in abundance disturbance) PTS damage action area

Dall’s porpoise ..... CA/OR/WA ...... 14,482 29,891 209 0 0 44,582 2,054 25,750 2,170 173 Note: For the SOCAL take estimates, because of the manner in which the Navy study area overlaps the ranges of many MMPA stocks (i.e., a stock may range far north to Washington state and beyond and abundance may only be predicted within the U.S. EEZ, while the Navy study area is limited to Southern California and northern Mexico, but extends beyond the U.S. EEZ), we compare predicted takes to both the abundance estimates for the study area, as well as the SARs (as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the 2018 HSTT final rule). Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing activities.

Below we compile and summarize the determination that the Navy’s activities stock of Dall’s porpoises through effects information that supports our will not adversely affect the CA/OR/WA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41889

on annual rates of recruitment or SOCAL range complex. Regarding the a manner and amount such that impacts survival. severity of those individual Level B to the energy budgets of females (from Dall’s porpoise is not listed under the harassment takes by behavioral either losing feeding opportunities or ESA and the stock status is considered disruption, the duration of any exposure expending considerable energy to find ‘‘unknown.’’ No mortality or Level A is expected to be between minutes and alternative feeding options) could cause harassment via tissue damage from hours (i.e., relatively short) and the them to forego reproduction for a year. exposure to explosives is expected or received sound levels largely below 172 Energetic impacts to males are generally authorized for this stock. dB (i.e., of a lower, or sometimes meaningless to population rates unless Most Level B harassments to Dall’s moderate level, less likely to evoke a they cause death, and it takes extreme porpoise from hull-mounted sonar severe response). While interrupted energy deficits beyond what would ever (MF1) in the HSTT Study Area would feeding bouts are a known response and be likely to result from these activities result from received levels between 154 concern for odontocetes, we also know to cause the death of an adult marine and 166 dB SPL (85 percent). While that there are often viable alternative mammal. Similarly, we acknowledge harbor porpoises have been observed to habitat options in the relative vicinity. the potential for this to occur to a few be especially sensitive to human However, as noted, some of these takes activity, the same types of responses individuals out of the 209 total that could occur on a fair number of might incur a higher degree of PTS. As have not been observed in Dall’s sequential days for this stock. porpoises. Dall’s porpoises are typically The severity of TTS takes is expected noted previously, however, foregone notably longer than, and weigh more to be low-level, of short duration, and reproduction (especially for only one than twice as much as, harbor mostly not in a frequency band that year in seven, which is the maximum porpoises, making them generally less would be expected to interfere predicted because the small number likely to be preyed upon and likely significantly with conspecific anticipated in any one year makes the differentiating their behavioral communication, echolocation, or other probability that any individual will be repertoire somewhat from harbor important low-frequency cues. impacted in this way twice in seven porpoises. Further, they are typically Therefore, the associated lost years very low) has far less of an impact seen in large groups and feeding opportunities and capabilities are not on population rates than mortality. aggregations, or exhibiting bow-riding expected to impact reproduction or Further, the small number of instances behaviors, which is very different from survival. For these same reasons (low of foregone reproduction that could the group dynamics observed in the level and the likely frequency band), potentially result from PTS and/or the more typically solitary, cryptic harbor while a small permanent loss of hearing few repeated, more severe Level B porpoises, which are not often seen sensitivity may include some degree of harassment takes by behavioral bow-riding. For these reasons, Dall’s energetic costs for compensating or may disruption is not expected to adversely porpoises are not treated as an mean some small loss of opportunities affect the stock through effects on especially sensitive species (as or detection capabilities, the estimated annual rates of recruitment or survival, compared to harbor porpoises which 209 Level A harassment takes by PTS especially given the status of the species have a lower threshold for Level B for Dall’s porpoise is unlikely to impact (not endangered or threatened; harassment by behavioral disruption behaviors, opportunities, or detection minimum population of 25,170 just and more distant cutoff) but, rather, are capabilities to a degree that would within the U.S. EEZ) and residual PBR analyzed similarly to other odontocetes. interfere with reproductive success or of Dall’s porpoise (171.4). For these Therefore, the majority of Level B survival for most individuals. Because reasons, in consideration of all of the harassment takes are expected to be in of the more substantial number of PTS effects of the Navy’s activities the form of milder responses compared takes, however, we acknowledge that a combined, we have determined that the to higher level exposures. As discussed few animals could potentially incur authorized take will have a negligible more fully in the 2018 HSTT final rule, permanent hearing loss of a higher impact on the CA/OR/WA stock of we anticipate more severe effects from degree that could potentially interfere Dall’s porpoises. takes when animals are exposed to with their successful reproduction and higher received levels. growth. Given the status of the stock, Pinnipeds Regarding the magnitude of Level B even if this occurred, it will not harassment takes (TTS and behavioral adversely impact annual rates of In Tables 27 and 28 below for disruption), the number of estimated recruitment or survival. pinnipeds, we indicate the total annual total instances of take compared to the Altogether, the status of this stock is mortality, Level A and Level B abundance (measured against both the unknown, a portion of this stock will harassment, and a number indicating Navy-estimated abundance and the likely be taken (at a low to occasionally the instances of total take as a SAR) is 2,170 and 173 percent, moderate level) over several days a year, percentage of abundance. Tables 27 and respectively. Given the range of this and some smaller portion of the stock is 28 have been updated from Tables 80 stock (up the U.S. West Coast through expected to be taken on a relatively and 81 in the 2018 HSTT final rule, as Washington and sometimes beyond the moderate to high number of days across appropriate, with the 2018 final SARs U.S. EEZ), this information suggests that the year, some of which could be and updated information on mortality, some smaller portion of the individuals sequential days. Though the majority of as discussed above. For additional of this stock will be taken, and that impacts are expected to be of a lower to information and analysis supporting the some subset of individuals within the sometimes moderate severity, the larger negligible-impact analysis, see the stock will be taken repeatedly within number of takes (in total and for certain Pinnipeds discussion in the Group and the year (perhaps up to 42 days)— individuals) for the Dall’s porpoise Species-Specific Analyses section of the potentially over a fair number of makes it more likely (probabilistically) 2018 HSTT final rule, all of which sequential days, especially where that a small number of individuals remains applicable to this final rule individuals spend extensive time in the could be interrupted during foraging in unless specifically noted.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41890 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 27—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, LEVEL A HARASSMENT, AND MORTALITY FOR PINNIPEDS IN THE HRC PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Total takes Abundance Instances of total take as (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance) percent of abundance Level B harassment Total Navy Species Level A harassment Total takes Takes abundance Within EEZ Total take as EEZ take as TTS (entire study (within inside and Navy percentage of percentage of Behavioral (may also Mortality area) NAVY EEZ) outside abundance total Navy Navy EEZ disturbance include Tissue EEZ (HRC) (HRC) abundance abundance disturbance) PTS damage (HRC) (HRC)

Hawaiian monk 143 ...... 62 1 0 0 206 195 169 169 122 115 seal. Note: For the HI take estimates, we compare predicted takes to abundance estimates generated from the same underlying density estimates (as described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the 2018 HSTT final rule), both in and outside of the U.S. EEZ. Because the portion of the Navy’s study area inside the U.S. EEZ is generally concomitant with the area used to generate the abundance estimates in the SARs, and the abundance predicted by the same underlying density estimates is the preferred abundance to use, there is no need to separately compare the take to the SARs abundance estimate. Total takes inside and outside U.S. EEZ represent the sum of annual Level A and Level B harassment from training and testing activities.

TABLE 28—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, LEVEL A HARASSMENT, AND MORTALITY FOR PINNIPEDS IN THE SOCAL PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Total takes Abundance Instances of total take as (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance) percent of abundance Level B harassment Navy Species Stock Level A harassment Total takes abundance NMFS Total take as Total take as TTS (entire study in action SARS percentage of percentage of Behavioral (may also Mortality area) area abundance total Navy total SAR disturbance include Tissue (SOCAL) abundance in abundance disturbance) PTS damage action area

California sea lion U.S...... 113,419 4,789 87 9 0.71 118,305 4,085 257,606 2,896 46 Guadalupe fur Mexico ...... 1,442 15 0 0 0 1,457 1,171 20,000 124 7 seal. Northern fur seal California ...... 15,167 124 1 0 0 15,292 886 14,050 1,726 109 Harbor seal ...... California ...... 2,450 2,994 8 0 0 5,452 321 30,968 1,698 18 Northern elephant California ...... 42,916 17,955 97 2 0 60,970 4,108 179,000 1,484 34 seal. Note: For the SOCAL take estimates, because of the manner in which the Navy action area overlaps the ranges of many MMPA stocks (i.e., a stock may range far north to Washington state and beyond and abundance may only be predicted within the U.S. EEZ, while the Navy action area is limited to Southern California and northern Mexico, but extends beyond the U.S. EEZ), we compare predicted takes to both the abundance estimates for the action area, as well as the SARs. For mortality takes there is an annual average of 0.71 California sea lions (i.e., where five takes could potentially occur divided by seven years to get the annual number of mortalities/serious injuries).

Below we compile and summarize the (assuming a 50 percent chance of it (measured against both the Navy- information that supports our being a female) might forego estimated abundance and the SAR) for determination that the Navy’s activities reproduction for one year. As noted these stocks is 1,484 to 2,896 percent will not adversely affect any pinnipeds previously, foregone reproduction has and 18 to 40 percent, respectively. through effects on annual rates of less of an impact on population rates Given the ranges of these stocks (i.e., recruitment or survival for any of the than death (especially for only one very large ranges, but with individuals affected stocks addressed in this section. within seven years, which is the often staying in the vicinity of haul Five M/SI takes of California sea lions maximum predicted because the small outs), this information suggests that over the seven years of the rule, or 0.71 number anticipated in any one year some very small portion of the mortality annually, are authorized, makes the probability that any individuals of these stocks will be which falls well below the individual would be impacted in this taken, but that some subset of insignificance threshold for residual way twice in seven years very low) and individuals within the stock will be PBR (13,685). No mortality is these low numbers of instances taken repeatedly within the year anticipated or authorized for any other (especially assuming the likelihood that (perhaps up to 58 days)—potentially pinniped stocks. A small number of only 50 percent of the takes would affect over a fair number of sequential days. Level A harassment takes by tissue females) are not expected to impact Regarding the severity of those damage are also authorized for two annual rates of recruitment or survival, individual Level B harassment takes by stocks (9 and 2 for California sea lions especially given the population sizes of behavioral disruption, the duration of and northern elephant seals, these species. any exposure is expected to be between respectively), which, as discussed in the Regarding the magnitude of Level B minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) 2018 HSTT final rule, could range in harassment takes (TTS and behavioral and the received sound levels largely impact from minor to something just disruption), for Hawaiian monk seals below 172 dB, which is considered a less than M/SI that could seriously and Guadalupe fur seals, the two relatively low to occasionally moderate impact fitness. However, given the species listed under the ESA, the level for pinnipeds. However, as noted, Navy’s mitigation, exposure at the closer estimated instances of takes as some of these takes could occur on a fair to the source and more severe end of the compared to the stock abundance does number of sequential days for these spectrum is less likely. Nevertheless, we not exceed 124 percent, which suggests stocks. cautiously assume some moderate that some portion of these two stocks As described in the 2018 HSTT final impact on the individuals that would be taken on one to a few days per rule, the Hawaii and 4-Islands experience these small numbers of take year. For the remaining stocks, the mitigation areas protect (by not using that could lower the individual’s fitness number of estimated total instances of explosives and limiting MFAS within within the year such that a female take compared to the abundance them) a significant portion of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41891

designated critical habitat for Hawaiian expected to be of a lower to sometimes well as the increasing status of the stock monk seals in the Main Hawaiian moderate severity, the repeated takes in the presence of similar levels of Navy Islands, including all of it around the over a potentially fair number of activities over past years, the impacts of islands of Hawaii and Lanai, most sequential days for some individuals potential foregone reproduction for up around Maui, and good portions around makes it more likely that some number to two individuals in a year taken by Molokai and Kaho’olawe. As discussed, of individuals could be interrupted tissue damage, the effects of Level A this protection reduces the overall during foraging in a manner and amount harassment by PTS, and some relatively number of takes, and further reduces the such that impacts to the energy budgets small number of individuals taken as a severity of effects by minimizing of females (from either losing feeding result of repeated behavioral harassment impacts near pupping beaches and in opportunities or expending considerable over a fair number of sequential days are important foraging habitat. energy to find alternative feeding not expected to adversely affect the The severity of TTS takes are options) could cause them to forego stock through effects on annual rates of expected to be low-level, of short reproduction for a year (energetic recruitment or survival. For these duration, and mostly not in a frequency impacts to males are generally reasons, in consideration of all of the band that would be expected to interfere meaningless to population rates unless effects of the Navy’s activities combined significantly with conspecific they cause death, and it takes extreme (M/SI, Level A harassment, and Level B communication, echolocation, or other energy deficits beyond what would ever harassment), we have determined that important low-frequency cues that be likely to result from these activities the authorized take will have a would affect the individual’s to cause the death of an adult marine negligible impact on all pinniped reproduction or survival. For these same mammal). As noted previously, stocks. reasons (low level and frequency band), however, foregone reproduction Determination while a small permanent loss of hearing (especially for only one year within sensitivity may include some degree of seven, which is the maximum predicted The 2018 HSTT final rule included a energetic costs for compensating or may because the small number anticipated in detailed discussion of all of the mean some small loss of opportunities any one year makes the probability that anticipated impacts on the affected or detection capabilities, the one to any individual will be impacted in this species and stocks from serious injury eight estimated Level A harassment way twice in seven years very low) has or mortality, Level A harassment, and takes by PTS for monk seals, northern far less of an impact on population rates Level B harassment; impacts on habitat; and how the Navy’s mitigation and fur seals, and harbor seals are unlikely than mortality and a relatively small monitoring measures reduce the number to impact behaviors, opportunities, or number of instances of foregone and/or severity of adverse effects. We detection capabilities to a degree that reproduction (as compared to the stock evaluated how these impacts and would interfere with reproductive abundance and residual PBR) is not mitigation measures are expected to success or survival of any individuals, expected to adversely affect the stock combine, annually, to affect individuals even if it were to be experienced by an through effects on annual rates of of each species and stock. Those effects animal that also experiences one or recruitment or survival, especially given were then evaluated in the context of more Level B harassment takes by the status of these stocks. Accordingly, whether they are reasonably likely to behavioral disruption. Because of the we do not anticipate the relatively small high number of PTS takes for California impact reproductive success or number of individual Northern fur seals survivorship of individuals and then, if sea lions and northern elephant seals or harbor seals that might be taken over (87 and 97, respectively); however, we so, further analyzed to determine repeated days within the year in a acknowledge that a few animals could whether there would be effects on manner that results in one year of potentially incur permanent hearing annual rates of recruitment or survival foregone reproduction to adversely loss of a higher degree that could that would adversely affect the species affect the stocks through effects on rates potentially interfere with their or stock. of recruitment or survival, given the successful reproduction and growth. As described above, the basis for the status of the stocks, which are Given the status of the stocks (along negligible impact determination is the respectively increasing and stable with with residual PBRs of 13,686 and 4,873, assessment of effects on annual rates of abundances of 14,050 and 30,968 and respectively), even if this occurred, it recruitment and survival. Accordingly, residual PBRs of 449 and 1,598. will not adversely impact annual rates the analysis included in the 2018 HSTT of recruitment or survival. For California sea lions, given the final rule used annual activity levels, Altogether, any individual Hawaiian very high abundance and residual PBR the best available science, and approved monk seal and Guadalupe fur seal (257,606 and 13,685, respectively), as methods to predict the annual impacts would be taken no more than a few days well as the increasing status of the stock to marine mammals, which were then in any year, with none of the expected in the presence of similar levels of Navy analyzed in the context of whether each take anticipated to affect individual activities over past years—the impacts species or stock would incur more than reproduction or survival, let alone of 0.71 annual mortalities, potential a negligible impact based on anticipated annual rates of recruitment and foregone reproduction for up to nine adverse impacts to annual rates of survival. With all other stocks, only a individuals in a year taken by tissue recruitment or survival. As we have very small portion of the stock will be damage, the effects of Level A described above, none of the factors taken in any manner. Of those taken, harassment by PTS, and some relatively upon which the conclusions in the 2018 some individuals will be taken by Level small number of individuals taken as a HSTT final rule were based have B harassment (at a moderate or result of repeated behavioral harassment changed. Therefore, even though this sometimes low level) over several days over a fair number of sequential days are final rule includes two additional years, a year, and some smaller portion of not expected to adversely affect the because our findings are based on those taken will be on a relatively stock through effects on annual rates of annual rates of recruitment and moderate to high number of days across recruitment or survival. Similarly, for survival, and little has changed that the year (up to 58), a fair number of Northern elephant seals, given the very would change our 2018 HSTT final rule which will likely be sequential days. high abundance and residual PBR annual analyses, it is appropriate to rely Though the majority of impacts are (179,000 and 4,873, respectively), as on those analyses, as well as the new

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41892 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

information and analysis discussed warranted. The incidental take circumstances or information relevant to above, for this final rule. statement that accompanied the 2018 environmental concerns or its impacts. Based on the applicable information Biological Opinion has been amended to Therefore, NMFS has determined that and analysis from the 2018 HSTT final cover the seven-year period of the rule. the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and 2018 rule as updated with the information The 2018 Biological Opinion for this NMFS ROD remain valid, and there is and analysis contained herein on the action is available at https:// no need to supplement either document potential and likely effects of the www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ for this rulemaking. marine-mammal-protection/incidental- specified activities on the affected Regulatory Flexibility Act marine mammals and their habitat, and take-authorizations-military-readiness- taking into consideration the activities. The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not implementation of the monitoring and National Marine Sanctuaries Act mitigation measures, NMFS finds that significant for purposes of Executive the incidental take from the specified Federal agency actions that are likely Order 12866. activities will have a negligible impact to injure national marine sanctuary Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility on all affected marine mammal species resources are subject to consultation Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for and stocks. with the Office of National Marine Regulation of the Department of Sanctuaries (ONMS) under section Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel Subsistence Harvest of Marine 304(d) of the National Marine for Advocacy of the Small Business Mammals Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). There are two Administration during the proposed There are no subsistence uses or national marine sanctuaries in the HSTT rule stage that this action would not harvest of marine mammals in the Study Area, the Hawaiian Islands have a significant economic impact on geographic area affected by the specified Humpback Whale National Marine a substantial number of small entities. activities. Therefore, NMFS has Sanctuary and the Channel Islands The factual basis for the certification determined that the total taking National Marine Sanctuary. NMFS has was published in the proposed rule and affecting species or stocks would not fulfilled its responsibilities and is not repeated here. No comments were have an unmitigable adverse impact on completed all requirements under the received regarding this certification. As the availability of such species or stocks NMSA. a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis for taking for subsistence purposes. was not required and none was National Environmental Policy Act prepared. Classification To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Waiver of Delay in Effective Date Under Endangered Species Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Administrative Procedure Act There are nine marine mammal NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) NMFS has determined that there is species under NMFS jurisdiction that 216–6A, NMFS must evaluate our good cause under the Administrative are listed as endangered or threatened proposed actions and alternatives with Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) to waive under the ESA with confirmed or respect to potential impacts on the the 30-day delay in the effective date for possible occurrence in the HSTT Study human environment. NMFS this rule. This rule relieves the Navy Area: Blue whale, fin whale, gray whale, participated as a cooperating agency on from the restrictions of the take humpback whale (Mexico and Central the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS (published prohibitions under the MMPA by America DPSs), sei whale, sperm whale, on October 26, 2018, http:// granting the Navy’s request for false killer whale (Main Hawaiian www.hstteis.com) which evaluated incidental take authorization under Islands Insular DPS), Hawaiian monk impacts from Navy training and testing MMPA section 101(a)(5)(A). In addition, seal, and Guadalupe fur seal. There is activities in the HSTT Study Area for there is good cause to waive the 30-day also ESA-designated critical habitat for the reasonably foreseeable future effective date period because the Hawaiian monk seals and Main (including through 2025). In accordance regulations are identical to those that Hawaiian Islands Insular false killer with 40 CFR 1506.3, NMFS the Navy has been implementing since whales. The Navy consulted with NMFS independently reviewed and evaluated November 2018 (except for a small pursuant to section 7 of the ESA for the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS and number of minor, technical HSTT activities. NMFS also consulted determined that it was adequate and clarifications that do not affect internally on the issuance of the 2018 sufficient to meet our responsibilities implementation). The only substantive HSTT regulations and LOAs under under NEPA for the issuance of the 2018 change in the regulations is to extend section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. HSTT final rule and associated LOAs. the mitigation measures and the NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on NOAA therefore adopted the 2018 monitoring and reporting requirements December 10, 2018 concluding that the HSTT FEIS/OEIS. for an additional two years, until issuance of the 2018 HSTT final rule In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9 December 20, 2025. The Navy is the and subsequent LOAs are not likely to and the information and analysis only entity affected by the regulations, jeopardize the continued existence of contained in this final rule, NMFS has the Navy specifically requested the threatened and endangered species determined that this final rule and the extension of the regulatory requirements under NMFS’ jurisdiction and are not subsequent LOAs will not result in for the two years, and the Navy has fully likely to result in the destruction or impacts that were not fully considered agreed to these requirements for the adverse modification of critical habitat in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS. In additional two years through its in the HSTT Study Area. addition, as indicated in this final rule, application for incidental take The 2018 Biological Opinion included the addition of two years of authorized authorization. The Navy is anticipating specified conditions under which incidental take associated with the same finalization of the rule. For all these NMFS would be required to reinitiate activities conducted in the same reasons, there is no need for a period of section 7 consultation. The agency geographic area and having the same time following publication of the rule reviewed these specified conditions for potential effects on the same species for the Navy to bring its training and this rulemaking and determined that and stocks is not a substantial change to testing operations into compliance with reinitiation of consultation was not the action, nor are there significant new the requirements of the rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41893

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218 Subpart H—Taking and Importing (1) Training. (i) Amphibious warfare; Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Hawaii- (ii) Anti-submarine warfare; Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental Southern California Training and (iii) Electronic warfare; take, Indians, Labeling, Marine Testing (HSTT) (iv) Expeditionary warfare; mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting (v) Mine warfare; and recordkeeping requirements, § 218.70 Specified activity and (vi) Surface warfare; and Seafood, Sonar, Transportation. geographical region. (vii) Pile driving. Dated: June 26, 2020 (a) Regulations in this subpart apply (2) Testing. (i) Naval Air Systems only to the U.S. Navy (Navy) for the Samuel D. Rauch III, Command Testing Activities; taking of marine mammals that occurs Deputy Assistant Administrator for (ii) Naval Sea Systems Command in the area described in paragraph (b) of Testing Activities; Regulatory Programs, National Marine this section and that occurs incidental Fisheries Service. (iii) Office of Naval Research Testing to the activities listed in paragraph (c) Activities; and For reasons set forth in the preamble, of this section. (iv) Naval Information Warfare 50 CFR part 218 is amended as follows: (b) The taking of marine mammals by Systems Command. the Navy under this subpart may be PART 218—REGULATIONS authorized in Letters of Authorization § 218.71 Effective dates. GOVERNING THE TAKING AND (LOAs) only if it occurs within the Regulations in this subpart are IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS Hawaii-Southern California Training effective from July 10, 2020, through and Testing (HSTT) Study Area, which December 20, 2025. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 218 includes established operating and continues to read as follows: warning areas across the north-central § 218.72 Permissible methods of taking. Pacific Ocean, from the mean high tide (a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless line in Southern California west to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.76, otherwise noted. Hawaii and the International Date Line. the Holder of the LOAs (hereinafter ■ 2. Revise subpart H to read as follows: The Study Area includes the at-sea areas ‘‘Navy’’) may incidentally, but not of three existing range complexes, the intentionally, take marine mammals Subpart H—Taking and Importing Marine Hawaii Range Complex (HRC), the within the area described in § 218.70(b) Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Hawaii-Southern by Level A harassment and Level B California Training and Testing (HSTT) Southern California Range Complex (SOCAL), and the Silver Strand Training harassment associated with the use of Sec. Complex, and overlaps a portion of the active sonar and other acoustic sources 218.70 Specified activity and geographical Point Mugu Sea Range (PMSR). Also and explosives as well as serious injury region. included in the Study Area are Navy or mortality associated with vessel 218.71 Effective dates. pierside locations in Hawaii and strikes and explosives, provided the 218.72 Permissible methods of taking. 218.73 Prohibitions. Southern California, Pearl Harbor, San activity is in compliance with all terms, 218.74 Mitigation requirements. Diego Bay, and the transit corridor on conditions, and requirements of these 218.75 Requirements for monitoring and the high seas where sonar training and regulations in this subpart and the reporting. testing may occur. applicable LOAs. 218.76 Letters of Authorization. (c) The taking of marine mammals by (b) The incidental take of marine 218.77 Renewals and modifications of the Navy is only authorized if it occurs mammals by the activities listed in Letters of Authorization. incidental to the Navy conducting § 218.70(c) is limited to the following 218.78–218.79 [Reserved] training and testing activities, including: species:

TABLE 1 TO § 218.72

Species Stock

Blue whale ...... Central North Pacific. Blue whale ...... Eastern North Pacific. Bryde’s whale ...... Eastern Tropical Pacific. Bryde’s whale ...... Hawaii. Fin whale ...... CA/OR/WA. Fin whale ...... Hawaiian. Humpback whale ...... CA/OR/WA. Humpback whale ...... Central North Pacific. Minke whale ...... CA/OR/WA. Minke whale ...... Hawaii. Sei whale ...... Eastern North Pacific. Sei whale ...... Hawaii. Gray whale ...... Eastern North Pacific. Gray whale ...... Western North Pacific. Sperm whale ...... CA/OR/WA. Sperm whale ...... Hawaii. Dwarf sperm whale ...... Hawaii. Pygmy sperm whale ...... Hawaii. Kogia whales ...... CA/OR/WA. Baird’s beaked whale ...... CA/OR/WA. Blainville’s beaked whale ...... Hawaii. Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... CA/OR/WA. Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... Hawaii. Longman’s beaked whale ...... Hawaii. Mesoplodon spp...... CA/OR/WA.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41894 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1 TO § 218.72—Continued

Species Stock

Bottlenose dolphin ...... California Coastal. Bottlenose dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA Offshore. Bottlenose dolphin ...... Hawaii Pelagic. Bottlenose dolphin ...... Kauai & Niihau. Bottlenose dolphin ...... Oahu. Bottlenose dolphin ...... 4-Island. Bottlenose dolphin ...... Hawaii. False killer whale ...... Hawaii Pelagic. False killer whale ...... Main Hawaiian Islands Insular. False killer whale ...... Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Fraser’s dolphin ...... Hawaii. Killer whale ...... Eastern North Pacific (ENP) Offshore. Killer whale ...... ENP Transient/West Coast Transient. Killer whale ...... Hawaii. Long-beaked common dolphin ...... California. Melon-headed whale ...... Hawaiian Islands. Melon-headed whale ...... Kohala Resident. Northern right whale dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA. Pacific white-sided dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA. Pantropical spotted dolphin ...... Hawaii Island. Pantropical spotted dolphin ...... Hawaii Pelagic. Pantropical spotted dolphin ...... Oahu. Pantropical spotted dolphin ...... 4-Island. Pygmy killer whale ...... Hawaii. Pygmy killer whale ...... Tropical. Risso’s dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA. Risso’s dolphin ...... Hawaii. Rough-toothed dolphin ...... Hawaii. Short-beaked common dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA. Short-finned pilot whale ...... CA/OR/WA. Short-finned pilot whale ...... Hawaii. Spinner dolphin ...... Hawaii Island. Spinner dolphin ...... Hawaii Pelagic. Spinner dolphin ...... Kauai & Niihau. Spinner dolphin ...... Oahu & 4-Island. Striped dolphin ...... CA/OR/WA. Striped dolphin ...... Hawaii. Dall’s porpoise ...... CA/OR/WA. California sea lion ...... U.S. Guadalupe fur seal ...... Mexico. Northern fur seal ...... California. Harbor seal ...... California. Hawaiian monk seal ...... Hawaii. Northern elephant seal ...... California. Note to Table 1: CA/OR/WA = California/Oregon/Washington.

§ 218.73 Prohibitions. § 218.74 Mitigation requirements. mines, anti-swimmer grenades, and mat Notwithstanding incidental takings When conducting the activities weave and obstacle loading), and contemplated in § 218.72(a) and identified in § 218.70(c), the mitigation physical disturbance and strike stressors authorized by LOAs issued under measures contained in any LOAs issued (i.e., vessel movement; towed in-water §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.76, under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and devices; small-, medium-, and large- no person in connection with the 218.76 must be implemented. These caliber non-explosive practice activities listed in § 218.70(c) may: mitigation measures include, but are not munitions; non-explosive missiles and (a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the limited to: rockets; and non-explosive bombs and terms, conditions, and requirements of (a) Procedural mitigation. Procedural mine shapes). this subpart or an LOA issued under mitigation is mitigation that the Navy (1) Environmental awareness and §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.76; must implement whenever and education. Appropriate Navy personnel (b) Take any marine mammal not wherever an applicable training or (including civilian personnel) involved specified in § 218.72(b); testing activity takes place within the in mitigation, monitoring, and training (c) Take any marine mammal HSTT Study Area for each applicable or testing activity reporting under the specified in § 218.72(b) in any manner activity category or stressor category and specified activities will complete one or other than as specified in the LOAs; or includes acoustic stressors (i.e., active more modules of the U.S. Navy Afloat (d) Take a marine mammal specified sonar, air guns, pile driving, weapons Environmental Compliance Training in § 218.72(b) if NMFS determines such firing noise), explosive stressors (i.e., Series, as identified in their career path taking results in more than a negligible sonobuoys, torpedoes, medium-caliber training plan. Modules include: impact on the species or stocks of such and large-caliber projectiles, missiles Introduction to the U.S. Navy Afloat marine mammal. and rockets, bombs, sinking exercises, Environmental Compliance Training

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41895

Series, Marine Species Awareness active sonar, Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine Training; U.S. Navy Protective Measures observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are Assessment Protocol; and U.S. Navy mammals and power down active sonar observed, Navy personnel must relocate Sonar Positional Reporting System and transmission by 6 dB if marine or delay the start of air gun use. Marine Mammal Incident Reporting. mammals are observed within 1,000 yd (B) During the activity, Navy (2) Active sonar. Active sonar of the sonar source; power down by an personnel must observe the mitigation includes low-frequency active sonar, additional 4 dB (for a total of 10 dB zone for marine mammals; if marine mid-frequency active sonar, and high- total) if marine mammals are observed mammals are observed, Navy personnel frequency active sonar. For vessel-based within 500 yd of the sonar source; and must cease air gun use. activities, mitigation applies only to cease transmission if marine mammals (C) Commencement/recommencement sources that are positively controlled are observed within 200 yd of the sonar conditions after a marine mammal and deployed from manned surface source. sighting before or during the activity. vessels (e.g., sonar sources towed from (D) During the activity for low- Navy personnel must allow a sighted manned surface platforms). For aircraft- frequency active sonar below 200 dB, marine mammal to leave the mitigation based activities, mitigation applies only mid-frequency active sonar sources that zone prior to the initial start of the to sources that are positively controlled are not hull mounted, and high- activity (by delaying the start) or during and deployed from manned aircraft that frequency active sonar, Navy personnel the activity (by not recommencing air do not operate at high altitudes (e.g., must observe the mitigation zone for gun use) until one of the following rotary-wing aircraft). Mitigation does marine mammals and cease active sonar conditions has been met: The animal is not apply to active sonar sources transmission if marine mammals are observed exiting the mitigation zone; deployed from unmanned aircraft or observed within 200 yd of the sonar the animal is thought to have exited the aircraft operating at high altitudes (e.g., source. mitigation zone based on a maritime patrol aircraft). (E) Commencement/recommencement determination of its course, speed, and (i) Number of Lookouts and conditions after a marine mammal movement relative to the air gun; the observation platform—(A) Hull- sighting before or during the activity. mitigation zone has been clear from any mounted sources. One Lookout for Navy personnel must allow a sighted additional sightings for 30 min; or for platforms with space or manning marine mammal to leave the mitigation mobile activities, the air gun has restrictions while underway (at the zone prior to the initial start of the transited a distance equal to double that forward part of a small boat or ship) and activity (by delaying the start) or during of the mitigation zone size beyond the platforms using active sonar while the activity (by not recommencing or location of the last sighting. moored or at anchor (including powering up active sonar transmission) (4) Pile driving. Pile driving and pile pierside); and two Lookouts for until one of the following conditions extraction sound during Elevated platforms without space or manning has been met: The animal is observed Causeway System training. restrictions while underway (at the exiting the mitigation zone; the animal (i) Number of Lookouts and forward part of the ship). is thought to have exited the mitigation observation platform. One Lookout must (B) Sources that are not hull-mounted zone based on a determination of its be positioned on the shore, the elevated sources. One Lookout on the ship or course, speed, and movement relative to causeway, or a small boat. aircraft conducting the activity. the sonar source; the mitigation zone (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. has been clear from any additional 100 yd around the pile driver. (A) During the activity, at 1,000 yards sightings for 10 minutes (min) for (A) Prior to the initial start of the (yd) Navy personnel must power down aircraft-deployed sonar sources or 30 activity (for 30 min), Navy personnel 6 decibels (dB), at 500 yd Navy min for vessel-deployed sonar sources; must observe the mitigation zone for personnel must power down an for mobile activities, the active sonar floating vegetation; if floating vegetation additional 4 dB (for a total of 10 dB), source has transited a distance equal to is observed, Navy personnel must delay and at 200 yd Navy personnel must shut double that of the mitigation zone size the start until the mitigation zone is down for low-frequency active sonar beyond the location of the last sighting; clear. Navy personnel also must observe ≥200 dB and hull-mounted mid- or for activities using hull-mounted the mitigation zone for marine frequency active sonar; or at 200 yd sonar where a dolphin(s) is observed in mammals; if marine mammals are Navy personnel must shut down for the mitigation zone, the Lookout observed, Navy personnel must delay low-frequency active sonar <200 dB, concludes that the dolphin(s) is the start of pile driving or vibratory pile mid-frequency active sonar sources that deliberately closing in on the ship to extraction. are not hull-mounted, and high- ride the ship’s bow wave, and is (B) During the activity, Navy frequency active sonar. therefore out of the main transmission personnel must observe the mitigation (B) Prior to the start of the activity axis of the sonar (and there are no other zone for marine mammals; if marine (e.g., when maneuvering on station), marine mammal sightings within the mammals are observed, Navy personnel Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone). must cease impact pile driving or mitigation zone for floating vegetation; (3) Air guns—(i) Number of Lookouts vibratory pile extraction. if floating vegetation is observed, Navy and observation platform. One Lookout (C) Commencement/recommencement personnel must relocate or delay the positioned on a ship or pierside. conditions after a marine mammal start of active sonar transmission until (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. sighting before or during the activity. the mitigation zone is clear. Navy 150 yd around the air gun. The Navy personnel must allow a personnel must also observe the (A) Prior to the initial start of the sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if activity (e.g., when maneuvering on mitigation zone prior to the initial start marine mammals are observed, Navy station), Navy personnel must observe of the activity (by delaying the start) or personnel must relocate or delay the the mitigation zone for floating during the activity (by not start of active sonar transmission. vegetation; if floating vegetation is recommencing pile driving or pile (C) During the activity for low- observed, Navy personnel must relocate extraction) until one of the following frequency active sonar at or above 200 or delay the start until the mitigation conditions has been met: The animal is dB and hull-mounted mid-frequency zone is clear. Navy personnel must also observed exiting the mitigation zone;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41896 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41897

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41898 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41899

follow established incident reporting detonations or fuse initiation. To the evaluators) must support observing the procedures. If additional platforms are maximum extent practicable depending mitigation zone for applicable biological supporting this activity (e.g., providing on mission requirements, safety, and resources while performing their regular range clearance), these Navy assets must environmental conditions, Navy duties. assist in the visual observation of the personnel must position boats near the (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. area where detonations occurred. mid-point of the mitigation zone radius 200 yd around the intended detonation (13) Explosive mine neutralization (but outside of the detonation plume location. activities involving Navy divers—(i) and human safety zone), must position (A) Prior to the initial start of the Number of Lookouts and observation themselves on opposite sides of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on platform. (A) Two Lookouts (two small detonation location (when two boats are station), Navy personnel must observe boats with one Lookout each, or one used), and must travel in a circular the mitigation zone for floating Lookout must be on a small boat and pattern around the detonation location vegetation; if floating vegetation is one must be in a rotary-wing aircraft) with one Lookout observing inward observed, Navy personnel must relocate when implementing the smaller toward the detonation site and the other or delay the start of detonations until mitigation zone. observing outward toward the perimeter the mitigation zone is clear. Navy (B) Four Lookouts (two small boats of the mitigation zone. If used, Navy personnel also must observe the with two Lookouts each), and a pilot or aircraft must travel in a circular pattern mitigation zone for marine mammals; if member of an aircrew must serve as an around the detonation location to the marine mammals are observed, Navy additional Lookout if aircraft are used maximum extent practicable. Navy personnel must relocate or delay the during the activity, when implementing personnel must not set time-delay firing start of detonations. the larger mitigation zone. devices (0.1–29 lb. net explosive weight) (B) During the activity, Navy (C) All divers placing the charges on to exceed 10 min. personnel must observe the mitigation mines will support the Lookouts while (E) Commencement/recommencement zone for marine mammals; if marine performing their regular duties and will conditions after a marine mammal mammals are observed, Navy personnel report applicable sightings to their sighting before or during the activity or must cease detonations. supporting small boat or Range Safety a sighting of seabird concentrations or (C) Commencement/recommencement Officer. individual foraging seabirds during the conditions after a marine mammal (D) If additional platforms are activity. Navy personnel must allow a sighting before or during the activity. participating in the activity, Navy sighted animal to leave the mitigation Navy personnel must allow a sighted personnel positioned in those assets zone prior to the initial start of the marine mammal to leave the mitigation (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must activity (by delaying the start) or during zone prior to the initial start of the support observing the mitigation zone the activity (by not recommencing activity (by delaying the start) or during for applicable biological resources while detonations) until one of the following the activity (by not recommencing performing their regular duties. conditions has been met: The animal is detonations) until one of the following (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. observed exiting the mitigation zone; conditions has been met: The animal is (A) 500 yd around the detonation site the animal is thought to have exited the observed exiting the mitigation zone; during activities under positive control mitigation zone based on a the animal is thought to have exited the using 0.1–20 lb net explosive weight. determination of its course, speed, and mitigation zone based on a (B) 1,000 yd around the detonation movement relative to the detonation determination of its course, speed, and site during all activities using time- site; or the mitigation zone has been movement relative to the intended delay fuses (0.1–29 lb net explosive clear from any additional sightings for detonation location; the mitigation zone weight) and during activities under 10 min during activities under positive has been clear from any additional positive control using 21–60 lb net control with aircraft that have fuel sightings for 30 min; or the intended explosive weight charges. constraints, or 30 min during activities detonation location has transited a (C) Prior to the initial start of the under positive control with aircraft that distance equal to double that of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on are not typically fuel constrained and mitigation zone size beyond the location station for activities under positive during activities using time-delay firing of the last sighting. control; 30 min for activities using time- devices. (D) After completion of the activity delay firing devices), Navy personnel (F) After completion of an activity, the (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), must observe the mitigation zone for Navy must observe for marine mammals Navy personnel must, when practical floating vegetation; if floating vegetation for 30 min. Navy personnel must (e.g., when platforms are not is observed, Navy personnel must observe for marine mammals in the constrained by fuel restrictions or relocate or delay the start of detonations vicinity of where detonations occurred; mission-essential follow-on or fuse initiation until the mitigation if any injured or dead marine mammals commitments), observe for marine zone is clear. Navy personnel also must are observed, Navy personnel must mammals in the vicinity of where observe the mitigation zone for marine follow established incident reporting detonations occurred; if any injured or mammals; if marine mammals are procedures. If additional platforms are dead marine mammals are observed, observed, Navy personnel must relocate supporting this activity (e.g., providing Navy personnel must follow established or delay the start of detonations or fuse range clearance), these Navy assets must incident reporting procedures. If initiation. assist in the visual observation of the additional platforms are supporting this (D) During the activity, Navy area where detonations occurred. activity (e.g., providing range clearance), personnel must observe the mitigation (14) Maritime security operations— these Navy assets will assist in the zone for marine mammals, anti-swimmer grenades—(i) Number of visual observation of the area where concentrations of seabirds, and Lookouts and observation platform. One detonations occurred. individual foraging seabirds (in the Lookout must be positioned on the (15) Underwater demolition multiple water and not on shore); if marine small boat conducting the activity. If charge—mat weave and obstacle mammals, concentrations of seabirds, or additional platforms are participating in loading exercises—(i) Number of individual foraging seabirds are the activity, Navy personnel positioned Lookouts and observation platform. observed, Navy personnel must cease in those assets (e.g., safety observers, Two Lookouts (one must be positioned

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41900 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41901

activity (by delaying the start) or during zone size beyond the location of the last training and testing activity reports the activity (by not recommencing sighting. submitted to NMFS. firing) until one of the following (b) Mitigation areas. In addition to (D) Humpback Whale Awareness conditions has been met: The animal is procedural mitigation, Navy personnel Notification Message Area (November– observed exiting the mitigation zone; must implement mitigation measures April). (1) Navy personnel must issue a the animal is thought to have exited the within mitigation areas to avoid or seasonal awareness notification message mitigation zone based on a reduce potential impacts on marine to alert ships and aircraft operating in determination of its course, speed, and mammals. the area to the possible presence of movement relative to the intended (1) Mitigation areas for marine concentrations of large whales, impact location; or the mitigation zone mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex including humpback whales. has been clear from any additional for sonar, explosives, and vessel (2) To maintain safety of navigation sightings for 10 min when the activity strikes—(i) Mitigation area and to avoid interactions with large involves aircraft that have fuel requirements—(A) Hawaii Island whales during transits, Navy personnel constraints, or 30 min when the activity Mitigation Area (year-round)—(1) must instruct vessels to remain vigilant involves aircraft that are not typically Except as provided in paragraph to the presence of large whale species fuel constrained. (b)(1)(i)(A)(2) of this section, Navy (including humpback whales). (20) Non-explosive bombs and mine personnel must not conduct more than (3) Platforms must use the shapes. Non-explosive bombs and non- 300 hours of MF1 surface ship hull- information from the awareness explosive mine shapes during mine mounted mid-frequency active sonar or notification message to assist their visual observation of applicable laying activities. 20 hours of MF4 dipping sonar mitigation zones during training and (i) Number of Lookouts and annually, or use explosives that could testing activities and to aid in the observation platform. One Lookout must potentially result in takes of marine implementation of procedural be positioned in an aircraft. mammals during training and testing. (2) Should national security require mitigation. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. conduct of more than 300 hours of MF1 (ii) [Reserved] 1,000 yd around the intended target. surface ship hull-mounted mid- (2) Mitigation areas for marine (A) Prior to the initial start of the frequency active sonar or 20 hours of mammals in the Southern California activity (e.g., when arriving on station), MF4 dipping sonar, or use of explosives portion of the study area for sonar, Navy personnel must observe the that could potentially result in the take explosives, and vessel strikes—(i) mitigation zone for floating vegetation; of marine mammals during training or Mitigation area requirements—(A) San if floating vegetation is observed, Navy testing, Naval units must obtain Diego Arc, San Nicolas Island, and personnel must relocate or delay the permission from the appropriate Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation start of bomb deployment or mine designated Command authority prior to Areas (June 1–October 31). (1) Except as laying until the mitigation zone is clear. commencement of the activity. Navy provided in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(2) of Navy personnel also must observe the personnel must provide NMFS with this section, Navy personnel must not mitigation zone for marine mammals; if advance notification and include the conduct more than a total of 200 hours marine mammals are observed, Navy information (e.g., sonar hours or of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid- personnel must relocate or delay the explosives usage) in its annual activity frequency active sonar in the combined start of bomb deployment or mine reports submitted to NMFS. areas, excluding normal maintenance laying. (B) 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area and systems checks, during training and (B) During the activity (e.g., during (November 15–April 15 for active sonar; testing. approach of the target or intended year-round for explosives)—(1) Except (2) Should national security require minefield location), Navy personnel as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B)(2) conduct of more than 200 hours of MF1 must observe the mitigation zone for of this section, Navy personnel must not surface ship hull-mounted mid- marine mammals and, if marine use MF1 surface ship hull-mounted frequency active sonar in the combined mammals are observed, Navy personnel mid-frequency active sonar or areas during training and testing must cease bomb deployment or mine explosives that could potentially result (excluding normal maintenance and laying. in takes of marine mammals during systems checks), Naval units must (C) Commencement/recommencement training and testing. obtain permission from the appropriate conditions after a marine mammal (2) Should national security require designated Command authority prior to sighting prior to or during the activity. use of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted commencement of the activity. Navy Navy personnel must allow a sighted mid-frequency active sonar or personnel must provide NMFS with marine mammal to leave the mitigation explosives that could potentially result advance notification and include the zone prior to the initial start of the in the take of marine mammals during information (e.g., sonar hours) in its activity (by delaying the start) or during training or testing, Naval units must annual activity reports submitted to the activity (by not recommencing bomb obtain permission from the appropriate NMFS. deployment or mine laying) until one of designated Command authority prior to (3) Except as provided in paragraph the following conditions has been met: commencement of the activity. Navy (b)(2)(i)(A)(4) of this section, within the The animal is observed exiting the personnel must provide NMFS with San Diego Arc Mitigation Area, Navy mitigation zone; the animal is thought to advance notification and include the personnel must not use explosives that have exited the mitigation zone based information (e.g., sonar hours or could potentially result in the take of on a determination of its course, speed, explosives usage) in its annual activity marine mammals during large-caliber and movement relative to the intended reports submitted to NMFS. gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile target or minefield location; the (C) Humpback Whale Special (including 2.75-inch rockets) activities mitigation zone has been clear from any Reporting Areas (December 15–April during training and testing. additional sightings for 10 min; or for 15). Navy personnel must report the (4) Should national security require activities using mobile targets, the total hours of surface ship hull-mounted use of explosives that could potentially intended target has transited a distance mid-frequency active sonar used in the result in the take of marine mammals equal to double that of the mitigation special reporting areas in its annual during large-caliber gunnery, torpedo,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41902 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

bombing, and missile (including 2.75- mid-frequency active sonar during program. Details on program goals, inch rockets) activities during training training or testing, or explosives that objectives, project selection process, and or testing within the San Diego Arc could potentially result in the take of current projects are available at Mitigation Area, Naval units must marine mammals during medium- www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. obtain permission from the appropriate caliber or large-caliber gunnery, (c) Notification of injured, live designated Command authority prior to torpedo, bombing, and missile stranded, or dead marine mammals. commencement of the activity. Navy (including 2.75-inch rockets) activities The Navy must consult the Notification personnel must provide NMFS with during training. and Reporting Plan, which sets out advance notification and include the (2) Should national security require notification, reporting, and other information (e.g., explosives usage) in use of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted requirements when dead, injured, or its annual activity reports submitted to mid-frequency active sonar during live stranded marine mammals are NMFS. training or testing, or explosives that detected. The Notification and (5) Except as provided in paragraph could potentially result in the take of Reporting Plan is available at (b)(2)(i)(A)(6) of this section, within the marine mammals during medium- www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ San Nicolas Island Mitigation Area, caliber or large-caliber gunnery, marine-mammal-protection/ Navy personnel must not use explosives torpedo, bombing, and missile incidentaltake-authorizations-military- that could potentially result in the take (including 2.75-inch rockets) activities readinessactivities. of marine mammals during mine during training, Naval units must obtain (d) Annual HSTT Study Area marine warfare, large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, permission from the appropriate species monitoring report. The Navy bombing, and missile (including 2.75- designated Command authority prior to must submit an annual report of the inch rockets) activities during training. commencement of the activity. Navy HSTT Study Area monitoring describing (6) Should national security require personnel must provide NMFS with the implementation and results from the use of explosives that could potentially advance notification and include the result in the take of marine mammals previous calendar year. Data collection information (e.g., sonar hours or methods must be standardized across during mine warfare, large-caliber explosives usage) in its annual activity gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile range complexes and study areas to reports submitted to NMFS. allow for comparison in different (including 2.75-inch rockets) activities (C) Blue Whale (June–October), Gray during training in the San Nicolas geographic locations. The report must Whale (November–March), and Fin be submitted to the Director, Office of Island Mitigation Area, Naval units Whale (November–May) Awareness must obtain permission from the Protected Resources, NMFS, either Notification Message Areas. (1) Navy within three months after the end of the appropriate designated Command personnel must issue a seasonal authority prior to commencement of the calendar year, or within three months awareness notification message to alert after the conclusion of the monitoring activity. Navy personnel must provide ships and aircraft operating in the area NMFS with advance notification and year, to be determined by the Adaptive to the possible presence of Management process. This report will include the information (e.g., explosives concentrations of large whales, usage) in its annual activity reports describe progress of knowledge made including blue whales, gray whales, and with respect to intermediate scientific submitted to NMFS. fin whales. (7) Except as provided in paragraph objectives within the HSTT Study Area (2) To maintain safety of navigation associated with the Integrated (b)(2)(i)(A)(8) of this section, within the and to avoid interactions with large Santa Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Comprehensive Monitoring Program whales during transits, Navy personnel (ICMP). Similar study questions must be Area, Navy personnel must not use must instruct vessels to remain vigilant explosives that could potentially result treated together so that progress on each to the presence of large whale species. topic can be summarized across all in the take of marine mammals during (3) Platforms must use the Navy ranges. The report need not mine warfare, large-caliber gunnery, information from the awareness include analyses and content that does torpedo, bombing, and missile notification messages to assist their not provide direct assessment of (including 2.75-inch rockets) activities visual observation of applicable cumulative progress on the monitoring during training and testing. mitigation zones during training and plan study questions. As an alternative, (8) Should national security require testing activities and to aid in the the Navy may submit a multi-Range use of explosives that could potentially implementation of procedural Complex annual Monitoring Plan report result in the take of marine mammals mitigation. during mine warfare, large-caliber (ii) [Reserved] to fulfill this requirement. Such a report gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile will describe progress of knowledge (including 2.75-inch rockets) activities § 218.75 Requirements for monitoring and made with respect to monitoring study during training or testing in the Santa reporting. questions across multiple Navy ranges Monica/Long Beach Mitigation Area, (a) Unauthorized take. Navy associated with the ICMP. Similar study Naval units must obtain permission personnel must notify NMFS questions must be treated together so from the appropriate designated immediately (or as soon as operational that progress on each topic can be Command authority prior to security considerations allow) if the summarized across multiple Navy commencement of the activity. Navy specified activity identified in § 218.70 ranges. The report need not include personnel must provide NMFS with is thought to have resulted in the analyses and content that does not advance notification and include the mortality or serious injury of any marine provide direct assessment of cumulative information (e.g., explosives usage) in mammals, or in any Level A harassment progress on the monitoring study its annual activity reports submitted to or Level B harassment take of marine question. This will continue to allow NMFS. mammals not identified in this subpart. the Navy to provide a cohesive (B) Santa Barbara Island Mitigation (b) Monitoring and reporting under monitoring report covering multiple Area (year-round). (1) Except as the LOAs. The Navy must conduct all ranges (as per ICMP goals), rather than provided in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B)(2) of monitoring and reporting required entirely separate reports for the HSTT, this section, Navy personnel must not under the LOAs, including abiding by Gulf of Alaska, Mariana Islands, and use MF1 surface ship hull-mounted the HSTT Study Area monitoring Northwest Study Areas.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 41903

(e) Annual HSTT Study Area training (F) Length of time observers (B) Species (if not possible, indicate exercise report and testing activity maintained visual contact with marine whale, dolphin, or pinniped). report. Each year, the Navy must submit mammal. (C) Number of individuals. two preliminary reports (Quick Look (G) Sea state. (D) Initial detection sensor (e.g., sonar Report) detailing the status of (H) Visibility. or Lookout). authorized sound sources within 21 (I) Sound source in use at the time of (E) Length of time observers days after the anniversary of the date of sighting. maintained visual contact with marine issuance of each LOA to the Director, (J) Indication of whether animal was mammal. Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. less than 200 yd, 200 to 500 yd, 500 to (F) Sea state. Each year, the Navy must submit 1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 yd, or greater (G) Visibility. detailed reports to the Director, Office of than 2,000 yd from sonar source. (H) Whether sighting was before, Protected Resources, NMFS, within 3 (K) Whether operation of sonar sensor during, or after detonations/exercise, months after the one-year anniversary of was delayed, or sonar was powered or and how many minutes before or after. the date of issuance of the LOA. The shut down, and how long the delay. (I) Distance of marine mammal from HSTT annual Training Exercise Report (L) If source in use was hull-mounted, actual detonations (or target spot if not and Testing Activity Report can be true bearing of animal from the vessel, yet detonated): Less than 200 yd, 200 to consolidated with other exercise reports true direction of vessel’s travel, and 500 yd, 500 to 1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 from other range complexes in the estimation of animal’s motion relative to yd, or greater than 2,000 yd. Pacific Ocean for a single Pacific vessel (opening, closing, parallel). (J) Lookouts must report, in plain Exercise Report, if desired. The annual (M) Lookouts must report, in plain language and without trying to reports must contain information on language and without trying to categorize in any way, the observed major training exercises (MTEs), Sinking categorize in any way, the observed behavior of the animal(s) (such as Exercise (SINKEX) events, and a behavior of the animal(s) (such as animal closing to bow ride, paralleling summary of all sound sources used, animal closing to bow ride, paralleling course/speed, floating on surface and including within specific mitigation course/speed, floating on surface and not swimming etc.), including speed reporting areas as described in not swimming, etc.) and if any calves and direction and if any calves were paragraph (e)(3) of this section. The were present. present. analysis in the detailed reports must be (iii) An evaluation (based on data (K) The report must indicate whether based on the accumulation of data from gathered during all of the MTEs) of the explosive detonations were delayed, the current year’s report and data effectiveness of mitigation measures ceased, modified, or not modified due to collected from previous reports. The designed to minimize the received level marine mammal presence and for how detailed reports must contain to which marine mammals may be long. information identified in paragraphs exposed. This evaluation must identify (L) If observation occurred while (e)(1) through (7) of this section. the specific observations that support explosives were detonating in the water, (1) MTEs. This section of the report any conclusions the Navy reaches about indicate munition type in use at time of must contain the following information the effectiveness of the mitigation. marine mammal detection. for MTEs conducted in the HSTT Study (2) SINKEXs. This section of the (3) Summary of sources used. This Area. report must include the following section of the report must include the (i) Exercise Information for each MTE. information for each SINKEX completed following information summarized from (A) Exercise designator. that year. the authorized sound sources used in all (B) Date that exercise began and (i) Exercise information gathered for training and testing events: ended. each SINKEX. (i) Total annual hours or quantity (per (C) Location. (A) Location. the LOA) of each bin of sonar or other (D) Number and types of active sonar (B) Date and time exercise began and acoustic sources (e.g., pile driving and sources used in the exercise. ended. air gun activities); and (E) Number and types of passive (C) Total hours of observation by (ii) Total annual expended/detonated acoustic sources used in exercise. Lookouts before, during, and after ordinance (missiles, bombs, sonobuoys, (F) Number and types of vessels, exercise. etc.) for each explosive bin. aircraft, and other platforms (D) Total number and types of (4) Humpback Whale Special participating in exercise. Reporting Area (December 15–April 15). (G) Total hours of all active sonar explosive source bins detonated. (E) Number and types of passive The Navy must report the total hours of source operation. operation of surface ship hull-mounted (H) Total hours of each active sonar acoustic sources used in exercise. mid-frequency active sonar used in the source bin. (F) Total hours of passive acoustic (I) Wave height (high, low, and search time. special reporting area. average) during exercise. (G) Number and types of vessels, (5) HSTT Study Area Mitigation (ii) Individual marine mammal aircraft, and other platforms, Areas. The Navy must report any use sighting information for each sighting in participating in exercise. that occurred as specifically described each exercise where mitigation was (H) Wave height in feet (high, low, in these areas. Information included in implemented. and average) during exercise. the classified annual reports may be (A) Date/Time/Location of sighting. (I) Narrative description of sensors used to inform future adaptive (B) Species (if not possible, indication and platforms utilized for marine management of activities within the of whale/dolphin/pinniped). mammal detection and timeline HSTT Study Area. (C) Number of individuals. illustrating how marine mammal (6) Geographic information (D) Initial Detection Sensor (e.g., detection was conducted. presentation. The reports must present sonar, Lookout). (ii) Individual marine mammal an annual (and seasonal, where (E) Indication of specific type of observation (by Navy Lookouts) practical) depiction of training and platform observation was made from information for each sighting where testing bin usage (as well as pile driving (including, for example, what type of mitigation was implemented. activities) geographically across the surface vessel or testing platform). (A) Date/Time/Location of sighting. HSTT Study Area.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 41904 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

(7) Sonar exercise notification. The required by an LOA issued under this distribution by species or stock or Navy must submit to NMFS (contact as subpart, the Navy must apply for and years), NMFS may publish a notice of specified in the LOA) an electronic obtain a modification of the LOA as planned LOA in the Federal Register, report within fifteen calendar days after described in § 218.77. including the associated analysis of the the completion of any MTE indicating: (e) Each LOA must set forth: change, and solicit public comment (i) Location of the exercise; (1) Permissible methods of incidental before issuing the LOA. (ii) Beginning and end dates of the taking; (c) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 exercise; and (2) Geographic areas for incidental of this chapter and 218.76 may be (iii) Type of exercise. taking; modified by NMFS under the following (f) Seven-year close-out (3) Means of effecting the least circumstances: comprehensive training and testing practicable adverse impact (i.e., (1) Adaptive management. After activity report. This report must be mitigation) on the species or stocks of consulting with the Navy regarding the included as part of the 2025 annual marine mammals and their habitat; and practicability of the modifications, training and testing report. This report (4) Requirements for monitoring and NMFS may modify (including adding or must provide the annual totals for each reporting. removing measures) the existing sound source bin with a comparison to (f) Issuance of the LOA(s) must be mitigation, monitoring, or reporting the annual allowance and the seven- based on a determination that the level measures if doing so creates a year total for each sound source bin of taking is consistent with the findings reasonable likelihood of more with a comparison to the seven-year made for the total taking allowable effectively accomplishing the goals of allowance. Additionally, if there were under the regulations in this subpart. the mitigation and monitoring. any changes to the sound source (g) Notice of issuance or denial of the (i) Possible sources of data that could allowance, this report must include a LOA(s) must be published in the contribute to the decision to modify the discussion of why the change was made Federal Register within 30 days of a mitigation, monitoring, or reporting and include the analysis to support how determination. measures in an LOA include: the change did or did not affect the (A) Results from the Navy’s analysis in the 2018 HSTT FEIS/OEIS § 218.77 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization. monitoring from the previous year(s); and MMPA final rule. The draft report (B) Results from other marine must be submitted within three months (a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 mammal and/or sound research or after the expiration of this subpart to the of this chapter and 218.76 for the studies; or Director, Office of Protected Resources, activity identified in § 218.70(c) may be NMFS. NMFS must submit comments renewed or modified upon request by (C) Any information that reveals on the draft close-out report, if any, the applicant, provided that: marine mammals may have been taken within three months of receipt. The (1) The planned specified activity and in a manner, extent, or number not report will be considered final after the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting authorized by the regulations in this Navy has addressed NMFS’ comments, measures, as well as the anticipated subpart or subsequent LOAs. or 3 months after the submittal of the impacts, are the same as those described (ii) If, through adaptive management, draft if NMFS does not provide and analyzed for the regulations in this the modifications to the mitigation, comments. subpart (excluding changes made monitoring, or reporting measures are pursuant to the adaptive management substantial, NMFS will publish a notice § 218.76 Letters of Authorization. provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this of planned LOA in the Federal Register (a) To incidentally take marine section); and and solicit public comment. mammals pursuant to the regulations in (2) NMFS determines that the (2) Emergencies. If NMFS determines this subpart, the Navy must apply for mitigation, monitoring, and reporting that an emergency exists that poses a and obtain LOAs in accordance with measures required by the previous significant risk to the well-being of the § 216.106 of this chapter. LOA(s) were implemented. species or stocks of marine mammals (b) LOAs, unless suspended or (b) For LOA modification or renewal specified in LOAs issued pursuant to revoked, may be effective for a period of requests by the applicant that include §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.76, time not to exceed December 20, 2025. changes to the activity or to the an LOA may be modified without prior (c) If an LOA expires prior to mitigation, monitoring, or reporting notice or opportunity for public December 20, 2025, the Navy may apply measures (excluding changes made comment. Notice would be published in for and obtain a renewal of the LOA. pursuant to the adaptive management the Federal Register within 30 days of (d) In the event of projected changes provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this the action. to the activity or to mitigation, section) that do not change the findings monitoring, or reporting (excluding made for the regulations or result in no §§ 218.78–218.79 [Reserved] changes made pursuant to the adaptive more than a minor change in the total [FR Doc. 2020–14181 Filed 7–9–20; 8:45 am] management provision of § 218.77(c)(1)) estimated number of takes (or BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:37 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10JYR3.SGM 10JYR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3